Ruth 1

Ruth 1:1-22

In the opening of the study we are impressed withNAOMI’S SOJOURN AND SADNESSIt is a moving story. “There was a famine in the land”. This sentence holds a special similitude. It is in perfect keeping with what we know to be repeated experiences in that section of the world; scorching sun and long continued draught, often produced the direst hardships. “And a certain man of Bethlehem-judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons”.A grievous famine necessitated this sojourn. Every student of the Bible is impressed with the fact that famine, in that region, commonly sent its people southward to Egypt. It was a famine in the land that sent Abraham and Sarah, his wife, into Egypt (Genesis 12:10-11). It was a famine in the land that sent the sons of Jacob, and finally brought Jacob himself, into Egypt (Genesis 42-46).

And yet, who will claim that either was accidentally driven there, in view of the history that grew out of the sojourn of each? In the course of time Jesus will be carried into Egypt, and though it may appear that His parents are fleeing from the face of the murderous foe, it will eventually be proven that this also was in the Divine plan and unto the fulfilment of prophecy. “Necessity is the mother of invention”, and it is often much more; it is the highway of prophecy.

Opposition and hardships often seem wholly from the adversary, but in the end, serve to illustrate the truth that God makes “all things work together for good”. This is a fact that weaklings seldom feel. They cannot see any profit in pain or hardship of any sort; they imagine that Divine blessing must take the form of health, happiness, prosperity. They reason that pampering is the only proof of parental love. History, however, is replete with illustrations to the contrary. Earthly fathers and mothers who pet and spoil children, may congratulate themselves that they are affectionate parents, but time will simply prove that they were affectionate fools; and while attempting to pamper, they have succeeded in spoiling.There is at this present moment a desperate effort to have legislation against having children, under certain ages, work.

It is a piece of legislation with which we have been in little sympathy. We believe that for an average youngster, brought up in a city where idleness is a daily occupation, particularly in the non-school session, that a few years in the workhouse would be more conducive to character than the idling custom.

Our hearts go out in natural sympathy to those families, often big in proportion to their poverty, who must subsist upon the plainest and coarsest of food in order to continue existence at all; and yet we are firmly convinced that semi-famine is still working good to more people than men imagine; and that sojourns in Egypt represent a dual truth, human search for physical food and a Divine plan for producing character.Continued sickness saddened this sojourn.“The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.“And Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons”. (Rth 1:2-3).This verse holds more of sadness than at first seems. On the surface it would appear that the death of Elimelech was the big bereavement of this Egyptian sojourn; but not so. The name Mahlon means “weakness”, and Chilion means “wasting”, and there is here a plain suggestion that the father went to his death in an unequal battle against hardship and poverty, since the four members of the family must look to him for sustenance, the sons being sickly and thereby incapacitated. The change of country and of climate, while but slight, and the greater ease of securing a living in a land enriched by the annual overflow of the Nile, doubtless improved the health of the boys so much so that they married women of Moab. Mahlon married Orpah and Chilion married Ruth, and they dwelt there about ten years.

But when once tuberculosis has laid its insidious, spoiling hand upon the human frame, recovery is both difficult and improbable. And the house that held one widow shortly came to contain three, and the single bereavement was tripled.These would seem to be almost unbearable experiences.

A stout ship can brave the single wave, it matters little how high it runs; but the sailors say that when the waves come in threes, disaster is a common result. However, there are ships so constructed that they can ride almost any storm and come safely into port; and there are people—God be thanked for their courage—who can meet the winds and waves of adversity, even when the first is cyclonic and the second deluging. Hardship and suffering commonly have one of two effects, they either destroy or inspire; either kill or make alive. Upon some they work utter defeat; and upon others, they result in refinement and effectiveness. George Lorimer, in his volume, “Isms Old and New”, says, “I do not recall any great production or any sublime endeavor that was not preceded by suffering of some kind. Pascal sorrowed deeply before he thought sweetly; and he thought painfully before he wrote sympathetically.

Milton had tasted of misfortune’s cup and had braved the storms of four and fifty years before he could sing of Paradise and of man’s woeful fall. Poor Jean Paul but expresses his own experience when he says that the bird sings sweeter whose cage has been darkened, for his song broke not on human ear until he had struggled long with the thick, chill shadows of poverty.

Carlyle was a dreary dyspeptic before he accomplished anything great in literature; and but for Robert Hall’s spinal malady the world might never have been thrilled by his matchless eloquence.”These successive deaths terminated this sojourn.“Then she rose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab; for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the Lord had visited His people in giving them bread.“Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on their way to return unto the land of Judah” (Rth 1:6-7).It is not difficult to imagine that when Elimelech died the two sons and their wives comforted and encouraged the mother, and said, “Don’t grieve, we will yet get on.” When Mahlon went, the case became more discouraging; and when Chilion followed, the words of comfort were few indeed, for the stricken souls were dumb. And yet, who can doubt that this common sorrow knit these three women together as nothing else known to life could do; and for Naomi the thought of giving them up, Moabites though they were, to return to her people whom God had visited with bread, was heartbreaking.How often that conflict of emotions has surged in the widow’s heart. Shall I stay with the people I have come to know and love, or return to those who are mine through blood relationship? It has ever been, and will forever abide, a debatable, baffling question. Doubtless one thing settled it, namely, that back in Judea God was worshipped, and in Moab He was not acknowledged.One who truly believes can give up anything and anybody rather than lose God. We confess ourselves amazed, astounded, yea, even stunned, when we see men sojourning in the Egypt of the modernist University, surrender their God and accept an imaginary protoplasm instead, or cast away their Christ in favor of “the uncaused cause”.

