Ruth 4:5,6 – “What Matters”

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

⁵And Boaz said, “In the day of your buying of the field from the hand of Naomi and from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, you have bought to raise the name of the dead upon his inheritance.” ⁶And the kinsman-redeemer said, “I am not able to redeem to myself lest I ruin my own inheritance. You, you redeem to yourself my redemption because I am not able to redeem.”

As I study, read other commentaries, and ponder these verses, the first thing that strikes me (again) is how much we don’t know.

First of all, why did Boaz have to tell the kinsman about Ruth and the levirate obligation that went with the property? Bethlehem is a small town and I am quite sure everyone knew everything about everyone else. The kinsman had to know about Ruth and Naomi and that care of the widows came with purchase of the land. If Naomi was still in child-bearing age, he would know of his responsibility to her; and even if she wasn’t, he would know that Mahlon’s widow was still of child-bearing age.

So why does he think he’s “done” in v4, and why is v5 such a big surprise?

An interesting perspective, once again from Jewish tradition, is what was recorded in the Targum that what the kinsman actually said was, “On this ground I cannot redeem it, because I have a wife already; and I have no desire to take another, lest there should be contention in my house, and I should become a corrupter of my inheritance. Do thou redeem it, for thou hast no wife; for I cannot redeem it” (as reported by Adam Clarke, ca. 1820).

If this is true, it would certainly be understandable. That is probably the very first question that comes to my mind with the whole levirate marriage thing – what if the “brother” is already married? Of course, polygamy was culturally perfectly acceptable in itself but, that being said, I would still think a man would hesitate to take a second wife if he was happily married to his first. Both Abraham and Jacob suffered considerable domestic turmoil as a result of taking two wives. Acceptable or not, polygamy has to be a recipe for endless family contention.

So we could say it was understandable if he simply didn’t want to wreck his own home. However, there is no clause in the levirate marriage obligation that allowed the man to excuse himself for any reason. In fact, if he refused – for any reason – he got his sandal removed and spit in his face (Deut 25:7-9).

So apparently he did know about the levirate obligation. He just didn’t want to; and apparently it was culturally acceptable for him to refuse, simply on the grounds, “I don’t want to.” How could this be? How could it be culturally acceptable in Israel for a man to just disregard a very clear Scriptural injunction? It could be because we are in the period of the Judges when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” This period in Jewish history isn’t exactly characterized by careful observance of the Law! All it would take is a few cases where men refused their levirate obligations, suffered no consequences at all, and now no one takes the obligation seriously any more. That certainly wouldn’t be surprising.

There is also an entirely different perspective. It is possible that, culturally speaking, no one thought the levirate obligation applied to “foreign” marriages. Perhaps the kinsman was quite aware of the levirate obligation but thought it only extended as far as Naomi, but not to Ruth. And if Naomi was past child-bearing age, he simply didn’t think he had any obligation to this “Moabite foreigner.” I can hear the Bethlehem gossip chain: “Elimelech should have never gone to Moab and Mahlon should not have married a Moabite girl. It was all wrong.” In fact, they might have even thought it was wrong to marry Ruth, since she was a Moabitess. It’s even possible that, as much as people may have admired Ruth’s character, perhaps as far as marriage was concerned she had already been branded as “bad luck,” that no man would seriously want to marry her after what happened to Mahlon – and therefore, no one even thought the levirate obligation would include Ruth.

But then, if culturally speaking, no one thought the kinsman had any obligation to Ruth, why does Boaz say he did? I can think of two possibilities. It is possible that Boaz is such a good man that he doesn’t care what is or isn’t culturally acceptable. Even if popular opinion is that the kinsman “doesn’t have to” (regardless of what the Law said), Boaz is simply standing his Scriptural ground and saying, “Oh, yes, you do.” It is also possible and I think this the most likely that Naomi had made it a condition of the purchase that whoever redeemed the land had to marry Ruth and give her children. Remember back in 3:1 Naomi said, “My daughter, should I not try to find a home for you, where you will be well provided for?” We do know for a fact that Naomi is trying to get Ruth a husband and, if she had the opportunity to include a levirate responsibility with the sale, you can bet she would.

