Deeper Commentary
Ruth 4:1 Now Boaz went up to the gate-
This fits exactly with Bethlehem being built on a ridge. The accuracy
of fine details like this throughout the Biblical record confirm that
indeed the Bible is not a fictional work of men but the inspired words of
God.
Chapter 3 had left us with Ruth having taken the intiative in
proposing to Boaz, and him promising her that he will indeed marry her,
and asking her to remove her veil to receive a huge volume of his seed- a
sign she was no longer a single woman. She was as it were assured of
salvation and had been given a guarantee of it, just as we have been in
the Holy Spirit.
And sat down there. When the
near kinsman of whom Boaz spoke came by he said to him, Come over here,
friend, and sit down! He turned aside, and sat down-
The near kinsman sits down, and in :2 the elders sit down. This all
leads on from the information in Ruth 3:18 that Ruth too is sitting down,
but at home, nervously and eagerly awaiting the result of the sitting down
of the men. This is all part of the inspired story line and suspense. For
we all want to know whether Ruth ends up having to marry a man who doesn't
love her when she has already a lover. The narrative of loveless
marriages, girls loving men whom they can't marry and marrying men they
don't love and who don't love them... this has for ever been the stuff of
Middle Eastern stories. And there is that intrigue inserted into this
story, a kind of carrot to get human attention- in order to introduce us
to some of the profoundest issues of Divine and human grace.
"Such a one" (AV) is right; NEV "friend". The idea is "So and so". His name is intentionally not mentioned- he who refused to preserve the name of his brother, will not have his name remembered. Our record with God is presented as directly related to our attitude to our brother. Just as Ruth "happened" to go to glean in Boaz's strips in the field, so it "happened" that the closer relative passed by. Again we see that higher hand of Providence working with human initiative, Divine sovereignty and human freedom perfectly meshing together.
Ruth 4:2 He took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit
down here. They sat down-
Note the emphasis upon sitting down; see on :1. It's as if the
cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed in close on the men in the
scene; truly we can play Bible television with these verses.
The Hebrew Bible places the book of Ruth right after Proverbs 31, because Ruth is seen as the epitome of the virtuous woman of Prov. 31. "Her deeds will praise her in the gates" (Prov. 31:31) is the spirit of Ruth 3:13, where Ruth is well known as a virtuous woman. "Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land" (Prov. 31:23) is exactly the position of Boaz in Ruth 4:2. So we could say that the genealogy at the end of Ruth 4 is significant in that it shows Ruth to be the ancestor of David and Solomon [it skips some generations to make this point], and they wish to show that their ancestor Ruth was the worthy virtuous woman.
Ruth 4:3 He said to the near kinsman: Naomi, who has come back out of the
country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land, which was our brother
Elimelech’s-
Just as Boaz had no legal necessity to allow gleaning in his fields,
nor was he legally obligated to be the goel to Ruth (see previous
discussions in Ruth 2,3), so he here appears to be somewhat stretching
legal truths. For this is the first we hear of Naomi owning land.
Mosaic
law didn't allow inheritance by a widow (Num. 27:8-11); the property was
to pass to the husband's family, not to his widow. Elimelech had long
since left Israel and forsaken his inheritance, and we would assume that
his parcel of land had passed already to someone else. And there appears
no legal requirement for the kinsman to consider the land as jointly owned
now by Ruth and Naomi, and to make purchase of the land contingent upon
marrying Ruth and having children by her. The issue of property seems
unrelated to the levirate law which Boaz was seeking to apply to himself.
Surely he could have offered Ruth in marriage to the near kinsman, and
married her if he refused.
We naturally enquire why he raises this issue of property. There are various options. It could simply be that there were Jewish laws in place at the time which we don't have access to, and Boaz is alluding to them. For in practice, the Mosaic laws would have required other practical laws added to them in order to enable to functioning of society in practice. Or perhaps the parcel of land in view had been inherited by Naomi from her father, in a situation akin to that of Zelophehad's daughters in Num. 27; or maybe Naomi was related to her husband Elimelech, which might explain their lack of children and poor health of the two who survived to adulthood. Or perhaps it belonged to Naomi in the sense that it should have passed to Mahlon and Chilion, but as they were dead, she was their legal representative and had the right to dispose of it as they were childless (:9). Or "The property was perhaps promised to Naomi as a marriage-gift or bequeathed to her at marriage to provide for her husband's predeceasing her without leaving a child".
