========================================================================
  RUTH THE GLEANER
  by William M. Taylor
========================================================================

Taylor's expository study of the Book of Ruth examining themes of emigration,
bereavement, redemption, and God's providential care, with detailed historical
and cultural context of the period of the Judges.

  Chapters: 6

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 00.1 Forward
    2. 01 Emigration and Bereavement (Ruth 1:1-5)
    3. 02 Return and Reception (Ruth 1:6-22)
    4. 03 Gleaning (Ruth 2:1-17)
    5. 04 The Threshing Floor (Ruth 2:18-Ruth 3:18)
    6. 05 The Loving Marriage (Ruth 4)

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 00.1 FORWARD
========================================================================

FORWORD The Bible Biography books by William M. Taylor remain unexcelled in
their field. The author speaks of these outstanding Bible personalities with
warmth, zest, and penetrating insight. He writes of them as they were, without
magnifying their excellencies, or apologizing for their faults. At the same time
he repeatedly points out the lessons from their lives for life in our day and
age. The contents of these books consist mainly of the exposition, defense, and
application of the Scriptural narrative. It was said that Taylor’s sermons were
so constructed that every sentence was a definite step toward his goal. This is
true of the chapters in these books. The style is such as to inspire any
preacher or speaker. The result is an outstanding homiletical and expository
series of biographical sermons with warm and spiritual applications. These books
furnish excellent material for series preaching.

William M. Taylor was born, educated and ordained in Scotland. He was one of the
greatest preachers of his day. He is especially known for his expository
writings on the parables and miracles. At the age of 42 years Taylor came to
America, and for twenty years was the famed preacher of the Broadway Tabernacle
in New York City. He was Lyman Beecher lecturer in Yale Seminary and L. P. Stone
lecturer in Princeton Seminary. He was a preacher in the front rank, and enjoyed
an international reputation. He died in 1902. THE PUBLISHERS


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 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.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 02 RETURN AND RECEPTION (RUTH 1:6-22)
========================================================================

CHAPTER II RETURN AND RECEPTION

Ruth 1:6-22 The essence of home is in persons, not in locality. When, therefore,
you have the presence and fellowship of those who are nearest and dearest to
you, it is easy to be at home anywhere. But when the loved ones are gone, the
fairest surroundings will not fill the void made by their absence. The heart
then longs for that which strangers cannot give, and the old memories create a
yearning for the old home of early days. It was natural, therefore, that Naomi,
after the death of her husband and her sons, should be drawn again towards
Bethlehem, so strongly that she determined to return thither. Forlorn, widowed,
desolate, and destitute, she craved for that which Moab could not supply. A
famine in the fields of Bethlehem took her to Moab; but now a famine in the
heart made her hunger after Bethlehem; and having heard that "the Lord had
visited his people in giving them bread," she arose to set out for her native
place. But her daughters-in-law would not let her go alone. Apparently she did
not request them to accompany her, but of their own accord they chose to make
the journey with her. This was equally honorable to her and them. Her life with
them had been one of harmony and love. They had grown into her affection, and
she had become dear to them. In the delicate relationship which subsisted
between them, she had so conducted herself towards them, with reticence, with
wisdom, and with kindness; and they had so borne themselves towards her, with
deference, with reverence, and with affection, that they could not think of
parting with her. So they insisted upon going with her, and for a time she
permitted them to be her companions. But it was above all things necessary, in
her judgment, that she should be honest with them, and therefore she determined
to put fully before them the real state of the case.

They knew little or nothing of the laws and customs of the Jews, and thought,
perhaps, that it might be as easy for them to get on in Bethlehem as it had been
for her to get on in Moab. It was only just, therefore, that she should set
before them as delicately and as clearly as possible the privations which they
would have to face. Possibly there was an ordinance in Moab similar to the
Levirate law which existed among the Israelites, in accordance with which when a
man died without leaving a son, his brother, or, if he had no brother, his
nearest male kinsman was under obligation to marry the widow, and the first-born
son of such a marriage was to be reckoned the son of the deceased, that his name
and lineage might be preserved. Now Naomi gives her daughters-in-law to
understand that there was no hope of their obtaining husbands in that way, and
her statement implies, though it does not express, that, since that was
impossible, there would be for them no possibility of marrying at all. In these
modern times, when there are so many avenues open for a woman’s working for her
own support, though there is need even of more than are at present in existence,
that would not be reckoned by many in Ruth’s and Orpah’s circumstances as a
hardship. But in those early days it was quite different, for then, as Dr.
Cassell tells us, "the position of a single woman was an unhappy one. It was
altogether customary for youthful widows to marry again. Only a husband’s house
was the true asylum for a woman."(Lange, in loco)

Now Naomi informs her daughters-in-law that in Israel it would be impossible for
them to get such a settlement. But she does it with the utmost tact and
gentleness. First of all she bears unqualified testimony to their unfeigned
kindness to their husbands and to herself, and that she may do it the more
unreservedly and the more impressively, she turns it into a prayer, "Jehovah
deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me." Then she
entreats them to return, each to the house of her own mother until, if Jehovah
pleased, each should find rest in the house of her husband. And when, after she
had kissed them, they still refused to comply with her request, saying, "Nay,
but we will return with thee unto thy people," she let them see how hopeless it
was that they should be provided for through the Levirate law, and by her
silence regarding any other plan, she said more expressively than she could have
done by words, that there was no prospect of any such permanent home for them in
Israel as either of them might easily find in Moab. All the while the tears fell
fast from all their eyes, and most of all from hers who had seen the greatest
sorrow, for she virtually says, It is far more bitter for me than for you, for
the hand of the Lord hath gone out against me. Not, therefore, because she did
not enjoy their fellowship, and did not desire their company, was she thus
persistent. It was harder for her to part with them than it would be for them to
part with her. If they went, never again would there be one beside her to call
her mother, and she should go into the dreariest of solitude’s, while they would
be each in her mother’s house, and might look forward to finding rest beneath a
husband’s roof. Hers would be the greater sacrifice if they went; but she could
not be so selfish as to allow them, simply on her account, to bring upon
themselves the privations that were inevitably before them. The effect of this
representation was so great on Orpah that, with whatever reluctance, she said
farewell, and went back to her kindred. But Ruth, true to the meaning of her
name, would not be thus dismissed. She was determined not to be outdone in
sacrifice even by Naomi, and therefore she clave unto her mother-in-law. But not
yet had Naomi told all that would be required if she went with her to Bethlehem.
There was one other subject that must be spoken about; and see with what
adroitness of in directness she suggested it to her daughter-in-law. She said,
"Behold, thy sister-in-law is gone back unto her people and her gods; return
after thy sister-in-law." Thus she reminded Ruth that if she went with her she
would be leaving her gods. It was criminal to worship Chemosh in Judah, and she
must well consider whether she could take a step that involved the sacrifice of
her religion. She had come to a crossing in her life, where she must part either
with Naomi or with the idolatry of Moab, and she must not make such a decision
blindly, inconsiderately, and without counting the cost. But it did not take
Ruth long to determine even that. Not for nothing had she lived beside Naomi,
during her happy days of wifehood. She had seen in the Hebrew matron much that
she had never witnessed in the homes of Moab. There were a purity, a meekness,
an affection, and a thoughtfulness for others about her, which made her feel
that the religion which had brought out such qualities in her could not be bad;
and so her confidence in and admiration of Naomi made her willing to venture
herself with Naomi’s Jehovah. It was not a very intelligent faith, indeed, but
it was a real faith, like that which a child has in the Savior of whom his
mother tells. He loves the Savior for his mother’s sake, until at length he gets
to love his mother for the Savior’s sake. It was said of Thomas Arnold, the
great English educator, that he first gained the boys’ confidence in himself,
and then on the strength of that led them to confidence in Christ. So here Naomi
had, unconsciously, by the silent eloquence of her character, led Ruth to
confide in her; and then at the critical moment Ruth, through that confidence,
was brought to decide for Jehovah, without faltering and without reserve. Nay,
so strong was her determination, and so fervent the love out of which it sprung,
that it expressed itself in words which no poetry has out-rivaled and no pathos
has exceeded, and which have come down through the centuries with a music that
will not let them be forgotten. "Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from
following after thee: for whither thou goest! will go, and where thou lodgest I
will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest
will I die, and there will I be buried: Jehovah do so to me and more also, if
aught but death part thee and me." What could be more unqualified than that? She
will share her journey and her lodging, her home and her heritage, her
experiences in life and her grave at death. Nor was this all; for not to be
outdone by Naomi’s delicacy, she will show that even already she was willing to
forswear Chemosh, and therefore she takes an oath by Jehovah that nothing but
death will ever part her from her fellowship. It was nobly promised, and it was
as nobly performed; for the love that inspired the words was not like a thorn
blaze which, bright for a moment, dies down into darkness, but rather like the
glow of the sunshine, which lasts through all the day. There was no resisting an
appeal of such a sort as that, and so Naomi, all the happier because Ruth, while
fully understanding all that her decision involved, had not followed her advice,
went with her gratefully and gladly forward towards her destination. When they
arrived at Bethlehem the people of the city made a great stir, and said, "Is
this Naomi?" They recognized her as their old neighbor; and yet they saw that
she was greatly changed--so greatly that they could hardly believe that it was
she after all. Then on Naomi’s side, also, there must have been some misgivings
about those who thronged around her. They saw the alterations in her, but they
were all unconscious of those in themselves. Ten years make deep marks in those
over whom they pass, especially if they have reached the midtime of their lives;
and they who say, "How changed you are," to those who revisit home after a long
absence, might well enough use the first personal pronoun and include themselves
in the ejaculation. But the external alterations are of small account. The more
important changes are those which are not seen all at once; and perhaps when we
compare ourselves with what we were, in character and experience long ago, we
might each see reason to exclaim, "Is this really myself!" You may remember that
very striking poem of Miss Procter’s in which she represents one in mature life
looking at a portrait of herself that had been taken long years before, and
moralizing over the contrast between then and now in a strain that concludes
with these two lines:

"And I marvel to see the stranger Who is living in me to-day." And so I think
each of us may do. So at least Naomi did. As her old neighbors called her by the
old name in the old street, and said, "Is this Naomi?" She might have said,
"Yes, I am changed, I know it; but the deepest change is one you do not see, for
my heart is heavy. Call me no more Naomi (’ sweet ’), for the Almighty hath
dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the Lord hath brought me home
again empty: why call ye me Naomi, seeing the Lord hath testified against me,
and the Almighty hath afflicted me?"

