In the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land. A certain man of Bethlehem Judah went to live in the country of Moab with his wife and his two sons.
Parallel Translations
-
In the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land. A certain man of Bethlehem Judah went to live in the country of Moab with his wife and his two sons.
-
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 Beth-lehem-judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
-
AND IT came to pass in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Beth-lehem in Judah went to sojourn in the field of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
Cross-references (22)
Passages linked to Ruth 1:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Genesis 12:10 There was a famine in the land. Abram went down into Egypt to live as a foreigner there, for the famine was severe in the land.
- Genesis 26:1 There was a famine in the land, in addition to the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines, to Gerar.
- Ezekiel 14:13 “Son of man, when a land sins against me by committing a trespass, and I stretch out my hand on it, and break the staff of its bread, and send famine on it, and cut off from it man and animal;
- Genesis 43:1 The famine was severe in the land.
- Leviticus 26:19 I will break the pride of your power, and I will make your sky like iron, and your soil like bronze.
- Deuteronomy 28:38 You will carry much seed out into the field, and will gather little in, for the locust will consume it.
- Judges 17:8 The man departed out of the city, out of Bethlehem Judah, to live where he could find a place, and he came to the hill country of Ephraim, to the house of Micah, as he traveled.
- 2 Kings 8:1-2 Now Elisha had spoken to the woman whose son he had restored to life, saying, “Arise, and go, you and your household, and stay for a while wherever you can; for Yahweh has called for a famine. It will also come on the land for seven years.” The woman arose, and did according to the man of God’s word. She went with her household, and lived in the land of the Philistines for seven years.
- Joel 1:16-20 Isn’t the food cut off before our eyes; joy and gladness from the house of our God? The seeds rot under their clods. The granaries are laid desolate. The barns are broken down, for the grain has withered. How the animals groan! The herds of livestock are perplexed, because they have no pasture. Yes, the flocks of sheep are made desolate. Yahweh, I cry to you, For the fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness, and the flame has burned all the trees of the field. Yes, the animals of the field pant to you, for the water brooks have dried up, And the fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness.
- Deuteronomy 28:23-24 Your sky that is over your head will be bronze, and the earth that is under you will be iron. Yahweh will make the rain of your land powder and dust. It will come down on you from the sky, until you are destroyed.
- Judges 2:16-18 Yahweh raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them. Yet they didn’t listen to their judges; for they prostituted themselves to other gods, and bowed themselves down to them. They quickly turned away from the way in which their fathers walked, obeying Yahweh’s commandments. They didn’t do so. When Yahweh raised up judges for them, then Yahweh was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for it grieved Yahweh because of their groaning by reason of those who oppressed them and troubled them.
- Psalms 105:16 He called for a famine on the land. He destroyed the food supplies.
- Joel 1:10-11 The field is laid waste. The land mourns, for the grain is destroyed, The new wine has dried up, and the oil languishes. Be confounded, you farmers! Wail, you vineyard keepers; for the wheat and for the barley; for the harvest of the field has perished.
- Amos 4:6 “I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in every town; yet you haven’t returned to me,” says Yahweh.
- Judges 12:8 After him Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel.
- Judges 19:1-2 In those days, when there was no king in Israel, there was a certain Levite living on the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim, who took for himself a concubine out of Bethlehem Judah. His concubine played the prostitute against him, and went away from him to her father’s house to Bethlehem Judah, and was there for four months.
- 1 Kings 17:1-12 Elijah the Tishbite, who was one of the settlers of Gilead, said to Ahab, “As Yahweh, the God of Israel, lives, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.” Then Yahweh’s word came to him, saying, “Go away from here, turn eastward, and hide yourself by the brook Cherith, that is before the Jordan. You shall drink from the brook. I have commanded the ravens to feed you there.” So he went and did according to Yahweh’s word; for he went and lived by the brook Cherith that is before the Jordan. The ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening; and he drank from the brook. After a while, the brook dried up, because there was no rain in the land. Yahweh’s word came to him, saying, “Arise, go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and stay there. Behold, I have commanded a widow there to sustain you.” So he arose and went to Zarephath; and when he came to the gate of the city, behold, a widow was there gathering sticks. He called to her, and said, “Please get me a little water in a jar, that I may drink.” As she was going to get it, he called to her, and said, “Please bring me a morsel of bread in your hand.” She said, “As Yahweh your God lives, I don’t have a cake, but a handful of meal in a jar, and a little oil in a jar. Behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and bake it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die.”
- 1 Kings 18:2 Elijah went to show himself to Ahab. The famine was severe in Samaria.
- Psalms 107:34 and a fruitful land into a salt waste, for the wickedness of those who dwell in it.
- Jeremiah 14:1 This is Yahweh’s word that came to Jeremiah concerning the drought.
- Ezekiel 14:21 For the Lord Yahweh says: “How much more when I send my four severe judgments on Jerusalem, the sword, the famine, the evil animals, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and animal!
- 2 Samuel 21:1 There was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David sought the face of Yahweh. Yahweh said, “It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (26 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain In the land of Canaan.
In the land of Canaan.
In the tribe of Judah, which was also called Bethlehem Ephrathah, because there was another city so called in the tribe of Zebulun.
Read full note →
Hebrew, judged.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Rth 1:1 Now it came to pass in the…
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; και πολλη και ελαχιστη, 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.
Read full note →
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.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain In the days when the judges ruled; which is…
In the days when the judges ruled; which is noted as the cause of the following famine, because in much of that time they were guilty of great defection from God. But under which of the judges this happened, Scripture being silent, it seems presumptuous to determine; nor is it necessary to know. What is said about this matter from the genealogy, mentioned Rth 1:18, &c., it will be most proper to consider it there.
In the land, or, in that land, to wit, of Canaan.
Read full note →
The country of Moab; a fruitful land beyond Jordan, eastward.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain The first words give all the date we have…
The first words give all the date we have of this story. It was in the days when the judges ruled (Rut 1:1), not in those disorderly times when there was no king in Israel; but under which of the judges these things happened we are not told, and the conjectures of the learned are very uncertain. It must have been towards the beginning of the judges' time, for Boaz, who married Ruth, was born of Rahab, who received the spies in Joshua's time. Some think it was in the days of Ehud, others of Deborah; the learned bishop Patrick inclines to think it was in the days of Gideon, because in his days only we read of a famine by the Midianites' invasion, Jdg 6:3, Jdg 6:4. While the judges were ruling, some one city and some another, Providence takes particular cognizance of Bethlehem, and has an eye to a King, to Messiah himself, who should descend from two Gentile mothers, Rahab and Ruth. Here is,
I. A famine in the land, in the land of Canaan, that land flowing with milk and honey. This was one of the judgments which God had threatened to bring upon them for their sins, Lev 26:19, Lev 26:20. He has many arrows in his quiver. In the days of the judges they were oppressed by their enemies; and, when by that judgment they were not reformed, God tried this, for when he judges he will overcome. When the land had rest, yet it had not plenty; even in Bethlehem, which signifies the house of bread, there was scarcity. A fruitful land is turned into barrenness, to correct and restrain the luxury and wantonness of those that dwell therein.
Read full note →
II. An account of one particular family distressed in the famine; it is that of Elimelech. His name signifies my God a king, agreeable to the state of Israel when the judges ruled, for the Lord was their King, and comfortable to him and his family in their affliction, that God was theirs and that he reigns for ever. His wife was Naomi, which signifies my amiable or pleasant one. But his sons' names were Mahlon and Chilion, sickness and consumption, perhaps because weakly children, and not likely to be long-lived. Such are the productions of our pleasant things, weak and infirm, fading and dying.
III. The removal of this family from Bethlehem into the country of Moab on the other side Jordan, for subsistence, because of the famine, Rut 1:1, Rut 1:2. It seems there was plenty in the country of Moab when there was scarcity of bread in the land of Israel. Common gifts of providence are often bestowed in greater plenty upon those that are strangers to God than upon those that know and worship him. Moab is at ease from his youth, while Israel is emptied from vessel to vessel (Jer 48:11), not because God loves Moabites better, but because they have their portion in this life. Thither Elimelech goes, not to settle for ever, but to sojourn for a time, during the dearth, as Abraham, on a similar occasion, went into Egypt, and Isaac into the land of the Philistines. Now here, 1. Elimelech's care to provide for his family, and his taking his wife and children with him, were without doubt commendable. If any provide not for his own, he hath denied the faith, Ti1 5:8. When he was in his straits he did not forsake his house, go seek his fortune himself, and leave his wife and children to shift for their own maintenance; but, as became a tender husband and a loving father, where he went he took them with him, not as the ostrich, Job 39:16. But, 2. I see not how his removal into the country of Moab, upon this occasion, could be justified. Abraham and Isaac were only sojourners in Canaan, and it was agreeable to their condition to remove; but the seed of Israel were now fixed, and ought not to remove into the territories of the heathen. What reason had Elimelech to go more than any of his neighbours? If by any ill husbandry he had wasted his patrimony, and sold his land or mortgaged it (as it should seem, Rut 4:3, Rut 4:4), which brought him into a more necessitous condition than others, the law of God would have obliged his neighbours to relieve him (Lev 25:35); but that was not his case, for he went out full, Rut 1:21. By those who tarried at home it appears that the famine was not so extreme but that there was sufficient to keep life and soul together; and his charge was but small, only two sons. But if he could not be content with the short allowance that his neighbours took up with, and in the day of famine could not be satisfied unless he kept as plentiful a table as he had done formerly, if he could not live in hope that there would come years of plenty again in due time, or could not with patience wait for those years, it was his fault, and he did by it dishonour God and the good land he had given them, weaken the hands of his brethren, with whom he should have been willing to take his lot, and set an ill example to others. If all should do as he did Canaan would be dispeopled. Note, It is an evidence of a discontented, distrustful, unstable spirit, to be weary of the place in which God hath set us, and to be for leaving it immediately whenever we meet with any uneasiness or inconvenience in it. It is folly to think of escaping that cross which, being laid in our way, we ought to take up. It is our wisdom to make the best of that which is, for it is seldom that changing our place is mending it. Or, if he would remove, why to the country of Moab? If he had made enquiry, it is probable he would have found plenty in some of the tribes of Israel, those, for instance, on the other side Jordan, that bordered on the land of Moab; if he had had that zeal for God and his worship, and that affection for his brethren which became an Israelite, he would not have persuaded himself so easily to go and sojourn among Moabites.
