Today we are beginning a series called “Apologia: A Defense of the Faith.” This series is going to seek to offer a defense of the Christian faith against common objections leveled against it. It is possible that many of you have never heard a series quite like this in church and that some of you will not even like this series. Some of you may even consider it inappropriate. If that is the case, I will only suggest to you that you possibly have not appreciated the extent to which modernity and radical secularism has advanced in the modern world. It is possible that there may even be a bit of a generational divide concerning who will appreciate this and who will not, though I could be wrong on this. What I mean is, some of you who are older will remember a time when much of what I am going to say today was simply assumed, even by many outside the church, so you may feel that apologetic sermons are unnecessary. However, for many younger people, they are growing up in a world in which the things I am about to say are not assumed. Thus, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Church, and, in particular, pastors, must reclaim an apologetic voice.

All of that being said, I suspect that the majority of you of whatever age will see the need for the church today to address the challenges that are facing us in an increasingly secularized age. Among the many aspects of our heritage that we must reclaim, the apologetic task looms possibly largest of all. Apologia is a Greek word that means “defense.” Apologetics refers to the discipline of defending the faith with evidences.

We will begin with the most fundamental challenge facing the church today: the challenge of atheism. Atheism, or a-theism, is the belief that there is no God. It is distinguished from agnosticism, a position of uncertainty on the question of whether or not God exists. Both atheism and agnosticism are distinguished from theism, the belief that God exists. All Christians are theists though no all theists are Christians. Theism, again, is simply the belief that there is a God, and adherents to many different religions embrace this belief.

We, of course, are Christian theists. We believe there is a God and that He has revealed Himself definitively in Jesus Christ. It is out of this fundamental conviction that we will begin the apologetic task.

Before we begin discussing the existence of God, I would like to explore the notion of proof as that word is used, for instance, in the question, “Can you prove that God exists?” If we mean by that word the kind of proof I can offer that this stage on which I am standing exists, then no, for God is not a tangible thing I can pick up, hold in one hand, and point to with another. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24). So of course we cannot prove God’s existence in that sense.

But, of course, that is not saying very much because the fact of the matter is that we cannot prove in that sense any of the greatest things in life, the things we hold most dear. For instance, can you prove that your spouse loves you? Many of you would say yes, but I would counter that you cannot prove that in the way I can prove this stage exists. I can touch this stage and you can see it. It is empirically verifiable. Love is not. In that sense, you cannot prove your husband loves you or that your children love you or that what you and a close friend actually have is friendship. You cannot prove, in that sense, loyalty, devotion, genuine concern, compassion, empathy, etc. That is to say, love and devotion and loyalty and compassion are not material objects that can be held, touched, and examined. You cannot pick up a substance called “love” and point to it.

But does a lack of empirically verifiable proof mean you cannot know something? Of course not. The truth is, you can know that your spouse loves you, that your children love you, that what you and another have is friendship, etc. And how can you know these things? You can know them because of a long trail of evidences, deductions based on those evidences, and intuitions formed by experience. A great deal of our lives is built upon just this kind of evidence-based knowledge of things.

Let me introduce you to Dr. Antony Flew.

He was born in 1923 and passed away in 2010. Flew was a prolific scholar and for decades was one of the most famous atheists in the world. He wrote such influential atheist works as God and Philosophy, Darwinian Evolution, The Presumption of Atheism, and God: A Critical Inquiry. In 2004, Flew shocked the world by announcing that he had rejected his atheism and now believed in the existence of God. He did not convert to Christianity, but merely to theism. But why did he did so? Because, he said, he had to follow Socrates’ dictum that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads.^[1] Thus, Flew argued that it was the evidence that drove him to the inescapable conclusion that God exists.

In Psalm 14:1, the psalmist famously wrote, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” That is a powerful way of speaking to the inescapability of the conclusion that there is a God. But what are the evidences for God, for, after all, many people do indeed say, “There is no God.”

Logical Evidence

There are many logical deductions that point to a Creator outside of the natural order. Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century theologian, philosopher, and churchman, offered his famous five proofs for the existence of God in his Summa Theologica.

The argument from motion

The first is the argument from motion. In this argument, Aquinas noted that things in the world are in motion. Whatever is in motion has been put in motion by something else. But taken back far enough, this means there must be something that put everything else in motion that is not itself put in motion.

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Thus, Aquinas argued against an infinite regress, the idea that in infinity past there is nothing but a series of things being put into motion by other things. Behind it all, he argued, is God, the unmoved mover.

The argument from causation

In this argument, Aquinas applied the same logic to cause and effect, noting that every effect in the world must have a cause preceding it. Furthermore, Aquinas argued that when you look at the world you see (1) a first cause, (2) an intermediate cause, and (3) a final cause. In the universe, Aquinas argued, there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause, else there will be no intermediate or final cause.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Thus, God is the uncaused cause.

The argument from contingency

Next, Aquinas drew the distinction between possible things and necessary things. Possible things are things that could possibly not have existed. Necessary things are things that exist by necessity and could not possibly have not existed. Possible things once did not exist or else they would be necessary things.

But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

Thus, the chain of caused necessities must have an uncaused necessity at its origin. God is the uncaused necessity.

