Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryRuth 1

The Book of RUTH INTRODUCTION 1. Title. The book of Ruth forms an appendix to the book of Judges, and an introduction to the following two historical books of Samuel. It receives its title from the name of the person whose story it tells. Hebrew proper names have meanings. These are lost to the reader of the English translation of the Bible, because the translators have simply transliterated the proper names without attempting to give their meanings. Ruth was a Moabitish woman, and naturally her name is not Hebrew. The derivation and meaning of the name are uncertain, though some think it may be related to the verb ra‘ah, “to associate with,” and thus mean “friend,” or “friendship.” The book of Ruth gives us, not the story of romantic love, but of the reverential love of a young widow for the mother of her deceased husband. The love portrayed in the character of Ruth is of the purest, most unselfish, and extraordinary kind. Though a Moabitess, Ruth accepted Naomi’s faith as her own, and was rewarded by marriage to a Jewish nobleman, Boaz, by whom she became the ancestress of David, and thus, eventually, of Christ. 2. Authorship. Critics have debated the authorship of the book of Ruth. As in the case of the book of Daniel, there are some who set the date of writing early and some who set it much later. The theory of a postexilic origin for Ruth is ably presented in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Some critics have assumed that the book represents a subtle argument in favor of intermarriage between the Jews and other peoples, since it states that David descended from such a marriage. They suggest that it was written in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah as a protest against their stringent laws prohibiting marriage between Jews and non-Jews. The five chief reasons set forth by those who believe that the book of Ruth was written in postexilic times are these: 1. The expression “in the days when the judges ruled” (ch. 1:1) implies a later date for the writing of the book. 2. The fact that the book of Ruth appears in the third section of the Hebrew canon implies late composition. 3. The book contains a number of Aramaisms which would not appear in a pre-exilic narrative. 4. The genealogy at the close of the book shows definite influence of the priestly school. 5. The expression “in former time” (ch. 4:7) seems to imply that the shoe ceremony and the redemption of land and women were no longer practiced. These arguments are, however, far from conclusive. The expression “in the days when the judges ruled” implies no more than that the book of Ruth, as we have it, was written after the close of the period of the judges, but not necessarily long after. It is interesting to note that in one of the oldest versions, the LXX, this book is added to the book of Judges without even a separate title, as if it were truly the concluding part of Judges, a kind of appendix. The position of Ruth in the present Hebrew canon is no valid argument for the lateness of its composition. The present Hebrew canon is itself of late origin, and the position of the book of Ruth in the early versions is the same as that in which we find it in the KJV, after the book of Judges and in some cases with no separate heading of its own. A detailed study has shown that the Aramaic words to which the critics have pointed as proof of a late origin occur also in other writings whose pre-exilic