It was very sad. But the saddest thing was that the Bethlehemites made no
response to her sorrow. Had she come back with pomp and glory and riches they
would have made much of her; for the world always fawns upon prosperity, and
those who need least of its attentions get the most. But Naomi’s account of her
circumstances seems to have damped the ardor of the welcome given her by her old
neighbors. None of them invited her home, or offered her hospitality. She was
too poor now to be acknowledged in that way; and after the first expressions of
surprise at her appearance, they let her severely alone. Nobody proffered her
assistance. Some might even criticize and say, "She did not know when she was
well. If she had only stayed among her own kindred, she might have been as full
as ever. But she would go. She made her own bed and she must lie on it now, hard
as it is. And whatever possessed her to bring that young Moabitish woman with
her, only to add to her burden, and make her perplexity the greater?" Ah, we
known all about it. The rich have many friends; but they who come home empty
from afar, come home full often to coldness and averted looks. Still Naomi with
all her sadness had a brave, believing heart, and as she looked down upon the
ripened barley falling before the reaper in the fields beneath, she would be
reminded of Him who has put for His people the rainbow of His covenant into
every cloud of trial.

Now, returning over this deeply pathetic narrative, we may learn to recognize
God’s hand in everything. It is noteworthy how constantly Naomi did that. Look
over the verses that have to-night been before us, and you will be greatly
struck with the frequency with which this feature of her piety presents itself.
She had heard "that the Lord had visited his people in giving them bread." She
said that "the hand of the Lord had gone out against her," and again, that "the
Lord had testified against her, and the Almighty had afflicted her." It is not
likely that she either undervalued or overlooked secondary causes, but she
believed that God was in and over all these causes, working out His own purposes
through their operation. And she recognized in all that came upon her the will
of God concerning her. No doubt she was wrong in supposing that Jehovah was
acting bitterly towards her, but in that she erred with Jacob when he cried,
"All these things are against me." On the other hand, she was not wrong in
believing that the Providence of God is in and over all events, and it were well
for us if we realized that truth. How this universal providence can be
maintained without interfering either with the uniformity of the workings of
what men call the laws of nature, or with the free agency of man, it may be
impossible for us to explain; but that it is maintained I take to be established
both by the testimony of history in general, and of individual experience in
particular. And if we believe the words of Jesus, when He says that the hairs of
our heads are numbered, and that a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without our
Father, we cannot hesitate to accept the doctrine, whatever mystery there may be
about the mode of the divine operation.

Now, accepting that doctrine, we have in it an antidote both to pride in the
time of prosperity, and to despondency in the season of adversity. For if
prosperity comes, it comes from God; and if adversity befalls us, it has been
sent from God; and since He is love, and has shown that love by the sacrifice of
His Son upon the Cross, we may be sure that if we are His people in Christ, He
cannot mean anything but love to us, whatever He may permit to come upon us.
Naomi, therefore, was not wrong in tracing all her changes in condition to God,
but she erred in ascribing any bitterness to God in His treatment of her. The
father loves the child as really when he administers the disagreeable medicine
which is to recover him from disease as when he is dandling him upon his knees.
The only difference is in the manner in which the love is shown, and that is
accounted for by the differences in the circumstances of the child. In like
manner adversity, how bitter soever it may be, is a manifestation of God’s love
to us, designed for our ultimate and highest welfare. Now this may well
reconcile us to trial. I say reconcile us to it. It will not make the trial
less, but it will help us to bear it, just as the wounded man is braced for the
amputation of a limb, when he is told that it is indispensable if his life is to
be preserved. There is a "needs be" for every affliction, otherwise it would not
come upon us under the providence of a God of love; and He sends it not in
bitterness to us, but as the necessary means of "making perfect that which
concerneth us."

Then if He send prosperity, we owe that to His favor rather than to our own
ability; or if in any sense we owe it to our own ability, then that ability is
itself His gift. So our faith in that view of the case will keep us from
self-conceit. Thus the true believer in God’s universal providence, if his faith
in that doctrine be intelligent, is preserved alike from pride and haughtiness
of heart in fulness, and from despair in emptiness. That doctrine is to the
Christian’s heart what a compensation balance is to a chronometer, and gives him
equanimity in all conditions, so that he can sing:

"Father, I know that all my life is portioned out by Thee, And the changes that
are sure to come I do not fear to see. " And all his desire is so to possess his
soul, that he may fall in with God’s plan, and do always the things which please
Him. Naomi did not all at once attain to that spirit, but she came to it at
length, and we may accept the conclusion at which she ultimately arrived, as the
premises from which we ought to reason. Why should we repeat either Jacob’s
unbelief or hers, when we see how kindly that was rebuked and condemned in both
cases, by the result of that process the course of which so deeply distressed
them? "Rest in the Lord, wait patiently for Him." Let Him finish His work in you
before you presume to say that He is dealing bitterly with you or testifying
against you, for this is one instance in which the otherwise most questionable
doctrine is true, that "the end justifies the means," and when you get to the
end, you will exclaim, "He hath done all things well." But as a second lesson
from this simple story we may learn the duty of absolute frankness in our
dealings with each other. Naomi could not think of taking her daughters-in-law
with her without telling them what was before them. If she had not done this,
and they had gone with her, then on their first experience of hardship they
might have upbraided her for her selfishness and cruelty; so she put everything,
delicately, indeed, yet fairly, before them. She told them the worst, so that if
they went with her and had to endure that, they might never say that she had
painted things all too rosily. If they were to be disappointed at all, she
preferred that it should be in finding things better and not worse than she had
indicated. Now, this is a matter of great importance, which is not, I fear,
sufficiently considered by most people. When two parties are in negotiation,
usually one of them is bent simply and only on success. He wishes, like an
advocate, to gain his cause, and exaggerates all that tells for his side,
keeping out of view altogether or depreciating everything against it; and the
result, if he carries his point, is sure to be disappointment and estrangement.
Some time ago certain parties in the old country were induced, through
flattering, and, indeed, lying descriptions, to purchase some lands in Florida,
and when they came out to take possession they found there nothing but bare and
barren sand. Can you wonder that they exclaimed against the deceitfulness of
Americans in general, and Florida land-agents in particular? But while we
condemn such rascality as that, are we so sure that our own hands are clean?
There is an old Roman maxim, Caveat emitar--"Let the buyer look after himself
"--which has always seemed to me to have the rankest dishonesty beneath it, and
which, I fear, is too often acted upon even among ourselves. Now, if we are
going to sell anything, let us sell it for what it is, and not for what we know
that it is not. If the buyer is mistaken, let us show him his mistake, even if
we should at present lose money thereby; for if we do not, we shall not only do
a dishonest act, but we shall lose him for a customer. It looks very "smart" to
take advantage of the ignorance of him with whom you are dealing, but if you do,
he will be "smart" enough never to give you the chance again, and if you go on
in that way your business will very soon be at an end. The open, frank truthful
policy, even as a policy, is always best; but it is more than a policy, it is a
duty, and that cannot be evaded without sin. Nor is it only in business that we
need to imitate Naomi’s frankness with her daughters-in-law. We ought to act on
the same principle, also, in the church. If a congregation eagerly desires a
certain man for a pastor, the members should set everything fairly before him,
and he should be equally open and above-board with them. He ought not to impose
on them with a few showy sermons, which he has elaborated for the captivating of
the multitude, and they ought not to cover up everything that is difficult or
disagreeable among them. Thus neither will be disappointed in the other. And, in
general, if we see a friend bent upon a course of any sort under an entire
misapprehension of what the consequence shall be, we ought, in justice to
ourselves and in faithfulness to him, to put before him with all delicateness,
yet with absolute truthfulness, that which he will have to face. Then if he will
he will, but we, at least, have endeavored to secure that he should know what he
is doing. In this connection who can forget the absolute honesty of the Lord
Jesus Christ in His invitations to men to become His disciples? He promised them
rest, indeed, but it was rest to their souls, and He never kept out of view the
difficulties which they would have to encounter if they sought to act on His
principles. Here are the terms of discipleship as laid down by Himself: "If any
man be willing to come after Me, let him renounce self and take up his cross
daily and follow Me ;" and, as you remember, he exhorted some who were more
sentimental than serious to sit down and count the cost, lest, having put their
hands to the plough, they should look back and so prove unworthy of Him. Now,
that procedure of our Lord is valuable not only as teaching inquirers what they
must expect if they become His disciples, but also as an example to us all to
deal with absolute honesty and frankness with all with whom we have any
negotiations, and sure I am that if we all did so there would be fewer
criminations and recriminations between those who ought to dwell in harmony and
love. It cost Naomi a good deal to say what she did to her daughters-in-law, but
it would have cost her more if she had allowed Orpah to go forward blindfold to
Bethlehem, for when the eye-opening came there would have been a painful
rupture, followed, perhaps, by constant embitterment. But a third lesson from
this narrative is the value of decision. Look at these words: "When she saw that
she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she left off speaking unto her."
Ruth’s firmness put a stop to Naomi’s entreaties. And it is the same always.
When Paul would go up to Jerusalem, despite the tears of his friends, they
ceased their importunity and said, "The will of the Lord be done." And if a man
is seen to be decided in his stand for Christ, antagonists will give over
assailing him. There is nothing in the use of which men are more discriminating
than entreaty, argument, or influence. So long as the object of their solicitude
is wavering they will bring all their batteries to bear upon him, for there is
still the hope that he will yield. But when he comes openly and determinedly out
for Christ they will waste no more ammunition on him. They leave him thenceforth
alone, and attack some one else. Thus decision, while it may require an effort
to make it, is, after it is made, a safeguard against assault. The attack is
reserved for those who are yet undecided, but the decision silences all further
importunity. So long as a vessel has no flag at her mast-head, the sea-robber
may think it safe to attack her; but let her hoist the flag of this nation, and
that will make the assailant pause. In like manner, the hoisting over us of the
banner of the Cross, being a symbol of decision, is also an assurance of
protection. Up with it then, my hearer, and keep it up; for while it shows that
you have decided to be His, it places you also under His divine protection, and
there you are secure. Take your stand--manfully, prayerfully, and determinedly;
and when others see that you have done so they will let you alone.

