John The Baptist's Doubts and Jesus' Response

Matthew 11:1 When Jesus had finished giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there to teach and preach in their cities. 2 Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4 Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. 6 "And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me."

Here is a familiar passage from Matthew's Gospel in which Jesus reveals how he read his Bible and how he understood himself in light of that Bible.  When John seems confused about Jesus' identity as the promised Messiah, or Christ, Jesus quotes from Isaiah as evidence for his Messiahship.  Isn't that amazing?! Jesus is calling for a way to identify him as the promised Messiah that is very different from the way many Christians today identify him.  I'm afraid that, for most Christians, their confidence in Jesus as the Messiah rests in their confidence in the New Testament's witness as it shines light back onto the Old Testament.  In other words, they believe the NT.  It says he's the Messiah, so it must be true.  However, Jesus begins with the Old Testament and allows it to shine light on his life and ministry in order that his followers could see clearly that He is the one to whom the Hebrew Scriptures point.  In light of how most Christians read their Bibles, Jesus should have told John's disciples something like this, "Go tell John that we're working on this new book called The New Testament that will make all this really clear for John.  This new Scripture will ascend higher in authority than the Hebrew Scriptures and will be used to make what was not clear in the OT clear enough for you to know I'm the Messiah."  Surprisingly, this is not what Jesus does.   Also Jesus could have simply answered, "Yes. I am the Christ."

Why didn't Jesus just say, "Go tell John that I am indeed the Messiah." Instead he essentially said, "If you want to know who I am, compare what you know of the Messiah from your Bible, John, to what you know about my ministry."  This is what we should do today.  As we read our NT we should examine the life of Jesus and see if it fits the portrait of the Messiah given in the OT.  Is this how you read your Bible?  It's how Jesus told John to read his.  Jesus is concerned that His followers' faith in his Messiahship rest in their faith in the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament's portrait of the future-coming King.  Did you hear that?  Jesus wants your faith in him, i.e. that he is the promised Messiah, to be informed by and dependent on your trusting of the OT Scriptures.  How different this is for many Christians today who rarely read the OT, admittedly prefer the NT, and understand the OT in light of the NT when they do venture to read the OT.  I wonder what Jesus would think of that?  I think he would prefer that we understand the NT in light of a careful, lifelong reading and rereading of the OT.  That's how Jesus, the focused subject matter of the NT, understood himself, i.e. by interpreting his own identity in light of what he knew from his Hebrew Scriptures concerning what Messiah would be like and what he would do.  Let's do the same as we imitate his hermeneutic.  We'll find our confidence in him as the long hoped-for Messiah and our confidence in the OT Scriptures to grow as we do so.

Num 20:12: Moses didn't believe in The LORD?

In Numbers 20 we learn of Miriam's death (20:1) and Israel's subsequent contention with Moses and Aaron about the barrenness of the wilderness (20:3-5).  The people specifically focus on the lack of fruit and water in the wilderness.  God responds with some clear instructions for Moses and Aaron for providing water.  Don't miss the verbal details here.  First, Moses is to take the staff and gather the congregation.  After that he is to "speak to the rock IN THEIR EYES"(20:8).  It seems important that the water should be provided through Moses' speaking to the rock "in their eyes".  God wants the people to see Moses speak to the rock.  Instead Moses strikes the rock after asking a revealing question in verse 9: "Are we able to bring forth water for you all from this rock?"  Could this be an attempt by Moses and Aaron to undermine God's role in providing the water?  Could this be an attempt to highlight the ability of Moses and Aaron to provide for the people instead of trusting God to do it by following his instructions exactly?  I think that would explain why the LORD complains that they did not believe in Him, nor did they treat Him as holy IN THE EYES of the people of Israel. (20:12)  Notice the textual link here with God's instructions in verse 8 ("IN THEIR EYES").   So God is indicting Moses and Aaron for not following the instructions properly, and that is why he is displeased with Moses and Aaron.  Here again we see that careful attention to the way the text refers back to other parts of the text through verbal connections is key for interpretation, and this allows the author to guide his reader with his very words.

Con-textuality

What is Con-Textuality?

Lots of late has been written about the way a biblical book makes allusions to other places within the same biblical book (inner-textuality) and the way different biblical books signal verbal links to one another (inter-texuality).  Indeed the work of scholars like John H. Sailhamer is based on such observations and their import for exposing authorial intentionality.  One category Sailhamer mentions, "Con-textuality", seems to have gotten somewhat less attention although interest is increasing with the publication of books like Michael Shepherd's Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible.  This book is an attempt to understand Daniel in light of its strategic placement in the arrangement of the Hebrew canon.  The notion of con-textuality deals with just that, i.e. the effect the ordering of the biblical books has on the interpretation of that book in the canon.

In this post I want to explore the book of Ruth with regard to the notion of con-textuality and see how two different scholars read the book slightly differently.  I intend to show that con-textuality does play a role in determining meaning based on the different conclusions these two scholars come to on the function of Ruth in the Bible.  T. Desmond Alexander reads the book with reference to its common order in English Bibles which basically follows the ancient order found in the Classic Greek translation of Scripture, the Septuagint.  Stephen Dempster seeks to make sense of the book as it is presented in the order given it by the Hebrew canonical arrangement.

