Elimelech wnd Naomi in the Country of Moab

v. 1. Now, it came to pass, in the days when the judges ruled, some hundred and fifty years before the reign of David, that there was a famine in the land, an affliction threatened by the Lord, Deu 28:22-24, and sent from time to time as a punishment of Israel’s iniquity in committing idolatry. And a certain man of Bethlehem-judah, the town afterward famous as the birthplace of our Lord, went to sojourn, to live as an alien, in the country of Moab, literally, “in the fields”; for the entire territory was conceived to have been divided into fields for agricultural purposes, he, and his wife, and his two sons. It may well have been that importations of grain from Egypt were cut off by the hostility of the Philistines, and that the inhabitants of Judah, therefore, were almost obliged to turn to the country east of the Dead Sea, although the Moabites belonged to the ancient enemies of Israel.

v. 2. And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah, natives of the region, Ephratah being the ancient name of the city and its vicinity. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there, they were there for some time.

v. 3. And Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left and her two sons. The first affliction which befell her was that her husband died in the strange country.

v. 4. And they took them wives of the women of Moab, an act surely not in conformity with Deu 23:3-4, although the Moabites are not expressly mentioned Deu 7:3; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. And they dwelled there about ten years; that was the total length of the sojourn of Naomi. Although the sojourn of this Jewish family in the Moabite country did not prove productive of the blessings which they had anticipated, as the undertaking evidently was not in accordance with the will of God, yet the result was one highly beneficial to at least one of the Moabite women, so that, by God’s merciful kindness, it served a great end.

v. 5. And Mahlon and Chilion died also, both of them, Naomi thus having neither husband, sons, nor property, nor were there grandchildren. And the woman was left of her two sons and her husband. Thus God often lays a cross upon His children and chastises them severely, in order to bind them more securely to Himself.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Rth 1:1

Now it came to pass. Or, more literally, “And it came to pass.” The “And” is somewhat remarkable, standing at the commencement of the Book. But as it is also found at the commencement of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezekiel, Esther, and Ezra, its use, though inartistic, must be amenable to some literary law. The Books specified, even including Ezekiel, are historical They are parcels of history, each narrating events that had their genesis in more or less significant antecedent occurrences. This historical genesis, so very different from an “absolute commencement” of things, is indicated, though probably in unreflective spontaneity, by the copulative “And.” In the days when the judges ruled. Or, more literally, “when the judges judged.” In primitive times there was no function that was more important for society than that of judiciously settling disputes between man and man. Every such settlement, besides conferring a benefit on society, and in particular on the individuals at variance, would increase the moral influence and social elevation of the judge. By and by his moral and social superiority would, in favorable circumstances, grow into authority, specifically judicial on the one hand, and generically political, or semi-political, on the other. When military prowess and skill in strategy were added, a ruler, champion, or leader would be the result. Many such leaders rose up among the Hebrews ere yet society was compactly organized. They were vanously endowed; but most of them were only very partially equipped for the judicious administration of the affairs of the commonwealth. All, however, were called judges; and the discharge of their high duties was denominated judging, even when it was entirely inconspicuous as regards judicial ability or judicious determinations. The Hebrew word for judge is shofet; and it is an interesting evidence of the very close kinship of Hebrew and Phoenician, that in Carthage the chief magistrate, as we learn from Livy and other Roman writers, was called sufes (originally, as we see from the inflection, sufet). That there was a famine. An admirable though free rendering. In the original the structure of the whole statement is exceedingly primitive and “agglutinative”And (it) was in the days of the judging of the judges, and (there) was a famine. In the land. Namely, of Israel. The non-specification of the particular country referred to is evidence that the writer was living in it, as one at home. Josephus says that it was under the judgeship of Eli, the high priest, that the famine spoken of occurred (‘Antiquities,’ 5.9, 1). But here the historian speaks “without book,” and without any particular plausibility. Several expositors, such as Bishop Patrick, have antedated, by a very long way, the calculation of Josephus They would assign the famine to the period when the Midianites and Amalekites came up, “as grasshoppers for multitude, to destroy the land,” so that Israel was greatly impoverished (see Jdg 6:1-40.). But it is in vain to multiply guesses. The date of the famine is not given, and it is futile to make inquisition for it. And a certain man. The interpolation of the individualizing word “certain“ is quite uncalled for, and now quite archaic. The simplicity of the original is sufficient, “And a man. Of Bethlehem–judah. Or, as it might be still more literally represented, “of Bethlehem, Judah.” Them is no such single name as Bethlehem-judah. There is only the apposition, for discrimination’s sake, of one geographical name to another, just as we may say, in English, Boston, Lincolnshire, or Alexandria, Dumbartonshire. The localization of the main name is thus effectually indicated. There is another Alexandria in Egypt; there is another Boston in the United States of America; and there was in Palestine another Bethlehem, namely, in the canton of Zebulun (see Jos 19:15). Bethlehem, Judah, lies about six miles to the south of Jerusalem. “Its appearance,” says Dr. Porter, “is striking. It is situated on a narrow ridge, which projects eastward from the central mountain range, and breaks down in abrupt terraced slopes to deep valleys on the north, east, and south. The terraces, admirably kept, and covered with rows of olives, intermixed with the fig and the vine, sweep in graceful curves round the ridge, regular as stairs”. The valleys below are exceptionally fertile, and have been so from time immemorial. Hence indeed the name Beth-lehem, or Bread-house. Its modern name is Beit-lahm, or Flesh-house. Went to sojourn in the land of Moab. We have no word in English that exactly, corresponds to the verb rendered sojourn. The cognate noun is uniformly translated, in King James’s version, stranger, and means foreigner. The verb means to dwell as a foreigner, but its root-idea is yet undetermined. The Latin peregrinari admirably corresponds. The man of Bethlehem, Judah, went forth from his own country to “peregrinate” (Greek, ) “in the land of Moab;” literally, “in the fields of Moab,” that is, “in the pastoral parts of the territory of Moab.” It was not a very great way off, this land of his “peregrination.” Its blue mountains, rising up luridly beyond the silver thread of the Jordan and the gleaming expanse of the Dead Sea, are distinctly visible from the Mount of Olives and the heights about Bethlehem. He, and his wife, and his two sons. The resumptive he is employed for the purpose of linking on to him, in his “peregrination, the other members of the little household. He emigrated “along with his wife and two sons.” He had fought hard to keep the wolf of hunger from his door, but was like to be beaten. One after another the props of his hope that better days would soon dawn had been swept from under him, and he saw no alternative but to leave for a season the land of his fathers.

Rth 1:2

And the name of the man was Elimelech. That is, “God is King,” not, as the older critics were accustomed to interpret it, “My God is King.” The intermediate i is not the possessive pronoun, but the vowel of union. The name would be originally significant of strong religious Sentiments, perhaps mingled with strong political principles. The imposition of it on a son would be something like a manifesto of the father’s creed. And the name of his wife Naomi. Or rather “No-o-mi.” The precise import of the word is not absolutely ascertained; but it is probable that it is somewhat abbreviated in its terraination, and means “God is sweet,” or, very literally, “Jab is sweetness.” It had been originally imposed as a name by some grateful and happy mother, who, by gracious providences, or by other gracious revelations, had been led to think that “sweet are the ways, sweet are the dealings, and sweet is the character of God.” The word does not mean beautiful, as some suppose; nor gracious, as others suppose; nor my delight, as others still suppose. It was not intended to describe the character of the person who was to bear the name. It was intended to signalize, in the spirit of a manifesto, a much-prized feature in the Divine characterthat feature, namely, that is displayed when “he deals sweetly with men.” Gesenius is doubtless right when he makes sweetness the fundamental idea of the whole group of affiliated words (see his ‘Thesaurus,’ in voc.). The cognate Hebrew adjective is rendered sweet in 2Sa 23:1 and Pro 23:8. In the light of this interpretation, and of it alone, can the full significance of what Naomi said on her return to Bethlehem be apprehended: “Call me not Naomi, call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me” (Pro 23:20). And the name of his two sons. In our idiom we should say, “and the names of his two sons.” The two sons, however, were for the moment regarded as a unity among the other units of the household. Mahlon, or rather “Machlon,” and Chillon. We need not dip deeply into the etymological import of these names, or attach to them, as applied to Elimelech’s children, any peculiar significance. The names, unlike those of the parents, are devoid of theological tinge, and, in these modern times at all events, their import is liable to endless debate. One would at the first blush of consideration suppose that the one meant sickliness, and the other consumptiveness, or consumptionrather uninteresting and melancholy ideas. But they are peculiarly confounding when we consider that the individuals, so named in our story, had apparently inherited a delicate constitution, which developed in both of them into premature sickliness and decay. The names have the aspect of being prophetic. And yet, even though we should assume that Elimelech, in virtue of some element of bodily delicacy, was afflicted with feelings of morbid despondency, it is hard to come to the conclusion that he would deliberately stereotype his most hypochondriacal anticipations in the names of his children. The probability is, that the names, as names, would originally have some other import, Dr. Cassel supposes that they meant, respectively, joy and ornament; but he trusts to impossible etymologies. Raabe, taking his cue from Sanskrit roots, interprets the one thus “He who brings gifts with him;” and the other thus”He who conceals his wife in his house.” Warner, taking his cue from Chaldea cognates, interprets the former of the two names as meaning ready to forgive, and the latter as holding forth the idea of hopeful. All of them unlikely derivations. And yet something quite distinct from the ideas of sickliness and consumption, but lying so far on parallel lines of thought, may be conceived. The primary import of , the root of Machlon, is apparently to be tender. Thence the word came by one line of thought to mean to be physically tender, that is, to be sick; and by another that runs out in Chaldea it came to mean to be morally teenier, to be mild or forgiving. Machlon may mean mildness or tender-heartedness. Again, the primary idea of , the root of Chillon, is to complete. But, besides the completion that is realized in consuming, consumption, or ending, there is moral completeness, the completeness or finish that is realized in perfection (see Psa 119:96 : “I have seen an end of all perfection“). This idea of beautiful completeness, or perfection, is more likely to be the meaning of the name than the idea of consumptiveness, or consumption. Ephrathitas of Bethlehem Judah. It is not simply the two sons who are so designated. It is the whole group. They were Ephrathites, that is, Bethlehemites, for the old name of Bethlehem was Ephrath, or Ephratha. As, however, the word Ephrathite also meant Ephraimite (see Jdg 12:5; 1Sa 1:1; and 1Ki 11:26), it gave precision to the designation, although at the expense of a little redundancy, to say “Ephrathites of Bethlehem Judah.” And they came into the country of Moab. The Hebrew emigrants reached the fields or pastoral terrgtory of Moab. And continued there. The phrase in the original is of primitive simplicity”and were there.” It has been asked by theological critics whether Elimelech was justifiable in removing to an “idolatrous country” to avoid the inconveniences of a famine in the land of his nativity. It is enough to say in reply that there is no hint in the text itself that the step taken was blamable or blamed. “No man ought,” says Lawson, “to be condemned, whether dead or alive, without proofs of guilt; and no certain proofs of guilt appear in the present case.” “The beam of Elimelech’s judgment,” says Dr. Thomas Fuller, “is justly weighed down to go from Bethlehem, Judah, into the land of Moab.”

Rth 1:3-5

“In these words,” says Fuller, “we have two marriages ushered and followed by funerals.”

Rth 1:3

And Elimelech Naomi’s husband died. Apparently soon after the settlement of the family. No details, however, are given, as, on the one hand, no blame is attached to the conduct of Elimelech, and as, on the other, the line of biographical interest runs in another direction. And she was left, and her two sons. Not only was the mother her husband’s relict; they were all left behind. He had gone somewhither in advance, and they “remained.” So the word is frequently rendered.

Rth 1:4

And they took to themselves wives of the women of Moab. It was their own act. Josephus, reproducing the narrative from memory, represents the event as occurring in the father’s lifetime, and as brought about by his arrangement. He says of Elimelech, “Coming into the territory of Moab, he sojourns there, and, things prospering according to his mind, he gives in marriage to his sons ( ) Moabitish wives.” Theological critics have here again raised the question, Was it sinful in these emigrant Hebrews to take in marriage daughters of the land? The Chaldee Targumist did not hesitate in his decision. He begins his paraphrase of the verse, thus”And they transgressed the edict of the word of the Lord, and took to themselves alien wives of the daughters of Mesh.” Dr. Thomas Fuller represents Naomi as passionately remonstrating with her sons. He says of himself, “My mouth denieth to be the orator of an unjust action.” “Nothing can be brought,” he adds, “for the defense of these matches. Something may be said for the excuse of them, but that fetched not from piety, but from policy.” It is note worthy, however, that in the text itself, and throughout the entire Book, there is nothing of the nature of condemnation, not the least hint of blame. There was a law, indeed, which laid an interdict upon marriages with Canaanites (see Deu 7:3). But these Canaanites occupied a peculiar relation to the Hebrews. They were within the line of that Canaan which had become the land of Israel. Israelites and Canaanites were thus living within the same borders as rival claimants of the same territory. It was no wonder that the Canaanites’ claim was not to be recognized by the Hebrews. The Moabites, however, living within the lines or “coasts” of their own distinct territory, stood in quite a different relation. And while, for purity’s sake, great restrictions were to be laid upon all overtures for naturalization (Deu 23:3-6), yet the law could never he intended to apply to the families of Hebrews who were settlers in Moab, or to Moabitish females living in their own land, and rather awarding than seeking the prerogatives’ of natives. The name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth. No doubt native Moabitish names. Much ingenuity has been expended on that of the more interesting person. Some have unwarrantably assumed that Ruth is a contraction of the Hebrew word meaning a female companion or friend. Still more unwarrantable, though more captivating to the aesthetic imagination, is the signification which is given to the word by Weruer and Eadie, namely, beauty. It is founded on an impossible derivation from the Hebrew . Still more aesthetically captivating is the conjecture of Cassel, that the name is the ancient Semitic form of the Indo-European word rodon or rose. “At all events,” says he, “the thought of Ruth as the Rose of Moab is in itself too attractive not to be proposed as a conjecture.” It is certainly, most attractive and most admirable as a jeu d’esprit, but too imaginative to be vindicated on grounds of comparative philology. And they dwelt there. Or, “settled themselves there; literally, “sat them.” We still call a gentleman’s mansion his seat. About ten years, which, however, are treated by the writer as a mere blank in his story. He hastens on.

Rth 1:5

And, to make a long story short, Machlon and Chillon died also both of them. “Like green apples,” says Fuller, “cudgelled off the tree.” But why “cudgelled?” There is no evidence in the text of Divine displeasure, and the Christian expositor, when going beyond the text in quest of principles, should not forget the tower of Siloam, and the victims of Pilate s bloodthirstiness (see Luk 13:1-5). And the woman was left of her two children and of her husband. That is, “of her two children as well as of her husband.” She became as it were their relict too. She remained behind after they had gone on before. If all sentiment were to be taken out of the expression, it might then be simply said, in very commonplace prose, she survived them. Poor woman! “Of the two sexes,” says Fuller, “the woman is the weaker; of women, old women are most feeble; of old women, widows most woeful; of widows, those that are poor, their plight most pitiful; of poor widows, those who want children, their case most doleful; of widows that want children, those that once had them, and after lost them, their estate most desolate; of widows that have had children, those that are strangers in a foreign country, their condition most comfortless. Yet all these met together in Naomi, as in the center of sorrow, to make the measure of her misery pressed down, shaken together, running over. I conclude, therefore, many men have had afflictionnone like Job; many women have had tribulationnone like Naomi.”

HOMILETICS

Rth 1:1-5

The emigrants and their trials.

We are introduced to the Hebrew family into which the Moabitess Ruth was married.

I. THE BEAUTIFUL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAMES of both the Hebrew parents.

II. THE WOLF OF HUNGER HAD COME PROWLING TO THE HEBREWS‘ DOOR. In those conditions of society in which there is little commerce to unite people to people, or when a city is in a state of siege, the consequences of famine are inexpressibly sad and harrowing. Examples:The recurring famines in India; the famine in Jerusalem when besieged by the Romans, and as narrated by Josephus: the famine in Leyden, when that city was, in 1573, besieged by the Spaniards, and when one of the patriotic magistratesa noble soulsaid to the hungry and mutinous people, “Friends, here is my body. Divide it among you to satisfy your hunger, but banish all thoughts of surrendering to the cruel and perfidious Spaniard. As commerce, however, grows under the fostering care of those Christian influences that aim at realizing the brotherhood of all earth’s nations, local famines become more and more amenable to control and neutralization.

III. THE HEBREW FAMILY WAS CONSTRAINED TO EMIGRATE. Many tender ties get ruptured when emigration takes place. But the heart is pulled onward by new hopes. Consider the importance of emigration from old and over-crowded countries to the numerous rich fields lying fallow abroad. These fields are just awaiting the presence of the cultivator to pour forth into the lap of industry overflowing riches of food for the teeming millions of mother countries, and corresponding riches of raw material for the skilled and skilful hands of manufacturers.

IV. THE EMIGRANTS SEEM TO HAVE GOT A CORDIAL WELCOME IN MOAB. It was creditable to the Moabites. Kindness and sympathy should always be shown to strangers, and to all who are far removed from the sweet influences of home.

V. MORTALITY SOON SADLY RAVAGED THE HEBREW HOME. All are mortal. All must die. But in Christ”the Resurrection and the Life”we may get the victory even over death. He has “brought life and immortality to light.” He who believeth in Him “shall never see death” (Joh 8:51; Joh 11:26). He “hath,” and “shall have,” everlasting life.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

On the Book of Ruth.

That the Book of Ruth is included in the canon of Scripture need excite no surprise.

I. IT IS A CHAPTER FROM THE HISTORY OF THE HUMAN HEART. Contrast it with the Book of Judges, to which it is a supplement, and which records feats of arms, deeds of heroism, treachery, violence, and murder. Here we are led aside from the highway of Hebrew history into a secluded by-path, a green lane of private life. Here are simple stories of heart and home. In human life, home, with its affections and relationships, plays an important part. In this Book we have a glimpse into the domestic life of Israel, with its anxieties, sorrows, and sweetness. Women and children, honest work and homely talk; deaths, births, and marriages; loves, memories, and prayers, are all here. The Bible is the book of man as God has made him.

II. IT IS A RECORD OF HUMAN VIRTUE, AND THE PROVIDENTIAL CARE AND REWARD ASSURED TO VIRTUE. Human kindness, filial piety, affectionate constancy, uncomplaining toil, true chastity, sweet patience, strong faith, noble generosity, simple pietyare all here, and they are all observed by God, and are shown to be pleasing to him, who rewards them in due time.

III. IT IS A PROOF OF THE SUPERIORITY OF HUMANITY TO NATIONALITY. The Hebrews are often blamed for intense exclusiveness and bigotry, yet no ancient literature is so liberal and catholic as the inspired books of the Old Testament. This narrative shows no trace of national narrowness; it proves that “God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” A pure and gentle Moabitess is welcomed into a Hebrew home.

IV. IT SUPPLIES A LINK IN THE CHAIN OF THE GENEALOGY OF DAVID, AND OF THAT SON OF DAVID WHO WAS DAVID‘S LORD. Ruth was one of three foreign women whose names are preserved in the table of our Lord’s descent from Abraham.T.

Rth 1:1, Rth 1:2

A family of Bethlehem.

This Book is precious as a record of domestic life. The peaceful, prosperous, happy home of the Ephrathite is rather suggested than described.

I. The TIME and STATE of society. “The days when the judges ruled.” The preceding Book enables us to picture what times of unsettlement, and occasionally of anarchy, these were. The customs of the time were primitive, and the habits of the people were simple. The elders sat at the gates of the little city. Business was transacted with primitive simplicity. The tranquil course of agricultural life diversified by a feast at sheep-shearing, or a mirthful harvest-home.

II. The SCENE. “Bethlehem-judah.” The fields of Bethlehem, in the territory of Judah, are among the classic, the sacred spots of earth.

1. In Old Testament history. The home of Boaz; the scene of Ruth’s gleaning, and of her marriage. In these pastures was trained, in the household of Jesse, and among his stalwart sons, the youthful David, who became the hero and the darling, the minstrel and the king, of Israel.

2. In New Testament history. Between the pastures of Bethlehem and the stars of heaven was sung the angels’ song of good-will and peace. Hers was born the Son of David, who was the Son of God. The visit of the shepherds and the wise men. Herod’s massacre of the babes, &c.

III. The PURSUITS of rural life. In Bethlehem-Ephratah Elimelech had his inheritance. Here, for a time, he, like his fathers, tilled the fields and fed the flocks he owned in peace. Even in times of trouble and disorder some secluded spots are quiet; the bleating of the sheep is familiar, and the shouts of war are unheard. In most men’s breasts the scenes and pursuits of rural life are cherished; perhaps it is hereditary. “God made the country.” A simple and natural piety is fed by fellowship with nature, the work of God’s own hands.

IV. The PEACEFUL JOYS of home. In the sweet society of his wife Naomi (“the pleasant”), his young sons Mahlon and Chillon, growing by his side in stature and intelligence, the freeholder of Bethlehem passed the jocund days. How can we think and speak quite worthily of the family and the home? Here is the Divine nursery of the soul, the Divine school of life! Let us have no terms with the fanatics who would reconstruct society upon another basis than domestic life. The great lessongratitude to Providence for peace, congenial occupation, and a happy home.T.

Rth 1:1, Rth 1:2

Famine and impoverishment.

The former scene one bright and joyous. An honest Hebrew, of the tribe of Judah, living upon the land of his inheritance, with the wife of his heart and the children of his youth. Thus were formed the bonds which prosperity could not dissolve and adversity could not snap. Here were learned the hereditary and traditional lessons of faith, patience, forbearance, piety, and hope. A contrast follows.

I. FAMINE. Probably from some incursion of the hostile forces of Midian into the vale of Bethlehem; or, if not so, from a succession of bad harvests, or a failure of pasture, scarcity and famine invaded the abodes of plenty and of peace.

II. IMPOVERISHMENT. Upon Elimelech the pressure of the times was peculiarly severe, compelling him to break up his home, quit the modest but cherished inheritance of his fathers, and seek subsistence elsewhere.

Lessons:

1. Change of circumstances is a common incident in human life. Every person has either experienced some such change, or has witnessed such reverse in the condition of kindred or acquaintance. A fall from comfort, or even affluence, to poverty frequently happens among occupiers, and even owners, of land, and still more frequently in manufacturing and commercial communities.

2. Religion teaches sympathy with those in reduced circumstances. When a neighbor is deprived not only of the usual conveniences of life, but of the means of educating his children and of providing for his old age, we should net offer reproach, or even cold, hard advice, but, if possible, substantial help, and always considerate sympathy.

3. Religion has consolation for those in adversity. A message from heaven bids them “be of good cheer!” Let diligence and frugality contend with circumstances! Be patient and uncomplaining, and avoid that sign of a petty and broken spirit, the dwelling fondly upon bygone prosperity! The sun of prosperity may yet break through the clouds. Even if it be not so appointed, there may still remain those blessings which are dearer than fortune’s giftswife, child, a good conscience, health, fortitude, hope I If calamity has come upon you through your own fault, repent, and learn “the sweet uses of adversity.” If through the fault of others, refrain your heart from malice and revenge, and your lips from cursing. Think rather of what Heaven has left than of what Heaven has taken. “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” Remember that, if Christians, “all things are yours!”T.

Rth 1:1, Rth 1:2

Emigration.

Picture the removal of this family from the home they loved. Taking with them, it may be, the remnant of their cattle, they bade adieu to the familiar scenes where they had known content and plenty, where they had formed their friendships and alliances. The best prospect for them lay towards the east, and eastwards accordingly they traveled. Whether they struck southwards by the foot of the Salt Sea, or crossed the Jordan at the ford, they must soon have reached the verdant highlands of Moab. Here it was, they were to seek a settlement and make a home.

I. THESE CHANGES OF ABODE ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT. Migrations have at all times been common among pastoral, nomadic people. The tillers of the soil and the dwellers in cities have been more stationary. Emigration a great fact in the social life of Britain in our time. Owing to the increase of population, to geographical discovery, to the application of steam to ocean voyages, emigration common among our artisan and agricultural classes. Some become colonists through the pressure of the times; others from love of adventure, and desire for a freer life. All of us have friends who have emigrated. Thus God replenishes his earth.

II. THESE CHANGES AFFECT DIFFERENTLY DIFFERENT PERSONS. Naomi would feel the severance most keenly, and would look forward with least interest and hope to new surroundings and acquaintances. Her sons would not realize the bitterness of change; the novelty of the circumstances would naturally excite and charm them. Picture the emigrants, the friends they leave behind, the scenes awaiting them, etc.

III. THESE CHANGES SHOULD BE WATCHED BY CHRISTIANS WITH WISE AND PRAYERFUL INTEREST. Remember that the undecided are yonder free from many restraints. By prayer and correspondence seek to retain them under the power of the truth. Guide emigration into hopeful channels; induce colonists to provide for themselves the word of God, the means of education, the ministry of the gospel.T.

Rth 1:3

Widowhood.

In the country of Moab Elimelech and his family found a home. A period of repose seems to have been granted them. They learned to reconcile themselves to new scenes and associations. But life is full of vicissitude. “Boast not thyself of tomorrow.” O, to live as those whose treasure and whose heart are above! “Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left.” A brief, pathetic record!

I. The widow’s SORROW. The observation of all, the experience of some hearers, may fill up the outline. In every social circle, in every religious assembly, are women who have been called upon to part with those upon whom they had leaned for support and guidance, to whom they gave their hearts in youth, to whom they had borne sons and daughters.

II. The widow’s LOT. It is often one of hardship and trouble. As in the case before us, it may be aggravated by

1. Poverty.

2. Distance from home and friends.

3. The charge and care of children, who, though a blessing, are a burden and responsibility.

III. The widow’s CONSOLATION.

1. The promise of God: “Thy Maker is thy husband.”

2. Opportunity of Christian service.

How different the widow’s condition in Christian communities from that of such among the heathen! The honor and the work of “widows indeed.”

Lessons:

1. Submission and patience under bereavement.

2. Sympathy with the afflicted and desolate.T.

Rth 1:4

Marriage.

The notes of time found in this narrative are meager. It is not easy to decide to what the “ten years “here mentioned refer. After the death of Elimelech, the two sons were spared to be the occupation and the solace of the widow’s life. Naomi saw them grow up to manhood. Then the young men “took them wives of the women of Moab.”

I. MARRIAGE IS LAWFUL BETWEEN PERSONS OF DIFFERENT NATIONS. There was nothing in the law of Moses to prevent these young men from acting as they did, although the children of Israel were not allowed to intermarry with the Canaanites. Later in Jewish history Nehemiah interpreted the law as forbidding marriage with the children of Moab, But he seems to have acted with unjust severity. These Moabitish women were virtuous, kind, devoted; conformed to the religion of their husbands, and one of them found a solid satisfaction in the worship of Jehovah. The conduct of the young men seems to have been natural and blameless.

II. MARRIAGE SHOULD ONLY BE–ENTERED UPON AFTER SERIOUS AND PRAYERFUL DELIBERATION, AND WITH A CONVICTION OF ITS ACCEPTABLENESS TO GOD. Sensible and Christian people should discountenance the practice of treating marriage with levity. Consideration should be given to time, to circumstances, and, above all, to character. Confidence and esteem must be, with affection, the basis of wedded happiness; and these cannot exist in their completeness where there is dissimilarity of conviction and aimwhere one party is living to the world, and the other would live unto the Lord. Error here involves misery, and perhaps disaster and ruin.

Lessons:

1. Let elders inculcate just views of the marriage relationship upon the young.

2. Let the young avoid committing themselves to a contract of marriage until a fair experience of life has been acquired.

3. Let Christians marry “only in the Lord.”T.

Rth 1:5

Double desolation.

In the happiness of her children Naomi would revive the happy years of her own early married life. But the bright sky was soon clouded over by the shadow of death. Perhaps inheriting their father’s constitution, her sons died in early manhood. She became a childless widow. Three widows were in one house, each bearing in her silent heart her own burden of grief.

I. SOME ARE CALLED UPON TO ENDURE REPEATED BEREAVEMENTS. Households there are which have been visited again and again by the angel of death. Youthful lives are snapped asunder; youthful hearts are left desolate. Some are called upon to endure prolonged age, whilst children and friends, the joy of their hearts, are taken from them. Here and there is one who can exclaim, “All thy waves and thy billows are gone over me.”

II. FOR SUCH GOD HAS PROMISES OF GRACE AND PURPOSES OF MERCY.

1. The assurances of the Divine remembrance and kindness. “The mountains shall depart,” etc.

2. The sympathy of the Divine High Priest. The miracle of the raising of the widow’s son at Nain is an illustration.

3. Grace of submission shall be imparted. “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”

4. Intentions of Divine wisdom shall be accomplished. Thus shall the heart be weaned from earth; thus shall Christian character be matured; thus shall saints be prepared for glory. How can the vicissitudes of life be borne by those who are strangers to Christian principles, to Christian consolations, to Christian hopes? May ours be the happy lot of the Christian, from whom (as from all the children of men) the future is hidden; but who knows himself to be the object of a Father’s love and a Savior’s care, and to whose heart comes day by day a voice from heaven, saying, “I will never leave thee! I will never forsake thee!”T.

HOMILIES BY W.M. STATHAM

Rth 1:1

“In the days when the judges ruled.” This is the age in which the story happened which constitutes Ruth’s history, beautiful as an epic, and touching as a pathetic drama of home life. The judges. Whether the earlier or later we know not. Whether in the days of Deborah or the days of Gideon. Probably, however, the latter, as history tells then of a famine through the invasion of the Midianites. The judges. Religion means law, order, mutual respect, and, with all diversity of circumstance, equality in the eyes of the law. A nation that perverts justice has undermined the foundations of the commonwealth.

