The Book of Ruth, Parts 7 and 8 by S.Jones

THE BOOK OF RUTH, PARTS 7 AND 8

THE BOOK OF RUTH, PART 7, WHERE TO FIND REST

By Dr. Stephen Jones

Post Date 5-24-2019

Having decided to leave Moab, Noami and her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah, took the road west toward the Jordan River crossing. 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.

Note that it is called “the land of Moab,” not the land of Israel or the land of Reuben or Gad. No doubt these Israelite tribes occupied portions of that area, but clearly, the Moabites still held considerable territory. They were so numerous, in fact, that they were able to bring Israel into captivity for 18 years in Israel’s second captivity (Judges 3:14).

The famine had ended, the rains had come, and God had given them barley and wheat for bread.

As for the meaning of the prophetic story of Ruth, the band of three women were walking out the earlier story of Israel as they left Egypt under Moses. Ruth played the role of those who entered the Promised Land, while Orpah played the role of those who did not.

Testing the Hearts

As the women walked along the road, mile after mile, they had a lot of time to ponder the situation. While Naomi looked forward to returning to those she knew, the others were leaving all of their loved ones. To leave one’s family and start over in a country of unfamiliar faces and a new language was difficult. The prospect of becoming citizens of another country was also difficult, for they must have known how neighboring nations often go to war against each other. Would their children find themselves fighting their own Moabite kindred?

Naomi saw the tears in their eyes and did not want her daughters-in-law to regret their decision to come with her to the land of Judah. As they approached the Jordan River, Naomi finally spoke up and verbalized what was on their minds. Ruth 1:8, 9 says,

⁸ And Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go, return each of you to her mother’s house. May the Lord deal kindly with you as you have dealt with the dead and with me. ⁹ May the Lord grant that you may find rest, each in the house of her husband.” Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voices and wept.

Giving them the opportunity to return released them from their obligation to go the distance. The Jordan River was probably the point of no return, and it was important that they follow their hearts. So also does God test our hearts, for His desire is not to force anyone to follow Him into the Kingdom but to win their hearts by love. I have found that when I have made certain decisions in the past, He often gives me an opportunity to reassess my discernment. Although He accepts my earlier decision, He also realizes that we often make decisions based on incomplete understanding of the cost of our decisions. Therefore, after we know more about the implications of our decisions, we are often given the same choice again, based on greater understanding.

So we see this happening in the case of Naomi and her daughters-in-law. She could see their sadness and tears. and so she gave them the opportunity to return to their families. As for the prophetic meaning of this, note the wording in verse 9: “May the Lord grant that you may find rest,” not in the Promised Land, but back home in Moab.

The Resting Place

The word “rest” comes from the Hebrew word menukha, “rest, or resting place.” This word has great theological and prophetic significance, for in Numbers 10:33 we read,

³³ Thus they set out from the mount of the Lord three days’ journey with the ark of the covenant of the Lord journeying in front of them for the three days; to seek out a resting place [menukha] for them.

The Promised Land as a whole was supposed to be Israel’s resting place, the land of Sabbath. In a narrower sense, the Ark of the Covenant sought a resting place, where it would move no more. It was later placed in Shiloh, “peace, rest,” but as long as it was in a tent, the resting place was yet unfulfilled in the greatest sense.

This “rest” was fulfilled, as Solomon said, when the Ark was brought into the temple that he had built, for only then could the staves be retired (1 Kings 8:8 KJV). Presumably, the Ark would never again be moved. So Solomon prayed in 1 Kings 8:56,

⁵⁶ Blessed be the Lord, who has given rest [menukha] to His people Israel, according to all that He promised; not one word has failed of all His good promise, which He promised through Moses His servant.

Of course, we know that this “rest” was complete only in an Old Covenant sense, for the entire story was yet but a type and shadow of greater things to come. In the New Covenant, we have a greater Joshua (Yeshua), a greater inheritance, a greater temple, a greater Jerusalem, and a greater rest (menukha), as we learn in Hebrews 4:8-11,

⁸ For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. ⁹ There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. ¹⁰ For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. ¹¹ Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience.

We see, then, that Naomi gave her daughters-in-law the opportunity to discern the place where they might find true rest. Was it in Moab or Judah? Would they find rest by returning and marrying Moabite husbands and building homes and families in the wilderness? As then, so also now, we must all follow our hearts, but only if truly led by the Spirit will we make the right choice. The call of fleshly comforts and identification with one’s fleshly family and genealogy is too powerful for most people to withstand.

Both Ruth and Orpah had the desire to go with Naomi, but ultimately, Orpah turned back.

The Marriage Discussion

Ruth 1:10-13 continues,

¹⁰ And they said to her [Naomi], “No, but we will surely return with you to your people.” ¹¹ But Naomi said, “Return, my daughters. Why should you go with me? Have I yet sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? ¹² Return, my daughters! Go, for I am too old to have a husband. If I said I have hope, if I should even have a husband tonight and also bear sons, ¹³ would you therefore wait until they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters; for it is harder for me than for you, for the hand of the Lord has gone forth against me.”