dating is uncontested. The genealogy at the close of the book of Ruth would not be satisfactory proof of postexilic origin unless it first be granted that certain portions of the books of Moses and Joshua are also of postexilic origin. The expression “in former time” may imply that the shoe ceremony and the redemption of land and of widows are of the past, but not necessarily of the long-forgotten past. In fact, a careful study of the book of Ruth has led many scholars to the conclusion that the book is likely to have been of pre- exilic origin. This is doubtless all that can be said as to the date of the writing of the book of Ruth. The written form of the book of Ruth, as we now have it, probably originated in the time of David himself, and it seems to fit best in the early days of his reign. Some have thought that Samuel was the author of the story in its present form. This would explain the position of the book of Ruth at the close of the book of Judges and preceding Samuel (see on Judges 17:1; 18:29). Its position in the later Hebrew canon would naturally be among the Writings, since it could not appropriately be included among the books of Moses or among the prophets. According to Jewish tradition, as recorded in the Talmud, the prophet Samuel wrote not only the books bearing his name but also the book of Judges and that of Ruth. Though not itself a prophecy, the book of Ruth may accordingly have been written by one of the greatest of prophets. 3. Historical Setting. The setting of the story is explicitly stated in the opening words of the book: “In the days when the judges ruled, … there was a famine in the land.” Yet this statement is by no means definite, for there was more than one famine in the land of Palestine during the time of the judges. However, by comparing the genealogy of David as given in the last verses of the book of Ruth with David’s genealogy as given in the first chapter of Matthew, we discover Boaz’ mother listed as Rahab. There are no compelling reasons for supposing this to be any other than the Rahab of Jericho (see on Matt. 1:5). If she was his own mother, the book of Ruth would come rather early in the period of the judges. On the other hand, ancient tradition, followed by Josephus, places the events of the book of Ruth in the time of Eli, which would better fit Boaz as David’s great- grandfather. Either could be true, since “mother” and “father” can also mean grandparent or ancestor (see on 1 Kings 15:10; Ezra 7:1). The picture of customs, society, and government reflected in the book of Ruth agrees with that given of the period of the judges as set forth in the book of Judges itself. This becomes more evident as one studies the details of the Ruth narrative. The suggestion that the famine mentioned is the one that occurred in the time of Gideon is most improbable, for there is no indication that the famine recorded in the book of Ruth was caused by armed invaders (Ruth 1:1, 2; cf. Judges 6:3–6). The book gives no hint of war; in fact, when Naomi decided to return home, it was because she heard that Jehovah had visited His people and given them bread (see on Ruth 1:6). This implies that the famine was not the result of war but of drought. As already stated, the Greek translators of the Old Testament Scriptures made this book an appendix to the book of Judges, with no division or title of its own. Later editions of this translation, the LXX, inserted Telos ton kriton, “the end of the Judges,” to indicate where the break came between Judges and Ruth, and Telos tes Routh, “the end of Ruth,” at the close of the narrative. The book of Ruth occupies a different place in the present Hebrew canon. It is one of five rolls read in the synagogue on five special occasions or festivals during the year. In printed editions of the Hebrew Old Testament

these rolls are usually arranged in the following order: Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. Ruth occupies the second position because the book was appointed to be read at the Feast of Weeks, later known as Pentecost, the second of the five special festivals. As already noted, translators of the LXX appended Ruth to the book of Judges. This corresponds well with the time of Eli, the high priest, in the latter days of whose life Samuel was called to the prophetic office. An important act of Samuel’s life was the anointing of Saul, the first king of Israel. The last words of the book of Judges read, “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Moab was, at this time, a district east of the Dead Sea, between the river Arnon and the brook Zered. Its eastern boundary was indefinite, being the great desert of Arabia. This region is a high, fertile tableland, averaging some 3,000 ft. (914.6 m.) above the level of the Mediterranean Sea and 4,300 ft. (1,311 m.) above the level of the Dead Sea. Though the rainfall is usually sufficient to mature the crops, people living in the uplands augment their supply of water by means of cisterns. Many of those used in ancient times are now in ruins. Formerly the population must have been far greater than now. The fertility of the country in ancient times is indicated by the numerous towns and villages known to have existed there, and mentioned in the Scriptures. The land of Moab still provides good pasture for sheep and cattle, as it did in ancient times. The Moabites were of Semitic stock, being descendants of Lot, Abraham’s nephew. Their chief deity was Chemosh, who seems to have been propitiated by human sacrifices (see 2 Kings 3:26, 27). We know but little of the history of the Moabites after the account of their origin, given in Gen. 19, until the time of the Exodus. Some time before the establishment of the kingdom in Israel, the Amorites occupied that part of Moab lying north of the Arnon, but Israel subdued the Amorites and occupied their part of what had been Moabite territory (see Num. 21:26; Judges 11:12–27; see on Num. 21:13; 22:1). When Balak, the son of Zippor, saw that the Israelites encamped upon the very borders of his country, he entered into an alliance with the Midianites and called in the aid of the apostate prophet Balaam. An inscription of Ramses II on the base of a statue at Luxor boasts of the conquest of Moab. Israel was oppressed by Eglon of Moab, with the aid of Ammon and Amalek (Judges 3:13, 14), but Eglon was assassinated by Ehud, and the Moabite yoke was cast off. King Saul smote Moab, but did not subdue it (1 Sam. 14:47), for we find David placing his father and mother under the protection of the king of Moab when he was pursued by Saul (1 Sam. 22:3, 4). The fact that David’s great-grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabitess may explain why David would place his father and mother under the protection of the king of Moab when he fled from King Saul. But this friendship between David and Moab did not continue. When David became king he made war on Moab and completely defeated it. There were two Bethlehems in ancient Palestine. One was situated in territory assigned to the tribe of Zebulun, the other in Judah. Because of possible confusion the writer of the book of Ruth definitely notes twice, at the very beginning of his account, that the Bethlehem of Naomi and her husband, Elimelech, and their two sons was Bethlehem-judah (ch. 1:1, 2). The Bethlehem in Zebulun is mentioned in Joshua 19:15 as one of the 12 cities in the inheritance of the children of Zebulun. There is still a small