Our interest, therefore, and our admiration for Naomi grows as we see her turning herself from the women she had learned to love, who had become to her daughters indeed, and daughters doubly dear, to go back to the fellowship of the people who believed in God. Many a mother on the Western plains of America, far remote from any church, privileged not even a Sunday School to which she could send her children, has grown sick of the godless estate and the reckless society around her, and has said to her husband, “Property or no property, I am weary of this; I want to go back to the eastern home where the church bell rings and the children assemble for instruction, and children and parents gather to worship God.”We may argue as we like, but Israel’s advantage over the other nations will never find other explanation than this, that she knew God; and Israel’s present scattered and suffering estate needs no other interpretation than that she had rejected her Messiah and so largely ceased from the worship of her God.RUTH’S ENDS SORROWHer decision to go to Bethlehem-Judah gladdened Naomi’s heart.

The entreaty of the mother-in-law,“Go, return each to her mother’s house: the Lord deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.“The Lord grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband” (Rth 1:8-9),and her kisses and tears, as she bade them good-bye, is sufficient proof of Naomi’s sincerity; while their replies, “Surely we will return with thee unto thy people”, was a proof of their appreciation and must have strongly moved the mother heart. It is not at all the unknown thing for “in-laws” to become dearer than one’s own; and that these were to her daughters indeed, there seems no doubt. It was on that very account that her motherly spirit further expressed itself,“Turn again, my daughters; why will ye go with me? are there any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?“Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons,“Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes, that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me.“And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her” (Rth 1:11-14).Joseph Parker, commenting upon this incident, says, “It is hard to fix upon a point where one man’s quality exceeds another. For a long time they seem to be equal, but a critical juncture occurs, and at that point the quality of the man is determined. Still, let us not forget that the distinction is between loving and loving more, not between hatred and love, not between aversion and attachment, but between love and love. Orpah loved Naomi, and indeed wanted to go with her, with a constancy, however, that was open to reasoning; Ruth loved her and shut out all reasoning, because of the passion of her affection.” “I am constant as the northern star,Of whose true, fixed, and resting quality There is no fellow in the firmament.”It is this fixed quality in love’s affection that both gave proof of her character and Divine appointment to her place in history; and it is this same subtle something in the lives of men and women that makes one more loyal than another, and that gives him greater favor with men and makes possible even the bestowment of more of the Divine blessing. In the parable of the talents we are told that while they were “ten” and “five” and “one”, the Master bestowed upon each “according to his several ability”. There is, then, a unit of mercy in character itself.Her decision to go to Bethlehem terminated her own sorrows. Weeping ended when the resolution became unalterable; and from that moment neither sorrow nor crying are recorded; the former things had passed away, the old pains are forgotten in the new plans and the mind that had dwelt upon its disasters now becomes occupied and animated with anticipations. True, it was only a journey of a few miles, fifty to a hundred, but made as it was, it involved more than a journey to Europe does in our day, and brought to her a new civilization, for the people of Judah were more removed from Egypt than the people of China are removed from America.Then again, decision itself is exhilarating. It is always attended with a rising strength.

The reason more people never know inspiration is that they never reach great decisions. The “air-man” who looks from the azure sky upon all the landscape of beauty below, is only privileged that vision when once he has made his decision to undertake the risk of a rise.Decisive characters are seldom the subjects of despair.

Before we finish this chapter we shall find Naomi naming herself “Mara”; or changing her name, that had been associated with youth and joy and bounding pulse, to one that expressed bitterness, as one who had gone out full, but had returned empty. In this lament Ruth joins not. Youth was her’s. The new land and the new people were of interest; and the natural hope of human nature was asserting itself. And even without her knowledge, but doubtless in accord with her expectations and hopes, she was approaching an experience that would bring her joy, make her name immortal, and attach the same to thousands upon thousands of girls yet to be born.Here she was to be married to Boaz. The second chapter opens with the introduction of this man.“And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband’s, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz” (Rth 2:1).It was evidently a case of love at first sight, for no sooner was Ruth introduced than she said to Naomi, “Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace”.

Who will say that a woman is to be sought only, and is never to show concern or interest in the man who is goodly in her sight; and who will claim that such was ever the custom, all philosophizing to that end, notwithstanding?This step of Ruth’s was characteristic of her sex. She could not speak her love, but she could act it; and while the text says, “her hap was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz”, who doubts that she maneuvered in that direction?

