Then she kissed them goodbye and they wept aloud and said to her, “We will go back with you to your people.”
But Naomi said, “Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons— would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the LORD’s hand has turned against me!”
- Ruth 1:9b-13
This passage continues the deeply emotional exchange between Naomi and her daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah. For the context before this, check out last week’s post. Naomi’s raw honesty about her situation and her insistence that they leave her paints a vivid picture of her grief and hopelessness. It also sets the stage for the monumental choices Ruth and Orpah must make.
Naomi’s words are layered with cultural context, theological undertones, and human vulnerability. Naomi’s reference to sons becoming husbands highlights the ancient practice of levirate marriage, outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. This custom ensured the preservation of a deceased man’s lineage by requiring his brother (or closest male relative) to marry his widow. The children from this union would inherit the deceased man’s name and property.
Naomi laments her inability to fulfill this role for her daughters-in-law. She is too old to remarry and bear sons, and even if she could, it would take years for the boys to grow up. By emphasizing the impossibility of their situation, Naomi seeks to release Ruth and Orpah from any perceived obligation to her.
Widowhood in the ancient Near East was a precarious position. Without a husband or male offspring, a woman faced economic insecurity and social marginalization. Naomi’s continuing pleas for her daughters-in-law to return home reflects her concern for their well-being, knowing that their chances of remarriage and stability were far greater in Moab.
Naomi’s declaration, "It is more bitter for me than for you, because the Lord’s hand has turned against me” (verse 13), reveals her deep sense of despair and her belief that her suffering is a direct result of divine action. This statement reflects a common worldview in the ancient Near East, where calamity was often interpreted as evidence of divine displeasure or judgment.
Naomi’s grief has shaped her perception of God. Having lost her husband and both of her sons, she feels abandoned and cursed. Her lament mirrors the language of other biblical figures, such as Job, who grappled with the apparent absence of God’s favor amid suffering. Naomi’s bitterness is not just about her personal pain but also about her perceived alienation from God’s blessing.
Naomi’s emotional struggle raises timeless questions about the nature of God’s presence in times of suffering. Why do bad things happen to good people? Does God’s silence mean He is absent? While Naomi feels forsaken, the unfolding narrative reveals that God’s providence is still at work, even in ways she cannot yet see. This tension between human perspective and divine purpose invites readers to trust in God’s unseen plan, even when circumstances seem bleak.
We witness a great emotional weight in this passage. Naomi’s act of kissing Ruth and Orpah goodbye (verse 9b) is a poignant gesture of love and finality. In the ancient Near East, a kiss symbolized not only affection but also a farewell. This moment underscores the emotional bond between the women, forged through shared experiences of loss and survival.
Ruth and Orpah’s initial response is to reject Naomi’s suggestion. They declare, "We will go back with you to your people" (verse 10). This shows their loyalty and unwillingness to abandon Naomi in her time of need. Their weeping reflects the deep sorrow they feel at the thought of separation, as well as their recognition of the gravity of the situation.
Naomi’s insistence that Ruth and Orpah return home highlights her selflessness. Despite her own need for companionship and support, she prioritizes their futures over her own. This sacrificial love mirrors God’s hesed (steadfast love, mercy, lovingkindness), which is a central theme of the book.
Naomi understands that Ruth and Orpah’s chances of a secure future are greater in Moab. By releasing them from any sense of duty to her, Naomi acts as a protector and advocate for their well-being. Naomi addresses Ruth and Orpah as "my daughters," not “daughters-in-law” (verse 11), emphasizing the depth of their relationship. Her words are not those of a bitter widow seeking to cling to her daughters-in-law but of a loving mother figure who desires their happiness and security.
The passage leaves the reader on the edge of a pivotal decision: will Ruth and Orpah heed Naomi’s plea and return to Moab, or will they accompany her to Bethlehem? Naomi’s heartfelt plea and her daughters-in-law’s emotional responses highlight the complexities of human relationships and the challenges of navigating grief and transition. As the narrative continues, we will see how these choices lead to transformative outcomes, demonstrating that God’s grace often meets us on the road of uncertainty.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Jesus’ most famous sermon is recorded in full from Matthew 5-7 but with parts recorded in Luke 6. This is the longest single sermon in the entire Bible outside of Deuteronomy, which is Moses’ final speech to Israel before passing the baton to Joshua where most of the whole book is this speech. The Sermon on the Mount contains a wide variety of topics so let’s quickly go through them, from Matthew’s account.
- The Beatitudes: Jesus confronts the lust for possessions and positions to gain happiness and replaces those desires with humility and the seeking of the Lord.
- Your witness: Jesus calls us to be light in a dark world, but the Law is not going away either.
- The true meaning of the Law: The fine print behind the commandments, namely on murder and adultery, and it summarized by true Biblical love.
- Giving, tithing, and prayer: All good, but do not do them to be seen, but rather do them secretly; what real prayer looks like.
- Fasting and true treasure: Fasting is not about show but about getting right with God. Seek God’s treasures because ours here will perish.
- Dealing with anxiety: Don’t chase wealth and security; instead, trust the Lord and He will take care of our needs.
- True judging and warning against hypocritical judging.
- True disciples, warning against false teachers, and warning against false conversion.
There is a lot to unpack here, but this series is not about the exegetical teachings of the texts. Why did Jesus address these issues? What kind of response did Jesus seek to instigate? And what were His intentions in saying what He was saying?
In looking at each of these topics, we can see several themes in no particular order:
- True happiness is not about the pursuit of temporal things.
- Our motives and dreams behind what we do have the same weight as actually doing it.
- Our trust and security need to be in the Lord and not in our comforts and possessions.
- Don’t seek popularity or to be seen.
- The Law’s purpose does not go away with Jesus, but He finishes its purpose.
- Beware of false teachers and make sure you are a true believer yourself.
This is going to take two weeks to unpack these. No worries because I have no time limit for how long this series will go. So let’s get into this.
Jesus opens up with a series of blessings and happiness not for those who live lives of luxury but for those who are poor, those who are needy, and those who in the long run, acknowledge their need for God. In each of the Beatitudes, the types of people Jesus addresses are those who saw their need for help and their need for God; they would be happy because their needs would be met. I have read the Beatitudes numerous times and heard sermons on them, but just reflecting on what I literally just wrote led me to a moment of worship. Let me summarize what Jesus is saying through them: “Blessed are those who see their need for God, for God will come and be their sustenance and they will lack nothing.”
Take notice that Jesus never once appealed to anyone or any type of person who found their solace in money, pleasures, entertainment, position, prestige, or any temporary thing of man. He referenced those who are going without those things on this earth because they will get a true reward in heaven. Jesus reiterated this point when He spoke about treasure in heaven. This was a sermon unlike any other, and this opening was a teaching that these people never heard before. And that’s just the opening.
