Certainly the first thing that should be noted about our Lord’s confrontation with the money changers in the temple (especially in the Johannine account) was that he asserted royal prerogatives over the temple. He was the Son of God and this was his Father’s house (remember his comments as a twelve year old in Luke 2:49 that he must be in his Father’s house?). The sacred presincts of the temple had been invaded by the mundane commercial interests of the money changers (even though they ostensibly set up shop to assist the Israelite pilgrims in purchasing sacrificial animals and exchanging monies to pay the temple tax). But Jesus’ concern (again most clearly seen in John’s account-whether it is the same temple cleansing or a different one from that recorded in the Synoptics) is to point out that he had come to replace the temple. Jesus in himself embodied the temple of God in the midst of his people. In Exodus and Leviticus we see that the tabernacle (later replaced by the temple) was the place where God dwelled in the midst of his people (bounded as they were on all four sides in the Israelite encampment. God desired to commune with his people as he was their God and they were his people. Jesus was now saying that he was the center of communion with God (John 1:14). Rather than animal sacrifices needing to be offered endlessly, he would offer himself up once for all as the perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 9). If you would commune with God you must now come through Jesus. Paul will later note that by virtue of our close union with Christ, the church as the people of God would be a temple of the Holy Spirit too (1st Corinthians 3 & 6).

But we have gotten ahead of ourselves. The temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem was the place where God’s people communed with God and he with them. Over the years some thought that the temple was the rightful possession of ethnic Israel alone. However, from the beginning it was God’s intent that his people include those from other tribes, tongues, and nations. Hints of this come to us in the stories of Rahab in Joshua 2 and in the delightful story of Ruth. God’s intent was signaled long before that in the calling of Abraham. While Abraham is the father of the Hebrew nation, he was a Gentile when God called him away from Ur of the Chaldees. God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation and that all the families of the earth would be blessed through him (Genesis 12 and reiterated many times thereafter to Abraham and then to his progeny and to Israel). Gentiles could become members of Israel.

The Herodian temple in Jesus’ day reflected this reality. There was a court of the Gentiles, a court of women, a court of men, and a court of priests. All these were outside the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Gentiles, as Gentiles, could only go as far as their court on pain of death. While Jesus came to minister to the lost sheep of Israel he did not forget the lost sheep outside Israel. Consider what he says in Mark 11 when he clears the tables of the money changers and forges a whip: “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers?” Why was Jesus so mad at the money changers? Was it because they were capitalists? That is highly unlikely. But they did make it impossible for Gentiles whom God may have been drawing to himself to find solace and communion in the house of prayer. Consider the background of our Lord’s comments. He was actually citing Isaiah 56 which says the following in its larger context of verses 1-8:  Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” 3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” 4 For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, 5 I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. 6 “And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant– 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” 8 The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, “I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.” (ESV)

While our Lord’s main thrust was to minister to Israel, those who were not of the household of Israel upon whom God had set his love were not far from his mind. In fact the context of Jesus’ comments about his limited focus is his interaction with the Canaanite woman who exhibited faith (Matt. 15:21-28). Now we do need to state that Gentiles were not acceptable to God because they were naturally religious or moral nor were they acceptable merely because they were sincere. The acceptability of Gentiles and Jews is on the same basis: faith in Jesus Christ. And that brings us back around to Jesus as the temple. If Jesus grew angry when the money changers kept God-fearing Gentiles out of the court of the Gentiles, what does he think of all the trappings and accoutrements in the modern church that get in the way of the gospel? Jesus is the only way sinners can enter into fellowship with a holy and good and righteous God. Period.

Jesus replaced the temple as the place of communion between God and his people. And now it is quite clear that the people of God come from every tribe, and tongue, and nation. Do we provide access to the gospel or is it cluttered by other things (things that may be fine in themselves)? Only you can answer that question.

Back in November Crossway Books published K. Scott Oliphint’s book God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God which can be found here. Olphint offers us a rich and substantive theological feast in this volume. Wrestling with how the self-contained ontological Trinitarian God of Scripture can relate to his creation, Oliphint draws upon the incarnation of the Son of God as the paradigmatic case of divine condescension. The author makes a distinction between God’s essential and covenantal attributes and in this distinction we find some excellent theological exploration. You can find a full scale review of the book by Mark Jones over at Ref21 here as well as a new series of blog posts by Dr. Oliphint there as well. Christ the Center also interviewed Dr. Oliphint about the book here.

