Ruth 1:3-5
Ruth 1:2 And the name of the man was My God is King (Elimelech), and the name of his wife, My Pleasant One (Naomi); and the names of his two sons were Sick and Frail (Mahlon and Chilion), They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. Now they entered the fields of Moab and remained there.
3 Then My God is King, the husband of My Pleasant One, died; and she was left, she and her two sons.
4 And they took for themselves Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other was Ruth. And they dwelt there around ten years.
5 Then both Sick (Mahlon) and Frail (Chilion) also died; and the woman was left without her two children and without her husband.
Introduction
Our text this morning continues our study of the book of Ruth.
Notice then the story thus far: God has sent a famine against the land because of His people’s unfaithful embrace of pagan gods, culture, and ways. However, instead of repenting and returning, Elimelech (who’s name means “MY God is King”) takes his family and leaves his King’s land to find food in the pagan fields of Moab. In other words, he responds to God’s correction with the very pragmatism and compromise that are at the heart of the problem. Not only that, what started out as a temporary sojourn (v.1) has turned into an indefinite stay (v.2). Simply put, 2 verses into the book and trouble is already brewing.
Not only that, remember Ruth is a book all about names. That is, the author constantly plays the Hebrew meaning of a name off against the reality of a situation in order to show us the deeper spiritual factors at work. In turn, these names alert us to the theme of Future central to the book. Ruth is all about the believer’s ongoing place in God’s plan. In other words, we need to pay attention to the names.
In our text this morning, life completely falls apart. The situation is dire and everything hangs in the balance FN#1.
Verse 1:3
Notice at once the unsurprising surprise: As is so often the case when we rationalize and justify compromise, something unexpected happens. In fact, it is often the unplanned and unexpected that brings compromise’s house of cards down around us. Notice then, Elimelech had a plan. He thought he could manage his sin (it is only temporary, we have to eat, we’ll be back soon). Unfortunately, mid plan, Elimelech dies. Notice the result: verse 3 tells us that Naomi was left with her two sons and no husband. In other words, the compromise that was meant to feed the family has only left them impoverished (on so many levels). Case in point: without the paternal restraint of Elimelech, Naomi is now left to the mercy of the even worse leadership of her sons FN#2.
However notice the quiet hope at work in verse 3. Where? Notice, despite the fact that the family relations were spelled out just one verse ago, verse 3 presents them again. However, this is no pedantic repetition. Instead, notice that here in verse 3 Elimelech’s identity is conspicuously subordinated to Naomi. He is described as Naomi’s husband. In other words, his identity is seen in terms of (is known by reference to) her FN#3. Not only that, the seemingly redundant repetition of “she” (she was left, she and her two sons) serves once again to place Naomi front and center before our eyes. Why? Verse 3 is preparing us to see that despite the situation “My Pleasant One’s” faithfulness is pleasant to God and He has not abandoned her. Notice then when verse 3 tells us that Naomi was “left”, the Hebrew word used here not only means that she survived her husband; it not only conveys the sense that she was emotionally alone; it also carries with it the sense of being spared FN#4. Simply put, in the midst of bleak hardship verse 3 prompts us to keep our eyes on Naomi and to be on the lookout for God’s amazing deliverance.
Verse 4
Notice at once, just when you think things cannot get worse, they do. In fact, every detail of verse 4 is given to underscore that what began as Elimelech’s compromise has digressed into his sons’ full blown apostasy. Notice then, verse 4 tells us that after Elimelech died (and his parental restraint was removed), his two sons married two Moabite women. Importance: remember throughout the book of Judges one of the main things that angers God is His people taking pagan spouses. Why? Such spiritual intermarriages were an embrace (at the deepest level) of pagan culture and ethos, which inevitably drew the hearts of God’s people away from God (Judges 3:5-7). Not only that, verse 4 goes on to tell us that they dwelt in Moab a further 10 years after Elimelech’s death. However, please note: verse 4 does not merely say that they stayed in Moab a while longer. Instead, the Hebrew word for “dwelt” means to settle, reside, establish residency. In other words, the sons had no intention of ever coming back. Thus, what Elimelech meant to be only a temporary sojourn (v.1) has turned into marriage, putting down roots, and a permanent departure from God FN#5. Notice then the point: Elimelech’s compromise has impoverished his family in more ways than just food. His unfaithfulness has become a springboard to his children’s out right apostasy. In other words, a God that matters little to the parents (a God who always takes a back seat to the things of the world) will matter even less to their children (unless God intervenes). Notice then the point: this constant unfaithful leadership is the confines within which Naomi’s faithfulness quietly takes place, with little hope or possibility of ever changing the situation.
