Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Ruth 1:1 Now it came about in the days when the judges governed, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the land of Moab with his wife and his two sons. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Ruth 1:1 In the days when the judges governed [Israel], there was a famine in the land [of Canaan]. And a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to live temporarily in the country of Moab with his wife and his two sons. |
Subject: Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? |
Bible Note: Jim, Actually I would argue that seeing that we are two thousand years into Christian history, generally speaking, things that are generally accepted are generally correct. If not, I would think that any real hope for clarity had been lost, long ago. ;) That not withstanding, yes there are references to the area between the rivers as the land of Moab. And, we could ignore the fact that elohim is not translated in the Ruth as judges, verse one does not contain elohim but shaphat. We could also assert that even though it is translated God, or some form thereof, thousands of times and judges in three verses, it should be changed to judges. We could also ignore the fact that the people called Ruth a ‘Moabite’ (2:6), a designation used in Judges 3:28 to indicate an enemy, and that she called herself a ‘foreigner’. (2:10) Instead we could maintain she was born an Israeli and these do not indicate otherwise. This, of course, would be in spite of the fact that no Israeli considers themselves a foreigner to their people, even though they do not lay their head within the borders of the Promised Land. Paul certainly did not; he may have been a Roman citizen, but he was an ‘Israelite’ (Rom 11:1) not a foreigner. So: We could ignore all that and say she was a Reubenite or Gadite, she lived in an area sometimes referred to as the land (or plains) of Moab, and she seemed to think there a difference between her people, one tribe of Israel, and Naomi’s, also an Israelite. If this is our interpretation, there was nothing notable about her intermarrying within Israel, moving from one area to another within Israel proper, and coming under the governance of a different judge; accept in her mind. All things being equal, I’d say we have just discovered the first irrelevant book of the bible; since there is nothing worthy of note in the marriage of one Israeli to another. After all, the only significant information in this record is the genealogy, which is of course set down in other places. OR We can accept what has always been taught; that Ruth was a Moabite, descendant of Lot, foreigner to the covenants of God; the translators were correct in there translation of Elohim, and that she lived in the kingdom of Moab, not the land between the two rivers where Reuben and Gad settled. This being the case we can further accept that she turned from idols to serve a living and true God; that she was accepted and redeemed by a righteous man of the tribe of Judah, became mother to Obed and great grandmother to David, king of Israel. In so doing she became another, in the checkered past of the Messiah, to demonstrate God mercy in redeeming His people. So, she became an example of God’s grace despite the judgment of Deuteronomy 23:3; and in so doing fulfilled the scripture “that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow…” (Gen 19:29) Therfore, in her, we see God working out what Moses heard on the mount, “…The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin...” (Ex 34:6) Previous to this, I have not considered that the book of Ruth might be just the ‘rags to riches’ story of an ancient Israeli woman, and after this posting I’m sure I will not again. It has always been an outstanding illustration for the young in faith, of the brilliance God’s providence and His mercy. So while it may be argued that there is practical evidence for both positions, even the practical favors the latter. Additionally, there is a glaring absence of divine purpose in the former argument and that should be weight enough for people of faith to reject it. Not to mention, the former sounds more like what ABC news would present as a rational explanation for the non-supernatural recordings of ancient mythology. Carry on... MP |