Ruth: Finally

The wonder of Ruth captivates me. The story is rich. A woman is stripped of her security and family, blaming God. A foreigner commits to a place and a people she does not know, because of God. A rich man protects relatives he only met, because of his faith in God.

We start the book of Ruth reading a list of names. We close the book in the same way. But the second list is more memorable, for it leads us to King David and ultimately to Jesus.

Men with clay feet, fearful and sickly, were replaced by a heritage of dignity and vigor. Naomi trusted her husband and sons to provide, but learned that that God’s provision is more wondrous.

This is much more than a sweet romance about two people who did the right thing and were rewarded. This is a powerful story about people drawn to health and restoration by God’s compassion and sovereignty.

Nations and lineages were redeemed in God’s plan.

Ruth is a book to encourage us to do as Ruth did: commit with all our heart and all our mind and all our soul and all our strength. For we have seen God work.

Ruth: Full Circle

In the first chapter of the book of Ruth, as Naomi returned to Bethlehem, she was greeted by a chorus of women, who greeted her: “Can this be Naomi?”

Maybe they didn’t expect to see her again. Or perhaps she was changed by time and grief.

In any case, Naomi responded with blame and bitterness: “Don’t call me Naomi. My name is now Mara (bitter).”

We can see a bit of a play on words in this exchange. The women were asking if this was Naomi, whose name meant pleasant. Naomi replied: I’m not pleasant but bitter.

But Naomi comes full circle by the end of the book. Again, the women greet her. This time, in Ruth 4:14, they don’t ask her a question but deliver a truth:
“Praise the Lord, who has not left you without a family redeemer today.” (Ruth 4:14)

This chorus of women is a used as a device to reveal Naomi’s state. Where they once questioned Naomi’s condition – and she saw herself as misused and bitter – now they declare to her a new state: blessed.

Where she thought God had stolen away her family, these women remind her that he has instead miraculously restored a family to her.

The text calls the new baby the son of Naomi, which legally would have been true. Under the law, this new son would replace her husband and sons, providing her with the protection she needed.

Naomi was redeemed. And the women joyfully deliver the good news to her: God, whom you assumed had stolen away your life, has instead restored it. Praise the Lord.

Ruth: Where Deities Reign

Last time, we discussed Ruth’s status as a Moabite. She was a foreigner in a day when foreigners were definitely outsiders. But Ruth understood two cultures and two religions.

The people of Ruth’s day understood that gods governed territories. For example, it was believed that the god of Moabites – Chemosh – ruled in the land of Moab and basically nowhere else. In leaving Moab, Ruth was leaving Chemosh. She was no longer under his authority but walking into the authority of God.

The question then became, was God as limited as Chemosh? The book of Ruth wrestles with the idea that although false gods were considered to be territorial, God is not. God reached out to Ruth while she was in Moab and drew her to himself. She believed God and was drawn to his presence. This was symbolized by her move to Bethlehem. Yet God was not limited to Israel. He touched Ruth while she was still in Moab.

The reader was then challenged to consider whether a foreigner could be used by God. Did God have any use for a foreigner?

Obviously, in the case of Ruth, God provided her with protection, with food and with fruitfulness. She came to Bethlehem – the land of God – and received astonishing kindness and a rich share of God’s divine plan.

God embraces all of his creation, not just those in Israel, and he uses any means – including a Moabite believer – to accomplish his purposes.

Ruth, the foreigner

Ruth was a foreigner in a strange home. She left her home and family, buoyed by a determined vow to Naomi, and entered a new world. Ruth undoubtedly wrestled with customs and inside jokes that everyone got but her. Although the language was similar, she may have stumbled over local idioms. And keeping track of the relatives may have seemed overwhelming.

Ruth could not shed the label, “the Moabite.” The author of Ruth reminds us in 2:2 of Ruth’s origin, calling her “Ruth the Moabite.” Later, when Boaz asked his servants to identify her, they referred to her as “the Moabite” and underscored her origin by adding “from the country of Moab.”