village in northern Palestine at the place where this Bethlehem is thought to have been situated. But it is the Bethlehem in Judah that interests us. It is a town of some 15,000 inhabitants, 5 1/4 mi. (8.4 km.) south of Jerusalem and about 2,400 ft. (731.7 m.) above sea level. It occupies an outstanding position on a spur running east from the watershed. It is just off the main road to Hebron and the south. The position is one of natural strength, and was occupied by a garrison of Philistines in the days of David (2 Sam. 23:14; 1 Chron. 11:16). 4. Theme. There is narrative that is historic, and narrative that is epic. The word epic is applied to narrative whose appeal is not primarily to our sense of information but to our creative imagination and to the emotions. An epic is usually written in poetic form. A peculiarity of Hebrew poetry, however, is that its verse system is based on parallelism of thought rather than on exact meter and rhyme. This characteristic also appears, to a lesser extent, in Hebrew prose. Thus, in Hebrew, the classification of literature depends more on the nature of the thought than on the form of expression. Hebrew epics are portions of the national history fitted into their proper place in the narrative. Appreciation of the Bible as literature calls for a recognition of the different forms of narrative used by Bible writers. The chief purpose of the book of Ruth is to give information concerning the immediate ancestors of David, the greatest of the kings of Israel, the one in whose line was to come the Messiah. Christ is to be the eventual ruler of the kingdom of Israel after the spirit, the leader of the eternal theocracy. Christ spoke of His kingdom as the kingdom of heaven, to distinguish it from the kingdoms of this present world. The book of Ruth thus provides a cheering link in the inspired narrative of the kingdom Christ came to establish. At the same time Ruth presents a most appealing picture of the blessings of the ideal home. There are two institutions that have come down to us from before the fall of man—the Sabbath and the home. The home was established by God Himself on the sixth day of the first week of time, and the Sabbath on the seventh day of the same week. The Sabbath is not Jewish, for, as the Creator Himself said, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Both the Sabbath and the home have become the special objects of Satan’s attacks. The relationship of mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is a subject of amusement to many. But not so that of Ruth and her mother-in-law, Naomi. After a sojourn of ten years in the land of Moab, Naomi, whose husband and two sons had died, learned that a condition of plenty again prevailed in the land of Judah, and decided to return. Ruth, with a devotion that speaks almost as much for Naomi as it does for Ruth herself, broke all ties of home and kindred to accompany her. With a last look at the fertile fields of her homeland, Moab, and with an impassioned outburst to Naomi, “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God,” she entered a strange land, united with God’s true people, and became a worshiper of the God of heaven. This devotion to her mother-in-law resulted, finally, in her becoming one of the progenitors of David, the sweet psalmist of Israel; Solomon, the wisest of the sons of men; Zerubbabel, the later Moses; and the Messiah, the son of David. Finally the story is replete with superb examples of faith, piety, humility, industry, and loving-kindness revealed in the ordinary occurrences of life. Thus we have in the story of Ruth, not only a charming gem of Hebrew literature, but also a significant comment on a part of the genealogy of Christ (see on Matt. 1:4–6).