Next, notice the names of the two Moabite wives: the first one was named Orpah. Importance: once again we are met with the centrality of names. Not only that, it seems that the names of both of these women have been altered from their Moabite original (How do we know? They both have clear Hebrew roots, which they most likely would not have had if they were Moabite originals FN#6). Notice then the name Orpah in Hebrew means to “Turn One’s Back” (sic: “Back Turner”) FN#7. It is likely that the author has given her this nickname because this is precisely what she does to both Naomi and Naomi’s witness. As such, her name prepares us to see the spiritual contrast between her response and that of Ruth. On the other hand, in Hebrew, Ruth’s name means “Companion”. However, Ruth’s name is not a nickname given by the author. Instead, it is likely that Ruth’s original Moabite name was Judaized/changed when she joined God’s people FN#8. Importance: Ruth’s name then not only points to her faithful action, it also points to the spiritual change behind that action. Simply put, the author uses these two names to alert us to the spiritual contrast that we are going to see between these two women.
Verse 5
Next, notice the macabre irony (remember the author intends the book to delight and engage you): verse 5 tells us that “Sick” and “Frail” also die. Who could have seen that coming? Who would have ever guessed that the weak and sick actions of unfaithfulness would end poorly? Answer: the author did and he intends his playfulness with names to drive the point home to you. Unfaithfulness never ends well FN#9.
Next, notice that verse 5 tells us that the woman was left without her two children and her husband. In other words, every detail of verse 5 is given to underscore the absolute devastation that unfaithful leadership and compromise have brought to Naomi. Notice then, when verse 5 tells us that Naomi lost her two children (and not simply her adult sons), the author’s word choice underscores a mother’s grief. Not only that, the loss of sons and husband is not just an emotional tragedy, it is also a dire financial and social tragedy. Naomi is left with no real way to provide for herself or move within respectable society. As a poor widow who has to beg, she will be a reproach and outcast. Importance: at once the central theme of “future” emerges in the starkest of terms. Naomi’s entire future is in real jeopardy. In fact, notice that it is at this point, in a book full of names, that Naomi is left conspicuously nameless FN#10. She is referred to in verse 5 only as “the woman”. In other words, verse 5 ends the opening section of the book with a cliffhanger. What is going to happen to Naomi? Is she doomed?
Epilogue and Bottom line: there is one final point: God is at work. You can tell because Naomi is completely freaked out (just like you and I are when God takes the reins from us). But did you notice what just happened quietly and behind the scenes amid all the chaos of everyday life? God has delivered Naomi from the faithless leadership that impoverished her. He has also stripped her of all that the pagan world relies on. In other words, God has just spared Naomi. When all around her have fallen, God has been pleased to keep His Pleasant One as a remnant for Himself FN#11.
Footnotes
1] Importance: the first 5 verses of Ruth establish the situation and the spiritual dynamics that set the course for the entire work.
2] While Elimelech is certainly a flawed and imperfect person (just like you and me), he is no pagan. However, such cannot be said of his two sons. Notice then the whole account of the book of Ruth is about God’s mercy to redeem Elimelech’s name and to see him (his line) continue in the promise and future of God’s people. The same is not the case with his two sons, who die childless in a pagan land, with no mention of redemption, and with their actual names forgotten/removed and replaced with pejorative nicknames. In fact, the whole need to raise up a son/heir in Elimelech’s house is because Sick and Frail have failed (been rejected/ excluded). Elimelech’s name/line will not continue in God’s people through these two boys.
3] Notice at once, in a patriarchal society, where Naomi is at the mercy of and subordinate to the leadership of her husband and sons, this alteration in significance and reference would have been conspicuous to the original readers. It not only signals that Naomi survived her husband, it points to God’s focus on and regard for His Pleasant One. Thus, Naomi, not her husband or her surviving sons, is the driving factor before God. The others are causally subordinate to her.
4] We see the same word for left (שָׁאַר) being used in the account of Noah.
