Ruth 1: 2 Commentary

1. We are never given insights into Elimelech‘s heart
a. Whether he was carnal and refused to trust in the Lord
b. Or whether he simply thought the move was practical
c. Perhaps to take care of his ’sickly‘ sons
2. It certainly did not APPEAR to be a wise move
a. For Moab was associated with idolatry and compromise
b. Being traditionally the ENEMY of Israel
3. But if God DOES lead you to a ‘hostile land‘
a. Then He will provide the strength
b. For you to stand firm for Jesus
4. Joseph and Daniel are two excellent examples
a. Of men who lived in Egypt and Babylon
b. Yet maintained a godly testimony
5. If you make a move
a.that you know is NOT God‘s will (Pro 27:8)
6. You can expect to reap the consequences
a. But know that God‘s grace
b. Is greater than your sin
c. And He will still work all things
d. Together for your good
7. But do NOT compound one bad move
a. With another rash and foolish one
8. Remain faithful and wait on the Lord‘s guidance
a. For He will get you on the right course
9. If you do chase after the world
a. In order to find ‗success‘
10. Then you and your family
a. Will all be adversely impacted
b. By the company you keep
11. You will be compromised in your walk with Jesus
a. And suffer perhaps lifelong consequences
12. Lot‘s choice to dwell in Sodom (Gen 13:10-11)
a. Even though it daily distressed
i. And tortured his righteous soul (2 Pet 2:8)
b. Led to the loss of his ‗worldly‘ wife
i. Who longingly looked backed with regard and consideration (Gen 19:26)
c. And led to his daughters having no moral qualms about incest (Gen 19:30-38)
i. Ultimately giving birth to the nations of Ammon and Moab

By Tractorman (wrote 2560 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/28/2011 15:15 pm

It is interesting to note that all the names of the sons of Jacob carried some meanings.
1)Reuben=Behold,I see;See a son. Gen.29:32.(2)Simeon=Hearing;Gen.29:33;
(3)Levi=joined.Gen.29:34.(4)Judah=Praise.Gen.29:35.(5)Dan=Justice;Judging.
Gen.30:6.(6)Naphtali=My wrestling;Wrestling.Gen.30:8.(7)Gad=A troop or company;Behold,a troop cometh.Gen.30:11.(8)Asher=Happy;The Lord is my happiness.Gen.30:13.(9)Issachar=an hire;I am certain of my reward.Gen.30:18.
(10)Zebulun=Habitation;Dwelling.Gen.30:20.(11)Joseph=Adding.Gen.30:24.
(12)Benjamin=The son of my right hand.(Benoni=The son of my sorrow).
Gen.35:18.
From the Scriptures,we find the reasons for giving the above names to Jacob’s sons.The story of Jacob is not a fairy tale.Genesis recorded the actual events which had taken place.
Similarly,The story of Ruth is not a fairy tale.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/21/2009 22:36 pm

Yes,Jeyant.
The Book of Ruth is not a fiction.
Of course the Jews are interested in genealogy.At the close of this Book (Ruth 4:18-22),we find the genealogy of David.Ruth is an ancestor of David.
Moreover,we find the names of both Boaz & Ruth in the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1.Read Matthew 1:5.Matthew has written the Gospel to the Jews who are interested in genealogy.
Of course the story of Ruth is a beautiful love story.But the events recorded in the Book of Ruth really happened.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/21/2009 01:06 am

When a certain man is named, even the period is also indicated ( that of the tiem of Judges, when every man did what seems right in his own sight, and when even the place of the events are well specified, where is the question of the story of Ruth being fiction? It could well be the reason for this story being written as it is related to the ancestors of the David. Hebrews are very particular about their geneology.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/20/2009 22:40 pm

When a certain man is named, even the period is also indicated ( that of the tiem of Judges, when every man did what seems right in his own sight, and when even the place of the events are well specified, where is the question of the story of ruth being the question of fiction. It could well be the reason for this story being written as it is related to the ancestors of the David. Hebrews are very particular about their geneology.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/20/2009 22:37 pm

In the hebrew culture, they used to give place or person names attached to some events and that it carried the meaning connected with such events. It is therefore too much to say that the Story of Ruth can be fiction just on the basis of the peronal names found in it. David was in the lineage of Boaz, the husband of Ruth. Is David’s story a fiction too? We try to read in the text with the scholarly eye that which is not there.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/20/2009 22:31 pm

The “certain” man had a name and this gives some to doubt the certainty of the man. Elimelech. The Hebrew word melek speaks of kings and royalty. The melek expression is used frequently, for example, in 1 Samuel as Israel moves from theocratic judges to a monarchy. Elimelech’s name also begins with El, one of the important basic words for God. This, to biblical minimalists, is too convenient to be the actual name, so some then assume the Book of Ruth to be a literary fiction, rather than a biographical event that is important in the subsequent line of King David.

There is an expression in English “wreak havoc”, which is carried to us in contemporary culture mostly from the continuation of the works of Shakespeare. We know the word “wrought” and still use it with some decorative iron workings, but otherwise rarely use “wreak” without the word “havoc” attached. Similarly, the Hebrew word El rarely stands alone. We have passages like Malachi 2:10 to give us El Echad, the “One God”; Deuteronomy 7:9 provides us with El Hanne’eman, the “Faithful God”; and there are many, many more such examples. This would lead to the conclusion that prefacing melek with El is attaching royalty to God, which it does. (see http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html for other examples)

To use the fiction motif of the minimalists, this story progresses as any good “fairy tale“ should: God is king (Elimelech) takes his graceful or appealing (Naomi) wife and their sick (Mahlon) and failing (Chilion) sons .from the little house of bread (Bethlehem), a suburb of the city of fruitfulness and moves to the land of one of the incestuous sons of Lot (Moab), the nephew of father Abraham. From our perspective, just reading through the lens of the names it tells a story like a children’s fable.

Mere convenience of the appearance of a plausible fiction, however, does not make it fiction. Tales of coincidences and paradoxes between American presidents Lincoln and Kennedy do not make Kennedy’s death at the hand of an assassin inevitable. Similar takes of people found dead in an alleged conspiratorially retribution by so-called “friends of Bill” do not make American president Clinton a murderer. That persons were appropriately named, for events in their future that they had no knowledge of, makes the story interesting, but not automatically a fiction.

In many parts of the world where names have significant meaning, and at various times when such cultures were significant, such a name is given as a token of intended power or purpose. Indeed, three of the four persons initially named rather soon die in the story and the one with the seemingly strongest name dies first. If we use names to affix prosaic purpose and projection of the novelists intent, then the imagery accompanying the names takes a tragic turn early in the story.

By Larry Swinford (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/20/2009 18:34 pm