Comments on: Sunday School Lesson #20

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:24:03 +0000

grego (#13): Rachab = Rahab. They are just two different ways of writing the Hebrew name in English.

Robert C: Thanks for that link and, again, for bringing up a theme that is easily overlooked. I was out of town today (11 June), but the previous two Sundays my lessons were quite different than I thought they would be, and your notes about women in Judges and Ruth made the difference. A big help.

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:38:29 +0000

Although Hannah isn't part of Jesus's genealogy, her son is the one that calls David. I think this connection strengthens the feminist theme in Judges, Ruth, and 1 Samuel. I've elaborated a bit on this view here.

By: grego

grego — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:52:42 +0000

I think I got it last night–the women mentioned are not the normal line/ wife link–they’re aberrations/ special cases. Looking at Matthew, I saw “Rachab”, not “Rahab”–don’t know about this one.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 04:40:06 +0000

grego: I think it is incorrect to call Tamar a harlot. (See the discussion of lesson in the comments on lesson 11–there’s something, though not a lot, on that there). However, I think it is interesting that there is something suspect about each one in the list.

By: grego

grego — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:13:03 +0000

In the genealogy given for Jesus in Matthew, only five women are named, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. (Notice that two of these women are not Israelite by birth.) Why is Ruth one of those mentioned? What do these women have in common?

Wow! I think that’s:
a harlot, a harlot, a widow remarried, an adulteress, and one seen as a fornicator. That’s what I see in common right off the bat. That is interesting to me…

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 03:12:34 +0000

Jim F and Jenny: I admit that my reading may be harsh–and I appreciate your comments that have helped me to see some alternatives. I still think that my reading is possible (meaning that I don’t see the problems that you suggest), but I also admit that the text does not limit us to that interpretation. Thanks again!

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 20:22:56 +0000

BrianJ and Jenny: I think that Jenny’s reading is very interesting. And I wonder whether BrianJ’s is a little too harsh. As Jenny points out, it seems to require a modern understanding of the situation. However, even on a modern undertanding I think we can have more sympathy for the kinsman’s decision. He may redeem Ruth. The law requires that someone do so, and he is first in line. However, he knows that if he doesn’t Boaz will. So he isn’t required to do so. In addition, redeeming her will harm his family, Since Ruth will be taken care of in either case, and his family will be harmed in the second, he makes a reasonable decision not to redeem her.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:33:34 +0000

BrianJ–You make a good point–the nearest kinsman’s refusal to honor his original agreement when he learns that Ruth is also part of the deal does seem less honorable/more self interested. But then again, a reading focusing on the honor of the actions of the participants should also then question the actions of Boaz himself. It appears that Boaz mislead the nearest kinsman (or allowed him to be mislead) by not making it clear up front that gaining the land also meant gaining Ruth. The text also suggests that Boaz did this because he himself wanted to marry Ruth, and thus was self interested/saw personal benefit (though not necessarily financial). So there is a way to read the story that, at least to modern ethical sensibilities, questions the honor of both Boaz and the nearest kinsman. In my reading I chose to focus on the financial status of the characters as opposed to their ethical status (I’ve been thinking about the atonment and financial imagery a lot lately). Boaz was wealthy. It is clear that the nearest kinsman was not (if he had been sufficiently wealthy, the inheritance problem becomes moot). And in a financial perspective, the problem boils down to who can ultimately afford to pay the price to redeem the land, Naomi, and Ruth. So I think my original reading does work in a specific context. I’ll have to think more about another reading involving the points you brought up–thanks for opening it up more.

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:20:42 +0000

Jenny–I appreciate how you described the way we all come up short in helping the ones we love. I think, however, that there is something less honorable about the “nearer kinsman” than how you read it. He initially agrees to purchase the land (vs. 4) and Boaz tells him (vs. 5) that he will also have to redeem Ruth. Now the nearer kinsman refuses, and the key phrase is in Ruth 4:6 “…lest I mar mine own inheritance.” The initial deal was to gain some land–that clearly benefits the nearer kinsman. Any children he might have with Ruth, however, would not belong to the nearer kinsman, but rather to Ruth’s first husband (note that when she conceives with Boaz, the people announce that Noami has a son–vs. 17). Taking Ruth as a wife, therefore, would force the kinsman to divide his lands among his children and any he would have with Ruth, thus giving his sons a smaller portion. So the nearer kinsman was interested when he saw personal benefit, but he shied away from responsibility.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 05:03:48 +0000

BrianJ–you ask “If we read chapter 4 as Boaz = Christ, Ruth = Us (hopefully), then who is the nearer kinsman that declines to fulfill his obligation?” I’m not sure if you’re looking for an answer in asking, but the question made me think. In the story, it appears that the nearest kinsman declines because he feels that he can’t fulfill the obligation (possibly because he doesn’t have enough money to provide enough inheritance for his offspring and Ruth’s possible offspring). I think it’s possible to see that nearest kinsman as ourselves in a way–as much as I love my husband, my child, my brother, my sister, I am unable to offer them redemption (I can’t pay their price) and vice versa. As brothers and sisters, we are kinsmen, but we require the aid of a second kinsman–still closely related, yet unique–who does have the resources to provide for our redemption.