“It came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled”

“It came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled”

Bernard Burt The Testimony 2005 p. 272 The Book of Ruth is set in the early days of the Judgers period, at the time when Israel first went astray from God. It concerns a series of events which occurred in the lives of the members of one family in Israel during that period, some faithful to God, others moving away from Him. Their actions and their experiences provide lessons for believers trying to serve God in the godless society of today.

BOOK OF RUTH is one of the books of the Bible which gives us a time frame into which we can position it. It opens: “Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled . .. “. The book is therefore an appendix to the book of Judges. It will be helpful first to ask, When in the period of the Judges did the events recorded in Ruth occur? Once this question is answered it leads on to other questions about the chronology of Judges, as will be seen. The key to the dating of the book of Ruth is the man Boaz. His genealogy is given in Ruth 4:18-22, but a vital additional piece of information is found in Matthew 1:5. There we are told that the wife of Salmon and mother of Boaz was Rahab the harlot of Jericho. Boaz therefore belonged to the first generation born in the land after Israel had taken possession of it. He was an old man when Naomi came back to Bethlehem (Ruth 3:10), which would place the events of the book of Ruth in the time of the second generation born in the land after the conquest under Joshua. This understanding ties in the events of the book of Ruth with the chronological statements made in Judges 2:7, Judges 2:10 : “And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that He did for Israel . . . and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which He had done for Israel”. Mahlon and Chilion, the sons of Elimelech and Naomi, were part of that generation.

Relationship of the book of Ruth to events in Judges The events recorded at the end of the book of Judges are all linked by the use of the phrase, “In those days there was no king in Israel” (Judges 17:6; Judges 18:1; Judges 19:1; Judges 21:25). When we consider them it soon becomes evident that these events did not occur at the end of the period of the Judges. The book concludes with the business of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30; Judges 20:1-48; Judges 21:1-25). These things must have happened early in the Judges period, because Phinehas the son of Eleazar (the first man to become high priest in the land) enquired of the Lord for the people at that time (Judges 20:28). The previous incident—the idolatry of Micah and the migration of the tribe of Dan—must have happened before the events of Judges 19:1-30; Judges 20:1-48; Judges 21:1-25, be cause the phrase “from Dan even to Beer-Sheba” is used (for the first time) to describe the gathering of the tribes in Judges 20:1. The tribe of Dan must therefore have been in the north by this time.’ The order of events could therefore be:
I The tribe of Dan moves north;
2 The tribe of Benjamin is almost wiped out;
3 Elimelech and his family leave Bethlehem and go to Moab.

Linking the places

There are a number of links between places re ferred to at the end of the book of Judges and in the books of Ruth and I Samuel. These are shown in Table I over the page. What is the significance of these links?

Bethlehem-judah means. ‘the house of bread and praise’, Ephraim ‘doubly fruitful’, and Ephrath ‘place of fruitfulness’. When Israel were in the wilderness God had said to them: “If ye walk in My statutes, and keep My com mandments, and do them; then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your ¿‘retid to the full, and dwell in your land safely . . For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish My covenant with you” (Leviticus 26:3-5, Leviticus 26:9).

Yet the opening verses of the book of Ruth present us with a situation where no praise was being given to God, there was a famine in the ‘house of bread’ (Bethlehem), and there was no fruitfulness in the house of Elimelech.

Having established that the time period of the book of Ruth coincides with the events of Judges 2:1-23, we can now see the reason for these afflictions: “And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and He delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and He sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed” (Judges 2:14-15). Later records in the book of Judges show that the vari ous enemies systematically stole Israel’s crops, thus causing famines.

Life in the days of the judges

If we now look at the situation from another angle, the book of Ruth is giving us a picture of life in one family and one city in Israel in the time period covered by Judges 2:1-23 and Judges 3:1-12. We can see how they responded to the circumstances that are narrated in the book of Judges and take lessons for our own lives.

