Lange Commentary - Ruth 1:7

Lange Commentary - Ruth 1:7 - 1:18

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Ruth 1:7 - 1:18

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Rth_1:7-18.

Faithfulness until Death.

⁷Wherefore [And] she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law with her; and they [already] went on the way to return unto the land of Judah. ⁸And Naomi said [Then said Naomi] unto her two daughters-in-law, Go, return each to her mother’s house: the Lord [Jehovah] deal kindly with you, ⁹as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me. The Lord [Jehovah] grant you that ye may find rest [a resting-place], each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept. ¹⁰And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people. ¹¹And Naomi said, Turn again [Return], my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in ¹²my womb, that they may be your husbands? Turn again [Return], my daughters, go your way [omit: your way]; for I am too old to have [to belong (again) to] an husband. If [Even if] I should say, I have hope, if I should have [should belong to] an husband also to-night, and should also bear sons; ¹³would ye [then] tarry for them [omit: for them] till they were grown? would ye stay for them [would you then shut yourselves up] from having husbands [in order (after all) not to belong to a husband]? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes [it is much more bitter to me than to you], that [since] the hand of the Lord [Jehovah] is gone out against me. ¹⁴And they lifted up their voice, and wept again. And ¹⁵Orpah kissed her mother-in-law [and turned back]; but Ruth clave unto her. And she [Naomi] said, Behold, thy sister-in-law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods [God]: return thou [also] after thy sister-in-law. ¹⁶And Ruth said, Entreat [Urge] me not to leave thee, or [and] to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest [abidest], I will lodge [abide]: thy people shall be [is] my people, and thy God my God: ¹⁷Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord [Jehovah] do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me. ¹⁸When [And when] she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto [ceased to dissuade] her.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[¹ Rth_1:7.—From this verse, and the preceding (cf. also Rth_1:10), it appears plain, as Bertheau remarks, that not only Naomi, but also both her daughters-in-law, set out with the intention of going to Judah. It may be true that Naomi, determined from the start that they must not carry out this intention, “looked upon them as only bearing her company for a while before parting” (Dr. Cassel, below); but it seems at least as likely that in the struggle between duty and inclination, she did not finally reach this conclusion until the moment that she attempted to give it effect. The ìָùׁåּë is of course strictly applicable only to Naomi.—Tr.]

[² Rth_1:8.— éַòֲùֶׂä éְäåָֹä òִîָּëֶí çֶñֶã : lit. Jehovah do kindness with you. On the form éַòֲùֶׂä as optative, cf. Ges. 127, 3, b. Although the shortened form éַòַùׂ is more usual, its substitution by the Keri is unnecessary. In òִîָּëֶí the suffix is masc., although referring to women, cf. also òֲùִׂéúֶí in the next member of the clause. Similar departures from strict grammatical propriety occur in Rth_1:9; Rth_1:11; Rth_1:13; Rth_1:19; Rth_1:22, Rth_4:11. Gesenius regards them as originally colloquial inaccuracies, which afterwards passed into books, § 121, 6, Rem. 1. All but two (Rth_1:19; Rth_1:22) of those in our Book are actually found in conversations.

[³ Rth_1:9.— åּîְöֶàïָ , imperat. scriptio defect. for îְּöֶàëָä . On the construction, cf. Ges. 130, 1. The imperat. is only a stronger jussive, hence easily connected with it.—Tr.]

[⁴ Rth_1:10.— ëִּé : Dr. Cassel first supplies: “We will not turn back,” and then renders ëִּé by denn, “for,” cf. Ges Lex. s. v. ëִּé , B. 3, b. In that case, however (after the implied negation), sondern, “but,” would be better than “for.” But it is best taken like ὅôé in N. T. before words directly quoted, cf. Lex. 1. c. B. 1, b. Keil’s remark, that “ ëִּé before words in direct discourse serves to strengthen, being almost equal to an assurance,” is certainly not true in all cases, cf. 1Sa_10:19; 1Ki_11:22.—Tr.]

[⁵ Rth_1:12— ëִּé Óëִּé àîøְúִּé is causal, and introduces another but closely connected reason (the first, also introduced by ëִּé , being given in the preceding clause) why they should return, cf. Isa_6:5; Psa_22:12. In English we should represent this ëִּé — ëִּé by “for—and.” äָéִéúִé , àָîַøְúִּé , and éָìַãְúִּé , are all conditional perfecta with the conditional particle omitted, as in Psa_69:33; Psa_103:16; Amo_3:8, etc. Cf. Ew. 357 b. In English we might imitate the sentence thus: “For (let us suppose) I say, I have hope; I have a husband; I have children; will you,” etc.]

[⁶ Rth_1:13.— äֲìָäֵï is the fem. suffix äֵï , used as a neuter (cf. Ges. 107, 3), with prep. ìְ and the interrogative ä : “under these circumstances,” or briefly “then,” as inserted in the text after Dr. Cassel. The word in this sense is not unusual in Chaldee, cf. Dan_2:6; Dan_2:9; Dan_2:24; Ezr_5:12. In Hebrew it is found again at Job_30:24. As it occurs here in the colloquy of Naomi with her daughters, it is probably to be regarded as a word current in the language of daily life. See Keil, Introd. to O. T. § 137, 2. The rendering of the E. V. (after Sept., Vulg., etc.), “for them,” is very improbable, both on account of the position of the word, the emphasis being clearly on “wait,” and also because of its fem. suffix.—Tr.]

[⁷ Rth_1:13.— ìְáִìְúִּé , lit. “to not,” Dr. Cassel, um. ìְáִìְúִּé expresses negative design, as ìְîַòַï positive. The necessary result is here represented as designed, cf. the use of ἵíá , Win. 53, 10, 6.—Tr.]