So here is what I think is going on: As far as the land is concerned, people were still following the Biblical process of redemption and following the “order” of succession, so there was no question the other kinsman was “first” and Boaz next after him. As far as the levirate obligation to Ruth, either they simply weren’t following those Scriptures or perhaps they sincerely didn’t think it applied to Ruth since she was a Moabitess. Regardless, Naomi has made it a condition of the sale that Ruth does go with it. All of this would explain how it was possible the other kinsman didn’t “know” about his obligation to Ruth. This would also explain how he could “get out of it” so easily. Apparently no one saw it as an obligation that went with the land. But Naomi, in her desire to provide for Ruth, had made it a condition of the sale. So he could say yes, I want to buy the land, then, when he found out there was a condition of the sale, simply say, “If that’s the condition, then no I don’t want to.”

That would certainly make sense. This explanation would also leave everyone in the best light, particularly the kinsman. I rather think myself this the best position, to not leave the kinsman condemned. It very easily looks like he was a villain for not accepting his responsibility; but, even if we were to convene a court today and put him on trial, I think we’d end up stuck on the fact that Ruth was a Moabitess, and whether or not the levirate responsibility really extended beyond Naomi to her.

The problem with it all is that we simply don’t know. All we really know is what is written, that Boaz offered the kinsman his rightful privilege and he refused it, leaving Boaz the full, uncontested right to purchase the land and marry Ruth.

Obviously, that is all the Lord thinks we need to know. And perhaps that is because it is all written down for a much larger purpose than to satisfy our curiosities about the affairs of an ancient culture. As I said in an earlier post, I strongly suspect that this is all wrapped up in the analogy of Redemption. Naomi is Israel, Ruth is the Gentile church, Boaz is Christ, the kinsman is the Law – and when offered the opportunity to redeem both Israel and the Gentile world, the Law can only respond to Jesus, “You redeem them, for I cannot.”

Whether that analogy was actually of divine intent or simply a fractal of reality, I’m not sure, but it certainly “works!”  There is so much we don’t know (about so many things), but one thing we do know is that the great Redeemer is not only willing but also able. Our great Boaz did in fact prevail and welcomes us from our world of hopeless poverty into the safety and security of His fabulous wealth.

The Lord doesn’t explain everything to us, but He sure tells us what matters most!

Ruth 4:3,4 – “Pondering”

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

³And he said to the kinsman-redeemer, “Naomi, who has returned from the fields of Moab, has sold the portion of the field which [belonged] to our brother Elimelech. ⁴And I, I said, ‘I will uncover your ear to say, ‘Buy [it] before ones sitting and before the elders of my people.’ If you will redeem, redeem, and if he will not redeem, tell to me and I will know because none besides you to redeem and I after you.’” And he said, “I, I will redeem.”

Before I move on, I want to note something I’m pondering. I don’t know the answer, just pondering.

A huge part of what is driving this entire story is the matter of property inheritance and levirate marriage. The way God set things up was that He gave the land to the Israelites, then portioned it out to the twelve tribes, then to individual families, and then it became imperative that that land remain in the ownership of those families. He says in Lev 25:23,

“The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is Mine and you reside in My land as foreigners and strangers.”

“The land must not be sold permanently,…” I guess I could understand if He was saying they mustn’t sell it to someone besides an Israelite. God promised Abraham He would give the land to his descendants. That makes sense and it would make sense that they were not to sell any of that land to foreigners, that it was always to stay in the hands of Israelites. But that isn’t what He means. He’s talking about selling land between Israelites themselves.

