Ruth chapter 1:1-18 Read it here
Always remember: Pray before you begin. I know its repetitive to write this each time, but a lot lies there.
Wave upon wave of sorrow began to beat upon the family, we befriended last week. First it was Elimelech, then it were the sons' turns to depart. Naomi was heartbroken. Nevertheless, refreshing news made its way to the bereaved household – the Lord had shown His goodness to His people once again.
I wonder if the thought of returning home was a particularly tantalising one for Naomi for she had to literally start from scratch. They sold their property before setting out for Moab and it wouldn't be easy to buy it back. (More on this later) Besides, things looked very bleak for Naomi – the Moabite girls were not likely to marry within the family and perpetuate the family line. Jewish Law upheld the institution of 'levirate' marriage wherein a dead man's childless widow was to marry a brother, or another near relative. The firstborn from this marriage was reckoned to the name of the departed. Thus this son was to inherit the property of his acknowledged father, rather than his real father. This ensured that the property of the Israelite people would not fall into strange hands.
In that case, this was probably THE END for Elimelech's name in history. When Naomi finally died, a family was going to be wiped off the face of the earth for lack of representatives.
Somehow, Naomi mustered the courage to back home. However, she wouldn't encourage her daughters-in-law to follow suit. In verses 8 to 13, she makes it plain that there is absolutely NOTHING more she can offer them. This is very interesting. Think about this: for most of us, relationships come to a standstill when we realise that there is absolutely nothing we're getting out of the deal. “Do I really need to take this forward? Does this person truly matter to me? Why go to all this for nothing?”, we stop and ask ourselves. Faced with this very possibility, Orpah kissed Naomi goodbye. We cannot blame her – I think we'd do the same given the choice.
The big surprise came from Ruth – she refused to yield to her mother-in-law's words and stood her ground. Given Ruth's background, this is highly amazing. A Moabite youth in Israelite country? From Naomi's words in verse 15, I gather there are at least two very good reasons for her to go back.
Firstly, nothing beats the comfort and prosperity of being at home. Those of us who've stayed away from our parents before we settle down in life, might understand what I mean. From my own hostel days, I still remember my longings for the “familiarness” of home. The food, my room, the presence of loved ones close by, the guidance that trusted people could offer, even the language – staying away was not an attractive affair. For Ruth, this would additionally mean the prospect of a good marriage with a Moabite boy.
Secondly, and maybe more importantly, the convenience of worship: Moab's gods might offer an easier pattern for worship than the Lord Jehovah of the Hebrews. Was Ruth to forsake the gods of her fathers and all the rituals she was “used” to?
Faced with the prospect of making a decision for God, we often choose to hide behind this subtle aspect of our lives: convenient worship. People ask me, “Do you think my parents were wrong in what they taught me? Does God not understand my limitations?” I remember once asking my Christian cousins why they went to a church meeting on Sunday. Quick came the cliche reply: “To worship God.” Digging a little deeper, I questioned if they would have done the same had they been born in a Hindu or a radical Muslim family. No answer this time.
In short, we are all dancing along to the convenient worship of our fathers without bothering to ascertain whether we are in the way of the truth or not.
All the same, Ruth stands as a testimony to the contrary. I'm unable to fully pinpoint from the passage, what triggered her decision. But one thing is crystal clear: she was determined to get a new identity. Her words in verses 16 and 17 emphasise her rock-solid conclusion. Most interestingly, she goes on to say to Naomi, “Where you die, I will die, and there I'll be buried.” She was not even planning to leave the land of Judah after Naomi's death! Do I conclude this to be an extravagant love for a mother-in-law? I think the rationale goes beyond this.
Whatever the reasons may be, Ruth was going to be identified with the Israelites from now on, and not otherwise. If this meant a lack of comforts, so be it. If this implied a radical difference in worship, so be it.
Finally Ruth binds herself to the relationship in the name of the Lord of Israel - “May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."
Christian marriage vows borrow from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer wherein the man says to the woman and vice versa, “I M. take thee N. to my wedded Wife/Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance.” In fact, many civil ceremonies grant the liberty to omit “till death us do part” or to make any similar opportune correction. Its no surprise that like most other vices in society, divorce happens because “its there”. Like some say, opportunities are not meant to be wasted.
For Ruth, breaking the commitment automatically necessitated punishment from God's hands. Here, I wish to revive my earlier thought that Naomi had absolutely nothing to give her. Nevertheless, this young Moabite woman had set her eyes elsewhere. For her, commitment ranked higher than benefit and that's a lesson worth learning in a wanton world.
As we shall later see, this was just the stepping stone for a miracle to happen: Eventually, Ruth entered the home of another like minded woman, who had forsaken her past to live with God's people. Together, they became the ancestors in the human lineage of the greatest individual history has ever seen – the man Jesus Christ.
May I close with an appropriate illustration courtesy Dr. Ravi Zacharias. He explains the possibility of two scenes at an airport enquiry desk.
Scene 1:
Man: Excuse me, I need help.
Receptionist: Yes, how may I help you?
Man: I think my suitcase has been stolen.
Receptionist: Sir, how did it happen?
Man: I had just left it there, at that coffee table, and gone to pay the bill. When I returned, it was gone.
Receptionist: I'm afraid you're right, sir – its lost.
Scene 2:
Man: Excuse me, I need help.
Receptionist: Yes, how may I help you?
Man: I think my suitcase is missing.
Receptionist: Sir, how did it happen?
Man: I checked in my baggage at your counter in the City Terminal yesterday. I've just found out its still not arrived here. Here's the reference number.
Receptionist: We'll immediately check this out. Rest assured, sir, we'll find it for you at the earliest.