It was absolutely possible for women to inherit property from their father (as in Job 42:13-15), and for a woman who had been a period in Gentile lands to return to Israel and have her inheritance restored (2 Kings 8:1-6). Because of her poverty, Naomi was selling the land which somehow she had legally inherited. But the need to marry Ruth if the land was purchased is not in accordance with any Mosaic legislation or even logic. Therefore it has been suggested that :5 should be translated "On the day you acquire the field from Naomi's hand, I am acquiring Ruth the Moabite, the wife of the deceased, to raise up the name of the deceased over his inheritance". And on reflection, the near kinsman pulls out of the property acquisition because he can see legal problems developing in the next generation if Ruth has children who would also claim it.
Maybe Boaz raises this whole issue of the property simply because he indeed did want to keep the land in the power of Ruth, and he wanted to make his advertising of his marriage to Ruth somehow incidental. He would then be using the property issue as a kind of blind, a distraction, to take attention away from his declaration of intent to marry Ruth. But we wonder why the night before he had told Ruth that he would like to be her goel, but there was a nearer kinsman who legally could do this.
My preferred answer is that Naomi, the seller, had made a condition of buying the land that the purchaser also married Ruth. Any children Ruth had would then inherit the land. And therefore Boaz had been unable to agree immediately to marry Ruth because he needed to get the near kinsmen with the first right of purchase to actually not purchase it.
I conclude, therefore, that between them, Boaz and Naomi are seeking to expand the spirit of the levirate law of Deuteronomy. The spirit of that law was that the widows should be protected and be given children. By various mechanisms and schemes, they were expanding and keeping the spirit of the law but not the letter. Yet they didn't disregard the letter of the law, but sought to give the near kinsman the opportunity to buy the field and formally turn down the chance of marrying Ruth. This is in harmony with the way that Boaz had expanded the spirit of the law about not fetching home a forgotten sheaf to mean that he allowed women to glean in his field. And this is exactly the spirit of Yahweh's redemption of His people.
Ruth 4:4 I thought to disclose it to you saying, ‘Buy it in the presence of
those who sit here, and of the elders of my people’. If you will redeem
it, redeem it; but if you will not redeem it, then let me know. You have
first right to redeem it; and I am next in line. He said, I will redeem
it-
See on :3 for the various options of interpretation. John the
Baptist's comment that he came "after" Jesus, and that Jesus was the
redeemer rather than he himself (Jn. 1:15) contain a strange allusion to
the words of the redeemer-who-was-incapable-of-redeeming in Ruth 4:4. Boaz
told him that "I am after thee" (AV, NEV "next in line"), but in the end the incapable-redeemer
plucked off his shoe as a sign of unworthiness to redeem (Ruth 4:7). And
John surely also had this in mind when he commented that he was unworthy
to unloose Messiah's shoe (Jn. 1:27). The allusions are surely indicative
of the way John felt like the unworthy / incapable redeemer, eclipsed
before Boaz / Jesus.
Ruth 4:5 Then Boaz said, On the day you buy the field from the hand of
Naomi, you must buy it also from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead,
to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance-
I concluded on :3 that Naomi, the seller, had made a condition of
buying the land that the purchaser also married Ruth. The record doesn’t
state contact between Boaz and Naomi; although see on Ruth 2:11 for the
suggestion that they worked out this plan together in the months of barley
and wheat harvest. Naomi
had told Ruth to just sit tight and wait and see what Boaz would arrange
over the next 24 hours. We note too that Boaz didn’t give the anonymous
kinsman the full picture- he firstly mentioned the land for sale /
redemption, and only then mentions that this would involve marrying Ruth
and raising children by her in the name of Elimelech.
The Levirate law
only required brothers to raise up children to their dead brother.