IV. The marriage of his two sons to two of the daughters of Moab after his death, Rut 1:4. All agree that this was ill done. The Chaldee says, They transgressed the decree of the word of the Lord in taking strange wives. If they would not stay unmarried till their return to the land of Israel, they were not so far off but that they might have fetched themselves wives thence. Little did Elimelech think, when he went to sojourn in Moab, that ever his sons would thus join in affinity with Moabites. But those that bring young people into bad acquaintance, and take them out of the way of public ordinances, though they may think them well-principled and armed against temptation, know not what they do, nor what will be the end thereof. It does not appear that the women they married were proselyted to the Jewish religion, for Orpah is said to return to her gods (Rut 1:15); the gods of Moab were hers still. It is a groundless tradition of the Jews that Ruth was the daughter of Eglon king of Moab, yet the Chaldee paraphrast inserts it; but this and their other tradition, which he inserts likewise, cannot agree, that Boaz who married Ruth was the same with Ibzan, who judged Israel 200 years after Eglon's death, Jdg 12:1-15.
V. The death of Elimelech and his two sons, and the disconsolate condition Naomi was thereby reduced to. Her husband died (Rut 1:3) and her two sons (Rut 1:5) soon after their marriage, and the Chaldee says, Their days were shortened, because they transgressed the law in marrying strange wives. See here, 1. That wherever we go we cannot out-run death, whose fatal arrows fly in all places. 2. That we cannot expect to prosper when we go out of the way of our duty. He that will save his life by any indirect course shall lose it. 3. That death, when it comes into a family, often makes breach upon breach. One is taken away to prepare another to follow soon after; one is taken away, and that affliction is not duly improved, and therefore God sends another of the same kind. When Naomi had lost her husband she took so much the more complacency and put so much the more confidence in her sons. Under the shadow of these surviving comforts she thinks she shall live among the heathen, and exceedingly glad she was of these gourds; but behold they wither presently, green and growing up in the morning, cut down and dried up before night, buried soon after they were married, for neither of them left any children. So uncertain and transient are all our enjoyments here. It is therefore our wisdom to make sure of those comforts that will be made sure and of which death cannot rob us. But how desolate was the condition, and how disconsolate the spirit, of poor Naomi, when the woman was left of her two sons and her husband! When these two things, loss of children and widowhood, come upon her in a moment, come upon her in their perfection, by whom shall she be comforted? Isa 47:9; Isa 51:19. It is God alone who has wherewithal to comfort those who are thus cast down.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain Now it came to pass, in the days when…
Now it came to pass, in the days when the judges ruled,.... So that it appears that this history is of time and things after the affair of Micah, and of the concubine of the Levite, and of the war between Israel and Benjamin; for in those times there was no king nor judge in Israel; but to what time of the judges, and which government of theirs it belongs to, is not agreed on. Josephus (o) places it in the government of Eli, but that is too late for Boaz, the grandfather of Jesse, the father of David, to live. Some Jewish writers, as Jarchi, say it was in the times of Ibzan, who they say (p) is the same with Boaz, but without proof, and which times are too late also for this history. The Jewish chronology (q) comes nearer the truth, which carries it up as high as the times of Eglon, king of Moab, when Ehud was judge; and with which Dr. Lightfoot (r) pretty much agrees, who puts this history between the third and fourth chapters of Judges, and so must belong to the times of Ehud or Shamgar. Junius refers it to the times of Deborah and Barak; and others (s), on account of the famine, think it began in the times the Midianites oppressed Israel, and carried off the fruits of the earth, which caused it, when Gideon was raised up to be their judge; Alting (t) places it in the time of Jephthah; such is the uncertainty about the time referred to:
that there was a famine in the land; the land of Canaan, that very fruitful country. The Targum says this was the sixth famine that had been in the world, and it was in the days of Boaz, who is called Ibzan the just, and who was of Bethlehemjudah; but it is more probable that it was in the days of Gideon, as before observed, than in the days of Ibzan
Read full note →
and a certain man of Bethlehemjudah; so called to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, Jos 19:15 which had its name from the fruitfulness of the place, and the plenty of bread in it, and yet the famine was here; hence this man with his family removed from it:
and went to sojourn in the country of Moab; where there was plenty; not to dwell there, but to sojourn for a time, until the famine was over:
he and his wife, and his two sons; the names of each of them are next given.
par (o) Antiqu. l. 5. c. 9. sect. 1. (p) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 91. 1. Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 8. 2. Jarchi & Abendana in loc. (q) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 12. p. 33. (r) Works, vol. 1. p. 48. (s) Rambachius in loc. & Majus in ib. so Biship Patrick. Lampe Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 5. p. 22. (t) Theolog. Hist. loc. 2. p. 84.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Naomi removes to Moab, ver. 1, 2. Her husband…
Naomi removes to Moab, ver. 1, 2. Her husband and sons die, ver. 3-5. Designing to return to Bethlehem, she addresses her daughters-in-law, ver. 6-13. Orpah stays, but Ruth returns with her, ver. 14-18. They came to Bethlehem, ver. 19-22.
In the land - Of Canaan. It must be early: for Boaz was born of Rahab. So Christ descended from two Gentile mothers.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain -Year before the common year of Christ, 1186.
THE BOOK OF RUTH
-Year before the common year of Christ, 1186.
Read full note →
-Year from the Flood, 1162.
-Year before the first Olympiad, 410.
-Creation from Tisri, or September, 2818.
-This chronology is upon the supposition that Obed was forty years of age at the birth of Jesse; and Jesse, fifty at the birth of David.
CHAPTER I
Elimelech, his wife Naomi, and their two sons, Mahlon and
Chilion, flee from a famine in the land of Israel, and go
to sojourn tn Moab, 1, 2.
Here his two sons marry; and, in the space of ten years, both
their father and they die, 3-6.
Naomi sets out on her return to her own country, accompanied by
her daughters-in-law Orpah and Ruth; whom she endeavours to
persuade to return to their own people, 7-13.
Orpah returns, but Ruth accompanies her mother-in-law, 14-18.
They arrive at Beth-lehem in the time of the barley harvest,
19-22.
NOTES ON CHAP. I
Verse 1. When the judges ruled] We know not under what judge this happened; some say under Ehud, others under Shamgar. See the preface.
There was a famine] Probably occasioned by the depredations of the Philistines, Ammonites, c., carrying off the corn as soon as it was ripe, or destroying it on the field.
The Targum says: "God has decreed ten grievous famines to take place in the world, to punish the inhabitants of the earth, before the coming of Messiah the king. The first in the days of Adam the second in the days of Lamech; the third in the days of Abraham; the fourth in the days of Isaac; the fifth in the days of Jacob; the sixth in the days of Boaz, who is called Abstan, (Ibzan,) the just, of Beth-lehem-judah; the seventh in the days of David, king of Israel; the eighth in the days of Elijah the prophet; the ninth in the days of Elisha, in Samaria; the tenth is yet to come, and it is not a famine of bread or of water but of hearing the word of prophecy from the mouth of the Lord; and even now this famine is grievous in the land of Israel."
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Rth 1:1. There was a famine in the land…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain In the days when the Judges ruled - “Judged.”…
In the days when the Judges ruled - “Judged.” This note of time, like that in Rth 4:7; Jdg 18:1; Jdg 17:6, indicates that this Book was written after the rule of the judges had ceased. The genealogy Rth 4:17-22 points to the time of David as the earliest when the Book of Ruth could have been written.
A famine - Caused probably by one of the hostile invasions recorded in the Book of Judges. Most of the Jewish commentators, from the mention of Bethlehem, and the resemblance of the names Boaz and Ibzan, refer this history to the judge Ibzan Jdg 12:8, but without probability.