If Ruth wanted to minimize her alien status, she wasn’t getting much help. Did she recognize her vulnerable position as a foreigner? She responded to Boaz’s kindness with a question: "Why have I found favor in your sight, that you should take notice of me, when I am a foreigner?" She didn’t hide her status. She was a foreigner and her question implied that perhaps she had not found favor in the sight of others because her foreignness.

And, in case we miss the foreignness, our author labeled Ruth as “the Moabite” again in 2:21. Boaz called her “Ruth the Moabite” twice in his negotiations with the kinsman.

Did she feel isolated by the label? Did she feel torn between her new people and her family? Once she came to Bethlehem, did homesickness set in? She had one foot in two camps: her new family in Bethlehem and her family still in Moab. She knew both cultures; she knew both religions.

Next: where deities reign

Ruth: Rescuing a Line

Last week, we reviewed Perez’ story. If you remember, Perez was the son of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar. The connection to Ruth is simple: Boaz was in the line of Perez.

And isn’t it interesting that Perez’ story includes the same kind of kinsman-redeemer emphasis that we see in Ruth? Perez is a key element in our narrative of Ruth.

Let’s look at the redemption of a line.

Before we assume I mean Tamar was the one who needed the redemption, I want to point out a few things. First, sexual mores then were a little different than today. We don’t have any provisions today for a kinsman-redeemer and probably find the idea of a man sleeping with his brother’s widow just to produce a child for the dead brother to be rather repulsive. The Israelites did not. There was honor in that redemptive act.

Second, Judah himself declared that Tamar was more righteous than he was. His first assumption was that she had prostituted herself. When learning that she had only sought what was her legal right, he recognized his own shortcoming. It was he who had failed, not Tamar. He had not fulfilled his duty to her and was thus cheating her. Remember that a woman in those days was completed by child-bearing. When Judah refused to allow her to bear children, he became a swindler.

This is an important link to our story in Ruth because Perez is mentioned twice at the end of the story. First, the women blessing Boaz invoke Perez’ heritage. And then Perez was listed first in the genealogy of Obed. That was an intentional clue: Perez’ story was important in our understanding of Ruth.

Boaz re-cast Perez’ reputation. This son of Judah, born out of his father’s refusal to redeem, became the first name of the genealogy of King David.

The parallels between Tamar and Ruth are amazing. Both were childless widows who took initiative to bring about fullness in childbearing. They did not wait forever but took action and were joined together as only four women listed in Jesus’ lineage.

Ruth and Boaz both performed redemption for their family line. Each fulfilled his duty as a family member and restored to the descendants what had been lost. Their honor and sense of responsibility recovered a lost heritage.

Ruth: Perez?

Ruth’s marriage to Boaz represented a joining of two lines from Abraham who had divided from each other. In uniting with Boaz, Ruth was the mother of Obed. This marriage of Moab and Israel produced a union of two family lines producing not only King David, the greatest king of Israel, but also Jesus, the Messiah.

We’ve seen how Ruth was redeemed from her Moab roots and how God restored the rift of Moab and Israel.

But let’s not overlook Boaz. He was in the line of Perez. We’re told that in Ruth 4:18. Why Perez? Boaz was in the line of a number of people so why was Perez highlighted? That alone signals that we should check into Perez.

There’s a fascinating story behind Perez. If we go back to Genesis 38, we see a story that carries some eerie foreshadowing. In Genesis, we meet Judah, son of Israel, brother of Joseph. He had two sons near the same age. The first married a young woman named Tamar, a local girl--a foreigner by Israelite thinking.

When this first son, Er, died, Judah gave Tamar his second son, Onan. That was according to the custom of the redeemer-kinsman. Onan’s job was to provide Tamar with a child to carry on Er’s name. Onan refused to sire a child and then he died as well.

Because of the redeemer-kinsman law, Judah was required to provide Tamar with another son. Judah’s third son, Shelah, was apparently only a boy, not old enough to father a child. So Judah asked Tamar to wait until Shelah was older. And she did.

