by c.l. jordan (excerpt from The voice of melody)
Returning now to the Zion-as-a-woman metaphor, we take one more look at the theme of her barrenness. The aversion of the Hebrews for childlessness is prominent throughout the entire Old Testament. Women considered themselves accursed if they were barren. Rachel, for example, told Jacob, “Give me children, or else I die.” Some of the great stories of the Bible relate how she and other godly women prayed for children and how God miraculously healed their barrenness.
The Patriarchs even had a custom (later incorporated into Moses’ law) that guaranteed a man should not lose his name or inheritance. It is first recorded in Genesis 38. Judah had three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er married Tamar but died childless. Judah commanded the second son, Onan, to “Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her [mg., `perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her’] and raise up seed to thy brother” (v. 8). But Onan, knowing that the child should not be legally his, practiced coitus interruptus to prevent his sister-in-law from becoming pregnant, “lest he should give seed to his brother” (v. 9). The Lord was displeased and took Onan’s life. Judah promised to give Tamar his last and youngest son when he grew up, but reneged. So desperate became Tamar that she disguised herself as a harlot, seduced Judah, and bore him twins, one which was named Pharez.
The custom became law under Moses (Deut. 25:5-10). If a man died having no children, his brother was required to give his widow a son which was named for the dead man so “that his name not be put out of Israel” (v. 6). If there were no surviving brothers, the duty fell upon the next of kin.
There was an interesting proviso: if that man refused his duty toward the widow, she could take him before the elders of the city, spit in his face, and loose his shoe from off his foot, saying, “So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house” (v. 9). His name would henceforth be called “The house of him that hath his shoe loosed” (v. 10).
The book of Ruth is just such a story. Elimelech, a descendant of Pharez and a man of Bethlehem-Judah, immigrated in a time of famine to the land of Moab, taking his wife, Naomi, and two sons. There he died. His sons married wives of the Moabites. Eventually both sons died childless; Naomi returned to Bethlehem, leaving one daughter-in-law in Moab, but bringing the other with her. She, of course, was Ruth. Naomi was too old by then to have any more children. She changed her name to Mara which means “bitter,” for she was a widow, without sons, and destitute.
Naomi’s husband had a rich relative, Boaz. She and Ruth plotted to make his acquaintance with the thought that perhaps he would benefit them. Ruth gleaned in his barley field and was befriended by him, for he had learned how faithful she was to Naomi. Taking quick advantage of the friendship, Naomi revealed to Ruth the duty of Boaz as a near kinsman, upon which Ruth offered him the opportunity to take her for a wife. Boaz was willing (in fact, highly pleased that she sought him out in preference to the young men), but he explained that there was one who was nearer of kin than he, and the offer should first go to him. But if that man refused, he would perform the part of a kinsman to her.
Now the duty of the kinsman required also that he buy back, or redeem, his dead relative’s property if it had been sold (Lev. 25:25). Being in desperate need, Naomi had put up her husband’s land for sale. Boaz reminded this man that he owed it to his departed relative to redeem his inheritance lest it leave the family.
At first he accepted, but when Boaz told him about Ruth, that he would have to marry her and raise up a son for the dead man to inherit the estate, it was too much for him–he refused, saying, “I cannot redeem it myself lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it” (Ruth 4:6).
With that, he took off his shoe and gave it to Boaz in the presence of the elders and the people.
And so Boaz bought all that was Elimelech’s and all that was his son’s from Naomi. He also purchased Ruth to be his wife, “to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren” (v. 10).
The people blessed the two, saying, “The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem: and let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman” (vv. 11-12).
So Boaz took Ruth and the Lord gave her conception and she gave birth to a son. Upon which the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age….” (vv.14-15).
It was the second time that the law of the near kinsman was invoked in the tribe of Judah. The first resulted in the birth of Pharez from whom Boaz was descended. The second gave Obed from whom David was descended. Jesus was the son of David. Surely this must be significant.
Ruth has been honored as the perfect example of a faithful and loving friend. But the real hero of this story is Boaz. If ever there was man who possessed a Christ like attitude, it was he. He not only graciously and unselfishly befriended a poor little Gentile woman, but generously–and secretly–gave her aid by instructing his servants to “accidentally” leave extra grain for her to glean. But his most unselfish act was redeeming her inheritance and providing her a son to perpetuate his deceased relative’s name and estate.
His selfless character shines like a star pointing toward the Star of Jacob, his far-off descendant, who gave his all to purchase a wife, to befriend the Gentiles, and to redeem back that which was lost. Boaz also was a man of like character as Joseph, the carpenter of Nazareth, who courageously bore the scorn of society because his young wife was mysteriously pregnant, and who also selflessly raised a Son not his own.