Read full note →
The country of Moab - Here, and in Rth 1:2, Rth 1:22; Rth 4:3, literally, “the field” or “fields.” As the same word is elsewhere used of the territory of Moab, of the Amalekites, of Edom, and of the Philistines, it would seem to be a term pointedly used with reference to a foreign country, not the country of the speaker, or writer; and to have been specially applied to Moab.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Of one. Hebrew, "And it came to pass in…
Of one. Hebrew, "And it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled." (Haydock) --- The and shews the connection with the former book. (Calmet) --- Land. Chaldean adds, "of Israel," (Menochius) while the less fertile country of Moab had abundance. God thus punished the idolatry of his people. Some say the famine lasted ten years; but this is uncertain, though Noemi continued so long out of the country, ver. 4. (Salien)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain Distress in a Foreign Land
CHAPTER FIRST
Rth_1:1-6
Read full note →
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 Naomi’s 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 שְׂדֵי is variously explained. Bertheau regards it as another mode of writing שְׂדִה, 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 י of nouns derived from ל״ה 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 שְׂדֵי to be singular, but derives it from the ancient form שָׂדַי, the construct of which might be שׂדֵי after the analogy of הַי const. דַּי ,תֵי, const. דֵּי, etc. But שָׂדַי is not found in Ruth, unless it be in the disguise of the construct, while שָׂדֶה occurs not less than nine times. Better, therefore, with Gesenius, Fürst, and others, take שְׂדֵי as plural construct of שָׂדֶה. Keil proposes to make שְׂדֵי plural const. of שׂדַי, pl. שָׂדַיִם (which however is not found anywhere); for what reason does not appear, unless it be that the plural of שָׂדֶה is usually feminine, whereas שְׂדֵי 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.—נָעֳמִי: Noomi, as the name should be written. Sept. Νωεμίν; Vulg. Noemi.—Tr.]
[3 Rth_1:5.—Better: “Then died they two also, Mahlon and Chilion.”—Tr.]
[4 Rth_1:5.—וַתִּשָּׁאֵר: not, “was left from, i. e. was bereaved of,” as Wright (with the Vulgate) interprets,—on the ground that the מִן changes the simple meaning of the verb as found in Rth_1:3. מִן 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 מִן 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 [Gage’s 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 wife’s 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 מָחיל, 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 כַּלָּה, kallah, a bride, be referred to כָּלַל, 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 Naomi’s 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 king’s 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, ῥόδον (cf. my Rose und Nachtigall, p. 19). Now it seems to me that in רוּת we have the ancient form of the word ῥόδον, rosa, undoubtedly derived from the redness of the flower, ἐρυθρός, 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.ἀλφός, albus, לָבָן. 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 Naomi’s 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 bereavement—Naomi 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 ὑπεριδών, Act_17:30); but in his mercy He remembers them, as he remembered Israel in Egypt (Exo_2:24). The word פָּקַד here used, occurs repeatedly for such a return of divine remembrance. God remembered (פָּקַד) 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 (פָּקַד) 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 world’s 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 Rachel’s 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. 1175–80), 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.
Buckingham’s 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 enemy’s 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 God’s 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 many”—says 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 emigrant’s 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. Elimelech’s 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, God’s slaves and vassals, had plenty of store, whilst Israel, God’s 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 שְׂדֵי is variously explained. Bertheau regards it as another mode of writing שְׂדִה, 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 י of nouns derived from ל״ה 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 שְׂדֵי to be singular, but derives it from the ancient form שָׂדַי, the construct of which might be שׂדֵי after the analogy of הַי const. דַּי ,תֵי, const. דֵּי, etc. But שָׂדַי is not found in Ruth, unless it be in the disguise of the construct, while שָׂדֶה occurs not less than nine times. Better, therefore, with Gesenius, Fürst, and others, take שְׂדֵי as plural construct of שָׂדֶה. Keil proposes to make שְׂדֵי plural const. of שׂדַי, pl. שָׂדַיִם (which however is not found anywhere); for what reason does not appear, unless it be that the plural of שָׂדֶה is usually feminine, whereas שְׂדֵי 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.—נָעֳמִי: Noomi, as the name should be written. Sept. Νωεμίν; Vulg. Noemi.—Tr.]
[3][Rth_1:5.—Better: “Then died they two also, Mahlon and Chilion.”—Tr.]
[4][Rth_1:5.—וַתִּשָּׁאֵר: not, “was left from, i. e. was bereaved of,” as Wright (with the Vulgate) interprets,—on the ground that the מִן changes the simple meaning of the verb as found in Rth_1:3. מִן 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 מִן 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 (Asher’s edit. p. 40) particularly notices.
[7] אֶפְרָתָה ,אֶפְרָת, from פָּרָה, to bear, sc. fruit, cf. פְּרָה, Phrath, in its Greek form Euphrates, an אֶפְרָת, as it were.
[8]Sept. Χελαιών, Josephus Χελλίων. 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 εν̓γενέστατοι, 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. Rambach’s 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][רוּת is usually regarded as a contraction either of רְאוּת, vision, appearance, or better, of רְעוּת female friend. The explanation of עָרְפָה as hind, rests on the supposition that it is the same with עָפְרָה, the two middle letters being transposed. Gesenius derives it from the Arabic ’Orphun, a mane; cf. the Heb. עֹרֶף, 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.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain SOJOURN OF ELIMELECH’S FAMILY IN MOAB, Rth_1:1-5.
SOJOURN OF ELIMELECH’S FAMILY IN MOAB, Rth_1:1-5.
1. When the judges ruled — The age of the Judges extended from the death of Joshua’s generation unto the time of Samuel’s public resignation of his office at Gilgal, (1 Samuel 12,) when Saul was established king — a period, according to the common chronology, of more than three hundred years. See Introduction to Judges.
Read full note →
A famine in the land — Perhaps that scarcity of food and suffering caused in the land of Israel by the seven years’ oppression of the Midianites, whose devastations reached even to Gaza, and left no sustenance for man or beast. Jdg_6:4. According to Rth_1:4, Naomi dwelt in the land of Moab about ten years, and Rth_1:6 gives the impression that the famine continued in the land of Israel during most of this period, which comports well with the seven years of Midianitish rule. According to this supposition the events of this book of Ruth were contemporaneous with the judgeship of Gideon.
Beth-lehem-judah — So called to distinguish it from another city of the same name in the tribe of Zebulun. Jos_19:15. It is situated about six miles south of Jerusalem. Its great celebrity is its being the birthplace of Ruth’s divine descendant, Jesus the Messiah. Its ancient name was Ephrath or Ephratah. See, further, notes on Gen_35:19, and Mat_2:1.
Went to sojourn — To reside for a time as a stranger; not to remain permanently.
The country of Moab — Literally, The fields of Moab; the district east of the Dead sea, forty or fifty miles in length by twenty in width, peopled by the descendants of Moab, whose origin is narrated in Gen_19:30-37. See also notes on Num_21:13, and Deu_2:9. This region has long lain waste, and the dangers of modern travel there have been so many that until quite recently few have ventured to explore it. Captains Irby and Mangles passed through it in 1818, and in their Travels describe the land as capable of rich cultivation, and, though now so deserted, yet presenting evidences of former plenty and fertility. In some places the form of fields is still visible, and the plains are covered with the sites of towns on every eminence or spot convenient for the construction of one. Wherever any spot is cultivated the corn is luxuriant, and the multitude and close vicinity of the sites of ancient towns prove that the population of the country was formerly proportioned to its fertility. In 1870 Professor Palmer passed through the fields of Moab, and his description of the country confirms that of Irby and Mangles. “The uplands are very fertile and productive; and, although the soil is badly tended by the few scattered Arab tribes who inhabit it, large tracts of pasture land and extensive corn fields meet the eye at every turn. Ruined villages and towns, broken walls that once enclosed gardens and vineyards, remains of ancient roads — every thing in Moab tells of the immense wealth and population which that country must have once enjoyed.” In the days of Ehud the Israelites were subject to the Moabites for the space of eighteen years, but under that judge the Moabites were “subdued,” after which the land had rest fourscore years. Jdg_3:12-30. From this history of Ruth we find that amicable relations existed in her day between the two nations, so that Moab became a place of refuge for Israelitish emigrants. So, too, in later times, it continued to be an asylum for outcasts and wanderers, See 1Sa_22:3-4; Isa_16:3-4; Jer_40:11-12.
His two sons — Who were, at the time of his emigration, unmarried.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Ch. 1. Ruth’s Devotion: She Leaves Her Home and…
Ch. 1. Ruth’s Devotion: She Leaves Her Home and Follows Naomi to Judah
1. in the days when the judges judged] The scene of the following story is thus placed in a distant age, which the writer pictures as a time of idyllic peace. Evidently the Book of Judges was known to him: the opening phrase is based upon the Dtc. editor’s theory set forth in Jdg_2:16 ff. For judges as a title see Introd. to Judges, p. xi.
Read full note →
a famine in the land] Targ. the land of Israel; more probably, the land in which Beth-lehem was situated. In ancient times it was only strong necessity which induced people to leave their homes, cf. 2Ki_8:1; for a foreign country meant a foreign religion (Rth_1:16), ‘How shall we sing Jehovah’s song in a strange land?’ See Amo_7:17, Hos_9:3.
to sojourn] as a protected alien; cf. Jdg_17:7 n.
the country of Moab] lit. the field of M., similarly in Rth_1:2; Rth_1:6; Rth_1:22, Rth_2:6, Rth_4:3; cf. the field of the Philistines 1Sa_27:5; 1Sa_27:7. Moab lay on the E. of the Jordan.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) When the judges ruled.—Literally, when the judges judged.…
(1) When the judges ruled.—Literally, when the judges judged. This note of time is by no means definite. As we have seen, some have proposed to connect the famine with the ravages of the Midianites Jdg_6:1); or, supposing the genealogy to be complete (which is more likely, however, to be abridged, if at all, in the earlier generations), then since Boaz was the son of Salmon (Salma, 1Ch_2:11) and Rahab (Mat_1:5), whom there can be no reasonable grounds for supposing to be other than the Rahab of Jericho, the events must be placed comparatively early in the period of the judges.
