The Book of Ruth, Parts 3
and 4
THE BOOK OF RUTH, PART 3 - The
Cast of Characters
By
Dr. Stephen Jones
Blog
Date5-13-2019
The
Book of Ruth begins by introducing us to the family of Elimelech and the reason
for their sojourn in Moab. Ruth 1:1, 2 says,
1 Now it came about in the days when the judges governed, that there was
a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn
in the land of Moab with his wife and his two sons. 2 And the name
of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife, Naomi; and the names of his
two sons were Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem in Judah. Now they
entered the land of Moab and remained there.
The
meaning of their names is as follows:
Elimelech
means “my God is King.”
Naomi
means “grace, favor.”
Mahlon
means “sickness, worn down, weak.”
Chilion
means “pining, wasting away.”
The Sovereignty of God
Elimelech’s
name sets forth the testimony of the sovereignty of God, which sets the tone
for the entire book. In light of the famine which drove him to take his family
to Moab, it suggests that the famine was part of the divine plan and that he
acted by faith, rather than by fear.
His
wife’s name (“grace”) also shows that in spite of their outward circumstances,
God’s grace was with them. Only by recognizing the sovereignty of God and the
fact that all things work together for good (Romans 8:28) can we understand the Book of Ruth.
The
marriage of Elimelech and Naomi shows that grace is a sovereign act of God, as
we see in in the example of Jacob and Esau. God chose Jacob before the children
were even born (Romans 9:10-12), in order
to show that God’s “choice” (i.e., the act of choosing) remains in His
sovereign hands. It is not by the will of man but of God. So Paul goes on to
tell us in Romans 11:5, 6,
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a
remnant according to God’s gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace,
it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
Many
do not understand that grace is married to the sovereignty of God, and
that this is a good marriage. Calvinism, which sets forth a sovereign God who
lacks genuine love for all, presents us with a tyrannical marriage. If he had
understood the love of God in Romans 5, along with the divine plan to save all
mankind in Romans 5:18, he would have understood that God’s
sovereign choices were not designed to choose a few for salvation and torture
the rest in fire. Instead, he would have seen that God chose one man to bless
the all families of the earth (Genesis 12:3). In other words, God chooses the
few to bring salvation to the many.
Scripture
presents to us a sovereign God of Love, one who does not lack the power or the
motive to save all men (1 Timothy 4:10) and
reconcile all of His creation in the end (Colossians 1:16, 20). The idea that “My God is King” implies that
in the end all of creation will recognize Jesus Christ as King. This is the
meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28, where we see Christ ruling “all things”
that He created at the beginning.
God’s
sovereignty, then, is not something to be dreaded, nor should anyone fear that
they might not be among the chosen. God’s sovereign power is rooted in His Love
nature, and He also possesses the wisdom to win in the end, despite all
opposition (which He Himself raised up).
Such
is the lesson we learn through the marriage of Elimelech and Naomi.
Moab and Egypt
Elimelech’s
move to Moab provided the same prophetic setting as was seen when Jacob moved
to Egypt some centuries earlier. Both moved in a time of famine, and both
ultimately resulted in the birth of a son.
God’s
grace is not negated by famine. Neither does it mean that God had brought
judgment upon them for some sin in their lives. By the time we reach the end of
the book, we see that God had worked to find a suitable wife for Boaz from
among the nations, one who would express the heart of God, bear a son (as a
type of Christ), and prophesy of things to come.
So
also, when Jacob moved to Egypt during the time of famine in the land of
Canaan, God’s intent was, in essence, to marry Egypt in order to bring forth
His first-born son, Israel. So when the time came for Israel to be delivered,
God told Moses to tell Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My
first-born” (Exodus 4:22).
The
prophet Hosea repeated this truth many centuries later, saying in Hosea 11:1, “out of Egypt I called My son.”
Still later, this applied also to Jesus, who was taken to Egypt for his
protection, in order that He too might be called out of Egypt (Matthew 2:14, 15).
In
all of these examples, we see the sovereignty of God in action. Each example
was fulfilled under stressful circumstances, and yet all was necessary to bring
forth a basic truth about the bride, the wife of God, who was to bear His sons.