[⁸ Rth_1:13.— ëִּéÎîַøÎìִé îְàֹã îִëֶּí : Dr. Cassel interprets rather than renders: “for I am much worse off than you, since against me,” etc. Substantially the same rendering is given by Keil, De Wette, Wright, Wordsworth, etc. “So Sept., which has ὑðὲñ ὑìᾶò , not ὑðὲñ ὑìῶí , and so Syr. and Arabic” (Wordsworth). Bertheau, like E. V. takes îִëֶּí = on your account, for your sake. The objection that this would require òֲìֵéëֶí instead of îּëֶּí (cf. 2Sa_1:26), does not hold, cf. Pro_5:18; Ecc_2:10, etc. But the other rendering yields a better sense îַø may be adjective, noun, or verb, viz. 3 sing. perf. of îָøַø , used impersonally.—Tr.]

[⁹ Rth_1:14.— òåֹã : Dr. Cassel—“exceedingly.” But there is no good reason to change the English “again,” referring to Rth_1:9.—Tr.]

[¹⁰ Rth_1:15.— àֱìֹäֶéäָ : Sept. and Vulg. render by the plural, “gods.” Luther has the sing., and so Dr. Cassel. The reference is apparently to the national deity—“her people and her god”—namely, Chemosh (Num_21:29); hence, the sing, is to be preferred. It seems almost superfluous to observe that Naomi’s words do not necessarily contain any recognition of the Moabitish deity, or indicate (as Wright suggests) that “she was possibly led astray by the false idea that Jehovah was only the God of Israel.” Was Jephthah, then, similarly led astray (cf. Jdg_11:24; Jdg_11:27)?—Tr.]

[¹¹ Rth_1:17.— ëִּé is not “if” ( àִí , 1Sa_3:17, etc.), but “that,” cf. 1Sa_14:44; 1Ki_2:23. ðִùְׁáַּòְúִּé , “I swear,” or some such expression, is understood, cf. Gen_22:16. The E. V. might be corrected by leaving ëִּé untranslated, and rendering: “only death shall part thee and me.” The Hebrew, instead of invoking a definite judgment or calamity on himself, in case he breaks his oath, simply says ëֹּä , which with the addition “and more too,” is perhaps more awful to the imagination because it is not definite.—On the article with “death,” cf. Ges. 109, Rem. l. c.—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Rth_1:7. And she went forth out of the place. The place is not named, nor is it necessary. The Israelitish family had after all not become naturalized in it. No one asks Naomi to stay. No one accompanies her, save her two daughters-in-law, the youthful widows of her too early faded sons.

And they already went on the way. Until then Naomi had looked on her daughters-in-law as only bearing her company for a while before parting. But being now far from their place of residence, on the highway from Moab to Judah, she stops, and bids them return.

Rth_1:8. Jehovah deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead and with me. A scene now begins of unequaled tenderness and amiableness. We get a look into a family-life that may serve as a model for all. It is an honor to the deceased sons, Mahlon and Chilion, that they made such a selection of wives; but they must also have been worthy of the enduring love they awakened, notwithstanding that there were no children to strengthen the bonds of affection. The attachment of the Moabitish women, Ruth and Orpah, to their new family, must be grounded in psychological facts, with a knowledge of which exegesis cannot dispense. The Moabitish women had entered into an Israelitish house, and had breathed the beneficent atmosphere of a family of Judah. Marriage and family life form the real mirror of religious belief and worship. Hence, the apostle, in his sublime manner, arranges the relations of husband and wife by referring to the love of Christ for his church (Ephes. 5:22 ff.). Ancient Israel, therefore, distinguished itself from the inhabitants of Canaan, not merely by the name of its God, but by its life at home in the family, by faithfulness and love to wife and child. Purity and morality in marriage were the necessary results of faith in the only, living God, as much as a life of unchaste and sensual pleasures belonged to the abominations of idolatry among the Ammonites and Moabites. Among the worst sins into which Israel fell in the desert, was the whoredom with the daughters of Moab in the service of Baal-Peor (Numbers 25); by executing summary and terrible punishment on which, Phinehas the priest won for himself an enduring blessing. The Mosaic law does not contain special and extended instructions as to the treatment of wife and child. But the command, “thou shalt not commit adultery,” stands among the Sinaitic Ten as the reflection of that other which says, “thou shalt have no other gods.” An affectionate, moral family life had become an Israelitish characteristic through the influence of the Israelitish faith, as is evident already in patriarchal times from the instances of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. But it showed itself still more brightly in Israel as a nation, living by the side of other tribes in Canaan, since monogamy had become its natural and prevailing practice. Every profounder apprehension of domestic relations, brought about by man’s consciousness of God, affects the wife especially. She experiences most deeply the beneficence of a life sanctified by the law of God. Her happiness and her love, indissolubly connected, depend upon the moral education of the man she follows. Ruth and Orpah felt the impression of the higher morality which, in contrast with the Moabitish home, pervaded every Israelitish household. It is not necessary to conceive of Mahlon and Chilion as men of eminence in this respect; but they held fast to their famile traditions, according to which the wife occupied a position of tenderness, protected by love and solicitude. They did not act in entire accordance with the law when they married Moabitish wives; but neither did they unite with them in the idolatry of Baal-Peor. Although they may not have been specially pious and god-fearing men, their national mode of home and married life nevertheless contrasted with that of Moab, and all the more strongly because they lived in the midst of Moab. Both the young women, acquainted with the fate of Moabitish marriages, felt themselves gratefully attracted to the Israelitish house into which they entered. They had not accepted the law and the God of Israel; but they requited the kind and tender treatment they received with equally self-sacrificing love. That Naomi can acknowledge this, after having observed them through ten years of married life, what a picture of peace and happiness does it suggest! The women had not only heard the religion of Jehovah confessed in Moab (cf. the expression: Jehovah deal kindly with you, etc.), but they had seen the expression of it in the life. What they have done and are yet ready to do, is the consequence thereof. For national divisions, we here see, are overcome rather by the preaching of the life than by the verbal proclamation of doctrine.

