Tag Archives: Daniel Block

Commentary on the Book of Ruth

The Book of Ruth is placed right after Judges in the Christian Old Testament, as part of the Historical Books section. As with most other books in the OT, the author is not known for sure, although Jewish and Christian tradition point to the prophet Samuel. If it was Samuel, it would have been written before the year 1000 BC, which is about the latest date for Samuel’s death.

The main purpose of the Book of Ruth is to communicate the ancestry of King David, the greatest king of Israel, who would rule from 1010 to 970 BC. The events in Ruth likely take place around 1100 BC, or toward the end of the rule of the judges. The period of the judges would end when Saul was anointed as the first king of Israel in 1050 BC.

The story of Ruth is also a sharp contrast to the depressing history of the period of the judges. In contrast to the Canaanized judges (e.g., Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson), the characters in Ruth are, for the most part, faithful to God, kind in their dealings with each other, and otherwise exemplary individuals.

The story of Ruth is meant to tell the story of the bloodline of King David, the greatest king Israel would ever have. Ruth is David’s great-grandmother, but the writer of the Book of Ruth wants to chronicle how exactly it came to be that the great grandmother of David could be a foreign woman from Moab.

The story begins in chapter 1 with a husband, wife, and two sons leaving Bethlehem, a small town in the territory of Judah, to go to Moab, a neighboring nation that had been unfriendly to Israel in the past (recall that King Balak from the Book of Numbers was from Moab). The reason given is that there was a famine in Bethlehem.

Why was there a famine? Remember that the books of Leviticus (26:18-20) and Deuteronomy (28:23-24) both recorded God’s commitment to cursing Israel with famine if they chased after foreign gods, and we know from the Book of Judges that they certainly did.

The two sons married Moabite wives, but after 10 years, the father, Elimelech, and the two sons, Mahlon and Kilion, had died. Naomi, the widow of Elimelech, decided to travel back to Bethlehem because she heard that God had brought an end to the famine.

Naomi tells her two daughters-in-law that they should abandon her and go back to their Moabite families so that they could remarry. In the ancient world, an unmarried woman was in a very precarious position, as she had to rely on her relatives to support her. Naomi knew that the girls would be better off going back to their own families and finding new husbands than coming with her to Bethlehem in a foreign land where remarriage was unlikely.

One of the daughters-in-law, however, refuses to abandon Naomi, and pledges not only to accompany her, but to adopt Naomi’s people as her own, and Naomi’s God as her own. Her name is Ruth.

In chapter 2, after Naomi and Ruth have returned to Bethlehem, they are faced with the difficulty of getting food for themselves. Ruth volunteers to go to a local farmer’s field and gather the leftover grain from the harvesting that was going on at the time. Daniel Block, in Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary), explains:

The Mosaic law displayed particular compassion for the alien, the orphan, and the widow by prescribing that harvesters deliberately leave the grain in the corners of their fields for these economically vulnerable classes and not go back to gather (liqqēṭ) ears of grain they might have dropped (Lev 19:9, 10; 23:22; Deut 24:19). As a Moabite and a widow Ruth qualified to glean on two counts. But for these same two reasons she could not count on the goodwill of the locals, hence her concern to glean behind someone who would look upon her with favor.

Ruth happens to choose the fields of a man named Boaz, a relative of Naomi’s former husband Elimelech. Boaz arrives to find Ruth working hard in his fields to pick up the scraps of grain left over by his harvesters. After finding out that Ruth has forsaken her own people and country to help her poor widowed mother-in-law, he rewards Ruth’s efforts by 1) telling her to continue working in his fields, 2) promising her safety, 3) offering her water whenever she needs it, 4) feeding her a meal of bread, wine vinegar, and roasted grain, 5) and instructing his workers to leave behind extra grain for Ruth to gather.

Ruth returns home that evening with a large amount of grain and explains to Naomi Boaz’s generosity. Naomi thanks God for Boaz and tells Ruth to continue going to Boaz’s fields until the grain harvest is over. A young, widowed woman like Ruth would be in great danger from being raped, and so not only was Ruth able to gather plenty of food at Boaz’s fields, she would not have to worry about her safety.