Jesus confronted the teachings of the Pharisees and how they misappropriated the Law and made it a monster of slavery. He started by saying that just being physically obedient to the commandments isn’t sufficient but just doing it in your heart and mind is enough to count you guilty of doing the actual crime. I know I am guilty of “murder of the heart,” and I have received the “death stare” from those who would rather have me dead than dare tell them they are wrong. That’s not an exaggeration. There is no greater demonstration of the issue of adultery than pornography. And we aren’t talking about just actually opening the web pages or flipping through magazines. We are talking about just imagining the acts in your mind, too. It’s a war in the mind and Jesus is pointing out what our true nature is in all this.
One thing I have pointed out when teaching about the nature of sin is that we all know our sinful tendencies. We know what our draws are towards sin. Imagine if God turned that nature totally loose and let it run wild. I know my tendencies. If I were to act on those desires with no regard to the law or consequences and knowing I would get away with it in this life, I would be the most sadistic, evil monster the world has ever known. People would be coming for my head if God turned that sinful nature totally loose, and it would be the same for any of us.
Jesus is saying this to take our self-righteousness down much more than just a notch. He is actually telling us that any of us who think we have actually obeyed the Law have, in fact, broken it and done so many times. We didn’t merely “oops;” we have repeatedly and intentionally done that which we knew we should not be doing. Again, this all ties into Jesus’ theme that the only really happy people are those who see their total and utter dependence upon Christ and are empty of themselves.
Come back next week for more on this.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
When Naomi heard in Moab that the LORD had come to the aid of his people by providing food for them, she and her daughters-in-law prepared to return home from there. With her two daughters-in-law she left the place where she had been living and set out on the road that would take them back to the land of Judah.
Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back, each of you, to your mother’s home. May the LORD show you kindness, as you have shown kindness to your dead husbands and to me. May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband."
- Ruth 1:6-9a
As with any time you’re reading the Bible, it’s important to understand the context of this passage. In the 5 verses before this section, there has been a famine in Bethlehem, Naomi and Elimelech moved their family to the foreign land of Moab, Elimelech died, their two sons married foreign women, and then those sons died. Naomi and her two daughters-in-law were left with no one to care for them economically.
This passage introduces us to the deep relationships between Naomi and her Moabite daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah. It also raises questions about cultural norms, family loyalty, and the pressures facing women in the ancient Near East. While it appears that Naomi first starts out bringing Ruth and Orpah on the journey back to Bethlehem (verse 7), she then changes her mind and instructs them to go back to their families of origin (verse 8). Why should Ruth and Orpah have stayed in Moab with their families, as Naomi suggested?
The story takes place during a patriarchal era when a woman’s identity, security, and social standing were intricately tied to her family and husband. In Moab, as in much of the ancient Near East, women typically relied on male relatives for protection and provision. Ruth and Orpah, as widows, faced significant challenges: loss of financial support, diminished societal status, and uncertainty about remarriage. Without husbands to provide for them, widows’ survival often depended on the charity of relatives or the community. Returning to their families in Moab would have allowed Ruth and Orpah to access the support of their kinship networks. These networks were essential for widows, providing food, shelter, and the possibility of remarriage within the family or clan.
Naomi’s appeal to Ruth and Orpah to return to their "mother’s home" highlights this cultural expectation. While men were usually the heads of households, widowed daughters often found refuge with their mothers. This phrase might also suggest the possibility of remarriage, as mothers played a crucial role in arranging marriages for their daughters.
Naomi’s plan to return to Bethlehem introduced another layer of complexity. Ruth and Orpah were Moabites, a group often viewed with suspicion and hostility by the Israelites. According to Deuteronomy 23:3, Moabites were excluded from "the assembly of the Lord" because of their ancestors' actions against Israel during the Exodus. This cultural and religious divide would have made it challenging for Ruth and Orpah to integrate into Israelite society, where they risked being marginalized as outsiders.
Remaining in Moab, where they shared language, customs, and religion, would have been a safer and more logical choice. Naomi’s suggestion for them to stay underscores her awareness of the difficulties they would face in Judah. She did not want to impose further hardship on her daughters-in-law, whose loyalty and kindness she deeply appreciated.
Naomi, too, was a widow who would have had difficulty providing for herself. Her decision to return to Bethlehem was driven by the news that "the Lord had come to the aid of his people by providing food for them" (verse 6). She hoped to find sustenance and perhaps kinship support in her homeland. However, Ruth and Orpah’s situation was different. As Moabites, they could not expect the same welcome or resources in Judah.
While Naomi’s advice to Ruth and Orpah to stay in Moab was practical, it also reflected her understanding of God’s hesed – a Hebrew word that we don’t have a good English translation for. It’s often translated as mercy, love, or lovingkindness; see this post for more on that concept. She invoked God’s blessing on them, saying, "May the Lord show you kindness, as you have shown kindness to your dead husbands and to me" (verse 8). Naomi’s prayer acknowledged their past loyalty and expressed hope for their future well-being, even if they chose to part ways.
This passage challenges us to consider the tension between practicality and faith. Naomi’s advice to Ruth and Orpah reflects the wisdom of her time, prioritizing their immediate security and prospects. Yet Ruth’s eventual decision to accompany Naomi (spoiler alert!) demonstrates a willingness to step into the unknown, trusting in God’s provision.
Even though today’s culture and society are very different from the ancient Near East, we should recognize that following God’s calling on our lives still requires sacrifices and risks. At the same time, it’s important to respect diverse paths and choices, as Orpah’s return to Moab was not condemned but understood within the context of her circumstances.
While Naomi’s advice for Ruth and Orpah to remain in Moab was practical and compassionate, Ruth’s choice to journey to Judah demonstrates extraordinary faith and commitment. The historical context enriches our understanding of these women’s choices and invites us to reflect on the ways God’s hesed can guide and sustain us in life’s uncertainties.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Jesus was never someone who needed to prove Himself to anyone, but there were a few times He did things to demonstrate who He was and what He was about. Jesus was not going to merely proclaim some hard truths and hard messages. He was going to prove that He was the one who could call those truths, and He backed them with authority.
There are two miracles that happen back-to-back in the Gospels: the healing of a leper and the healing of a paralytic. In the case of the leper, Jesus touched him (something that a leper would never feel again post-diagnosis: human touch) and healed him but told him not to tell anyone because He did not want the attention. But right after that, Jesus was teaching, and a crowd began to gather. They must have heard about Jesus doing miracles either at the wedding at Cana, seeing Jesus heal the leper, or seeing one of Jesus’ general crowd healings because they brought a friend who was a paralytic. The crowd was too thick to get through, though the crowd here may have only been 50-100 people; when surrounding a small home in those days, that can be a lot very quickly. So they went up to the roof, where there would be an opening, made space to lower the man down, and called upon Jesus to heal him.
