Bible Study – 5 Women in the Genealogy

Quoted From: ALL THE WOMEN OF THE BIBLE  (Herbert Lockyer, D.D., D.Litt.)

TAMAR

The Woman With a Pathetic History

Scripture References—Genesis 38:6-30; Ruth 4:12; 1 Chronicles 2:4; Matthew 1:3
Family Connections—The Bible is silent as to her genealogy. All we know is that she was a Canaanite as her heathen name suggests, and that when widowed the second time, she returned to her father’s home, but who he was and where he lived we are not told. What we do know is that when she married into the family of Judah, heartache and tragedy were her lot.
     First of all, Tamar married Er, the oldest son of Judah and Shuah—who, like Tamar, was also a Canaanite. What Er did to displease God we are not told. Whatever it was, it was sinful enough for God to slay him. The wickedness of Er is declared but not described. There are no sins He cannot see, and there are sins He alone can see. The Bible provides us with many instances of the personal intervention of God for the purpose of punishing the sins of individuals and of communities by death. But Tamar did not remain a widow long, for in accordance with Hebrew law, she married the next son in the family so that he could raise up seed for his deceased brother.
     Onan was Tamar’s second husband, but he failed to fulfill his responsibilities to his dead brother’s memory and posterity. Unwilling to do his duty according to the law of the Levirate marriage, and knowing that any offspring would not be his, Onan spilled his semen on the ground, and for this act of faithlessness to the dead, God slew him also. Widowed again, in the ordinary course of events, the next son of Judah, Shelah, should have become the third husband of Tamar as the tribe-law required (Deuteronomy 25:5; Matthew 22:24). Judah promised to give his third son to the childless widow, but when Shelah became of age, his father broke his promise. Perhaps Judah feared that the fate that had overtaken his other two sons might also be the fate of Shelah, and the refusal of Judah to give Tamar his son Shelah in marriage led to far-reaching results.
     Although we have no evidence of Tamar’s faith in Jehovah, she must have had some conception of the important Messianic significance of the line of Judah, for denied Shelah, she was determined, though in an incestuous way, to save from extinction the family and tribe from which the Messiah was to spring. Tamar may have thought that if she could not marry Shelah, then according to the law of the country his father should marry her. So she resorted to a method we cannot condone for the purpose of securing her desired end. Thus it came about that she laid a trap for Judah, and consequently she and her sons found a place in the greatest of all genealogies.
     After the death of his wife, Shuah, Judah was stricken with grief. Bereft of his two wicked sons, and now of his wife who, in spite of her idolatrous nationality, has nothing against her character, Judah went to his friend Hirah the Adullamite. Tamar, hearing of this, set her trap to reach the ideal which three times had been denied her. Disguising herself to look like a harlot, she sat in an open place where she could be approached. Not knowing Tamar’s true identity, Judah bargained for her favors and secured them. His desire for intercourse with a harlot is reported without any moral judgment, seeing “there was little or no prejudice against purely secular prostitution in Israel.”
     Learning that Tamar had been playing the harlot, he commanded, “Bring her forth and let her be burnt.” But when he learned that he was the cause of her guilt, Judah was compelled to vindicate Tamar and was forced to admit that she had been more righteous. Judah was motivated in his despicable conduct by sensual lust alone, but Tamar by nobler motives, namely, to become the mother of Judah’s tribal representative. Twin sons were Lorn of that incestuous union, Pharez, or Perez, and Zerah. Through Pharez Judah and Tamar became ancestors of Jesus (Matthew 1:3).
     Shocked as we are by the incestuous way Tamar sought to aid the perpetuation of Judah’s line, a fruitful race followed, “God not sanctioning but over-riding evil to His own good purpose” (Ruth 4:12, 18; Romans 3:5-8). It shocks our inner, finer feelings to see Christ’s lineage interwoven with such abhorrent degradation as we have in this chapter (Genesis 38). We cannot but wonder how Judah and Tamar have the distinction of mention in that sacred genealogy of Jesus Christ, but as Bishop Hall expressed it, “God’s election is only by Grace, for otherwise Judah would never have been chosen.” Judah was a Jew; Tamar, a Gentile, and thus their parentage of Pharez (Matthew 1:3) can be looked upon as a foreshadowing of the fact that both Jews and Gentiles were to share in the blessings of the Gospel.

BATHSHEBA

The Woman Whose Beauty Resulted in Adultery and Murder

Scripture References—2 Samuel 11:2, 3; 12:24; 1 Kings 1:11-31; 2:13-19; 1 Chronicles 3:5
Name Meaning—The Seventh Daughter, or The Daughter of an Oath. “Bath” means “daughter.” A kindred name is Bath Shua, a Canaanite name which implies, “the daughter of opulence.” The wife of Judah is referred to as “Shua’s daughter” (Genesis 38:2; 1 Chronicles 2:3). Bath Shua was also the name of the daughter of Ammiel and wife of David (1 Chronicles 3:5).
Family Connections—Bathsheba came of a God-fearing family. She was the daughter of Eliam or Ammiah, who was the son of Ahithophel. Eliam, whose name means “God is gracious,” was one of David’s gallant officers. Bathsheba became the wife of Uriah, the most loyal of David’s men. After the murder of Uriah, she became the wife of David, and mother of five sons by him. The first died in infancy. The others were Solomon, Shimea, Shobub and Nathan. She is mentioned in our Lord’s genealogy as “her that had been the wife of Uriah” (Matthew 1:6).
     The sacred record informs us that David’s association with Bathsheba was the only stain upon the escutcheon of David. “David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah” (1 Kings 15:5). If this was the only blot on his page, it was a heavily engrained one, and one that could not be erased, as far as the effects of his treatment of Uriah was concerned. While God freely pardons a sinner, often the effects of committed sin remain. The tragic lapse in the life of the man after God’s own heart is built up with consummate art, from David’s first sight of Bathsheba to the climax of his unutterable remorse when realizing the enormity of his most grievous sin, he flung himself upon the mercy of God.
     The sad story begins with the significant phrase, “But David tarried still at Jerusalem” (2 Samuel 11:1). The Israelites were at war with the Ammonites, and the king who had shown himself brave and victorious in battle should have been with his army. But now a mature man, and veteran of many wars, and ruler over Israel for some twelve years now David had become somewhat soft and self-indulgent. He had had his day of hard campaigning and war weariness. Now it was time to leave the rigors and risks of battle to his officers, and sit back and take things easy. But no longer fighting the battle of the Lord, David was open to attack and so found himself involved in the triangle drama of passion, intrigue and murder.
     Lazing around on the flat roof of his palace, David saw a woman on the roof of a nearby house undressing and bathing herself, and his passions were excited. Bathsheba, the woman exposing herself nudely, was “very beautiful to look upon,” and David, ever attracted by lovely women, coveted her, and became guilty of an outrageous disgrace. Although David was to confess that his foul sin was his, and his alone, one wonders how far Bathsheba was the accomplice in such a sin, as well as its provocation. Had she been a careful, modest woman, surely she would have looked around the easily seen adjacent roofs, and if others had been looking her way, she would have been more appropriately modest in bathing herself.
     Further, when sent for by David, had she been a true wife and a woman of principle she should have refused to obey the king’s summons. As she saw David feasting his eyes upon her, did she have a presentiment of what would happen? If not, then, when before the king, she should have bravely refused to yield to adultery. Later on in the sacred record, a heathen woman—a queen—brave Vashti, stoutly refused to expose herself before wine-in-flamed men, and was expelled from court. Had Bathsheba shown the same determination to preserve her dignity, David, the anointed of Israel, would never have sinned as he did. After the adulterous act in the king’s bedchamber, Bathsheba manifested no sense of guilt, but after her husband’s murder almost immediately went to the palace to supplement David’s many wives.
     Bathsheba only added insult to the injury by indulging in her illicit affair with another man, while her lawful husband was risking his life in the service of her seducer. Learning of Bathsheba’s pregnant condition, David hurried Uriah home to allay suspicion, but returning, the devoted soldier, a man of highest principle, refused any physical contact with his wife. David’s clever plan failed, and the plot thickens. Uriah must be gotten rid of, so he was sent back to the battlefield with a letter to Joab to put Uriah in a foremost place where he was bound to be killed. Godly, gallant Uriah had no ideas that that sealed letter carried his death warrant. Thus, for David lust, adultery, deceit, treachery and murder followed in quick succession.
     After the accustomed period of mourning Bathsheba became the wife of David, and their child of an adulterous union was born without disgrace, only to die within a week of his birth. “The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare David.” The deep grief of David over the sickness and death of the child, while not relieving the king of his murderous crime, gives us a glimpse of his better nature and of his faith in reunion beyond the grave. Perhaps no other passage of the Bible has been used to comfort sorrowing hearts in the hour of death as that in which David assures us of immortality. Mourning over his dead child he said, “Can I bring him back again?” No, he could not. Then came words binding up the cruel wound death causes, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” Both David and Bathsheba must have had much agony of soul as they became deeply conscious that the death of their son, conceived out of wedlock, was a divine judgment upon their dark sin.
     Divinely instructed, Nathan the prophet brought David to a realization of his terrible evil, and sincere in his confession of his iniquity, he received from Nathan the assuring word, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin.” Much has been written about David’s repentance preserved for us in Psalm 51—a Psalm saturated with penitential tears—and of Psalm 32, expressing David’s gratitude to God for His pardoning grace and mercy. But graciously forgiven, even God could not avert the natural consequences of David’s transgression, and he came to prove its inevitable subsequent sorrow. Evil rose up against him in his own house (2 Samuel 12:11). David found himself disgraced by one son (13:4), banished by another (15:19), revolted against by a third (1 Kings 2), bearded by his servant, betrayed by his friends, deserted by his people, bereaved of his children.
     What about Bathsheba? With David, was she made conscious of her share in the iniquitous transaction of the past? Coresponsible in David’s sin, did her tears of repentance mingle with those of her husband’s? It would seem so, because God blessed them with another son whom they called Solomon, meaning, “Beloved of the Lord.” Why was not such a son given to one of David’s other wives? Given to David and Bathsheba was not Solomon an evidence and expression of God’s pardoning love for both? Then, is not Bathsheba’s inclusion in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1) another token that God had put her sins behind His back? Restored to divine favor, and now virtuous and wise as well as beautiful, Bathsheba brought up her son Solomon in all godly diligence and care. Solomon himself came to write, “Train up a child in the way he should go” (Proverbs 22:6), which counsel reflected his own godly upbringing. Tradition says that it was Bathsheba who composed Proverbs 31, as an admonition to Solomon on his marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter. If this be so, we can understand all the warnings against the flatteries of strange women with which Proverbs abounds.
     After her lapse, recovery and the birth of Solomon the rest of Bathsheba’s life is veiled in silence. We can imagine how noble calmness, gentle dignity and queenly courage became hers. That she retained her influence over David until his death is proven by the way she reminded the king of his promise to make their son, Solomon, his successor. The veil of silence is lifted again when Solomon became king, and Bathsheba, whom Solomon revered, came into his presence to ask that Abishag, who cared for David in his last days, be given in marriage to Adonijah, the son of Haggith, one of David’s other wives.
     A lesson we can learn from Bathsheba is that being assured of God’s forgiveness she did not let her one sin ruin her entire life. Repentant, she used her mistake as a guide to future, better conduct. When we brood over sins God has said He will remember no more against us, we actually doubt His mercy, and rob ourselves of spiritual power and progress. Read again Psalm 51 and then Psalm 32.