I. ALL JUDGES ARE REPRESENTATIVES AND INTERPRETERS OF THE LAW. They are not creators of it; they are not allowed to govern others according to their own will, but they are to be fair and wise interpreters of the national jurisprudence. Law is a beautiful thing if it is founded on the Divine sanctions; it means protection for the weak, safety for the industrious.

II. THE BEST ADMINISTRATION CANNOT MEET THE WANT CAUSED BY WARS. Famine came! The Midianites came up and “destroyed the increase of the earth.” “And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites.” Here are the old border wars. Nature was as beautiful as ever, and the flowers of Palestine as fragrant, and the corn as golden; but the enameled cup of the flower was soon filled with the blood of slaughter, and the beautiful sheaves were pillaged to supply the overrunning enemies of Israel. Such is the heart of man. In every age out of that come forth wars; and although modern legislation is enabled to fill the empty granary from other shores, yet in the main it still remains true, war means, in the end, not only bloodshed and agony, but want.

III. ALL EARTHLY RULERSHIP IS THE SYMBOL OF A HIGHER GOVERNMENT, As the fatherly relationship is symbolical of the Divine Fatherhood, and the monarchical of the Divine King, so the earthly judge is to be the emblem of a Divine Ruler, whose reign is righteousness, and who hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world. There are schools of thought that question human responsibility, that teach a doctrine of irresistible law, the predicate of which is, that sin is not so much criminal or vicious, as the result of innate tendencies which come under the dominion of resistless inclinations. But it is to be noticed that these teachers would not excuse the thief who has robbed them, or the murderer who has slain their child. To be consistent, however, they ought; for they object to punishment in the plan of the Divine government. Human instinct, however, and Divine revelation are at one in this; alike they ask, “Wherefore should a man complain, a man for the punishment of his sin?” In all ages and amongst all races where society is secure, and progress real, and innocence safe, they are “those where the judges rule.”W.M.S.

Rth 1:1

“There was a famine in the land.” Providence led Elimelech, his wife Naomi, and his two sons Mahlon and Chillon, into the land of Moab, on the other side of Jordan. Whilst there was scarcity of bread in Israel, there was plenteous supply in Moab. So they left their fatherland and home in Bethlehem. We carry “home” with us when we go with wife and children. It is the exile’s solitary lot that is so sad. It is when God setteth the solitary in families, and the child is away from home in a foreign land, amongst strange faces, that the heart grows sick. We ought always to remember in prayer the exile and the stranger. Sometimes, amongst the very poor, a man has to go and seek substance far away from wife and child; but in this case sorrow was mitigated by mutual sympathy and help.

I. THERE ARE WORSE FAMINES THAN THIS. It was famine of another sort that led Moses from Egypt, when he feared not the wrath of the king, that he might enjoy the bread of God; and it was religious hunger that led the Pilgrim Fathers first to Amsterdam, and then to New England, that they might find liberty to worship God. In the day of famine we read Elimelech could not be satisfied. No. And it is a mark of spiritual nobility never to be contented where God is dishonored and worship demoralized. The word “Bethlehem” signifies the house of bread; but there was barrenness in the once wealthy place of harvest. And the name of Church cannot suffice when the place is no longer the house of God, which the word Church means.

II. IS THIS FAMINE ELIMILECH‘S NAME WAS A GUARANTEE OF GUIDANCE AND SUPPLY. It means, “My God is King.” Beautiful that. He reigns, and will cause all things to work together for good. Mark the words, My God; for as Paul says, “My God shall supply all your need.” King! Yes, “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof,” and he will not let his children want bread. They go without escort, but the Lord goes before them. There are no camels or caravanserai behind them, but the Lord God of Israel is their reward. So is Divine promise translated into family history.

III. THE TROUBLE THAT SEEMS LEAST LIKELY OFTEN COMES. Bread wanting in Bethlehem, “the house of bread.” Yes! But have not we often seen this? The sorrows of life are often such surprises. They do not take the expected form of the imagination, but they assume shapes which we never dreamed of. The king not only loses his crown, but becomes an exile and a stranger in a strange land. The rich man in health loses all in a night. A sudden flicker, and the lamp of health which’ always burned so brightly goes out in an hour.

IV. BETHLEHEM WAS A QUIET, RESTFUL ABODE. Nestling in its quiet beauty, ten miles or so from time-beloved Jerusalem, who would have thought that the golden ring of corn-fields which surrounded it would ever have been taken off its hand? Very early in history it was productive. Here Jacob fed his sheep in the olden times. Famine in a city impoverished and beleaguered we can understand; but famine in Bethlehem! So it is. The rural quietness does not always give us repose. There too the angel with the veiled face comesthe angel of grief and want and death. Happy those who have a Father in heaven who is also their Father and their King.W.M.S.

Rth 1:4, Rth 1:5

A foreign land.

“And they dwelled there about ten years.” Memorable years! Marriages and births had given place to separation and bereavement. Elimelech the father died; so also did the two sons Mahlon and Chillon. Thus we have the sad picture of three widows.

I. WE CAN FLY FROM FAMINE, BUT NOT FROM DEATH. We need not enter upon the argument of some expositors, as to whether Elimelech did right to leave Bethlehem; whether by famine is not meant insufficiency of plenty rather than actual want. We must be content with the fact that he thought it prudent and wise to go. And now with fullness of bread came the saddest experience of all. How often it happens that when circumstances improve, those we hoped to enjoy them with are taken away. We climb the hill together, and then with new and fair prospect comes the desolation of death amid the beauties and blessings of earth and sky. These are darker clouds than covered them in Bethlehem. We never know how dear are the living till they are gone; then we see it was their presence that gave life and peace to so many scenes, that gave inspiration to labor and sweetness to success.

II. TROUBLES OFTEN COME WAVE UPON WAVE. Ten years! and lo, three out of the four pilgrims are at rest. No more fatigue, no more distress for them. True; but those that are left! What of them? It is often easier to go than to remain. It is all summed up in the consciousness, I have but to live, and to live without them. Nor is this a morbid feeling. It is a most sacred emotion. True, time will alleviate; but there will always be graves in the heart, and men and women who have lost their beloved ones can never be the same again. Character will be softened, purified, elevated. Heaven will be nearer and dearer to the heart. Ten years! How fleetly they fly, and yet what a long volume of experience may be bound up in them.

III. EVERY HOME IS BUT AS A TENT LIFE. They dwelled there. Got used to the new people, the new skies, the new ways. After a time, to a family removed to another shore, there are always some tendrils gathering round the place, and in time they feel in leaving that a sense of loss. Strange as it all seemed at first, in time touches of experience make it homelike to them. Still the old first home, the dear village of childhood and youth, nestles in the heart. How many in life’s evening like to go back and live near the abode of the morning. We dwell! So it seems; and we look at the picture of the world’s life-pilgrimage as though, like some panorama, it was all outside us. But we pass onward too, and ere long grey hairs are here and there upon us, though we know it not. At times we look back. Ten years! And their experience is within us, as well as behind us.W.M.S.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Rth 1:1. It came to passwhen the judges ruled Though these words point out the general epocha of this event, yet they leave us at a loss to determine under what particular judge it happened. Bishop Usher places it in the 2686th year of the world, one hundred and thirty-three years after the conquest of Canaan. See his Chronolog. Sac. p. 1 Chronicles 12 and Jdg 6:3-4.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

CHAPTER FIRST

Rth 1:1-6

Distress in a Foreign Land

1Now [And] it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled [judged], that there was a famine in the land. And a certain [omit: certain] man of Beth-lehem-judah went to sojourn in the country [territories1] of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. 2And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi [Noomi],2 and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Beth-lehem-judah. And they came into the country [territories] of Moab, and continued [ lit. were, i. e., abode] there. 3And Elimelech Naomis husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. 4And they took them wives of the women of Moab [Moabitish wives]; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. 5And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them;3 and the woman was left [behind]4 of her two sons and her husband. 6Then she arose with her daughters-in-law, that she might return [and returned] from the country [territories] of Moab: for she had heard in the country [territory] of Moab how [omit: how] that the Lord [Jehovah] had visited his people in giving [to give] them bread.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[1 Rth 1:1.Prop. fields, plains. The form is variously explained. Bertheau regards it as another mode of writing , which occurs in Rth 1:6 of this chapter, and in Rth 4:3, and according to Wright is in many MSS. found here also. The original of nouns derived from stems frequently reappears before suffixes (Ges. Gr. 93, 9, Rem.), and Berth. thinks that the same change is occasioned by the close connection of the word with the following genitive (cf. Ges. 89, 1). Ewald also takes to be singular, but derives it from the ancient form , the construct of which might be after the analogy of const. ,, const. , etc. But is not found in Ruth, unless it be in the disguise of the construct, while occurs not less than nine times. Better, therefore, with Gesenius, Frst, and others, take as plural construct of . Keil proposes to make plural const. of , pl. (which however is not found anywhere); for what reason does not appear, unless it be that the plural of is usually feminine, whereas is masc. But such irregularities are not uncommon; see Green, Gr. 200, c. The interchange of the singular and plural is readily accounted for from the meaning of the word, which, according to the more or less definite conception in the mind of the writer at the moment, may represent the territory as one great field or as made up of many smaller fields.Tr.]

[2 Rth 1:2.: Noomi, as the name should be written. Sept. ; Vulg. Noemi.Tr.]

[3 Rth 1:5.Better: Then died they two also, Mahlon and Chilion.Tr.]

[4 Rth 1:5.: not, was left from, i. e. was bereaved of, as Wright (with the Vulgate) interprets,on the ground that the changes the simple meaning of the verb as found in Rth 1:3. has its proper partitive meaning, and points out the whole of which Naomi is now the only part left, cf. Deu 3:11; Neh 1:2-3. The enumeration of the whole is so far incomplete that it does not expressly include Naomi herself. In Rth 1:3 the verb is used without because there is there no direct reference to the whole, but only the statement that at the death of her husband, she and her sons were left behind.Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Rth 1:1. And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged. Nothing more definite is hereby expressed than that the occurrence about to be related took place in the time when there was yet no king in Israel. In those days there was no governor armed with imperative authority, who could help and discipline the whole people. Everybody did what he would, and helped himself in whatever way he thought best. Part of the tribe of Dan forsook the land in a body, because they were no longer pleased with it, and had no mind to overcome the remaining enemies; and Elimelech, an individual citizen, abandoned his home when the times became bad.

There was a famine in the land. No rain fell, and the crops did not prosper. Notwithstanding good and diligent cultivation, with which that at present observed in those parts is not to be compared, no harvests were reaped from those extensive grain-bearing plains which in good years produce abundant supplies.5 In such seasons of scarcity, southern Palestine naturally resorted to importations from Egypt, as, the history of Joseph has already shown. The increased prices, however, necessarily resulting from a failure of the home crops, pressed with two-fold weight on the less affluent among the people. And if, by hostilities on the part of the Philistines, or for any other reason, they were also cut off from the granaries of Egypt, nothing remained but to look for supplies to eastern countries. Even ancient Rome suffered famine whenever its connections with Egypt were interrupted, an occurrence which sometimes, as under Vespasian (Tacit. iii. 48, 5), involved serious political consequences.

The famine extended to the most fertile parts of the land, for it visited Bethlehem. The very name, House of Bread, bespeaks a good and fertile district. Even yet, notwithstanding poor cultivation, its soil is fruitful in olives, pomegranates, almonds, figs, and grapes (Ritter, xvi. 287 [Gages transl. iii. 341]). The region was remarkably well watered in comparison with other parts of Palestine.6 On this account, the name Ephratah, applied to Bethlehem and the country around it, is perhaps to be explained as referring to the fruitfulness insured by its waters.7

And a man went. The man left Bethlehem with his family in the time of famine, in order, during its continuance, to sojourn in the fertile territories of Moab, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, whither the calamity did not extend. For this the Jewish expositors rightly blame him. He left his neighbors and relatives in distress, in order to live in the land of the enemy; forsook his home, in order to reside as a stranger in Moab. If what he did was right, all Bethlehem should have done the same! The case stood very different, when Abraham for a like reason went to Egypt (Gen 12:10); for Abraham went with all his house, left no one behind, and was everywhere a stranger. But Isaac is already forbidden from adopting the same method of relief (Gen 26:2), and Jacob removes to Egypt, not on account of the famine, but because his lost Joseph has been found again. But this man undertakes, by his own strength and in selfish segregation from his fellows, to change the orderings of divine providence. The famine was ordained as a chastening discipline; but instead of repenting, he seeks to evade it by going to a foreign land. Whether this can be done, the ensuing narrative is about to show.

Rth 1:2. And the name of the man was Elimelech. His family was of importance in the tribe of Judah (cf. chaps. 2 and 3), well known in Bethlehem (Rth 1:19 ff; Rth 4:1 ff.), and by no means poor (Rth 1:21). The names of its members may be held to testify to the same effect. In accordance with the spirit of Israelitish life, they may be supposed to reflect those obvious peculiarities which popular discernment remarked in the persons of those who bore them. The man is named Elimelech, my God is King. All names compounded with melech, king, with which we are acquainted, Abimelech, Ahimelech, etc., are borne by distinguished persons. Now, it was precisely in contest with a king of Moab, Eglon, that Israel had experienced that God is king; and yet, here an Elimelech withdraws himself from the favor of God in order to live in Moab! His wifes name was Naomi, the lovely, gracious one. The name unquestionably corresponded to the character. Whoever is loved as she was, and that by daughters-in-law, is most certainly worthy of love. As to the names of the sons, Mahlon and Chilion, the derivations which make them signify sickly and pining, suggested perhaps by their subsequent fate, are undoubtedly erroneous. For, surely, they bore them already when in Bethlehem, after leaving which they continued in life over ten years in Moab. It is much more likely that by these names, bestowed at birth, the parents expressed the feeling that these sons were their joy and ornament. Mahlon (properly Machlon) may then be derived from , machol, circle-dance, Greek choros. Comp. 1Ki 4:31, where Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, are called sons of Machol; and in Greek, Choregis or Chorokles, from choros. In like manner, Chilion8 (or rather Kilion), may, like , kallah, a bride, be referred to , to crown. The name would thus signify coronatus, just as kallah (bride) signifies a coronata. It is particularly stated that they are Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah. Ephratah was the ancient name of Bethlehem and the region around it. Accordingly, Ephrathites are natives of the city, persons properly belonging to the tribe of Judah, not mere residents in Bethlehem from other tribes (cf. Jdg 17:7).9 So David also, by a use of the word in obvious accord with this passage, is spoken of as the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem-judah (1Sa 17:12); and the prophet, when he announces Him who in the future is to come out of Bethlehem, expressly speaks of Bethlehem-Ephratah (Mic 5:1). For the same reason, the full name Bethlehem-judah is constantly used, in order to prevent any confusion with Bethlehem in Zebulun (Jos 19:15; cf. Com. on Jdg 12:8), and also to make it impossible to think of Ephrathites of the tribe of Ephraim.

Rth 1:3-5. And Elimelech died. Probably not long after his arrival in Moab. This appears not only from the connecting and: they came to Moab, were there, and Elimelech died (cf. the Com. on Jdg 1:1), but may also be inferred from the circumstance that the sons did not marry while he was yet living.

The death of the father is the beginning of the sad catastrophe; but notwithstanding its occurrence the sons are unwilling to return. On the contrary, they proceed, in violation of the Mosaic law, to take Moabitish wives (cf. Com. on Jdg 3:6 f.). That such marriages fall within the prohibition of Deu 7:3 is not to be doubted. The restrictions of that passage apply to all who serve false gods, and the idolatry of Ammon and Moab is as strongly abominated as any other. That Moab and Ammon are not expressly named in the passage, is owing to the fact that it speaks with reference to the country on this side of the Jordan. In other passages, the worship and fellowship of Moab are rejected in the same way as those of the other nations (cf. Jdg 10:6). The question is not what name a people bears, but what its religion and worship are. No doubt, however, the old Jewish expositors are right when they maintain that the law which forbids the entrance of an Ammonite or Moabite into the congregation of Jehovah, even to the tenth generation (Deu 23:3), does not bear on the case of Ruth. For this can apply only to men, who from their sex are enabled to act independently, not to women, who are selected and taken. A woman founded no family in Israel, but was taken into one. For that reason, also, there is no connection whatever between this law and that in Deu 7:2 ff. Israel was forbidden to take wives for their sons from among the neighboring nations, not because these entered into the congregation or founded strange families, but because marriage is a covenant, and involves the danger of becoming mixed up with idolatry.

Inapplicable, likewise, to the present case is the passage in Deu 21:10 ff., adduced by Le Clerc in defense of Naomis sons. Doubtless, the fact that a woman was a captive taken in war gave marriage with her an altogether different character. In that case all the presuppositions which underlie the enactment in Deuteronomy 7 were wanting. The woman, moreover, must first bewail her kindred as dead, before she is allowed to be married. But Ruth and Orpah were not captives. Marriage with them was in all respects such as Deuteronomy 7 provided against. Nor does the narrative seek to hide the sin of the young men.10 It is precisely, as we shall see, the most striking beauty of the thought of our Book, that the wrong which has been done is overcome, and turned into a stepping-stone to a great end. The Midrash makes a daughter of king Eglon out of Ruth. Her heart at least is noble and royal as any kings daughter could be, and her exterior was doubtless such as to correspond with it.

The name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth. The designation of girls by names borrowed from pleasing animals or flowers is common to all nations. The conjecture that Orpah, or Orpha, as the LXX. pronounce it, like Ophra, signifies a hind, is therefore undoubtedly in accordance with Moabitish usage. A comparison might apparently be made with cerva, Celtic carv (cf. Benfey, ii. 174). The name of Ruth would gain in interest, if the derivation which I propose, were approved. Singularly enough the name of the rose is not mentioned in the Scriptures, although this flower to this day adorns the ruins of the holy land with wondrous beauty. The Mishna and Talmud speak of it under its Greek name, (cf. my Rose und Nachtigall, p. 19). Now it seems to me that in we have the ancient form of the word , rosa, undoubtedly derived from the redness of the flower, , rutilus, Sanskrit rudh–ira, Gothic rauds (Benfey, ii. 125). That even the so-called Semitic and classical languages have many words and roots in common, especially such as denote common objects, as colors, animals, plants, is manifest from numerous instances, as e. g., albus, . At all events, the thought of Ruth as the Moabitish Rose is in itself, apart from the philological probability, too attractive to refrain from giving expression to the conjecture.11

And they dwelt there about ten years. The selection of such maidens as the sequel shows Ruth and Orpah to be, and the peaceful relations which must have existed between all parties concerned, may perhaps be allowed to reduce the offense of Naomis sons against the marriage law to its mildest form. But the distance at which they keep themselves from their native land and people when these are in distress, in order to find happiness and rest for themselves elsewhere, does not prove productive of blessings. The lot that befalls them is very sad. The father, who feared lest he should not be able to live at home, had scarcely reached the strangers land before he died. The sons founded their houses in Moab, and Moab became their grave. They were probably determined not to return home before the famine was over; and when it was over, they themselves were no more. The father had emigrated in order to have more and to secure his family; and now his widow had neither husband, nor sons, nor property. Mahlon and Chilion had died childless; joy and ornament had given way to mourning and the signs of bereavementNaomi stood alone in a foreign land. Then she arose with her daughters-in-law.

Rth 1:6. For Jehovah had visited his people to give them bread. Believing Israel sees the government of God in everything. Everything comes from Him and is designed to discipline and instruct mankind. In Deu 28:47-48, it is written that in case Israel shall apostatize from God and cease to serve Him, it shall serve its enemies, and that in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and want. That the famine which had at this time befallen Bethlehem was the consequence of one of those military tyrannies which, as the Book of Judges relates, chastised the people, there is not the least indication. But a chastisement it certainly was, even though this is not asserted. And doubtless, the people, as it usually did under such circumstances, turned with penitence and prayer to its God. Then the years of famine came to an end. God remembered his people. It is a judgment of God when He allows men to go their own ways and help themselves in their necessities and sufferings (cf. the , Act 17:30); but in his mercy He remembers them, as he remembered Israel in Egypt (Exo 2:24). The word here used, occurs repeatedly for such a return of divine remembrance. God remembered () Sarah, silently mourning over her childlessness (Gen 21:1). After Moses had performed wonders before Israel in Egypt, the people believed, and when they heard that God had observed () the sufferings of the people, and had looked upon their affliction, they bowed down and worshipped (Exo 4:31).

From the turn of the language that God remembered to give bread to his people, more particularly to Bethlehem, the House of Bread, it may properly be inferred that the famine was not the result of war, but of drought.

Note on Bethlehem and the grave of Rachel. No one, says Robinson (Bibl. Res. i. 471), has ever doubted, I believe, that the present Beit Lahm, House of Flesh, of the Arabs, is identical with the ancient Bethlehem, House of Bread, of the Jews. The present distance of two hours from Jerusalem corresponds very exactly to the six Roman miles of antiquity. Schubert justly calls it the most attractive and significant of all the worlds birthplaces.

This Bethlehem, where Rachel died, where Boaz married Ruth, where David was born, and Jesus Christ entered the world, is to-day, as Ritter remarks, a little city or village hardly worthy of mention on its own account, having scarcely a single noteworthy characteristic, except the unchanging carpet of green, and the beautiful sky from which once the glory of the Lord shone round about the shepherds.
Bethlehem lies two short hours south of Jerusalem, on two moderate-sized hills, on whose northern and eastern declivities the dwelling-houses of the place are built. It is bounded on the south by the Wady et Taamirah. During the reign of the emperor Justinian it flourished greatly for a season, which, however, did not prove long. Its present inhabitants are mostly Christians. They are a strong and energetic race. During the Middle Ages, warlike feuds seem to have given the place a better title to be called Bethlachem, House of War, than Bethlehem.
Toward the west, there is a succession of irregular hills and valleys as far as the chapel over Rachels sepulchre. The Jews considered this as an especially sacred spot.12 The monument is described by Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Palestine somewhere between a. d. 1160 and 1173, is consisting of eleven stones, according to the number of the sons of Jacob, with a cupola resting on four pillars over them; and all passing Jews write their names on the stones of the monument (ed. Asher, p. 40). The Jewish traveller Petachia (circa a. d. 117580), writes as follows: Eleven stones lie on the grave of Rachel, according to the eleven tribes, for Benjamin was only born as his mother died. The stones are of marble; and the stone of Jacob, also marble, covers all the others, and is very large, so that it requires many persons to move it. This induces the author to add the following legend: The monks who live a mile away, once took the stone from the grave, and deposited it by their church; but the next morning they saw it again at the grave as before (ed. Carmoly, p. 97).

The author of Jichus ha Abot gives a description of the cupola as it was in his time (cf. Hottinger, Cippi Hebraici, p. 33, Carmoly, Itineraires, etc., p. 436). The Arabian traveller Edrisi (about a. d. 1150; ed. Jaubert, i. 345) and another anonymous writer (Fundgruben des Orients, ii. 135; Carmoly, p. 457) also speak of it.

Buckinghams description (a. d. 1816) is as follows: We entered it on the south side by an aperture through which it was difficult to crawl, as it has no doorway, and found on the inside a square mass of masonry in the centre, built up from the floor nearly to the roof, and of such a size as to leave barely a narrow passage for walking around it. It is plastered with white stucco on the outer surface, and is sufficiently large and high to enclose within it any ancient pillar that might have been found on the grave of Rachel. Around the interior face of the walls is an arched recess on each side, and over every part of the stucco are written and engraved a profusion of names, in Hebrew, Arabic, and Roman characters. (Cf. Palestine, i. 336.)

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL13

A man of Bethlehem-judah went to sojourn in Moab. Because there is famine at home, the family of Elimelech migrate to a foreign country. They alone think that the distress cannot be borne. Instead of crying to God and trusting in Him, along with their brethren, in Bethlehem, they proceed to an enemys land, where heathen worship false gods. Their emigration testifies to a decrease in their faith. Here it is not, as in the case of Abraham, Go to a land that I will show thee; but it must rather be said, They went to a land that God had rejected. The result was such as might have been expected. God did not bless their departure, and therefore their entrance brought, no joy. They sought to avoid one affliction, and fell into a heavier. The men escaped famine, but death overtook them. They had not trusted Gods love at home, and so his judgments smote them abroad.

Results like these should also be contemplated by many who undertake to emigrate in our days. Not many go as Abraham went to Canaan, or as Jacob went to Egypt; the majority follow in the steps of Elimelech.
Continue in thy land, and support thyself honestly. To manysays a book called Sabbatliche Erinnerungen,it may be a necessity to leave their native land, for the relations of life are manifold and often strange; but most of those who in these days seize the pilgrim-staff, are not driven by distress. It is not hunger after bread, or want of work that urges them, but hunger after gain, and the want of life in God.14

Starke: Dearth and famine are a great plague, and we have good reason to pray with reference to them, Good Lord, deliver us!

It is true, indeed, that Elimelech emigrated to a heathen land, where the living God was not acknowledged, while emigrants of the present day go for the most part to lands where churches are already in existence. But, on the other hand, Elimelech, notwithstanding his unbelieving flight, became after all no Moabite. The emigrants grand concern should be not to have the spirit of a Moabite when he leaves his native land. Many have ended much more sadly than Elimelech, and have left no name behind. Elimelechs kindred was yet visited with blessings, because the faithful, believing spirit of an Israelitish woman, Naomi, worked in his household.

Starke: Husband and wife should continue true to each other, in love and in sorrow, in good and evil days.

And the name of his wife was Naomi. Naomi means, pleasant, lovely. As her name, so her character. Her name was the mirror of her nature. And truly, names ought not to be borne in vain. [Fuller: Names are given to men and women, not only to distinguish them from each other, but also,1. To stir them up to verify the meanings and significations of their names. Wherefore let every Obadiah strive to be a servant of God, every Nathaniel to be a gift of God, Onesimus to be profitable, every Roger quiet and peaceable (?) Robert famous for counsel (?), and William a help and defense to many. 2. To incite them to imitate the virtues of those worthy persons who formerly have been bearers and owners of their names. Let all Abrahams be faithful, Isaacs quiet, Jacobs painful, Josephs chaste; every Lewis, pious; Edward, confessor of the true faith; William, conqueror over his own corruptions. Let them also carefully avoid those sins for which the bearers of the names stand branded to posterity. Let every Jonah beware of frowardness, Thomas of distrustfulness, etc. If there be two of our names, one exceedingly good, the other notoriously evil, let us decline the vices of the one, and practice the virtues of the other. Let every Judas not follow Judas Iscariot, who betrayed our Saviour, but Judas the brother of James, the writer of the General Epistle; each Demetrius not follow him in the Acts who made silver shrines for Diana, but Demetrius, 3 John, Rth 1:12, who had a good report of all men; every Ignatius not imitate Ignatius Loyola, the lame father of blind obedience, but Ignatius, the worthy martyr in the primitive church. And if it should chance, through the indiscretion of parents and godfathers, that a bad name should be imposed on any, O let not folly be with them, because Nabal is their name.. In the days of Queen Elizabeth, there was a royal ship called The Revenge, which, having maintained a long fight against a fleet of Spaniards (wherein eight hundred great shot were discharged against her), was at last fain to yield; but no sooner were her men gone out of her, and two hundred fresh Spaniards come into her, but she suddenly sunk them and herself; and so The Revenge was revenged. Shall lifeless pieces of wood answer the names which men impose upon them, and shall not reasonable souls do the same?Tr.].

[Bp. Hall: Betwixt the reign of the judges, Israel was plagued with tyranny; and while some of them reigned, with famine. Seldom did that rebellious people want somewhat to humble them. One rod is not enough for a stubborn child.

Fuller: The prodigal child complained, How many hired servants of my father have bread enough, and I die for hunger! So here we see that the uncircumcized Moabites, Gods slaves and vassals, had plenty of store, whilst Israel, Gods children (but his prodigal children, which by their sins had displeased their Heavenly Father), were pinched with penury.

The same: Let us not abuse strangers, and make a prey of them, but rather let us be courteous unto them, lest the barbarians condemn us, who so courteously entreated St. Paul, with his shipwrecked companions, and the Moabites in my text, who suffered Elimelech, when he came into the land, to continue there.

The same: And Elimelech died. I have seldom seen a tree thrive that hath been transplanted when it was old.

The same: And she was left, and her two sons. Here we see how mercifully God dealt with Naomi, in that He quenched not all the sparks of her comfort at once, but though He took away the stock, He left her the stems. Indeed, afterwards He took them away also; but first He provided her with a gracious daughter-in-law.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[1][Rth 1:1.Prop. fields, plains. The form is variously explained. Bertheau regards it as another mode of writing , which occurs in Rth 1:6 of this chapter, and in Rth 4:3, and according to Wright is in many MSS. found here also. The original of nouns derived from stems frequently reappears before suffixes (Ges. Gr. 93, 9, Rem.), and Berth. thinks that the same change is occasioned by the close connection of the word with the following genitive (cf. Ges. 89, 1). Ewald also takes to be singular, but derives it from the ancient form , the construct of which might be after the analogy of const. ,, const. , etc. But is not found in Ruth, unless it be in the disguise of the construct, while occurs not less than nine times. Better, therefore, with Gesenius, Frst, and others, take as plural construct of . Keil proposes to make plural const. of , pl. (which however is not found anywhere); for what reason does not appear, unless it be that the plural of is usually feminine, whereas is masc. But such irregularities are not uncommon; see Green, Gr. 200, c. The interchange of the singular and plural is readily accounted for from the meaning of the word, which, according to the more or less definite conception in the mind of the writer at the moment, may represent the territory as one great field or as made up of many smaller fields.Tr.]

