One netfriend wrote: <> The first is to reject their production and use altogether, and that is usually premised on the view you have described. It is a difficult appraoch to live by, because I don’t think any seriously tries to practice the idea that every line in scripture is creedal an of equal importance. Is believing that Elimelech belonged to the clan of Ephrath reqally as crucial to our faith as believing that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son? Of course not, and once you have accepted that then you have already accepted that a summary of faith that says less than the Bible might have value in guiding us as to the essentials.

Another responded:

Let me address the minutiae before the bigger argument. Years ago I would have proferred the same argument about Elimelech and his clan, but have come to realise that its truth is essential to our understanding of faith, both historically and in the present.

I asked myself the question: “Who would be interested in this boring repetitive drivel?” The answer is: those who were concerned about their tribal ancestry in Israel. Why was it important? Because of its place in the promise of God. To the descendants of Elimelech, this news was their link into their heritage – into the promise of God. Today it serves to remind us of a different “book of life” in which our place in the promises of God is recorded.

Now I could go on from a preaching perspective, and here are some of the exegetical thoughts which undergird this truth: The work of God and the promises of God have an impact on ordinary people. That God deems the names of these insignificant people important enough to be recorded in this way is a reminder to us that status in the eyes of God is not so much related to the great deeds of faith that we perform, but our place in His heritage and promise.

And another area for exploration is the reminder that these are more than just appellations. For the Hebrew, names spoke of character. They tell a story. Ask yourself as a Hebrew parent what you would answer when asked by your child “Who is Elimelech?” Surely it would be something along the lines of… I don’t know what he achieved, except that he was part of God’s covenant people.

It is on the same level as “God so loved the world that he sent his only so” because it reminds us of why. That there is a heritage and promise which God continues to work towards weaving all of us into a part.

And I added:

I think another reason can be added here, which would be the *first* factor to come to the mind of anyone in a traditional culture, or those who have done cross-cultural ministry with them, viz. that in these cultures one’s essential identity is intricately interwoven with one’s community – outwards and backwards through time.

I first heard all this when a Wycliffe missionary in PNG told the story of his reading the *last* bits of the NT he’d translated to the tribal elders… and the atmosphere was so electric he thought he was going to be attacked… ‘What’s wrong?’ he asked. ‘Why didn’t you tell us Jesus was a real person with real ancestors. These lists of forbears should have been translated *first*!’

So for them – and for 300 million others like them – this is not ‘minutiae’…

Shalom! Rowland Croucher