In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land, and a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the country of Moab, he and his wife and 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. When they had lived there about ten years, 5 both Mahlon and Chilion also died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.
6 Then
she started to return with her daughters-in-law from the country of Moab, for
she had heard in the country of Moab that the Lord
had considered his people and given them food. 7 So she set out from
the place where she had been living, she and her two daughters-in-law, and they
went on their way to go back to the land of Judah. 8 But Naomi said
to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back each of you to your mother’s house. May
the Lord deal kindly with you, as
you have dealt with the dead and with me. 9 The Lord grant that you may find security,
each of you in the house of your husband.” Then she kissed them, and they wept
aloud. 10 They said to her, “No, we will return with you to your
people.” 11 But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you
go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands?
12 Turn back, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have a
husband. Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I should have a
husband tonight and bear sons, 13 would you then wait until they
were grown? Would you then refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, it has been
far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of the Lord has turned against me.” 14 Then
they wept aloud again. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.
15 So she
said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods;
return after your sister-in-law.” 16 But Ruth said,
“Do not
press me to leave you
or to
turn back from following you!
Where
you go, I will go;
where
you lodge, I will lodge;
your
people shall be my people,
and
your God my God.
17 Where you die, I will die—
there
will I be buried.
May the
Lord do thus and so to me,
and
more as well,
if even
death parts me from you!”
18 When Naomi saw that she was
determined to go with her, she said no more to her.
Year B
October 30-November
5
Title: Get Up and Go
The Movie: The Story
of Ruth, in which the Biblical story is fleshed out. The Scene: Where Ruth
declares her devotion to Naomi.
Going deeper - Here is my study of the text.
The story of Ruth connects an
example of simple covenant faithfulness during the Tribal Federation period, a
time understood as one of steady deterioration. As the text says, “everyone did what was right in their own
eyes.” They were not faithful to their covenant with the Lord and with each
other. The tribes fought each other. Priests had done terrible things. In
part, the breaking apart of the Tribal Federation was necessary for kingship to
arise. The story is the gentle folk tale of two women — one Israelite, one
Moabite — and the circumstances that brought them together, kept them together,
and bequeathed their story to Israel’s national epic, to world literature, and
to the liturgies of both synagogue and church. It is among the briefest in the
Hebrew Bible (only four short chapters). It is peopled by only a small handful
of characters, who, apart from Boaz, are not mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew
Bible. It focuses on the plight of a single imperiled family in a confined
locale, with no sustained attention to national or international concerns. Its
main characters are women. Its hero is (initially, at least) a non-Israelite.
Apart from passing references, the deity plays almost no direct role in the
book. The book of Ruth is an altogether remarkable addition to the biblical
canon. It is a tale, pure and simple, parabolic in its presentation of the
importance and role of divine and human chesed, traditionally translated
as “loving-kindness,” but also as “kindness” (2:20), “loyalty” (3:10), and in
its verbal form, “deal kindly with” (1:8). The word denotes willful, directed
compassion and faithfulness arising out of a committed relationship. God's
activity is bound up with the mundane affairs and interrelationship of human
beings. The lofty concept of covenant is
brought into contact with daily life. In
1:6, visited and in 1:8-9, hesed are strong covenant terms. Both God and human beings do hesed to one
another, intertwining of divine and human activity. In this story, human beings
do God's will for interrelationships.
They do hesed. What makes Ruth an
Israelite is that she behaves like one.
There are no great miracles. The
story relates only simple living out of the way of the Lord. The theology suggests the activity of God is
in the shadows, in the way people act toward one another. Covenant love is a central theme. It contains affirmation of the covenant. The story commends a style of living that God
can bless. We can only guess at the ties of implied responsibilities in a small
village. In all of these ties, there is a way in which God intends people to
live out their lives. The commended style of living is a means to that end. At the end of the book, we learn that Ruth
and Boaz had Obed for a son, Obed would have a son named Jesse, and Jesse would
have a son named David. Ruth, the non-Israelite, would be the great-grandmother
of the great King David. Not bad for a young woman from Moab. Ruth would
become the ancestor of Israel's greatest king, David.
