Archives for May 2024

God and Man, Part 7: Deity 6

May 30, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

We’ve seen that Christ, like the Father, is both omniscient and omnipresent. What about the other non-communicable attributes?

Omnipotence

Many students of the Scripture have noticed that John organizes the first half of his Gospel around 7 “sign” miracles that he selected to demonstrate that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (Jn 20.31). Though there’s some disagreement on delineating those miracles, I see the 7 miracles that John has identified specifically as “signs” as

Changing water to wine (Jn 2.11)
Healing a nobleman’s son (Jn 4.54)
Healing at the Pool of Bethesda (Jn 6.2)
Feeding the 5000 (Jn 6.14)
Healing the congenitally blind man (Jn 9.16)
Raising Lazarus (Jn 12.18)
Raising himself (Jn 2.18)

(Some would include his walking on the water and omit his resurrection, but I prefer to stick with what John actually calls “signs.”)

This is not the place to discuss each of these miracles, but I’d like to point out something about just the first two.

John begins by recounting Jesus’ changing water to wine. This involves power over chemical structure (matter), and, if he made fermented wine, as I believe he did, it involves power over time as well, since he made something old that was new.

And then John describes Jesus’ healing of the nobleman’s son. The interesting feature of this miracle is not the healing—Jesus did lots of those. Rather, it’s the distance; the boy was not in Jesus’ presence when he was healed. Jesus is not limited by geography.

So we find that Jesus holds authority over time and space—which is to say all four dimensions of the physical universe. And that’s just the first 2 of 7 sign miracles.

That’s comprehensive power.

After his ascension Jesus appears to Paul, in response to the apostle’s prayer for deliverance from his “thorn in the flesh.” He explains why he’s not going to deliver him—in this life—and then he says, “My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2Co 12.9). Now, grace is often a synonym for strength (here the two are in parallel), and Jesus tells Paul that whatever strength he needs, Jesus will have plenty.

You can’t make that promise if the number is finite.

Immutability / Eternality

God never changes. The Scripture makes that observation about the Son as well: Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever (He 13.8). This despite the fact that his works have changed over time (Creator, Redeemer, Mediator, and King), and that at a point in time he added to his unchanging divine nature a human nature, which he will retain forever.

As I’ve noted earlier, a logical derivative from immutability is eternality, since to cease to exist would be, for God, a significant change.

And Jesus, we find, is eternal. In a statement that nearly got him executed on the spot, Jesus said to his opponents, “Before Abraham was, I am” (Jn 8.58). There’s a way to say “I was” in both Aramaic and Greek; but Jesus doesn’t say that. He says, “I am.”

Jesus’ understanding of grammar and style was not defective; he said what he meant. It’s likely, of course, that he was intentionally referring to the name by which Yahweh had revealed himself at the burning bush (Ex 3.14), which would be an even grander claim. But he is at least placing himself outside the bounds of time and in eternity.

Jesus has all the non-communicable divine attributes. That can be said only of someone who is God.

Next time we’ll look at another category of evidence—that Jesus does not only some, but all of the uniquely divine works.

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

God and Man, Part 6: Deity 5

May 27, 2024 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

Part 1: Like No One Else | Part 2: Deity 1 | Part 3: Deity 2 | Part 4: Deity 3 | Part 5: Deity 4

The next category of evidence for Christ’s deity is passages that describe him with divine attributes.

First, a little background.

All of us have attributes—that is, characteristics. Some people are outgoing, others not so much. Some people are patient, others not.

God has attributes too; there are adjectives we can use to describe him. Some of those attributes are ones that we humans, and angels, can share, to one degree or other: we can be patient; we can be loving; we can be faithful.

But there are other attributes of God that we can’t share. Theologians traditionally speak of 4 of these “non-communicable” attributes: omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and immutability, or changelessness. Most would include eternality as derived from this last one.*

So here’s the premise. If Jesus is said to have any of God’s non-communicable attributes, then he must be God. In fact, he’s said to have all of them. Let’s demonstrate that.

Omniscience

It’s worth noting that during his earthly ministry Jesus voluntarily limited his independent use of his divine attributes, relying completely on his Father for what he needed to accomplish his mission (Jn 5.19, 30). When he needed to know something that an ordinary human couldn’t, the Father would reveal that to him (Jn 2.25; 4.17-18; Lk 6.7-8). At one point he even said that he didn’t know the answer to the disciples’ question (Mk 13.32).