The argument from the maximum

The fourth argument calls for a recognition of a definitive standard by which everything else is judged to be either more or less. In other words, we cannot speak of gradation or more or less unless there is a definitive standard by which these things are judged rendering them more or less. The implications of this in terms of moral goodness are inescapable.

Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

God, then, is the ultimate good above which there is no other good and by which all lesser goods are judged.

The argument from design

Finally, Aquinas argued that the world bears the mark of having been designed for specific purposes.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.^[2]

Thus, God is the intelligent director.

All of these arguments have, of course, been critiqued through the ages. Even so, there is a simple logic here that is more than worthy of consideration.

Experiential Evidence

But there are other types of evidence. These are not without logic, of course, but they are not based on such tight deductions as are Aquinas’ arguments. For instance, consider what it means that belief in God is part of the experience of the vast majority of the world’s population. There is a deep and nearly universal sense throughout the world that there is a God. For instance, in late 2012, the Pew Research Center released its findings on “The Global Religious Landscape.”

Worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group. A comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that there are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84% of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.[3]

Most telling, this belief in the existence of God or a higher power or powers is evident even among many who profess not to believe in Him. A 2013 Washington Post article entitled “Some nonbelievers still find solace in prayer” offers a fascinating look at spiritually among self-described atheists. They focus on a self-described atheist named Sigried Gold.

Each morning and night, Sigfried Gold drops to his knees on the beige carpeting of his bedroom, lowers his forehead to the floor and prays to God.

In a sense.

An atheist, Gold took up prayer out of desperation. Overweight by 110 pounds and depressed, the 45-year-old software designer saw himself drifting from his wife and young son. He joined a 12-step program for food addiction that required — as many 12-step programs do — a recognition of God and prayer.

Four years later, Gold is trim, far happier in his relationships and free of a lifelong ennui. He credits a rigorous prayer routine — morning, night and before each meal — to a very vivid goddess he created with a name, a detailed appearance and a key feature for an atheist: She doesn’t exist.

While Gold doesn’t believe there is some supernatural being out there attending to his prayers, he calls his creation “God” and describes himself as having had a “conversion” that can be characterized only as a “miracle.” His life has been mysteriously transformed, he says, by the power of asking.

“If you say, ‘I ought to have more serenity about the things I can’t change,’ versus ‘Grant me serenity,’ there is a humility, a surrender, an openness. If you say, ‘grant me,’ you’re saying you can’t do it by yourself. Or you wouldn’t be there,” said Gold, who lives in Takoma Park.

While Gold’s enthusiasm for spiritual texts and kneeling to a “God” may make him unusual among atheists, his hunger for a transcendent experience with forces he can’t always explain turns out to be more common.

New research on atheists by the Pew Research Center shows a range of beliefs. Eighteen percent of atheists say religion has some importance in their life, 26 percent say they are spiritual or religious and 14 percent believe in “God or a universal spirit.” Of all Americans who say they don’t believe in God — not all call themselves “atheists” — 12 percent say they pray.^[4]

As I said, this is utterly fascinating and is, I believe, a microcosmic look at a universal truth: that everybody, deep down, believes there is a power above us, even if they tell themselves they do not believe this. Experientially, we feel this, we know this, and it is so regardless of our professed creeds to the contrary. Is this conclusive evidence? No. Truth is not defined by the majority and the mere fact that many people believe that God exists, including many atheists, does not make it so. Even so, the worldwide religious impulse of man is striking and significant.

Paul, in Romans 1, wrote that everybody knows there is a God, that the evidence of God is so plain that all of humanity is accountable before Him.

¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

God and His character are “plain,” Paul writes. It is plain “because God has shown it to them.” Thus, it is not surprising that an atheist would daily pray to a higher power he claims not to believe in while crediting this non-existent higher power with freeing him from the powers of addiction. Neither is it surprising that “eighteen percent of atheists say religion has some importance in their life, 26 percent say they are spiritual or religious and 14 percent believe in ‘God or a universal spirit.’”

Man is a religious being, and he is so for a reason: he knows that there is a God.

Moral Evidence

One of the most powerful evidences for the existence of God emanates from our own sense of morality. We all know that we are morally accountable. This sense of moral accountability can only make ultimate sense if there is a Lawgiver outside of the natural order to Whom we will one day give an account. Furthermore, naturalism, the belief that the created order is all there is, and evolutionary atheism simply do not have the categories to make sense of the moral accountability we all feel.

Simply put, humanity may tell itself that we are merely animals, but no man or woman can truly live consistently with this audacious statement. Where this is most evident is in our innate sense of ultimate moral accountability, the sense that we will one day give an account for our actions and that the concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mere social constructs.

This, of course, is the only option left to us if there is no God: right and wrong are defined by society that consists of soulless animals but rise no higher than that. But this idea raises all kinds of problems. For one thing, we intuitively know that there is a difference between what human beings do to each other and what animals do to each other. Many of you will be aware of the fact that a little over a week ago, a woman was killed on a wildlife preserve in Africa. She had her window down and a lion lunged at her, biting and killing her. I saw this reported on numerous news venues. It was indeed a tragedy! But that lion undoubtedly kills animals all the time and it is never reported. No matter what might say about human beings simply being advanced animals, we know that is not so. There is something very different and that difference goes beyond mankind being advanced.

