Archive for March, 2021

Part 1 Irenaeus’ interpretation of reconciliation and the atonement

March 27, 2021

I have completed the book of Ruth, so I wanted to do an ‘Easter Special’ 

This is half of an essay I wrote on the Incarnations for the points of view of Irenaeus and Anselm. Irenaeus was a very important voice in the early Church.  He personally knew St Polycarp from Izmir in Turkey.  He was also a Bishop of Lyon (France).  The next quote is from Wikipedia

“Irenaeus (/ɪrɪˈneɪəs/;[1] Greek: Εἰρηναῖος Eirēnaios; c. 130 – c. 202 AD)[2] was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in what is now the south of France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heresy and defining orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp,[3] the last known living connection with the Apostles, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist.[4] ” from

Compare and contrast Irenaeus and Anselm’s interpretations of reconciliation and atonement.

To begin with we shall look at Irenaeus and Anselm separately, we want to do justice to what they actually said within their historical contexts. Only then shall we give a brief discussion, in order to illuminate both comparisons and contrasts relating to our question. If we were to talk of the rules that governed their respective theologies, then the syntax they both employs are different to each other. Von Balthasaar says there are three collecting points for the theology of Irenaeus; 1) One point is that we need to think in terms of God hidden and revealed, in terms of unity and Trinity. 2) The relation of being and becoming, especially in particular God and man. 3) In the ordering of salvation, the relationship of time and eternity in terms of old covenant, gospel and church etc (12/58). Anselm on the hand is more philosophical in that he identifies three ‘ forces of change’ in the Cur Deus Homo; that of 1) will, 2) power, 3) and necessity (13/187). As can be seen there is no similarity of approach to how God reconciles and makes atonement for mankind. If anything, their particular approaches and hence their methods tend to be poles apart. For example, Irenaeus is not afraid of using the Bible to the fullest extent in his scheme of salvation. On the other hand, for Anselm, he uses as little Biblical information as possible to allow him to give a convincing argument for the need of the Incarnation and passion. Anselm then is more concerned with philosophical criterion which is a part of his training. (In this essay the Cur Deus Homo will be abbreviated to CDH and Against Heresies will be abbreviated to AH).


Irenaeus was concerned about the gnostic heresies due to certain apparent reasons, especially because it tended to use a Catholic language but with a different meaning for the initiates of Gnosticism ( 12/41 ) . In summary the Valentinian system began from Buthos and from him emanations’ went out from him until matter was created (it has to be stressed that Buthos always remains untouched by evil 1 matter). So according to the Valentinians, matter was made out of ‘ignorance, grief, fear and bewilderment’ (5/26. This is contrary to the Genesis account where the phrase ‘and God saw that it was good’ is repeated (Gen,chapter 1 verses 10,12,18 etc.). The distinction between God and creation becomes blurred (12/380). The concepts of person and idea also become blurred etc. Balthasaar writes,” Every concept becomes an aeon, every conceptual tension becomes a male-female relationship” etc (12/39). A great deal more could be said (but cannot be said due to length of essay) but one can see that this outline shows a new (false) foundation for the Christian faith.

Irenaeus believed that- mankind fell in solidarity due to the sin of Adam, this process through the work of Christ can be reversed. His main concept is ‘recapitulation’. He borrows Paul’s idea from Ephesians 1/10 ‘to sum up all things in Christ’. He sees this text in terms of as Kelly puts it,” He understands the Pauline text as implying that the Redeemer gathers together, includes or comprises the whole of reality in himself, (Christ) the human race being included”(3/172). Kelly goes on to say that Irenaeus takes advantage of Paul’s use of first and second Adam language. Christ being understood as the ‘second Adam’. Christ then as the second Adam recapitulated or reproduced the first Adam in the same way, in terms of birth from the virgin earth horn from the virgin Mary.

