Ruth 1:2

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.—

Ruth 1:2. And the name of the man (was) Elimelech. A descendant of Nahshon mentioned in connection with the erection of the tabernacle (Numbers 1:7). According to Jewish doctors, a noble and potent person. All names ending with “melech” (king) borne by distinguished persons (Lunge). Means to whom God is king (Keil). My God is King (Lange). My God is my King (Cox). God is King (Wordsworth). Josephus calls him Abimelech. Naomi, more correctly Noomi [LXX. Νωεμιν; Vulg., Noemi; Old Eng. trans. Noemi]. According to Talmudists, niece of Naason, prince of the tribe of Judah, and daughter of his brother Salmon (?). Means my pleasure or delight (Wright); pleasant, gracious (Gesen.); the lovely gracious one (Lange); happiness (Josephus). Mahlon, more correctly Machlon, the husband of Ruth. Means sickness (Wright), sick (Gesen.); the weakly (Keil); consumption (M. Henry). Not so (Lange); rather derived from מָהיל (machel) “circle dance,” Greek choros, and so may mean joy. Chilion, more correctly Kilion. (Sept., Χελαίων; Josephus, Χελλιων); means pining (Keil), destruction (Wright). Not so; should be referred to כּלַל, to crown, and so means ornament (Lange). Ephrathites of Bethlehem-Judah. Some of the older Jewish teachers not inappropriately render “Ephratim” by ευγενεστατοι [high-born] (Lange). Shews these were natives of the city or district around Bethlehem, not mere residents (comp. 1 Samuel 17:12; Judges 17:7). The place honourably distinguished, and Jesus Himself called an Ephrathite of Judah in Micah 5:2. Euphrates. Ephraim (Genesis 41:52). words having a similar derivation and meaning. (See also notes on Ruth 1:1.) The Ephraimites called Ephrathites (Judges 12:5; 1 Samuel 1:1; 1 Kings 11:26) (Wright). And they came into the country [field] of Moab, and continued there [literally, were there; Old Eng., abode there]. The Targum adds, and were there as princes. The route supposed to be down the Wady Sadier to Engedi, and then round the S.E. shores of the Dead Sea, as with modern travellers. Moab not so large as Huntingdonshire, and not so far from Bethlehem as is Huntingdon from London (Cox).

Theme—MAN PROPOSING, GOD DISPOSING

“And the name of the man (was) Elimelech, … Ephrathites of,” etc.

Names give an air of truth to the narrative (Lawson). Express in a very touching manner parental hopes and faith. Of especial significance among the early Hebrews. A really good name of unspeakable service to all who are capable of feeling its aspiration (Dr. J. Hamilton). But sometimes given in vain. When contrasting with the character, a continual humiliation.

Suggests,

I. That however others may propose, the final issues of life are with God and with the man himself.

These names remarkably significant and suggestive. But in what way? Elimelech means “my God is King,” and yet some take his life as illustrating the feelings and conduct of the spiritually dead; others, of the backslider driven by momentary trials from God’s ordinances down to Moab. Note (a) the irony of a good name when men fall short of its promises. At the present day, men baptized Martin Luther by their Protestant parents are found ministering at the altar of Rome (Braden. See extracts). Naomi means pleasure, delight, happiness, and yet she comes at best to be an illustration of sanctified affliction. Possibly the names of the whole family pitched in this exultant key (see notes), and yet their experience is in sad contrast.

(b) Events as they unfold often make vain all human forecastings. Even parental love not always prophetic. The name given with many fond anticipations, perhaps with much heart searching and prayer. That is all the human can do—the rest is in the hands of God.

The local designation of these Hebrews enforces similar lessons. They were Ephrathites of Bethlehem-Judah, a title as honourable as any an Israelite could desire. And yet under stress of circumstances Bethlehem-Judah changes to Moab, Ephrathites (probably meaning “high-born”) to exiles.

II. That it is not how men are called, but how they live, and what they are, which is the important thing.

A deadly heresy to rest satisfied with the outward calling of things. The conventional Christian hearing himself termed so continually, begins possibly to lay the flattering unction to his soul that he is such. The sweet delusion grows, eats into the heart of the man. No greater offence than to deny him that title. Translate it to mean “the Christ-like,” or even the “follower of Christ,” and what then? So the conventional church member bears as lofty a name as this, “My God is King.” A member of Christ, for the Church is “HIS body.” You may explain that bond to imply “My Saviour my Head” (Ephesians 4:15), and yet how many are satisfied with the mere name! This—

A strong delusion.—The “name to live, and are dead.”

A transparent folly.—Others see through it; if not, God does.