During the teaching, some Pharisees were there, and they were wondering who this Jesus was, what teacher He had trained under, and how He got His authority to teach. Jesus saw this moment as an opportunity to prove a point. He was going to prove to the Pharisees that He had far more than the authority to teach, and not just any rabbi’s authority either. So He told the man, “Your sins are forgiven.” Jesus was asked to heal this man, and instead, Jesus says, “Your sins are forgiven.” Why? Jesus was proving He was much more than a healer and a preacher. He was declaring Himself to be on the same authority and tier as God the Father. The Pharisees knew He was claiming that, and knowing that was what they were thinking, He called them out. To nail it even further, He gave them another task that was impossible for a man to do: to make a lame man walk. So, without any show, without any psychosomatics or emotional hyping, Jesus simply said, “Get up and walk.” And the man was able to do so. Miracles had not been seen in Israel since Elisha passed 800 years earlier, and Jesus did one not because He was asked for mercy but primarily just to prove a point.
Jesus did the same thing with a man with a paralyzed, withered hand, and on the Sabbath day no less. He walked into the synagogue while teaching was going on and quietly whispered to the man about getting healed, and the Pharisees on staff that day got offended that Jesus would dare heal on the Sabbath. So Jesus proved a point that to give mercy on the Sabbath was greater than keeping the Sabbath by their standards. The Sabbath laws never forbade doing necessary jobs and tasks. Feeding animals needed to happen every day, and getting animals out of a ditch was a task of necessity that no one would object to being done. But help a person on a Sabbath? Help an old lady cross the street from church? You must go to Hell for that sin. It’s that pathetic.
Jesus also did it for the blind man in John 9, who soon got excommunicated just for saying Jesus healed and telling the Pharisees didn’t know what they were talking about. He only knew he had been healed, and only God could have done that. Jesus healed him in part to prove that man’s ailments, while a result of the curse of sin, are not necessarily a result of any person’s actions. Some things like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome are definitely cases where the person’s mental capacity is permanently damaged by the mother’s drinking. But blindness, lameness, deafness, and many other things are not necessarily because they sinned or because their parents sinned. It can also be allowed so that God could receive glory.
My brother had a dramatic hearing loss in his toddler years and could not hear consonants. A church family prayed over him in secret, and he was miraculously healed. The hearing loss was not a punishment for sin; it was something God allowed, and it was for His glory. The same can be said for a young man in my church who has been wheelchair-bound for his whole life. There was no sin for which that was a judgment. Sin nature in general may be partly to blame, but God allowed it and has allowed it for a reason, which we don’t know fully right now.
Jesus was not a for-show person. He was never going to perform a miracle on a whim unless He was in control of the situation. If the Pharisees were not there at the home for the paralytic, Jesus likely still would have healed him, same with the man with the withered hand and the blind man. Jesus took advantage of each of these situations to prove a point about who He was, what authority He held, and why He came to do what He did. It was never an “I told you so” moment, nor was it a “come look at me” show-off moment. It was to prove that He was the Messiah, but it was also to begin antagonizing the Pharisees so they would be riled up to the point of calling for His death. The Pharisees did not like that because they knew if the Messiah did come, their jobs would no longer be needed. (This reminds me of cancer research groups who don’t want cancer cures being found because that would kill their income instead of going on to the next thing.)
Now let me be clear: Jesus is not anti-religion. He was against the Pharisees’ abuse of the system and their hypocrisy for their own gain. He never once chided the Pharisees over doctrine. But He was going to leave them no room to consider Him as just a street preacher with a Messiah complex. He was going to make sure they knew He knew and believed Himself to be the Messiah, and He proved it by performing miracles that had never been done before.
Jesus proved He had the authority to teach, the authority to heal, and the authority to forgive sins. Over the next few weeks, we’ll look at how that authority was showcased as we look at Jesus’ most well-known sermon and the understanding of authority and faith that left Jesus astonished. And that’s just the beginning of Jesus’ ministry; there’s much more to discuss as the series progresses.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Before we continue any further in the book of Ruth, it’s important to pause and look more in-depth at the Hebrew word hesed. This is a key theme and concept in the narrative of Ruth, and this word is one that it’s difficult to translate into English.
The Hebrew word hesed is one of the most profound and multi-dimensional terms in the biblical lexicon. Found throughout the Hebrew Bible, it is often translated as “loving-kindness,” “steadfast love,” “mercy,” or “faithfulness.” Hesed carries a richness that encapsulates covenantal loyalty, enduring compassion, and the transformative power of love.
Hesed is notoriously difficult to translate because it encompasses a range of meanings that vary depending on context. At its core, hesed refers to a loyal and loving action that arises within a covenantal relationship. Unlike fleeting emotions or conditional acts of kindness, hesed implies a committed and enduring love.
In biblical texts, hesed often reflects God's covenantal relationship with His people. For example, in Exodus 34:6-7, God proclaims Himself as “abounding in love [hesed] and faithfulness.” This self-revelation highlights God's unwavering faithfulness and deep compassion toward humanity, even in the face of human failure.
Rabbinic literature and modern scholarship underscore that hesed is not simply an internal sentiment but a tangible expression of love and loyalty. It is an action-oriented concept that finds its fulfillment in acts of care, justice, and fidelity. Thus, hesed is both relational and transformational, bridging divine love with human responsibility.
The concept of covenant is essential to understanding hesed. Covenants in the ancient Near East were binding agreements, often sealed with rituals, that defined relationships and obligations. In the Biblical context, covenants between God and His people—such as those with Noah, Abraham, and David—are marked by divine hesed.
In 2 Samuel 7:15-16, God promises David that His “love [hesed] will never be taken away” from him or his descendants, even when they falter. This steadfast commitment underscores that divine hesed is not contingent upon human perfection but flows from God's unchanging nature. Similarly, Psalm 136 repeatedly emphasizes God's enduring hesed, declaring in every verse, “His love [hesed] endures forever.”
God’s covenantal hesed invites human participation. In Micah 6:8, the prophet encapsulates the ethical response to God’s hesed: “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Here, hesed becomes a model for human relationships, encouraging mutual care, fidelity, and mercy.
While hesed is often associated with divine action, it also describes interpersonal relationships. In the book of Ruth, hesed is a central theme that binds the story’s characters. Ruth’s loyalty to her mother-in-law, Naomi, epitomizes human hesed. Despite Naomi’s bleak circumstances, Ruth commits herself to Naomi with the famous words: “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16).