But in addition to being voluntary, that limitation was temporary. Now exalted, he knows all things. To each of the 7 churches to which he writes letter in Revelation, he says, “I know your works” (Re 2.2, 9, 13, 19; 3.1, 8, 15). In one of those letters, he says, “I am he who searches mind and heart” (Re 2.23). The author of Hebrews writes, “No creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (He 4.13). Paul writes, “In [Christ] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Co 2.3).

Omnipresence

Here we need to begin by observing that there are modes of God’s presence. In one sense he is seated on his throne in heaven—but of course he is everywhere. He is said to be in heaven but not in hell; he is said to be in the hearts of his people but not in the hearts of the lost. The Spirit is said to indwell all who believe, but not others (Ro 8.9).

It works similarly with the Son. He is seated at the right hand of the Father (Ac 2.34), where he stands to watch Stephen’s execution (Ac 7.55). He is “in you [believers], the hope of glory” (Co 1.27). In the Great Commission he says, “I am with you always, unto the end of the age” (Mt 28.20). And Paul calls Christ “him that filleth all in all” (Ep 1.23).

We’ll get to the other 2 non-communicable attributes next time.

* Notably, Charles Ryrie disagrees. He argues that we have defined the attributes to support the thesis. By calling God’s knowledge “omniscience” rather than “knowledge,” for example, we have made it something that we can’t share, thereby assuming our thesis. I find his point interesting, but I still see the distinction as valid. In any case, Ryrie’s point doesn’t invalidate the evidence here as arguing for the deity of Christ.

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

God and Man, Part 5: Deity 4

May 23, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Like No One Else | Part 2: Deity 1 | Part 3: Deity 2 | Part 4: Deity 3

We have 3 more names or titles of Jesus that are appropriate only for God.

Son of Man (Da 7.13)

This doesn’t sound like a divine title, does it? In fact, it doesn’t need to be; the term appears often applied to ordinary humans, even as a reminder that they are merely human (Nu 23.19; Job 25.6; Ps 8.4). It’s used a host of times in Ezekiel; God calls him “son of man” repeatedly, I think to remind him of both his weakness and his calling as a prophet, to bear God’s message to his fellow humans.

It’s also Jesus’ favorite name for himself (e.g. Mt 8.20; Mk 2.10; Lk 6.5; Jn 3.14). Is Jesus using it to say that he’s merely human? We wouldn’t know the answer to that question without a brief episode during his trial, recorded in both Matthew and Mark:

the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. ⁶⁴Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven (Mt 26.63-64).

Here Jesus is quoting not Ezekiel, but Daniel. We read there (Da 7.13) of “one like the Son of Man” appearing before the throne of “the Ancient of Days” and being given an eternal kingdom. What is Daniel saying with this title? I thinking he’s expressing astonishment:

“So we’re in the very throne room of God, and here comes this … guy! Just an ordinary-looking guy! And God gives him a kingdom—an eternal one!”

And that is how Jesus is identifying himself before the high priest. He’s not just a prophet like Ezekiel; he may look ordinary, but he is the Eternal King.

The high priest understands him perfectly:

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy (Mt 26.65).

The high priest knows a claim to deity when he hears it.

Yahweh

Jesus is in fact identified as Yahweh, or Jehovah, multiple times in the Scripture. I’ve written a lengthy series on those passages here.

Jesus

I suspect this one surprises you. “Jesus” is the Savior’s human name, like Bob or John or Ralph. It’s the equivalent of the name “Joshua,” and there are other Joshuas in Scripture, including two famous ones (Jos 1.1; Hag 1.1), neither of which is God. So how is that a divine title?

It wouldn’t be, without a specific word from God. That word arrives through an angel, in a dream of Jesus’ stepfather, Joseph (Mt 1.20-23). The angel instructs him,

she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins (Mt 1.21).

We read that sentence in English without having any idea what it means.

Have you noticed the little conjunction “for”? That connecting word indicates a causal link: Joseph must name the child “Joshua” because he will save his people from their sins.

What does the name have to do with his role as Savior?

I think Joseph, and anyone else who knew Hebrew, would recognize immediately what the angel was saying. It has to do with the meaning of the Hebrew name.

“Joshua,” you see, means “Jehovah saves.”