In the fullness of time, a man sent from God came preaching repentance and the kingdom of heaven in the wilderness of Judea not far from the home of Boaz in Bethlehem. He created quite an impression; many thought he might be the Messiah, though he constantly denied it. In all four gospels he is recorded as saying, “I have indeed baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Mark 1:8).
The one to whom he was referring came also baptizing with water, making more converts than he. When John was questioned about this, he once again denied that he was the Messiah. Then, speaking of Jesus, he said, “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom….” (John 3:29).
John’s words undoubtedly posed something of a riddle to those disciples who heard him, for Jesus never married. Yet though he didn’t father any children, we read that he was a son over his own house (Heb. 3:6), a statement that should come as a surprise to the Bible student.
The word “house” meant much more to the Hebrews than a domicile–their house was their descendants. To “build a house” was to beget (or conceive) sons and daughters. For example, Rachel and Leah, the mothers of the sons of Jacob, were described as “which two did build the house of Israel.” In common with the Semites of the time, the Jews believed they had a kind of immortality through their children. The prophets exalted this view and their oracles speak of a Son to come who would bring immortality to the whole nation, perhaps even the whole world. To have one’s house “cut off” was to have all one’s descendants die off, leaving none to perpetuate his name or inherit his estate. It was a curse of the worst kind. We have just examined a law of Moses that made provisions for the childless man, a law that in some respects even contradicted other laws against marrying one’s brother’s widow.
As I said, since Jesus had no literal descendants, it should be of some surprise to the Bible student to read that Christ is a Son over his own house. How are we to understand this statement? No doubt he thought of marriage, for as a human he could only have felt a desire to have a home and a family of his own, the more so considering that he was a Jew. We know that he was tempted in all points like as we. But Jesus rejected the pleasures of a family, for he knew God had provided something far better in his future.
Once, during a discussion on the perils of marriage and divorce, his disciples remarked that if it were as binding as Jesus had indicated, it was not good to marry. In his cryptic reply he pointed out that there were natural born eunuchs as well as some made so of men, but, also, “there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matt. 19:12).[1] I am sure that Jesus had in mind something Isaiah had written:
…neither let the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off (Isa. 56:3-5).
Since Jesus always did the things that pleased the Father, he was eminently qualified to receive the blessing of this prophecy. He was looking for a house and a name that was eternal–something far better than natural sons and daughters could provide. No doubt his natural family would have been great, perhaps even sinless like himself. What could be better than that?
The next few chapters will be concerned with the implications of Jesus never having married.
ZION’S HUSBAND
How can Jesus be a “Son over his own house” if he never married and had children? One should keep constantly in mind the Jewish meaning of “house.” House meant far more than a domicile. One’s house was his progeny, and, in some mystical sense, it was believed one’s spirit lived on through his sons and daughters. Therefore, for one’s posterity to be terminated was a curse, for it meant death.
There are spiritual equivalents of “house” and “sons” that need to be discussed. To be the son of an individual did not always mean to be naturally descended, but often meant “to be like” that individual. Thus, such phrases as “the son of Belial” which means “son of worthlessness” or Jesus’ famous epithet directed to the Pharisees, “You are of your father the Devil.”
Conversely, one’s house could be simply one’s disciples or one’s followers. Jesus told the Pharisees, “Your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38). He meant that their students and disciples, and the Mosaic culture of which the Jewish world consisted, would be destroyed.
God’s house is likewise said to be the church (Heb. 3:6; 1 Tim. 3:15). Since Jesus is building the church, it is his house as well–he is the Son over his own house, “whose house are we” (Heb. 3:6). We note also that, in keeping with the ancients’ belief that their spirit dwelled in their descendants, the Spirit of Christ dwells in his disciples (for without his spirit we are none of his–Rom.8:9).
We are now ready to discover the significance of the story of Ruth as it pertains to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Jesus had a deceased brother who not only had no “living” sons to inherit his name and estate, but who had sold his entire possessions outside of the family. That man was Adam, for Adam too was the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Through his transgression, sin entered the world, and by sin, death passed upon all men. Adam sold out our inheritance–the kingdom of heaven–and cast us all into poverty.
Jesus was the only one worthy to redeem the lost inheritance and to raise up sons for Adam to possess it. It was his Father’s will that he do so–for God is not willing that any should perish–but to accomplish this monumental task required that Jesus forfeit his own will and right to a family. Unlike the near kinsman of Elimelech, Jesus was willing to mar his own inheritance to establish that of his brother! On the other hand, had he chosen to exercise his rights as a Jewish male and father his own natural sons and daughters, he could have no doubt founded a holy nation–but the rest of humanity would have perished.