Furthermore, if morality is determined by society and rises no higher than that, then that means there are no objective, ultimate standards for morality. In other words, we may say that what Hitler did was wrong, but all we can really mean by that is that we as a people disagree with what Hitler and his minions did. But we cannot say that Hitler has violated an objective standard, a standard that is outside and above all of humanity. I would propose to you that we know better than this, though. We know that genocide, for instance, is the violation of something sacred and transcendent, a standard that is binding for all people everywhere, a standard that is right whether human society recognizes it to be so or not.

In a debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and popular atheist Sam Harris at Notre Dame on the topic, “Is the foundation of morality natural or supernatural?” Dr. Craig concluded his presentation by quoting an article in the Duke Law Journal by Arthur Leff of the Yale Law School entitled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law.” In it, Leff was trying to answer how we can arrive at any ultimate standard for law and morality without God. Leff was either an atheist or an agnostic, he did not believe that God existed.

In the article, he rightly noted that the idea of a transcendent, objective, ultimate standard for right and wrong demands God. Furthermore, Leff argued that if there is no God that means that right and wrong and the law emanate from within us.

We are never going to get anywhere (assuming for the moment that there is somewhere to get) in ethical or legal theory unless we finally face the fact that, in the Psalmist’s words, there is no one like unto the Lord. If He does not exist, there is no metaphoric equivalent. No person, no combination of people, no document however hallowed by time, no process, no premise, nothing is equivalent to an actual God in this central function as the unexaminable examiner of good and evil. The so-called death of God turns out not to have been just His funeral; it also seems to have effected the total elimination of any coherent, or even more-than-momentarily convincing, ethical or legal system dependent upon finally authoritative extrasystemic premises…Put briefly, if the law is “not a brooding omnipresence in the sky,” then it can be only one place: in us. If we are trying to find a substitute final evaluator, it must be one of us, some of us, all of us-but it cannot be anything else. The result of that realization is what might be called an exhilarated vertigo, a simultaneous combination of an exultant “We’re free of God” and a despairing “Oh God, we’re free.”

He went on to say that if the law emanates from within man, that means there is no ultimate rationale or reason why one claim to right and wrong is superior to a competing claim to right and wrong.

At that point, you see, we are really forced to see ourselves as lawmakers rather than law finders, and we are immediately led into a regress that is, fatally, not infinite. We can say that a valid legal system must have some minimum process for rational determination and operation. We can say that the majority cannot consistently disadvantage any minority. We can say that, whatever else a majority can do, it cannot systematically prevent a minority from seeking to become a majority. We can say all sorts of things, but what we cannot say is why one say is better than any other, unless we state some standard by which it definedly is. To put it as bluntly as possible, if we go to find what law ought to govern us, and if what we find is not an authoritative Holy Writ but just ourselves, just people, making that law, how can we be governed by what we have found?

Leff’s conclusion is as telling as it is sad.

All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us “good,” and worse than that, there is no reason why anything should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.

Nevertheless:
Napalming babies is bad.

Starving the poor is wicked.
Buying and selling each other is depraved.
Those who stood up to and died resisting Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and

Pol Pot-and General Custer too-have earned salvation. Those who acquiesced deserve to be damned.
There is in the world such a thing as evil.
[All together now:] Sez who?

God help us.^[5]

One feels the tension in Leff’s position. Having concluded that we cannot definitively pronounce something as objectively and ultimately wrong, he then attempts to say that some things are. But why? Why?

Fortunately, most people, even those who claim that there is no definitive, ultimate right and wrong, live as if there is. Paul acknowledged that this was the case, and wrote in Romans 2 that when the world demonstrates an innate knowledge of right and wrong, it inadvertently bear witness to the existence of God.

¹⁴ For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

We know there is a law and there is a Lawgiver. Our very hearts give testimony to this all the time. We know this law is written into the very fabric of the universe and that it does not emanate from the collective subjective opinions of man.

The Evidence of Jesus

Above all of these evidences, however, is the evidence of Jesus Himself. Simply put, Jesus believed that God existed, that God had sent Him into the world, and that He was God. Consider the words of Jesus from John 14.

⁸ Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” ⁹ Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ¹⁰ Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. ¹¹ Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Jesus was driven by this fundamental conviction: God exists, God loves us, God is the righteous Judge of the universe, and we should be in relationship with Him. Furthermore, Jesus said that He was God come among us, that He was the way to the Father, and that He had the power to forgive sins. You must understand that if atheism is true, Jesus was utterly mistaken and absolutely deluded.

Let me ask those of you who have trusted in Christ, who are walking with Christ a question: in your experience with Jesus, have you found Him to be deluded, deranged, and deceitful? For make no mistake: if atheism is true then Jesus is precisely these things.

Church, Jesus believed in God. Jesus is God. It is a profoundly serious thing to say that the convictions of Jesus Christ were the ravings of an unstable man.

As Christians, we call all men to come to the Father through the Son. God exists. God loves you. God has provided a way for you to come home. That way is Jesus. God is perfectly holy and just. We will all one day stand before Him and give an account. The whole point of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that we can be covered by the blood of Christ and made clean and whole, that we can be forgiven.

