Sunday School Lesson 41: I Have Made Thee This Day...an Iron Pillar

Jeremiah is one of the major prophets of the Old Testament, and has a fairly miserable experience.  He gets beaten, imprisoned, stoned, and otherwise mistreated throughout the course of his ministry but somehow remains faithful. Over the course of his life, he will prophesy against Israel and Judah, act out several parables (he's got nothing on Hosea, who was instructed to marry a prostitute, or Ezekiel, who had to lie on his side for 390 days, but still, there definitely were some awkward moments when he probably felt like the only adult in a grade-school theatrical production), and eventually ends up in Egypt, at which point his writings stop. His preaching focuses on the need for repentance to avoid the decreed babylonian captivity. He was supported in the early part of his ministry by Josiah, the King of Judah, but not by the subsequent kings, Jehoikim or Zedekiah.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. I know this is a scripture mastery and somewhat trite through overusage, but I still think it is a powerful message.  God knew us before the formation of our physical bodies and ordained us to specific works.  Or, at least did so with some of his children.  I don't find it a stretch to assume that what he said to Jeremiah could be said to any of us with a different ordination.

Jeremiah 1:9 Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.  Isaiah had an encounter with the Lord that was focused on his mouth as well, in Isaiah 6:7, but his experience was more around the fact that he felt too sinful to see the Lord, so a seraphim took a live coal from the altar and put it on Isaiah's mouth and his iniquity was taken away and his sin purged. It reminds me of John, when he saw the angels coming at the end of the world and one of them had a little book that John was commanded to eat and once he ate it, his belly was bitter and he was commanded to prophesy.  The thing about all this that is interesting to me is the focus on the mouth.  I would think that if the Lord was to bless me with the ability to speak, I would expect the blessing to be upon my head, i.e. my intellect, rather than on my actual tongue.

Jeremiah 2:3 Israel was holiness to the Lord (emphasis added). This a sad to me. It is preceded by the statement that the Lord remembers when Israel was young and he led them through the wilderness but now they've forsaken him.

Jeremiah 2:9 Wherefore i will yet plead with you, saith the Lord, and with your children's children will I plead.  People often think of Jehovah in the Old Testament as a vengeful God, and I get that - he definitely seems to have been a little more decisive back then, swifter to take action both for and against people than we seem to experience today, but he was also a loving, tender, merciful God, who will plead with his children, and their children after them to please repent, return to him, and be happy, be healed.

Jeremiah 2:13 For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.  This one is commonly considered a Christ reference, and together with the reference in Zechariah, is the source for Christ's quotations about being the living water when he was alive.  The broken cisterns are a reference to false Gods who can provide no eternal benefit to their believers.

Jeremiah 2:19-28 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God...but in time of their trouble they will say, Arise and save us.  But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if they can save the in time of thy trouble.  Arguably one of the greatest scriptures in all of the Old Testament.  How fitting and just is this?  Our own wickedness will be the executor of our punishment, we the authors, our choices the punishment.  The logic of bringing something upon yourself is not lost on the Lord, and the theme is repeated throughout this book. It is oddly divergent from the other message that is equally rampant, that of, repent and I will take you back right now.  This, to me, really strikes at the timing of our penitence.  Are we humble and seeking the Lord when we don't seem to need him  (temporally speaking) or do we wait until we are in some sort of trouble and realize how helpless we are without him?  To me, this is a statement of proximity.  If we gleefully ignore the teachings of the prophets until we're drowning and then cry out, save me, the Lord will likely say, you're nowhere near me, you've swum away from me.  If, on the other hand, we are striving daily to draw near unto him, he will likewise draw near unto us and when we cry out, as Peter did, that we are sinking, he will save us in accordance with his will and our faith.