In chapter 3, Naomi instructs Ruth to seek the hand of Boaz in marriage. Her reasoning is that Boaz is a close relative of her late husband, and that he is therefore obligated to buy the property that Elimelech and his sons left behind, but also obligated to marry the widow of Elimelech’s son, Mahlon, so that she can bear children which will grow up to claim that property.

Land was passed on from father to son, and since Naomi’s sons were dead, there was nobody to whom Elimelech’s land could pass. Naomi herself was too old to conceive any more children, but her daughter-in-law, Ruth, was young and able to conceive and bear children. If Ruth had children, those children would grow up and inherit the land owned by their grandfather. Otherwise, Elimelech’s descendants would lose the land forever.

Ruth was to go to a public threshing floor where Boaz would be working, and wait for him to go to sleep. The threshing floor was being used by Boaz to thresh and winnow the grain he had harvested. John Reed, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, provides the setting:

The people of Bethlehem took turns using the threshing floor. The floor was a flat hard area on a slightly raised platform or hill. In threshing, the grain was beaten out from the stalks with flails (cf. 2:17) or was trodden over by oxen. Then in winnowing the grain was thrown in the air and the wind carried the chaff away. The grain was then removed from the threshing floor and placed in heaps to be sold or stored in granaries.

Threshing and winnowing were a time of great festivity and rejoicing. Naomi knew that Boaz was threshing his grain on the day that she had chosen for her plan. She also knew that Boaz would be sleeping near his grain that night, to protect it.

When Boaz went to sleep, Ruth was to lay down at his feet, uncover his feet, and wait. This was a customary way for a woman to signal that she was asking a man for marriage.

When Boaz awakes, he is stunned to find Ruth asking him for marriage. He is surprised because he is much older than her, and she chose him over other younger men. We can assume that Ruth was a very attractive young lady!

There is, however, a catch. Boaz tells Ruth that there is a closer relative than he who must be given the first chance to buy Elimelech’s land and marry Ruth. If this other man decides not to take the opportunity, Boaz will.

In chapter 4, Boaz gathers the elders of the town and offers the closer relative the land and Ruth in marriage. The man declines and lets Boaz buy the land and take Ruth as his wife instead. Why might the other man have declined? The text doesn’t tell us explicitly, but it seems that he is without sons and he is afraid that if he has children with Ruth, then his lands will pass to her sons in the names of Elimelech, Mahlon, and Kilion.

At the end of chapter 4, we learn that Ruth and Boaz do have a son named Obed. Obed becomes the father of Jesse, and Jesse becomes the father of David, the greatest king of Israel.

God’s hand can be seen throughout this narrative. First, God causes the famine which drove Elimelech and his family to Moab. Second, the clear implication is that God was at work when Ruth “happened” to end up in the fields of Boaz. Of all the fields she could have chosen, it was clearly providential that she chose Boaz’s fields.

Third, Block points out that Naomi’s plan for Ruth to petition Boaz for marriage was fraught with danger:

Ruth’s preparations and the choice of location for the encounter suggest the actions of a prostitute. Under normal circumstances, if a self-respecting and morally noble man like Boaz, sleeping at the threshing floor, should wake up in the middle of the night and discover a woman beside him, he would surely have shooed her off, protesting that he had nothing to do with women like her. But if Ruth’s actions are questionable ethically, her demand that Boaz marry her are highly irregular from the perspective of custom: a foreigner propositioning an Israelite; a woman propositioning a man; a young person propositioning an older person; a destitute field worker propositioning the landowner. But instead of taking offense at Ruth’s forwardness, Boaz blesses her, praises her for her ḥesed, calls her ‘my daughter,’ reassures her by telling her not to fear, promises to do whatever she asks, and pronounces her a noble woman (ʾēšet ḥayil). This extraordinary reaction is best attributed to the hand of God controlling his heart and his tongue when he awakes.

