Ruth rocks! (The one from the Bible)

A decent day at the store today. Some frustration with trying to wrap up my decision regarding what to do with the DOR/IRS mess, but it is clear that one is in my lap and I just need to make a move. We stopped at Main Street Market and got some groceries including an exceptional tuna steak big enough for both Jen and me. If you are ever in Egg Harbor, stop and shop there; it has an amazing wine selection and is a very well stocked store for a town of about 200.

When we got home I told Jen to get in her pajamas and climb into our overstuffed, brown leather chair. It’s about as big as a room and is the best chair when you need to feel absolutely protected. She is clearly getting better, but, by the end of the day, really is pretty drained.

I made dinner. I made steamed vegetables, reheated the quinoa from the other night, and cooked the tuna by searing it in olive oil for about a minute (after sprinkling with salt and pepper) and then popping a cover on the sauté pan I was using and cooking over a low heat for about 3 minutes more per side.

I ate dinner with some chunks of Gorgonzola and a glass of Altos Las Hormigas Malbec (2009). I must admit, I usually don’t understand Malbec. I may well be showing my ignorance, but it always makes me think of a halfway between a mid-weight Zinfandel and the bite of a complete Chianti. I frequently come away wishing I had committed to one side of the equation or the other. This one is different. Especially with the intense tang of the Gorgonzola, it is a decent glass.

By the way, I know you’re not “supposed” to drink Malbec with a light fish like pan-seared tuna, but I am an adamant believer in drinking what you like. Be aware of the rules, but break them freely. This is supposed to be fun. 

But the real thing I wanted to say is, Ruth is awesome. I mean the biblical Ruth. She is totally a Proverbs 31 woman. Her willingness to embrace change and roll with it is inspirational. Besides, she is sexy. She is totally female to Boaz’ male.

What always catches me off guard is that she is a Moabite. Her status as a pillar of faith and as an example of the best of women is totally understandable. But not enough credit is given to the fact that she was not an Israelite and, arguably, should have been shunned.

Moab was the son of Lot and Lot’s eldest daughter. I can’t tell you how many sermons I have heard referring to the sins surrounding Moab’s conception. From linking it to the alleged perversions of Sodom to the dangers of alcohol, the only times these events are noted are with disgust. I am not arguing that incest is not an abomination. It is. But look at what happens.

Ruth was King David’s great grandma. More importantly, this puts her in the direct lineage of Jesus. This is powerful stuff. God uses a non-Israelite woman, descended from an incestuous relationship, to be both a figurehead of feminine grace and to share in the fore-shadowing family line of Christ. How amazing is God’s redemptive power?

What really frustrates me is that there are many who argue that she wasn’t really a Moabite. They argue that she was a transplanted Jew or that she had converted or that the Moabites were wiped out and so she was only from Moab (not an actual descendent) or that inter-marriage had diluted the ethnicity … But that is not what the Book of Ruth says. Again, I am not going to try to convince you, but go read the book. To me it is absolutely clear that the author (I think Samuel) says, repeatedly, that she was a Moabite. The most clear for me is her famous speech to her mother-in-law; Your people will be my people and your God my God. What sense does that make is she is already an Israelite and already Jewish?

What they are really arguing is that their view of God and his plan cannot accept the idea of the Christ having such a lineage. They fail to understand that there is no way to comprehend God. By definition we cannot. If we could, we would be God. Our brains are limited yet we try to discern the limitless. His ways are not ours and his plans are beyond comprehension. The story of Ruth shocks me into accepting this reality.

And this becomes my own reality check. Where am I limiting the grandeur, the love, and the redemptive plan of God because my paradigm can’t image his plans and desires? We hear people say, “I can’t accept a God who would …”, and then finish with some limit they feel they must place. I know I have definitionally limited God because of my own limited vision and I know I have acted in response to my belief that God couldn’t perform. The Book of Ruth stands as a raw and awesome challenge to our polite, limiting, sensibilities.