Naomi praises not only the love which Ruth and Orpah have manifested toward their husbands, but also that which they have shown towards herself, the mother-in-law. And this is yet more noteworthy. Ancients and moderns unite in complaints of the unhappy relations between daughters-and mothers-in-law. Plutarch, treating of the duties of married persons, relates that in Leptis, in Africa, it was customary for the bride on the day after the wedding to send to the bridegroom’s mother to ask for a pot, which the latter refuses, pretending that she has none, in order that the young wife may speedily become acquainted with the stepmotherly disposition of her mother-in-law, and be less easily provoked when subsequently more serious troubles arise. In Terence (Hecyra, ii. 1, 4), Laches laments “that all mothers-in-law have ever hated their daughters-in-law” (uno animo omnes socrus oderunt nurus). Juvenal, in his satire against women (vi. 231), says, in a rather coarse way, that matrimonial peace is inconceivable so long as the mother-in-law lives (desperanda salva concordia socru). Old German popular sayings faithfully reproduce the ancient maxims: “Diu Swiger ne weiss, dass sie Snur gewesan” (the mother-in-law has forgotten that she was ever a daughter-in-law); “Die beste Swigar ist die, auf deren Rock die Gänse weiden” (the best mother-in-law is one on whose gown the geese feed, i. e. who is dead).

The family life of Naomi with her daughters-in-law affords no trace whatever of such sad experiences. They mutually love each other—both during the lives of the husbands and after their decease,—although they belong to different tribes. The praise for this naturally belongs largely to the mother, whose kind and genial soul evidently answered to her beautiful name. Thus much may also be gathered from her further conversation with her daughters. But the unhappy relations between daughter and mother-in-law, elsewhere usual, must in general have been unknown in Israel. Otherwise the prophet could not represent it as a sign of the extremest social ruin that, as the son against the father, and the daughter against the mother, so the daughter-in-law rises up against the mother-in-law (Mic_7:6); a passage to which Christ alludes when he speaks of the effects to be brought about in social life by his gospel (Mat_10:35).

Rth_1:9-10. Jehovah grant you that you may find a safe place. If he be truly worthy of love who amid his own sorrow still thinks of the welfare of others, then, surely, Naomi is worthy of love. She has been called upon to part with all that was dear to her, with husband and children. She stands quite alone in her advanced age. But even yet all partings are not over. She thinks that now also she must no longer allow herself to be accompanied by Orpah and Ruth. Both the daughters-in-law are yet young; should she take them with her into her uncertain lot! She has not the presumption to forget their future in thoughts about her own; nor the vanity to think that the widows of her sons should not marry again. The position of a single woman in antiquity was an unhappy one. It was altogether customary for youthful widows to marry again. Only a husband’s house is the true asylum for a woman. There she finds protection, safety, and honor. That is the idea of the menuchah, the rest, which Naomi wishes that Jehovah may give each of them in the house of another husband. It is impossible to imagine a more beautiful expression of the end of marriage to a woman. The possession of a menuchah, an asylum of honor and freedom, is the highest happiness; the want of it, a terrible misfortune. Among other evils, Israel is told that in the event of disobedience it shall have no menuchah (Deu_28:65). The holy land, if it be possessed in faith, is, as it were, the earthly house to which Israel has come, like a wife to the house of her husband. “Hitherto,” says Moses, Deu_12:9, “you have not yet come unto the menuchah which Jehovah your God gives you.” The desert had no place of rest, properly speaking: it was only the way, not the goal. Solomon was the first who could praise God for the complete gift of menuchah to his people (1Ki_8:56). It is true, Israel’s highest menuchah is God, Jehovah himself and his redemption. He is the true goal of life. Says the prophet (Isa_11:10): “And it shall come to pass in that day: the Root of Jesse—to him shall the nations repair, and his menuchah is glory.” And, hence, Christ also says, Mat_11:29 : “Learn of me, that I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest ( ἀíÜðáõóéí , menuchah) for your souls.”

Such a menuchah Orpah and Ruth had enjoyed in the homes of their husbands; and they are, as it were, vocationless, if they find not another. It was in the natural course of ancient social life that they should marry again among the people to whom they belonged. Naomi thinks it wrong for her to take them away from that people. Turn back, she says; may the blessing of the God of Israel be with you even in the midst of Moab! May He grant you rest in the house of a new husband! And she kisses them, as the signal of parting (cf. Rth_1:14),—but a loud weeping arises. Naomi finds it hard to be obliged to leave these last dear friends whom she has become accustomed to regard as daughters. Orpah and Ruth are unwilling to turn back, unwilling to let the loved Naomi proceed alone on her solitary way through life. “We go with thee,” they say, “to thy people.”