[2][Rth 1:2.: Noomi, as the name should be written. Sept. ; Vulg. Noemi.Tr.]

[3][Rth 1:5.Better: Then died they two also, Mahlon and Chilion.Tr.]

[4][Rth 1:5.: not, was left from, i. e. was bereaved of, as Wright (with the Vulgate) interprets,on the ground that the changes the simple meaning of the verb as found in Rth 1:3. has its proper partitive meaning, and points out the whole of which Naomi is now the only part left, cf. Deu 3:11; Neh 1:2-3. The enumeration of the whole is so far incomplete that it does not expressly include Naomi herself. In Rth 1:3 the verb is used without because there is there no direct reference to the whole, but only the statement that at the death of her husband, she and her sons were left behind.Tr.]

[5]Ritter (Erdkunde, xiii. 458) states, on the authority of Burkhardt, that in Nejd, in Arabia, similar famines recur at intervals of from ten to fifteen years.

[6]Which even Benjamin of Tudela (Ashers edit. p. 40) particularly notices.

[7] ,, from , to bear, sc. fruit, cf. , Phrath, in its Greek form Euphrates, an , as it were.

[8]Sept. , Josephus . The magnificence of the names might rather seem to contrast with the unhappy issue. For Elimelech Josephus puts Abimelech, probably also in consequence of some allegorical exposition.

[9]Some of the older Jewish teachers not inappropriately render Ephratim by , high-born, or Palatini (Ruth Rabba, 29, etc.).

[10]The Targum justly brings it into full relief. [It paraphrases: and they transgressed the command of the Lord, and took foreign wives from among the daughters of Moab.] The answers of Le Clerc are misunderstandings, which have been repeated down to Bertheau. Rambachs excuses for the brothers are already offered by older Roman Catholic expositors. But, says one of these (cf. Serarius, p. 690), why make excuses for them? for Scripture does in no way represent them as holy men.

[11][ is usually regarded as a contraction either of , vision, appearance, or better, of female friend. The explanation of as hind, rests on the supposition that it is the same with , the two middle letters being transposed. Gesenius derives it from the Arabic Orphun, a mane; cf. the Heb. , neck. It may, however, be more suitable, says Wright, as the name of a female, to regard it as identical with the Arabic Orphun in the sense of liberality.Tr.]

[12][They do still. Dr. Hackett, who visited the tomb in 1852, says: The Jews, as would be expected, regard the spot with peculiar interest. One of them filled a bag with earth collected near the tomb, and gave it to one of my travelling companions to bring home with him to this country, as a present to a brother of the Jew residing here. See Scripture Illustrations, Boston, 1855, p. 102, where a small engraving of the present exterior of the sepulchre is also given.Tr.]

[13][Compare the Introduction, Sect. 6, for some general Homiletical Hints on the whole Book.Tr.]

[14][Without questioning the correctness of the foregoing remarks, it may nevertheless serve a good purpose to call attention to the following sentences from Dr. Thos. Fuller (1654), which read to-day suggest the great need of that caution in application which they also exemplify: Now If any do demand of me my opinion concerning our brethren which of late left this kingdom to advance a plantation in New England; surely I think, as St. Paul said concerning virgins, he had received no commandment from the Lord; so I cannot find any just warrant to encourage men to undertake this removal; but think rather the counsel best that king Joash prescribed to Amaziah. Tarry at home. Yet as for those that are already gone, far be it from us to conceive them to be such to whom we may not say, God speed, as it is in 2 John verse Ruth 10: but let us pity them, and pray for them; for sure they have no need of our mocks, which I am afraid have too much of their own miseries. I conclude therefore of the two Englands, what our Saviour saith of the two wines, Luk 5:39 : No man having tasted of the old presently desireth the new for he saith, The old is better.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The book of Ruth opens in this Chapter with the relation of a certain family leaving Bethlehem in consequence of a famine, and sojourning in the country of Moab. The distressing events which followed: the death of the husband and his two sons; and the return of the widow, with one of her daughters in law, from Moab to Bethlehem. These are the principal things related in this chapter.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. (2) And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.

It is not so very material at what period during the commonwealth of Israel the events here recorded took place, as it is to make particular remarks on the events themselves. And here the first thing to be noted is the famine which prevailed in the land. Famine was one of the four sore judgments of God, which the Lord bad decreed to punish Israel with, when the land sinned by trespassing grievously, to break the staff of the bread thereof. Eze 14:13-21 . And what rendered a famine of bread more peculiarly afflicting, and carrying with it a decided mark of a divine judgment, was, that this famine was in Bethlehem; for the very name of Bethlehem signifies the land, or house of bread. Reader! do not forget, that Bethlehem is the hallowed spot of the birth of thy Redeemer. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. See Mat 2:1 . How awful must a famine be when it carries with it a testimony that it is a divine judgment! But how infinitely more awful must be a spiritual famine: not of bread, and of water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. And is not this the case with Bethlehem now? I mean the descendants of ancient Bethlehem, the Jews. The Lord by his servant Amos threatened this judgment. And for how many generations hath it been fulfilled? Precious Jesus! how sweet is it to my soul, that thou breakest thy bread to me in secret. How delightful is it to know thee to be the bread of life, which came down from heaven, of, which whosoever eateth shall live forever! Lord! evermore give me this bread. See Amo 8:11 ; Joh 6:33 , etc.

There is somewhat very striking in the manner in which the Holy Ghost hath introduced this man and his family. He is styled, A certain man. And his name is not less so: Elimelech, which is compounded of two words, Eli and melech, signifying my God, and king. Naomi means pleasant. Mahlon and Chilion conveyed very different ideas; the former intimating a sick and weakly one, and the latter a wasting. But the most remarkable circumstance was their removal from the house of Cod, to the idolatrous country of Moab. Alas! do we not see in this certain man and his family, our nature strongly pictured? Did not Adam, our first father, induce a spiritual famine by transgression, and entail sickness and disease upon all his children, so that our whole nature may well be called Mahlon and Chilion? And did he not leave the Lord, and his mercies, and ever since, in his poor, blind, and fallen race, have we not all by nature sought fulness in the Moabs of the world, and the idols thereof?

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Rth 1:4

We strain our eyes to know something of the long line of the purple hills of Moab, which form the background at once of the history and of the geography of Palestine. It is a satisfaction to feel that there is one tender association which unites them with the familiar history and scenery of Judaea that from their recesses, across the deep gulf which separates the two regions, came the gentle ancestress of David and the Messiah.

Stanley.

References. I. 6-22. S. Cox, The Book of Ruth, p. 63. I. 8. W. M. Statham, Outlines of Sermons on the Old Testament, p. 60.

Rth 1:13

Good dispositions love not to pleasure themselves with the disadvantage of others; and had rather be miserable alone, than to draw in partners to their sorrow…. As, contrarily, ill minds care not how many companions they have in misery; if themselves miscarry, they could be content if all the world were enwrapped with them in the same distress.

Bishop Hall.

Rth 1:14

Perplexed Naomi, torn with contrary feelings; which tried her the more Orpah who left her, or Ruth who remained? Orpah who was a pain, or Ruth who was a charge?

Newman.

Rth 1:15

Orpah kissed Naomi and went back to the world. There was sorrow in the parting, but Naomi’s sorrow was more for Orpah’s sake than for her own. Pain there would be, but it was the pain of a wound, not the yearning regret of love. It was the pain we feel when friends disappoint us and fall in our esteem. That kiss of Orpah was no loving token; it was but the hollow profession of those who use smooth words, that they may part company with us, with least trouble and discomfort to themselves. Orpah’s tears were but the dregs of affection; she clasped her mother-in-law once for all, that she might not cleave to her.

Newman.

References. I. 16. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvi. No. 2680. J. McNeill, Regent Square Pulpit, vol. iii. p. 185. I. 16, 17. C. Bickersteth, The Shunammite, p. 47. I. 16-22. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, etc., p. 259.

Steadfastly Minded

Rth 1:18

I. As we read the simple Bible story, how does the beauty of the character of that Moabitish woman attract us? Her gentleness, love, faithfulness, courage, industry, patience, obedience all stand out before us and win us. They were found in her in the various circumstances which drew them forth because she was ‘steadfastly minded’.

II. ‘Steadfastly minded,’ there was the secret of her noble life. What a contrast with her sister Orpah, weeping, kissing, but going back, or with Saul, impatient, unable to wait God’s time, breaking His commandment, and falling lower and lower into sin. ‘Steadfastly minded,’ you all recognize the importance of this in earthly things; you know that a man who enters upon any work, or business, or profession, with only half his heart in it, never really succeeds is never really happy in it. Steadfastness leads to self-denial, energy, perseverance, effort, pressing on; and therefore in all earthly things we recognize its value and importance; and we know that certain failure sooner or later awaits those who lack it.

III. The things which concern your never-dying souls, on which such infinite, eternal destinies depend, surely here, above all, is it necessary that all should be steadfastly minded, and no less so, that there must be continual self-denial. We must take up our cross daily, and follow in the road that is so narrow, through the battle that is so hard, and the dangers that are so many, until we receive the crown that is so glorious.

W. Howell Evans, Sermons for the Church’s Year, p. 167.

From Pleasure to Affliction

Rth 1:20

Ten years form a considerable portion of every man’s life. Ten years in sharp conflict with the world, its labours, laws, and ways, will give a man a very different opinion of life to what he entertained in the days of his youth. When he took his departure into the far-off land to seek a place in the battle of life, he was carried along with the crowd of money-getters, pleasure-seekers, and ambition-hunters, and at the end of ten years, if not before, he will be ready to admit that affliction, barrenness, and want, underlie all its outward glory and tempting delight. Ten years will be enough to change its pleasant things into bitterness, to blunt the keen zest for life, and it may be, under God’s grace, to bring back the soul from the land of bondage, and to fill it with a sense of the great importance of living for that which is beyond. Man goes away, God brings home. The departure into Moab is all our own, but the return is His with Whom we have to do.

‘Call me not Naomi, call me Mara.’ Call me not Naomi the pleasant one, but Mara the bitter one, ‘for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the Lord hath brought me home again empty.’

I. Is not this the Cry of many a Heart? Is not this the sad experience of thousands who have drunk deeply at life’s fountain? The far-off land of worldliness in which I dwelt has yielded only barrenness and want. My years have been wasted, my opportunities lost, and that which seemed sweet and pleasant has turned to bitterness. I have mourning for mirth, dishonour for honour, sour for sweet. Oh, had I served my God with the zeal I served the world, I would not have to mourn a past that has been, as far as my eternal interests are concerned, a failure! ‘Call me not Naomi, call me Mara.’

II. But after all, as Regards this Life, is it not better to be called Mara than Naomi? Is there nothing good in this change of name? Does Mara bring more future blessedness than Naomi? Well, for life to be pleasant and sweet to a man he must have his own way. He must be at full liberty to select his studies, pursuits, pleasures, companions. He cannot endure to be disappointed, thwarted, foiled. He must enter the land of Moab and drink deeply of its snares and lusts and temptations. And what is the inevitable result? In his abundance he forgets the God Who giveth all, and Who intended all to be used in a different way, and for another purpose. But when disappointment, failure, affliction, confront him, then they reveal to him that life was never intended for him to have his own way. Naomi is changed into Mara, pleasant into bitter, and he beholds two wills in conflict, Divine and human, God’s and his. He has been walking in the light of his own eyes, and not after the will of the Almighty. He sees that if he pursues this course the conflict must end, as far as he is concerned, in future and unutterable loss. Seeing the vanity and emptiness of earthly things, he comes to himself, he discovers that it is far better to submit his will to God’s. There is a returning from the land of Moab unto his Father’s house.

III. When the Change comes, when Naomi becomes Mara, what is our Work? To come out of Moab. To leave the vain and empty surroundings, which in the past have proved such an attraction to us. For Naomi there was no rest, no comfort, no profit in Moab. Its sweetness had become bitter. Enjoyment had gone, wealth had vanished, and, like the prodigal of old, she came to herself, she remembered that there was enough and to spare in the Father’s house, and so she arose with her daughters-in-law that she might return. From sorrow to repentance, bitterness to decision. Moab had become distasteful, she will arise and depart to the old home of childhood and youth. Whereupon ‘she went forth out of the place’. Thus, when God in His mercy wakens up in us a sense of the vanity and emptiness of life, turns its sweet into bitter, let us depart from that which holds us earthbound, and, while accepting the change in our lot with patience and resignation, let us struggle to rise from the lowness and deadness around us, to the earnestness and newness of life.

References. I. 20. C. Leach, Mothers of the Bible, p. 107. I. 20, 21. T. Snape, A Book of Lay Sermons, p. 33. II. 1-23. S. Cox, The Book of Ruth, p. 83. II. 3, 4. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in a Religious House, vol. ii. p. 346. II. 4. F. E. Paget, Helps and Hindrances to the Christian Life, vol. ii. p. 201. ‘Plain Sermons’ by contributors to the Tracts for the Times, vol. vi. p. 197.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Ruth (Annotated)

Rth 1

1. Now [And, an intro-copula which connects it with some other book] it came to pass in the days [a very early period in the days] when the judges ruled [judged], that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Beth-lehem-judah [Judah is added to distinguish it from the Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun] went to sojourn [to tarry as a stranger] in the country of Moab [exceptionally rich and fertile: see Isaiah xvi. and Jeremiah xxxviii., and often an asylum for the Israelites], he, and his wife, and his two sons.

2. And the name of the man was Elimelech [“my God is king “; probably, according to some Jewish doctors, a noble and powerful man], and the name of his wife Naomi [“to be pleasant,” some say it means “ornament”], and the name of his two sons Mahlon [“sickness”] and Chilion [“wasting”], Ephrathites [Ephrah was the old name of Bethlehem] of Beth-lehem-judah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there [before and after this the Moabites had been conspicuously hard-hearted towards Israel].

3. And Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons.

4. And they took [always used in this connection in a bad sense] them wives [after the father’s death] of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah [“kind”], and the name of the other Ruth [“comeliness”]: and they dwelled there about ten years.

5. And Mahlon and Chilion died [as young men] also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.

6. Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab: for she had heard [ Pro 25:25 ] in the country of Moab how that the Lord had visited his people in giving them bread.

7. Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.

8. And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother’s house [a picture of unselfish love]: the Lord deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.

9. The Lord grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband [residence in a heathen land had not heathenised Naomi]. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.

10. And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people.

11. And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? Are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?

12. Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons;

13. Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? [“Every Jew at this day is bound to marry before he is twenty years old, else he is looked upon as one that liveth in sin.”] Would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes [it is far more bitter for me than for you], that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me.

14. And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth [the Rabbins say that Ruth was the daughter Eglon king of Moab] clave [“was glued,” would give the more literal meaning] unto her.

15. And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods [local gods]: return thou after thy sister in law.

16. And Ruth said, 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:

17. 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.

18. When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her.

19. So they two [types of the Jewish and Gentile Churches] went [the distance cannot have been less than fifty miles] until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved [rang with the news] about them, and they [the women: the verb is feminine] said, Is this Naomi?

20. And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara [“bitter”]: for the Almighty [a name almost peculiar to the Pentateuch and the Book of Job] hath dealt very bitterly with me.

21. I went out full, and the Lord hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the Lord hath testified against me [hath humbled me], and the Almighty hath afflicted me?

22. So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her [“so Jews and Gentiles walk to heaven together”] which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest [ordinarily falling about the end of April].

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

Rth 1:1-18

Wordsworth.

The Preacher’s Homiletical Commentary thus describes the scene of action: At first Bethlehem, then Moab, then Bethlehem and the regions around once again. Bethlehem, two short hours’ journey south of Jerusalem. The most attractive and significant of all the world’s birthplaces (Schubert). Under ordinary circumstances a fruitful land. Remarkably well watered in comparison with other parts of Palestine (Benjamin of Tudela). Even in the present state of Palestine, deserves its old name. Ritter says, “Notwithstanding poor cultivation, the soil is fruitful in olives, pomegranates, almonds, figs, and grapes.” Hepworth Dixon thus describes its present appearance: “A string of gardens, a few steep fields, much crossing of white roads so many that the point of junction may be called the Place of Paths a glen which drops by leaps and steps to the great Cedron valley, makes the landscape. Yet the slope which is thus bound in by higher tops and more barren crests, has a winning beauty of its own, a joyous promise of bread and fruit, which puts it first among the chosen places of Judea. The old word Ephrath meant Place of Fruit, the newer word Bethlehem meant House of Bread; one following the other, as barley and maize come after grapes and figs, and the sower of grain succeeds to the breeder of goats and kine. The little bit of plain through which Ruth gleaned after the young men, together with a level of stony ground here and there in the glen toward Mar Saba, are the only corn lands occurring in the hill country of Judea for many a league…. The lovely green ridge of Bethlehem is the scene of some of our most tender and gracious poems: the idylls of Rachel, of Ruth, of Saul, of David, of Chimham, of Jeremiah, of the Virgin-mother; the subjects of these poems being the foremost passages in Israel’s religious life.” Dixon’s Holy Land.

Moab, on the other side, and S.E. of the Dead Sea, from Bethlehem. A district about forty miles long by twenty in width. In parts a luxuriant land when cultivated. The uplands are very fertile and productive (Professor Palmer). Now but scantily populated, but presenting evidences of former plenty and fertility.

Ruth’s Election

THERE was a famine in the land” ( Rth 1:1 ). Necessity drives men forth, and is therefore to be regarded as a blessing rather than a curse. It is prosperity that may be looked upon, in some senses and under obvious limitations, as a danger, if not a malediction. “Necessity is the mother of invention.” We owe nearly all we have to necessity: we owe next to nothing to prosperity. Why do men hasten to the city every morning, pouring in great living floods out of every railway terminus, and hastening away, scarcely speaking to one another, scarcely knowing one another? What is the explanation of this rush and tumult and speechless haste? Necessity necessity of some kind, necessity real and proper, or something that is a mistaken necessity; still, need is the word of explanation and solution. Why are all those ships upon the sea, full of men, women, and little children? What is the meaning of this leaving of fatherland, this cutting asunder of tender and vital associations? Necessity. Men are going out to make lands, to create civilisations, to establish themselves in free, independent, secure, and happy life. Prosperity does not drive men out; prosperity keeps them at home. Hardship is the real blessing of life, when properly measured and properly received. All children should have “a hard time of it,” under proper regulation. The children of this day are being ruined. They are being confectioned and coddled to death. By the time they are fifteen years of age they have seen everything; there is nothing more to be seen: they have travelled over the picture-galleries of Europe; they have heard all the great speakers, musicians, and others; they have seen all the great sights; they are over-powered with weariness. This should not be so: but it must continue to be so until parents see the reality of the case. Five years in the workhouse, the expenses being discharged by the parents, from five years of age to ten, would make men of the children. How they would then enjoy daisies, buttercups, little birds, half a day’s rollicking freedom in the green meadow! How pleased they would be with any occasional dainty found upon the table! how doubly valuable the sweet kiss! But we will not have it so. Hence, the children are brought up to be pests to themselves, and nuisances to the public. God however takes this matter into his own hands, and he graciously sends famine and need and difficulty, sickness and death, and a thousand black teachers down into his great public school, to show men the real charm of life, and to bring to bear upon them the most sacred and ennobling impulse which can inspire and sanctify their industry.

“There was a famine in the land.” There is always a famine. Not always a famine of bread and a thirst for water: that is the poorest of all famine; the real famine is a famine of the heart a famine of love, trust, sympathy, longing for help and not finding it, hoping and praying for sympathy and care, and the hope dying without an answer. Even that is not the worst famine of all: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord;” there shall be no voice from heaven: the communication between the worlds shall be cut off, and men who would try to pray will have their prayers sent back as the only possible reply; but even these days, properly received, may be turned to high advantage. Religion has now become a satiety. We can go to church so much that we hardly care to go at all. The gospel is preached to us in so many ways that we have become quite critical about them, and have “opinions” concerning them, what hungry man asks metaphysical questions about the bread that is set before him in the pangs of his necessity? Were there more conscious need there would be less criticism and infinitely greater enjoyment.

So the little story moves on. “And a certain man of Beth-lehem-judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons” ( Rth 1:1 ). And the husband died, and the two sons also departed this life. How is it the men die first? Surely, this is cruelty, from our point of view, that the men should thus have the best of it that the men should be rid of the burden whilst they are quite young, and the women left to weep and wonder, and slave and suffer unspeakably, displaying a patience that might reverently be called divine. “Why should not they have the best of life and go into heaven first, and be there to meet those who need more discipline meet those to whom longer exposure in the bleak air would do good? But it is well.

The two sons of the woman married, and they, as we have seen, also died, after dwelling in Moab about ten years; and this was her position a position of widowhood three souls in heaven, three new stars in the crown of night, three openings into the better land, where even she had an inheritance in the God of Israel. Then good news came to her: “She had heard in the country of Moab how that the Lord had visited his people in giving them bread” ( Rth 1:6 ). To live in this Hebrew faith would be life indeed; “the Lord” was always so near to the pious Hebrew; it was “the Lord” that sent rain; it was “the Lord” that sent the delivering angel; it was “the Lord” that spread the field with abundant harvests; it was “the Lord” who turned on the fountains of water and made them gush and sparkle in the sunshine. Account for it as we may, there is a warmth in the thought, which now and again touches us according to the pressure of our necessity and the stinging of some mortal pain. We have not gained much by striking out “the Lord” from our vocabulary, and putting in “the laws of nature,” and “the courses of creation,” and “the natural evolution of material;” the gain is on the other side. Blessed are they who have faith to stand by the living words, and to run unto them as men who are pursued run into a strong tower. The time will come again when “the Lord” shall be a name used with reverent familiarity: men shall own the Lord in the breaking of bread, in the lying down to slumber, in the resurrection from sleep, in every pulse of the living day. Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly.

Here we have a beautiful little picture:

“And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother’s house: the Lord deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me” ( Rth 1:8 ).

“Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept” ( Rth 1:9 ). Not a word was said. There are times when words are simply useless; there are sacred hours when the best-chosen words fall upon our ear with a sense of irritation. “They lifted up their voice, and wept;” they kissed to one another all their meaning. A lifetime was in that pressure, memories not to be spoken in detailed expressions consecrated that kiss of love. Who can without tears cut the associations of memory and of happy and sacred life? The heart that can do so is a heart no more; it is but a piece of stone. Look upon Naomi and her daughters-in-law, see them kissing one another, and hear their weeping, and say, This is dying! What we call death is hardly so to be named at all; it is translation, liberation, sanctification, coronation; but this parting, sundering, tearing of human hearts, this division of the life-currents this is death! The reflection should be laid to heart in all directions. The old man at home died when his prodigal son left him. The house became a cemetery when the evil deed was done. This is the kind of death men should think about. The other death expiration, throwing off the “mortal coil” call not this death in any sense that is distressful! The death is in parting, the giving up the dear associations of life, in sacrificing the whole store of blessed memory.

Now we approach the issue. After further speech, reasoning on the one side and on the other, we come to this conclusion:

“And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her” ( Rth 1:14 ).

Precisely how people are characterised and distinguished today. We do not blame Orpah; she was loving, but Ruth was more loving. That is the patent, and yet in some senses subtle, distinction. It is hard to fix upon the point where one man’s quality exceeds another. For a long time they seem to be equal, but a critical juncture occurs, and at that point the quality of the man is determined. Still, let us not forget that the distinction is between loving and loving more, not between hatred and love, not between aversion and attachment, but between love and love. Orpah loved Naomi, and indeed wanted to go with her, with a constancy, however, that was open to reasoning; Ruth loved her and shut out all reasoning, because of the passion of her affection.

Who can read the next two verses without punctuating them with tears?

“And Ruth said, 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” ( Rth 1:16-17 ).

Selected Note

” There was a famine in the land ” ( Rth 1:1 ). The first mention of a famine which occurs in Scripture is in Gen 12:10 , where we read that so early as the days of the patriarch Abraham “there was a famine in the land,” which is described as so grievous as to compel the father of the faithful to quit Canaan. The country to which he resorted was, as we might expect, the land of Egypt, the early and lasting fertility of which is a well-known historical fact. In Gen 26:1 , this famine is designated as “the first,” that is, the first known, or of which there was any record. The same passage informs us of another famine which afflicted “the land” in the days of Isaac, who seems to have contemplated a descent into Egypt, but who, being instructed of God, removed to a part of Arabia Petra ( Gen 26:17 ) named Gerar, a city of the Philistines, whose monarch’s name was Abimelech.

Even Egypt, however, was not exempt from the desolations of famine ( Gen 41:30 ). The ordinary cause of dearth in Egypt is connected with the annual overflow of the Nile…. This famine was made by Joseph the occasion of one of the greatest social revolutions which history records. The details may be found in the book of Genesis; and it is enough to say here that, as the special administrator of the affairs of the country, Joseph got into his hands all the property of the kingdom, including the land (excepting that which belonged to the priests), and gave the same back to the people as tenants-at-will, on condition of their paying to the king “the fifth “probably of the annual produce.

From these statements it appears that three successive generations were in these early days visited by famine. The Scriptural narrative shows that in after-ages famines were, in ancient times, more frequent than they are now; and this justifies the use which is made of so terrible a scourge by the sacred writers, and especially the prophets and our Lord himself, in the highly figurative language which they employ in their righteous endeavours to turn wicked men and wicked nations from the evil of their ways (Eze 6:11 ; Mat 24:7 ). In Amo 8:11 sq., a heavier woe than even the want of bread is appropriately spoken of under the appellation of a famine: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land; not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord; and they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it: in that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.” The ensuing verse shows that idolatry was the moving cause of this heavy punishment.

Prayer

O thou that hearest prayer to answer it in great love, we come to thee in Christ thy Son, the Priest of the whole creation. He only knoweth how to pray. Lord, teach us also how to pray; inspire us with reverence; elevate us with a sense of awe; subdue and chasten us by all the sweet influences of the altar. May we look far on high, no cloud coming between us and the Father whose face our soul seeks. We would talk with God; it hath so pleased him that we may talk in our own way, out of our broken heart, telling all the tale of our sin and shame, our trespass and misery, and receiving in reply the eternal gospel that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Thou knowest all our life every stain upon it, every flaw, every shortcoming; every honest purpose, every resolute endeavour to be right and to do thy will. What, then, can we tell thee? Yet thou art pleased to hear our speech, for the very utterance of our words thou hast made a means of grace. We speak to thee of thy goodness first, for it is first, midst, last; it is like the sky: we cannot tell where it begins, where it ends; we have measured the earth, and weighed it, and written our signature all over its face, but we know nothing about thy sky; it is an image of thyself in vastness, in grandeur, in majesty. As the heaven is high above the earth, so are thy thoughts above our thoughts and thy ways above our ways. We therefore speak of thy mercy as ever-abiding: it is the light of the morning; it is the rest of night; it is the song of all time. Because thy compassions fail not, therefore are we not consumed. We live upon pity; we owe our existence to thy tears; if thou didst hate us surely thou wouldst crush us with some great bolt of thunder. Yet thou dost spare us, and visit us, and care for us: herein is a love beyond all words. By thy providence thou dost draw us to thy grace. Thine is a gradual process, so that having looked upon the great letter of thy goodness in life we ask for further instruction, and are led, step by step, into the inner and upper sanctuary where is the eternal truth. We first see the great cross of wood we are amazed, we are struck with horror, our soul dies within us in very disgust; then we look at the Sufferer, and he transfigures the cross and makes it like a living tree, the leaves whereof are for the healing of the nations; we still look on, and out of his death there comes new life, new hope, new grace; we then say, Truly this Man was the Son of God; then we cast ourselves upon him, having no other refuge, no other hope our sin our only plea, our penitence our only hope. Thus the cross of Christ becomes heaven’s brightest treasure, the very centre of all glory, the very majesty of the throne. We come to that cross night and day. Thou hast not yet taken it down; thou wilt continue it until thy purpose is all served: then cometh the end, when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom unto God and the Father, and the Lord shall be all in all. Meanwhile, we would be saved by the cross, elevated and ennobled by the cross; we would be crucified upon it, that knowing the mystery of its pain, we may also know the power of the resurrection of Christ. We speak of thy goodness, but we know not what we say until we see the cross. Our first acknowledgments are full of selfishness. Thou hast given unto us loaves and fishes in the wilderness, and found a couch for us in the night-time and fountains of water in unexpected places, and we feel glad: but the gladness is stained through and through by self-regard. It is nothing to be glad for these things: these are appeals to our inferior nature; but when we are glad for Christ, for the spirit of grace, for the revelation of truth, for the opportunity of suffering for Christ, and for the occasion of serving him, for all the hopes which point to a destiny of deeper consecration, then we begin to touch the very magnanimity of thy Son. Our life we would live in thy sight. It is a poor little thing, cooled by the cold, affrighted by that which is high, troubled by that which is unknown; yet, nursed by thy grace, inspired and inflamed by thy Spirit, it becomes invested with somewhat of thine own almightiness a grand life, a gift of God, not less than any donation of his hand; a mystery full of hope and full of dignity. Do with us what thou wilt. We like to be on the mountain-top first lighted by the sun, on which the eventide lingers; we like to have our own way; we like to turn our wishes into realities; we like to be strong, rich, full of friends, and having everything according to our own desire. Herein is our fault. It is this self-enlargement and self-idolatry that shames us when we really understand it. We thought it faultless once; it seemed to be quite right; it is now all wrong. This we have been taught in the school of Christ a hard lesson, the last lesson that is taught there. So now we know what is meant by self-denial, self-obliteration. Yet we hardly know it. When we think we are dead behold we rise up again the old pride, the ineradicable vanity, starting up in self-defence. Lord, slay us! Lord, kill us, that we may enter into our nobler selves. Take away the old man and his deeds; slay him; put him where he never can rise again; yea, banish him from our memory, and set up within us the kingdom of the new man, Christ Jesus, self-denying, self-obliterating, the great man, who lives for others, in others, and in their gladness becomes his true self. Rule all things; we know thou wilt. We are startled by the little foam, and run away as if it could do us harm. The floods lift up their voice, but they cry themselves to rest. The Lord reigneth. We put ourselves within the sanctuary, and from its open windows we behold the method of God in the world so wise, so good, so unknowable in all its mystery, yet so gracious in its accessible points. Feed us evermore with the bread of life. Lord, evermore give us this bread! make us slaves of Christ that thus we may become freemen. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

The Character of Naomi

Rth 1

“IS this Naomi?” ( Rth 1:19 ) literally, is this the Naomi? the reference being to a person well known, and well known because of quality and station. The name was known to every one as the name of a lady of notable degree who had been obliged to give way to circumstances that were irresistible, and who had therefore become poor, dispossessed even of bread, and sent away in great distress to undergo what would seem to be the chief punishment which Heaven could inflict. Naomi said: Do not call me by my old name; it is a name associated with joy, laughter, gladness, merry-heartedness; literally you are right: my name is Naomi, but it ought now to be Mara, associated with bitterness, real grief of soul. Let us look carefully into the characteristics of this brave woman, and learn what we can from her name and history.