There are two verbal links between the last verse of Judges and the opening verses of Ruth. Judges states that “there was no king [Heb. melek] in Israel” and that “every man [Heb. ish] did that which was right in his own eyes”. The book of Ruth immediately, introduces us to a “certain man [ish]” whose name was Elimelech1 meaning ‘my God is King’. The lesson of this man’s name is one that Israel consistently failed to appreciate until the times of David and Solomon (see, for example, 1 Samuel 8:6-7). Elimelech himself did not appreciate it, nor did his sons.

So, when the famine came there is no indication that they understood that it was of God because of the wickedness of Israel. There is nothing to show that they intreated the Lord, as did Manoah (Judges 13:8). They looked at the situation with the eyes of flesh, They saw that there was no food in the house of bread (because there was no praise to God) but over the River Jordan in the land of Moab there was plenty (because God was not punishing the Moabites). So the record states that they “went to sojourn in the country of Moab” (Ruth 1:1).

1. The life of Samson clearly comes at the end of the period of the Judges, for the Philistines are the last foe that God brings against Israel in the book. Yet Samson was a Danite from Zorah, the area &om which the Dattites had migrated. Samson’s father Manoah, the only man iii Israel who is recorded as praying when Israel were at the bottom of the sixth cycle of oppression and deliverance, must have been part of a group of Danitcs who either did not go forth with their brethren or were so sickened by the idolatry in Dan that they came back. The Hebrew word translated “country” here, sadeh (Strongs No. 7704), occurs fourteen times in the book of Ruth. It appears six times (the number of flesh) in chapter 1 in the phrase “the country of Moab” and then eight times (the number of a new beginning) in the rest of the book, where it is translated “field”. Thus Elimelech followed the desires of the flesh, left the field of Israel, journeyed to the field of Moab and went the waý of all flesh. Ruth, on the other hand, left the field of Moab, put her trust in the God of Israel and found a new life in the field of Boaz. Our view of the world

“The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence”, runs the proverb. It is a worldly proverb, and that is how Elimelech saw things —in a worldly way. His concern was to “Labour . . . for the meat which perisheth”, rather than for “that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (John 6:27). God had, in effect, commanded Israel, “Go not to . . . another field” (Ruth 2:8). But Elimelech did not act as if God was King and the supreme authority. He saw that there was food in Moab, and to Moab he went, taking his family with him.

How do we view the world and the people who live in it? Leaving aside the obvious appeal of “this present evil world” (Galatians 1:4) to “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16), do we see the world as a place which can feed and sustain us? It has been my sad experience from time to time to encounter breth ren and sisters who say, “My friends in the world understand me better than anyone in the ecclesia does”. What they really mean is, “My friends in the world give me the sort of advice that I want to hear, unlike my brothers and sisters”.

There are two ways: the broad way that leads to destruction and the narrow way that leads to life. The book of Ruth presents us with the picture of Elimelech and his family going down, literally, like the man in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30), from Bethlehem to the plains of Moab, a not dissimilar journey to that of Lot. There is food in Moab, but there is also barrenness and death. Then, by contrast, Ruth is going the other way, up from the plains of Moab to the field of Boaz, %‘here she finds not only an abundance of corn but also rest in the house of a husband (Ruth 1:9; Ruth 3:1) and a part in the eternal purpose of God . The same Iwo ways are illustrated in the lives of two further characters who are introdúced to us in the book of Ruth. The man Boaz

Ruth 2:1-23 of Ruth introduces us to Boaz, “a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech” (Ruth 2:1). Here was a man of the same town, of the same family, who had lived through the same famine—staying in the “field” of Israel—and yet who had prospered. He clearly recognised that ‘God is King’ (the meaning of Elimelech) and had not turned aside to the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth (Judges 2:11-13). So, in the midst of an apostate ecclesia (Acts 7:38) there was a man of faith who had been blessed by God. God, His works and His purpose were clearly at the fore front of the mind of Boaz. Consider his sayings in Ruth 2:1-23 and 3:

“The LORD be with you” (Ruth 2:4);

“The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel. under Whose wings thou art come to trust.” (Ruth 2:12) “Blessed be thou of the LORD, my daughter” (Ruth 3:10).