For some reason, God makes a really big deal about this property ownership. In Lev 25, He goes on to say (vv25-28):

“If a fellow countryman of yours becomes so poor he has to sell part of his property, then his nearest kinsman is to come and buy back what his relative has sold. Or in case a man has no kinsman, but so recovers his means as to find sufficient for its redemption, then he shall calculate the years since its sale and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it, and so return to his property. But if he has not found sufficient means to get it back for himself, then what he has sold shall remain in the hands of its purchaser until the year of Jubilee; but at the Jubilee it shall revert, that he may return to his property.”

Even the year of Jubilee is set up as a time when any land that has been sold reverts to its original ownership. And it isn’t just “reverts to Israelite ownership” or even “reverts to the tribe it was given to,” or even the family it was owned by. It is to the man.

Hmmmm. Land is just land. It’s just dirt. In the big scheme of things, “property” is just a particular patch of dirt. Granted it is important, especially in an agrarian society where land was your very life itself. One grew crops to live. They didn’t have grocery stores. They had to grow what they ate and that took land. So land was important. But why is it that big a deal what land? And why is it such a big deal that a particular patch of dirt remained in the proper succession of a specific family’s genealogy?

The whole issue of Zelophehad’s daughters centered around this decided understanding. When the question of their father’s inheritance first came up and the girls (who had no brother) asked about it, the Lord responded:

“…, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. If his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his nearest relative in his own family, and he shall possess it; and it shall be a statutory ordinance to the sons of Israel, just as the LORD commanded Moses” (Numb 27:8-11).

Later, the issue came up again when the leaders from the girls’ tribe (Manasseh) were worried that the girls would marry into another tribe. If they do, the leaders reasoned, then that land would be lost to our tribe and become part of another! The Lord responded:

“This is what the LORD has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry whom they wish; only they must marry within the family of the tribe of their father. Thus no inheritance of the sons of Israel shall be transferred from tribe to tribe, for the sons of Israel shall each hold to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. Every daughter who comes into possession of an inheritance of any tribe of the sons of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. Thus no inheritance shall be transferred from one tribe to another tribe, for the tribes of the sons of Israel shall each hold to his own inheritance” (Numb 36:6-9).

I’m still struggling to understand why, in the big scheme of things, this is so important. I can see why, within any generation, people might get bent out of shape about such things. In fact they do, even today, but mainly because everyone is worried they might not get their piece of the pie. It’s all about money. Today it is totally about money and wealth and power. What baffles me is why God cares so much. Once again, it’s really just dirt and it would seem like basically one patch of dirt ought to be about the same as any other.

But it gets even more intense than this. This business of property ownership is so important that God Himself set up the plan of levirate marriage. When a man died, if he had not yet sired an heir, his brother was supposed to marry the widow and then the inheritance would go to her child. That, in itself, had to be a very delicate business culturally. Wouldn’t that add an interesting element to a man’s funeral – with his brother standing there and over across the room is this young woman who yesterday was only his sister-in-law? All of a sudden, he’s actually obligated to marry her, have sex with her, and sire an heir for his brother. Wouldn’t that be interesting???

And then we see it so important to God Himself, that, if a man refused to do so, He says:

“But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house’” (Deut 25:7-9).

Hmmmm. I could understand if the big issue was just keeping the land under Israelite ownership. I could even understand if God wanted to keep the tribes intact and not allow land to be sold among them. But it goes far beyond that. Once land is owned by a particular man, it becomes a legal and cultural imperative that that land must be kept in the proper succession of that man’s heirs … forever. No matter how many centuries go by, no matter how many generations come and go, land was to stay in that man’s genealogy. And that is so important that God Himself would institute the practice of levirate marriage.

Why?

I don’t know.

I smell some really profound spiritual truth lurking behind the scenes. There is something about God and about man and about eternity that I do not understand, that I don’t see, and so I am unable to grasp why this land thing is so important to Him. Either that or there is some truth about Jesus that I’m missing. He is the great Kinsman-redeemer. Surely, His redemption of us and our world is the same fractal pattern somehow. The other thing that may prove eminently significant here is that the “land” we’re talking about is the Promised Land. In fact, none of it is “just dirt.” Perhaps “the land” symbolizes faith itself and how the Lord wants faith to be passed on from one generation to the next?