We also need to compare what Unger has to say, “It (recapitulation) must convey the idea of being brought to ahead as a unifying principle and of somehow resuming all things. This process of recapitulation of all things begins with the Incarnation and will be completed with the glorification of the body, yet because the Word pre-existed creation and was in the planning, and was operative from creation on, the Incarnate Word recapitulates all things. He summarizes in Himself all creation and unites all people and angels too to Himself as under one head, and in so doing He duplicates, or resumes, the acts of Adam either by similarity or by opposition” (7/185-186). As can be seen God’s plan of reconciliation precedes creation and works its way through to the end times. Through this term then, Man is not seen as an afterthought, but he is at the heart of what God will for his


Irenaeus’ important point is that Christ as the second Adam went through all the same sequences of human life such as birth, even including death. Each stage of human life then was being made holy. In doing this Christ reversed Adam’s sin at each stage of human development and thus brought about a new redeemed humanity. An important point to remember is that when Adam sinned so did the whole of the human race. The whole of the human race that was yet to be born was, as it were, locked up in Adam. Christ as the second Adam, in his ‘mystical body’ again brought about deathlessness and undid what the first Adam had done. For example, as the first Adam was disobedient the second Adam was obedient and so on (3/173).

The question that we have to ask ourselves at this juncture is,” If the Christian God is such a good God, why did he allow evil to exist in it? Concerning this major question, it has to be linked to the understanding of free will (8/66-76). Whatever the case, Minns makes his argument around AH 4/37-38. In AH 4/37.6 Irenaeus implies that if God should have created his creatures only for the good then freedom would in some way be hindered. Though Irenaeus’ argument is not full proof, it is a groundwork for an optimistic view of the Fall. Whatever the case may be, Irenaeus does have a concept of being and becoming. That is to say that God ‘is’ and that his creation is constantly growing and increasing (8/70). For Augustine and Athanasius however the free will of Adam and Eve was central for the outcome of the whole of creation. This situation could only be reversed, if God himself became incarnate (8/69).

In opposition to the Valentinian system, God was directly responsible for the creation of this world. Irenaeus directly contributed in the explanation of the Trinity through the notion of the ‘two hands of God’. The two hands were Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they were co-working with the Father in creation (Word and Wisdom 10/345). This allows Irenaeus to say that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. The point is that creation is to be seen as the product of love. This also takes away any platonic philosophical basis that creation is evil. There are some writers that try to intimate implicitly that the Son before creation had a creature 1 likeness about him. Ochagavia writes, ” Since the Son was not created out of nothing, as creatures were, we can infer that, before he was established, He existed in God in an unstable state, namely, without a determinate form and circumscription” (11/110). This mind is reading too far into the writings of Irenaeus. There is language in Irenaeus that explicitly rejects such a notion; ” For the Creator of the world is truly the Word of God” (6/105).

Concerning the doctrine of Man, he was created as a child with the view to grow into the image and likeness of God. Instead he did the opposite by disobeying God. If the Fall had not happened man would still have grown into communion with God and would have reached the status of manhood. Wingren goes on to say that it is this very communion that man had with God that has been broken due to disobedience (4/51-52 ) . Though man disobeyed God all in the end would work out for the good of man, ” …The Lord restored us to friendship through his incarnation, becoming the ‘mediator between God and man’. He propitiated on our behalf the Father, against whom we had sinned and cancelled our disobedience by his obedience, restoring us to fellowship with our Maker and submission to him (9/80//AH5/17/1). Man was made in the image (tselem) and likeness (demot) of God (Genesis 1/26). Irenaeus sometimes when he uses the term ‘image’, he sometimes refers to the creation of man and at other times he refers to Christ, depending on context. The original image of God is the Son and it is in his image that man was created. Man is different to the rest of creation because of this. It must be noted however that man has not yet reached his destiny, because he needs to grow up from childhood to adult hood, and this is what he is predestined for. Though man has been created in the image of God he still remains a created creature while the Son still remains the Creator. Man though, he was created with the view to reach maturity, but he yielded and was taken captive by the Devil (4/21).