RUTH

The Woman Who Rose From Obscurity to Riches

Scripture References—The Book of Ruth, Matthew 1:5
Name Meaning—Since the Ruth of ancient Bible times, her name has ever been a most popular one for girls. Elsdon C. Smith, in his compilation of the first hundred female names in America, places Ruth seventh in the list, with an estimated number of almost one and a half million bearing the name. The author’s only daughter bears this honored name. As to its significance, we cannot do better than the interpretation Wilkinson gives us in his Personal Names of the Bible, in the chapter on “Heathen Names” —

          The most distinguished person of the Moabitish race is Ruth, who became the wife of Boaz, and ancestress of David. Her name is a contraction of reuth, which may either be the word for “the act of seeing,” “sight” and hence, as in English, objectively “a sight,” “something worth seeing”—or the word for “friendship” or “a female friend,” like reu in Reuel, “friend of God.” If the former etymology be adopted, we must ascribe the name to the early beauty of the child; if the latter, it may be due to the exhibition in infancy of that amiable and affectionate disposition which was so characteristic of the woman.

     Both meanings of the name were true of Ruth, for as a beautiful girl from Moab she was certainly a sight worth seeing, and her character revealed her to be a woman capable of rare friendship.
     It took the grace of God to befriend a bitter woman as Naomi became, but Ruth was bound to her mother-in-law by the cords of love, and literature has no exhibition of friendship comparable to that dramatic episode on the way to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:16, 17). Not wanting to go back to Moab, as Orpah did, Ruth, cleaving to Naomi said with passion in her voice—

     Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
          Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

What an appealing and stirring demonstration of undying friendship that was, and Ruth meant it, and through it changed Naomi’s sourness into sweetness! We have dear friends like Ruth who cling to us, and others like Orpah whose friendship is only veneer and who quickly leave us (see NAOMI and ORPAH). Scripture gives us a fivefold profile of this famous Moabitess—

A Young Widow

     The first glimpse we have of Ruth is as a young wife robbed by death of her husband. In our previous cameos of Naomi and Orpah we have already seen how Elimelech and his wife, along with their two sons Mahlon and Chilion, in order to escape prevailing famine in Bethlehem, emigrated to the neighboring country of Moab, the inhabitants of which were idolaters. After a while Elimelech died, and the two fatherless sons married women of Moab. Mahlon took Ruth to wife, and Chilion, Orpah. After some ten years' sojourn in Moab, Mahlon and Chilion died leaving their wives childless. In marrying women of Moab those two Hebrew men sinned against the Mosaic Law which prohibted any association with the idolatrous Moabites (Deuteronomy 7:3; 23:3).
     Mahlon means “the sickly one,” or “invalid”; Chilion, “the pining one,” or “wasting away”—names probably associated with their natal frailty. They may have been twins, and from their birth Naomi had to surround them with great care and attention. This is evident that life in Moab, with all its food and comfort, hastened their end. Like their father, Elimelech, they found graves in foreign soil, and the desolation of widowhood came upon both Ruth and Orpah, who became sharers of Naomi’s desolation. Ten years of widowhood brought the two younger women to a mature age. How far they had been influenced Godward by their marriage into a Hebrew family, with its recognition of God, and not their idols, as the only true object of worship, we are not told. As Ruth’s husband, Mahlon, was the first-born of Elimelech and Naomi, we can imagine how he would strive through their years together to draw her from her heathen ways. With all we know of Ruth’s honest nature, it is quite possible that she warmly received all her husband told her of the mighty Jehovah.
     Bereft of her husband, Ruth, as well as Orpah, would be left without material resources of support, and would face the hard and bitter lot of a biting poverty, as many widows do when the breadwinner is taken. But if Ruth shed any tears over her sorry plight as she faced a gloomy future without her husband, there is no record of them. She did not seek for self-pity neither did she manifest the bitterness that had gripped the heart of Naomi because of her sad lot. Amid the shadows, Ruth maintained a poise and a serenity which even her mother-in-law must have coveted. When happy homes are ravaged by death, it requires grace to say, “The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” Naomi’s self-confessed bitterness over the loss of husband and sons spoke of her lack of faith in God’s good providence. But Ruth, heathen though she may have been, seems to have calmly acquiesced in the divine will.

A Faithful Daughter-in-Law

     Bound together by a bond of common grief, the three widows found consolation in each other’s company. “Fellow-feeling, makes us wondrous kind.” The widowed Naomi, now bereft of her two sons who died childless, had no links with Moab. As famine had passed in Bethlehem, the decision was made to pull up stakes and return to her own country and people, perhaps with a faint hope that God would prove Himself to be the Guardian of widows. “Let thy widows trust in me.” What about Ruth and Orpah? Deeply attached to their mother-in-law, who had become a second mother to them, and to whom they clung as their friend and counselor, they decided to accompany the pilgrim on her way. Naomi used no persuasion, but left the two young widows to make their own choice. Therefore all three left Moab together, but on the way they stopped and Naomi urged them to return to their own country, marry again and settle down. She did not want them to face uncertainty in a strange land. With poor Orpah, ties of kindred and her own idolatrous practices won out. Her heart failed, and kissing her mother-in-law she went back to her people and to her gods. It is possible that when among her heathen friends again, her conscience often whispered to her of the wrong course taken.
     As for Ruth, the choice was different. She loved Naomi and was willing to leave her own land and share the unknown future with the aging woman in whom her life was bound up. In her happier days with Mahlon, and then in her desolation and bereavement, Ruth found in Naomi a home for her heart. Orpah manifested a show of passionate affection as she kissed her mother-in-law good-by! But Ruth, as always, revealed a quiet fidelity so characteristic of her association with the embittered woman now returning to Bethlehem. We agree with the sentiment of Alexander Whyte that there is not a love story comparable to the love of the Moabite daughter-in-law for her Hebrew mother-in-law.

     Ruth’s love for her dead husband’s aged mother is as pure as gold and as strong as death. Many waters cannot quench Ruth’s love. And her confession of her love, when she is constrained to confess it, is the most beautiful confession of love in all the world.