Judah, however, didn’t keep his end of the deal. Tamar learned that Shelah was a grown man but Judah hadn’t sent him to Tamar. By this time, Judah’s wife had died as well. After a time of grieving, Judah returned to his work. Tamar took initiative at this point. Upon hearing that Judah was off to shear sheep, she changed out of her widow clothes and disguised herself, sitting at the side of the road.

She may have only gone there to spy on Judah, to see for herself that he had not kept his end of the deal. Maybe she hoped he would see her and discuss things with her. Maybe she planned to speak to him.

At any rate, he mistook her for a temple prostitute and offered to sleep with her. Tamar may have seen the answer to her dilemma in that request. Judah himself could be the kinsman-redeemer to her. She was no fool. She requested evidence of his identification. And she became pregnant by him. The result of that union was twins: Zerah and Perez.

Boaz was of the line of Perez. We know this story is significant to the story of Ruth.

Next time: redemption of a line

Ruth: A Sad Story

Last week, we looked at the split between Lot and Abraham, with Lot moving into territory that included Sodom and Gomorrah.

Our purposes don’t require a long look at that tragic story. We know that Lot and his family moved into Sodom, surrounded by wickedness. Lot, his wife and two daughters were rescued just before God sent fiery judgment to the two cities.


Lot and his daughters hid in a cave in the hills. Apparently their fear was great, for it didn’t seem that they intended to come out for a long time. This leads us to an odd little story in Gen 19:31-38 that makes us a little squeamish.


In that story, the two daughters, convinced that they would never leave the cave and bear children, got their father drunk and seduced him.


Lot’s two daughters believed themselves to be barren. They had no access to “seed” and they took matters into their own hands. Both became pregnant by their father and bore sons.


The second son was named Ammon. The first son was called Moab.


We are, through this story, introduced to the founders of two nations that later would be enemies of Israel. Moab would grow up to found the Moabite people and thus was the great-great-great-grandfather of Ruth. (There aren’t enough “great’s” there but you get the idea.)


The Moabites had at different times raided Israel and oppressed the people. There was much brokenness between the two ancient clans. A Moabite would not be received as a friend and Ruth probably faced much wariness from the residents of Bethlehem.


Isn’t God’s hand amazing, however? Ruth represented an enemy to the Israelites. She represented brokenness, oppression, idolatry – the things true of Moab. But Ruth had renounced her heritage to serve the true God. So Ruth instead represented the reconciliation of brokenness between Moab and Israel. The pattern was set in Ruth’s life as God brought together two factions who were driven apart by sin (incest) but restored in the child, Obed.


Boaz represented Israel: Ruth represented Moab. Two nations ripped apart by the consequences of sin, bruised from many years of brokenness and fighting, were brought together in these two people. Stubborn faith carried Ruth to Bethlehem and sustained her until the time was right. Their marriage – their child – represented a mending of a slash that had stained these two nations for centuries.


Ruth and Boaz were reconcilers who began a heritage leading first to the man who established the safe boundaries for Israel, King David, and then to the ultimate Reconciler, Jesus the Messiah.

Ruth: Redeeming Heritage

To help us understand another thread of Ruth, we will journey back to the time of Abraham, nearly 1000 years before Ruth. Do you remember the story? God asked Abraham to leave his homeland of Ur and travel to a new promised land. Abraham faithfully set out with his family – his wife, Sarah, and his nephew, Lot. They eventually arrived in Canaan, where they settled with God’s promise.

God promised to make a great nation out of Abraham’s offspring. He promised to bless Abraham and his descendants. This is ironic because at this point, Abraham had no offspring. In fact, Abraham and Sarah were getting older and the prospect of a child grew dimmer with each passing year.

Like Ruth, Sarah was barren and empty.

But let’s turn our attention to Lot, Abraham’s nephew. We are told that Abraham took Lot with him when he headed west for this yet-unspecified land where God was sending them. Lot accompanied Abraham to Canaan and settled there with him.