L. Mencken famously said of his atheism, “If I am wrong, I will square myself when confronted in afterlife by the apostles with the simple apology, ‘Gentlemen, I was wrong.’”^[6]

That is a charming thought, but what of the consequences of rejecting God in this life? What of the consequences of rejecting the Lord Jesus?

“[I]t is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

There will be no time for gentlemanly apologies after we die. Now is the day of salvation. Come to Jesus, God with us, and be saved.

[1] John D. Wilsey, “The ‘Tergiversation’ of Antony Flew: A Review and Assessment of There is a God.” Southwestern Journal of Theology. Vol. 54, Number 1 (Fall 2011), p.45-54.

[2] Aquinas, Thomas (2013-07-10). Summa Theologica (All Complete & Unabridged 3 Parts + Supplement & Appendix + interactive links and annotations) (Kindle Locations 748-783). e-artnow. Kindle Edition.

[3] https://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/non-believers-say-their-prayers-to-no-one/2013/06/24/b7c8cf50-d915-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html

[5] https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3810&context=fss_papers

[6] Quoted in Losing Mum and Pup: A Memoir (Christopher Buckley) – Highlight Loc. 2735-37

Ruth 4:13-22

¹³ So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son. ¹⁴ Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! ¹⁵ He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.” ¹⁶ Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse. ¹⁷ And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David. ¹⁸ Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron, ¹⁹ Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, ²⁰ Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, ²¹ Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, ²² Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David.

In 1962, Roald Dahl, the beloved author of works like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and James and the Giant Peach, published a short story entitled “Genesis and Catastrophe: A True Story.” The story begins with the delivery of a baby boy in an inn some years ago. The doctor seeks to comfort the wife with the news that she has had a boy and that the baby is perfectly healthy. The mother, however, is worried, for, as she explains to the doctor, she had lost three children already and was fearful she would lose this one as well. The doctor assured her that such a thing would not happen in this case, that the baby was perfectly healthy if somewhat small. After some moments, Dahl describes the husband coming into the inn where his wife has just delivered.

Slowly, the mother turned her head and looked at the small, incredibly serene face that lay on the pillow beside her.

“Is this my baby?”

“Of course.”

“Oh…, oh…but he is beautiful.”

The doctor turned away and went over to the table and began putting his things into his bag. The mother lay on the bed gazing at the child and smiling and touching him and making little noises of pleasure. “Hello, Adolfus,” she whispered. “Hello, my little Adolf.”

“Ssshh!” said the innkeeper’s wife. “Listen! I think your husband is coming.”

The doctor walked over to the door and opened it and looked out into the                    corridor.

“Herr Hitler?”

“Yes.”

“Come in, please.”

A small man in a dark-green uniform stepped softly into the room and looked

around him.

“Congratulations,” the doctor said. “You have a son.”

The story ends with the woman repeating her deep desire for her newborn son to live after her rather callous husband expressed real pessimism about that prospect.

The doctor walked over to the husband and put a hand on his shoulder. “Be good to her,” he whispered. “Please. It is very important.” Then he squeezed the husband’s shoulder hard and began pushing him forward surreptitiously to the edge of the bed. The husband hesitated. The doctor squeezed harder, signaling to him urgently through fingers and thumb. At last, reluctantly, the husband bent down and kissed his wife lightly on the cheek.

“All right, Klara,” he said. “Now stop crying.”

“I have prayed so hard that he will live, Alois.”

“Yes.”

“Every day for months I have gone to the church and begged on my knees that

this one will be allowed to live.”

“Yes, Klara, I know.”

“Three dead children is all that I can stand, don’t you realize that?”

“Of course.”

“He must live, Alois. He must, he must. . . Oh God, be merciful unto him now…”

And thus the story ends. It is a jarring story. It is jarring, I think, because it ends with the birth of a baby that we the readers know will go on to become one of the most evil men in human history. It ends with a note of dread, bad news for mankind, and despair, to such an extend that the reader is forced to contemplate how much agony might have been spared the world had the baby Adolf Hitler not survived. That is the genius and troubling nature of this memorable little story.

What strikes me about Dahl’s story is that is takes the reader on the exact opposite emotional journey than the book of Ruth does. Dahl’s story begins with good news then ends with very bad news surrounding a baby who has been born. The book of Ruth begins with bad news and ends with good news surrounding a baby who has been born. Mark Dever says of Ruth, “The book starts very down, and ends very up.”[1] Dahl’s story descends into despair. The book of Ruth consistently ascends into joy. The stories have certain surface similarities, but the ultimate contrasts could not possibly be starker.

We now reach the apex of joy in the book of Ruth, the triumphal of glorious conclusion toward which we have been climbing all along. Ruth’s transformation is now complete: she has become Boaz’s wife and now bears him a son. “In ‘becoming [Boaz’s] wife,’” writes Daniel Block, “Ruth’s social progression is completed. She had graduated from the status of nokriyya, ‘foreigner’ (2:10), to sipha, ‘lowest servant’ (2:13), to ‘ama, ‘maidservant’ (3:9), and now to ‘issa, ‘wife.’”[2] Naomi’s transformation is now complete: she has passed from bitterness to great joy. Even Boaz has had a kind of transformation: he has passed from being an older man struck by the beauty and character of mysterious Ruth to now being Ruth’s redeemer and husband.