I don’t know.

When I do see it, I know it will blow me away. It will totally rock my world. I’ll understand some aspect of life and of reality and of God Himself which I don’t understand today. This is just another atom-bomb of truth He might drop into my soul.

It just isn’t dropping today.

I know it’s there. For some reason I’m apparently just not ready to grasp it.

Hmmmmm. Looks like time for another Habakkuk: “I will stand at my watch and I will look to see what He will say to me …”

“Call unto Me and I will answer thee,

 and show thee

 great and mighty things

 which thou knowest not” (Jer 33:3).

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Ruth 4:3,4 – “Forthright”

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

³And he said to the kinsman-redeemer, “Naomi, who has returned from the fields of Moab, has sold the portion of the field which [belonged] to our brother Elimelech. ⁴And I, I said, ‘I will uncover your ear to say, ‘Buy [it] before ones sitting and before the elders of my people.’ If you will redeem, redeem, and if he will not redeem, tell to me and I will know because none besides you to redeem and I after you.’” And he said, “I, I will redeem.”

Once again, I find in these two simple verses a great deal to admire in this man Boaz. Walter Baxendale wrote in 1892, “[Boaz] conceals nothing, overstates nothing, speaks apparently without bias. In few and fit words he propounds the cause and brings it to an issue … How much there is to be admired in the way Boaz proceeds to settle this delicate affair once and for all.”

I couldn’t agree more with Baxendale. In the first two verses, I was impressed with how Boaz simply took charge, how there was no timidity in him. Now I am admiring how he presents the case. Think about this: Boaz obviously wants to marry Ruth. He probably could have just done it and he’d have had his wife, but then the whole matter of the inheritance probably would have been become a legal quandary. The other kinsman could have made legal claim to the land, arguing that, even though Ruth had been Mahlon’s wife, she is a Moabitess, and therefore “not really” the legitimate heir. He probably could have argued, in fact, that Naomi was the only legitimate heir and since Boaz didn’t marry her, he had no legal claim to the land. It just simply could have been a mess.

Perhaps Boaz was wealthy enough, or politically powerful enough in the community that he could have just married Ruth and taken over the land, and the other kinsman would have kept quiet and let it go. But, in a small town, people would have known and they would have forever gossiped behind Boaz’s (and Ruth’s) (and their son’s) back that “it wasn’t right.”

So what does Boaz do? He just lays out the facts clearly, and asks for a decision. Reading this, it might seem a simple matter, but I know how it feels when you really want something, when you want a certain outcome, but don’t know how it will turn out. It is so easy to squirm around and, one way or another, try to manipulate the situation to make sure I get what I want.

Think about it: when Boaz finishes his presentation in verse 4, he has no idea how it will turn out. He presented the facts clearly and forthrightly and then the whole matter just hangs there in uncertainty. Will he or won’t he? Will the other kinsman end up with Ruth or not? As the group all sits there looking at each other, for that horrible brief second, the whole matter hangs in complete uncertainty. There is every possibility it will not go Boaz’s way. This moment of uncertainty is exactly what I think we all are driven to avoid. We want to be sure. We want what we want. And we don’t like when there’s a chance we won’t get it. That is precisely why we often are not clear and forthright.

And just to prove we’re the ones who are right, that we need to manipulate things, what happens? The kinsman says, “I will.” Noooooooooo! The worst possible outcome. Now that horrible uncertainty turns into complete disaster. Boaz presented the facts calmly and clearly and the outcome is exactly what we all feared. Our story is ruined. The glow of our little romance is shattered. Our beautiful Ruth is lost. See? That’s what we get for being honest!

Isn’t that exactly the way our minds work in the real world?

