The Losses CompoundRuth 1:3–14

Introduction 37:10

Today is our second sermon in the series on the book of Ruth. If you were not here last week, we covered a lot. By a lot, I mean two verses: chapter 1, verses 1 and 2. What we really did was set up everything for the series.

We talked about how the book takes place during the time of the Judges, and we think it falls somewhere between Judges 17 and the end of that book. We do not know for certain who the author is. We think it was Samuel. Most scholars and most of the evidence point that way. The family line at the end of the book goes right up to David and does not mention Solomon. It makes sense that Samuel wrote it, because anyone writing later would likely have included Solomon.

All of this and much more can be found on our website. We have a whole sermon series page for the book of Ruth, with resources you can download that cover the background and some of the Hebrew. If you want to take a deep dive, go download them.

Last week 38:50

Last week we finished with verses 1 and 2. We talked about a man named Elimelech, married to a woman named Naomi.

Pause. I am going to need you to give me some grace through this whole series. My brain sometimes moves faster than my mouth, and I am going to mix up Ruth and Naomi. I just know I am. In my head, Ruth is the mother-in-law and Naomi is the daughter-in-law. Maybe it is because today Ruth is usually an older name and Naomi is a popular young name. If you catch it, hold up a finger. I will know what it means, and I will not be mad.

Elimelech lived in Judah. His name means “My God is my king,” which is interesting, because there were no kings at this time. But there was a famine in the land, and Elimelech did not live up to his name. He did not say, “My God is my king. He will provide.” He said, “My God may be my king, but there is no food here, so I am going to a neighboring country called Moab.” He leaves with his wife and sons. That is where we pick up in verse 3.

Reading the passage 41:13

I am not a great pronouncer of names, so give me grace.

[Pastor Tim reads Ruth 1:3–14 from the New King James Version.]

There is a lot to cover in these verses, so let’s dive in.

Verse 3: Elimelech dies 44:21

[Reads Ruth 1:3–5.]

Last week we saw Elimelech leave Israel for Moab. Now, quickly, in verse 3, he dies. He has a very short scene in the story. His name means “My God is my king,” but his faith did not match his name. He left to live in an enemy country, and now he is dead.

The text does not dwell on it. It does not tell us he got the measles or whooping cough. It tells us there was a man named Elimelech who lived in Bethlehem of Judah, the house of bread. There was a famine in the house of bread. He left for Moab. And he died. That is what we know.

We can draw some inferences. Leaving does not always solve everything. He left, and it solved nothing. The famine was not fixed by his leaving. All it did was relocate the family to a new set of problems, and those problems multiplied and built on each other quickly, to the point of death.

Verse 4: Orpah and Ruth 46:50

Naomi’s sons find wives in Moab. One was named Orpah. Orpah most likely derives from a root connected to the word for neck or nape, though some scholars connect it to words like cloud or drip, and others say it means stubborn. I like the idea of the neck. If Orpah means neck or nape, there may be some subtle irony, because this is the woman who will eventually turn her neck and go back to her country.

The other wife was Ruth. The meaning of her name is even less certain. The leading theory connects it to a root meaning something like friend or companion. If so, it is a beautiful bit of foreshadowing, because in verse 14 Ruth clings to Naomi. Orpah will go home. Ruth will stay. A minority view connects her name with seeing, vision, or beauty, but most commentators lean toward friend or companion.

About ten years 49:04

They lived there about ten years. That is a long time. I do not think this detail was written to be glossed over, though it often is, because it gives us insight into the background of the story.

Think about it. They have been married and living there for ten years. Ten years of marriage with no children would stand out in a culture that tracked genealogy and considered children an obvious sign of blessing. In ten years, God had not given them a single child. That means this family’s line was already in trouble before the sons died. And now the sons are dying with no children. Naomi is not just losing her husband and her sons. She is watching her family line go extinct.

Verse 5: the woman survived 50:30

Then both Mahlon and Chilion also died. Naomi has now buried her husband and her two children. The Hebrew text is spare here, almost clinical. There is no commentary and no explanation. Just the facts. Dead. Gone.

Verses 6–7: the Lord had visited His people 51:00

[Reads Ruth 1:6–7.]

“The Lord had visited His people by giving them bread.” The word behind “visited” is the Hebrew word paqad. It is a rich word, meaning something like to take note of, to attend to, or to intervene on someone’s behalf.

So here we see God intervening for Judah. It is the same kind of language used when God remembered Sarah in Genesis 21:1, and when He heard Israel’s groaning in Egypt in Exodus 4. Just as God heard the children of Israel when they were slaves, God hears Judah and visits His people. It is covenant language: God noticing His people’s condition and acting on it. The famine that opened the book last week is now explicitly reversed, and the narrator wants us to see God’s hand in both the coming and the ending of the famine.

