By: Jason Tsaddiq
The book of Ruth was written probably by Samuel (1) “during the reign of David (1000-961BC), yet the actual setting takes place during the period of the judges’ rule over Israel, sometime between 1150 and 1100 BC.” Many Bible scholars believe that he wrote it to validate David’s royalty for “. . . Ruth is the only book in the Old Testament that presents the family tree of David, proving to be the most vital link from Abraham to the coming Messiah.” (2)
As one pursues a diligent study of the book of Ruth, he must be determined to study exactly what is there and not to add any romantic or westernized ideas into the story. A survey of the contents includes this summary of the story: a man took his wife and two sons to another country due to the famine in their land. He decided to stay there. He died. His two sons married women from this foreign land instead of choosing wives from their own land. The sons died. The three widows decided to go back to this man’s homeland. Very soon however, one of the widows, (one of the daughters in law) decided not to leave her own land. Thus, the widow of the man and the other daughter in law returned to the homeland. The daughter in law gleaned in the field of a rather wealthy man who turned out to be a kinsman. He noticed her, welcomed her into his fields, and eventually took upon himself the responsibility of marrying her. In the last few verses, the reader is told through the genealogies that this daughter in law was the great grandmother of King David who was in the line of Christ.
Many preachers, teachers, and commentators add to this story. Additions to this story include the “fact” that Elimelech was sinful in traveling from Bethlehem to Moab to avoid the famine. However, Scripture does not communicate that Bethlehemites were not allowed to travel, even to Moab. In fact, Scripture does teach that a man should provide for his family (physical needs as well as other types of needs). Understanding that God expects His children to live holy lives while providing for those needs, one must also realize that an occasion may arise in which a person may take an action that is not the preferred action, even though it is not sin. (3)
God “forbade the Ammonites and Moabites entry into the congregation of the Lord and told His people not to seek their peace of prosperity. (See Deut. 23:3-7.)” (4) He did not forbid children of Israel to sojourn there.
Pointing to the fact that chapter 1, verse 2b says that “they came into the country of Moab and continued there,” many Bible students claim that Elimelech sinned since he stayed. Nowhere does Scripture say or imply that Elimelech chose to stay because he was a sinner or because he was out of God’s will. Possibly they met unforeseen financial circumstances and could not afford to return as soon as they would have liked. Possibly God allowed severe illness to strike Elimelech, Naomi, Mahlon, or Chileon, preventing travel until healing had occurred. The current Bible student must acknowledge that he cannot know the mind of Elimelech and must prevent reading his own interpretation into the verse.
Another addition to the story hovers around the fact that the two sons “took them wives of the women of Moab.” Deuteronomy 7 among other passages confirms God’s command that His children be not married to or “unequally yoked with unbelievers.” It does appear that these two sons disobeyed God’s will. However, to say that “either Naomi made no objection to these marriages because of her resignation of never returning to her home country, or her grief was so great over the loss of her husband that she no longer cared” (5) is definitely reading into Scripture. The current believer has no clue to know if Naomi made no objection or if she were resigned to never returning to her home country, or even if she had grief over her husband’s death. Possibly she had no grief for if one believes Naomi to be a wonderful “Christian,” then maybe Elimelech took her out of Bethlehem against her will and she was glad that he had died.
After the men’s deaths, Naomi decided to return to Bethlehem as explained in chapter 1, verse 6. She encouraged her daughters in law to stay in Moab, their homeland. Orpah, in verses 14 and 15 “went back unto her people, and unto her gods;” (6) One Bible teacher claims that “Orpah promptly declared her intention to follow Naomi, and just as promptly she turned back to her own people and her own gods. Such is human nature – frail, shallow, and superficial in some.” Yet in the same book, this author claims that Christians can “practice their faith” (7) in the world. He tells a story of a factory in the south that holds a chapel service for its employees every Monday morning, even at a cost to the employer. Possibly Orpah was not going back to her gods as Naomi said; maybe she was going back to be a light, a missionary to her family. Maybe Orpah was not as shallow and superficial as some may think for God had not told the Moabites to leave Moab. (8)
One of the most heinous additions to the Biblical story of Ruth is based on chapter 1, verse 20 where Naomi states, “Call me not Naomi, call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.” Almost every preacher, teacher, and commentator use this verse to prove that Naomi was bitter. However, this verse does not claim that Naomi was bitter; it claims that God had allowed bitter events to occur in her life. It is quite possible for a believer to experience bitter incidences and not become bitter. Naomi gave no indication of her heart condition before her journey to Moab, during her time there, and after the men in her immediate family died. God, for some reason, kept quite a bit of personal intimate emotion out of this book of the Bible.
Several reasons exist for one to believe that Naomi was not bitter. The first reason is that she did not say she was bitter. She said that God had dealt bitterly with her. The careful Bible student must read exactly what is in Scripture and not place his own possible emotions into the people involved.
