Naomi's Exile & Exodus (part 3)

If so, this makes Orpah’s departure understandable.  If so, this makes Ruth’s clinging to Naomi even more remarkable, while providing a glimpse into what lay behind the language of the rest of her statement to Naomi, in which she says “Wherever you die, I will die---and there I will be buried.  May the Lord punish me severely if I do not keep my promise!  Only death will be able to separate me from you!” (1:17)  So against all probability, while Naomi thinks of the return to the promised land as an exile, Ruth looks forward to the end of exile and a joining together with the people of exodus in the land of the covenant God’s promise. 

With all of this under consideration---Naomi’s trepidation in returning to the land, combined with the knowledge of the famine and subjugation that was in effect when she left with her husband, it is with a touch of apparent irony that “they arrived in Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest” (1:22b).  Immediately, in her land of exodus---which is the place of the Creator God’s mission for her---“Ruth went and gathered grain in the fields behind the harvesters” (2:3a). 

This gathering, as the reader comes to find out, took place in “the field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of Elimelech” (2:3c).  When Boaz speaks to Ruth, he treats her quite well, embodying the grace and kindness to resident foreigners that was demanded of Israel in the law of their God---because they too had been foreigners in Egypt.  Though the author does not speak of this, it underlies the story and the treatment, and serves as a reminder of the constant overt and subtle recalling of exodus by the various Biblical authors. 

Soon after, as Ruth gives Naomi a report of the day’s activities, as well as the favorable treatment from Boaz, “Naomi said to her, ‘This man is a close relative of ours; he is our guardian’.” (2:20b)  Later on, Ruth goes back to Boaz, proposing marriage and reminding him that he is “a guardian of the family’s interests” (3:9b).  The Hebrew word used here for “guardian” is “go’el,” which is used as both “kinsman” and “redeemer.”  This means that this is “deliverer” language, thus presenting Boaz in the mold of Moses, which places the story squarely in the center of the exile, exodus, and rescuing motif that is much of the sum and substance of the Scriptural message. 

As a guardian or a redeemer or a deliverer, Boaz agrees to Ruth’s proposal, and tells her that he will do what is necessary to become her and the family’s redeemer.  Before sending her away so that he can go and attend to this business, “he measured out about sixty pounds of barley into the shawl and put it on her shoulders” (3:15).  In this additional, favorable treatment by this redeemer (the one that was going to complete Ruth’s exodus and bring the family’s exile to an end), it could be said that Boaz went far beyond what either Ruth or Naomi would have asked or thought (Ephesians 3:20).    

As Boaz completes the transaction that will see him redeeming the estate of his kinsmen Elimelech, he says, “I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, as my wife to raise up a descendant who will inherit his property so the name of the deceased might not disappear from among his relatives and from his village” (4:10a).  In so doing, Boaz rescues the name of Elimelech from exile.  Almost immediately, the story of Ruth moves along to the fact that “The Lord enabled her to conceive and she gave birth to a son… They named him Obed.  Now he became the father of Jesse---David’s father!” (4:13b,17b) 

The marriage and the coming of a child marks the preservation of an inheritance within the land.  Because this is couched within the language of redemption (4:4-6), and because redemption is equated with exodus, all of these things serve as a reminder to both the witnesses and the later reader of this history, of the Creator God’s faithful, saving, covenant action on behalf of His people. 

Absalom (part 9)

Sometimes there is a tendency to forget that these stories in the Bible are being told about people that were very much flesh and blood individuals.  These were not idealized characters that wore black or white hats.  These were real people with which all who read this study share a common humanity.  They had thoughts that are not recorded by the Biblical authors, insecurities, and doubts about their place and role in the Creator God’s mission in the world, with these occurring right alongside all of the problems and concerns of life lived in what would have to be described as less than comfortable conditions.  So even though conditions change and mindsets change, and even though the Christ-event and its results have had a singularly massive effect on the world for the last two thousand years (as a transformative force unlike the world has ever known), human nature remains unchanged.  This fact is what allows for a sensitivity and attunement to culture and custom by those that approach the Biblical narrative, so as to be able to enter these stories and to read them for all that they are worth. 

