At this they wept aloud again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, but Ruth clung to her.
"Look," said Naomi, "your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her."
But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me." When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her.
- Ruth 1:14-18
This passage is one of the most moving passages in the Bible, demonstrating the themes of loyalty, love, and faithfulness. It highlights Ruth's remarkable decision to stay with Naomi, a choice that would change the course of her life and ultimately place her in the lineage of King David and Jesus Christ.
For a refresher on the context, remember that this book begins with tragedy. Naomi, an Israelite woman, moves to Moab with her husband and two sons due to famine. Over time, her husband and both sons die, leaving Naomi and her Moabite daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, as widows. Hearing that the famine in Israel has ended, Naomi decides to return to Bethlehem and urges Orpah and Ruth to remain in Moab and remarry. Orpah stays in Moab, but Ruth clings to Naomi and returns to Israel with her.
The Hebrew verb used in verse 14 for "clung" denotes deep attachment and loyalty. This same verb is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe the bond between husband and wife: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." Ruth's clinging is not just an emotional response but an intentional, covenant-like commitment to Naomi.
In verse 15, Naomi points out that Orpah has returned to her people and her gods, implying that staying in Moab meant remaining within its religious system. This highlights that Ruth's choice is not just about loyalty to Naomi but also a decision about faith.
Verses 16-17 are one of the most profound expressions of commitment in Scripture. Several key phrases deepen our understanding of Ruth's words:
1. "Where you go, I will go" – Ruth is making a complete transition into Naomi's life, regardless of the consequences and where that road may take her, both literally and figuratively.
2. "Your people will be my people, and your God my God" – This is a declaration of faith. Ruth is renouncing her Moabite identity and embracing Israel's God.
3. "Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried" – Burial was a crucial aspect of identity and belonging in ancient Israel. Ruth is committing not only to Naomi in life but also in death.
4. "May the Lord deal with me... if even death separates you and me." – Ruth invokes God's judgment upon herself if she breaks this vow, further proving the seriousness of her commitment.
In verse 18, Naomi realizes that Ruth is determined and not going to give up. The Hebrew verb for "determined" means to be strong, resolute, or courageous. This verb is often used in contexts of divine encouragement, as in Joshua 1:9, where God tells Joshua to be "strong and courageous." The use of this verb highlights Ruth's unwavering resolve and the spiritual strength behind her decision.
There are many theological and practical insights we can get from this passage. First is the concept of covenant love and loyalty. Ruth's declaration is more than just human affection; it reflects the hesed of God — His steadfast, covenantal love. Ruth embodies this divine loyalty by choosing Naomi over her own interests.
Next, we see that Ruth's choice to follow Naomi is also a choice to follow the one true God, demonstrating that faith is not merely an inheritance but a personal commitment. Ruth pledged to live her life following and honoring this God rather than the gods of her people, the Moabites. We don’t know how much Ruth knew about God at this point, but her desire to stay with Naomi meant that she would also take on Naomi’s spiritual practices and faith.
Finally, Ruth's love is selfless and sacrificial; she willingly enters uncertainty and hardship for Naomi's sake. This points to Christ's sacrificial love, making Ruth a foreshadowing of Jesus' redemptive mission. While our culture typically focuses on love as only being romantic love, there are multiple types of love. This self-sacrificial love does not necessarily occur in the same relationships as romantic love; you can have one without the other.
Ruth's choice to cling to Naomi and embrace the God of Israel serves as a model for believers today. Her story challenges us to reflect on our own faith and loyalty — to God and to those He places in our lives. Ruth's decision was not made lightly; it was a bold, life-altering act of devotion that literally changed history. May we strive to embody the same covenantal love, unwavering faith, and courageous commitment that Ruth displayed.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Last week I started examining Jesus’ most famous teaching: the Sermon on the Mount, but I definitely ran out of space. So let me quickly highlight the major points in the message and continue examining why Jesus said what He said and what He was seeking in doing so.
Again, to refresh, here are the themes I noticed in no particular order:
- True happiness is not about the pursuit of temporal things.
- Our motives and dreams behind what we do have the same weight as actually doing it.
- Our trust and security need to be in the Lord and not in our comforts and possessions.
- Don’t seek popularity or to be seen.
- The Law’s purpose does not go away with Jesus, but it finishes its purpose.