"Ruth's gentile
origins may also explain her general lack of reference to God. Naomi, Boaz, and the women of Bethlehem, much
more so than Ruth, express belief in divine intervention. Ruth, although she expresses fidelity to
Naomi's death, locates her confidence primarily in herself. Whether this attribute is a strength or a
flaw remains debated."[1]
In the
days when the judges ruled, [The
story has the setting of the period of the judges, 1400-1100 BC.] there
was a famine in the land, and a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to live
in the country of Moab, he and his wife and two sons. [Migration was common during a famine.
Moving to a new land is risky. However, the security represented by staying did
not compel them to stay.] 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. [Genesis
19:30-38 offers the story of Lot, his daughter, and the origin of Moab and
Ammon. Deuteronomy 23:3-7, which derives from 640-609, does not allow their
admittance into the assembly of the Lord and Israel is not to care for their
welfare. The reason is due to their lack of hospitality in the wilderness. We
find this behavior reflected in the story of King Balak of Moab, as he tried to
get the prophet Balaam to curse Israel, for which see Numbers 22-24 and Joshua
24:9-10. Israel had a history of animosity with their neighbor. Judges 3:12-30
is a story of Moab oppressing Israel, sometime around 1100 BC. They would
persistently be at war during the reigns of Saul and David. Around 550-30, III Isaiah 56:4, 6 says
foreigners who love the Lord will receive admittance to the assembly of the
Lord.] 3 But Elimelech, the
husband of Naomi, died, [the hope with which they journeyed to a new land
is starting to fade] 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. [The narrator of the story
does not comment on this, in spite of abundant material regarding this matter.
They reflect the practice of Esau, who married two Hittite women, Joseph in
marrying an Egyptian woman, Moses in marrying a Cushite woman. Yet, Numbers
25:1-18 shows the lengths to which Moses went to punish an Israelite who took a
Moabite for his wife. Solomon famously had married foreign women, and
specifically built an altar the Moabite god Chemosh in I Kings 11:1-2, 7-8. The
Old Testament will connect such marriages to idolatry in Exodus 34:12-16,
Deuteronomy 7:1-7, Joshua 23:11-16, and
I Kings 16:29-33. ] When they had lived there about ten years, 5
both Mahlon and Chilion also died, so that the woman was left without her
two sons and her husband. [The
lack of a man was significant for all of them. The hope that led Naomi to
follow her husband to a new land is gone. The risk they had taken no longer
seems worth it.]
6
Then she started to return with
her daughters-in-law from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country
of Moab that the Lord had
considered his people and given them food. 7 So she set out from the
place where she had been living, she and her two daughters-in-law, and they
went on their way to go back to the land of Judah. 8 But Naomi said
to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back each of you to your mother’s house. [This
may mean their father has died.] May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have
dealt with the dead and with me. 9 The Lord grant that you may find security, each of you in the
house of your husband.” Then she kissed them, and they wept aloud. 10 They
said to her, “No, we will return with you to your people.” 11 But
Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Do I still have
sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? 12 Turn back, my
daughters, go your way, for I am too old [she is probably in her mid 40s,
making Ruth 25-30] to have a husband.
Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I should have a husband
tonight and bear sons, 13 would you then wait until they were grown?
Would you then refrain from marrying? [The situation Naomi presents
suggests levirate marriage, the practice of a dead man’s brother marrying the
wife of the brother for the purpose of father children considered the offspring
of the dead man, as we find in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and Genesis 38. However, the
scenario Naomi presents would not be a true levirate marriage, for her sons
would not be full brothers of the two dead sons. Such difficulties remind the
reader that the story is a parabolic tale of the importance and role of divine
and human chesed, traditionally
translated as “lovingkindness” and “loyalty.”] No, my daughters, it has been far more bitter for me than for you,
because the hand of the Lord has
turned against me.” [In this brief statement, she puts herself on a par
with the suffering of Job. She has a complaint against the Lord.] 14 Then they wept aloud again.
Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, [we should not look negatively upon her for
departing] but Ruth clung to her.
15
So she said, “See, your
sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your
sister-in-law.” 16 But Ruth said,
“Do not press me to leave you
or to turn back from following you!
Where you go, I will go;
where you lodge, I will lodge;
your people shall be my people,
and your God my God.
17 Where you die, I will die—
there will I be buried.