Finally. This story shows us the difference between mere amiability and
devotion. Orpah was a good, kindly-disposition woman, thoroughly amiable, very
friendly to Naomi, but not willing to make the greatest sacrifice for her. When
it came to the point where she had to choose between the utter sacrifice of
herself for Naomi and the return to her mother’s house, then, amiable as she
was, she went back to Moab. But Ruth’s devotion was self-for-getting, and, at
whatever sacrifice, she would go with Naomi to Bethlehem. Now, without
pronouncing any condemnation on Orpah, I may take these two widowed sisters as
types of two classes in their relation to Christ. On the one hand there are some
who allege that they are not opposed to the gospel. On the whole they rather
think well of it. They attend its ordinances. Up to a certain point they are its
friends. But after a time they come to a fork in the road, where they must
either part with Christ and His salvation or give up some heart-idolatry which
they have long cherished; and there they halt. They are not willing to give that
up even for Him. They have amiability, but not devotion-their center is self,
not Christ. But there are others who will follow the Lord no matter at what cost
or sacrifice; for it is the Lord they are thinking of and devoted to, not self.
Now to which of these two classes do you belong? Are you unwilling to renounce
self for Christ? Then let the words of Ruth determine you. Cleave fast to
Christ. He is going to a glorious land--the home of joy and love. His lodging is
a chamber whose window openeth towards the sunrising, the name of which is
Peace. His people are a happy people; His God is a faithful God; His death is a
victorious death; His burial is a hopeful burial, to be followed by a glorious
resurrection. There is not another of whom these things can be said with
truth--therefore cleave to Him through good report and through evil report, and
He will give you an abundant entrance into His Father’s house on high.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 03 GLEANING (RUTH 2:1-17)
========================================================================

CHAPTER III

GLEANING

Ruth 2:1-17

Things were at the lowest ebb with Naomi. She had used no mere figure of speech
when she said that the Lord had "brought her home empty," for she was literally
destitute of the means of support. Something, therefore, had to be done at once
to meet the emergency, and Ruth proved herself equal to the occasion. It was the
beginning of barley harvest, and the sight of the reapers at work, with the
gleaners following them, suggested to her what she would do. She, too, would
become a Gleaner, for Naomi’s sake. But she would do nothing without Naomi’s
sanction, and, therefore, she came to her with this request: "Let me now go to
the field and glean ears of corn after him in. whose sight I shall find grace."
What thoughtful delicacy! what excellent wisdom! what energy of promptitude have
we here! She did not wait until Naomi asked whether she could not help in some
way to keep the wolf from the door, but, identifying herself thoroughly with her
mother-in-law, and recognizing the necessity for exertion, she resolutely rose
to the emergency and determined to do what she could for their common
maintenance. Nor was she scrupulous as to the sort of industry in which she
should engage. It might be true that she had been in comfortable circumstances,
and had never needed to do any kind of out-door work while her husband lived;
but she accepted the situation now, and was willing to do anything, however
lowly, if only it were honest, for her own and her mother’s livelihood. She did
not dictate to Providence, or say that if she could get this or that she would
take it, but she could never bring her self to do that other. Rather she was
willing to take any honorable course that might open to her, and, as gleaning
was the first that presented itself, she would take that, unless Naomi objected.

It is always hard for those who have been in comfort and are reduced to
destitution to bring themselves to this willinghood to take what offers, and
perhaps it was easier for Ruth to act on such a determination in Bethlehem than
it would have been in Moab, among those who had known her when she was better
off. But in all cases, that is the surest way out of penury, and the sooner it
is taken the shorter is the road. Naomi was well aware of that, we may be sure,
and, therefore, with unexpressed admiration of the commonsense and what I may
call the "pluck" of Ruth, and with silent gratitude to God for this
manifestation of her self-sacrificing love, she put no obstacle in her way, but
said to her heartily and with approval, "Go, my daughter." The field to which
Ruth went, though apparently one large and undivided area, was really made up of
the aggregate portions of land possessed by those who dwelt in Bethlehem. Just
as, even at the present day, in some parts of Switzerland, the agricultural
population live in villages round which their several patches of land lie--not
cut up by hedges or fenced off by stone walls but forming what appears to be one
immense field, though it is actually very carefully mapped out and divided by
landmarks which are perfectly recognizable by the inhabitants themselves; so it
was, long ago, in Bethlehem. To a casual visitor there would seem to be but one
field, but yet the portion of each proprietor was marked sometimes by heaps of
small stones, and sometimes by single upright stones placed at short but regular
intervals from each other. This enables us to understand the precept against the
removal of a neighbor’s landmark, and explains why in the narrative before us
the word "field" is in the singular, and why it is said that Ruth found her
place of privilege in the "part of the field which belonged to Boaz." In the law
of Moses we find the following ordinances regarding gleaning: "When ye reap the
harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field;
neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest; and thou shalt not glean
thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt
leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus
19:9-10; Leviticus 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19) Again, "When ye reap the harvest of
your land thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when
thou reapest; neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest; thou shalt
leave them unto the poor and to the stranger: I am the Lord your God!" And once
more; "When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a
sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it; it shall be for the
stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow; that the Lord thy God may bless
thee in .all the work of thine hands." There was no money tax levied in Israel
for the relief of the poor, and so this provision was made for them. The
landholders were never to remove everything from their fields, but were always
to leave something for the stranger and the destitute. But while this series of
laws required the proprietors of the soil to remember the poor, it did not give
indiscriminate right to the destitute to go where they pleased and gather what
they could find. That would have led to great abuses. The forward and obtrusive
among those who were in want would then have carried off the lions share; while
the timid and shrinking and sensitive ones would have been left out in the cold.
And again, there might have been a run upon some particular fields to the almost
entire neglect of others, and so there would have been unequal pressure upon the
different proprietors. Therefore, while the right of the poor to glean was
clearly secured, the exercise of that right by them was regulated by requiring
that the Gleaner should obtain permission from the proprietor or his
representative before beginning operations. So when she reached the field, Ruth,
being attracted in the providence of God, either by the kindly countenance of
the steward or by the appearance of the maidens who were working under his
superintendence, to Boaz’s section of the land, went and made request of "the
man who was set over the reapers," saying, "I pray you let me glean and gather
after the reapers among the sheaves," and the favor so modestly asked was
willingly granted. But how came Ruth to be able to make herself intelligible to
this steward? The question is natural, for she was a Gentile and had only a few
days before arrived in Bethlehem. But the answer has been furnished by the
inscription on the Moabite Stone, which was discovered in 1868, and which has
proved that there was little difference between the Moabitish and Hebrew
languages. The distinguishing peculiarities in each were mainly dialectic-like
the provincialism’s prevailing in different parts of England; but beneath these
there, was a common vernacular intelligible to both. Therefore we need not
wonder that Ruth could converse so fluently and intelligently with the people of
Bethlehem. But it is now nearing noonday, and yonder is the proprietor himself,
coming to look after his servants. Let us attentively regard him, for he is well
worthy of our notice, not only because he will become a principal actor in our
little drama, but also because he is a worthy specimen of the people to whom he
belongs and of the class which he represents. He is described in the first verse
of our chapter as "a mighty man of wealth," but it is questionable if that
expression fairly represents the original. The phrase is identical with that
which is elsewhere rendered "a mighty man of valor," and only in one other place
is it translated as here, "a mighty man of wealth." Some, therefore, have
supposed that he was a great warrior, and others have leaned to the idea that he
was merely a man of wealth. But in these early days, especially under the rule
of the Judges, when hostile inroads on the chosen people were so frequently made
by unfriendly neighbors, the man who had great possessions was in a manner
compelled to be also a military leader; and so we may very justly combine the
two meanings, and speak of him as a valiant man and a wealthy; or, as Dr. J.
Morison has paraphrased the expression, "a strong and substantial yeoman." His
name was Boaz, which signifies either strength or agility; or, according to some
others, prosperousness, and he was, as the chapter tells us, a kinsman of
Elimelech, belonging, indeed, to the same "family." The word translated kinsman
here means primarily "an acquaintance," but as the closest acquaintances are
ordinarily kinsfolk, it came to signify a relation. What the degree of
relationship between Boaz and Elimelech was we are not distinctly informed. We
shall find before the close of the story that he was not the nearest of kin, but
that he was a near kinsman, and the rabbis--without, however, giving an atom of
evidence in support of their assertion--have affirmed that he was Elimelech’s
nephew, and therefore the first cousin of Ruth’s husband. Note, in passing, the
minute providence which led Ruth to the part of the field which belonged to this
man. She knew nothing of his relationship to her husband; it had even escaped
the recollection of Naomi, until she had it brought back to her memory in the
evening by Ruth’s report of the day’s proceedings. But, all unconsciously to
herself, she was drawn to the very place out of which her help was to come. The
record says, "Her hap was to light upon" the Boaz part of the field, or, as it
might be more literally rendered, "Her hap happened,’’ "her lot met her." But
the historian would not have us to believe that it was all by chance. On the
contrary, the great lesson of the book is that "the Lord is mindful of His own,"
and that He leads them through ways that they know not, to the end which He has
designed for them. But the writer speaks here after the manner of men. He
describes all that men see. They cannot trace the workings of the divine hand;
they perceive only what takes place before their eyes; and so he says here of
Ruth that "her hap happened," "her lot met her," "her hap was to light" on the
part of the field belonging to Boaz, but he means every reader to infer that God
had turned her steps thither. But listen, as Boaz comes along to join his band,
he cries to them, "The LORD be with you." Mark the courtesy of this great man.
He is not above speaking kindly to his workmen. He does not hold himself stiffly
aloof from them. He does not order them about with haughty indifference, as if
he were speaking to an inferior order of beings. No, no; they, too, belong to
the chosen people. All alike are children of Abraham. All alike are included in
the covenant. They are all members of the same spiritual household, and so he
treats them with respectful kindness.