Lot is described in 2 Peter 2:7-8 as a righteous man, tormented by the lawlessness that surrounded him. Lot followed Abraham because he, too, trusted God.

Lot’s history is important to our understanding of Ruth. Both Lot and Abraham had large flocks of sheep. Eventually their herdsmen got to arguing. I live in wide-open Colorado, where the answer would be easy: just move a few miles down the road and all will be fine. But that’s not the geography of the Promised Land. Instead, these two big herds kept bumping into each other and the herdsmen kept tussling over grassland and water wells.
Abraham didn’t want strife between himself and his nephew. He said to Lot, “Hey, we’re family! We don’t want to be fighting over something like this!”

Abraham suggested that he and Lot choose separate lands. It reminds me of the old adage that good fences make good neighbors. If the herdsmen knew where their territory was, they wouldn’t keep running into the other herd.

Lot agreed and Abraham allowed him to choose first. Lot was perhaps a little greedy in selecting the best land for himself, and the sad part is that his new rich territory included two wicked and well-renowned cities: Sodom and Gomorrah.

Next time: A sad story

Ruth: At the threshing floor

The idea seemed like a good one to Naomi. She was responsible for Ruth and there was really no solution except marriage. As we take a look at Ruth 3, we see a new turn in our story. I hope you’ve read Ruth 3.

Naomi couldn’t have expected that Boaz would mend her barrenness, for she was too old for children. Naomi sent Ruth to Boaz hoping for a marriage. Her motivation seemed to be concern for Ruth’s security, something that had been on her mind since she had started the trip home from Bethlehem. She expressed that concern to Ruth: shouldn’t I try to find a home for you?

Naomi instructed Ruth to adorn herself like a bride and go to Boaz in the night, uncovering his feet and lying there in a position of submission. The scene crackles with sexual overtones, much like chapter 2.

Our attention is drawn away from the land. Instead, we see that Naomi arranged for Ruth to be redeemed. A marriage gave Ruth opportunity for home and children. Naomi was arranging for the greatest blessing an Israelite woman could enjoy: offspring.

Boaz was to provide that seed. Indeed, we notice that, after the discussion at the threshing floor, Boaz sends Ruth home to Naomi with her apron filled with seed – a foreshadowing of pregnancy.
We feel certain that Ruth would bear children, that Boaz would provide the seed.

And in a wonderful extra benefit, Boaz agreed to fulfill another kinsman-redeemer function. He redeemed Naomi’s land as well.

God’s activities are like one in the shadows but we can see his gentle provision. Naomi, who accused God of abandoning her, saw the turn of events. Both land and offspring were returned to her, flowing smoothly out of God’s redemptive plan.

Next time: redeeming heritage

Ruth: kinsman-redeemer

In ancient Israel, a kinsman-redeemer had specific legal responsibilities. Always male, the kinsman-redeemer was a blood relative who had the duty of protecting his weaker relatives.

He had to redeem land that his relatives were forced to sell and was expected to defend the relative.

Redemption was the process by which people, property and prestige were restored to a family that has lost them. The redeemer was the designated family member who was expected to recover that which was lost.

We see the picture of the blood relative helping those who are unable to help themselves.

Redemption also included the levirate, which is key to our story in Ruth. A levirate redeemer was expected to beget and raise a child with the widow of his dead brother in order to carry on the brother’s name.

Tamar, in Genesis 28, invoked this right in demanding Jacob provide her with a levirate. Read Tamar’s story this week, because it is important in our understanding of the book of Ruth.

In Ruth, our storyline makes a quick change as we, and Naomi, realize that Boaz, who has generously shared his harvest abundance with Ruth, was a kinsman-redeemer for Naomi.

Naomi, at the beginning of chapter 3, began a plan to restore her husband’s name. She herself was too old for children but Ruth was not. So Naomi hoped to convince Boaz to provide a child.