The word “return” 53:20

She arose “that she might return from the country of Moab.” The Hebrew root is shuv, to return or turn back. It is used about ten times in chapter 1. It is the connective tissue of the whole chapter. Naomi is returning from Moab, and she urges her daughters-in-law to turn back. The word shows up again and again in her speech in verses 8 through 13.

Shuv is also the root used elsewhere in the Old Testament for repentance. She is saying, “It is time for me to go back. And I want you to turn, leave me behind, and go back to your mothers.” The thought runs through the entire chapter.

Background: marriage to a brother-in-law 56:40

[Reads Ruth 1:8–14.]

Some of you may know this already. If you do, pat yourself on the back. I don’t like to assume anybody knows anything. To understand the last part of today’s passage, we have to understand a Jewish custom that is woven through the entire book of Ruth.

In the ancient world there was no Social Security. There was no life insurance and no widow’s pension. If a married man died before having any sons, his widow was left with no husband and no male heir. The obligation then moved to the dead man’s brother. Assuming they still lived on the same family property, which was very common, he was expected to marry the widow, take her in as his wife, and provide for her, because she had no other means.

We can tie this back to our last series in Malachi, where the Hebrew men were divorcing their wives to marry young pagan women, leaving the Hebrew women with no way to provide for themselves. It is the same problem. These widows usually had no way to support themselves or keep their land in the family name.

The purpose of the marriage was this: the firstborn son from it legally counted as the dead man’s son. He was not the heir of his biological father. He was the heir of the man who died, so the dead man’s land stayed in the family and continued to provide for the widow. The son carried the dead man’s name forward and eventually inherited his portion of the family land.

The brother did have a say. He could refuse. But refusing came with some nasty consequences. Let me read you the actual law.

The law in Deuteronomy 25 60:00

[Reads Deuteronomy 25:5–10.]

So he can refuse. But if he does, the widow goes to the city gate, where the elders are, and tells them what is happening. They try to persuade him, reminding him that this is what God’s law asks. He can still refuse. If he does, the widow comes to him in front of witnesses, removes his sandal, spits in his face, and pronounces a kind of curse on him. From then on all Israel looks down on that family, which means people will not do business with them or help provide for them.

Three reasons for the law 62:40

Why did they need this law? It existed for three reasons.

First, to preserve the family name. Deuteronomy 25 says it plainly: so that his name will not be blotted out of Israel. In a culture without written records like ours, a family’s name continuing through descendants was how you were remembered and how your place in the covenant community continued.

Second, to keep the land inside the family. When Israel first entered the promised land under Joshua, in Joshua 13 through 21, the land was permanently divided among the tribes and then among the families in those tribes. That land was not just real estate. It was tied to God’s covenant promise to each family. A family that died without an heir was in danger of losing its permanent stake in the promised land altogether. This law kept that from happening.

Third, to protect the widow. The law made sure that a woman who had already lost her husband was not then abandoned by the whole community as well. It is social protection built directly into the Law of Moses for the most vulnerable person in the situation.

God had a plan for this, and understanding this law is essential to understanding the book of Ruth. It is what Naomi is trying to tell her daughters-in-law: “I do not have anybody. And even if I married and became pregnant, you are not going to wait around.”

Verses 8–9: a blessing in the middle of grief 65:00

[Reads Ruth 1:8–9.]

Naomi has just lost her husband and her two children. In the middle of her own grief, she prays God’s covenant kindness over these two Moabite women, who have no ongoing obligation to her. It is a genuinely gracious and generous moment, in spite of her own bitterness. She blesses them and says, “Go. I give you permission to find another husband and have children. Do not worry about my sons. You did so well by them, and you have taken care of me when you did not have to. Now, please, go.”

Verses 10–13: nothing left to offer 66:40

[Reads Ruth 1:10–13.]

Naomi is thinking that the only way she could provide new husbands for Ruth and Orpah would be to have more sons and wait for them to grow up. She sees herself as too old to remarry and bear children. Even if she could, that very night, the girls would not realistically wait fifteen or twenty years for infants to become men they could marry. She wants them to move forward. It is a hopeless, self-deprecating argument. It is also the first time the custom that will drive the entire second half of the book is put in front of the reader.

An honest lament 69:25

At the end of verse 13 she says, “It grieves me very much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord has gone out against me.” This is Naomi’s own theological interpretation of her suffering, and it is worth sitting with instead of hurrying past.

She is not shy about attributing her losses directly to God. This is not blasphemy. It is an honest lament. It is the same kind of raw, God-directed grief you find throughout the Psalms and in the book of Job. It is a woman being vulnerable before God, crying out, “His hand has gone against me.”

We covered this a little in Malachi. There is a proper way to question God. God is not afraid of our feelings. “Come and reason with Me,” says the Lord in Isaiah. Job cried out, and yet the Scriptures tell us Job did not sin in that. David cries out and says God has abandoned him.