Because Christ was a real man, he was able to defeat the Devil who had gained power over mankind due to the Fall. The previous sentence implies that the Incarnation itself effected the redemption; this is not entirely correct. This is the line that a commentator in the CDH takes concerning Irenaeus. Irenaeus when talking in terms of redemption is explicit that it is affected through or by the blood of Christ. The concept of the Devil owning the rights of humanity is present in the thoughts of Irenaeus. This thought though is not exhaustive to the theology of Irenaeus. Kelly writes,”…the essence of Adam’s sin was disobedience, the obedience of Christ was indispensable; it is obedience that God requires, and in which man’ s glory consists” (3/174). Concerning reconciliation Wingren summarising says that we need to recognize that there is a general move in the NT of God’s 1 love (because God is love) towards man. Thus, Irenaeus strives to bring this out in his writings.

The burning question then because of this is,” How shall anyone be able to overcome this adversary of mankind unless he is different from the man who has suffered defeat”? (4/21). The answer to this question is that only the Son is stronger than the Devil. The Incarnation then becomes central for Irenaeus due to saving man from this bondage. A proviso needs to be mentioned at this juncture due to ‘bondage language’. It is true that Irenaeus writes in terms of a ‘rational transaction’, at the same time though he uses propitiation language. We cite for example AH5/1/1-2, ” The lord redeemed us by his blood and gave his life for our life, his flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man, bringing God down to man through the Spirit, and raising man to God through his Incarnation, and by his coming truly and surely conferring on us immortality by means of our fellowship with God” (9/80).












4. Natural Good and Moral Good part 3

March 27, 2021


We continue looking at virtues through Bavincks lens.  These are some verses he quotes.  The words moral excellence translated by ἀρετή aretē in the followings verses is important for the discussion so be aware of this before looking at what is said after the Bible quotations

8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. Philippians 4:8

5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 2 Peter 1:5


9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvellous light; 1 Peter 2:9  (NASB)

Herman Bavinck the master theologian then gives a definition of virtue and what is preferred in the New Testament.

“But in Christian circles many prefer to speak of “goodworks” rather than

1.     “virtues” because the Latin word virtus (from vir=”man”) and the Greek αρετη (from  Αρης) were pagan in origin and meaning;

2.     Holy Scripture uses the term infrequently; and

3.     doing so preserves a terminological distinction between non-Christian (Philosophical) ethics and Christian ethics” from page 159 Herman Bavinck Reformed Ethics.


Herman has started the end section for ‘virtue’.  He is starting now to drill down into the meaning.  It is interesting what he says here but my question is why is αρετη used infrequently in the New Testament?

Bavinck really understood the issues here.  The root of the word comes from the god of war Ares!  It was part of the local language at the time and Paul and Peter used it without a problem but not too often.  It is only found five times in the New Testament.  Obviously, Bavinck thinks that theologians should use it in terms of pagan philosophy, and ‘good works’ for Christian works.  I don’t actually see why this has to be the case.  Not any one culture can claim language for themselves.  It is public knowledge, and this is how we communicate. However, the term ‘good works’ is used a lot in the New Testament, and this in itself is sufficient for its use by Christian theologians.



In older texts, the feminine noun αρετη (arete) appears to have denoted excellence of any kind but mostly of manly qualities (comparable to the Latin word virtus). Plato used it to convey moral excellence and virtue, and later authors ascribed the plural of αρετη (arete) to gods, in the meaning of glorious deeds, wonders, miracles.


The Septuagint uses αρετη (arete) to translate some instances of הוד (hod, meaning splendor or majesty) and תהלה(tehilla, meaning praise).


In the New Testament it occurs 5 times; 5 see full concordance. In 1 Peter 2:9 it occurs in plural and is commonly translated with excellencies or praises. In 2 Peter 1:3-5 it’s commonly translated with moral excellence or virtue. On this occasion it appears juxtaposed with δοξα (doxa), meaning “glory” or excellent reputation.


