Love Divine, All Love Excelling, from the Royal Albert Hall

Forty Days And Forty Nights

God Is Love, His The Care

Repentance In Acts In Light Of Deuteronomy 30

By Charles P. Baylis

Introduction

In the debate about what is necessary for salvation, repentance and its meaning have always been a focal point. At the center of this controversy are verses in Acts[1] which link repentance with salvation. Peter stated in Acts 2:38 to those gathered at Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.” Why did Peter call on them to repent? In Acts 3:19 he continued his second sermon by requesting that they “repent and return.” Return to what? Was it necessary that men return to something before they could be saved?

The etymologies and the usages of these words have been researched frequently,[2] but few writers have ever examined the Old Testament context from which these Acts usages are derived. It is the purpose of this article to demonstrate that the word “repentance” in Acts 2:38, 3:19 and 11:18 is based on the promise of the New Covenant found in Deuteronomy 30:1–6.[3] Any analysis of the meaning of repentance must take place in that light. This study will place this word in a proper historical theological context.

The Old Testament Call For Repentance

The Prophecy: Deuteronomy

Moses stood on the edge of the promised land and gave four sermons to the Israelites as they were about to enter the land. Deuteronomy is the record of these exhortations. Even though Israel had yet to enter the land, failure was already assured (29:22–30:1; 31:16–21, 29; 32:35). But Moses also prophesied that the nation Israel would return to God from that failure. In 30:6 Moses stated that when they returned God would circumcise their heart (give them the New Covenant).

To what were they to return? Obviously, they were to return to God, but more specifically they were to return to covenant relationship.[4] How were they to return? The Deuteronomy text indicated this clearly. They were to believe from their hearts. Early in Deuteronomy (6:5), Moses had stated that obedience and the covenant relationship came from the heart, not from external acts. In 30:10 he explained how they were to turn to Him, “… if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.”[5]

Unfortunately the Israelite had a heart no different from the one he had received from Adam. He would surely disobey, because he would fail to believe in his heart. God indicated that without a new heart (“the Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear,” 29:4) Israel would fail to continue a covenant relationship with Him.

In chapters 28 and 29, Moses had outlined the blessings and the cursings which would fall on the nation for their obedience or disobedience. Following the list of curses which would surely afflict the unbelieving Israelites, Moses began the description of the “return” (30:1).

So it shall become when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, and you return to the LORD your God.

Then Moses continued with an explanation of means of the return.

and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today.

Then God would bring Israel back from captivity to the promised land (30:3–5), and would restore their fruitfulness. In 30:6 Moses spoke of a change that would insure their continued obedience.

Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live … And you shall again obey the LORD, and observe all His commandments which I command you today.

The phrase “the LORD your God will circumcise your heart” introduced the New Covenant. The New Covenant was a change which God would enact within man, as opposed to a change which man would accomplish on his own.[6] Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31 expanded Deuteronomy 30:6 further.

Thus Moses’ final sermon to the nation prophesied a time when Israel would return to covenant relationship, and God would change their hearts. It was one of the earliest, most specific references to the New Covenant. It is this return that is called “repentance.”[7]

It is very important to take note of the people to whom this message was spoken. Israel alone was being called to a repentance or a return. This message did not address any Gentile nations. In the Deuteronomy passage, the new heart was promised only to a future returning nation; that nation was Israel.

The Call of the Prophets

From the day that Joshua crossed the Jordan, Israel was instructed to remember Moses’ words in Deuteronomy (Joshua 23:6). In the Book of Judges, the nation went through cycles of failure, repentance and restoration as Moses had warned in Deuteronomy.[8]

But, as the kings arose and led Israel, the nation continued in a downward movement. Prophets arose to call the people back to the promise of Deuteronomy. God had promised if the people “turned to Him” that He would save them. Yet no one called on Him, for the people felt they were “acting” according to covenant relationship and did not need repentance.[9]

Isaiah.

Isaiah is typical of the pre-exilic prophets. The people were not about to repent (“return”) for they were not aware of their lack of relationship with God. They could no longer recognize the differences between good and evil (Isaiah 5:20). So Isaiah’s ministry was to harden them in their rebellion.10 In 6:10 God referred to the call of Deuteronomy 30.

Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Lest they see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And repent and be healed.

Jeremiah.

Jeremiah also expounded the New Covenant of Deuteronomy 30:6 during the rebellious events at Jerusalem. Jeremiah spoke of the prophesied circumcision of heart in 31:33–34.

“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”[11]

Thus Jeremiah, in the midst of judgment, gave hope. He referred back to Deuteronomy 30:6. The promise had not been withdrawn.

Ezekiel.

Ezekiel ministered to a nation already in exile.[12] In the midst of this ministry of misery and judgment, God repeated His promise of Deuteronomy 30:1–6 in Ezekiel 11:14–19. However, it was in Ezekiel 36:22–31 that the circumcision of heart was developed in its fullest.

For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land … then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall be careful to observe my ordinances.[13]

In the midst of exile, the Israelite was reminded of the prophecy of Deuteronomy 30. The day was coming when he would return to God and would gain a new heart. Related to that is the cleansing (forgiveness of sins) and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Nehemiah.

Nehemiah led the rebuilding of the city following the exile. But Nehemiah’s return to rebuild the city was necessarily preceded by repentance based on Deuteronomy 30:1–6 (Nehemiah 1:6–9).

We have not kept the commandments … which Thou didst command Thy servant Moses. Remember the word which Thou didst command Thy servant Moses, saying, If you are unfaithful I will scatter you among the peoples; but if you return to Me and keep My commandments and do them … I will gather them from there and will bring them to the place where I have chosen to cause My name to dwell.

Malachi.

The call to return to the covenant relationship continued during the post-exilic era as Israel again continued the facade of covenant obedience (cf. Malachi 1:6–14). Malachi predicted that the prophet Elijah would come and call the people to return to covenant relationship as he did in days of old (Malachi 4:6).[14]

At the close of the Old Testament, Israel still had not changed. They were a people with a disobedient, rebellious heart. On their return from exile, they did not sustain a change of heart, but continued to pursue their own self-centered objectives.[15]

Summary.

The Old Testament prophet was guided by Deuteronomy 28–30. Israel had gone through periods of blessing and cursing based on its desire for a covenant relationship with God. The prophets pleaded with Israel to call on God (return or repent). Yet Israel felt it was in a covenant relationship. Thus, it did not call out.

This is the sense of the Old Testament “repentance” (or “retum”), particularly where related to the covenant and covenant restoration. The major thrust of the Old Testament is the story of this call to “return” to covenant relationship and Israel’s failure to do so.

From the prophecies of the New Covenant, the Old Testament reader should have expected certain items.

1. Israel: Israel would be the nation to whom God would give the New Covenant. There was no indication in the Old Testament that any Gentiles would share “equally” with Israel in its blessings.
2. Repentance: A national repentance would come about when the nation desired to return to covenant relationship.
3. Cleansing or forgiveness of sins: The expected cleansing from sin would be permanent and real, instead of temporary and symbolic.
4. The Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit would indwell all believers regardless of rank instead of only coming “on” men who were performing a special purpose for God.
5. Kingdom: The kingdom would come to Israel after God had changed their hearts.

The Old Testament reader would have entered the New Testament era with this expectation. Both John the Baptist and Jesus offered its fulfillment.

The New Testament Call For Repentance

The New Testament continued the Old Testament call for a return to covenant relationship. The first prophet spoken of in the New Testament was really the last of the Old Testament prophets.[16] His message was the same. Only now the potential for the Kingdom of Heaven (and the preparatory New Covenant) was present.

John the Baptist and Jesus

Based on Deuteronomy 30:1–6, John the Baptist called out, “Repent” (Matthew 3:2). However, there was something new. The full potential of Deuteronomy 30 had come. Now if Israel would return to covenant relationship they would, for the first time, actually be able to receive the changed heart and the kingdom. The call was extended to include the words “for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” The words “Kingdom of Heaven” did not simply indicate that Jesus, the King, was present. They indicated that the New Covenant and the changed heart were potentially available to the nation Israel if they would repent.[17] Jesus’ call, “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17) was exactly the same as John’s.

The Reaction of the Nation

The reaction of the nation to the call for a return to the covenant is evident in Matthew 11:20–21, 12:41. The nation would not call for a return to the covenant. Just as in Isaiah’s day, they thought they were in covenant relationship, and needed no repentance.

This is quite clear from the repentance calls in Luke. The Pharisees were those who felt they “needed no repentance.”[18] Thus the nation in their blindness refused to recognize their sinful state, and did not cry out to God, that He might heal them.[19]

The crucifixion of the Savior, however, was not the last rejection by the nation Israel. It is in the rejection of the resurrection that Israel reconfirmed its earlier rejection of Christ.[20] This is recorded in the Book of Acts. But, unlike the gospels, the offer of the New Covenant was not “at hand,” it was immediately available. Also, unlike the offer in the gospels, the king was now absent. While there was a New Covenant, there would be no kingdom until His return.

Repentance In The Book Of Acts

John the Baptist and Jesus both had offered the New Covenant to the nation Israel if they would “return” to God or “repent.” But they did not. In Acts the payment for the New Covenant had been completed in Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection (Luke 22:20).

The New Covenant Given

The apostles (Acts 1:4) were commanded to wait for “the promise of the Father.” What was the promise of the Father? It was the Old Testament promises of the New Covenant in Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31, based on Deuteronomy 30:6. For when Jesus stated, “but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now,” He was speaking of the indwelling Spirit, who was inseparably part of the New Covenant promise.[21]

The Faithful Remnant of Israel

Having told them of the soon-to-be-fulfilled promise, Jesus left them. The next event in the book of Acts is the story of choosing of the twelfth apostle to take the place of Judas. There has always been considerable question over this event, and whether the eleven apostles had acted correctly. Why was it important that the eleven be made twelve? Because from the time that the original twelve were chosen, these men were to be representatives of the nation Israel (twelve tribes). While the real nation rejected, these men were to be the remnant of Israel who would accept the Messiah. It is these twelve men, the remnant of the nation Israel, who received the New Covenant on behalf of the apostate nation.[22] Thus it became important that this group be returned to twelve men so as to precisely represent the nation, but as a remnant.[23]

The full nation would not receive the kingdom at the same time the covenant was given. The covenant would be given to a remnant who “returned” (repented), according to Deuteronomy 30. But the kingdom would wait until the king reappeared and the total nation repented (Zechariah 12:10).

The Call to Repentance in Acts 2:38

Peter gave his sermon. The recipients of this speech were only Israelites (2:5, 22). They were accused of killing their nation’s Messiah (2:23), who was the One who was to bring them the New Covenant and the Holy Spirit (2:33). Having killed the very One who was the King of the Kingdom and the Prophet of the New Covenant, they reacted in panic, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter responded to them with the instructions given in Deuteronomy 30:1–6, “Repent” (return to covenant relationship).[24]

Repent.