Beth-lehem.—See note on Gen_35:19. Judah is added by way of distinction from the Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun (Jos_19:15).
Read full note →
Moab.—See notes on Gen_19:37 : Num_21:13; Deu_2:9. The land of Moab seems to have been of exceptional richness and fertility, as allusions in the threats of Isaiah 16 Jeremiah 38, indicate. It was divided from the land of Israel by the. Dead Sea, and on the north by the river Arnon, the old boundary between Moab and the Amorites (Num_21:13). The journey of the family from Bethlehem would probably first lead them near Jericho, and so across the fords of the Jordan into the territory of the tribe of Reuben. Through the hilly country of this tribe, another long journey would bring them to the Arnon, the frontier river.
How far Elimelech was justified in fleeing, even under the pressure of the famine, from the land of Jehovah to a land where Chemosh was worshipped and the abominations practised of Baal-peor, may well be doubted, even though God overruled it all for good. It was disobeying the spirit of God’s law, and holding of little value the blessings of the land of promise.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Now it came to pass. Or, more literally, "And…
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 semipolitical, 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 fpevo 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 "agglutinativeAnd (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 Judges 6). 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" ("Syria and Palestine," D. 199). 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 rWG 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, paroikhsai ) "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.
Vers. 1-5. The emigrants and their trials.
Read full note →
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 magistrates a noble soul said 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 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 piety are 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.
Vers. 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 lesson gratitude to Providence for peace, congenial occupation, and a happy home. T.
Vers. 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 gifts wife, 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.
Vers. 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.
HOMILIES BY W.M. STATHAM Ver. 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.
"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 comes the 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.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain In the days when the judges ruled.
Rth_1:1
In the days when the judges ruled.
Read full note →
The transition from Judges to Ruth
Leaving the Book of Judges and opening the story of Ruth, we pass from vehement out-door 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. (R. A. Watson, M. A.)
There was a famine in the land.
Famine, the consequence of sin
This might happen many ways: by the incursion of foreign enemies, by civil wars among themselves, or by restraint of seasonable showers from heaven. Howsoever it came, sin was the cause thereof: a toleration of idolaters and public monuments of idolatry (Jdg_1:21; Jdg_1:27; Jdg_1:29-30; Jdg_3:5; Jdg_2:2), contrary to Gods express commandment by the hand of Moses. They fell themselves unto idolatry (Jdg_2:11-13; Jdg_2:17; Jdg_8:27).
I. That sins, Especially those aforenamed, deserve the judgments of God (Deu_28:1-68; 1Ki_8:35-37). Therefore, to escape plagues, let us take heed of sin (Eze_18:31; Rev_18:1-24).
II. That famine and dearth is a punishment for sin, and that a great plague (Eze_5:16; Deu_28:23-24; Lev_26:19; Lev_26:29; Amo_4:1-13). And when this hand of God cometh upon us, let us search our ways and humble ourselves (2Ch_7:14), that the Lord may heal our land, for it is a terrible judgment (1Sa_24:14) and without mercy (2Ki_6:10; 2Ki_6:29; Eze_4:10).
III. We may hereby see how God made His word good upon them, and that He dallieth not with His people, in denouncing judgments against them; for Moses had told them (Deu_28:1-68) that God would thus afflict them if rebellious against Him: and here the story telleth us that in the days of the judges this famine came. (R. Bernard.)
A famine in the land!
in the land of promise and in Bethlehem, the House of Bread! No doubt the state of affairs in Bethlehem constituted a severe trial of faith to Elimelech and his family and neighbours. It is very hard to see the meal growing less and less in the barrel; it is even harder for those who have enjoyed times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, and seasons of genuine delight in His service, to lose the experience of the Divine love and care, to find prayer becoming a burden and the Word of God lifeless and unhelpful; but can either the one condition of things or the other be any excuse or justification for forsaking the land of promise? For, to begin with, how can a change of front help us under the circumstances? If corn be scarce in Canaan, where God has pledged Himself to feed us, is it likely that better things will be found in a land upon which, as we shall see, His curse is resting? If from any cause our sense of the presence and approval of Jesus seems to have lost something of its distinctness, even in that circle of Church life and Christian society with which we have been associated, is it probable that we shall obtain truer solace and renewal in that world the friendship of which is declared to be enmity to our Lord? And, after all, what is the province of faith if it be of no service to us under such circumstances as these? Christ, as we well know, changes not; if there be a change in our experience of Him, the causes lie with us, and not with our Lord--the clouds are earth-born; what we need is more sun, not less, and this we shall never obtain by turning our back upon Him from whom every blessing of spiritual experience, as well as of earthly enjoyment, flows. It is pretty certain that, like Elimelech, those whose hearts are growing colder would protest almost with indignation that they have no intention of any permanent abandonment of Christ. They are suffering from famine--from a loss of spiritual enjoyment. To what may this unhappy state of things be due? Some, perhaps, would frankly aver that they never have found enjoyment in Christ and His service from the very commencement; they have sought to serve Him purely as a matter of duty: for their pleasure they have looked to the world. Some, again, would admit that there are both food and enjoyment in the Divine life for those who desire to follow Christ, and at one time they themselves hoped that it would prove permanently satisfying; but they confess that they got tired of it after a time, and it seemed rather hard to them that they should be required to limit themselves to that which, however good in itself, appeared to be somewhat restricted in character. Now, our Bread is Christ, and dissatisfaction with our Bread is dissatisfaction with Him, and confessions such as those to which we have been listening simply mean that the Lord Jesus has ceased to be, or more probably has never been in any very real sense, everything to us; such persons as those whose cases we have imagined have not actually given up serving and loving the Lord, or at any rate do not think they have done so, but into a heart which has never been completely surrendered to the Master they have admitted other objects of regard, and these later affections, competing with that earlier one, have dimmed its lustre and loosened its hold upon us. And are there not others who, whilst desiring after a fashion to lead a Christian life, deliberately place themselves beyond the reach, so to speak, of the nourishing and fructifying grace of God by the very character of the circumstances by which they elect to surround themselves? Their friends, their amusements, their books (not to mention other matters) seem to be chosen almost with a view to hindering instead of assisting their growth in Christ. But the Holy Spirit is Sovereign; He is the Lord of life as well as the giver of it, and He feeds the souls who seek Him in accordance with His own will, not in accordance with theirs. And the famine in Bethlehem took place in the days when the judges ruled. It is impossible to read the historians account of those days (Jdg_2:11, etc.) without realising that the times were very bad indeed, and just such as we should expect to be characterised by famine and distress of all kinds. For, to begin with, they were days of religion by fits and starts--days in which the Israelites served God when they were in trouble and forgot Him as soon as their circumstances improved. Is it likely that such a condition of things and such a fashion of living can succeed? Will God bless those who, blind to His long-suffering, set every law of gratitude and right behaviour at defiance in this hopeless kind of way? But is not this precisely what some of us are constantly doing? No, religion by fits and starts cannot possibly be a happy state of affairs: it must involve us in that separation from God which results in famine. We shall not improve our circumstances, however, by turning our backs upon God; let us understand that our want is due to our own conduct, not to Gods unfaithfulness, and let us seek so to amend our lives that He may yet be able to make our land flow with milk and honey. Moreover, the days when the judges ruled were obviously days of intermittent government: the arrangement was but a makeshift at the best. In our own ease it is the absence of the autocratic rule of the Lord Jesus, or rather our fretful murmuring against the rule, which lies at the root of most of our spiritual sorrow. We acknowledge the Lord as our Saviour, but do we sufficiently recognise Him to be Christ our King? It is impossible for us to fear the Lord and serve our own gods, and be happy--try as we may. That there are times in the experience of all Christian people when the pasture which once was green fails somewhat of its peaceful restfulness no one who knows anything of life will for a moment deny. But this is neither starvation nor a breaking of faith on the part of our covenant God. Elimelech left Bethlehem in a moment of panic, or a fit of despondency or of world-hunger, but others remained and trusted the God of their fathers; and when ten years later Naomi, the solitary survivor of the little band, returned, she found her friends alive and well and in the enjoyment of barley harvest. They had been tried, indeed, but never forsaken. It was sad enough that Elimelech should have left the land of promise and the House of Bread: it was worse that he should have selected Moab as his new home. It was not merely that the people of the country were heathen, and that, as Elimelech must have known, if he and his family were to remain true to God they would have to lead lives of trial and to face unpopularity and perhaps persecution, but Moab had acted with extraordinary bitterness to his ancestors in times past, and in consequence was under a very terrible curse. Are we in no danger? Are there none of us who are beginning to turn our heads, and our hearts too, in the direction of those old associations and those old surroundings which did us so much injury in the past--the scars of whose wounds, the fascination of whose attractions, have not yet passed away? Are we wise in venturing where stronger men than we are have fallen, where we ourselves fell not so long ago? God help us, and keep us true to Him and to ourselves! (H. A. Hall, B. D.)
Bethlehem-judah.
