Speaker 1: Last week, we started into our new series, sex and money and the story of Ruth. And so last week, we opened the story, the book of Ruth together, and we looked at how our economic contributions often define our value in society. And a lot of people, it seemed, really found this subtle but intentional un naming that happens in the opening chapter of Ruth quite profound. You see, we open the book by a reading that Naomi has a husband and two sons. And the family has traveled to Moab.
They are foreigners, but life is good until tragedy strikes. At first, Naomi's husband dies, and then her sons die, and then we read that the woman was left without her husband or her sons or even a name. And so I showed how this unnaming is unfortunately obscured for us in the English, at least by the NIV, which is what we usually read where it says Naomi was left without her sons or husband. But we miss something that's going on in the text that way. Now credit where it's due, the ESV, English Standard Version, which is a somewhat newer translation, and actually The Message by Eugene Peterson.
They both do a really good job of showing us this unnaming if we pick up on it. This is actually a really good example of how you don't need to be able to read Hebrew to pick up on some of the things that we're pulling out of the text as we go. Now often, simply reading a passage in two or three different English translations will uncover things. Oftentimes, the key to bringing the Bible to life is just simply learning to ask questions when you read. So maybe you read chapter one in the NIV and it says, Naomi was left without her sons or her husband.
And then you read it in the message and it says, the woman was left without her husband or her sons. That's a good question. Why? Why is this? What is going on underneath the text that is being communicated between the lines?
And just like that, there you go. You've got an entire sermon ready to go. And so that's what we did talk about last week. The two ways that this unnaming plays itself out in the story. So first was the experience of a loss that has you feeling helpless and invisible.
And I think we have all been there at times. This driving, gnawing need to prove that you are valuable, that you are worthy of being named in society and culture. But then second, we talk about this economic reality that still exists very powerfully in our world. We're the most vulnerable among us. In this case, a foreigner and a widow are often treated as statistics and not human persons.
Because in the context of the story, in the context of the time of the judges, if Ruth is not married, if she's a widow, if she doesn't have sons, she is in a very real sense a non person. She can't fully claim property. Access the legal system. She can't fully enter into society. And when we let that happen, when we let the vulnerable slip into being unnamed numbers, they go from vulnerable to desperate.
And what happens is that it diminishes each of us. Now there's lots of ways that we can talk about this in a modern context. Last week we talked about citizenship. How indigenous peoples in some countries aren't granted birth certificates or citizenship papers. They are often unseen by local governments and legal systems.
And this makes young girls in particular vulnerable to the sex trade. It also makes people entering the job market particularly vulnerable as well. One of the things that's happening right now in refugee camps along the border of Turkey is that men are being put to work in factories. But because they're not citizens, because they aren't actually legally employed, the workplace standards or the safety codes, even the basic protections that exist in Turkey for minimum wages just don't apply to them. But if you are a Syrian refugee and your family is depending on you and you are stuck in a refugee camp, then you just work and you risk and you do what you can regardless.
Now closer to home, this is no different than when we talk about the homeless or first nations or transgender or Muslim or insert whatever category it is we want to hear. But we don't take the time to stop and to listen and to learn the names and the stories and the perspectives of these human beings. Because when people become unnamed by becoming statistics categories, labels, numbers when they simply become the woman to us. We lose part of our own humanity in that unnaming. Now, that was last week.
This week, we need to take this story and drive it even further into the difference between the law and the spirit of our generosity when it comes to the vulnerable. First though, let's pray and then we'll look at Ruth at chapter two. God, would you be present to each of us in this moment, speaking our names so that we may hear and know how deeply loved we are, that we are not a number somewhere on a list in the sky, and we are not simply a statistic that you count. But instead, we are, each of us, the beloved child of a generous God who gives himself to us and for us every day. As we breathe in this moment would our very breath serve the promise of your spirit to remind us that you are with us.