Rth_1:11-13. And Naomi said: Have I then yet sons in my womb? It is by means of two considerations that Naomi seeks to persuade her daughters-in-law to return: first, she holds out to them the prospect of new family connections in Moab; and, secondly, she shows them that all hope of renewed married happiness is ended if they go with her. The surprising delicacy with which this is done, is such as to show clearly how truly a religious love educates and refines. The ultimate cause of the grief occasioned by the necessity of impending separation, lies after all solely in the fact that Ruth and Orpah are Moabitesses. Naomi could not bear to tell them that if they, as daughters of Moab, went with her to Israel, they would find themselves in a less hospitable situation than they had hitherto enjoyed. She is too tender to remind these good children of the fact that Israel does not sanction connections with Moab. On this account, she had already suggested (Rth_1:8), with special emphasis, that they should return to Moab, each to her mother’s house, thus putting the natural Moabitish mother over against herself, the Israelitish mother-in-law. She would thereby intimate to them, as delicately and indirectly as possible, that they could hope for nothing in Israel except what she herself could give; that they could enter into her house, indeed, but not into Israel’s national life. Naomi’s speech in Rth_1:12-13, is a climactic utterance of grief, which often says so many really unnecessary things, in order to conceal others which it dares not say. Orpah and Ruth are themselves aware of all that Naomi says to them in these verses. In wishing to go with her, they cannot possibly have a thought of building hopes on sons yet to be born to Naomi by another marriage. But—and this is what Naomi would make them feel—any other hope than this vain one, they as Moabitish women could not have in Israel. If I myself—she gives them to understand—could yet have sons, I would take you with me. My home would then be your home too. To me you are dear as daughters-in-law, whether in Israel or in Moab, but other prospect have you none. Here where everything turns on love, the fulfiller of every law, Naomi does not think of the legal provisions with respect to levirate marriages; but she heaps up the improbabilities against her being able to furnish husbands to her daughters-in-law in Israel, in order in this veiled manner to indicate that this was nevertheless the only possible ground of hope for them in Israel.

For I am worse off than you are. It is very painful for Naomi to let them go, for she is entirely alone. But she cannot answer it to take them with her, seeing she can offer them no new home. Undoubtedly, she is in a worse situation than that of the young women. For them there is yet a possible future among their people. Naomi has buried her happiness in a distant grave. For her there is no future. The last of those dear to her, she herself must tear away from her heart. “Jehovah’s hand,” she says, “went forth against me.” She is soon to experience that his mercy is not yet exhausted.

Rth_1:14. But Ruth clave unto her. Orpah suffers herself to be persuaded, and goes; but Ruth remains, and will not leave her. The result of Naomi’s tears is, that Orpah takes leave of her, and that Ruth clings to her only the more closely. The hopelessness of the future, on which the mother had dilated, leads Orpah back to Moab, but suffers Ruth to go with her to Israel. All that Naomi had said, her solitariness, poverty, sorrow, only served to attach her more firmly. Orpah too was attached and well disposed; but still, with eyes of love, although she had them, she yet saw herself, while Ruth saw only the beloved one. It might be said with a certain degree of truth, that the same cause induced Orpah to go and Ruth to remain, the fact, namely, that Naomi had no longer either son or husband. The one wished to become a wife again, the other to remain a daughter. Few among the natural children of men are as kind and good as Orpah; but a love like that of Ruth has scarcely entered the thoughts of poets. Antigone dies for love of her brother; but the life which awaited Ruth was more painful than death. Alcestis sacrifices herself for her husband, and Sigune (in the Parcival of Wolfram v. Eschenbach) persistently continues in a solitary cell, with the corpse of her lover whom she had driven into battle, until she dies; but Ruth goes to a foreign land and chooses poverty, not for a husband or a lover, but for the mother of him who long since was torn away from her. She refuses to leave her for the very reason that she is poor, old, and childless. Naomi, having lost her sons, shall not on that account lose her daughters also. Rather than leave her to suffer alone, Ruth will starve with, or beg for her. Here is love for the dead and the living, surpassing that of Alcestis and Sigune. That Ruth does for her mother-in-law, what as the highest filial love the poet invents for Antigone, when he represents her as not leaving her blind father, is in actual life almost unexampled. Nor would it be easy to find an instance of a deeper conflict than that which love had to sustain on this occasion. The foundation of it was laid when Elimelech left his people in order not to share their woes. It was rendered inevitable, when, against the law of Israel, his sons took wives of the daughters of Moab. It broke out when the men died. Their love for their Israelitish husbands had made the women strangers in their native land; and the love of Naomi for her Moabitish daughters made her doubly childless in Israel. Nationality, laws, and custom, were about to separate mother- and daughters-in-law. But as love had united them, so also love alone has power to solve the conflict, but only such a love as Ruth’s. Orpah escapes the struggle by returning to Moab; Ruth ends it by going with Naomi.

Rth_1:15. Thy sister-in-law returned home to her people and to her God. In these remarkable words lies the key to the understanding of Rth_1:11-13. Her daughters had said to her (Rth_1:10), “We will go with thee to thy people.” It grieves Naomi to be obliged to tell them, with all possible tenderness, that in the sense in which they mean it, this is altogether impossible. It was necessary to intimate to them that a deeper than merely national distinction compels their present parting: that what her sons had done in Moab, was not customary in Israel; that her personal love for them was indeed so great, that she would gladly give them other sons, if she had them, but that the people of Israel was separated from all other nations by the God of Israel. Orpah understood this. Strong as her affection for Naomi was, her natural desire for another resting-place in a husband’s house was yet stronger; and as she could not hope for this in Israel, she took leave and went back. For the same reason, Naomi now speaks more plainly to Ruth: thy sister-in-law returned home to her people and to her God. It is not that we belong to different nations, but that we worship different Gods, that separates us here at the gates of Israel.