If individual Israelites would “return” to God, call out to Him, then God would heal them as He had promised. But this time He would add them to the remnant receiving the New Covenant. So Peter was simply telling them to “return” to God to restore their covenant relationship. They had recognized their part with the nation in the Messiah’s crucifixion (2:23, 36). This alone indicated that they were outside of covenant relationship, particularly the New Covenant of which Jesus was the Prophet.[25]

Let each of you be baptized.

This was the outward sign of the New Covenant. It began with the baptism of John the Baptist.[26]

Ezekiel 36 had promised a washing with clean water (spiritual cleansing) and baptism was the symbol of that inward washing. Thus Peter calls on the repentant audience to be baptized, symbolizing their personal link with the New Covenant.

In the name of Jesus Christ.

This was the focus of their repentance and baptism. It was Jesus’ person, death and resurrection that brought about the New Covenant. It was by belief in Him that it was accomplished. Baptism in His name publicly indicated a separation from the apostate nation who had crucified Him.

For the forgiveness of sins.

Forgiveness of sins was an integral part of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:34). Thus reception of the New Covenant by desiring to return (Deuteronomy 30), illustrated by baptism (belief in the cleansing ability of Jesus Christ), resulted in the reception of the New Covenant.[27] This included the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The gift of the Holy Spirit.

The indwelling Holy Spirit was another integral part of the New Covenant given on that Pentecost morning (Ezekiel 36:27).

Summary.

Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 had called individual Israelites out of the apostate nation to receive the gift of the New Covenant. They would become part of a faithful remnant of that nation who had responded to the call of Deuteronomy 30 to “repent” (return).

The Call to Repentance in Acts 3:19

If there is a verse in Acts which comes the closest to referring precisely to Deuteronomy 30:1–6, it is Acts 3:19. It is there that the nation (not just individuals) was addressed under that ancient promise.

The situation.

Peter and John had healed a crippled man. The purpose of this miracle was to demonstrate that Jesus was not a dead man, but alive (3:6, 12, 16, 4:10). Resurrection verified that He was the God-approved Messiah. The resurrection of Jesus Christ, the sign of Jonah, was presented to the nation of Israel.

The addressed.

Here again, as in chapter 2, the addressed group are only “Men of Israel” (3:12).[28]

The message.

Peter first pointed out that they and their leaders had crucified their Messiah. He then gave them instructions concerning their only hope for the salvation of the nation.

Repent therefore and return,[29] that your sins may be wiped away, in order that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

Peter had invited them to return according to Deuteronomy 30:1–6. If they did, they would receive the New Covenant (the circumcision of heart). The accompanying kingdom, however, would come only after a time of delay, when the King would return.

The reaction of the nation.

Following the message to the people of the nation, Peter and John were taken before the rulers and elders of the nation (4:1–22). He presented the evidence of the former crippled man. Then he told them that the “repentance” of Deuteronomy 30 was only accomplished by receiving Jesus Christ as the messiah (Acts 4:12).

Summary.

Peter’s sermon to individuals of the nation in chapter 3, in the shadow of Solomon’s speech so long ago, echoed the same sentiments. The nation needed to “return” to God, and Jesus Christ was the way. Deuteronomy 30:1–6 was still the basis of repentance. Repentance was to take place, not through the prophet of the Old Covenant, Moses, but through the Greater Prophet, Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:15).

The Call to Repentance for the Gentiles

The first several chapters of Acts explain the reception of the New Covenant by a remnant of the nation Israel. Chapter 10 explains the inclusion of Gentiles into that promise. If “repentance” was a. return to covenant relationship, then how was it that Gentiles might return according to Deuteronomy 30:1–6, when they never had a covenant relationship to which to return? It is one of the major purposes of Acts to explain the inclusion of Gentiles in the New Covenant.

Acts 10-11.

Peter received the revelation that Gentiles were able to receive the New Covenant in the same manner as the Jews. This was a great revelation, since there was nothing in the Old Testament that indicated that the New Covenant promise was directly for Gentiles. It had been only for Israelites who “returned” to God.

The addressed.

Peter had gone to the house of Cornelius to preach to his family. Cornelius was a God-fearing Gentile (10:1–2).

The message.

This message was absent of any accusations of killing the Messiah, since it was the Jews that had done this. It is also absent of any mention of the word “repentance” since Deuteronomy 30 was addressed only to Israel, and would have meant nothing to Cornelius as a Gentile. However, other than the substitution of the word “believe” for “repent,”[30] the elements are the same. Belief brought forth forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (10:44–45), the elements of the New Covenant. The sign of the New Covenant, baptism, was then administered to these Gentiles in 10:47.[31]

The response of the Jewish remnant.

Until this point there had been no one who was a full Gentile who had received the New Covenant. Since the Old Testament had not mentioned Gentile inclusion, the Jews who accompanied Peter were amazed to see that Gentiles were accepted on the same basis as Jews (10:45).

Peter returned to Jerusalem in chapter 11 and met some Jews who refused to believe that Gentiles were welcome on an equivalent basis (11:3). Peter testified that these men had received the Holy Spirit (the New Covenant) just as the Jews had (11:15–17).

Gentiles and the repentance of Deuteronomy 30.

Deuteronomy 30:6 had stated, “… the Lord your God will circumcise your heart … in order that you may live.” Thus, the repentance brought about the New Covenant which brought new life.

Acts 11:18 records the reaction of the Jerusalem Jews to Peter’s testimony about Cornelius. “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” While a Jewish remnant were repenting (returning) to covenant relationship, Gentiles had been mysteriously included in that remnant’s return.

Summary

Deuteronomy 30:1–6 had prophesied that the Jews would repent some day and God would give them the New Covenant (new heart, forgiveness of sins, Holy Spirit). While the prophets called the nation to repent, it did not. John the Baptist and Jesus both offered the New Covenant and the Kingdom, but Israel rejected its king. The kingdom was delayed but the New Covenant was offered to a remnant. Following the Deuteronomy 30:1–6 instructions, Peter called on Israelites to repent and receive the New Covenant (forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit) in Acts 2:38. In Acts 3:19 the nation Israel was told that if it repented according to Deuteronomy 30, it would receive its kingdom upon the return of the king. Finally, Acts 10–11 confirmed the inclusion of Gentiles, demonstrating that the benefits of Jewish repentance spoken of in Deuteronomy 30 had been expanded to include Gentiles.

Repentance in these three passages in Acts is totally and directly related to Deuteronomy 30:1–6.[32] Jews were being called on to return to covenant relationship by receiving the New Covenant. Gentiles were mysteriously included in that promise.

Repentance cannot be interpreted apart from a knowledge of that historical context. Repentance involved a return to covenant relationship through belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Prophet of the New Covenant.