“Name him ‘Jehovah saves,’ ” says the angel, because he will save his people from their sins.”

And Joseph pauses, swallows hard, and thinks, “The baby—the fetus—is Jehovah?!”

There’s not a chance in the world that he could get his brain around that concept.

But he believes. And he obeys.

And all of us, my believing friends, are better for it.

So we have 6 titles or names of Jesus that are appropriate only for deity.

Next time we’ll explore a third category of evidence.

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

God and Man, Part 4: Deity 3

May 20, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Like No One Else | Part 2: Deity 1 | Part 3: Deity 2

In the previous two posts we considered 7 passages in which the Scripture explicitly calls Jesus God. There are translational questions around 3 of the 7, but even in those cases the evidence strongly supports a statement of Jesus’ deity.

But beyond those—and 7 is the number of completeness, isn’t it? :-)—there is still considerable evidence for Christ’s deity. I’ll turn now to passages where titles or names appropriate only for God are ascribed to Jesus. Let me suggest 6, the last of which will surprise you.

Immanuel (Is 7.14; Mt 1.23)

Isaiah prophesies that one born to a virgin will be called “Immanuel,” which in Hebrew means “God [is] with us.” Now, it’s true that Hebrew names can speak of God’s attributes (we call those “theophoric” names) without implying deity in the bearer; my own personal name, Daniel, means “God [is] my Judge,” with no implication that I am “God my Judge.” If all we had to go on was Isaiah’s prophecy, we might have an ambiguity here. But the key to understanding Isaiah’s intent is that Matthew, also writing under inspiration, says that Joseph’s stepson fulfills this prophecy of a virgin birth and of the title “Immanuel.” And Matthew emphasizes the deity of this child by translating the Hebrew, even though his Jewish readers would likely have been able to translate it themselves.

Am I reading too much into Matthew’s intent? I don’t think so. At the other end of his Gospel, he records this child, now a man, commissioning his disciples:

All power [authority] is given unto me in heaven and in earth. ¹⁹Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: ²⁰Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world (Mt 28.18-20).

This is divine language. This child is more than just someone named “Immanuel.”

Lord

It’s true that the word “Lord” is not always a divine title; in Elizabethan England, people would refer to those of higher social status as “my lord,” much the way we would use “sir” today. And there are clearly places in the Bible where the word is used that way (Mt 13.27; 21.30; 27.63; and many other places, especially in John’s writings).

But there are occasions where Jesus is called “Lord” in which the word “Sir” would be wildly out of place. Let me cite just a few:

unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Sir (Lk 2.11).

“My Sir and my God!” (Jn 20.28).

to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Sir Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (1Co 8.6).

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND SIR OF SIRS (Re 19.16).

OK, that’s enough ridiculousness. The breadth of contexts over which Jesus is addressed as “Lord” is testament to his deity.

Son of God

Now, it’s indisputable that the Bible calls persons “sons of God” who are not in fact divine. Angels are described this way (Ge 6.2, 4; Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7), and we Christians are as well (Jn 1.12; Ro 8.14, 19; Php 2.15; 1J 3.1-2). But that’s always in the plural; no one is ever called “a son of God” or “the son of God” besides Jesus.

Further, the title is used in contexts that clearly evidence deity. Peter’s great confession ascribes the title to Jesus (Mt 16.16), after which Jesus proceeds to speak of himself in terms that assume deity: he will build his church; he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Mt 16.18-19). And even Jesus’ enemies, who deny his deity, hear the words as a divine claim (Jn 5.18; 10.33).

There are 3 more titles or names of Jesus that identify him as God; we’ll cover those in the next post.

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

God and Man, Part 3: Deity 2

May 16, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Like No One Else | Part 2: Deity 1

In the previous post we considered three passages that explicitly assert that Jesus is God. Let’s try to get to four more here.

whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen (Ro 9.5).

In the context (Ro 9.1-4) Paul is talking about the privileges Israel has had in God’s plan. Here he climaxes that list by saying that the Messiah is biologically an Israelite. And then he says that this person is “over all, God blessed forever.”