We too, have the same right to be called sons of God (John 1:12). We too have been led to “Egypt” or
“Moab” in our own way, in order that the overcoming body of Christ might have a
heavenly Father and an earthly mother. Thereby, this corporate Son has
authority in both realms, even as Jesus did (Matthew 28:18).
Further Law Studies on
Motherhood
For
those who want to delve deeper into this concept of Egypt being Israel’s mother,
and the legal implications of this in the plan of salvation, one must study the
law of sonship in Exodus 13:12, 13. Here God lays claim to all of the first-born,
both man and beast. However, an unclean beast, such as a donkey, cannot be
presented to God directly; a lamb must redeem the donkey and be its substitute.
Lambs need not be redeemed, but donkeys must be redeemed.
The
law (above) states that “every first-born of man among your sons you shall
redeem.” In essence, God was calling all of the Israelites spiritual
donkeys, who were in need of redemption. That is why they came out of Egypt at
Passover, having been redeemed by the Lamb. That redemption spiritually
(legally) transformed spiritual donkeys into lambs that were acceptable to God
as His first-born sons.
In
the big picture, Abraham married Hagar who brought forth Ishmael, whom the
angel of God called pareh awdawm, “a wild donkey of a man” (Genesis 16:12). This provided the prophetic
pattern for the law about redeeming donkeys. God then brought Israel into Egypt
(“Hagar”), in order to set up the same pattern of marriage. God “married” Egypt
and brought forth Israel. Had it not been for the redemption of the lamb at
Passover, Israel would have been a spiritual donkey that was unacceptable to
God.
Year
later, the prophet compared the rebellious house of Israel with a wild donkey (Jeremiah 2:24). In other words, Israel had become
as stiffnecked and stubborn as a wild donkey in their spiritual character. They
were not the sheep of His pasture but were spiritual Ishmaelites and children
of Hagar by legal definition.
The
apostle Paul later confirms this, telling us in Galatians 4 that Jerusalem was
Hagar, and her “children” (of Judaism) were spiritual Ishmaelites, children of
the flesh, and certainly not the inheritors of the promises of God (Galatians 4:25, 28, 29, 30). Such children were to be “cast out”
along with their “mother” (Jerusalem) in favor of the New Jerusalem (Sarah) and
her children.
Egypt and Ruth
These
truths give us the background to the Book of Ruth and to Ruth herself, as we
will see. The story presents Ruth as a Moabitess, a foreigner, who marries
Boaz, and ultimately gives birth to a son, Obed, who is a type of Christ. In
her role, Ruth is like Egypt, the difference being that the Egyptian king did
not repent or turn to God, while Ruth did. Nonetheless, the story of Ruth
pictures the ultimate conversion of the nations and the world in the
reconciliation of all things.
In
other words, just as Egypt was the mother of God’s first-born son, Israel, so
also was Ruth the mother of Obed, who was a type of Christ in the story. The
nation born out of Egypt had to be redeemed by the Passover lamb, because Egypt
was yet a spiritual donkey. However, Ruth was cleansed by her faith in God
prior to her marriage to Boaz. Hence, her son needed no redemption at birth but
could be presented to God on the eighth day (Exodus 22:29, 30).
Mahlon and Chilion
Mahlon
means “sickness, worn down, weak,” and Chilion means “pining, wasting away.” We
wonder why they would be given such names, but it is obvious that their names
spoke of their family situation while sojourning in Moab. Children do not
normally name themselves, so we can say with reasonable confidence that their
parents named them to express their own state of mind.
Since
Naomi spent only ten years in Moab (Ruth 1:4), and because both sons married Moabite
women, it is clear that the boys had been born in Bethlehem. If that is when
they received their names, it suggests that they were named on account of the
famine in Judah. If they felt like they were wasting away in Bethlehem, their
sojourn in Moab brought utter disaster.
It
may be that Elimelech was sick for some time, and the lack of food aggravated
his situation. It appears that shortly after moving to Moab, he died, and then
his sons married Moabite women. Ruth 1:3, 4 says,
3 Then Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left with her two
sons. 4 And they took for themselves Moabite women as wives; the
name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. And they lived there
about ten years.