Notes

1. Acts 2:38, 3:19 and 11:18 will form the basis for this article. However, repentance is mentioned elsewhere in Acts (5:13, 13:24, 17:30, 19:4, 20:21, 26:20). Some explanation of these other verses will be given at the end of this article. However, the explanation of the three main verses in this article should provide clarification of the other uses.
2. Bibliographic references for some etymological studies of the particular words, shûwb, metanoeo, and epistrepho are given throughout the article.
3. The examination of Deuteronomy 30:1–6 will also include its related prophecies of the New Covenant in Ezekiel 36:22–38 and Jeremiah 31:31–34.
4. The term for “return” is the root shûwb. For a discussion on the covenant implications of the word see R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), s.v. “shûwb.” While the term is used in the general sense of “turn,” “return,” or “change direction,” when used by the prophets in a covenantal context it indicates a “return” to the covenant relationship. Also see William L. Holladay, The RootSûbhin the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1958),116–157.
5. This was the problem with the Israelites (and the New Testament Pharisees). They concerned themselves with external acts and did not obey God from a changed heart. External acts should have come from a love of God. The nature of the word “return” is a general word. The specifics of “how” are always to be gained from the context. The instructions on “how” are never far away. It is a general term similar to our word “convert.” One may convert in many ways. He may convert to Judaism, Catholicism, Mormonism or he may simply convert a car from gasoline to natural gas. The word itself does not explain how. It must be gained from other passages.
6. The Old Covenant was a test of man’s ability to change his own heart. He was exhorted to “circumcise his heart” (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4), but he could not. The Old Testament records that failure. It is only in the New Covenant that God changes man’s old heart (cf. Col. 2:11; Rom. 2:29).
7. There is not space in this article to delve into the use of the words for “repentance” in the Old Testament. The major word for repentance in the Old Testament was yashûwb Throughout the Old Testament the prophets would refer to this passage and call Israel back to covenant relationship by “returning.” The reader is referred to the article by Gerhard Kittel, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), s.v “metanoeo.” The point is made that metanoeo became a synonym for the Hebrew yashûwb during the intertestamental period (p. 991), and thus in the New Testament became interchangeable. One must be careful, however, not to insist that every use of the word metanoeo or yashûwb was a reference to covenant return. The word may be used simply as “to return” as Abraham’s promise to “return” to his servants after sacrificing (Genesis 22:5). Other references indicate a “change of mind.” However, the emphasis of this article is to note that the references in Acts (2:38, 3:19, 11:18) are speaking about a historical instruction, that of “returning” to covenant relationship.
8. In contrast, it is with a great sense of hope that one reads Ruth and finds a faithful remnant in Boaz, who is an avid covenant keeper.
9. Malachi 1, following the return from exile, is an example of the people acting out their covenant obligations, but not having their heart in it. They would bring unhealthy animals for sacrifice. God stated: “Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar!” (Mal. 1:10a).
10. It is noteworthy that Isaiah has the fewest calls for repentance among the pre-exilic prophets. This is explained by “return” in 6:9–10. The people were beyond the time of repentance. Now Israel’s fate was to be sealed by the hardening ministry of Isaiah.
11. Here is the “forgiveness of sins.” Forgiveness of sins was essential if man was to have a relationship with God. In the Old Testament, men came to God through the blood of bulls and goats, which could never take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). In the New Covenant, men’s sins are permanently forgiven through the blood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:14).
12. Another exilic prophet, Daniel, prayed for the return of his people to the land based on the prophecy of Deuteronomy (Daniel 9:3–19).
13. Ezekiel is similar to Jeremiah, especially in that under the New Covenant, the Spirit would dwell within man.
14. The smiting of the land with a curse spoken of in Malachi 4:6 is based on God’s promise of Deuteronomy 28–29.
15. Nehemiah 13 and Ezra 10 record the failure of the returning exiles to keep the covenant any better than their fathers. If Israel’s hope lay in their own ability to change their ways, the Old Testament ended without any hope.
16. Matthew 11:7–11.
17. John 3:3 speaks directly to this issue. “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The term “born again” was the “new heart” and “life” promised in the New Covenant of Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 36–37 and Jeremiah 31. (Notice that the terms “water and the Spirit” of John 3:5 are references to Ezekiel 36:25–27, and the promise of cleansing from sin and the indwelling Spirit.)Ibe kingdom would not come to men who had the old heart. It was only in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30:1–6 that it would come. God must change their hearts, and Jesus was the Prophet of this New Covenant.
18. Cf. Luke 15:7, 18:9–14. The fact that the Pharisees felt they were “righteous” indicated their blind understanding of their covenant relationship.
19. In the current debate concerning “repentance,” it is commonly stated that John ignored the term. However, it is present in John 12:40, where he quoted the strongest reference in Isaiah. In the John passage, Jesus saw Himself with the same ministry as Isaiah, that of hardening the hearts of those who had rejected Him.
20. This is clear in Matthew 12:39, 16:4, Luke 11:29–32. The nation crucified the Savior, but Jesus made it plain that the sign of His resurrection would be the final sign to the apostate nation, Nineveh repented at the original sign of Jonah. This resurrection is fully revealed to the nation in the Book of Acts. There the nation is continually confronted with the resurrection evidence and continually rejects it. At the end of the Book of Acts (28:17–28), following the rejection by the Jews at Rome, Paul quoted Isaiah 6:9–10, to show that the nation was hardhearted and would not repent, just as prophesied.
21. This is why the apostles responded immediately with the question, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). These Old Testament prophecies of the New Covenant were always followed by the kingdom. The apostles simply knew their Old Testament scriptures well. Besides, the king was still present. After the departure of the king in Acts 1:9, the angels remind the disciples of Zechariah 14:3–4 when the Lord will return to rule and establish the kingdom. Thus the angels gave the apostles the answer to their question of 1:6.
22. Luke 22:20 records the initial cutting of the covenant in the Upper Room with the eleven disciples.
23. It is important to note that this giving of the New Covenant in no way negates the future of the nation Israel and their kingdom. These men were not the nation, only the remnant. And this was not the kingdom. The ultimate fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30:1–6 will come when the full nation does repent (Romans 11:25–27). It is in Acts 3:19 that this is made very clear to the national listeners. “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things.” While the New Covenant had been given to a remnant, the absent king and the unrepentant nation stood between them and the kingdom.
24. Notice that Peter’s call was similar to John the Baptist’s. John called on them to repent and then baptized them. So did Peter. The difference was that John anticipated the New Covenant forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16), and Peter preached that they were available right then (Acts 19:4).
25. It is in Acts 3:22–26 that Peter speaks concerning the relationship of Jesus as the Prophet of the New Covenant, while Moses was the prophet of the Old Covenant. Jesus’ words of the New Covenant were far superior to Moses’ words of the Old Covenant. For further details about the treatment of the Deuteronomy 18:15 prophecy of Jesus as the Greater Prophet of the New Covenant as dealt with in the Gospel of John, see the article by this author, “The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Test of Jesus as the Greater Prophet,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 146 (April 1989): 171-184.
26. While baptism has been related to many things, it appears that the New Covenant is its prime relationship. The evidence of this is found in John 1:19–28. Ezekiel 36:25 had prophesied that God would “sprinkle clean water on them.” While this was speaking of spiritual cleanliness, the New Testament audience looked for a corresponding physical sign, that of baptism or ritual washing. Since this “washing” was a future prophecy, the Pharisees felt (John 1:19–21) that it would be done by an eschatological character, the Christ, Elijah (Mal. 4:5), or the Prophet (Deut. 18:15). Thus the Pharisees sent out priests and Levites (the experts in ritual washings) in John 1:19, 22. They asked him which of the eschatological personalities he was (1:21–22, 25). John replied that his water baptism was only a sign (1:31), to prepare people for the real cleansing of the Holy Spirit (1:33). Baptism then was a related outward sign of the real cleansing taking place under the New Covenant. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. John was calling the nation to return in accordance with Deuteronomy 30 so it could receive the long awaited New Covenant. The baptism in Acts is an identification of a real spiritual cleansing which had taken place.
27. Interpretations of this phrase have given problems from the earliest Christian readers. The link between baptism and the forgiveness of sins seems to imply baptismal regeneration. Thus a number of interpretations have been fostered to avoid that interpretation. However, when the reader understands that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, it only fits in that having demonstrated one’s acceptance of it, he should receive the things promised by the New Covenant, namely, forgiveness of sins (Jeremiah 31:34b) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:27). The proper translation of the word “for” in “for the forgiveness of sins” would be “with a view to” or “in connection with” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., s.v. “epi”). In essence the baptism was not the cause but was a related outward demonstration of the inward cleansing from sin. Was baptism necessary for reception of the New Covenant? The answer is, of course, “no.” It was no more necessary in Peter’s call to repentance than it was in John the Baptist’s. Note that Cornelius receives the New Covenant before baptism is offered to him (Acts 10:44–48). But it was part of the imperative of the Pentecost speech. The reason was that Peter was calling on them to do more than secretly believe. The nation Israel, their nation, had crucified Jesus publicly. And they, as members of that nation, were publicly part of a national confession that Jesus was not the prophet of the New Covenant. They were already publicly included in that national crime. Thus to escape that national guilt required public repudiation of that nation and its decision to crucify Jesus Christ. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ made it clear that they were identifying with Jesus against the nation Israel. Was baptism necessary for the New Covenant reception? Technically, it was not. But Peter was calling for more than basic salvation. He was calling for identification with Jesus, against the nation. Notice Peter’s following comment in 2:40, “Be saved from this perverse generation” (the present apostate nation of Israel).
28. It is interesting that it is at the Portico of Solomon that the miracle takes place. This literary color recalled the prayer of dedication which Solomon made at the temple in 2 Chronicles 6:36–39. In that prayer Solomon used Deuteronomy 30:1–6 to state that Israel could one day call upon God (return) and He would hear and restore them. How significant was that Old Testament speech in that Peter was calling on Israel to do exactly that.
29. The word for repent is metanoeo. The word for return is epistrepho. There are differences between New Testament scholars on the different emphasis of these words, since they are to some degree synonymous. According to The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (s.v. “metanoeo”), metanoeo became synonymous with yashûwb of the Old Testament during the intertestamental period. Epistrepho however, is the actual word used in the Septuagint in Deuteronomy 30. It is this author’s opinion that Peter was insuring that they knew he was referring to Deuteronomy 30:1–6, by using epistrepho of the LXX in addition to the common metanoeo. Refer to Acts 28:27 where Paul quotes Isaiah 6:10. There he uses the LXX epistrepho for the Hebrew shûwb.
30. Note that the message to the Jews was to repent for the forgiveness of sins, but Cornelius is told that “everyone who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43). This forgiveness of sins was the New Covenant.
31. The New Covenant was supposed to be only for Jews. Thus baptism, or the sign of the New Covenant, was not to be administered to Gentiles. However, after the Jews saw that Gentiles had received the New Covenant (witnessed by the speaking in tongues), Jews could not refuse Gentiles the sign, for the Gentiles already had the substance.
32. After understanding these particular uses of “repent” (metanoeo) in Acts (2:38, 3:19, 11:18) it becomes much easier to categorize other usages in Acts. Acts 5:31 is also a direct reference to Deuteronomy 30 (call of repentance to the nation and the forgiveness of sin of the New Covenant). Acts 13:24 and 19:4 declare that John’s baptism was indeed the call of repentance to which Deuteronomy 30 refers. Acts 20:21 and 26:20 are similar to Acts 11:18 in that both Jews and Gentiles have been included in the repentance of Deuteronomy 30.

Naomi in the Book of Ruth in Light of the Mosaic Covenant

By Charles P. Baylis

[Charles P. Baylis is Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, and Director of the Seminary’s Southeast Region for External Studies (Tampa and Atlanta).]

To understand a character in narrative literature the reader must know how that person fits into the message of the story in view of the author’s ethical standard. This article examines the place that Naomi plays in the literary flow of the Book of Ruth in view of the author’s ethical standard, namely, Israel’s Mosaic Covenant.

Many commentators view all the main characters in the Book of Ruth—Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz—as having no major flaw. For instance Harvey states, “There is no villain in the story. No reprehensible act is done by any character.”[1] Since a character is evaluated according to his or her response to the tension in the story, this view means that all the main characters interacting with the tension in the Book of Ruth make only positive ethical responses. Yet not to have a major character in a negative contrast to the positive hero is unknown in any of the other narratives in the Bible.[2] Thus the claim that there is no negative main character[3] in the Book of Ruth is somewhat suspect. The presence of a major negative character ordinarily contrasts with and thus heightens the portrayal of the positive character.[4]

Commentators agree that both Ruth and Boaz play positive roles in the book. Boaz responded to the tension in the story by providing food and children for both Ruth and Naomi. Ruth also interacted positively with the difficulty, for she too gave Naomi food and a child with Boaz.

Many Bible students likewise see no weakness in Naomi, the book’s main character.5 They see any negative expression of hers as reflecting justifiable frustration that anyone in a similar situation would have. She is frequently said to be a strong woman of faith, enduring through unexplained and undeserved sufferings, unselfishly caring for her daughters-in-law. For instance Bush wrote that Naomi is “the virtual enfleshment of hesed, that quality of kindness, graciousness, and loyalty that goes beyond the call of duty.”[6] On the other hand some writers do see Naomi responding in a negative manner.[7] This article seeks to determine which assessment of Naomi is correct.

“Common Values” And Assessment Of Naomi

A story always has a moral standard by which characters are to be judged. To insure that those characters are correctly appraised, the narrator may emphasize his standard through explicit condemnation or commendation (1 Kings 11:1–10 is an example of this). Other times a prophet documents that standard.[8] Yet in the Book of Ruth the narrator makes no such direct comment.[9] The author has assumed that the reader possesses the value system needed to perceive his meaning. The value system inherent in the Book of Ruth consists of two levels. The standards on the first level are “common values,” those innate to all humankind, and the standards on the second level are drawn from the Mosaic Covenant.[10]

Common values are those universally shared by all humankind based on human reasoning and common experience. These include ordinary needs (such as food, clothing, shelter, and security) and the normal means to attain those needs (such as labor, trade, or other natural means).

Common Values In The Book Of Ruth: Food And Children

Common values are foundational to the narrative in the Book of Ruth. Readers can sympathize with Naomi when famine and death struck her family and can rejoice with her as food and children were provided for her later.

Readers also might appreciate the means by which Naomi met her needs. One can understand her motivation when her family moved from a place of famine to a land with food for her sickly children, Mahlon and Chilion.[11] The present-day observer shares her hope of children when the sons married girls from the country that had become their residence.[12] Naomi’s patriotism is admired when she returned to her homeland where food was plentiful again.[13] And her unselfish behavior might be applauded as she urged her daughters-in-law to return to their own people, where finding husbands, and thus children, would be much easier. Even later, readers might share Naomi’s matchmaking desires when she placed two wonderful people together by sending her daughter-in-law to meet Boaz after making her more visually appealing and timing the meeting to take advantage of his good mood. Based on “common values” Naomi seems to be an admirable mother-in-law.