Marriage was a big issue in Naomi’s mind. Her widowed daughters-in-law had no children, and in those days bearing children formed a large part of a woman’s purpose in life. While it is important today as well, it was considered absolutely essential in those days. Naomi’s words provide us with the first reference to the law in Deuteronomy 25:5,

⁵ When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

This is the most important law on which the story of Ruth is based. It was the legal reason why Boaz later married Ruth. If Orpah had continued with Naomi, she too might have found a husband in Judah. But at this point in the story, Naomi knew nothing about Boaz. All she could see was that she had lost her husband and both of her sons.

Hypothetically, if only one of Naomi’s sons had died, the other would have taken his brother’s widow as a second wife in order that his dead brother would carry on the family name and inheritance. But with both of the brothers dead, that could not be done.

In an earlier case, we see this law being carried out by Judah’s sons. Judah’s wife, Shua, had borne three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er married Tamar, but Er died childless. So Onan took her as his wife but refused to bear her children, and so “the Lord took his life” (Genesis 38:7).

The youngest son, Shelah, was yet too young to be married, so Tamar waited for a few years to be given to him in marriage. But Judah was reluctant to give his last son to her, perhaps not trusting him to do what was right and that God might take his life as well.

That is why Tamar finally dressed as a prostitute and had twin sons by Judah himself.

Judah had committed incest unknowingly, yet this prevented his descendants from ascending the throne for ten generations (until David). Just as Judah’s situation called upon the law in Deuteronomy 25:5, so also did Noami’s situation with Ruth and Orpah.

As widows, they normally would have married their dead husband’s brother in order “that his name may not be blotted out from Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:6).

Naomi felt responsible for her daughters-in-law. She loved them and did not want them to remain widows for the rest of their lives. She felt that their chances of remarriage were much greater in the land of Moab than in Judah. As Moabites, the women would have been viewed with some suspicion as outsiders coming from idolatrous backgrounds. Perhaps too most of the men of Judah would not have wanted to wait to the third generation for their children to be fully integrated into Judah. The law applies this principle to Edomites and Egyptians in Deuteronomy 23:7, 8, and it is likely that the same principle applied also to those of other nationalities.

⁷ You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not detest and Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. ⁸ The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.

We know, of course, that Ruth ultimately married Boaz of Bethlehem. Their son, Obed, was the first generation from Ruth the Moabitess, Jesse was the second, and David the third. Hence, not only was David the tenth from an incestuous relationship but also the third from a Moabitess. In both cases, the law was fulfilled.

We should also compare and contrast two laws regarding incest. First, it was unlawful for a man to marry his brother’s wife, for Leviticus 18: 16 says,

¹⁶ You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.

Such was the sin of Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great. Antipas had married Herodias, who was the daughter of Aristobulus, a half-brother of Antipas. John the Baptist condemned this marriage (Matthew 14:3, 4), and for this he was imprisoned.

Secondly, a brother’s wife was supposed to marry her husband’s brother if he died childless. These two laws play one against the other in the background of the story of Ruth. Both Judah and Lot were guilty of incest as defined by the laws in Leviticus 18. But the death of husbands made it both necessary and good for their widows to marry their husband’s brother.

The main point is that the law regulates marriages. Love in itself does not sanctify an unlawful marriage or sexual union. God retains the right to define and sanctify marriage, having created marriage in the first place. Understanding this is important when we see that the law is spiritual and that it forms the basis of the laws of Sonship.

THE BOOK OF RUTH, PART 8, ORPAH RETURNS

In Ruth 1:11-13 Naomi gave her daughters-in-law the opportunity to return instead of crossing the Jordan into a foreign land. We cannot say for sure what Noami’s motives were, but from a higher perspective, we can see that this opportunity tested their hearts to see if they really wanted to enter the Promised Land. Perhaps the girls had shed some tears along the road, and Naomi did not want them to be unhappy for the rest of their lives.

It would take genuine faith to understand that the Promised Land would demand a change of culture, laws, and worship—even putting a distance between themselves and their families. Neither did they know if they would find anyone in Israel who would marry them and give them children, as they so desired.

No doubt many Israelites were suspicious of Moabite women, who were accustomed to ungodly religious practices and were also allies (in times past) of the Midianites, who had seduced the Israelites under the counsel of Balaam (Numbers 25:1, 2). Scripture tells us that the Moabites had invited the Israelites to their idolatrous love festival, but the account puts the major blame on the Midianites (Numbers 31:2, 7).

An unknown number of Moabite women in that war had been taken as slave-wives for the Israelites (Numbers 31:18, 19), and by the time of Ruth, these had been fully integrated into Israelite society. So the problem was not their ethnicity but their religious background. Hence, it was a big step for Ruth an Orpah to immigrate to the land of Judah with Ruth, for they had no guarantee of finding husbands there who would treat them as free women, rather than as conquered slaves.

Orpah Turns Back

Ruth 1:14 says,

¹⁴ And they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.

In other words, Orpah kissed her mother-in-law to say goodbye, and she returned to the house of her parents, but Ruth would not leave. Both of them loved Naomi, but only one of them actually had the faith to cross the Jordan into the Promised Land. In this we see the two girls playing their roles as Israelites in the wilderness under Moses. Orpah represented the majority of the Israelites who “were not able to enter because of unbelief” (Hebrews 3:19; Numbers 14:4).

