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.

In a May 17, 1999, Washington Post article entitled “Jeffersons Split Over Hemings Descendants,” staff writer Leef Smith wrote of the tense moments when, the day before, the descendants of Sally Hemings, one of Thomas Jefferson’s slaves, attended the 86^th annual meeting of the Monticello Association, “a group of 700 descendants of Thomas Jefferson and his wife, Martha.” Here are a few insightful selections from the article.

They may not look alike or accept that they’re related, but when the descendants of Thomas Jefferson and one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, sat down at a white-linen luncheon this afternoon, it was like an episode of “Family Feud.”

Before people even tucked in their napkins, goodwill lost its footing and the bickering began. The occasion was the 86th annual meeting of the Monticello Association, a group of 700 descendants of Thomas Jefferson and his wife, Martha. This year, for the first time, about 35 descendants of Hemings, long thought by some to have been the mistress of the third president, were invited as guests.

Although the meeting was closed to the public and reporters, more than two dozen of whom milled outside the luncheon site at a hotel here, hints of what was going on among the 200-plus diners inside the Jefferson Ballroom were quick to leak.

First came a motion to evict the predominantly black Hemings faction and other nonvoting members from the room while the group mulled over scientific evidence made public last fall showing all but conclusively that Jefferson fathered Hemings’s youngest son, Eston. If the group accepted the evidence, it also had to consider whether the Hemings family should be admitted to the exclusive and, for now at least, all-white Monticello Association. Among other things, membership carries the privilege of burial at Monticello, Jefferson’s neoclassical home in the hills above Charlottesville.

“People sitting at my table got up and said they wanted me and my cousins to leave,” said Dorothy Westerinen, 41, a descendant of Eston Hemings. “It was painful to hear that.”

The motion to remove the guests lost, 33 to 20. But from that point on, those in attendance said later, the tone of the gathering became more contentious.

Association members also discussed their desire for more scientific and historical data to determine whether a Jefferson male other than Thomas could have fathered a child with Hemings, and they pressed for careful consideration of any evidence before opening their ranks.

Last year, DNA tests compared the Y chromosome in males who trace their ancestors to Monticello with that of male descendants of Hemings. Researchers said the scientific data matched the descendants of Eston Hemings with the male line of Jeffersons. When historical evidence was added, researchers said it all but confirmed a liaison between Thomas Jefferson and Hemings, putting a scientific imprimatur on what had long been regarded as fact on the Hemings’ side.

The new evidence led to an invitation from the Monticello Association, spurred by member Lucian K. Truscott IV, to the Hemings’ descendants to be guests at this year’s Jefferson family reunion. The gathering, attended by more than 200, was generally cordial, but some made clear their unease at the prospect of broadening the family tree.

The tension peaked at the close of today’s 3½-hour luncheon when Truscott, an outspoken critic of the arm’s-length treatment accorded the Hemings’ descendants, asked the association’s executive committee to accept the Hemings’ group as honorary members.

A two-thirds vote from attending members would have been required. But outgoing President Robert Gillespie wouldn’t allow it, saying later that honorary membership is, by tradition, reserved for officials at Jefferson’s beloved University of Virginia and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, which operates Monticello.

An angry Truscott said Gillespie “wouldn’t allow the vote because he knew he’d lose. It was chicken.”[1]

The author of that piece may could have just as easily entitled it, “Awkwardness at the Family Reunion,” for truly that is what it was.

On the one side of the tension are the descendants of Jefferson who likely do not want to think that an ancestor who is held in such high esteem fathered multiple children with a slave girl. On the other are descendants who have good reason to think that he did and, understandably, want their place in the family tree to be acknowledged and recognized.

Curveballs work well in baseball games. They are not quite as welcome in family trees. That is the case with the Jefferson family tree and that was also the case with the Jewish family tree. Ruth represents such a curveball for the Jews. However, when we look closely at Ruth’s place in the family tree of Israel we find something that may have been uncomfortable for the early Jews, but, on closer inspection, is actually an amazing development in the story of God’s people that reveals powerful truths about both God and us.

My thesis this morning is that the very existence of the book of Ruth as a book in the Bible reveals beautiful truths that we need to understand. There are only eighty-five verses in the entire book of Ruth, but I contend that these eighty-five verses carry with them a number of stunning implications that directly impact you and me this very day.

We do not know for sure who wrote the book of Ruth, though Jewish tradition suggests that Samuel was the author.[2] Regardless, it is here, in our Bible, and its place here is significant for a number of reasons.

The existence of the book of Ruth means that the love of God is showered upon unlikely people.

First and foremost is the fact that the existence of the book of Ruth reveals that the love of God is showered upon very unlikely people. I would like for us to begin our study of the book by turning to a surprising text: Matthew 1. The beginning of the first book of the New Testament is a record of the genealogy of Jesus. Let me share with you the first six verses of this chapter.

¹ The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. ² Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, ³ and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, ⁴ and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, ⁵ and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, ⁶ and Jesse the father of David the king.