She may not have been angling for a marriage for Ruth, but simply a levirate meeting in the night might be enough to provide the child needed to carry on the family name. Notice she says to Ruth, “he will tell you what to do.” (Ruth 3:4)

Ruth had vowed “where you go I will go.” In other words, what happened to Naomi happened to Ruth. And vice versa. They were united. And now Naomi sent Ruth out as her representative to a kinsman-redeemer, hoping for a levirate meeting to produce a harvest – a child.

Next time: at the threshing floor

Ruth: different fields

Last week we looked at how Naomi and Ruth returned to a bountiful harvest in Bethlehem. Their emptiness matched the fields of Bethlehem back when Naomi left. But now they came back (remember our discussion of “shub”) to a rich harvest.

There’s a parallel between those fields and the women. The womb of these women were like a field; their barrenness caused by a lack of seed. Their “fields” remained barren as long as they lacked husbands, who would provide the “seed” for the harvest.

We see the dangers to Ruth in the field. Presumably, there was some possibility that she might be molested as she gathered in the fields.

But she just happened to start in the field of Boaz. We learn quickly that he is of the family of Elimilech and we start to anticipate. But Ruth did not. She asked for permission to gather in this field, working hard since early morning to provide for Naomi and herself.

Boaz agreed, calling her “my daughter.” Although scholars think he was a generation older than Ruth, his words indicate that he accepted her into his family to watch over her like a daughter. And his immediate concern was that she not gather in any other field. She need not fear the young men in his fields, implying that she should fear the young men in other fields.

Suddenly our barren young widow was surrounded by fertility and sexuality: of the fruitful harvest and also of virile young men who might take advantage of her. It mattered where she gathered. There was the danger of her going to the wrong field and her emptiness filled by the wrong man.

As the story unfolds, Naomi realized that Boaz offered hope to restore her lands: He was a kinsman-redeemer. In other words, he had the legal right to redeem Naomi’s land.

We’ll look at that kinsman-redeemer process next time.

Ruth: harvest

Last week we talked about how empty life looked for Naomi. She’d endured a famine, a move to a foreign country, and the loss of her husband and sons. She returned to Bethlehem angry with God, certain he had been unduly harsh to her.

But as our story rolls into chapter 2 of Ruth, we see the harvest. I asked you to look for the harvest words you could find. You should have seen words like “field” and “glean” and “ears of corn.” There’s a wealth of harvest terms in the second chapter. This is no accident.

In chapter one, we saw emptiness and death. Now, in chapter two, we see fullness and harvest, the gleaning of the abundance.

Harvest for a farmer is the culmination of the season’s work. A farmer plows and prepares the soil, plants the seed, tends the plants, pulls weeds, waits for rain, and then harvests the crop. The harvest is the fruit, the completion, the abundance that comes from the work.

Into that picture of abundance came our two empty women, Naomi and Ruth.

Once in Bethlehem, Ruth went to work. She headed out to the harvest field to pick up the leftovers. The custom of the day allowed widows to gather what grain slipped through the reapers’ grasp. It was hard work but it yielded food. Ruth, the young empty widow, was now gathering barley grain in a harvest so plentiful that there were leftovers. She was an empty field entering a field filled with the seed of abundance. We can sense the changing winds here.

What Naomi could not do for herself, Ruth did.

Next time: different kinds of fields

Ruth: the dawn's coming

When purpose is lost, powerful emotions surge through our veins. We are angered, numbed, stricken. The loss may possess our waking moments, consuming us in the passion of reconciliation. Or we may buckle under the weight, crushed by the hopeless of recovery.

For ancient Israel, the concept of the blessing was a powerful one, wrapping them in a warm cocoon of protection. From the time of Abraham, they had trusted in two parts of the promise from God: land and offspring.

God came to Abraham with a promise and a blessing. In Genesis 12:2, God promised to bring a great nation from Abraham’s line and to bless all the people of the earth through Abraham. This great pledge sustained the people who descended from Abraham. Their greatest desire was for offspring. Their children represented their greatest yearning for God’s purposes and blessings.