I understand (by personal revelation) that Orpah was very much torn by this separation and that she hoped that Ruth would return with her. She felt abandoned, even though from a biblical perspective, she was the one abandoning Ruth and Naomi. But such things are a matter of perspective, for when people leave God, they blind themselves and lose sight of His presence. Hence, they think that God has abandoned them.

This warped and blind viewpoint is seen also among the Israelites who had refused to enter the Promised Land. Numbers 14:1 says,

¹ Then all the congregation lifted up their voices and cried, and the people wept that night.

Orpah, too, shed many tears, but hers were tears of sadness, for she had purposed in her heart that she could not enter the Promised Land. Verse 4 says, that they decided to “return to Egypt.”

The Israelites soon resented God’s judgment upon them, and many followed Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16:1, 2) in rebelling against Moses, whom God had raised up to lead Israel. Even though they had recognized their sin earlier (Numbers 14:40), their hearts remained in a state of rebellion, lawlessness, and lack of faith.

So there is no doubt that Orpah, too, reflected that same spirit, returning to her people while thinking that Ruth had left her. We read no more of Orpah, and no doubt she died in the wilderness (Moab), even as the Israelites themselves had died without receiving the promises. Fortunately for all of them, God took an oath to restore them as well (Deuteronomy 29:14, 15).

Ruth and Naomi

Ruth represented those who actually entered the Promised Land. It is not fully clear how we should view Naomi’s prophetic role in this story, for she stands above both Ruth and Orpah. Her main role seems to be that of Moses and Joshua in leading Israel into the Promised Land. In that she gave both girls the opportunity to enter the Promised Land, with one obeying and the other returning, she was playing the role of Moses in Numbers 13 and 14. But her dominant role was that of Joshua who actually led Israel into the land. This is consistent with the meaning of her name, Naomi, or “grace,” when we view her in light of John 1:17,

¹⁷ For the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

Jesus’ Hebrew name was Yeshua, or Joshua, and “grace” (Naomi) was “realized” through Joshua.

Naomi’s husband, Elimelech, means “My God” (Eli) “is king” (melech). Her marriage pictured the union of Grace and Sovereignty, both characteristics of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, therefore, she is a type of Christ, as were both Moses and Joshua.

Ruth herself is a type of believer who embraces Jesus Christ through the New Covenant. By clinging to Naomi, she also clings to Elimelech, recognizing the sovereignty of God. This is seen more clearly in Ruth 1:16, 17,

¹⁶ But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. ¹⁷ Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the Lord do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.”

This well-known confession of faith has been used by some to promote the idea that Christians ought to become Jews. It does indeed show that a Moabite could become an Israelite—in this case, a Judahite—because these are national and religious terms, not racial or genealogical. In the New Covenant, it is the same.

To turn to Christ is to become a “Jew” (Ioudeos), as Paul tells us in Romans 2:28, 29. Paul also tells us specifically that most of those who call themselves “Jews” are not really Jews at all by God’s definition. Only those whose hearts have been circumcised by a New Covenant relationship with Jesus Christ are actually recognized by God as “Jews.”

But because the world did not understand this and had their own fleshly criteria as to who is and who is not a Jew, the true identity of a “Jew” has been in dispute since the time of Christ.

But Ruth essentially became a Jew, not because she married Boaz of Bethlehem, but because of her faith in the God of Israel. In fact, in the eyes of God only a portion of the people of Judah were actually Jews. So also in later years God recognized only 7,000 men in the entire nation of Israel who were of the remnant of grace (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:4, 6, 7).

See my book, Who is an Israelite?

Jesus’ Disciples

In the New Testament, we see a similar situation with Jesus’ disciples. In John 6:56, 57, Jesus said,

⁵⁶ He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. ⁵⁷ As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

This teaching caused many to reject Jesus (John 6:60, 64), for their carnal perspective of the law caused them to think He was promoting cannibalism. So we read in John 6:66-69,

⁶⁶ As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. ⁶⁷ Jesus said therefore to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” ⁶⁸ Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. ⁶⁹ And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

It appears that Jesus deliberately spoke difficult truths that would test the hearts of the people and separate the true believers from those who only appeared to believe. This was their Ruth and Orpah moment. Eleven of Jesus’ disciples truly had faith in Him, while one did not. John 6:70, 71 says,

⁷⁰ Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” ⁷¹ Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

It is interesting that Judas was “the son of Simon Iscariot,” because Simon means “hearing,” but Judas did not have ears to hear. Iscariot is the Grecianized form of the Hebrew Ish Kerioth, a “man from Kerioth-arba,” or Hebron, the inheritance of Caleb in the territory of Judah. There was nothing wrong with the heritage of Judas, and yet he betrayed Jesus, who was his friend.

In essence, Judas turned back at the last minute, just as Orpah turned back. Hence, neither were qualified to receive the promised inheritance. I believe that we all come to our own crisis point at the brink of Jordan, where we either follow the example of Ruth or turn back with Orpah.