What If We Didn't Have Genesis?
“If the church didn’t have this book of the Bible you’ve been studying, what would they be missing out on?”
A late professor of mine, Dr. Terry Eves, used to ask people in thesis defenses and regular classes something along those lines. In a similar vein, I would like to start a series: What If We Didn't Have It?
Today's topic: The book of Genesis
Imagine for a moment the vast amount of Hebrew Bible history we would lack without the book of Genesis. The number of arguments and discussions that would fall flat from lacking a monumental historical foundation—Genesis. Let's expand on a rather unusual example: the book of Ruth.
Why? The book of Ruth sets out during the time of the judges, no (Ruth 1:1)? It points forward to the Davidic kingship, right (Ruth 4:17–22)? It centers around the Moabite Ruth and Israelite Naomi, yes? What importance is Genesis to the book of Ruth? Heritage, and not just the Davidic and Messianic kind.
Take the heavily discussed Chapter 3 of Ruth in the threshing floor discourse as a way to further our conversation here. Ruth (at Naomi's goading) sneaks off into the night—washed and anointed—and lies at the feet of Boaz (Ruth 3:1–6). The scene can easily be read as sensually tense, filled with sexual innuendos.
Theologians and laypersons alike have argued left and right over whether Ruth and Boaz had any sexual activity that evening. What does Genesis add to this conversation, you ask? Heritage expectation.
Contextualizing Boaz: Ruth 4:17–21 notes that Boaz comes from the line of Perez. Genesis provides context around how Boaz's line came from Perez. Perez is the son of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38; see also Ruth 4:12, 18). What happened in the biblical narrative found in Genesis 38? A woman, Tamar, was left without a husband and no way to bring forth offspring (Gen. 38:6–11).
After her husband dies and an attempt toward a resolution comes from one of Judah's other sons, nothing happens. Tamar, faced with the possibility of being alone, having no familial line, and nothing and no one else to protect and provide for her in such a historical time, takes matters into her own hands.
She covers herself, goes to the entrance by the road, and Judah (mistaking her for a prostitute by her covering, Gen. 38:15) approaches her. As things progress, Judah does not question who this woman is. Judah only vocalizes an arrangement for them to come together. Surely, if Judah had known it was Tamar, he would not have progressed forward. Alas alack, things progress, and Tamar via Judah conceives of Perez —> leading eventually to Boaz.
Contextualizing Ruth: All throughout the book of Ruth the discourse reminds the reader that Ruth comes from the Moabites. Where did the Moabites come from? Genesis gives some context here too—Lot and his daughters (Gen. 19:37).
Why is this interesting? Let's note some of the circumstances. Faced with a post-Sodom and Gomorrah life, the daughters of Lot are in a cave with their father (Gen. 19:30). They're distressed. They no longer have family (husbands, possible suitors, etc.). They want to preserve their family line but don't have a way to do so (Gen. 19:30–38). So in the dark, in the cave, and after their father has had some wine, the daughters sequentially sleep with their father. They take action into their own hands.
What's missing from this instance? Dialogue. Lot says nothing according to Scripture. No "Who are you, women?" Like Judah, Lot is faced with a sensual context, no information on the females, and yet continues onward. Like Judah, Lot does not question who it is he is sleeping with. One of Lot's daughters thereby conceives a son whom she names "Moab," father of the Moabites (Gen. 19:36) —> leading eventually to Ruth.
You may still be asking the question, so what? Interesting heritage, sure. But what does this really provide us? If we didn't have Genesis, we would still know of the Moabites Ruth descended from and know of Perez concerning Boaz. What use does the narrative context provide us from Genesis? Genesis 19 and 38 tell of women who are now widows taking matters into their own hands, confronting men who remain passive and ask not who the women are before them. We have expectations of a type-scene, and the book of Ruth contains similar circumstances.
When the threshing floor scene commences, similar things are brewing. Ruth, from Moab, is now a widow and without a child to continue the family line. There is nothing she can do, so she takes things into her own hands. She gets ready and goes into the night to the threshing floor and lies at Boaz's feet.
Boaz, similar to Perez and Lot, has an overtly sensual context approaching him. Ruth, like Tamar and Lot's daughters, has a dire situation encompassing her. What happens next? Readers of the narrative who recall Genesis 19 and 38 may a particular set of expectations. Isn't it obvious that Boaz will remain ignorant of the woman at his feet? Isn't it obvious that Ruth will conceive a child after this meeting on the threshing floor?
Expectations shatter at the sound of dialogue.
Boaz, instead of following expectations, asks the breaking question, "Who are you?" (Ruth 3:9). Ruth doesn't follow up by simply attempting a sexual advancement. She shatters expectations, too, by engaging in dialogue (Ruth 3:9). Without the narrative context and content found in the book of Genesis, a reader wouldn't be able to see the type-scene shift that occurs in Ruth Chapter 3. The scene would solely contain sexual innuendos without explanation shaped by the greater metanarrative of Scripture—in this example, Genesis 19 and 38.
Knowing the narratives surrounding Ruth and Boaz's heritages provides greater clarity to understanding the threshing floor discourse. The history, artistry, and theology of Scripture must be discussed together.
The church needs the book of Genesis.
Rather not pay for a subscription but would like to buy me some writing fuel?