A cruel self-deception.—Born of presumption, fostered of hypocrisy.

A crowning impiety.—Disastrous, Laodicean, deadly (Revelation 3:15).

III. That men consecrated by the loftiest associations of the past come to these strange experiences.

Elimelech, of an ancient family, born in the most honourable of birth-places, dedicated seemingly from his youth upwards. His name should have taught him faith. Had he been true to that, all would have been well, and possibly he would never have gone down to Moab.

So those born as it were inside the Church, early dedicated to God, registered among His covenant people, and yet to-day they are prodigals in the far country, Cains with the brand upon them, though with something also which speaks of the old family relationship—at best Elimelechs in Moab—God mourning over them, as over Ephraim (Hosea 6:4) the departed glory of their youth, gone like “the morning cloud and the early dew”—asking, as of Israel, “How shall I put thee among the children, give thee a pleasant land?” (Jeremiah 3:19.)

IMPROVEMENT.—Sainted memories may become sad remembrances; mementoes of a better past, reminders of a glory which has been, and is departed. Men carry something with them from the past, must carry it. Does it come in to upbraid or to bless? How was it with this name Elimelech in Moab? Might have taught faith even there. But did it?

These patriarchs and early believers types of those still found in our midst. The history of the most insignificant not without meaning. They hold the mirror to all time, though the natural man, beholding his face as in a glass, straightway forgets what manner of man he is. Elimelech going down to Moab! Is the case without a parallel in our experience? “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”

“Great birth. good means, high name and fame, save not from falling either into sin or outward misery, if a better blessing than all these be not given men from God.”—Bernard.

“How happy must that man be whose God is King! He may be driven by famine, by persecution or otherwise far from the house of his God, yet he can never be banished to any place but where God is his King.”—Macgowan.

“In the Hebrew history are discernible three periods distinctly marked, in which names and words bore very different characters, corresponding to the periods in which the nation bore the three different appellations of Hebrews, Israelites, Jews.
“In the first, names meant truths, and words were the symbols of realities. The characteristics of the names given were simplicity and sincerity.
“The second period begins about the time of the departure from Egypt, and it is characterised by unabated simplicity, with the addition of sublimer thought, and feeling more intensely religious. The heart of the nation was big with mighty and new religious truth, and the feelings with which the national heart was swelling found vent in the names which were given abundantly. God, under His name Jah, the noblest assemblage of spiritual truths yet conceived, became the adjunct to names of places and persons. Oshea’s name is changed into Je-hoshua.
“In the third period, words had lost their meaning, and shared the hollow, unreal state of all things.”—Robertson (abridged).

“The meaning in names, not always true. Absalom meant ‘father’s peace,’ but the young man broke his father’s heart. Solomon called his son Rehoboam. ‘an enlarger,’ but he reduced the kingdom instead of enlarging it.”—Braden.

“The believing Church is Christ’s Naomi, His sweet and pleasant one, and He is her Elimelech, her God the King. For her He forsook the mansions of plenty and delight—with her He sojourned in a Moabitish world. amongst enemies to God; there He died an accursed death to accomplish her salvation; there He was buried to purify the grave for her use, rose again to trample on all her enemies, and is now gone to Bethlehem, the House of Bread, to prepare a place for His Noami.”—Macgowan.

Here also we may see that it was a custom of great antiquity in the world, that men and women should have several names whereby they were called, and that for these three reasons:
I. That they might be differenced and distinguished from others.

II. That they might be stirred up to verify the meanings and significations of their names. Wherefore let every Obadiah strive to be a “servant of God,” each Nathanael to be “a gift of God,” Onesimus to be “profitable,” every Roger “quiet and peaceable,” Robert “famous for counsel,” and William “a help and defence” to many; not like Absalom, who was not a “father of peace,” as his name doth import, but a son of sedition; and Diotrephes, not “nursed by God,” as his name sounds, but puffed up by the devil, as it is 3 John 1:9.