The famine in Bethlehem
The home of Elimelech was in Bethlehem Bethlehem-judah as the historian is careful to remark, in order to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in the territory of the tribe of Zebulun. Its very name--Bethlehem, i.e., House of Bread--indicates its fertility. And therefore the famine which drove Elimelech from Bethlehem must have been extraordinarily protracted and severe; even the most wealthy and fertile parts of the land must have been consumed by drought: there was no bread even in the very House of Bread. Elimelech and his household were by no means likely to be the first to feel the pinch of want, or to feel it most keenly; for he came of a good stock, of a family that stood high in the tribe of Judah, and was a man of consideration and wealth. The probability is that he was rich in flocks and herds, a sheep-master such as Bethlehem has constantly produced, and that it was to find pastures for his famishing flocks that he went to sojourn in Moab. (S. Cox, D. D.)
He, and his wife, and his two sons.--
Family names
The names are thoroughly Jewish, and are rich in meaning. Elimelech was a grand name for a pious man; it means, My God is King. The mother is called Naomi, the gracious or sweetness. Mahlon means weakly, and Chilion, pining or wasting, referring probably to their bodily condition; for as they both died young it is possible they were ailing from their birth. But it is noteworthy that in those olden times parents were accustomed to give their children names according to some peculiarity in their circumstances, or in the fond hope that the special virtue implied in the name might be developed in after-life. Isaacs firstborn is Esau, because of the redness of his skin. Moses in exile calls his son Gershom, For, he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land. The custom is dying out in these modern times. Parents give children names without inquiring the meaning; the sound is more to them than the sense. But there may be more involved, for good or evil, in the old custom than we suppose. Shakespeare asks, Whats in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. True, but as an American writer points out, The influence of names in the formation of character is probably much greater than is usually imagined, and deserves the special attention of parents in their bestowment. Children should be taught that the circumstances of their bearing the names of good men or women who have lived before them constitutes an obligation upon them to imitate or perpetuate their virtues. It does not follow that the desired result will be obtained, yet it may be an influence; and at least the name, when contrasted with the life, will be a constant rebuke. (Wm. Braden.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain LEAVING the Book of Judges and opening the story…
NAOMIS BURDEN
Rth_1:1-13
Read full note →
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.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Rth_1:1. Now] Heb. ו vau, and. The same introcopula…
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.—
Rth_1:1. Now] Heb. ו vau, and. The same introcopula between all the books of the O. T. so far, except in the opening of Deuteronomy, which begins abruptly. Keil (1Ki_1:1) says the use of this conjunction at the beginning of a writing is a sure sign of its connection with another book. It came to pass in the days when the judges ruled (judged). וֵיְהִי The imperfect with van consec, simply attaches itself to a completed action, which has either been mentioned before, or is supposed to be well known (Ewald). Assigns a particular period. Shows also a different state of things [monarchy] existed around the writer. Time of the judges generally a troubled time. Spent to a large extent under the usurpation of neighbouring nations. Towards its end Israel had fearfully degenerated (Jdg_21:25). Does not necessarily imply a judge ruled when Elimelech left the country (Lawson). A famine in the land] Threatened, Lev_26:19-20; Deu_28:23-24 Recognised as a Divine instrument of punishment, 2Sa_24:13-14; Eze_5:16; Amo_4:6-7. That it did not extend to Moab favours this idea. Said by some to have been caused by an incursion of the Midianites (see Jdg_6:3-4) by the Philistines (Cox). Josephus says it was in the days of Eli (see Intro., par. 10–12). Solomon’s prayer concerning famine (1Ki_8:35-37). Christians’ duty during (Act_11:28). A more terrible famine (Amo_8:11), when men shall seek the word of God, and shall not find it. And a certain man (Heb. And a man) of Bethlehem-Judah] To distinguish it from another Bethlehem in Zebulon. Means, House of Bread. Ancient name Ephrata (fruitful), though this may have applied to the district as far as Jerusalem. Now called Beit-Lahm, or Beit-el-ham (Mansford). Rachel died here. David and Christ born here. Hepworth Dixon advances the theory that both may have been born in the house which is mentioned Rth_3:3. (See note on that verse; also Dixon’s “Holy Land.”) References to Bethlehem in the book of Judges mournful ones (Jdg_17:7; Jdg_19:1-2). The turn of the narrative here same as in the former (Speaker’s Commentary). Favours the idea that the writer was the same. Went to sojourn] Expresses correctly the meaning of the Heb., which signifies “to tarry as a stranger in a place.” Isaac was forbidden this method of relief from famine (Gen_26:2), when he would have followed the example of Abraham in going down to Egypt (Gen_12:10). Israelites generally much attached to their own land. In the country (field or fields) of Moab] Bertheau maintains, we have in שְׂדְי only another way of writing שִׂדְה the singular (Rth_1:6). Keil, Gesenius, Fürst, look upon it as a form of the plural. The same style of expression used of Moab (Gen_36:35; Num_21:20; 1Ch_1:46). Moab connected with Israelites in the days of Ehud (Jdg_3:12-20). Continued to be an asylum for them (comp. 1Sa_22:3-4; Isa_16:14; Jer_40:11-12). Israelites held places of trust there (1Ch_4:22-23). David sent his father and mother there. Moabites descendants of Lot (Gen_19:37), and worshippers of Chemosh. Their inheritance spared to them by command of God, when Israel entered into the land. This may account for the friendship with Israel, and in favour of the earlier date ascribed by Lightfoot and others to book of Ruth (see Intro., par. 10, 12). Moabites not admitted into the congregation of the Lord until the tenth generation, on account of their disgraceful origin. For description, etc., see Intro., par. 13. He, and his wife, and his two sons] Sarah went with Abraham (Gen_12:18) into Egypt. Rachel and Leah left their country with Jacob. The family of importance (Ruth 2, 3), well known in Bethlehem (ch Rth_1:19, and Rth_4:1). See notes on Rth_1:2.
Read full note →
HOMILIES AND OUTLINES
CHAPTER 1—Rth_1:1
Theme—THE FAMINE AND EXILE
Now [and] it came to pass. Simple phrases bear the marks of a nation’s way of thinking. Language has been called fossil thought, poetry. Here the Hebrew faith in an overruling hand. Not by chance, but by the orderly unfolding of events. A common scriptural form of introduction; simple, dignified, yet how much it may express.
I. View it simply as a statement of facts. (a) These things happened. The phrase introductory to a remarkable life; singled out from many others. Much not considered worthy of record. Lives of which the Scripture takes no note, written in the record kept until the last great day. Events which have dropped even from the pages of inspired history. Note: When God is silent, it is not wise to speak (Welsh Proverb).
But these things come within the scope of revelation—(α) for wise purposes. God saw fit to transmit the knowledge of them for our edification (2Ti_3:16). Paul bids us look to Christ, yet learn of those who through faith and patience, etc. (Heb_6:12). (β) For gracious purposes. Here are links in the chain, and the end is Christ. The way leads through Moab back again to Bethlehem.
(b) These things happened by the hand and providence of God. The theocratic aspect is not prominent in the book of Ruth (Davidson). But it is there. A special hand of God in all this business, beyond man’s purpose and thought (R. Bernard). The story of Ruth is an impertinence in Scripture, unless we believe in a special providence. This everywhere taken for granted in the Divine word. God in profane history, much more then in sacred. God in every life. The very absence of what is called the religious element has its significance. The book beautifully enforces what Wordsworth calls “natural piety.” But more particularly amid these seemingly commonplace events a Divine purpose and plan. “While the judges were ruling, some one city, and some another, Providence takes particular cognizance of Bethlehem, and has an eye to a King, to Messiah Himself” (M. Henry).
II. See in it a subtle connection between cause and effects.
In those days of ungodliness this happened. The judges ruled, but every man did right in his own eyes (Jdg_21:25). Religion corrupted, worship decayed, idolatry common; and here are the results. When sin is ripe, vengeance is ready.
Notice (a) National life affects individual history. We cannot separate ourselves from our surroundings; are members one of another in many senses. We prosper or we suffer together in times of Divine visitation.
(b) Life as it stands towards God influences life as it stands towards men. All life an unfolding, a coming to pass. But how? Look for the seeds within, around, in the past; but look above for the hand overruling and bringing to pass. God of His most dear justice hath decreed the sum of all discipline (Cyprian). Divine law in the natural world immutable, so in the spiritual. The world of morals sways the sceptre over the world of circumstances. Every other view of life practical atheism. Do we believe it? rather, do we live as though we believed it? In prosperity we are commonly like hogs feeding on the mast, not minding his hand that shaketh it down; in adversity, like dogs biting the stone, not marking the hand that threw it (Fuller).
IMPROVEMENT. By-and-by our life will be summed up in this short sentence, “It came to pass;” the pilgrimage a road with many turnings, but all mapped out. The “to be” will be the “has been.” And to what issues? Doubtless a link in some chain or other. Ruth’s is joined to Israel’s, to David’s, to Christ’s. A Gentile from the outer darkness brought within the hope of Israel. Gospel mercy foreshadowed so far back in the unfolding of events. In God’s time, “it came to pass.” Fuller says, “To typify the calling of the Gentiles, as He took of the blood of a Gentile into His body, so He should shed His blood out of His body for the Gentiles, that there might be one Shepherd and one sheepfold”—a quaint conceit, but enshrining precious truth. The ingathering had begun to work itself out in this “coming to pass.” The ingathering is going on now. How do we stand as towards it? Linked with Israel’s hope, or—? What is the life unfolding? A history of one whom God has chosen, and who has chosen God? or the sad story of one who has wandered into strange lands, leaving behind him the home and the sanctuary of his fathers—wandered to die amid his wanderings? or the story of one who did run well for awhile like Orpah? Which is it?