Ruth’s declaration of love and loyalty for Naomi marks it out as being the purest and most unselfish form of devotion, especially when we remember that Naomi was more than twice the age of Ruth, and that, proverbially, it is not easy to live with a mother-in-law. Here we have a strong contradiction to modern flippancy—the passionate affection of a young widow for her widowed mother-in-law. History and literature cannot provide a more exquisite expression of love and loyalty as that to be found in the lovely idyll bearing the name of the lover herself. The matchless beauty of the character of Ruth appeared when she cried, “Intreat me not to leave thee.” As A. S. Geden puts it, “The piety and fidelity of Ruth are early exhibited in the course of the narrative, in that she refused to abandon her mother-in-law, although thrice exhorted to do so by Naomi herself, on account of her own great age, and the better prospects for Ruth in her own country.” In an age like ours with its ever growing number of strained relationships, broken homes and loveless lives it is most refreshing to go back to the charming picture of loyalty found in a short yet sublime book in which every prospect pleases.

A Determined Convert

     In spite of her heathen background and association with the degenerated tribe of Moab, Ruth became a devout worshiper of the true God. Just when she cast off her idolatry with its folly of bowing down to gods of wood and stone, and turned to the beauty and blessedness of true religion we are not told. Perhaps in her somewhat short married life, her heart was stirred by what her husband told her of the greatness of Jehovah. Then she must have seen that Naomi’s God was totally different from the lifeless deity she worshiped. This much is evident, that her outburst of song of life devotion on the road from Moab to Bethlehem was the birth-strain of a new life. From henceforth the Hebrews would be her people, and Naomi’s God her God. Her new-found faith constrained her to say, “The Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.”
     Had Ruth accompanied Orpah to Moab and to obscurity, she would have returned to the altars of Baal. But now with God in her heart, she longed to live with those people “whose God is the Lord.” Faith burst forth into the light of day, took the form of quiet, humble service, and remained untainted by any trace of pride or of spiritual haughtiness, as Kuyper expresses it. To which we can add the sentiment of Fausset that, “Ruth is an instance of natural affection made instrumental in leading to true religion. A blossom of heathendom stretching its flower cup desiringly towards the light of revelation in Israel.”
     The firm decision of Ruth to follow Jehovah, and to completely identify herself with His people, brought her a rich reward when she became the ancestress of the Saviour who came into the world to save idolaters and sinners of every race. With her surrender to the claims of God, Ruth’s “beauty of heart, generosity of soul, firm sense of duty and meekness” were sanctified, and were used to place her winsome portrait among the immortals. There are thousands of Christian parents whose heavy load would be lifted if only their unsaved children would come home one day confessing. “Thy God shall be my God, thy people my people.” The miracle happened in the heathen heart of Ruth, and God is still the same today as when He won the young widow of Moab for Himself.

A Humble Gleaner

     Back in Bethlehem, Naomi was reminded of how her afflictions had changed her. Friends found it hard to believe that this was the beautiful woman who had left them ten years before. At that time she was clothed so well, but now she is clad in a poor and sorrowful dress. Her brow was wrinkled and her back bent, but by her side was the “foreigner,” to share her sorrow, and to taste any joys that might come to her. At first it seemed as if they were to remain desolate and uncared for, but fortunately it was harvest time, and the golden sheaves were being gathered in. Naomi and Ruth must live, and Ruth, with her characteristic thoughtfulness, knew that her aged mother-in-law was not able to work. Thus she went out and was directed to join the poor gleaners in the fields of the rich, godly landowner, Boaz.
     We find ourselves in disagreement with those who try to portray Ruth as a lonely girl overcome with homesickness for her old Moabite friends as she bent her back to glean in an unfamiliar field. In his Ode to a Nightingale, Keats sought to immortalize such a feeling in the arrestive lines—

     Perhaps the self-same song that found a path Thro' the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home, She stood in tears amid the alien corn.

There is no trace whatever of such a doleful note in the record of Ruth. Having deliberately severed all association with Moab, she found joy among the strange people whom she had made her people, and when she went forth that bright morning to follow the reapers, it was with joy and confidence that the God under whose wings she had come to trust would undertake for her. Thus we much prefer the beautiful tribute Thomas Hood gives us in his poem on Ruth.

          She stood breast-high amid the corn,
          Clasped by the golden light of morn,
          Like the sweetheart of the sun,
          Who many a glowing kiss had won.

          On her cheek an autumn flush,
          Deeply ripened—such a blush
          In the midst of Brown was born,
          Like red poppies grown with corn.

          Round her eyes her tresses fell,
          Which were blackest none could tell,
          But long lashes veiled a light,
          That had else been all too bright.

          And her hat, with shady brim,
          Made her tressy forehead dim—
          Thus she stood amid the stooks,
          Praising God with sweetest looks.

          “Sure,” I said, “Heav'n did not mean,
          Where I reap thou should’st but glean;
          Lay thy sheaf adown and come,
          Share my harvest and my home.”

     Ruth was not ashamed of the low order of her work as she took her place as a gleaner with the poor and outcast. The sacred historian tells us that as Ruth went out to secure food for Naomi and herself that it was “her hap to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the kindred of Elimelech.” But her entrance into the field of Boaz, and not into another man’s field, did not just happen. Under Jewish law Ruth had the right to glean in any harvest field. It was no mere chance, then, that brought Boaz and Ruth together, for even the steps of God’s children are directed by Him. In His plan for His own there is no such a thing as luck. Determined not to eat the bread of idleness, industrious Ruth walked right into the arms of divine providence. Little did she dream that she would become the much-loved wife of the master of the field in which the reapers had given her a friendly welcome (Ruth 2:12; Psalms 17:8; 36:7).
     Being one who feared God, and one who cared for the poor, Boaz went among his reapers, spoke kindly to them, and earned their benediction. Coming upon Ruth he was arrested by her staid and modest look. Although poorly clad there was a dignity in her mien, a refinement giving her distinction, and Boaz is arrested by her beauty and personality. Making inquiries about her, Boaz learns of her sacrifice for Naomi, and of her conversion to the worship of Jehovah (Ruth 2:6, 7), and commands the reapers to purposely drop extra sheaves for Ruth’s benefit. Boaz also bade Ruth to glean only in his field, and to stand fast by his female workers. He wanted to preserve her from coarse contact with men who might take advantage of such a poor woman, who was in his admiring eyes a superior one. She was not to eat with others but present herself at his feasts.
     As for Ruth, her heart was full because kindness had been shown her by a stranger in the solitude of a strange land. How excited she must have been when she reached home and told Naomi all about her good fortune, and showed her all the parched corn she had gathered. Was there a lyric note in Ruth’s story of that first day? Had she sensed that somehow Boaz had been strangely attracted to her, hence his generosity in spite of the alien blood in her veins? As for Naomi, when Ruth came to mention the name of her benefactor, Boaz, she recalls the name as that of a kinsman of her deceased husband, Elimelech. It may be that in the mind of Naomi there entered a feeling that perhaps a brighter future may be hers and Ruth’s.