Dramatic Irony: A Literary Device Requiring

A Second Level Of Knowledge

While much literature works at only one level of values, not infrequently a literary device called “dramatic irony” involves a second level of knowledge. In that case the main character operates on the first level of knowledge (“common values”) while readers possess a second level of knowledge that the main character does not. This introduces irony in that the main character, based on one level of understanding, pursues one direction, but that direction is clearly wrong or inadequate when seen with the more complete knowledge possessed by the reader.

Special Values (Revelation) As A Second Level Of Knowledge

To understand the Book of Ruth one must know specific information gathered elsewhere. For instance, while the average pagan reader would share in rejoicing at the birth of a child to sit on Naomi’s lap (4:16), that reader would have no idea of the true importance of that child. From that child descended David (vv. 17, 22), the greatest of Israel’s Old Testament kings and the one from whom came the promised Messiah.[14] Awareness of events recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel helps readers appreciate the author’s meaning.

The main value system that must be brought to the text, not only to Ruth but also to the entire Old Testament and the Gospels,[15] however, is the Mosaic Covenant.

An Illustration of Dramatic Irony From the Book of Judges

An illustration of dramatic irony is seen in Judges 17:1–4.[16]

Now there was a man of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Micah. He said to his mother, “The eleven hundred pieces of silver which were taken from you, about which you uttered a curse in my hearing, behold, the silver is with me; I took it.” And his mother said, “Blessed be my son by the Lord.” He then returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother, and his mother said, “I wholly dedicate the silver from my hand to the Lord for my son to make a graven image and a molten image; now therefore, I will return them to you.” So when he returned the silver to his mother, his mother took two hundred pieces of silver and gave them to the silversmith who made them into a graven image and a molten image, and they were in the house of Micah.

The mother’s character based on the first level of common values. Following her son’s repentance this mother truly desired to honor her God, even mentioning His name, Yahweh. So she dedicated the silver (or at least some of it) that she could have otherwise spent on herself. She unquestionably valued the repentance of her son more highly than the money. One can appreciate the mother’s well-intentioned heart as she sacrificed personal gain to express worship to the Lord.

The mother’s character based on a second level of values (the Mosaic Covenant). But the reader who is familiar with the Mosaic Covenant is shocked! The mother’s actions are not to be judged by the yardstick of common values seen in human reasoning but by specific revelation from God. The Ten Commandments clearly prohibited abominable practices. “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” (Exod. 20:4; cf. Deut. 5:8).

Without knowing the Mosaic Covenant the reader might perceive the wrong meaning. Ironically, just as the main character erred because of not understanding the Mosaic Covenant, some readers may make the same error (approve the mother’s actions) if they do not know the Mosaic Covenant.[17]

The Bible is a book of stories where these two levels of knowledge are constantly in play. Eve chose human reasoning (sight) above God’s revelation and brought death into the world. Abraham attempted to bring forth the promise of a great nation in many normal, natural ways, but ultimately he succeeded only when he listened to God’s paradoxical revelation that to be obedient he must sacrifice his son. People have continually been tested as to whether they will believe God’s revelation or trust in natural reasoning based on sight, and their abilities, possessions, power, or influence.

When dramatic irony is used in the Bible, a character operates at the base level of “common values.” But an astute reader correctly understands the character’s shortsightedness, for the reader knows that only those who follow God’s revelation in the Scriptures will ultimately prosper.

The Second Level Of Values: The Mosaic Covenant

To evaluate Israel’s history without knowing the Mosaic Covenant is to ignore the imperatives of the covenant itself. It warned against doing what is right in one’s own eyes (Deut. 12:8; cf. Judg. 17:6; 21:25) in contrast to God’s self-revelation. It told the Israelites to place His Word in their hearts and then to teach it to their children. It was to be the constant companion in their smallest daily activities (Deut. 6:5–9). It was to be written by the king at his coronation and followed continually during his reign (17:18–19). Israel was warned not to forget it and end up being cursed (28:15). Subsequent historical events, beginning with those recorded in the Book of Joshua, were to be evaluated by the yardstick of the Mosaic Covenant. For example Deuteronomy 7:11 states, “Therefore, you shall keep the commandment and the statutes and the judgments which I am commanding you today, to do them.”[18] To interpret post-Deuteronomy biblical narratives without an understanding of the Mosaic Covenant is to risk making the same error as some characters, that is, shaping their value system by common values instead of by the revelation of God.

People were created to be representatives of Yahweh to achieve His purposes,[19] not their own. They are to implement His revealed desires without regard to the outcome. He sovereignly provides the physical outcome as He graciously desires.[20]

The Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1–3) established Israel as God’s national mediator to the Gentile nations. Abraham and the nation Israel were to represent God and His gracious love to those who did not know Him. “And I will make you a great nation. .. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (vv. 2–3).

The Mosaic Law then revealed how they were to represent Yahweh (Exod. 19:5–6). Unlike pagans, they were not to represent God based on what they reasoned (human wisdom, common values), but they were to represent Him as He specifically revealed Himself in the Mosaic Covenant.

God’s (revealed) covenant love was known as חֶסֶד.21 It was a gracious, one-way love based on motivation from within His character, completely apart from another’s ability to repay. It was seen in His graciousness to the helpless.[22] Israel had been helpless. Though they were enslaved in Egypt, God had delivered them so they could testify of His mercy from their own experience. “He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love [וֹאב] for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:18–19). But Israel’s response was one of self-righteousness, and the Israelites did not mediate God’s mercy to the unrighteous Gentiles. Their disobedience caused Him to implement the curses listed in Deuteronomy 28. The curses, typically affecting the fruitfulness of the womb and of the land, were enacted so that Israel would return to Yahweh.

God said that Israel would fail (Deut. 30:1) and would need to return (שׁוּב)[23] to Him (v. 2). The word שׁוּב is normally translated “return” (as in “turn around”) or “repent” (as in “return to covenant relationship”). In Deuteronomy 30, following the listing of blessings or cursings for obedience or disobedience of the Lord, Moses stated that when Israel disobeyed, she would receive God’s mercy by returning (repenting) to Him (vv. 2–3, 8–10).

The Mosaic Covenant And Common Values In Ruth 1:1–6

Ruth 1:1–6 introduces Naomi’s difficult circumstances. Reviewing the initial events at the level of common values, Elimelech moved the family to Moab because of a famine and the sons married Moabites to provide offspring. All these are normal, natural, life-preserving activities. However, the Mosaic Covenant offers another level of understanding.

Yahweh’s Action: Famine in Israel (V. 1a)

In the Mosaic Covenant famine was related to either disobedience (Deut. 28) or testing (8:2–6).[24] The opening sentence in the Book of Ruth makes the reader suspect disobedience, since the mention of the days of the Judges brings images of disobedience and resultant curses. That this famine was due to God’s intentional action is seen in verse 6, which refers to Yahweh as the provider of food. Leviticus 26:18–20 states the relationship between famine and disobedience. “If. .. you do not obey Me, then I will punish you. .. for your sins. I will also break down your pride of power; I will also make your sky like iron and your earth like bronze. Your strength will be spent uselessly, for your land will not yield its produce and the trees of the land will not yield their fruit.” At the level of common values, an Israelite might consider moving to another more fruitful country, but knowing that the famine was controlled by Yahweh (Ruth 1:6) would necessitate a response based on the Mosaic Covenant. If disobedience was the cause of the famine, then a return to covenant loyalty was required (Deut. 30:1–2), but if a test was involved, then the Israelites were to trust in Yahweh to provide (8:1–20).

Elimelech’s Reaction: Departure From the Land (V. 1b)

While Elimelech’s move from the land of Israel would seem to be a normal response to famine (common values), the Mosaic Covenant indicated that his action was more serious.[25] While there were no warnings in the Mosaic Covenant about leaving the land, departure from the land was so unthinkable it was only mentioned as a judgment.[26] In willingly departing from the land Elimelech had unknowingly incurred a self-imposed curse.[27]

Yahweh’s Action: Death of Elimelech (V. 3)

As the giver of life (as seen in 4:13) and thus also the remover of life, God removed Elimelech. “You will perish among the nations, and your enemies’ land will consume you” (Lev. 26:38).

The Sons’ Action: Marriage to Moabites (V. 4)

In order to obtain children Naomi’s sons married Moabite women (common values). But the Mosaic Covenant was specific regarding marriage to non-Israelites, which was not only explicitly prohibited but was also considered so unthinkable that it, like the move to Moab, was a judgment of God.[28] “Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, while your eyes look on and yearn for them continually; but there will be nothing you can do” (Deut. 28:32).

Yahweh’s Action: Death Of The Sons

God, as the giver and remover of life (Ruth 4:13), removed the sons. “If then, you walk with hostility against Me and are unwilling to obey Me. .. I will bereave you of your children” (Lev. 26:21–22).

Naomi was now left with no sons and consequently no one to raise up children to her husband’s name. Barrenness was also listed among the curses. “Cursed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock” (Deut. 28:18).

Naomi’s Values Seen In Her Return To Israel (1:7–22)

Frequently a second character in a narrative provides contrast to the first character. Ruth provides a contrast to Naomi’s common reasoning and represents the second level of values, the heart of Yahweh in the Mosaic Covenant.

After covering ten years in only six verses (Ruth 1:1–6), the author elaborated on two relatively short events in sixteen verses (vv. 7–22). The first ten years are covered quickly in order to establish the setting and introduce the tensions of the need for food and children. But the story then slows down to examine only minutes on the journey. These moments reveal Naomi’s heart in detail.

Yahweh’s Action: The Return of Food in the Land of Israel (V. 6)

As Yahweh had removed the fruitfulness of the ground (v. 1), so He could restore food. He had stated, “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit” (Lev. 26:3–4).

Naomi’s Response: Return to the Land (Vv. 6–22)

In response to the provision of food in Israel Naomi returned to the land (vv. 6–7). To evaluate the motivation (the level of values) in her return, the author followed the record of that initial response with details of two conversations while Naomi was returning to Bethlehem (vv. 8–22).

Yahweh’s Reaction: Blessing on Naomi Based on Her Return

Naomi’s physical return to the land is the literary pivot of the book. Before her return Naomi experienced the curses God had promised. But from the point of her return onward (chaps. 2–4) Naomi received the physical blessings promised in the Mosaic Covenant, namely, food and children.

Naomi’s Return As The Pivot Of The Book

The Journey To Bethlehem (1:8–18)

The geographical setting of this journey is significant. As Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah debated their choices on this dusty road from Moab, the echo of Moses’ voice should have rung in their ears. A scant two hundred years before this and in this very place (Moab opposite Canaan across the Jordan River, Deut. 1:5, 29:1; see also 34:1–8) Moses had given the lectures recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy that called for Israel to return to Yahweh. Yet Naomi’s response ignored that voice from the covenant, while Ruth’s response conformed to them.