III. That they might be incited to imitate the virtues of those worthy persons who formerly have been bearers and owners of their names. Let all Abrahams be faithful, Isaacs quiet, Jacobs prayerful, Josephs chaste; every Lewis pious, Edward confessor of the true faith, William conqueror over his own corruptions. Let them also carefully avoid those sins for which the bearers of the names stand branded to posterity. Let every Jonah beware of frowardness, Thomas of distrustfulness, Martha of worldliness, Mary of wantonness. If there be two of our names, one exceedingly good, the other notoriously evil, let us decline the vices of the one, and practise the virtues of the other. Let every Judas not follow Judas Iscariot, who betrayed our Saviour, but Judas the brother of James, the writer of the General Epistle; each Demetrius not follow him in the Acts, who made silver shrines for Diana, but Demetrius (3 John 1:12) who had a “good report of all men;” every Ignatius not imitate Ignatius Loyola the lame father of blind obedience, but Ignatius the worthy martyr in the primitive church. And if it should chance, through the indiscretion of parents and godfathers, that a bad name should be imposed on any, Oh let not “folly” be “with” them, because Nabal is their name; but in such a case let them strive to falsify, disprove, and confute their names. Otherwise, if they be good, they must answer them. In the days of Queen Elizabeth, there was a royal ship called “The Revenge,” which, having maintained a long fight against a fleet of Spaniards (wherein eight hundred great shot were discharged against her), was at last fain to yield; but no sooner were her men gone out of her, and two hundred fresh Spaniards come into her, but she suddenly sunk them and herself; and so “The Revenge” was revenged. Shall lifeless pieces of wood answer the names which men impose upon them, and shall not reasonable souls do the same? But of all names I pray God that never just occasion be given that we be christened “Ichabod,” but that the glory may remain in our Israel so long as the faithful Witness endureth in heaven.

Theme—THE SOJOURN IN MOAB

“Nos patriæ fines, et dulcia linguimus area;
Nos patriam fugimus.”—Virgil.

And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.

In weighing human actions, difficult to say what is merely an error of judgment and what an error of heart. The former slides imperceptibly into the latter. We take a false step—pride prevents our retracing it, habit comes in to perpetuate the mistake. Thus folly becomes sin and the cause of sin. Elimelech not to be severely condemned in that, driven by stress of famine, he went down to Moab. Very human this. What of his continuing there?

After all, a man must be judged by the standard of his own times. This would in some measure condemn Elimelech. [Jewish expositors do so almost unanimously.] The land given to Israel to inhabit, under special circumstances, with special promises (Deuteronomy 28). Would not the true Israelite have heard the call “to return” sounding in his ears continually? May we not say at least what was not of faith was of sin? Note. An error generally, though on the side of charity, when we impute the broad catholicity of Christianity to these early Jews. The traditions of his people, national feeling, education, all that distinguished the true Israelite, against this journey and sojourn. But he broke through all. Does not seem to have had any fear of dwelling among an idolatrous nation.

The danger subtle, unseen, often unrealized, but as often deadly. Malarias are dangerous just because they do not address themselves to any of the senses.
Notice—

I. That the present choice may influence all the after life.

A mistake to put Elimelech outside the pale of ultimate salvation. But short of this, much which is instructive.
(a) A man’s error may be foolish without being final. Seems to be so here. The first of a succession of disasters. Peter’s denial a better example. So with the disciple’s cowardice, Jonah’s fleeing to Tarshish, etc.

(b) But a tendency in one false step to lead to a second, to a continuance in folly. Peter’s first denial led to a second, to a third. Here, journeying to Moab ends in dwelling there. Elimelech went to sojourn for awhile, the same reason led him to continue. The first temptation was to go, the second would naturally be to remain. Note. Habit makes the sin of the past the “easily besetting sin.” Lot lingered in Sodom; what wonder he afterwards lingered in Zoar? (Genesis 19:16; Genesis 19:19).

II. That after a false step in life, God’s mercies are not wholly denied us.

Elimelech was protected in journeying. The Moabites seem to have received him and his family with great kindness (cf. Deuteronomy 23:3, as shewing it might have been otherwise). Good also out of what may have been evil, in the case of Ruth.

(a) Divine providences seem to descend to our human levels. Follow even into Moab. God does not forsake His children in the hour of their folly. More strange still, the wicked are provided for in the midst of their wickedness (Matthew 5:45). Households which have become careless and godless have some place of refuge opening to them in the hour of need. We fail to embrace the wise guidance offered to-day; His hand is stretched out again on the morrow. Step by step we descend lower and still lower in the way of moral rectitude; His gospel can meet us in the last hour with the offers of salvation and mercy. Note. This should give no encouragement to men in going towards Moab, but may save us from despair if we are there. The folly which sins that grace may abound possibly finds a warning in the context.

(b) Men condemn, and so think themselves justified in neglecting; it is not so with God.

After the Divine lament, “I have nourished up children, and they have rebelled against me—gone away backwards,” comes the affectionate question of a father waiting to be reconciled, “Why should ye be stricken any more?” (Isaiah 1:1.) Nay, more; He follows the terrible accusation, “Your hands are full of blood,” with the tender appeal, “Come now, let us reason together: though your sins be as scarlet,” etc. (Isaiah 1:15). No condemnation like His upon every soul that sinneth, and no compassion like His. It is this that gives point to the Divine declaration, “My ways are not your ways,” etc. (See context, Isaiah 55:8) So with Elimelech in Moab. Doubtless mercy followed while justice condemned. His piety may have been the “smoking flax” and the “bruised reed.” Rest assured it was neither “quenched” nor “broken.”