Naomi had preserved her piety in a heathen country. Some have blamed Elimelech for leaving the land of Israel and going where the god Chemosh was the ruling deity. Some people have a genius for blaming others. There have not been wanting critics who have found in the punishment inflicted upon Naomi proofs of God’s disfavour in the matter of the family having run away when the famine was sore in Israel. But who are these hard-hearted critics, who are so gifted in the detection of divine punishments, and who can seat themselves upon a throne of iron and declare who is right and who is wrong in all the intermingled story of human affairs? Providence does not so come within our measurement. We had better attend to our prayers than to our criticisms. It is indeed a severer punishment still than any that fell upon the house of Elimelech to be cursed with the spirit of criticism. When an accident occurs, there are those who can tell exactly why the accident took place, and can trace it to a direct judgment of God upon certain evil-doers. Unfortunately, the facts are against the criticism: for there were neither evil-doers nor evil-doings in many cases: the men were known to be good, the object they had in view was unquestionably right, and yet in the midst of it the collision occurred, the bridge gave way, the fire leapt upon them and left them hot ashes. We cannot tell what God is doing. We must await the issue, and when the circle is quite sphered off, then say whether it could have been drawn by any compasses made by the hands of men. Undoubtedly, however, Elimelech was in the land of Chemosh in the land of other gods idols, and vain images. Yet, in the midst of an atmosphere that was poisoned through and through, Elimelech was able to pray, and Naomi to refer to the God of Israel. Let us not take undue encouragement from this, and say that in any company we are safe, and in any land we can maintain our piety, and under any circumstances our prayer cannot be violated or even shortened. Men ought not to try to play with fire. There is no bravery in courting danger. Even the boldest man has need to utter the sweet prayer of modesty that he may be kept night and day within the grasp of God. It is beautiful, though, to see the widow returning from the far country, with her piety intact, never referring to the heathen idols, or confessing their sovereignty or deity: as she went out she returned, deeply thinking about God not a great thinker, but having in her that spirit of wonder which sometimes becomes almost genius, and that strange awe of heart which enables the listening ear to detect the going of the eternal. She is home now.

Naomi suffered from the worst form of trouble. She explained her sorrow in these pathetic words: “Why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the Lord hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?” ( Rth 1:21 ). What is the worst form of trouble? The conscious absence of God, religious melancholy; a sense of spiritual desertion, or a smarting under supposed divine judgments? No trouble can compare with that sorrow in the very blackness of darkness. It does not admit of comfort; it looks at the comforter as an intruder yea, as an audacious and most dangerous person. To the soul that is loaded with darkness as with a burden, there is no Bible; there is a book large enough, but all the leaves are blank; if there are black letters upon it, they run into one another, and mean nothing in their mocking confusion. Who can speak to a soul that is religiously bruised? Who knows the tongue of that soul? Who can drop his voice into the still small whisper that can touch such a life without further wounding it? To this deep trouble we have not come, for the Bible is open before us and God’s words still give us spiritual interest and satisfaction. Short of that trouble, all other distress is manageable. The presence of God sanctifies all other good, makes the dead live twice over, throngs all heaven with images of love and welcome. Let us pray, saying, “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me!” We should take care not to fall into this great agony. There is a possibility of giving way to certain influences and suggestions of a destructive character. Feeling them coming on as an armed host, we should seek immediate relief amid the healing mountains, the great mysterious waters, and all the genial influences of wise society. Who has not heard of poor creatures who have known when insanity was near at hand? Who has not read the heart-breaking story of Mary Lamb, who begged her brother to take certain measures when she felt the darkness fast deepening? That would seem to be the worst insanity namely, the conscious approach of madness. Is there not a reason why we should take care in time with regard to this religious melancholy? May we not waste our lives away, allow our spiritual energy to ooze out of us, so that in some fell moment the devil may spring upon us, and capture us like a lawful prey? Let us watch, and be sober. While the light lingers about us in all its sacred laughter and joy, let us add to our spiritual strength, so that when the thief cometh to steal our soul’s treasure we may handle him like strong men.

Naomi brought others to the true God by the might of personal character. We are not told that she preached to Ruth in any formal manner, yet Ruth said to Naomi these words, “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God” ( Rth 1:16 ). That is our opportunity of showing which is the true divinity. People watch us, see how we act in famine, in bereavement, in mortal distress; and in proportion as they see our integrity untouched, our prayer enlarged rather than diminished, our confidence established upon everlasting rocks, they may begin through our character to understand our theology. Herein every man may become a preacher, that is to say, he may become a mystery of endurance, patience, hopefulness, trust in God. What! the enemy may say is he not shaken off yet? Does he still cling to God? Has he not had enough of Heaven’s displeasure? His house blown down, his children killed, his flocks stolen does he still trust God? There comes a time when even a shattered life becomes an instrument of power. All men are awed by great character, by sublime endurance, by heroic patience, by tears that enlarge the eyes but never blind them. What an opportunity is this! Hardly a word spoken, no eloquence of the tongue needed, no charming imagination, no fascinating words, no wizardry of speech; yet great conversions going on night and day; persons first despising, then wondering, then admiring, and finally ascribing the mystery of sanctified endurance to the very grace of God. Although we may not be able to work great wonders in this direction, we can forbear working great destruction in the other. It will soon be discovered what our piety is worth. If the Christian man is just as afraid in a shipwreck as any other man, what is his Christianity worth? If a Christian soul is just as much troubled in times of commercial depression as the souls that resent the idea of religious faith, what is the value of his Christian sentiment? If his face is all marked over with anxiety, fear, apprehension, mourning, what has the peace of God done for him? Though we may not work mightily as heroes, we may still do a most useful work in society by quiet, silent, patient endurance. If the question be asked, as it sometimes is, To what do you trace your conversion? how often the reply is, To what I saw of Christianity at home; without understanding the books and the preachers, without being able to follow them in their arguments, I saw what Christianity could do in a house of poverty, affliction, and great sorrow many-hued, and from what I saw of it there I wish to embrace it, understand somewhat of it, love it, and exemplify it: the Christianity that made my home what it was is the religion I want. Who could give a finer reply? and blessed be God, the reply is just. Christianity has worked these home-miracles; Christianity has furnished a house as with blessings and treasures from heaven, and having done this, he who would embrace that religion is justified by reason and fact.

Shall it always be thus with Naomi? Shall she die in sorrow? We find the answer in chapter 4.:

“And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter-in-law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath borne him” ( Rth 1:14-15 ).

Prayer

Almighty God, we bless thee for all the children of Abraham, for all the inheritors of his faith. May our faith be as his was. May our trust in God be simple, deep, unchanging. Take charge of our whole life; keep our life in thine own eternity; touch the springs of our being, that the streams of our life may be pure. May all our springs be in God, in the living God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, the Redeemer of the family of man. May we have no charge over ourselves, no care concerning our own life; may our present and our future be entirely under the control of our Sovereign Father, as revealed unto us in the person and mediation of Jesus Christ thy Son. We thank thee for every man who, in a loud, clear, sweet tone, has declared his faith in God before all men: for every one who has been simple in his testimony, who has convinced the world by the argument of a sober and solid life of faith in the Living One, who has in thy strength done all things wisely and well. Let this hour be holy to us! May every heart feel that it has alighted upon a flower in which there is much honey. May weary travellers know that there is a springing well here, the well of the Lord’s revelation which is never dry. May hungry hearts eat of the bread of life and be satisfied; may bruised reeds be protected; may no smoking flax be quenched; may the feeblest aspiration after the living God be answered by wondrous revelations of love to the waiting and eager heart. Give us release from the importunities of the world! Help our recollection to remember thy goodness. Save our love from the distraction of many rivals. Draw all our faculties and powers, every desire of our soul, towards thyself in profitable concentration, that in this holy hour of worship we may become strengthened for all the engagements of life. May the strong man give thee his strength. May the wise man know that thou didst light the lamp of his understanding. Save the weak man from regarding his weakness as a temptation. Turn every eye to thyself, thou Eternal Light, and bind around thy heart all the affections of our own. God be gracious unto us! Show us a love deeper than our mother’s tenderer than we have ever seen. Gather us unto thy great heart, and the storm shall never reach us there! Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

THE BOOK OF RUTH

XXXII

A CATECHISM

To what time in the history of Israel does the story of Ruth belong?

Ans. 1:1, to the period of the Judges.

2. What the relations of this book to the book of Judges, and its place in the Old Testament canon?

Ans. (1) It is an appendix to the book of Judges and the two were counted as one book in the early Jewish enumeration. It is an episode of the general story of the judges like the migration of the DANAIDES and the war with Benjamin in the latter part of that book.

(2) Its natural place of order is just after Judges, and it so appears in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and English Versions.

3. What its place in the Hebrew Bible, and why?

Ans. All the known Hebrew manuscripts are modern. The later Jews, for liturgical purposes, arranged their scripture into three grand divisions, to wit: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, or other writings. In the synagogues on their various sabbaths and on their great days appointed sections from these grand divisions were read, so that every Jew would know beforehand the scriptural lesson. Now, in this Hebrew Bible so arranged, Ruth was the fifth book of the third division, coming between the Song of Songs and Lamentations. (See Isaac Leeser’s English Version.) The date of this arrangement was after the Septuagint version was made but before the coming of our Lord, as there appear to be references to it in Luk 4:16-17 ; Luk 24:44 , and Act 15:21 .

4. What passages in the book itself bear on the date of the composition?

Ans. The most important are Rth 1:1 ; Rth 4:7-8 , and Rth 4:18-22 . The first passage in verse I seems to imply that the period of the judges had passed before the book was written. In Rth 4:7-8 , it seems that the custom of taking off a shoe as a token of relinquishing a kinsman’s right to redeem had passed away when the book was written, and in Rth 4:18-22 , the last paragraph of the book, the genealogy is carried to David’s time and stops with David, which seems to imply that the book was written in the time of David, but not later than David’s time.

5. On what grounds do the radical critics place the date of the composition to the time of the Exile, after the downfall of the Monarchy and even later?

Ans. Their principal argument, as usual, is based on philology, that is, the use of certain expressions or words that they claim must belong to a later date. It is enough for me to say that their argument is so very feeble and inconclusive it is hardly worth a dignified reply.

6. Who probably was the author?

Ans. The book itself does not say, only we know that every Old Testament book was written by some prophet. The probable author of the whole book was Samuel, who lived to anoint David as king.

7. The scene of the story?

Ans. There are two scenes, the Land of Moab and Bethlehem of Judah.

8. What the purpose of the book?

Ans. On the face of it the body of the book is to give a picture of domestic life in the period of the judges, and to show how faith and piety are rewarded even in this life and to trace the line of the coming Messiah.

9. What the literary characteristics of the book?

Ans. It is a true story of domestic life, both historical and biographical. The principal personages in the story were the ancestors of David, showing the Moabitish link not only in David’s genealogy but in the genealogy of our Lord. On account of this relation to the fields it is sometimes called a pastoral and is certainly a gem of literature.

10. Analyze the story.

Ans. This story is dramatic and consists of three acts and several scenes, thus:

ACT I At Bethlehem.

Scene 1 A Happy Family

Scene 2 A Sore Famine

Scene 3 A Fortunate Transition

ACT II In Moab

Scene 1 Arrival and Settlement

Scene 2 Marriage and death of sons

Scene 3 Departure for Judah

ACT III At Bethlehem Again

Scene 1 Visit of all Bethlehem to Naomi

Scene 2 Gleaning in the Field

Scene 3 Naomi the Matchmaker

Scene 4 Ruth and Boaz at the Threshing-floor

Scene 5 A Court in the Gate

Scene 6 A Man-Child is Born

EPILOGUE: The Messianic Line.

11. What the more important contrasts of the story?

Ans. (1) With wars and deeds of violence to which the book of Judges is mostly given. A writer has said, “Blessed is the nation which has no history,” because history mostly is made of wars and commotions. One would get from the repetition of the bloody wars in the book of Judges that the whole life of the nation was violent, but this book on domestic life shows us the contrast in the home with the exceptional phases of national strife.

(2) The second contrast is between Ruth and Orpah, the two daughters-in-law of Naomi, both of whom have the opportunity to become incorporated with God’s people and remain in connection with them, but Orpah when put to the test returns to her own people and their worship of idols. Ruth, through faith, clings to Jehovah and his worship and becomes the ancestress of the Messiah.

(3) The third contrast is between Boaz and the other kinsman mentioned, who stood nearer in blood ties to Naomi than Boaz did. The one for fear of endangering his own inheritance surrendered the privilege of the kinsman, the other availed himself of the surrendered privilege and becomes known throughout the world as the ancestor of the Messiah.

12. What are the special lessons of this book?

Ans. (1) The lesson on the levirate marriage, that is where a man after marriage dies without children the closest male kin under the Mosaic law takes the widow as his wife with the view to raise up seed in the name of the dead husband and who inherited his part of the land.

(2) The second lesson is the messianic picture. All through the history of Israel is an ever increasing prophetic light pointing to the coming of Christ and especially showing that among the ancestors of Christ were Gentile women, as Rahab the harlot and Ruth the Moabitess.

(3) The third lesson is to note how famine and pestilence cause shifting of population. It was a famine that took Abraham to Egypt and the whole family of Jacob.

(4) The fourth special lesson is the exquisite gem of Ruth’s reply to Naomi. It is poetic, pathetic, manifesting a high order of faith and steadfastness. I will give it in its poetic form: Insist not on me forsaking thee, To return from following after thee; For whither thou goest, I will go, And wheresoever thou lodgest, I will lodge, Thy people is my people, And thy God my God. Wheresoever thou diest, I will die And there will I be buried. So may Jehovah do to me, And still more, If aught but death part me and thee.

(5) The fifth special lesson is the significance of names. “Elimelech” means, God is King, “Naomi” means, God is sweetness; and these names were bestowed as expressions of faith of their parents. You will see in the book that Naomi refers to the meaning of her name, on her return from Moab, when she says, “Call me no more Naomi, meaning sweetness, but Marah, meaning bitterness.” meaning the opposite of sweetness, which shows how pessimistic she had become; that instead of God being sweet to her he had become bitterness to her. It is like the pessimistic passage in the book of Job in the culmination of his affliction and in one of the Psalms.

13. What the probable bearing of this story on David’s exile in Moab as described in 1Sa 22:3-4 ?

Ans. David’s ancestors on one side were Moabites and this may account for his carrying his father and mother to Moab for a time during his outlaw life.

SPECIAL QUESTIONS FOR RESEARCH

1. Point out an oath in this book.

2. Point out a benediction.

3. Point out at least three names of God in this book.

4. Mention at least three texts from which good sermons could be preached.

5. Where do you find the Mosaic law allowing the privileges of gleaning after reapers in the harvest fields?

6. In Rth 2:12 , Boaz says to Ruth, “Jehovah recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of Jehovah, the God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to take refuge.” Cite a passage in the Psalms about sheltering under the wings of God, and our Lord’s reference in Mat 23 to sheltering under wings, and the hymn of which this appears as a part: All my trust on Thee is stayed, All my help from Thee I bring; Cover my defenseless head With the shadow of Thy wing.

7. Was the marriage of the Jew and Moabite lawful? Compare Deuteronomy and Nehemiah and then answer.

8. Cite a passage from Thomson’s Land and the Book, p. 647, bearing on Rth 2:17 .

9. In Rth 1:22 , Naomi says, “I went out full and Jehovah hath brought me home again empty”; did she refer to property or husband and sons?

10. See Josephus on the handing over of the shoe.

11. Read carefully Rth 4:3-5 , and answer whether Naomi still possessed landed property. If she sold this property allowing the nearest kinsman the option of purchase, would the sale be absolute or would it be merely a lease until the Year of Jubilee?

12. Meaning of Ephrathite?

I

GENERAL INTRODUCTION HEBREW POETRY

As we are to deal with poetry, in the main, in the following discussions, it becomes necessary that we should here give attention briefly to some important matters relating to the poetry of the Bible. This is essential as the principles of interpretation are so different from the principles of the interpretation of prose.

Hebrew poetry, rich and multifarious as it is, appears to be only a remnant of a still wider and fuller sphere of Semitic literature. There are references to this poetic literature in several places in the Old Testament, viz: Jos 10:13 ; 2Sa 1:18 , where it is expressly said that they were written in the book of Jashar which was most probably a collection of national songs written at various times.

The character of the poetry of the Hebrews is both deeply truthful and earnestly religious. Much of the contents of the Scriptures has all the ordinary characteristics of poetry. Though prosaic in form, it rises, by force of the noble sentiment which it enunciates and the striking imagery with which these sentiments are adorned, into the sphere of real poetry. Example, Rth 1:16-17 :

“And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, and 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; Jehovah do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.” This passage arranged in poetic form would appear as follows: Entreat me not to leave thee, And to return from following thee; For whither thou goest I will go, And where thou lodgest I will lodge; Thy people shall be my people, And thy God shall be my God; Where thou diest I will die, And there will I be buried; Jehovah do so to me and more also, If aught but death part thee and me.

We find the first poetry in our Bible in Gen 4:23-24 , the Song of Lamech, a little elegiac poem (See the American Standard Version), reciting a lamentation about a domestic tragedy, thus: And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: For I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me: If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

For an interpretation of this passage, see Carroll’s Interpretation, Vol. 1.

We now note all poetry found in the Pentateuch, as follows:

Gen 4:23 , the Song of Lamech, already referred to;

Gen 9:25-27 , a little poem reciting Noah’s curse and blessing on his sons;

Gen 25:23 , a single verse, forecasting the fortunes of Jacob and Esau;

Gen 27:27-29 , a beautiful gem, reciting Isaac’s blessing on Jacob;

Gen 27:39-40 , another gem recording Isaac’s blessing on Esau;

Gen 49:2-27 , Jacob’s blessings on his sons;

Exo 15:1-18 , Moses’ song of triumph over Pharaoh;

Num 6:24-26 , the high priest’s benediction;

Num 21:14-15 , a war song of Amon;

Num 21:17-18 , a song at the well of Be-er;

Num 21:27-30 , a song of victory over “Sihon, king of the Amorites”;

Num 23:7-10 , Balaam’s first prophecy;

Num 23:18-24 , Balaam’s second prophecy;

Num 24:3-9 , Balaam’s third prophecy;

Num 24:15-24 , Balaam’s fourth prophecy;

Deu 32:1-43 , Moses’ song;

Deu 33:2-29 , Moses’ blessing on Israel.

The poetry found in the historical books (Josh.-Esther) is as follows:

Jos 10:12-13 , Joshua’s little song of victory;

Jdg 5:1-31 , Deborah’s song;

Jdg 14:14 , Samson’s riddle;

Jdg 14:18 , Samson’s proverb;

Jdg 15:16 , Samson’s song of the jawbone;

1Sa 2:1-10 , Hannah’s song of exultation;

1Sa 21:11 , the song of the women about Saul and David;

2Sa 1:19-21 , David’s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan;

2Sa 3:33-34 , David’s lamentation over Abner;

2Sa 22:2-51 , David’s song of triumph over his enemies;

2Sa 23:1-7 , David’s last words;

1Ch 16:8-36 , David’s song of thanksgiving.

A great deal of the writings of the prophets is highly poetic, and many quotations from them in the New Testament are given in poetic form in the American Standard Version, but only a few passages appear in poetic form in the books of the Old Testament. These are as follows:

Isa 38:9-20 , Hezekiah’s song;

Lamentations;

Jon 2:2-9 , Jonah’s prayer;

Hab 3:1-19 , the prayer of Habakkuk.

Besides these passages, the great bulk of Hebrew poetry found in the Old Testament is in the poetical books Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon practically all of which is poetical in form, except Ecclesiastes which is poetic prose. These books constitute the basis of our present study.

There is quite a lot of poetry in the New Testament, consisting of original poems and many quotations from the Old Testament and some other writings, for the citations of which I refer the reader to the American Standard Version of the New Testament. These passages are in poetic form wherever they occur. This will give the reader some idea of the mass of poetical literature found in our Bible and it should impress him with the importance of understanding the principles by which it may be rightly interpreted.

On the distinguishing characteristics of Hebrew poetry, I commend to the reader most heartily Dr. John R. Sampey’s Syllabus of the Old Testament. Dr. Sampey was a great Hebrew scholar and his discussion on any point touching the Hebrew language must be considered authoritative. Since there is no better statement on these matters to be found anywhere, I give you in the following paragraphs a brief summary of his discussion on the forms and kinds of Hebrew poetry, noting especially what he says about parallelism, the grouping of lines, the stanza, the meter, and the kinds of Hebrew poetry. The general characteristics of Hebrew poetry are: (1) verbal rhythm, (2) correspondence of words, (3) inversion, (4) archaic expression and (5) parallelism.

Recent research goes to show that the Hebrew poets had some regard for the number of accented syllables in a line. They were guided by accentual beats rather than by the number of words or syllables. The most common form called for three accents to each line. The difficulty in getting an appreciation of the verbal rhythm in Hebrew lies in the fact that there is almost a complete loss of the true pronunciation of the Hebrew.

By correspondence of words is meant that the words in one verge, or member; answer to the words in another, the sense in the one echoing the sense in the other, the form corresponding with form and word with word. Some examples, as follows: Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why art thou disquieted within me? Psa 43:5 He turneth rivers into a wilderness, And watersprings into a thirsty ground. Psa 107:33 The memory of the righteous is blessed; But the name of the wicked shall rot. Pro 10:7

By inversion is meant to invert the grammatical order or parts in a sentence for the purpose of emphasis or for adjustment. Though inversion holds a distinguished place in the structure of Hebrew poetry, it is only a modified inversion that prevails and by no means does it compare favorably with that of the Greeks and Romans in boldness, decision, and prevalence. Examples: In thoughts from the visions of the night, When deep sleep falleth on men. Job 4:13 Unto me men gave ear, and waited, And kept silence for my counsel. Job 29:21 And they made his grave with the wicked, And with a rich man in his death; Although he had done no violence, Neither was any deceit in his mouth. Isa 53:9

The archaical character of Hebrew poetry refers to the antiquity of the poetical elements as found in the Hebrew poetry, to the license, poetic hue and coloring, which cannot be confounded with simple, low, and unrhythmical diction of prose. Two elements, a poetical temperament and a poetical history, which are necessary to the development of a poetic diction, the Hebrews had as perhaps few people have ever possessed. Theirs was eminently a poetic temperament; their earliest history was heroic while the loftiest of all truths circulated in their souls and glowed on their lips. Hence their language, in its earliest stages, is surpassingly poetic, striking examples of which may be found in Genesis and Job.

By parallelism in Hebrew poetry is meant that one line corresponds in thought to another line. The three most common varieties of parallelism are: (1) synonymous, (2) antithetic, (3) synthetic. We will now define and illustrate each variety, thus:

(1) By synonymous parallelism is meant that in which a second line simply repeats in slightly altered phraseology the thought of the first line. Examples: He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh: The Lord will have them in derision.

Psa 2:4 And these lay wait for their own blood; They lurk privily for their own lives. Pro 1:18

Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? Or is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect?

Job 22:3 For thou hast taken pledges of thy brother for naught, And stripped the naked for their clothing. Job 22:6 But as for the mighty man, he had the earth; And the honorable man, he dwelt in it. Job 22:8 Therefore snares are round about thee, And sudden fear troubleth thee. Job 22:10

(2) By antithetic parallelism is meant that in which the second line is in contrast with the first. Examples: A wise son maketh a glad father; But a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother; Pro 10:1 He that gathereth in summer is a wise son; But he that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causeth shame; Pro 10:5 The memory of the righteous is blessed; But the name of the wicked shall rot. Pro 10:7

Most of the 376 couplets in Pro 10:1-22:16 are antithetic.

(3) By synthetic parallelism is meant that in which the second line supplements the first, both together giving a complete thought. Examples: My son, if sinners entice thee, Consent thou not. Pro 1:10 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, When it is in the power of thy hand to do it. Pro 3:27 Say not unto thy neighbor. Go, and come again, And to-morrow I will give: When thou hast it by thee. Pro 3:28 Devise not evil against thy neighbor; Seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. Pro 3:29 Strive not with a man without cause, If he hath done thee no harm. Pro 3:30

The less common varieties of parallelism found in Hebrew poetry are: (1) climactic, (2) introverted, and (3) emblematic. These are defined and illustrated as follows:

(1) In the climactic parallelism the second line takes up words from the first and completes them. Example: Ascribe unto Jehovah, O ye sons of the mighty, Ascribe unto Jehovah glory and strength. Psa 28:1 The rulers ceased in Israel, they ceased, Until that I Deborah arose, That I arose a mother in Israel. Jdg 5:7

(2) In the introverted parallelism the first line corresponds with the fourth, and the second with the third. Example: My son, if thy heart be wise, My heart will be glad, even mine; Yea, my heart will rejoice, When thy lips speak right things. Pro 23:15

3) In the emblematic parallelism the second line brings forward something similar to the first, but in a higher realm. Take away the dross from the silver, And there cometh forth a vessel for the refiner; Take away the wicked from before the king, And his throne shall be established in righteousness. Pro 25:4 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in network of silver. As an ear-ring of gold and an ornament of fine gold, So is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear. As the cold snow is the time of harvest, So is a faithful messenger to them that send him; For he refresheth the soul of his masters. Pro 25:11-13 As clouds and wind without rain, So is he that boasteth himself of his gifts falsely. Pro 25:14 Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble Is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint. Pro 25:19 As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon soda, So is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart. Pro 25:20 For lack of wood the fire goeth out; And where there is no whisperer, contention ceaseth. As coals are to hot embers, and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to inflame strife. Pro 26:20-21

The lines in Hebrew poetry are grouped as follows:

(1) Monostichs (Psa 16:1 ; Psa 18:1 );

(2) Distichs (Psa 34:1 ; Pro 13:20 ) ;

(3) Tristichs (Psa 2:2 ; Psa 3:7 );

(4) Tetrastichs (Gen 49:7 ; Psa 55:21 ; Pro 23:15 f);

(5) Pentastichs (Pro 25:6 f);

(6) Hexastichs (Gen 48:15 f);

(7) Heptastichs(Pro 23:6-8 );

(8) Octostichs (Pro 30:7-9 ),

A stanza in Hebrew poetry consists of a group of lines or verses upon the same subject or developing the same thought. There are four kinds of these stanzas, viz: the couplet, or a group of two lines; the tristich, or a group of three lines; the tetrastich, or a group of four lines; and the hexastich, or a group of six lines. In Psa 119 we have the strophe consisting of eight verses, each verse in this strophe beginning with the same letter.

There are four kinds of Hebrew poetry, viz: (1) lyric, (2) gnomic, (3) dramatic, (4) elegiac. These are defined and illustrated thus:

(1) Lyric is derived from the word, “lyre,” a musical instrument to accompany singing. There are many snatches of song in the historical books from Genesis to Esther. The Psalms are an imperishable collection of religious lyrics.

(2) By “gnomic” is meant proverbial. Proverbs, part of Ecclesiastes, and many detached aphorisms in other books of the Old Testament are examples.

(3) By “dramatic” is meant that form of literature that gives idealized representations of human experience. Job is a splendid example of this kind of literature.

(4) By “elegiac” is meant that form of poetry which partakes of the nature of the elegy, or lamentation. Lamentations is a fine example of this kind of poetry. There are other dirges in the historical books and in the prophets. 2Sa 1:19-27 and Amo 5:1-3 are examples. Much of Isaiah’s writing is poetic in spirit and some of it in form. So of the early prophetic writers, especially the early prophets. Now, according to this classification of Hebrew poetry, it should be an easy and profitable work for the reader to classify all the poetry of the Bible. This can be readily done with the American Standard Revised Version in hand. All the poetry of the Bible is written in poetic form in this version, and every student of the Bible should have it.