The difference is this. What those people felt, and what Naomi feels in chapter 1, is not, “God, I cannot believe You would do this to me, while all those people who do not even follow You are getting blessed. Poor me.” That is not how she laments. She is stating a fact: “My husband is dead. My two sons are dead. I feel like God is doing this to me.” She does not curse God for it. She does not yell at God for it. She expresses what is on her heart.

This was not part of my notes, but there is a proper way to grieve with God, to come to Him and disagree and even argue, while always remembering that He is God.

It also sets up her much sharper statement in verse 20, which we will cover next week, where she asks to be called Mara, which means bitter, instead of Naomi, which means pleasant. Verse 13 is the first crack in that direction.

Verse 14: Orpah kissed, but Ruth clung 72:37

[Reads Ruth 1:14.]

The two women get parallel treatment right up until this verse. They do the same things. Naomi gives them the same blessing. Then the text draws the sharpest possible contrast in a single line: “Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.”

Orpah’s choice to go home was, by every social and legal expectation of the day, reasonable and understandable. She had no obligation to stay. She listens to Naomi, kisses her goodbye, and returns to Moab. I do not want to turn Orpah into a villain. She is not a villain in this story. She did nothing wrong. She did what was expected of her.

That is what makes Ruth’s choice so remarkable. Ruth did not do the expected thing. The Scripture says Ruth clung to Naomi. The word in Hebrew is dabaq. It is a strong word, meaning to cling, to hold fast, to stay glued to something with a determined grip. It is the same word used in Genesis 2:24, which Jesus quotes in the book of Matthew, where a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife. This is marriage covenant language.

The narrator’s word choice quietly loads Ruth’s commitment to Naomi with the weight of a covenant bond, which is exactly what her words in verses 16 and 17 will make explicit next Sunday. Even here in verse 14, the vocabulary is telling you that Ruth is not making a casual decision. She is making a deliberate decision to stay with Naomi.

What does this mean for us? 76:00

What does this mean for us today, two thousand and more years later, in Gold Canyon?

First, God’s care for the vulnerable is not just a nice sentiment. It is supposed to be structural. The law we just read was not a suggestion or a charity drive. It was built into the legal and social fabric of Israel, and there were consequences for refusing it.

A church that only feels compassion for widows, single parents, the elderly living alone, or anyone who has lost their safety net, but never builds commitments and systems to provide for them, has not caught what the law was for. You may say, “Tim, that is the law. Jesus came to fulfill the law.” All right. Open your Bible to James 1:27. It does not get clearer than that. What is pure and undefiled religion? To take care of widows and orphans, to care for those in need.

A church that feels sorry for widows and orphans but has no systems in place to care for them is not a church that is honoring God. We have to take care of the vulnerable, the people who have no other way of taking care of themselves. It is not a suggestion or a nice thing to do. It is a command from God in both the Old Testament and the New. My friends, it is not enough to feel sorry and show compassion. We must take action.

Second, Naomi shows us that honest grief is not a failure of faith. She says, “The hand of the Lord has gone out against me.” That is about as raw as it gets. And the text never corrects her. It never tries to hush her or rush her toward a silver lining.

I think a lot of church culture quietly teaches people to perform having it all together, especially in front of others. Naomi gives us permission to do what the psalmist did and what Job did, instead of what our culture tells us to do, which is to tidy it up quickly and get it together.

Some of us here this morning are in a Naomi season. If that is you, I want to encourage you. You are not alone. God wants to hear from you. If everything feels like it is crumbling around you, God wants to take care of you, and He wants you to come to Him.

Third, when Naomi runs out of options, that is exactly where God starts working. By verse 13, every normal solution under the law was gone. There were no more sons. There were no brothers. She had nothing left to offer. That is rock bottom. And I believe it is rock bottom by design, because, spoiler alert, the end of Naomi’s resources is not the end of the story. Someone, somewhere, ends up being God’s unexpected provision for someone else. Just because she could not see it at the time does not mean God was not already at work, preparing a man named Boaz to take care of this family.

Closing prayer 81:45

Father, thank You that You care for the vulnerable. We will see it throughout the book of Ruth, and we see it throughout the New Testament as well, in the book of James and when Jesus helps the widows, over and over again.

If we are honest with ourselves, we are all vulnerable. In a moment everything could come crumbling down. But Your Word is true, and You love Your children. You care for the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. How much more do You love us?

I pray that as a church we would not treat care for the vulnerable as a nice sentiment. Help us to be structural in how we do it: to take care of those who need care, to provide for those who need provision, to pray for those who need prayer, to encourage and spend time with them, whatever You have called us to in this season. Help us to be a church that sees the vulnerable and actually does something.

Thank You that Naomi showed us that honest grief is not a failure of faith. Remind us that we can come to You with honest hearts when we do not understand.

Finally, thank You that those seasons are often when You really start working. I pray that we would remain faithful and remember that even when we cannot see it, You are still at work. In Jesus’ name, amen.