- Beware of false teachers and make sure you are a true believer yourself.
Last week, I addressed the first two, and I’ll finish the other four topics this week.
Jesus emphasizes to build treasure in heaven, not treasure on earth. In the Beatitudes, Jesus emphasizes the spiritual need for Him first and foremost, and now He addresses the physical needs, too. We are not to seek earthly wealth, pleasure, or comfort. That does not make them inherently wrong. Jesus did not tell EVERY rich man to give up his wealth, just one. He didn’t even tell Zacchaeus to do it; he simply did it. But those of us who have it need to give up control over it and not depend on those things. God uses rich and wealthy people all the time for His Kingdom, and they have submitted their resources to be used for God’s purposes.
I have been blessed with a more than sustainable income, and I don’t use it for lavish living (as though a teacher’s income could be lavish). In doing so, I am in a position to help people with bigger needs. I do not view my resources as “mine” for me to control. I view them as God’s resources, and I should be ready to use them for a need when that time comes. And in doing so, I am building treasures in heaven. That said, there is still room for improvement. The point Jesus is making and seeks to hammer down is that if you are going to pursue God, you can’t do that while pursuing your own dreams and your own desires. Instead, we are to seek the Lord in all things first and foremost and let God deal with the temporal things of this world.
We are not to seek popularity or to seek men’s attention. And, oh, do we crave that! That is why peer pressure works so well. We want to be liked, to be esteemed. The Pharisees loved having attention where they could walk through the streets with their noses held high while people bowed before them as though they deserved respect for being a “holy man.” The Pharisees wanted the attention, the respect of men, and even more, the respect of their community. Part of that was they thought that being the best “law-obeying” person made you the closest to God, and in reality, all it did was make them proud, arrogant, and totally blind. As Jesus said, they got their reward. They will get nothing but shame for such haughtiness.
But don’t think we don’t have that issue today. Regardless of what circles you are in, there is the praise of man: academic, entertainment, sports, churches, you name it. Some of our church leaders cannot handle not being in the spotlight, and I am talking about good preachers here, too. Some hate that people idolize them. I went to the Shepherd’s Conference in 2022, and I got to hear some of the preachers I have loved to listen to. But after that, I had no interest in going again because I’d be going to practically fawn over them. I don’t need that. I still haven’t even finished the books I got from 2022, so why do I need to be loaded with even more?
Jesus didn’t merely raise the stakes on how to obey the spirit of the law; He also pointed out that it wasn’t going away. He didn’t come to get rid of the law but to complete its purposes. All the ceremonial laws are no longer applicable to us, not because Jesus got rid of them but because they were designed to showcase the coming Messiah. When the Messiah came, there was no need for further sacrifice; that was done once and for all. But when it comes to the moral standards, those didn’t go away; they were revealed to be even tougher than what the Jews thought. Jesus, here as well as in other instances, went after the spirit of the Law, the actual point and purpose of it.
Lastly, Jesus gave a warning about false teachers, describing them as wolves in sheep’s clothing. I often take it a step further and watch out for wolves in shepherd’s clothing, too. It’s the same issue. They will look like sheep and talk like sheep, but they will not produce what sheep produce. He then gives a firm warning that just saying the right words and doing the right deeds is not going to cut it, but those who do things God’s way. Jesus finishes with His first recorded parable, the wise and foolish builders. I won’t say much on that here because I’ll have a whole post on parables and what Jesus was aiming at with them.
In these posts, I did not address everything Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. I would need more posts to deal with being a light in a dark world, the model prayer, not worrying about daily needs, and judging. This is not a comprehensive study. What I saw in Jesus’ thinking in the Sermon on the Mount is a huge emphasis on seeing our need for God in everything. Our own efforts to keep the Law or even for appearances are ultimately worthless. We should beware of anyone who would teach or practice the things that go against God’s intended way of doing things. I have only scratched the surface of these issues, but I hope these past two weeks have given you new insights behind this great sermon.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Then she kissed them goodbye and they wept aloud and said to her, “We will go back with you to your people.”
But Naomi said, “Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons— would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the LORD’s hand has turned against me!”
- Ruth 1:9b-13
This passage continues the deeply emotional exchange between Naomi and her daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah. For the context before this, check out last week’s post. Naomi’s raw honesty about her situation and her insistence that they leave her paints a vivid picture of her grief and hopelessness. It also sets the stage for the monumental choices Ruth and Orpah must make.