They
must have died soon after their marriage, perhaps by some contagious disease,
because neither marriage produced any children. Ruth 1:5 says,
5 Then both Mahlon and Chilion also died; and the woman [Naomi] was
bereft of her two children and her husband.
At
that point, we can imagine Naomi’s grief at being alone in a foreign land. This
was the apex of her time of weakness, and I do not doubt that she now was
“pining away” for her family and friends back in Bethlehem.
When
people go through such trials, only seldom do they see the big picture. It
seems that God intends for them to undergo such grief without the benefit of
understanding its meaning and purpose, because the grief must be experienced in
full in order for it to fit the type and shadow in the big picture. So also
Jesus was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3) He had to experience the grief of
being despised by enemies, rejected by His people, abandoned by His disciples,
and betrayed by His friend, all of which were portions of the payment that He
made for the sin of the world.
But
from the depths of despair, hope arose. From hope sprang life, and from life
came joy.
THE BOOK OF RUTH, PART 4,
RUTH AND ORPAH
By
Dr. Stephen Jones
After
Elimelech and his two sons died in Moab, Naomi was left alone with her two
daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah. Ruth 1:6, 7 says,
6 Then she arose with her daughters-in-law that she might return from
the land of Moab, for she had heard in the land of Moab that the Lord had
visited His people in giving them food [lehem, “bread”]. 7 So
she departed from the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law with
her; and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah.
Their
move to Moab was just the setup for the real point of the story, which was to
portray the journey to the Promised Land, running parallel to Israel’s journey
under Moses. In both cases they had come from a foreign and idolatrous country,
and in both cases they sought the promises of God in the Kingdom.
The Bread of Life
The
specific nature of that promise is seen in the statement that “the Lord had
visited His people in giving them lehem.” They were on their way to
Beth-lehem, the House of Bread, where the Messiah was to be born. So when John
the Baptist was born many years later, called to prepare the way for the coming
Messiah, his father Zacharias said in Luke 1:68,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited us and
accomplished redemption for His people.
Again,
when Jesus came on the scene, those who saw Him raise the widow’s son
recognized that God had visited His people. Luke 7:14-16 says,
14 And He came up and touched the coffin; and the bearers came to a halt.
And He said, “Young man, I say to you, arise!” 15 And the dead man
sat up and began to speak. And Jesus gave him back to his mother. 16
And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great
prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited His people!”
Jesus
was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), as was David
before him and Ruth’s son, Obed, the grandfather of David. Not only was it
important that Jesus should be born in the city of David but also that He would
be placed in a manger. In Luke 2:11, 12 the angel said to the shepherds,
11 “for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior,
who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you; you will
find the baby wrapped in cloths, and lying in a manger.”
The
sign of the manger was important, because Jesus was and is still the true bread
of life (John 6:48). Those who believe and inherit the
promises of God are given spiritual bread to eat, which is His body. Again, we
read in John 6:53-55,
53 Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in
yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal
life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is
true food, and My blood is true drink.”
For
this reason, Jesus was born in the House of Bread (Beth-lehem) and by placing
Him in a manger was the sign that He was the true bread of life. Until we eat
His flesh, we are all in a time of spiritual famine, and the promises of God
remain unfulfilled. This is why God used famines to bring Israel into Egypt and
Naomi to Moab. It was to show to us the contrast and to set up the need for the
bread of life that was to come to the House of Bread.
The Prophetic Parallel
Naomi’s
daughters-in-law came with her, which is somewhat remarkable, because no doubt
they were leaving family, friends, and familiar places. To leave Moab was,
emotionally speaking, just as difficult for them as it had been for Noami to be
away from Bethlehem of Judah.
When
Israel left Egypt under Moses, many Egyptians (and perhaps other ethnicities)
came with them. Exodus 12:38 says,
38 And a mixed multitude also went up with them, along with flocks
and herds, a very large number of livestock.
In
the story of Ruth we are reminded of this when the two Moabite women left their
homeland, joining themselves to Naomi (“grace”) to go to the Promised Land.