Debate over union with Christ and the relationship of justification to sanctification is all the rage in the blogosphere now and into the midst of this controversy steps Robert Letham’s Union with Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theology which can be obtained here. Similar to his study on the Trinity, yet significantly shorter, Letham demonstrates the significance, even the centrality of the doctrine to Scripture. Note that saying that union with Christ is a central concern of Scripture is not the same as saying it is a “central dogma.” A central dogma is a doctrine from which every other doctrine of a theological system is logically deduced. Union with Christ plays no such role in Scripture nor in Letham’s book. Letham avoids some of the detailed dispute now occurring in Reformed circles, but he also adds flavor of his own. Letham gives space to the doctrine of theosis or divinization or deification. The doctrine can be understand as the Eastern Orthodox formulation of the doctrine of sanctification, but it seems to suggest more than that. Letham is careful to affirm the Creator/creature distinction so he avoids the typical criticism of theosis that it lands in pantheism. However, it is not clear that Letham, in affirming that Christ’s divine nature suffused his human nature, does not accidentally provide the foundation for a doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s body. Letham does not deal with this, but it is a lingering question with which I am left. All this being said the book is a welcome addition to any theological library.

Christians ought not only read theology books but also books about history in general. Thomas S. Kidd’s Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots is a fascinating tale about one of America’s founding fathers which can be found here. Kidd, associate professor of history at Baylor University and author of many thought provoking books on American religious history, brings Patrick Henry to life for a new generation. Henry, long known for his “give me liberty or give me death” speech, was a complex man and Kidd does not allow us to create a flat, cardboard figure in our minds as we read through his biography. While Henry was a major player in the American Revolution he initially opposed the ratification of the US Constitution. Readers will discover that the debates between Federalists (those in favor of ratifying the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists were anything but simple. I found myself at points sympathetic with one party over the other. What is clear is that Patrick Henry would be appalled at the current situation in the US. One interesting thing to note was Henry’s Christian rejection of the French Revolution. Initially encouraged by the movement in France, its increasingly apparent Deistic and atheistic flavor gave Henry cause for concern. Henry’s assessment of the French revolution resonates with that of a later Christian, Abraham Kuyper. You can find a fascinating interview between Thomas Kidd and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler here.

Take up and read.

At the very least we would want to say that the magnitude of Paul’s commands in this passage require that the incarnation really happened as recorded for us in Scripture. The pre-existent personal Son of God at a point in time took to himself a true body and a reasonable soul. This is not a myth and it is no fairy tale. As Paul tells us in 2^nd Corinthians 8, Jesus who was rich became poor for our sakes so that we might become rich in him. The Son of God humbled himself (however, he did not empty himself of his divine nature) and took the form of a servant and obeyed his heavenly Father to the point of an ignominious death on the cruel and wretched cross. The Son of God set aside his divine prerogatives and came to give his life as a ransom for many. This is all true doctrine. I might go so far as to suggest it is downright theological.

And this theological foundation provides for the superstructure of Paul’s ethical exhortations. Paul calls the Philippian church to possess certain godly attitudes which yield particular gracious actions. The church at Philippi ought to be of one mind and possess the same love. These affections will then work themselves out on the practical level with humility and unity. Paul called the saints to not look out for their own interests but also those of others. The church at Philippi could not manufacture these godly attitudes or these gracious actions. They are the supernatural result of a supernatural work of the Triune God of Scripture. We cannot find these attitudes by searching within. We cannot produce these actions with mere will power.

Because the Son of God did not hang on to his divine prerogatives and came to earth we as his disciples ought also to exhibit analogous attitudes and actions. Paul’s call to the Philippians and to us is based upon what Christ has done for us and for our salvation. Consider this: Jesus acted in unison with the Father and the Spirit when he determined in eternity past to take to himself a true body and a reasonable soul. The Son acted in humility and deference to the Father when he came to earth and experienced the miseries of this life and eventual death. The Son loved his own for whom he lived and died and so did not merely look out for his own interests. Since the Son did these things, we who have been joined to him by Spirit-created faith, ought to exhibit analogous character. But let us get the order right: we come to faith in Christ first and then we seek to follow after him as we live the Christian life.