Naomi’s words are layered with cultural context, theological undertones, and human vulnerability. Naomi’s reference to sons becoming husbands highlights the ancient practice of levirate marriage, outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. This custom ensured the preservation of a deceased man’s lineage by requiring his brother (or closest male relative) to marry his widow. The children from this union would inherit the deceased man’s name and property.
Naomi laments her inability to fulfill this role for her daughters-in-law. She is too old to remarry and bear sons, and even if she could, it would take years for the boys to grow up. By emphasizing the impossibility of their situation, Naomi seeks to release Ruth and Orpah from any perceived obligation to her.
Widowhood in the ancient Near East was a precarious position. Without a husband or male offspring, a woman faced economic insecurity and social marginalization. Naomi’s continuing pleas for her daughters-in-law to return home reflects her concern for their well-being, knowing that their chances of remarriage and stability were far greater in Moab.
Naomi’s declaration, "It is more bitter for me than for you, because the Lord’s hand has turned against me” (verse 13), reveals her deep sense of despair and her belief that her suffering is a direct result of divine action. This statement reflects a common worldview in the ancient Near East, where calamity was often interpreted as evidence of divine displeasure or judgment.
Naomi’s grief has shaped her perception of God. Having lost her husband and both of her sons, she feels abandoned and cursed. Her lament mirrors the language of other biblical figures, such as Job, who grappled with the apparent absence of God’s favor amid suffering. Naomi’s bitterness is not just about her personal pain but also about her perceived alienation from God’s blessing.
Naomi’s emotional struggle raises timeless questions about the nature of God’s presence in times of suffering. Why do bad things happen to good people? Does God’s silence mean He is absent? While Naomi feels forsaken, the unfolding narrative reveals that God’s providence is still at work, even in ways she cannot yet see. This tension between human perspective and divine purpose invites readers to trust in God’s unseen plan, even when circumstances seem bleak.
We witness a great emotional weight in this passage. Naomi’s act of kissing Ruth and Orpah goodbye (verse 9b) is a poignant gesture of love and finality. In the ancient Near East, a kiss symbolized not only affection but also a farewell. This moment underscores the emotional bond between the women, forged through shared experiences of loss and survival.
Ruth and Orpah’s initial response is to reject Naomi’s suggestion. They declare, "We will go back with you to your people" (verse 10). This shows their loyalty and unwillingness to abandon Naomi in her time of need. Their weeping reflects the deep sorrow they feel at the thought of separation, as well as their recognition of the gravity of the situation.
Naomi’s insistence that Ruth and Orpah return home highlights her selflessness. Despite her own need for companionship and support, she prioritizes their futures over her own. This sacrificial love mirrors God’s hesed (steadfast love, mercy, lovingkindness), which is a central theme of the book.
Naomi understands that Ruth and Orpah’s chances of a secure future are greater in Moab. By releasing them from any sense of duty to her, Naomi acts as a protector and advocate for their well-being. Naomi addresses Ruth and Orpah as "my daughters," not “daughters-in-law” (verse 11), emphasizing the depth of their relationship. Her words are not those of a bitter widow seeking to cling to her daughters-in-law but of a loving mother figure who desires their happiness and security.
The passage leaves the reader on the edge of a pivotal decision: will Ruth and Orpah heed Naomi’s plea and return to Moab, or will they accompany her to Bethlehem? Naomi’s heartfelt plea and her daughters-in-law’s emotional responses highlight the complexities of human relationships and the challenges of navigating grief and transition. As the narrative continues, we will see how these choices lead to transformative outcomes, demonstrating that God’s grace often meets us on the road of uncertainty.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Jesus’ most famous sermon is recorded in full from Matthew 5-7 but with parts recorded in Luke 6. This is the longest single sermon in the entire Bible outside of Deuteronomy, which is Moses’ final speech to Israel before passing the baton to Joshua where most of the whole book is this speech. The Sermon on the Mount contains a wide variety of topics so let’s quickly go through them, from Matthew’s account.
- The Beatitudes: Jesus confronts the lust for possessions and positions to gain happiness and replaces those desires with humility and the seeking of the Lord.
- Your witness: Jesus calls us to be light in a dark world, but the Law is not going away either.