QUESTIONS

1. What can you say, in general, of the Hebrew poetry as we have it in the Bible?

2. What of the character of the poetry of the Hebrews?

3. Where do we find the first poetry in our Bible and what ia the nature of this little poem?

4. Locate all the poetry found in the Pentateuch.

5. Locate all the poetry found in the historical books (Josh.; Esther).

6. Locate the poetic passages in the prophets.

7. Where do we find the great bulk of Hebrew poetry in the Bible?

8. What of the poetry of the New Testament and how may it be located?

9. What book commended by the author on the forms and kinds of Hebrew poetry?

10. What the general characteristics of Hebrew poetry?

11. What is meant by rhythm and what renders an appreciation of verbal rhythm in the Hebrew now so difficult?

12. What is meant by correspondence of words? Illustrate.

13. What is meant by inversion? Illustrate.

14. What is meant by the archaical character of Hebrew poetry?

15. What is meant by parallelism and what the three most common varieties? Define and illustrate each.

16. What the less common varieties of parallelism? Define and illustrate each.

17. How are the lines in Hebrew poetry grouped? Give example of each.

18. What is a stanza in Hebrew poetry? How many and what kinds are found?

19. How many kinds of Hebrew poetry? Name, define, and illustrate each.

20. What suggestion by the author relative to classifying all the poetry of the Bible?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Rth 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

The Book of Ruth. ] So, “The Book of Esther”: not because these thrice worthy women – in whom, besides their sex, there was nothing woman like or weak – were the authors of those books, but the subject matter of them. Whether Samuel wrote this history of Ruth, or some other prophet, it is not much material: but it fitly precedeth his book, as a preparative to the history of David, whose acts it recordeth. And it no less fitly followeth the Book of Judges, as being an appendix to it, and treating of things done in their days. A precious piece it is surely, though but short; , as St Bartholomew said of divinity; of special concernment, as pointing to Christ born of Boaz a Jew, and Ruth a Gentile, as a Saviour to both sorts; Act 10:34-35 and of singular worth: whence Hugo compareth it to a little bee, great in fruitfulness, gathering wax and honey, for light and medicine; Lavater, to such precious stones as are small in bulk, but of egregious virtue.

Ver. 1.

Now it came to pass. ] Not without the special hand and providence of God, which we are diligently to observe this whole story throughout; as likewise in reading the Book of Esther.

In the days when the judges ruled. ] But what judges ruled when Ruth was thus preferred to be grandmother to Messiah the Prince, is hard to say. Josephus and Zonaras are for Eli. The Rabbins say that these things began under Ehud, and that Ruth was the daughter of Eglon king of Moab. But neither of these is likely. Gallianus will have Abimelech and Tola to have been judges when these things were done. Lyra and some Jewish doctors hold Boaz to be the same with that judge Ibzan of Bethlehem. Jdg 12:8 Tostatus, and after him Tremellius, think the history of Ruth fell out in the days of Deborah; others, in the beginning of Gideon: and these speak most probably, as may be gathered by comparing Mat 1:5 with the end of this history.

That there was a famine in the land. ] In the promised land, that sumen totius terroe: and at Bethlehem also, that “house of bread,” famous for its fertility. See Jdg 6:4-6 , with Psa 107:34 . There is food in Moab when famine in Israel. “Wicked men have their portion in this life”; Psa 17:14 but David neither coveteth their cates, nor envieth their happiness. Psa 17:15

And a certain man of Beth-lehem-judah went. ] So did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in like case, and for like cause. So the prophet Elisha counselled the Shunamite to do, &c. Some Jews tell us, – but who told them? – that Elimelech was a great rich man, and that, through contempt of the law, and base covetousness, lest he should part with his wealth to his poor kindred, he left his country and went into the land of Moab, where he died a beggar, &c. Let this pass for a Jewish fable.

He, and his wife, and his two sons. ] Whom he had in his heart, ad commoriendum et convivendum. This condemneth those miscreants which run away from wife and children, and are worse than infidels, 1Ti 5:8 yea, than brute beasts.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Now it came to pass in the days. Occurs five times. Always denotes impending trouble, followed by happy deliverance. Compare Gen 14:1. Est 1:1. Isa 7:1. Jer 1:3.

when the judges ruled. Doubtless, in the early days, before the sin of Jdg 1 developed the later internal disorders, and outward oppressions.

a famine. See note on Gen 12:10.

country = fields.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Shall we turn now to the book of Ruth?

As we were studying the book of Judges last week, we pointed out that at the end of chapter sixteen, the end of the story of Samson, you actually came to the end of the history part of the book of Judges. What followed in chapter seventeen and onto the end were a couple of incidents, or scenes, that took place during the time of the Judges, just to show that it was a time of spiritual confusion and moral decay as far as the nation was concerned. When the Danites moved their area of inheritance, a portion of them went on up to the northern part of the land. How that they captured this young priest, and how he had these teraphims and so forth, these little images that had been made. It was just a time of spiritual confusion. Then it was a time of moral decay as we saw the conditions of the Benjamites, and the sodomy that was beginning to be practiced by the men of Gibeah, and it’s consequences.

Now that gives you one side of what was happening. There was another story that took place and the book of Ruth opens.

Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled ( Rth 1:1 ),

So the story of Ruth again is sort of an appendix to the book of Judges, in that this story fits back into the period when the Judges were ruling over Israel.

Now it was a time of spiritual confusion, it was a time of apostasy, a time of moral declension, but yet in the midst of it all, God was working out His plan in those hearts and lives that were open to Him. This is always true. Though you may look at an overall condition of a nation, or a people and say, “Boy, they’re really in a mess,” yet God is always working out His plan in the hearts and in the lives of those that are open unto Him.

So here God was working in the period of moral declension, in this period of confusion, yet God was working in a very special way. The book of Ruth gives us the insight into the work of God.

Now quite often when we live in a corrupted society, such as we live today, and where in our whole educational philosophy they teach that the morals of society determine what is right and wrong conduct. Thus, having established that as a sociological fact, as we look around and see the morals, we say, “Well, everybody’s doing it,” and that becomes the criteria, “it must be right.”

It is interesting that the Bible declares that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now that is the biblical account of creation. You have in the educational circles today the humanistic philosophy that is actually prevailing within our educational system. The humanistic philosophy rather than saying that, “God created man,” declares that, “Man created God for his own convenience because he needed something to believe in. He needed to have some kind of a guide for moral conduct and all, and so man created God.” That actually man’s moral conduct is determined by the morals of his society. The Bible declares “In the beginning God created man.” The moral conduct were standards that were established by God which are absolutes. Humanism, “God created,” or “Man created God for his own convenience,” and man establishes his own standards, his own morals; and thus, they are relative to the situations.

Now living, and all of you have in some degree been affected by the humanistic philosophy that prevails in every level of our society today. The danger is falling into that trap of thinking, “Well, everybody is doing it. I’m weird or out of step because I’m not following along with the same pattern of the world in which I live. And to be accepted, I must join the crowd. After all if everybody’s doing it, it must be all right.” False. That is the philosophy of humanism expressed in its existentialism. Not so, God has established standards. Man is always trying to get a little twist on the standard that God has established. “Well, what if this?” and “What if that?” Trying to make it relate to a special case. But God has established the standards by which we are to live. God created man and established the moral standards for that man.

So God is always working. And in this confused, corrupted society in which we live, God still desires to work in the hearts and the lives that are open to the work of God. Oh God help me that my heart might be open to God, so that He can work in my life in the midst of this corrupted society.

Now the Bible foresaw the corruption in which you are living today. The Bible very aptly expressed sort of the scientific attitudes of uniformitarianism that have prevailed, that have set the stage for revolutionary thesis, which has of course set the stage for the whole humanism, because “God is no longer needed, man evolved from the protozoa,” and the whole thing is tied together.

Peter said, “In the last days there will be scoffers that will come and say, Where is the promise of the Father?” that is of the coming again of Jesus Christ. “Where is the Lord? He hasn’t come. Since our fathers have fallen asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning”( 2Pe 3:3-4 ). I defy you to find me a better definition of uniformitarianism. “All things have continued as they were from the beginning.” That is exactly what the dogma, or the theory of uniformitarianism declares. All of the phenomena that has ever existed in the creation and the evolving of man, into the present day, can be observed in the world today. There have been no catastrophes, and so forth, no dramatic changes.

It is interesting that Peter foresaw this scientific theory before it was ever propounded, and he actually gave the greatest flaw within it. “For this they were willingly ignorant, that God destroyed the world that was with a flood.” They closed their eyes to that, the fact of the universal flood, which is by far a better explanation of the geological column, and of geology itself than is this theory of evolution. The geological column does not prove at all the theory of evolution, in fact, it raises great questions in regards to the theory of evolution, because within the geological column there is a total absence of any transitional forms. If the transitional forms took place over millions of years of evolving, surely we would have fossils that would show the transitional forms. So absent is the fossil record of transitional forms that has led one of the professors at Stanford to come up with the magic bird kind of a theory. Whereas a snake one time laid an egg, and a bird flew out. It’s the hopeful monster theory. He had to come up with that because of the absence of the transitional forms of the geological column. Rather than there being gradual changes, they’re now saying, “Suddenly in the Cambrian state there appeared multitudes of many faceted animals in highly developed forms.” Remarkable. Hocus pocus dominocus!

So it’s a thing that we are in this society of which the Bible said perilous times would come, men would be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. They would be fierce. They’d be incontinent, which speaks of this sexual freedom that people are advocating today, and goes on to describe our modern day society. Jesus in referring to these things said, “Because the iniquity of the earth is going to abound, the love of many is going to wax cold” ( Mat 24:12 ). But in the midst of this crooked and perverse world, God is still working in the hearts and lives of those that are opened and surrendered unto Him.

So in the period of Judges, a time much as today, when the gays were parading and declaring their normalcy, and declaring to actually propagate their own thing there in Gibeah, and were publicly parading their perverse style of life, God was working in the hearts and lives of those that were open to God.

Now the book of Ruth is another insight. It shows us how God can work, and does work His purposes on the earth even under adverse circumstances.

So,

It came to pass when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. A certain man of Bethlehemjudah and he went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. And this man was an Elimelech, and the name of his wife was Naomi, and the name of his sons were Mahlon and Chilion, and he was an Ephrathite ( Rth 1:1-2 ).

Now Ephrathite or Ephratah was the area, the general in which Bethlehem was situated. Like Santa Ana is situated in Orange County, Bethlehem was situated in the area called Ephratah. So, he was called an Ephrathite, like you might be called an Orange Countian because you live in Orange County.

Now the names are always interesting because the names are oftentimes significant to the story. They named their children, and every name had a meaning. Now they say that names have meanings today, and you can look back to the meaning of your names in some of the dictionaries, what your name actually means. The name Elimelech means, “My God is King!” Beautiful name. The name Naomi means “Pleasantness,” a very beautiful name indeed. But the name Mahlon means “Sickly,” and the name Chilion means “Pining.”

Now often the children were named after circumstances of their birth. When Esau was born he was all covered with hair, and so they called him “Hairy.” The word Esau means “Hairy,” and he’s just a hairy little kid so it’s a good name. When his brother was born, his twin brother, he reached out and grabbed hold of Hairy’s heel. So they said, “Look at that he’s a heel catcher.” They called him Jacob, “Heel catcher.”

So they were named after circumstances of their birth. Probably when Mahlon was born perhaps he was premature, maybe it was touch and go for awhile, he just didn’t look well. They said, “Oh he’s sickly, he’s Mahlon.” So he picked up the name Mahlon, “Sickly.” Later when his brother was born, he didn’t look much better so they called him “Pining.” Sickly and Pining. No wonder they died young, they were sickly and pining.

So in the land of Bethlehem there was a famine, there was a drought, which does take place periodically over there. Last year they had a drought. They heard that there was good land over in Moab and so Elimelech decided to sell out and with his wife, and two sons move over to Moab, which is the high plateau country against a great rift, the Jordan river, the Dead sea. Over on the other side, the high plateau country which is very fertile area. So they moved over to Moab. While they were there Elimelech died. So the boys married girls from Moab. The one married a girl by the name of Orpah, the other married a girl by the name of Ruth. And it came to pass in time that both of the boys also died without having any children.

So Naomi said to the two daughters in law, Go back and return to your families, to your mother’s house: and may the Lord deal kindly with you, even as you have dealt with the dead and with me ( Rth 1:8 ).

So during this time of family tragedy these two girls actually brought, showed a real depth of character. They were very kind to Naomi, and comforting of Naomi. They took their tragedy very well. So Naomi is wishing them that they also might receive this same degree of kindness that they had displayed unto her.

And the Lord grant that you find rest, each of you in the house of her husband ( Rth 1:9 ).

So, “May, may you both find some good boys and get married. May you have a happy, married life. May you find someone else, and may you live at rest in the house of your husband.” So she’s just encouraging the girls, “Hey girls, you know you’re better off here, you’re better off with your families. You’re better off just getting married with someone else.”

So the two girls went with her for awhile on the way back. So they wept and all, and then Ruth, I mean, Naomi said to them again, “Look girls, I’m really too old to have any more sons. Even if I have a hope of having sons, let’s say that I was married now and became pregnant tomorrow, would you want to wait until my sons grew up old enough to get married? They don’t want to wait, and anyhow it’s not gonna happen. So you just go ahead and return home, and get your husbands and get married.

So Orpah [fell on her neck and] kissed her, [and bid her farewell, and returned to her mother’s house]; but Ruth [then uttered these beautiful words], Entreat me not to leave thee [or to forsake thee], or to return from following after thee: because where you will go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge: your people will be my people, and your God will be my God: God forbid if anything but death should separate between us ( Rth 1:14 , Rth 1:16-17 ).

So the, the devotion of Ruth to her mother-in-law. “Look I’ll go with you. Don’t ask me to leave you, or to forsake you, or to return back to my family. For wherever you go,” evidently there was a beautiful bond that was created between daughter-in-law and mother-in-law. “Wherever you go I will go, wherever you lodge, I will lodge. You’re people will be my people, your God will be my God. God forbid if anything but death should separate us.” So they came back into the land.

When she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her. So the two went until they came to Bethlehem ( Rth 1:18-19 ).

Now when they arrived in Bethlehem, the people said, “Oh Naomi has returned!” And she said, “Don’t call me Naomi.” Now let’s put it in their language. They said, “Oh pleasantness has returned!” She said, “Don’t call me pleasant.”

Call me bitter: for the Lord dealt bitter with me ( Rth 1:20 ).

Mara, “bitter.” “Don’t call me “Pleasant,” call me “Bitter,” the Lord has dealt bitterly with me.”

Now it is interesting that she sort of blames the tragedy on God. “The Lord has dealt bitterly with me.” There seems to be a natural inclination for us to blame God for our tragedies, especially for death. When Jesus arrived in Bethany at the time of the death of Lazarus, he had been very sick. His sister sent the urgent message down to the Jordan where Jesus was staying, “Come quickly the one you love is sick!” Jesus tarried there at the Jordan for two days, and then headed off for Bethany.

Now for a message to get from Bethany to Jordan took two days. Jesus stayed there an extra two days, and it took Him two days to get back to Bethany. So in the meantime, six days had transpired from the time the message went out, “Your friend is very sick, the one you love is very sick.” It was six days later that Jesus was arriving in Bethany, and the girls knew that it was too late. They knew that it was actually later than it should be. He could’ve arrived earlier. They were aware that He was delayed, they didn’t know why. Martha came out to meet Him, and in an accusing way said, “Lord, if You would only had been here, my brother would not have died! Lord, where were You when we needed You? Lord, why didn’t You come quicker? We told You come quickly, the one You love is sick! Lord, what took You so long? Why didn’t You respond, Lord?” Really the idea is she was blaming the death of her brother on the Lord. “Lord, You could’ve averted this!”

Now we know that that is true. We know that God does hold life in His hands. We know that God is able to sustain life. We know that God is able to restore life. We know that the days of man are appointed of God. Thus, there is this inclination to blame God for death, and in a sense that is right. But in another sense we only feel bitterness because we have a totally wrong concept of death as it being the end, “Oh, he had his whole life in front of him, everything going for him. Oh, what a shame.”

I heard this so much when my younger brother was killed. Handsome, good-looking, big guy, just had everything going for him. Good sense of business, and he was making investments and just everything falling into line. Bought an airplane so he could get back and forth between his business better. Crashed in his airplane. People said, “Oh, what a shame. Whole life in front of him, what a shame.” Yeah, what a shame. He got there before I did! By the time I arrive, he’s gonna know every nook and cranny. Gonna take me awhile to catch up.

You know he’s with the Lord. What’s so bad about that? He’s there in God’s kingdom; what’s so sad? The sad part is that I miss him. The sad part that I miss all the fun that we used to have together. He was an exciting person. He used to always be doing crazy things and exciting things. I miss that. I sorrow because what I have lost, but I don’t sorrow for him. I’m jealous of him being with the Lord, how glorious. Not having to hassle with gas lines, with bills, and all of the kind of things that we have to experience. How wonderful. I’ll catch up with him one of these days.

But we have the wrong attitude, you see, concerning death. We look at this life as though, “Oh, it is so precious. It’s so wonderful. Hang onto it.” That’s because of the uncertainty of that life that He has promised to us, our lapses of faith. “Don’t call me pleasant, call me bitter!” That’s sad. It’s sad whenever you become bitter over any experience of life, because bitterness only hurts you. We are warned to be careful of any root of bitterness within our lives because of the effect that it can have on your total life. The bitter roots can bring forth bitter fruit in your life. We must guard against bitterness. Bitterness is an attitude that I choose because of the circumstances that I face. I don’t have to become bitter, I choose to become bitter. For there are other people who go through the exact similar circumstances and they become better people because they learn to commit and trust in God all the more. They say, “Well it’s all in the Lord’s hands, and I belong to the Lord, and God is just given me strength, and God has just given me capacities and all.” They become actually better people.

Some of the greatest people I know are people who have suffered incessantly through life. And through the suffering there has been a depth of character developed that is unparalleled by others who have never experienced suffering or sorrow. Out of suffering, out of sorrow, the roots can go deep into God and the life can become beautiful, and strong, and powerful. Or you can root into bitterness and your life becomes bitter and tight, and tense.

It’s tragic when a person gives himself over to bitterness. It’s all in how you look at the situation. I can look at it and I can become bitter and say, “If God loved me then why did He allow that to happen to me?” My life becomes tense, and I become tight, and my blood vessels begin to constrict and there’s not a real flowing anymore. My whole life is so tense. I begin to actually get the effects of it physically.

Or I can say, “Well, the Lord has given, the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord! All things work together for good, and God has a plan and He loves me, and I know that He’s watching over me. Whatever it is God’s working out a plan in my life. Praise the Lord! God you know that I need to have this worked out. You’re just seeking to conform me into Your image, have Your perfect work within my life, God.” I can become a better person, an open person, and filled with God’s love. I can flow out the beautiful fruits, of love, and faith, and hope to others.

Naomi for the moment was responding in the wrong way, “Don’t call me Pleasant, call me Bitter!” Oh sad, that’s sad when you’ve allowed the circumstances of your life to jaundice your feelings and you turn bitter against God, and bitter against the circumstances of life. Naomi thought it was all over. She thought that was the end of the road. She didn’t know the plan God was working out.

She said,

I went away full, and the Lord hath brought me home again empty: why do you call me Pleasant, seeing the Lord has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me? So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, they came out of the country of Moab: they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of the barley harvest ( Rth 1:21-22 ).

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Rth 1:1. Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

That was a bad move on their part; Better poverty with the people of God, than plenty outside of the covenanted land.

Rth 1:2. And the name of the man was Elimelech,

Elimelech? means, my God is King. A man with such a name as that ought not to have left the kingdom where his God was King; but some people are not worthy of the names they bear.

Rth 1:2. And the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Beth-lehem-judah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.

That is generally what happens; those who go into the country of Moab continue there. If Christians go away from their separated life, they are very apt to continue in that condition. It may be easy to say, I will step aside from the Christian path for just a little while; but it is not so easy to return to it. Usually something or other hampers; the birdlime catches the birds of Paradise, and holds them fast.

Rth 1:3-4. And Elimelech Naomis husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

Which was about ten years too long. Probably they did not intend to remain so long when they went there, they only meant to be in Moab for a little while, just as Christian people, when they fall into worldly conformity, only purpose to do it once, just for the sake of the girls, to bring them out a little. But it happens to them as it is written here: and they dwelled there about ten years.

Rth 1:5. And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.

That seemed to be her great griefthat she was left. She would have been content to go with them, but she was left to mourn their loss.

Rth 1:6. Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab:

It is often the case that, when our idols are broken, we turn back to our God. It is frequently the case that the loss of earthly good leads us to return to our first Husband, for we feel that then it was better with us than it is now. Naomi had also another inducement to return:

Rth 1:6. For she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread.

Have any of you professors gone a long way off from God? I wish you knew what plenty there is in the Great Fathers house, and what a blessed feast there is for these who live with him. There is no famine in that land; there is plenty of gladness, plenty of comfort, plenty of everything that is joyful, to be found there. You need not go to Moab, and to her false goes, to find pleasure and satisfaction.

Rth 1:7-9. Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah. And Naomi said unto her two daughters-in-law, Go, return each to her mothers house: the Lord deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me. The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.

Separation was painful to them, for they loved their mother-in-law, a most unselfish person who, even though it was a comfort to her to enjoy their company, thought it would be for their good, in a temporal sense, that they should abide in their own country.

Rth 1:10-14. And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people. And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also tonight, and should also bear sons; Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me. And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law; but Ruth clave unto her.

What a difference there often is between two persons who are under religious impressions at the same time! The one would like to follow Jesus, but the price is too much to pay; so there is a kiss somewhat like that of Judas, and Orpah goes back to her people, and to her idols. But how different was the other case! Ruth was, as it were, glued to Naomi; she clave unto her, Stuck to her, and could not be made to go back with her sister.

Rth 1:15-17. And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. And Ruth said, Entreat 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 aught but death part thee and me.

That was bravely spoken, and she meant it, too.

Rth 1:18. When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her.

That is a striking expression, When she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her. O you dear young friends who want to be Christians, how glad we are when we see that you are steadfastly minded to go with the people of God! There are so many who are quickly hot and quickly cold,soon excited towards good things, and almost as speedily their ardor cools, and they go back into the world. Do ask the Lord to make you steadfastly minded. This is one of the best frames of mind for any of us to be in.

Rth 1:19. So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, Is this Naomi?

They seemed all to turn out of doors to have a look at these two strangers, and especially at Naomi, for she was so different from what she had been when she went away. And they said, Is this Naomi? Some said, Is this Naomi? questioning. Others said it with surprise as a thing incredible, This Naomi! How can she be the same woman? It was very rude of them to turn out, just like people, without sympathy, do on Ramsgate pier, to see the sick passengers land. Nobody seems to have said, Come into our house to lodge, but all questioned, Is this Naomi?

Rth 1:20. And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi,

Call me not pleasant.

Rth 1:20. Call me Mara:

That is, bitter.

Rth 1:20. For the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.

It was a pity for Naomi to say that; yet I fear that many of us have done the same; We have not borne such sweet testimony to the Lord as we might have done, but have sorrowfully moaned, as this poor woman did:

Rth 1:21. I went out full,

Why, then, did you go out?

Rth 1:21. And the LORD hath brought me home again empty:

Ah! but he has brought you home again. Oh, if she would but have noticed the mercy there was in it all, she might still have spoken like Naomi; but now she speaks like Mara,bitterness. Her husband and her two boysall her hearts delightwere with her when she went out; and now that they are gone, she says:

Rth 1:21. Why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?

Yet it is a sweet thing to be able to trace the hand of God in our affliction, for nothing can come from that hand towards one of his children but that which is good and right. If you will think of those hands of which the Lord says, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands, you may rest assured that nothing can come from those hands but what infinite wisdom directs, and infinite love has ordained.

Rth 1:22. So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.

That is, at the time of the passover; let us hope that they received a blessing in observing the ordinances of that time, and that they were thus helped to get back to the only right and happy state of heart.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

The Book of Ruth stands in striking contrast to the Book of Judges and yet is closely connected with it. In Judges the national outlook has been presented and so dark has it been as to create the impression of universal pollution. The story of Ruth illustrates the truth that God has never left Himself without witness.

During a time of famine, Elimelech, his wife, and two sons went into the country of Moab to find bread and to escape trouble. It is questionable whether their action was justified. Their sons married Moabite women. It is evident, however, that their action was rather blundering than willful rebellion. There they maintained their faith in the one God. When, bereft of her husband and two sons, Naomi turned her face again to her own country, she urged her daughters in-law to leave her and settle among their own people. This was the occasion of that choice of Ruth which in its devotion and in the manner in which she expressed it has become universally accepted as an illustration of fidelity of love. The story, however, reveals that love for Naomi was not the deepest note in her decision. That was struck when she used the expression, “. . . Thy God [shall be] my God.”

The language of Naomi at the home-coming shows that she looked upon the sorrows that had come to her as Gods testimony against her and His affection of her. There was, however, no touch of rebellion in what she said but rather a gracious recognition of chastisement, showing that she had learned the lessons it was intended to teach.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Back to Bethlehem

Rth 1:1-14

It was a mistake for Elimelech and his family to have left Bethlehem; God would have sent them bread. The path became darker and darker. Mahlon means Pining and Chilion Consumption. Three graves in a strange land! All the laughter and hope that had given Naomi her name of Pleasant had turned to sadness; she longed to see the dear village of her childhood and early married life, and to drink the water of the well, 2Sa 23:15. It is thus that the banished soul comes back to God. Moabs fascination palls on the taste; its cisterns are broken and will hold no water. See Psa 63:1-11.

The two younger women climbed the road with Naomi, till they reached the point where the last glimpse could be taken of Moab. There Naomi uttered this remarkable address, urging her daughters to return. It was very thoughtful and tender, and touched chords of bitter memory and deep pathos. But the saddest undertone was not regret for the dead past; it was the feeling that the hand of the Lord had been against her. Nay, dear soul, that hand is already engaged in making all things work together for good. A few more months and your sorrow will be turned into joy, Rth 4:16.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Ruth 1-4

The Book of Ruth is a love-story told in four chapters. It gives us a glimpse of everyday life in Bethlehem; in home and in harvest-field, in its general gossip and its law-suits, more than three thousand years ago.

I. Glancing back over the lines of this sweet and pure pastoral idyll, we feel that rarely did human story more impressively demonstrate the unspeakable worth of lowly folk, the fine and favourable issues of seemingly suppressed lives, the hidden wealth of true and unobtrusive souls, for nations and for the race. Notoriety counts for nothing in the sum of things. The world’s future lay more in quiet Bethlehem, with Naomi and Ruth, than it did at the headquarters of Judge Eli. Let us not despise ourselves. God does not, and our future is with Him. Every name is historic in His estimate.

II. But we are not near enough to the heart of this story to hear its beat and feel its warmth, until we see that it is a true and tender, pure and heroic woman’s love that gives such grace to these Hebrew homes and confers such peerless worth on these lowly lives. The spell of the Book of Ruth is Ruth herself, and the chief charm of Ruth is her unselfish and devoted love.

III. Life and love lead to God. For life is God’s gift, and love is of God’s nature. “We love, because He first loved us.” This is true of the love in the home as much as of the love of the Church. All pure and unselfish love comes from God and leads to God.

Thus the story of Ruth is a fragment in a missionary report. It tells of the conversion of a Gentile and illustrates the wisest way of winning souls. God saves the world by love, and we cannot succeed by departing from His method and ignoring His Spirit. Naomi is a typical home missionary, and Ruth is the pattern and prophecy of the success that crowns wise and loving labour.

J. Clifford, Daily Strength for Daily Living, p. 119.

References: Rth 1:1.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. x., p. 279. Rth 1:1-5.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. ii., p. 81 (also S. Cox, The Book of Ruth, p. 43). Rth 1:1-8.-Lady A. Blackwood, Sunday Magazine, 1885, p. 271. Rth 1:1-18.-Parker, vol. vi., p. 185. Rth 1:2.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. xi., p. 15. Rth 1:6-22.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. ii., p. 92 (also S. Cox, The Book of Ruth, p. 63). Rth 1:8.-W. M. Statham, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 136; Old Testament Outlines, p. 60. Rth 1:14.-Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 350. Rth 1:14-18.-Sunday Magazine, 1885, p. 271. Rth 1:16.-R. M. McCheyne, Additional Remains, p. 267; Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes, p. 54; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiv., p. 49. Rth 1:16, Rth 1:17.-G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 125; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 31; Congregationalist, vol. vii., p. 656. Rth 1:19.-W. M. Statham, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 105; J. Van Oosterzee, Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 414; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 283. Ruth 1-Parker, vol. vi., p. 198. Rth 2:1-23.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. ii., p. 165 (also S. Cox, The Book of Ruth, p. 81).

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

Analysis and Annotations

CHAPTER 1 The Story of Naomi: Orpah and Ruth

1. Naomi and her sorrows (Rth 1:1-5)

2. The return (Rth 1:6-13)

3. Orpah turning back, Ruth cleaving (Rth 1:14-18)

4. Naomi and Ruth in Bethlehem (Rth 1:19-22)

The story begins with a famine. Elimelech, my God is king, and Naomi, pleasant, leave Bethlehem, the house of bread, to go to the land of Moab, the heathen country. The story ends in Bethlehem with a marriage. Naomi far from the land, in unbelief and bitterness, bereft of Elimelech, her two sons also dead, Mahlon, which means sick, and Chilion pining, pictures Israels condition, away from the land, no longer married unto Jehovah, but forsaken. Like Naomi, Israel has had trouble upon trouble and sorrow upon sorrow. There is no hope for Naomi amidst the Gentiles in Moab, as there is no hope for Israel among the nations. Hearing that Jehovah had visited His people with bread, she arose that she might return from Moab. Then Orpah said farewell to remain in Moab, while Ruth, the Moabitess, clave unto Naomi. She had faith and the beautiful words she addressed to Naomi were the expression of that faith. Not alone did the poor Moabitish woman say thy people shall be my people, but also thy God my God. It was grace which had drawn her. She thus clung closely to Naomi, became one with her in all her misery, yet with a faith, a confidence in Naomis God, which Naomi did not possess. When Israel sets her face homeward once more, there will be in the midst of the unbelieving nation a remnant, searching for the promised blessing, longing for God, a remnant* which ultimately will come in touch with the mighty Kinsman-Redeemer and inherit through Him the promised blessings.