And who blames her? According to the text over which we have passed already, the first husband was a “weakling” in strength; according to this text, Boaz was “a mighty man of strength”. According to the text, her first husband was the subject of poverty; this, “a man of wealth”. All the world is interested when wealth and beauty meet, and still more gratified when kinship of high character is involved; and the whole text makes clear this combination. The language of Boaz to his reapers, “The Lord be with thee”, shows that he was a man of God; and their answer, “The Lord bless thee”, reveals his favor among his fellows. His question to his servant who was set over the reapers concerning this damsel was a revelation of his interest (Rth 2:2-5), while his counsel to the girl as to the place and ground of her work, and his treatment of her, when at the close of the day she slept at his feet, is a proof that boasted modernism is without occasion.

It is very easy, and with certain of the intelligentsia, very popular, to refer to this period as one of primitive life and undeveloped ideals, and speak of the ancient man as a bit of improvement upon the beast supposed to have been his ancestor; but the fact remains that this four thousand year old story is nothing short of a reproof of modern morals. After all our boasted progress, this man Boaz still stands as a needed ensample of moral righteousness.

The present-day critic takes pleasure in pointing out any place in the Bible where any man has immorality recorded against him; but he passes over the Book of Ruth because its high ideals and record of holy conduct gives him no ground of criticism.RUTH’S AND THE MASTER’S In this marriage we find essential links in Christ’s ancestral chain. The fourth chapter records this marriage, and prophetically effects this relationship. We will not enter into the habits of marriage that made it incumbent upon the nearest kinsman to redeem both the estate and raise up children to his brother, for to students of the Scripture that law of Israelitish life is well-known (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).There is introduced, here, another fact which has played so conspicuous a part in all human history as to demand attention. This woman was not of Israel. She was a Moabitess instead. In the judgment of Israel, therefore, she was “a social nobody,” but by her marriage to Chilion had been elevated to recognized equality.

Surely the paper walls that partition society are thin. By mere ceremony the Gentile could then have been made as a Jew, and man’s method have not changed.America has been much interested in a recent marriage that brought together the daughter of the Canadian woods—an uncultured beauty—and the son of immense wealth—a graduate of Princeton; and society has been about debate over a subject in which God has never been deeply concerned, since He “is no respecter of persons”, and was, even then, moving to make this Moabitess, this Gentile, an ancestress of His Only Begotten Son.Ruth contributed a new strain to the Saviour’s blood.

If one would take the pains to trace the Christ, he will find that Rahab, the harlot, is in His line, and now this girl that would have been denominated by bigoted Jews as “a dog of a Gentile,” becomes the great-grandmother of David. Shall we say it is strange that such elements should enter his ancestral chain? Nay, verily! God elected that it should even be so, for Christ was not “the Saviour of the Jews only”, but “of all men”; nor was He the descendant of the Jew only; He was the Son of Man! Into His veins the blood of all men from Adam’s day came, and through His arteries it coursed, for He was to be the High Priest, touched with the feeling of our infirmities—a Saviour of sinners, a God to the despised, a Redeemer to the distressed, the poor, the brokenhearted, the helpless, the social outcast! There is no man nor woman who need fear to approach Him, or be alarmed lest He should not prove a brother.Christ knew all things!

He, therefore, knew who His forebears were, and when they brought the harlot to Him to be condemned, He might have thought of His unfortunate ancestress Rahab, and with all the compassion of a close relative, said, “Neither do I condemn thee”. There would have been little or no meaning in the human birth of Christ, had He come only of the holy and of the high, and there would have been no hope for a world full of sinners, had He not been “touched with the feeling of our infirmitiesToday, we can invite the vilest sinner to Him whose ancestor was such, and ask the Jew and Gentile alike to become one in Him, since through His veins flowed the blood of both.Finally, let us remember that we have here a type of our eternal redemption.“Now these are the generations of Pharez: Phares begat Hesron,“And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, “And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,“And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boas begat Obed,“And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David” (Rth 4:18-22).As Boaz became Ruth’s redeemer, and the redeemer of her whole estate, so Christ, David’s Greater Son, her descendant, redeems us.

As her bereavement gave place to joy, and her labors were changed into rest, and her loneliness was met by love, so Christ comes to the Christian and to His Bride—the Church. “Jesus is coming to earth again, What if it were today?Coming in power and love to reign, What if it were today?Coming to claim His chosen Bride, All the redeemed and purified,Over this whole earth scattered wide, What if it were today?“Satan’s dominion will then be o’er, O that it were today!Sorrow and sighing shall be no more, O that it were today!Then shall the dead in Christ arise, Caught up to meet Him in the skies,When shall these glories meet our eyes? What if it were today?“Faithful and true would He find us here, If He should come today?Watching in gladness and not in fear, If He should come today?Signs of His coming multiply, Morning light breaks in eastern sky,Watch, for the time is drawing nigh, What if it were today?”Chorus:“Glory, glory! Joy to my heart ‘twill bring;Glory glory! When we shall crown Him king;Glory, glory! Haste to prepare the way;Glory, glory! Jesus will come some day.”