Dan Olinger

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 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

Ruth—Emptiness Filled, Part 7: Proposal

April 25, 2024 by Dan Olinger Leave a Comment

And now comes what appears to us to be the riskiest part of the whole story. But as we’ve noted, Naomi has a strong foundation for her plan, plenty of evidence that it’s going to turn out well for the widows.

Ruth follows Naomi’s instructions to the letter. She waits until after Boaz has eaten—that will make him contented and sleepy—and after dark, so that their conversation will be private. Without waking him, she lies down at his feet and covers herself with a portion of his covering, perhaps a blanket or a robe (Ru 3.7). All this makes it likely that he will wake up at some point during the night.

And so he does (Ru 3.8).

Of course, in the dark, he doesn’t know who she is, so he asks.

This is the crucial moment. Ruth must phrase her reply precisely as Naomi has instructed her to.

“I am Ruth, your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative” (Ru 3.9).

Did Ruth know the cultural significance of what she was saying? Probably, but we’re not told. But Naomi certainly does. This is a claim of redemption. It is a legal claim for Boaz to be to Ruth as the law provides, following the example of God himself, who dwells under the wings of the cherubim in the Tabernacle. It’s an assertion of her right, under Naomi, to have their property redeemed, their debts paid, and their line secured through the birth of a male heir. It’s a proposal of marriage.

She is asking him to be the refuge that she has sought from Yahweh (Ru 2.12).

These days we would say that that’s a Big Ask.

Boaz indicates immediately that Naomi’s expectations are well founded. First, he expresses openness to the relationship. In an endearing response, he says that marrying Ruth would be a step up for him—that she is the kind of woman who could have any man she wanted, specifically younger men (Ru 3.10)—another indication that Boaz is getting, as we would say, long in the tooth. “The delicate interplay here suggests that Boaz was significantly older, and that Ruth was not only an admirable but a desirable younger woman” (BRC).

He calls her action “kindness”—and there’s that word hesed again. Seeking relief from a near relative, though he is older, he sees as loyalty to Israel’s Law and Israel’s God. Boaz is surprised—and pleased.

“Ruth’s former act of devotion [‘better than the first’] was her decision to remain and help Naomi. The latter act of devotion is her decision to marry Boaz to provide a child to carry on her deceased husband’s (and Elimelech’s) line and to provide for Naomi in her old age” (NET).

Boaz adds that Ruth is reputed among “the people of the gate”—probably the town’s leaders— as “a woman of excellence” (Ru 3.11).

In calling Ruth this, the same word used of Boaz [Ru 2.1]), Boaz “uses a term translated ‘mighty’ when describing a warrior, or ‘wealthy’ when describing an ordinary person. It suggests special attainment in the area of endeavor being discussed. Used of Ruth, it affirms that the whole community sees her as an ‘ideal bride’ or a ‘bride worth winning’ ” (BRC).

They will make quite a pair.

But there’s a hitch (pun absolutely intended).

Apparently unbeknownst to Naomi, there’s a closer relative, and he has, as we say in contractual language, “right of first refusal.” “The responsibility of redemption [Ru 3.12] would go first to the deceased person’s brother, then uncle, then cousin, then another ‘close relative’ (Lev 25:48–49). The exact relationship between Boaz, the other relative, and Elimelech is unclear” (FSB). Boaz says he’ll look into that in the morning. By saying that, he’s confirming his interest.

He’ll confirm it in two more ways before morning.

To be continued.

Photo by Paz Arando on Unsplash

Ruth—Emptiness Filled, Part 6: Approach

April 22, 2024 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

Part 1: Background | Part 2: Loyal Love | Part 3: Chance | Part 4: Abundance | Part 5: A Plan

After harvest comes threshing, and then winnowing. Threshing is the torturing of the harvested stalks so that the kernels, which are the whole point, are physically separated from their husks and from the cut stalks; winnowing involves tossing the kernels into the air so that the wind will blow away the lighter husks, allowing the weightier, unmixed kernels to fall to the ground. “A threshing floor was a stone surface in the fields where the harvest husks were crushed and the grain sifted from the chaff” (HCBC). Winnowing would take place at the nearest point to the field where a stiff breeze was available, typically at a high point.

With the harvest over, and threshing in progress, Naomi, the mother, recognizes her responsibility to find a husband (“rest”) for Ruth (Ru 3.1-2). She knows that Boaz is aware of their plight, is a near relative, and is of means. This can’t all be just a coincidence, can it?

But the harvest has taken a few weeks, and Boaz hasn’t indicated any inclination to do anything more than be generous with his grain. Naomi thinks he needs a nudge.

This was not culturally inappropriate, nor was it meddlesome. Israelites in financial peril from widowhood were entitled to claim a kinsman redeemer (Dt 25.5-6). We call this “levirate marriage” (from the Latin levir, brother-in-law), and the nearest relative was obligated if able. Other responsibilities included avenging a clan member’s murder (Nu 35), redeeming clan land (Le 25.23-28), and redeeming a clan relative from debt slavery (Le 25.35-55) through an interest-free loan (Le 25.35ff) or provision of labor (Le 25.39ff) (AYBD).

All of this legal provision is to remind Israel that God is the ultimate kinsman-redeemer of Israel (Is 63.16; 54.5), based on chesed, loyal covenant love. (The word has appeared in Ru 2.20 and will appear again in Ru 3.10.)