Naomi’s commands to her daughters-in-law to return to Moab are recorded in three stages, each revealing an additional depth of reasoning. Her first command (vv. 8–10) urged Ruth and Orpah to return to Moab, to their own mothers to find husbands from their own people[29] and then to bear children.[30] Both Ruth and Orpah replied that they would instead go with Naomi to Israel.

Naomi’s second order (vv. 11–14) explained the basis for her previous instruction that they reject Israel for Moab and marriage. Based on the levirate marriage law in Deuteronomy 25 and the fact that she had no more sons, Naomi concluded that Ruth and Orpah could not legally marry in Israel. Naomi knew childless widows in Israel were prevented from marriage outside the family. “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her” (Deut. 25:5).[31] In Naomi’s “common” reasoning the hope of a husband, and thus children, could be found only outside the restrictive laws of Israel’s God.

In response to Naomi’s second imperative Orpah moved toward her homeland while Ruth stayed with Naomi. The author recorded no explanation for their choices, the implication being that Orpah was persuaded by what Naomi said but Ruth was not.

In the third section (Ruth 1:15–18) Naomi’s reasoning continued. But now for the first time in the narrative the author revealed the reasoning of Ruth, in contrast to that of Naomi. Naomi added here that Ruth should join her sister-in-law, emphasizing that Orpah had made the right choice to go to the people and gods of her birth. Naomi’s motive was that Ruth should go to a place where physical prosperity seemed assured. This common human reasoning, which had guided Naomi for more than ten years, was now luring her back to Bethlehem for food. But Ruth rejected that motivation, being driven instead by her desire to be identified with Yahweh. The fact that Naomi was a poor widow presented an opportunity for Ruth to represent Yahweh’s love to the oppressed (Deut. 15:7–11).

But Ruth’s promise to care for Naomi was heightened as she took a vow, a Mosaic Covenant provision (23:21–23). Like Yahweh, who had taken a vow to insure His continual blessing to Israel (Gen. 22:16),[32] Ruth assured Naomi of her support of her for the rest of her life.[33] “Thus may the Lord do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me” (Ruth 1:17). Knowing that vows were unbreakable, Naomi then gave up the argument, for to force Ruth to violate her vow would bring the very curse on Ruth that Naomi had been seeking to avoid.

The literary contrast between the two characters in this section is intense as Ruth contested each of Naomi’s instructions. She would “walk” (הָלַךְ) with Naomi, whereas Naomi had urged Ruth to go (lit., “walk”) back to Moab (v. 8) and not to go (lit., “walk”) with her (v. 11). Ruth would lodge with Naomi instead of with Ruth’s own mother (v. 8), she would become an Israelite as opposed to going back to her people of Moab (v. 15), and she would worship Yahweh and not Chemosh as Orpah had agreed to do (v. 15). When Naomi insisted there was nothing but death if Ruth followed her, Ruth emphatically accepted it by voicing a desire to be buried with her.[34]

Ruth refused to go back to her own mother. Instead she “clung” to Naomi by a vow, refusing to “leave” her. While Naomi had urged her to marry a Moabite man (v. 9), Ruth vowed to stay with a hopeless widow. The literary connection of Ruth’s vow to Genesis 2:24 indicates the importance Ruth placed on continuing her relationship with her mother-in-law. The words for “cling” (דָּבַק, v. 14) and “leave” (עָזַב, 2:11) are the same words used in Genesis 2:24. “For this cause a man shall leave [עָזַב] his father and his mother, and be joined [דָּבַק, ‘cling’] to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” This marriage vow was to be an example of חֶסֶד, which God displayed to Israel (Hos. 2:19). Now the חֶסֶד that Ruth had displayed to Naomi earlier through her marriage to Mahlon (Ruth 1:8) would continue.

Ruth 1:6–22 and The Multiple Use of שׁובּ

In dramatic irony a character states or does things that heighten his or her misguided direction. In the Book of Ruth irony is intensified by the use of the word שׁוּב (“return”), which occurs twelve times in 1:6–22.[35] By contrast, it is found only three times in the rest of the book and then only with reference to the journey recorded in chapter 1. As previously noted, this word is used repeatedly in Deuteronomy 30:1–10 to call Israel to return to Yahweh. Yet by contrast Naomi used the word to insist that Ruth return to Moab and other gods. Ruth, agreeing with the Mosaic Covenant, argued that she would return with Naomi to Judah and Yahweh.

The use of שׁוּב (“return”) in introducing the journey (Ruth 1:6–7). This word is used twice to establish the story’s pivotal event: the return from Moab and to Judah and life. “Then she arose with her daughters-in-law that she might return [וַתָּשָׁב] from the land of Moab” (v. 6). “So she departed. .. and they went on the way to return [לָשׁוּב] to the land of Judah” (v. 7).

References to שׁוּב during the journey to Bethlehem (vv. 8–18). The repeated use of the word שׁוּב becomes apparent as Naomi urged Orpah and Ruth to return to Moab and pagan husbands instead of to Israel and Yahweh, and both Ruth and Orpah responded using the same word.

Naomi said, “ ‘Go, return [וֹשּׁבְנָה] each of you to her mother’s house” (v. 8). Orpah and Ruth said to her, ‘We will surely return [נָשׁוּב] with you to your people” (v. 10). “Naomi said, ‘Return [וֹשׁבְנָה], my daughters. Why should you go with me? Have I yet sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?’ ” (v. 11). Naomi then said, “Return [וֹשׁבְנָה], my daughters! Go, for I am too old to have a husband. If I said I have hope, if I should even have a husband tonight and also bear sons” (v. 12).

In her final imperative, following increasing levels of intensity, Naomi (in a double use of “return”) argued with Ruth to “return” to Moab and to her only hope of physical prosperity. In direct contradiction to God’s instructions Naomi, incredibly, urged them to return to a foreign god. “Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back [שָׁבָה, ‘returned’] to her people and her gods; return [שׂוּבִי] after your sister-in-law” (v. 15).

Ruth’s adamant response contrasts with Naomi’s statement with equal intensity. Ruth desired to return to the God she had come to love. “But Ruth said, ‘Do not urge me to leave you or turn back [לָשׁוּב, ‘return’] from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried” (vv. 16–17).

Naomi's Heart Revealed in Bethlehem (Vv. 19–21)

While earlier in the chapter Naomi had indicated that she perceived herself under the curse of Yahweh (v. 13b), at the end of the journey Naomi placed the blame for her circumstances squarely on שַׁדַּי (Shaddai).[36] She had returned, not with a heart for Yahweh, but in bitterness toward Him.[37] “She said to them, ‘Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty [שַׁדַּי] has dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, but the Lord has brought me back [הַשִׁיבַנִי, lit., ‘returned me’] empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the Lord has witnessed against me and the Almighty [שַׁדַּי] has afflicted me?” (vv. 20–21).

Naomi claimed to have left Israel “full” (with a husband and two sons) and now had returned “empty” (poor, widowed, and childless). The only thing she brought back was a person who was not only as needy as she was (a poor widow), but also an alien. Yet in light of the Mosaic Covenant she had left “empty” (hungry and with two sickly sons), and now she returned to a land of food with a daughter-in-law whose perception and love of Yahweh stood out against her own misunderstanding. Her only positive mention of Yahweh had been her request that He bless her daughters-in-law in their return to Moab and to Chemosh (vv. 8–9). In fact her motivation for returning them to Moab was that the Lord had cursed her unjustly and she hoped they could escape her curse. “No, my daughters. .. for the hand of the Lord has gone forth against me” (v. 13).[38] “So Naomi returned [וַתָּשָׁב], and with her Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, who returned [הַשָּׁבָה] from the land of Moab” (v. 22).

In this summary verse the narrator, utilizing שׁוּב in conjunction with each woman, noted Naomi’s physical return, but then surprisingly added that Ruth also “returned.” Saying that Ruth “returned” is unexpected, since she was not an Israelite and it would not be normal to say she “returned” to a place that was not her original home. However, the use of the term in light of the second level of knowledge (cf. Deut. 30:1–3) is apparent. Ruth was going to the land that belonged to her God, Yahweh of Israel. While Naomi believed that the value of the “return” was to be found in physical prosperity, Ruth realized that her “return” gave her the privilege of a relationship to the God whom she had come to love.

The Seriousness Of Naomi’s Failure

To emphasize the seriousness of what Naomi did it is necessary to see Naomi’s statement in Ruth 1:15 (common values) next to its counterpart in Deuteronomy 13:6–10 (the second level of knowledge).

Naomi’s statement is revealing. “Then she said, ‘Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back [שָׁבָה, ‘returned’] to her people and her gods; return [שׁוּבִי] after your sister-in-law.’ ”

This contrasts with Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 13:6–10.

If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods” (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the Lord your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

Yahweh opposed any move away from Him. “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God” (5:9). Yet for the sake of physical benefit, Naomi had attempted to send Ruth back to Moab and another god. To influence anyone to follow other gods was a deed so severe it was punishable by death.[39]

Dramatic Irony In Sending Ruth To The Threshing Floor (Ruth 3:1–4)

The first tension (the lack of food) had begun to be removed by Ruth’s gleaning in the field of Boaz. Naomi then sought to remove the second tension (the lack of children). Though Naomi as a poor widow had enjoyed the Mosaic Covenant’s provision of food (by gleaning, Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22), she again attempted to solve the problem of children through common values instead of by those found in the Mosaic Covenant. “Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, ‘My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maids you were? Behold, he winnows barley at the threshing floor tonight. Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes, and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do’ ” (Ruth 3:1–4).

Had Naomi been acting according to God’s desires as reflected in the Mosaic Covenant, she should have acted in the following manner.

First, Naomi should have referred here to Boaz as a legal גֹּל (“next of kin” or “redeemer”),[40] the legal term for one who was to redeem lost possessions or rectify other legal problems. Naomi used וֹמדַעְתָּנוּ (“kindred”),[41] a nonlegal term similar to “friend” or “kin,” not a legal word. By contrast, Ruth used the term גֹּל when she confronted Boaz on the threshing floor.

Second, Naomi should have sent Ruth to the city gate during the day where business and legal issues were transacted in public.[42] By contrast Boaz did transact the levirate marriage there (4:1–2) during the day (cf. 3:13) before the city elders. Legal proceedings were not to be transacted by a well-relaxed man and an appealing woman alone on a threshing floor in the darkness of night.

