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.