- The true meaning of the Law: The fine print behind the commandments, namely on murder and adultery, and it summarized by true Biblical love.
- Giving, tithing, and prayer: All good, but do not do them to be seen, but rather do them secretly; what real prayer looks like.
- Fasting and true treasure: Fasting is not about show but about getting right with God. Seek God’s treasures because ours here will perish.
- Dealing with anxiety: Don’t chase wealth and security; instead, trust the Lord and He will take care of our needs.
- True judging and warning against hypocritical judging.
- True disciples, warning against false teachers, and warning against false conversion.
There is a lot to unpack here, but this series is not about the exegetical teachings of the texts. Why did Jesus address these issues? What kind of response did Jesus seek to instigate? And what were His intentions in saying what He was saying?
In looking at each of these topics, we can see several themes in no particular order:
- True happiness is not about the pursuit of temporal things.
- Our motives and dreams behind what we do have the same weight as actually doing it.
- Our trust and security need to be in the Lord and not in our comforts and possessions.
- Don’t seek popularity or to be seen.
- The Law’s purpose does not go away with Jesus, but He finishes its purpose.
- Beware of false teachers and make sure you are a true believer yourself.
This is going to take two weeks to unpack these. No worries because I have no time limit for how long this series will go. So let’s get into this.
Jesus opens up with a series of blessings and happiness not for those who live lives of luxury but for those who are poor, those who are needy, and those who in the long run, acknowledge their need for God. In each of the Beatitudes, the types of people Jesus addresses are those who saw their need for help and their need for God; they would be happy because their needs would be met. I have read the Beatitudes numerous times and heard sermons on them, but just reflecting on what I literally just wrote led me to a moment of worship. Let me summarize what Jesus is saying through them: “Blessed are those who see their need for God, for God will come and be their sustenance and they will lack nothing.”
Take notice that Jesus never once appealed to anyone or any type of person who found their solace in money, pleasures, entertainment, position, prestige, or any temporary thing of man. He referenced those who are going without those things on this earth because they will get a true reward in heaven. Jesus reiterated this point when He spoke about treasure in heaven. This was a sermon unlike any other, and this opening was a teaching that these people never heard before. And that’s just the opening.
Jesus confronted the teachings of the Pharisees and how they misappropriated the Law and made it a monster of slavery. He started by saying that just being physically obedient to the commandments isn’t sufficient but just doing it in your heart and mind is enough to count you guilty of doing the actual crime. I know I am guilty of “murder of the heart,” and I have received the “death stare” from those who would rather have me dead than dare tell them they are wrong. That’s not an exaggeration. There is no greater demonstration of the issue of adultery than pornography. And we aren’t talking about just actually opening the web pages or flipping through magazines. We are talking about just imagining the acts in your mind, too. It’s a war in the mind and Jesus is pointing out what our true nature is in all this.
One thing I have pointed out when teaching about the nature of sin is that we all know our sinful tendencies. We know what our draws are towards sin. Imagine if God turned that nature totally loose and let it run wild. I know my tendencies. If I were to act on those desires with no regard to the law or consequences and knowing I would get away with it in this life, I would be the most sadistic, evil monster the world has ever known. People would be coming for my head if God turned that sinful nature totally loose, and it would be the same for any of us.
Jesus is saying this to take our self-righteousness down much more than just a notch. He is actually telling us that any of us who think we have actually obeyed the Law have, in fact, broken it and done so many times. We didn’t merely “oops;” we have repeatedly and intentionally done that which we knew we should not be doing. Again, this all ties into Jesus’ theme that the only really happy people are those who see their total and utter dependence upon Christ and are empty of themselves.
Come back next week for more on this.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
When Naomi heard in Moab that the LORD had come to the aid of his people by providing food for them, she and her daughters-in-law prepared to return home from there. With her two daughters-in-law she left the place where she had been living and set out on the road that would take them back to the land of Judah.
Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back, each of you, to your mother’s home. May the LORD show you kindness, as you have shown kindness to your dead husbands and to me. May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband."
- Ruth 1:6-9a
As with any time you’re reading the Bible, it’s important to understand the context of this passage. In the 5 verses before this section, there has been a famine in Bethlehem, Naomi and Elimelech moved their family to the foreign land of Moab, Elimelech died, their two sons married foreign women, and then those sons died. Naomi and her two daughters-in-law were left with no one to care for them economically.