Genesis 7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left/spared, together with those that were with him in the ark.
Notice then in both cases (Naomi and Noah), to be left or to remain after God’s judgement carries with it a very pronounced sense of being spared/delivered.
5] Notice the spiritual regression of compromise noted by the change in verbs:
· Verse 1 tells us they left God’s land for a temporary sojournגּוּר) )
· Verse 2 tells us that it became an open-ended indefinite stay (הָיָה).
· Verse 4 now tells us that compromise has blossomed into permanent residence/dwelling (ישׁב).
In turn notice that this regression from Elimelech’s compromise to his sons’ apostasy is just the sort of regression that we see in the book of Judges (during which time Ruth takes place- v.1)
Judges 2:19 But it came about when the judge died, that they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them and bow down to them; they did not abandon their practices or their stubborn ways.
6] We need to add a bit of philological explanation to the statement in the sermon. The Hebrew and Moabite languages were closely related. They were divergent dialects of a common Semitic root. It is clear from the account of Ruth that there was a great deal of linguistic and cultural crossover between the Hebrews and the Moabites at the time of our account (thus Elimelech seems to settle in Moab with little linguistic or cultural barriers). As such, merely saying that the names of the women had Hebrew roots is not alone definitive proof that they were altered (those roots may have been shared by the closely related languages). Instead, a more important point is to note that there is a directness between the names and the corresponding Hebrew roots, which does not give an indication of any dialectical divergence (thus they have clear Hebrew roots- not just related roots in Hebrew). In other words, the names appear distinctly Hebrew. This directness together with the names situational agreement (e.g. Orpah actually turned her back on Naomi), as well as the author’s plasticity with names combine to tell us that these were not Moabite originals. Instead they were altered.
7] The name Orpah means “Turn One’s Back” and is derived from the Hebrew noun עֹרֶף (‘oref) “back of the neck” and the related verb ערף (“to turn one’s back”). From here on out, we will smooth this out a bit and simply call her “Back Turner”.
8] It is likely that Ruth’s original Moabite name was Judaized or changed when she joined God’s people. We see examples of just this sort of thing in Scripture. Probably the best know example is that of Abraham and Sarah in light of their inclusion in God’s covenant.
Genesis 17:5 “No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.
Genesis 17:15 Then God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.
Another example is when Jesus changes Peter’s name from the Hellenized Greek “Simon” to the Hebrew/Galilean Aramaic “Cephas”
John 1:42 Andrew brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas ” (which is translated from the Aramaic Peter).
The translation notes in the Net Bible go on to explain that “Neither Πέτρος (Peter) in Greek nor Qéphâ (Cephas) in Aramaic is a normal proper name; it is more like a nickname.
In addition, it seems apparent that Ruth’s name (a Judaized genealogical/actual name) is one of the main factors by which the author selects Orpah’s nickname and employs it to set her in spiritual contrast to Ruth. Thus, once again the author is deliberately using the names in the book to point out the deeper spiritual factors at work. One final note: FYI, in 4:10 we learn that Ruth was Mahlon’s (Sick’s) wife and thus Orpah was Chilion’s (Frail’s) wife.
9] The case here against Mahlon and Chilion are stronger than may first appear: notice the fate and judgment against unfaithfulness: both boys die outside of God’s land and without children. That is, they die without heirs to carry their line on in God’s promise. In turn, their names are forgotten and replaced with caricature nicknames. In other words, unfaithfulness such as theirs has no part/future/ continuation in God’s promise/Kingdom. They have been excluded.
10] Importance: over and again throughout the book of Ruth, the significance of names and the author’s intentional employment of them extend to the deliberate omission of a name. We see this when actual names replaced by caricature nicknames. We also see it when the author goes out of his way to conspicuously omit a name. Thus once again we are reminded to pay attention to the names and, at times, the lack thereof.
11] Verse 5 tells us that “the woman was left”. Importance: while the base meaning of the word for left (שָׁאַר) is to be left, survive, remain it also carries with it the notion of being spared (this is the same word we saw in verse 3). In turn, it is the verbal root of the word “remnant” (שְׁאֵרִית– see Gen 45:7). Thus, it is not simply that Naomi survives her husband and two sons. Rather, the idea is that God was pleased to spare/deliver “His Pleasant One” and keep her as a remnant for Himself.