As the Father of a new and holy nation, he would have also been the King, exactly as God had planned for the first Adam. But Jesus rejected this route to glory, waiving all rights to a natural inheritance, to do the will of the Father. Paul said, “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9).
I think we can now explain something John the Baptist said of Jesus, a saying that is quoted in all four gospels and the book of Acts. John referred to Jesus as he “whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.” The obvious meaning, of course, is that John was simply acknowledging his humility before the true Messiah. However, because it is recorded in the New Testament so many times, I felt that it surely has more significance than that. I believe that the story of Ruth has provided the answer. It was John’s subtle way of declaring Jesus to be the long sought redeemer of Israel, that great son who would buy back their lost inheritance, and provide for the perpetuation of the estate.
Since Jesus was willing to perform the duties of a kinsman to his dead brother, he need not remove his shoe–nor was anyone worthy to remove it from him. Remember, this meant that Jesus had to mar his own estate, that is, he had to forfeit marriage and a family of his own.
Jesus had a great predecessor in Moses, who, in one respect, showed the same attitude. While he was on Sinai receiving the law, his people sinned grievously by turning away from the Lord, making and worshiping a golden calf. The Lord revealed this to Moses while yet on the mount and said, “Let me alone, that I may blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they” (Deut. 9:14).
Here was truly an offer that would be difficult to refuse–to sire one’s own nation (or “build a house”) mightier and greater than any other on earth! Which one of us would not have accepted with alacrity? Yet Moses refused. He refused on the ground of God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that he would make of them a great and mighty nation (Ex. 32:13). Moses preferred God’s house, of which he was a member, to building one of his own. God recognized Moses’ selfless act, saying, “My servant Moses is … faithful in all mine house” (Num. 12:7).
When Moses met the angel of the Lord in the burning bush, he was commanded to “put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Ex. 3:5). This showed that Moses was not worthy to perform the duties of a near kinsman–he could not redeem the lost possession nor raise up children to Adam. Great though Moses was, he was not the bridegroom. The token of his unworthiness was the loosed shoe. The same was true of Joshua, his successor, who was also warned to loose his shoe while standing on holy ground. Both incidents were signs to Israel that her redeemer had not yet come.
And so it was that Jesus remained unmarried, a self-made eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. As the Son of God, he had incalculable riches. Instead, he became poor for our sakes. Like Moses, he left the pleasures of a king and chose rather the afflictions of the people of God (Heb. 11:25). Thus it was that at the very time of life when a man would normally settle down to raising a family, Jesus went on a whirlwind tour of Israel preaching the good news of the kingdom. Then, at the very peak of his career, he was wantonly and cruelly slain, leaving neither sons nor widow to continue his remembrance in the land.
The untimely death of the Son of Man was prophesied by Isaiah. He saw him as a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, despised and rejected of men. He cried out, “and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living….” (Isa. 53:8). Isaiah wondered at the tragedy of one who would die without a son to perpetuate his name and estate.
But a few words later he was inspired to write, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed….” (v. 10).[2]
Yes, in some inscrutable way, though Jesus died childless, he would still see his sons because he chose that which was pleasing to the Lord. As Isaiah had also said of those eunuchs who pleased the Lord, “Even unto them will I give in mine house and in my walls a place and a name better than of [natural] sons and of daughters….”
The place, or office, in God’s house which he had reserved for his Son was the privilege to build it, that is, to father spiritual sons and daughters for him. This was an honor higher than any Moses or John the Baptist ever had (though there were no greater prophets). “For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house….” (Heb. 3:3).
As one brought up in the carpenter’s trade, no doubt Jesus was experienced in building houses. Perhaps that is what prompted him to exclaim to Peter that he would build his church upon a rock. Here is a direct statement that he would build for himself a house, for we find that the church is indeed the house of God (Heb. 3:6; 1 Tim. 3:15).
Jesus is building God’s house by fathering the (spiritual) sons of God. He is the near kinsman who has raised up heirs to the kingdom lost by our earthly father Adam; not only that, he has bought back, or redeemed, the kingdom which had been sold.
Not only was Jesus a self-made eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, but he always chose that which pleased his Father (John 8:29). According to Isaiah, the eunuch who chose those things that pleased the Lord would receive a far better honor than natural sons or daughters could provide; nor would his name be forgotten, for he would receive an everlasting name that would not be cut off. So we read that God has highly exalted Jesus and has given him a name which is above every name (Phil. 2:9).