But Boaz’s way is still the best way. Even if the other kinsman would have prevailed, at least the whole matter could have been settled forever. There would have been no loose ends left. Ruth could have had a husband, borne children to be the heirs, and life would have gone on, just not in the way Boaz had hoped.

In fact, what Boaz has done by not being manipulative is, in the end, in everyone’s best interest. What he has done is in keeping with proper, open, forthright procedures. Paul says in II Cor 8:21: “For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men.” As we see in Boaz, even though it may mean we don’t “get our way,” it’s best to simply “do right” and let the chips fall “where they may.”

The fact is, in many situations, we don’t know the outcome. We want things to go our way. We often (usually) try to manipulate the situation one way or another to make it turn out how we want. But there is a better way. Like Boaz, we need to just do right and trust God with the outcome. We need to be like Boaz and be clear and forthright, give up our attempt to control the outcome and just leave it to the Lord. As Prov 16:9 says, “A man's heart plans his way: but the LORD directs his steps.”

I fear that because we all know “the rest of the story” we might miss the very human reality of what is happening here. Boaz, at this point, does not know “the rest of the story.” He is doing what he’s doing because he is a man of integrity. And even though he has no assurance things will turn out as he desires, he just stays the course.

I’m realizing as I read and study this, as I consider Boaz’s example, that I am a miserable little manipulator. I often skew my presentation of “facts” to try to make sure things “go my way.” I need to stop it. I need to try to be aware when my heart is “wanting” something, some outcome, and, at those very moments determine to trust God and just be forthright. Be clear, state the facts, and trust God with the outcome.

What a good man Boaz is. Once again, it has been fun walking with this wise man. Hopefully I’ll be more like him!

Ruth 4:1,2 – “Taking Charge”

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹And Boaz went up [to] the gate and he sat there and behold the kinsman-redeemer passing by Boaz had spoken [about]. And he said, “Turn aside. Sit down here, Peloni Almoni.” And he turned aside and he sat down. ²And he took ten men of the elders of the city and he said, “Sit down here,” and they sat down.

I have been having fun studying these two verses. There is a lot going on that’s worth pondering.

First of all, I want to record again some Jewish tradition that I find interesting although it of course is only that – tradition. The writer of Ruth never discloses the name of this “other” kinsman-redeemer, only that he is also a relative of Elimelech and somehow closer than Boaz. Obviously, the Lord didn’t think it of value for us to know the man’s name or exactly how he was related. As I noted in my post on 3:12, according to the genealogy of Matt 1, Boaz’s father’s name was Salmon (the man who married Rahab of Jericho), the son of Nahshon:

“…Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth …”

And according to Gill (ca. 1760), Jewish tradition holds that Elimelech and Boaz were first cousins, the sons of two brothers and that the “nearer kinsman” was another of Salmon’s brothers. I have since learned that Jewish tradition also holds that the “other” kinsman-redeemer’s name was Tob (probably short for Tobiah).

So, if tradition is correct, Elimemech would have been the son of Salmon’s brother, who was also a son of Nahshon. Then Tob, the “nearer kinsman,” would have been another of Salmon’s brothers, so another of Nahshon’s sons, which would make him Boaz and Elimelech’s uncle.

If this is all true, a family tree would look like:

    Nahshon

     /                   |                  \

  Salmon                      x                       Tob

    |                            |                             |

   Boaz                Elimelech                     x

As I also related earlier, it is very possible Tob would have been about the same age as Elimelech and Boaz, even though their uncle. In large families it is of course common for the oldest son or daughter to be having their first babies while the mother is having her last. In that setting, “uncles” can even be younger than their nephews and nieces. Apparently Tob, being an uncle, would have been considered a nearer relative than Boaz, perhaps being an actual brother to Elimelech’s father.

None of that, of course, is important to our story; I just like to note Jewish traditions where they’re available. They are not as reliable as Scripture itself, of course, but often provide interesting insights that do make sense and perhaps usually have some basis in fact.

