I've been taking an in-depth look at the book of Ruth for the past week or so. It's slow going, I have only gotten through the first seven verses. But, oh, what verses they are!
I found something that puzzled me a great deal and I've thought about it constantly for the past several days. Tonight, with the help of my former pastor, I had an "Aha!" moment. I literally ran out of the kitchen to write it down in my "Ruth" notebook so I wouldn't forget it. Since I found it so interesting, you might be interested in it as well. I'm going to do my best to condense this into one post that is not insufferably long.
If you have spent some time in or around church :) you probably know that Christ's lineage includes some rather, ahem, impure people. Namely, the women-Tamar, then Rahab, then Ruth. Tamar posed as a prostitute and got pregnant by her father-in-law. Rahab was a prostitute. And Ruth was a Moabitess.
It was Ruth's condition as a Moabitess that intrigued me the most. While researching the book of Ruth, I came across this verse:
Deuteronomy 23: 3-4
"An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever, because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you."
OK, pay close attention to the first part of that verse. A Moabite, and all descendants of a Moabite, are specifically prohibited from entering the assembly of the LORD. The verse specifies the tenth generation, but then goes on to say forever. Several different commentaries I have read indicate that saying "thus and such to the tenth generation" was an artful way of saying: FOREVER. In other words, the law was clearly prohibiting anyone who had a Moabite relative, anywhere in their bloodline, from entering the assembly of the LORD. Whew! Got that?
Now, with that in mind, think about this. I'm not going to type out the entire genealogy here, but in Ruth 4:18-22, we learn that Ruth, who we know was a Moabitess, is an ancestor of King David. And in Matthew 1:6-16, we see the genealogy of Jesus Christ traced all the way back to King David.
Uh-oh! Houston, we have a problem! How can it be possible that King David, God's anointed, has a Moabite relative, when Deut 23:3 clearly excludes him from even entering the assembly of the LORD, much less ruling the entire assembly?
Now that you have wrapped your mind around that, get ready for this--How can it be possible that Jesus Christ, THE Great High Priest, can have such an ancestor?
That is the dilemma that I have been chewing on for the past few days. I mean, why would God hand down a specific statute (law) through Moses that prohibited Moabite descendants from entering the assembly, all the while knowing full well that Jesus Christ was going to BE a descendant of a Moabite. It seems kind of contradictory doesn't it?
Now, before I go any further, I want to add a note here. I KNEW, even as I puzzled this over, that there was an answer to my dilemma that made perfect, pure sense. I just didn't know what it was. So, aside from thinking about it extensively, I looked through some books, and also talked it over with my husband. Then, I prayed that God would help me see the missing link that tied these two seemingly contradictory things together. I also knew that my former pastor was going to come over one night this week, and I figured I would pounce on him for some enlightenment.
So, it was during discussion with that same former pastor that He hit the nail on the head. Only I didn't realize it right away. I had to think about it until, of course, my hands were in a sink full of soapy water. Then, I saw LIGHT! Wanna know what it was? Well, I gonna tell you:
The purpose of the law is to condemn us.
Christ came to remove the condemnation of the law and extend grace.
Just to press home my point, I looked up a few scripture verses. To some of you, this idea of the law being for condemnation is perhaps new. To others of you, this is so familiar as to be boring. Well, I'm talking to both of you, so pay attention!!!
Galatians 3:10
"...Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
That sets a pretty high bar. If we do not do all things we are cursed. Don't even think for a moment that you are somehow capable of doing all things that are spelled out in the law. In Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus explains that even if you get angry with someone in your heart, you are guilty under the law of murder. God sees not just our actions, but our heart. And just our thoughts are enough to condemn us when compared to the perfect standard put forth in the law.
Yikes! Thankfully it doesn't end there. Otherwise we would be hopeless. But, as I'm sure you know, Jesus came and fulfilled the law perfectly. Then, Christ did the most amazing thing in all of creation.
Galatians 3:13
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us."
Christ came to extend grace to us, to free us from the impossible task of keeping the law. God, in His great mercy, knew that we could never do it on our own, so He did it for us.
Now, back to my original question. What does any of this have to do with Ruth being in Christ's lineage? I hope I've already made it clear, but in case I haven't, here it is:
Jesus could have an impure genealogy because His purpose was different than the purpose of the law. The law came to condemn us. Jesus came to redeem and extend grace to us. He also came to bring all tribes, tongues and nations to Himself. So not only is Ruth's inclusion a picture of God's grace, it is also a foreshadowing of the promise made to Abraham, way back in Genesis, in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
Girls, you can't imagine how much better I feel to have worked that little puzzle out. Thanks for sticking with me as I explained it.
There is one more thing that I fail to understand though. All of this makes perfect sense in relation to Christ. But how do the Jewish people reconcile King David's mixed ancestry with the law in Deuteronomy? I really have no idea, but I am seriously considering calling up the local rabbi and asking him if he would mind talking it over with me. That is how curious I am.
GPS…FINALLY!!!!
9 years ago
8 comments:
That is too cool. Jesus freeing us from the law. I love it. I love Him. He was so different from what the Jews were expecting the Messiah to be. It was His idea to include the gentiles (the unlovely~me & you. . .) in His plan of redemption from the beginning.
You should seriously write a commentary. I have a degree in Theology and consider myself to be fairly well-read and I have never even thought of some of the stuff you write about. Thanks for humbling me once again by the TRUTH of the Word. You truly do have a great ministry here.
Great post! Love your insight. This is a totally different direction, but I can't help telling you that I'm reading a book called Shattered Dreams by Larry Crabb. He actually goes through the book (emphasizing the life of Naomi). I'm on ch 3, and it's awesome so far. Just thought I would pass it along!
When a Gentile (alien) converted to Judaism, they were considered part of the assembly. The only restriction, if I remember correctly from my study Bible notes, was that they were barred from the inner courts of the Temple (sanctuary pre-Solomon). That wouldn't have applied to Ruth, as she was a woman and would have been restricted to the outer courts anyway. More troubling to me is the passage about "uncovering his [Boaz's] feet" on the threshing floor - what the text actually seems to be saying was going on through the apparent use of euphemism (it's my opinion that nothing immoral happened, given the integrity of both Boaz and Ruth, but scholars are divided on that).
I've also read "Shattered Dreams" by Larry Crabb - it is good. Yes, it's really encouraging when you look at the Lord's geneaology to see how God uses the flawed, the imperfect, and even the outcast!
Yes, Marie, a proselyte could be included in the assembly, but I think if you look up Deut 23:3 and read it in context, you will see that descendants of Moabite and Ammonite proselytes were specifically marked out for exclusion, along with children born out of wedlock, and men who had mutilated genitals (nice).
So while, say, a Cannanite could become converted to Judaism, becoming a proselyte, their descendants would be treated differently than the descendants of a Moabite proselyte.
Whew. Enough big words.
And I hear ya about uncovering the feet. I haven't gotten to in-depth research on that section yet. But I'm sure it will be interesting, considering that feet is sometimes a euphemism for genitals.
Look at that, I mentioned genitals twice in one comment.
BTW, I reserve the right to stand corrected.
LOL @ twice in one post comment!! Yeah, there's some interesting stuff in the Bible, huh?
Hmm...you're right; not all gentiles were considered "equal". As I recall, the descendants of those (like the Amalekites?) who didn't let Israel pass through their territory enroute to Canaan were to be treated more harshly. That is a real thinker, isn't it. So different from the rule of love in the New Testament.
I never really considered it in that light. Jesus' words to the woman in Matt. 15:25-27 have always really disturbed me, as well.
Post a Comment