Who says doctrine is impractical?

Another new title is Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert’s What is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission which can be found here. The authors provide the reader with a well articulated argument concerning just what it is that the church is called to do. This is not a thorough treatment of ecclesiology but rather deals with the central question of the moment. Is the church called to do everything that God is doing in the world or that Christians as individuals are called to do? Or is her commission more narrowly focused? The authors write from a balanced and biblical perspective that argues that the church’s role is limited to the proclamation of the gospel and the making of disciples but that social justice, properly and biblically conceived, ought to be the concern of every believer. An added bonus of the book is its biblical theological treatment of the kingdom of God, shalom and justice. I would commend this book to all thoughtful readers in the church.

In the third chapter of Philippians Paul warns the Philippians to avoid a reliance upon circumcision and reminds them that they ought to find their righteousness where Paul himself has found it, namely, in Christ. Paul’s concern is to be able to share in the sufferings of Christ so that he might also share in the resurrection glory.

A couple of things need to be said at this point. The most general and abstract point that can be made is that the Christian life flows from the particularities of true doctrine. In Philippians 2 the factuality and nature of the incarnation sets a pattern for Christian behavior. Paul’s rigorous demands could not be founded upon a fairy tale. In Philippians 3, union with Christ provides the foundation for the colors and contours of the Christian life. By being found in Christ with a righteousness not his own, Paul follows the path of his Savior and Lord.

Simply put, the Christian life ought to mirror the life of our Lord. Humiliation precedes exaltation. Pilgrimage precedes arrival at the heavenly destination. The church wanders in the wilderness before it enters its final rest. This is a basic biblical paradigm.

There is one final thing to say. It should go without saying, but it needs to be said anyway. We should not put the cart before the horse. One must be saved before one can serve. One must experience the grace of the gospel before one can endeavor after new obedience. To use a common technical expression: the indicative must precede the imperative. What God has done must go before what we are called to do.

Does your life mirror the two estates of Christ?

There is definitely food for thought here.

“If men are unaffected with the truth known, it must be because they do not know it aright…Did any man ever see an object to be lovely and not feel an emotion corresponding with that quality? And what unconverted man ever beheld in Christ, as represented in Scripture, the beauty and glory of God? Hence that doctrine is not true which confines depravity or holiness to the will, and which considers the understanding as a natural and the will as a moral faculty. The soul is not depraved or holy by departments; the disease affects it, as a soul; and of course all faculties employed in moral exercises must partake of their moral qualities.”

This is another way of saying is no such thing as an “indirect” noetic effect of sin. Sin infects and affects the whole person and redemption restores the whole person. It seems to me that we do ourselves a disservice when we neglect the thoughtful and mature insights of saints of years gone by.

This citation can be found on pp. 31-32 of Helseth and he cites Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience, p. 63.

Just a parenthetical observation: A love for Vossian biblical or redemptive historical theology does not preclude an appreciation of experimental Calvinism. One can love both as I do. You should too! Let’s be rid of false dilemmas!

Of course as a Van Tillian I heartily (notice I did not say “headily”?) affirm the sad fact of the noetic effects of sin. The unregenerate mind is fallen and the regenerate mind is not yet in the new heavens and the new earth. Or, more accurately, the unregenerate man or woman, boy or girl fail to use their minds as God intended them to use them. And Christians have not yet achieved perfection in any aspect of their being.

In an earlier post I affirmed the unitary operations of the human soul which Jonathan Edwards articulated so well in his theology, especially in his treatise on the Religious Affections. I need to make it clear that that affirmation is not the demotion of the intellect. It is the simple affirmation that the intellect, will, and emotions are all God-given, are all implicated in the fall, and are being restored in redemption and will reach their (creaturely) perfection to the glory of God in the new heavens and the new earth.

God has made us to function integrally. The intellect, will, and emotions must work together to the glory of our Creator and Redeemer. While there is no place for the hierarchical valuation of the intellect over the will or the will over the intellect, or either over the emotions, we need not denigrate the mind either.