An Honored Mother

     We all know how matters between Boaz and Ruth developed which caused Goethe to say of the Book of Ruth that “we have nothing so lovely in the whole range of epic and idyllic poetry.” The name of Boaz became immortalized because of his loving-kindness toward Ruth, the poor Moabitess, while the kinsman who would not mar his own inheritance is unknown. It turned out that Boaz was one of Naomi’s nearest relatives and one of the few remaining kinsmen of her husband’s family. Therefore he was able to befriend the widow of Mahlon, Elimelech’s son, according to the deep principle pervading the law of Israel regarding the preservation of families. This Levirate Law stated that where a husband died without issue, the nearest brother-in-law (levir) might be called upon by the widow to perform for her all the duties of a husband, and raise up seed for the deceased.
     In the case of Ruth, however, no brother-in-law was available seeing the only sons Elimelech had were dead. Consequently, the nearest of kin could be called upon to act as “redeemer” (goel) for the unfortunate, relieving them thereby of their distress. The nearest relative to Ruth by marriage was unable to function as her goel, and being the next relative, Boaz did not shirk his responsibility toward the lovely woman who had won his heart. Before the council of ten men at the city gate he announced before witnesses his decision to buy Ruth’s inheritance and marry her. Although bachelor Boaz was advanced in years, he was determined to play his part and as Naomi said, “The man will not rest, until he has finished the thing this day”—and finish it he did! So the idyllic conclusion was reached, with Ruth being lifted out of obscurity into a happy union with Boaz, the mighty man of wealth. This story provides us with one of the first records in world history of a rise from rags to riches, from poverty to plenty.
     God smiled upon the marriage of honorable Boaz and virtuous Ruth, and blessed them with a son whom they named Obed which means “a servant who worships.” As Ruth was the servant who came to worship Jehovah, we can imagine her son’s name as being expressive of her own conversion from idolatry. Through the birth of Obed, who became the father of Jesse, who, in turn was the father of King David, Ruth found herself numbered among the elect, and God wove the thread of her life most intricately into the web of the history of His people, both before and after Christ. A Gentile by birth, Ruth yet became the chosen line through which later the Saviour of the world appeared. As He came to redeem both Jew and Gentile alike, it was fitting that the blood of both should mingle in His veins. “A good name,” says Solomon, “is rather to be chosen than riches, and loving favour than silver and gold.” Ruth found it so, and thus her good name found a place in the royal genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:5). As George Matheson so beautifully puts it, “In the soul of Jesus the wedding bells of Ruth and Boaz are rung once more. Here again Moab and Israel meet together. In the heart of the Son of Man the Gentile stands side by side with the Jew as the recipient of a common divine fatherhood.”
     Those of us who are Christians praise God for Ruth’s inclusion in His portraitgallery, for she was the ancestress of Him who, by His death, brought us nigh to God. It was from Boaz, an Israelite without guile, and from Ruth, who became an “Israelite not in race, but in mind; not in blood but faith; not by tribe but by virtue and goodness,” that Jesus came as the most perfect expression of all graces.
     One could say much of the merits and message of the book to which Ruth gave her name, as well as of the many lessons to be gathered from it. Benjamin Franklin, who was ridiculed at one time in Paris for his defense of the Bible, was determined to find out how much of it his scoffers had read. He informed one of the learned societies that he had come across a story of pastoral life in ancient times that seemed to him very beautiful but he would like the opinion of the society. A night was arranged for Franklin to read to the assembly of scholars a lyric which impressed him. The Bible lover read the Book of Ruth, and when he had finished the scholars were in ecstasies and begged Franklin to print it. “It is already in print,” said Franklin. “It is a part of the Bible you ridicule.”
     There is nothing in the entire range of biography sacred or profane, comparable to the idyllic simplicity, tenderness and beauty of the story of Ruth, the young widow of Moab. There are only two books out of the sixty-six forming the Bible that are named after women. Ruth is one, and the other is Esther—and both books have enchanted succeeding ages. The Jews have a peculiar regard for both books. At their Feast of Purim they read Esther, and at the Feast of Pentecost, the scroll of Ruth. Among the many typical features in the latter, the most outstanding is that of the composition of the true church of Jesus Christ. Ruth was a Gentile, Boaz a Hebrew. Boaz redeemed Ruth’s possession and then became her husband. All have sinned, both Jews and Gentiles, but Jesus died for all, and His church is composed of regenerated Jews and Gentiles whom He calls His Bride. Thus “the marriage-bells of Ruth at Bethlehem were the same bells which sounded at the marriage-supper of the Lamb.”
     From Ruth’s outstanding qualities of unselfishness and loyalty we learn that such virtues are the only foundation upon which true happiness can be built. Without them, abiding friendship is impossible, home ties are loose, and the social structure weak. Ruth also teaches us that attractive graciousness is worth cultivating; and that racial hatred and religious bigotry can be solved by a right relationship to Him who made of one blood all nations. Further, the rare literary gem of the Book of Ruth, which takes one some fifteen minutes to read, shows us how our industrial and labor problems can be solved. Boaz was a wealthy farmer, yet he maintained a delightful relation to those who worked for him in a dark, chaotic period of Israelitish history. As he walked through his fields, meeting his servants he would say, “The Lord be with thee,” and such was the harmony that prevailed that they would reply, “The Lord bless thee.” In our time, the strained relationship between masters and employees would be quickly solved by the application of the good will manifested in those ancient days. Combining as it does all the traits of human life and character, Ruth is a book all can read with both pleasure and profit.

RAHAB

The Woman God Took From the Dunghill

Scripture References—Joshua 2:1, 3; 6:17-25; Matthew 1:5; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25
Name Meaning—The first part of Rahab—“Ra,” was the name of an Egyptian god. As an Amorite, Rahab belonged to an idolatrous people, and had a name meaning “insolence,” “fierceness,” or “broad,” “spaciousness.”
Family Connections—While Rahab’s parents, brothers and sisters were alive at the time of her association with the spies Joshua sent out, we are not given any of their names (Joshua 2:13). Some of the ancient Jewish fathers who held her in high reputation reckoned that she was the wife of Joshua himself, but in the royal genealogy of Jesus, Rahab is referred to as being the wife of Salmon, one of the two spies she sheltered. In turn, she became the mother of Boaz, who married Ruth from whose son, Obed, Jesse the father of David came, through whose line Jesus was born (Matthew 1:5, where the ASV reads, “Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab”—not Rachab). Salmon was a prince of the house of Judah, and thus, Rahab, the one time heathen harlot, married into one of the leading families of Israel and became an ancestress of our Lord, the other foreign ancestresses being Tamar, Ruth and Bathsheba. The gratitude Salmon felt for Rahab ripened into love, and when grace erased her former life of shame he made her his wife. Jerome’s comment of the inclusion of the four foreign women in Matthew’s genealogy is suggestive—

          In it none of the holy women are included, only those whom the Scriptures blame, in order that He who came in behalf of sinners, Himself being born of sinners, might destroy the sins of all.

     Both Jewish and Christian writers have tried to prove that Rahab was a different woman from the one whom the Bible always speaks of as a “harlot.” To them it was abhorrent that such a disreputable person should be included in our Lord’s genealogy and by Paul, as a woman of faith, and so her story has been distorted in order to further a scheme of salvation based upon human goodness. Although man’s sense of refinement may be shocked, the fact remains that Rahab, Tamar and Bathsheba were sinful women who were purged by God, and had their share in the royal line from which Jesus sprang.
     It has been suggested that the word “harlot” can be translated “innkeeper,” thus making Rahab the landlady of a wayside tavern. Guesses have been made that she had been a concubine, such as Hagar and Zilpah had been, but that in Jericho she was a reputable woman identified with a respectable business. The Bible, however, makes no attempt to smooth over the unpleasant fact that Rahab had been a harlot. Endeavoring to understand her character, we have—

Her Sin

     Three times over Rahab is referred to as “the harlot,” and the Hebrew term zoonah and the Greek word porne have at no time meant anything else but “harlot”—a woman who yields herself indiscriminately to every man approaching her. Rahab indulged in venal wantonness as traveling merchants came her way and were housed in her illfamed abode. Evidently Rahab had her own house and lived apart from her parents and family. Although she never lost her concern for her dear ones, perhaps she was treated as a moral leper. We are told that prostitution was not regarded with the same horror then, as now, but the Bible with one voice speaks of harlotry with moral revulsion and social ostracism.
     Rahab’s house was built against the town wall with the roof almost level with the ramparts, and with a stairway leading up to a flat roof that appears to be a continuation of the wall. Thus, the people of Jericho knew all about the men who entered and left such a disreputable house. While her name came to be sanctified and ennobled, both Paul and James affix the label to her name, Rahab the harlot. She still carried the evil, distinguishing name, thus declaring the peculiar grace of the transforming power of God. How Rahab came to forsake her evil career we are not told! Like many a young girl today perhaps she found the restrictions of her respectable home too irk-some. She wanted a freer life, a life of thrill and excitement, away from the drab monotony of the home giving her birth and protection. So, high-spirited and independent she left her parents, set up her own apartment with dire consequences. Frequently women like Rahab are more often sinned against than sinners. Man’s lust for the unlawful is responsible for harlotry.

Her Scheme

     It was from some of the travelers Rahab entertained and sinned with, that she came to learn the facts of the Exodus of Israel, the miracle of the Red Sea, and the overthrow of Sihon and Og. So, when the two spies from Joshua sought cover in her house, she knew that sooner or later the king of Jericho would get to know of the accommodation she gave them. Here were two men, different from other men who came seeking her favors. These were men of God, not idolaters, bent on one mission, namely, the overthrow of the enemies of His people, and brilliantly she planned their protection and escape. The flax that she spread on her roof and the scarlet cord she used as a sign indicated that Rahab manufactured linen and also dyed it. If only, like Lydia, she had kept to such an honorable occupation, what a different story would have been hers.
     Rahab’s skillful scheme succeeded. The two Jewish spies were in desperate straits, seeing the Amorite pursuers were hot on their trail, but Rahab, although her safety and patriotism as an Amorite would be assured if she informed against the spies, decided to hide and preserve them. Seeing their hunted and dreaded look, Rahab assuredly said, “Fear not, I will not betray you nor your leader. Follow me,” and taking them up to the flat roof of her house, bade the men cover themselves completely with a pile of flax lying there to dry. Shortly after, when the pursuers had tracked the two spies to Rahab’s house, she met them with a plausible excuse that they were there but had left by way of the Eastern Gate. If they doubted her word, they could come in and search her house. But off the pursuers went to catch up with their prey, not knowing that the spies were being befriended by Rahab. As soon as the way was clear, under cover of night, she let the spies down from the window in the wall and, knowing the country, guided the spies in the best way to escape capture.
     There are one or two features associated with this clever plan of Rahab which are worthy of notice. First of all, idolater though she had been, with a phase of immorality associated with her idolatrous life, she witnessed to a remarkable understanding of the sovereignty of the true God for she said to the spies—

     I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us.... The LORD, your God he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath (Joshua 2:9-11).