But as we let that breath go to exhale out, would that serve as invitation to bring your life and your spirit and your message to the world that exists around us? Would we speak the same hope and courage that you give us? And would we use our voice and our breath to name those whom we come into contact with? May we treat each human being with the dignity they deserve as a child of God. And as we continue to explore the story of Ruth this morning and we look at the difference between the law and the spirit when it comes to care and generosity.
Now, we ask that you would sink your grace and your graciousness deep into our bones so that we might live in ways that bring breath and life and vitality back to your creation. In the strong name of the risen Christ, pray. Amen. Okay. We left off at the end of chapter one last week.
And so let's turn to chapter two in the book of Ruth today and we're gonna start in the very first verse. It says this, now Naomi had a relative on her husband's side, a man of standing from the clan of Elimelech whose name was Boaz. So this is a relative of her late husband. But there is something interesting going on here in the text already. Because what it says is actually something more like, to Naomi there was a friend, a man from the clan of Elimelech.
Now this is kind of odd. And the translation is debated here because it doesn't seem like Boaz and Naomi know each other at all. In fact, the text tells us that Boaz is related to Elimelech, her husband, by blood. And so Naomi and him, it has been argued, should be called relatives rather than friends as a proper translation. Personally, I think that what's going on here in the text is very similar to what we saw last week.
It's foreshadowing. That we are being told that Boaz will become a friend to Naomi. She just doesn't know it yet. You could think of it this way. We are reading the story from the narrator's perspective or maybe even from God's perspective if you prefer.
And so as soon as we read the names of Naomi's sons last week, which meant sickly and annihilation, we knew something bad was coming. As soon as we're introduced to Boaz here, we know something good is gonna happen. And I don't wanna read too much into this, but I think it can be comforting at times to know that there is a sense in which our stories are known before we even fully understand them. Now, oftentimes, we don't see tragedy coming for us, and we don't notice opportunity until it hits us. And yet, we are reminded here that God is present preparing and shaping and guiding us forward behind the scenes.
And so even before Naomi knows it, she has a friend in this story. And maybe there is someone who has been brought into your life and you don't know it yet, but there is something profound that will grow from that connection. Be present to the people who cross your path. I think sometimes we risk missing out on the friends who could have been significant because we were busy looking directions or maybe at the wrong things. And sometimes all it takes to find your new best friend is a little awareness and imagination.
Now, Ruth, the Moabite, said to Naomi, let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favor. Naomi said to her, go ahead, my daughter. So she went out, entered a field, and began to glean behind the harvesters. As it turns out, she was working in a field belonging to Boaz who was from the clan of Elimelech. Now, we've already met Boaz a verse ago, and so this isn't surprising to us, but the writer still loves this moment in the story.
As it turns out, it's a pretty fair translation. But without getting too technical, there's a repetition going on here. There are two forms of the same Hebrew word repeated back to back that give the idea that this is a completely chance encounter. And so the emphasis is something like completely and utterly by accident, she just happened to be in the field of Boaz. Now, of course, as the reader, who has already been told that Boaz will become a friend, we're supposed to read this with a kind of wink.
I don't know, by accident. Oh, sure. I got it. It's almost like a wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more kind of moment. Any of my Monty Python fans in the room?
No? Okay. Fine. We'll move on. But it's too bad because I think sometimes we miss the kind of playfulness in these stories.
The writer is winking at you here. By accident, she ended up in Boaz Field. But as if that wasn't enough coincidence, just then Boaz arrived from Bethlehem. And in fact, the construction in Hebrew here is actually, behold, Boaz appeared. So this is coincidence on top of coincidence on top of coincidence.
Again, think ancient Hebrew romantic comedy. That's what we're reading here. Netflix, I'm sure, has a genre to define this. Check it out when you get home. But Boaz greeted the harvesters, the Lord be with you, and the Lord bless you, they answered.
Now, in the midst of all of these different coincidences, what's going on here is actually a very specific and legally required arrangement in the Hebrew culture. And it is well attested to in the Hebrew scriptures. Leviticus nineteen nine says, when you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner.
