Ruth: At the Intersection of Grace and the Cross
Ruth is Faithful
Given that the book of Ruth is set in the stormy period of the judges, the events of the book occur in the context of spiritual unfaithfulness. As a nation, Israel had sunk into moral debasement and hit rock bottom. We come now to the book of Ruth itself to discover how one family was affected and, more importantly, how God acted to accomplish his purpose through this family during what seemed to be a hopeless era.
Readers of the New Testament will recognize Jesus Christ as the ultimate Kinsman-Redeemer who voluntarily paid the price for the redemption of his people and takes them as his beloved bride (Eph. 5:23–32; Rev. 19:7).
In Hebrew Bethlehem means “house of bread.” Ruth 1:1 is saying that the house of bread could not provide for its inhabitants. The irony reminds people of the Judges period and readers of Ruth that the true source of daily bread goes beyond per capita income, the gross national product, or the S&P 500—as seemingly necessary as these might be. Ultimately, God himself provides for our needs (Ps. 136:25; Matt. 6:32), and Paul says that we should do everything, even eating, to God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31). In other words, we should recognize with James 1:17 that every good gift comes from above. During the days of the judges, almost nothing, it seems, was done for God’s glory or out of trust in his providence. For this reason, God was not covenantally obligated to send agricultural bounty, and so Israel’s breadbasket was empty.
While the more ordinary cause of the famine (and this would not fall outside God’s providence) may have been the Midianite incursions of Judges 6:1–6 or even the variable rainfall with which agriculturists must continually contend, the famine may ultimately have been a form of God’s judgment against the covenantal unfaithfulness that characterized so much of the judges period.
Familiarity with the days of the judges will increase our appreciation for the godliness of Ruth and Boaz and, more importantly, for the gracious and providential activity of God in the lives of Naomi, Ruth, and
First, Ruth was not even an Israelite. She was a Moabite, a fact the narrator and Boaz emphasize by their combined fivefold reference to her as “Ruth the Moabitess.”
Familiarity with the days of the judges will increase our appreciation for the godliness of Ruth and Boaz and, more importantly, for the gracious and providential activity of God in the lives of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz
In fact, the dark days of the judges were closer to the worst of times in Old Testament history. Elimelech and his wife Naomi, whom the reader meets in the opening verses, lived during a time of apostasy, injustice, and tumult.
Elimelech moved his family to Moab. Moab does not have the best reputation in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 23:3–6 forbade Moabites to worship in God’s house or Israelites to befriend them:
Soon after arriving in Moab, Elimelech died, leaving Naomi a widow and her sons fatherless.
Even though Orpah and Ruth were pagan idolaters, Naomi was kind to them. Without compromising either the glory of God or the truth of God, she lived peaceably in the same house with them. She honored God and won their affection by her kindness. We could all learn from Naomi (Rom. 12:18). Kindness is always right!
God began to tell a story in the Old Testament, the ending of which the audience eagerly anticipated. But the Old Testament audience was left hanging. The plot was laid out but the climax was delayed. The unfinished story begged an ending. In Christ, God has provided the climax to the Old Testament story. Jesus did not arrive unannounced; his coming was declared in advance in the Old Testament, not just in explicit prophecies of the Messiah but by means of the stories of all of the events, characters, and circumstances in the Old Testament. God was telling a larger, overarching, unified story. From the account of creation in Genesis to the final stories of the return from exile, God progressively unfolded his plan of salvation. And the Old Testament account of that plan always pointed in some way to Christ.
The story of Ruth reveals God as one who cares for the needy, expects his people to care for the needs of others, and blesses those who reflect his character by doing so. God is concerned for foreigners, orphans, and widows, and he provides for their needs—sometimes directly, as in 1:6
In his exposition of Romans 10:14–17, Martin Luther was exactly right in declaring that Paul asserts in that passage that four things are impossible. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to (1) call upon Christ until he believes on Christ, (2) believe on Christ until he hears the gospel of Christ, (3) hear the gospel of Christ without a preacher, or (4) preach the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit until he is sent of God.