Harlot though Rahab had been, intuition from above had been given her that the spies were men of God, the forerunners of His people who were to execute His will, and that to take sides with them was to take sides with God Himself.
     Further, there was in Rahab’s mind, no matter how faintly understood, a distinct call from God, that she was being singled out from her own idolatrous people to aid the God she had a growing conception of. Her faith of this God who worked great wonders was altogether marvelous and singular. It was such a call that made her willing to sacrifice her own nation—an act which would have been otherwise treasonable. Does not her confession of God’s power and purpose, and her service for the spies indicate that she knew the race of which she was part was accursed of God for its crimes and idolatry, and that she wished to be separated from such a doomed people, and identified with the people of God? The declaration of faith given by this Canaanite woman places her in a unique position among the women of the Bible.

Her Sacrifice

     When Rahab hid the spies, put those who sought them on a false trail and helped the spies to escape and melt away into the shadows of night, and lay concealed until they could reach Joshua with their report, she took her life in her own hands. We cannot but admire her courage and willingness to risk her own neck. Had those spies been discovered hiding in her house, she would have died at the hands of the king of Jericho. Yet with a calm demeanor, and without the slightest trace of inner agitation, she met the searchers and succeeded in setting them out on a false trail. By her act Rahab was actually betraying her own country, and for such treason certain death would have been hers had she been found out. To hide spies was a crime punishable with death. Seeing the faces of the spies filled with fear, Rahab assured their hearts that she was on their side, and in spite of the sacrifice involved said, “I will not betray you. Follow me!” By military law the spies were likewise liable to instant death because of the threat of war, and Rahab, willing to do all in her power to protect her nation’s enemies, faced a like terrible end. How gloriously daring was her faith, and how richly rewarded she was for her willingness to sacrifice her life in a cause she knew to be of God!

Her Sign

     As Rahab offered to shelter the spies and aid them in their escape, she received from them the promise that when they returned to her country, along with Joshua and his army, that she and her family would be spared alive. While her sin had possibly estranged her from her loved ones, she was concerned about their safety as well as her own. Rahab wanted the kindness she was showing the spies to be reciprocated, and they assured her that she would be dealt with “kindly and truly.” The spies said, “Our life for yours if ye utter not this our business.” Then the sign of the scarlet rope—their means of escape—was arranged. “According unto thy words, so be it,” said Rahab as she let the spies down, and making fast the scarlet rope, she awaited her own deliverance. That red token at the window was likewise a signal to the outside world that Rahab believed in the ultimate triumph of Jehovah.
     Much has been said of Rahab’s deceit when confronted by the king of Jericho. She told a lie and Scripture forbids a lie or any “evil doing, that good may come of it” (Romans 3:7, 8). But under the rules of war, Rahab is not to be blamed for her protection of those righteous forces set against the forces of evil. What the Bible commends is not her deception, but the faith which was the mainspring of her conduct. The characteristic feature of the scarlet rope was that it had to be placed outside the window for Joshua and his men to see. Those inside did not see the token of security. As that scarlet line, because of its color and sign of safety, speaks of the sacrificial work of Christ (Hebrews 9:19, 22), the ground of our assurance of salvation is not experience or feelings within, but the token without. Like the Israelites, Rahab and her relatives might not have felt safe within the house, but the same promise prevailed, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you” (Exodus 12:13).

Her Salvation

     Jericho was the worst of the cities of the Amorites, thus God commanded Joshua to destroy both the city and the inhabitants. By divine decree, it was to be given over to a perpetual desolation. When Joshua entered the city he set about the execution of the divine command, but respected the promise made to Rahab by the spies. Under the protection of the scarlet line, Rahab and all her kindred were brought out of the house. The spies came to her house, not to indulge in sin with Rahab, but to prepare the way for Joshua to take Jericho. She saved the spies not out of human pity, or because of expediency, but because she knew that they were servants of the Lord. In turn, she was saved. The spies she had hid brought her, and her father, her mother, her brothers, and all that she had out of her doomed house, and made them secure without the camp of Israel (Joshua 6:17-25). Brought out of an accursed city, and from her own sins which were as scarlet, Rahab is a fitting illustration of another miracle of divine grace, namely, the calling forth of His church out of a godless, Gentile world.

Her Status

     The threefold reference to Rahab in the New Testament reveals how she became a faithful follower of the Lord. She had been taken from the dunghill and placed among the saints in the genealogy of the Saviour (Matthew 1:5 where Rachab [KJV] and Rahab [ASV], are to be identified as the same person). Her remarkable faith was a sanctifying faith leading her to a pure life and honorable career. As the result of her marriage to Salmon, one of the two spies whom she had saved, who “paid back the life he owed her by a love that was honourable and true,” Rahab became an ancestress in the royal line from which Jesus came as the Saviour of lost souls. “Poor Rahab, the muddy, the defiled, became the fountainhead of the River of the Water of Life which floweth out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.” Her name became sanctified and ennobled, and is worthy of inclusion among many saints.
     Paul highly commends Rahab for her energetic faith and gives her a place on the illustrious roll of the Old Testament of those who triumphed by faith. “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she received the spies with peace” (Hebrews 11:31). What a suggestive touch that is, “with peace.” There was not only faith in her heart that God would be victorious, but also an assured peace when she hid the spies that her deliverance from destruction would be taken care of. She knew the rest of faith. In fact, Rahab is the only woman besides Sarah who is designated as an example of faith in the great cloud of witnesses. What a manifestation of divine grace it is to find the one-time harlot ranked along with saints like Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses and David!
     The Apostle James adds to Paul’s record about Rahab being justified by faith by saying that she was likewise justified by works (James 2:25), and there is no contradiction between these two aspects for Rahab’s courageous deed was but faith in practice. Faith had wrought in her a change of heart and life, and it likewise enabled her to shield the spies as she did in the confidence God would triumph over His enemies. She exemplified her faith by her brave act, and so James quotes Rahab as exemplifying justification by works evidentially. As Fausset puts it—

     Paul’s justification by faith alone means a faith, not dead but working by love (Galatians 5:6). Again, Rahab’s act cannot prove justification by works as such, for she was a woman of bad character. But as an example of grace, justifying through an operative as opposed to mere verbal faith, none could be more suitable than the saved “harlot.” She believed, so as to act on her belief, what her countrymen disbelieved; and this in the face of every improbability that an unwarlike force would conquer a well armed one, far more numerous. She believed with the heart (Romans 10:9, 10), confessed with the mouth, and acted on her profession at the risk of her life.

     In conclusion, what are the lessons to be gathered from the harlot whom God used to fulfill His purpose? First of all, we are reminded by Rahab’s change of heart and life, that “His blood can make the vilest clean,” and that “His blood avails for me.” Was it not a wonderful condescension on the part of the Redeemer when He became manifest in the flesh to take hold of a root so humble in type as poor, despised Rahab to magnify His abounding grace for all sinners? Rahab was well worth saving from her evil life both for her own sake and for the place she had in God’s plan. Other women in Jericho saw no beauty in Rahab that they should desire her company, but through faith she became one of God’s heroines, and is included among the harlots entering the kingdom of God before the self-righteous. Rahab’s sins had been scarlet, but the scarlet line freeing the spies, and remaining as a token of her safety, typified the red blood of Jesus whereby the worst of sinners can be saved from sin and hell (Matthew 21:31, 32). While the door of mercy stands ajar, the vilest sinner can return and know what it is to be saved and safe.
     A further lesson to be gleaned from Rahab the harlot is that of deep concern for the salvation of others. With the shadow of death and destruction over Jericho, Rahab extracted a promise from Joshua’s spies not only to spare her, but also all those bound to her by human ties. While her life of sin and shame had estranged her from her family, self was not her sole consideration in her request for safety. She desired all her loved ones to share in the preservation. What a vein of gold that was in such a despised character! When the mighty change took place in Rahab’s life, and she was transformed from a whore into a worshiper of Jehovah, we are not told. As she received and hid the spies, her tribute to God’s omnipotence and sure triumph over His foes reveals a spiritual insight God grants to all who believe. And restored to honor and holiness, the redeemed harlot pleads for her parents, and brothers, and sisters. Do we make Rahab’s prayer for the salvation of her family, the cry for our own homes? Is ours the same passionate supplication for all of our dear ones that when death strikes they may be found sheltered by the atoning blood of the Redeemer? When at evening the sun goeth down, will our loved ones be as stars in our crown?
     Rahab is likewise a poetic and symbolic name for Egypt (Psalms 87:4; 89:10; Isaiah 51:9. See SYMBOLIC AND REPRESENTATIVE BIBLE WOMEN).