Later in the narrative, Boaz extends hesed to Ruth by ensuring her protection and provision. His actions reflect the ethical dimension of hesed, demonstrating that loyalty and kindness are not passive but require intentional and sacrificial acts. In Ruth 2:20, Naomi acknowledges Boaz’s hēsed as a reflection of God's overarching care, blurring the lines between divine and human manifestations of this quality.
Hesed is intricately linked with justice in the Hebrew Bible. In Hosea 6:6, God declares, “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” This verse critiques empty religious rituals devoid of ethical substance. It highlights that true devotion to God manifests in compassionate actions and a commitment to justice.
The prophets consistently call for a society rooted in hesed. Isaiah 58, for example, emphasizes the need for fasting that leads to social justice: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?” (Isaiah 58:6). Here, acts of hesed are inseparable from the pursuit of a just and equitable community.
This interplay between hesed and justice challenges contemporary readers to consider how their faith translates into tangible actions. Hesed invites us to move beyond personal piety and engage in the work of healing, reconciliation, and systemic change.
The Hebrew word hesed encapsulates a divine and human ideal that transcends time and culture. Rooted in covenantal relationships, it is a love that acts, endures, and transforms. From the ancient Israelites to contemporary readers, hesed offers a vision of a world shaped by compassion, loyalty, and justice.
As we reflect on the meanings and implications of hesed, may we be inspired to embody its qualities in our lives. Whether through small acts of kindness or larger commitments to justice and mercy, hesed calls us to participate in the divine story of steadfast love. In doing so, we not only honor the legacy of this profound biblical concept but also contribute to the flourishing of our communities and the world.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Jesus was not one to do a lot of things privately. He always had witnesses to what He said and did. The primary thing He purposed to do privately was prayer, and He would frequently go out alone to pray because He did not want the interruptions of His disciples or other people. But there is one teaching we have recorded in Scripture that was done in private: a secret meeting at night with Nicodemus. Now, we can be certain that John was nearby because He is the one who recorded the account, however, this was one of the few times Jesus ever dealt with someone in private, most likely at Nicodemus’ request.
For Nicodemus, to show admiration for Jesus in public would have been very controversial. He had heard about Jesus and about the working of miracles; he likely witnessed one of them, possibly the healing of the paralytic who was lowered through the roof by his friends, because that was one of the few publicly seen miracles early in Jesus’ ministry. Other Pharisees were there as well. The Chosen depicts Nicodemus’ intrigue with this miracle as well, but of Jesus’ early miracles where Nicodemus could have been present, this one seems to be most plausible. In any case, Nicodemus needed to meet Jesus and wanted to meet privately, so Jesus agreed.
Nicodemus opens by realizing that Jesus was sent by God, and Jesus goes straight to the message and tells Nicodemus that he must be born again, explaining it is spiritual birth he needs. Then Jesus gave the Gospel message, but not without a warning about those who would reject Him. I am certain there was more back and forth than John records, and we don’t have Nicodemus’ response. The Chosen depicts him receiving Jesus as the Messiah but unable to let go of his life to actually follow Him. All we do know is that Nicodemus opposed the attempts to put Jesus to death without trial and a proper hearing and then helped Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus. Here, I want to get into Jesus’ mindset as to why He said what He said.
Jesus opened up by telling Nicodemus that he needed to be born again. This is the only passage where the actual phrase “born again” is used in the Bible, however, the concept described occurs throughout Scripture with different pictures and different images but the same concept. We must be born again. We must forget everything we have thought and thought we knew in the old life and start completely over again. Nicodemus was considered one of the elite rabbis among the Sanhedrin, the teacher of all the teachers. He didn’t have that much political power per se, but he was highly regarded. When he showed up, all wanted to sit at his feet. And Jesus gave Nicodemus the same thing He gave the rich young ruler: give up your most prized possessions. He told the rich young ruler that his money was an idol that would keep him from doing things God’s way, and he walked away unable to let it go. Nicodemus was asked to give up his position, education, and learning to follow Jesus. He did later to a degree, but Nicodemus had to forget everything he thought he knew about God’s point and purpose.
The Jews never actually understood the Law. They thought the Law was what you did to prove your value to God. That was never its intention. Its intention was to showcase how man never had and never will meet up to God’s standards. Jesus showed the intention of the Law through His ministry by raising the bar to include your thoughts and motives in morality, and also that certain laws were not so strict to keep you from doing weightier things like loving your neighbor in time of need. Jesus told Nicodemus, who taught the strict enforcement of ceremonial laws, to forget it all and start all over. Now, let’s be clear; Jesus never once taught that He was getting rid of the old system. He was saying its purpose is finished, but only for those who would believe in Him. Those outside of Christ are still going to be judged by the Law.
Jesus wanted Nicodemus to shift his entire mindset from “do this to be right with God” to what God intended all along: “Believe and by faith trust God, and the good works will follow.” Jesus cited one of Israel’s key moments in the wilderness, the raising of the bronze serpent so that all who look upon it would be healed, to showcase that He Himself would be lifted up on a cross and all who look upon Him would be saved from something far more severe than the bite of a serpent: sin itself. The message of the Gospel is about trust and reliance on God. The amazing thing is that this was the message all along; Jesus never came up with a new system. It was there the whole time. Abel understood it. Noah understood it. Abraham understood it. Yet from Moses on, it seems only David truly understood it, though a number of those in Hebrews 11 had it to a degree.
So as Jesus explained the faith-based system, He then came to the most famous verse in the Bible: John 3:16, the simplest one-sentence summary of the Gospel. All it takes to be saved is to believe in Jesus, but as we have seen with Jesus’ other teachings, to believe in Him is a very different thing than intellectual agreement or mental ascent. It is a total trust in Him, which involves and requires denial of self and rejecting our way of doing things. While Jesus offers this great hope, He also gave a stern warning, because those who chose not to believe Him stand condemned already. Jesus’ message is not “turn or burn” with a threat. His message is “Turn because you ARE burning. Come out. Get help. Let Me save you.”
We do not know the immediate result of this discussion with Nicodemus, but we know that Nicodemus did come to Jesus’ aid and stood by Him from his position with the Pharisees. And we are left with the same question: will we trust in Jesus and start over? Paul did. Or are we going to stay in our world system and reject Jesus?
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. After they had lived there about ten years, both Mahlon and Kilion also died, and Naomi was left without her two sons and her husband.
- Ruth 1:4-5
The “they” mentioned at the start of this short passage comes from verse 3 and refers to Mahlon and Kilion, the sons of Naomi and Elimelech. Elimelech had died, so Naomi’s sons were now responsible for providing for her. At first glance, these two verses may seem like a mere transition in the story. However, they have a lot of significance for this narrative.