Rth_1:16-17. And Ruth said, Thy people is my people, and thy God my God. Naomi’s house, her character and life, have won for her the love of her daughters-in-law. Ruth cleaves to her and will not leave her, although poverty and misery await her. For love to her she proposes to give up not only home and family, but also all the heart-joys that might there yet be hers. She cleaves to her thus, although she is of Israel. Naomi and her house have made Israel also appear lovely in the eyes of Ruth. Who would not wish to go to a people whose sole known representatives were so amiable as Naomi and her family! In Moab, the young women had not been made aware that one cannot be united to Israel without acknowledging Israel’s God, for they had entered the marriage relation with sons of Israel without entering into covenant with their God. Now, however, they learn, from Naomi’s intimations, that that which Mahlon and Chilion had done, was against the custom of Israel. The discovery instantly manifests itself in different effects on Orpah and Ruth. Orpah is repelled, because she thinks only of the bridal she might lose. Ruth is attracted for if that which distinguishes this people which she already loves be its God, then she loves that God also. In Naomi she loves both people and God. Ruth’s love is true love: it cleaves to Naomi not for advantages, but on account of her virtues and amiability. Ruth desires to be one with her for life. She will not let her be alone, wher ever she may be. What Naomi has, she also will have, her people and her God. And this she expresses at once, so clearly and decidedly, that in Rth_1:17 she swears by Jehovah, the God of Israel. The Jewish expositors, after the example of the Targum, suppose a dialogue to have taken place in which Naomi has first explained to Ruth the difficulties connected with faith in the God of Israel. All this, however, should be considered merely as a didactic anticipation of her subsequent experiences. In our narrative, the confession of Ruth, “thy God is my God,” is the highest stage of that devotion which she yields to Naomi for life. She has vowed that nothing shall separate her love from its object; for whatever could separate it, would make it imperfect. But since the God of Israel is the true ground of all the love which she felt for her Israelitish friends, it follows that her confession of Him is the keystone of her vow. It is at the same time the true solution of the conflict into which persons who mutually loved each other had fallen. It rectifies the error committed by her husband when he took the Moabitish woman notwithstanding her relation to the idol of Moab. The unity of the spirit has been attained, which not only shows true love, but even in memory reconciles what was amiss in the past. For Naomi’s grief was so great, not only because she had lost her sons, but also because the daughters-in-law which she had must be given up, and she be left alone. And as love enforced the separation, so love also became the cord drawing to a yet closer union. If Naomi believed herself fallen out of the favor of God on Moab’s account, she could derive comfort from Ruth who for her sake entered into the people of God.

Rth_1:18. And when she saw that she was firmly resolved. Older expositors have imagined that Naomi’s efforts to persuade her daughters-in-law to return homeward, were not altogether seriously meant. She only wished to test them. They take this view in order to free Naomi from the reproach of being too little anxious to introduce her daughters into Israel and the true faith (Rambach: Quœrunt hic interpretes an recte fecerit Noomia, etc.). But this whole exposition is a dogmatic anachronism. Naomi could entertain no thoughts of missionary work as understood in modern times, and for that she is not to be reproached. The great love on which the blessing of the whole narrative rests, shows itself precisely in this, that Naomi and her daughters-in-law were persons of different nationality and religion. This contrast—which a marriage of ten years has only affectionately covered up—it is, that also engenders the conflict of separation. During more then ten years the marriage of Naomi’s sons to Moabitesses was and continued to be wrong in principle, although, in the happy issue of their choice, its unlawfulness was lost sight of. What she had not done then in the spring-tide of their happiness, Naomi could not think of doing now. Her generous love shows itself now rather in dissuading her daughters-in-law from going with her to Israel. For they surely would have gone along, if their deceased husbands, instead of remaining in Moab, had returned to Israel. But their death had in reality dissolved every external bond with Naomi. No doubt, Naomi now feels the grief which the unlawful actions of her husband and sons have entailed. Had her daughters-in-law been of Israel, there would naturally be no necessity of her returning solitary and forsaken. She feels that “the hand of Jehovah is against her.” How indelicate would it be now, nay how unbecoming the sacredness of the relations involved, if Naomi, at this moment, when she is herself poor, and with no prospect in the future, were to propose to her daughters-in-law to leave not merely the land but also the god of Moab, that thus they might accompany her. If she had ever wished, at this moment she would scarcely dare, to do it. It is one of the symptoms of the conflict, that she could not do it. The appearance of self interest would have cast a blot on the purity of their mutual love. Naomi might now feel or believe what she had never before thought of,—she could do nothing but dissuade. Anything else would have rudely destroyed the grace and elevation of the whole beautiful scene. The great difference between Orpah and Ruth shows itself in the very fact that the one yields to the dissuasion, the other withstands. Ruth had the tenderly sensitive heart to understand that Naomi must dissuade; and to all Naomi’s unuttered reasons for feeling obliged to dissuade, she answers with her vow. Naomi dissuades on the ground that she is poor,—“where thou abidest, I will abide,” is the answer; that she is about to live among another people,—“thy people is my people;” that she worships another God,—“thy God is my God;” that she has no husband for her,—“only death shall part me from thee.” Under no other circumstances could the conflict have found an end so beautiful. Naomi must dissuade in order that Ruth might freely, under no pressure but that of her own love, accept Israel’s God and people. Only after this is done, and she holds firmly to her decision, does Naomi consent and “cease to dissuade her.”

Note to verse Ruth 8: “Jehovah deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead and with me.” The love which unites husband and wife in marriage, reconciles the contrasts inherent in difference of nationality, makes peace, gives a good conscience, and leaves a blessed memory. Christian families, too, will do well to look upon the good understanding existing between Naomi and her daughters-in-law as an example to be followed. It originated in the right love of the wives for their husbands, and of the mother for her sons. A right love rejoices in the happiness of its objects, even though derived through others. The jealousy of mothers toward their children-in-law, and of wives toward their husbands’ parents does not spring from love.