Third, Naomi should not have insisted that Ruth change from her mourning clothes[43] before approaching Boaz, because they identified her legal position as a widow.[44] In the legal transaction it was necessary for her to be known as a widow (Deut. 25:5), which previously gave her the right to the gleanings in the fields (24:19). However, when Noami told Ruth to “put on her best clothes,” Naomi was presenting Boaz with Ruth’s physical appeal, not his legal obligation.[45] Ruth had been in mourning clothes to establish her legal right to a widow’s benefits under the Mosaic Covenant. Naomi saw those declarations as hindering her physical appeal. The first words Ruth spoke to Boaz, however, affirmed her covenant rights as a widow even apart from her widow’s garments.

Fourth, Naomi should have proposed the legal obligation when Boaz was not under the influence of food and drink.[46] By contrast, Ruth did present the legal case to Boaz. She unhesitatingly stated his covenant obligation by saying, “You are a גֹּל!” She had prefaced her covenant statement by requesting that he spread his wing (כָּנָ) over her. This was an intentional reminder of the statement he had made previously in the field (2:12), when he had voiced the hope that she would find blessing under Yahweh’s wings (כְּנָפָיו), an image also in Psalm 91:4. Ruth was pointing out to Boaz that he had been given the opportunity to express חֶסֶד by granting this hope on behalf of the Lord.[47]

Boaz responded in accord with the Mosaic Covenant, promising Ruth that she would be taken care of legally either by him or by the nearer legal גֹּל. In contrast to Naomi, Boaz pursued the matter during the day and at the city gate. It was only through God’s gracious covenant provision that Ruth would have a husband and a son and Naomi would have a descendant.

Summary

The Book of Ruth utilizes the literary device called dramatic irony. The main character, Naomi, sought to fulfill natural needs through natural means. A contrasting character, Ruth, operated by a second level of values found in the Mosaic Covenant. To care for a poor widow in a foreign land without any hope of personal benefit seemed impossible to Naomi. Yet Ruth wanted to emulate the Lord’s mercy to the hopeless.

By continuing to know and embrace God’s revelation, individuals are able to move beyond their human perceptions and turn to God’s gracious provision for the hopeless. This revelation is seen in its fullest in the arrival of His Son Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word. The lesson to New Testament believers is that hope is only in Him, who fulfilled the Law and will completely fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant. To rely on natural motives or to give any credence to the gods of other religions instead of trusting in the revelation of the sovereign God and His Son Jesus Christ is to imitate the serious error of Naomi.

Notes

1. Dorothy Ward Harvey, “Ruth, Book of,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 4:133.
2. Frederick W. Bush notes “the moral ambiguity and even downright contradiction that mark” most Old Testament characters, and he asserts that the main characters in Ruth are exemplary (Ruth, Esther, Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas: Word, 1996], 46). “Clearly, then. .. the narrator presents them as exemplary characters, quite in contrast to the vast bulk of the rest of OT narrative, which dramatically depicts the moral ambiguity and even downright contradiction that mark the character of the human agents through whom God works.. .. That is, the narrator presents the major characters of his story as models for his readers to emulate” (ibid.).
3. Orpah and the nearer kinsman provide negative contrasts, but they play minor roles. As to the place minor characters play in biblical narratives see Uriel Simon, “Minor Characters in Biblical Narrative,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 (February 1990): 11-19.
4. For instance in the Book of Esther Haman stands in negative contrast to the positive Esther and Mordecai. In 1 Samuel disobedient Saul is the negative contrast to obedient David. In Genesis 13–19 Lot contrasts negatively to the hero Abraham.
5. “Everything in the Book of Ruth revolves around the character of Naomi, even though she is neither the heroine, nor the character in whom the audience is most interested.. .. Naomi’s character accomplishes much more than this on a more subtle level as the author weaves together a garment of plenty and wraps it around the one who complains most bitterly about being empty” (Reg Grant, “The Validity of Pregeneric Plot Structure in Ruth as a Key to Interpretation” [Th.D. diss., Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1988], 183–85).
6. Bush, Ruth, Esther, 42.
7. For example Warren Wiersbe, Put Your Life Together: Studies in the Book of Ruth (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985).
8. This is true of Samuel, Elijah, John the Baptist, and of course Jesus.
9. However, the author did insert comments into the text so that the reader has certain specific truths by which to evaluate the story. For instance he made sure the reader knows that only Yahweh is the giver of food (Ruth 1:6) and life (4:13) and thus by implication He is also the withholder of food and life.
10. “Mosaic Covenant” in this article refers to the relationship between Yahweh and Israel as expressed in Exodus through Deuteronomy.
11. The names of the children reflect their health. Mahlon is related to חַלִי or חָלָה (“sickness” and “be sick”) and Chilion is related to כִּלְין (“pining”) in the curses of Deuteronomy 28. “Also every sickness [כָּל־חַלִי] and every plague which, not written in the book of this law, the Lord will bring on you until you are destroyed” (v. 61). “Among those nations you shall find no rest, and there will be no resting place for the sole of your foot; but there the Lord will give you a trembling heart, failing [lit., ‘pining,’ כִּלְין] of eyes, and despair of soul” (v. 65).
12. Naomi’s stay in Moab was not simply a visit. Moab became her established residence for a large portion of her life. They “went to sojourn in the land of Moab” (1:1), “they entered the land of Moab and remained there” (v. 2), “and they lived there about ten years” (v. 4). The word for sojourn (גּוּר) implies dwelling as a stranger or newcomer (Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [1907; reprint, Oxford: Clarendon, 1980], 157).
13. Before Ruth 1:8 Naomi’s character is flat or one-dimensional; she was present but nothing is known about her or her feelings. After 1:8 Naomi’s heart is clearly revealed. For an explanation of how narrators use character development see Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994).
14. Second Samuel 7:16 establishes the point that David’s descendants will reign on the throne of Israel forever.
15. In the New Testament Jesus expected the Pharisees to know the Mosaic Law and to measure Him and themselves by it. “I did not come to abolish [the Law] but to fulfill it.. .. Not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:17–18). His criticism of the Pharisees was also appropriately based on the Law, as He stated, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures” (22:29; Mark 12:24).
16. The so-called “Bethlehem trilogy” attaches the Book of Ruth with the last two stories of Judges (Eugene H. Merrill, “The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 [April-June 1985]: 131-32). This illustration is from the first of the trilogy and shows that in Judges everyone was ignoring the Mosaic Covenant by doing “what was right in their own eyes.” The Ruth narrative occurred during these same days and thus fits historically into that age of apostasy (Ruth 1:1).
17. Just as in a dramatic presentation the only way the observer recognizes the irony is by seeing both perspectives.
18. The instruction to keep God’s commands (i.e., obey) occurs many times in Deuteronomy (e.g., 4:2; 6:6; 7:11; 8:1, 11; 10:13; 11:8, 13, 22, 27–28; 13:18; 15:5; 24:18, 22; 27:4).
19. Genesis 1:26, 28 states that humans are to rule over creation on behalf of their Creator (see also Ps. 8). Deuteronomy 14:1 refers to Israel as “sons” (representatives) of Yahweh.
20. Physical benefits are not a direct reward of obedience. The reward for obedience is the privilege of being a representative of God’s desires on earth, whether in prosperity or suffering.
21. The word חֶסֶד is used only three times in Deuteronomy, and each time it refers to gracious behavior as shown in the Mosaic Covenant. The more general words for love, from the root אהב, also may indicate God’s gracious love as determined by the context.
22. The exhortation to show love for widows and orphans occurs no less than eleven times in the Book of Deuteronomy. James 1:27 repeats this tenet as a reflection of true religion (or a true representation of God’s heart).
23. For further discussion of the use of this word and its impact in both the Old and New Testaments see Charles P. Baylis, “Repentance in the Book of Acts in the Light of Deuteronomy 30:1–6, ” Michigan Theological Journal 1 (spring 1990): 19-35.
24. Several times in the Scriptures a person was tested (or disciplined) but not because of disobedience. Job is an Old Testament example, as is Hannah (1 Sam. 1). Hebrews 12:5–11 states that believing but oppressed Jews were being disciplined not because of disobedience but to train them as God’s “sons.”
25. Jack Sasson states that the narrative “speaks of the other world, Moab, where Judeans ought to have no business.. .. Moab, where the god Chemosh reigns, may not be experiencing famine when a Judean family seeks shelter there, but its fields will eventually kill a father and his sons and render their wives sterile” (“Ruth,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode [Cambridge: Belknap, 1987], 322).
26. The exceptions to exile due to judgment are in the area of testing (Deut. 8:1–6). Joseph was taken by force to Egypt, where his obedience was tested (Gen. 37:23–36). When Jacob took his family to Egypt to escape famine, he did so only after God specifically instructed him to find famine relief through Joseph.
27. There is a literary connection between Elimelech’s departure and Abraham’s departure in Genesis 12:10. Elimelech’s family departed from the land because of famine, and Abraham too departed from the land of promise because of famine (cf. Gen. 12:10 and 26:1 with Ruth 1:1–2, where the phrase וַיְהִי רָעָב בָּאָרֶ occurs only in these verses in the Old Testament). Also, as in the Book of Ruth, Abraham’s struggle to have seed through natural reasoning instead of revelation is prominent in Genesis 12–22.
28. Marriage to people who worshiped other gods was explicitly prohibited in the Mosaic Covenant (Deut. 7:3–4). While some argue that Moab is not among the nations listed in verse 1, the intent of the passage includes Moab, since they were a people who worshiped a false god. This is validated in 1 Kings 11:2 by the reference to Deuteronomy 7:3–4 in the narrator’s comment on Solomon’s marriage to a Moabite (1 Kings 11:1, 7). Nehemiah 13:23, 26–27 also confirms this interpretation.
29. It is also noteworthy that Naomi used strong covenant language in seeking to send her daughters off to Moab. She asked God to provide His חֶסֶד, “covenant love,” to them in pagan Moab and with pagan husbands.
30. Naomi’s action echoes Judah’s error in Genesis 38 where, based on common values, he wrongly sent his widowed daughter-in-law Tamar back to her father’s house because he was unwilling to provide his last son as a husband for Tamar. Tamar was not to marry anyone beside Shelah (brother of the deceased husband), and Judah was to give him to her. When Judah sought to execute her, he thought she had become pregnant by someone outside the family.
31. The term גֹּל is not used in conjunction with the levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5; it is used only in regard to the restoration of land. Naomi seems to have used the term only with respect to the land in Ruth 2:20; yet Ruth, recognizing that the concept of גֹּל pervaded the covenant, rightly associated it with the levirate marriage, as did Boaz. Donald A. Leggett explores the concept of redemption in relationship to the גֹּל, especially in regard to Yahweh as the great גֹּל (The Levirate and goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth [Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack, 1974]).
32. Edward F. Campbell Jr. notes the connection of the inviolability of this vow to the Abraham stories, particularly the cutting of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15:8–21. Referring to that passage, he notes, “The slaughtered and split animals represent what the oath-taker invites God to do to him if he fails to keep the oath” (Ruth, Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975], 74).
33. A response of Naomi in 1:18 is noticeably absent following Ruth’s vow, especially when contrasted with Naomi’s earlier persistent urging that Ruth return to Moab. Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn notice the literary import of this change as one of the unexpected “silences” in the Book of Ruth (“A Son Is Born to Naomi!” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40 [February 1988]: 100). As Sasson explains, “Because of the oath, Naomi has no choice but to accept Ruth’s decision” (“Ruth,” 323). C. F. Keil and F. Delitzch concur. “The words. .. with an oath. .. by which the person swearing called down upon himself a severe punishment in case he should not keep his word or carry out his resolution.. .. [signify] I swear that death, and nothing else than death, shall separate us” (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, trans. James Martin, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950], 75).
34. Barker identifies this beautiful literary contrast in Naomi’s complaint by noting that there would be “no brightness, no life, in her life; and Ruth answers that she is content to die, so that she may share Naomi’s grave” (Problems in the Book of Ruth, 41 [italics his]).
35. Many commentators recognize the frequency of this word but do not comment on its significance (e.g., Murray D. Gow, The Book of Ruth: Its Structure, Theme, and Purpose [Leicester, UK: Apollos, 1992], 31).
36. Of forty-eight uses of שַׁדַּי in the Old Testament, thirty-one are in the Book of Job. Job often used this name to point out the all-powerful nature of God in contrast to his own helpless state. Naomi used it here in the same sense. She felt that this all-powerful God had cursed a poor, helpless widow without a cause. Of course this all-powerful God is deeply concerned for widows and orphans (Deut. 10:18).
37. This is an interesting contrast to the promise of “return” in Deuteronomy 30:1–6, where God said Israel would be exiled because of disobedience but would return and enjoy wholehearted devotion to the Lord. They would go out empty and return to restored fullness. Now Naomi was returning to a land of food with a daughter-in-law whose perspective of the Lord exceeded her own. “Naomi was not full when she went away. She certainly still had her husband and children, but her stomach was empty because there was a famine.. .. She no longer sees that she was not full when she went away, far less that she is not empty now that she is returning. Certainly her husband and children have died, but Ruth has come with her” (Ellen Van Wolde, Ruth and Naomi [London: SCM, 1997], 13).
38. Gideon used similar language. He blamed God because of the oppression by the Midianites, not recognizing that the curse was the result of Israel’s sin (Judg. 6:13).
39. Bush offers a different opinion. “Her [Orpah’s] decision is the sound and reasonable one; she opts for her community and her faith: she ‘returned to her people and her god’ (v 15a).. .. The story implies no negative judgment on Orpah’s action” (Ruth, Esther, 86). Bush is an example of those who view Naomi as a positive character, despite the words in Deuteronomy 13:6–11.
40. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 145. While the term גֹּל is not used with respect to the levirate marriage in the Pentateuch, the relationship is established legally as the one who returns what was lost by purchasing the field or continuing the deceased brother’s line (Deut. 25:5–6). See Leggett, The Levirate and goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth.
41. Brown, Driver and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 396.
42. “If Naomi had really intended to ask Boaz to serve as redeemer, it would hardly be proper to do so by surprising him in the middle of the night” (Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Literature, 90).
43. The clause “Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes” (Ruth 3:3) is similar to David’s situation when he “washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes” after he ceased mourning publicly for his dying child (2 Sam. 12:20). Also when Joab wanted the woman of Tekoa to appear like a long-term mourner, he said, “Please pretend to be a mourner, and put on mourning garments now, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be like a woman who has been mourning for the dead many days” (14:2).
44. There is biblical precedent for wearing widow’s clothes until a woman was taken care of under the levirate marriage. Among the parallels is the Judah and Tamar story in which Tamar wore her widow’s clothes for several years, since Shelah had grown up during her widowhood and she was still wearing them (Gen. 38:14, 19).
45. Physical or emotional attraction was not a necessary part of the levirate marriage. It was a covenant obligation for the sole purpose of bringing up children to honor the deceased brother. In fact the sister-in-law could have been physically and personally unappealing. Campbell points out that Ruth was likely in her late twenties, while Naomi was likely in her mid-forties, as was Boaz, who was of the same generation as Naomi (Ruth, 67).
46. Finding a mate while the man was feeling well from food and drink has historical precedents in the Book of Genesis. Laban had tricked Jacob into a marriage with Leah in the middle of the night after he had participated in feasting (Gen. 29:22–25). Lot’s daughters had tricked Lot into providing seed incestuously after a night of drinking (19:30–38).
47. For a similar comment see D. F. Rauber, “The Book of Ruth,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis, James S. Ackerman, and Thayer S. Warshaw (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974), 171.