The land was closely linked to offspring. God, after his tremendous blessing in Gen 12:2, made a second amazing promise: I will give this land to your offspring. Thus came the dual promise of land and offspring. They were linked through God’s promise to Abraham.

Imagine Naomi. She was an empty woman who had lost all of God’s promises. Her family had left the land during the famine and now she returned, without family and without land. She was barren, a widow in a culture that treasured land and offspring, not old used-up women.

The author of Ruth weaves those two desires – for children and offspring – and pulls the threads tight in his story. Naomi accused God of failing her, of forgetting his promises. She left Bethlehem with the land barren. Now she returned, barren herself. We are to understand that the lack of seed forced her to leave Moab and she returned to Bethlehem with lack of seed – or offspring. However, she failed to notice that the land is no longer barren, a foreshadowing of the fertility coming.

Notice the number of farming or harvest words that appear in chapter 2. From the second verse, where we see “field” and “glean” and “ears of corn,” to the end of the chapter, we see a wealth of harvest terms. This is no accident.

Read chapter 2 of Ruth and notice all the harvest words you see there.

Next week: the abundance of the land

Ruth: common sense

When Naomi decided to go home, it wasn’t out of remorse or a desire for reconciliation. She went home because there was plenty of food in Bethlehem. It’s hard to give her credit for higher motives than that. She’d left searching for provision and it made sense to her to return for the same reason.

Naomi used common sense and her own practicality to take care of her own needs. But do you notice the emptiness and bitterness in her heart? Even when Ruth poured out a beautiful statement of love and commitment (Ruth 1:16-17), Naomi said no more to Ruth. She didn’t argue; she just didn’t respond. There was no pledge of any sort of love to Ruth or offer of any encouragement. She just continued to Bethlehem with Ruth in tow.

Naomi trusted her own common sense to provide for her daughters-in-law. The idea of sending them back to their families and their gods was not distasteful to her. It was practical. They needed husbands and children. They wouldn’t find those with her. If going back to their mother’s homes meant idolatry, that was a shame. But at least they’d have families. Her common sense blinded her to the bigger issue.

What Naomi wanted for Ruth and Orpah was rest. Some translations call it security or comfort or permanence, but Naomi urged Ruth and Orpah to go back to their mothers. There, she believed, they would have physical prosperity.

She assumed these young women would want what she wants. Again, common sense told her there is no other priority for a woman than to be married and have children. She can imagine nothing else for Ruth and Orpah.

Don’t we make plans and then ask God to bless them? Don’t we worry when our child leaves for college? We assume the right to anxiety and worry, couching them in terms that sooth our conscience. It’s nothing new, this confidence in common thinking and personal analysis.

We sometimes think that there is a scripture inscribed on a card somewhere assuring us that “God helps those who help themselves.”

It’s the theology of common sense. Naomi returned to Bethlehem trusting her own perspective. But God had something new for Naomi to look at.

Ruth: turning back to abundance

Naomi was determined to be angry with God. In our study of Ruth, we’ve examined her difficulties. She lost her husband and sons. She was returning to Bethlehem, limping in and feeling pretty bruised.

Here are a few more instances of how the book of Ruth deals with shub, the idea of returning or turning back from a chosen path.

Ruth 1:21 "I went out full, but the LORD has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the LORD has witnessed against me and the Almighty has afflicted me?"

Here is where the complaints begin, as Naomi enters Bethlehem. She returns empty and that’s God’s fault. But she returns. Remember that she left Moab because she heard of the abundance in Bethlehem, but in her return, she’s in a bitter mood.

Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and with her Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the land of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest.

Notice that the two women both returned. Ruth is identified with Naomi. They are as one, so to speak, both returning to their homeland.

Ruth 2:6 The servant in charge of the reapers replied, "She is the young Moabite woman who returned with Naomi from the land of Moab.