First, it was a gift from God that in the midst of her grief and pain Naomi was able to hear good news. Second, Naomi heard Yahweh had intervened on behalf of his people. The critical word in this clause is pāqad, which bears a wide range of meanings. It occurs most often in military contexts, where it means “to assemble, count, and muster” men for battle. But it is also common in theological contexts, with God as the subject. In such cases it means generally “to attend to, to visit,” but this visitation may be either favorable or unfavorable. In negative contexts (usually expressed by pāqad ʿal) it denotes “to intervene against,” that is, “to punish,” though always in keeping with the covenant stipulations. In positive contexts (expressed by pāqad ʾet, as in our text), the word means “to intervene on behalf of, to come to the aid of.” The latter is certainly the case here. Third, the object of the divine favor is identified as ʿammô, “his people,” the nation of Israel. The term expresses the normal covenant relationship between deity and people. The return of the rains was a signal that God had not forgotten or rejected them. Fourth, Yahweh had given his people bread. The reader of Hebrew will recognize the play on the name Bethlehem. The “house of bread” is being restocked.
The narrator’s eyes of faith undoubtedly recognized in this gift of food the grace of God. He does not explicitly speak about divine grace, but the absence of any hint of repentance on the part of Israel as a whole or Naomi in particular suggests that the motivation behind the lifting of the famine and the provision of food lies elsewhere. The reader will recognize here the providential hand of God, guiding natural and historical events for the fulfillment of his purpose and setting the stage for the ultimate emergence of David’s ancestor.
Naomi’s response to the report of good news from the homeland is decisive, expressed in three simple verbs: with her daughters-in-law she arose, she returned from the territory of Moab, and she went out from the place where she was staying. The end of v. 7 observes the trio of women on the road headed back to the land of Judah. The key word in the chapter as a whole, šûb, “to return,” occurs twice in these verses. Since Orpah and Ruth are both Moabites, strictly speaking only Naomi is returning home. The narrator is obviously looking at these events through the eyes of the Israelite woman. She is the one who is leaving Moab and heading home for Judah.
Having come to Moab as an alien herself, Naomi undoubtedly recognized from the outset the problems her daughters-in-law would face if they would accompany her back to Bethlehem. Intending to spare them her grief, at some point along the way Naomi finally broke the silence, initiating a conversation that continues to the end of this scene. Her first speech offers a beautiful illustration of “tough love,” combining firmness with tenderness. Conveying a sense of urgency, she begins with a double command, “Go, return.” Since they were well on the way to Judah, now the application of the verb šûb, “return,” to Orpah and Ruth makes sense. But she is even more specific, encouraging her daughters-in-law to reverse their personal histories and go back to the houses of their mothers from which her own sons had “carried/lifted” them in the first place. In view of the common androcentric identification of a home or a family in the Bible as a bêt ʾāb, “house of a father” and the customary return of widows to the security of their “father’s house,” the expression bêt ʾēm, “house of a mother,” is striking.
The phrase bêt ʾēm occurs elsewhere only three times. In Song 3:4; 8:2 it refers to the bedroom of a person’s mother, where lovers might find privacy. In Gen 24:28 Rebekah is said to have run home to her mother’s house to report her conversation with Abraham’s servant, who was sent to find a wife for Isaac. In each instance the phrase “house of a mother” is found in a context involving love and marriage. Accordingly, by sending each of her daughters-in-law home to her “mother’s house” Naomi is releasing them to remarry. Support for this interpretation may be found in v. 9, where Naomi prays that both of them would find security in the “house of her husband.”
The firmness of Naomi’s double command to Orpah and Ruth to return to their mother’s homes is matched by the tenderness toward them she expressed in a double blessing. She begins by praying that Yahweh would demonstrate the same ḥesed toward them that they have demonstrated toward her (v. 8b). This statement is remarkable for three reasons. First, she invokes the name of Yahweh when she addresses her Moabite daughters-in-law, apparently assuming that the authority of the God of Israel extended beyond the nation’s borders into foreign territory, in this instance the territory of Chemosh. On the surface the prayer appears to express deep faith in Yahweh. This impression is compromised later in v. 15, where she gives tacit recognition to the gods of Moab.
Then Naomi persuaded both Orpah and Ruth, with strong reasons, to go back to their own families (vv. 11–13). Why did she discourage them? What was her purpose? Did she not want to save them from idolatry? Did she not want them to worship God? Without question, Naomi wanted both Orpah and Ruth to accompany her to Bethlehem. But if they returned with her, she wanted them to return, not for her sake, but because they wanted to.
Ruth was not a better woman than Orpah. Both were kind, affectionate, caring, and tender daughters to Naomi (vv. 8–9). But Orpah was lost and Ruth was saved. A sweet, lovable disposition, a tender, affectionate heart, and faithfulness in responsibilities and relationships, though they are commendable traits of character, will never take us to heaven. The one thing needful is faith in Christ. If that one thing needful is lacking, like the rich young ruler, we are yet without hope before God (John 3:15–18).