Israel should have been prepared by a study of this narrative to understand God’s plan for the salvation of individuals of all nations who would do as Ruth the Moabitess did— accept the God whose character had been represented to them by His servants. It was God’s plan that many would thus be so transformed in character as to be prepared individually to become citizens of the eternal kingdom of Christ (see COL 290). 5. Outline. I. Sojourn in the Land of Moab, 1:1–18. A. Naomi loses her husband and two sons, 1:1–5. 1. Famine in the land of Judah, 1:1. 2. Elimelech, Naomi, and their sons go to Moab, 1:2. 3. Death of Elimelech, 1:3. 4. Marriage and death of the two sons, 1:4, 5. B. Naomi plans to return to Judah, 1:6–14. 1. Reason for her return, 1:6. 2. Suggestion that the daughters-in-law stay, 1:7–9. 3. Reason for Naomi’s suggestion, 1:10–13. 4. Different decisions of the two girls, 1:14. C. Ruth decides to go with her mother-in-law, 1:15–18. 1. Naomi’s plea to Ruth, 1:15. 2. Ruth’s moving reply, 1:16, 17. 3. Naomi’s acquiescence, 1:18. II. Journey and Arrival at Bethlehem, 1:19–22. A. The people of Bethlehem welcome Naomi and Ruth, 1:19. B. Naomi’s reply, 1:20, 21. C. The time of their arrival, 1:22. III. Ruth Meets Boaz, 2:1–23. A. Ruth gleans in the field of Boaz, 2:1–7. 1. Naomi has a kinsman, 2:1. 2. Ruth goes gleaning, 2:2, 3. 3. Chief servant of Boaz tells him about Ruth, 2:4–7. B. Conversation between Boaz and Ruth, 2:8–13. 1. Boaz shows favor to Ruth, 2:8, 9. 2. Ruth inquires the reason for this favor, 2:10. 3. Boaz repeats the good things that he has heard about Ruth, 2:11, 12. 4. Ruth expresses her thanks, 2:13. C. Dinner and afternoon work, 2:14–17. 1. Ruth’s share in noon meal, 2:14. 2. Ruth’s special privileges and afternoon gleaning, 2:15–17. D. Ruth’s return to her mother-in-law, 2:18–23. 1. Ruth bring back grain and food, 2:18. 2. Naomi asks where Ruth has been, 2:19. 3. Naomi explains that Boaz is a close relative, 2:20, 21. 4. Future plans for Ruth’s gleaning, 2:22, 23. IV. Naomi Seeks a Home for Ruth, 3:1–18. A. Naomi explains her plan to Ruth, 3:1–5. B. Ruth carries out the plan, 3:6–13.

C. The gift and instruction of Boaz to Ruth, 3:14, 15. D. Ruth returns again to her mother-in-law, 3:16–18. V. How Ruth Became David’s ancestress, 4:1–22. A. Boaz proposes that the nearer of kin redeem the inheritance of Elimelech, 4:1–6. B. On his refusal, Boaz proposes to redeem it, 4:7–12. C. Naomi and her grandson Obed, 4:13–17. D. Genealogy of David’s ancestors, 4:18–22.

When the judges ruled. The story about to be told is placed in the setting of the time covered by the book of Judges. At the close of the book we are told that Boaz and Ruth became progenitors of David (ch. 4:13–22). Matt. 1:5 lists Rahab as the mother of Boaz. If Rahab of Jericho was his mother, the events of the book of Ruth occurred early in the time of the Judges. Rahab may have married one of the Israelites, perhaps one of the spies whom she had saved. When Ruth came to Bethlehem, Boaz was no longer young, for he commended her on not following “young men” (ch. 3:10). Since the entry into Canaan probably occurred in 1405 B.C., and judges ruled Israel from about the time of Joshua’s death, it is possible that the events of this narrative occurred before 1300 B.C. However, it could have been much later, or the genealogy from Boaz to David may have been abbreviated (see on Matt. 1:5; Ezra 7:1; on “father” meaning “grandfather” or “ancestor,” see on 1 Kings 15:10). A famine. Palestine had been subject to periodic drought for centuries (see on Gen. 12:10; see also Gen. 26:1; 45:5–11). God had promised “rain in due season”; that it now failed implies unfaithfulness on the part of Israel (Lev. 26:3, 4; cf. 1 Kings 17:1; 18:18). A drought that affected the territory of Judah would not necessarily affect the tableland of Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea. Moab was blessed with an abundant supply of water, a rich soil, and semitropical vegetation. Its people spoke a language closely akin to that of the Hebrews. Went to sojourn. As had Abraham (Gen. 12:10), Isaac (Gen. 26:1), and Jacob (Gen. 46:1–4), for the same reason. Moab. The Moabites were descendants of Lot, and thus akin to the Israelites. For their origin, see on Gen. 19:36, 37; for later relations with the Israelites, see on Num. 22:2–4.