IMPROVEMENT.—To us the world offers its Moab continually. Forgetfulness of God is that far-off land (Augustine). Note. The filial spirit has died out in the breast of every prodigal before he leaves his father’s house. Distance from God is not in space, but in affections (Bede). Apostacy of the heart always goes before apostacy of the life. Is thy heart right? the important question. If not, the land of promise will sooner or later be the land of penury,—Bethlehem itself a place of weariness and want. To such, life cannot be otherwise than a sad departure from the heritage of God.

Another treatment of the same text.

Theme—THE WANDERERS

“I see that all are wanderers, gone astray.
Each in his own delusion; they are lost
In chase of fancied happiness, still woo’d,
And never won.”—Cowper.

The history of Ruth begins with a story of wanderers from God—a sad but not strange commencement (Tyng). A common story (a) in God’s Word; (b) in human experience. We, too, know of a spiritual wandering from God, from His Word, from His Spirit, from His church and sanctuary, from His gospel, from Bethlehem, where Jesus is. A wandering more sad and fatal than this in the text. Those who go out “full,” to return like the prodigal in want (Luke 15:17), in bitterness of spirit (Ruth 1:20), having lost all. Or, sadder still, who never return. Jonah a wanderer, Manasseh, Demas. Nay, all men by nature wanderers (Isaiah 53:6). The wicked are emphatically called “wandering stars” (Jude 1:13).

I. See in what this wandering begins.

(a) Led by distrust rather than by immediate want. (See previous outlines.)

(b) By sight rather than by faith. No Divine voice comes to Elimelech, “Get thee out of thy country,” as to Abraham (Genesis 12:1), or as to Joseph, “Arise,” etc. (Matthew 2:20). No pillar of fire and cloud leads, as with Israel departing from Egypt. On the other hand, no angel stops the way, as with Balaam (Numbers 22:22). No miraculous providence hinders, as with Jonah. Probably his spiritual experience feeble and meagre, his life commonplace and unheroic. The better illustration of multitudes who wander away from sanctuary privileges. The very absence of the miraculous int hese critical moments, these times of choice, when life turns to the right hand or the left, itself suggestive. How many had to walk, even in those days, with nothing supernatural, nothing out of the ordinary, to guide; only the light of conscience. But faith can always speak, and did speak. Contrast Abraham’s wandering with Elimelech’s—this seeking a country with that mentioned in Hebrews 11. Said of God’s heroes, they became strangers and pilgrims, but “by faith,” and “seeking a better country” (Hebrews 11:16). Happy wandering and even sojourning in a strange country, when men can say they are “persuaded,” etc. (ib. 13). But sad when men leave Bethlehem for Moab, go out but to sojourn for awhile, and continue there.

(c) By discontent rather than duty. A common frame of mind with men, and the secret of much of our unrest. The unstable are always dissatisfied. Clouds without water are driven to and fro with every wind, and ships without ballast liable to the violence of every tempest (Westminster Conf. of Faith). Cain’s envy made him a wanderer. (See also Outline III., Ruth 1:1, div. II.)

II. See where this wandering leads. As in the parable, the son goes to hire himself in the far country. Possibly with Elimelech, also, wandering brought want. If so, another sentence may apply, “He would fain have filled his belly—and no man gave unto him.” The peril in Moab as real, though not as apparent, as that in Bethlehem; perhaps more real. The one a famine, the other a scarcity of all those things by which men truly live. Countless avenues besides famine to the human heart (Lawson). Which was the best, bread or faith, to have abundance or to have God? (Robertson.)

Note. We need never go far to sojourn in Moab (Tyng).

III. See how this wandering ends.

Notice (a) Journeying to Moab often means continuing in Moab, dying in Moab. Not said, that the Lord was with him, as with Joseph in Egypt. If so, all would have been well. Not said, how he lived, or even how he died. His life afterwards summed up in one short sentence, “He continued there.” Whatever his state of mind and circumstances, they became fixed, permanent.

Notice (b) That for some men there is no returning in life. HE DIED THERE. How much then may depend upon the moment’s choice! this present false step from the path of duty: all time; nay more, all eternity. In every sinful life, critical moments when the wandering begins. In that moment the path is turned aside, the bias given, and for ever it may be.