This passage introduces us to the deep relationships between Naomi and her Moabite daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah. It also raises questions about cultural norms, family loyalty, and the pressures facing women in the ancient Near East. While it appears that Naomi first starts out bringing Ruth and Orpah on the journey back to Bethlehem (verse 7), she then changes her mind and instructs them to go back to their families of origin (verse 8). Why should Ruth and Orpah have stayed in Moab with their families, as Naomi suggested?
The story takes place during a patriarchal era when a woman’s identity, security, and social standing were intricately tied to her family and husband. In Moab, as in much of the ancient Near East, women typically relied on male relatives for protection and provision. Ruth and Orpah, as widows, faced significant challenges: loss of financial support, diminished societal status, and uncertainty about remarriage. Without husbands to provide for them, widows’ survival often depended on the charity of relatives or the community. Returning to their families in Moab would have allowed Ruth and Orpah to access the support of their kinship networks. These networks were essential for widows, providing food, shelter, and the possibility of remarriage within the family or clan.
Naomi’s appeal to Ruth and Orpah to return to their "mother’s home" highlights this cultural expectation. While men were usually the heads of households, widowed daughters often found refuge with their mothers. This phrase might also suggest the possibility of remarriage, as mothers played a crucial role in arranging marriages for their daughters.
Naomi’s plan to return to Bethlehem introduced another layer of complexity. Ruth and Orpah were Moabites, a group often viewed with suspicion and hostility by the Israelites. According to Deuteronomy 23:3, Moabites were excluded from "the assembly of the Lord" because of their ancestors' actions against Israel during the Exodus. This cultural and religious divide would have made it challenging for Ruth and Orpah to integrate into Israelite society, where they risked being marginalized as outsiders.
Remaining in Moab, where they shared language, customs, and religion, would have been a safer and more logical choice. Naomi’s suggestion for them to stay underscores her awareness of the difficulties they would face in Judah. She did not want to impose further hardship on her daughters-in-law, whose loyalty and kindness she deeply appreciated.
Naomi, too, was a widow who would have had difficulty providing for herself. Her decision to return to Bethlehem was driven by the news that "the Lord had come to the aid of his people by providing food for them" (verse 6). She hoped to find sustenance and perhaps kinship support in her homeland. However, Ruth and Orpah’s situation was different. As Moabites, they could not expect the same welcome or resources in Judah.
While Naomi’s advice to Ruth and Orpah to stay in Moab was practical, it also reflected her understanding of God’s hesed – a Hebrew word that we don’t have a good English translation for. It’s often translated as mercy, love, or lovingkindness; see this post for more on that concept. She invoked God’s blessing on them, saying, "May the Lord show you kindness, as you have shown kindness to your dead husbands and to me" (verse 8). Naomi’s prayer acknowledged their past loyalty and expressed hope for their future well-being, even if they chose to part ways.
This passage challenges us to consider the tension between practicality and faith. Naomi’s advice to Ruth and Orpah reflects the wisdom of her time, prioritizing their immediate security and prospects. Yet Ruth’s eventual decision to accompany Naomi (spoiler alert!) demonstrates a willingness to step into the unknown, trusting in God’s provision.
Even though today’s culture and society are very different from the ancient Near East, we should recognize that following God’s calling on our lives still requires sacrifices and risks. At the same time, it’s important to respect diverse paths and choices, as Orpah’s return to Moab was not condemned but understood within the context of her circumstances.
While Naomi’s advice for Ruth and Orpah to remain in Moab was practical and compassionate, Ruth’s choice to journey to Judah demonstrates extraordinary faith and commitment. The historical context enriches our understanding of these women’s choices and invites us to reflect on the ways God’s hesed can guide and sustain us in life’s uncertainties.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Jesus was never someone who needed to prove Himself to anyone, but there were a few times He did things to demonstrate who He was and what He was about. Jesus was not going to merely proclaim some hard truths and hard messages. He was going to prove that He was the one who could call those truths, and He backed them with authority.