Mark, again, his piety. He cries, "The LORD be with you." Now, I know that this
has become the common salutation in the East, for Dr. Thomson tells us that "The
Lord be with you" is merely the "Allah m’akum" of ordinary custom. I am well
aware, also, that by frequent use, even such expressions of piety come to be
employed without any pious feeling, and often even by those who have no faith in
God at all. How seldom do we think of God when we say "good-bye," which is
simply "God be with you!" It is possible that even infidels and atheists may
take leave of each other with that word, and without any consciousness of
inconsistency in so making use of it. So it is possible that Boaz simply meant
to be courteous when he used this salutation, and that there was no more piety
in it than there is in a modem "goodbye." It is possible, but not very probable,
for, as we shall see in the future, this man was in the habit of tracing all
blessings to God, and of commending those whom he loved to the care of God, and
therefore in his mouth the ordinary salutation was restored from its common
colorlessness to its first uncommon piety, and meant everything which it had
originally expressed. But this salutation was no mere one-sided thing. The
reapers answered, "The LORD bless thee." They did not look askance upon their
employer, as if he had been their natural enemy. They recognized that in his
prosperity they would prosper, and that in his adversity they could not but be
sufferers with him; and therefore they reciprocated his courtesy, and followed
his prayer for them by their prayers for him. It is a beautiful sight. One feels
almost as if he were transported three thousand years back to Bethlehem, and saw
it all before his eyes. The portly proprietor coming with stately dignity along
to his own plot of the field, and kindly saluting the laborers in Jehovah’s
name; the reapers lifting themselves up simultaneously from their constrained
position, each with the sweat on his face and the sickle in his hand, returning
the salutation with hearty affection: "An intercourse this," as William Arnot
says, "between rich and poor, between master and servant, which we love to think
of in those patriarchal times, which we weep the want of in our own."(The Race
for Riches, and some of the Pits into which the Runners fall. By William Arnot,
pp. 1, 2. Edinburgh, 1852) As Boaz glances over the band, he sees a stranger
among the gleaners. But though he is struck with her appearance, and interested
to inquire concerning her--for in a small community like that of Bethlehem the
appearance of a new-comer would always awaken curiosity--yet he does not make
immediate inquiry concerning her. With a delicateness which seems to have been
more common in those times than it is in some circles among ourselves, he waited
until Ruth had gone for rest into the hut which had been erected for the shelter
of the work-people from the sun, and then in her absence he said to his steward,
"What damsel is this?" In response the man told Ruth’s story, either as he had
himself became acquainted with it from common report, or as it had come out in
his conversation with her in the morning, and said, "It is the Moabitish damsel
that came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab, and she said, I pray you,
let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves; so she came and
hath continued even from the morning until now that she tarried a little in the
house." On receiving this information Boaz, probably from his kinship to Naomi,
perhaps, also, from a deeper and more subtle cause, became interested in Ruth.
Calling her to him by the kindly name of daughter, which indicated at once his
age and her youth, and his tender regard for her, he requested her to do all her
gleaning on his land, and to keep fast by his maidens, who would give to her the
companionship and protection that always come to a woman from the presence with
her of those of her own sex. He told her that he had ordered the young men to
treat her with civility and respect, and not to subject her to the rough
horse-play which was so common on the harvest-field, and he gave her the right
to quench her thirst at the vessels which the young men had drawn--perhaps from
the well for the water of which David so longed at a later day--for the benefit
of all the laborers. This considerate treatment at the hand of a stranger went
straight to the heart of Ruth, who fell at the feet of her benefactor, saying,
"Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me,
seeing I am a stranger?" But in response he gave her to understand that her
whole recent history was familiar to him; and the manner in which he dwells upon
its details seems to reveal that he had been deeply impressed with them. Indeed,
as he enumerates them it appears as if he was gathering intensity as he
proceeded, until he could find no relief for his feelings save in the prayer, so
simple, so beautiful, so comprehensive, so appropriate, "The Lord recompense thy
work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of Israel, under whose
wings thou art come to trust." There is no conventionality about that Such a
supplication could come only from a pious heart, as well as from a kindly
disposition, and Ruth was equally sincere when she said, "Thou hast comforted
me, and thou hast spoken to the heart of thine handmaid, though I be not like
unto one of thine handmaidens." "Alas! no," as if she had added, "but only a
widow and a stranger." But now the hour for refreshment has come, and Boaz
invites her to partake of the food which had been prepared for his laborers.
This consisted of "parched corn," which, according to Dr. Thomson, was prepared
thus: "A quantity of the best ears, not too ripe, are plucked with the stalks
attached. These are tied in small parcels, a blazing fire is kindled with dry
grass and thorn-bushes, and the corn heads are held in it until the chaff is
mostly burned off. When the grain is sufficiently roasted it is rubbed out in
the hand and eaten as there is occasion." (The Land and the Book, English
edition, p. 648. Biblical Researches, vol. ii., p. 50.) But Dr. Robinson
describes another method. He says: "In the season of harvest the grains of wheat
not yet fully dry and hard are roasted in a pan or on an iron plate, and
constitute a very palatable article of food, which is eaten with bread or
instead of it." Of this Ruth ate and was sufficed, and left, or rather "had
something over," which, as we shall see, she carried home in the evening to
Naomi. Besides this, she "dipped her morsel in the vinegar," which was a mixture
of vinegar and water with a little oil, into which each reaper dipped his bread
before eating. It was genuine open-air hospitality--a picnic, with the added
zest of labor to give it flavor, and the joy of harvest to give it gladness. I
have seen and shared in similar feasts many a time in the harvest fields of the
west of Scotland, and there is a spontaneity in all such mirthfulness that
contrasts most suggestively with the manufactured cheerfulness of a mere
"garden-party." When the simple meal was over, Boaz lingered behind to tell his
young men to let Ruth glean, if she would, even among the sheaves, without
reproach, and to bid them let fall purposely a few handfuls, that she might,
without any loss of self-respect or without any feeling of undue dependence,
obtain all the more from her work. Here, again, we mark the delicateness to
which we have already so frequently referred. Many men spoil a kindness by the
clumsy way in which they do it; but Boaz secured here that a good service should
be rendered to Ruth, even when most she felt that she was helping herself. He
contrived that her gleanings should be increased, while yet she did not know
that they were not all the product of her own industry. So when the even was
come, and she beat out with a stick the grain from the ears which she had
gathered, she found that she had taken home to Naomi nearly a bushel of barley.
But now, leaving for another discourse the report which Ruth gave to Naomi of
her day’s experiences when she went home in the evening, let us take with us
some practical lessons for our modern life from this deeply interesting story.

See, then, in the first place, how a change of circumstances reveals character.
What an unveiling of Ruth’s real nature her poverty made! Had she been always
prosperous we had never thoroughly known her, and Naomi might never have
discovered the nobleness that was in her. The purity of the diamond was made
manifest by the cutting to which it was subjected. It is not always thus,
however. Sometimes reverse of fortune brings out hardness, cynicism, almost
misanthropy; and those who seemed in prosperity to be no worse than the average
of their neighbors, develop under adversity into miserable, discontented,
suspicious, and uncharitable people who have not a good word to say of anybody,
and are at war with themselves, with their neighbors, and with God himself. But
that is only because from the first they have been wrong. When they had their
prosperity they did not thank God for it, but traced it to that in themselves
which enabled them to rise in spite of those around them; but now in their
adversity, strangely enough, they cast the blame on others and on God, and they
are so bitter in their feelings that they cannot bring themselves to do even
that which offers for their own support. Alas for such! they put it almost out
of the power of others to assist them, and, wrapped in their own stolid
defiance, they are like the man in the river who cried out, "I will be drowned,
and nobody shall help me." I know few more pitiable objects than those whose
misfortunes have thus petrified them, and I pray God to keep us all from such a
spirit as they manifest. But the finer the nature is originally, the more nobly
does it come out when the individual is required to "take a lower room" at the
world’s banquet. Beautifully has it been said here by a young English preacher,
whose early death was a deep sorrow to all who knew him: "The widow who, when
bereavement has changed all her fortunes, goes forth to earn her children’s
bread with her own hands; the daughter who, once accustomed to all that wealth
could purchase and the doubtful privilege of unbroken ease, turns her
accomplishments into a means of support for her aged father; these, and such as
these, reveal in new circumstances new graces--graces that are sturdy virtues,
that shine with an unborrowed splendor, and are beautiful in the sight of
Heaven. There has been no humiliation in all this; the brave toilers have made
the worst drudgery sublime, and they have risen to a grander dignity than all
the world’s worth could confer. Their friends and neighbors may have considered
it misfortune, and may call it the Valley of Humiliation; yet though, like
Christian, they have met an Aponyon there, they, too, have seen visions of
angels, and lifted their voices in happy song. Ah! there are compensations even
in this world of which we little dream, and God sets one thing, and often a
better thing, over against another in human life. Riches fly, but character is
developed; we are compelled to work, and out of work spring our truest joys. Our
life is paradoxical but without contradictions; we are made the least that we
may become the greatest; and the way down is, with God as guide, always the road
to exaltation." (The Beautiful Gleaner. By Rev. William Braden, pp. 52, 53) But
although the change in Ruth’s circumstances here was from comfort to penury, I
cannot help adding that there is a similar revealing power, so far as character
is concerned, in a sudden rise from poverty to affluence. Sometimes that, as in
the case of Hazael, has shown a hard, ambitious cruelty in a man, in whom the
existence of such a disposition was never even suspected. The getting has
developed selfishness rather than liberality, and the possession of power has
given opportunity for its arbitrary exercise. Then again, in others it has
seemed to sweeten them, and to bring out kindliness. It all depends on the
character of the person to begin with, and that again depends on the
relationship between him and God in Christ. So, if we would be prepared for
anything that God’s providence may bring us; if we would not be injured in that
which is our truest self, either by sudden prosperity or by unexpected
misfortune, we need to look well to our piety; we need to cultivate close and
intimate fellowship with God; we need to have the equalizing influence within us
of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; we need, in one expressive phrase, to have
the soul ballasted with Christ, and then no sudden squall or change of wind,
whether from affluence to poverty or from poverty to affluence, will endanger or
submerge us. Either prosperity or adversity will capsize us without Him, but
with Him in the boat beside us we are always safe. But now in the second place
let us see in the fellowship between Boaz and his reapers, a fingerpost pointing
to the true solution of all difficulties between employers and employed. We have
heard and read a great deal on that subject in these recent days. Indeed, little
else has been discussed among us of late, either in the newspapers or in private
conversation or in public discourse. For the present, indeed, we have reason to
congratulate ourselves that the premature explosion of that bomb in Chicago
(This discourse was delivered not long after the riot in Chicago, for which the
Anarchists were tried) has opened the eyes of the community to the danger that
is involved to our property and civilization from the occurrence of such
troubles, and unified the sentiment of the nation as to the manner in which that
kind of warfare is to be dealt with. But the real question lies back behind the
violence to which all strikes seem to be near of kin; and the anarchism which in
all our large cities is so ready to take advantage, for its own infamous
purposes, of any disorder that may arise and for which the working-men, as a
class, are not to be held responsible. The real question is this: How may the
state of feeling between employers and employed, which is so apt to break out
into open antagonism, be removed and permanently made impossible? Why is it that
every little difference between them as to wages or hours of labor leads on to
strikes and bitter estrangement? How comes it that the labor atmosphere is so
explosive and electric? And what shall be done in the way of remedy? Now
when--apart from recent provoking manifestations, which, for the time being,
have tended to prejudice many against the working-men--we look at this problem,
we shall find that there have been faults on both sides. If they have not been
as courteous to their employers as his reapers were to Boaz, neither have their
employers always been as courteous to them as Boaz was to his reapers. And if
the employed have been utterly neglectful of the principles of political
economy, their employers have not always remembered that political economy,
though it be a real science, is not mechanics, and has to do not with machines,
but men. It is true, indeed, that in recent strikes the cause of alienation has
been the employment of men who for some reason--not touching either their
character or efficiency have been distasteful to the majority of the workmen;
and it is astonishing that men of intelligence do not see that interference of
that sort is a flagrant infringement upon the liberty of other workmen to earn
their bread as they can. It is surprising, too, that they do not realize that
when they strike they terminate the contract between them and their employers,
and so put themselves out of court altogether, and forfeit all right even to
arbitration. Then as to the question of hours. It is not to be denied that the
demand of ten hours’ wages for eight hours’ work is one which, in its blindness,
either does not or will not perceive that it is as impossible to get that really
in the long-run as it is to get five out of twice two. For even if the demand be
acceded to, then, when things have adjusted themselves to the new state of
matters thereby created, as they infallibly will do in a very short time, it
will be found that they have simply added one-fifth to the price of everything
which they have to buy, and that is the same as saying that the purchasing power
of their wages--nominally the same in dollars and cents--will then be reduced by
one-fifth. Really, that is substantially what they are bringing upon
themselves--nay, what they are eagerly seeking, with all the added expense and
danger of their strikes. Much, therefore, might be accomplished by spreading a
little more widely among them the knowledge of these principles, which are as
simple as the alphabet, but as inexorable as the law of gravitation. But still
the question arises, How shall we heal the state of feeling out of which this
habit of looking upon each other as natural enemies has grown up between
employers and employed? Now, in answer, some have suggested arbitration; some
have exhorted the working-men to make up for the want of capital in the hands of
one by co-operation among themselves, so that they may become themselves
competitors of the employers; and some have proposed that, by means like those
suggested by Professor Ely, of Baltimore, the employed should be given a share
of the profits of the employers, though that would be one-sided if they were not
also called upon to make up a share of the losses --but, so far as I have seen,
few have spoken about that. Now, of course, a great deal can be said in favor of
such schemes as these; but for the present they all seem to me alike
impracticable, because they all require for their successful operation a
disposition towards each other which is radically different from that which has
existed for a considerable time between them. If we had that changed, the
problem would be more manageable. I am not sure, indeed, but that the simple
changing of that would remove the problem altogether. But how are we to change
that? How shall we remove all bitterness out of the hearts of employers towards
their employed, and how shall we remove out of the hearts of the employed all
envy of their employers? To that I have but one answer. The Lord Jesus Christ
broke down the middle wall between Jews and Gentiles, and only He can
reconcile--not superficially, but really and through and through--employers and
employed. Boaz and his reapers belonged to the same commonwealth of Israel, and
were heirs of the same covenant of promise. They were children of the same
household of faith, and so they regarded each other as brethren. That was what
kept this greeting from degenerating into a mere formality. That was what
produced their mutual kindliness for each other. And in the same way, when
employers and employed shall recognize their common brotherhood to Christ, and
feel that in dealing with each other they are dealing with Christ, then and then
only shall we get rid of that mutual suspicion of each other which is the soil
wherein all these roots of bitterness spring up. I hear, therefore, in these
labor troubles a new and louder call to the churches of our land to prosecute
with vigor the work of home evangelization, not only among the working-people,
but also among their employers. I emphasize that last clause, "but also among
their employers," for they need it just as much as their workmen. It is common,
I fear, to think that evangelization is required only for the masses of the
employed, but that is a delusion. There are proportionately as many unbelievers
in the gospel among the capitalists as there are among the laborers. I fear
that, in proportion to the numbers of both, there are more, and, as a rule,
employers are far too indifferent to the gospel. They are not sufficiently under
its power, and perhaps the inkling of what atheistic socialism would do if it
could, which these last weeks have given, may help to quicken them to a sense of
the importance of their identifying themselves more thoroughly with Christ. But
only in the meeting of both in Christ will the solvent -of this problem be
found, and we must seek so to deal with both as to bring that about. For when
that is reached there will be courtesy and kindliness in their intercourse. They
will not be afraid of each other, neither will they be suspicious of each other,
but they will love as brethren, and selfishness will cease to be the main-spring
of their conduct. This has been demonstrated very clearly in the case of
individual establishments. I have not heard of any strikes or bitterness at St.
Johns-bury, Vermont, where masters and men are office-bearers in the same
church, and brethren at the same communion-table. And that is by no means a
solitary instance. Conversing not long ago with the president of a railway who
had just been bereaved of his wife, I learned from him that some of the most
touching letters which he had received at the time of his trial came from
surface-men on the line. Wherever he had gone he had sought to show himself
friendly to his men, and so they could not help expressing sympathy with him.
Nothing approaching to any feeling of suspiciousness had ever come between them,
and he has no fear of a strike among them. Give us this common Christianity
between them, and we may trust that, either to prevent any differences or to
settle them peacefully when they do arise. Nothing else will do it. But if you
have that, any feasible plan will be workable. "He is our peace." Oh, when shall
the different classes among us find out that? Come forth out of Thy royal
chamber, O Thou living Christ! In the triumph of Thy love bring employer and
employed together to Thy feet, that they may choose Thee for the great
arbitrator between them, and Thy decisions, being founded in love as well as
justice, shall be willingly accepted by them both.