A pleasing instance of right relations with a mother-in-law comes to light in the gospel history. Jesus enters into the house of Peter, whose mother-in-law lies sick of a fever. Request is immediately made in her behalf, and He, always full of love ready to flow forth in miracles wherever He sees love, hears her (Mat_8:14 ff. and paral.). The term ðåíèåñÜ , used in this account by the gospels, is also employed by the Sept. with reference to Naomi.

Origen has a remarkable passage, thoroughly worthy of his noble spirit (cf. on Job, Lib. i.): “Blessed is Ruth who so clave to her aged mother-in-law that she would not leave her until death. For this reason, Scripture indeed has justly extolled her; but God has beatified her forever. But He will judge, and in the resurrection condemn, all those wicked and ungodly daughters-in-law who deal out abuse and wrong to their parents-in-law, unmindful of the fact that they gave life and sustenance to their husbands.…. If, therefore, thou lovest thy husband, O wife, then love them also who gave him being, and thus brought up a son for themselves and a husband for thee. Seek not to divide the son from his father or mother! Seek not to bring the son to despise or father or mother, lest thou fall into the condemnation of the Lord in the day of awful inquest and judgment.”

But these excellent words never found the right echo. Even Jerome says: prope modum naturale est, ut nurus socrum et socrus oderit nurum. And yet it never was the case where Christian virtue was actually alive.

Monica, the mother of Augustine, had to endure not a little from her mother-in-law. The latter supported Monica’s disobedient maid-servants against their mistress. She allowed them to bring her all sorts of evil reports about her. Her daughter-in-law she daily chided and provoked. But Monica met her with such complaisant love, quiet obedience, and amiable patience, as to conquer the irritable mother-in-law, so that she became, and continued to be to the last, the friend and protectress of her daughter-in-law. No wonder that from such a heart there sprang the faith and spirit of a man like Augustine (cf. Barthel, Monica, p. 31).

Not only the history, but also the traditions and the poetry, of the Middle Ages, frequently depict the sufferings of daughters-in-law, inflicted on them by the mothers of their husbands. As part of the “swan-legends” of the lower Rhine, we have the peculiar story of Matabruna, the bad wife of the king of Lillefort, who persecuted and tormented her pious and believing daughter-in-law Beatrix, until at last the latter, by God’s help, came off victorious (cf. Wolf, Niederländische Sagen, p. 175; also my treatise on the Schwan, p. 24).

Hermann Boerhaave’s step-mother having died, the universally celebrated physician wrote as follows: “All the skill with which God has endowed me I applied, and spent whole half-nights in considering her disease, in order to prolong her life,—but all in vain.…. But I weep too, as often as the thought occurs to me that now I shall have no more opportunity to show her my love, veneration, and gratitude; and I should be altogether inconsolable, if, since my coming of age, I had been even once guilty of disrespect or ingratitude toward her.”

It may hence be seen how deeply-grounded in the nature of things it is, that in German [and if in German, then in English too.—Tr.] glauben [to believe] and lieben [to love] are really of the sam root. In Gothic, liubs means, “dear, beloved”; liuban, “to be beloved.” With this, the likewise Gothic laubjan, galaubjan, “to believe,” is connected. In the version of Ulfilas, even ἐëðßò , hope, is at Rom_15:13 translated by lubains. And in truth: Faith, Love, Hope, these three are one; but the greatest of them is Love.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

“Jehovah deal kindly with you, as ye have deal with the dead and with me.” Naomi’s husband was dead. Her sons had married Moabitesses, and had died childless. Usually, and sometimes even in “believing” families, mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law are not on the best of terms. But Naomi, although in Moab, enjoyed such love in the house of her sons, that her daughters-in-law did not leave her, but went with her, and that Ruth, for her sake, left native land, parents, and property. She won love because she was Naomi, “pleasant.” She cherished no vanity, sought no strife, and did not wish to rule; hence she had peace and love.

Starke: “Piety, wherever found, has the power to win the hearts of people. It is able to diffuse joy even among those who do not believe.”

Naomi was pleasant and pious. She illustrated the saying of the apostle Peter (1 Epis. Rth_3:1): “that, if any obey not the word, they may also without the word be won by the conversation of the wives.” By her conduct she preached the God of Israel, “in a meek and quiet spirit,” in the midst of Moab; and hence the love which she won redounded to the praise of Israel, and became a silent preaching of the truth to unbelievers.

Starke: “As long as the Church is called Naomi, there is no lack of adherents; but when she appears as Mara, and is signed with the cross of Christ, many go back.”

“And Ruth said, Thy people is my people, and thy God my God.” Ruth is a prophecy, than which none could be more beautiful and engaging, of the entrance of the heathen world into the kingdom of God. She comes forth out of Moab, an idolatrous people, full of wantonness and sin, and is herself so tender and pure. In a land where dissolute sensuality formed one of the elements of idol worship, a woman appears, as wife and daughter, chaste as the rose of spring, and unsurpassed in these relations by any other character in Holy Writ. Without living in Israel, she is first elevated, then won, by the life of Israel, as displayed in a foreign land. Amid surrounding enmity and jealousy toward Israel, she is capable of being formed and attracted through love.

It is an undeniable fact that women have at all times entered more deeply than men into the higher moral spirit of the fellowship with God mediated by Christ. Women, especially, feel that marriage is a divinely instituted and sacred union. Their hearts teach them to know the value of the great treasure and consolation which faith in the living God gives to them especially. Ruth’s confession of God and his people originated in the home of her married life. It sprang from the love with which she was permitted to embrace Israelites. It was because in these persons she loved the confessors of Jehovah, that her feelings had a moral power which never decays.