“It is our fault that we look upon God’s ways and works by halves and pieces; and so we see often nothing but the black side.… We see Him bleeding His people, scattering parliaments, chasing away nobles and prelates, as not willing they should have a finger in laying one stone of His house; yet do we not see that in this dispensation the other half of God’s work makes it a fair piece?”—Rutherford.
“Life is all one unfolding, as of some quaint manuscript which now we may not be able to decipher, but which by-and-by will prove itself to the righteous a new Scripture full of the benedictions of God.”—B.
“The curtains of yesterday drop down, the curtains of to-morrow roll up, but yesterday and to-morrow both are. Time and space are not God, but creations of God. With God, as it is a universal HERE, so is it an everlasting NOW.”—Carlyle.
Theme—THE BEGINNING OF SORROWS
In the days when the judges ruled [judged], a famine, etc.
God takes the events into His own hands. While the judges are judging, God too is holding the balances. The times were evil. Six long servitudes, at least, mark the Divine displeasure at Israel’s sin. Sin deprived angels of heaven, Adam of Paradise, Cain of his honour, Reuben of his birthright, thousands of the land of Canaan (R. Bernard). Now it deprives Israel of food. A blessing promised on their land, their basket and their store, as long as they walked in His law (Lev_26:3-5; Deu_28:5). Evidently they had departed from that law. And now the presence of the godly in the land cannot avert the evil, as at Sodom. The fact that there are children in the households of Israel does not stay the Divine hand as at Nineveh. No place is exempt, not even Bethlehem. The rich suffer with the poor, for Elimelech belonged to a wealthy and honourable family.
See in this,
I. Designed punishment. Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? God has many arrows in His quiver; the land may have rest, but it has not plenty (M. Henry). Famine, the peculiar instrument used—a very terrible one. David preferred the pestilence (2Sa_24:14). But no choice is given here.
Notice (a) God’s judgments come in a very natural way. The wonted streams dry up possibly from very apparent causes—easy to understand, easy to explain. A drought or an inroad of the enemy may have caused this. But beyond natural causes, another reason—behind Nature, GOD. He turns a fruitful land into barrenness, because of the wickedness of them that dwell therein (Psa_107:34).
(b) There is always something special in them worthy our attention. Esau, despising his birthright, lost it. Lot, led of his lust into Sodom, had to leave behind all for which he lusted. Judas perished “in the midst” of the field he had purchased with the price of blood. (See Alford on Act_1:8.) A sad irony often in the history of sinners and their sins. So here, a famine in the land flowing with milk and honey! No bread in Bethlehem, the house of bread! And more, Moab has plenty while Israel is pinched with penury.
(c) There is always a reason which stands out in connection with them. God had said expressly He would deal with Israel after this fashion. Famine was to be to them one especial mark of His displeasure (Lev_26:19-20). Moab may have ease, not so Israel (Jer_15:11; Jer_48:11); for Moab is as the unregenerate, his taste for earthly enjoyment and sensual gratification unchanged. The wicked have their portion in this life, but Christ says woe to them (Luk_6:25; Amo_6:1). And Paul reasons of such, “Then are ye bastards, and not sons.”
See in this,
II. Necessary discipline. Chastisement meant discipline with Israel. Jehovah explains the weary wilderness privations as intended “to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart.” This famine has a like explanation (Jdg_2:20-22), if it resulted either from a Midianitish or Philistine invasion, as is probable. (See Notes and Introduction.) The prodigal child was brought from the keeping of harlots to the keeping of hogs (Fuller). And why? The “I will arise” explains and justifies “the hungering in a far country.” So always. Christ for mere trial sometimes, for sin at other times, doth cover Himself with a cloud (Rutherford). Whatever the reason, the Divine purpose the same—discipline.
(a) Notice the different forms this discipline may take, as illustrated by the narrative. Want, scarcity of provisions, possibly hunger, and these leading to loss of worldly possessions and the family patrimony, absence from the sanctuary, wanderings in strange lands, years of exile, death to most of them in a foreign land. A similar epitome might be made of many a family history—
“They grew in beauty side by side,
They filled one home with glee;
Their graves are scattered far and wide,
By mount and stream and sea.”—Mrs. Hemans.
(b) Notice the severity of this particular form. Hunger a most trying test. Any kind of deprivation is. The same cause sent Abraham and Jacob into Egypt, Isaac to Gerah. Even Christ must feel its pangs when He is led into the wilderness to be tempted.
IMPROVEMENT. The dispensations of Providence strange—sovereign, even punitive. Can we see this other thing, that they are disciplinary (“Whom the Lord loveth,” etc., Heb_12:6), and may be beneficial? This last aspect depends largely upon ourselves. He is dealing with us in one way or other. If not by famine, then by our very abundance; if not by plenty, then perhaps by penury. And to what effect? Driving us towards Moab; away from the sanctuary; away from all that links us with the people of God? There is this sad possibility, and the narrative which follows may warn us of this. Or ripening us for that land where there is no hunger? tribulation working patience, etc. (Rom_5:3).
Topsell treats the passage—
I. That the corruption of religion and the neglect of the worship of God is the cause of all His judgments.
II. That the Lord is true in His judgments as in His mercies (Deu_28:23-24; Psa_145:17; 2Th_1:6).
Bernard—
I. That people deprive themselves by their sins, of that which God had given, and they enjoyed, according to His promise.
II. That a fruitful land is made barren for the sins of the inhabitants thereof.
III. That judgment begins at the house of the Lord.
Fuller derives the following uses [lessons]:—
I. Let us practise that precept, “Babes, keep yourselves from idols” (1Jn_5:21).
II. Let us be heartily thankful to God for our plenty.
III. Let us pray with David, “Deliver us from blood-guiltiness.”
IV. Let us be pitiful and liberal to relieve the distresses of the poor.
“Burckhardt states that in Nejd in Arabia famines like these recur at intervals of from ten to fifteen years.”—Wordsworth.
“The Athenian women had a custom to make a picture of famine every year, and to drive it out of their city with these words: ‘Out famine, in food; out penury, in plenty!’ But let us say in word, and second it in deed. ‘Out sin, in sanctity; out profaneness, in piety:’ and then we shall see that as long as our king reigneth, there shall be no famine in our land.… Is this the land whereof it is said, ‘Asher his bread shall be fat, and afford dainties for a king’ (Gen_49:20), which is called ‘a good land of wheat and barley, vineyards and fig trees, oil, olive, and honey’ (Deu_8:7); which is commended (Eze_20:6) to be ‘a land flowing with milk and honey, the glory of all lands’?… The people’s hard hearts were rebellious to God, and the hard earth proved unprofitable to them; their flinty eyes would afford no tears to bemoan their sins, and the churlish heavens would afford no moisture to wake their earth; man proved unfaithful to God his Maker; the earth proved unfaithful to man her manurer.”—Fuller.
“Think not that the fertility of a land is able to secure its inhabitants against famine, or that any earthly advantage is suflicient to secure us against any calamity whatsoever. All things are in the hands of God, and His creatures change their qualities or effects at His pleasure.”—Lawson.
“A clear and striking proof that here is no continuing city or place of abode, and shews the necessity of our seeking a city which hath foundations, the builder and maker of which is God. For if a man be ever so agreeably situated in the midst of plenty, Divine Providence can soon drive him from his rest, and reduce him to the disagreeable necessity of depending upon the bounty of even the wicked themselves, who are. like Moab, for ever shut out from the sanctuary of Jenovah.”—Macgowan.
“When afflictions fail to have their due effect, the case is desperate.”—Bolingbroke.
“Suffering seasons have generally been sifting seasons, in which the Christian has lost his chaff, and the hypocrite his courage.”—Secker.
“There is a deep truth contained in the fabled story of old, where a mother, wishing to render her son invulnerable, plunged him into the Styx, but forgot to dip in his heel, by which she held him. We are baptized in the blood and fire of sorrow, that temptation may make us invulnerable; but let us remember that trials will assail us in our most vulnerable part, be it the head, or heart, or heel.”—Robertson.
Theme—THE DEPARTURE FROM HOME
“Some natural tears they dropped, but wiped them soon;
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide.”—Milton.
And a certain man of Bethlehem went to sojourn in the country [fields] of Moab.
An exile leaving Bethlehem, like Dante leaving his beloved Florence. To this man also nunquam revocare. He dies in exile. God’s providences often unexplained in this life—await the clearer light of eternity. Some blame Elimelech’s going to Moab. Possibly self-exiled. But no man ought to be condemned without proofs of guilt, and no certain proofs appear in the present case (Lawson). Israelites were not prohibited sojourning in a strange land. David dwelt in Gath. Sent his father and mother for protection into Moab. What if a kindred necessity impelled Elimelech?