Do you notice the difference?
We're still holding on to our lives, desperate to live on our own terms. How then, can you and I approach God for the problems in our lives when our lives are not committed into His hands in the first place?
I wonder if the thought of returning home was a particularly tantalising one for Naomi for she had to literally start from scratch. They sold their property before setting out for Moab and it wouldn't be easy to buy it back. (More on this later) Besides, things looked very bleak for Naomi – the Moabite girls were not likely to marry within the family and perpetuate the family line. Jewish Law upheld the institution of 'levirate' marriage wherein a dead man's childless widow was to marry a brother, or another near relative. The firstborn from this marriage was reckoned to the name of the departed. Thus this son was to inherit the property of his acknowledged father, rather than his real father. This ensured that the property of the Israelite people would not fall into strange hands.
In that case, this was probably THE END for Elimelech's name in history. When Naomi finally died, a family was going to be wiped off the face of the earth for lack of representatives.
Somehow, Naomi mustered the courage to back home. However, she wouldn't encourage her daughters-in-law to follow suit. In verses 8 to 13, she makes it plain that there is absolutely NOTHING more she can offer them. This is very interesting. Think about this: for most of us, relationships come to a standstill when we realise that there is absolutely nothing we're getting out of the deal. “Do I really need to take this forward? Does this person truly matter to me? Why go to all this for nothing?”, we stop and ask ourselves. Faced with this very possibility, Orpah kissed Naomi goodbye. We cannot blame her – I think we'd do the same given the choice.
The big surprise came from Ruth – she refused to yield to her mother-in-law's words and stood her ground. Given Ruth's background, this is highly amazing. A Moabite youth in Israelite country? From Naomi's words in verse 15, I gather there are at least two very good reasons for her to go back.
Firstly, nothing beats the comfort and prosperity of being at home. Those of us who've stayed away from our parents before we settle down in life, might understand what I mean. From my own hostel days, I still remember my longings for the “familiarness” of home. The food, my room, the presence of loved ones close by, the guidance that trusted people could offer, even the language – staying away was not an attractive affair. For Ruth, this would additionally mean the prospect of a good marriage with a Moabite boy.
Secondly, and maybe more importantly, the convenience of worship: Moab's gods might offer an easier pattern for worship than the Lord Jehovah of the Hebrews. Was Ruth to forsake the gods of her fathers and all the rituals she was “used” to?
Faced with the prospect of making a decision for God, we often choose to hide behind this subtle aspect of our lives: convenient worship. People ask me, “Do you think my parents were wrong in what they taught me? Does God not understand my limitations?” I remember once asking my Christian cousins why they went to a church meeting on Sunday. Quick came the cliche reply: “To worship God.” Digging a little deeper, I questioned if they would have done the same had they been born in a Hindu or a radical Muslim family. No answer this time.
In short, we are all dancing along to the convenient worship of our fathers without bothering to ascertain whether we are in the way of the truth or not.
All the same, Ruth stands as a testimony to the contrary. I'm unable to fully pinpoint from the passage, what triggered her decision. But one thing is crystal clear: she was determined to get a new identity. Her words in verses 16 and 17 emphasise her rock-solid conclusion. Most interestingly, she goes on to say to Naomi, “Where you die, I will die, and there I'll be buried.” She was not even planning to leave the land of Judah after Naomi's death! Do I conclude this to be an extravagant love for a mother-in-law? I think the rationale goes beyond this.
Whatever the reasons may be, Ruth was going to be identified with the Israelites from now on, and not otherwise. If this meant a lack of comforts, so be it. If this implied a radical difference in worship, so be it.
Finally Ruth binds herself to the relationship in the name of the Lord of Israel - “May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."
Christian marriage vows borrow from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer wherein the man says to the woman and vice versa, “I M. take thee N. to my wedded Wife/Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance.” In fact, many civil ceremonies grant the liberty to omit “till death us do part” or to make any similar opportune correction. Its no surprise that like most other vices in society, divorce happens because “its there”. Like some say, opportunities are not meant to be wasted.
For Ruth, breaking the commitment automatically necessitated punishment from God's hands. Here, I wish to revive my earlier thought that Naomi had absolutely nothing to give her. Nevertheless, this young Moabite woman had set her eyes elsewhere. For her, commitment ranked higher than benefit and that's a lesson worth learning in a wanton world.
As we shall later see, this was just the stepping stone for a miracle to happen: Eventually, Ruth entered the home of another like minded woman, who had forsaken her past to live with God's people. Together, they became the ancestors in the human lineage of the greatest individual history has ever seen – the man Jesus Christ.
May I close with an appropriate illustration courtesy Dr. Ravi Zacharias. He explains the possibility of two scenes at an airport enquiry desk.
Scene 1:
Man: Excuse me, I need help.
Receptionist: Yes, how may I help you?
Man: I think my suitcase has been stolen.
Receptionist: Sir, how did it happen?
Man: I had just left it there, at that coffee table, and gone to pay the bill. When I returned, it was gone.
Receptionist: I'm afraid you're right, sir – its lost.
Scene 2:
Man: Excuse me, I need help.
Receptionist: Yes, how may I help you?
Man: I think my suitcase is missing.
Receptionist: Sir, how did it happen?
Man: I checked in my baggage at your counter in the City Terminal yesterday. I've just found out its still not arrived here. Here's the reference number.
Receptionist: We'll immediately check this out. Rest assured, sir, we'll find it for you at the earliest.
Do you notice the difference?
We're still holding on to our lives, desperate to live on our own terms. How then, can you and I approach God for the problems in our lives when our lives are not committed into His hands in the first place?