In case we miss the point, our author repeats it when Ruth goes to the harvest fields. Ruth returned. She is bonded with Naomi and has come to her adopted homeland. It’s an important point, one the author underlines for us.

Ruth 4:3 Then he said to the closest relative, "Naomi, who has come back from the land of Moab, has to sell the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech.

Boaz, in discussing redemption opportunities with kin, reminds him of Naomi’s homecoming. Naomi came back from Moab, thereby also reminding him and other listeners of Ruth’s land of origin as well. Otherwise, how could he explain this young Moabite woman who is bonded to Naomi?

Ruth 4:15 "May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him."

Now the women, who heard Naomi’s complaints at the gate when she returned to Bethlehem, remind Naomi that God has returned to her life and offspring. Our author turns the concept of return around, showing how God has returned to Naomi what she thought he had ripped away.

Naomi returned to God’s fullness in Bethlehem, convinced of his bitter hand against her. Because of that return, she experienced restoration as God returned to her that which was lost. Her return, done begrudgingly, opened the door to God’s abundance.

Ruth: an incredible pledge

We’ve been discussing the idea of shub, or return. In the book of Ruth, the first chapter is rich with this returning. Naomi returns to her homeland. She begs her daughters-in-law to return to their homes.

Let’s take a look at few more uses of shub in Ruth:

Ruth 1:15 Then she said, "Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back (shub) to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law."

Orpah gives up. She kisses Naomi good-bye and returns to her mother and her gods. The problem is now revealed. Naomi is not just sending these young women back to their homes, but also back to their gods. She releases them from worship of God, which has apparently been the family tradition. Naomi now turns to Ruth, who is standing firm. Look, Naomi says, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and her gods. Go do the same thing. You need to return as well.

Ruth 1:16 But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or turn back (shub) 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.”

Ruth responds with an incredible pledge. She commits herself to Naomi like a bondservant might. “Your people are my people. Your God is my God. For me to return is to go to Bethlehem with you. What is “return” for you is “return” for me. I identify myself with you. I am your servant.”

Naomi abandons the debate. She says no more to Ruth but instead heads for home.

Ruth has bonded herself to Naomi. That returning or turning back will change both their lives.

We’ll look at Naomi’s stubborn point of view next time, when she ignores the companion that God has given her while insisting that God has left her destitute and empty.

Ruth: shub

Yesterday we learned a new Hebrew word, shub, which means “return.” Shub captures the idea of movement to an earlier state and, as a key word in the book of Ruth, captures an important idea in the book.

Let’s take a look at the uses of shub in the first chapter:

Ruth 1:6 Then she arose with her daughters-in-law that she might return (“shub”) from the land of Moab…

Maybe Naomi’s allegiance is still more closely tied to Moab, for her thoughts are of her new home.

Ruth 1:7 So she departed from the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law with her; and they went on the way to shub to the land of Judah.

Now the focus is on Bethlehem. She’s returning to her homeland, a prodigal of sorts coming back in emptiness and defeat.

Ruth 1:8 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.

Naomi thinks of the two young women in her care and tries to send them back to their homeland. She doesn’t plan to bring two young Moabite women to Bethlehem. She blessed their kindness and wishes to send them to their own people.

Ruth 1:9 And they said to her, "No, but we will surely return with you to your people."

The daughters-in-law refuse. They are family now and they intend to tie their fate to hers. They aren’t literally returning to Bethlehem, for they have never been there. But they are committed: what happens to Naomi happens to them. They are returning because Naomi is returning.

Ruth 1:10 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?”

Now we see a verbal tug of war. The daughters intend to “return” to Bethlehem (they are not literally from there) but Naomi intends them to actually return to their own

roots. She rejects their commitment, setting them free. They need not feel a family covenant. They can return to their past.

Ruth 1:12 "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…”

Both daughters have demurred, indicating they will follow Naomi. So she takes a harder line: your hope is in husband and offspring. I can do nothing to help you. She assumes their hope is as hers, and that the way to fullness is in their past.