Jew Gets Mad After Christian Says This One Word…

The Meaning of Walking “in the Darkness” (1 John 1:6)

By Charles P. Baylis

[Adjunct Professor of Bible, LeTourneau University, Longview, Texas and Tampa Bay Theological Seminary, Holiday, Florida]

In 1 John 1:6 the Apostle John wrote that an individual does not have fellowship with God if he is walking “in the darkness.” “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” Walking in the darkness is generally understood to refer to a person who is currently sinning. As Bruce states, “light is a synonym of goodness and truth, while ‘darkness’ is a synonym of evil and falsehood.”[1] Dodd also voices this majority interpretation when he states,

Light is for him primarily the symbol of sheer goodness; darkness, of moral evil. If then God is altogether good, without any trace of evil, it follows that we cannot have fellowship with Him without being good in our degree…. To be within the light, then-that is to say, to be in union with God—means to lead a good life, since God is good. This is the true basis of fellowship in the Church. It is a society of people who, believing in a God of pure goodness, accept the obligation to be good like Him.[2]

This view of walking in the darkness is so prevalent that while both sides of the current lordship salvation debate disagree on much, they concur on this definition. They hold that a person who is walking in the darkness is involved in some individual[3] sin.

Those who oppose lordship salvation and who emphasize grace,[4] teach that the sin of a believer causes a temporary disruption in his or her relationship with God.[5]

John knew, as does every perceptive pastor, that Christians sometimes feign spirituality while engaging in acts of disobedience…. A Christian who says he is in fellowship with God (who “is Light”) but is disobeying Him (walking “in the darkness”) is lying. Ten times John used darkness to refer to sin (John 1:5; 3:19; 12:35 [twice]; 1 John 1:5–6; 2:8–9, 11 [twice]).[6]

Lordship salvation[7] advocates agree that walking “in the darkness” means the occurrence of “continual sin,” but they differ by concluding that the person was never saved.[8]

The apostle John also wrote an entire epistle about the marks of a true believer…. He gave them…a moral test…. The moral test requires obedience: “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1 John 1:6)…. The one who is truly saved cannot continue in a pattern of unbroken sin.[9]

Thus the prevailing view is that walking “in the darkness” indicates that an individual is committing acts of sin. This article proposes the view that in John’s writings walking “in the darkness” never means performing acts of sin. Instead it means abiding in death by rejecting God’s message of eternal life through Christ.

After reviewing obvious problems with identifying “darkness” as sin, the article presents a definition of “light” and “darkness” from the Gospel of John. Then a study of the context of 1 John 1:6 also indentifies John’s meaning of “darkness.” A survey of the remainder of 1 John provides validation for this view.

“Darkness” as Sin: Problem Passages

Several problems exist when “darkness” is defined as sin and “light” is defined as righteousness.

“Darkness”: A Problem Passage [10] 

In John’s Gospel “darkness” is used five times in a figurative sense[11] (1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35; 12:46). None of these passages defines “darkness.”[12] While “sin” may seem to be a synonym for darkness in most passages, in at least one of them “sin” is a questionable replacement: “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil [πονηρά]” (3:19).

If “sin” is substituted for “darkness,” then the argument seems redundant: “men loved sin…for their deeds were evil.” Paraphrased, this would read, “Men loved sin because they sinned.”[13]

“Light”: Problem Passages

“Darkness” is the absence of “light.” Those who define “darkness” as sin also define “light” as righteousness or goodness. However, “light” in the Gospel of John is never defined as righteousness or goodness. Instead “light” is defined as life. “In Him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4).[14] This is not physical life, but life with the Father, for the believer is “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (1:13). This life is eternal (3:16). “And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (17:3). Obviously “light” does not mean righteousness or goodness.

The “World”: The First Creation

In John’s writings the term “world” is synonymous with the first creation.[15] It (i.e., the material creation and mankind) was “made by Him” (John 1:3, 10), yet because mankind rejected God, “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19) and is “passing away” (1 John 2:17). Satan is the prince of this world (John 12:31; 16:11; 1 John 5:19).

“The New Life”: The Second Creation

The only hope for the dying world was a new creation (John 1:4, 9–11; 3:3), a life not like the dying physical life, but a life generated by God (1:13; 1 John 5:1). Jesus brought this new life into the world.[16] It was with the Father (John 1:1; 5:26; 1 John 1:2), is in Jesus (John 1:4), and is imparted to those who receive Him (1:12–13). Believers then are considered to be a part of the new, nonphysical creation (1:12–13; 3:3–8), no longer of this world (1:10–12; 17:9, 14). They possess “eternal” life (3:16).

The world[17] rejected Jesus (1:11), the supplier of new life. The Pharisees believed their self-righteousness made them sinless (John 9:41; 15:22, 24).[18] In the Law they claimed to have found life (5:39). However, the Law contained life only in its anticipation of the new life in the Messiah (Deut 18:15; 30:6; John 5:39, 46). Jesus’ revelation of eternal life through Himself contradicted the Pharisees’ theology of sinlessness (John 15:22, 24),[19] so they rejected His revelation.

Light in the First Creation and the New Creation

The original creation was the setting for the second creation. John began his Gospel with the words “In the beginning” (1:1) and discussed Jesus’ part in the original creation. Then in verse 4 John pointed out that just as in Genesis literal light came into the dark chaos, so in the second creation the revelation of new life came into the dark sinful world (John 1:1–13). This “life,” which Jesus brought from the Father (5:26; 1 John 1:2) to give to men (John 1:12–13), is the light. “The life was the light of men” (1:4). Thus the “light” is the very life of God, brought from the Father into a dying world.

In John 17:2b–3 life (light) is defined further: “to all whom Thou has given Him, He may give eternal life. And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” It is impossible to know God without having the very life (light) of God.[20] Since Jesus is the revelation of the Father (John 14:6–9), without Jesus and His word there is no possibility of knowing God.[21]

As life (light) reveals the Father to man, so the absence of light, or darkness, indicates the state (death) wherein man does not know God. This was the scene before the original creation (no light) and this was the state of the world before Jesus entered it (no life). People in the world remain in darkness (death) because of rejecting Him. Therefore those who “love darkness rather than light” are those who reject the revelation of eternal life through Jesus Christ.

The Relationship of “Sin” to Light (Eternal Life)

As stated earlier, the Pharisees claimed they had “no sin” (John 9:39–41) and that they had life without Jesus (5:39). But Jesus revealed to them just the opposite-they were sinners and they had no spiritual life.