May the Lord
do thus and so to me,
and more as well,
if even death parts me from you!”
18 When Naomi saw that she was
determined to go with her, she said no more to her. [It seems that Ruth becomes a Jewish
proselyte in the sense that human loyalty, self-renouncing fidelity, and doing
the kindness of covenant loyalty to each other, become part of her life. She
behaves like an Israelite.]
Introduction
Yes, I am a baby-boomer. In my young and middle adult years, all I
heard was how mobile Americans had become. We gain our identity as we leave
home and explore. This is a large country, and we take advantage of it. We move
away from home. “Go West, young man,” was the mantra. That was true for the
history of the Plasterer family, as we moved from Lancaster County, PA, to
Huntington, IN, to northern IA, to southern MN, and eventually some moved to
CA. In my immediate family, the five of us children, born in MN, now live in
MO, WI, IN, SD, and VA.
However, now I learn that Americans are not as mobile as in generations
past. According to one study in 2012, "the likelihood of 20-somethings
moving to another state has dropped over 40 percent since the 1980s, and the
proportion of young adults living at home doubled between 1980 and 2008."
Given the economic stresses that many young adults must face, one can
understand this. I have known people for whom the Great Depression was
formative in their teen years, and they tended to be risk-averse. My interest
in this article is quite narrow, however. My interest is not so much about a
new generation coming into adulthood. For me, it raises the general question of
risk. Have we as a people become risk averse?
From Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring comes this commentary on
following the road:
Frodo was silent. He too was gazing eastward along the road, as if he
had never seen it before. Suddenly he spoke, aloud but as if to himself, saying
slowly:
The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.
"That sounds like a bit of old Bilbo's rhyming," said Pippin.
"Or is it one of your imitations? It doesn't sound at all
encouraging."
"I don't know," said Frodo.
"It came to me then, as if I was making
it up, but I may have heard it long ago. Certainly it reminds me very much of Bilbo,
in the last years, before he went away. He used often to say there was only one
Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and
every path was its tributary. 'It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your
door,' he used to say. 'You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your
feet, there's no telling where you might be swept off to.'"
"Go West, young man, go West. There is health in the country, and
room away from our crowds of idlers and imbeciles." Horace Greeley gave
this advice in 1833. It has summarized the idea of westward expansion and the
ideal of taking the risk of getting up and moving ever since.
For generations, people did this. However, today, people are staying
put.
"Sometime in the past 30 years, someone has hit the brakes,"
write Todd and Victoria Buchholz in The New York Times (March 11, 2012).
"Americans -- particularly young Americans -- have become risk-averse and
sedentary." To support their case, the Buchholzes point out that the
likelihood of 20-somethings moving to another state has dropped over 40 percent
since the 1980s.
"We are a nation of movers and shakers," insist the
Buchholzes. They recall that the Pilgrims climbed into boats to cross the
Atlantic, the Greatest Generation shipped out to fight in Europe and the
Pacific, and the children of the 60s joined the Peace Corps.
"But Generation Y has become Generation Why Bother," they
conclude. Why bother to move out of the family home? Why bother to cross the
country in search of work? Why bother to journey into an unknown future? I have
noticed that some think of this as a new style of parenting, in which parents
hover over their children, not wanting them to experience anything negative.
Thus, everyone makes the team, you do not keep score at games, and everyone
gets a trophy for participating.
I am not sure if this generational shift is true – yet. However, if I
go by my family, both of my boys are still close to parents. I know that is
anecdotal, but it is consistent with what some think is a trend.
My larger concern is that of risk. Are we as a nation becoming
risk-averse? Are we becoming sedentary? Something in me thinks this is not
good.
Application
Although I am impressed by many things in this story, let me share with
you a few things that I hope will help our church and you as an individual.
Are we willing to walk into an unknown future? Only those who will risk
going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.[2]
One saying, often attributed to Mark Twain, but more likely by H.
Jackson Brown Jr., who wrote Life’s
Little Instruction Book, puts it this way:
Twenty years from now you will be more
disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off
the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your
sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.[3]
Ruth reminds us of the importance of taking risks and following the
Lord into an unknown future. Todd and Victoria Buchholz put it well: "We
need to reward and encourage forward movement, not slouching."
