Naomi and her husband had abandoned their inheritance in the promised land because of a famine. They moved to Moab, where the famine had not reached, and attempted to make a living there. In the course of time, her husband died, followed shortly by both of her male children. She was left with two daughters-in-law. Ruth 1:6 tells us that Naomi got good news about the promised land that she had left. The verse says, “Then she arose with her daughters-in-law to return from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the fields of Moab that the Lord had visited his people and given them food.” It sounds as if Naomi and her two daughters-in-law were working the fields in Moab. It occurred to her that if she was to be a field hand anywhere, it should be in the promised land where she and her former husband had relatives. The message that Naomi received was that the famine in Israel was over, and the fields were producing food again. The news that Naomi heard was good news. The Lord had “visited,” meaning that he had acted to relieve the famine in the land to save His people. Notice that the news was not actually that the weather had changed or that conditions for growing crops were now favorable. This was true, but the news was that God had acted to save the people. Just as we had read at the beginning of the book of Ruth that the famine was from the Lord, so too do we see here that deliverance from the famine was from the Lord. Many preachers want prodigal believers to see in this that God will receive back repentant sinners as the father of the prodigal son welcomed home his penitent son. Gingrich sees it that way. He says, “As backslidden Christians, we must see the contrast between our present bankruptcy and our potential fullness in our Father’s house before we will arise and return to our Father’s house.”[1]
It might be true that Elimelech and Naomi were victims of little faith. If so, we see nothing but the wonderful grace of God extended to sinners. Most commentators suggest that when Elimelech left Israel, he did the wrong thing. For example, Prime says, “Elimelech’s decision to leave Judah had not been a good one. He and his family should have stuck out the famine, waiting for the Lord to come to their aid.”[2] Driesbach noticed this also and writes, “Some have viewed Elimelech’s move to Moab as a disobedient act because it involved leaving the Promised Land; in this case, his death is viewed as a divine judgment. God similarly judged Elimelech’s two sons. Abraham and Jacob’s sojourns in foreign lands are sometimes interpreted as a sign of lacking faith.”[3] But there was more to moving Naomi back to Bethlehem, the house of bread, than meets the eye. Block caught this and said, “The narrator’s eyes of faith undoubtedly recognized in this gift of food the grace of God. He does not explicitly speak about divine grace, but the absence of any hint of repentance on the part of Israel as a whole or Naomi, in particular, suggests that the motivation behind the lifting of the famine and the provision of food lies elsewhere. The reader will recognize here the providential hand of God, guiding natural and historical events for the fulfillment of his purpose and setting the stage for the ultimate emergence of David’s ancestor.”[4] God wanted to the birth of David, Ruth’s grandson, to be in Bethlehem as prophesied in the Old Testament. In the city, whose name means “House of Bread,” was born the line of David. His ancestor will be the “bread of life.”
[1] Gingrich, Roy E. 2006. The Books of Judges & Ruth. Memphis, TN: Riverside Printing.
[2] Prime, Jonathan. 2007. Opening up Ruth. Opening Up Commentary. Leominster: Day One Publications.
[3] Driesbach, Jason. 2012. “Ruth.” In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, edited by Philip W. Comfort, 512. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.
[4] Block, Daniel Isaac. 1999. Judges, Ruth. Vol. 6. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.