In the patriarchal society of ancient Israel, a woman’s identity and security were intricately tied to her relationship with the men in her life – her father, husband, or sons. A widow without sons was especially vulnerable, often facing poverty, social marginalization, and a lack of legal rights. We never hear anything about Naomi’s parents in this narrative, so it can be assumed that they have already passed away before our story begins.
The loss of her husband and sons left Naomi in an untenable position. Without male providers, she was not only emotionally bereft but also economically and socially destabilized. The marriage practice outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 aimed to address such vulnerabilities by instructing a close male relative to marry the widow and ensure the continuation of her deceased husband’s lineage. However, Naomi’s case was complicated by the fact that she was in Moab, far from her extended family and the cultural framework of Israel.
Ruth and Orpah, the Moabite women introduced here, belonged to a culture with a complex relationship with Israel. The Moabites traced their lineage to Lot, Abraham’s nephew, but their history with Israel was fraught with tension. The Moabites had refused to provide hospitality to the Israelites during their journey to the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 23:3-6), and their worship of Chemosh, a deity often associated with human sacrifice, starkly contrasted with Israelite worship of the one true God. However, it is important to note that intermarriage with Moabites was not explicitly on the list of forbidden nations for Israelites to marry (Deuteronomy 7:1-4).
Despite these cultural divides, Ruth and Orpah’s marriages to Mahlon and Kilion illustrate a blending of communities that was not uncommon in border regions. These unions also underscore the practical realities of survival in times of famine, as Elimelech’s family sought refuge in Moab during a period of hardship in Bethlehem, and they clearly planned to stay there for a long time by settling down and making it their home.
The deaths of Mahlon and Kilion, after Elimelech had already died, transform Naomi’s situation from difficult to dire. In ancient Near Eastern societies, a widow without male protectors faced a precarious existence. Naomi’s lament about being bitter later in the chapter (verse 20) reflects the depth of her despair and the cultural implications of her losses.
For Ruth and Orpah, the deaths of their husbands also signified a loss of social standing and security. In Moabite culture, as in Israelite tradition, childless widows had limited prospects. Orpah’s eventual decision to return to her family and gods reflects a practical choice to seek support within the familiar structures of her own community. Ruth instead chooses to remain in the Israelite culture with Naomi, as we will see as the story unfolds.
Our culture today is very different than the ancient Moabite culture, of course. Today, women can be independent and live productive lives without having husbands or sons to take care of them. But many women can still face vulnerabilities without a husband to take care of them, so we should still care for those in need with empathy for their situations.
When someone experiences a tragic loss, or even worse, multiple tragic losses as Naomi did, it is important for the community to come around and support them during that difficulty. Even though Naomi had lived in Moab for at least 10 years at that point, she did not have that community. The text doesn’t tell us why. Perhaps she did not intend to stay in Moab for that long. Perhaps she still clung to her Israelite culture and did not assimilate with the cultures and daily life of those in Moab. While life appeared to be alright for Naomi after the loss of Elimelech, things took a drastic turn when Mahlon and Kilion died, and it seems there was no one to help her.
Life is fragile, both today and in the ancient world, and there can be major life changes that happen in an instant. Just as we will see God provide for Naomi, God will take care of us during life’s major difficulties as well. The God who took care of Naomi and Ruth is the same God who still cares for us today, and He often uses those around us to accomplish that. People are resilient, but it is God who truly provides for us, even in the worst of times.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
When Jesus opened His ministry, He purposed not to draw a crowd by preaching some difficult messages and even driving His own hometown away and refused to use them for building His ministry. To further demonstrate He was not about crowd-drawing, Jesus began doing His miracles quietly, seeking no honor for Himself.
When Jesus was just getting started, He was preaching in Capernaum right after being rejected in Nazareth. He was doing what He had been doing before starting His miracles, and a demon spoke up. This demoniac had been in the congregation for some time, and no one seemed to notice, but then Jesus began to preach in power and authority, and the demon could not hide any longer. This demon then proclaimed Jesus to be the Holy One and was afraid that it would be sent to Hell early. Jesus immediately silenced him and drove the demon out. He would not let the demon give His position and identity away, even though what the demon said was true. Jesus had no interest at all in being promoted by a demon.
The first formal miracle of Jesus happened at a wedding. Jesus was invited and brought the disciples He had with Him (not all twelve may have been picked yet). The wedding planners made a very humiliating mistake. They either underestimated numbers or came out short on the wine because partway through the party, they ran out. Mary summoned Jesus to do something, and Jesus initially refused. But out of compassion for her and for the married couple, He summoned the servants to get water, which He turned into wine.
Another time, while out with His disciples, Jesus was approached by a leper. This man with leprosy must have heard about Jesus either through the wedding or something else, and he knew that Jesus could make him well. And Jesus had compassion on him and did what no man had ever done since he got his diagnosis: Jesus touched him. Unlike any other person, Jesus wasn’t made dirty and unclean by touching this man. Instead, the man was made well, and his leprosy was instantly healed. In that time and culture, to celebrate something, you went and told everyone about what you did or what happened. Jesus denied this man from telling anyone, but he should get his official report of cleansing so he could return to society without telling anyone. Jesus would take no glory for this.
This is in total contrast to the “miracles” we see from the “Word of Faith” movement, where they proclaim miracles take place constantly and on a regular basis. None of these “miracle workers” can do much of anything unless a camera or crowd is present. While they give lip service to God doing the miracles, all the attention is on them. This is ALSO an issue in some Reformed circles. There are preachers who are solid preachers and do so with authority, but they have a crowd’s attention, and they long for that attention. This is a problem everywhere. There are very few out there who truly handle their platform and ministry as Jesus did, seeking to deflect human attention. I know there are solid preachers who do not like the spotlight and have had it thrust on them regardless. The idolatry of men is a deadly trap when you have the gifts for a large platform, and it takes the utmost care and caution to survive it.
As an author and occasional speaker, there is an appeal to wanting a crowd because I want the truth to get out to as many people as possible. Jesus definitely felt that, but He also knew that the bulk of the crowds would only come for the show and for what they could get out of it. Jesus repeatedly had to repel crowds who only wanted a show. I, too, want people to hear the truth I put in my writings and my talks, but I am scared of a crowd because I know my issues with pride, being intellectually wired. It would be easy for me to use a popular name as a platform for me, and that is not how I am to operate. I am glad God did not give me a skill, let alone much of a desire, for marketing because if I had that, I’d fall into the trap of people-pleasing. With the messages that I bring, people-pleasing is the fastest way to lose the message and make oneself inept in service to the Lord.