So what might it mean for us to take risks and follow the Lord today?
We take our first step when we realize that God is sovereign.
The book of Ruth opens with a famine in Bethlehem, one that causes
Naomi and her husband to emigrate to Moab. The husband's name is Elimelech,
which means, "My God is king."
The story of Ruth reveals this truth without dramatic actions from God,
without prophetic visions, and without angelic visit. Elimelech suffers an
untimely death, and his wife Naomi has to return to Bethlehem after the deaths
of her sons. Yet, the Lord works through all of the characters in the story,
including a foreigner named Ruth, to advance his loving and gracious will. The
hand of God is seen in every situation, in times of grief as well as joy,
working to set up the birth of David.
What I want to stress is that you may find in your life that underneath
the struggles and sorrows of life, you will find hope only when you discover
the truth that God is king.
Our second step is taken when we venture into new territory.
For Naomi and Elimelech to travel to Moab was a risky move. Israel and
Moab were mostly unfriendly neighbors, so this was risky. Further, the sons of
Naomi marry wonderful wives from among the people of Moab. In fact, in the
midst of the moral degeneration of the period of judges, the non-Israelite Ruth
is the one who is a model of loyalty and kindness.
We are able to find our way forward when we enter new territory with
open hearts and minds. This means new approaches to worship, new ways of
showing to our community our love for it, new career possibilities, new
relationships with people of different races and religions.
In his novel, The Shoes of the
Fisherman, Morris West writes:
It costs so much to be a full human being
that there are very few who have the enlightenment or the courage to pay the
price. One has to abandon altogether the search for security, and reach out to
the risk of living with both arms. One has to embrace the world like a lover.
One has to accept pain as a condition of existence. One has to court doubt and
darkness as the cost of knowing. -Morris West
Our third step comes from a willingness to deal kindly with one another.
The Hebrew term is hesed, and the English word "kindly" is
really a rather weak translation. Naomi says to her daughters-in-law
"May
the LORD deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me,"
(1:8)
When she says this,
she is asking for the LORD to show them hesed because they have shown her
hesed. To show hesed is to demonstrate loving-kindness and loyalty beyond what
the commandments of God require. Hesed is part of the very nature of God, and
it is attached to acts of unconditional love, grace and mercy.
Now, it seems to me that when things get tough, when we are facing
changing circumstances, we reflect the nature of God when we show
loving-kindness and loyalty. In such situations, we need to dig into the
spiritual resources we have available to demonstrate loyalty and
loving-kindness to family, friends, colleagues, and fellow church members. Our
challenge is to demonstrate loving-kindness and loyalty to this community.
Finally, we take a fourth step when we honor our commitments.
"Where you go, I will go"
(v. 16), said Ruth. She is really just honoring the commitment she has made to
her husband, Naomi's son. It may not seem like much, but it is. In this case,
honoring commitments meant Ruth needed to leave her biological family and
becoming part of a new family. This meant leaving behind the gods of Moab and
worshipping Yahweh, the God of Israel. Naomi and Elimelech had worshipped the
Lord in a foreign land, and Ruth saw this. She trusted that God would be good
to her if she were good to Naomi, so she walked into an uncertain future with
faith and with hope.
You and I can learn today that we can move forward with confidence when
we honor our commitments -- as spouses, parents, children, neighbors, church
members, citizens of this community, this state, this nation, and this world.
Conclusion
The past has important lessons to teach us, whether we are young adults
or senior citizens. Ruth's steps should be everyone's steps: Realize that God
is king. Venture into new territory. Show loving-kindness and loyalty. Honor
commitments. These are the actions that will enable us to move forward with God.
With steps like these, it really is not so hard.
Let us get up and go.
[1]
The Women's Bible Commentary, Amy-Jill Levine.
[2]
--T. S. Eliot, Preface to Transit of Venus: Poems by Harry Crosby (Black Sun
Press, 1931).
[3] In
conclusion, Quote Investigator has located no evidence of this saying
before 1990, and believes that it is not connected to Mark Twain. The writer H.
Jackson Brown, Jr. published it and credited his mother. QI has found no
reason to doubt this attribution. Thanks for your engaging question.
No comments:
Post a Comment