Elimelech had not died childless, so there was no legal requirement to
raise up children in his name. Ruth’s former husband had no living
brothers. Therefore Boaz was operating according to the spirit of the law
and not the letter of it; there was no legal requirement for the kinsman
to marry Ruth and have children by her. But Boaz seems to be playing legal
and psychological games to make the anonymous man turn down the offer of
marrying Ruth- so that Boaz could then marry her on the basis that this
was his legal necessity. The truth seems to be that he fell in love with
her at first sight, and was going through all this appearance of legal
necessity in order to somehow legitimize that fact. We likewise noted how he
spoke of Ruth and Naomi’s manipulation and desperate appeal to him for
help to in fact be a display of Divine grace (see on Ruth 3:10).
If in some way the levirate law was being strictly followed, and
I discussed possibilities for this line of thought on :3, then we reflect
that the principle would have often required men to become polygamous. A
man "must redeem" the property of a dead relative in some cases
by marrying his wife; but this would have resulted in polygamy. Boaz
himself may have been already married.
Ruth 4:6 The near kinsman said, I can’t redeem it for myself, otherwise I
will spoil my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption for yourself;
for I can’t redeem it-
Land at that time was organized according to strips of land within a
field, rather than owning a field. Even wealthy Boaz only owned part of
the field (2:3). Strip farming was very inefficient; upon death, land was
split up between the children, and then when they died, the land was split
up even further. The anonymous man didn’t want to have any more children
because it would mean that what he was leaving as an inheritance would be
even more reduced and divided. But because of that, he remains anonymous.
He was concerned about what would happen over the next generation or so.
By contrast, Boaz wasn’t worried about splitting up yet further the
inheritance which he was leaving- and because of that, he left an
inheritance which was recorded and stretched right down to the Lord Jesus.
It seems to me that the nameless relative in Ruth 4 was like so many people today. He was interested in getting a bit more land to add to his stack; but he didn't really care for the redemption of his brother, and pulled out of the whole thing once he learnt he would have to marry another wife and have more children. He said he couldn't do this because he would spoil [AV] or endanger [NIV] his inheritance. We know that at this time, strip farming was being practiced- whereby a field was split up into parts, each of which belonged to a different person (Ruth 2:3). By having more children, the man would have to split up his land into yet more parts so that each son had his strips. And the son he had by Ruth would be counted as Mahlon's son, in the spirit of the levirate marriage laws. And so his bit of land would then be separate from the land strips the man was intending to give to his existing children. Ultimately this could lead to the man's total inheritance becoming almost worthless if it was just split into tiny strips because he had too many children.
I like how the NIV has
the man speaking of 'endangering' his inheritance.
He was like so many
people- he had say a 20 year horizon, genuinely concerned about what was
best for his children in the short term, rather than thinking about his
responsibility to his brother. He saw 'danger' in doing that. It could be
argued that the 50 year Jubilee law meant that the land boundaries
returned to how they originally were after 50 years... so perhaps
[although it's hard to work out how the Jubilee law worked in practice] he
was worrying about something which only had meaning for the next few
decades [if that]. He wasn't a bad man; just one who was fearful and
wouldn't look beyond the next 20 years or so. And I suggest the genealogy
at the end of Ruth 4 comments upon this- that man is anonymous, his name
never went down in history, whereas Boaz who loved his brother and didn't
focus solely on his own immediate family went on to be the ancestor of
both David and the Lord Jesus Himself.
Another possibility is that the man thought that marriage to Ruth was bound to spoil or destroy his inheritance or family, as she had that of Elimelech. He considered her a femme fatale. He may have seen this as just judgment for marrying a Moabitess. And he wasn't going to do the same. In this case we see how utterly wrong he was. He would be representative of the legalistic Jewish xenophobes of the postexilic period- who missed out on so much because of their attitudes.
Ruth 4:7 Now this was the custom in former time in Israel-
It can be noted that there are Aramaic terms in this verse. This
confirms my suggestion on Ruth 1:16 that the book of Ruth was rewritten in
exile, presenting Naomi and Ruth as examples to the exiles who were
likewise intended to return to their land their God. This would explain
why at this point, the author or editor sees the need to explain what the
customs were "in former time in Israel", because the readership would not
know this.