Jesus didn’t want attention, so He showed only the minimal people needed to get started, but there were times Jesus did a miracle just to prove a point. Every single move Jesus made was strategically calculated, spiritually, to bring all things together to get both the people and the religious leaders to come and kill Him. By not being people-pleasing, He would not even attempt to fulfill misconceptions and false hopes based on a false understanding of Scripture. He would soon let people speak about Him, but He did not want popularity until it was necessary. The leper did not obey and told many people how he got healed; to avoid undesired public attention, Jesus kept to the smaller towns.
But soon, word would get out and around and Jesus, in His compassion, would heal people and word would spread even more. This would get the attention of the Pharisees. Over the next two weeks, we will look at two of Jesus’ earliest dealings with the religious leaders: one who saw something in Jesus he could not explain and others who challenged His authority to teach. Through these interactions, Jesus would prove His authority to teach, to heal, and to forgive sins.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land. So a man from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and two sons, went to live for a while in the country of Moab. The man’s name was Elimelech, his wife’s name was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there.
Now Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died, and she was left with her two sons.
- Ruth 1:1-3
These opening verses of the book of Ruth set the stage for the entire story by introducing us to the main characters and the challenges they face. While these verses appear to be a simple introduction, they contain much cultural, historical, and theological significance. For more of the context and background of this book, check out last week’s post. As we dig into this narrative, it’s important to look at the significant aspects of these first few verses. Biblical names often carry profound significance, offering insight into a character’s identity, role, or destiny. The names in Ruth 1:1-3 are no exception.
The opening phrase in verse 1, “In the days when the judges ruled,” situates the narrative in a tumultuous period of Israel’s history. This era, spanning roughly 300 years, was marked by moral decline, political instability, and a cyclical pattern of disobedience, oppression, repentance, and deliverance. The refrain in Judges, “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25), underscores the spiritual chaos of the time.
Against this backdrop of instability comes a famine in Bethlehem, a town whose name means the "house of bread.” This ironic detail reveals the severity of the situation, as the land known for its abundance could no longer sustain its inhabitants. Elimelech’s decision to leave Bethlehem for the foreign land of Moab underscores the desperation of the moment. Moab was historically an enemy of Israel and not a place where one would seek refuge lightly.
The name Elimelech means “My God is King.” This name is a powerful declaration of faith, emphasizing God’s sovereignty. However, Elimelech’s actions seem to contradict his name. Instead of trusting God to provide in Bethlehem, he takes his family to Moab, a land associated with idolatry and immorality. This decision raises questions about faith and the tension between human agency and divine trust. Elimelech’s death shortly after arriving in Moab (verse 3) further highlights the precariousness of relying on human solutions rather than seeking God’s guidance.
Naomi’s name means “pleasant” or “delightful.” This reflects her character and the life she likely enjoyed before the famine. However, as the story unfolds, Naomi experiences profound loss and hardship, leading her to later declare, “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me” (Ruth 1:20). This transformation of her name symbolizes the shift in her life from joy to sorrow, yet it also sets the stage for God’s redemptive work in her story.
The names of Elimelech and Naomi’s sons carry a somber tone. Mahlon means “sickness,” and Chilion means “wasting” or “pining.” These names may foreshadow their premature deaths, which occur a few verses later (spoiler alert). Their names remind readers of the fragility of life and the pervasive effects of sin and brokenness in a fallen world.
Bethlehem, meaning “house of bread,” is a significant location in biblical history. It is not only the setting for part of the story of Ruth but also the birthplace of King David and, later, Jesus Christ. The mention of the family being Ephrathites, a prominent clan in Bethlehem, highlights their social standing and underscores the dramatic fall from security to vulnerability that Naomi experiences.
The family’s journey to Moab is fraught with theological tension. Moab’s origins stem from an incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughter (Genesis 19:30-37). Throughout Israel’s history, Moabites were often at odds with the Israelites, both politically and spiritually. By choosing to sojourn in Moab, Elimelech’s family steps into a land characterized by foreign gods and potential hostility.
However, their sojourn also reflects a broader theme in Scripture: God’s purposes often unfold in unexpected places. Just as Abraham left his homeland in obedience to God’s call, Naomi and her family’s journey to Moab becomes the catalyst for a series of events that ultimately reveal God’s redemptive power.
Elimelech’s death is a pivotal moment in the narrative, leaving Naomi as a widow in a foreign land with her two sons. In the ancient Near East, widows were among the most vulnerable members of society, relying heavily on male relatives for provision and protection. Naomi’s loss underscores her precarious position and sets the stage for the unfolding drama of loyalty and redemption.
Spiritually, Elimelech’s death raises questions about the consequences of stepping outside of God’s covenant community. While Scripture does not explicitly attribute his death to divine judgment, the narrative invites readers to consider the risks of seeking security apart from God.
The famine in Bethlehem serves as a test of faith for Elimelech and his family. While their decision to go to Moab may have been pragmatic, it also reveals the difficulty of trusting God in times of scarcity. This theme resonates with believers today, as we are often tempted to rely on our own understanding rather than seeking God’s guidance in difficult situations.
These opening verses of Ruth invite us to reflect on our own faith journeys. How do we respond to famine (literal or metaphorical) in our lives? Do we trust God to provide, or do we seek solutions apart from Him? These verses also challenge us to consider the legacy of our names and identities. Do our lives reflect the truths we profess, as Elimelech’s name proclaimed “My God is King”?
Finally, these verses remind us of God’s faithfulness, even in the face of loss and uncertainty. Just as He worked through Naomi’s story to bring about His purposes, which we will see as we continue through this narrative, He is at work in our lives, weaving our stories into His broader narrative of redemption.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Jesus had a single mission: to save mankind from sin. But with that mission, there was a need to get the message of salvation out to the world. He could have easily done it in the flesh, but God had a plan that was much bigger than one human body. He wanted a Church, a body of people who worked together for a single goal: to love God, to worship God, and to make disciples of the nations. As has been God’s plan all along, He chose to work through people, even those who have been cursed by sin. For establishing His church, Jesus picked twelve men to follow Him.
Worldview Warriors blogger Katie Erickson did a series on the Apostles and who they were, and I am not going to get into detail about them. We have Peter, James, John, and Andrew who were fishermen; Matthew, a tax collector; Phillip, a disciple of John the Baptist; Nathaniel, an honest man on the brink of despair; Simon, a member of a Jewish violent cult, the Zealots; and Thomas, Bartholomew, James the Less, and Judas. We know the most of Peter, John, Matthew, and Judas because they get more screen time, however, these were the last people you’d ever want to choose for starting a religion.
These twelve men were a total rag-tag group who constantly bickered with each other, often sought who was the favorite and the best, wanted positions of power, and were so clueless about anything Jesus actually taught. And this was done intentionally. Just pay attention to this detail. Jesus predicted that He would be resurrected three days after He would be crucified. The Apostles never got the memo. They kept hearing it, but it never clicked until after it all happened. Yet there was a group who did catch on: the Pharisees. That is why they insisted on having Jesus’ tomb guarded. It was so the disciples could not steal the body and proclaim the resurrection – something they did not understand themselves.
