Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Ruth 3:1 - 3:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rth_3:1-6
Obedience in Innocence
[2 Rth_3:9.— ëְּëָôֶêָ must be regarded as dual, with the suffix defect, written (Ges. 91, 2, Rem. 1); for as the word does not stand in pause, the seghol cannot be a mere lengthened sheva (Ges. 29, 4, b). The Masoretic tradition, therefore, understands “wings” here, and not “skirt,” or “coverlet,” in which sense the word is always used in the singular. The covering wing is a favorite emblem of protection in the psalms and elsewhere, and is here far more beautiful and suggestive than “skirt” or “coverlet,” even though the translation of the metaphor into the language of action did carry with it an actual spreading of the skirt over one, cf. the commentary. The rendering “wings” is also adopted by Bertheau, Keil, Wright, etc.—Tr.]
That which made the fate of the daughter of Jephthah so sad, was that she never found a “resting-place” in the house of a husband. With regard to woman, marriage was viewed as the natural fulfillment of her calling, without which her life was helpless and defenseless, as that of a people without a God. Hence the prayer of Naomi, when about to part from her daughters-in-law, that they may find “rest” in the house of a husband. Orpah returns because she fears never to find it in Israel. Ruth goes with her, because she places her love for Naomi above all other considerations. Then, indeed, the hearts of them all were filled with sorrow. But since then God’s mercy has again become manifest. New hope has dawned upon their tears. What a beautiful and happy contrast presents itself now! The same mother-in-law who formerly, in her self-forgetfulness, bade her daughters-in-law return to Moab and find resting-places for themselves, is now in a position, self-forgetful as ever, to seek for Ruth the Moabitess a place in Israel, where it may be well with her. And what was the force that brought about this beautiful revolution? The love of Ruth which seeks not her own, the faithfulness of Naomi which deserved such love.
The understanding of what chap. 3 relates will be chiefly facilitated by a comparison with the beginning of chap. 2. While the women are in distress, it is Ruth who takes the initiative; now, when hope grows large, it is Naomi. When hardship was to be endured, the mother submitted her will to the daughter,—for Ruth was not sent to glean, she went of her own accord; now, when the endeavor is to secure the joy and happiness held out in prospect, the daughter yields in all things to the direction of the mother. The thought of labor for the mother originates with the daughter; but it is the mother who forms plans of happiness for the daughter. On both occasions, Ruth undertakes a mission. The first time she sets out, a stranger, without a definite place in view, and dressed in the garb of toil and mourning; the second time, with a definite plan, encouraged by the former success, and decked in holiday attire. And yet the second undertaking was not less hard than the first. Humiliation which she had to fear on the first, might also befall her on the second. Indeed, anything that might have befallen her on her first expedition, had not God ordered her goings, would have been far less wounding to her, the foreign and needy woman, than that which on this second expedition might pierce her sensitive heart. The first undertaking was more sorrowful, the second more delicate. At the first she could act openly, at the second only secretly. Then the worst risk she ran was to suffer hunger, now her honor is at stake. The faithfulness to Naomi which she then showed was not greater than the obedience which she now manifests.
And yet Naomi is as little to be reproached for sending Ruth on this second mission, as she was for accepting her proposal to go on the first. On the contrary, her course rather shows that she did not bear her name, or had won such love among strangers, for nothing.
Neither journey of Ruth, taken with the approbation of Naomi, can be measured by modern measuring-rules. They are not attempts at speculative adventure. In both cases, what was done was in accordance with unimpeachable rights afforded by Israelitish law and custom.
When Ruth went to the field to glean, she only asked a right guaranteed to the widowed and the poor. To deny her the privilege of gleaning would have been to deprive her of her right; to injure or put her to shame in the exercise of it, would have been to diminish it. True, the liberal treatment she received from Boaz was no longer a right to be claimed, but the expression of good-will and kindness. Naomi recognized in this the providential arrangement of God. And it is precisely this also that gives courage to Ruth to claim for herself and for Naomi the second right to which she is entitled.