Paul uses this word in Philippians 4:8, where he writes, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” From

A) For Calvin according to Bavinck, wherever the virtues are located in the will or somewhere else such as the affections, it does not make any difference.  The Fall happened and the virtues have been corrupted but not completely lost but still corrupted. Paul in Romans for example says,

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, Romans 2:14-15 NASB

For Philosophers Bavinck says “They know nothing about the fall, about the corruption of our nature, about the need for regeneration. All their ideas about virtue and duty are splendid. “but they lack the foundation; they are a body without a head.” Reformed Ethics page 160.

B) The norms of virtue “but they (the philosophers) tried to derive these from nature, or reason, or the conscience, so that it was always a standard inherent in nature. Christian morality, however, has the perfect revealed law of God as its standard.”  Reformed Ethics page 160.

C) “The goal of philosophical virtues is always situated within this life…”  Reformed Ethics page 160.  Christian ethics goes beyond this life…  So for the philosophers virtues starts and ends with the person.  Christian ethics is beyond us as Bavinck says “By contrast, Christian ethics is not utilitarian, but directs everything to glorify God. It sees glorifying God as the goal of our lives.” Reformed Ethics page 160.

In his summary then concerning the spiritual matters, knowledge, will and ability have been completely lost.  Then his next statement; ‘in moral and civil matters, in temporal earthly matters, knowledge will, and ability have been weakened’ So here there are temporal rewards but not eternal.  The foundation of the philosophers then for Bavinck are built on wrong premises.  For Bavinck Scripture has a high moral ideal.


So, then we have looked at the virtues and we have learned that God has high moral standards and outside of Jesus Christ it is impossible to meet that spiritual high point.  In the natural without God humans can reach very high standards from a temporal perspective with temporal rewards.  The higher virtues can only be reached through the second Adam (Jesus Christ).  The goal of the Christian as Bavinck said is to glorify God not glorify ourselves. 


Let us now move into the 21 century and how the virtues are today.  Utilitarian philosophies are the in thing at the moment.  Everyone has been trying to save money.  One area, in hospitals for example is to screen women and if there is an abnormality (down syndrome) to have an abortion.  Because a person learns at a slower speed does that mean they are not a person?  Even one does not believe in God there is evidence that early man (neanderthal) looked after their own.  We have the latest science and in order to save money, allow death to reign.  What sort of society are we then?

I suppose that the Coronavirus is a reminder that we are not in control and as a society money is not the be and end of everything.  Utilitarianism can help but it needs to be tinged with mercy (Sometimes for the greater good it is ok for society to lose money). 

Anyhow I went away and had a closer look at utilitarianism and one of its goals is to look out for ‘the greatest good for the greatest number ‘of people. It is pure reason, analytical. Its logical conclusion can have some ludicrous conclusions. There are four people in hospital.

One has a heart problem, second one has a kidney problem, the third one has a lung problem and the fourth one needs a new liver.  A healthy person walks into the hospital, he has all the organs needed.  So, he gives his life so that four people can leave hospital.  Obviously in this scenario utilitarianism collapses.  Taken from

For Christians there is the moral aspects.  Just because something is logical doesn’t make it right.  This type of philosophy is used a lot in the business world including hospitals because they make decisions on a daily basis that can affect which patient is going to die.  There are other philosophies that are also taken from the natural realms, it is good that Herman Bavinck has made us aware of virtues. 


Everything we have looked at over the last few lessons have shown the fallen nature of humanity.  Every aspect of our human nature has in some way moved away from the image of God.  Our mind, intellect, will, passions everything has moved away.  If it wasn’t for God’s grace in the world everything would have been lost.  As in Adam all have sinned so in the second Adam (Jesus Christ) all will be made alive.  Let us not forget the three beautiful theological virtues of faith, hope and love.


