back to Sermons Archive

November 5, 2006

Ruth 1:1-18

"Your people shall be my people "

The book of Ruth is one of the shortest books in the Bible and one of the most fascinating books. There are only four chapters to the whole book. Many commentators believe that the Book of Ruth was written during the post-exilic period in the history of Israel. Many Israelite men had taken foreign wives during the time of exile and prophets such as Ezra and Nehemiah were speaking out against the practice of foreign wives, even preaching to leave them because marrying foreign wives went against the law of God. The general consensus among commentators is that the book of Ruth was written to speak out against the prophets, to show that all foreign wives were not bad. Similar to the way Jesus used the parable of the Good Samaritan to teach the people to look beyond one’s nationality and look for the child of God within.

Let me give you a little background on why in this story, a Moab woman is held up as an example of faith. The Moabites were distant cousins of the Israel people but came from a very indiscreet background. The Moabites trace their ancestry back to Lot, the nephew of Abraham. And I am sure you are thinking, Heather, well that’s not so bad. They are in the family of Abraham. But here is the rest of the story. After Lot and his family left Sodom and Gomorrah, they were left with nothing. They believed that the world was destroyed. Now you must remember that an heir to pass on the family name was very important. So Lot’s daughters got him a little drunk a few nights, and proceeded to start a family with their father. It is to this occasion that the Moabites trace their heritage. Their lineage is not exactly lifted up as high upstanding citizens.

Now that you know a little bit of the background, I want to share with you some of the more interesting literary points of the book. The author who wrote this story really capitalized on literary forms of puns and irony. For example, the author states that there is a famine in Bethlehem which is also known as the House of Bread. The tribe that Elimelech and his family derive from is the Ephrathites. This name means “fruitfulness”. This “fruitful” tribe leaves the House of Bread because of a famine to find growth but end up dying, leaving no fruit or children behind. Even the names of the sons, Mahlon and Chilion are filled with puns and irony. Mahlon sounds like a disease that hit the Egyptians before the exodus and Chilion seems to come from the Hebrew root, kala, meaning to perish.

Unfortunately, all of these puns get lost in translation and the story loses part of its power. We just read it as a nice story that has a happy ending. But the Book of Ruth has so much more to offer if we let it.

It is a story of hope. It is a story of redemption. It is a story of family. And even thought it is named the Book of Ruth, it really is the story of Naomi and her journey of faith that first starts in despair and ends in celebration. It is a story about relationships and family. As I was writing this sermon, I thought, Well, I’m sure that some people are thinking would I really do this for my mother-in-law if my son or daughter died. Would I leave everything and follow her?

In our day and time, the relationship between a daughter-n-law and mother-in-laws are sometimes used as a joke. The joke revolves around the mother-in-law always out to get the innocent, unsuspecting daughter-in-law. Even Hollywood has got into the act. Last year, it released the movie, “Monster-in-Law” where Jane Fonda decides to make Jennifer Lopez’s life miserable. Jane Fonda’s character has come to the conclusion that there is no way that her son is happy and sets out to ruin the marriage.

Please hear that I am not saying that we should use this story as the model of how every mother-in-law and daughter-in-law should relate to one another. In many cultures, “the daughter-in-law is… expected to become the virtual servant of her husband’s parents, and especially of his mother. One of the commentaries mentioned that a gathering of Japanese women who “ ‘expressed strong distaste for the story [of Ruth], explaining that it was much used by male church leaders as biblical warrant for completely self-sacrificing devotion of daughter-in-law to mother-in-law, a cultural tradition they sought to challenge.”

What I want us to look at in this story is that “Ruth makes a choice; Naomi does not expect it, indeed discourages it; and the choice is made not in the normal courses of events of married life, but in the context of unmitigated family disaster that calls for unusual decisions. The loyalty of Ruth to Naomi may offer a general model for loyal relationships between all people, not just daughter-in-law to mother-in-law. The story models loyalty freely offered to one another.”