There’s a little wrinkle in this one too. The original manuscripts of the Scripture had no punctuation and no spaces between words, so later copyists and translators had to do a little interpretation. Here the Revised Standard Version splits the words into two sentences:

to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

Now, that’s theoretically possible. But I reject that rendering outright, for a fairly simple reason: the RSV has turned the ending into a benediction, and that’s not the form that benedictions typically take. In Greek it’s common to emphasize a word by putting it at the front of the sentence. In a benediction, then, you typically put the word “blessed” first (Lk 1.68; 2Co 1.3; Ep 1.3; 1P 1.3); that’s the whole point of the benediction.

Here, however, Paul puts the word “God” first—because he’s emphasizing it. “This Jewish man, this ordinary-looking guy? He’s [pause for effect] GOD!!!!”

Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses in John 1.1, I think the RSV translators are showing their (liberal) theological bias here. The New RSV (1989), FWIW, let the deity of Christ show through by translating the passage as a single sentence.

looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus (Ti 2.13 NASB95).

I’ve used the NASB here because it renders the underlying Greek more clearly than the KJV, which is slightly ambiguous (the great God and our Saviour—is that one person or two?). The Greek construction unambiguously indicates that the two nouns are the same person. This construction is called “the Granville Sharp rule,” named for the nineteeth-century African missionary who discovered it. The KJV translators can hardly be faulted for not knowing about the rule in 1611; they translated it literally, which is just fine.

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom (He 1.8).

This is a quotation of Psalm 45.6—Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

The JWs render this “God is your throne.” Again, as in John 1.1, this is a possible rendering of the Greek, but not the most likely one. Dan Wallace, who is perhaps the leading living Greek scholar, and the author of the most highly recognized Greek grammar (the 800-page Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics), thinks “God” in this verse should be translated as direct address for four reasons (p 59), of which I’ll mention just two. First, the Hebrew accenting of Psalm 45.6 indicates that God is being addressed; and second, the Greek sentence here (He 1.7-8) is constructed as a contrast (“on the one hand … on the other hand”), and in the JW translation that contrast completely disappears. (“On the one hand, the angels are merely his servants; on the other hand, the Son is also under God’s authority.”)

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life (1J 5.20).

One more little wrinkle. The verse is clearly referencing two persons: the Father (“him that is true”) and “his Son Jesus Christ.” Which of those two persons is John calling “the true God”?

The Greek doesn’t help us here; both “the true one” and “the Son” are masculine nouns, and the masculine pronoun “this one” could refer back to either. Both possible antecedents are near enough that either one is reasonably possible. But since “Son” is the nearer one, then I would prefer it, all other things being equal.

That’s my list of seven passages that explicitly call Jesus God. Next time we’ll look at another category of biblical evidence.

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

God and Man, Part 2: Deity 1

May 13, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

Part 1: Like No One Else

In the previous post I noted that the deity of Christ is an extraordinary claim. We Christians are used to it, but to anyone else it sounds simply unbelievable. If someone today claims to be God, you plan an intervention, or you avoid him; you certainly don’t sign on as a disciple.

An extraordinary claim calls for extraordinary evidence. I’d like to marshal some of that.

Now, all of my evidence is going to be from the Bible, and that calls for another comment. What about the people who don’t believe the Bible?

Fair question. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, although that’s an extraordinary claim too. I find that conclusion to be reasonable based on testable, falsifiable, objective evidence from the Bible itself. I’ve written another series on that here.

These days there are plenty of people who do claim to view the Bible as the Word of God—in one sense or another—who still deny the deity of Christ. I don’t find that to be a defensible position, given the overwhelming biblical evidence. In my mind I sort that evidence into five categories:

Explicit assertions
Divine titles and names
Divine attributes
Divine works
Acceptance of worship

Let’s jump right into the first category.

I find seven places where the Bible directly and explicitly calls Jesus God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (Jn 1.1).

The context of the passage (Jn 1.14-18) makes it clear that “the Word” is Jesus. Now, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their New World Translation, notoriously translate “God” here as “a god.” I don’t recommend that you argue with a JW about this, because he’ll admit that he doesn’t know Greek, and, frankly, you probably don’t either, and I can’t think of anything less fruitful than two people who don’t know Greek arguing about what the Greek says. I will say that the JW translation is excusable from a first-year Greek student, but inexcusable from anyone with more Greek than that. And I’ll also note that this same chapter has four other places (Jn 1.6, 12, 13, 18) with the same construction (to be nerdy, an anarthrous use of θεος), and in all four places the JW “Bible” translates it as “God.” So they’re not even following their own [amateurish] principle. It’s abundantly clear that their translation choice in this verse is driven solely by their theology.