* Of this remnant called through the grace of God, after the true Church has left this earthly scene, the prophetic Word has much to say. Read: Isa 6:13; Isa 10:21-22; Isa 11:11; Mic 4:7; Zep 2:7; Ezek. 9; Rom 11:5 and many other passages. In the Psalms we read the future prayers of this remnant, the sorrows and sufferings they will have and the glorious deliverance when the King comes.

This remnant is represented in Ruth, cleaving to Naomi. But the objection may be raised that Ruth was a Gentile. How can she represent the remnant of Israel? Israel through her unbelief has become practically the same which the Gentiles are. They are Lo-Ammi, not my people (Hos 1:9). The grace which called and saved Gentiles will call and draw them. Therefore this remnant is called according to the election of grace (Rom 11:5-6).

Naomi is back in Bethlehem, empty and with a bitter spirit. She calls herself Mara which means bitter. This pictures Israels return in unbelief. And it was at the time of the barley harvest. The harvest, as our Lord tells us, is the end of the age. When that end comes, after the true church has been gathered home, Israel, like Naomi, with a believing, trusting remnant cleaving to her, represented in Ruth, will return.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Chapter 2

A Very Costly Move

“Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. And Elimelech Naomi’s husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.”

Rth 1:1-5

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil (Pro 3:5-7). If Elimelech of Bethlehem-Judah had been blessed with the wisdom that God gave Solomon the history of his family would not be the sad story recorded in the opening verses of the book of Ruth. I do not think I ever read a sadder family history than the one recorded in these five verses. It is a story of famine, death, bereavement, widowhood, and constant sorrow. The cause of all this sorrow can be traced to one thing – Elimelech was wise in his own eyes. Rather than trusting the Lord in the time of famine, he leaned unto his own understanding and moved to Moab. That proved to be a very costly move.

The book of Ruth is a very short history of the domestic affairs of one family during the days of the Judges. It is the story of affliction and comfort, abasement and conversion, great loss and great redemption. The purpose of the book is twofold. First, the book of Ruth teaches us to adore the providence of God. The minute, as well as the great, the private, as well as the public affairs of our lives are arranged and determined by Gods wise and good providence. We ought always to acknowledge and submit to the dispositions of divine providence (1Sa 2:7-8; Psa 113:7-9). Second, the design of God the Holy Spirit in the book of Ruth is to lead us to Christ of whom the book speaks. As we have already seen, Boaz was a type and picture of Christ our Kinsman Redeemer. But the book also points us to Christ in other ways.

Our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ is a direct descendant of Ruth and Boaz. Part of the genealogy given by Matthew comes directly from this book.

The conversion of Ruth is symbolic of the calling of the Gentiles. It was always Gods intention to save Gentiles as well as Jews. Our Lord Jesus sprang from Jews and Gentiles and is the Savior of both, the Savior of the world. As Matthew Henry wrote, In the conversion of Ruth the Moabitess, and the bringing of her into the pedigree of the Messiah, we have a type of the calling of the Gentiles in due time into the fellowship of Christ Jesus our Lord.

The whole scene takes place in Bethlehem, the place where our Redeemer was to be born (Mic 5:2).

In these opening verses of the book, Elimelech stands before us as a beacon to warn us of the danger and the costs of unbelief and disobedience. As I read here about Elimelech and his family, I cannot help thinking about Lot and his family. Both men brought great trouble upon their households by the choices they made.

THE TIME OF THIS TRIAL (Rth 1:1).

Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled. This is all the information we are given about the date of this trial. But when we read that it came to pass, we understand that it came to pass because God brought it to pass. There are no accidents in this world; famine as well as feasting, trials as well as triumphs are brought to pass by the hand of God, according to the will of God (Rom 11:36; Eph 1:11). This trial took place during the times of the judges, during one of the brightest times of Israels history. This trial did not come in those disorderly times when there was no king in Israel and every man did that which was right in his own eyes. God was King. He ruled Israel by appointed judges. Our greatest trials usually come when they are least expected. The events recorded in the book of Ruth probably took place during the days of Gideon, when the Midianites prevailed and destroyed the increase of the earth (Jdg 6:1-6). I say that, because no other time of famine is mentioned during the time when the judges ruled. Also, it must have been near the beginning of this era, because Boaz, who married Ruth, was the son of Rahab the harlot (Mat 1:5), who received the spies who came into spy out the land. We must not fail to observe the fact that even in the book of Ruth, our Lord Jesus Christ identifies himself with sinners who were the very offscouring of the earth. Two of his great-grandmothers are here identified as Ruth a Moabitess, the great-grandchild of Lots incest, Rahab the harlot. The arms of grace are stretched out to and embrace sinners. Christ is the Friend of sinners! He saves sinners. The Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners; and even in his family tree he shows his mercy toward the ungodly.

THE TRIAL ELIMELECH FACED (Rth 1:1).

There was a famine in the land. There was a famine in the land of Canaan, the land flowing with milk and honey, the land which once yielded clusters of grapes so big that they had to be carried on a pole between two men (Num 13:23). Even in Bethlehem which signifies House of Bread, there was a famine. This was one of the judgments which God threatened to bring upon Israel if she sinned against him (Lev 26:19-20). The Lord God still exercises judgment among men and nations for their disobedience to him. The hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, famines, and diseases, which ravage the earth are not acts of nature, but acts of God. When those judgments of God fall upon a land, the righteous suffer with the wicked. Just as the wicked benefit by living near the righteous when God sends the sunshine and rain for his elect, the righteous suffer with the wicked when God pours out his wrath upon the wicked. In the midst of Gods providential judgments our only course of action is obedience and faith. Simple as it may sound, it is true – Trust and obey, for theres no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey!

ELIMELECH AND HIS FAMILY (Rth 1:1-2).

This is the story of a man, his wife, and his children. There may have been many others like him; but the Lord here gives us a very personal look at this one man and his family. It is a story of grace; but it is a story of grace preceded by disobedience, sorrow, death, bereavement, and emptiness. Apparently Elimelechs parents were believers. His name means my God is King. His very name should have given him comfort in his time of trouble. That which his name taught him should have sustained him. It implied a personal interest in the living God – My God. And his name declared the sovereign reign of his God over all things – My God is King. His wifes name, Naomi, means amiable, sweet, and pleasant. Indeed, Naomi was such a woman. Elimelech was greatly blessed of the Lord. God gave him an amiable, sweet, pleasant Naomi to be his wife. The names Elimelech gave to his two sons should have warned him of the danger of taking things into his own hands. Mahlon means sickness, weakness. Chilion means consumption. Perhaps Elimelech gave these boys their names, because they were sickly children. But their names attest to the fact that the products of our flesh and the most cherished, most pleasant things of this world are weak, corrupt, fading, and dying.

ELEMELECHS DECISION (Rth 1:1-2).

There was a famine in Bethlehem. Elemelech, looking upon his situation, judging everything by carnal reason, decided to move his family from Bethlehem to Moab. No doubt, he hoped to protect his familys wealth and keep his family from the hardships Gods people were facing in Bethlehem. Apparently, there was an abundance of food and opportunity in Moab. But Moah was a land of idolaters.

Those who are strangers to God often enjoy much more of this worlds goods than those who know, love, and worship him. As Jeremiah puts it, Moab hath been at ease from his youth. Israel is emptied from vessel to vessel (Jer 48:11), not because God loves Moab, but because this is the portion of their cup. None should envy Moab, or covet what Moab has (Psa 92:7). Who would envy the stalled ox being fattened for the slaughter?

We are told that Elimelech went to sojourn in the country of Moab. He did not go, intending to dwell there, but just to sojourn there. So he took Naomi, Mahlon, and Chilion, and came to Moab. But once they got to Moab, they settled down and continued there!

Elimelechs care to provide for his family is to be commended. Nothing is more detestable than a man who will not provide for his own family (1Ti 4:8). Over the years I have seen a good many men who tried to use spiritual things to excuse laziness. It doesnt work. True spirituality makes people industrious. A man who will not work does not know God. So we must commend Elimelech for taking care to provide for his family in time of famine. Still, his decision to move to Moab can never be justified. Solomon wrote, In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other (Ecc 7:14). The day of adversity will either draw us to our God or drive us to the world. If faith does not cling to Christ, the flesh will drag us from him. Did ever a child of God gain anything by going to Egypt for help? What did Lot gain in Sodom? What did David gain at Ziklag? What did Elimelech gain in Moab?

There was no reason for Elimelech to leave Bethlehem. If by some dire necessity he had been forced to sell his property and was brought into poverty, Gods law required his kinsman to relieve him (Lev 25:25; Lev 25:35). But this was not his condition. He went out full (Rth 1:21). Though there was a famine in the land, it was not so severe that people perished by it. Elimelechs neighbors who stayed in Bethlehem, many with much larger families than he had, managed to keep body and soul together. But Elimelech was not content just to live in Bethlehem; he wanted to live in luxury, even if it meant moving to Moab! Rather than lose his riches, rather than be reduced to depending on God to supply his daily bread, Elimelech was willing to disobey and dishonor his God, lead his family away from God, and turn his back on the kingdom of God! Suppose everyone had done what he did. Canaan would soon have been empty. Rather than dealing with trouble, Elimelech tried to run from it. This man, who claimed to be a child of God, whose very name said, My God is King, moved to Moab. He took himself, his wife, and his family away from the worship of God. He took his family away from and forsook the people of God. He lead his wife and his sons into the land of Moab and thus to the gods of Moab! Elimelechs decision was based entirely upon his own understanding, or perception of things, motivated by a completely carnal consideration. There was a famine in the land. Therefore, he gave no consideration to the promise of God, the honor of God, his own soul, or the souls of his family. What a very costly decision he made. What a costly move was this move to Moab. Yet, in his own mind he was fully justified.

THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ELIMELECHS SONS (Rth 1:4).

Mahlon and Chilion took wives from the women of Moab. The opening line of verse four might be accurately paraphased, They transgressed the decree of the word of the Lord in taking strange wives. What they did was in direct violation of Gods law. He expressly forbade mixed marriages between the children of Israel and the heathen, just as he forbids the mixed marriages of believers with unbelievers (Deu 7:2-3; 2Co 6:14). Yet, their father must be blamed. He taught them by example the way of disobedience. Parents who raise your children in the lap of the world should not be surprised to see them married to the world. Those who disregard the Word of God, particularly in this matter marrying an unbeliever, court disaster. Those believers who choose to marry a man or a woman who has no regard for God, marry a life of trouble (Deu 7:3; Deu 23:3; Eze 9:1-2; Neh 13:23; 2Co 6:14).

NAOMIS DESOLATION (Rth 1:5).

Naomi was reduced to a very pitiful condition. The woman was left! What a pathetic condition she was left in. She was now alone and poor, in a strange land, with no one to care for her, and no one with whom she could join in the worship of God. We ought to learn three things from Elimelech.

We cannot out-run death. At our appointed time, we will die.

We must never expect to prosper by disobedience. He that will save his life shall lose it!

All earthly pleasure and comforts are temporary.

When Naomi lost her husband, she took comfort in her sons. When she lost her sons, she was left alone. True, eternal pleasure and comfort is found only in Christ our God.

THE GRACIOUS, OVERRULING PROVIDENCE OF GOD (Psa 76:10).

Eliemlech did wrong. His family suffered for it. But Gods will was done perfectly. Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ must be born out of the union of a Moabitess woman and the son of Rahab. And so it came to pass! The famine was sent by God, because he chose Ruth. Elimelech was allowed to do the evil he did, because God was determined to save Ruth. All this came to pass, because God purposed to save his elect by the incarnation of his Son, by the life and death of his Son, who was the Son of Boaz and Ruth (Rom 8:28-32).

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

famine (See Scofield “Gen 12:10”).

Bethlehemjudah House of Bread and Praise.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

the judges: Jdg 2:16, Jdg 12:8

ruled: Heb. judged

a famine: Gen 12:10, Gen 26:1, Gen 43:1, Lev 26:19, Deu 28:23, Deu 28:24, Deu 28:38, 2Sa 21:1, 1Ki 17:1-12, 1Ki 18:2, 2Ki 8:1, 2Ki 8:2, Psa 105:16, Psa 107:34, Jer 14:1, Eze 14:13, Eze 14:21, Joe 1:10, Joe 1:11, Joe 1:16-20, Amo 4:6, Beth-lehem-judah, Jdg 17:8, Jdg 19:1, Jdg 19:2

Reciprocal: Jdg 17:7 – General 1Sa 22:3 – the king 2Ki 4:13 – among mine 1Ch 8:8 – in the 2Ch 6:28 – if there be dearth Dan 2:44 – in the days Mat 2:5 – General Act 13:20 – he gave

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Ruth and Orpah

Rth 1:1-17

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

We have before us today the story of two characters which were alike in many particulars, and yet, so vitally different and distinct in others.

1. The two girls were brought up in the same kind of a home, in the same city, in the same country of Moab. This meant that the two girls journeyed side by side; they had the same general surroundings, and the same countrymen. The atmosphere of the one was the atmosphere of the other. They doubtless attended the same school, had the same kind of home instruction, and the same discipline. Both of them attended the same religious gatherings, and doubtless had the same religious convictions.

2. The two girls married into the same family. One married Mahlon, and the other Chilion. Both of them had the same father-in-law and mother-in-law, inasmuch as their husbands were brothers. This means that both of them were alike taken out of their former associations and religious idealisms and ushered into a new and distinct phase of life. The home into which the girls married was Jewish. The family were Ephrathites and they came from the land of Bethlehem-judah. These daughters from the land of Moab must have together recognized the vast difference between the True God of Elimelech and Naomi, and the false gods of their own country.

3. Later these two women had the same sorrows to enter their lives. Both of them lost their husbands. Both of them were left widows and therefore were thrown alike upon their husbands’ parents.

4. These both dwelt under the same conditions for the same number of years. It was ten years that these strangers of Bethlehem-judah lived in Moab. It was during those ten years that the two girls were under the same spiritual illumination.

As we think of the above statements, we would imagine that the two girls would have been led to the same final decisions, and conceptions of life. This is exactly what did not happen. The two lives which ran together for so long a time, were destined to be severed because of fundamental differences, both physical and spiritual.

Today, it is the same. The one takes a different path from the other. The one becomes a follower of Christ, and the other of Belial. The one enters into life eternal, and the other into punishment eternal.

Why should this be? Is the vast chasm which separates these two lives due to God’s power of predestination, or, is it due to man’s power of choice? For our part we believe that God is willing to save all men. He gives the same opportunity, and the same call to the Orpahs, as He gives to the Ruths.

Different results must be brought about by different individual decisions.

I. YE DID RUN WELL FOR A SEASON (Rth 1:7)

Naomi has arisen to depart to her own country, and both of her daughters-in-law arise to depart with her. We read: “She went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her.” The three, therefore, started out together on their way to the land of Judah.

Orpah did not go all the way. Our heading, which we have suggested, is taken from the Book of Galatians where the Apostle Paul said of certain would-be saints, “Ye did run well; who did hinder you?” How many there are who, like Orpah, seemingly enter the journey toward Heaven and Home, yet, after they have gone but a little way, they turn back again.

1. We read of the seed that was sown by the wayside, and the birds of the air came and plucked it up. Thus it is that some would-be Christians never receive the Word of God into their inner lives, and Satan, with but little difficulty, plucks up the seed, because it was sown on a hard, wayside heart.

2. We read of the seed sown among the thorns. This is descriptive of one who hears the Word, but the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches choke the Word and he becometh unfruitful. Here is one who started out, but he did not cut clean from the world and its allurements.

3. We read of the seed that was sown into the stony places. Here is one who with joy takes hold of a new life, but endureth but a little while, because he has no root in himself. Thus when tribulation and persecution arises because of the Word, he is offended.

Not all who are with us, are of us. Many go out from us, because they are not truly of us. Orpah started but she never finished.

II. WHICH WAY SHALL I TAKE? (Rth 1:8)

After the three, Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah, had journeyed together to the borders of Judah, Naomi said unto her two daughters-in-law, “Return each to her mother’s house.” There they stood at the parting of the ways.

1. The two voices which called. One voice was saying, “Go back to Moab to your mother’s house, to your home city, and to your former gods.” The other voice was saying, “Ye have learned to know the Lord, leave, therefore, thy father and thy mother, thy houses, thy lands, thy everything, and go on to follow after the Lord.”

How often do we come to the parting of the ways. As we stand there, vital decisions which must of necessity affect our lives for weal or for woe, for time and eternity, are before us.

Even now we can hear Joshua saying, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve; * * but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Now, we can hear the Prophet Elijah, as he stands before the assembled hosts of Israel and says; “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him.”

Beloved, when Abraham came to the place of decision, he arose and went out to follow God, not knowing whither he went. When Moses came to the place of decision, he forsook the pleasures of Egypt, choosing rather to suffer with the children of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.

2. Decisions must be full-fledged and final. If those who are studying with us today would go forth for God, they must come out of the world. We cannot serve two masters. There is no middle ground, no straddling of the fence. A half-breed Christian is no Christian at all.

III. KISSING OR CLINGING (Rth 1:14)

The Christian’s Lord needs more than a passing kiss. It is not enough to be a well wisher. It is not enough to kiss and then say good-by. We must cling and cleave and continue unto the end.

1. A bleak prospect, seemingly, was before Ruth. As Ruth looked ahead into the future, she faced an unknown path. It was not a path strewn with roses, environed with flowers, and filled with delightful perfume. It was not a path ‘neath a sky that was blue. He who would go forth to follow his Saviour, should remember that bleak prospects often He ahead. We are not speaking of the end of the way. We are speaking of the road that leads home. Our Lord said: “In the world ye shall have tribulation.”

It is given unto disciples not alone to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for His sake. If we would walk with Him, we must walk with One who is despised and rejected of men. We must go out unto Him without the camp bearing His reproach.

2. A clinging soul was in Ruth. Obstacles, shadows, deep valleys, rugged mountain heights, will discourage the halfhearted, but they never turn back the one whose heart is fixed on God. Orpah could kiss her mother-in-law and go back. Ruth could do no less than cleave unto her. The fleshpots of Egypt may have meant much to Orpah, but they meant nothing to Ruth. Ruth thought only of Naomi, Her heart was set on a person, not a plan. Little did she care what the future might hold, so long, as she had her mother-in-law, and her mother-in-law’s God.

IV. ORPAH’S RETURN (Rth 1:15)

Our key verse reads: “Behold thy sister in law is gone back unto her people and unto her gods.”

1. Back to her people. He who would follow the Lord Jesus Christ must remember that in all things the Lord must have preeminence. He must have the first place, even above father, and mother, or brother, or sister. These we may love, but we must love them in Him.

Must I leave them all-

Father, mother, sister, brother,

Houses, lands, and all the other

Things that do enthrall?

Must I lay them down-

High ambitions, acquisitions,

All those coveted positions,

All my joy and crown?

The true Christian must keep the Lord first in everything. No other love dare intrude to break the power of His love. If we do not crown Him Lord of All, we will not crown Him Lord at all. Orpah, of course, was not willing for any such a course. Thus she turned back to her people,

2. Back to her gods. Her gods were idols. They knew not anything, and yet, she went back to worship them. She left the Living God to bend the knee to gods of wood, and of stone, which see not, neither hear nor know; and the God in whose hand her breath was, and in whose hand were all her ways, she did not glorify.

People of today may not worship images of wood and stone, but they worship many things which are material. They also worship immaterial things, such as pleasures, honor, and ambition.

3. Back to be engulfed in temporal things. From the moment that Orpah turned her back upon the True God, she was lost to everything high and holy. She simply passes out of sight. She is never mentioned again. How much do they give up who leave Christ for the world?

V. RUTH’S DETERMINED DECISION (Rth 1:16-17)

1. Naomi pressed upon Ruth to also return. Naomi would not have her enter Bethlehem-Judah against her own personal, free choice. The Lord Jesus, Himself, threw up obstacles in the way of some who would follow Him. To one, He said: “Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.”

2. Ruth said: “Whither thou goest, I will go.” Will we look up into the face of our Lord, today, and say as much?

Remember, that if we seek our own will and walk in our own way, we will know only sighs and sorrows. Let our consecration be complete. If we walk with Him, He will walk with us.

3. Ruth said: “Where thou lodgest, I will lodge.” Could there be any better place for us, than to lodge with Him. His promise is still true, “We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.”

4. Ruth said: “Thy people shall be my people.” When Ruth chose Naomi, she also chose Naomi’s people. When we choose God we also choose the people of God. “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” We are members one of another. We have one Father; one Lord; one Word; one Faith; one Baptism.

5. Ruth said: “Thy God [shall be] my God.” When Ruth cast her lot with Naomi she purposefully cast her lot with Naomi’s God. If we enter into spiritual relationships with the people of God, we must of necessity enter into relationship with God Himself.

“Blest be the tie that binds,

Our hearts in Christian love.”

VI. THE HOMEWARD TRAIL (Rth 1:22)

Our Scripture gives this illuminating message, “So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of the barley harvest.”

1. A trail to “the house of Bread.” That is really the meaning of Bethlehem, and that was indeed the meaning of Naomi’s return. Also what it meant to Naomi, it meant to Ruth. In the House of our God there is always bread and to spare, and a warm welcome there. “He maketh me to He down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters.” Not only this, but He also, “Preparest a table before me,” and “My cup runneth over.”

There is no want of bread in the House of God. He feeds us with the finest of the wheat, with the best of oil, and with honey from the rock.

2. A trail to “the place of praise.” Bethlehem-Judah. The word “Judah” means praise. Ruth accompanied Naomi out of the place of sorrow and suffering, out of the place of death and despair, into the place of praise. Surely the one who turns to God always finds himself in the land of song.

The early Church ate their meat with joy, and singleness of heart, praising God. The fruit of the Spirit is joy.

3. A trail to God. When we get to Bethlehem-Judah, we get to God; we get to the place where we can bask beneath the sunshine of His presence; to the place where we can live in the glory and the joy of His countenance.

VII. THE REWARD OF THE INHERITANCE (Rth 2:1-2)

1. Boaz described. Rth 2:1 tells us of how Naomi had a kinsman, a mighty man of wealth, and his name was Boaz.

When Ruth learned this fact she said unto Naomi, “Let me now go in the field, and glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace.”

Redemption brings us into a new relationship, and a new fellowship with One who is Almighty. He who follows with God, also follows with the One who is the possessor of all things,-the cattle on a thousand hills, the silver and the gold belong to Him. After such an One we do well to glean.

2. Giving homage. Read Rth 2:10. Here is a verse that describes Ruth falling upon her face, and bowing herself to the ground before Boaz. Then she said: “Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?”

How wonderfully does the grace of God appear upon the scene. Ruth did not boast her own prowess. She did not claim any right to the bounties of Boaz. She accepted every favor from him, upon the basis of grace.

It is thus that we must come to God. We have nothing by way of merit and of worth, to bring. We come pleading ourselves a sinner, and a stranger.

If we receive anything of God, we acknowledge that it is unmerited upon our part-By grace have we been saved.

3. The full reward. To Ruth, Boaz replied: “The Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.”

Ruth recognized nothing in herself. Boaz, however, looked back of her poverty and penury, and he saw and recognized the wonderful faith in God which she had exercised when she left her father and her mother, and the land of her nativity, and came unto a people of whom she knew nothing,

AN ILLUSTRATION

Ruth found rest and peace and joy at the feet of Boaz. Let us find our rest in Him.

One of the most exquisite statues of Christ is the one in white marble which stands in the hallway just inside the entrance of the great Johns Hopkins Hospital in the beautiful city of Baltimore. No one whose life the Man of Galilee has ever touched can look upon this statue without being profoundly stirred, and the marvel of it is that anyone else ever could.

Upon the base of the monument are chiseled the words which fell from His blessed lips, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The nail-pierced hands are stretched invitingly. And the face! It is a face of tender patience such as Sarto gave the Master in the Church of the Annunziata, full of compassion and benign yearning. And it puts a richness into the words that causes hundreds of poor, pain-racked patients to shed tears and to take hope as they are carried through the door and past the wonderful statue.

One day, it is said, there came one who was a cynic and doubter to view the figure of which he had heard so much. It was very evident he was disappointed. He walked around from side to side and looked at it from nearly every angle and was about to go away. But near by there was standing a little girl, who had watched the man with childish curiosity and something of concern, When she saw him about to leave without having read the real message of it all, she ran up to him and said, “Oh, sir, you cannot see Him that way. You must get very close and fall upon your knees and look up!”

Oh, how much we need this close-up, upward look today! One can never really see Jesus in any other way.-W. E. Biederwolf.

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

Section 1. (Rth 1:1-22.)

Left Alone.

Israel in her faithlessness, her exile from her land, her widowed condition, is first presented to us in Naomi. All is in ruin with her: she is bereaved and desolate. To her, however, Ruth attaches herself, to share her fortunes. The meaning of this will be found in Micah (Mic 5:3). Israel’s travail-time of sorrow is there referred to, -the fruit, on the one hand, of the gathering of the nations against Zion (Mic 4:11, sq.); but, in a deeper sense, the fruit of the Judge of Israel having been smitten on the cheek (v. 1). Then we have, parenthetically, the glory of the insulted Judge: it is He who comes forth out of Bethlehem to be Ruler in Israel. This is the passage that the scribes quoted to Herod in answer to the question of the wise men at the birth of Christ; but they did not go on to speak of the great glory that is revealed here as His: “whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.” He is Israel’s divine-human King, yet rejected: and being rejected, He rejects: “therefore doth He give them up.” Here is the secret of their condition as a nation since, -a secret still, to them, alas, though so plainly declared; and here is the reason of their final sorrows. But there is a limit: He cannot always give them up: His promises to the fathers must find their fulfillment; so it is added, “He shall give them up, until.” What is the limit? -“until she which travaileth has brought forth.” Their sorrows are the birth-throes of a people, to be born as in one day; and “then shall the remnant of His brethren return unto the children of Israel.”

What this last statement means should not now be difficult. If we have but intelligently grasped the Scriptures that have been before us, it will be plain that those whom the Lord counts His brethren, that is, those who do the will of His Father which is in heaven (Mat 12:50), have, during the time of His rejection of Israel, been outside of Israel. Even Jews by birth, when converted to Christ, and baptized of the Spirit into one body, necessarily give up Jewish hopes, although for better ones. When, however, the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, and this part of God’s purposes has found its consummation, then Israel will be again, and more really than ever, the people of God; and those who are brethren of the King (according to the standpoint of the prophet, Israelite-born) will return to Israelite hopes and heritage.

Now if Naomi stand for Israel as connected with her sorrowful past, and yet with the land to which she is returning, we can easily see in Ruth’s clinging to her the return just spoken of, of the children of the King. Yet, at first, all seems wrecked and hopeless: the return is in bitterness and sorrow: then comes the gleaning in strange harvest-fields, where the Lord of the harvest is met and becomes known in His bounty; and finally, redemption, and marriage-songs: and by Ruth, through the grace of Boaz, Naomi is “built up.”

(1) Fixing our eyes, then, upon Naomi as the central figure at the first, we find that her name is “pleasant,” -a terrible contrast, as she realizes it, to the Lord’s dealings with her. Her husband is Elimelech, “my God,” or, in the form here, “my Mighty One is King.” Another contrast: for a famine in the land makes him leave it for the heathen land adjoining, and there he dies.

Thus Israel, self-exiled from her land through unbelief, -for the famine would not suffice for one who had heard the promise, “Dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed,” -has lost her enjoyed faith as well as her land, and is in Moab, the place of mere profession.

The names of the sons Mahlon and Chilion -have been quite differently, indeed oppositely, interpreted: generally, in accordance with their brief lives, Mahlon as “sick,” and Chilion as “pining.” But it has been urged against this that in this sense they would be unlikely names enough to be bestowed by their parents in their happier days; and it might be urged more conclusively that they are not in keeping with those of their father and mother, both of them in contrast with their after-lot. Cassel proposes, therefore, to derive Mahlon (properly, Machlon) from machol, a “circle-dance,” and Chilion from calal, to “crown,” -thus “crowned.” A third view is possible: that there may be a real ambiguity in the words, which we are intended to leave there, and which points the contrast between the beginning and the end in a way quite easy to be understood.

The names of the wives Ruth and Orpah -are similarly in dispute. Orpah is taken by most to be the same Ophrah, a fawn,” but this is merely conjectural. Without the transposition it could hardly mean anything in Hebrew but “her neck,” literally “the back of her neck”; and to give the back of the neck means to turn the back, either in stubbornness or in flight. Orpah’s desertion of her mother-in-law cannot but make us incline to such a connection.

Ruth can only be understood as having a letter omitted by contraction. If this be an aleph, then it means “appearance,” which has been freely taken as “beauty.” If the letter dropped be ain, then it is taken as “friendship, female friend.” This seems to agree with the story, but certainly adds nothing to it; while with a similar derivation it may mean “tended,” as by a shepherd: this would seem every way appropriate.