It was an ancient law in Israel, sanctioned by the Mosaic legislation (Deu_25:5), that when a man died without issue, his brother was bound to marry his widow. This is a right of the woman. She can demand it of him, and if he refuses, put him openly to shame. How early and deeply this usage was rooted in Israel, may be seen from Genesis 38, where the death of Onan is ascribed to his refusal to marry the widow Tamar. The significance of this usage is clear. It is also found among other nations, although distorted and rendered impure. It rests on the historical feeling of the nations, which leads them to attach importance to the preservation not only of the national spirit, but also of the national body, by propagation. In the first psalm, the pious man is compared with a tree whose leaf never withers. And the tree is, in fact, the image best adapted to explain the reason of the usage in question. It is not without reason that the founder of a people is called its stammvater [stem-father, trunk-father, cf. the Heb. terms îַèֶä and ùֵׁáֶú shoot, sprout, branch, used for “tribe.”—Tr.]. United about this common trunk, the ancient peoples distinguished themselves nationally (from nasci) very sharply from those who were not his offshoots. The different families are the branches of this tree. But the head of a family is in his turn a stem, putting forth boughs, as a tree puts forth branches.
The withering of the tree is the image of death. As no branch in the tree, so no member in the family, should perish. Now, the nation lives in its families. Hence, if a man dies without children, it is as if a branch withered in the tree. To remedy this, a new branch is, as it were, engrafted on the tree. This is done when the brother marries the widow, and regards the son she bears as heir to the name and possessions of the deceased husband. But what if there be no brother? Is the name then to be after all extinguished and the branch to be forever wanting? The law, as given in Deu_25:5 ff., does not indeed declare it, but it is an inference in accordance with its spirit, that in that case the obligation passes over to the nearest relatives of the deceased. Every family—such is manifestly the idea of the usage—must take care that no member in it dies out. What the brother is to the brother, that, when he has no brother, his more distant blood-relatives must be. The letter of the law, it is true, did not command this; but, as the narrative of our Book shows, the spirit of that usage which the law sanctioned, required it. Naomi, by way of explaining to her daughter-in-law her joy over the way in which God had ordered her steps, says, Boaz is related ( ÷ָøåֹá , like propinquus) to us, he belongs to our goelim ( âֹּàֵì ). The word gaal ( âָּàַì ), to which goel belongs, is philologically and in its original signification one and the same with the Greek ëýù , “to loose.” It is not to be ascribed to the same root with the similarly sounding âָּòַì , although it is true that, owing to the well-known interchange of à and ò , it sometimes occurs instead of it. The latter word means, “to pollute;” and is related to the former as the Latin luo, pollute (cf. lutum, pol-luo), to the Greek ëýù , “to loose.” The correspondence of the ideas “to redeem” and “to loose,” in their external relationship, testifies, both in Hebrew and in Indo-germanic, to their internal mutual connection. The idea currently attached in Israel to the term gaal, “to loose,” is everywhere definitely determined by the conception of the people as an historical organism. By this it was defined mainly as a “redeeming” [einlösen, “inloosing,” from ein, “in,” and lösen, “to loose;” i.e. a loosing of that which has been bound, by means of which it is brought back into its original position (e.g. a captive into his home, a slave into his freedom) or ownership (e.g. a piece of land, a promissory note, etc.).—Tr.]. According to the social philosophy of the Mosaic law, no member of the national organism was to perish, no branch of the tree was to wither. Whatever had been dislocated by natural events was to be re-set; whatever had been alienated must be redeemed. This applied, as an example in our Book itself teaches, to lands as well as to persons; and the duty of redemption rested, as within the nation, so within the families into which the nation branched out. No one could redeem anything for a family, who did not belong to it by blood-relationship. Hence also the transition of the idea of goel into that of blood-relative was perfectly natural. Properly speaking, there could be no redeemer who was not a blood-relative. The meaning of the word is profoundly set forth in the various grand historical unfoldings of its idea. For every redemption [einlösung, “inloosing,”] has always been a setting free [lösung, “loosing”], albeit not always without security. The Greek ëýù also passes over into the idea of “setting free,” “releasing.” Dionysos, in his character as god of the spring-season, is called Lysios, the Liberator. The Liberator of Israel is God. He frees out of and from servitude. For that reason, the Messiah who delivers Israel is especially called Goel. When he appears, he will come as Israel’s blood-relation and brother, as Christ was. The dismal counterpart of the goel as redeemer and deliverer, is the goel as blood-avenger. He owes his origin to the opinion, which slowly and painfully disappeared in Israel, but which is still partially prevalent in the East, and inspires many current superstitions, that the blood of the slain cannot be put to rest and liberated, until his murderer has been killed. The duty of this blood-revenge rests upon the blood-relatives, not only on the brother, strictly so called, but on the nearest relative, whoever he may be. So far this terrible usage becomes instructive with reference to the beneficent national custom which made it the duty of the blood-relative not to let the house of his kinsman die out; for this also was a blood-redemption, not unto death, however, but unto happiness and peace. The goel was no judge—as also the greatest Goel came not to judge the world—but a comforter, a dispenser of life and love.