There are two miracles that happen back-to-back in the Gospels: the healing of a leper and the healing of a paralytic. In the case of the leper, Jesus touched him (something that a leper would never feel again post-diagnosis: human touch) and healed him but told him not to tell anyone because He did not want the attention. But right after that, Jesus was teaching, and a crowd began to gather. They must have heard about Jesus doing miracles either at the wedding at Cana, seeing Jesus heal the leper, or seeing one of Jesus’ general crowd healings because they brought a friend who was a paralytic. The crowd was too thick to get through, though the crowd here may have only been 50-100 people; when surrounding a small home in those days, that can be a lot very quickly. So they went up to the roof, where there would be an opening, made space to lower the man down, and called upon Jesus to heal him.
During the teaching, some Pharisees were there, and they were wondering who this Jesus was, what teacher He had trained under, and how He got His authority to teach. Jesus saw this moment as an opportunity to prove a point. He was going to prove to the Pharisees that He had far more than the authority to teach, and not just any rabbi’s authority either. So He told the man, “Your sins are forgiven.” Jesus was asked to heal this man, and instead, Jesus says, “Your sins are forgiven.” Why? Jesus was proving He was much more than a healer and a preacher. He was declaring Himself to be on the same authority and tier as God the Father. The Pharisees knew He was claiming that, and knowing that was what they were thinking, He called them out. To nail it even further, He gave them another task that was impossible for a man to do: to make a lame man walk. So, without any show, without any psychosomatics or emotional hyping, Jesus simply said, “Get up and walk.” And the man was able to do so. Miracles had not been seen in Israel since Elisha passed 800 years earlier, and Jesus did one not because He was asked for mercy but primarily just to prove a point.
Jesus did the same thing with a man with a paralyzed, withered hand, and on the Sabbath day no less. He walked into the synagogue while teaching was going on and quietly whispered to the man about getting healed, and the Pharisees on staff that day got offended that Jesus would dare heal on the Sabbath. So Jesus proved a point that to give mercy on the Sabbath was greater than keeping the Sabbath by their standards. The Sabbath laws never forbade doing necessary jobs and tasks. Feeding animals needed to happen every day, and getting animals out of a ditch was a task of necessity that no one would object to being done. But help a person on a Sabbath? Help an old lady cross the street from church? You must go to Hell for that sin. It’s that pathetic.
Jesus also did it for the blind man in John 9, who soon got excommunicated just for saying Jesus healed and telling the Pharisees didn’t know what they were talking about. He only knew he had been healed, and only God could have done that. Jesus healed him in part to prove that man’s ailments, while a result of the curse of sin, are not necessarily a result of any person’s actions. Some things like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome are definitely cases where the person’s mental capacity is permanently damaged by the mother’s drinking. But blindness, lameness, deafness, and many other things are not necessarily because they sinned or because their parents sinned. It can also be allowed so that God could receive glory.
My brother had a dramatic hearing loss in his toddler years and could not hear consonants. A church family prayed over him in secret, and he was miraculously healed. The hearing loss was not a punishment for sin; it was something God allowed, and it was for His glory. The same can be said for a young man in my church who has been wheelchair-bound for his whole life. There was no sin for which that was a judgment. Sin nature in general may be partly to blame, but God allowed it and has allowed it for a reason, which we don’t know fully right now.
Jesus was not a for-show person. He was never going to perform a miracle on a whim unless He was in control of the situation. If the Pharisees were not there at the home for the paralytic, Jesus likely still would have healed him, same with the man with the withered hand and the blind man. Jesus took advantage of each of these situations to prove a point about who He was, what authority He held, and why He came to do what He did. It was never an “I told you so” moment, nor was it a “come look at me” show-off moment. It was to prove that He was the Messiah, but it was also to begin antagonizing the Pharisees so they would be riled up to the point of calling for His death. The Pharisees did not like that because they knew if the Messiah did come, their jobs would no longer be needed. (This reminds me of cancer research groups who don’t want cancer cures being found because that would kill their income instead of going on to the next thing.)
Now let me be clear: Jesus is not anti-religion. He was against the Pharisees’ abuse of the system and their hypocrisy for their own gain. He never once chided the Pharisees over doctrine. But He was going to leave them no room to consider Him as just a street preacher with a Messiah complex. He was going to make sure they knew He knew and believed Himself to be the Messiah, and He proved it by performing miracles that had never been done before.
