That's another fine mess you got me into

Preaching on Ruth recently midweek gave me the chance to reflect again on Ruth 1:1-5.

1 In the days when the judges ruled there was a famine in the land, and a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. 2 The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. 3 But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. 4 These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, 5 and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.

When interpreting Ruth 1 we may be tempted to let Elimelech and his family off the hook too easily for the suffering they experienced. Consider the following:

1. The action takes place at the time of the Judges (v1); we are probably right then to infer that this famine in Israel (that clearly did not affect nearby Moab) was God's discipline as a covenant curse for the idolatry and degeneracy of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 28:23-24).

2. Moab was certainly an unusual choice for a devout Israelite family, given its origins in the sin of Lot (Genesis 19:30-38), its recent incursions into Israel (see Judges 3:15-30) and the fact that Moabites were not allowed in the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3-6).

3. Elimelech's sons took Moabite wives and were therefore disobedient to God's law that forbade marriage to pagans (Deuteronomy 7). In fact, marriage to pagans was also considered a symptom of failing to keep God's Covenant (Deuteronomy 28:32).

4. In the Old Testament context, the barrenness of Ruth and Orpah after ten years was also considered to be part of God's judgement on national unfaithfulness to him (Deuteronomy 28:18). The implication is that Elimelech (whose name means "the Lord is my God") was not living up to his name, and sought refuge in Moab rather than in returning to the Lord.

In the light of this evidence it seems as if the tragedy that overtook Naomi's family in Moab is not an example of "innocent" suffering from the mysterious hand of God, but is rather something that Elimelech brought on them through disobedience. The sufferings of chapter 1:1-5, therefore, may be regarded as disciplinary in nature. The fact that God would one day bring both King David and King Jesus out of the self inflicted suffering of Elimelech's family only serves to magnify his greatness.

There is also an encouragement here for us: even when we get ourselves into a mess through disobedience, that suffering is not outwith God's control and it does not mean that we are now outside of his plan. The story of Ruth and Naomi has much to encourage us.