Praise God for the amazing thing he created when he created us to think. Praise God when he created us to will. Praise God when he created us to feel too. I believe Helseth is right when he points out that the Old Princetonians were not bald rationalists. They affirmed what I am affirming here. It can only be through a highly selective reading of these stalwarts of the faith that one can conclude that they overlooked the moral nature of our thought lives.

In affirming the primacy of orientation (either bent in on ourselves or bent upwards toward God and outward towards others), one does not have to fall into the old debate between the intellectualists and the voluntarists. I am thankful for God-created and restored reason. I am grateful for God-created and restored volition. I am appreciative of God-created and restored emotion. After all, it is we as thinking, willing, and feeling individuals that we are talking about at the end of the day. God intended for us to think, act, and feel to the glory of God. These are like a three-legged stool. Remove any one of the legs and the stool topples over. Lengthen or shorten any leg out of proportion to the rest and the stool becomes lopsided.

As sinners we need a whole-soul redemption. But this does not necessitate that I disparage the mind or cloak skepticism in the garments of humility. Analogical knowledge is not a species of postmodernism. Van Til was not a precursor to post-conservative evangelicalism either. But that is a post for another night.

I have to consider this subject some more…

On. p. 235 of the Reformation Heritage Books edition of the work, I found this paragraph that is worth citing in full as it speaks to one of the controversies that we in the Reformed community have fallen into, namely, the relation of justification to union with Christ:

The foundation of the imputation asserted is union. Hereof there are many grounds and causes as has been declared. But that which we have immediate respect to as the foundation of this imputation, is that whereby the Lord Christ and believers coalesce into one mystical person. This is by the Holy Spirit inhabiting in him as the head of the church in all fulness, and in all believers according to their measure, whereby they become members of his mystical body. That there is such a union between Christ and believers, is the faith of the catholic Church, and has been so for all ages. Those who seem in our days to deny it or question it, either know not what they say, or their minds are influenced by the doctrine of those who deny the divine persons of the Son, and of the Spirit. Upon supposition of this union, reason will grant the imputation pleaded for to be reasonable; at least, that there is such a peculiar ground for it, as it is not to be exemplified in any things natural or political among men.

 

This doctrine is of immense practical value. For it is only as we are united to Christ and have been justified that we can in any way endeavor after new obedience, as Scripture clearly call us to do. It is only as the Holy Spirit, who is the vinculum or connecting chain between Christ the head and we the body, pervades our being that we can be conformed to the image of the Son (Romans 8:29). Christ’s active and passive obedience or righteousness is ours by means of the Holy Spirit wrought faith union between Christ and us. And the bondage and dominion of sin over us has been decisively broken because we are united to him who was raised from the grave on the third day. And we grow in grace because the Holy Spirit joins us to Christ and works in us after our measure.

Simply put, no union between Christ and the believer, no justification. No union with Christ and no definitive sanctification. No union with Christ and no adoption. No union with Christ and no progressive sanctification. No union with Christ and no glorification. But as we are united to Christ by faith we have all these blessings and more.

May the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who planned our redemption in eternity, executed it in history, and applies it to us in our personal lives, be glorified beyond measure.

Boaz keeps his word to Ruth and so goes to the Bethlehem city gate to exercise his obligation as kinsman redeemer. Before the city elders Boaz encounters the nearer kinsman. It is possible that the Scriptures purposely leave this man unnamed because he passed on the opportunity to redeem Ruth. He is described as “Mr. So and So.” Mr. So and So initially agrees to redeem Elimelech and Naomi’s land but when Boaz informs him that he gets the young woman Ruth in the deal he opts out and allows Boaz to redeem Ruth. Following ancient custom Boaz was given Mr. So and So’s shoe and Boaz called upon the elders at the city gate to witness that he was redeeming the land of Elimelech and Mahlon and Chilion. And he was redeeming Ruth to be his wife so that the name of the dead would not be cut off from the living. The elders gave their blessing and as it turned out, Boaz and Ruth had a son named Obed who was the grandfather of King David.