Getting back to the light in which Absalom might be hoping that these events are seen, and remaining aware of not only the narrative structure of the Bible that constantly points to themes of exile and exodus, but also that Israel was always especially cognizant of the story of the exodus under the leadership of Moses, a fearful King David can be found saying “Go immediately, or else he will quickly overtake us and bring disaster on us and kill the city’s residents with the sword” (2 Samuel 15:14b). 

If Absalom is indeed painting David as a new Pharaoh, and if the author is mindful of that, then David’s order is quite interesting.  It returns a reader to chapter twelve of Exodus, following the plague which brought the death of the firstborn (remember, all of these events concerning Absalom are ultimately connected with the death of Amnon, David’s firstborn).  There, in fear of what might happen next to his people and his land, “Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron in the night and said, ‘Get up, get out from among my people, both you and the Israelites!  Go, serve the Lord as you have requested!  Also, take your flocks and herds, just as you have requested, and leave.  But bless me also’.” (12:31-32)  In addition, it is there reported that “The Egyptians were urging the people on, in order to send them out of the land quickly, for they were saying, ‘We are all dead!’” (12:33) 

Though they are not identical, the words of David have a strange affinity with the words of Pharaoh and the Egyptians.  Regardless of the non-identical words, they can be said to share a nature and the point would seem to be clear.  What is going to follow is an exile and an exodus.  In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, both of which build upon the foundation of the Exodus narrative, the Creator God will promise His people that the curses that will fall upon them for violating His commandments would be similar to the plagues that He brought upon Egypt.  So Egypt, by retrojection, has already experienced something like exile (though they are not the Creator God’s people). 

Furthermore, owing to what would take place at the sea, the plague of death (exile) would be further visited upon the Egyptians.  The exodus to follow, of course, would be that of Israel.  With David and Absalom, exile and exodus were also coming.  David was going to leave Jerusalem in a self-imposed exile, as it seemed that his power over the Creator God’s people had been broken in a way that was not at all unlike that of Pharaoh.  Absalom, at the head of a loyal populace, was exodus-ing his own long exile and heading for the throne, which he may very well have seen (embodying the Israel story) as his promised land.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 19)

The point that must be underlined is that the disciples are quite obviously asking the question about the fate of the Temple and the time of its being torn down in relation to what Jesus has said about the Temple.  When considered together, the synoptic Gospels witness to this fact, with the weight of the evidence insisting that Matthew’s report of the use of “end of the age” (and all that comes after that question) should be tied to the fall of the Temple. 

Along with this, the reader must be aware of the possibility that the Gospels authors are writing after the Jewish revolt and after the Temple has been destroyed by the Romans (though sharing a narrative that existed prior to the composition of the written Gospels), which most certainly colors any approach to the narrative, attempts to understand what is being said, and shapes the responsibility of Christ-followers to make the correct applications in their own days, places, and times.  Now, this is not to take away from the prophetic activity of Jesus, but allows for a dimension of analysis in which the authors, and therefore those who are hearing and reading these biographical compilations about the life of Jesus, are reporting these words of Jesus from the perspective of a world in which revolution has been attempted and crushed, and in which Rome and its legions have destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem. 

Even though Mark provides the foundation for Matthew, this study will continue to rely upon Matthew’s account, for it is the most detailed of the “end of the age” narratives and it provides the foundation from which one can deal with a number of pertinent issues related to coming to grips with Jesus’ statement about no man knowing the day or the hour.  Interestingly, it is Matthew’s presentation that becomes the guide, in many Bible translations, that provides the summary heading for various sections.  For example, in a number of translations, this paragraph of Matthew twenty-four is headed by “Signs of the End of the Age.”  This makes sense, as the disciples have asked “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 