Fourth, God ensures that it is Boaz who marries Ruth, not the other relative. Fifth, and finally, God sees to it that Ruth bears a child, Obed, who will be the grandfather of King David. Why does David matter so much? Because God promised to bring the Messiah through David’s descendants. Reed writes,

“Jesus Christ’s lineage, through Mary, is traced to David (Matt. 1:1–16; cf. Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8; Rev. 22:16). Christ is therefore called “the Son of David” (Matt. 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15; 22:42). Christ will someday return to earth and will sit on the throne of David as the millennial King (2 Sam. 7:12–16; Rev. 20:4–6).”

God fulfills his promises of a Messiah and a future redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, through the faithful actions of Ruth and Boaz, two godly people who lived 1000 years before He was born.

Commentary on Judges 13-16 (Samson)

Toward the end of the period of the judges lived one of the most famous judges, Samson.  He lived from approximately 1089 BC to 1049 BC. The story of Samson begins in chapter 13, which is where we pick up the narrative.

In verse 1, we learn that God is once again punishing Israel by allowing them to be ruled over by the Philistines. Who were the Philistines? According to F. Duane Lindsey in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, the

Philistines arrived in large numbers during the invasion of the Sea Peoples about 1200 B.C. They organized a pentapolis or confederation of five cities—Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod on the strategic coastal highway, and Gath and Ekron on the edge of the Shephelah or Judean foothills (cf. Josh. 13:3). When the Philistine aggression moved eastward into the land of Benjamin and Judah, the Israelites accepted that domination without resistance (cf. 14:4; 15:11) till the time of Samuel (cf. 1 Sam. 7:10–14).

For what evil was Israel being punished? Serving the false gods of the Canaanites instead of serving the one true God who brought them out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.

After 40 years under Philistine rule, God is going to bring a deliverer forth to begin to rescue his people from the Philistines. The angel of the Lord appears to a Danite woman who is barren and tells her that she will conceive and birth a child who will be dedicated to God for his entire life. The boy would be a Nazirite (see Numbers 6:1-21), which meant that he was never to cut his hair, he was to abstain from drinking any alcohol, and he was never to have contact with a corpse.

Notice that verse 5 says that he will only begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines, a modest pronouncement. The final defeat of the Philistines would be left to Samuel (1 Sam. 7:10–14) and David (2 Sam. 5:17–25). Immediately we are suspicious that this particular judge will not live up to the potential he has.

One would expect that a man dedicated to God before his birth, a man who was a divinely appointed deliverer of Israel, would lead an exemplary and godly life. Instead, we will see that Samson is a deeply flawed man who personifies all that is wrong with Israel.

In chapters 14-15, the writer records several incidents from Samson’s life. We learn that God gives Samson supernatural physical strength at particular times. Due to this God-given strength, Samson personally kills hundreds of Philistines and becomes a “leader” of Israel. What is interesting is that Samson never leads others into battle or appears to administer the affairs of Israel in any official way. He simply keeps the Philistines at bay because they are scared of him as an individual. Daniel Block, in Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary), summarizes Samson’s life:

No other deliverer in the Book of Judges matches his potential. Called prenatally by Yahweh, stirred as a youth by the Spirit of Yahweh, empowered with extraordinary gifts by Yahweh, and granted exceptional opportunities for heroism by Yahweh, the narrator devotes more attention to Samson than to any other deliverer. Despite all these advantages and this special attention, Samson accomplishes less on behalf of his people than any of his predecessors. . . . Though Samson is impressive as an individual, he turns out to be anything but a military hero. He never leads Israel out in battle; he never engages the Philistines in martial combat; he never experiences a military victory. All his accomplishments are personal; all his victories, private.

As we begin chapter 16, we learn that Samson forms a relationship with a Philistine woman named Delilah. The rulers of the Philistines bribe Delilah to discover Samson’s source of physical strength. Three times Delilah begs to know Samson’s secret, and three times he lies to her.

Finally, the fourth time she asks, Samson reveals that he has been dedicated to God since birth, and this is symbolized by the fact that his hair has never been cut. If his hair is cut, his physical strength will be like that of any other man.