Here is what we must understand about this story. Family is everything. In biblical times, if a son died before producing offspring, his brother was expected to marry the widow and allow the firstborn son of their union to carry on the dead man’s “name”. And this is from the tradition that Naomi is speaking to the two young women. There is no hope. Both of her sons have died. It is very unlikely that another person in the family is going to marry these two women because they are foreign born which is strictly prohibited by Israelite law. And Naomi is left with no security of a family taking care of her. Even if she makes it home on her home, she is probably not going to remarry because she is past child-bearing and then must live out her life, relying on the charity of her family and others in the community.

For Naomi, her life is over. Her husband has died. And both her sons have died. She is basically pushed to the sidelines, with no hope of every getting back into the game of life.

And she knows this. That is why she tells her daughter-in-laws to go back to their homelands. They are still young. They can still marry. They can still have children. There is still hope for them but not if they stayed with Naomi. She tries to get them to go back, but at first both say no. They know what lies ahead for Naomi. It is not a life. It is only a half-life and not one a person would wish or condemn a person to live.

Orpah and Ruth both at first cry out against Naomi’s request. She is alone. And it is a long journey back to Bethlehem. Naomi finally convinces Orpah to see the logic in the situation and sends her back to her family for a future. However Ruth stays and claims a vow that shows her devotion to Naomi and still inspires us today.

You see, Ruth was telling Naomi that she would not leave her no matter what because when Ruth married Naomi’s son, she became a person of the God of Israel. She became part of that family and that tradition and nothing was going to make her go back on that faith.

In the translation into English, we added the verbs that make Ruth’s vow read, “your God will be my God” and “your people will be my people.” In Hebrew, it really says, “ Your God, my God. Your people, my people.” Ruth is committed to Naomi and has become part of the fold, part of the faith that is in the present, not in the future. Her vow becomes a sign of commitment, loyalty and love.

But it doesn’t end there as a simple vow from one woman to another. It is a reflection of who God is and is experienced in life by these people of faith. In our weak attempt at translating Hebrew to English, once again the meaning is lost or simplified. In our NRSV versions, the Hebrew word hesed is translated as kindly or kindness and we miss out on the power of this word.

“In the Hebrew Bible, hesed has for more theological significance than “kindness”. .. Hesed is considered as essential part of the nature of God and is frequently used to describe God’s acts of unmerited grace and mercy… But as verse 8 implies, human beings are also able to do and to show hesed to one another. To do or to show hesed means to demonstrate lovingkindness and loyalty that extends far beyond what the law or [logic] requires, beyond anything that the recipient expects or deserves to receive.”

When Ruth refuses to go, she is showing hesed to Naomi. Her actions defy logic and customs. It is not required that Ruth stay but she knows that when she become a person of the God of Israel, she was shown hesed and now is called to do likewise. The author even had a pun for the readers of the Hebrew to foreshadow Ruth’s actions. “Ruth’s name recalls the sounds of the Hebrew words for “woman friend” and “full-to-overflowing.” Ruth’s actions and words are governed by loyalty and love, not logic.”

As I was writing this sermon, I was reminded of our call as people of God to show love and grace to the world. We often lift up the verse Micah 8:6 as an example of our call to peace and justice. But even this verse has been simplified. When Micah mentions kindness, justice, and walking humbly with our God, he is not saying that these are nice things to do. He is talking about hesed. He is talking about a love that shows no partiality ton one type of person. In Micah, we are called to make kindness, to seek justice, and to walk humbly with our God.

We are called to make kindness. We are called to show hesed to the community around us. Not in a simple acts of kindness, but of showing, of reflecting the true nature of God to the world. A God of love that knows no limits, no boundaries, no expiration dates. A God of love that shows mercy, kindness, grace to all regardless of life circumstances. We are called to show hesed, a love that is defined by loyalty, grace, and mercy, and not by logic.

May we always reflect and show hesed to the world. Amen.

Rev. Heather McColl
Midway Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

back to Sermons Archive