There are many transformations in this book, and all of them are related in some way to this birth of this child here in text.

A child is born who brings hope to a people in need.

The little boy who is born at the end of Ruth is a child who brings hope to a people in need. The description of Ruth’s entry into the world is told quickly, but these few verses are rich with meaning.

¹³ So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son. ¹⁴ Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! ¹⁵ He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.” ¹⁶ Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse.

There are numerous clues in our text to suggest that this baby was special and that he would play a part in God’s great plan of redemption. Consider:

• He was a baby who was a gift from God. (“the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son”)

While Ruth is never called “barren” in the book of Ruth[3], we do note in chapter 1 that after many years of marriage she did not have any children.

³ But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. ⁴ These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, ⁵ and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.

At that time this likely would have been marked by the public as a less than positive sign. After years of marriage to Mahlon, Ruth did not have a child, but in quick succession she married and bore a son to Boaz. We also note the author’s language, “the Lord gave her conception.”

Why she did not have a child with Mahlon is really not the point. The point is the contrast in the two unions: Mahlon and Ruth produce no children after many years. Boaz and Ruth produce a son quickly. Thus, again, regardless of the question of barrenness, Ruth takes her place along the other Old Testament matriarchs who initially were unable to have children but who then were blessed by God to do so: Sarah (Genesis 11:30), Rebekah (Genesis 25:21), Rachel (Genesis 29:30), Hannah (1 Samuel 1:2), and Samson’s mother (Judges 13:2).

• He was a baby who would provide for Naomi. (“Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a redeemer.”)

This baby, then, was the tangible evidence that God had not abandoned Naomi. This baby was the reason why Naomi could now pass from despair to joy!

• He was a baby who would be significant for the future of Israel. (“and may his name be renowned in Israel”)

Furthermore, this child was to have national significance. His importance transcended the merely local. Perhaps the women meant this as merely a blessing, the kind of thing they might say over any child. Even so, their words meant more than they likely realized. This child would indeed go on to have national significance.

• He was a baby who would bring restoration and nourishment. (“He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age”)

In a certain sense, this child was also the difference between life and death for Naomi. When she returned to Bethlehem from Moab, her prospects were bleak to say the least. Being a destitute widow with a tag-along foreign daughter-in-law at this time in history was not ideal. But now, through this baby, the line and name of Elimelech would continue and she, Naomi, would have someone to care for her in her old age.

We see, then, that on the bottom level of the story a child has been born who changed everything. Simply his birth gave hope and life and encouragement. Beyond that, he would go on to play a significant role in the life of Israel.

A child is born who points to a greater One to come.

On the upper level of the story, the level of salvation history, this child pointed to a greater One to come. This is most evident in the provided genealogy.

¹⁷ And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David. ¹⁸ Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron, ¹⁹ Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, ²⁰ Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, ²¹ Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, ²² Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David.

Katherine Doob Sakenfeld has offered some interesting insights on the structure of ancient genealogies that come to bear on our interpretation of this text.

The seventh position in a genealogical list is often significant in ancient Near Eastern tradition, being reserved for an ancestor due special honor; here the name of Boaz is in the seventh position. The tenth slot, here given to David, may also be a numerical indication of special honor…[I]t seems likely that the genealogy was designed deliberately to place Boaz and David in their numerical positions, and so to draw the readers’ attention to the upright behavior of Boaz, the central male figure of the story, as well as to the significance of the story itself as a part of King David’s heritage.[4]

The high points of the genealogy provided are therefore Boaz and David. This is understandable for the fact that Boaz was David’s great-grandfather is the great reveal of Ruth. That is, the stage was hereby set for David to come. But the stage being set for King David meant also that the stage was set for a greater King than David. This King was oftentimes referred to by David’s name. Consider.

Matthew 1

¹ The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Matthew 9

²⁷ And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.”

Matthew 12

²² Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. ²³ And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?”

Matthew 15

²² And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.”

Matthew 20

³⁰ And behold, there were two blind men sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” ³¹ The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent, but they cried out all the more, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!”

Matthew 21

⁹ And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!”

Matthew 22

⁴¹ Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, ⁴² saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”

Son of David! Son of David! The book of Ruth, then, establishes the preface: Boaz the great-grandfather of David. Then revelation unfolds until we come to the New Testament and see the even bigger reveal: Jesus the “son of David.” This title meant that Jesus came in the Davidic line, that He was indeed the King above the king, the true champion of Israel. All the story of Ruth, then, is the establishment of the lineage out of which the true King would come: Jesus!

Church, we must begin to develop a longer memory. Do you see that the story of Ruth is the story of Jesus is the story of us? Do you see that what happened way back there in Bethlehem, then Moab, then back in Bethlehem has a direct causal relationship to what is happening now in North Little Rock, Arkansas? Why? Because it was here that David’s great grandmother gave birth to David’s grandfather Obed, from whom Jesse came, from whom David came, from whom, eventually, in human terms anyway, Jesus the son of Mary came! This point is emphasized again in the very beginning of the book of Matthew.