God reversed the fortunes of Naomi and Ruth. Naomi said she had gone away from Bethlehem full and had returned to Bethlehem empty. Whether that was a fair and accurate assessment of God’s providential dealings with her it is how Naomi saw things. At the end of chapter 3 and well into chapter 4 we do not quite know for sure whether Boaz will be able to fulfill his desire to serve as Ruth’s kinsman redeemer. It was, at least from a human vantage point, quite possible that Boaz would have cede his role to Mr. So and So. On Good Friday it looked like Satan and his human henchmen (the Romans and Jewish religious leaders) had got their way and put the Lord of all glory to death. Redemption looked like it was in a very precarious position. That was Friday night, as they say. But Sunday came! Jesus lay in the deep, dark, and dank tomb. The disciples were undoubtedly in discouragement and despair. God draws victory out of the jaws of defeat. Boaz was able to redeem Ruth and so biologically provided the means for the furtherance of the plan of redemption in David and ultimately in Christ. Jesus was raised on the third day by the Spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4) and was declared now to be the Son of God in power.

God was quietly busy behind the scenes bringing about the redemption of Ruth and her family and he has been at work in the person and work of his Son Jesus Christ to bring about our sure salvation. Ruth points ahead in many ways to the work of Christ. In Christ Jesus the book of Ruth finds its fulfillment.

With regard to reading widely (within a broadly Reformed or Calvinistic context) , I can’t think of two better examples than the following: In 2010 Greg Gilbert published his What is the Gospel? in which he explains in clear and concise nature the essentials of the faith. This would be a good book to share with family, friends, and coworkers who have not yet been exposed to the gospel or to a coherent biblical expression of it. At the other end of the spectrum is Keith Mascord’s Alvin Plantinga and Christian Apologetics. Plantinga has opened up the world of academic philosophy to Christians and so he has done a helpful service. Mascord offers a study of the significance of Plantinga and his Reformed Epistemology/Warrantism approach for apologetics. As a presuppositionalist, I see Plantinga as of some, though limited value. Mascord offers a helpful, though not unbiased description and assessment of Plantinga. It will stretch the reader’s mind a bit and that is good.

In all this remember that we ought to read to the glory of God which is what we ought to seek to do in all things (1st Cor. 10:31). We ought to read friends and foes, widely and deeply. But read we must. This is not a call to read everything. It is not a call to read poorly. It is a call to read both inside and outside our zones of comfort.

Returning home from the fields of Boaz, Ruth tells her mother in law all about what had happened. Naomi is thrilled and suggests that Ruth bathe and perfume herself and later return to find Boaz. At the end of the long day of harvesting grain, Boaz eats and drinks to his satisfaction and settles down to sleep by the side of the heap of grain and as darkness fell all around him Ruth settled down at his feet and startled Boaz. Asking who she was, Ruth answers, “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.” Boaz, rather than sending her away in the middle of the night continues to show favor to Ruth and tells her that he will pursue his role as kinsman redeemer. However, as Boaz notes, there is a man who is a closer kinsman and he will need to turn down his opportunity to serve as redeemer to Ruth and Naomi. Resolution of this wrinkle will have to await chapter 4.

Realize that Ruth has asked Boaz to marry him and Boaz is himself honored. He says, “May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich…” Scholars have long puzzled over which aspects of the Mosaic law apply to this scenario. Ruth asks and Boaz agrees to more than is required in the kinsman redeemer law (Lev. 25:23ff; Deut. 24: 19-21) but the situation does not quite fit the levirate marriage custom either (Deut. 25:5-11). The whole story here seems to involve some creative combination of these laws. A kinsman redeemer was a relative who would buy back land for a family member who sold the land to pay debts or who would buy a family member back from slavery. Levirate marriage dealt with a man fathering children with his sister in law for his deceased brother so the family line could continue.

Regardless of the technicalities involved here, God is at work not only in providing seed for Naomi, Ruth and Boaz (note the play on the meaning of “seed” throughout the book, ranging from seed for planting and seed as biological progeny), but in furthering the drama of redemption. What appears to be a endearing tale of an unknown family turns out to be key to the salvation of Israel, indeed the salvation of all the elect who trust in Christ.