We have already noted how the 49th chapter of Isaiah may be considered as two parallel prophecies, the first concerning a suffering man who was discouraged over an apparent failure to carry out God’s task of restoring Israel, and the second a woman who also was discouraged because she had failed to give birth to the children of God. A similar parallel exists between the two prophecies of Isaiah found in chapters 53 and 54. The prophecy of chapter 53 is concerned not only with the physical sufferings and rejection of the man Christ Jesus by his own people, but also with the tragedy that he who alone had the potential and the right to begin a new and holy nation of men was slain before he could do so. Nevertheless, though he died childless, he is promised that he shall “see his seed.” Surely it is no coincidence that Isaiah’s very next oracle (chapter 54) is a song of rejoicing for a barren and bereaved widow who is promised many sons. It begins, “Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child” and proceeds to promise this woman that she will have more children than her rival.
Who is she? Paul called her the “Jerusalem which is above” and “is the mother of us all,” citing this very verse from Isaiah as proof of her fertility (Gal. 4:26-27). How will she, a widow and barren at that, have children? Isaiah continues:
Fear not: for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall he be called (Isa. 54:4-5).
What more can I say? Who is her Maker but Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for “all things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life….” (John 1:3-4).
He is the near kinsman, the new Husband of the widow–he that hath the bride is the bridegroom–and the Redeemer of her lost possessions. Like his ancestor Boaz, he purchased a bride (redeemed not with gold and silver but with his own precious blood), a bride that is, like Ruth, predominantly of Gentile birth. He has proven his worthiness to perform the duty of a kinsman unto her, and no man has the right to remove his shoe from off his foot. His sons shall be called the sons of God (for won’t he be called the God of the whole earth?) He has raised them up for his dead brother Adam to repossess the kingdom which had been sold.
It is very possible that Paul was thinking along these lines when he postulated two Adams, the first being the figure of the second (Rom. 5:14). The second Adam is the Lord from heaven. As we have borne the image of the first Adam, so shall we bear the image of the second (1 Cor. 15:45-49). As we have had the first Adam for our earthly father, so we must have the second Adam, Jesus Christ, for our heavenly father!
Speaking of Jesus, John wrote, “And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him” (1 John 2:28-29). That says Jesus is the Father of the sons of God. The phrase, “I and the children God gave me” (Heb. 2:13), also speaks of the seed of Christ.
Because Jesus unselfishly sacrificed his rights and privileges as a Jewish male to “build a house,” and because he allowed himself to be cut off out of the land of the living before there were any to declare his generation, God promised him that “he shall see his seed.” God would give him a better generation than the one he forfeited. That generation is the church, for we are a “chosen generation” (1 Pet. 2:9), “chosen in him before the foundation of the world…. predestinated…unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself according to the good pleasure of his will” (Eph. 1:4-5). No wonder Isaiah declared that his name shall be called “The everlasting Father, The mighty God” (Isa. 9:6). Or, as Jesus cryptically told Philip, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).[3]
Thus did the blessing pronounced upon Boaz and Ruth come to pass: Mary, the daughter of Ruth, did “worthily in Ephratah” and was “famous in Bethlehem.” Joseph’s house was “like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bore unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord gave unto [him] by the young woman.” For was not Jesus born in Bethlehem, and did he not spring from the tribe of Judah, through Pharez and Boaz? And was not his name “famous in Israel”? He is a “restorer of life” not only for Naomi but of all the sons of men.
Thus we have the astonishing paradox that though the human race sinned, God was able to extract from it holy sons and daughters by the infusion of his righteousness through Christ. “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom. 5:20).
Paul did not write extensively on the theme of Christ being the second Adam except to cite Adam’s description of Eve (bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh–and husband and wife being one flesh) which he applied to Christ and the church. We shall investigate this in the next chapter.
[1] In other words, though some men are deprived of their fertility by nature and some by society, some are by choice. Jesus had reference to himself by the latter category. The great Apostle Paul was also a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, remaining unmarried so that he could more effectively preach the gospel.
[2] Obviously, natural seed cannot be the intention here; the only way this promise has any meaning at all is in the spiritual sense. The “seed” of this text can only be defined the same way that Paul did when he calls us the “seed of Abraham” if we are in Christ.
[3] I am not here arguing for any particular Christology−neither that of Arius, Sabellius, Athanasius, or the Modal Monarchists. All I’m saying is that we are the sons of God through Jesus in the same way that a Jew is the son of Abraham through Jacob.