Ruth gets married. What does it all mean? Ruth chapter 4 final part

March 21, 2021
  I love this part of the story because it shows that people were haggling over rights thousands of years ago.  However, this was a divine haggling and the decision was from the Lord.    

So, this is how they did property rights in those days.  They had witnesses, 10 witnesses who were elders.  That means they were trustworthy men of the community.   The nearest kinsman was offered Naomi’s land to buy it at a bargain price.  The nearest relative seemed overjoyed.

  Boaz then goes into the detail of the purchase that Ruth the Moabitess was a part of the deal.  The man understood that he had a duty to Elimelech the deceased man his closest relative.    Near the end of the haggling we have.   “6 The closest relative said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, because I would jeopardize my own inheritance. Redeem it for yourself; you may have my right of redemption, for I cannot redeem it.””  

So, the closest relative takes his sandal off as a pledge, something physical and Boaz becomes the Redeemer.   We know the rest of the story.  God blessed this line.  King David the greatest King of Israel came to the throne.  The story is a lot deeper than that however and sometimes one needs to look deeper into the story and find other interesting things.    Rabbi Sacks draws on this story similarities between Tamar and Ruth.  They were both outcasts.  One was seen To be a prostitute (although she wasn’t) Ruth was A foreigner.

The giving of the leverate marriage that is non normative before the giving of the Torah   “Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow. Levirate marriage has been practiced by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage (i.e. marriage outside the clan) was forbidden. It has been known in many societies around the world.”  

Tamar gets pregant by her father in Law Judah because he refused his last son ‘the closest’ to do his duty Naomi’s closest unknown relative refuses to Do his duty by marrying Ruth the deceased brother in law.    Both these ladies Tamar and Naomi are in David’s line. Tamar and Ruth were nobodies in that society, but God takes the worthless things and moves mountains.  Ruth and Tamar wanted to keep the line going determined to do this and it was God who chooses nobodies to do amazing things.   

What did King David get from these women?

Rabbi Sacks shared the wording of Rameses and Moses. The Ra part of the Rameses points to Rameses being semi divine of the sun god.  Moses was just a child. Rabbi Sacks then said, ‘God does not look at outward appearances God looks at the heart’. He then moves on to the picking of David as King.  On the outward appearance David did not fit the picture he was just a shepherd boy.  The stereo typical hero is turned upside down in Judaism. 

If you have time, watch the video. Rabbi Sacks in his wisdom has something for everyone        

You can also visit my other blog at we are looking at the 4. Natural Good and Moral Good part 4 by Herman Bavinck in his Reformed Ethics.

4. Natural Good and Moral Good part 2

March 21, 2021


Bavinck then moves on to what the Reformers thought about natural good and moral good.  I am especially interested in John Calvin and his Institutes. I started to think about the lack of Aristotle in the Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Obviously if one reads Aquinas’ Summa Theologai he is found everywhere. The Unmoved Mover and so on.   In the philosophy of Kalam in Islam Aristotle is very important as the philosophy was used as an argument for the relationship of God and Creation although at places with corrections.  John Calvin dumps Aristotle like a brick!


Perhaps we will find out a little more about these things in these pages.

Let’s begin with a quote from Bavinck this puts the theatre in place for what Calvin and other Reformers will act out;

“Protestants, more in line with Augustine, thought differently. Luther wrote that Aristotle can give rules for only the natural, temporary, perishable life.”

Natural moral theory emphasizes works (from the outside to the inside, disposition acquired through deeds), whereas Christian moral theory emphasizes the person (first the tree is good, then the fruit). Natural theory does not relate good works to God. The ultimate ground and highest purpose is not God, but humanity, society, the state, the political end. Regarding Zwingli, see my The Ethics of Ulrich Zwingli.”  Bavinck Reformed Ethics page 157


There are some serious underlying basics here that Bavinck shows us. As Bavinck points out natural moral philosophy emphasizes works from outside in.   Disposition here I think means


“a person’s inherent qualities of mind and character.” (Oxford dictionary through Google search engine)

Thus, to interpret Bavinck here; through deeds a person’s inherent qualities, mind and character are created and formed.