So why did Jesus choose these men? Why didn’t He choose men who were more academically inclined? Why didn’t He choose men who would have money, wealth, and resources to help Him? He actually chose two such men: Matthew and later Paul. Matthew was very wealthy, and Paul was one of the most educated and intelligent men of his time. But Jesus called for them to do something that most won’t do today: to leave it all behind. Matthew left his tax office immediately, leaving behind a life of wealth and luxury. Paul left his career on track to be the leader of the Pharisees and considered all he had learned prior and all his efforts to be godly on his own to be worthless dung. Jesus picked men who were worth nothing in society and men who had positions and who gave them up. And even among them, Jesus chose one man whom He knew would betray Him and called him a devil in front of the others: Judas. Yet none of them ever suspected Judas would ever actually do that.
Jesus picked men whom the world despised to show that the Gospel was not merely for the academic and religious elite but was primarily for the poor and the lowly. He picked men like Matthew and Simon the Zealot, those who had chosen lifestyles of luxury and violence, to show that the Gospel can pull in sinners and change them. He chose men like Paul, who were academically elite, to show the Gospel could read the elite. He even chose a man like Judas as a warning that not all who follow Jesus are of Him. Judas was picked not merely to fulfill prophecy but also as a warning that following Jesus alone does not make one saved.
Jesus picked men who would stumble and bumble all over the place, looking like anything except noble servants of a great king. Peter stuck his foot in his mouth countless times. Thomas needed physical evidence to believe Jesus rose. James and John wanted to call fire from heaven to burn up scoffers, then wanted to be given the top positions of Christ’s kingdom. And those are just the highlights. If Jesus picked these men, that gives us all hope for picking us because He clearly included our stupidity, our stubbornness, and our foolishness into the equation. But He also included the work of the Holy Spirit into the equation as well.
These twelve men, from Pentecost on, became men who would turn the world upside down. When the Gospel began to spread, the Roman Empire didn’t know what to do. All they could do was to try to squash it, and all that did was make it stronger. This rag-tag group of clowns would each suffer very violent deaths and unspeakable tortures and rejections for around 40 years, and not one of them caved on the story. The very men who fled in terror upon Jesus’ arrest were proclaiming Him before thousands just 53 days later, and they willingly endured arrest and beatings to proclaim the name of Christ. What happened? The resurrection of Jesus happened, and they now had the same Holy Spirit that had armed and equipped Jesus.
Jesus picked twelve men to be His disciples and transformed them into pillars of such strength that the world and its finest could never compare. If Jesus can do that with the Apostles, He can do that with us. He can take the sinful, rebellious, stubborn, foolish people we are and make us something that the world is not worthy of. The born-again believer should live a life that makes the temporal world here so superfluous and worthless. Not with snobbery or looking down on them, but with a separation in which we are of this world and not of it and also with a longing to pull as many out of this lowly pit of worldly living as we can. CT Studd said many wanted to live by church steeples and bells, but he wanted to run a rescue shop within a yard of Hell. Studd gave up his prestigious academic and athletic career (he was the best of the best at cricket) for the sake of the Gospel and became one of the more fiery evangelists who never relented.
All Jesus asks of us is a willing and obedient heart. He’ll equip us for our tasks, but if Jesus said to us, “Drop what you are doing and follow me,” would we?
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
As we begin a new year, it’s time to begin a new blog post series! After spending nearly two years writing through 1 and 2 Corinthians, I wanted to jump back into a book in the Old Testament. After some prayer and perusing the various books, the book of Ruth stood out to me. While I’ve studied this book multiple times before, and read through it in Hebrew a few times, I’ve never written blog posts about it.
The book of Ruth is only 4 chapters long. Being primarily narrative, it’s fairly easy to read in Hebrew, but it’s packed with meaning. Even the names of some of the characters have significant meanings to them. The themes of loyalty, redemption, and God’s providence are evident throughout the book.
Before we dig into the text itself starting next week, it’s important to set the stage with the background and historical context.
The story of Ruth unfolds "in the days when the judges ruled" (Ruth 1:1), a period marked by political instability, moral decline, and spiritual waywardness in Israel’s history. The era of the judges, roughly spanning the 14th to 11th centuries BC, is characterized in the Biblical narrative by a recurring cycle: the Israelites rebel against God, fall into oppression under foreign powers, cry out for deliverance, and are rescued by a judge whom God raises up. (Check out this book for more on the time of the Judges.) Yet, the cycle of disobedience and deliverance repeats, painting a picture of a nation struggling to remain faithful to its covenant with Yahweh.
Against this turbulent backdrop, the book of Ruth presents a contrast—a story of personal faithfulness, familial devotion, and divine providence. While much of the book of Judges highlights the chaos of a nation adrift, Ruth offers a glimpse of ordinary people living out extraordinary faith in their everyday lives.
The central characters in the book of Ruth (Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz) are not kings, prophets, or warriors. Instead, they are everyday individuals navigating loss, uncertainty, and hope.
Naomi is a widow who has lost her husband and two sons. She returns to Bethlehem bitter and empty-handed, yet she becomes a vessel of God’s restoration. Ruth is a Moabite widow and Naomi’s daughter-in-law. She demonstrates steadfast loyalty by choosing to leave her homeland and align herself with Naomi and her God. Boaz is a wealthy and kind landowner who serves as the kinsman-redeemer, a pivotal role that not only brings resolution to Ruth and Naomi’s plight but also foreshadows the ultimate redemption found in Christ.
Geography plays a significant role in the narrative. The story begins in Bethlehem during a time of famine. Naomi’s family migrates to Moab, a neighboring nation historically at odds with Israel. After the deaths of her husband and sons, Naomi hears that the Lord has provided food in Bethlehem and decides to return, accompanied by Ruth. This journey from Moab to Bethlehem is more than a physical relocation; it symbolizes a return to God’s provision and covenant promises.
We don’t know the author of the book of Ruth. Jewish tradition believes it was written by Samuel, but there is no clear evidence for that. There is some similar language and style between Ruth and the book of Judges, but we do not know the author of Judges for certain either.
In our traditional English Bibles, the book of Ruth occurs after Judges and before 1 Samuel. However, in the Hebrew Bible, Ruth occurs between Proverbs and Song of Songs, which is significant. The book of Proverbs ends with the description of the wife of noble character in Proverbs 31. So if you were reading in the Hebrew Bible, immediately after reading all about this noble woman, you’d begin the story of this woman named Ruth, who isn’t even a member of the people of Israel. Ruth demonstrates commitment and faithfulness to Naomi, like the Proverbs 31 woman. In Ruth 3, we see the love story part of the narrative beginning, which feels connected to the Song of Songs, occurring immediately after Ruth in the Hebrew Bible. The love described in Song of Songs seems to spring forth from the love between Ruth and Boaz.