At the end of the day, Jesus Christ is the true kinsman redeemer. It is he who gives his life as a ransom for many. It is he who buys us back from slavery, even the brink of despair and disaster. Boaz points forward to one better than himself. Yes, Boaz exhibits remarkable virtue but even he was a sinner in need of salvation. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, was in no need of salvation. He had no need to leave the glories of heaven and come to earth. Whereas Boaz certainly put forth effort to redeem Ruth and it would be costly to support her and Naomi and the children from the marriage, Jesus Christ set aside the prerogatives of his Godhood (Phil. 2:5-11) for our benefit (2 Cor. 8:9). For our sakes he who was rich became poor. He who was without sin became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus is our kinsman redeemer without peer. Boaz went beyond the call of duty and Jesus more so.

Is Jesus your kinsman redeemer?

Two other books worth mentioning are from our friends at P&R Publishing. The first is the result of a symposium on Christianity and evolution and offers much food for thought. It is entitled Should Christians Embrace Evolution: Biblical and Scientific Responses. You can find the book here. Evolution is a dangerous and destructive theory and has been getting positive press from various venues. Leaders like Albert Mohler have offered salient critiques of the attempt to wed Christian theology and evolution.

The other book I would like to mention is Katherine Buswell Nielson’s new Bible study of Isaiah entitled Isaiah: The Lord Saves, which can be found here. This study joins a whole host of companion study guides by Nielson in the Living Word Bible Studies series. My wife and eldest daughter tell me these studies are very helpful.

May our great and glorious God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be praised and may you tolle lege!

Naomi and Ruth have returned to Bethlehem from the fields of Moab just as the barley harvest begins. This is the first sign that things are turning around for Naomi and Ruth. As we stand upon the threshold of chapter 2 we are introduced to Naomi’s kinsman, Boaz. Boaz is described as a “worthy man” and his actions in the rest of the story bear out this character assessment. He is a “worthy man” because of God’s grace. God has been gracious to Boaz and so Boaz is gracious in turn to others. We note his interaction with his field workers and, of course, his favorable exchange with Ruth.

As the chapter gets underway, Ruth desires to glean in the fields and as it turns out, she finds herself gleaning in the fields of Boaz. The language of the text is somewhat ironic. It says Ruth “happened to come to” the part of the field belonging to Boaz. The Hebrew could be translated as “she chanced to chance upon…” But we know that there is no such thing as chance in God’s world where everything that comes to pass does so by God’s purposeful design. And so Ruth gleans in the fields of Boaz by God’s intent.

While Ruth labors away in the fields following behind the other reapers Boaz comes along and greets and is greeted by his servants working in the field. Seeing Ruth Boaz asks his foreman who she is and the foreman not only tells him who she is but he also reveals her character: she has been working the field from “early morning until now, except for a short rest” (Ruth 2:7). Ruth is once again revealed as a woman of sterling character. This is a sign of God’s grace at work in her life. Ruth displays loyalty and industry.

Boaz enters into a conversation with Ruth where he tells her that he has heard about her and her loyalty to Naomi. Her reputation precedes her. Boaz then encourages Ruth to glean only in his field and commands his servants to allow her to follow them and to leave some extra sheaves behind. He also gives her permission to drink from provisions for the workers. Later when the workers are eating Boaz will share more of the food and beverage with Ruth. Boaz apparently thinks very highly of Ruth because of her loyalty to Naomi. Boaz pronounces a benediction on Ruth, “The Lord repay you for what you have done, and a full reward be given you by the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (Ruth 2:12). Later that day Ruth reported all the happenings of the day to Naomi and continues thereafter to glean in Boaz’s field for the duration of the harvest. God was truly gracious to Ruth and Naomi with this turn of events.

God has been known to bring about gracious turns of events. Yes, he often allows his children to undergo trials and heartache and sorrow. But he is not deaf to the cries of his people. God turned the rebellion of our first parents into the beginnings of the unfolding drama of redemption (Gen. 3:15). God turned the misfortune of Joseph into high office under the Pharoah of Egypt (Gen.41:37ff). God called Moses to lead his people out of Egypt (Exodus 3) and he did this in a remarkable way as he lead them through the Red Sea (Exodus 14). God planted his people in the Promised Land against all odds (and the people’s fickleness and disobedience). God worked out his plan of redemption amongst his people right up to the appearance of his own Son Jesus Christ. Our Lord graciously provided for others in his earthly ministry. For instance, he healed the lame, the deaf, the mute, and the blind. He fed thousands with just a few loaves of bread and fish (John 6).