Elimelech. This name, meaning “My God is king,” reflects piety on the part of Elimelech’s parents. It may even suggest that at the time of the birth of Elimelech some Israelites were already talking of appointing a king like the nations about them. If so, the parents of this boy made it clear that they were on the side of those who recognized that God Himself was Israel’s only rightful king. Naomi. The parents of the young woman who became Elimelech’s wife had called their little girl “my pleasantness.” Hebrew parents rejoiced particularly at the birth of a son, but the parents of this little girl expressed heartfelt joy at the birth of a daughter.

Mahlon. There is some difference of opinion as to the meaning of this name, as also regarding that of his brother. One possible meaning of Mahlon is “sickly.” Some might contend that his early death confirms this as the meaning of the name. Chilion. Possibly this name means “pining.” It may be that neither this boy nor his brother appeared sturdy at birth. Ephrathites. Ephratha was an older name for Bethlehem, the “house of bread” (see on Gen. 35:19 and Matt. 1:5). Natives of that town would therefore be called Ephrathites. “Judah” is here added to “Beth-lehem” to distinguish this Bethlehem from that in Zebulun (Joshua 19:15).

Took them wives. It was probably after the death of their father that Mahlon and Chilion married. This was not entirely in their own interest alone, for the wives would be of real help to Naomi; also, sons born to them would perpetuate the deceased father’s name. Orpah. Some think that the name Orpah means “stubborn.” Others suggest that it comes from ‘ephrah, “fawn,” or “hind.” This interpretation requires transposing letters. The cognate Arabic root means “ornamented richly with hair.” Ruth. As to the meaning of this name, see p. 423. The name does not appear elsewhere in the OT.

Left. Here used by the translators in an archaic sense. We would say “bereft.” There is no reason for concluding that the suffering that came to Naomi was a punishment of God because of sin. The idea of suffering as punishment was popular among the Jews (see John 9:2). It was to correct this false notion that Moses wrote that was probably the first book of the OT to be written—the book of Job. Moses himself suffered disappointment for 40 years in Midian before God considered him ready to lead Israel. In a similar way Naomi’s sufferings prepared her to lead Ruth to the Promised Land—both figuratively and literally. God may permit suffering in order that our characters may be prepared for service and for citizenship in His kingdom.

She arose. That is, she prepared to leave. Naomi rises from the calamity that had overtaken her in the land of Moab. Courage to do so came when she learned that God had indeed blessed His people by giving them bread.

She went forth. Let it be said of us, as it was of Naomi, that we set out from where we are and turn our steps in the direction God would have us go. Let us too set out for the heavenly Canaan. And as we are on our way may it be our privilege to take some with us who will say, “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God” (v. 16).

Return. We should not misunderstand Naomi’s action. The three widows were already “on the way” (v. 7). Perhaps arrival at the borders of Moab impressed upon Naomi the sacrifice Orpah and Ruth were making in leaving their homeland and their friends. It was unselfish love for her daughters-in-law that prompted Naomi to urge each of them to return to her parents’ home. Oriental custom bound them to her, but she refused to press her claim to their service. She would not compel them to begin life anew in a strange land, but left them free to marry again and to set up their own homes. They need not devote their lives to taking care of the mother of their dead husbands, as would ordinarily have been expected of them. Naomi was an ideal mother-in-law; she did not press even her legitimate claims upon her daughters-in-law, but left them entirely free to make their own choices. In so doing, Naomi stands forth as an example all mothers-in- law would do well to emulate.