Samson falls asleep and Delilah cuts his hair. The Philistine rulers overpower him and carry him off as a prisoner. His eyes are gouged out and he is kept as a slave doing hard labor.

In verses 23-31, Samson is brought before a large number of Philistine leaders at a temple to entertain them. In his last act, he asks God for physical strength one more time so that he can knock down two columns that support the temple roof, thus killing all of the people on the roof of the temple. What a sad end to a life with so much potential.

What are we to make of Samson’s story? Daniel Block invites us to compare Samson to the nation of Israel:

Samson is a Wunderkind, miraculously born by the will of God. Samson is called to a high life of separation and devotion to Yahweh. Samson has a rash, opportunistic, and immature personality. Samson is inexorably drawn to foreign women, like Israel was drawn to foreign gods (both ‘play the harlot’). Samson experiences the bondage and oppression of the enemy. Samson cries out to Yahweh from his oppression. Samson is blinded (cf. 1 Sam 3:1–3). Samson is abandoned by Yahweh and does not know it.

Samson, as the “greatest” deliverer of Israel during the time of the judges, is a great disappointment. Contrast him to the greatest deliverer of Israel and all mankind, Jesus Christ. Jesus was a Wunderkind born by the will of God who fulfilled all of his potential. He perfectly obeyed God the Father in everything and defeated man’s greatest enemies, sin and death.

Don’t Judges 1:8 and 1:21 Contradict Each Other?

Judges 1:8 says, “The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire.” The surface implication is that the city of Jerusalem was completely destroyed and everyone inside of it killed.

Just a few verses later, Judges 1:21 says, “The Benjamites, however, failed to dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.” This verse clearly states that the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, were not removed and still live there! How can both of these verses be true?

Daniel Block, in Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) offers one explanation:

The most likely explanation recognizes that Jerusalem was a border city, located on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin. The city that was burned in v. 8 probably identifies the Jebusite fortress on the southern hill of the city, between the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys, and which David eventually captured and made his capital. Accordingly, the unsuccessful Benjamite effort in v. 21 must have been directed against the citadel farther north. The fact that David had to reconquer Jerusalem suggests the Judahite hold on the city was weak and short-lived. It seems that shortly after they had sacked it the Jebusites moved in from the north and took control, which they then held for several centuries.

Block’s explanation assumes that Jerusalem actually consisted of at least two separate citadels. But if there really was only one citadel named Jerusalem at that time, then how would we explain the apparent difficulty?

Paul Copan and Matt Flannagan argue in their book Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God that we have to be careful when interpreting phrases like “put the city to the sword.” This phrase may have been hyperbolic in its original context. In other words, the author and the original readers would have understood that the entire city was not destroyed and that all the people inside were not literally killed. Instead there was a military victory that left at least some of the city intact and some of the residents alive.

We use hyperbolic language all the time today. Think about sports. Sports fans frequently say things like, “My team destroyed yours” or “We annihilated them last night.” Are we really talking about destruction and annihilation? No, obviously not. We simply mean that one team defeated the other. We use the exact same kinds of phrases when we talk about military battles.

Other hyperbolic phrases found in the Old Testament are “utterly destroy,” “put to the edge of the sword,” “leave alive nothing that breathes,” “leaving no survivors,” and “man and woman, young and old.” These kinds of phrases were commonly used among the people living at this time in history. Many times in the historical books of the Bible we see reports of “complete annihilation” of a city or group of people, only to see this same city or people group alive and well later on, often in the same book (compare Joshua 10:39 to 11:31 and Joshua 11:21 to 15:13-14).

So, a second plausible explanation for the seeming contradiction of verses 8 and 21 is that verse 8 should be understood hyperbolically. Whether you are convinced by this explanation or by Daniel Block’s explanation, there is not actually a contradiction.