In the Jewish tradition, the book of Ruth is often read during the Jewish festival of Shavuot, which celebrates the giving of the Torah and the harvest season. For Christians, Ruth is a key part of the lineage of Christ, bridging the Old and New Testaments and showcasing God’s redemptive plan. Our redemption in Jesus came through Ruth's faithfulness and Boaz's faithfulness, but God's faithfulness is even greater than that, working in this narrative and in all the world to accomplish His purposes.
The four chapters of Ruth beautifully lay out the narrative. In Chapter 1, we see both loss and loyalty. Naomi and her family leave Bethlehem due to famine, and tragedy strikes them in Moab. Ruth’s decision to stay with Naomi sets the stage for the story that unfolds. In Chapter 2, we see God’s providence. Ruth gleans in the fields of Boaz, who shows kindness and protection to her. This meeting was not a coincidence but clearly orchestrated by God. In Chapter 3, we see Naomi’s plan unfold for Boaz to be their kinsman-redeemer. At the conclusion in Chapter 4, Boaz fulfills that role to redeem Naomi and Ruth, and we see the genealogy that puts Ruth as a direct ancestor of King David, and thus of Jesus.
In a world that often feels as chaotic as the time of the judges, the book of Ruth offers a message of hope, faithfulness, and redemption. It reminds us that God is at work in the ordinary and the extraordinary, weaving our stories into His narrative. As we study Ruth, we are invited to trust in God’s providence, emulate the loyalty and love displayed by its characters, and rejoice in the redemption offered through Christ.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
When someone is getting himself started in the public eye, the first thing he is always taught he must do is win the crowd with a good first impression. Every speaker knows this. Every author knows this. If you want any audience to buy into what you are offering, that first impression is a must. But Jesus does not follow the advice of men and is not concerned about His platform nor the public view of Him. He is concerned with the job assigned by His Father, empowered by the Holy Spirit. What we see Jesus do from the outside is set Himself up for rejection; He does so by going home.
In Luke’s account, when Jesus returns from the wilderness, empowered by the Holy Spirit, one of the first stops He makes is Nazareth. And in Nazareth, Jesus does what no one who wants a platform would ever do: cut Himself off from His homeland. We don’t exactly know if Jesus started doing some healings and teachings before this stop in Nazareth as Mark 1 would indicate, but one thing is clear: Jesus was known and respected enough to be given the privilege to teach that Sabbath when the regular rabbi would normally do the job. And what did Jesus do? Jesus quoted a passage from Isaiah 61 and basically said, “I am the one this is talking about.”
The response was initially met with awe because Jesus spoke with an authority that no one alive had ever heard before. I am certain that what is given in the text is not the whole dialogue that took place, but the tone soon changed very quickly. Jesus grew up with these people. They knew Him in His childhood and those very awkward teenage years. Jesus was without sin but never one of those over-pious “goody two shoes.” He had respect among the community, despite being known as an illegitimate child, and now He started proclaiming to be the fulfilment of a passage that for at least decades the people thought was going to be about the deliverance from Rome. I’m sure Jesus’ own friends and family began to wonder, “Who does this guy think He is?” And then Jesus lowered the boom, declared their reaction to Him, and basically insulted them by saying their rejection of His gift of salvation would lead to that gift being given out to those they deemed lesser than them. This led to Jesus’ own friends seeking to throw Him off a nearby cliff for blasphemy. There is no record of Jesus ever returning to Nazareth after this.
In one of Jesus’ first opportunities to get a following, He sets the standard of what He was about: seeking true and genuine followers and pushing away any who had no real intention of following Him and doing things His way. This is a charge frequently made by those who stand on the single message of Scripture. As a young earth creationist, I often get charged with chasing people away from the faith because we draw a hard line that there is no justification for being a Christian and holding hands with worldly thinking of “millions of years.” We get accused often of being un-Christ-like yet here we have Jesus chasing people away by driving home a point about the exclusive truth. Jesus does not care about numbers. He cares about true and genuine faith. He does care when those reject Him, and it grieves Him that they will be lost, not knowing what they are rejecting, but He is not going to change His message so that He could have a superfluous following. Jesus was going after the true follower, and He would give many different teachings and descriptions on what that would mean and entail.
This was not the only time Jesus would intentionally chase away people who had little interest in following Him anyway. In John’s gospel, there are two major instances when Jesus confronted the very crowds He had just been ministering to. In John 6, Jesus had just fed the 5000, sent the disciples across the sea, walked on water, and the crowd followed Him around the sea and met Him there. Jesus refused to give them another bite and instead offered the true Bread of Life – Himself. He told the people that to get eternal life, we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood. About 20,000 people, assuming it was the same crowd from the day before, left. Then in John 8, Jesus confronted another group of people who professed to believe Him. Jesus flat out called them children of the devil, haters of God, murderers, and sealed the deal by declaring Himself to be the “I AM.”
Again, Jesus refused to play the crowd. Every time He sensed there were half-hearted followers, He raised the stakes to make sure there were no hesitations. Jesus did not want any fair-weather fans. He wanted genuine disciples who would pursue and chase after Him no matter what their circumstances were. Jesus set the bar so high that He would take precedence over family, over jobs, over the comfort of a home, over an income, over absolutely anything that would enable someone to rely on their flesh. Jesus never lowered the bar for anyone. He gave messages so hard that it would be literally impossible for any person to be able to carry them out. And that was the point.
Christianity is not like any other religion that has man seeking and pursuing God. It is a religion and a faith (among much more) that requires that man cease trusting in themselves and only depend upon the mercy of God. While Jesus did give teachings about how we should live, He also made clear that following Him will not happen by one’s own ability. The Christian lifestyle is only livable, and even attemptable, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus shut down any low-level thinking about the Christian faith, and He was not going to tolerate any attempt to use Him for any personal gain or in any following of Him just for what He could offer. He knew the hearts of these people; the moment anything would turn rough, which would happen quickly and frequently to those who did follow Him, they would turn on Him and walk away. So Jesus, just like with the fig tree He cursed, simply showcased the inevitable quicker and did not let anyone get disillusioned with false hopes. He set the expectations excessively clearly so anyone who did choose to follow Him knew what they were leaving behind and what they were going into.
The life that Jesus calls us into is one where we do not have control; He does, and we walk in implicit trust that He will lead us to and through the very things we were designed for. Next week, we’ll look at what kind of people Jesus chose to be His apostles.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