Beyond that, the next thing I want to say is that, having studied these verses and having read a number of commentaries, I am particularly reminded how cautious we need to be when reading about the customs and culture of a people who lived half way around the globe and 3,000 years ago. Different commentators made a lot of observations and drew conclusions based on what is written but I would suggest it dangerous to be too dogmatic about it all.

What do I mean? Basically, what we have here is an ancient legal proceeding. All of this, the gate, the ten elders, and even what Boaz calls the kinsman-redeemer, “Peloni Almoni,” all of this is wrapped up in their culture – which we may or may not understand. And I think that particularly true of a legal proceeding.

First of all, Jamieson says the “gate” of the city was “a roofed building, unenclosed by walls; the place where, in ancient times, and in many Eastern towns still, all business transactions are made, and where, therefore, the kinsman was most likely to be found. No preliminaries were necessary in summoning one before the public assemblage; no writings and no delay were required. In a short conversation the matter was stated and arranged - probably in the morning as people went out, or at noon when they returned from the field.”

Obviously, from our text and many other Biblical references, a “court” was convened by drawing together a group of elders. In relation to our “ten elders,” Jamieson also claimed that, “in ordinary circumstances, two or three were sufficient to attest a bargain; but in cases of importance, such as matrimony, divorce, conveyancing of property, it was the Jewish practice to have ten (1 Kings 21:8).”

So what is going on is, in a sense, a very important legal transaction which called for very specific and deliberate legal proceedings, all according to the customs of their day.

And that brings me to the name Boaz calls him, “Peloni Almoni.” The old KJV translated it “such a one,” others “such and such,” while the NIV chose “my friend.” The name itself is, in fact, difficult to translate and “such a one” isn’t bad. In Hebrew, “Peloni Almoni” does express an element of uncertainty or anonymity. Based on this, it is possible that Boaz is being demeaning and calling him something like “Hey, you –” It is also possible the writer of the book is using a term of anonymity, that the man is in a sense the “villain” of the story and so the author deems him unworthy of having his name recorded. Further, it is possible that the writer was expressing his displeasure that the man refused to fulfill his duty to marry Ruth and to raise up an heir for Elimelech. In such a case, Deut 25:8-9 instructed, “Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, ‘I do not want to marry her,’ his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, ‘This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line.’”

All of this is possible and even reasonable. However, and this is, I suppose my big point, it is also possible that “Peloni Almoni” was a legal term. Once again, Boaz is, in a sense, convening a court here. It is possible that when Boaz refers to him as “Peloni Almoni” he is setting up the context of this court. And this could mean a lot of things. By calling him this name, perhaps Boaz is establishing that this will be a “friendly” proceeding as opposed to say a criminal accusation. Then again, maybe a defendant was always referred to as “Peloni Almoni” sort of the same way we use “John Doe.”

My bottom line is that we simply don’t know. It is interesting to me that, looking ahead to verse 7, the writer has to explain: “Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.” Here is this author writing some time before Jesus (over 2000 years ago) and having to explain to his readers something that went on “in earlier times.” Even back then, “earlier” customs had to be explained. And here we sit in our chairs over 3,000 years later and half way around the world. That being the case, I think it dangerous to assume much, or, for instance, to assume either that Boaz is being demeaning or that the author was deprecating the kinsman. All we know was that a court was convened according to their customs.

And that brings me to the only application I can confidently make from the passage. It impresses me how Boaz simply “takes charge.” Notice how deliberate he is:  

And Boaz went up [to] the gate and he sat there and behold the kinsman-redeemer passing by Boaz had spoken [about]. And he said, “Turn aside. Sit down here, Peloni Almoni.” And he turned aside and he sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city and he said, “Sit down here,” and they sat down

I think it notable that there is nothing timid about Boaz. He tells Ruth back in chapter 3 that he will take care of it. Then he goes to the gate and sits down. When the kinsman comes by, he tells him, “Sit down.” As ten elders pass by he tells them, “Sit down." It is interesting to me that, in the Hebrew, in both cases, it is clearly stated, “And he turned aside and he sat down … and they sat down.” Even in the Hebrew, you get the impression that Boaz is clearly in command. Of course that is not surprising, being that he is a land-owner and a “man of standing” (2:1), but I still think it worth noting.