MARY

The Woman Honored Above All Women

Scripture References—Matthew 1; 2; 12:46; Luke 1; 2; John 2:1-11; 19:25; Acts 1:14
Name Meaning—No female has been honored as has Mary by millions of peoples in all the world who have named their daughters Mary. This Hebrew name has ever been popular in all countries of the Western world, and has altogether some twenty variations, the most conspicuous being Maria, Marie, Miriam and Miriamme. Mary is about the only feminine name that has pronounced masculine forms such as Mario, Marion and Maria. Elsden C. Smith says that Mary heads the list of female names in America, the estimated number some ten years ago being 3,720,000—Marie, 645,000—Marion, 440,000—Marian, 226,000. “The name of Mary has been given at least 70 different interpretations in a frantic effort to get away from the Biblical significance of bitterness.” Today the most common name for girls is the Biblical Mary, just as the Biblical John is for boys. In Christian lands the name of Mary is first.
          The name Mary occurs 51 times in the New Testament, and its prevalence there has been attributed to the popularity of Miriamne, the last representative of the Hasmonean family, who was the second wife of Herod I. As a name Mary is related to the Old Testament Miriam, to Mara, the name Naomi used to describe her affliction (see NAOMI), and to Marah, the name of the bitter water reached by the Israelites in their wilderness journeys. The original and pervading sense of these root-forms is that of “bitterness,” derived from the notion of “trouble, sorrow, disobedience, rebellion.” Cruden gives “their rebellion” as the name-meaning of Miriam. Mary the virgin, whom we are now considering, certainly had many “bitter” experiences, as we shall see.
Family Connections—According to the sacred record, Mary was a humble village woman who lived in a small town, a place so insignificant as to lead Nathanael to say, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46), but out of it, and from the womb of the peasant woman came the greatest Man the world has ever known. Mary was of the tribe of Judah, and the line of David. In the royal genealogy of Matthew and the human genealogy of Luke, Mary is only mentioned in the former, but her immediate forebears are not mentioned. She became the wife of Joseph, the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). Apart from Jesus, called her “first-born,” a term implying that other children followed after the order of natural generation (Luke 2:7). As a virgin, Mary bore Christ in a miraculous way, and Elisabeth most spontaneously and unaffectedly gave her the most honorable of titles, “Mother of the Lord” and praised her unstintedly as one, “Blessed among women.” Later Mary was married to Joseph the carpenter and she bore him four sons and several daughters, the former being named—James, Joses, Judas and Simon, and the daughters unnamed (Matthew 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3). During His ministry, none of His brothers believed in Him. In fact, they sneered at Him, and once concluded that He was mad, and wished to arrest Him and take Him away from Capernaum (Mark 3:21, 31; John 7:3-5). But as the result of His death and Resurrection, His brothers became believers, and were among the number gathered in the Upper Room before Pentecost. None of His brothers was an apostle during His lifetime (Acts 1:13, 14).
          The Roman Catholic Church, in its effort to support its erroneous dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity, produces two theories as to “the brethren of the Lord.” First, they were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, having thus no blood relationship with Mary or Jesus. Second, they were Christ’s cousins, sons of Mary, the wife of Alphaeus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). The term “brother” only implies mere kinship, just as Laban called Jacob, his sister’s son, his “brother” (Genesis 29:15). We reject, however, all theories of Rome, preferring to take the Scriptures at its face value. Mark says, “His brothers and sisters,” and we believe these to have been the natural children of Joseph and Mary, after the birth of Jesus by the Spirit’s power. Coming to the events of Mary’s life, as well as the excellencies of her character, perhaps we can group them around the following key heads—

Her Super-eminence

     Mary, as the mother of Jesus, is better known than any other female character in the Bible, and has been the best-known woman in the world since those days of the manger in Bethlehem. After the centuries, the statement still stands, “Blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1:28). While we have no word as to her beauty or pedigree, we know that she was poor. Yet in the Bible and outside of it she came to occupy the highest place among women. Madonnas abound in which eminent artists have vied in trying to imagine what she looked like. What she did possess was beauty of character. In spite of the fact that he was a Roman Cardinal, Gibbons rightly says—

     The word is governed more by ideals than by ideas; it is influenced more by living, concrete models than by abstract principles of virtue. The model held up to Christian women is not the Amazon, glorying in her martial deeds and prowess; it is not the Spartan women who made female perfection consist in the development of physical strength at the expense of feminine decorum and modesty; it is not the goddess of impure love, like Venus, whose votaries regards beauty of form and personal charms as the highest type of female excellence; nor is it the goddess of imperial will like Juno. No; the model held up to women from the very dawn of Christianity is the peerless Mother of our Blessed Redeemer. She is the pattern of virtue alike to maiden, wife and mother. She exhibits virginal modesty becoming the maid, the conjugal fidelity and loyalty of the spouse, and the untiring devotedness of the mother.... The influence of Mary, therefore, in the moral elevation of women can hardly be over estimated.

Although the Roman Catholic dogmatic and sentimental exaggeration of Mary’s eminence has removed her from the clear and vivid picture we have of her in the gospels, we cannot fail to be impressed with her character even though we are not told more than we have in sacred history. “Highly favoured of the Lord” and having “found favour with him” (Luke 1:28, 30) surely gives her a pedestal all her own. Mary belongs to those grand majestic females inspired with the spirit of prophecy, who is capable of influencing those who become rulers of men and also the destiny of nations.

Her Selection

     Among all the godly Jewish maidens of that time in Palestine why did God select such a humble peasant young woman as Mary? Her choice by God to be the mother of the Incarnate Son is as mysterious as her conception of Him within her virgin womb. When the fullness of time had come for Jesus to be manifested He did not go to a city, but to a remote and inconsiderate town—not to a palace but a poor dwelling —not to the great and learned but to lowly partisans—for a woman to bring the Saviour into a lost world. The gentle and lowly Mary of Nazareth was the Father’s choice as the mother of His beloved Son, and that she herself was overwhelmed at God’s condescending grace in choosing her is evident from her song of praise in which she magnified Him for regarding her lowly estate, and in exalting her.
     Mary, then, was selected by divine wisdom from among the humblest and it was in such an environment that the Father prepared His Son to labor among the common people who heard Him gladly. The one of whom He was born, the place where he was born were arranged beforehand by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Centuries before Mary became the mother of the Saviour of mankind, it was prophesied that it would be so (Isaiah 7:14-16; 9:6, 7; Micah 5:2, 3). Born of a peasant maiden, and having a foster-father who eeked out a frugal living as a carpenter, Jesus was best able to sympathize with man as man, and be regarded by all men as the common property of all.

Her Sanctity

     Because Mary’s divine Child was to be “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners,” she herself had to be holy unto the Lord. When Gabriel announced to the virgin whose name was Mary that she was to bring forth a Son to be called Jesus, he recognized her spiritual fitness for such an honor when he said, “The Lord is with thee” (Luke 1:28). The woman who was to give Him birth, whose breast would be His pillow and who would nurse and care for Him in infancy, who would guide His steps through boyhood years, and surround Him with true motherly attention until His manhood, had to be a sanctified vessel and meet for the Master’s use. That Mary excelled in the necessary, spiritual qualities for her sacred task is evident from the record we have of her character. Augustine says that, “Mary first conceived Christ in her heart by faith, before she conceived in the womb,” and the testimony of Elisabeth expresses and stamps the whole character of the Virgin, “Blessed is she that believeth,” implying that she wore the crown of faith above all others.
     Mary exhibited a true and genuine piety, as well as a profound humility—the accompaniment of holiness. As we read the narrative given by Luke, to whom, as a physician, Mary could speak intimately of her profound experience, we are impressed with her quietness of spirit, meditative inwardness of disposition, admirable self-control, devout and gracious gift of sacred silence, and a mind saturated with the spirit and promises of the Old Testament. All who reverence Mary for her true and womanly character are pained by the way in which some of the early Church fathers treated her. Origen, for instance, wrote that “the sword which should pierce through her heart was unbelief.” Chrysostom did not control his “golden mouth” when he accused Mary of “excessive ambition, foolish arrogance, and vainglory,” during her Son’s public ministry.
     Advanced as she was to the highest honor that could be granted to a woman, Mary yet retained a deep sense of personal unworthiness. She would have been the last to claim perfection for herself. Born like the rest of women in sin and shaped in iniquity, she had her human faults and needed a Saviour as others did—“My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour”—but the witness of Scripture is that in circumstances of unparalleled responsibility she was a true and godly character, and in spite of any female weaknesses she may have had, she was “the most pure and tender and faithful, the most humble and patient and loving, of all who have ever borne the honored name of Mary.”

Her Submission

     What amazes one about the Annunciation is the way Mary received it. She was in no way credulous or skeptical. Certainly she asked intelligent questions of Gabriel as to how she could become the mother of Jesus, seeing she was a pure virgin. Following a full explanation of how the miracle would happen, she, with a tremendous feat of faith, replied, “Be it unto me according to thy word.” In these days when reason is seeking to dethrone revelation, and the Virgin Birth of Christ is rejected as a fundamental fact and treated in a mythical way, we affirm our faith in this initial miracle of Christianity. We accept by faith the Biblical statement that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit as He overshadowed the virgin. Thus, as Fausset states it—

     Christ was made of the substance of the Virgin, not of the substance of the Holy Spirit, whose substance cannot be made. No more is attributed to the Spirit than what was necessary to cause the Virgin to perform the actions of a mother.