Jeremiah 3:6-11 Has thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done?...And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw when for all the causes whereby backsliding israel committed adultery...yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also...And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned to me with her whole heart, but feignedly...the backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.  There's a lot that goes into that passage, but the essence is that the Lord is a lot more upset with hypocrisy than he is with up-and-up disobedience.  If  obedience is the first law of heaven, hypocrisy must be the first law of hell.  In the New Testament, Christ rarely got worked up but he seemed to take great issue with hypocrites. Revelation 3:15 talks about being either hot or cold.  Basically, pick a lane.  The Nephites were destroyed before the Lamanites in large part due to their hypocritical attitude toward the light and knowledge they had received.   What does that mean for the USA?  After being so blessed, are we going to fall the faster for our lack of commitment to being either wholly behind Christ or wholly behind Satan?  Will nations where it is acceptable to murder and steal as long as you are up front about it last longer than ours where we pretend to care but the reality is that we care only when it is politically expedient that we do so?

And, unfortunately, that's it.  I have to get this up and don't have time to go through the whole of Jeremiah.  I'll probably read it through without writing any notes about it just so I can keep on schedule. 

Sunday School Lesson 40: Enlarge the Place of thy Tent

Isaiah 54:7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.  In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.  This is spoken to the "desolate." If taken in isolation, it could be messianic, speaking of Christ's suffering on the cross when he asked why God had forsaken him, but the preceding verses make it clear that he is speaking to Christ's betrothed.  So is that the Jews or the Church? Is the small moment the past couple thousand years, or is it the time that each of us suffers following sin when his spirit is withdrawn from us?

Isaiah 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children. Taken in context with the rest of the chapter, this would seem to be a societal teaching that applies to all the children in the community, but I've always looked at this one as though it could stand alone and refer to our individual families.  When we teach our children about the Lord, the peace of our children will be great.  Of course, in English, this verse could mean that All thy children will be taught BY the Lord, not ABOUT, thanks to the ambiguity of our sentence structure.  Either way, I like to think this one can apply to our children.  Being taught by the Lord might mean that they will be enlightened by his Spirit, so perhaps the ambiguous grammar is useful because it is both.  The Ukrainian says something like, All your children will become the Lord's students.  It didn't really help in understanding who would be doing the teaching the way I wanted to, because the word used for student is similar to the word used for disciple, and with disciples, the onus is on the disciple to learn and follow, not necessarily on the Lord to teach and lead.

Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.  I'm pretty sure the first time I heard this line and noticed it was in a reggae song, either the Fugees or Bob Marley.  It's a pretty generous promise.

Isaiah 55:2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.  This verse is a ponderer.  How frequently do we waste our efforts trying to acquire things that have no lasting significance? What do we focus on that is not going to bring us happiness?  If you could know beforehand that your efforts toward a particular thing were going to feel like a waste of time when you are finished, how seriously would you take it.  Yet, on the flipside, this may well refer to things like pursuing a career.  I doubt that my job is something that satisfies in a spiritual sense, but I still need to make money if I am going to support my family. Does the spiritual responsibility of supporting my family offset the spiritually unimportant elements of my job? Because at the end of the day, supplying overpriced athletic-wear to middle class citizens is probably not very spiritually important.
It could refer to our non-productive time, though, when we pursue entertainment that is the opposite of spiritually satisfying.  Even inoffensive movies and television shows are probably a complete waste of time.

Isaiah 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.  The sure mercies of David is an interesting turn of phrase, given that David sinned and lost significant portions of his blessings. Paul indicates in Acts 13:34 that it has reference to the resurrection.  I'm not quite sold on that, because in Isaiah he says he wants to make a covenant with us dependent on our choices, which the resurrection isn't: it comes to all men the same way death does.  However, if we use David as an archetype for Christ, we have a man who was despised and rejected of men in his own family; Christ's family was the Jews, David's family included his brothers, and later his children; David fought for Israel and overcame an enemy that no one else was willing or able to combat, just as Jesus overcame Lucifer for us; and lastly, David typifies Christ through the covenants God made with him.  Thus, if David and represents Christ in this section, it is possible that the sure mercies of David are more literally conveyed as the sure mercies of Christ, which would include forgiveness of our sins, joy in this life, and an eventual estate in our Father's Kingdom.  I think Isaiah sometimes forgot whether he was speaking of David or of David's eventual descendent, Jesus Christ.  In Isaiah 9:6-7, we have the famous verse that is in Handel's Messiah, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given...Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end; upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.  So I am now convinced that the sure mercies of David are synonymous with the sure mercies of Christ and that we receive them by the covenant of Baptism.