I had intended to add a word on the beautiful prayer of Boaz for Ruth--" The
Lord recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the Lord God of
Israel, under whose wings thou hast come to trust "--but I must forbear. Let me
only commend to you all the protection of these outspread wings. You must go to
trust somewhere. You are now trusting in something. Whither have you gone? In
what are you trusting? No wings but God’s can cover you in the time of trial and
in the day of judgment. Therefore, get beneath them now. This is your
opportunity. Get beneath them now, lest a day should come when He shall say,
"How often would I have gathered thee as a hen doth gather her brood under her
wings, and ye would not? Behold, now, your house is left unto you desolate."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 04 THE THRESHING FLOOR (RUTH 2:18-RUTH 3:18)
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV THE THRESHING-FLOOR Ruth 2:18-23; Ruth 3:1-18

Naomi had probably an anxious day of it, as she sat at home, wondering how her daughter-in-law was faring among strangers in the harvest-field. But when she saw Ruth return at even-tide with an epha of barley in her mantle and a look of satisfaction on her face, she did not need to ask how she had got on, for she knew at once that "the lines had fallen unto her in pleasant places." We can easily imagine with what pride the daughter laid her burden down at the mother’s feet, and with what delight she brought forth the surplus of the parched corn which Boaz had given her at noon, and which she had so thoughtfully reserved as a treat for the solitary one whom she had left at home. We can easily, also, fill in the outline which the sacred writer has given us of the mother’s joy as, looking at the result of her daughter’s exertions, she broke out into ejaculations of pleased surprise, and ran on into a series of questions without waiting for an answer to any one of them; finding at length the fitting climax to her feelings in a benediction of her benefactor. It was as if she had said: "Well done, my daughter! Who could have expected anything like this? Where did you get all that barley? And the parched corn, too---how good it is! Surely, they must have been particularly kind to you. Whose part of the-field were you in? who did you glean with? He must have taken special notice of you, and, whoever he was, may a blessing rest on him for his goodness. It may have been a little thing to him, but it has been a great deal to you and to me."

Then, when Ruth had rested a little, and Naomi’s effusiveness gave her an
opportunity to speak, she told that the man on whose part of the field she had
gleaned was Boaz. In a moment it flashed upon Naomi’s memory that Boaz was a
kinsman of Elimelech --was, in fact, one of the Goelim, or redeemers, on whom it
might devolve, according to the law of Moses, to buy the land which had belonged
to her deceased husband, and which, under the pressure of circumstances, she
would now have to sell in order to get the means of support. This being the
case, Naomi thought she saw the motive of Boaz in showing such kindness to Ruth,
and so the benediction, which had before been general and impersonal, is
repeated by her with definite reference to him, for she says: "Blessed of
Jehovah be he, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead
;" that is, who hath shown his generosity to the living, and through that hath
made manifest his continued respect for the memory of the dead. She recognized
the providence which had conducted Ruth to his part of the field; and hearing of
his treatment of Ruth, and of his request that she should keep fast by his young
men until the close of his harvest, she probably discerned in this the beginning
of the end of all their troubles, though it is hardly likely that as yet she had
any definite conception of the precise manner in which they were to be
terminated. But whatever were her motives, she heartily urged Ruth to accept the
invitation of Boaz, and thus it came about that all through the time of harvest,
which lasted for at least two or three weeks, Ruth kept close by the maidens of
Boaz to glean by day, and returned at evening to the abode of Naomi, to cheer
her by her nightly reports of the day’s doings, given by the one in the open
frankness of affection, and commented on by the other with the wisdom of
experience. But when the harvest was finished, the old question of "What shall
we do now?" had to be confronted; and this time Naomi took the initiative, for
now she thought she saw the prospect of a life settlement for Ruth. It is
beautiful to mark the unselfishness of each of these women, or rather their
unselfish consideration of each by the other. As Cassell has said: "While the
women are in distress it is Ruth that takes the initiative; now when hope grows
large it is Naomi. When hardship was to be endured, the mother submitted her
will to the daughter, for Ruth was not sent to glean but went of her own accord;
now, when the endeavor is to secure the joy and happiness held out in prospect,
the daughter yields in all things to the direction of the mother. The thought of
labor for the mother originates with the daughter, but it is the mother who
forms plans for the happiness of the daughter.’’ (Lange, in Iaea.) Naomi had set
her heart on finding rest for Ruth in the house of a husband, and that husband
no other than Boaz. With this object in view, she unfolds a plan which she
desires Ruth to follow in every particular. In the simple narrative it is given
thus: "And now is not Boaz of our kindred, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold,
he winnoweth barley to-night in the threshing-floor. Wash thyself therefore, and
anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but
make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and
drinking. And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place
where he shall tie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee
down, and he will tell thee what thou shalt do."

Now all this, it must be confessed, seems to us, with our modern ideas, not only
exceedingly improper, but also terribly hazardous. It must be admitted, too,
that, judged even by the conventionality of those almost patriarchal times, it
was unusual, and, as the words of Boaz himself make evident, would have been
compromising to the reputation of both if it had been known. But in order to a
right estimate of its nature we must take in all that can be said upon the other
side.

We must remember, in the first place, that the proposal was made by Naomi, whose
whole character, as it comes out in this book, was marked by devout reverence
towards God and purity towards man, and to whom the honor of Ruth was as dear as
her own. We cannot, therefore, believe that she would willfully do that which
would endanger her reputation. That would have been but a poor return for all
the self-sacrifice that Ruth had manifested on her behalf.