     When Mary willingly yielded her body to the Lord saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word,” the Holy Spirit, by His gentle operation, took Deity and humanity and fused them together and formed the love-knot between our Lord’s two natures within Mary’s being. Therefore, when Jesus came forth it was as the God-Man, “God manifest in flesh,” or “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Son of Mary—humanity! Son of God—Deity. We may not understand the mystery of what happened when Mary yielded up her body that Christ should be formed within it, but believing that with God nothing is impossible we accept what Scripture says as to the birth of Christ. Further, there is the unanswerable argument Donald Davidson reminds us of, namely, “that Jesus Christ Himself is such a miracle that it is no straining of faith to believe that His birth was also a miracle.” We cannot account for His perfect holiness apart from His Virgin Birth. Born of a woman, He was yet clean.

Her Salutation

     Taking the Lord at His word, Mary praised Him as if what He had declared had been fully accomplished. What a marvelous song of rejoicing the Magnificat is! It reveals poetic and prophetic genius of the highest order, and takes its place among the finest productions of the world. This extemporaneous ode expressing Mary’s joy is indeed one of the choicest gems of Hebrew poetry. As given by Luke (Luke 1:46-55) this lyric expresses Mary’s inward and deeply personal sacred and unselfish joy, and likewise her faith in Messianic fulfillment. It is also eloquent with her reverential spirit. Her worship was for her Son, for her spirit rejoiced in Him as her own Saviour.
     Her “hymn” also spoke of her humility, for she was mindful of the fact that she was but a humble village maiden whose “low estate” the Lord regarded. Mary’s “firstborn” Child was to say of Himself, “I am meek and lowly in heart,” and such poverty of spirit is the first beatitude and the very threshold of the kingdom of heaven. By her “low estate” Mary not only had in mind the material poverty she was accustomed to, but also the sharpest of all poverty, the low estate of one of Royal birth. Mary never claimed anything for herself, but Christendom wrongly selected her as the object of worship and one entitled to a consideration above her Son.

Her Service

     What must not be forgotten is the fact that Mary not only bore Jesus, but also mothered Him for the thirty years He tarried in the poor Nazareth home. Thus from childhood to manhood she did everything a devoted mother could do for the Son whom she knew was no ordinary Man. “Hers was the face that unto Christ had most resemblance.” While Mary did not neglect her motherly duties to the sons and daughters she bore Joseph, because of all she knew Jesus to be she surrounded His early years with character-forming influences. From the divine side we know that as Jesus grew “he waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him,” and that He “increased in stature and in favour with God and man.” But from the human side Jesus was subject to the home control of Joseph and Mary.
     There were some things Mary was not able to give her Son. She could not surround Him with wealth. When she presented the divine Infant in the Temple all she could offer as a gift was a pair of pigeons—the offering of the very poor. But little is much if God is in it! Then she could not introduce Jesus to the culture of the age. Being poor, and enduring an enforced exile in Egypt, she had little of the acquired education of one like Luke who recorded her story. But she gave her Saviour-Son gifts of infinitely more value than secular and material advantages. What did she give Him?
     First of all, from the human angle, she gave Him life, and He became bone of her bone, flesh of her flesh, and, until He was weaned, her warm milk nourished Him.
     Then, along with Joseph, she gave Jesus a home, which although it was most unpretentious, was yet the only home He knew in the days of His flesh. Because of the character of Mary, we feel that her home was permeated with mutual trust and love and sympatheic understanding.
     Purity of heart was among the flowers of character Mary cultivated in the home in which Jesus—and the other children—grew up. Can it be that when Jesus left home to become a preacher, He had His pious mother in mind when He said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”? Christ’s holiness was a part of His divine nature, but it was also a part of His humanity received from His mother who thought of herself as “the handmaid of the Lord.”
     Another quality Jesus grew to appreciate in His mother was the sense of the presence of God. Gabriel said to Mary, “The Lord is with thee” and this divine awareness surrounded the holy Child Jesus. To Mary, God was not a being afar off, uninterested in her life or in the world. He had created but One who was so near and real. Why, because her Son was “very God of very God,” Mary was ever in the divine presence, and must have realized it.
     Obedience, a trait prominent in Mary’s own life, was another quality in which she trained her Son. There is an old saying to the effect that a child who is not taught to obey his parents will not obey God. Mary submitted to the Father’s will as the channel of the Incarnation, and her holy Child grew up not only obedient to Mary and Joseph but also to His heavenly Father whose will was His delight.
     Further, the one book in that Nazareth home was the Old Testament. That Mary’s mind was saturated with its promises and prophecies is evident from her song of praise. Like Timothy, Jesus, from a child, was familiar with the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15). As His mother read to Him the records of the saints and prophets, how interested He must have been. Then there came the time when He knew that the Scripture testified of Him; that He came to be the Living Word.

Her Sorrow

     When Mary brought her infant Son to be dedicated in the Temple, the aged, godly Simeon, taking the Babe in his arms and blessing Him, said to His mother, “A sword shall pierce through thy own soul also.” Mary was to experience darkness, as well as delight, as her “first-born” went out to fulfill His mission in the world. She would see Him as the “sign spoken against.” Manifold sword piercings were to be hers as the mother of the Lord. We cannot imagine the bitter trials of the years of her Son’s sojourn on the earth, particularly His last three and a half years ending in His death. Mary had listened to those angel voices rending the air as they hailed her new-born Baby as the Saviour of mankind, and heard the shepherds as they recounted the vision they had seen. She had witnessed the worship and homage of the wise men when, guided by a star, they came to the feet of her Child; and “she kept all these in her heart.” Whether she recounted these things to her growing Child we are not told. Personally, we believe that born the Son of God, Jesus had an inner awareness of who He was, from whence He came, and what His mission in the world was to be, from His earliest conscious years. During the years that Jesus was at home, Mary must have had many an inner pang, but by divine grace both then and after, she remained silently submissive, patient and trustful, knowing that the sword, piercing her heart from time to time, was in her heavenly Father’s hand.
     Following the records of the gospels concerning the conversations between and about Jesus and Mary, the first event we notice took place in Jerusalem where Mary and her husband, Joseph, and Jesus had gone for the annual Feast of Passover. When the ceremonies were over Joseph and Mary, with their relatives, left for home, lost in animated gossip about each other’s affairs. Mary suddenly realized that Jesus, now twelve years of age, was not near her, and searching for Him among her kinsfolk and acquaintances could not find Him. Retracing her steps to the Temple she found Jesus where He had been left, and came upon Him in conversation with the fathers of the sanctuary. Remonstrating with her Son, Mary said, “Thy father and I have sought thee.”
     Christ’s reply was like a sword piercing her heart: “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” He had no earthly father for He came as the only babe to enter the world without any earthly father. He was born of a woman, but not of a woman and a man. Young though He was, He knew of His divine parentage that separated Him from others, and He expected His mother to realize what such a gulf meant. Perhaps now, for the first time, Mary understood that her Son knew God to be, in a special sense, His only Father. There in the Temple, Nazareth faded from the mind of Jesus and earthy ties receded into the distance. He felt only one presence—the Father above in whose bosom He had dwelt from the dateless past. Mary had left her Son behind—behind with God. Her divine, “lost” Boy was to be God’s only hope for a “lost” world.
     The mixed feelings in the mother’s heart, and her almost reproachful language as she sought to charge Jesus with having disregarded His mother’s natural feelings, must have been checked by a sort of awe as she looked at Him in the Temple with rapt countenance and then heard Him say that His place was in His Father’s house. Thus the narrative develops so naturally, tenderly, and in a most human way.
     Being only twelve years of age, Jesus knew that every Jewish son must be subject to his parents. He indicated this in His reply to Mary, for He “went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them.” For the next eighteen years He yielded to His home authority. It is felt that during this period Mary lost the protection of her husband, for if he had been alive he would have been certainly mentioned in succeeding events (Mark 3:31; John 2:1; 19:25). Joseph had been a carpenter, and on his death Jesus took over the village business. In that carpenter’s shop we have “the toil of divinity revealing the divinity of toil.” “Is not this the Carpenter?” Then Joseph’s place in the home would be filled in measure by Jesus the first-born, who would care for His mother and give her years of peace.
     We now come to recorded incidents causing Mary to realize that Jesus had severed Himself once and for all from her control. There were to be further sword-thrusts as she understood that her illustrious Son was absolutely independent of her authority and of human relationships. For thirty years Mary had carried in her heart the secret of His birth and the prophecy of His Messianic mission. Now the moment of parting comes when Jesus leaves the home that has sheltered Him for so long. And the striking thing is that we do not read of Jesus ever returning to it. In the home Mary had made for her Son, God had been preparing Him (for thirty years) for a brief but dynamic ministry lasting just over three years. As Jesus began His public life, His first miracle gave Him the occasion for impressing His mother with the fact that she must no longer impose her will and wishes upon Him (John 2). There must have been a pang in Mary’s heart the day Jesus left her home for good, and another heart-wound as she encountered the lack of official recognition as His mother. Whenever He met her it seemed as if He repelled her.
     At the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, at which Jesus and Mary were guests, a predicament arose when the stock of wine failed, and Mary, who failed to see that the youth had become a man, sought to order her Son to meet the crisis. His mother, conscious of the supernatural power Jesus was to manifest, approached Jesus and said suggestively, “They have no wine.”
     Jesus replied abruptly: “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” He was not disrespectful when He used the term “woman,” for such was the common mode of respectful address among the Hebrews. Thus, in the original the words addressed by Jesus to His mother are free from any element of disrespect or of hardness. Mary said to the servants: “Whatsoever he saith unto you do it,” and a short time later Jesus performed His first miracle. His purpose in speaking to His mother as He did was to check any undue interference on her part of His mediatorial work. As Augustine put it—

     He does not acknowledge a human womb when about to work Divine works.