We’ll keep looking at this concept next time.

Ruth: return

The idea of homecoming, or returning, is an essential part of Hebrew texts. “Return” means to movement to an earlier state.

Jacob, after fleeing his homeland to escape his irate brother, returns with a family and a future. It was at Bethel, on that return journey, that Jacob wrestled with God and received God’s renewed covenant promise to care for him. Centuries later, his family had become a nation while in Egypt. They returned to their Promised Land, led by Moses. God remembered his promise to Abraham and allowed the nation to return.

Genesis tells the story of people returning to dust upon death. We yearn to return to the pre-sin Garden of Eden. To repent is to return to a state of favor with God.

In Ruth the word for “return” used 19 times in 13 verses. Not all Bible translations use the word “return” every time, but the original Hebrew text selects shub for all 19 occurrences. Shub occurs most often as Naomi prepares for her Bethlehem homecoming.

The word shub primarily means to physically return or go back to a place. However, several times in the Old Testament, shub means to return from exile. In those cases, there is the sense of God reclaiming those who have walked away from him. There is a strong sense of repentance, of turning away from past sin and returning to God.

. All of us wrestle with return. Where do we go? Do we return to God? Do we return to a former way of life? Do we return to the dreams we once abandoned. There are many possibilities.

Tomorrow, we’ll take a closer look at the idea of return

Ruth: hints

The stage is set. We see the hints of Naomi’s transformation in this first chapter of Ruth. She was empty, blaming God. Her focus was on the physical: food, land, name, family. And in that, she believed God has failed her. Accustomed to taking matters into her own hands. (her family left Bethlehem rather than count on God’s provision), she returned to Bethlehem to partake in the abundance she heard of.

Bitter at God’s failure, she didn’t descend into atheism and she didn’t embrace the Moabite gods. She simply distanced herself from God. He was still the God on the throne but apparently caring little for Naomi.

Naomi didn’t believe that God, in love, had provided for her needs.

She accused God of bringing her back empty. But what she didn’t see was that she returned with Ruth (so she wasn’t even alone as she claimed) during the barley harvest. Naomi came back to Bethlehem in its most fruitful time. That one statement foreshadows the rest of the story. Things are not as they appear.

God had a lot more in store for Naomi than just enough food to eat. He had a restoration of her family line, redemption of her land, and blessings beyond what she could imagine.

Naomi – who blamed God for the hopeless of her empty life – would soon have a son who will be the grandfather of King David. Life looked hopeless to Naomi but fullness was the truth of her future.

Next: coming home

Ruth: limping home

Last week we discussed Naomi’s decision to go to Bethlehem alone, leaving her daughters-in-law behind.

In sending her daughters-in-law back to their homes, Naomi declared that she was too old to provide sons for them to marry one day. She was utterly alone. Her full life was gone. Destitution had settled on Naomi like a limp robe and she believed that God, for some reason she didn’t understand, had turned his back on her, violating his promises.

Only a few verses later, she added to the protest. She believed she left Bethlehem full but the Lord was bringing her back empty. She even blamed the return to Bethlehem on God’s hand. She accused God of dealing harshly with her, of bringing calamity on her. Her agony turned to blame. The great covenant-making God, who had brought her people out of slavery in Egypt, had apparently welched on his promise. In Naomi’s eyes, God had shown himself to be unpredictable and moody, dealing bitterly with her for no reason she could understand.

She told the women at Bethlehem that she left full but now returned empty. God let her down. She was in Bethlehem with her family. But God could not provide the food needed and so the family was forced to go to Moab.

In Moab, things were good for a time but then they went sour. The famine had now appeared in Naomi’s heart. Although she blamed God for the famine in Bethlehem and now the famine in her soul, when she heard that God has blessed Bethlehem again, she headed for home.

She recognized God’s sovereignty but believed he has turned against her. He could provide security but not in her case.

Naomi thought she was simply returning to Bethlehem. But next time, we’ll see that she’s about to walk into abundance.