Their problem was one of revelation. Jesus revealed God’s plan of eternal life and the removal of sin. Those who accept that revelation agree with God concerning their sin. Those who reject that revelation are thereby claiming self-righteousness. It is not a question of whether one is good,[22] but whether one will accept God’s revelation and His offer of eternal life. This is precisely the thought related in John 3:19–21: “And this is the judgment, that the light [the revelation of eternal life through Jesus Christ] is come into the world, and men loved the darkness [the death of the old creation, void of the new life revealed in Christ] because their deeds were evil.”

Many whose deeds are exposed by the revelation (light), reject the light, preferring to live as they did before that revelation. “Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind. Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, ‘We are not blind too, are we?’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, “We see,” your sin remains’“ (9:39–41). Blindness (darkness) is not sin; it is the absence of God’s revelation. Jesus had healed the blind man, enabling him to see the light. The Pharisees claimed they could see apart from Jesus, and so their sin remained. Jesus explained, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse [πρόφασιν, “cloak”] for their sin” (15:22). Those who reject God’s revelation of light (new life), “walk in darkness.”

In summary light is eternal life (1:4) by which man knows God. This life is the very life of God provided through Jesus Christ to the believer (John 5:25–26). He who “walks in the light,” then, is one who receives the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Darkness is the absence of the light, the absence of eternal life. Darkness, in other words, refers to spiritual death. Since eternal life is knowing God, not having eternal life is not knowing God; it is walking “in the darkness.” One who walks in the darkness rejects the revelation through Jesus Christ, since life (light) is provided only through Him and His words.

The Use of Light and Darkness in 1 John 1:5-6

It is imperative that walking in the darkness also be defined from the context of 1 John 1:6.

“God is Light”: The Literary Structure of 1:1-5

The meaning of the words “walk in the darkness” (1 John 1:6) depends on the occurrence of “darkness” in verse 5. In turn the meaning of “darkness” hinges on the meaning of “God is light,” also in verse 5: “And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1 John 1:5–6).

John wrote that “the message” is that “God is light.” This is the third of three parallel statements about the message. The first two (nonfigurative) statements help identify the meaning of the third (figurative) statement.

	Direct Object	Subject and Verb	Indirect Obj
{1 John 1}
1:1–2	“What we have heard…	we…proclaim (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)	to you….”
1:3	“what we have heard	we proclaim (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)	to you….”
1:5	“the message (ἀγγελία) we have heard…	we…announce (ἀναγγέλλομεν)[23]	to you….”

Since these three statements are almost identical, the “message…we have heard” (v. 5) is the same as “what we have heard” (vv. 1–2 and v. 3). What did John say they had heard? In 1:2 he wrote that they had heard about “the Word of life,” and “the eternal life, which was with the Father.”

Therefore the message “God is light” (v. 5) is that God is “life,” as revealed through the Word of Life,[24] Jesus Christ (v. 1). This is similar to John 1:4, which identifies light as life. Since the concept of God being light means that He is life, “darkness,” by contrast, means death.

Walking in Light or in Darkness: The Literary Structure of 1 John 1:6-2:1

Having determined from 1:1–5 that “darkness” means “death” due to rejecting the revelation of Christ, it is important now to consider the phrase “walk in the darkness” (1:6) and its following context. Many have noticed the parallel structure in 1 John 1:6–2:1, characterized by alternating negative and positive “if” statements.

Having identified “light” as eternal life, John then wrote of whether it is possible to know God apart from that revelation. Verses 6, 8, and 10 refer to those who claim to have no sin, which is a denial of the revelation of God.[25] The negative parallels (1:6, 8, 10) are as follows:

	Condition	Conclusion
1:6	“If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in darkness,	we lie and do not practice the truth.”
1:8	“If we say that we have no sin,	we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
1:10	“If we say that we have not sinned,	we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.”[26]

The conclusions—”do not practice the truth,” “the truth is not in us,” “we make Him a liar and His word is not in us”—all refer to rejection of God’s revelation, that is, His “truth” (and His “word”).

By contrast 1 John 1:7, 9, and 2:1 mention those who believe the revelation of eternal life, those who accept the fact that their sin can be dealt with only by God’s Son, Jesus Christ. These positive verses (1:7, 9; 2:1) are as follows:

	Condition	Conclusion
1:7	“If we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light,	we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son, cleanses us from all sin.”
1:9	“If we confess our sins,	He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
2:1	“If anyone sins,	we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.”

These statements speak of those who have their sin removed in God’s revealed way, namely, through Jesus Christ.

The parallels are clear. God has revealed that the world is dying. Man must accept God’s revelation of eternal life, which includes the means of removing that sin.[27] The group in 1:6, 8, 10 rejects God’s revelation of eternal life and claims to have no sin (self-righteousness). Those depicted in 1:7, 9, and 2:1 agree that they have sin, but they acknowledge that sin can be removed only by Jesus Christ.

The apostle’s message, as recorded in 1 John 1:5, was that God is light, or that He is eternal life. Those who do not receive eternal life through Jesus Christ reject that revelation from God (light). They walk “in the darkness”; they do not believe His word.

Validations in 1 John

Throughout 1 John the apostle reaffirmed that the “message” (ἀγγελία, 1:5) is “eternal life” (light) in Christ. He also repeated his definition of “darkness,” relating it to death and the lack of eternal life.

John’s words in 2:25 are redolent of his emphasis on the “message” he “proclaimed,” as stated in 1:1–5 : “This is the promise (ἐπαγγελία) which He Himself promised (ἐπηγγείλατο) us: eternal life.” Again it is clear that John’s message was “eternal life.”

In 1 John 1:2, John wrote that he and his readers had witnessed “eternal life”: “the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness [μαρτυροῦμεν] and proclaim to you the eternal life.” Then in 4:14 he related this to Jesus Christ: “And we have beheld and bear witness [μαρτυροῦμεν] that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.”

In 1 John 5:7, 11–12, the apostle also wrote of the witness of the Holy Spirit. “And it is the Spirit who bears witness [μαρτυροῦν]…. And the witness [μαρτυρία] is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.”

In 1 John 2:9, 11, walking “in the darkness” describes hating one’s brother: “The one who hates his brother…walks in the darkness.” In 3:14–15 John substituted “death” and lack of “eternal life” for walking “in the darkness.” “He who does not love [his brother] abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”

Therefore walking in darkness means abiding “in death” and not having eternal life abiding in one. The one who walks “in the darkness” is one who has rejected the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, eternal life (the light).

In summary walking “in the light” means receiving God’s revelation of Himself through His Son, and receiving eternal life and forgiveness of sins. Walking “in the darkness,” on the other hand, is walking in death, rejecting that revelation. “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).

Notes

1. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Basingstoke: Pickering & Inglis, 1983), 34.
2. C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946), 19–20.
3. The adjective “individual” is added to differentiate between the general sin nature or sins in general (most commentators acknowledge the existence of the sin nature and some degree of general sin in the believer) and the presence of a continuing, unconfessed sin. Individual sins are those committed by a supposed believer.
4. “Grace” is used here to designate those who believe that salvation is purely by the grace of God, that is, one must only “believe.” There is no commitment to righteous living required for salvation, nor are visible works necessary indicators of salvation.
5. Fellowship is restored by confession (1 John 1:9). Thus walking in the darkness is a sanctification issue.
6. Zane Hodges, “1 John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, 2 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1978), 2:885. The passages stated use the term “darkness” but do not define it.
7. Lordship salvation adherents maintain that commitment to Jesus as Lord (Master) is a requirement of salvation. The most prominent advocate of this view is John MacArthur (The Gospel according to Jesus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988]). He holds that a believer can be identified by his good works and that lack of these good works marks a person as an unbeliever.
8. Thus walking in the darkness is a soteriological issue.
9. MacArthur, The Gospel according to Jesus, 219.
10. All uses of “darkness” in John are σκοτία except for John 3:19, which has σκότος.
11. Σκοτία is used literally in John 6:17 and 20:1.
12. John 8:12, however, does define “light.”
13. Most authors here do not state it quite that simply. Quite often they define “darkness” in this verse, not as sin, but as the place where righteousness does not exist. However, for all practical purposes, that place is “sin.”
14. John 8:12 makes a similar identification of light and life: “I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
15. By “world” did John mean the material creation, mankind, or both? Sometimes “world” means the material creation (John 21:25), but most frequently it focuses on the people in it (e.g., 1:10; 3:16). This latter use of “world” in John is a metonymy of the subject (E. W. Bullinger, Figuresof Speech Used in the Bible [reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968]), 576).
16. Besides “bringing” new life, Jesus revealed it in His words. Thus any statement about this new life includes the revelation of that life. When the Pharisees rejected the “life,” they rejected Jesus’ revelation of it. The word of revelation through Jesus and the fact of eternal life are inseparable (John 5:24).
17. In John’s Gospel the world is represented by the Pharisees.
18. The Pharisees felt they had forgiveness of sins through their following the demands of the Old Testament. They believed they had “no sin.” John’s argument is similar to that in the Book of Hebrews; the blood of bulls and goats never took away sins (Heb 10:1–4). The New Covenant provides the forgiveness of sins (Jer 31:34).
19. “Eternal life” and “forgiveness of sins” are inseparable. If a person has one, he has the other. The promised New Covenant included both a new heart (Deut 30:6; Ezek 36:26) and forgiveness of sins (Jer 31:34).
20. John’s point is that on their own those in the dying world cannot know God. God alone can provide life which reveals Him in all His perfection.
21. As the revelation of the Father (John 1:18) Jesus is called the Word (1:1). He communicates the Word of the Father and speaks that Word to men. Those who hear Jesus’ Word and believe have the eternal life of the Father (John 5:24, 26; 1 John 1:1–5). Thus the revelation of the Father (the Word) and the content of that revelation (eternal life) are inseparably linked. To receive the words of Jesus is to receive eternal life. To reject the words of Jesus is to be void of eternal life.
22. This is the common view, that walking in darkness is performing sinful deeds.
23. The words ἀπαγγελλέω and ἀναγγελλέω are virtually synonymous (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. ἀγγελία, by Julius Schniewind, 1:60–67).
24. “Word of life” is John’s way of emphasizing that the revelation of Christ is integral with “life.”
25. As in the Gospel of John the claim of “no sin” is contrary to the revelation of God. However, how could anyone claim to have “no sin”? Self-righteousness is the obvious answer (see supra, n. 18).
26. Again rejecting the light means rejecting God’s Word through Jesus Christ. It is characteristic of the world to want to change God’s Word, since unbelievers follow their father, the devil, and his pattern in Genesis 3 (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8).
27. Again John was commenting on the revelation of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, which included a new heart (Deut 30:6; Ezek 36:26) and forgiveness of sins (Jer 31:34).