¹ The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. ² Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, ³ and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, ⁴ and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, ⁵ and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, ⁶ and Jesse the father of David the king.

Do you see? Through David’s lineage Jesus, begotten by the Holy Spirit, comes into the world through the Virgin Mary…and you and I, through Jesus, are grafted into the amazing and unlikely story of God’s salvation of a people! We are here, because Ruth was there…and Ruth was there because the Author of the story knows what He is writing! And here is the beauty of it: the Author of this story is also the Author of your story and He has made a way for you to come home, for you to join the amazing unfolding story of His love for His people.

You join that story by joining yourself to Jesus. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Let all who weary and bitter and tired and broken and rebellious and wayward and grieving and rejoicing come! Let us all come to the King of Kings! He will not turn us away.

[1] Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), p.241.

[2] Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth. The New American Commentary. Vol. 6. Gen. Ed., E. Ray Clendenen. (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1999), p.725.

[3] Old Testament professor Dr. Claude Mariottini has written an interesting post entitled “Was Ruth Barren?” that is worth considering. https://claudemariottini.com/2010/05/12/was-ruth-barren/

[4] Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Ruth. Interpretation. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1999), p.85.

Exodus 16

¹ They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt. ² And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, ³ and the people of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” ⁴ Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not. ⁵ On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily.” ⁶ So Moses and Aaron said to all the people of Israel, “At evening you shall know that it was the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, ⁷ and in the morning you shall see the glory of the Lord, because he has heard your grumbling against the Lord. For what are we, that you grumble against us?” ⁸ And Moses said, “When the Lord gives you in the evening meat to eat and in the morning bread to the full, because the Lord has heard your grumbling that you grumble against him—what are we? Your grumbling is not against us but against the Lord.” ⁹ Then Moses said to Aaron, “Say to the whole congregation of the people of Israel, ‘Come near before the Lord, for he has heard your grumbling.’” ¹⁰ And as soon as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the people of Israel, they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud. ¹¹ And the Lord said to Moses, ¹² “I have heard the grumbling of the people of Israel. Say to them, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God.’” ¹³ In the evening quail came up and covered the camp, and in the morning dew lay around the camp. ¹⁴ And when the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness a fine, flake-like thing, fine as frost on the ground. ¹⁵ When the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, “It is the bread that the Lord has given you to eat. ¹⁶ This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Gather of it, each one of you, as much as he can eat. You shall each take an omer, according to the number of the persons that each of you has in his tent.’” ¹⁷ And the people of Israel did so. They gathered, some more, some less. ¹⁸ But when they measured it with an omer, whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack. Each of them gathered as much as he could eat. ¹⁹ And Moses said to them, “Let no one leave any of it over till the morning.” ²⁰ But they did not listen to Moses. Some left part of it till the morning, and it bred worms and stank. And Moses was angry with them. ²¹ Morning by morning they gathered it, each as much as he could eat; but when the sun grew hot, it melted. ²² On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, ²³ he said to them, “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’” ²⁴ So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. ²⁵ Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. ²⁶ Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.” ²⁷ On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. ²⁸ And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws? ²⁹ See! The Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” ³⁰ So the people rested on the seventh day. ³¹ Now the house of Israel called its name manna. It was like coriander seed, white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey. ³² Moses said, “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations, so that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.’” ³³ And Moses said to Aaron, “Take a jar, and put an omer of manna in it, and place it before the Lord to be kept throughout your generations.” ³⁴ As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the testimony to be kept. ³⁵ The people of Israel ate the manna forty years, till they came to a habitable land. They ate the manna till they came to the border of the land of Canaan. ³⁶ (An omer is the tenth part of an ephah.)

The miracle of the fish at Valley Forge in the winter of 1778 is a disputed tale of an allegedly miraculous catch of shad in the Schuylkill River. In her article, “Starving Soldiers at Valley Forge,” written for The History Channel, Stephanie Butler offers a nice summary.

In December of 1778, the Continental Army was retreating in the face of a British advance on Philadelphia, but they also needed a place, as Armies did back then, to make winter quarters.

The Army’s commanding general, George Washington, chose a spot on the Schuylkill River called Valley Forge…Pennsylvania winters are harsh and the army was tired. They had neither winter clothing nor a regular supply of food. Most of the soldiers lived on near starvation rations.

When Washington arrived at Valley Forge, just days before Christmas, his army numbered about 10,000 and his situation was desperate…There was heavy snow Christmas Day and since they still were working on building cabins, most of the men still were in tents. They hadn’t been paid, didn’t have enough food, and many had no shoes, but Washington did his best to see the men had some kind of Christmas.

He hosted a somewhat meager dinner for his officers, and then saw to it that each soldier had an allotment of rum and something to eat. Both the general and Mrs. Washington did their best to visit each encampment.

It also was at Valley Forge that Washington is said, on Christmas Day, to have ridden into the woods to pray. It’s presumed the general prayed for strength and guidance, but no one really knows.  Besides, what he prayed about is his business, but his need to find some time to be alone and to talk to God suggests the spiritual side of this remarkable individual. It also could be argued, given what followed, that God was giving a little extra attention to the Washington’s prayers.