Rth_3:2. Is not Boaz of our kindred? By these words Naomi explains to Ruth the right she has to engage in the undertaking she is about to recommend. His relationship gives her a right to apply to him for a performance of its duties. It is not to be thought singular that, if Ruth had this right of marriage, the first motion toward its fulfillment did not come from Boaz. In the first place, it was in accordance with ancient usage to leave the assertion of a right with its possesson. It was not the duty of a landowner, for example, to go after the poor, and make them glean; but it was his duty not to forbid them, when they came. In the next place, however, we learn farther on that Boaz was not the nearest relative. The objection which Ruth in her humility might find in her Moabitish nationality, or which she might entertain even without reference to that fact, is met by Naomi in the words: “with whose maidens thou wast.” She thus reminds Ruth that Boaz, so far from slighting her on account of her nationality, has distinguished her, and put her on perfect equality with his Israelitish work-people.
Behold, he winnoweth barley to-night in the threshing-floor. This remark shows that since Ruth’s participation in the harvest of Boaz, Naomi must have come into closer connection with her relative. She is minutely informed of what he does and where he is. We must also suppose that it had not escaped her how much kindness Boaz had shown to Ruth. She could not but feel sure that the claim which Ruth was to prefer, would not be addressed to a hard and unsympathetic heart. On the other hand, it was natural to think that although Boaz was an elderly man, Ruth must be heartily attached to him. It was he, whose kindliness fell like a first beam of light on her sadness. Such an impression, after scenes and moods like those through which Ruth had passed, is never lost. She went forth on her first undertaking at the beginning of barley-harvest; she enters on the second, when the barley is winnowed on the threshing-floor. Between the two there lies an interval of time sufficient to explain how Naomi could have the courage and the information necessary to send her daughter on such an errand.
Rth_3:3 ff. But let not thyself be perceived by the man. Ruth was directed to pay special attention to the adornment of her person, to which, to this extent at least, she had since the death of her husband been a stranger. She is to lay aside the weeds of mourning and the garments of toil, and after bathing and anointing, don the festive garb; for the expedition on which she goes is of a joyous, bridal nature. All this, however, is not done in order to win Boaz by external beauty; for she is specially cautioned against allowing him to see her by day. But why this caution? Boaz was a believing Israelite, and therefore also a man of strict morals. It would have perplexed and displeased him to think that anybody else had seen Ruth, and might suspect both her and himself of an illicit meeting on the solitary threshing-floor. He would have scarcely listened to her, but removed her at once. The purpose for which she came had also an appropriate symbolism, which any previous meeting would have disturbed. By whatever means, Naomi knew that this night—for it was in the night that Ruth was to present her petition—Boaz was to be alone on the threshing-floor. The floor, albeit not entirely closed in, may have been partially surrounded by some sort of fencing, by means of which Ruth could conceal herself until the proper time, and within which Boaz ate and drank. Most probably the grain-heaps themselves formed the natural boundaries, between which, accordingly, Boaz also betook himself to repose.