The Difference in Canonical Arrangements


The following chart will give the reader a view of how and where the two orders diverge. 

English                                                     Hebrew TaNaK

Pentateuch (Gen Ex Lev Num Deut)       Pentateuch (G E L N D)
Joshua                                                      Joshua
Judges                                                      Judges
RUTH                                            
1 and 2 Samuel                                        1 and 2 Samuel
1 and 2 Kings                                          1 and 2 Kings
1 and 2 Chronicles                                  
Ezra-Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah                                                      Isaiah
Jeremiah                                                 Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel                                                   Ezekiel
Daniel
12 prophets (HJAOJMNHZHZM)       12 prophets
                                                               Psalms
                                                               Job
                                                               Proverbs
                                                               RUTH
                                                               Song of Solomon
                                                               Ecclesiastes
                                                               Lamentations
                                                               Esther
                                                               Daniel
                                                               Ezra-Nehemiah
                                                               1 and 2 Chronicles

The Hebrew Bible has a three-part design corresponding to the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Neviim), and the Writings (Ketuvim), or the acronym TaNaK.  The Law consists of Gen-Deut. The Prophets is made up of Joshua-12 Prophets, and the Writings comprises Psalms-Chronicles.  In the TaNaK Ruth falls in the third section, The Writings.  For an explanation of the two designs and their significance I recommend Stephen Dempster's Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible to which I have provided a link above.  Dempster also argues for the value of reading and understanding the OT's theology based on the TaNaK arrangement although he follows a tradition which reads Ruth at the head of The Writings instead of after Proverbs in the middle of The Writings.

Two Readings of Ruth

In The Servant King: The Bible's Portrait of the Messiah, Alexander reads Ruth in its canonical context as found in English Bibles.  He concludes that the book forms a bridge between Judges and Samuel and anticipates the establishment of the Davidic monarchy.  Thus Ruth contributes to the Portrait of the Messiah in the OT by "[linking] the name of David with the divine promises in Genesis concerning a future king from the line of Judah" (49, 53).  This reading depends on viewing the book in the literary context established by the chronological arrangement of books found in the English Bible.

There are at least four reasons which suggest to me that Ruth was not written to be understood in that position within the canon.  These reasons do not establish with certainty that the arrangement in the TaNaK is to be preferred, but they provide enough evidence to favor its order in the TaNaK.

1.  Ruth 1:1 explicitly sets the context for the book "in the days of the judges' judging" (my very literal translation).  Why is this necessary if the book is just a natural bridge between the book of Judges and Samuel?  If the book was written to be read in the historical context of Judges, it seems unlikely the reader would need to be explicitly oriented to that context by the writer.  Admittedly this does not necessarily undermine the notion that Ruth could have been written to be read as a bridge between Judges and Samuel.  However, such a reference would make more sense in light of the TaNaK positioning of Ruth.  At that point in the TaNaK, the days of the Judges have long been left while several other books have intervened.  Referencing their days here signals to the reader that this book will be a flashback to an earlier time period in the TaNaK's storyline.  

2.  The genealogy at the end of Ruth which includes David (4:22) seems to assume that the reader of the TaNaK already knows who David is.  In the order found in the English Bibles David has not yet appeared chronologically.  Alexander may be right that this passage anticipates the Davidic monarchy, but we will see below with Dempster's help that the text likely has a different function in light of its placement in the TaNaK.

3.  Proverbs ends with a description of the "virtuous woman" (אשת חיל) (Prov 31:).  Then, in the next canonical book, Ruth is expressly designated a "virtuous woman" in Ruth 3:11 with the same Hebrew wording, suggesting that the book of Ruth also serves as an example of the virtuous woman described in the immediately preceding last chapter of Proverbs.  Sailhamer makes this suggestion in his work linked above.
 
My fourth reason comes from Dempster's arguments for Ruth's meaning in light of the TaNaK.  Ruth's con-textual arrangement in The Writings serves as a narrative "flashback, focusing on information relevant to the burning questions of exile and the absence from the throne of a member of the line of David. The situation depicted in the text turns on a family from...Bethlehem, which goes into exile and returns greatly depleted to the promised land, all its male members dead. The obstacles to genealogy now are not barren women but dead males" (191).  Don't miss this.  Much of the  subject matter of the Prophets and the Psalms thus far in the TaNaK has focused on the Davidic Covenant and whether or not it still stands.  How can it be that God would allow David's throne to be cut off in this way?  Here in the middle of the Writings, the book of Ruth reminds its readers that though David's line may go into exile and its male kingly prospects do not occupy the throne, God has preserved in the past, and is capable of preserving again the Davidic genealogy through exile for future restoration.

Conclusion

For Alexander, Ruth functions to foreshadow the establishment of the Davidic monarchy in fulfillment of God's promise to bring a king from Judah as in Genesis 49.  For Dempster, the Davidic monarchy is assumed, but at that point in the TaNaK this royal line is in jeopardy of extinction and God's promise in danger of being undone.  Therefore, Ruth's portrayal of the exile and restoration of the Davidic line through historical flashback reminds the reader of God's ability to raise up "David" again.  In other words, the point at which one encounters Ruth's narrative in the overall storyline of the Old Testament could causes one to see an anticipation of the establishment of the Davidic monarchy (Alexander), or an anticipation of the re-establishment of that monarchy (Dempster).