Thus, Bavinck is correct in line with the other reformers in rejecting this natural philosophical interpretation.  He is also correct in saying that natural theory does not relate good works to God.  Bavinck is also correct in this because for example the various forms of Socialism see society and the political state as its goal.  He is correct in this as well if we use the recent politics in the USA. 


Now when I look back on Trump’s Presidency this was played out.  Those who would like to see God at the centre of politics and those who wants to see the state at the centre of politics.  Unfortunately to see God at the centre stage the leadership and the members needed to play this out with godly living with some theological virtues such as faith, hope and love and the cardinal virtues of  Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance and the Bible rightly interpreted.

We didn’t see any of this!


Calvin is certainly right with not mixing too much philosophical ethics and Christian theology.  Calvin moved in the right direction. In the notes we have various references to Calvin’s writings.

“It is a vain objection which they make, that on this principle the impious will become the brethren of Christ; because we know that the children of God are born, not of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit through faith; therefore a community of nature alone is not sufficient to constitute a fraternal union. “ Calvin’s Institutes book 2 chapter 13 Gutenberg free book edition.


I can see Bavincks thought here in Calvin.  Nature alone is not enough for union with Christ.  This is a good reason for Calvin and Bavinck to disagree with the Pagans such as Cynics, Stoics, Aristotle’s doctrine of the will, Plato and Cicero. 

In his Institutes Calvin distinguished between earthly, this-worldly things that concern the present life, and heavenly things that concern the knowledge of God, true righteousness, the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.” Page 157

Bavinck is correct here too.  He understood how easy it was to mythologise rather than theologise.  God is infinite but the earthly creation is finite.  It is very easy to mix these categories up but if one does, one loses the vision of God. We become spiritually blind.

The bottom line is that we can know something of this world but to really see God in the natural philosophical way is an impossibility.  Some knowledge is open to us about God, but this is as Bavinck says only a ‘taste’.  Some pagans have also risen to really high virtues, but they did not know the law of God on either of the tablets! 

On page 158 Bavinck says that the Pagan philosophers had very high ideals, but they were external.  At the beginning of this section when setting up the theatre I said that through deeds a person’s disposition is formed and created.  This is anathema to the teachings of Christ.  My interpretations here is that God by the Holy Spirit has to do a special creative work from within and then the tree grows.


“But Reformed theologians did not go beyond this. The moral virtues of Plato and others resemble the true, spiritual virtues, in the same way that counterfeit pearls resemble genuine ones, or fake gold resembles real gold. They cannot pass the test when assayed by the only true standard. Some have therefore preferred the term “virtue” when describing pagan morality and reserved the term “good works” for Christian morality.”  Page 158 

As far as Christian theology goes there is a big gulf between God’s standards and the natural standards.   As Christians we love our natural brothers and sisters and we pray that they come to know the truth of Christ.  We were formerly the same in nature but God by his gracious gift of salvation brought us into the Church.


Why is what I have written important for all Christians?

Although we are called to respect leaders and the state, it shouldn’t be blind obedience.  Sometimes leaders go off the rails such as Hitler and they need to be held accountable to God the highest law. 

We are allowed to disagree with each other but still respect each other for we are all children of Adam and some of us are children of Christ.  We will continue with this next time.

Ruth and Boaz, Preparing the contract: Ruth chapter 3

March 14, 2021

Before I look at chapter 3 of Ruth we need to look at some points of Jewish law.

“5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.” Deutronomy chapter 5. Verses 5-9

Remember that we said earlier that God cares for the widow, the weak and orphaned.  God will fight their cause.  If a brother dies childless and there is a widow, the closest relative is supposed to take up the cause of his brother so that his name is not blotted out.  This is a duty.