There it is, nestled in the middle of verse 5: “and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth…”

If you were an early Jew, that would raise your eyebrows. Why? For two reasons: (a) Ruth was a woman and (b) Ruth was a foreigner.

The names of women were not traditionally present in Jewish genealogies. This was a patriarchal society. Yet there it is: Ruth. And in the genealogy of Jesus no less! In fact, there are five women mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. What all five of these women have in common is that they were each, in their own way, surrounded by controversy. Thus, their presence is most unlikely and therefore most surprising!

This is compounded by the fact that Ruth was a foreign woman. She was a Moabite. To a purist, this too would have been most surprising. Yet there it is: the name of a Moabite woman. And here the book that bears her name is: Ruth, right here after the book of Judges.

Let us therefore begin with this initial observation: the existence of the book of Ruth reveals that the love of God is showered upon unlikely people. Do you see? If a person as unlikely as this Moabite woman can find herself in the family of God, that means that unlikely people like you and I can as well.

Perhaps you feel like an unlikely candidate for the love of God. You did not grow up doing the church scene. Or perhaps you did but long ago you walked away from it. You are, in your own mind, an outsider. You do not, in your own mind, belong with God’s people. Perhaps you even find yourself thinking, “What’s a guy like me doing in a place like this?”

If that is you, then take heart: that fact that the book after the book of Judges is named after the female Moabite heroin of the story means that there is hope for all unlikely members of the family of God! And then take even more heart: the fact that this Moabite woman is listed in the genealogy of Jesus Himself means that God can do amazing things with people who do not think they belong.

The existence of the book of Ruth means that the love of God is showered upon unworthy people.

But there’s more: the existence of the book of Ruth means that the love of God is showered upon unworthy people. It was not only that she was a woman. It was not only that she was a Moabite. It was also that her entry into this family of Jews was mired in realities that led many to conclude that she was utterly unworthy. We can see this as we begin to unpack our text:

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.

Our story begins with a Jewish family leaving Judah in search of food and traveling east to the land of Moab. Moab was “east of the Dead Sea [and] extended from the plains north of the Arnon River south to the Zered River. The region measure[d] sixty miles north to south and about thirty miles from the Dead Sea to the eastern desert.”[3] The family consisted of Elimelech and Naomi and there two sons Mahlon and Chilion. While there, Elimelech died, leaving his widow and two sons alone. Then, his sons married: Mahlon, the oldest, married a Moabite girl named Ruth and Chilion, the youngest, married a girl named Orpah. After ten years, however, Naomi’s boys also died. Now the Jewish widow found herself alone in a foreign land with her two foreign daughter’s-in-law.

Those are the barebones of the introduction to the book of Ruth. The book presents them to us in a fairly straightforward manner. Many of the original Jewish readers, however, found two aspects of this story to be most uncomfortable.

The first problem was the marriage of Naomi’s sons to these Moabite girls. In short, it was held that Mahlon violated the law in marrying Ruth. We know that many of the Jews felt this way. For instance, in the Aramaic Targum to Ruth, which is an early Jewish translation of the book of Ruth with rabbinical comments alongside the text, it is made clear that the Jews felt that the two sons died because they violated the Law by marrying Moabite women. Here is what the Targum says:

2- The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion, Ephrathites, noblemen, of Beth Lehem of Judah; and they came unto the field of Moab, and there they were military tribunes.

3- Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left a widow, and her two sons were left orphans.

4- They transgressed the decree of the Word of the Lord and took unto themselves foreign wives, of the daughters of Moab, the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the second was Ruth, the daughter of Eglon the king of Moab, and they dwelt there for a period of about ten years.

5- And because they transgressed the decree of the Word of the Lord by intermarrying with strange peoples, their days were cut short, and the two of them, Mahlon and Kilion, also died, in an unclean land; and the woman was left bereft of her two sons and widowed of her husband.[4]

The belief of these commentators is clear enough: Jewish boys married foreign girls and that is why God killed them. Again, our text does not say that, but this is clearly how at least many Jews read the book. The names of the sons may also give a clue. Kirsten Nielsen points out that “Mahlon can be translated ‘sickness’ or ‘infertility,’ while Chilion means ‘consumptive.’”[5] This is possible, though the meanings of these names cannot be known with absolute certainty.

Furthermore, some Jewish commentators even read into the gaps in the first five verses of Ruth 1 supposed other evidences of the inappropriateness of the marriages. For instance, early rabbi commentators on Ruth “said that the sons married after their father’s death because he opposed the marriages” and “Jewish commentators since the Midrash view [verse 4] as a silent proptest against intermarriage.” Some even suggested that the wording of verse 4 implies racist attitudes on Naomi’s part which compelled their sons to find their wives on their own.[6]

Clearly, then, these marriages were not viewed in a positive light by the Jews. In fact, they were scandalous!

Furthermore, while Ruth was a foreigner, she was a citizen of a land considered to be particularly wicked: Moab.

For instance, the origins of the Moabites are utterly scandalous and shameful. We read of their beginnings in Genesis 19.