Most importantly Jesus graciously provides us all things necessary for our redemption (2nd Peter 1:11). He has lived a perfectly holy life obeying to the fullest the commands of the Father and fulfilling the law of Moses. He has died the perfectly sacrificial death to satisfy divine wrath. He has been raised so that we might be justified and the power of sin definitively broken (Romans 4 and 6). He has ascended to the Father so that he could sit at the Father’s right hand ever and always interceding for his children and pouring out the Holy Spirit on his church so that the church might proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed in a dark world.

God graciously provided for the physical needs of Ruth and Naomi through the human means of Boaz. God graciously provided Ruth, Naomi, Boaz and us with redemption through Ruth’s greater Son Jesus Christ. May we dwell on the marvelous nature of this gracious provision. As Abraham noted in Genesis 22 when the ram was substituted for Isaac, God does indeed provide.

I just finished working my way through Dr. Phillip Ryken’s excellent 2 volume commentary on Luke in the Reformed Expository Commentary series. Speaking for myself, I find the whole series worthwhile and Dr. Ryken’s expositions particularly helpful. I have been using the series as part of my personal worship and the sermons are both intellectually stimulating and spiritually challenging and comforting by turns. You can find this set here.

Today is the 75th birthday of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The books I mentioned last week can now be found at Westminster Seminary Bookstore. Between the Times can be found here and Confident of Better Things can be obtained here. A birthday celebration is a time to offer up grateful praises to our Triune God for his faithfulness to us his wayward, sinful, fallible creatures.

Prayers also go out to the commissioners of the OPC GA meeting at Sandy Cove, MD and the PCA GA meeting in Virginia Beach, VA. We pray God’s blessings on you all as you wrestle with the business of the church. The same prayers go up for other synods meeting or that will meet in the days and months ahead.

While the story of Ruth rightly warms our hearts, it also points us to a significant sense in which God demonstrates his faithfulness within redemptive history. How so you may ask? Ruth shows her love and loyalty to Naomi and Naomi’s God (by grace) and her acceptance within the covenant community of God’s Old Testament people is witness to the trustworthiness of God’s Word and promises. An outsider can become an insider. A Moabitess can become a Jewess by God’s gracious promises.

Back in Genesis God told Abram (and then Abraham) that through his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Repeatedly God told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations (Gen. 12, 15, 17, and 22). Abraham often wondered how God would make him a blessing. How could this be? Abraham knew his wife Sarah was barren and so he wavered. God reminded Abraham that his seed would be like the sand of the seashore and like the stars of the nighttime sky. But how was Abraham’s progeny a blessing to Gentiles? At least two ways: through the influence of Israel on the nations around her and through the allowance of Gentiles to embrace the God of Israel and by grace become covenant members.

Ruth the outsider becomes the insider. And more than that, she becomes a member of the family of David and of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ultimately Ruth becomes a Jewess by God’s redemptive activity behind the scenes of apparent inactivity. Ruth becomes an insider because of Jesus Christ. He who was cast aside by the religious establishment and who was nailed to a wooden cross is the real reason why one who was without God and hope in the world could become a child of hope. Apart from the grace of God in Christ Ruth might be loyal but that would make her a splendid sinner not a child of God.

Ruth is not only by grace made an ancestor of our Lord, she is a proleptic fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham which reaches its final fulfillment in Jesus Christ as the seed of Abraham. Abraham, Paul tells us in Galatians 4, would be a blessing to the nations through the life and work of his greater son Jesus Christ. Paul plays on the unique nature of the word “seed” which can be both singular and plural. It is a collective. But Paul is not merely playing word games. God meets his promise to Abraham in the life, death, resurrection, ascension, session, and return of Jesus Christ. It is because of the backward efficacy of Christ and his work that Ruth could go from looking in the window from the outside to being a full member of the family of God.

