Ruth as Challenge

I’d like to summarize some information I just recently read about one of my favorite books of the Bible, Ruth, from a book I’m reading called The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction About Jesus by John Dominic Crossan.

The story of Ruth is set in the time of the Judges—before Israel had Kings. But Crossan asks the question of when this story showed up in Israel’s history. Just as we could read a story set during WW2, so Israel was presented with the story of Ruth at a later time in their history.

Crossan believes that it appeared during the “post-Babylonian Persian Restoration (I’ll spare you the dates) of Ezra and Nehemiah.”

In short, Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed and the Israelites were exiles in Babylon (think “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego”) until, luckily for them, the Persians overthrew the Babylonians. In this case, the enemy of Israel’s enemy was actually their friend because the Persian regime had a very different philosophy about conquered peoples—they preferred to send them back to their homelands and collect taxes. And, Crossan writes, in the case of Israel, they also wanted a little space between themselves and Egypt.

The two people mandated to see this project of restoring Jews to the homeland and “reinstating ancestral law” were Ezra and Nehemiah. One of the key components (and I’m sure you can understand why) of their program was a form of ethnic cleansing, where all foreign wives and their children had to be sent away. As a justification, they looked to the scriptures, where Deuteronomy 28 clearly stated that “No Ammonite or Moabite” could ever become part of God’s covenantal community.

And here comes the story of Ruth, the Moabite who becomes part of the Jewish family of Naomi and the great grandmother of King David.

And if you think this is a stretch to focus on these elements in Ruth, Crossan points this out (and I did a quick, scanning count): the word Moab or some derivative (like Moabite) is used at least 14 times in the 4 short chapters of Ruth . More than once, the text calls Ruth,  “the Moabite who came back with Naomi from the country of Moab”. I think that would be about like saying, “Syd the American, who came back with David from the country of America.” Do you think the writers were trying to make a point? Ruth's not an Israelite she's a Moabite.

Crossan highlights the other place that we find a “double emphasis” in the story of Ruth. At the end of the story, in chapter four, it’s noted twice that Ruth (remember the Moabite from Moab) was the great grandmother of Isreal’s greatest king, King David. In my mind, I picture Ruth being to David as Mary is to Jesus—you just can’t have one without the other. The Israelites couldn’t overlook this. Their greatest king wouldn’t have been born without the marriage of Ruth, the Moabite, to Boaz, the Israelite.

So what would the story of Ruth sound like to a group of people who are casting out all the strangers and foreign wives from among them? What kind of challenge to the “Deuteronomy-based reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah”  (as Crossan calls them) would it present to hear the words of Ruth to Naomi, at a time when, “Ruth could never have said to Naomi, ‘Your people shall be my people and your God my God’ (1:16)?”

Two (extended) questions I want to think about after reflecting on Crossan’s analysis:

1.     Are we reading the Bible in a way that allows what Crossan calls, “the biblical Word against the biblical Word?” Do we see its “inconsistencies” as problems or as models for how God’s truth can challenge his people (and how the text can challenge itself)?

2.     Who are our Moabites today? Who, in our modern world, does the community of God (collectively or in smaller groups) tell that they cannot be part of God’s  family (God’s covenant, God’s church)? What kind of challenge does this story about Ruth inspire in relation to our answer?

If you think you're up for it, try reading the story again with Crossan's analysis in mind! http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Ruth