Sunday School Lesson 29: He Took Up … the Mantle of Elijah

2 Kings 2: 1-6 Elijah seems intent on leaving Elisha for some reason. He tries to go to three different towns without him, but Elisha apparently knew what was up and wouldn't let him.

They go from Gilgal to Beth-El to Jericho to Jordan.

Gilgal was the site of the first encampment after the children of Israel crossed the Jordan river. this is where Joshu aset up 12 stones, one for each tribe of Israel to remind them forever that they had crossed the river on dry ground, as they had crossed the red sea on dry ground (Joshua 4). Gilgal further represents a new beginning because the word itself means "Roll away," and it was here that the Lord re-instituted circumcision as a requirement for all the men of Israel, saying, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of hte place is called Gilgal unto this day (Joshua 5).  You could say he went to Gilgal to remind Elisha of the beginning of Israel's separation from the rest of the world.

Stop #2: Beth-El. (If you could walk straight, this is probably 15-20 miles) This is the same Beth-El where Jacob, while running away from home and from Esau spent the night dreaming of the ladder leading up to Heaven, representing the covenants we are to make to return to God's presence.  You'll recall that in the morning, Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place and I knew it not...this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of Heaven...And he called the name of the place Beth-el. He also placed stones there to signify the importance of the place. This is also where the Ark of the Covenant was kept, and where the leaders of Israel would commonly go to inquire after the will of the Lord. Remember Psalm 27:4, One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord (Beth-El) all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple. I think he may have taken Elisha to Beth-el to remind him of the importance of seeking the Lord.

Stop #3: Jericho. (very close to Gilgal, so about 15-20 miles back from Beth-el) Jericho was the site of the first major battle and victory that the Israelites had after crossing the Jordan river. Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out and none came in. And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho. I love that.  Joshua was looking at a city that is unassailable and the Lord says, See? I have given it to you.  All they had to do was walk and have faith. We've heard the phrase, I walk by faith, thanks to Paul but I think that here the Israelites really had to for 6 days before the walls came tumbling down.

Stope #4: Jordan. (about 2-3 miles from Jericho) Not a specific city, but the river.  The river Jordan signifies in my mind the covenants the Lord has made with Israel, and could probably be likened to baptism or temple covenants.  Christ would be baptized here, the Israelites crossed here to enter the land promised in covenants to their fathers.

To summarize, the prophet Elijah takes his successor from place to place to remind him of being separate from the world, seeking God's presence in God's house, trusting in the Lord, and the eventual fulfillment of all covenants.

Some people feel that these four places represent our own journey toward God: Gilgal represents our arrival at the doors of faith and our baptism.  Beth-El represents powerful spiritual experiences.  Jericho represents those times in our life when we have to walk by faith. And Jordan represents our death and resurrection.

Also, it was quite convenient to go to the the various schools of the prophets and I would bet they got special instruction from Elijah prior to his translation.

There's quite a bit more in this lesson, I love the she-bears, the Shunamite woman, Namaan, and the whole, They that be with us are greater than they that be with them story, but I'm out of time.

Sunday School Lesson 27: The Influence of Wicked and Righteous Leaders

1 Kings 12:7 And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever.

This is interesting advise and I wonder how true it is for new leaders in other situations.  Serve the people, speak good words to them, and they will be loyal forever.  In the case of Rehoboam, he decided that he didn't want to listen to old men, and sought out the counsel of his spoiled peers, who told him to do the opposite.

1 Kings 12:16 So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel adeparted unto their tents.

Here, you can see how this was written long enough after the fact that the author feels comfortable saying that Israel departed to their tents.  He expects you to be familiar and comfortable with the terminology Israel and Judah as descriptive of disparate kingdoms, despite the fact that literarily, this is the first we hear of it. 

The kingdom splits, 10 northern tribes proclaim Jeroboam their ruler (it's mildly irritating to me that they have such similarly spelled names, both unfamiliar to us, making casual discussion about what happened more complicated).  A little background on Jeroboam is worth covering.  