Again, we must take it for granted that she knew the sort of man Boaz was.
Probably in the years gone by he had been the companion and friend of her
husband, and she had then had means of judging of his character. Then, since her
return she had been watching him, and perhaps she felt that she could trust Ruth
in his hands. Furthermore, we must believe that there had been lying behind all
this an interesting history which is here unwritten, and which had come out
during these harvest weeks in the evening talks of Ruth after her return from
the field, and, perhaps, also, in the visits of Boaz, on occasions, at her
humble home. She had been taking notes very diligently all the time, and it may
be that the pensive absent-mindedness of her daughter, now that the gleaning
season was over, had revealed to her that she was something else than
indifferent to her benefactor; while, perhaps, there were indications also on
the part of Boaz that his interest in Ruth was more tender than that of mere
kindness and compassion. But more than all, we must give full weight to the fact
that Boaz was one of Elimelech’s Goelim, and to the claim which law and custom
gave to her on him in that capacity. There were three duties which devolved upon
the Goel, or kinsman redeemer. These may be succinctly described as follows:
When an Israelite, through poverty, sold his inheritance and was unable to
redeem it, it devolved upon his Goel to purchase it. Again, when an Israelite
had wronged any one and sought to make restitution, but found that the party
whom he had wronged was dead without leaving a son, it fell to the next of kin
of the injured party to represent him and receive the reparation. Finally, when
a man was foully murdered, it fell to the Goel or next of kin, subject to the
provisions laid down in connection with the Cities of Refuge, to execute justice
on the murderer, and hence he was called the Avenger of Blood. But along with
these duties devolved on the Goel by law, others seemed to have been required of
him by custom; for, when there was no one else to do it, he came to be looked to
for the carrying out of the provisions of what is called the Levirate law. That
statute enjoined that when a man died without leaving children, his brother
should marry the widow, and the first-born of that marriage should be accounted
the child of the deceased. But when there was no brother-in-law, custom looked
to the Goel to take his place. The law did not absolutely require it, but public
opinion did--though it did not put the repudiation of the widow’s claim by the
Goel upon the same plane of dishonor as it did that of the brother-in-law. If
the brother-in-law refused to marry his sister-in-law, he was subjected to
insult at her hands by her plucking off his shoe and spitting in his face in the
gate of the city--acts which were equivalent among us Western people to the
knocking of a man’s hat over his eyes on the Ex-change--and the subjecting of
him, besides, to the vilest indignity. In the case of a kinsman not so near as
the brother, there was indeed no specific statute on the subject, but custom had
sanctioned a kind of amalgamation of the law relating to the Levirate marriage,
with that concerning the Goel, or redeemer; so that, as Alexander has said, "The
Goel had a right to purchase the land, but in so doing came under an obligation
from custom to marry the widow of the deceased owner; and the brother-in-law
(Levir) was bound to marry the widow of his deceased brother, which involved, as
a matter of course, the redemption of his property if he had sold it." (Lange,
in Iaea.)

Now, if I have succeeded in making the matter plain to you, it will be apparent
that Boaz, as a Goel of Elimelech, had a right by law to redeem his property,
and that, according to the custom, the exercise of that right involved on his
part, also, the marriage of Naomi. But Naomi transferred her claim to Ruth, and
the question she had to solve was how to bring that before the notice of Boaz.
It was not his part in such a case to offer. He had to wait until he was
requested to act; and this plan was formed by Naomi for the purpose of bringing
him to prompt and decisive action in the case. But when all is said that can be
said on her behalf, I fully appreciate and indorse the words of Kitto, when he
thus writes, "We still think, however, that the occasion for making this demand
was unusual, and, to a certain degree, indiscreet. This may be gathered from the
anxiety which Boaz himself eventually expressed, while doing the utmost honor to
her character and motives, that it should not be known that a woman had been
there. He must have feared that evil tongues might misconstrue, to his and her
discredit, a proceeding far from evil when rightly understood. It is not
unlikely that when this matter had been first suggested by Naomi, Ruth, as a
stranger, had shrunk from making this claim publicly in the harvest-field, and
that Naomi had, therefore, to spare her in that respect, devised this mode of
enabling her to do so in private, in which she would find less difficulty,
seeing that Boaz had already won her confidence by his fatherly consideration
for her. It may be that desire to evade one difficulty somewhat blinded this
good woman to the danger that may have lurked in the other alternative." (Daily
Bible Illustrations, vol. iii., p. 4o) Keeping, then, these considerations in
mind, we may without any difficulty thread our way through the rest of the
story. The threshing-floor in those times, as, indeed, still in the East, was in
the immediate neighborhood of the harvest-field. It was a level area, the ground
of which was trodden into hardness, and the grain was threshed, either by the
dragging over it of a heavy slab called mowref, or by the trampling of cattle.
Then the winnowing was accomplished by throwing up the grain with a fork against
the wind; and that operation was frequently performed at night to get the
benefit of the evening breeze. At such times, also, it was usual either for the
owner of the field or some of his men to sleep on the floor, in order that he
might be ready to give the alarm if any robbers should come to steal from him
the product of his industry. Thus Dr. Edward Robinson, speaking of Hebron, says,
"Here we needed no guard around our tent. The mowers of the crops came every
night and slept upon their threshing-floors to guard them, and this we had found
to be universal in all the region of Gaza. We were in the midst of scenes
precisely like those of the Book of Ruth, when Boaz winnowed barley in his
threshing-floor, and laid himself down at night to guard the heap of corn."
(Biblical Researches, vol. ii., p. 446) And Dr. Thomson tells us that he has "on
various occasions seen the mowers sleeping on the summer threshing-floors to
prevent stealing, just as the wealthy Boaz did when Ruth came to him." He adds
that "though it is not customary for women to sleep at those floors, and to do
so would produce the same unfavorable impression which Boaz apprehended, yet it
is not unusual for husband, wife, and all the family to encamp at the
threshing-floor and remain until the harvest is over." (The Land and the Book,
as before, pp. 648, 649).

These particulars will enable us to realize the whole circumstances, as Ruth
followed implicitly the instructions of her mother-in-law. Watching until Boaz
was fast asleep, she went and lay down at his feet. But when he became aware of
her presence he started up, and said, "Who art thou?" Whereupon she answered, "I
am Ruth thine handmaid: spread thy skirt," or rather spread thy wings --for
there is no reference to the cover which she had taken from his feet but rather
she uses the figure of the bird which Boaz had already employed in speaking to
her of Jehovah--spread thy wings over thine handmaid for thou art a Goel, or
kinsman redeemer. "Take me under thy protection as thy wife." That was the
formal claim of her words, and Boaz at once understood them in that sense, for
he said, "Blessed be thou of Jehovah my daughter: for thou hast showed more
kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followedst
not young men whether poor or rich." That is to say, "This act of thine is a
greater kindness to Naomi than was even thy leaving of Moab for her sake; for
thou hast deliberately preferred to stand in Naomi’s place, and to claim from
the Goel thy right at his hands, in order that ’the name of the dead be not cut
off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place,’ and because thou
hast thus merged thyself in the house and lineage of Elimelech, blessed be thou
of Jehovah." Then he pledged himself to do all that she required, because all
the gate of his people knew that she was a worthy woman. But there was still one
obstacle in the way, for though he was a Goel he was not the Goel. There was a
kinsman nearer to Elimelech than he, and nothing could be done by Boaz until
that relative had repudiated. He promised, therefore, that in the morning he
would bring the matter before that other, and if he would perform the kinsman’s
part, well and good, let him do it; but if he would not, then Boaz would take
his place, and this assurance he confirmed with an oath, "as Jehovah liveth."
Then in the morning, before one could discern another, he sent her away to
Naomi, and that her mother might have the assurance of his goodwill, even
although her plan had not gone altogether as she had expected, he sent with her
six measures of barley, which he scooped into her mantle. On her return, Naomi
met her with the singular yet suggestive question, "Who art thou, my daughter?"
as if she had said, Art thou still the widow of Mahlon, (See Ruth 4:10.) or art
thou now the betrothed of Boaz? and in answer Ruth told her all she had to tell,
which, when Naomi heard, she knew how to interpret, for she said," Sit still my
daughter until thou know how the matter will fall: for the man will not rest
until he have finished the thing this day." How true this forecast was, and what
came out of the intervention of Boaz, we shall see in our next discourse;
meanwhile let us ourselves become gleaners, and gather up a few suggestive
lessons from this fruitful field.

And, in the first place, let me draw your attention to the general wholesomeness
and helpfulness of evening confidences among the members of the same household
when the labors of the day are done. Few things in this most interesting story
are more beautiful than the frank and simple talks between Naomi and Ruth, in
the confidence of domestic abandon, before they retired for the night. The
daughter then made the mother sharer in all her experiences throughout the day,
and the mother followed up the communication with practical suggestions for the
morrow. One needs not to approve in every particular the counsels which Naomi
gave, before he can see the value of such a household custom; and if I may speak
alike from observation and experience, I would say that the happiest hours of
home life are those in which parents and grown-up children sit together in
winter by the cheerful fire, and in summer in the cool, dim twilight, and tell
each other where they have gleaned, and with whom, and with what success they
have labored throughout the day. Nor is the happiness of such fellowship all the
good that there is in it. It unifies the household, giving to all a deep and
living interest in the labors and success of each, and so helping to counteract
that tendency to utter individualism which is one of the greatest evils of our
modern life. Too often the members of the same household are nothing more to
each other than sharers of the same abode. They go outside to have their
confidences with strangers, and frequently parents and brothers and sisters are
among the last to know of any unusual experience through which they have been
brought. Thus the home becomes little more than a small hotel, and the helpful
counsel of the parents and the other members of the family is entirely lost.
Sure I am that many of the young people who go astray in modern business or
society might have been kept from evil courses if only they had utilized the
blessing of this home cabinet; while, on the other hand, the hearts of parents
would have been kept fresh and healthy if their children had but made them
partakers of the details of their day’s doings. The most natural thing in the
world for a little child is to tell where he has been, and what he has been
about; and when he grows up into manhood there is something wrong with him, or
something wrong at home, if that healthy custom is abandoned. Either he has
begun to go to places of which he is ashamed to speak, or his parents and the
other members of the household have not been careful to maintain the happiness
of home to such a degree that it will be in his estimation more attractive than
all other localities. Let me urge, therefore, upon those who, like Ruth, must be
away all the day, to engage in nothing and to go to no place of which they would
be ashamed to speak in the evening to father or mother or sisters; and let me
entreat the parents and members of families generally to vie with each other in
their efforts to make home happy for those who are pulling at the business oar,
and "toiling in rowing" all the day. Sisters, why should you reserve your
winning smiles and patient attention and willing practice of accomplishments for
the party outside, or for the casual visitors who come to call upon you, and
show yourselves petulant, discourteous, disobliging, and generally unamiable to
your own brothers? Do you not realize that much of the molding of their
characters is in your hands? and if they fall into evil courses, what will you
have to say at last when the Lord asks you, "Where are your brothers?" Perhaps
if you had cared to make yourself attractive to them, they might not now have
been wanderers from their fathers’ houses. And you, young men, who are living at
home, be thankful that you have still a father and a mother to whom you can go
with all your concerns, and who are still able and willing to be your advisers.
Do not despise their wisdom; do not trample upon their love. You will never know
the worth of them until you lose them; and then O what a misery it will be to
you to reflect that you slighted their counsel and made light of their affection
while they lived.

Parents, you, too, have a solemn responsibility here. Do not allow yourselves
even to seem to be troubled when your young people come to you for advice. Do
not account their affairs as too insignificant for you to be interested in; hear
them with patient, real, loving, attention, and give them the best wisdom you
can command. Encourage them to come to you with their concerns, and beware of
drawing the cord of authority so tight that it will snap, and leave you without
so much as influence. Remember that as young people grow up to manhood and
womanhood they must be guided rather than governed by you; and if you would gain
their confidences and keep them, you will succeed best when you seem least eager
to demand them as of right. As one has very wisely said: "Young men and women,
conscious of growing personal responsibility, will not tolerate being treated as
mere children, and will fret against what appear to them as unnecessary
restraints. But it is possible by wise management to obtain all desirable
information without a display of authority, and without arousing antagonism.
Knowing the tender interest of their parents’ hearts in all their experiences,
sons and daughters will love to return home and voluntarily tell all the story
of the day, incidents humorous vexing, or encouraging, and those fireside
reviews of life will be the most delightful part of their time." (Braden. The
Beautiful Gleaner, p. 478.).