That ye may find rest. Meaning “that you may find a home” (RSV). The rest of which Naomi spoke was not to be found in the homes of their mothers, but in homes of their own—“each … in the house of her husband.” When the Jews spoke of a woman finding “rest” they referred to her marriage (see also Ruth 3:1). The following words of Naomi to her daughters-in-law explain still further Naomi’s meaning. She was not in a position to supply them with husbands, as provided by the law of levirate marriage (see Gen. 38:8–11; Deut. 25:5–10; Matt. 22:23–26). The word translated “rest” is noach, from a verb meaning “to settle down,” “to remain.” Noach is the Hebrew for Noah.

Surely we will return. Social custom would have obliged the two young women to remain with Naomi and to lay their plans as she should direct. Verses 11 and 12 imply the additional custom that required a man to marry his brother’s wife and thereby perpetuate his brother’s name and family (see Deut. 25:5–10).

Why will ye go? Although it was their duty to go, Naomi here implied that the choice was to be theirs and not hers. She implicitly relinquished her rightful claims to their submission and graciously left the decision up to them. This no doubt represented considerable sacrifice on her part, for she was “too old to have an husband” herself (v. 12) and would, in the normal course of events, look to the two younger women to provide for her and to serve her in her old age.

Turn again. For the third time Naomi appeals to Orpah and Ruth to return (see vs. 8, 11). Naomi was in earnest about the matter. This third appeal was sufficient to persuade Orpah (v. 14), but Ruth declined even when a fourth was made (v. 15). I am too old. Naomi apparently felt the infirmities of age creeping upon her, and did not feel equal to the task of establishing a new home and rearing children. It would seem, also, that the disappointments of life bore heavily upon her (see v. 20). Nevertheless, she was resigned to her lot; she was self-reliant and confident that God would provide (see Ps. 37:25).

Would ye tarry? Orpah and Ruth would themselves be late in middle life before further sons born to Naomi—should she immediately marry and bear sons—could reach maturity. It grieveth me. In spite of her own sorrow of heart (see v. 20), Naomi’s thoughts turn to the sorrow of her two daughters-in-law, who are, after all, in the same situation as she is herself. Naomi fears she is too old to establish another home (v. 12), but they are young and all of life is before them (see Joel 1:8). Ruth is specifically called a na‘arah, a “girl,” not only by Boaz (ch. 2:5, 6), but by the townsfolk of Bethlehem as well (ch. 4:12). Apparently she had scarcely entered upon the mature years of life. Should their entire lives be blighted, Naomi reasons, simply to assuage her own grief and to provide for her needs? For your sakes. Here is the secret of Naomi’s loveliness of character, of her appeal to Ruth—her first thoughts were ever of others. Though Naomi felt keenly her own loss (v. 20), yet the experience had not warped her outlook on life. Her sense of values was still in balance. In her life was reflected the likeness of Christ, who ordered His own life “for their sakes” (John 17:19). To seek the well-being of others is “the great principle which is the law of life for the universe” (DA 21). There is no greater power than the influence exerted by an unselfish life. “A kind, courteous Christian is the most powerful argument that can be produced in favor of Christianity” (GW 122).

Wept again. Compare v. 9. Partly in mutual sorrow because of their widowhood, partly on account of the emotional tension occasioned by the decision that must now be made. Clave. Or, “clung” to her. Ruth could not bear to be separated from one whose beauty of character had inspired her own soul with high ideals and had given her something she felt was worth living for—even if she never again had a home of her own. Happy the mother-in-law today who attracts rather than repels her daughters-in-law. Every mother- in-law may study and meditate with profit on the character of Naomi. She is the outstanding character of this narrative.

Is gone back. Though attracted to Naomi, like Ruth, Orpah felt herself bound even more closely to Moab. Orpah’s return made Ruth’s decision more difficult, for now she stood alone. Unto her gods. The god of the Moabites was Chemosh (see on Num. 21:29). Orpah may have temporarily adopted her husband Chilion’s religion (see Ruth 4:10), but if so, had now returned to idolatry.