That in the generation of Israel, to which Ruth typically belongs, there will be a portion that will turn their back upon the true national hopes and heritage, becoming finally apostate followers of Antichrist, is plainly predicted in the prophets. Orpah would naturally stand for these, as Ruth for the true remnant. Both widowed, -their first hopes ended, in the time of their distress they turn their several ways, and are separated forever.

(2) This is what we have in the next sub-section. Naomi, hopeless as to herself, yet drawn by her affections, sets her face to return to Bethlehem from the country of Moab. But she is unbelieving and bitter of soul, and manifests that strange self-contradiction which, in such states, is so common an experience. Herself on her way back to the land of which she had heard that Jehovah had visited His people to give them bread, she sees nothing for her daughters-in-law but that they must return to their people and to their gods, and prays Jehovah to give them rest, each in the house of a heathen husband! This is the confusion of a darkened soul; for in darkness all is confusion. All that she is clear about is the ruin in which she is, and she can give counsel of nothing but her despair. Orpah, after a faint resistance, goes back; but with Ruth neither precept nor example can avail to turn her heart from the pursuit of what appeals to her with a power above all difficulties. It is truly with the heart that man believeth; and how manifest is the heart in that touching devotion of her’s! “Entreat 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.”

This is not the language of natural affection simply: that stops short of this last. And where this can be said, though it may come in in a subsidiary way, yet it cannot be a secondary thing. The faith of Ruth is, indeed, a beautiful thing to contemplate; and a striking proof of how that which God has planted can flourish in the midst of contrary circumstances and oppositions of all kinds. How little does Naomi here commend her God of whom Ruth speaks! The famine in Bethlehem, mocking it as the “house of bread”; the withdrawal of Elimelech, denying what his name expressed; his death; the Moabitish marriages, one of them her own; then the quick widowhoods; now the mother-in-law’s appeal to go back, as Orpah had gone back, to her people and her gods: this is all we know of her surroundings, but which of them is favorable to faith? Ah, it is God that favors it and upholds it; and all the opposition only rouses it into a passion of longing and resolve. There might be little encouragement: was there not all the more a deep and deepening necessity, which found only in Israel’s God the possibility of satisfaction, if not yet the satisfaction itself? Could such longing go without satisfaction, or could He who alone could meet it be a dream, or afar off from the need created?

And thus will a remnant be drawn to the God of Israel in times now surely drawing nigh, when around them faith will have vanished from the earth, when darkness covers it, and gross darkness the peoples. (Isa 60:2.) Brethren of the King, though as yet little deeming themselves that, they will cleave to the nation in its sorrows and widowhood, and following it be drawn into the land.

(3) So Naomi returns, and Ruth with her, at present only to feel the bitterness of this return. She owns that Jehovah has brought her back empty, and that in doing this He has testified against her. But there is no light beyond. No Father’s arms welcome her. No Father’s house opens to let her in. She comes back, as Israel will come back, to have the finger pointed at her, and the question uttered aloud, Is this Naomi? And yet the cry, “I have sinned.” is heard; and Bethlehem shall answer to its name. The fields are white, and the reapers ready: it is the beginning of barley-harvest.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

BACK TO THE HOMELAND

Ruth 1

This beautiful story is an event occurring during the Judges (Rth 1:1), but separated from the former to give prominence to the genealogical record with which it concludes (Rth 4:18-22), showing Ruth an ancestress of David and hence of Jesus Christ.

The story is so simply told that it needs only the briefest comments. Elimelech and his family are called Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah (1:2) for the reason that Ephrath was originally the name of Bethlehem (Gen 35:19; Gen 48:7; Mic 5:2), and also because there was a Bethlehem in Zebulun as well as Judah (Jos 19:15).

The marrying of Moabite women by the sons of Elimelech was contrary to the Mosaic law (Deu 7:3; Deu 23:3), but such disobedience was common in those times, as we have seen.

Why Naomi should not have encouraged her daughters-in-law to return with her (Rth 1:8) is explained by the thought that they would fare better in material things in their own land and among their own people. Her piety was not of the depth to make her feel that the spiritual benefits of Israel would offset these advantages.

The utterances of Naomi in Rth 1:11-13 are explained by the ancient custom (Gen 38:11), sanctioned by the law of Moses (Deu 25:5), requiring a younger son to marry the widow of a deceased brother.

Naomi seems not to have been a cheerful person (Rth 1:13; Rth 1:20-21), but were we in her circumstances perhaps we would not have felt differently. And then she may have had reason to believe her affliction a divine chastisement upon her household.

Rth 2:1-17

Rth 2:2 reminds us of Lev 19:9-10 and Deu 24:19-21, giving the right to the poor and to strangers to glean after the reapers; but we are not to suppose that Ruth purposely selected the field of Boaz, or that she had knowledge at this time of her relationship to him.

Reaping was done by women (Rth 2:8), but the gathering and threshing was the work of men. How beautifully the character of Boaz shows in these verses! His greeting to the reapers, his interest in his relatives, his attention and generosity toward them, and his confidence in Jehovah. What poetry of faith in the expression, The Lord God of Israel, under whose wings thou are come to trust! (Rth 2:12.)

Rth 2:18-23

Naomi recognizes the relationship of Boaz, and the phrase, one of our next kinsmen, might be rendered, one of them that hath the right to redeem for us (Lev 25:25). This right to redeem carried with it the duty to protect them, to purchase their tribal lands, and in this case to marry Ruth and maintain the family name. Naomis advice to Ruth, therefore, can readily be understood and appreciated (Rth 2:22).

QUESTIONS

1. During what period did the history of Boaz and Ruth occur?

2. What gives special prominence to the Book of Ruth?

3. What was the original name of Bethlehem, and how many towns of that name were in Israel?

4. What law was violated by the sons of Elimelech?

5. What was involved in the kinsmans right of redemption?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Rth 1:1. There was a famine in the land This makes it probable that the things here recorded came to pass in the days of Gideon, for that is the only time when we read of a famine in the days of the judges; namely, when the Midianites, Amalekites, &c., came and destroyed the increase of the earth, and left no sustenance for Israel, nor for their cattle, Jdg 6:3-4.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Rth 1:1. When the judges ruled, about a hundred years before the birth of David. Famines were mostly occasioned by want of rain.

Rth 1:2. Ephrathites; not Ephraimites, but of Ephrath, the old name of Bethlehem: Rth 4:11. Gen 35:19. The name of Elimelechs wife was Naomi, beautiful.

Rth 1:20. The Almighty. Shaddai, the Almighty; the self-sufficient being can repair all my calamities.

Rth 1:22. The barley harvest. See on Deu 11:14.

REFLECTIONS.

Famine is terrific when it assails a voluptuous and a guilty people. Hunger and despair are marked on the countenance; and all who can are ready to fly from a land doomed to desolation. Of those who survived the visitation, no one had greater calamities than Elimelech. He had mortgaged his land before he left home; he died among the heathen, leaving a widow and two sons estranged from the house and altar of God, and destitute of worldly good. Now, it would seem, they ought to have returned, and made the Lord their portion and hope. But alas, for Naomi; the sons, having no father to direct their conduct, married with the daughters of Moab; and by that act, the hope of returning to Bethlehem was cut off. Deu 23:3-6. How often do youth sacrifice their hope in the covenant of God for the pleasures of the age. The fruits corresponded with the sin; the fruits were ignorance, poverty, misery, barrenness and death: for where has God promised to bless marriages out of his counsel, and contrary to his word?

These were hard strokes of providence; and fresh tears flowed from the eyes of Naomi. But her piety was refined in the furnace; her faith, shook for a moment, when she thought the Lord had dealt bitterly with her, brightened as providence darkened. She had nothing now left but God, an alsufficient portion; and her confidence encreased in his mercy the more she felt the strokes of his justice. She therefore resolved to return, and to spend the evening of life in his house, and die in his favour. Piety so engaging, confidence so superior to the hardest strokes of adversity, could not be unproductive of good. They had already made a secret impression on the heart of RUTH. This daughter of Moab, more worthy than her country, had attested the conflicts of Naomis soul. She had seen her frequent tears; and heard the wrestlings of her wounded mind in prayer to God. Yes, in Naomis conflicts and troubles she had frequently glanced on the face of heaven-born piety, and the image was indelibly imprinted on her heart. She was secretly wounded with celestial love; the daughter sighed to be as the mother. Oh yes; and to acquire a confidence, a peace like Naomis, she would gladly sacrifice country, kindred, and life itself. Her soul, abhorring the hopes of Moab, swelled with all that vastness of desire after Israels God, which language cannot decypher. Oh, if she might worship at the altar of JEHOVAH, and learn that law which had done such great things for her mother, she would gladly endure hunger and hardships to support herself and Naomi, whose soul clave to God and his people. The mother, unacquainted with this work of grace on Ruths mind, took her journey towards Bethlehem, which was now, as its name imports, the house of bread. She was accompanied with both her daughters, who do not appear to have been encumbered with a quantity of raiment. Arriving at a suitable distance from home, the mother embraced and blessed her daughters, bidding them return, and wishing them rest in the house of their fathers; for this good woman candidly assured them that there was no hope of husbands in Israel. The tears largely flowed as she spake, and she prayed the Lord to requite them for the kindness they had showed to the dead. Orpah embraced her mother, and returned; but Ruth, as though she had seen in spirit the glory of future years, clave to Naomi; and the more as she was entreated to return.

Her piety we see was pure and disinterested. She had no earthly expectations, and accounted the Lords favour her alsufficient reward. In this view she is a fine model to all who enter on a religious course of life. Purity of motive gives the soul confidence towards God, and sheds a lustre on the christian name.

Ruth, for the love of God and of his people, sacrificed her country, her gods, and her relatives. Let us learn from her example to make every sacrifice for God and a good conscience, which our situation may impose, or religion require. Whatever earthly comforts may stand in competition with holiness, and with the enjoyment of those religious aids essential to salvation, he alone is wise who takes the ground of heaven. We are not only to renounce idols, to forego pleasures, and withdraw from parties among whom we cannot serve God; but to glory in a loyalty to our heavenly Father, which accounts the dearest sacrifice as dross, in comparison of the excellent knowledge of Christ Jesus.

She bound herself in fidelity to Naomi, God and his people being included, with an oath. A young person may proceed with caution at first; he may be wary in his steps, and cautious in his belief; but when once his duty clearly opens, let him declare for heaven with a high voice. And as God has sworn by his life to man, so let man sware to him, that the oath of the covenant may be between them. Jer 34:18. Thus Israel sware to the Lord in Sinai; and so all our sacraments are so many oaths of fidelity to the God and Captain of our salvation.

This little history is also very encouraging to afflicted families, who may have borne the indignation of the Lord, because of their imprudence or their sins. Naomi, once more surrounded by a crowd of friends in Bethlehem, wept and said, the Lord hath dealt bitterly with me. I went out full, and came back empty. Ah, no, woman; heaven still accounts thee worthy of thy name. Thou hast brought far more treasure back in a daughter than thy family has expended, and from this day thou shalt lift up thy head with joy. In one way or other the Lord will bless every family which calls upon him in the day of trouble.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Rth 1:1-22. Ruth and Naomi.Bethlehem ceased for a time to be what its name signifieda house of bread. Under stress of famine Elimelech, with his wife Naomi, left his Judan home, and went to sojourn in the land of Moab, where he died. His two sons married women of Moab, Orpah and Ruth, but died childless, so that Naomi and her daughters-in-law were left together in lonely widowhood.

Rth 1:1. Seen from the uplands of Judea, the mountains of Moab are like an immense wall rising beyond the mysterious gulf of the Dead Sea.

Rth 1:2. Elimelech, meaning my God is king, is an ancient Palestinian name, which occurs in the Amarna tablets. Naomi means my sweet one, a mothers fond name for her child. Ephrath was a district round about Bethlehem (cf. Gen 35:19*, 1Sa 17:12).

Rth 1:4. The derivation of Orpah and Ruth is uncertain, but the latter appears to mean the friend or companion.

Rth 1:6. Yahweh sometimes visited His people in grace (e.g. Exo 4:31, 1Sa 2:21), and sometimes in displeasure (Jer 6:15; Jer 49:8).

Rth 1:7. Strictly speaking, only one of the three women could be said to return to the land of Judah.

Rth 1:8. The writer belonged to a time when Yahwehs power was known to extend far beyond the limits of Canaan. Jephthah spoke of Chemosh as the god of Moab (Jdg 11:24), but Naomi knows better, and prays that Yahweh may be kind to her daughters-in law in the land of Moab.

Rth 1:11-13. It was the custom in Israel that a childless widow became the wife of her brother-in-law, and his first son by her was counted the heir of the deceased husband, whose name was thus preserved (p. 109, Deu 25:5-10*). But Naomi has no more sons. She knows the Levirate law (p. 109), but, alas, with the best will in the world she can do nothing for her daughters-in-law. It grieves her sore, not for her own sake, but for the sake of the girls whom her sons had wedded, that Yahwehs hand (not, as we say, things) has gone against her.

Rth 1:15-17. But though she can give her daughters no levirs (brothers-in-law), one of them has found her hearts treasure in Naomi herself, and the passionate words in which she expresses the determination to remain with her in life and in death are unsurpassably beautiful. Yahweh had already become Ruths God, and her words are prompted not only by a tender human affection, but by a deep religious feeling.

Rth 1:19. When the women came to Bethlehem, the city was moved, as any quiet eastern town still is upon the arrival of strangers.

Rth 1:20. Naomi sadly asks her old neighbours to change her name from Naomi to Marafrom sweet to bitter. It is remarkable that she uses nearly the same words as Job (Job 27:2), giving God the same antique name of Shaddai (the Almighty). And was there not in her heart, as in Jobs, a sense of the mystery of pain, a pathetic protest (in her case unspoken) against the old doctrine that suffering is always deserved? It would be difficult for any doctor of the old school to say why Yahweh had dealt very bitterly with, testified against, afflicted Naomi.

Rth 1:22. The beginning of barley harvest was in the month of April.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

DEPARTURE BECAUSE OF FAMINE

(vv. 1-5)

A famine was in the land of Israel. Why? Because the literal famine was to draw attention to the spiritual famine that came before it, a famine for hearing the words of God. Though Israel suffered from the spiritual famine, they did not feel it. So God sent them something they would feel!

The famine was felt even in Bethlehem of Judah. Bethlehem means “the house of bread,” where, of all places, there ought not to be a famine. But we too, though we are blessed with plenty in spiritual riches, fail to take advantage of these provisions and the saints of God experience times of spiritual famine. We complain about the lack of ministry, though, when it was available, we paid little attention to it.Bethlehem was in Judah, which means “praise.”

But the man whose name was Elimelech left the place of bread and of praise, taking his wife, Naomi and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, to go to the country of Moab (v. 1). He intended only to sojourn there, to spend a short time, but the end of verse 2 tells us they “remained there.” What a picture is this of believers who leave God’s place for them because their natural reasoning thinks another place might be better! Does this frequently happen? Sadly, yes indeed! Faith would stay with God in spite of famine. We need self-judgment rather than rationalizing judgment.

Elimelech’s name means “my God is King,” but Elimelech was not true to his name. If so, he would have been subject to God’s authority rather than doing what was right in his own eyes. He and his wife give us a picture of Israel’s departure from God as seen in the book of Judges. He intended to go back to Bethlehem, but found himself “stuck” in Moab, and never did return. The same is true in too many cases of the Lord’s people giving in to their natural feelings. They think they can just get away from the Lord for a short time and then will return. But believers have no more power to restore themselves than they had before to save themselves. If God does not intervene, we shall be “stuck in the mud.”

Naomi’s name means “pleasant,” so she was a fit wife for Elimelech -“my God is King.” But their sons’ names were Mahlon, meaning “sickness” and Chilion, which means “pining” or “consumption” (v. 2). If the couple had been true to their names, they surely would not have borne sick and pining sons. But in all of this is seen a picture of Israel in a backsliding state. Israel has been greatly blessed by God, but through self-indulgence they have become debilitated and prefer their own reasoning to God’s Word.This has continued now for almost 2000 years since they rejected their true Messiah, the Lord Jesus.They have no power to recover themselves.But God is still a God of compassion who knows how to restore.

Then Elimelech died (v. 3).What a tragedy for Naomi! — left in a strange country with her two sons.The character of Moab is told us in Jer 48:11 : “Moab has been at ease from his youth; he has settled on his dregs, and has not been emptied from vessel to vessel, nor has he gone into captivity. Therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent has not changed.” Thus Moab pictures a lazy, easy-going religion that is without the exercise of troubles that might empty him from vessel to vessel.Elimelech and Naomi had been attracted by what promised to be an easier path.God may allow unbelievers to have such ease without much trouble, but if believers seek such a path, it will not work out for them in the way it seems to for the ungodly.Consider Psa 73:1-28.

Even Elimelech’s death did not impel Naomi to return to Israel. Instead, her two sons took Moabitish wives (v.4).What else could they do?They had been taken away from Israel.If believers go down to the level of the world, is it surprising if their children marry unbelievers?

There is not a word of Naomi finding any blessing in the land of Moab.Living there about ten years, she then faced another great sorrow.Both of her sons died! (v. 5). She was left desolate except for two daughters-in-law who were of a stranger-nation.Naomi is thus a striking picture of the nation Israel reduced to a desolate condition as a virtual widow because she has lost the marriage relationship she once enjoyed in recognizing God as King (which Elimelech symbolizes).The Book of Hosea shows that this condition of alienation and desolation would continue for many years before God in great mercy will eventually restore her.

NAOMI DRAWN BACK TO ISRAEL

(vv. 6-22)

The decision was made by Naomi to return to her land (v. 6).It was not repentance that moved her as much as it was the news that the Lord had given the blessing of plenty of food in Israel. Thus often God will draw by His mercy rather than drive by reproofs, for it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance (Rom 2:4).Naomi began the journey with her two daughters-in-law, who were evidently attached to her (v. 7).

But the poor woman was apparently thinking that there would be nothing in Israel for these two Moabitish widows.In fact, a Moabite was not to be allowed in the congregation of Israel even to the tenth generation (Deu 23:3), so that it seemed a hopeless prospect for either Ruth or Orpah.Naomi therefore urged them to return to their mothers’ houses (v. 8), desiring that the Lord would deal kindly with them and they might find husbands with whom to be content (v. 9).

She kissed them, but both of them wept and told her they wanted to return with her to her people (v. 10). When Naomi saw this concern on their part, was it faith for her to discourage them?No, it was not.But she was like so many believers who get away from the Lord.They do not encourage others to come to where the Lord is because they think there is nothing there to attract them!They are thinking of the circumstances rather than of the Lord Himself.Can He not satisfy the hungry soul? Naomi said she was too old to have a husband and bear sons who might marry these widows (v. 12).Did she think she must be their only resource in Israel?But faith becomes extremely weak when one has backslidden.

She was grieved that the hand of the Lord had gone out against her (v. 13), but she did not realize that in all her trials, the heart of the Lord was for her. Eventually she did learn this, that it was really her own lack of faith that was against her.

Weeping again, Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, accepting Naomi’s advice to remain in Moab (v. 14). But Ruth clung to her and would not be dissuaded in spite of Naomi’s further urging, telling her that Orpah was going back to her people and her gods, and that she should do the same (v. 15).Can believers be so lacking in faith as to advise unbelievers to choose idol worship rather than the worship of the true God?

However, in spite of Naomi having become so weak in faith, Ruth discerned in her something that she wanted.Just so, a believer today, having been born again, possesses that life that must express itself in spite of the weakness and inconsistency of his testimony.It is evident that God was working in the heart of Ruth when she responded to Naomi, “Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried.The Lord do so to me, and more also, if anything but death part you and me” (vv. 16-17).

Thus Ruth’s decision was firm and beautiful.She was not interested in Moab’s “gods.” She wanted the God of Naomi. There was no one in Moab to attract her heart like Naomi did, and she evidently discerned that this was because of Naomi’s God.As well as this, she would be content to dwell with a people who had the same God.This was unusual for a Moabitish woman, but God knows how to produce unusual cases.

Naomi and Ruth therefore journeyed together to Bethlehem.All the city was aroused at their arrival, people asking, “Is this Naomi?”So long a time had elapsed since her departure that her return was a surprise to them.But she told them not to call her Naomi (“pleasant”), but Mara (“bitter”), for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me (vv.19-20).She went out full, but the Lord brought her back again empty (v.21).Notice, the Lord did not take her out, but He brought her home again.At least, though empty, she was brought back home — a wonderful mercy, though she did not realize this at the time.

Naomi pictures the desolate condition of Israel following her sad departure from the Lord for centuries.The Lord will also bring His hurting people back to the land, though in a desolate state, just as He brought Naomi back. But Ruth is a picture of the fresh, reawakened faith in the remnant of Israel, in spite of her being a Gentile. For Israel has sunk to such a state of disobedience that God calls her “not my people,” thus reduced to the same status as Gentiles, therefore to be objects of mercy.

Fittingly, a Gentile woman was used by God as a picture of Israel’s future reawakening. Thus it takes the two women, Naomi and Ruth, to give a picture of Israel’s failure and desolation on the one hand, and Israel’s reviving and blessing on the other hand. Wonderful indeed are the thoughts and ways of God!To understand this does not take from the personal application of this history to the backsliding and restoration of a believer, but on the contrary, makes the whole view more interesting and profitable.It is added in verse 22 that Naomi and Ruth arrived in Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest.The cutting down and threshing of the barley (or other grains) at harvest time is symbolical of God’s producing fruit for His own glory by means of suffering.The harvest of the earth will take place at the time of the great tribulation.The Book of Ruth does not emphasize the sufferings through which Israel will pass at that time, but it does emphasize the wonderful results of great blessing that God will bring forth by means of the great tribulation.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

RUTH THE STRANGER

Ruth 1

“The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down. . . The LORD preserveth the strangers; He relieveth the fatherless and the widow.” (Psa 146:8; Psa 146:9)

From the opening verse we learn that the Book of Ruth deals with events that “came to pass in the days when the judges ruled.” From the last verse of the preceding Book we learn that the days of the judges were marked by two things. First, “in those days there was no king in Israel.” Second, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

Serious indeed is the condition of any country that has given up kingship involving, as it must, a people without a directing head or governing authority. Where such is the case it follows that every man does that which is right in his own eyes ending in nothing being right that is done.

The loss of kingship involves the rise of democracy leading to the reign of self-will, the flinging aside of all restraint and the indulgence of every kind of license. To such a condition were the people of God reduced in the days of the judges. Alas! in very many respects this low condition finds its counterpart in the world of our day and amongst the professing people of God. The same principles are at work producing the same results. The self-will of man, impatient of all restraint, is increasingly casting off authority. Kingship is fading before the will of the people every man seeking to do that which is right in his own eyes. Democracy is sapping authority in every department of life. The people are seeking to rule in place of the King and his representatives: men are seeking to rule in place of masters, and children in place of parents. The result being that the whole world system is being demoralised and fast falling into ruin and chaos.

But alas! the same principles that are bringing confusion into the world, are at work amongst the people of God, with the same sorrowful results. Hence we see they too are divided and scattered, and the work of disintegration still goes on. The exercise of self-will shuts out the authority of the Lord and the direction of the Head. Like the world the mass of Christians do that which is right in their own eyes. These principles were at work even in the days of the Apostle Paul, for he has to warn the saints that they were in danger of not holding the Head, and confesses with sorrow that “all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.”

The instant we cease to draw all our supplies from Christ, the ascended Head of His Body the Church: the moment we cease to act under the direction of the Lord and the control of the Spirit, we commence to do that which is right in our own eyes. It may not be that we do anything morally wrong in the eyes of the world, indeed we may be very active in work, and perfectly sincere; but if in our activities the claims of the Lord, and the direction of the Head, are ignored, it will simply be our own wills doing what is right in our own eyes.

The sorrowful result of the low condition of Israel is portrayed in the opening verse of this first chapter. It brought about a “famine in the land.” In the land that should have been the place of plenty in this world a land flowing with milk and honey – there was not enough to supply the needs of the people of God.

Alas! the same evils have brought about a similar result in Christendom. Christians, no longer holding the Head, and not giving the Lord His place of authority, have done what they consider best in their own eyes, forming numberless sects in which the people of God are starving for lack of spiritual food. The House of God which should have been a place of plenty, has become in the hands of men, a place of famine.

1.

The time of famine becomes a time of testing for the individual believer. The famine tests our faith. Elimelech was in the land of God’s appointment for Israel. The tabernacle was there; the priests were there; the altar was there, but, in the governmental ways of God with His people, the famine was there; and the test for Elimelech was this, could he trust God in the famine and remain in God’s appointed path in spite of the famine? Alas, this man of Bethlehem was not equal to the test. He was willing enough to dwell in the land of God’s appointment in separation from surrounding nations in the time of plenty, but he abandons the land under the pressure of the famine.

So in the history of the Church many were content to be connected with the people of God, and the testimony of the Lord, when thousands were being converted, when all that believed were of one heart and one soul, and when “great power” and “great grace” was upon all. But when the professing Christians commenced to do that which was right in their own eyes, when all sought their own things, and Paul the great Apostle was in prison, and the gospel in affliction, then indeed the famine set in. And with the famine came the testing time, and under the test the faith of many broke down, for Paul has to say “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me,” and again, “all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.”

Nor do we escape the testing of the famine in our day. God in His mercy has once again enlightened many as to the true ground on which His people can meet together, and many attracted by the ministry of the word have gladly accepted the path of separation. But when the test comes, when the numbers are few, when the outward weakness is manifest, and there is but little ministry then they find the place too straight for them, the weakness too trying, the conflict too severe. Under the pressure of circumstances they abandon the position and wander into some place of their own choosing in which they hope to find a way of escape from trial, and rest from conflict.

Thus it was with Elimelech. Very significantly his name means, “Whose God is King.” It may be that his parents were pious people who, recognising that there was no king in Israel, desired that God should be King to their son. But alas! as so often is the case, we are not true to our names. When the test came Elimelech fails in rendering obedience to the King. If God is King He can sustain in days of famine as well as in days of plenty; but Elimelech’s faith was not up to the profession of his name, and so was not equal to the pressure of circumstances. Thus it comes to pass he takes the path of the backslider, and not only so, others are turned aside by his lack of faith. His wife and two sons very naturally follow him.

Having abandoned the land of Jehovah, he wanders into a place of his own choosing. And worse still, having arrived in the land of Moab, he “continued there.” It is easier to continue in a false position than to abide in a true one. The place that he chooses is significant. The countries that surround the promised land, doubtless typify the world in different forms. Egypt represents the world with its treasures of wealth and pleasures of sin; and moreover the bondage of Satan that the pursuit of pleasure must always bring. Babylon sets forth the world in its religious corruption. Moab too presents a different phase of the world. Its spiritual significance is indicated by the prophet Jeremiah when he says, “Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees, and hath not been poured from vessel to vessel.” (Jer 48:11). Moab stands for a life of ease in which one seeks quiet retirement from all distraction, where there is little movement, and life flows along without much change. To use the prophet’s figure there is no emptying from vessel to vessel.

Egypt with its gross pleasures, and Babylon with its corrupt religion had no attraction for Elimelech. But Moab with its ease, and retirement, made a strong appeal as a way of escape from conflict and trial. And in the presence of the famine Moab is still the great snare for those who have once accepted God’s ground for His people. In the presence of the famine such may find the conflict in maintaining the separate path too painful, the constant movement in that path too testing, and they are tempted to give up the good fight of faith and quietly settle down in some retired valley of Moab, no longer to be poured from vessel to vessel, but to stagnate in their own things. But like Elimelech we have to learn, often by painful experience, the bitter result of backsliding.

As we have seen, not only Elimelech came to Moab, with his wife and two sons, but they “continued there.” For Elimelech there was no recovery. For him the land of Moab became the valley of the shadow of death. He sought to escape death by famine in the land of Judah, he walked straight into the arms of death in the land of Moab. The very step he took to avoid death brought him into death. A wrong step taken to avoid trouble leads into the trouble we seek to avoid. Moreover to seek rest in this world, even in things in which there is nothing morally wrong, is to seek rest in things which death can take from us, or from which we can be taken by death. Over earth’s fairest scenes there is the shadow of death. But Christ is risen, death hath no more dominion over Him, and far better to be with the risen Christ in a famine, than surrounded with this world’s plenty in company with death.

Elimelech dies. The sad effects of his false step, however, are not confined to himself. Naomi – his wife, and his two sons had followed him into Moab. The two sons form alliances with the women of Moab, contrary to the law of Jehovah. Ten years pass and then death claims the two sons, and Naomi, bereft of husband and sons, is left a lonely and childless widow in a strange land. The Lord has indeed stripped her and brought her to desolation, but He has not forsaken her. The hand that smote this sore stricken woman was moved by a heart that loved her. The chastening of the Lord prepares the way for her restoration.

2.

If in Elimelech we see the path of the backslider, in Naomi we see the way of restoration. Away from Jehovah’s land ten long years she had sought ease in the land of Moab and found only sorrow. But at last the chastening of the Lord had effected its work for we read, “She arose with her daughters-in-law, that she might return from the country of Moab” (v. 6). What moved her to return? Was it the sorrows she had endured and the losses she had sustained? Ah no! it was the good news of the Lord’s grace that drew her back. It was when “she had heard . . . how that the Lord had visited His people in giving them bread” that “she arose . . . that she might return” (v. 6). Sorrows will not move us to return to the Lord, though they may teach us how bitter it is to wander, and so prepare the heart to listen to the good news concerning the Lord and His grace to His people. It was not the misery and the want, the bitter bondage, the husks and hunger of the far country, that turned the prodigal homeward, but the remembrance of the plenty of the Father’s home and the grace of the Father’s heart that led him to say, “I will arise and go to my Father.” It was not the misery of the far country that drove him back, but the grace of the Father’s heart that drew him back. So with Naomi, in the land of Moab where all had been taken from her, she hears of the land of Judah where the Lord is “giving” to His people. And with the Lord before her she is lifted above all her failure and arose to return. As we sometimes sing, it is

“the thought of Jesus’ love

Lifts our poor hearts this weary world above.”