Let me point out to you now, in the second place, the true ideal of marriage.
Naomi put it precisely right when she said to Ruth: "Shall I not seek rest for
thee, that it may be well with thee?" The rest of the wife should be in the
affection of the husband, and the rest of the husband should be in the love of
the wife. Each should have comfort in the support and confidence of the other.
The husband should be always sure of the sympathy and co-operation of the wife;
and the wife should be able to rely implicitly on being understood and
trusted--and, if need be, defended--by the husband. They should be so
identified--or, to take the smaller and better word, so one with each
other--that whatever comes to one comes to both; that neither should add to the
affliction of the other by putting his or her own weight on to the load that has
to be borne; that, in short, they should divide each other’s burdens and double
each other’s joys. The confidence of each in the other should be so absolute and
entire as to give rest to the heart of each, whether in the trials of business,
or in the "many things" that are so troublous and distracting in household
management. Unless this be the case a marriage is shorn of its highest glory,
its greatest helpfulness, and its holiest influence. And yet, alas! how often it
is far below this beautiful ideal! It is entered upon too frequently without
knowledge of each other’s characters, aptitudes, and idiosyncrasies, and from
merely secular motives, because of the position which it will command or the
advantages which it will bring, and without any idea of mutual helpfulness. And
then after a time the illusion is dispelled; disappointment leads to alienation,
alienation to unhappiness, unhappiness to divorce, and that, again,
sometimes--so little valued are the lessons of experience--to a repetition of
the same miserable circle with other parties. I say nothing now of the evil of
the short and easy method of obtaining divorces which is the shame of our
country, and which is twin-sister to Mormonism itself; but I do cry out with all
my might against those thoughtless alliances and mercantile marriages which end
so frequently in divorce, and I implore young people to view this matter, "not
lightly or unadvisedly, but reverently, discreetly, soberly, and in the fear of
the Lord." I am old-fashioned enough to believe in love, and I am Christian
enough to believe that no Christian can be truly happy in an alliance in which
Christ is not supreme. Therefore I would lay down two principles: to all alike I
say, do not marry one whom you do not love--that is the law of nature; then to
the Christian I add this other: do not marry one who has no love to Christ--that
is the law of grace. Comply with these two precepts, and other things will soon
naturally and easily adjust themselves; but without these essentials nothing
will go right for any length of time. Above all, young woman, never marry an
infidel to convert him, or a drunkard to steady him, or a rake to reform him;
for if you do, you sacrifice yourself for nothing, inasmuch as you will entail
misery on yourself without any certainty of benefiting him. Let the reformation
come first, and then there will be more assurance of happiness. But now just a
word, in conclusion, on the value of character. Boaz said to Ruth, "All the city
of my people doth know that thou art a worthy woman ;" and his conviction that
she was indeed a noble woman led to his interest in her welfare, and ultimately
to his making her his wife. But Ruth had not been very long in Bethlehem, and
the fact that so soon she had gained such a reputation speaks volumes for her
deportment. Character cannot long be hid. If it be good, it will reveal itself
in worthy conduct; but if it be bad, it will let itself out, in spite of any
hypocritical efforts to hide itself. Through some little chink of unconscious
and, therefore, unwatched evil, it will surely come to light. The daily life of
Ruth in the field was enough to let all know the sort of woman that she was.
Thus character and reputation are closely interlinked. The one is the flower,
the other is the fragrance: but to have the fragrance rich, you must have the
flower perfect. So, to have the reputation good, you must not look to that
first, but to the character, and then the reputation will take care of
itself--nay, even in apparently questionable circumstances, as here the
character will come to the rescue of the reputation. How important, then, it is
to have a good character! It is not only the highway to success in life, it is
in itself the highest success. Cultivate good character, therefore; and that you
may do that in the right way, unite yourself to Jesus by living faith; then go
on after the plan of Peter, "add to your faith courage, to your courage
knowledge, to your knowledge temperance, to your temperance patience, and to
your patience godliness, to your godliness brotherly kindness, and to your
brotherly kindness love ;" and then you will be living epistles of Christ, known
and read of all men, carrying in your deportment the infallible endorsement of
the genuineness of your piety.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 05 THE LOVING MARRIAGE (RUTH 4)
========================================================================

CHAPTER V THE LOVING MARRIAGE

Ruth 4:1-22 In Palestine all important cities were surrounded by strong walls.
This was necessary for the defense of the inhabitants from the assaults of
robbers, and nightly everything of value that could be stolen was brought in
from the outside for safekeeping. The only entrance or egress was by the gate,
which was open throughout the day but closed at nightfall, and which, from the
continual going out and coming in of the people by it, came to be a favorite
place of resort for the community. The passage in which it stood was commonly
vaulted, having a chamber over it, and so it was shady and cool, furnishing an
agreeable lounging-place for all who sought for any reason to linger beneath its
shelter. There were also chambers or recesses at the sides, and "a void place"
of some considerable extent, (1 Kings 22:10) where the people could conveniently
assemble in considerable numbers. Thither went the curious to see and to be
seen, and to hear all the news of the neighborhood. Thither the friend went to
meet those whom he was expecting from the country, or to accompany those who
were setting out upon a journey. There the markets were held; there, too, all
legal business was transacted, in a very primitive yet wholly satisfactory
manner.

Many of these old customs continue to the present day, and the vivid description
given by Dr. W. M. Thomson of what he had often seen in Jaffa may help us to
realize more thoroughly the nature of the court which Boaz extemporized for the
securing of the object which he had so much at heart. Says our venerable friend:
"In 1834 I resided for several months in this city (Jaffa), and, to pass away
the time, frequently came out in the afternoon ’to the gate through the city,
and prepared my seat in the street.’ There the governor, the kady, and the
elders of the people assembled daily, ’in a void place,’ and held an
extemporaneous divan, at which affairs of every kind were discussed and settled
with the least possible ceremony. But recently from America, I was greatly
amused with this novel open-air court, conducted amid the din, confusion, and
uproar of a thronged gate-way--men, women, and children jostling each other,
horses prancing, camels growling, donkeys braying, as they passed in and out of
the gate; but nothing could interrupt the proceedings or disturb the judicial
gravity of the court. The whole scene, with all its surroundings, was wholly
Oriental, and withal had about it an air of remote antiquity which rendered it
doubly interesting." (Southern Palestine and Jerusalem, pp. 29, 30) To the gate
of Bethlehem, then, Boaz went straight up from his threshing-floor. Naomi had
not misjudged when she averred that he would not rest until he had brought
matters to a head. It was the first business that he set about that day; and
when he reached the gate, he sat down on one of the seats in its vicinity with
the air of one who had an important duty to discharge. By-and-by he observed the
Goel of Naomi coming near, on his way out into the field, and called to him,
"Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here." The original words, translated
"such a one," are very peculiar, and some have supposed that they were an
ordinary legal formula, like the John Doe or Richard Roe of old English
documents; while others have preferred to take them as we take indefinite
initials, like A. B. C. or M. N., and the like. They are in Hebrew "P’loni
almoni," the former derived from a word meaning to mark out or distinguish, and
the latter from a term which signifies to hide; so that both together seem to
give the notion of one who is indicated, though in a certain sense concealed;
and it is interesting to note that he who, as we shall presently see, would not
marry Ruth lest he should mar his own inheritance while perpetuating the name of
Mahlon, is not even named in this narrative, and has passed into utter oblivion.

Thus accosted by Boaz, this anonymous Goel sat down to await developments,
wondering, perhaps, what was coming next, and only whetted to a more eager
curiosity as he saw Boaz pick out ten men of the elders of the city, and place
them in formal order, that they might be both witnesses and judges. Every city
was governed by elders, and perhaps ten were needed to make what we should call
a quorum, even as among modern Jews it is said that ten are required to
constitute a synagogue. In any case, we may be sure that Boaz knew what he was
about, and proceeded in everything according to consuetudinary law. The court
having been thus constituted, Boaz began the business by addressing the unnamed
kinsman thus: "The parcel of land which was our brother Elimelech’s, Naomi, that
is come again out of the country of Moab, has determined to sell, and I have
said, I will uncover thine ear to say ’Buy it, before the inhabitants and before
the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it; but if thou wilt not
redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside
thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. Then said Boaz, What
day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also,’" or as
some read, "thou must buy also Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead to raise
up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. And the kinsman said, I cannot
redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to
thyself ;" or rather, perhaps, "redeem thou instead of me."

Now, to understand all this, it is necessary to recapitulate some things which
we have already advanced concerning the duties of the Goel. The Jewish nation
was a theocracy, that is to say, Jehovah was the King, and the land belonged to
Him. Under His sanction it had been originally appropriated to the people,
according to their tribes and families by lot. But they could not do with it as
they chose, and it never could be alienated from the family to whom it fell at
first. If the possessor for the time became poor he might sell it, but never out
and out, for it was always to revert to himself or his heirs at the year of
jubilee; nay, if he were able to redeem it before that time he might do so, or
if being himself unable, his next of kin had the means of buying it back, he had
the privilege of redeeming it. Again, when the proprietor offered his land for
sale it was the privilege of the next of kin to become the purchaser, and no
other kinsman could buy it until he had formally given up that which was by law
his privilege. This was the law of property, but side by side with it, and, as
it would seem, intimately connected with it, there was also that of the Levirate
marriage, to the effect that if an Israelite married and died without children,
his brother should marry his widow, and if a son should be born of that marriage
that son was to take the name of the deceased man and inherit his estate, so
that the property should not be alienated. Now, when the nearest of kin to such
a widow was also her brother-in-law, the widow and the land, through the
operation of the two laws, would go together; but when there was no
brother-in-law, and yet a childless widow, the Goel who redeemed the land was
also expected by custom to marry the widow. This was not laid down by the letter
of the statute, but it seems to have been regarded as implied in the spirit of
it, and so it became the custom, or what the Scottish people would call "the use
and wont."