I am the Lord your God. There is even a parallel passage in Leviticus 23. It repeats all of this again. And so all of you who thought that Leviticus was just a bunch of grumpy, stodgy, old rules. No.
There are actually some really nice, stodgy, old rules in there in Leviticus as well. And now if that doesn't convince you to go home and read Leviticus, do you remember when Jesus says that the greatest commandment is love God with everything you have and love your neighbor as yourself? Well, that and love your neighbor as yourself also comes from here in Leviticus chapter 19. It's actually eight verses after this, same passage. But we're not done.
Because in Deuteronomy 24, God repeats this command for a third time. He says, when you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back and get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the works of your hand. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow.
When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow. So this is a very common, very well understood rule. And it applies specifically to Naomi as a widow and to Ruth as a foreigner. The reason for which is actually stated in the very next verse.
Remember, you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. So, a woman without a son or a husband, a foreigner to whom the legal protections don't fully apply, These are vulnerable peoples. And so because the Hebrews have been vulnerable in the past and because they have been exploited through that mistreatment before, they are now called by God to institute a basic level of protection for those unnamed persons who live among them now. What you may have noticed, however, as I read these passages, is that they are a little, how can I say this, wishy washy?
I mean, Leviticus is after all famous for its overly detailed regulations. Right? Leviticus 19 says, do not cut your hair on the sides of your head. That means no bowl cuts allowed. Sorry, Beatles fans, you're out.
Leviticus eleven ten says that whatever is in the seas and in the rivers, but does not have fins or scales, these are detestable to you and you may not eat them. So lobster is out, shrimp is out. But if you keep reading, so is pork. Actually, is camel, rock, badger, rabbit, eagle, vulture, buzzard, falcon, raven, crow, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, pelican, stork, heron, bat, winged insects that walk on four legs, unless they have joints to jump like a grasshopper, you can still eat those. But no bears, moles, mice, lizards, geckos, crocodiles, chameleons, or snails, you don't eat that.
All off limits. That's fairly detailed. Leviticus even gives us a rule about what to do if two men are fighting and one of the men's wife comes out to defend her husband, and in the mele she grabs the testicles of the second man and crushes them. That is a fairly specific scenario to have a rule for. At least in my life anyway.
I don't know. It may happen more regularly where you're from. I can't speak to that. But why then, when God calls for the care of the poor and the vulnerable, does he leave this so open to interpretation? And he says, don't go to the edges.
Leave that for the poor. I mean, what exactly constitutes the edge of a field? Is that one stalk of wheat along the perimeter? Is that a foot into the field? A pace?
Is it more? I don't know. In fact, the Talmud, there were actually attempts to define what this meant. They said that a poor person could glean as they walked past a field, and they could gather what they could carry with them as long as they kept moving. So you can take what you want, but you can't set at the edge of a field and load up.
This is a traveling supplies only kind of deal, says the Talmud. But God doesn't go into that kind of detail here. What about when God says, if you overlook a sheaf, don't go back for it? I mean, is there a time count for that? A five second rule?
I mean, what counts as overlooking? Is this like chess when you're playing and you put your finger on the piece and you're fine as long as you're touching it, but if you take your finger off, that's it. No turning back. I mean, why are some rules so specific and others so vague? Is it possible that rather than an oversight, oversight, God knows that there are some rules, certain ideas that simply need to be lived in, that they just have to be interpreted, that they require a new translation every single time we face into them.
You see, I wonder if maybe Leviticus isn't a mistake, but instead, it's a statement. Because look at how the story unfolds. Boaz asked the overseer of his harvesters, who does that young woman belong to? Now granted, that sounds a little harsh to our ears. The idea that a young woman would belong to anyone is to put it mildly offensive, but this is the context of the story in the time.
And so the overseer replied, she is the Moabite who came from Moab with Naomi. She said, please let me glean and gather among the sheaves behind the harvesters. She came into the field and has remained here from morning till now except for a short rest in the shelter. And notice here that overseer has done precisely what we talked about last week. This woman has come and she has asked to work in the field as a foreigner.