Jeroboam was an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomon’s servant, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow woman…28 And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valour: and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph. He is the fellow who asked Rehoboam in the beginning of chapter 12 whether he would ease the tax burden his father had imposed, and when Rehoboam said no, the northern 10 tribes make him their king.  If you think he should have found some loyalty, let's turn back to chapter 11 and read more about him. 

He was walking along when he met the prophet, Ahijah, who was wearing a new robe.  The prophet tore the robe into 12 pieces 31 And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee.  So Jeroboam wasn't just being an ambitious usurper - he was given the Kingdom by God.  The prophet further explains to Jeroboam that the kingdom will not be torn apart until after Solomon's death, and that it will be taken from Solomon's son.  Surprisingly, the prophet says that God will rend the kingdom, not because of Solomon's wickedness, but because of the people's wickedness. Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped [other gods] and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. (Here is an example of the mercy of the lord, and an illustration of the level of repentance that David achieved. This seems to really illustrate the scripture Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

I've used to think it was slightly odd that throughout the Old Testament, David is commonly referred to by the Lord as a man who walked uprightly before me, or whose heart was right before me.  Commonly those statements are qualified by the statement, except in the matter of Uriah, the Hittite. I used to think to myself, you mean, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite AND HIS WIFE. But in recent years I have changed my mind. I think the Lord may have been showing us the depths of his mercy by saying David walked uprightly, except in the matter of Uriah, because of the thoroughness of his repentance.  If it is true that the Lord will not hold our sins against us, I like the idea that when talking about us, he doesn't bring them up. It's a model the rest of us could well follow.  If someone repents, asks our forgiveness, and makes it as right as they can, we shouldn't go around telling people about all the bad things they used to do when they were younger. 

Rehoboam, understandably wants the 10 tribes back, if for no other reason than pride, but it was likely that he wanted them back more for the tax revenue they had previously generated than for any other reason.  (I wonder how the young men who counseled him fared after the split.  Were they arrogant and he insecure enough that they gave him a hard time for blowing it? Or did they recognize what their counsel had cost both him and them? Or did they perhaps lose their lives?) Consequently, Rehob calls up 180,000 men to go fight the newly broken away kingdom of Israel but a man of God, Shemaiah, says don't bother and all the people went back home.  The scripture doesn't say how Rehob took the message, or how he handled his people going home, but I bet he was pretty dejected that night.

Jeroboam, on the other hand, decides that he is in real danger of losing the heart of his people because of religion.  If they keep needing to go across the border every time they feel the Spirit and want to go to the temple, he's concerned they will also start to believe that kings are divinely appointed and he'll have a schism in his own country between those who want to go back to the original kingdom of David and those who don't.  So, after taking counsel, he decides to remove religion from the equation by making them some idols, ordaining some priests, and copying the religious celebrations.  Sound familiar?  Christianity did much the same thing when it invaded Europe.  Replace pagan icons with crosses and saints, copy holidays, and build bigger temples.  Combine that with some sharp swords and spears and you've essentially got religion.

1 Kings 13 has a fantastic story about Jeroboam being called out by another man of God who comes from Judah, delivers a stinging rebuke for building altars, idols, and consecrating priests.  When Jeroboam tries to have him arrested, the Lord makes his hand wither.  Then as proof that God is speaking through him, (the withering hand wasn't enough) the man of God says that the altar will split in half and the ashes pour out on the ground.  It happens and Jeroboam is doubly afraid.  Somehow he convinces the man to pray for the restoration of his hand, which he does, and it is restored.  Then, he offers the man rest and refreshment but he declines, explaining that he was very specifically told not to eat or drink and to go home by a different route than he came.  He bails and a local prophet chases him down and invites him home for rest and refreshment.  He declines again, restating the original instruction but this time the "prophet" says, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. So, after going with him, eating and drinking, the word of the Lord comes and declares that the man of God will die by the way because he didn't obey some very simple instructions. He bolts and gets attacked and killed by a lion. Oddly, there is no apparent punishment for the prophet who lied to him.  I guess that another's deception is no excuse for disobeying a plain commandment. I really like that lesson.

There's loads more in this lesson, but I'm out of time.

