FAITHFULNESS

Ruth 2:8,9,19-23; Acts 15:36-41; 16:1-5

The book of Ruth, one of only two in the Bible bearing the name of a woman, contains a very attractive story, the story of the penniless stranger who married the mighty man of wealth and became the grandmother of the great king David. In Matthew’s gospel, her name appears in the genealogy of “Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham”, Matt.1:1. I understand that the book itself at one time formed part of the book of Judges, but through the operations of the Holy Spirit it now has its own entity and identity, and I think it contains some lessons from which we might profit.

The book starts with a scene of great distress; it was in the time of the judges, but we are not told who the judge was at this time. A famine was in the land. Both of those events were reflections of the unfaithfulness of the people. When they went into the land, it was “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Deut.6:3) where there was superabundance of everything, and they had Jehovah’s command to dispossess the inhabitants that were there. They did not do that completely, and in consequence, from time to time, great crises arose. They were oppressed by nations which they had formerly subdued, or by people who had been in fear of them by reason of God’s support for them as they came out of Egypt, journeyed through the wilderness and went into the land. These conditions had arisen because of their unfaithfulness.

This was not the first famine in the land nor would it be the last, but the remarkable thing is that, as far as we read, only Elimelech and his wife and their two sons went down to Moab. Everybody else, it would seem, stayed in Bethlehem, which means ‘house of bread’, and there is no record of anybody having died as a consequence of the famine. These people, when they went down to Moab, were not paupers; Naomi says “I went out full, and Jehovah has brought me home again empty” (chap.1:21). They not only had possessions, but they also had an inheritance which they had left behind, a valuable piece of land which was appreciated later by Boaz. It was a very retrograde step indeed for them to go down to Moab, a nation which had a very unsavoury beginning, of which little good is spoken of in the Old Testament. God had prohibited His people from having anything to do with the Moabites; they were not to come into the congregation unto the tenth generation (Deut.23:3), which effectively meant forever. The Moabites, through the agency of Balaam, had been used in the corruption of the people of God, so Moab was a place to be avoided at all costs. Moab was described as a proud nation, a nation which had refused succour to the people after they had come out of the wilderness.

But Elimelech and his family went down and there is no indication in the scripture that they derived anything from Moab while they were there. I think we might safely assume that whatever possessions they did have had dwindled until they were in a state of desperation. The man whose name meant ‘whose God is king’ (chap.1:2, note ‘c’), died, then the two sons married Moabitish wives, and that effectively meant that they were trapped in Moab. It took a while for the news to filter through, because they had estranged themselves, and they were there in Moab for about ten years, but eventually Naomi heard that God had “visited His people to give them bread” (chap.1:6). That brought about a change and she then made the return move.

The next step was that Naomi started on the return journey to Bethlehem, back to the ‘house of bread’, taking her two daughters-in-law with her; three widows together. They went a certain distance and then they came to the point of decision. That is something that challenges each one of us! Maybe some here, perhaps some of our younger brethren are halting, as it were, “between two opinions”, 1 Kings 18:21. The Lord would encourage us all to make the type of commitment that Ruth made. It was a commitment for the remainder of her life; “whither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God; where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried” (Ruth 1:16); very fine, touching words and an example to each one of us. So I would encourage all of us, if necessary, to renew our commitment, and those who have not committed themselves, or are in a state of indecision, to come to the Lord and seek to recognise His rights.

Then we come to the passage that was read, where the word from Boaz to Ruth was that she should not reap in another field. Now other fields may seem attractive to us. This was the time of harvest, and the field of Boaz was not the only one that was being reaped. There might have been other fields that looked much more prosperous, more attractive, but the field that the Lord was blessing was the field of Boaz. Think of what was available for Ruth there! She had come to take refuge under the wings of Jehovah, the God of Israel, (Ruth 2:12) and she was made welcome in this field. There was a place where she had employment, and she had remuneration through what she gleaned. It was a place where there was food and water for her; it was a place where she had companionship in the maidens. It was a place too where she had protection, for Boaz had enjoined the young men that they were not to touch her.

Are we prepared to glean in that field? Think of what might have happened if Ruth had gone to another field. She would have missed out on all the attendant blessings that flowed through her continuance in the field that was being reaped. There was someone who had a nearer right of redemption, but as the story unfolded it became clear that that person was unable to redeem; that speaks of the law. Ruth would have been left without resource, probably without a home. But she had these admonitory words from Boaz, and also from her mother-in-law – no doubt an impression gleaned from experience on the part of Naomi who knew what it was to be in the infertile and inhospitable fields of Moab.