IMPROVEMENT.—Are we free agents? and do we choose our own path in life? God chooses the circumstances that surround it. And He has said the way of transgressors is hard. To the sinful He says, “Behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns” (Hosea 2:6). Are we froward? He will shew Himself froward (Psalms 18:26). Do we walk contrary to Him? He will walk contrary to us (Leviticus 26:23; Leviticus 26:27). Wandering from God means strife with God—a folly, a gigantic mistake (Isaiah 45:9.)

Bernard observes on these passages—

I.

God, intending good to some in His secret counsels, may prosper that which others undertake with no good warrant. Elimelech’s misfortunes and sojourn in Moab the means of blessing Ruth. So also Jacob’s sons, in selling Joseph into Egypt, were providing a refuge for the family. Christ’s cruel death the world’s salvation.

II.

That if men live where idolaters be, it is good to avoid the occasion of infection as much as may be. Some conjecture that Elimelech went not into the cities of the Moabites, but dwelt in tents. (Translate Fields of Moab. See notes on Ruth 1:1.)

III.

That none are so churlish and unkind at one time to some, but God can incline their hearts at another time to others. These Moabites formerly hard-hearted to Israel.

IV.

That it is a praiseworthy matter to be harboursome to strangers. The barbarians commended (Acts 28:2; Acts 28:7; Acts 28:10), who received the apostle. Abraham, Lot, and Job praised for this. We are exhorted to it (Hebrews 13:2; Romans 12:20).

“What made it wrong for Elimelech to migrate to Moab, wrong according to the Old Testament standard, was that he was abandoning his place among the elect people to sojourn among heathen, whose social life, whose very worship, was unutterably licentious and degrading.… True, he is not directly blamed for his error in the book of Ruth, which is written in the most considerate and generous tone throughout; but that the writer of the book thought him to blame, and held the calamities which fell on him and his house to be a judgment on his sin, there is scarcely room to doubt.”—Cox.

“Oh these wanderings from sanctuary privileges and home delights, how lightly begun, how disastrous in the ending! There are those to-day who are flitting about like the poor dove from Noah’s ark, and finding no rest for the sole of the foot; spirits wandering self-tormented in desert places, and among the tombs, like that poor demoniac of old. And Christ’s message to such is as then, ‘Return unto thine own house, among thy kinsfolk and acquaintances, show forth what things God had done for thee.’ ”—B.

“Like wandering birds driven from their nest; like wandering stars rushing into darkness; like waves of the sea driven of the wind and tossed. Thus we wander in sin, we know not where, we know not to what. Forsaking the fountain of living water, we hew out to ourselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”—Tyng.

“To grasp at happiness is all our view;
Through different tracks her footsteps we pursue;
While each his own fallacious path approves,
As interest leads, or inclination moves;
Yet most through error lose the wished-for way:

Who sets out wrong must wander far astray.”

“For everywhere he is a Judas, with whom his worldly interest, his worldly ambition, prevail over his attachment to Christ and to Christ’s cause.”—Dr. Hanna.

“It was said of Athens, that it was ‘a good place to pass through, but a dangerous place to linger in.’ To the faithful Israelite, Moab could have been no more than this. But it is written of Elimelech, ‘He continued there.’
“As you value your souls, beware of the world: it has slain its thousands and ten thousands. What ruined Lot’s wife? the world. What ruined Achan? the world. What ruined Haman? the world. What ruined Judas? the world. What ruined Simon Magus? the world. What ruined Demas? the world. And what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”—Die, of Illustrations.

“Why should the professor of Christianity be found eagerly pursuing those trifles which even heathen have been found fleeing from? The world is rather a sharp briar to wound us, than a sweet flower to delight us.”—Secker.

“Ages have passed away; yet Moab exists in the shape of the world, its pleasures, its follies and vanities; the lust of the eye, the pride of life, the love of the world, that is Moab.”—Dr. Cumming.

“Let us not therefore abuse strangers, and make a prey of them, making an advantage of their unskilfulness in the language, and being unacquainted with the fashions of the land; like Laban that deceived his nephew Jacob in placing Leah for Rachel, and, to cloak his cheating, pleaded it was the custom of the country.”—Fuller.

“Romulus is said to have been nursed of a she-wolf; Hieron king of Syracuse, by bees; Semi-ramis, of birds; Habides, king of Tartesius, of a hind; Cyrus the Persian, of a bitch; Pelias, of a mare; Paris, of a bear.… We know how the Lord commended the strange Samaritan beyond the priest and the Levite, because he succoured the poor wounded Jew which had fallen among thieves.”—Topsell.