Concerning
redeeming and concerning exchanging, to confirm all things: a man took off
his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour; and this was the way of
affirmation in Israel-
This custom indicates that the law of Dt. 25:9 had been somewhat
reduced in severity and altered. For there is no mention of spitting. We could read this as an indication of
Israel’s apostasy from God’s law; or we could consider that even in Old
Testament times, the essence of the Law was what was important rather than
keeping the letter of it. However I have suggested on :3-5 that the
levirate law did not at all require anyone to marry Ruth. Perhaps that is
why the spitting was not done, only the removal of the shoe as a sign that
they had indeed made the agreement.
The fact that Ruth doesn't spit in the face of the relative could be read as further evidence that this was not a strict case of Levirate marriage; it was the spirit of it but not the letter. Because it was not a case of "brothers dwelling together". And the child Obed who was born is presented as the son of Boaz (:21) rather than the son of the deceased Mahlon, as we would expect if this were Levirate marriage. It was the spirit and not the letter of the law being used to redeem Ruth, just as in the case of the Lord's redemption of us who by the letter of the law should take the wages of sin, death.
Or it could be that the allusion is not to Dt. 25:9, but rather that treading on property with a shoe means you own that property. Moses was told to remove his shoes because the land was holy, sanctified to God. To give your shoe could simply mean 'I accept I do not own this'. To have your foot upon something meant you possessed it (Ps. 8:6; 36:11; Josh. 1:3; 10:24; 14:9). In some near Eastern cultures, placing shoes on the throne was part of the ritual of a new king possessing the kingdom. Hence giving up your shoe, the covering of your foot, meant relinquishing posession. Hence the connection between the Hebrew words na'al [sandal] and nahal [inheritance]. Perhaps this is the sense on Am. 2:6, that the needy were sold for a pair of shoes, i.e. their land was taken away from them.
Ruth 4:8 So the near kinsman said to Boaz, Buy it for yourself. He took
off his shoe-
We notice that this was done "in the presence of the elders" (:2),
just as was required by the law of Dt. 25:7-9 if the levirate law was not
followed. But there was no spitting in the face, because actually the law
did not require the kinsman to marry Ruth. That was an extension of the
law being added by Boaz and Naomi. However :7 may imply that this whole
things was nothing to do with levirate law in itself, and taking off the
shoe was simply a token of confirmation of an agreement.
Ruth 4:9 Boaz said to the elders and to all the people, You are witnesses
this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was
Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi-
Presumably by this point, Naomi has appeared on the scene. Clearly
there has been more collusion between her and Boaz than is recorded. The
order Elimelech - Chilion - Mahlon may reflect the order in which they had
died.
Ruth 4:10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have
purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead on his
inheritance, that the name of the dead not be cut off from among his
brothers, and from the gate of his place. You are witnesses this day-
They were standing in the gate of his place, in the gate of Bethlehem
(:1). Although Mahlon had been but a child when he left Bethlehem, he was
still counted as being from there and somehow was rooted to the land of
his inheritance. "To raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance"
seems another attempt to connect the property issue to the marriage of
Ruth (see on :3). This was not a connection strictly made by the levirate
law. The seed did not have to be raised upon the geographical land
inheritance of the deceased person. But that would indeed have been
according to the spirit of the law; but it was not the letter. Naomi's
selling of the land conditional upon the purchaser marrying Ruth was (see
on :5) was therefore a reflection of how she [and Boaz] had worked out the
spirit of the law. And indeed there is the nail-biting moment when the
nearer kinsman has the opportunity to marry Ruth. When she's in love with
Boaz and he with her. This arose because of their genuine desire to be
obedient to the law. So in terms of the narrative, this statement of Boaz
that he is going to marry Ruth leaves us all with the same sense of relief
and triumph which we imagine in his voice.
Ruth 4:11 All the people who were in the gate and the elders said, We are
witnesses-
Passers by had crowded around the seated elders to witness what was
happening. Marriage was to be publically testified.
There was not necessarily any documentary evidence, but marriage was
publically acknowledged by the surrounding society in whatever form was
then current. This can help us in defining marriage today.