Ruth went from being an outsider to being an insider. By grace we too have gone from being outsiders without God and hope in the world to being saved members of the divine household. Whether we have been raised in Christian homes or not, we come to God by way of the gracious cross. This means that we ought to be concerned with both the nurture of our people who are part of our churches and we ought to be concerned to bring the gospel to a dying world. It is a false dilemma to think we must either only look inward or outward. The church must be about both nurture and evangelism. After all, Ruth didn’t start out a Jew. She became one by grace. When she swore her loyalty to Naomi and Naomi’s God she demonstrated her faith in God. Let’s nurture those under our care in the church and let’s also share the gospel with those outside the church. In this way, God’s promise to Abraham continues to be fulfilled as outsiders become insiders.

June 11th is the 75th anniversary of the beginning of what we now know as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Both leaving and being forced out of the northern mainline Presbyterian church, J. Gresham Machen and others gathered in center city Philadelphia and formed the true spiritual succession to the compromised mother church. In celebration and in sober reflection of this milestone, the Committee for the Historian of the OPC has released two new books. Following in the tradition of previous works such as Fighting the Good Fight and Pressing Toward the Mark (which were released at the 50th anniversary), now we have D.G. Hart’s Between the Times which is a history of the OPC from 1945 to 1990 and the compilation of essays edited by John Muether and Danny Olinger, Confident of Better Things. Both of these books are a must read for OPCers and for other Presbyterians and in fact would be a beneficial read for all Christians. There are many excellent essays in this book. One I would like to call attention to is Lane Tipton’s essay on how the Old Testament intrinsically proclaims the gospel through types, ceremonies, shadows, etc. Rather than the New Testament being an exercise in reader response theory, it reads what is actually present in the text of the Old Testament by divine intent. The Bible is not, then, like a novel with a surprise ending. There is much, much more here for your reading pleasure and edification. You can obtain these here.

Tolle lege!

Elimelech took his wife and sons away from Bethlehem (House of Bread or House of Food) at the time of famine and sojourned in the fields of Moab as aliens and foreigners. There in that strange land Elimelech died and then so did Naomi’s sons Mahlon and Chilion, leaving behind three women bereft of husbands and children. Circumstances could hardly get any worse. Do we undergo circumstances that drive us to despair? Do we think that just maybe God has forgotten us or is busy or has gone on a fishing trip? When Naomi tried to dismiss her two daughters-in-law and send them packing back to their families she noted that the Lord had dealt severely with her and she reiterated that thought upon her return to Bethlehem. Naomi is not alone in her disappointment, frustration, and discouragement. Perhaps we understand all too well.

At this point it would be well to remind ourselves that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ underwent excruciating circumstances while hanging naked on a cross in the darkness. Feeling abandoned by his Father, he cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:45-50; Psalm 22) Jesus was not merely reciting Psalm 22, he was living it right there and then. The Father could not bear with sin and the Son bore there the sins of his people, past, present, and future. The Son became a curse for us (Gal. 3) and so for the first time ever he experienced a break in fellowship with his Father. This is mind-blowing and one cannot comprehend the depths of this situation. Naomi and Ruth experienced horrendous hardships and sorrows. Jesus experienced all that and more. When we note with the author of Hebrews that Jesus is a sympathetic high priest we are not being trite or cute. He has undergone the miseries of this life and death and has come out the other side.

Jesus did not merely experience abandonment. As we continue on in Psalm 22 we see that the psalmist eventually comes around to see that he has not been ultimately abandoned by God and Jesus will die committing his spirit to God. Naomi and Ruth experienced terrible losses in the land of Moab. Jesus died on the cross. When Jesus was taken down from the cross and lain in a borrowed tomb it looked like it was over. When Naomi and Ruth left Moab for Bethlehem that no doubt thought they had hit rock bottom. God was not on vacation when Jesus died on the cross and lay in the tomb, and God was not asleep when Naomi and Ruth began their trek back to Bethlehem.

The story of the cross ended with an empty tomb. The end of the first chapter of the delightful story of Ruth has Naomi and Ruth entering into Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest. That little point can be easily missed. The family which went away during a famine and experienced the worst that life can throw at a family, came back during a time of abundance. God was quietly at work in the little story of Ruth and he was quietly at work behind the terrible events surrounding our Lord’s crucifixion and burial. Remember this: Just when it seems we have been abandoned by God and that the heavens are brass, that is when God is busily and sovereignly working behind the scenes. God is faithful and true even when circumstances suggest otherwise.

Next week we will consider the significance of Ruth’s loyalty and inclusion within the covenant community.