Lange Commentary - Ruth 2:18

Lange Commentary - Ruth 2:18 - 2:23

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Ruth 2:18 - 2:23

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Rth_2:18-23

The Beginning of the Blessing

¹⁸And she took it up, and went [came] into the city: and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned: and she brought forth, and gave to her that she had reserved ¹⁹[left over] after she was sufficed [satisfied]. ¹⁹And her mother-in-law said unto her, Where hast thou gleaned to-day? and where wroughtest thou? blessed be he that did take knowledge [friendly notice] of thee. And she shewed her mother-in-law with whom she had wrought, and said, The man’s name with whom I wrought to-day is Boaz. ²⁰And Naomi said unto her daughter-in-law, Blessed be he of the Lord [Jehovah], who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her, The man is near of kin [related, lit. near, i.e. near, not in comparison with other relatives, but with men in general] unto us, one of our next kinsmen [one of our redeemers]. ²¹And Ruth the Moabitess said, He said unto me also, Thou shalt keep fast by my young men [by my people], until they have ended all my harvest. ²²And Naomi said unto Ruth her daughter-in-law, It is good, my daughter, that thou go out [only] with his maidens, that they meet [maltreat] thee not in any other field. ²³So she kept fast by the maidens of Boaz to glean unto the end of barley-harvest and of wheat-harvest; and dwelt [and then she abode, remained] with her mother-in-law.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[¹ Rth_2:18.— åַúֵּøֶà úֲîåֹúָäּ : Wright points the first word as Hiph., åַúַּøְà , “and she showed.” “So we prefer to read, following the Vulg., Syr., and Arab. It is rather harsh with the ordinary punctuation to make úֲîֹúָäּ the nom. to åַúֵּøֶà (so pointed by the majority of MSS.), when Ruth is the subject of all the verbs that precede and of those that follow immediately after. Two of Kennicott and De Rossi’s MSS. read àֶúÎçֲîֹúָäּ , which would seem to Imply a reading åַúַּøְà ; but while two of my own MSS. have the reading àֶúÎçֲîֹúָäּ , either by first or second hand, the verb is pointed as ordinarily, åַúֵּøֶà .” The absence of àֵú does not prove that úֲîåֹúָäּ is not an accus., cf. Ges. 117, 2.—Tr.]

[² Rth_2:19.— òָùִׂéú : used absolutely for “to labor,” as in Pro_30:13; Job_23:9. Dr. Cassel translates: “und woher hast du (dies) geschafft,” i.e. “and where (woher, whence, freely for wo, where) didst thou procure ( òָùִׂéú , acquire, make, cf. Gen_31:1; 2Sa_15:1), this?” But, 1, in this sense the verb could hardly be left without an abject; and, 2, the word must have the same sense here in the question which it has in the answer in the next clause. Wright prefers to render “where hast thou stayed,” i.e. spent the time, òֵú being understood (cf. Ecc_6:12 and the phrase ðïéåῖí ÷ñüíïí , Act_15:33). But when the talk is of gleaning, it is certainly more natural for Ruth to say, “the man with whom (on whose fields) I worked to-day is Boaz,” than “the man with whom I spent my time to-day,” etc. Wright says that “Gesenius in the Lex. Man. prefers this rendering.” It is not impossible that Ges. may have varied in different editions; but he has no such preference in the sixth edit. of his German Handwörterbuch, nor in Robinson’s transl. of his Lat. Lex. Man.—In àָðָä , the force of ä local is lost, as in ìַéִì=ìַéְìָä , àֶøֶõ=àֵøְöָä .—Tr.]

[³ Rth_2:20.— åְàֶäÎäַçַéִּéí åְàֶúÎäַîֵּéäּéí . “with reference to the living and the dead.” Accusatives of the objects to which the kindness is done, cf. Ges. 139, 2. “The verb òַæַá is here construed with a double accusative; for if àֵú were used as a preposition, it would have to be îֵàֵú as we find îòí in Gen_24:27” (Keil).— îִðֹּàֲìֵëåּ according to Ges. (Lex. s. v. âָּàַì and îִï ) is a sg. noun, îִâֹּàֵì , with the plur. suff. of first person = “our second goel.” But as no such word is found elsewhere, and as there is no real difficulty in the way, the form in the text is to be taken as script. defect. for îִâֹּàֲìֵéëåּ , and rendered “one of (on îï in this sense, cf. Ges. 154, 3, c) our redeemers.”—Tr.]