It is so easy to be timid in this world. I try to be reasonable and not demanding. Most of us try our best not to “make waves.” And yet there is a time when we need to simply be like Boaz and “take charge” and get the job done. For me there is often a very specific point where I need to muster up my courage, risk “making waves,” and “just do it.” At those times I am very thankful for the verse, “God has not given us a spirit of fear but of power and of love and of a well-ordered mind” (II Tim 1:7). I need very much at those times to let my spirit be His Spirit of “power, love, and a well-ordered mind.” That helps me a lot because, in a sense, I’m not “being brave.” It’s actually Him that is brave working through me. I don’t have it “in” me, but I have Him in me and I have the hope that when I do “move ahead” and like Boaz, “take charge” that I won’t be just domineering or pushy, but actually come across like he does in this passage, just “taking charge” and doing a good job of it.

As always in this book, I come away from these two verses having had a lot of fun and, once again seeing in Boaz a man I can respect and someone I want to be more like.

James 3:18 – “Blessings”

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹³Who [is] wise and understanding among you? Let him display his works out of the good lifestyle in humility of wisdom. ¹⁴But if you have bitter passion and factiousness in your heart, do not boast over or lie against the truth. ¹⁵Such wisdom is not coming down from above but [it is] earthly, animal, demonic, ¹⁶for, where [there is] passion and factiousness, there [is] disorder and every foul practice.

¹⁷But the from above wisdom is first pure, then peaceable, reasonable, agreeable, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, [and] without pretense. ¹⁸And [the] fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those making peace.

Speechless. This study in James 3 leaves me overwhelmed. As usual, I started the chapter fearing I wouldn’t get “much” out of it. It was so familiar. I’ve read it, taught it, even memorized it. I’ve “known” it for 35 years. “What more can there be?” my heart wondered. Yet I’d never actually studied it. That was one of the things that moved me to study the book itself to start with – the fact that it seemed so familiar and yet I’d never taken the time to slowly work my way through it, to try to make sure I’m hearing what the Lord is saying. I’ve also learned in my 35 years that is a recipe for freight trains and atom bombs. Familiar but never studied? Without exception I’ve waded into those books and passages only to find myself right where I am – overwhelmed, bowled over, stunned.

This book, and most recently, chapter 3 is a total bombshell. I sit here feeling like the Lord has blown open my eyes to see myself so much more clearly, to see the world so much more clearly, to see Jesus and this whole business of wisdom and peace and righteousness so much more clearly. Crazy, crazy, crazy.

I feel like I don’t want to move on. I want to somehow just sit here and soak this up, to hide in it “’til this storm passes by.” But of course I must move on. I need to ask the Lord to write these lessons deeply on my heart, help me to live them, and then keep going back to the well, to drink more of this water of life. As much as I’m loathe to move on, I am excited to go back and finish the book of Ruth. That too has been such a bombshell. I can’t even imagine what goldmines of truth I’ll find there in chapter 4. And when I finish that, I plan to come back and continue on into James 4. Chapter 3 has been such a bombshell and I suspect chapter 4 is actually just a continuation of the same thoughts. What on earth will the Lord teach me there??? Crazy. What a ride.

Partly because I’m reluctant to move on, I want to record a few last thoughts from 3:13-18. I say “partly” because there are a few things I want to record just so I don’t forget them. In case anyone wonders, that is actually why I write these blogs – really this is where I go to pull together my own thoughts after I’ve studied a passage. I can study and study and study but at some point I need to stop and mentally pull it all together and put it into some kind of order. A lot of times that is actually when the Lord really drops the bombshells on me. But mainly I need somewhere to record my own thoughts so I hopefully remember them and let them change me. I like the “blog” platform in case my feeble scratchings are any encouragement to anyone else. One danger of course is that I’m writing as I learn and quite frankly I don’t care if what I’m “learning” makes other people’s hair stand on end. I might realize three blogs later I was wrong. But I have to learn. I have to think. I have to try to put things together and then think some more. The beauty of my own private blog is that I can think uncensored. Garsh, this sure is fun!