An ancient church teacher says: “Had she not been inspired, she had not said what she said, or done what she did. For what is she chiefly praised? For her love to the people of Israel or her innocence, for her obedience or her faith? For her love to the people of Israel. For had she desired marriage only as a means of pleasure, she would rather have sought to obtain one of the young men. But as she sought not sensual gratification, but the satisfaction of conscience, she chose a holy family rather than youthful age.”

How great a lesson is here for the church considered in its missionary character! The conduct of one Israelitish woman in a foreign land, was able to call forth a love and a confession of God, like that of Ruth. How imperative, then, the duty of Christians at home, and how easy of execution, to, win Jews and other unbelievers. For love is the fountain of faith. It is written, Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart. The Jews must learn to love Christ in the Christian, and the Christian in Christ. Love removes all prejudices, divisions, and sad remembrances. Ruth loves a woman, and is thereby led to the God whom that woman confesses. Must not men love, if they would be loved? Only love opens the fountain of faith, but faith sanctifies and confirms love.

Pascal: “The heart has reasons which the reason does not comprehend. This is seen in a thousand things. It is the heart that feels God, not the reason. Hence, that is the more perfect faith which feels God in the heart.”

Ruth is not only the type of a convert, but also a teacher of those who seek to convert others. For she shows that converts are made, not by words, but by the life, not by disputations, but by love, not by the legerdemain of a sentimental sermon, but by the faithful discharge of the duties of life. She teaches also by what she gives up,—people, home, parents, customs,—and all from love. She has had a taste of an Israelitish heart and household. Whoever has tasted Christ, can never again live without him,—can never leave him who loves all, suffered for all, weeps with all, and redeems all. If Jews and heathen taste him, this is effected, not through external institutions, through dead works, but through prayer, which fills the lives of Christians with its sweetness. To the fanatical, the disputatious, the canting, the selfish, the avaricious,—and also to the characterless and slavish,—who would say: thy people is my people, thy God is my God?

“Where thou abidest, I will abide; where thou diest, I will die.” Ruth is not only enrolled among the feminine worthies of Israel, with Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel, but heathenism itself throughout its vast extent cannot show a single woman who is her equal in love. For hers is a love outliving the grave, and sustained by no fleshly relationship, for when her husband was dead no living person, mutually dear, existed to connect her with Naomi. Neither self-interest, nor hope, nor vanity, mix themselves up with this love. It is a purely moral and spiritual love, of which no other instance is on record. It is in fact the love of those whom God by his mercy has won for himself, and who love God in their brethren. It is the evangelical love of the Apostles, who loved Greeks and Franks, Persians and Scythians, as their own flesh and blood. Such love as this followed the steps of our Lord, and tarried where he was. Confession, martyrdom, prayer, and every brotherly thought or deed, spring from the love of the converted heart. The more heartily the soul cries out to Christ himself, Thy people is my people, and thy God my God, the more fervently burns this love.

Zinzendorf: I speak because I believe; I love, because many sins are forgiven me.

Sailer: Lead men through love to love. For love cultivates and preserves the true and the good by doctrine, life, prayer, watchfulness, and by a thousand other inventions of its inexhaustible genius.

Footnotes:

[Rth_1:7.—From this verse, and the preceding (cf. also Rth_1:10), it appears plain, as Bertheau remarks, that not only Naomi, but also both her daughters-in-law, set out with the intention of going to Judah. It may be true that Naomi, determined from the start that they must not carry out this intention, “looked upon them as only bearing her company for a while before parting” (Dr. Cassel, below); but it seems at least as likely that in the struggle between duty and inclination, she did not finally reach this conclusion until the moment that she attempted to give it effect. The ìָùׁåּë is of course strictly applicable only to Naomi.—Tr.]

[Rth_1:8.— éַòֲùֶׂä éְäåָֹä òִîָּëֶí çֶñֶã : lit. Jehovah do kindness with you. On the form éַòֲùֶׂä as optative, cf. Ges. 127, 3, b. Although the shortened form éַòַùׂ is more usual, its substitution by the Keri is unnecessary. In òִîָּëֶí the suffix is masc., although referring to women, cf. also òֲùִׂéúֶí in the next member of the clause. Similar departures from strict grammatical propriety occur in Rth_1:9; Rth_1:11; Rth_1:13; Rth_1:19; Rth_1:22, Rth_4:11. Gesenius regards them as originally colloquial inaccuracies, which afterwards passed into books, § 121, 6, Rem. 1. All but two (Rth_1:19; Rth_1:22) of those in our Book are actually found in conversations.

[Rth_1:9.— åּîְöֶàïָ , imperat. scriptio defect. for îְּöֶàëָä . On the construction, cf. Ges. 130, 1. The imperat. is only a stronger jussive, hence easily connected with it.—Tr.]

[Rth_1:10.— ëִּé : Dr. Cassel first supplies: “We will not turn back,” and then renders ëִּé by denn, “for,” cf. Ges Lex. s. v. ëִּé , B. 3, b. In that case, however (after the implied negation), sondern, “but,” would be better than “for.” But it is best taken like ὅôé in N. T. before words directly quoted, cf. Lex. 1. c. B. 1, b. Keil’s remark, that “ ëִּé before words in direct discourse serves to strengthen, being almost equal to an assurance,” is certainly not true in all cases, cf. 1Sa_10:19; 1Ki_11:22.—Tr.]