I. Suggests the mutability of human affairs. (a) We must expect changes in this world, changes which make life Mara (Rth_1:20). While Moab is at ease, Israel is to be poured from vessel to vessel. Elimelech an Israelite, and they were much attached to their land—dwelt in the most fertile part of the country, probably a rich man (see notes), and yet in his old age he must become a wanderer. No condition of life, no circumstances, no experience, can exempt us. (b) We cannot always dwell where we wish. David must sojourn in the tents of Kedar, leave city and palace behind, and flee to the wilderness. El must go down to Moab, Joseph to Egypt. Nay, touches the holiest: Christ Himself a wanderer, “not having where to lay His head.”
II. Presents a picture of restlessness under affliction.
Sight, not faith, guides Elimelech. The sublime trust which waits upon God in these hours of peril seemingly absent. The promise to Israel, “Thou shalt eat bread without scarceness” (Deu_8:9). To us, “Rest in the Lord; wait patiently for Him; verily thou shalt be fed” (Psa_37:3; Psa_37:7). “In the days of famine thou shalt be satisfied” (Rth_1:19).
Outward appearances against the promises. Faith weak—he went down to Moab. Some suggest desire after gain led him. Dr. Cumming thinks that he fled from the sight of poverty and want around him. He went out “full.” Certainly strong reasons demanded for a change like this. Otherwise God says to such, “Why gaddest thou about so much to change thy ways?” (Jer_2:36.)
Restlessness a very common sin. At the first approach of trial men grow impatient; seek a change in outward circumstances, or in doctrine; become offended even with Christ Himself (Joh_6:66).
Note.—One single restraint made Adam a wanderer from God. (See outlines on Rth_1:2.)
And
III. May illustrate spiritual declension.
Elimelech a wealthier man than many of his neighbours, who bore the brunt of famine rather than expose their children to the seductions of heathen license (Cox). If all should do as he did, Canaan would be dispeopled (M. Henry). What was the cause in his case? Did he value the sanctuary privileges less, or the good things of this world more than they?
Note a principle in this. Men go down to Moab,
(a) Because the promised land itself seems to yield them scanty supplies. The narrow way not attractive in itself. A gospel that says by the mouth of its Master, “Sell all that thou hast,” and by one of its chief apostles, “Silver and gold have I none”—a service which demands honesty, though honesty should prove to be other than the best policy—truthfulness, though truth be an offence—must seem meagre in its rewards, alas to how many! They follow for awhile, charmed by the novelty of Christ’s kingdom. Sooner or later He is seen as “one not having where to lay His head,” a “root out of a dry ground.” Human nature asks large things (2Ki_5:13). His gospel has chosen the weak things and things which are not (1Co_12:27-28). Scanty supplies a great secret of spiritual declension.
(b) Because of the rich abundance inviting them there. Possibly pinched by famine, and in all probability fearing to lose his flocks and herds, the rich grass lands on the other side of the Dead Sea proved irresistible to this man. Lot went down to dwell among the wicked cities of the plain for similar reasons—led of his own spirit and of his own judgment. To both men the journey was as disastrous as it was tempting. So Judas, Demas. Abundance is not everything. The world may seem to have it, does seem to have it even to the righteous (see Psa_37:35; Psa_73:5; Psa_73:7; Psa_73:12). A blight always upon it when the righteous seek it. Elimelech goes down to Moab to die there. Lot has to escape from Sodom “as by fire.” The young man who came to our Lord went away “sorrowful.”
Fuller observes: “It is lawful for men to leave their native soil, and to travel into a foreign country; as—
I. For merchants, provided always that, while they seek to make gainful adventures for their estates, they make not ‘shipwreck of a good conscience.’
II. For ambassadors, that are sent to see the practices and negotiations in foreign courts.
III. For private persons that travel with an intent to accomplish themselves with a better sufficiency to serve their king and country.”
Bernard observes:
I. No place is exempt from punishment, where sin is suffered to reign.
II. God can remove, by one means or another, men out of their homes and harbour. No man may think himself securely settled.
III. Fear of corporal wants will make men leave their homes, their native soil, their friends and kindred. How much more, then, for the love of eternal life, should we be willing to forsake all!”
Topsell—We note,
I. It is lawful for the godly, in the time of necessity, to crave help or relief of the very enemies of God, so they be not polluted with their superstitions.
II. That the Lord doth ever provide for His faithful servants in all their miseries. Joseph sent beforehand to provide for his brethren (Gen_41:45); Obadiah, who hid fifty of the prophets, and fed them in a cave (1Ki_18:13); Elijah provided for (1Ki_17:4-10; see also 2Co_4:8-9).
“When we go from home, it depends entirely on the will of God whether we shall arrive at the place of our destination. When we are in it, it depends no less on the Divine pleasure whether we shall ever again see the place from which we went out. ‘A man’s heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps.’ Beware of bringing upon yourselves the punishment that came upon the proud King of Babylon, because he did not glorify that God in whose hand his breath was, and whose were all his ways. Do not say that to-morrow you will go into such a city, and buy, and sell, and get gain. Say rather if the Lord will.”—Lawson.
“It is an evidence of a discontented, distrustful, unstable spirit, to be weary of the place in which God has set us, and to be for leaving it immediately whenever we meet with any uneasiness or inconvenience in it. It is a folly to think of escaping that cross which, being laid in our way, we ought to take up. It is our wisdom to make the best of that which is, for it is seldom that changing our place is mending it.”—Matt. Henry.
“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 of 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.’ 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.’ ”—Fuller.
“The merchant, having obtained his bank, promiseth rest and security to himself; the husbandman, having gathered his fruits, never doubteth but he shall spend them, and provideth for more; the gentleman coming to his lands, thinketh his revenues and pleasant life will endure alway, like the apostles when Christ was transfigured in the Mount, presently they would build tabernacles of residence; but as the cloud came betwixt them and heaven, and bereaved them of their purpose, even so suddenly will death come and deprive you of your profits, call the merchant from his bank, the husbandman from his farm, the gentleman from his land, the prince from his kingdom.”—Topsell.
“Sometimes it dimly dawns upon us, when we see other men’s mischiefs and wrongs, that we are in the same category with them, and that perhaps the storms which have overtaken them will overtake us also. But it is only for a moment; for we are artful to cover the ear, and not listen to the voice that warns us of our danger,”—Beecher.
“What is this passing scene?
A peevish April day!
A little sun, a little rain,
And then night sweeps along the plain,
And all things fade away.
Man (soon discussed)
Yields up his trust,
And all his hopes and fears lie with him in the dust.
Then since this world is vain,
And volatile and fleet,
Why should I lay up earthly joys,
Where dust corrupts, and moth destroys,
And cares and sorrows eat?
Why fly from ill
With anxious skill,
When soon this hand will freeze, this throbbing heart be still?”
Kirke White.
“There are evils worse than famine. What is the real misfortune of life? sin or want of food? sickness or selfishness? And when I see Isaac (Genesis 26) gaining from his want of food the heart to bear up and bear right onward, I can understand that the land of famine may be the land of promise, and just because it is the land of famine.”—Robertson.
“People do not leave their country for a mere whim. To forsake the homestead where the boys were born, to bid farewell to familiar well-tried friends, to leave the spot made sacred by religious worship, for a heathen country—it is hard! very hard! Elimelech and Naomi must have felt this.… These involuntary emigrants hoped to return speedily—when times were better. Little did they dream that three out of the four would be lying in their graves before ten years had passed. Their farewell was a final one. Oh! these plans of ours, what folly they appear to us when we look back to see how one touch has ruined them all! Our designs always need ‘if the Lord will’ written right across the face of them.”—Braden.
“One month in the school of affliction will teach thee more than the great precepts of Aristotle in seven years; for thou canst never judge rightly of human affairs, unless thou hast first felt the blows and found out the deceits of fortune.”—Fuller.
“Probably this family held on, trusting that prosperity would again smile; but it came not, and hope faded away. What were they to do? Terrible question! Crops gone, cattle gone; starvation stared them in the face.”—Braden.
Theme—FAMILY CHANGES
“Urged by remembrance sad, and decent pride,
Far from those scenes which knew their better days.”
He, and his wife, and his two sons
Touches the whole household. The children bear the burden as well as their parents. In times of scarcity, the family a heavy burden. Christ uses this as an extreme case, “Woe to them that are with child and give suck in those days!” (Mat_24:19.)
We have here,
I. An important step in the family history. Not lawful unless there had been a public calamity or some great private necessity (Maimonides). Nothing but necessity can dispense with a local relinquishing of God’s church, not pleasure, nor profit, nor curiosity (Bishop Hall). In moments like these, go not before God and Providence, but follow Him (Rutherford).
II. A united household in these trying times. Domestic union in the midst of the greatest distresses. Nothing can separate those whom God has joined. Grace finds its most appropriate sphere in the family life. Husbands and wives who aim at separate interests reproved here. Naomi willing to go even to a strange land. Saw the necessity. She was one of those wives whose law is their husband’s will in all things wherein the laws of God leave them at liberty (Lawson). A man and his wife should be like the two wheels of a chariot (Hindoo Proverb).
III. A parent’s responsibility in these critical changes. The results of Elimelech’s conduct were not confined to himself. His children either gained or suffered by it. No man lives to himself, sins to himself.
His care for his wife and children to be commended (1Ti_5:8). Did not leave them as the ostrich, to care for themselves (Job_39:16). He acted kindly, did he act wisely? One thing certain, his responsibility was increased by going down to Moab, where temptation was sure to assail his children. Possible to live like Joseph in Pharaoh’s court, but how difficult!
“All worship not at idol feasts,
Whose lot it is to live in idol lands.”
David in his exile. Daniel and the three Hebrew children in Babylon. But how few come out untainted! Lot’s children seem to have carried the defilement with them when they left Sodom (Genesis 19).
This man went to sojourn, not to stay. God did not forsake him. The wanderers were fed. Josephus speaks of his “happy prosperity” in the land of Moab. There is a law of compensation, however, in connection with all this. He died there. His children married Moabitish women, and then died in exile. His wife returned empty to that place she had left (Rth_1:21).
“The religious man may be considered in his family as the key-stone to the arch.”—Salter.
“Is such a man a Christian?” was asked of Whitefield. “How should I know?” was the answer; “I never lived with him.”
“The very tigress fostereth her young, and the helpless hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and exerts the full extent of her feeble powers in their defence.”—Macgowan.
“The godly in old time knew that their wives and children were as themselves; and as they were careful to cherish their own bodies, so they were mindful to nourish their own families.”—Topsell.
“An honest man careth for his wife and children as well as for himself.”—Bernard.
“We see the flesh of fishes remaineth fresh, though they always swim in the brackish waters.”—Fuller.
“If Elimelech had made inquiry, it is probable he would have found plenty in some of the tribes of Israel; and if he had had that zeal for God and His worship, and that affection for his brethren which became an Israelite, he would not have persuaded himself so easily to go and sojourn in Moab.”—M. Henry.
“Life is the first thing. God wishes no man to starve; and if his circumstances are such that, by remaining in them, he must suffer want and death, his path is clear—he must depart. Bishop Hall quaintly says, ‘the Creator and Possessor of the earth hath not confined any man to his necessary destruction.’ It may be our duty, in order to save ourselves from pecuniary difficulties, to sever the dearest ties.”—Braden.
“Now the devil knoweth that this is a blow at the root, and a ready way to prevent the succession of churches; if he can subvert families, other societies and communities will not long flourish and subsist with any power and vigour; for there is the stock from whence they are supplied both for the present and future.”—Manton.
“Families are societies that must be sanctified to God, as well as churches; and the governors of them have as truly a charge of the souls that are therein, as pastors have of churches. But, alas! how little is this considered or regarded! But while negligent ministers are (deservedly) cast out of their places, the negligent masters of families take themselves to be almost blameless. They offer their children to God in baptism, and there they promise to teach them the doctrine of the gospel, and bring them up in the nurture of the Lord; but they easily promise and easily break it; and educate their children for the world and the flesh, although they have renounced these, and dedicated them to God. This covenant-breaking with God, and betraying the souls of their children to the devil, must lie heavy on them here and hereafter. They beget children and keep families merely for the world and the flesh; but little consider what a charge is committed to them, and what it is to bring up a child for God, and govern a family as a sanctified society.”—Westminster Confession of Faith.
“Home is the chief school of human virtue. Its responsibilities, joys, sorrows, smiles, tears, hopes, and solicitudes form the chief interest of human life.”—Channing.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain Ruth 1-4
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.
Read full note →
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).
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain Section 1. (Rth 1:1-22.)
Section 1. (Rth 1:1-22.)
Left Alone.
Read full note →
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.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Exile and the Return of Naomi
The Exile and the Return of Naomi
1. Beth-lehem-judah] two hours' journey S. of Jerusalem, is to be distinguished from Bethlehem in Zebulun (Jos_19:15). It was but a short distance from Moab, which, in the days here referred to, was a fertile, highly cultivated country. Travellers still speak of it as a land of streams. Nothing short of the compulsion of famine could have induced a Hebrew to migrate into this foreign country where he would have no right of citizenship, this unclean land where Jehovah could not be worshipped.
Read full note →
2. The name Elimelech means 'my God is King.' Naomi, or, as it ought to be written, 'Noomi,' means 'pleasant.' The two sons, Mahlon ('sickly') and Chilion ('wasting away'), evidently owe their names to the fate which overtook them. It is not quite certain how we should understand the names of their wives. Orpah was taken by some of the Jewish commentators as signifying 'the back of the neck,' and explained by her having turned her back on Naomi. Ruth may be 'friend' or 'refreshment': the Talmud takes the latter view, 'because David sprang from her, who refreshed the Holy One with songs and praises.' Ephrathah is another name for Bethlehem, or perhaps the name of the district of Bethlehem.
4. The author of our book sees nothing wrong in their marrying Moabite wives. In this he agrees with earlier ideas and customs (Jdg_14:1; Jdg_16:4; 1Ki_7:14), not with such enactments as Deu_23:3., or such stern proceedings as Ezra and Nehemiah took when they compelled the Jews to abandon their foreign wives (Ezra 9, 10 Neh_13:23-30), or the Targum here, which says, 'And they transgressed the commandment of the Lord and married strange women.'
8, 9. The young widow would naturally return to her mother's house, for she would live in the women's part of the house or tent (Gen_24:28, Gen_24:67; Jdg_4:17; Son_3:4). The belief of that age was that men would receive in this life an exact recompense for their good and evil actions: see especially Psa_18:24, Psa_18:26. These two good women were to find rest after the troubles and disappointments of their Hebrew marriages.
11-13. If Naomi had other sons the obligation of marrying their deceased brother's widow would devolve on one of them. This Levirate law (from Levir = 'a brother-in-law') has been observed in many quarters of the globe, in India, Madagascar, Brazil, etc. Amongst the Hebrews the two objects which it aimed at were, to prevent the extinction of the dead man's name, and to save the property belonging to a family from being broken up and dispersed among other families. The firstborn son of the new marriage was considered to be the child and heir of the dead (Genesis 38; Deu_25:5-10). Naomi asks: Would ye stay for them from having husbands? or, more literally: 'Would ye shut yourselves up from having husbands?' For the widow, awaiting the second marriage, must remain at home in seclusion (Gen_38:11).
14, 15. Possibly Orpah did not intend going beyond the necessary courtesy of accompanying her mother-in-law to the border of the two countries. Then she would return to her people and 'her god' (RV). Chemosh was the national god of Moab (Num_21:29; 1Ki_11:7, etc.).
16-18. Ruth's impassioned declaration reminds us of the Druze sheikh, who, on parting with Mrs. Burton, exclaimed, 'Allah be with you and your house! I would we had never seen you, because of this parting. If you loved a stone I would put it in my bosom, and if you hated the moon I would not sit under its rays.' According to ancient ideas a god and his people were inseparable: if Ruth determined to go over to Naomi's fatherland and race she necessarily accepted their deity: if David was driven out of Israel he was thereby bidden, 'Go, serve other gods' (1Sa_26:19). Moreover, it was an even more cherished privilege then than now to be interred with one's relatives: the phrase for a desirable kind of burial was to be gathered to one's fathers.' In Eze_32:17-32 it is implied that the various nations inhabit separate localities in the invisible world. Ruth cleaves to her mother-in-law as Elisha to Elijah (2Ki_2:2-6).
19-22. Every one in the little town knew her. Yet how much she had altered. The women, of course, knew her best, and they exclaimed, 'Is this Naomi? 'She repudiated the old name, renaming herself Mara, 'Bitter,' because the Almighty, who is here called Shaddai, had dealt bitterly with her. The same expression occurs in Job_27:2. The exact force of the divine name Shaddai is uncertain. Except in the book of Job we always meet it in conjunction with the general name God, 'God Shaddai.' Exo_6:3 regards it as an ancient title. Jehovah testified against Naomi by treating her as a sinner, for suffering was always regarded as an evidence of guilt. When the widow's son dies she cries out to Elijah: 'Art thou come to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?' (1Ki_17:18). We have no ground for assuming any particular transgression on Naomi's part: the Targum is clearly wrong in fixing on the migration to Moab. How unlike Naomi's fortunes to those of Abraham, who from being alone became a multitude (Isa_51:2), and those of Jacob, who with nothing but a staff in his hand crossed the Jordan, and returned in two bands (Gen_32:10)! Barley harvest begins early in April.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain famine (See Scofield "Gen 12:10").
famine (See Scofield "Gen 12:10").
Bethlehemjudah House of Bread and Praise.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain Analysis and Annotations
Analysis and Annotations
CHAPTER 1 The Story of Naomi: Orpah and Ruth
Read full note →
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 Israel’s 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 Naomi’s 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 Israel’s 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.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Elimelech wnd Naomi in the Country of Moab
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.
Read full note →
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 It happened
It happened
"It was" or "This is what happened." This is a common way of beginning a historical story.
Read full note →
in the days when the judges ruled
"during the time when judges led and governed Israel"
in the land
This refers to the land of Israel. AT: "in the land of Israel" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
a certain man
"a man." This is a common way of introducing a character into a story.
Ephrathites of Bethlehem of Judah
They were people from the tribe of Ephraim who settled at Bethlehem in the region of Judea.
translationWords
judge, judges
famine
Bethlehem
Judah
Moab
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 1:1 The judges ruled from the death of Joshua…
1:1 The judges ruled from the death of Joshua (about 1376 or 1200 BC) to the beginning of Saul’s reign as king (about 1050 BC). The events in Ruth occurred around 1100 BC. • Famine in Israel’s hill country was usually caused by drought. • Bethlehem was a small town in the hill country of northern Judah. • Moab, the land southeast of Judah, sometimes received sufficient rain when Judah did not.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.