May Yahweh make the woman who has come into your house like
Rachel and like Leah, who built the house of Israel; and treat you
worthily in Ephrathah, and bring you fame in Bethlehem-
See on Ruth 3:2; 4:12. We recall that Elimelech was from Ephrath
(Ruth 1:2), and perhaps Boaz was too, as he was a relative of Elimelech.
The people perceived that Boaz wanted to build up the family of Elimelech,
which had been wiped out by the death of his sons childless and his
apparent failure to have any other children. This was grace indeed, to be
so concerned about building up your brother's family, when Boaz surely had
his own family. But it was as a result of this concern that his name is
remembered; because we know nothing of his children, but we do know that
his child by Ruth led to the Lord Jesus. "Worthily" is the word for
"virtuous", used of Ruth in Ruth 3:11. They were seen as a match for each
other, as they were both virtuous people.
Ruth 4:12 Let your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to
Judah, of the seed which Yahweh shall give you of this young woman-
Tamar’s fertility was legendary because despite being in middle age,
one act of intercourse resulted in her having two children [twins]. The
comparison with Rachel and Leah also seems forced, because they both had
fertility problems; we have an example here of people using traditional
terms of blessing, rather like singing hymns, without putting any meaning
into the words. What unites all these three women is the fact that
they were sexually manipulative, and this would support the impression we
could possibly
take from the record of Ruth’s approach to Boaz that night at the
threshing floor.
The references to Tamar and Rachel and Leah may well have been tongue in cheek. Although the idea might be that God's seed and purpose carried through, despite so much against it happening. In both cases, seed was obtained by some level of sexual compromise; and we wonder if they considered that Ruth and Boaz were similar. Otherwise, the reference to Tamar appears strange. In this case, the book ends with Boaz and Ruth being misunderstood and viewed askance, yet being the ancestors of the Davidic line which led to Messiah.
Ruth 4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in to
her, and Yahweh gave her conception, and she bore a son-
The rubric for procreation usually found in the Bible is that a man
goes in to a woman, she conceives and bares a child. But here there is
added that "Yahweh gave her conception". We wonder if she had been barren
before. Perhaps that is why she more easily resigned herself to coming to
Israel to serve Yahweh and being Naomi's carer, resigning the hope of
remarriage. She imagined that if she did remarry, it would be a sad
marriage [for those times] as she would be barren. However, her enthusiasm
for Boaz, himself an old man, and the whole plan about him marrying her to
raise up seed for Mahlon, was therefore all done even more in faith.
So she, as so many, found that God does so exceeding abundant
above all we ask or think. She had been in a childless marriage for 10
years, and committed herself to serving Yahweh for nothing, just happy to
be with Him; now she is 'given conception' by God and her ancestor would
be the Lord Jesus.
Ruth 4:14 The women said to Naomi, Blessed be Yahweh, who has not left you
this day without a near kinsman; and let his name be famous in Israel-
The 'being a kinsman' to Naomi was felt to have only been achieved
when a son was born. But grammatically, the near kinsman who would be
famous and a restorer of life (:14) appears to refer to the baby boy. And
this would then look forward to how this child's descendant would
ultimately be the Lord Jesus, the ultimate restorer of life.
Ruth 4:15 He shall be to you a restorer of life, and sustain you in your
old age, for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you
than seven sons, has borne him-
Is. 56:3-8 seems to allude to Naomi, Ruth and Boaz. The "dry tree"
who was a eunuch [Boaz? Naomi?] and the Gentile [Ruth] who had taken hold
of the covenant would be given a destiny "better than of sons and
daughters", a quotation from Ruth 4:15. Naomi has said she is barren (see
on Ruth 1:11), and we can deduce from Ruth 4:13 that Ruth was also. And at
his age perhaps Boaz was impotent. Perhaps this was why the idea of Ruth
marrying him didn't initially occur to Naomi. Out of every human
inadequacy and impossibility, God raised up a seed, through using two
women and a man who had faith that "God is able". And that seed was to
continue to the conception of the Lord Jesus by the faithful virgin Mary,
also from Bethlehem.