The second reason is the definition, so to speak, of the word Almighty. In the Hebrew, she used the word el shaddai which has several shades of meaning. One source claims that “the focus does not seem to be so much on power and might (although that is implied) but more on sovereignty and kingship.” (9) It is possible that Naomi was recognizing that the Most Sovereign and Kingly God had brought about bitter trials. Wikipedia presents several ideas, one of which is that “the root word "shadad" (שדד) means to plunder, overpower, or make desolate.” (10) Perhaps Naomi was feeling that God had overpowered and made desolate her family when He allowed the men to die. A woman who truly loves her husband and children may feel plundered and overpowered after three deaths within approximately ten years. Plundered does not mean the speaker is bitter. Wikipedia offers another slight variation:
"El Shaddai" may also be understood as an allusion to the singularity of deity, "El", as opposed to "Elohim" (plural), being sufficient or enough for the early patriarchs of Judaism. . . meaning a god who is sufficient in himself, that is, a self-determined eternal being qua being, for whom limited descriptive names cannot apply. This may have been the meaning the Hebrew phrase "ehyeh asher ehyeh" (which translates as "I will be that which I will be") and which is how God describes himself to Moses in Exodus 3:13–15. This phrase can be applied to the tetragrammaton Yhwh, which can be understood as an anagram for the three states of being: past, present and future, conjoined with the conjunctive Hebrew letter vav. (11) (Emphasis was added.)
Maybe Naomi was recognizing that, even though all of life’s misfortunes, El Shaddai was sufficient; He was enough. If she were bitter, possibly she would have used the name El Elyon (“the most high God”) or El Olam (“the everlasting God”) or El Roi (“God who sees me”).
An explanation of the theme of the book must include the definition of the name of God that was used in chapter 1, verse 20: El Shaddai – the kingly sovereign, all-sufficient One. The first chapter of this book seems to cover quite a bit of time and quite a few events. Then the action seems to slow down. Yet each step of the story shows an aspect of El Shaddai’s name.
His sovereignty is shown by allowing the family to move to a specific country, by allowing the dad to die at a specific time, by allowing the sons not to marry until after the father’s death, by allowing the news of the famine being over not to reach Naomi until His timing was perfect, by allowing one (and only one) daughter in law to return with Naomi, and so on, all the way until after Obed is born. Only a Supreme Power could devise and execute such a detailed plan.
His all-sufficiency is shown by His being powerful enough to make all the details fall completely in line, at the right time. Naomi and Ruth arrived at Bethlehem during the time of harvest – this occurrence was not a coincidence. The only other kinsman redeemer did not want to fulfill the kinsman responsibility – if Ruth were as wonderful as Scripture states, one must wonder why he did not jump at the chance to have her. But God had already planted other responsibilities into his life. God’s plans were sufficient to provide the way for Ruth to be grafted into the royal line. The other kinsman would not have placed Ruth in the royal line.
In pondering the all-sufficiency of El Shaddai, one must consider His only begotten Son - the king of all. El Shaddai is used to denote a king and this God Who patiently put all the details in order is still the King of kings.
The significance of this book is multifaceted based on the application of each truth. The first significance and thus application is that one must see God’s attributes: kingliness, sovereignty, all sufficiency. If God is king, sovereign, and all-sufficient, then one must obey Him with no argument. Obeying a king is not always easy; however, as Boaz could picture God’s redemptive love for Gentiles, then one may rest in His goodness for being the all-providing One. Naomi, though widowed, was never technically alone – she had her sons and her daughters in law. This Good King still was caring for her even in a foreign country. She may have rested in that knowledge.
The obedience principle is shown several times through Ruth’s action. Due to Ruth’s Moabite ancestry, many of Naomi’s practices and instructions may have been unusual; yet Ruth still obeyed.
The second significance and application of the book is that one must see that Gentiles can participate in God’s will. Since God is no respecter of persons, each person has a task to perform under His guidance; each person is loved with an everlasting love; no one is better than another. The modern believer must treat others as God treats them: righteously, purely, and kindly.
The third significance and application of the book is that God has everything in control – a very trite but true saying. Bethlehem may not have understood the complete reason for the famine. Naomi may not have understood why she had to move to Moab nor why her husband and sons died. Maybe Naomi did not understand why Orpah went back to her people (What would have happened if she had traveled to Bethlehem?) Ruth may not have known why her husband died before they had children. Boaz may not have understood why he felt compelled to go to the field that particular day since he was a very busy man. Some scholars say that Boaz was a widower – if so, maybe he did not understand why his wife died. Yet these events happened to these people because God was working behind the scenes just as He did with Job and just as He does with believers in the church age.
Even though many so-called Bible students read much of their own emotions into this book, the diligent serious student may glean many other truths that apply to his individual life. Just like all the other books of His Word, Ruth may be read and re-read many times before all its treasures are mined.
1 Diana Hagee, Ruth: The Romance of Redemption, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc, 2005), 3.
2 Ibid, 7.
3 Current examples would include working and traveling on Sundays, spending money on hobbies and entertainment when missionaries and pastors are going without some necessities, gorging oneself at dinner when God expects Christians to care for their bodies.
4 Stanley Collins, Courage and Submission: A Study of Ruth and Esther, (Glendale, CA: G/L Publications, 1975) 7
5 Hagee, 16.
6 David Nettleton, Provision and Providence: The Books of Ruth and Esther, (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1975), 6.
7 Ibid, 12.
8 Granted, because of the assumed close familial ties between Naomi and Orpah, one may conjecture that Naomi knew Orpah’s heart and life choices better than the current Bible student and thus was correct when she said that Orpah had returned to her gods. Maybe Orpah told Naomi that the only reason she was going to Bethlehem was due to the social expectations of the times. Possibly Orpah even told Naomi that she was returning to her own gods as she was leaving.
9 Cory Baugher, knowingthebible.net/the-meaning-of-el-shaddai, (2017). Accessed June 3, 2017.
10 Wikipedia.com. (2017). Accessed June 3, 2017.
11 Ibid.