Naomi dealt fairly and truthfully with both Orpah and Ruth. She made no appeals to their flesh She offered no carnal inducements to get them to go back to Bethlehem with her. She simply told them …
• What she had left. She told them of her fall, her departure from the house of bread.
• What God had done. How he visited his people.
• What was to be found at Bethlehem. Bread, life, deliverance, and restoration if a kinsman were pleased to undertake their cause.
Orpah chose to stay in Moab. She counted the cost and went back. Ruth came to Bethlehem with Naomi, believing the report of good news and grace she heard from the lips of her mother-in-law. Once she met and married Boaz, she found with him a better life than she had ever known before.
The motives of every professed believer must be tested. Naomi said, “Why will you go with me?” (v. 11). No earthly inducements were offered. No worldly gain was to be obtained. Nothing but faith in, gratitude to, and love for the Lord Jesus Christ can induce men to follow him through thick and thin.
Opah was easily persuaded to go back to Moab, to go back to her family, and to go back to her gods (vv. 14–15). Orpah’s kiss showed that she had affection for Naomi; but she had greater affection for Moab and for all that Moab offered. Like Orpah, many today see great value in Christ and have an affection for him, but cannot and will not follow him, because they simply cannot find it in their hearts to forsake the world. Many Orpahs, because of adversity and excitement, run well for a season. But after a while, like Demas, because they love the world, go back. Frequently, they forsake Christ with a pretended kiss of friendship and love!
Though Orpah forsook Naomi, and in forsaking Naomi forsook the Lord God, Ruth could not be persuaded to go back—“Ruth clave unto her” (vv. 15–18). Grace had chosen her. Providence arranged all things necessary for her soul’s eternal good. And at the appointed time, grace fetched her to the throne of God. Ruth, with complete resolution, walked through the door of commitment and closed it behind her. In this, she is a pattern to all who follow Christ.
If we learned nothing else from Ruth’s choice, we ought to be made to realize the importance of making, even seemingly insignificant decisions, with wisdom and care. We must always consider the consequences of our decisions. Do not make hasty, rash, spur of the moment decisions. They are almost always costly and regretted. Elimelech made a decision which resulted in the ruin of his family. Ruth made a decision that was costly to herself, but was right, and resulted in the salvation, the everlasting salvation of untold millions. Yet, it was a decision, a choice made in a lonely dessert, which no one knew about but Ruth, Orpah, Naomi and God.
Ruth’s choice involved the complete commitment of herself to Naomi, her people, and her God.
That is exactly what sinners do when they come to Christ. We commit ourselves to him. Taking his yoke upon ourselves willingly, bowing to his will and his dominion as our Lord. We become his voluntary bond slave (Matt. 11:28–30; Ex. 21:1–5). This is what we publicly declared to our Lord, to his people, and to all the world in our baptism. Is it not? Buried in the watery grave and rising with Christ to walk in the newness of life, we publicly avowed that we would, from that day forward, walk with him in the newness of life (Rom. 6:4–6). We have been turned from our way to his way. To walk in his way is to walk in the King’s highway by faith (Isa. 35:8). That is the highway of holiness, the low way of humility, the narrow way of faith, the rough way of trial, the old way of truth, the safe way of security and the good way of grace. This is the way of the cross that leads us home. What could be more blessed than to have our path ordered by the Good Shepherd, who goes before his sheep in the way in which he leads them.
It was no accident that Naomi and Ruth came to Bethlehem “in the beginning of barley harvest.” They came at this time by the arrangement of God’s good providence; and this is here recorded by divine inspiration for our instruction (Rom. 15:4). We read in verse 19—“So they two went until they came to Bethlehem.” We are not told how long their journey took, or what obstacles they met with along the way, only that they came to Bethlehem, the House of Bread. Nothing else is really important. They came to that place where all their needs were met, Bethlehem, the House of Bread! They had come to the right place.
When they came to Bethlehem, they caused a great stir. “All the city was moved about them.” Why? Why did the arrival of these two poverty-stricken, travel-weary, ragged and hungry women cause such a stir in Bethlehem? No one would profit by their arrival. In fact, those two women were just two more mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and citizens to protect and provide for from the stores of the city. When I read this 19th verse, I am reminded that there is a commotion in heaven over one sinner who repents (Lk. 15:10). There is a party in heaven every time a prodigal comes home.