³⁰ Now Lot went up out of Zoar and lived in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to live in Zoar. So he lived in a cave with his two daughters. ³¹ And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. ³² Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.” ³³ So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father. He did not know when she lay down or when she arose. ³⁴ The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also. Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father.” ³⁵ So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. ³⁶ Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. ³⁷ The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. ³⁸ The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day.

Thus, the Jews traced the Moabite origins to a shameful act of drunken incest and deceit. This was not the land from which Jewish parents wanted their good Jewish sons to take wives.

Mark Dever calls the Moabites “a terrible people,” noting that “they had sent Balaam to prophesy destruction upon Israel when Israel was preparing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 22-24)” and that “they were the first ones to seduce the sons of Israel into worshiping false gods.”[7]

The sinfulness of the Moabites can also be seen in the Old Testaments scrictures against their inclusion in the life of Israel. While Deuteronomy 7 does not mention Moab in its list of lands from which Jewish men were not to take wives, many assume that the principle would have applied there as well.

¹ “When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, ² and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. ³ You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, ⁴ for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. ⁵ But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.

Furthermore, Deuteronomy 23 explicitly denounces Moab.

³ “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the Lord forever, ⁴ because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. ⁵ But the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam; instead the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loved you. ⁶ You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever. ⁷ “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land. ⁸ Children born to them in the third generation may enter the assembly of the Lord.

You can see, then, that the fact that these boys married (a) foreign women and (b) Moabite foreign women was a huge problem for the Jews. But this presents an even bigger problem: in the book of Ruth, Ruth is not presented in a negative light. On the contrary, she is ultimately depicted as a woman of great character, faith, strength, and virtue. In fact, in the conclusion of the book, we will discover that Ruth is King David’s great-grandmother!

How do we rectify these to facts: the unworthiness of Ruth but the apparent favor that Ruth enjoyed in God’s eyes. Put another way, how could God be merciful and graceful to a woman from the absolute wrong side of the tracks.

It seems to me there are two options. The first option is for us to simply conclude that the book of Ruth is somehow deficient and that if it had been written the right way, God would have struck Ruth in his wrath! This kind of displeasure with the book was communicated by at least one early Jew. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. has passed on the telling words of a particular 2^nd century Jewish rabbi.

The Babylonian Talmud records the following saying of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai (2^nd cent. A.D.): “…Ruth, the Song of Songs, and Esther make the hands unclearn.”

Hubbard explains the rabbi’s comment as having “been due to the problems which the book itself posed,” among which are “conflicts between the book’s practices and parallel pentateuchal laws” such as “the marriage of Mahlon and Chilion to Moabitesses.”[8]

So that is one option: to conclude that the book is simply deficient in what it depicts. May I suggest to us, however, that this is a terrible approach! In fact, I do not think the book of Ruth is deficient at all. It is the very word of God to us!

What then should we think of this? May I propose another option: that we read Ruth as astonishing evidence that the love of God is showered upon unworthy people! Perhaps the reason why God shows such favor to a girl from the wrong side of the tracks is…wait for it…because God genuinely loves people from the wrong side of the tracks.

In fact, according to scripture, we are all from the wrong side of the tracks! Which leads us to one more observation about the existence of the book of Ruth.

The existence of the book of Ruth reveals that the love of God is showered upon you.

Ruth would have been considered an unlikely object of God’s love as well as, in the minds of many people, an unworthy object of God’s love. In other words, she would have been considered an outsider, somebody who was far away from the people of God.

It is interesting to note how often the New Testament uses the image of distance to express the idea of spiritual lostness.

For instance, in Luke 18, Jesus tells the following story:

¹⁰ “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹ The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ¹² I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ ¹³ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

Did you notice it? “But the tax collector, standing far off…” We find the same image in the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Here, the younger son comes to his right mind and determines to return in humility to his father.

¹⁷ “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! ¹⁸ I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. ¹⁹ I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ ²⁰ And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

There it is again: “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion…” Likewise, in Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2, he invokes this image in his response to the cries of the people:

³⁷ Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” ³⁸ And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹ For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Ah, “the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off.” We begin to notice something important in these examples: God’s heart is for all of those who are far off.

God loves the repentant tax collector standing far off.

God runs to the returning prodigal even though he is far off.

God’s promises extend beyond the “righteous” to those who are far off.

God loves far off Ruth!

God loves far off you!

How? How does He love far off Ruth? How does He love far off you?

Paul tells us in Ephesians 2.

¹³ But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

He loves you through the blood of Christ. He loves you enough to send Christ for you. He loves you enough to lay down His life. He loves you enough to call to you in your distant place. He loves you enough to draw you near!

The existence of the book of Ruth means that God loves you! You!

 

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/may99/reunion17.htm

[2] Katharine Doob Sankenfeld, Ruth. Interpretation. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1999), p.5.

[3] John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p.277.

[4] https://targum.info/meg/ruth.htm

[5] Kirsten Nielson, Ruth. The Old Testament Library. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), p.42.

[6] Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p.93.

[7] Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), p.239.

[8] Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., p.5,n.4.