Old Testament # 20
“All the City … Doth Know That Thou Art a Virtuous Woman”
Ruth; 1 Samuel 1
Challenge from Lesson 19: take one thing from this lesson this week: be a Deborah for someone else; strengthen your faith; keep your covenants.
Introduction
This is my favorite depiction of Ruth from Brian Kershisnik. I am not sure why it speaks to strongly to me. Maybe because I can no longer bend like that!! But probably because of her beauty and ability to adapt to her circumstances, but still stay true to the religion she has adopted. I see all that in this painting. But, sadly, it was a limited edition and I do not have a copy. In the additional material, I have put a link to a Church History exhibit on Ruth, called Practicing Charity, illustrated by Kershisnik. The exhibition notes say Ruth is an “authentic, noble, everyday daughter of God.”
1. Ruth leaves her home to go to Bethlehem with Naomi. Ruth 1–2
Naomi and her husband and sons had traveled east from Bethlehem to Moab to escape famine. Naomi’s husband died, and her two sons married women from Moab, not of the tribes of Israel, presumably. After ten years, the sons also died, so Naomi decided to return to Bethlehem in Judea. Ruth goes with her. There is a lot in these chapters that bears pondering—the responsibility of male kinsmen for widows and the property of their deceased male relative; the status (or lack thereof) of widows; the choices left to husbandless women in Israel. The stigma of barenness, which is highlighted in the story of Hannah. It is very foreign to us. It also raises questions: Did Ruth and Orpah have any children with Naomi’s sons? If so what happened to them? We only know that Orpah, reluctantly it seemed, went back to her people and her gods (Ruth 1:15). Ruth chose to abandon that life and trust in Naomi and the Hebrew religion. We do not know what she gave up, but we know what she gained.
Elder Maxwell said:
When we would measure loving loyalty in a human relationship, do we not speak of Ruth and Naomi even more than David and Jonathan? And no wonder God with His perfect regard for women is so insistent about our obligations to widows.[1]
President Monson adds:
In our selection of heroes, let us nominate also heroines. First, that noble example of fidelity—even Ruth. Sensing the grief-stricken heart of her mother-in-law, who suffered the loss of each of her two fine sons, and feeling perhaps the pangs of despair and loneliness which plagued the very soul of Naomi, Ruth uttered what has become that classic statement of loyalty: “Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” (Ruth 1:16.) Ruth’s actions demonstrated the sincerity of her words.[2]
How good are we at following through on what might be “spur of the moment” commitments?
Interestingly, it appears that Ruth also took on the responsibility for providing for herself and Naomi once they returned to Bethlehem. It wasn’t until Naomi told Ruth to make herself known to Boaz, that responsibility to them as kinsfolk seemed to have come up. Until that time, as President Nelson tells us:
Scriptures teach us that the poor—especially widows, orphans, and strangers—have long been the concern of God and the godly. The poor have been especially favored by the law. Old Testament teachings authorized poor persons at harvest time to glean after the reapers.[3]
Have you noticed that the Perpetual Education Fund and the Temple Patron Assistance Fund have been removed from online donation slips? There is no longer the need for donations to those funds. It seems to be in the spirit of ministering that we should seek to do what we can locally—maybe increasing our Fast Offerings as far as monetary contributions are concerned? Just my thoughts. Who around us is in a similar plight as Naomi and Ruth?
2. Ruth and Boaz marry and have a child.Ruth 3–4.
What we are looking at here is a Levirate marriage. Here is the section from the Institute manual that explains it:
Deuteronomy 25:5–10. The Levirate Law of Marriage
These verses define the levirate law of marriage, which provided that a dead man’s brother should marry the widow and raise a family to the dead man. “The custom insured the security of a widow who might otherwise be left destitute and friendless. … If no brother existed, some more distant male relative was required to perform this duty. Whichever relative married the widow became her ‘go’el’ (redeemer or protector). The first son born to the widow by the new marriage was counted as a child of the dead husband and inherited his property.” (Great People of the Bible and How They Lived, p. 132.) The word leviratehas nothing to do with the tribe of Levi. Rather, it is taken from the Latin word levir,meaning “husband’s brother.” The Sadducees used this law in trying to trap Jesus when they asked whose wife such a woman would be in the Resurrection (see Matthew 22:23–33).
The manner in which Ruth essentially proposed marriage to Boaz might seem a little troublesome, but in fact, because Boaz was older and a kinsman to Naomi, it can be seen as a dutiful act where Ruth might have put aside her own preferences in a husband in favor of what was proper. As Boaz said:
Blessed be thou of the Lord, my daughter: for thou hast shewed more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst not young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman (Ruth 3:10–11)
And so they marry and have a child—the grandfather of David, and therefore a progenitor of Jesus Christ’s mortal ancestry.
The story of Ruth is one of gain, loss, and gain. The story of Hannah appears to end with loss, but we shall see.
3. Hannah is blessed with a son, whom she lends to the Lord as she promised. 1 Samuel 1
The story of Hannah is also a hard one. Not least of which is Eli’s judging her as being drunk while she was praying silently. This quote from the manual is fairly apt:
President Hugh B. Brown said, “If I make errors [in judging people,] I want them to be on the side of mercy” (in Eugene E. Campbell and Richard D. Poll, Hugh B. Brown: His Life and Thought[1975], 225).
The first morning in Tel Aviv, I was up earlier than I should have been, so I went for a walk along the beach. Even at 6 am shops were open and people were out and about. Suddenly, it seemed I was alone except for a young man lurching toward me—eyes staring at me as he stumbled past. I figured he was stoned and felt glad to have escaped any adverse actions. And I feel I was right to have just ignored him, from a safety perspective, but what did I know of his circumstances. Nothing. Hannah came to Shiloh to entreat the Lord for a child. And Eli thought her drunk, but at least went to talk to her and learned the truth. Here is an excerpt from what a friend of mine wrote about Hannah:
The story of Hannah’s infertility is the fullest account of barrenness in the Bible. The biblical account reveals that she lived in “bitterness of soul,” that she experienced her barrenness as an “affliction,” that she was “sorrowful,” and that she spoke out of “complaint and grief” (1 Samuel 1:10–16). See Moss and Baden, Reconceiving Fertility, 22.[4]
Hannah’s faith is rewarded with the birth of Samuel whom, as promised, she “loans” to the Lord. So it is a story of loss? No, because we learn in 1 Samuel 2:21 “And the Lord visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters.”
So what lessons do we learn from these three valiant women? How are their stories applicable to each of us in our own circumstances? I hope we can explore that in our time together.
Additional Material
[4]Shirley S. Ricks, “Restoration Insights into Barrenness and Divine Intervention,” unpublished paper in my possession.