Commentary on Judges 1-2 (Disobedience and Defeat)

The Book of Judges continues the historical narrative where Joshua ended. The author of Judges is unknown, although Jewish tradition ascribes authorship to the prophet Samuel. Samuel may have written portions of the book, but there were likely later editors that compiled it into its final form. Scholars date the final composition of Judges from some time between 700 and 1000 BC.

Judges describes the period between the initial conquests of Canaan (around 1400 BC) to the time of the first king of Israel, Saul (around 1050 BC). Thus the entire span of the book is about 350 years. During this time period, Israel consists of 12 separate tribes, all of whom experience cycles of 1) sinning against God, 2) being oppressed by various Canaanite groups, and 3) then being rescued by judges. The book mentions 12 judges, but there were likely many more.

The judges were men and women, usually military leaders, whom God used to rescue the different tribes in Israel from their Canaanite oppressors. Why is it that the Israelites were not taking all the Promised Land as they had been commanded? Why is it they were losing military battles against their enemies? Sin. The theme of the Book of Judges is the “Canaanization of Israel.” Instead of obeying God, the Israelites adopted the practices of the very people who God sent them to drive out of the land.

As we begin looking at chapter 1 in Judges, it is helpful to understand the historical context that Israel is within. The Chronological Study Bible: New King James Version summarizes the situation:

Having established at least a foothold in the land of Canaan, Israel now organized itself into a loose confederation of independent tribes. The link connecting these clans was their God. The tribes celebrated common religious festivals at the shrine where the ark of the covenant was kept. The shrine was movable, but it was most often located at Gilgal and Shiloh. The tribal confederation had military purposes as well. When an outside people invaded, the clans were to join in a holy war. Some leader would take the initiative and summon the tribes to battle. These leaders, for the most part, we call the judges. The judges led makeshift armies, but they did not have to face the forces of the major empires. Through most of the period of the judges, Egypt and the countries of Mesopotamia were weak and preoccupied with internal problems. The wars of the Book of Judges are waged against unconquered Canaanites and such small neighboring nations as Edom, Midian, and Ammon.

Verses 1-10 in chapter 1 of Judges describes the first actions of Israel after Joshua’s death. God commands the tribe of Judah to set out from Gilgal (Israel’s home base at this time) and take the land promised to them (see this map to remember where Judah was given land).

The tribe of Simeon would go along with Judah since Simeon’s allotted land was inside of Judah’s. The actual men, Judah and Simeon, had been full brothers, both having Leah as their mother and Jacob as their father.

Verses 4-10 describe successful military campaigns against Canaanites and Perizzites living in Bezek, against the city of Jerusalem, and against the “Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev and the western foothills.” They also successfully conquered the city of Hebron.

In verses 17-21, we learn that the Judahites continued to attack additional cities: Zephath, Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. In verse 19, however, we start to see the first signs of failure. The writer records that Judah was unable to drive “the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.” We also see that the “Benjamites, however, failed to dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.”

Verses 27-36 report even more disturbing news. The other tribes had utterly failed to drive out the Canaanites living in their allotted territories. What was going on? Didn’t God promise to give the Israelites the Promised Land? Wasn’t He going ahead of them to win their military victories for them? How is it that most of the tribes of Israel were not, in fact, driving out the Canaanites? Chapter 2 gives us the answer.

In verses 1-3, the angel of the Lord (possibly God Himself) accuses the Israelites of disobedience. They had made covenants with the Canaanites and had adopted their religious, cultural, and ethical practices. Thus God would “not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.”

Verses 6-23 now give the more detailed account of exactly what went wrong after Joshua died. Things started out well during the lifetimes of the elders who witnessed the miracles of the conquest under Joshua. After that generation died off, the next generation, who had not witnessed the miraculous events of the conquest, began to worship the gods of the Canaanites.

Recall that the worship of the Canaanite deities went hand in hand with all of the other immoral practices of the Canaanites: incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, etc. The Israelites were turning their backs on God and becoming “Canaanized.” God tells them that they will be trapped, ensnared by the false gods of Canaan. Daniel Block, in Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) writes,

When the Israelites observed the prosperity of the Canaanites, the latter’s’ gods seemed to offer so much: fertility, prosperity, security. But Yahweh hereby turns their twisted theological thinking against them. Rather than finding new freedom in the religious structures of the Canaanites, the Israelites would be caught in the trap of their gods, like a fly in a spider’s web.