It says what it says.

The next proof text is in the same chapter.

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (Jn 1.18 NASB95).

There’s a little wrinkle on this one: there’s a textual variant, which is why the KJV has “the only begotten Son.” I prefer the reading above, for two reasons: first, because it’s a lot easier to imagine how a scribe would change “God” to “Son,” in an attempt to explain a difficult reading (“begotten God”?!), than vice versa; and second, because “the only begotten Son,” coming right out of the famous John 3.16, would be familiar language to any scribe.

[Sidebar: I don’t think “begotten God” is a problem, because I view the underlying Greek word, monogenes, as meaning “one of a kind” rather than “only begotten.” (For an opposing view, see here.) I won’t go into that here, but if you want to talk about it, drop me an email. You don’t have to know Greek to understand the issue.]

Now, if you prefer the majority text, or the Byzantine text, or the KJV reading, I won’t criticize your choice or attempt to change your mind. That just means that you’ll have only six explicit assertions instead of seven.

“My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20.28).

These are Thomas’s words after Jesus showed him the wounds in his hands and side. Years ago I showed this passage to a Jehovah’s Witness, and he replied that actually the Greek says “My Lord of my God.” I pulled out a Greek New Testament to show him that it doesn’t, and he admitted that he didn’t know Greek. And then he suggested that maybe the translation was correct, but that Thomas meant it more as an exclamation than a description.

Hmm.

Taking the JW position, how likely is it that Jesus, the first created being, the head of all the angelic host, heard a disciple violate the Second Commandment and didn’t think that was worth addressing?

Yeah, me neither.

It says what it says.

More next time. This is gonna be a long series.

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

God and Man, Part 1: Like No One Else

May 9, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

I mentioned a few weeks ago, at the beginning of a series on Isaiah’s Servant Songs, that I’ve found benefit in memorizing Scripture passages that place me inside the mind of Christ in a fresh way. That idea is the seed of a much larger principle: we thrive best when we know Christ, and the better we know him, the more we experience the great blessings of life, especially grace, mercy, and peace. I’ve found that to be consistently true in my long (and inconsistent) walk with God.

For that reason I’m going to take a few posts to meditate on the person of Christ, and particularly the characteristic that makes him absolutely unique in the universe. I’m not going to go deep into theological terminology or systematic theology’s logical complexities (no Thomas Aquinas here), but I’m convinced that every Christian can benefit by engaging with the uniqueness and profoundness of the Son.

The theological term for the topic of this series is the “hypostatic union”—but that’s the last time you see the term here. The concept itself in simple, in the sense that it means simply that Jesus is both God and man. Every Christian child learns that truth in Sunday school. But when we consider how that works, or what it implies, we very quickly get well over our heads in the theological waters. What I’d like to do here is consider the topic, raise some questions, and conclude repeatedly that we cannot yet know their answers.

And my goal in doing that is to increase the wonder with which we all regard the Savior.

I’m going to reduce the whole topic to just three simple propositions:

Jesus is God.
Jesus is Man.
Jesus is both.

I’m going to start with the deity of Christ because that’s the proposition most widely disputed.

The deity of Christ is rejected by a wide spectrum of groups, ranging from atheists (obviously, since they reject the deity of anyone) to two of the world’s largest religions (Judaism and Islam), to a large chunk of self-professed Christians (liberal Protestants), to an assortment of cults (most notoriously Jehovah’s Witnesses; Mormons officially believe that Jesus is God, but their definition of “God” is broad enough to include all of us, eventually).

It’s really no surprise that so many people reject the idea that Jesus is God. It’s an extraordinary claim, we could even say a preposterous one. If someone today announced that he was God, would you believe him? I wouldn’t. My first thought would be that he needs professional help, if you get my drift.

So I think it’s unreasonable to expect people to just buy in to this notion on first hearing. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.

[Sidebar: I’m glossing over a significant theological dispute here. In Christian apologetics, I’m using the language of “evidentialism”: that people hear evidence and then believe. That approach would be rejected by “presuppositionalists,” who argue that no amount of evidence will convince an unbeliever; he’s dead in sin and must be moved to believe by an act of God. The latter group is represented by Cornelius Van Til, and the former by Josh MacDowell and Norman Geisler. I see value in both approaches. If the presuppositionalists are right, there’s still sanctifying benefit for believers in learning the evidences.]