Verse 1 Naomi is helping Naomi to find some safety and life security when there wasn’t any.   Naomi knew that Boaz was a close family member and that he would be ideal for Ruth.  Ruth has been commanded to look her best. Anointing (looking fresh), washing (being clean), Putting the best clothes on.   So as not to embarrass Boaz but also to fulfil legal obligations she has to play a waiting game.  For some reason shoes are important for wheeling and dealing.  That is the way things were done in those days.    

Boaz was tired and he went to sleep.      She came secretly to him and uncovered his feet.  This was done as an intention of marriage. (legal obligation)   Boaz got scared and then realized it was Ruth.  She asks Boaz for marriage security. Uncovering his feet and covering Ruth were legal acts.   The contract continues.  Boaz is excited because she chose him instead of the other men, although legally the man holds all the cards. He could have said to Ruth; What do you think you are doing?   He didn’t do that.  He whole heartedly took up his obligations.  He calls her a woman of Excellence (proverbs 31:10 onwards if you care to read) Boaz knew there was a closer relative so he had to have first pickings.   Boaz explains the Law to Ruth about redemption.     She left before anybody could recognize her.  This was not only for Ruth but it would also protect the reputation of Boaz.      Boaz then gives barley to Ruth and Naomi as a symbol of his seriousness about this situation.  It was quite a lot of Barley but obviously she was able to carry it.      

You can find more at

This chapter 3 is preparation for a marriage. There are legal obligations that need to be fulfilled.

Herman Bavincks thoughts on the Natural Good and Moral Good part 1

March 14, 2021


                                                                                                       Photo by Katie Hollamby from Pexels

Bavinck with his incredible theological mind can make something trivial such as eating, drinking, sleeping and walking which he calls natural goods, as he says are neither good nor evil.  Then he goes on by saying that these things can become good and evil by the way they are used.  It all depends on the inclination… he gives the example of lust or laziness. On three concentric circles one has the centre ‘spiritual’ then the middle ring ‘moral’ and on the outer ring the natural.  Bavinck says that these have not been destroyed but weakened. 

He goes on to say that moral good has also remained and some think that even Pagans can be saved.  The Pelagians, Socinians and the Jesuits would take this view about the virtues.  Against this he mentions Tertullian on sin: Sin is not only external but internal as well.  What might look like a virtue on the external might actually be done as a sin internally.   So quoting Bavinck on Tertullian; Bavinck writes.

‘Tertullian remarked that the pagans prohibit only external

sins, but our law forbids also internal sins. And then he asks, “So then, where

is there any likeness between the Christian and the philosopher? between the

disciple of Greece and of heaven? between the man whose object1s fame,’ (page 155. Reformed Ethics.)

Chastity         Castitas         Purity, abstinence Lust    Luxuria

Temperance Temperantia Humanity, equanimity    Gluttony       Gula

Charity           Caritas Will, benevolence, generosity, sacrifice        Greed  Avaritia

Diligence       Industria       Persistence, effortfulness, ethics           Sloth Acedia

Patience        Patientia       Forgiveness, mercy            Wrath            Ira

Kindness       Humanitas    Satisfaction, compassion Envy   Invidia

Humility        Humilitas      Bravery, modesty, reverence      Pride Superbia

The seven and their opposites from


The theological virtues have God as their object of worship.

‘Theological virtues are virtues associated in Christian theology and philosophy with salvation resulting from the grace of God.[1] Virtues are traits or qualities which dispose one to conduct oneself in a morally good manner. Traditionally they have been named Faith, Hope, and Charity (Love), and can trace their importance in Christian theology to Paul the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 13, who also pointed out that “the greatest of these is love.”’

Taken from


Obviously, all the above virtues can also be done from pride.  For example ‘look at me how good I am!’ instead of ‘O Lord help me by your grace to attain to your holiness’

What can we make of all of this?

