e. The sovereignty of God
2. Purpose
Various suggestions are made as to the purpose of the book.
a. Universalism
Some suggest that it was written to counter exclusivist tendencies. There were Jews who thought so highly of the privileged position of their nation that they regarded all other men as outside the sphere of God’s care and interest. To counter such tendencies this book was written with its heroine a Moabitess, and a Moabitess who became an ancestress of the great King David. This view is usually made specific by suggesting that the book is a protest against the legislation of Ezra and Nehemiah prohibiting foreign marriages. No evidence is cited for this, it being regarded as self-evident.
But it is far from self-evident. As polemic the book is a curious piece of work. The controversial point is made so gently that one fears most readers would have missed it.42 Moreover, it is not easy to see how the story effects the postulated polemic. After all, Ruth was not simply a foreigner. She was devotedly attached to an Israelite mother-in-law and she was a convert to the Jewish religion.
Hertzberg43 makes the point that, had the book really been a polemic against Ezra and Nehemiah, the unnamed kinsman’s refusal to marry Ruth would surely have been on the grounds that she was a Moabitess (Boaz expressly informs him of this, 4:5). Boaz would have replied repudiating such prejudices. As polemic the book is curiously reticent. Indeed, H. H. Rowley thinks it would be as easy to read it as a defence of the policy of Ezra-Nehemiah as to think of it as attacking this policy.44
The view, moreover, demands a late date, not only for the final writing of the book, but also for the whole story. This ignores the evidence we have noted for the main story as being very old. And Joüon reasonably asks whether a book written late, and which opposes Ezra and Nehemiah, would ever have been admitted to the Canon.45
A variant is the view of Herbert. He rejects the idea that the book is a polemic against Ezra and Nehemiah, but thinks of it rather as a parable to teach the Israelites an important lesson. ‘They have received the great revelation of God which must be kept free from the contaminations and dilutions of paganism, yet must be available for all, even a Moabite woman.’46 This is a little better, but again it is difficult to see how the book does this. Ruth is not simply ‘a Moabite woman’. She is a proselyte.
b. Friendship
The book is a book about friendship. The devotion that Ruth shows to Naomi and the care that Naomi exercises towards Ruth run through the book. Some suggest that there is no grandiose purpose in the book. It is simply a tale of friendship.
But it is worth noticing that all three of the principal characters of the book are depicted as being mindful of their obligations to the family. Ruth does not forget her duty to Naomi, and consequently to Elimelech; Naomi seeks out a marriage that will preserve the name of her deceased husband, while Boaz marries the Moabitess to raise up the name of the dead. It is more plausible to argue that this is a book setting out the obligations of piety within the family, than to speak of it as a tale of friendship.
c. The genealogy of David
It is an interesting fact that though David is the greatest king spoken of in the historical books, and though he is looked on by subsequent generations as the ideal king, there is no genealogy of him in I Samuel. There he is simply ‘the son of Jesse’. The book of Ruth closes with a genealogy running back to Pharez, the son of Judah. It is suggested that the book was written to supply the missing genealogy. ‘In this simple fact (i.e. the inclusion of the genealogy) the author very plainly shows that his intention was not to give a picture of the family life of pious Israelites in the time of the judges from a civil and a religious point of view, but rather to give a biographical sketch of the pious ancestors of David the king.’47 Some ask whether anyone would have taken the trouble to write or to preserve the book had the great king’s name not been attached to it. Against this is the fact that nothing in the book, right up to the preceding verse, gives us the impression that it is leading up to anything like this. The genealogy appears rather as an appendix than as a climax.
d. Levirate marriage
The story deals with the plight of the childless widow. According to the levirate law, the brother of a man who had died childless was required to marry the widow. The first child of the marriage was reckoned as the child of the deceased, whose name was thus perpetuated (Deut. 25:5f.). It is suggested that this book was written to inculcate the importance of carrying out this duty. The suggestion is difficult to accept, if for no other reason than that, though we have three widows, in no case does a brother of the deceased marry one of them. There is no example of levirate marriage in the proper sense.
e. The sovereignty of God
It is better to see it as a tale told because it is true and because it shows something of the relationship between God and man. There is a good deal to be said for the view that the key verse is 2:12, ‘The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust’ (AV). That is what the book is about. It is not without its interest that the initiative is with Ruth in chapter 2, with Naomi in chapter 3, and with Boaz in chapter 4. None of them can be said to be the person about whom the book is written. But the implication throughout is that God is watching over his people, and that he brings to pass what is good. The book is a book about God. He rules over all and brings blessing to those who trust him.