And he has forget fulfilled his obligation to her. He has let her gather. And yet, he has not bothered to ask her name. And yet, look at what happens in the next verse. So Boaz said to Ruth.
Now, I realize that in the narrative, Boaz doesn't actually ask her name either. And very likely, if you imagine this, he probably learned her name from the overseer. But the writer has constructed this story in a significant way. That Ruth is named when Boaz speaks to her. And look at the difference between the paragraph where she is unnamed and the one that follows.
He said to Ruth, my daughter, listen to me. Don't go and glean in another field and don't go away from here. Stay with the women who work for me. Watch the field where the men are harvesting and follow after the women. I have told the men not to lay a hand on you.
And whenever you are thirsty, go and get a drink from the water jars the men have filled. At this, she bowed down with her face to the ground and she asked him, why have I found such favor in your eyes that you would notice me a foreigner? And then look at this, the response that he gives to Ruth's question. Boaz replied, I have been told all about what you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband. How you left your father and your mother and your homeland and you came to care, to live with people who you did not know before.
May the Lord repay you for what you have done. May you be rich richly rewarded by the Lord, the God of Israel under whose wings you have come to take refuge. No. What's the difference between the overseer does for Ruth and what Boaz does for her. Well, first of all, we should acknowledge that Boaz is the owner of the field and the overseer is really just an employee.
And so to be fair, this is Boaz's wealth and money we're talking about here. That is definitely part of what's going on in the story. Let's not pile on this poor overseer too badly. I mean, even if you know that your boss is a very good person, she may not want you giving all her money away. But the difference, I think, the text is pointing out to us here in neon colors is that Boaz has gone out of his way to name Ruth in his life.
To learn her story, to find out what has happened to her, to understand why she's here in his field, how she ended up in such a desperate situation. Now, why she has been doing to work her way out of this place, how she's cared for those around her despite her own vulnerability. You see, this is important for Boaz. And I don't think that the regulations in Leviticus are being naive when they're vague about caring for the poor. In fact, I think that part of what Leviticus is telling us is that for generosity and care and community to really work the way that that they are supposed to.
They will need to be embodied, not enforced. In fact, what else could it possibly mean to love your neighbor as yourself except to take the time to learn their story and to understand their needs to contextualize your response to them. In fact, I have always wondered if perhaps the reason that God says the poor can come and glean and follow the workers and collect the leftovers, rather than just asking the wealthy to bring their excess to some central distribution model, wasn't precisely so that the unnamed would be welcomed onto the property of the wealthy. And the stories would be told in the fields. And lives would begin to intermix.
That generosity would then naturally flow from connection and community. That we might love our neighbor as our self because we allow our neighbor to become part of us. Now, before we get too down on socialism as the ill for all that is bad in society, let's remember that there is also a central distribution model in Israel. And that was the storehouse tithe for the poor and so that is important as well. But I think what we need to remember is that institutional generosity can never replace personal investment.
If you give and you give and you give, but you never actually touch then you are still missing something significant in your life. And more rules, more sermons, one more check, or a thousand more donations will never equal up to the act of inviting someone into your space. And I know that that's scary. And I know that it can be dangerous. I realize that you can be taken advantage of and I know that you have probably been taken advantage of before.
But don't stop opening your door. Because if you do that, then the only thing you will be left with is vague rules and incomplete regulations that will fail to grasp the majesty of God's generosity. And sure, we can make up a rule to decide what to do if your wife gets a little too aggressive defending you. But generosity is too big. And it's too important.
And it's too central to the story of God to be prepackaged for us. It has to be embodied. Now, if that's not clear enough already in the story, then look at one more passage as this chapter comes to a close. Ruth has gone home now and she brings all this extra food to her mother-in-law. Naomi is flabbergasted by this and what she sees.
And so she asks, like, what happened? And this is what we read in chapter 19. Then Ruth told her mother-in-law about the one at whose place she had been working. The name of the man I worked with today is Boaz, she said. Now listen to Naomi's response here.