They represented the “mixed multitude” on a smaller scale. Just as a
“multitude” of Egyptians became Israelites by joining with the nation of
Israel, so also Ruth and Orpah decided to become Israelites.
How to Praise God
More
specifically, they were traveling to the land of Judah (Ruth 1:7). Judah means “praise,” and from a
spiritual standpoint it is the tribe of all who praise God in spirit and in
truth. Praise is not merely expressed in music, although that can certainly be
a part of it. No expression of praise has merit apart from the condition and
motive of the heart. Paul tells us that an uncircumcised heart cannot praise
God in a way that is acceptable to God. Romans 2:28, 29 says,
28 For he is not a Jew [“praising”] who is one outwardly; neither is
circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew
who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the
Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
The
question raised here has to do with one’s identity as a Jew—that is, one who is
a member of the tribe of Judah. The Jews of his day (and today as well)
identify themselves by outward circumcision, thereby claiming to “praise” God
and to be worthy of His praise. Paul contradicts that claim. Only praise from a
circumcised heart has validity with God, and only those who come under New
Covenant heart circumcision receive praise from God. In other words, only New
Covenant believers are “Jews” in the sight of God.
Thus,
two groups in Paul’s day claimed identity from the tribe of Judah. The majority
based their claim either on genealogical descent or on fleshly circumcision.
The true Jews, on the other hand, claimed identity as the true representatives
of Judah on the basis of heart circumcision. These true Judahites received
“praise” (recognition) of God, even though they had been cast out of the temple
and excommunicated from the fleshly nation recognized by the governments of the
world.
Coming Short of the Promises
of God
In
the story of Ruth, the two Moabite daughters-in-law left their home country, as
did the Egyptians before them, intending to join the tribe of Judah. They were
on a journey with grace (Naomi) to partake of the body of Christ in the House
of Bread.
Ruth
and Orpah began their journey together, but as it turned out, only Ruth entered
the Promised Land, while Orpah did not. Ruth means “beauty, or friend,
companion,” and Orpah means “gazelle.” Orpah’s name is from the root word oref,
“neck, back of the neck, stiffnecked.”
We
have already seen how Ruth and Orpah represented the mixed multitude who left
Egypt and who became Israelites by nationality. As Israelites, they also
represented the Israelites as a whole. Ruth represented those who endured to
the end and received the promises of God; Orpah represented those who failed to
go the distance.
So
we read in Hebrews 3:19 and 4:1,
19 And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. 1
Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any
one of you should seem to have come short of it.
Of
the Israelites, Exodus 32:9 KJV says,
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it
is a stiffnecked people.”
The
term “stiffnecked” is actually from two Hebrew words: qasheh, “hard,
obstinate,” and oref, “neck.” As we have seen, oref is the root
of Orpah.
This
description paints a Hebrew word picture of an uncircumcised heart, for we read
in Deuteronomy 10:16 KJV,
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Again,
Stephen told the unbelieving Jews in Acts 7:51,
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always
resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.
He
was telling them that they were following the path of their ancestors who
lacked the faith necessary to enter the Promised Land. They were in need of
heart circumcision, something that even Moses himself talked about in Deuteronomy 30:5, 6,
5 And the Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers
possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will prosper you and multiply you
more than your fathers. 6 Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise
your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.
To
receive the promises of God would require heart circumcision. Apart from that,
the people were a stiffnecked people who did not meet the requirements to enter
the Promised Land. So Orpah was chosen to play the role of the Israelites who
died in the wilderness without receiving the promises. She failed to see the
birth of Obed, the Christ figure, who was born in the House of Bread. In
returning to her Moabite roots, she failed to become a Judahite and to receive
the praise of God.
The
lesson here is explained clearly in the story of Israel and Hebrews 3 and 4. We
are to be as Ruth, not as Orpah. So let us press on and endure to the end. Hebrews 10:35-39 concludes,
35 Therefore, do not throw
away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need
of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what
was promised…. 39 But we are not of those who shrink back to
destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.
No comments:
Post a Comment