Skip to main content

TGAT: Ruth

Have you ever read Ruth and wondered, "Why did Ruth get her own book?" Why was it so important to tell the story of this one woman, of all the women on Earth, all the women in Biblical history? Deborah was the only woman to ever lead Israel, and she didn't get a book. Mary gave birth to the Messiah, and she didn't get a book. Why Ruth? She didn't preach a famous sermon, perform a miracle, win a battle, or save a people. She wasn't even an Israelite. She was a Midianite widow who got married and had a baby. Hardly the stuff of legend. And yet, at some point the Spirit of God inspired someone to write a book about this one, average woman, and the people of God preserved it and retold it for thousands of years. What did she do?

In one common view of the Gospel, she did nothing very special--she just happened to be the great grandmother of David. If the Gospel is only about evangelism, if the only point of being a believer is making more believers while you wait for Heaven, then Ruth doesn't matter. But if the Gospel is a vocation, if it is a calling to live a certain way, a challenge to be a steward of God's world, then Ruth did everything--and she deserves her place on the Bible's table of contents.

So what did Ruth actually do? Three things:

First, she stuck with Naomi by returning to Israel with her. After Ruth's Jewish husband, brother- and father-in-law all died, she had nothing tying her to Naomi, or to anyone else. She was free to walk away from the whole sad situation. But when Naomi, her mother-in-law, wanted to go back, Ruth insisting on going with her. In fact, she did so with language that was as strong as marriage vows:
But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” (Ruth 1:16-17, ESV)
Second, she provided for Naomi by gleaning wheat during harvest. In chapter two, Ruth goes out to the fields and picks up the grain left behind by the harvesters so that she could provide food for Naomi and herself. It was back-breaking work, and it yielded little. But she did it. She worked so hard at this that when the owner of the field, Boaz, found out what the people were saying about her, he had this to say:
But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told to me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. The Lord repay you for what you have done, and a full reward be given you by the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge!” (Ruth 2:11-12, ESV)
Third, she stayed loyal to Naomi by asking Boaz to marry her. See, this is where we often get the story of Ruth wrong. Sometimes we portray the story of Ruth and Boaz as a romance, but it is nothing of the kind. Ruth didn't ask Boaz to marry her because she loved him. She asked him to marry her because she wanted a husband who could--and would--take care of both her and Naomi. If Ruth had married outside Naomi's family, then Naomi would no longer be her family, and her new husband would have no reason to care for Naomi. But Boaz was Naomi's relative, which meant that Naomi would still be part of the family. Ruth married Boaz for the sake of Naomi.

Neither did Boaz marry Ruth because he was in love with her. Boaz married Ruth because he understood what she was doing, and he respected her for it. This is how he agrees to her proposal:
And he said, “May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman. (Ruth 3:10, ESV)
The "kindness" that Boaz speaks of is not toward him, but toward Naomi. He respects her because she didn't go after a man she loved, but instead, out of love for Naomi, went after a man who could provide for them both.

That word, "kindness," translates the Hebrew word "chesed." It is perhaps the most important word in the entire Hebrew language. It refers to a particular kind of love, the love that defines the character of God. Chesed is sometimes translated as "lovingkindness," "steadfast love," or "covenant love." What it means is a generous, self-giving love for someone because you have some kind of relationship with them.

It is the love that God has for his people that drives him to forgive them over and over because they are his people. It is the love that the Prodigal Son's father showed when he welcomed his son home in spite of all of his mistakes. It is the love that a woman has for her husband when she takes care of him even though she doesn't particularly like him at the moment. And it is the love that Ruth showed to Naomi when she stuck with her and took care of her, even though she could have walked away.

Ruth had no money and no influence. She wasn't important or powerful. All she had was Naomi. All she was was a daughter-in-law. But Ruth took everything she had, and everything she was, and she gave it to God. She performed her role according to God's character and will. And that is the calling of all believers. We are saved from the corruption of sin so that we can take what God has given us and use it according to his character and will. This is what it means to serve the Kingdom of Heaven. And this is why we tell Ruth's story: because in it we find the good news.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Massacre of the Innocents [By W.H. Auden]

[From For the Time Being,  by W.H. Auden] HEROD One needn’t be much of a psychologist to realize that if this rumor is not stamped out now, in a few years it is capable of diseasing the whole Empire, and one doesn’t have to be a prophet to predict the consequences if it should. Reason will be replaced by Revelation. Instead of Rational Law, objective truths perceptible to any who will undergo the necessary intellectual discipline, and the same for all, Knowledge will degenerate into a riot of subjective visions—feelings in the solar plexus induced by undernourishment, angelic images generated by fevers or drugs, dream warnings inspired by the sound of falling water. Whole cosmologies will be created out of some forgotten personal resentment, complete epics written in private languages, the daubs of school children ranked above the great masterpieces. Idealism will be replaced by Materialism. Priapus will only have to move to a good address and call himself Eros

Works of Love XVIII: “Love for the Dead”

[From Part II, Chapter IX: “ The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead ”] “Weep less bitterly for the dead, for he is at rest.” Sirach 22:11 (NRSV) [1] With chapter 9 of part 2, Works of Love is beginning to come to a close. With entry 17, this blog series is also nearing its end. As Kierkegaard has given us a detailed view of what Christian love is supposed to look like, now he gives us a way to test the purity of our own love: look at the way you love those who have died. [2] We are to love everyone, and loving means remembering, and so we are to love the dead. But loving those who have died is a special circumstance, and it shows us what kind of love we are showing. If we reflect on the way we love the dead, we can see whether we are showing truly Christian love. Kierkegaard identifies three ways that love for the dead is unique. First, he says that showing love for the dead is “a work of the most unselfish love.” He writes, “If one wants to make sure that love is

Choruses from the Rock (VI), By T.S. Eliot

[I know that I promised blog entries that I haven't delivered yet. I've got plenty of ideas in my head, it's just a matter of finding the time and the motivation at the same time. Anyway, I expect that I'll be ready to write relatively soon, but until then I thought I would tide you over with a section from T.S. Eliot's excellent poem, Choruses from "The Rock". Enjoy!] It is hard for those who have never known persecution, And who have never known a Christian, To believe these tales of Christian persecution. It is hard for those who live near a Bank To doubt the security of their money. It is hard for those who live near a Police Station To believe in the triumph of violence. Do you think that the Faith has conquered the World And that lions no longer need keepers? Do you need to be told that whatever has been, can still be? Do you need to be told that even such modest attainments As you boast of in the way of polite society Will hardly surv