[⁴ Rth_2:21.— âַּí : not “even so, i.e. may he be blessed, as you hare said” (Wright), which with the following “for ( ëִּé ) he said to me,” etc., would make but a mercenary amen to Naomi’s prayer, to say nothing of the fact that by the intervention of another clause the prayer is too far away; but, “also!” as we say, “more! I have not told you all; for he said,” etc., cf. Ges. 155, 2, a.—On the periphrastic genitives of the verse, cf. Ges. 115, 1.—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Rth_2:18 f. And her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. Naomi looked with astonishment at the large quantity brought home by Ruth; and her amazement increased when Ruth in addition produced and gave her the remains of her dinner. To this astonishment she gives utterance by asking, “Where hast thou been? in whose fields canst thou have been at work?” Piety, however, does more than indulge in curiosity simply. The natural heart would have rejoiced, received, enjoyed, and inquired just as Naomi did, but withal with no thought except of self. She, on the contrary, before her inquiries are answered, induced simply by the abundance of the gifts and the manifest happiness of Ruth, blesses the giver. For this she needs not to know who he is. Whoever treated Ruth kindly and loaded her with presents, must have designed to indicate his appreciation of her lot and her virtues. He must know what Ruth has done, seeing he manifested so much solicitude for her, a Moabitess. “Blessed be he who has taken special notice of thee!” It had been a hard thing for her to send Ruth out for such work. The man who has treated her dear child so kindly that she comes home, not only enriched with presents, but also cheerful and happy, deserves a blessing, and that before she knows anything more. This done, Ruth has opportunity to relate the particulars of her good fortune, and finally gives the name of the man who has befriended her, namely, Boaz. She could not know what a consolation and joy the utterance of this name conveyed to Naomi.

Rth_2:20. Blessed be he of Jehovah, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. This peculiar exclamation of Naomi on hearing the name of Boaz is undoubtedly worthy of more careful attention than it has hitherto received. Light is thrown upon it by a passage in the history of Abraham. Eliezer has come to Aram, to procure a wife for Isaac from among Abraham’s kindred. He is aware of the great importance which his master attaches to his mission. Arrived at the well outside of the city of his destination, he prays that Jehovah would so “order” it ( äַ÷ְøֵäÎðָà , Gen_24:12), that he may there meet with the one appointed to answer the wishes of his master. And, in fact, it turns out that the affable maiden who draws water for himself and his camels, is Rebecca, the daughter of Bethuel, Abraham’s nephew. The desired “ordering” has been vouchsafed, and the astonished Eliezer exclaims, “Blessed be Jehovah.… who hath not left off his kindness,” etc. ( ìֹà òָæַá çַñְãּåֹ , precisely the same expression as in our passage).

A similar providence has happened to Ruth ( åéִּ÷ֶø îִ÷øֶäָ , Rth_2:3). Without knowing what field to select, she lights on that of Boaz. Without knowing who he is, she is favored by him. Naomi recognizes God’s hand in this, even more profoundly than Eliezer did. It is to be remembered that above (Rth_1:13; Rth_1:20, etc.) she has repeatedly lamented that God’s hand is against her, that God has inflicted sorrow upon her. She has indicated that in her view this fate comes upon her because she—or properly her husband and sons, although she does not say this—went to Moab. In the wonderful providence which made Ruth find a friend in Boaz, the rich relative of her husband, she feels herself justified to find an indication that God is once more gracious to her, and has not left off his kindness. If now it was through the fault of her dear departed ones that she had hitherto experienced distress, then it also follows that, since God’s goodness again manifests itself so conspicuously, his anger against those must likewise be come to an end. For that reason, she speaks of his kindness not only to the living but also to the dead. For these had died through the same sin which had brought suffering on herself. Hence, God’s help to her in her suffering, is a manifestation of his unwearied grace toward both the living and the dead.

But it is certainly proper to find a yet farther meaning in these words. Independently of the special history of the family of Elimelech, this utterance of Naomi concerning God’s kindness to the living and the dead, must have its absolute and general application. Indeed, it must be assumed that in using it, Naomi only applied a generally employed formula to her special case. When one says of God that “He does not leave off his kindness,” he thereby praises him as the God of pardoning love; as the God who, though He tarry long, hears at last, and does not leave the penitent forsaken. In this shorter form, the expression was appropriate in the above-mentioned passage from Abraham’s history. For Eliezer is in perplexity, and knows not well how to perform his task. But it was especially appropriate in the mouth of Naomi, who had thought herself wholly forsaken of God. And hence, it would seem natural to think that if the saying had not already been current in a fixed form, Naomi would have contented herself with saying, “Jehovah who hath not left off his kindness toward us,” or “toward the widowed and the poor,” etc. The kindness of God “toward the living and the dead,” is the most general form of which the saying is susceptible. Now, that God does not leave off his kindness toward the living, is evident to believers from the history of every individual human being, of Israel, and of the world in general (Psa_53:4). The very existence of the world testifies of mercy that never ceases, of love that is never embittered. But wherein is his “kindness toward the dead” manifested? If these words do not presuppose the immortality of the soul, as an article of Israelitish faith, what meaning can they have? Although Naomi, reassured by the benevolent actions of Boaz, may regain confidence in God’s mercy toward herself, she surely cannot speak of them as kindness to the dead, if the dead have no longer any being. In that case, the actions of Boaz, however viewed, are and continue to be kindness to the living only. God could indeed release the living from the consequences of the guilt of the dead; but when in one and the same mercy He is said to show kindness to the latter as well as to the former, this can have its ground only in the presupposition that the grave ends but this earthly state of existence. Bertheau and Keil both explain, in the same words, that God, “by his care for the widows, showed himself merciful to the husband and sons even after their death.” But how can mercy be shown to such as exist no longer? It would never occur to any one to speak or think of that as a mercy to the dead, which, in whatever light it be put, is just mercy to the living, and nothing more. No; we have in this exclamation of Naomi a significant indication of the consciousness of the immortality of the soul which existed in Israel. It had its natural basis in that very mercy of God which does not cease. In this mercy the history of Israel in the world and in the domain of the spirit originated and lives. The Sadducaic doctrine was raised on no other foundation than an Epicurean negation of history. On the enduring mercy of God toward the living and the dead, rests our Saviour’s great answer (Mat_22:32): “God is not a God of the dead, but of the living.”