This is verse 20. The Lord bless him, Naomi said to her daughter-in-law. He has not stopped showing his kindness to the living and the dead. Now, that's a really nice thing to say. But it does seem a little hyperbolic, doesn't it?
I mean, we're not even sure if Naomi or or and Boaz know each other. And sure, Boaz gave them some grain he let you work in his field, but is that really justification to proclaim that he has not showing his kind kindness to the living and the dead? Even the word kindness here. This is actually the word chesed in Hebrew. Incredibly important idea.
Chesed is the loving kindness of God. It's the embodied care of Yahweh in the scriptures. And so, whereas in English, we kind of think of love as the feeling or the emotion and kindness as the active element. Hesed in Hebrew is all of It's a very important idea in Hebrew. And so because of this use of the word Chesed and the statement about the living and the dead, different translations have tried to make sense of this in different ways.
The ESV says, may he be blessed by the Lord whose kindness has not forsaken the living and the dead. They stick that by the Lord in there. The message goes with this. God bless that man. God hasn't quite walked out on us after all.
He still loves us in bad times as well as good. Little wordy, but I like that though. The thing is, on this one, I actually think the NIV gets it right. Let me read you a quote here from a scholar called Robert Robert L Hubbard, not to be confused with Ron L Hubbard, different people. But he says this, serious ambiguities afflict the following line.
Is Boaz or Yahweh the antecedent of the pronoun which introduces the the phrase? Grammatically each offers an equally legitimate antecedent. Now, as a very fancy way of saying, the Hebrew is ambiguous here. And I wonder if maybe that's on purpose. Is this God's has said we are talking about?
Yes. Of course it is. Is this Boaz care we are speaking of? Yes. Absolutely.
Are these things distinguishable? Sometimes the answer is simply no. And think about that for a moment. Think about that when it comes to your opportunity to do more than the letter of your obligation. Think about that when it comes to your care for the least among us.
Because what it means is that you and I, we don't just imitate. We don't just pass along. We don't just model of the kindness of God. We actually somehow become the loving kindness of the divine in time and space. When you embody generosity and you do more than you need to but you do what you are called to do, you are indistinguishable from the love of God in that moment.
And see, this is the difference between throwing some money at a problem and absorbing that cause somewhere deep into the core of your being. And especially for those of us here in the global West who have resources at our disposal. Yes. Absolutely. Of course, we are called to use our money for the common good.
To help those in need where we can, to contribute to the communities that we're part of. And here at church, we need donations to function. That's reality. But if all we do is write checks or transfer funds or click donate online and we don't take that opportunity to involve ourselves in the stories behind the needs that we give to, then we will have missed the chance to see the divine manifest itself in our lives. And so may you know today that your generosity is more than ones and zeros.
It is part of the transformative, reimagined, redemptive work of the God who intends to renew all things through Christ. And as we participate with him, as we take the letter of our obligation and we embody it and we live it, we participate with God in that story. Let's pray. God, help us as we continue to walk our way through this text to understand this deep and intentional difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of your generosity. Help us never to be content with doing the bare minimum, with checking things off a list or justifying ourselves based on things that we've accomplished.
But instead, to be continually softened and reshaped by your spirit so that we would be ready in every encounter and every opportunity to have your generosity flow through us. May we be soft enough to hear your spirit speak. And may we be open enough enough to give away not just our money, not just our resources, but our time, our character, character, our mentorship, our very lives in relationship with those we encounter. Help us to see the economy of the kingdom that extends far beyond our wallet wallet and into the deepest crevices of everything that it takes to make us as human beings. May we be generous as you are into everything that we are.
In the strong name of the risen Christ we pray. Amen. Okay. Now that's Ruth chapters one and two. Next week, we start to see a little romance between, Ruth and Boaz, and so that's when we'll start to talk about sex.
But we'll end here as we always do with this. Love God, love people, tell the story. Have a great week. We'll see you back here next Sunday. Thanks everyone.