Dear brethren, let us keep our eyes on the field that is being reaped and let us remain there, the place where the Lord is operating and where there is sufficiency for each one of us. We have no need of anything else, we have no need to look elsewhere; let us remain in the field that is being reaped. Ruth heeded the admonition, she continued right to the end of the harvest season and we know the story that followed. Boaz committed himself to Ruth and he undertook to redeem that which the other person could not redeem. So he becomes a type of the Lord Jesus, the only One who can redeem us, the only One who can save us, the only One who can give us that which satisfies and meets our every need. The result is great blessing and joy. This stranger is welcomed amongst the people of God, given a place there, an honoured place and her name is enshrined for us in Scripture as an outstanding example of divine grace towards those who have no claim whatsoever! So the Lord would seek to encourage each one of us. We are no longer strangers and foreigners, but “fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God”, Eph.2:19.

We read in the Acts of the Apostles. There are few people in the New Testament who are more highly spoken of than Barnabas. We are told that he was “a good man and full of the Holy Spirit” (chap.11:24). He was a Levite, and was one who possessed land, and sold it. Unlike Ananias and Sapphira, he brought the entire proceeds and laid them at the feet of the apostles, so he was a very estimable man in every way. He became acquainted with Paul, Saul of Tarsus as he then was. Barnabas himself had been greatly used in Antioch in the establishment of the assembly there, the place where the disciples were first called Christians (chap.11:26). There was an impending crisis which I think Barnabas must have foreseen, and he went away at that point to Tarsus and he brought Saul to Antioch. That was a vital move, in that when the trouble arose later, when judaising teachers came down from Jerusalem, Paul was there, and was enabled to withstand Peter to the face (Gal.2:11). Peter at that time played a dissembling part, but Paul was a straightforward man and Barnabas recognised the potential that was there.

Then we come to the point where a diverse company was assembled in Antioch, and the Holy Spirit said “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (chap.13:2). So they went and had a very effective ministry. They carried the gospel into territory that had never been evangelised before, bringing the good news to persons who, many of them, had never heard of God, speaking to idolaters and Jews alike, and they had a very successful initial journey. Mark was with them for a part of the way, but he defected and went back.

In chapter 15, the great crisis at Antioch had been resolved. Paul then felt free to leave things there, entrusted no doubt to good hands, and his intention was to go and encourage the brethren in the places which they had already visited. Then this unhappy incident arose where Barnabas wanted to take Mark with them. This is a prime illustration for us of the danger of bringing family relationships into the things of God. Family relationships often tend to cloud our judgment. In the Old Testament, Levi was chosen by God, because Levi had been faithful in a time of great crisis, when some of the tribe of Levi had to deal with persons of their same tribe; there were persons who stood faithful. So here we have Barnabas, a good man, a just man, an upright man, a man full of the Holy Spirit, a man who had been greatly used, who had gone through much, and yet this warm feeling arose because Mark was his cousin. We have to be wary of these family relationships and consider for the Lord and not for our relatives, or else disaster may result.

In the event, Paul chose Silas. The Lord will not be frustrated in His dealings. Barnabas went out of circulation, he went to Cyprus and we never hear of him again in relation to the spread and furtherance of the testimony. Mark was recovered later, but think of all that he missed of Paul’s company and the experiences that followed in the subsequent chapters. It is good to think of Mark being recovered; in his closing epistle to Timothy, Paul wrote “Take Mark, and bring him with thyself, for he is serviceable to me for ministry”, 2 Tim.4:11. Well, that was good and he was recovered, but he missed out on a great deal in the interim.

So Paul takes Silas and they go away, and then they come to these localities Derbe and Lystra and he takes Timothy. Through the operation of this family tie, Barnabas lost out, but the Lord does not lose out. The Lord had His reserves; faithful people who went through. Silas was there in that prison with Paul, and Timothy was called to be with Paul in his closing days. So the Lord, in His wisdom, overrules all these things, and it is for us to be in accord with His own thoughts. The outcome is a blessed one; there is comfort and there is establishment, and there is increase. We have known what reduction is, we have known what unfaithfulness is, and we cannot claim anything for ourselves. But I think the Lord would honour those who seek to stand for His rights, not having a judgment clouded by other reasons, whether they be family or otherwise.

I commend the word to the brethren, and may the Lord bless it to us for His name’s sake.

Address at Grimsby

8 October 2016

D.C. White