testified against me, and the Almighty has participle of the Hiphilic verb 1/)iJ employed brought evil upon me 1 She went forth by Naomi is always translated in King "full," with husband and sons, not to speak James's version evil doer, or wicked doer, of goods. She was under the necessity of or evil, or wicked. Naomi, in using such e. returning in emptiness, or with empty term, and applying it to Yahveh, was walk- hands. The Hebrew word Ci?,.'1 does not ing on a theological precipice, where it is euctly mean empty, as it is rendered in the not needful that we should accompany her. Septuagint, the Vulge.te, and King James's Instead of the Ii teral expression, ' and' version. It is not an adjective, but an Yahveh, we may, with our English wealth of adverb, emptily. This lamente.b1e change conjunctions freely say, 'when ' Y ahveh. of circumstances she attributed to the action There is a charm in the original simplicity. of Ye.hveh. He had, she believed, been There is likewise a charm in the more com- testifying age.inst her by means of the trials plex structure of the free translation. through which she had passed. She was Ver. 22.-So Naomi returned. The nar- right in a certain conditional e.cceptation of rator pauses to recapitulate his narrative of her language ; but only on condition of that the return, and hence the recapit.:ilatory so condition. And, let us condition her de- is, in English, very much to be preferred to clarations as we me.y, she was probably in the merely additive and of the original. danger of making the same mistake concern- And Ruth the Moe.bitess, her daughter-in- ing herself and her trials which was made law, with her, who returned out of the land by Job's comforters in reference to the cala- of Moab. The cumulative and apparently mities by which he was overwhelmed. In redundant expression, "who returned out of so far as penal evil is concerned, it may be the land of Moab," is remarkable at once trnced directly or circuitously to the will for its simplicity and for its inexactitude. and government of God. " Shall there be Ruth, strictly speaking, had not returned, evil-that i.s, penal evil-in a city, and the but she took part in Naomi's return, And Lord hath not done it 1" (A.mos iiL 6). But they arrived in llethlehem at the co=ence- there are many sufferings that are not ment of barley-harvest. Barley ripened penal. The evil that is penal is only one before wheat, and began to be reaped some- segment of physical evil ; and then there times as early as March, but generally in is besides, metaphysical evil, or the evil that April, or Abib. By the time that the barley- consists in the inevitable imperfection of harvest was finished the wheat crop would finite being. It is noteworthy that the be ready for the sickle.
HOMILETICS. Vers. lfr.-22.-.Deuoted attachmmt. I. Ruth wa.e fixed in her desire and deter• mination to CAST IN BEB LOT WITH HER DESOLATE AND DESTITUTE MOTHER-IN· LAW. The absolute unselfishness of this determination is noteworthy, for-1. De it noted that Naomi was not one of those who are always murmuring and complain- ing because they do not receive sufficient consideration. 2. Still less did she claim as a right, or urge as a duty, that her daughter-in-law should become her companion in travel, and wait upon her as an attendant. 3. On the contrary, she was careful to put Ruth in an attitude of entire freedom, so that, if she had a secret wish to go back to her Moabitish friends, she could have gratified her desire without laying herself open to the imputation of coldness or ingratitude. 4. Ruth was tested nevertheless, as all of us in our respective relations have either already been or will be. Eve, for instance, was emphatically tested. So was Adam. Abraham too. Joseph also. Very particularly the second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, when he was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness. Judas was tested when the demon of cupidity entered into his heart. So was Peter when he stood warming himself at the fire in the court of the high priest's palace. All who are tried are tested. And all men without exception have to endure trial and trials. It was as regards the strength of her attachment to her mother-in-law that Ruth was tested. Not only did Naomi hold out no hopes of home-comfort in Judah, she expressly said, dissuasively, when Orpe.h had gone be.ck, "Behold, thy sister-in-law has gone back to her people, and to her Elohim: return thou after thy sister-in-law" (ver. 15). 5. Ruth stood the test. Not so did Eve. Not so Adam. But Abraham stood it. So Joseph. Emphatically did Jesus stand it, so that he knows how to succour those who are tempted. Judas did not stand the test. Nor at first did Peter, though afterwards he repented, and, _when reconverted, was able to strengthen his brethren. Ruth, for love to Naolll1, was THE BOOK OF RUTH. [en. 1. 15-22.