God was angry over their sin and handed them over to their enemies. In fact, God was actively enabling their enemies to defeat them every time they went out to battle! This is exactly what God promised He would do if Israel disobeyed.

From time to time, the people of Israel would remember God, cry out in distress, and beg Him for help against their enemies. During these periods, verses 16-19 explain that God would raise up a judge. The judge was a military leader who would rescue the Israelites from their oppressors. But as soon as the judge died, the people would revert back to worshiping the gods of Canaan. The rest of the Book of Judges records the actions of several judges that ruled over the various tribes of Israel for next few centuries.

Daniel Block concludes:

By way of reflection, from this text the reader has learned the Israelite [Yahwist] definition of apostasy. Apostasy means abandoning Yahweh in favor of other gods; it means claiming to be the people of Yahweh while acting as if one belongs to Baal. This perfidy is expressed in transgressing Yahweh’s covenant, not walking in his way, not listening to his voice, not heeding his commandments, especially his call for exclusive allegiance. Unlike the gods of the surrounding nations, Yahweh would tolerate no rivals. There is no room in Yahwistic faith for accommodation to pagan notions or customs. At the same time the reader is reminded of the patience and grace of Yahweh.

The cycle of disobedience, repentance, forgiveness, and deliverance would repeat over and over again. In fact, the tribes of Israel during this time are representative of humanity. We constantly disobey, repent, gain forgiveness and deliverance from our sins, and then disobey again. The only person who ever broke this cycle is Jesus Christ. He is the first and only human to never disobey God the Father. His sinless life broke the endless cycle recorded in the Book of Judges.

What Is the Documentary Hypothesis?

While Jews and Christians have traditionally believed that Moses was the primary author of the Pentateuch, some biblical scholars today reject that belief.  Instead, these scholars believe that the Pentateuch was written over several centuries by several different authors and not finally compiled into its final form until just a few hundred years before Jesus was born.

Daniel I. Block, in the Apologetics Study Bibleprovides more detail. Block writes that biblical scholars in the mid-nineteenth century began to question the traditional authorship of Moses.

The questioning began early with doubts whether Moses recorded his own death and burial (Dt 34), knew of a place in northern Israel called Dan (Gn 14: 14; cp. Jos 19: 47; Jdg 18: 28-29), or referred to the conquest of Canaan as having occurred in the past (Dt 2: 12). Thus scholars developed an alternative explanation for the origin of the Pentateuch known as the Documentary Hypothesis.

According to the classical form of the theory, the Pentateuch is the product of a long and complex literary evolution, specifically incorporating at least four major literary strands composed independently over several centuries and not combined in the present form until the time of Ezra (fifth century B.C.). These sources are identified as J, E, D, and P.

J represents a ninth century B.C. (c. 850) document that originated in Judah, distinguished by its preference for the name Yahweh (Jehovah, hence the “J”). The E source preferred the divine title Elohim, and theoretically was composed in Israel in the eighth century B.C. The D stands for Deuteronomy, supposedly written around 621 B.C. to lend support to Josiah’s reforms. The priestly document, P, supposedly was composed c. 500 B.C. by priests seeking to preserve their own version of Israel’s history.

According to the theory, these sources were compiled and combined in the middle of the fifth century B.C. Nehemiah 8 recounts the moment when Ezra publicly read the Pentateuch as a unit for the first time. . . .

Variations of the Documentary Hypothesis prevailed for more than a century. However, due to advances in literary studies, today the state of pentateuchal scholarship is confused, with new theories or radical modifications appearing often.

There are significant problems with the Documentary Hypothesis and its off-shoots, as noted by many conservative scholars. Those will be addressed in a subsequent post. For now, it is important to know that this basic theory of the composition of the Pentateuch is still very influential among many biblical scholars.