Rth_2:21 f. The man is related to us. Naomi, observing the astonishment of Ruth at her exclamation, explains the reason of it. (The “redeemer,” âּåֹàֵì will be treated of farther on.) That Ruth had been directed to the field of a blood-relative, seemed to her a sufficiently great mercy. For from all that Ruth had told her, it was evident that she was there well and securely situated. The fear lest Ruth might meet with rude treatment in the harvest-fields, must have been one of Naomi’s chief anxieties. Ruth, having learned who Boaz is, now adds, as if she now understood the reason of it, what is not expressly brought out in the foregoing conversation, namely, that Boaz had given her permission to keep with his people ( ðְòָøִéí ) during the whole harvest-season. And it testifies again of the loving solicitude with which Naomi, like a tender mother, thinks for Ruth, that, as soon as she hears the latter repeat the words of Boaz about keeping with his ðְòָøִéí (people, masc.), she at once rejoins: “Good, my daughter, go with his maidens ( ðַòַøåֹúָéå ), that they injure thee not in any other field.” She has in all this as yet no other thoughts than those of joy and gratitude toward God, that He has so ordered it as to direct Ruth to a relative on whose estate she can glean safely and profitably through the entire harvest, and thus provide the sustenance of both for a whole year. The great question, how to live, was by this providential intervention answered. The fear of want was dissipated and that without insult or shame. While all other means of help failed Naomi, she was first comforted by the love of her daughter-in-law, then upheld by her self-sacrifice, and finally saved from want by the fame of her virtues. Amid the sorrows that befell her in Moab, Naomi, as she herself acknowledged, was not altogether free from blame, for she too had gone thither; only Ruth of all the family had nothing to repent of; and it was through her that God now showed that He had not left off his kindness to the living and the dead.

Rth_2:23. So she kept fast by the maidens of Boaz unto the end of the harvest. It is manifestly not without design that it is added concerning Ruth, that she continued with the maidens throughout the harvest-season. Her diligence did not relax from what it was the first day, although she now knew more than then. Her demeanor was modest and unassuming as ever, so that she returned to the field not otherwise than as she had left it. Her eyes were on the field; and to provide for her mother-in-law continued to be her only solicitude. Boaz had opportunity enough to observe this. He daily saw her gentle and virtuous conduct. Externally and internally, she was no longer a stranger to him. He doubtless found opportunities to show her favors. After an acquaintance so long and hearty, the narrative of chap. 3 is happily introduced.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

[“Blessed be he that took kindly notice of thee.” Fuller: “Learn we from hence, upon the sight of a good deed, to bless the doer thereof, though by name unknown unto us. And let us take heed that we do not recant and recall our prayers, after that we come to the knowledge of his name; as some do, who, when they see a laudable work, willingly commend the doer of it; but after they come to know the author’s name (especially if they be prepossessed with a private spleen against him), they fall then to derogate and detract from the action, quarrelling with it as done out of ostentation, or some other sinister end.”

Bp. Hall: “If the rich can exchange their alms with the poor for blessings, they have no cause to complain of an ill bargain.”