Amazingly — and this was recorded by several of the foreign officers, including the Marquis De Lafayette — the morale of the Continental Army at Christmastime revived.  Even without adequate rations and amid appalling living conditions, the men sang, told stories, and enjoyed their Christmas.

There also was, a few weeks later, an early running of the shad. It was far too early for this protein rich fish to make its appearance, but for many soldiers, freezing and near starvation, it was nothing short of a miracle. The work of the Army continued too.  Even in the snow, under the direction of Baron Von Steuben, a former Prussian officer, the Continental Army remade itself.[1]

Should we believe such a story? Who knows? Regardless, it would appear that something happened that was (a) quite unusual and (b) was regarded as a miracle by many who were there. I rather suspect the story is true. It would not, after all, be the first time that God miraculously fed a starving people.

Exodus 16 is a chapter that records a much earlier feeding miracle, and one on a grand scale at that! Here we find the miraculous feeding of the children of Israel in the wilderness with quail and manna. This astounding occurrence says a great deal about God, of course, but it also reveals a great deal about us.

God is faithful to provide for His people.

The most obvious point of Exodus 16 is that God is faithful to provide for His people. If God’s deliverance through the Red Sea was not sufficient enough evidence, and if His miraculous changing of the bitter waters of Marah did not put an end to their doubts, then God’s actions in this chapter certainly should have…or at least we would have thought. Notice the providing hand of God.

⁴ Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not. ⁵ On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily.” ⁶ So Moses and Aaron said to all the people of Israel, “At evening you shall know that it was the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, ⁷ and in the morning you shall see the glory of the Lord, because he has heard your grumbling against the Lord. For what are we, that you grumble against us?”

¹³ In the evening quail came up and covered the camp, and in the morning dew lay around the camp. ¹⁴ And when the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness a fine, flake-like thing, fine as frost on the ground.

First we see the promise then we see the fulfillment. God sends quail and manna. As with virtually every miracle in the Bible, many have proposed a naturalistic explanation. Thus, Terence Fretheim has pointed out that the Bible’s description of manna “corresponds quite closely to a natural phenomenon in the Sinai Peninsula.” He explains:

A type of plant lice punctures the fruit of the tamarisk tree and excretes a substance from this juice, a yellowish-white flake or ball. During the warmth of the day it disintegrates, but it congeals when it is cold. It has a sweet taste. Rich in carbohydrates and sugar, it is still gathered by natives, who bake it into a kind of bread (and call it manna). The food decays quickly and attracts ants. Regarding the quails, migratory birds flying in from Africa or blown in from the Mediterranean are often exhausted enough to be caught by hand.[2]

The insight about quail getting tired seems absurd, and the insight about manna seems plausible to an extent. Regardless, if both of these natural explanations play a part, they only play a part in the sense that God took natural phenomenon and miraculously bent them toward His own will. Of course, this is what God does all of the time when He acts in miraculous ways. Consider the feeding of the five thousand. That miracle involved “natural” phenomenon: bread and fish (though bread, of course, has to be made). But Jesus took bread and fish and multiplied it miraculously.

If God used the excretions of plant lice and the exhaustion of migrating quail to fulfill his promise of provision, it was no less miraculous. Just think of it: for forty years God had the little plant lice secrete enough substance to provide manna every morning for hundreds of thousands of Israelites. And if God caused the quail to grow exhausted just over where the Israelites were encamped, he did so every evening for forty years.

Regardless, these questions of how are not as significant as the reality that God did in fact provide! Here we see an astonishing and faithful fulfillment of that which Jesus taught us to pray: “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11).

Our God is a providing God.

God’s provisions cannot be increased by human greed or diminished by human despair.

He is a providing God, and His provisions can neither be increased by human greed nor diminished by human despair. Predictably, many of the Israelites wanted more than what was provided. The results were disastrous as God had foretold.

¹⁷ And the people of Israel did so. They gathered, some more, some less. ¹⁸ But when they measured it with an omer, whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack. Each of them gathered as much as he could eat. ¹⁹ And Moses said to them, “Let no one leave any of it over till the morning.” ²⁰ But they did not listen to Moses. Some left part of it till the morning, and it bred worms and stank. And Moses was angry with them.

²⁵ Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. ²⁶ Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.” ²⁷ On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. ²⁸ And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws?

Those who gathered more manna than they needed and those who set out on the Sabbath looking for more than they already had been provided with were both justly rebuked. Here is a powerful principle that we had best come to terms with: God provides enough. Greed and despair warp our perspectives of His character or, maybe more accurately, reveal that we have a perspective that has been warped.

I have recently been reading the canons of the Council of Nicaea from 325 A.D. The seventeenth canon states:

Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, “He hath not given his money upon usury,” and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum, the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre’s sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.[3]

This means that the church of the 4^th century forbade loaning money on interest. My purpose is not to discuss the ethics of interest. My point is simply to say that here at the first ecumenical council of the Church they had to condemn the clergy fleecing the people for more money than they needed. It is but one example of countless examples of greed, of failing to trust God as we should for His provision.

It is fascinating that God builds safeguards against both greed and despair in this wilderness arrangement for food: there will be enough.

