Page:02.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.A.vol.2.EarlyProphets.djvu/487

This page needs to be proofread.

She therefore merely fixed her mind upon the different possibilities of a Levirate marriage.^[1] בּנתי אל, “not my daughters,” i.e., do not go with me; “for it has gone much more bitterly with me than with you.” מרר relates to her mournful lot. מכּם is comparative, “before you;” not “it grieveth me much on your account,” for which עליכם would be used, as in 2Sa 1:26. Moreover, this thought would not be in harmony with the following clause: “for the hand of the Lord has gone out against me,” i.e., the Lord has sorely smitten me, namely by taking away not only my husband, but also my two sons.

Verse 14

Rth 1:14
At these dissuasive words the daughters-in-law broke out into loud weeping again (תּשּׂנה with the א dropped for תּשּׂאנה, Rth 1:9), and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, and took leave of her to return to her mother's house; but Ruth clung to her (דּבק as in Gen 2:24), forsaking her father and mother to go with Naomi into the land of Judah (vid., Rth 2:11).

Verses 15-17

Rth 1:15-17
To the repeated entreaty of Naomi that she would follow her sister-in-law and return to her people and her God, Ruth replied: “Entreat me not to leave thee, and to return away behind thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou stayest, I will stay; thy people is my people, and thy God my God! where thou diest, I will die, and there will I be buried. Jehovah do so to me, and

↑ The objections raised by J. B. Carpzov against explaining Rth 1:12 and Rth 1:13 as referring to a Levirate marriage, - namely, that this is not to be thought of, because a Levirate marriage was simply binding upon brothers of the deceased by the same father and mother, and upon brothers who were living when he died, and not upon those born afterwards-have been overthrown by Bertheau as being partly without foundation, and partly beside the mark. In the first place, the law relating to the Levirate marriage speaks only of brothers of the deceased, by which, according to the design of this institution, we must certainly think of sons by one father, but not necessarily the sons by the same mother. Secondly, the law does indeed expressly require marriage with the sister-in-law only of a brother who should be in existence when her husband died, but it does not distinctly exclude a brother born afterwards; and this is the more evident from the fact that, according to the account in Gen 38:11, this duty was binding upon brothers who were not grown up at the time, as soon as they should be old enough to marry. Lastly, Naomi merely says, in Rth 1:12, that she was not with child by her deceased husband; and when she does take into consideration, in Rth 1:12 and Rth 1:13, the possibility of a future pregnancy, she might even then be simply thinking of an alliance with some brother of her deceased husband, and therefore of sons who would legally be regarded as sons of Elimelech. When Carpzov therefore defines the meaning of her words in this manner, “I have indeed no more children to hope for, to whom I could marry you in time, and I have no command over others,” the first thought does not exhaust the meaning of the words, and the last is altogether foreign to the text.

[1] The objections raised by J. B. Carpzov against explaining Rth 1:12 and Rth 1:13 as referring to a Levirate marriage, - namely, that this is not to be thought of, because a Levirate marriage was simply binding upon brothers of the deceased by the same father and mother, and upon brothers who were living when he died, and not upon those born afterwards-have been overthrown by Bertheau as being partly without foundation, and partly beside the mark. In the first place, the law relating to the Levirate marriage speaks only of brothers of the deceased, by which, according to the design of this institution, we must certainly think of sons by one father, but not necessarily the sons by the same mother. Secondly, the law does indeed expressly require marriage with the sister-in-law only of a brother who should be in existence when her husband died, but it does not distinctly exclude a brother born afterwards; and this is the more evident from the fact that, according to the account in Gen 38:11, this duty was binding upon brothers who were not grown up at the time, as soon as they should be old enough to marry. Lastly, Naomi merely says, in Rth 1:12, that she was not with child by her deceased husband; and when she does take into consideration, in Rth 1:12 and Rth 1:13, the possibility of a future pregnancy, she might even then be simply thinking of an alliance with some brother of her deceased husband, and therefore of sons who would legally be regarded as sons of Elimelech. When Carpzov therefore defines the meaning of her words in this manner, “I have indeed no more children to hope for, to whom I could marry you in time, and I have no command over others,” the first thought does not exhaust the meaning of the words, and the last is altogether foreign to the text.

[1]