Bavinck first looks at the goals of these virtues he says; ‘Natural moral theory emphasizes works (from the outside to the inside, disposition acquired through deeds), whereas Christian moral theory emphasizes the person (first the tree is good, then the fruit). Natural theory does not relate good works to God. The ultimate ground and highest purpose is not God, but humanity, society, the state, the political end.’ (Reformed Ethics page 157 Herman Bavinck)

Reflection on the above quote

As Christians our objective is to worship God, God is the centre.  This is not the case for socialists, conservatives, Greens, Communists and the other ‘…ists’ and there are many of them. Their goal is as he says human society, the state, the political end… These are earthly things.  Although they are important to have our goals are in Christ. 

We have also seen that natural goods can become good or evil depending on the inclination of the soul.  It is true that Pagans and others have reached high virtues, but this does not mean that the intentions were pure.   As Tertullian noted, God sees beyond the external to the internal.  Christians also need to remember this we are no better than the Pagans or whatever religion or non-religion, we sin too.  We need to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus who is the perfector of our faith.  Next time we will look at Bavincks interpretations of John Calvin on this topic, the relationship of philosophy to theology.  This is an important topic.  The reason why I am not writing about it straight away is because I want to do justice to Herman Bavincks understanding of John Calvin here and I am not going to rush.


What about the situation today?

What saddened me about Donald Trump was when he was in power that he claimed to be a Christian, yet he told many lies on a daily basis.  This is unethical because Christians are supposed to tell the truth.  I hope that the Republican Party think about the ethic of politics especially what Belief in God actually means.  It is by the grace of Christ we are to live but this does not give us a reason to break the 10 commandments.

How faithful is God to his people and the nobodies of this world? Ruth 2.8-23

March 6, 2021

Ruth Chapter 2. 8-23

I would encourage you to read the whole chapter of Ruth again before we start to look at the text.  God is with Naomi and Ruth.  God has not forgotten the faithfulness of this Ruth who was a foreigner. 

I think to understand everything that is happening to Ruth one should look at verse 12 and use that as a key to understand the whole chapter.

In verse 12 Boaz is speaking God’s mind.  Boaz reminds Ruth that she has stayed faithful to the God of Israel even through the death of loved ones.  She also did not turn her back on the old and frail (Naomi).  It is now time for the God of Israel to take Ruth under his wings for refuge.  The truth is God never let Ruth and Naomi go.  When they were walking back to Bethlehem Naomi and Ruth could not see what the future held.  With the natural eye they would see disaster.  I think we have all been there some time in our life.  This is not what happened. Naomi earlier said God caused this to happen, but she never gave up her faith in God.  Although she could not see beyond, something greater was happening in their world that would eventually to even influence us in the 21st Century through Christ. 

It may be that you have faith, but your world has turned upside down.  St Paul said somewhere that three things remain: Faith, Hope and Love.  Then he says that the greatest one of these is love.   When the end of times has completed its course there will be no need for hope as it is hope that has been realized.  Our believing our reliance on God will also be realized.  What will hold everything together then? The answer is simple, Love! Indeed, St Paul is right.   So, will faith be found in the land? Yes, Naomi and Ruth were faithful, and God made the impossible possible.  Therefore, let us keep on loving God and our neighbour leaving racism far away. 

I have left the verses of note for you to reflect on.  Thanks for taking the time to read my blog.

11 Boaz replied to her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband has been fully reported to me, and how you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and came to a people that you did not previously know. Ruth 2:11

12  May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge.” Ruth 2:12

20 Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “May he be blessed of the LORD who has not withdrawn his kindness to the living and to the dead.” Again Naomi said to her, “The man is our relative, he is one of our closest relatives.” Ruth 2:20

23 So she stayed close by the maids of Boaz in order to glean until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest. And she lived with her mother-in-law. Ruth 2:23