Intreat me not. These words introduce Ruth’s decisive answer to Naomi’s suggestion that she follow Orpah’s example, and return to her own people. Ruth’s answer is the keynote of the whole book. It is not merely that Ruth’s love for her mother-in-law leads her to cleave to Naomi. Ruth has discovered that it is Naomi’s faith that makes her a wonderful woman. Ruth resolutely makes her decision for the true God: “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” No more sublime affirmation of love and devotion is to be found anywhere. Thy God my God. Ruth’s only knowledge of the true God was what she had seen of Him reflected in Naomi and the other members of Naomi’s family. It is ever thus that God reveals Himself to men—by a demonstration of the power of His love operating in the lives of erstwhile sinners. The transforming power of divine love is the best argument in favor of the truth. Without it our profession is no better than “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).

The Lord do so to me. Here Ruth uses the sacred name, Jehovah. She puts herself on oath, and invokes the punishment of the God of the Israelites if she should let anything less than death part her from Naomi. The original Hebrew has the definite article “the” with “death.” Ruth refers to “the death” that comes to all. Ruth uses the regular Hebrew formula for an oath, one that appears again and again in the OT. In 1 Sam. 3:17 Eli invokes God’s punishment against Samuel if he should hide from Eli anything that God had shown him when He called Samuel by name. This experience marks the beginning of Samuel’s ministry as a prophet. If Samuel wrote the book of Ruth, as conservative Bible scholars have rather generally thought, then this similarity in language becomes particularly meaningful. It appears also in 1 Sam. 25:22, where David himself uses this formula as an oath that he will destroy Nabal and all those belonging to his household. David again uses this formula in his oath to make Amasa captain of the host (2 Sam. 19:13). A paraphrase of what Ruth said would run like this: “I swear by the true God that death alone shall separate me from you.” Ruth stood the supreme test She proved to be more of a Jewess at heart than she was a Moabitess. A change had taken place during her association with Naomi, and she knew she would feel more content and more at home in the strange land of Israel than she would in the

familiar land of Moab, and among her lifelong friends. A knowledge of the true God binds human hearts more closely together than do the ties of race or kindred.

Stedfastly minded. A noble character trait indeed Neither the urging of Naomi nor the example of Orpah could change Ruth’s determination to cast her lot with Naomi and Naomi’s God.

They came to Beth-lehem. We do not know where in Moab, Naomi and her family sojourned, nor whether they entered Moab from the north or from the south. In any event, the return to Bethlehem meant a descent of about 4,500 ft. (1,372 m.) from the highlands of Moab to the level of the Dead Sea, and an ascent of about 3,750 ft. (1,143.3 m.) to Bethlehem—in a distance of perhaps 75 mi. (120 km.). How fast Ruth and Naomi could travel, and how much they could carry, we do not know. But in those days women were accustomed to travel on foot, and to carry much heavier loads than women of Western lands would think of trying to carry now. The city was moved. Though Naomi had been absent for perhaps ten years, she still had many friends and relatives in Bethlehem. This was, after all, her home. In Bible times any town surrounded by a wall was called a “city”—even though it might be very small by modern standards (see on Joshua 6:1–3). Joshua enumerates 124 such “cities” (ch. 15:21–62). Bethlehem apparently had a wall around it, for mention is made of a gate where the official business of the city was transacted (Ruth 4:1). Is this Naomi? The question the townsfolk of Bethlehem asked does not necessarily infer that they had difficulty in recognizing her, though the experiences through which she had passed may have appreciably affected her appearance. In her reply Naomi spoke of the bitterness (v. 20) of her affliction (v. 21), particularly with respect to the fact that she “went out full” and returned “home again empty” (v. 21). Naomi was not so much concerned with material possessions as with the fact that she returned alone. Therefore when the townsfolk asked, “Is this Naomi?” they were in effect exclaiming, “Is this Naomi, returning alone, as a widow?” It seemed incredible that not only her husband but also both sons had died.