Her first step in the homeward path was to get entirely clear of the false associations of Moab. “She went forth out of the place where she was” (v. 7). And this very practical step had an immediate effect upon others. Her two daughters-in-law went “with her.” To witness against a false position and yet remain in it, will produce no effect on others. If the place is wrong the first step must be to separate from the false position.

Thus it came to pass in the case of Naomi. She went forth and her two daughters-in-law with her. They leave their wrong associations and they have the right place before them for “they went on their way to return unto the land of Judah.”

3.

Alas! separation from a fallen position, and having a right one in view, will not necessarily prove the reality of all who thus act. Of these three women Naomi was a backsliding saint in the way of restoration; Ruth a witness of the sovereign grace of God, marked by faith and devoted affection, and Orpah a fair but empty professor who will never reach the promised land.

Both Ruth and Orpah make a profession of devotedness to Naomi. Both profess to leave the land of their fathers, and both have their faces towards the land of Jehovah. But, as ever, profession is put to the test. Naomi says, “Go, each return to her mother’s house” (v. 8). They have opportunity given to return. This will bring to light whether the thought of their minds is in accord with their outward profession. It they are “mindful” of that country from whence they came out they have opportunity to return (Heb 11:15). At once the mind of Orpah is revealed. Her heart clings to the land of her birth. Ruth as we shall see desires “a better country.” None the less, Orpah makes a fair profession, but only profession. Her feelings were deeply moved, for she lifted Up her voice and wept (v. 9): her affections were stirred for she ”kissed her mother-in-law” (v. 14): and her words were fair for she said, “Surely we will return with thee to thy people”. (v. 10). It is, however, significant that Ruth makes mention of Naomi’s God, but with Orpah it is only Naomi, and Naomi’s people. Thus it came to pass in spite of her words, her tears, and her kisses, she turns her back in Naomi, and Naomi’s God, and the land of blessing and returns to “her people,” “her gods,” and the land of the shadow of death.

4.

How different the history of Ruth; she becomes the witness of the grace of God. Ruth also makes a good profession; she too utters fair words; she too is deeply moved, for, like Orpah, she lifted up her voice and wept. But with Ruth there is more, for with her are found the “things that accompany salvation,” faith, love and hope (Heb 6:9-12).

With Orpah there was only the outward expression of love. She could kiss and leave Naomi, even as, at a later date, Judas could kiss and betray the Lord. Of Ruth it is never actually said that she kissed Naomi; but if there was no outward expression of love there was the reality of love, for we read Ruth “clave unto her” (v. 14). Love if real, cannot give up its loved object, and must be in the company of the one that is loved, and hence Ruth adds, “Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee.”

Moreover her faith is equal to her affection. In the energy of faith she overcomes the attraction of the land of her birth, the home of her mother, her people, and her gods. She accepts the pilgrim path, for she says, “Whither thou goest, I will go.” She embraces the lot of a stranger, for she says, “Where thou lodgest, I will lodge.” She identifies herself with the people of God, “Thy people shall be my people.” Above all she puts her trust in the true God, for, she not only says, “Thy people shall be my people,” but she adds, “Thy God my God.” Death itself cannot turn her back, for she can say, “Where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried.” In life, and in death, she wholly identifies herself with Naomi, and henceforth claims Naomi’s people as her people, and Naomi’s God as her God. And all this at a moment when, for sight, she had nothing before her but an old broken-down woman; for as one has said, she casts in her lot “with Naomi in the hour of her widowhood, her strangership and her poverty.”

To the prudent man of the world Ruth’s choice looks very foolish. To leave the ease of Moab, the comforts of home, and the land of her birth, and take a wilderness journey of which she knows nothing, to a land that she has never seen, in company with a poverty stricken widow, looks indeed the very height of folly. This however, is only the beginning of the story, the end is not yet. It doth not yet appear what she shall be. Faith may take its first step in circumstances of poverty and weakness, but in the end faith will be justified, and have its bright reward, in circumstances of power and glory. At the beginning of the story Ruth is whole-heartedly identified with an aged and desolate widow; in the end she is displayed as the bride of the mighty and wealthy Boaz; and yet more, her name is handed down to all generations enshrined in the genealogy of the Lord.

Moses in his day with every advantage that nature could confer, with all the glory of this world within his grasp, became a shining example of like faith. Turning his back on the pleasures of sin and the treasures of Egypt, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, he forsook the world and all its glories to find himself in a wilderness scene in company with a poor and suffering people. What utter folly in the eyes of the world! But in his day faith might truly have said, “It doth not yet appear what he shall be.” Faith must wait sixteen centuries before it begins to appear what he shall be; then we are permitted to see Moses appearing in glory on the Mount of Transfiguration in company with the Son of Man the passing vision of a glory that will never pass away. And when at last Moses enters into the coming kingdom glories in company with the King of kings, it will be manifest that the glories of this world which he refused, were small indeed compared with the eternal weight of glory that he gained.

Nor is it otherwise in our day. The path of faith may seem in the sight of this world the very height of folly. To refuse this world’s glory to identify oneself with the poor and despised people of God, to go forth unto Christ without the camp bearing His reproach – may appear to human reason, and natural sight, sheer madness. But faith still replies, “It doth not yet appear what we shall be.” Faith judges that “our light affliction which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” And faith will have its bright reward; for when at last the day of glory dawns, and faith is changed to sight – when the great day of the marriage of the Lamb is come – then His poor and despised saints will appear with Him, and like Him, as “the Bride, the Lamb’s wife.”

Moreover, if the things that accompany salvation – faith, love and hope – are in exercise it will result in purpose of heart. It was thus with Ruth; she had no respect to the country she was leaving, no vain regrets, but “was stedfastly minded to go.” And thus it came to pass, “they two went until they came to Bethlehem.” Good for us if we too, animated by faith, love and hope, forget the things that are behind, reach out to the things that are before, and pursue looking towards the goal for the prize of the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus.

5.

This portion of the story of Ruth closes very naturally with the reception of a restored soul. We have seen the bitterness of the path of the backslider and traced the Lord’s gracious way of restoration. We have now to learn that the true answer to the Lord’s restoration is found in reception among the Lord’s people. With their faces towards God’s land, and God’s people, the restored saint, and the newly converted soul, press on “until they came to Bethlehem.” And it came to pass when they came to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them.” Alas! we have to admit there is little power for restoration today, and may it not be it is because there is so little compassion for those who fail? Saints fail, and the evil may be refused, and the evildoer rightly dealt with, but we are very little “moved about them,” and hence how seldom the backslider finds his way back to the people of God. The world is full of sad hearts and broken hearts, and wandering saints, and so seldom are they restored, and so little are we moved about them!

Nothing will so complete the work of restoration m a soul, as the compassion of the saints for the soul. It was so with Naomi. The loving reception that she received, opens her heart and draws forth a beautiful confession that attests the reality of her restoration.

1. She owns that however much she had failed the Lord had not given her up. Speaking of the days of her wandering she owns, “The Almighty hath dealt . . . with me.” We may cease to have dealings with Him, but He loves us too much to cease dealing with us. And well that it is so, for, says the Apostle, “If ye endure chastening God dealeth with you as with sons . . . But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” (Heb 12:7; Heb 12:8).

2. Naomi confesses that if the Lord deals with us in our backslidings, these dealings will be very bitter, so she has to add that the Lord dealt with her “very bitterly.” So too the Apostle reminds us that “no chastening at the time seemeth to be joyous but grievous” (Heb 12:11).

3. Naomi very beautifully takes all the blame for her wanderings. She says, “I went out.” In the story we read it was “a certain man went to sojourn in the country of Moab,” but she breathes no word against her husband. She does not blame others, and she does not excuse herself.

4. If Naomi takes all the blame for her backsliding, she rightly gives the Lord all the credit of her restoration. She can say, “The Lord hath brought me back.” I did the going out and the Lord did the bringing back. And in like spirit, David can say, “He restoreth my soul” (Psa 23:3). We may think in our moments of self-confidence, and self-sufficiency that we can return to the Lord when we think well, but no backslider would ever return to the Lord unless the Lord restored. The Lord’s prayer for Peter before he failed, and the Lord’s look when he had failed, broke Peter’s heart and led to his restoration. Peter followed afar off, and Peter failed, but it was the Lord that brought him back.

5. Moreover, Naomi does not simply say the Lord brought me back, but “The Lord hath brought me home.” When the Lord brings back it is into all the warmth and love of the home circle. When the Shepherd picked up His lost sheep He brought it to His own home. He seems to say, “Nothing less than my home will do for my sheep.”

6. Nevertheless, she has very touchingly to own that though the Lord brought her home, He “brought me home again empty.” We make no spiritual progress in the days of our wandering from the Lord. The Lord may indeed deal with us to strip us of much that hinders soul progress. As with Naomi we have to confess, “I went out full, and the Lord hath brought me home again empty.” As with all who wander, Naomi has to suffer. Very blessedly she is restored; very truly she gets back to her home, the Lord’s people and the Lord’s land, but she never gets back her husband and her sons. They are gone for ever. She sought ease and rest from conflict and exercise; she found only death and loss. She was brought back empty.

7. But if the Lord brings us back empty He will bring us back to a place of plenty. It was so with Naomi, for when Naomi returned it was “the beginning of barley harvest.”

What a comfort for our hearts to know that if we fail in our compassions to one another, that there is no failure with the Lord. In yet a little while the Lord will bring home His poor wandering sheep, not one will be lacking at last. Then, in love’s eternal home, we shall enjoy the fulness of heaven’s great harvest – it will be the “beginning” of a harvest of blessing and joy that will have no end.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

1:1 Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the {a} land. And a certain man of {b} Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

(a) In the land of Canaan.

(b) In the tribe of Judah, which was also called Bethlehem Ephrathat, because there was another city so called in the tribe of Zebulun.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

A. The deaths of Naomi’s husband and sons 1:1-5

God had promised the Israelites that if they departed from Him He would discipline them by sending famine on the Promised Land (Deu 28:17; Deu 28:23; Deu 28:38-40; Deu 28:42). [Note: See George M. Harton, "Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28-30 in History and in Eschatology" (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981).] The famine on Israel at this time indicates God’s judgment for unfaithfulness. As Abram had migrated to Egypt as a result of a famine in his day (Gen 12:10), so Elimelech migrated to Moab to obtain food for his family. Compare also Lot’s migration in Gen 13:1-13. There are many motifs that occur in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis and reappear in Ruth. [Note: See Hubbard, pp. 39-41.] This repetition seems to indicate that one of the writer’s purposes was to present Ruth as another of Israel’s notable matriarchs who, despite many natural barriers, provided important leaders for the nation by God’s grace.

"The story is never delightful when a member of the chosen seed leaves the Land of Promise and goes into the far country. It makes no difference whether he is Abraham going into Egypt to escape the famine or the prodigal son going to the far country and into the face of a famine there; the results are negative and the ending tragic. Elimelech should not have gone into the land of Moab, regardless of the conditions in the Land of Promise." [Note: McGee, p. 48. ]

Jacob received a special revelation from God directing him to migrate from the Promised Land to Egypt (Gen 46:1-4). Another view is that since the writer did not draw attention to the famine, the migrations of Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion to Moab, and their deaths, he did not intend the reader to read significance into these details. He only intended to present them as background for the story of Ruth. [Note: Frederic W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, p. 67.]

Famines, according to the biblical record, usually advanced God’s plans for His people, despite their tragic appearances (cf. Gen 12:10; Gen 26:1; Genesis 41-50; Exodus 1-20). [Note: Hubbard, p. 85.] The chapter opens with famine but closes with harvest (Rth 1:22). Likewise the whole book opens with a bad situation but ends with a good one. God was at work blessing His people in the times and events that this book recounts. The restoration of seed (food, husband, redeemer, and heir) is one of the main motifs in Ruth. [Note: See Barbara Green, "The Plot of the Biblical Story of Ruth," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (July 1982):55-68.]

The fact that Elimelech (lit. my God is king, a theme of the book) was from Bethlehem (lit. house of bread, i.e., granary) is significant. "Elimelech" is a theophoric name, a name that combines a term for deity with another ascription. Elimelech’s parents probably gave him this name hoping that he would acknowledge God as his king, but he failed to do that when he moved from Israel to Moab.

Two stories make up the appendix to the Book of Judges. The first of these is the story of the grandson of Moses who left Bethlehem to lead the Danites into idolatry (Judges 17-18). The second is the story of the concubine from Bethlehem who became the focus of discord in Israel that resulted in civil war and almost the obliteration of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 19-21). The Book of Ruth also features Bethlehem. God may have given us all three of these stories because David was from Bethlehem in Judah. In the two stories in Judges just referred to we can see that the Israelites would have looked down on Bethlehem after those incidents. However, Ruth reveals how God brought great blessing to Israel out of Bethlehem in the person of David. This is in harmony with God’s choice to bring blessing out of those things that people do not value highly naturally. Bethlehem in Ruth’s day did not have a good reputation. It was not the environment in which David grew up that made him great but his relationship with God. That relationship, we learn from Ruth, was a heritage passed down to him from his ancestors, godly Boaz and Ruth. [Note: For further study of the "Bethlehem trilogy," see Merrill, Kingdom of . . ., pp. 178-88; or idem, "The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes," Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):131-33.]

The unusual association of Ephratah and Bethlehem here (Rth 1:2) recalls the first use of both names describing the same town, called Ephrath in Gen 35:16-19. There Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin.

"Does this incident in which Benjamin is the occasion of the death of the patronymic’s favorite wife at Bethlehem anticipate in some way the Saul-David controversy in which the Benjaminite again proves antagonistic to one who has Bethlehem associations?" [Note: Ibid., p. 133.]

". . . it is best to understand Ephrathite as the name of a clan. If this clan descended from Caleb [which seems probable since Caleb settled near there], the author may have identified this family as Ephrathite to picture it as an aristocratic one-one of the ’first families of Bethlehem.’ [Note: See W. Fuerst, The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, p. 10; Morris, p. 249; and A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, p. 103.] He thereby underscored the humiliating tragedy involved: the Vanderbilts have suddenly become poor sharecroppers. Worse yet, he cleverly disallowed any hope of a temporary visit." [Note: Hubbard, p. 91.]

Ephrathah was probably also the name of an older settlement that stood near Bethlehem or that became Bethlehem (cf. Gen 48:7). Some scholars believe it was the name of the district in which Bethlehem stood, or the name may reflect that Ephraimites had settled there. [Note: E.g., F. B. Huey Jr., "Ruth," in Deuteronomy-2 Samuel, vol. 3 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 519.] This seems less likely to me. The unusual way of describing Bethlehem hints at connections to David that become clear at the end of the book (Rth 4:22), since this is the way Bethlehem became known after David’s appearance (cf. 1Sa 17:12). [Note: Bush, p. 67.]

It is also unusual in a patriarchal society that the writer described Elimelech as Naomi’s husband (Rth 1:3). This puts Naomi forward as the more important person of the two. Elimelech’s death may have been a punishment for leaving the land rather than trusting God (cf. Lev 26:38), though the text does not say so. It was not contrary to the Mosaic law for Israelite men to marry Moabite women (Deu 7:3), but apparently they could not bring them into the congregation of Israel for public worship (Deu 23:3-4). The unusual names of both Mahlon and Chilion seem to have been connected with circumstances of their births. Mahlon may have looked sickly when he was born, and Chilion probably looked as though he was failing.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

NAOMIS BURDEN

Rth 1:1-13

LEAVING the Book of Judges and opening the story of Ruth we pass from vehement outdoor life, from tempest and trouble into quiet domestic scenes. After an exhibition of the greater movements of a people we are brought, as it were, to a cottage interior in the soft light of an autumn evening, to obscure lives passing through the cycles of loss and comfort, affection and sorrow. We have seen the ebb and flow of a nations fidelity and fortune, a few leaders appearing clearly on the stage and behind them a multitude indefinite, indiscriminate, the thousands who form the ranks of battle and die on the field, who sway together from Jehovah to Baal and back to Jehovah again. What the Hebrews were at home, how they lived in the villages of Judah or on the slopes of Tabor, the narrative has not paused to speak of with detail. Now there is leisure after the strife and the historian can describe old customs and family events, can show us the toiling flockmaster, the busy reapers, the women with their cares and uncertainties, the love and labour of simple life. Thunderclouds of sin and judgment have rolled over the scene; but they have cleared away and we see human nature in examples that become familiar to us, no longer in weird shadow or vivid lightning flash, but as we commonly know it, homely, erring, enduring, imperfect, not unblest.

Bethlehem is the scene, quiet and lonely on its high ridge overlooking the Judaean wilderness. The little city never had much part in the eager life of the Hebrew people, yet age after age some event notable in history, some death or birth or some prophetic word drew the eyes of Israel to it in affection or in hope; and to us the Saviours birth there has so distinguished it as one of the most sacred spots on earth that each incident in the fields or at the gate appears charged with predictive meaning, each reference in psalm or prophecy has tender significance. We see the company of Jacob on the journey through Canaan halt by the way near Ephrath, which is Bethlehem, and from the tents there comes a sound of wailing. The beloved Rachel is dead. Yet she lives in a child new born, the mothers Son of Sorrow, who becomes to the father Benjamin, Son of the Right Hand. The sword pierces a loving heart, but hope springs out of pain and life out of death. Generations pass and in these fields of Bethlehem we see Ruth gleaning, Ruth the Moabitess, a stranger and foreigner who has sought refuge under the shadow of Jehovahs wings; and at yonder gate she is saved from want and widowhood, finding in Boaz her goel and menuchah, her redeemer and rest. Later, another birth, this time within the walls, the birth of one long despised by his brethren, gives to Israel a poet and a king, the sweet singer of divine psalms, the hero of a hundred fights. And here again we see the three mighty men of Davids troop breaking through the Philistine host to fetch for their chief a draught from the cool spring by the gate. Prophecy, too, leaves Israel looking to the city on the hill. Micah seems to grasp the secret of the ages when he exclaims, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be the ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” For centuries there is suspense, and then over the quiet plain below the hill is heard the evangel: “Be not afraid: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” Remembering this glory of Bethlehem we turn to the story of humble life there in the days when the judges ruled, with deep interest in the people of the ancient city, the race from which David sprang, of which Mary was born.

Jephthah had scattered Ammon behind the hills and the Hebrews dwelt in comparative peace and security. The sanctuary at Shiloh was at length recognised as the centre of religious influence; Eli was in the beginning of his priesthood, and orderly worship was maintained before the ark. People could live quietly about Bethlehem, although Samson, fitfully acting the part of champion on the Philistine border, had his work in restraining the enemy from an advance. Yet all was not well in the homesteads of Judah, for drought is as terrible a foe to the flockmaster as the Arab hordes, and all the south lands were parched and unfruitful.

We are to follow the story of Elimelech, his wife Naomi and their sons Mahlon and Chilion whose home at Bethlehem is about to be broken up. The sheep are dying in the bare glens, the cattle in the fields. From the soil usually so fertile little corn has been reaped. Elimelech, seeing his possessions melt away, has decided to leave Judah for a time so as to save what remains to him till the famine is over, and he chooses the nearest refuge, the watered Field of Moab beyond the Salt Sea. It was not far; he could imagine himself returning soon to resume the accustomed life in the old home. True Hebrews, these Ephrathites were not seeking an opportunity to cast off pious duty and break with Jehovah in leaving His land. Doubtless they hoped that God would bless their going, prosper them in Moab, and bring them back in good time. It was a trial to go, but what else could they do, life itself, as they believed, being at hazard?

With thoughts like these men often leave the land of their birth, the scenes of early faith, and oftener still without any pressure of necessity of any purpose of returning. Emigration appears to be forced upon many in these times, the compulsion coming not from Providence but from man and mans law. It is also an outlet for the spirit of adventure which characterises some races and has made them the heirs of continents. Against emigration it would be folly to speak, but great is the responsibility of those by whose action or want of action it is forced upon others. May it not be said that in every European land there are persons in power whose existence is like a famine to a whole countryside? Emigration is talked of glibly as if it were no loss but always gain, as if to the mass of men the traditions and customs of their native land were mere rags well parted with. But it is clear from innumerable examples that many lose what they never find again, of honour, seriousness, and faith.

The last thing thought of by those who compel emigration and many who undertake it of their own accord is the moral result. That which should be first considered is often not considered at all. Granting the advantages of going from a land that is over populated to some fertile region as yet lying waste, allowing what cannot be denied that material progress and personal freedom result from these movements of population, yet the risk to individuals is just in proportion to the worldly attraction. It is certain that in many regions to which the stream of migration is flowing the conditions of life are better and the natural environment purer than they are in the heart of large European cities. But this does not satisfy the religious thinker. Modern colonies have indeed done marvels for political independence, for education and comfort. Their success here is splendid. But do they see the danger? So much achieved in short time for the secular life tends to withdraw attention from the root of spiritual growth-simplicity and moral earnestness. The pious emigrant has to ask himself whether his children will have the same thought for religion beyond the sea as they would have at home, whether he himself is strong enough to maintain his testimony while he seeks his fortune.

We may believe that the Bethlehemite, if he made a mistake in removing to Moab, acted in good faith and did not lose his hope of the divine blessing. Probably he would have said that Moab was just like home. The people spoke a language similar to Hebrew, and like the tribes of Israel they were partly husbandmen, party keepers of cattle. In the “Field of Moab,” that is the upland canton bounded by the Arnon on the north, the mountains on the east, and the Dead Sea precipices on the west, people lived very much as they did about Bethlehem, only more safely and in greater comfort. But the worship was of Chemosh, and Elimelech must soon have discovered how great a difference that made in thought and social custom and in the feeling of men toward himself and his family. The rites of the god of Moab included festivals in which humanity was disgraced. Standing apart from these he must have found his prosperity hindered, for Chemosh was lord in everything. An alien who had come for his own advantage, yet refused the national customs, would be scorned at least, if not persecuted. Life in Moab became an exile, the Bethlehemites saw that hardship in their own land would have been as easy to endure as the disdain of the heathen and constant temptations to vile conformity. The family had a hard struggle, not holding their own and yet ashamed to return to Judah.

Already we have a picture of wayworn human lives, tried on one side by the rigour of nature, on the other by unsympathetic fellow creatures, and the picture becomes more pathetic as new touches are added to it. Elimelech died; the young men married women of Moab; and in ten years only Naomi was left, a widow with her widowed daughters-in-law. The narrative adds shadow to shadow. The Hebrew woman in her bereavement, with the care of two lads who were somewhat indifferent to the religion she cherished, touches our sympathies. We feel for her when she has to consent to the marriage of her sons with heathen women, for it seems to close all hope of return to her own land and, sore as this trial is, there is a deeper trouble. She is left childless in the country of exile. Yet all is not shadow. Life never is entirely dark unless with those who have ceased to trust in God and care for man. While we have compassion on Naomi we must also admire her. An Israelite among: heathen she keeps her Hebrew ways, not in bitterness but in gentle fidelity. Loving her native place more warmly than ever, she so speaks of it and praises it as to make her daughters-in-law think of settling there with her. The influence of her religion is upon them both, and one at least is inspired with faith and tenderness equal to her own. Naomi has her compensations, we see. Instead of proving a trouble to her as she feared, the foreign women in her house have become her friends. She finds occupation and reward in teaching them the religion of Jehovah, and thus, so far as usefulness of the highest kind is concerned, Naomi is more blessed in Moab than she might have been in Bethlehem.

Far better the service of others in spiritual things than a life of mere personal ease and comfort. We count up our pleasures, our possessions and gains and think that in these we have the evidence of the divine favour. Do we as often reckon the opportunities given us of helping our neighbours to believe in God, of showing patience and fidelity, of having a place among those who labour and wait for the eternal kingdom? It is here that we ought to trace the gracious hand of God preparing our way, opening for us the gates of life. When shall we understand that circumstances which remove us from the experience of poverty and pain remove us also from precious means of spiritual service and profit? To be in close personal touch with the poor, the ignorant and burdened is to have simple every day openings into the region of highest power and gladness. We do something enduring, something that engages and increases our best powers when we guide, enlighten, and comfort even a few souls and plant but a few flowers in some dull corner of the world. Naomi did not know how blest she had been in Moab. She said afterwards that she had gone out full and the Lord had brought her home again empty. She even imagined that Jehovah had testified against her and cast her from Him in rejection. Yet she had been finding the true power, winning the true riches. Did she return empty when the convert Ruth, the devoted Ruth went back with her?

Her two sons taken away, Naomi felt no tie binding her to Moab. Moreover in Judah the fields were green again and life was prosperous. She might hope to dispose of her land and realise something for her old age. It seemed therefore her interest and duty to return to her own country; and the next picture of the poem shows Naomi and her daughters-in-law travelling along the northward highway towards the ford of Jordan, she on her way home, they accompanying her. The two young widows are almost decided when they leave the desolate dwelling in Moab to go all the way to Bethlehem. Naomis account of the life there, the purer faith and better customs attract them, and they love her well. But the matter is not settled; on the bank of Jordan the final choice will be made.

There are hours which bring a heavy burden of responsibility to those who advise and guide, and such an hour came now to Naomi. It was in poverty she was returning to the home of her youth. She could promise to her daughters-in-law no comfortable easy life there, for, as she well knew, the enmity of Hebrews against Moabites was apt to be bitter and they might be scorned as aliens from Jehovah. So far as she was concerned nothing could have been more desirable than their company. A woman in poverty and past middle life could not wish to separate herself from young and affectionate companions who would be a help to her in her old age. To throw off the thought of personal comfort natural to one in her circumstances and look at things from an unselfish point of view was very difficult. In reading her story let us remember how apt we are to colour advice half unconsciously with our own wishes, our own seeming needs.

Naomis advantage lay in securing the companionship of Ruth and Orpah, and religious considerations added their weight to her own desire. Her very regard and care for these young women seemed to urge as the highest service she could do them to draw them out of the paganism of Moab and settle them in the country of Jehovah. So while she herself would find reward for her patient efforts these two would be rescued from the darkness, bound in the bundle of life. Here, perhaps, was her strongest temptation; and to some it may appear that it was her duty to use every argument to this end, that she was bound as one who watched for the souls of Ruth and Orpah to set every fear, every doubt aside and to persuade them that their salvation depended on going with her to Bethlehem. Was this not her sacred opportunity, her last opportunity of making sure that the teaching she had given them should have its fruit?

Strange it may seem that the author of the Book of Ruth is not chiefly concerned with this aspect of the case, that he does not blame Naomi for failing to set spiritual considerations in the front. The narrative indeed afterwards makes it clear that Ruth chose the good part and prospered by choosing it, but here the writer calmly states without any question the very temporal and secular reasons which Naomi pressed on the two widows. He seems to allow that home and country-though they were under the shadow of heathenism-home and country and worldly prospects were rightly taken account of even as compared with a place in Hebrew life and faith. But the underlying fact is a social pressure clearly before the Oriental mind. The customs of the time were overmastering, and women had no resource but to submit to them. Naomi accepts the facts and ordinances of the age; the inspired author has nothing to say against her.

“The Lord grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband.” That the two young widows should return each to her mothers house and marry again in Moab is Naomis urgent advice to them. The times were rude and wild. A woman could be safe and respected only under the protection of a husband. Not only was there the old-world contempt for unmarried women, but, we may say, they were an impossibility; there was no place for them in the social life. People did not see how there could be a home without some man at the head of it, the house-band in whom all family arrangements centred. It had not been strange that in Moab Hebrew men should marry women of the land; but was it likely Ruth and Orpah would find favour at Bethlehem? Their speech and manners would be despised and, dislike once incurred, prove hard to overcome. Besides, they had no property to commend them.

Evidently the two were very inexperienced. They had little thought of the difficulties, and Naomi, therefore, had to speak very strongly. In the grief of bereavement and the desire for a change of scene they had formed the hope of going where there were good men and women like the Hebrews they knew, and placing themselves under the protection of the gracious God of Israel. Unless they did so life seemed practically at an end. But Naomi could not take upon herself the responsibility of letting them drift into a hazardous position, and she forced a decision of their own in full view of the facts. It was true kindness no less than wisdom. The age had not dawned in which women could attempt to shape or dare to defy the customs of society, nor was any advantage to be sought at the risk of moral compromise. These things Naomi understood, though afterwards, in extremity, she made Ruth venture unwisely to obtain a prize.

Looking around us now we see multitudes of women for whom there appears to be no room, no vocation. Up to a certain point, while they were young, they had no thought of failure. Then came a time when Providence appointed a task; there were parents to care for, daily occupations in the house. But calls for their service have ceased and they feel no responsibility sufficient to give interest and strength. The world has moved on and the movement has done much for women, yet all do not find themselves supplied with a task and a place. Around the occupied and the distinguished circles perpetually a crowd of the helpless, the aimless, the disappointed, to whom life is a blank, offering no path to a ford of Jordan and a new future. Yet half the needful work is done for these when they are made to feel that among the possible ways they must choose one for themselves and follow it; and all is done when they are shown that in the service of God, which is the service also of mankind, a task waits them fitted to engage their highest powers. Across into the region of religious faith and energy they may decide to pass, there is room in it for every life. Disappointment will end when selfish thoughts are forgotten; helplessness will cease when the heart is resolved to help. Even to the very poor and ignorant deliverance would come with a religious thought of life and the first step in personal duty.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary