01 Emigration and Bereavement (Ruth 1:1-5)

CHAPTER I EMIGRATION AND BEREAVEMENT

Ruth 1:1-5. This little book of four chapters is unique among the treasures of the Word of God. It is unlike every other portion of Holy Scripture; and yet it has on it the stamp of inspiration which is common to them all. Exquisite in its pastoral simplicity, and valuable for the glimpses which it gives us into the common life of the Jewish people at the time to which it refers, it is also deeply interesting to the devout reader, from its relation to one who was an ancestries of David, and of David’s greater Son, and from the lessons of love and constancy and purity and integrity which it so abundantly suggests. Withal, however, it is questionable whether it receives from us the amount of attention to which it is entitled. It is said that Dr. Franklin was once in the company of several ladies of the English nobility, when the conversation turned upon pastoral poetry. The ladies took a considerable part in the discussion, and after hearing their criticisms on various authors, the doctor offered to read the translation of a pastoral for their amusement. He read, with a few verbal alterations, the Book of Ruth. They were enraptured, pronounced it the finest they had ever heard from any language, and insisted upon knowing whose it was. Imagine their confusion when he gravely told them that he had read it from the Bible. I do not vouch for the truth of the story, though I found it in a reliable place enough; (The Biblical Treasury, by J. Cowper Gray, vol. iii., p. 171.) I find, however, in the preface to The Beautiful Gleaner, by the late Rev. William Braden, that the same story is told of Dr. Samuel Johnson, and on internal grounds it is, perhaps, more likely to be true of him than of Franklin but though few of us, perhaps, could be so thoroughly imposed on now, I question whether any of us could give at once a clear and concise account of the story that is here told, brief as it is, and I am sure that very few of us have bestowed upon it that measure of attention which is needful for the bringing out from it of the lessons which it was designed to teach. We may, therefore, spend very profitably, as well as pleasantly, a few Sabbath evenings in studying it together. In modern editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Book of Ruth is placed among the Hagiographa, which is the third division of the Old Testament writings, and which consists of the five rolls or Megilloth, the three poetical books (Job, Proverbs, and Psalms), and the two books of Chronicles. Ruth is one of the Megilloth, of which the others were the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. These books were so called because, for convenient use at the festival on which it was read in the synagogue, each was written on a separate roll. That of Esther was styled Megillah or the roll, by way of eminence, and was read on the Feast of Purim, whose origin it describes. That of Ruth was read at Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, perhaps because it contains so graphic a delineation of Boaz and his reapers in the harvest field. But this division into separate rolls was probably a mere liturgical arrangement, for the Septuagint, or Greek version of the Old Testament, places Ruth between Judges and 1 Samuel, as we have it in our English Bibles. Some, following the authority of Josephus, have alleged that it was originally incorporated with the Book of Judges. That, however, has been much disputed, and the general opinion now is that it has always been a distinct and separate portion of the Old Testament Canon, and that it is placed where we have it because it forms a fitting introduction to the books which tell of the glory of King David’s reign. The date of its composition cannot be determined with precision. Some have gone so far as to put it after the Captivity, and would ascribe its authorship to Ezra, or Nehemiah, on the ground of certain Chaldaic forms of expression which they allege they have detected in it. But it is remarkable that these all occur in the reported conversations which the book contains, and not in the narrative portions--a fact which suggests that they were probably due to some peculiarity of dialect not yet satisfactorily accounted for; and in any case they cannot outweigh the great improbability that a book which tells, without extenuation or apology, how a Bethlehemite like Boaz married a Moabitish woman, should be produced at the very time when such alliances were so bitterly denounced by the Jewish leaders. From an examination of the book itself, it seems clear that while it could not have been writ. ten earlier than David’s day, because it contains two references to David himself, it could not have been composed much, if any, later, else it would have contained the name of Solomon in the genealogical table with which it closes.

Again, the tone of the book throughout is liberal and tolerant to the Gentiles; and part of its design --unconsciously to its author, perhaps, but not the less intentional with God--seems to be to prepare for the time when through the promised Messiah the middle wall of partition between the Jews and other nations should be broken down. Now the reign of David appears to have been the only portion of Jewish history during which such a spirit towards the Gentiles was shown without any breach of loyalty to Jehovah. David himself in his public administration was "the man according to God’s own heart;" and yet as one has suggestively said, "nothing is more characteristic of him and his time, though it is a characteristic too commonly overlooked, than the fair and easy terms on which he met all foreigners, and the rare fidelity with which friendly aliens clave to his cause, even when it was a losing cause."(Samuel Cox, in The Expositor, vol. ii., pp. 8, 9.) This fact, therefore, taken in connection with the personal relation of David to the heroine of the story, seems to make it, if not absolutely certain, at least fairly probable, that the Book of Ruth was written some time during David’s reign, and we know that the Royal Psalmist had contemporaries who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, might have produced such a work. Indeed, there is much in the simple pathos of the parable of the ewe lamb to remind us of the idyllic beauty of the Book of Ruth, and though we have not anywhere met with the opinion, both might well enough have come from the prophet Nathan. As to the date of the events recorded in this book all we know is that they happened "in the days when the Judges ruled." But as to how long the time of the Judges lasted, or which of them are particularly referred to in the opening verse of Ruth, we are again in the dark. For it is not yet settled among critics whether we must regard the Judges as so many magistrates having jurisdiction over the whole land, and ruling consecutively from Othniel to Eli; or whether we must view them as local leaders, each restricted to some one particular neighborhood, and some of whom may have been contemporaries. Lord Arthur Hervey, for example, believes that Ehud, Gideon, and Jephthah flourished at the same time; while others suppose that the book, up at least to the end of the sixteenth chapter, is to be regarded as a continuous history of events strictly following one another. So, with this diversity of view existing, it is difficult to fix upon any one judge as that under whose administration Boaz lived. But if we may presume that the genealogical table at the end of Ruth is without a break, so far at least as the steps between Boaz and David are concerned, then as Boaz was the great-grandfather of David, we may not greatly err if we conclude that the incidents here recorded occurred at a date somewhere between one hundred and one hundred and fifty years prior to the days of David. But now, leaving all preliminaries, let us enter upon the book itself. It tells a short and simple story of family trial deepening into the darkness of repeated bereavement, and then breaking out into the brightness of a joy which is all the more delightful by reason of the gloom that went before. The household was composed of Elimelech and his wife Naomi, with their two sons, Mahlon and Chilion. Like all Hebrew names these are significant, but whether we are to consider them as prophetic is quite another matter, though in at least two of the eases their appropriateness is remarkable. Elimelech is "My God the King," or "My God is King." Naomi is "sweet," or, perhaps, an abbreviation for "God is sweet," while Mahlon is "sickliness," and Chilion is "consumption"--names which might well enough have been given to the boys because of the perception in them by their parents of some delicacy of constitution, although other scholars prefer to interpret them as denoting "mildness of disposition" and "beautiful completeness," and one would think that parents would more naturally connect these ideas with their children than seek to perpetuate in their names the associations of physical debility. The home of this family was in Bethlehem-Judah, so called to distinguish it from another place of the same name in the territory of the tribe of Zebulon, but now needing no such particular designation, since it is to us forever memorable as the birthplace of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was little among the thousands of Judah, and up till this time, with the exception of the fact ,that near it was the grave of Rachel, there had been nothing about it to make it specially attractive to the people of the land. Rather it had acquired, if anything, an unenviable notoriety among the tribes, for out of it had gone the Levite, who had settled as a household priest with Micah in Mount Ephraim, and had been carried off by the Danites to Laish, where he ministered at the altar which these early idolaters had set up.(See Judges 17:1-13; Judges 18:1-31; Judges 19:1-30) To it, also, had belonged the ill-fated woman whose cruel treatment by the men of Gibeah led to the almost utter extinction of the tribe of Benjamin by the rest of the Israelites. If, therefore, nothing more had been told us concerning it than what is contained in these two strange episodes of Jewish history, which are to be found in the concluding chapters of the Book of Judges, we might have supposed that no good thing could come out of Bethlehem. But how far that would have been from the truth the Book of Ruth makes evident, and we are thereby warned of the danger of judging of the character of a place from one or two particularly unpleasant incidents in its history. Indeed, when we come, in a rural district like that of Bethlehem, and in such an age, upon a quiet, unaffected, simple, pure, and holy home life, like that which is here portrayed, we feel that we must not speak of the days of the Judges too unqualifiedly, as if they had been characterized by constant strife and universal defection from the service of God. And, in any case, after reading this history, we are not so surprised as we otherwise would have been, that the sweet singer of Israel, the "darling" of his people, and the leader of psalmody for God’s children of all succeeding centuries, should have sprung from such a stock. The town itself is about six miles south of Jerusalem, a little to the east of the road that leads to Hebron. It stands upon the summit and slopes of a narrow ridge which projects eastward from the central chain of the Judaean mountains. The sides of the hill below the town are carefully terraced, and even in modern times they are covered with fertile vineyards; while in the valleys beneath, and on a little plain to the eastward, there are cornfields whose produce, perhaps, gave the name Bethlehem, or House of Bread, to the place with which they are connected. It was well watered, and its other and older name Ephratah ("the fruitful") was probably bestowed because of the fertility of the district in the midst of which it stood. But withal it was not proof against the ravages of famine, and at the time at which our story opens that great affliction was upon the people. Perhaps the former and latter rains had not fallen, and the usual consequences had followed. But whatever was the cause, there was "cleanness of teeth" in all the borders of the land; even in the House of Bread there was scarcity, and the pressure was so sore upon Elimelech and his wife that to escape its miseries they went with their two sons to the land of Moab. The usual resort of the Israelites in time of famine was Egypt; but probably on this occasion the way thither was barred by insuperable obstacles, and so the members of this household betook themselves to Moab, a district which lay to the south and east of the Dead Sea, and comprised the southern half of the high table-lands which rise above the lake. "On every side it was strongly fortified by nature. On the north was the tremendous chasm of the Arnon. On the west it was limited by the precipices, or, more accurately, the cliffs, which descend almost perpendicularly to the shore of the lake, and are intersected only by one or two steep and narrow passes. Lastly, on the south and east it was protected by a half-circle of hills, which open only to allow the passage of the Arnon and another of the torrents which descend to the Dead Sea."(Smith’s Bible Dictionary, s. v. Moab) It was, therefore, not very far from Bethlehem. Indeed, its blue mountains are said to be "distinctly visible from the Mount of Olives and the heights above Bethlehem. " But it was remarkable for general fertility, for Mr. Grove tells us that "the whole country is undulating, and, after the general level of the plateau is reached, without any serious inequalities; and in this and the absence of conspicuous vegetation has a certain resemblance to the downs in the southern counties of England." And, again, gathering up the different references to it in the prophetical books, he says, "With a metaphor which well expresses at once the pastoral wealth of the country and its commanding, almost regal, position, but which cannot be conveyed in a translation, Moab is depicted as the strong scepter, the beautiful staff whose fracture will be bewailed by all about him and by all who know him. In his cities we discern a great multitude of people living in ’glory’ and in the enjoyment of great ’treasure;’ crowding the public squares, the house-tops, and the ascents and descents of the numerous high places and sanctuaries, where the ’priests and princes’ of Chemosh or Baal-Peor minister to anxious devotees. Outside the town lie ’the plentiful fields’ luxuriant as the renowned Carmel--the vineyards and gardens of ’summer fruits’--the harvest is being reaped, and the ’hay stored in abundance,’ the vineyards and the presses are crowded with peasants gathering and treading the grapes, the land resounds with the clamor of the vintagers."(J. Merinos, on Ruth, in Pulpit Commentary)

Here, therefore, there was every probability of finding plenty, and as Elimelech and his family did not stay in Bethlehem until they were utterly impoverished by the famine, but "went out full," they would have the means of availing themselves, for a time at least, of the abundance by which they were surrounded. But it was an idolatrous land; and the question has been keenly discussed whether or not Elimelech committed sin in leaving the Land of the Covenant for such a territory, even under the pressure of famine. Many blame him very severely, and do not hesitate to affirm that the afflictions which subsequently came upon his household were judgments inflicted on him for his transgression. Others, again, fully vindicate him for his conduct, and grow eloquent over emigration as a remedy for famine. But where the record is silent it does not become us to be dogmatic on such a matter, :although every one will recognize how full of spiritual peril it must have been to take two young men like Mahlon and Chilion into the midst of idolatry; and it will be with all a question whether it was wise to run such risk to their souls, simply for the sake of obtaining sustenance for their bodies. The relation of the covenant people to the Promised Land was, of course, peculiar; and the more that was recognized, the more loath would they be for any reason to forsake it for another. Yet, as we see in David’s placing of his parents under the care of the King of Moab, exceptional circumstances might be held as justifying a temporary sojourn elsewhere; and it is obvious from the language here employed that Elimelech did not mean to leave Bethlehem "for good and all," but expected to return thither after the famine had ceased. But whatever may be said regarding his conduct in this instance, we have no hesitation in approving of emigration as one of the best means of furnishing relief for overcrowded countries, and opening up new fields for industry and enterprise; and it is not without a smile over the commentary which two hundred years have written on his words that we read the remarks of quaint old Thomas Fuller, which we find in his fragment on the Book of Ruth, this question and this land, to the following effect: "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 Ahaziah, ’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 ’Godspeed;’ but let us pity them, and pray for them, for sure they have no need of our mocks, which have too much of their own miseries. I conclude, therefore, of the two Englands what our Savior saith of the two wines, ’No man having tasted of the old, presently desireth the new; for he saith the old is better.’" In the light of subsequent history this is now rather amusing, and reading it here in New York one feels very much as he does when sitting on the deck of an ocean steamer he comes, in some volume of entertaining anecdotes, upon the famous demonstration of the eminent engineer, who declared it to be impossible for any steamship to cross the Atlantic. At the same time we must not lose sight of the fact that in all emigrations, whether from one land to another, or from East to West in this our own land, regard must be had to the spiritual surroundings as well as to the physical advantages, and we ought to remember that even the highest worldly prosperity is all too dearly purchased by the loss of the soul. But though Elimelech escaped famine by moving to Moab, he could not escape death. The last enemy has many more avenues to the center of life in us than that of starvation. Even in the midst of plenty the summons came which said "thy soul is required of thee," and he could not disobey. So Naomi was left a widow among strangers, with her two sons. How she must have missed the friends and neighbors of Bethlehem in her time of trial! The aliens, we may believe, were kind to her; but in the night of sorrow there are no friends like home friends, especially those of our own kindred. Many drawings must her heart have felt to the old home; but for some reason, not here even suggested, the way thither was closed against her, and she remained some years longer in Moab--so long, indeed, that her sons seem almost to have given up the expectation of return, and married daughters of the land. Perhaps that, too, was a trial to Naomi; but as throughout the story she acts always in a prudent way, it is certain that she would do so in this also. She did not break her head or her heart by rushing against the inevitable; but accepting that which she could not prevent, she sought to make the best of it; and she succeeded so well that her case stands out a perpetual protest against the silly, unfeeling, and, as I believe, unjust sneers that are so constantly thrown at the mother-in-law in the household. She and they dealt kindly and truly with each other, and so they grew into each other’s confidence and affection. It is hard for a mother to see another come between her son and herself, and there is danger lest she should treat her as a usurper; but the true specific for all such cases is that which Naomi and her sons’ wives employed, the "dealing kindly and truly with" each other. Love is the universal solvent, especially when it is rooted in the common love of all to Christ, and when it manifests itself in mutual fidelity, not simply in the dealing kindly, but also in the dealing truly with each other.

But, alas, the happiness of the sons in their wives, and of the mother in her daughters-in-law, was not of long continuance, for ere long, perhaps owing to some inherited delicacy from their father, Mahlon and Chilion died, and so--how plaintive are the words employed--" the woman was left of her two sons and her husband." They had gone on and left her behind. Had they done so of deliberate purpose it had been cruel indeed, but they heard a voice which they could not choose but obey, and so they passed through the silent portal, leaving Naomi, Orpah, and Ruth on the outside. But they left God with them, and they were not bereaved of him. Still, it was a sad home. Three widows and no child, and, as it would seem also, no resources. Sorrow, solitude, and penury. Widowhood, woe, and want--a sad trinity, needing no words of mine to set it in distinctness before you. What was now to become of them? As we follow the story we shall learn.

Meanwhile let us conclude by pointing out how this brief paragraph illustrates the changeful nature of our earthly life. Elimelech seems to have been what we should call "well off" in Bethlehem, but he went to Moab for comfort, and there found only a grave, beside which, within a few years, were those of his two sons. Alas, what a change for Naomi! And how often we see similar reverses in the families of those we know and love! How often, too, we observe that what men do for the improvement of their circumstances ends in disaster! Ah! but we must not say ends, and there is the comfort of it all. You observe that we are here only at the beginning of the history, and when we get to the end we shall be better able to appreciate the nature of this discipline. For it was all under the control of God, who wished thereby not only to educate those who were primarily concerned, but also through them to reach out into the Gentile nations, and bring back one who should not merely become a mother in Israel, but also part of the first-fruits of that Gentile harvest which the Messiah, in after-generations, was to reap. The very name of her husband might be a comfort to Naomi in all her distress, for when we can say "my God is King," or which comes to the same thing, "my times are in God’s hands," we are sustained. The times may not be better, but we learn to look through them to the eternities, and to think that God is using the one for the surer gaining by us of the other, and that holds us up. It was a long look from the days of the Judges to those of Christ--at least, it would be a long look for us; but already God was preparing for the advent, and both Elimelech and Naomi were in a sense vicarious sufferers, in order that the world might be taught that the Messiah, coming as he did of a lineage in which are the names both of Rahab and of Ruth, was to be the Savior of Gentiles as well as Jews. But for these bereavements this had not been taught--at least, through Ruth; and so we Gentiles ought to look with peculiar tenderness on these Israelitish graves in the land of Moab. Those who were buried in them died that Ruth might be redeemed, and Ruth is here the representative of the entire Gentile world. It is a profound mystery. Yet it is a comforting truth.