One of the things that just amazes me is how much order there is in the Bible. It often isn’t obvious in English but jumps off the page in the Greek or Hebrew. I think it is totally cool in v17 that the wisdom from above has seven qualities. Of course. Seven is the number of completion and perfection. And then some time ago some ancient writer introduced me to the idea that five was the number of grace. I read that and thought, “Hmmmm. I’ll keep an eye out for that and see if I think there’s any merit to it.” What is so cool is that the fifth quality of “from above” wisdom is expressed in five words (in Greek) and is “full of compassion and good fruits.” It is grace itself! Every one of the other qualities are expressed in one word adjectives. Only the fifth is expressed in five words. So cool. Then too if you go back into vv13-16 and the discussion of earthly wisdom, you’ll find no order at all – in a sense confusion. And this is exactly what you find in Galatians 5 and the “works of the flesh” and the “fruit of the Spirit.” The fruit of the Spirit is expressed in a perfect 3x7 matrix with the nine fruits of the Spirit right (exactly) in the middle in a perfect 3x3 matrix. On the other hand, you look back up at the works of the flesh and it’s like they’re just thrown in a pile. So cool. Not only does God tell us that sin brings confusion while righteousness brings peace and order – He even illustrates it in the very words He says it in!

Another thing I find interesting is that, in this passage, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace (in effect, peace produces righteousness) while in other passages it is righteousness that produces peace. Isaiah 32:17, for instance says, “The fruit of righteousness will be peace; its effect will be quietness and confidence forever.” Which is the chicken and which is the egg? I suspect that peace and righteousness are so integrally intertwined you can’t really separate them. To have one is to have the other. To sow one is to harvest the other. That is why righteousness is only sown in peace. The two are like conjoined twins. Each is unique in and of itself yet they are inseparable. If we would cultivate righteousness in ourselves and others, then we must master our hearts and our mouths and do it in peace. If we would have peace, then we must have the Spirit of God working righteousness in our hearts and lives. Cool.

Another thought: To say we must “sow in peace” sounds good in church, but I suspect a lot of people would say that doesn’t “work” in the real world -- the old “if you want to get ahead” you have to push and shove and connive or other people out there will walk all over you. I will simply say, “Au contraire!” I like what Matthew Henry said, “Let others reap the fruits of contentions and all the advantages they can propose to themselves by them; but let us go on peaceably to sow the seeds of righteousness …” Hear, hear! My good friend Matthew Henry says it well. Sure you can “get ahead” pushing and shoving. And sure sooner or later we’ll come up on the short end because we didn’t push and shove. But all the conniving to “get ahead” and to “win” will like he says, “reap the fruits of contentions.” I try sincerely at work to “sow in peace,” to treat people fairly, to be honest, and here I find myself at age 57 – I am certainly no “success story;” you won’t read about me in any magazines and at home we still struggle to keep it all together financially, but I have sure made some good friends and enjoyed a lot of good relationships. The Lord has allowed me to complete some awesome projects at work all down through the years. No one will ever know it but I’ve been a part of several projects that actually went on to be industry standards. I’ve been able to be a part of projects where we solved terrible problems that have been making people miserable for years. No one ever really even needs to know I was part of those things, but I know we accomplished it all without pushing and shoving, without cheating anyone, and again, I made some great friends along the way. I’d rather have my good memories and the friendships I’ve gained than all the “success” others may have attained at the cost of personal turmoil. I like peace. I’m thankful that the Lord’s ways are peace – even in the marketplace.

Well, I suppose I’d better quit. This has been such a blessing.

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in Him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.” Romans 15:13