Rth_3:6. And did according to all that her mother-in-law bade her. Ruth was to do something a little beyond what the prudence and delicacy of a woman ordinarily permitted. For that reason, it is expressly repeated that she did as her mother-in-law directed her. She was justly confident that the latter would order nothing that could injure her. True love, such as Ruth cherished for Naomi, always includes perfect obedience. It was not in Ruth that the thought of a new marriage had originated. Her heart had no other thought than to serve Naomi like a dutiful child. But Naomi, equally self-forgetful, busied herself with plans for a “resting-place for her child.” She, too, thought not of herself only, but of Ruth. She had undoubtedly done all that was in her power by way of preparation, before she directed Ruth to take the decisive step. From that step she could not save her, for custom devolved it on her. It is the beauty of the present instance, that this custom compelled Ruth to nothing that was against her will. For although she acted in a matter regulated by law, it was not settled in this case that Boaz was the right man. So much the more essential was it that, by Ruth’s personal action, the perfect freedom and inclination of the woman should be manifested. The greater the stress that was laid on this by the whole symbolical proceeding, the more significant is the remark that Ruth “did everything, as her mother-in-law commanded her.”
Sailer: Galleries of beautiful pictures are precious; but virtuous young men and maidens are more precious than all the picture-galleries of the world.
Starke: The bride of Christ is pleasing to her Bridegroom only when anointed with the Spirit and clothed in the garments of salvation.
Footnotes:
[Rth_3:3.—On åְùַׂîְúִּé and åְéָøַãְúִּé , cf. Ges. 59, 1, c. They are older forms of the second per. fem., and there is no occasion to substitute the keri for them. Another instance occurs in Rth_3:4.—Tr.]
[Rth_3:5.— àֵìַé , supplied by the Masorites, is unnecessary, cf. Rth_3:11 (where, however, Wright also inserts it on the authority of versions and some MSS.). The same remark is applicable to the case in Rth_3:17. So Bertheau and Keil. Dr. Cassel omits it here, but retains it in Rth_3:17.—Tr.]
The sensual abuse into which the practice of levirate marriage is said to have fallen among the Nairs of Malabar, has extinguished the family proper among them. All are blood-relatives. They are a tree without branches. The correction of many of the views of Bohlen, altes Indien, ii. 142, however much they need it, cannot here be undertaken.
Fürst (Concordantiœ, s. v. âàì ) has truly remarked that âָּàַì was lengthened from âָּì , as ìָàַè from ìָè . This âָּì , originally related to both ëýù and luo, has retained its g, which in the ancient languages has been frequently thrown off. The copious discussion of Benfey, Gr. Gram. ii. 119–124, should be compared.
The few instances, Isa_59:3; Isa_63:3, Zep_3:1, Mal_1:7; Mal_1:12, Lam_4:14, in which âַּàַì —i. q. âָּòַì written with an à —occurs in the sense “to pollute,” should not have been placed under âָּàַì , “to loose,” in the concordance [cf. Fürst]. No one would identify luo (polluo) with ëýù in that way.
Our lösen, “to loose,” also, has in M. H. Germ. the sense of einlösen, “to redeem,” “to ransom,” sc. a pledge, land, etc. It occurs in this sense in poets and documents, especially Low German, cf. Riedel, Cod. Brand, i. 2, Ruth 207: “van den droszten dat land losete.” In another document Herr Heinrich von Mecklenburg is to “ledegen und losen (einlösen) alle hus und stede und de land;” cf. Kröcher, Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. des Geschlechts, i. 172; also, i.
My observations in my treatise on “den armen Heinrich,” will hereafter, D. V., be further elaborated. Cf. the article of J. G. Hoffmann on Blutrache, in the Hallischen Encykl.
[Winnowing is done by tossing the mingled grain and chaff up into the air, when the chaff is blown away to a distance, while the heavier grain falls straight down. Hence, the evening and early night when a cool wind frequently arises after hot, sultry days (cf. Gen_3:8), was taken advantage of by Boaz for this work. For “to-night,” the Targum has, “in the night wind.” On threshing and threshing-floors, cf. Reb. i. 550; Thomson, ii. 314—Tr.]