“Kindness to the dead.” The following remarks, though based on an interpretation which Dr. Cassel decidedly, and in so far as it assumes to be exhaustive, probably justly rejects, may nevertheless suggest a very true and useful line of thought. Its entire exclusion by our author is certainly an error. Nothing is more natural or universal than the feeling that kindness done to those left behind by the dead is kindness done to the dead themselves; but it may well be asked whether this feeling is rooted in anything else than the conviction, natural and instinctive, or otherwise, of the continued existence of the soul after death. Fuller: “To the dead. Art thou, then, a widower, who desirest to do mercy to thy dead wife; or a widow, to thy dead husband; or a child, to thy deceased parent? I will tell thee how thou mayest express thyself courteous. Hath thy wife, thy husband, or thy parent, any brother, or kinsman, or friends surviving? Be courteous to them; and, in so doing, thy favors shall redound to the dead. Though old Barzillai be uncapable of thy favors, let young Chimham taste of thy kindness. Though the dead cannot, need not have thy mercy, yet may they receive thy kindness by a proxy,—by their friends that still are living.”—Tr.]

Footnotes:

[Rth_2:18.— åַúֵּøֶà úֲîåֹúָäּ : Wright points the first word as Hiph., åַúַּøְà , “and she showed.” “So we prefer to read, following the Vulg., Syr., and Arab. It is rather harsh with the ordinary punctuation to make úֲîֹúָäּ the nom. to åַúֵּøֶà (so pointed by the majority of MSS.), when Ruth is the subject of all the verbs that precede and of those that follow immediately after. Two of Kennicott and De Rossi’s MSS. read àֶúÎçֲîֹúָäּ , which would seem to Imply a reading åַúַּøְà ; but while two of my own MSS. have the reading àֶúÎçֲîֹúָäּ , either by first or second hand, the verb is pointed as ordinarily, åַúֵּøֶà .” The absence of àֵú does not prove that úֲîåֹúָäּ is not an accus., cf. Ges. 117, 2.—Tr.]

[Rth_2:19.— òָùִׂéú : used absolutely for “to labor,” as in Pro_30:13; Job_23:9. Dr. Cassel translates: “und woher hast du (dies) geschafft,” i.e. “and where (woher, whence, freely for wo, where) didst thou procure ( òָùִׂéú , acquire, make, cf. Gen_31:1; 2Sa_15:1), this?” But, 1, in this sense the verb could hardly be left without an abject; and, 2, the word must have the same sense here in the question which it has in the answer in the next clause. Wright prefers to render “where hast thou stayed,” i.e. spent the time, òֵú being understood (cf. Ecc_6:12 and the phrase ðïéåῖí ÷ñüíïí , Act_15:33). But when the talk is of gleaning, it is certainly more natural for Ruth to say, “the man with whom (on whose fields) I worked to-day is Boaz,” than “the man with whom I spent my time to-day,” etc. Wright says that “Gesenius in the Lex. Man. prefers this rendering.” It is not impossible that Ges. may have varied in different editions; but he has no such preference in the sixth edit. of his German Handwörterbuch, nor in Robinson’s transl. of his Lat. Lex. Man.—In àָðָä , the force of ä local is lost, as in ìַéִì=ìַéְìָä , àֶøֶõ=àֵøְöָä .—Tr.]

[Rth_2:20.— åְàֶäÎäַçַéִּéí åְàֶúÎäַîֵּéäּéí . “with reference to the living and the dead.” Accusatives of the objects to which the kindness is done, cf. Ges. 139, 2. “The verb òַæַá is here construed with a double accusative; for if àֵú were used as a preposition, it would have to be îֵàֵú as we find îòí in Gen_24:27” (Keil).— îִðֹּàֲìֵëåּ according to Ges. (Lex. s. v. âָּàַì and îִï ) is a sg. noun, îִâֹּàֵì , with the plur. suff. of first person = “our second goel.” But as no such word is found elsewhere, and as there is no real difficulty in the way, the form in the text is to be taken as script. defect. for îִâֹּàֲìֵéëåּ , and rendered “one of (on îï in this sense, cf. Ges. 154, 3, c) our redeemers.”—Tr.]

[Rth_2:21.— âַּí : not “even so, i.e. may he be blessed, as you hare said” (Wright), which with the following “for ( ëִּé ) he said to me,” etc., would make but a mercenary amen to Naomi’s prayer, to say nothing of the fact that by the intervention of another clause the prayer is too far away; but, “also!” as we say, “more! I have not told you all; for he said,” etc., cf. Ges. 155, 2, a.—On the periphrastic genitives of the verse, cf. Ges. 115, 1.—Tr.]

îַëִּéøֵêְ : the same word used by Ruth in expressing her gratitude to Boas (Rth_2:10): ìְäַëִּéøַðִּé .

[In the Pentateuch ðַòַø is used, in every instance except one (Deu_22:19), where the later language would write ðַòֲøָä , cf. äåּà for äִéà . Gesenius and Fürst take the plural here in the same way, as used for the feminine; but both Boaz (Rth_2:3) and Naomi (Rth_2:22) use the fem. form, which seems to show that at that time the distinction of gender was no longer neglected. ðְòָøִéí it here, as in Job_1:19, to be taken as including both sexes there in the sense of “young people,” here in that of “servants.”—Tr.]