What would it be like if we reached the point where we thought God had given us enough?

God’s provisions tend not to be appreciated as they should by His people.

One of the recurring themes of Israel’s wilderness wonderings is the theme of failing to appreciate God’s gracious provisions. Note the repetitious use of the image of grumbling.

² And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, ³ and the people of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.”

Peter Enns says of this charge, “Only the most calloused heart or the most stupid mind could conceive of such a ridiculous charge.”[4] That is blunt, but true. After God’s great provision and miraculous deliverance of His children from Egypt and at the waters of Marah, they still grumbled and complained. Even in Moses’ revelation that God would send food to the Israelites he indicted them for their absurd grumbling.

⁶ So Moses and Aaron said to all the people of Israel, “At evening you shall know that it was the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, ⁷ and in the morning you shall see the glory of the Lord, because he has heard your grumbling against the Lord. For what are we, that you grumble against us?” ⁸ And Moses said, “When the Lord gives you in the evening meat to eat and in the morning bread to the full, because the Lord has heard your grumbling that you grumble against him—what are we? Your grumbling is not against us but against the Lord.”

The Lord likewise notes their complaining spirit.

¹¹ And the Lord said to Moses, ¹² “I have heard the grumbling of the people of Israel.

Our grumbling says a great deal about us and how we see the world. Victor Hamilton has made an interesting observation about the nature of the grumbling mind-set.

The Israelites’ mind-set is not unlike that of criminals released from incarceration. Imprisonment, but with three meals a day and a place to lay one’s head at night, seems more inviting than struggling with the challenges of liberty. Being told what to do and when to do it and how to do it may be easier than having to make one’s own (responsible) decisions. In a strange way Egypt can become Eden. A ghetto can become a garden, or so it seems. Pharaoh can become a “nice guy,” a life-giver, while Moses can become a villain, a life-taker.[5]

A refusal to trust leads to a complaining spirit that, in terms, hinders us from actually seeing reality for what it is. This is the story of the human race. Indeed, there is ample evidence in scripture to suggest that most people simply do not take the time to thank God for the provisions He does indeed supply. We can see this in Luke 17, for instance, in Jesus’ healing of the ten lepers.

¹¹ On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. ¹² And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance ¹³ and lifted up their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” ¹⁴ When he saw them he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed. ¹⁵ Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; ¹⁶ and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. ¹⁷ Then Jesus answered, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? ¹⁸ Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” ¹⁹ And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”

Dear church, do not allow grumbling to overtake your minds and hearts. When is the last time you stopped and said, “Thank you, God, for providing for me”?

God’s provisions should lead to rest and worship.

And what is the ultimate purpose of God’s provision? Holy rest. Sabbath rest. Praise.

The Lord provides. His people gather. Then we should rest. We find one of the clearest articulations of the need for Sabbath rest in our text.

²² On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, ²³ he said to them, “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’” ²⁴ So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. ²⁵ Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. ²⁶ Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.” ²⁷ On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. ²⁸ And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws? ²⁹ See! The Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” ³⁰ So the people rested on the seventh day.

Peter Enns rightly observes, “It is not simply that the Sabbath is ‘observed’ by the Israelites in that they refrain from gathering food. Rather, it is God who refrains from supplying the food. It is he who ceases working, so that no manna or quail is to be founded.”[6] This is consistent with the Genesis account of creation. In Genesis 2 we read:

² By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. ³ Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

There is an absurd notion in our country, perhaps mainly among men (it seems to me), that excessive, self-destructive busyness ostensibly in the name of providing for our families is a virtue to be celebrated. In fact it is a vice to be deplored. I am aware of the fact that at times and seasons of life and in certain circumstances people simply must work more than they should. Again, I understand this. I am talking here, though, about the modern penchant for unnecessary busyness. It is largely unnecessary because it is embraced in order to fund things we simply do not need in many cases. We thereby shortchange our children and our spouses by being busier than we need to be.

In the process, we lose the very idea and logic of Sabbath rest. We fail to rest because we do not take seriously God’s absolute seriousness about the Sabbath rhythm of life: work for six days and rest on the seventh.

We are especially adept at pointing out absurd legalisms concerning Sabbath observance, and there can be no denying that the Church has sometimes fallen into such legalisms to the same extent that many Pharisees did. However, the problem in most churches today is not legalism concerning the Sabbath but crude license concerning it. That is, we barely observe it at all, it seems to me. Please note, however, that as God led His children through the wilderness He insisted on Sabbath rest.

How do we best give praise to God for His provisions? Surely not by frantically grasping for more than we need. No, we best give praise by observing Sabbath rest and worship to the glory of His great name.

God provides. He does so in astounding and beautiful ways. Open your eyes to the manna He gives us every day. Work to gather then stop to rest. Through all, praise His great name!

[1] https://www.history.com/news/hungry-history/starving-soldiers-at-valley-forge

[2] Terence Fretheim, Exodus. Interpretation. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), p.182.

[3] https://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-canons.html#17

[4] Peter Enns, Exodus. The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), p.324.

[5] Hamilton, Victor P. (2011-11-01). Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Kindle Locations 8426-8429). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[6] Peter Enns, p.325.