However, even though the disciples do not ask the question this way in either Mark or Luke, not making mention of the end of the age, the same paragraph in those Gospels are often headed with “Signs of the End of the Age.”  This demonstrates the way in which the very non-Jewish (Greek-influenced) conceptions of the end of the world have somehow become equated to such an expression by a Jew in the first century, though it is has no such connection.  Beyond that, one can see that the conflation of end of the age and end of the world are read into Mark and Luke, becoming the controlling paradigm by which those two accounts are so often heard, even though, according to the words of the disciples that are on offer by those two evangelists (Luke and Mark), the end of the age (or end of the world---as conceived of by a great number of interpreters) is nowhere in sight. 

Again, it becomes helpful to let the weight of evidence be the guide.  Since the foundational narrative, that being Mark, which is significantly expanded upon by Matthew (due to either written materials in the author’s possession, a more robust oral tradition, or a more vivid imagination) does not resort to such language, and Luke, which also builds on Mark, does not have the disciples posing their question in such a matter, it is best to distance oneself from the end of the age language because of the inherent confusion that ensues when using the language.  This distancing will have to take place even though it has been established that, in its usage, it does not point to the end of the world, but it is difficult for many to shake free from long-ingrained sensibilities.       

No One Knows The Hour (part 14)

To make the point about the devouring of widow’s property, Mark and Luke speak nearly identically with what comes next.  Using Mark’s record, they report that Jesus “sat down opposite the offering box, and watched the crowd putting coins into it.  Many rich people were throwing in large amounts” (12:41-42).  By this, they secure the presence of experts in the law at their synagogues and their banquets.  Continuing, Mark reports: “And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, worth less than a penny.  He called His disciples and said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others.  For they all gave out of their wealth.  But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had” (12:41-44). 

Far from being a praise of this widow, and though it is certainly not a criticism of the poor woman, these are words of lament.  These are not words meant to inform the Jesus community as to how they should live and how they should give (though many would certainly give all that they had, but not because of this story).  Heard in line with all that is going on, this story of the widow portends judgment, for her property had been devoured by the very Temple which has already been judged, and this is the point that Jesus makes and what the Gospel authors intend to convey.  Indeed, judgment---a more severe punishment---is what is coming. 

Matthew, almost surprisingly, makes no mention of the widow and the offering box.  He does not position Jesus across from the offering box to view the happenings, as does Mark.  Matthew does offer up the warnings about the experts in the law, their desire for greetings and the best seats, but he makes no mention of the devouring of widows’ property, or their long prayers.  Of course, Matthew’s lack of the warning about the devouring of widows’ property actually makes sense of the fact that he does not provide a record of the widow’s offering, as he does not have a need to demonstrate that which he has not mentioned. 

Where Mark and Luke record the warnings and the widow’s offering, Matthew and Matthew’s Jesus are more evocative.  Some might say that what Matthew puts in place of the warning and the offerings is far more harsh; and it would be difficult to disagree, for this is the point at which Matthew presents the “seven woes.”  Because Matthew is using Mark as the basis for his narrative, one could assert, with reasonable confidence, that Matthew, even though he omits part of the warning and the story about the widow, has the whole of these things in mind as he presents Jesus’ pronouncement of woe. 

Even if he does not have the devouring and the widow precisely in mind, one can certainly assert that he was aware of the story, since he presents half of the warning that is found in Mark and Luke.  Of course, the fact that the whole of the story is there in Mark and Luke, combined with the fact that Luke relies heavily on the Markan narrative, is an indication that Matthew must have known the story of the widow. 

Honestly, as one understands the setting and the narrative flow, it is almost unreasonable to surmise that Matthew is not here thinking about the second half of the warning and the widow’s offering.  So even if the widow is not going to be immediately called to the minds of Matthew’s hearers and readers, especially if his story is heard and read in isolation from the Markan and Lukan constructions, readers of the collected Scritpures have the privilege of knowing the story, and it should dance in their thoughts as they hear the words of Jesus as reported through Matthew’s twenty-third chapter.