With all this in mind, and knowing that a feast was commonly held when the harvest work was finished, Naomi decides that now is the time. So she shares her plan with her daughter-in-law.

Ruth is going to make herself presentable, as they say, and go to the threshing floor. There she’ll be able to watch the men eat and then settle in for the night, sleeping by the threshed grain to protect it from thieves and from scavenging animals. After Boaz settles in, when it’s dark, she will go and lie down at his feet.

And then, Naomi is reasonably certain, good Boaz will continue to do the right thing, even if it’s more of a commitment than has been required of him so far.

Some interpreters have suggested that something sexual was occurring here. That idea directly contradicts the characters of Ruth and Boaz and the direction of the plot. First, Naomi sends Ruth into that risky situation precisely because she knows that Boaz will protect her; he has already demonstrated that out in the field (Ru 2.9, 22). And Ruth has demonstrated her noble character as well in following Naomi to Bethlehem and in laboring in the field; Boaz will shortly say that she is “a woman of excellence” (Ru 3.11).

Further, the direction of the plot argues against premature sexual behavior. We’ve noticed a recurring theme in the story:

It begins with Ruth placing herself in the care of not only Naomi, but Naomi’s God (Ru 1.16).
Boaz notices and comments on what she has done: “under whose wings you have come to trust” (Ru 2.12).
Boaz is using here an image from his culture and history. In giving Moses detailed instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle, he has required that above the gold covering of the Ark of the Covenant—the “mercy seat”—are two angelic creatures, cherubim, under whose wings God will meet his people in the person of their high priest on the Day of Atonement. As Moses delivers his farewell address to the people of Israel, he refers to this image:
- As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: So the Lord alone did lead [Jacob and the people of Israel], and there was no strange god with him (Dt 32.11-12).
In a few minutes, when Ruth repeats to Boaz what Naomi has instructed her to say, she will reference this image: “Spread your wings over your handmaid” (Ru 3.9).

Against all this background, hanky-panky? Ridiculous. I don’t think so.

Ruth trusts Naomi’s judgment and obeys explicitly.

The outcome next time.

Photo by Paz Arando on Unsplash

Ruth—Emptiness Filled, Part 5: A Plan

April 18, 2024 by Dan Olinger 1 Comment

Part 1: Background | Part 2: Loyal Love | Part 3: Chance | Part 4: Abundance

Ruth arrives home with an astonishing amount of barley. Naomi, of course, has questions.

How did she know that “a man … took notice of” Ruth (Ru 2.19)? Well, there’s no way Ruth harvested all that without help. So Naomi asks. And just one word in Ruth’s answer sets the world on fire.

Boaz. Naomi knows about this man.

“Boaz was both a wealthy landowner and a close relative of Naomi. As such he could be expected to buy for the family its rightful land (Lev 25:25) and look after the helpless members of the family” (WBC).

Naomi’s statement here appears ambiguous:

Blessed be he of the Lord, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead (Ru 2.20).

Who “has not left off his kindness”? Boaz? or the Lord? Contextually either one would make sense; Boaz has been kind, and God has been kind as well. But in the Hebrew as in English the Lord’s name immediately precedes the relative pronoun who, and there are other grammatical considerations that favor the Lord as the subject as well. If that’s the case, then this moment is a major development in the character of Naomi.

Remember the bitter old woman who arrived a few days ago? What has happened to her now? This Yahweh, who was great but not good, she recognizes as one who is after all loyal to his covenant promises. Of a handful of men who could serve as a redeemer—maybe just two, as far as the rest of the story tells us—Ruth has found an eminently eligible one on her first day in the fields.

In leading Ruth to the field of Boaz, God has exhibited kindness “to the living and to the dead” (Ru 2.20). Both of those adjectives are plural. The living ones, of course, are Ruth and Naomi. The dead ones? That would be Ruth’s late husband—we don’t know (yet) whether that’s Mahlon or Chilion—and Naomi’s late husband Elimelech. By looking after their widows, God is treating them with kindness, taking care of those that the dead no longer can.

So what now? Naomi advises Ruth to heed Boaz’s admonition (Ru 2.21) that she work only in his field and stay close to his workers, who will protect her (Ru 2.22). She, too, is aware of the danger to a young woman working alone out in the fields in the days of the judges.

Barley and wheat harvests together (Ru 2.23) would last about 6 weeks. “Barley was harvested from late March through late April, wheat from late April to late May” (NET), “a period of intense labor for about two months. This generally coincided with the seven weeks between Passover and … Pentecost” (MSB).

During this time, and with the cooperation and help of Boaz’s workers, Ruth would bring home far more grain than the two women would need for their own food. With the surplus they could trade for their other needs, most obviously meat, dairy, oil, and vegetables that would be available in the little village. Ruth has placed herself into the family of the aging widow and under the protecting wings of Israel’s God, and he has supplied the two with all that they need.

God is gracious; he gives good things to the undeserving.

But in the end, this is more than a story of sufficient caloric intake for two people in a faraway corner of the world. God is going to use Boaz to provide far more than food to them. And in doing that he’s going to change the world—the world of that day, and our world as well, in every place and in every time.

We’re just halfway through the story. The best—by far—is yet to come.

Photo by Paz Arando on Unsplash

« Previous Page
1
…
8
9
10
11
12
…
76
Next Page »