Sunday School Lesson 21: God Will Honor Those Who Honor Him

Elkenah and his family go to the temple every year. I wonder whether he was exceptionally diligent?  Was that outside the normal expectation for an Israelite at that time?

When he was born, she called him Samuel, because I have asked him of the Lord. Oddly enough, "Asked of God" is actually the meaning of the name Saul, not Samuel. Samuel means "Name of God" or "Son of God."  

Hannah promised the Lord that There shall no razor come upon his head, indicating that he would be a Nazarite.  The original vow is found in Numbers 6. A Nazarite is holy to the lord, separate from the rest of the population.  There are different kinds of Nazarites, and anyone who wants to become one may do so for any period lasting at least 30 days.  Interestingly, modern Judaism allows fathers but not mothers to declare for their unborn children that he/she will be a Nazarite.  A Nazarite has three main restrictions that are not required by non-Nazarites: They may not drink alcohol, they may not cut their hair, they are required to avoid corpses.  Lifetime Nazarites, however, are not required to avoid corpses.  Modern Judaism allows lifetime Nazarites to cut their hair once per year. 

The point of taking a vow of this nature is the same as fasting.  Fasting is choosing to abstain from a perfectly allowable behavior in order to remind yourself of an increased devotion to the Lord. We sacrifice something that we are permitted to have or do in order to express the greater value we place on the relationship with the Lord, or our greater desire to earn a specific blessing.  A Nazarite was expressing the same desire to strengthen his relationship with the Lord by limiting specific actions in the same way.  

Elkenah was an Ephrathite, of mount Ephraim. The books of Samuel don't give any further information about his genealogy other than this opening line.  However, he definitely officiated in ordinances at the temple, performing the duties of a priest--duties restricted to Aaron's sons and the Levites. There is a reference to a Shemuel who was the son of Elkenah in Chronicles 6, and that traces back to Levi, but there is some dispute about a) whether this is actually Samuel and b) whether it was written later to try to reconcile the seeming problem with his actual genealogy through the tribe of Ephraim.  There's a whole group of people who think he was adopted into the levitical line by Eli, on the basis of the promise his mother made before she conceived him.  I'm less inclined to think that.  I think that he simply was given the Melchezidick priesthood at some point, obviating the need for him to worry about lineage when he performed ordinances.  There are other Old Testament prophets who functioned after this manner, including Elijah, who was of the Tribe of Gad, possibly Isaiah, whose tribe is unknown, and possibly Elisha, whose tribe is also unknown, but who was living where Judah's land was.

Jokes about Pregnant Women

I read a blog where a pregnant woman was ranting about how everybody makes fun of her for being pregnant. She told stories of how her awful 13 year old son would try to walk like her, how, at family reunion, people joked about how much she ate, whether she wore shirts or parachutes, how she couldn’t tie her own shoes, stuff like that. She filled a goodly amount of writing about how she could not believe that anyone would think it was funny to make fun of her for her condition. The article itself mostly irritated me because she seemed like such a whiney b..., and I don’t believe that her own family would make those comments maliciously unless she talked to them the way she blogged, in which case, she probably deserved to be treated like that.


Every time I see a pregnant woman who walks funny, though, I think of that and wonder if it’s OK to make a joke about it. Who else in society walks awkwardly? Old people. Handicapped people. Injured people.

Old people and handicapped people are an obvious no-joke zone, mostly because their conditions are not theirs by choice. (Well, technically, old age is a choice if you consider suicide a reasonable alternative, but I do not.) It is inappropriate to make fun of people for things that are out of their control and that cause them difficulty, frustration, or pain. But what about conditions of choice? I know for sure people make fun of me whenever I have a broken bone, and I not only take it in stride, but also recognize it as a form of friendship. The people who make jokes about whether I am clumsy or luckless would never make those jokes about a stranger. In a world where it is becoming ever more difficult to express platonic love, good-natured ribbing among friends is one of the bastions of loving expression. The jokes are not hurtful, primarily because I recognize that my condition is not permanent and it was probably my fault, either because of my poor judgment or lack of skill in avoiding the accident.