Despite the assertions of cult members and liberal Protestants, the Bible is not at all ambiguous about this doctrine; there’s plenty of biblical evidence. And even for someone who rejects the Bible, we know that it has power all its own (He 4.12), and believers are not wasting their time when they cite biblical evidence to someone who rejects it.

I’ll also note that many unbelievers claim to be “more scientific” than to believe the “fables” of Christianity. I like to challenge them on that; if you’re going to be scientific, then don’t you need to face and respond to the evidence that challenges your beliefs? Evidence isn’t going to hurt you, is it?

Next time, we’ll dig into some of that evidence.

Ruth—Emptiness Filled, Part 10: Eternally Filled

May 6, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

With the way cleared for Boaz to serve as Ruth’s—and Naomi’s—redeemer, “the elders call down blessings upon him and his bride, and pray that the gracious Ruth will be a mother in Israel such as Rachel and Leah were [Ru 4.11]. This is indeed an optimistic expectation, since these two women as wives of Jacob built up the whole house of Israel, with the assistance of their maids Bilhah and Zilpah” (ECB).

But they go further. They mention “the house of Perez” (Ru 4.12). Why Perez? Well, Perez ”was an ancestor of Boaz (18), and one of only three ancestors of the whole tribe of Judah. Probably most of the local population had descended from him” (NBC).

The comparison is rife with ironic contrast.

First, Perez’s birth to Tamar, via Judah, was “a situation in which the levirate responsibility was not honored (Gen. 38)” (TCBC). Judah had failed to care for his daughter-in-law after her husband Er had died. Boaz is a more distant relative to Naomi and Ruth, yet he is fully committed to meeting all their needs.

Second, “Tamar achieved her ends through trickery, but Ruth received her son through righteous obedience. … Ironically, the righteousness of a Moabitess, a foreigner to Israel’s covenant, brought salvation to Judah’s family” (HCBC). “Considering the rabbinic hermeneutical principle of ‘from greater to lesser,’ the reader cannot help but think that if Yahweh had given immoral Judah a double blessing in the birth of twins and if Judah flourished through Perez, how much brighter are the prospects for Boaz and Ruth” (NAC).

“This conclusion of the narrative contrasts beautifully with its introduction (1:1–5). Deep sorrow turned to radiant joy; emptiness gave way to fullness” (BKC).

The marriage is followed quickly by fruitfulness in the birth of a son (Ru 4.13). The redeemer who had filled Ruth’s apron with seed for daily bread multiple times now fills her with the sort of seed that will have an eternal impact.* Ruth had had no children during her 10-year marriage to Mahlon; this time will be different. The filling includes not only provision—wealthy provision—but also offspring, and thus a future.

As we might expect, the women of this little village find the birth of this baby a matter for comment (Ru 4.14-15)—and they address their comments not to Ruth, the mother, but to Naomi. They recognize this birth, undistinguished to the earthly eye, as momentous. The baby, not Boaz, is the real redeemer. Mara, the bitter, empty woman, is Naomi again, redeemed, rescued, confident in her secure future.

And the narrative ends with the infant not in Ruth’s lap, but in Naomi’s. She is truly filled. Perhaps the book should be called “Naomi.”

And then the final twist. We learn why this story of poor, apparently insignificant women from a small village is occupying a place in the literature of eternity.

This child of Boaz, and of Perez, is a link in a long chain extending from Abram (Gen 12.1-3)—indeed from God’s “first gospel” in Ge 3.15—to the redemption of a great throng, from every kingdom, tribe, tongue, and nation, who will worship and serve God for all eternity.

We’re not told all that here. But we are told that this infant is to be the grandfather of David, the king, the sweet singer of Israel, whose Greater Son, we know, is the infinite kinsman redeemer, who was made in the likeness of men so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Ruth is a small study of God’s work for us. “The Book of Ruth shows God as concerned not only for the welfare of one family—Naomi and Ruth—but for the welfare of all God’s people who would be blessed by David and by David’s Son, Jesus Christ. The participation of Ruth, the Moabitess, in the fufillment of God’s promises indicates that God’s salvation is for people of all nationalities” (HCBC).

“Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!”

* For this insight into the thematic development of Ruth I am indebted to the late Dr. Ron Horton, longtime professor of literature at Bob Jones University.

Photo by Paz Arando on Unsplash

Ruth—Emptiness Filled, Part 9: Contract

May 2, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

True to his word—and to Naomi’s prediction—the next day Boaz sets out to clear up the ambiguity of the situation. “The town gate [Ru 4.1] was the center for social and economic life in ancient Israel. This was where news was first heard, where local and traveling merchants sold their wares in the cool shade of the town walls, where soldiers were stationed, and where legal disputes were handled” (WBH). Essentially, Boaz drops by City Hall to get the business taken care of.

“The word … ‘Behold,’ which begins the second sentence of v. 1 …, serves two functions: expressing Boaz’s surprise at [the nearer relative’s] appearance and turning the reader’s attention to a new character in the drama” (NAC). As Boaz is waiting to conduct his business, here comes the very man who is more nearly related to Naomi. What are the odds?

About the same, I guess, as the odds that Ruth’s “chance chanced” on the field that Boaz owned (Ru 2.3).

Boaz calls to him. Our modern versions give his address term as “friend,” but the word in the Hebrew (peloni ‘almoni, for you Hebrew nerds) is much richer than that. The KJV renders it “such an one,” which hints at this deeper significance; you don’t call somebody “such an one,” even in 1611. The author has edited Boaz’s words so as to protect the identity of this man. “Rabbinic writings used the designation for an unknown ‘John Doe’ ” (BKC). “The rendering ‘Mr. So-and-so,’ found in the NJPS, certainly captures the sense better than the NIV’s ‘my friend,’ but our ‘Hey you’ also works in the present context” (NAC).

Why would the author of the narrative want to disguise his identity? We’ll see in a moment.

Focused on his purpose, Boaz calls a meeting of the city council—“ten men of the elders of the city” (Ru 4.2).

“Private ownership of land was a jealously guarded privilege in ancient Israel, a right which was proudly handed down within the family. Women were normally excluded from inheritance rights, however, and in no known circumstances were women allowed to inherit their husband’s estates. Naomi may have received income from the sale of Elimelech’s estate, but she probably was not allowed to retain title to the land. The nearest surviving male member of the family would inherit the first option of purchase (Num. 27:7–11)” (TBC).

The unnamed man is initially open to redeeming Elimelech’s land. But then Boaz tells him “the rest of the story” (Ru 4.5). Did he initially withhold this part intentionally? We’re not told, but we do know that Boaz is pretty sharp as a businessman.

“Boaz argued that the nearest kinsman had a moral obligation to keep Elimelech’s line alive. This would involve marrying Ruth and raising a family under his name. In such a case title to the land would eventually revert to Ruth’s children. Under such circumstances, the kinsman hastily renounced his rights as next of kin” (TBC).

“Redeeming the land by itself would have been a good investment because the land would be inherited by the redeemer’s own children. But redeeming Ruth with the land would result in its being left to Ruth’s offspring (for the line of Elimelech). Any resources spent on redeeming the land and raising the offspring would damage his own children’s inheritance since it would benefit the line of Elimelech” (FSB).

“Mr. So-and-so” steps back from his legal obligation. Hence the absence of his name. And now “the generosity of Boaz in accepting these financial losses becomes the more apparent” (NBC).

They conduct a legal ceremony involving an exchange of So-and-so’s sandal (Ru 4.8). “Footwear often symbolized ownership in Bible times. Note … God’s directive to Abraham, Moses, and Joshua to claim ownership of Canaan by walking on it (Gen. 13:17; Deut. 11:24; Josh. 1:3)” (WBH).

Boaz calls the bystanders to bear record (Ru 4.9). (And here we learn that Mahlon was the brother who had been married to Ruth [Ru 4.10].)

Why was Boaz so persistent in showing covenant loyalty to this Moabite woman? He might have had a family reason. “According to Matthew 1:5, Boaz’s mother was Rahab, the Canaanite harlot from Jericho. However, Rahab lived in Joshua’s time, about 250–300 years earlier. Probably, then, Rahab was Boaz’s ‘mother’ in the sense that she was his ancestress (cf. ‘our father Abraham,’ Rom. 4:12)” (BKC).

Next time, the end of the story—and the beginning.

Photo by Paz Arando on Unsplash