[Rth_1:12— ëִּé Óëִּé àîøְúִּé is causal, and introduces another but closely connected reason (the first, also introduced by ëִּé , being given in the preceding clause) why they should return, cf. Isa_6:5; Psa_22:12. In English we should represent this ëִּé — ëִּé by “for—and.” äָéִéúִé , àָîַøְúִּé , and éָìַãְúִּé , are all conditional perfects with the conditional particle omitted, as in Psa_69:33; Psa_103:16; Amo_3:8, etc. Cf. Ew. 357 b. In English we might imitate the sentence thus: “For (let us suppose) I say, I have hope; I have a husband; I have children; will you,” etc.]

[Rth_1:13.— äֲìָäֵï is the fem. suffix äֵï , used as a neuter (cf. Ges. 107, 3), with prep. ìְ and the interrogative ä : “under these circumstances,” or briefly “then,” as inserted in the text after Dr. Cassel. The word in this sense is not unusual in Chaldee, cf. Dan_2:6; Dan_2:9; Dan_2:24; Ezr_5:12. In Hebrew it is found again at Job_30:24. As it occurs here in the colloquy of Naomi with her daughters, it is probably to be regarded as a word current in the language of daily life. See Keil, Introd. to O. T. § 137, 2. The rendering of the E. V. (after Sept., Vulg., etc.), “for them,” is very improbable, both on account of the position of the word, the emphasis being clearly on “wait,” and also because of its fem. suffix.—Tr.]

[Rth_1:13.— ìְáִìְúִּé , lit. “to not,” Dr. Cassel, um. ìְáִìְúִּé expresses negative design, as ìְîַòַï positive. The necessary result is here represented as designed, cf. the use of ἵíá , Win. 53, 10, 6.—Tr.]

[Rth_1:13.— ëִּéÎîַøÎìִé îְàֹã îִëֶּí : Dr. Cassel interprets rather than renders: “for I am much worse off than you, since against me,” etc. Substantially the same rendering is given by Keil, De Wette, Wright, Wordsworth, etc. “So Sept., which has ὑðὲñ ὑìᾶò , not ὑðὲñ ὑìῶí , and so Syr. and Arabic” (Wordsworth). Bertheau, like E. V. takes îִëֶּí = on your account, for your sake. The objection that this would require òֲìֵéëֶí instead of îּëֶּí (cf. 2Sa_1:26), does not hold, cf. Pro_5:18; Ecc_2:10, etc. But the other rendering yields a better sense îַø may be adjective, noun, or verb, viz. 3 sing. perf. of îָøַø , used impersonally.—Tr.]

[Rth_1:14.— òåֹã : Dr. Cassel—“exceedingly.” But there is no good reason to change the English “again,” referring to Rth_1:9.—Tr.]

[Rth_1:15.— àֱìֹäֶéäָ : Sept. and Vulg. render by the plural, “gods.” Luther has the sing., and so Dr. Cassel. The reference is apparently to the national deity—“her people and her god”—namely, Chemosh (Num_21:29); hence, the sing, is to be preferred. It seems almost superfluous to observe that Naomi’s words do not necessarily contain any recognition of the Moabitish deity, or indicate (as Wright suggests) that “she was possibly led astray by the false idea that Jehovah was only the God of Israel.” Was Jephthah, then, similarly led astray (cf. Jdg_11:24; Jdg_11:27)?—Tr.]

[Rth_1:17.— ëִּé is not “if” ( àִí , 1Sa_3:17, etc.), but “that,” cf. 1Sa_14:44; 1Ki_2:23. ðִùְׁáַּòְúִּé , “I swear,” or some such expression, is understood, cf. Gen_22:16. The E. V. might be corrected by leaving ëִּé untranslated, and rendering: “only death shall part thee and me.” The Hebrew, instead of invoking a definite judgment or calamity on himself, in case he breaks his oath, simply says ëֹּä , which with the addition “and more too,” is perhaps more awful to the imagination because it is not definite.—On the article with “death,” cf. Ges. 109, Rem. l. c.—Tr.]

Cf. Jerome, adv. Jovinian, lib. i. 48, p. 317, and Comment. ad Michæam, on ch. vii. p. 519 (ed. Migne, vi. p. 1221).

Pliny, in his Panegyr. Trajani, cap. 84, says; “quo quidem admirabilius existimandum est, quod mulieribus duabus in una domo, parique fortuna, nullum certamen nulla contentio est.”

Similar ideas are treated of in his peculiar way, by Abraham a Sancta Clara, in Judas, der Erzschelm, v. p. 15.

[The word in the passage referred to is manoach, which, however, differs only in form, cf. Rth_3:1.—Tr.]

The climax of grief shows itself in the climax of impossibilities adduced to show that she can have no other sons for Ruth and Orpah. In the first place she says, I am too old; but if I were not, I have no husband. But even if I had a husband, and brought forth children this very night, two of them, and they sons, would you wait till they were grown up, and shut yourselves in until they were marriageable! The word òָâַï , here used in the sense of shutting one’s self in, does not occur again in Scripture, and receives its explanation only from its use in this sense in the later Hebrew. This meaning, however, is evidently very ancient. It is connected with ðֵּï , garden, the ðáñÜäåéóïò , which was closed in, hedged in. Ruth and Orpah would have had to look upon themselves as brides of the supposed sons of Naomi, and must therefore have been shut in. With this the explanation of the word ëַּìָּä itself stands connected. Kallah means bride and daughter-in-law as newly-married wife), in the same way as the Greek íýìöç (cf. Mat_10:35, as also the rendering of the LXX. and the German Braut, Grimm, Wörterb. ii. 332). The Greek íýìöç explains itself from the Latin nubere, to cover, to veil. The bride alre