Because of this logic, at first I was inclined to think that pregnancy is fair game. All the pregnant people I know made a conscious decision to participate in behaviors which resulted in the condition—quite similar to me choosing to snowboard and breaking my ribs. Choice + funny consequence = fair game for good natured joking. Couple that with the familiarity of family, and it would seem to be ok. How does one express affection for an aunt or sister-in-law, anyway?

The problem I came up with today was a mild shift in perspective. If you are going to joke about a pregnant woman, the problem is not that pregnancy is the subject; the problem is that a woman is the subject. Out of respect for women, it could be considered inappropriate subject matter for joking. Women and men are disparate creatures, and while I may be able to recognize a joke as an acknowledgement of affection, a woman may perceive the same thing through an entirely different lens. The subject is still under consideration.

Sunday School Lesson 20: All the City...Doth Know That Thou Art a Virtuous Woman

The book of Ruth is one of the irritating books in the Bible to me. I always hate it when people try to make scripture out of stories that don't necessarily discuss the will of God or the doctrine of Christ, both of which I find lacking in this book.  True, Ruth displays the Christlike attributes of love, charity, loyalty, faith, etc., and she has a great conversion story in a time of frequent defections, but in my mind, it lacks the meat to give it a full lesson when we used the same amount of time to cover the whole moses story from burning bush to plagues and liberation to passover to parting the Red Sea.  How is it that all that gets a grand total of 45 minutes and this story of a woman who says, "No, I don't want to go back to live with my mom and dad" gets the same?

The lesson manual says it is to give us a glimpse of what life was like for normal people during the reign of the Judges, but I'm not buying that.  The bible wasn't written as a history book, after all.  The book of Ruth was written well after the fact (the opening verse hints at it, but it is later made quite clear in chapter 4 when the author decides he needs to explain the custom involving the shoes when the kinsman failed to redeem Ruth).  When I began re-reading it this time through, I decided that I think it was written specifically to explain the genealogy of David. I think it's like the people who do genealogy now and don't want just names to take to the temple; they want stories that make them feel closer to their ancestors in a good way.

There are people who believe that the book was written shortly after David took the throne and people wanted to know more about his heritage. I'm with them.

There are other people who believe it was written much later, in response to Ezra's command to the Israelites to put away their foreign wives.  This group of people feel that the book was a rebuttal to the argument that "all non-jews lead you to idol worship."  Here was an example tied to the greatest of Israelite kings that demonstrated that there were times when a heathen could be a great addition.

Ruth 4:7 Ah, the custom of the shoe.  The reason for all this shoe business was the law given in Deuteronomy 25 that if a man died, his brother should go in unto his wife and have sex with her.  The child of this union was legally considered the son of the dead man, and inherited his property.  However, it sometimes happened that the brother didn't want to do his job--there was really not a lot in it for the man, since, if the woman didn't have any children, his brother's property would go to him once she was too old for child-bearing or got married to someone else anyway.  So they created the custom of the shoe, centered on public humiliation.  In Ruth, they make it out to be a fairly inconsequential thing, and perhaps by the time of Ruth, it really was.  It's clear that the custom was fading, because by the time of writing the book, it was so far out of practice that they had to explain what it was.  In the time of moses, however, it seems quite a bit more severe.

Here's Ruth:

And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it...redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it. Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things: a man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor: and this was a testimony in Israel.

And here's the original in Deuteronomy 25: 5-10

And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife to up to the gate and unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; then shall his brother's wife come unto him in th presence of the elders and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, so shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed. 

So she gets to spit in his face, take off his shoe and he has to change his name to the guy who didn't love his brother. I wonder if the custom of sleeping with your dead brother's wife is still done within the Jewish community?  I've asked Betsy to ask our neighbors who are practicing Jews.

In the case of the nameless kinsman (definitely would have been named if he had been a go-to guy for Ruth.  Bummer for him.), the obligation was not quite as firm, since he was not the actual brother of either Naomi's husband or Ruth's, so maybe that's part of why they didn't spit in his face or change his name.

Despite my frustrations with the book, Ruth is one of a very small number of women mentioned, and an even smaller number who get discussed at any length in the Bible, and she was very faithful and righteous, and became an ancestor of Christ: props to her.