Boaz was not discouraged by the attitude of many in Israel, he held fast to the ways of God and taught his servants the same attitude (Ruth 2:4). He was willing also to extend mercy and gracious ness (Exodus 34:6) beyond the boundary of Israel to a Moabite, whom he had every racial and national reason not to love (Deuteronomy 23:3-6). Furthermore, he had taught his servants the same attitude, as the record in Ruth 2:1-23 makes clear.

How was it that this man had such great faith and such a large heart? The answer to this ques tion cannot really be found in the Old Testament, but as soon as we turn to the New all is made plain: “And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth” (Matthew 1:5). Boaz would have learned from the example and the faith of his mother that the purpose of God extended beyond the people of Israel, and that “in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him” (Acts 10:35).

Boaz recognised that Ruth had come to trust under the “wings” of the Lord God of Israel (Ruth 2:12) and therefore he was willing to spread his “skirt” (the same word as “wings” —Strong’s No. 3671) over her to redeem her (Ruth 3:9-13). Whatever the cost to himself, he was willing to play the part of a kinsman (Heb. gee!, redeemer) to Ruth and bring her into the bonds of the covenant. The nearer kinsman

There was, however, a nearer kinsman who had to have the first opportunity to be the god. The first thing to notice about this nearer kinsman is that he is not named in the book or anywhere else in the Scriptures. Because of his actions his name is not considered to be worthy to ascend into the Divine record. The sale of land would be a very unusual event in Israel because of the law in Leviticus 25:23-34. It was the responsibility of near of kin to purchase any land that had to be sold because of poverty, in order that the land might remain within the family and the tribe to which it had originally been given. To this arrangement the unnamed kinsman was a willing and eager participant. To increase his portion of land held out prospects of greater wealth and status; it was appealing to the flesh. But there was a condition: “What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon

his inheritance” (Ruth 4:5). This he refused to do. Why? The house of Pharez The name of Pharez occurs twelve times in the Old Testament, three of them in Ruth 4:1-22. This fact draws attention to a remarkable parallel between the book of Ruth and the first place in which the name Pharez occurs, Genesis 38:1-30, as shown in Table 2. The fact that some in Israel clearly saw this pattern (else why the references to Pharez?) indicates that there were faithful people in Bethlehem in the early days of the Judges, people who knew their Scriptures and could see the hand of God in the events that were taking place amongst them. The fact that the unnamed kinsman repeated the mistake of Onan shows that there were others who had not learned the lessonš that the Word of God was designed to teach them.

Flesh and spirit When we set the book of Ruth in the time frame of the book of Judges, it shows very clearly the dichotomy that existed amongst the people of Israel. There were those, like Elimelech and the kinsman, whose thinking was according to the flesh and who minded earthly things. There were others—Naomi (after her return to Bethlehem), Boaz and, of course, Ruth herself—who were spiritually minded and who sought the things of God. This division of mind amongst the people continued right through the period of the Judges; it is still evident, for example, in the time of the last judge in the book, Samson, when some of the men of Judah were prepared to hand Samson over to the Philistines (Judges 15:9-13). The same contrast is evident in the first-century ecciesia. To take just one example, in Php 3:1-21 Paul contrasts his desire to “count all things but loss” that he might “win Christ” with the attitude of others, “whose God is their belly, and. . . who mind earthly things” (Php 3:8, Php 3:19). Is it any different in the ecclesia today? Whose life is ours similar to? Elimelech’s? Mahlon’s? The kinsman’s? Boaz’s? Ruth’s? Are these records just interesting Bible stories that we read from time to time? Or, on the other hand, are we learning the lessons of the past and applying them in the present in living lives that will glorify God?