Jesus proved He had the authority to teach, the authority to heal, and the authority to forgive sins. Over the next few weeks, we’ll look at how that authority was showcased as we look at Jesus’ most well-known sermon and the understanding of authority and faith that left Jesus astonished. And that’s just the beginning of Jesus’ ministry; there’s much more to discuss as the series progresses.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
Before we continue any further in the book of Ruth, it’s important to pause and look more in-depth at the Hebrew word hesed. This is a key theme and concept in the narrative of Ruth, and this word is one that it’s difficult to translate into English.
The Hebrew word hesed is one of the most profound and multi-dimensional terms in the biblical lexicon. Found throughout the Hebrew Bible, it is often translated as “loving-kindness,” “steadfast love,” “mercy,” or “faithfulness.” Hesed carries a richness that encapsulates covenantal loyalty, enduring compassion, and the transformative power of love.
Hesed is notoriously difficult to translate because it encompasses a range of meanings that vary depending on context. At its core, hesed refers to a loyal and loving action that arises within a covenantal relationship. Unlike fleeting emotions or conditional acts of kindness, hesed implies a committed and enduring love.
In biblical texts, hesed often reflects God's covenantal relationship with His people. For example, in Exodus 34:6-7, God proclaims Himself as “abounding in love [hesed] and faithfulness.” This self-revelation highlights God's unwavering faithfulness and deep compassion toward humanity, even in the face of human failure.
Rabbinic literature and modern scholarship underscore that hesed is not simply an internal sentiment but a tangible expression of love and loyalty. It is an action-oriented concept that finds its fulfillment in acts of care, justice, and fidelity. Thus, hesed is both relational and transformational, bridging divine love with human responsibility.
The concept of covenant is essential to understanding hesed. Covenants in the ancient Near East were binding agreements, often sealed with rituals, that defined relationships and obligations. In the Biblical context, covenants between God and His people—such as those with Noah, Abraham, and David—are marked by divine hesed.
In 2 Samuel 7:15-16, God promises David that His “love [hesed] will never be taken away” from him or his descendants, even when they falter. This steadfast commitment underscores that divine hesed is not contingent upon human perfection but flows from God's unchanging nature. Similarly, Psalm 136 repeatedly emphasizes God's enduring hesed, declaring in every verse, “His love [hesed] endures forever.”
God’s covenantal hesed invites human participation. In Micah 6:8, the prophet encapsulates the ethical response to God’s hesed: “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Here, hesed becomes a model for human relationships, encouraging mutual care, fidelity, and mercy.
While hesed is often associated with divine action, it also describes interpersonal relationships. In the book of Ruth, hesed is a central theme that binds the story’s characters. Ruth’s loyalty to her mother-in-law, Naomi, epitomizes human hesed. Despite Naomi’s bleak circumstances, Ruth commits herself to Naomi with the famous words: “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16).
Later in the narrative, Boaz extends hesed to Ruth by ensuring her protection and provision. His actions reflect the ethical dimension of hesed, demonstrating that loyalty and kindness are not passive but require intentional and sacrificial acts. In Ruth 2:20, Naomi acknowledges Boaz’s hēsed as a reflection of God's overarching care, blurring the lines between divine and human manifestations of this quality.
Hesed is intricately linked with justice in the Hebrew Bible. In Hosea 6:6, God declares, “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” This verse critiques empty religious rituals devoid of ethical substance. It highlights that true devotion to God manifests in compassionate actions and a commitment to justice.
The prophets consistently call for a society rooted in hesed. Isaiah 58, for example, emphasizes the need for fasting that leads to social justice: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?” (Isaiah 58:6). Here, acts of hesed are inseparable from the pursuit of a just and equitable community.
This interplay between hesed and justice challenges contemporary readers to consider how their faith translates into tangible actions. Hesed invites us to move beyond personal piety and engage in the work of healing, reconciliation, and systemic change.
The Hebrew word hesed encapsulates a divine and human ideal that transcends time and culture. Rooted in covenantal relationships, it is a love that acts, endures, and transforms. From the ancient Israelites to contemporary readers, hesed offers a vision of a world shaped by compassion, loyalty, and justice.
As we reflect on the meanings and implications of hesed, may we be inspired to embody its qualities in our lives. Whether through small acts of kindness or larger commitments to justice and mercy, hesed calls us to participate in the divine story of steadfast love. In doing so, we not only honor the legacy of this profound biblical concept but also contribute to the flourishing of our communities and the world.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