Although blessed among women, Mary was to learn that she must not be permitted to control the operations of the One sent of the Father. As the Son of Mary, Jesus was willingly subject to her, but now as the Son of God, Mary must endeavor to be subject to Him. The very fact that He addressed her as woman and not as mother must have had but one meaning for her, namely, that from now on the direction of His course had entered into His Father’s hands. Fausset’s comment is—

     The Christian’s allegiance is solely to Him, not to her also: a prescient forewarning of the Holy Ghost against mediaeval and modern mariolatry.

     After a double circuit of Galilee during which crowds gathered around Jesus for teaching and healing, so much so that He had little time, “to eat bread,” His mother and brothers came to remonstrate with Him to take care. Had not the men of Nazareth sought to throw Him over the brow of the hill (Luke 4:29)? Now, anxious for His safety and fearing He would destroy Himself by His constant work and lack of food and rest, Mary and her sons “sought to speak with him, and to lay hold on him, for they said, He is beside himself” (Mark 3:21, 31-35). It was natural for a mother to be concerned about her Son wearing Himself out. He might fall exhausted under His load of work and perhaps sink into an untimely grave.
     Thinking, perhaps, that she might save Jesus from the effects of an imprudent enthusiasm, Mary receives another mild rebuke in which He hinted that the blessedness of Mary consisted not in being His mother, but in believing in Him and in His God-given mission, and in obedience to His words. Jesus again denies any authority of earthly relatives, or any privilege from human relationships. “My mother! Who is My mother and My brothers?” Then pointing to those sitting around Him who had believed His word and followed Him, He said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 11:28). In effect Jesus said, “I, in working out the world’s redemption, can acknowledge only spiritual relationships.” So the distance between Mary and her Son widens, and the piercings of the sword, which old Simeon had prophesied, were keenly felt. Although all generations were to call Mary blessed, yet privileged and highly favored beyond all members of the human family, here was a bitter cup of sorrow she was compelled to drink.
     Mary’s deepest sword piercing came when in agony she stood beneath that old rugged cross and witnessed the degradation, desolation and death of the One whom she had brought into the world and intensely loved. She heard the blasphemies and revilings of the priests and the people, and saw the lights go out—but her faith did not die. If Calvary was our Lord’s crown of sorrow, it was likewise Mary’s, yet how courageous she was. Others might sit and watch the suffering Christ, or smite their breasts and cry, but “Mary stood by the cross.” Should she not have been spared the agony of seeing the Son of her womb die such a despicable death? No! It was in the divine order of things that she should be found beneath that cross to receive the parting benediction of her Son and Saviour, and His committal of her to the affectionate care of the disciple whom He loved.

          At the cross her station keeping
          Stood the mournful mother weeping,
          Close to Jesus to the last.

          Through her heart His sorrow sharing,
          All His bitter anguish bearing,
          Now at length the sword has passed.

     At previous meetings with Christ, Mary expressed her feelings. Now, as He dies, she stands in silence. Those around her had no conception of her inner grief as she stood where her Son could see her. No Spartan mother ever displayed such fortitude as Mary manifested at the cross. How impressed we are with the valor of Mary, as the sword pierces her heart again “now that which she brought forth was dying”! Before He died Jesus recognized His human relationship to Mary, which He had during His ministry put in the background, that His higher relationship must stand out more prominently. Commending Mary to John, Jesus did not address her by name, or as His mother, but as “Woman.” To John He said, “Thy mother” (John 19:26, 27). But even then she did not desert her Son. Some of His disciples forsook Him and fled, but her love never surrendered, even though her Son was dying as a criminal between two thieves.
     To John, His much-loved disciple, Jesus left His mother as a legacy. In the last moments of His life, and in the crisis of His deepest sorrow, His thought was of the future of His brokenhearted mother whom John took to his own home. Thus, as Augustine expresses it, “He needed no helper in redeeming all; He gave human affection to His mother, but sought no help of man.” The transference of the bond of motherhood from Himself to John raises the question, “Why did He not entrust Mary to one of her older sons or daughters?” Evidently she was a widow, otherwise Jesus would not have called upon His beloved disciple to perform the duties of an elder brother. But why not commit Mary to His own brother who would become the elder in that Nazareth home? Perhaps in John’s home Jesus knew that Mary would find the spiritual atmosphere more suited to her thirst for God, and that in John Mary would find a soul on fire similar to His own zeal for God.
     We may feel, that because of the steadfast tie of tender love and mutual understanding between Jesus and Mary, Jesus should have used a softer word and said, “Behold My mother!” and not “thy mother.” Was this the final sword thrust Simeon had predicted some thirty-three years before? No! He knew that Mary would be a true mother in Israel to John, and that he, in turn, would care for the blessed among women in her declining years. Further, as Donald Davidson reminds us, “In that moment the tremendous truth must at last have dawned upon Mary, that He who hung upon the cross was not her son; that before the world was He was; that so far from being His mother, she was herself His child.” On the morning of His Resurrection Jesus did not appear first to Mary His mother, but to Mary Magdalene—surely an evidence of His matchless grace.
     The last glimpse we have of Mary is a heartwarming one. We find her among the group of believers gathered together in the upper chamber. She is mentioned, not first in the list, before the apostles, where the Roman Catholic Church places her, but last, as if she were of less significance than they (Acts 1:12-14). Her Son is alive forevermore, and life has changed for her. So she takes her place among those awaiting the coming of the Spirit to equip them for the beginning of the Christian community. Mary was present in that upper room not as an object of worship, not as the directress of the infant church, but as a humble suppliant along with the rest, including her sons, who, by this time, were believers. So the last mention of Mary is a happy one. We see her praying, along with her sons whom she had possibly led into a full-orbed faith, as well as the other disciples who had met to pray and await the gift of Pentecost.
     This is the last glimpse we have of Mary. Her name is not mentioned again in the rest of the New Testament after the upper room appearance, which plainly teaches that she did not have the superhuman powers the Roman Catholic Church has assigned to her. With the gradual development of Roman Catholicism from the third or fourth century, there emerged the Mariolatry so foreign to the Scriptural presentation of Mary as the most tender and lovable of women, yet a woman still. If Rome had only observed the reticence of the New Testament concerning Mary, it would not have been guilty of blinding the eyes of multitudes to the ineffable glory of the One who, though the Son of Mary, came as the express image of the Father and the only Mediator between God and men.
     Mary does not stand apart from the rest of the sinful human race, born immaculate and remaining sinless throughout her life. As a member of a fallen race she recognized her need of deliverance from sin and guilt when she sang, “My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” The “culture” of Mary does not have its origin in the Bible for “there is not a word there from which it could be inferred; not in the Creeds, nor in the fathers of the first five centuries.” Titles such as The Tower of David; The Arch of Holy Alliance; The Door of Heaven; The Queen of the Apostles, Confessors and Martyrs; The Co-adjustrix with God in the work of salvation, as applied to Mary, are the invention of Rome. Mary never magnified herself—only her Lord. Her glorification as the object of worship, her function as an intercessor through whom prayers must be addressed to Christ, her perpetual care of Christ and her present influence over Him, are the false creations of Rome. Therefore, “Mariolatry belongs, historically, to unauthorized speculation; and psychologically, to the natural history of asceticism and clerical celibacy.” The elevation and worship of Mary is most unscriptural and idolatrous. The Bible portrays her as a woman “blessed among women,” but only as a mere faithful, humble, godly woman. Rome’s exaltation of Mary consists largely of fictitious and unreliable legends and dogmas. The true Christian portrayal of the mother of Jesus is that to be found only in the gospels in which the Master taught that man has access to God only through His all-sufficient mediatorial work (John 14:6).