I suggested on Ruth 1:20 that Naomi was depressive and her silence at the end of the story is significant. There is no hymn of praise from her, no gratitude to Ruth, no recorded expression of joy at the wonderful outcome. We may well wonder whether the women's words of Ruth 4:15 are not a gentle chiding of her to join in the joy rather than remain depressed.
Hezekiah apparently chose to be a eunuch for the Kingdom's sake. There is the implication in Is. 56:3-8 that his example inspired others in Israel to make the same commitment. They are comforted by Isaiah: "Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold (the same Hebrew word is used five times about Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 29:3,34; 31:4; 32:5,7) of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house, and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off". Hezekiah had lamented that he would die without a seed (Is. 38:12 Heb.; Is. 53), and so did those who had also become (in their minds?) eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. There was that human desire for a seed, a "house" to perpetuate their name. But they are promised a name in God's house (family) in the Kingdom, better than of sons and daughters in this life. This alludes to Ruth 4:15, where Ruth is described as being better than sons to Naomi. In other words, Ruth's having a child was a living exemplification of the Kingdom now. How God acted with her is how He will with all His people, who put Him first and take hold of covenant with Him.
Ruth 4:16 Naomi took the child and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse
to it-
The barren Naomi (see on Ruth 1:11) is portrayed as becoming able to
nurse the baby. That would have been a miracle, reflective of the new life
God was giving to all involved. Or it could be that she symbolically held
the child to her breast, rather like Bilhah giving birth upon Rachel's
knees so that Rachel could claim the child as hers (Gen. 30:3).
Ruth 4:17 The neighbouring women gave him a name, saying, There is a son
born to Naomi! And they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the
father of David-
The naming of a child by women rather than the father is unusual (Lk.
1:62). Perhaps it was because Boaz died soon after the marriage, as Jewish
tradition claims. But it fits in with the theme in the book of the meaning
and power of women, in a male based society. "Obed" means 'servant' and
this was not a great name for a child in those times, especially for the
son of a wealthy man like Boaz. But the spirit of the family was such that
they perceived the spirit of servant leadership.
Ruth 4:18 Now this is the history of the generations of Perez: Perez
became the father of Hezron-
The genealogy now given jumps many generations and so those who are
mentioned must all have purpose. Beginning with Perez, son of Tamar who
played the prostitute to Judah, we surely have Tamar [who was likely also
a Gentile] being paralleled with Ruth. This could confirm the theme of
sexual manipulation discussed on Ruth 3:2. But I think the similarity is
more in that they had both worked out the spirit of the law, and then went
out and in their own ways tried to practice it with the appropriate men in
their lives.
Ruth 4:19 and Hezron became the father of Ram, and Ram became the father
of Amminadab-
Comparing with 1 Chron. 2, some generations are skipped. But the
point is that it included Amminadab, meaning "my kinsman, or paternal
uncle (ammi) is generous". The idea is being presented that
generosity and being a true kinsman redeemer ran in the family.
Not only Boaz had been like this, but his ancestor too. The idea is that
this would characterize the line of David, and would come to full term in
the Messianic Son of David.
Ruth 4:20 and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon became
the father of Salmon-
Amminadab, the generous kinsman like Boaz (see on :19), had
a descendant called Nahshon, meaning 'snake'. The abrupt juxtaposition is
so that we understand that spirituality is not at all inherited
genetically. It is a case of consciously choosing to follow good examples.
Ruth 4:21 and Salmon became the father of Boaz, and Boaz became the father
of Obed-
Mt. 1:5 says that Salmon had Boaz by Rahab. Yet Rahab lived some time
earlier. I therefore suggest that Salmon was the ancestor of Boaz [not the
literal father], through the child he had from Rahab. This is mentioned to
highlight the fact that Boaz was descended from Rahab, and therefore was
generous to the strangers and saw nothing wrong with a Moabitess marrying
into the congregation of Yahweh.
Ruth 4:22 and Obed became the father of Jesse, and Jesse became the father
of David-
The function of the narrative is to set up David as the intended outcome
to a line which had arisen out of barren, Gentile women, domestic tragedy,
servant leadership (see on :17), faith and perception of grace. And this
is the line which the New Testament genealogies show continued to the Lord
Jesus.
Previous Chapter