Now this last was the case of Naomi. In her poverty she wanted to sell for the
interval between that date and the year of jubilee the land that had belonged to
Elimelech, and this had become known to Boaz. We may suppose, in fact, that
Naomi had taken Ruth into her confidence, and that Boaz, having learned from her
what her mother-in-law proposed, had seen in that a way to the immediate
settlement of the business, for Ruth was as much concerned as Naomi, because, it
a kinsman purchased the land, he came also under obligation thereby to make Ruth
his wife. Now, so long as this anonymous Goel knew nothing more than that Naomi
wanted to sell the land, he expressed his willingness to become the redeemer of
it, but the moment he heard that the purchase involved also the obligation to
marry Ruth, he renounced his privilege in favor of Boaz, who was the kinsman
next after him. The reason which he gave for doing this is expressed in these
words, "lest I mar mine own inheritance ;" and it has been explained in two or
three different ways. Some have supposed that he had a wife and children
already; others, that he feared the risk of losing the perpetuation of his own
name in securing that of Elimelech; and others still that his means could not
stand the drain upon them that would be made by the support of Naomi and Ruth,
in addition to the finding of the purchase-money. Dr. Cassell suggests that he
was moved simply by superstition, and feared that as Mahlon and Chilion had died
so soon after their marriage with two daughters of Moab, a similar fate might
befall him if he married Ruth. It is, perhaps, impossible now to say definitely
what he referred to. One thing, however, is very clear, namely, that his whole
thought was about his own inheritance, and thus selfishness was at the root of
his decision. But, in any case, his determination must have been an immense
relief to Boaz, who, despite the cool, matter-of-fact way in which he appeared
to conduct himself throughout, was far from being indifferent to the issue. I
have no doubt that he had a few uncomfortable moments after he heard the Goel
say, in regard to the land, "I will redeem it," but when, after he had put the
full case before his rival the irrevocable words were spoken, "Redeem thou
instead of me," then would come a great gladness into his heart. Still he did
not show his feelings before the time, and for the formal completion of the
transaction there was yet to be gone through an interesting ceremony, which had
fallen into abeyance before this book was written, but which helps to prove that
there was an intimate connection between the law of the Goel and that of the
brother-in-law. The brother-in-law might, if he so chose, refuse to marry the
widow of his brother, but if he did so, here is the statute: "If the man like
not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate
unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his
brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.
Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him; and if he stand
to it, and say, I like not to take her; then shall his brother’s wife come unto
him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot and spit
in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that
will not build up his brother’s house, and his name shall be called in Israel,
The house of him that hath his shoe loosed." Now, in connection with that
quotation from the Book of Deuteronomy, let us read what is said here in the
Book of Ruth: "Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning
redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off
his shoe and gave it to his neighbor: and this was a testimony in Israel." This
old custom originated in the fact that when a man took possession of land he
planted his foot--of course with the shoe on it--on the soil. Thus the shoe
became the symbol of ownership, and by handing that to another, a man renounced
his own title to the land which he was selling, and transferred it to the person
who received the shoe. But there was a wide difference between a man’s taking
off his shoe of his own accord, and having it plucked off by another. I may
remove my hat to salute another without any disgrace; but he who knocks my hat
from my head insults me. So the plucking off of the shoe by another was an
ignominious thing; and thus the Goel who refused to marry his brother’s widow
was publicly disgraced; and the indignity was further intensified by his being
spit upon by his sister-in-law, and by his entailing on himself and his children
the opprobrious nickname of "Barefoot," or "Baresole," in all coming time. Now,
in the case before us, Boaz did not proceed to such extremities. So far as
appears, neither Ruth nor Naomi was present during the proceedings at the gate,
and the Goel was permitted to take off his own shoe, while the rest of the
penalty was dispensed with. Boaz did not wish to provoke antagonism by
proceeding to extremities, or it may be that it was only in the case of the
brother-in-law refusing "to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance"
that the law was carried out to the letter. Or perhaps Cox is right when he
says: "His motive in thus sparing his kinsman is not supply, I suppose, either a
kindly consideration for a man closely related to himself, or his love for Ruth,
but also the conviction that an Israelite, caring only for the letter of the law
and not for its spirit, might honestly doubt whether he were bound to marry his
’ brother’s’ widow, when that widow was a daughter of Moab. True, Ruth had come
to put her trust under the shadow of Jehovah’s wings. True, she was known as a
good and brave woman in all the city of Bethlehem. But none the less she was by
birth an alien, one of the heathen women with whom the sons of Israel were
forbidden to intermarry. The law was doubtful: if the appeal to it were pushed
too far he might defeat his own end." So he let the Goel pull off his own shoe,
and when he had received it he said to the elders, and to the crowd of people
who had by this time assembled round them at the gate: "Ye are witnesses this
day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and
Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi. Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess have I purchased to
be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name
of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his
place: ye are witnesses this day." To this the elders gave formal response, "We
are witnesses," and they and the people vied with each other in their
benediction of the man who had thus nobly performed the kinsman’s part. They
use, indeed, the words which have become the recognized formula of benediction
in a Jewish marriage; and which, though here, perhaps, employed for the first
time, are for that very reason the more significant, inasmuch as they put Ruth
the Moabitess side by side with Rachel and Leah, and so indicate that the people
of Bethlehem were prepared to receive her into the covenant of promise and the
commonwealth of Israel, as no longer a stranger and foreigner, but as a daughter
in the household of faith. So Boaz openly and legally made Ruth his wife, and
the fruit of the marriage was a son, who is called the Goel or redeemer of Naomi
(Ruth 4:14), because he was accounted her grandson, as standing to her in the
place of the son of Mahlon. That this was the light in which he was regarded by
all the people is clearly revealed, not only by the tenderness with which Naomi
treated him, but also by the fact that it is to her rather than to Ruth that the
congratulations of the women of Bethlehem are especially addressed; and by their
giving him the name Obed, a servant, indicating that in their view he would be a
constant minister to the comfort of Naomi in the time of her old age. Indeed, as
Cox, borrowing and condensing the comment of Cassell on this part of the
chapter, has said, "It is one of the many fine points of the story that its
concluding sentences are almost wholly devoted, not to the young and happy wife
and mother, but to Naomi, who had suffered so many calamities, and who, by the
piety and resignation with which she bore them, had drawn Ruth from the
idolatries of Moab. It is Naomi, not Ruth, whom the women her neighbors’
congratulate on the birth of Ruth’s son. In him they see Naomi’s Goel--Ruth had
already hers in Boaz--and they pray that as he grows up he may restore her to
her former happiness, and be the stay and gladness of her old age." Yet Ruth is
not forgotten, for she is spoken of as Naomi’s "daughter-in-law, which loveth
thee, which is better to thee than seven sons." We are permitted to see, also,
ere the book closes, that in the course of time the little boy "whom Naomi laid
in her bosom" became the progenitor of David the darling of Israel, and through
him of Jesus the Savior of the world. Truly, on that wedding-day, as Boaz led
home his bride amid the benedictions of his friends and neighbors, some
prophetic seer might have addressed her thus:

"Thou knowest not the glorious race, Sweet Ruth! that shall be thine;

How many kings thou shalt embrace In thy illustrious line. The fountains of
Hebraic song Are in thy heart, fair Ruth!

Fountains whose tides are deep and strong In deathless love and truth. The great
in wisdom and in song, The bard of deathless fame, A mighty and a warlike throng
Shall rise to bless thy name. No one, at last, of lowly birth, Shall crown thy
long increase, Of lowly birth, yet not of earth-- The glorious Prince of Peace."

Yes, thou beautiful Gleaner! lovely and beloved, we greet thee, too, as a mother
of our Lord! The ideal woman of the Old Testament, we place thee side by side
with the Mary of the New, while we bow in lowly reverence before Him who is the
Son and yet the Lord of both. Not every story that begins so sadly as this did
has so sweet and pleasant an ending. Not always are virtue, piety, constancy,
and self-sacrifice so visibly rewarded upon the earth. But we are not on that
account to think the less of the providence of God; for virtue is not to be
pursued because of its reward, and right is to be done for its own sake--nay,
rather, for the sake of God. Then, when the end shall come--not here, but
hereafter--we shall see the vindication of Jehovah, and forget all else in the
"Well done" of an approving Judge.

I linger only to give point to two lessons which lie on the surface of this
narrative. The first is, that in the matter of marriage, everything ought to be
public, open and above-board. How nobly does Boaz appear all through these
transactions! He is careful not to infringe upon the right of another, and he
contracts for marriage openly before the elders of the people. There was nothing
clandestine about his procedure. This was no runaway match, to be formally made
in secret haste and bitterly lamented in lifelong leisure. He did not go away
from Bethlehem to have it celebrated, without the knowledge of friends and
neighbors, but he went about it in the statutory way, and did all things
decently and in order. Now, here is an example for young people in similar
circumstances. There may be exceptional cases, but, as a rule, clandestine
marriages are to be condemned; and if they turn out well, those who have
contracted them should thank a gracious Providence rather than congratulate
themselves on their own wisdom. There is generally something wrong when either
the one party or the other wishes the relationship to be kept a secret; and the
very proposal to do that should be itself a danger-signal that ought at once to
bring things to a halt; for, as one has well said, "Whenever there is anything
in marriage or in its preliminaries that needs smothering up, the wind is sown,
and the whirlwind will need to be reaped." Nor can I withhold here the
expression of my opinion that the facilities given by the marriage laws, in this
State, at least, for the contracting of such clandestine marriages, have much to
do with the increase of divorces among us; and I long to see one general
marriage law for the whole nation, which, by requiring public notice to be given
beforehand in the place where the parties are known, and by insisting on the
production before the clergyman of a certificate that such notice has been
given, shall relieve the ministers of the gospel from the applications so
constantly made to them to unite in matrimony those who are utter strangers both
to them and to the city in which they dwell. Such a marriage law--the same for
all the States of the Union, and enacted by the Houses of Congress--would, in my
judgment, be one very effectual method of dealing with the marriage problem; but
so long as magistrates among us, without any public notice or investigation, can
marry all and sundry that come to them, and so long as even ministers of the
gospel are sometimes over-persuaded to do what their better judgment
disapproves, lest, perhaps, worse consequences should follow, so long we must
expect that the institution of the family shall be degraded among us; and that
means, ultimately, the degradation of all that is wholesome and conservative in
the state.

Finally, we may learn from all this that self-sacrifice is self-saving, and that
self-seeking is self-loving. Orpah went back to Moab, and she is heard of no
more. Ruth clave to Naomi, and she is canonized among the Old Testament saints,
and has a place among the ancestors of our Lord. This nameless Goel was afraid
lest his name should perish while he was seeking to perpetuate Mahlon’s, and it
has perished in spite of his refusal to be the Goel of Naomi. Boaz did what he
declined, and lo! his name stands in everlasting honor, on the first page of the
New Testament. "He that loveth his life will lose it, and he that will lose his
life for my sake, will keep it unto life eternal." Selfishness outwits itself,
but self-sacrifice for Christ’s sake issues in the highest gain. Yet if we make
the sacrifice for the sake of the gain, it is not self-sacrifice but
selfishness. It must be made for Christ’s sake, and then Christ himself will be
our reward.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/taylor-william-m-ruth-the-gleaner/
========================================================================