Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there. Behold, the near kinsman of whom Boaz spoke came by. Boaz said to him, “Come over here, friend, and sit down!” He came over, and sat down.
Parallel Translations
-
Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there. Behold, the near kinsman of whom Boaz spoke came by. Boaz said to him, “Come over here, friend, and sit down!” He came over, and sat down.
-
Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
-
Now Boaz went up to the gate, and sat him down there; and, behold, the near kinsman of whom Boaz spoke came by; unto whom he said: 'Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here.' And he turned aside, and sat down.
Cross-references (8)
Passages linked to Ruth 4:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Deuteronomy 25:7 If the man doesn’t want to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel. He will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.”
- Ruth 3:12 Now it is true that I am a near kinsman. However, there is a kinsman nearer than I.
- Deuteronomy 16:18 You shall make judges and officers in all your gates, which Yahweh your God gives you, according to your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.
- Deuteronomy 21:19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place.
- Job 29:7 when I went out to the city gate, when I prepared my seat in the street.
- Job 31:21 if I have lifted up my hand against the fatherless, because I saw my help in the gate,
- Amos 5:10-12 They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks blamelessly. Therefore, because you trample on the poor, and take taxes from him of wheat: You have built houses of cut stone, but you will not dwell in them. You have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many your offenses, and how great are your sins— you who afflict the just, who take a bribe, and who turn away the needy in the courts.
- Amos 5:15 Hate evil, love good, and establish justice in the courts. It may be that Yahweh, the God of Armies, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (23 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Which was the place of judgment.
Which was the place of judgment.
The Hebrews here use two words which have no proper signification, but serve to note a certain person, as we say, Ho sirrah, or ho such a one.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Rth 4:1 Then went Boaz up to the gate,…
Rth 4:1 Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
Ver. 1. Then went Boaz up to the gate.] Which was the place of judicature among the Jews; as for other reasons, so to put all that entered into the city in mind of their duty, whilst they were imminded, that
Read full note →
“ Hic locus odit, amat, punit, conservat, honorat,
Nequitiam, pacem, crimina, iura, bonos. ”
And sat him down there.] As a judge, and a principal person; for he took place. The Hebrews make him the same with Ibsan, as was forenoted.
And, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by.] Not without a guiding hand of divine providence: hence it is set forth with a behold, as with a starry note.
Unto whom he said, Ho, such a one!] Heus tu: (ω δεινα). Boaz called him by his name, doubtless, for he also was a man of quality, and sat next to Boaz above the other ten elders or senators; but the Spirit of God nameth him not, haply because he would not continue the name of his deceased kinsman upon his inheritance, but being totus in se, like the snail, that is still in his house, he loved land better than the law of his God, desiring the one, but not caring to obey the other.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain The gate; the place where controversies were decided, and…
The gate; the place where controversies were decided, and the people assembled, and where they used to go out and come in to the town; where he was most likely to find his kinsman. Ho, such a one! doubtless Boaz both knew his name, and called him by it; but it is omitted by the holy writer, partly because it was unnecessary to know it; and principally in way of contempt, as is usual, and as a just punishment upon him, that he who would not preserve his brother’s name might lose his own, and be buried in the grave of perpetual oblivion.
Sit down here, I have some business of importance with you.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Here, 1. Boaz calls a court immediately. It is…
Here, 1. Boaz calls a court immediately. It is probable he was himself one of the elders (or aldermen) of the city; for he was a mighty man of wealth. Perhaps he was father of the city, and sat chief; for he seems here to have gone up to the gate as one having authority, and not as a common person; like Job, Job 29:7, etc. We cannot suppose him less than a magistrate in his city who was grandson to Nahshon, prince of Judah; and his lying at the end of a heap of corn in the threshing-floor the night before was not at all inconsistent, in those days of plainness, with the honour of his sitting judge in the gate. But why was Boaz so hasty, why so fond of the match? Ruth was not rich, but lived upon alms; not honourable, but a poor stranger. She was never said to be beautiful; if ever she had been so, we may suppose that weeping, and travelling, and gleaning, had withered her lilies and roses. But that which made Boaz in love with her, and solicitous to expedite the affair, was that all her neighbours agreed she was a virtuous woman. This set her price with him far above rubies (Pro 31:10); and therefore he thinks, if by marrying her he might do her a real kindness, he should also do himself a very great kindness. He will therefore bring it to a conclusion immediately. It was not court-day, but he got ten men of the elders of the city to meet him in the town-hall over the gate, where public business used to be transacted, Rut 4:2. So many, it is probable, by the custom of the city, made a full court. Boaz, though a judge, would not be judge in his own cause, but desired the concurrence of other elders. Honest intentions dread not a public cognizance. 2. He summons his rival to come and hear the matter that was to be proposed to him (Rut 4:1): "Ho, such a one, sit down here." He called him by his name, no doubt, but the divine historian thought not fit to record it, for, because he refused to raise up the name of the dead, he deserved not to have his name preserved to future ages in this history. Providence favoured Boaz in ordering it so that this kinsman should come by thus opportunely, just when the matter was ready to be proposed to him. Great affairs are sometimes much furthered by small circumstances, which facilitate and expedite them. 3. He proposes to the other kinsman the redemption of Naomi's land, which, it is probable, had been mortgaged for money to buy bread with when the famine was in the land (Rut 4:3): "Naomi has a parcel of land to sell, namely, the equity of the redemption of it out of the hands of the mortgagee, which she is willing to part with;" or, as some think, it was her jointure for her life, and, wanting money, for a small matter she would sell her interest to the heir at law, who was fittest to be the purchaser. This he gives the kinsman legal notice of (Rut 4:4), that he might have the refusal of it. Whoever had it must pay for it, and Boaz might have said, "My money is as good as my kinsman's; if I have a mind to it, why may not I buy it privately, since I had the first proffer of it, and say nothing to my kinsman?" No, Boaz, though fond enough of the purchase, would not do so mean a thing as to take a bargain over another man's head that was nearer a-kin to it; and we are taught by his example to be not only just and honest, but fair and honourable, in all our dealings, and to do nothing which we are unwilling should see the light, but be above-board. 4. The kinsman seemed forward to redeem the land till he was told that, if he did that, he must marry the widow, and then he flew off. He liked the land well enough, and probably caught at that the more greedily because he hoped that the poor widow being under a necessity of selling he have so much the better bargain: "I will redeem it" (said he) "with all my heart," thinking it would be a fine addition to his estate, Rut 4:4. But Boaz told him there was a young widow in the case, and, if he have the land, he must take her with it, Terra transit cum onere - The estate passes with this incumbrance; either the divine law or the usage of the country would oblige him to it, or Naomi insisted upon it that she would not sell the land but upon this condition, Rut 4:5. Some think this does not relate to the law of marrying the brother's widow (for that seems to oblige only the children of the same father, Deu 25:5, unless by custom it was afterwards made to extend to the next of kin), but to the law of redemption of inheritances (Lev 25:24, Lev 25:25), for it is a Goel, a redeemer, that is here enquired for; and if so it was not by the law, but by Naomi's own resolution, that the purchaser was to marry the widow. However it was, this kinsman, when he heard the conditions of the bargain, refused it (Rut 4:6): "I cannot redeem it for myself. I will not meddle with it upon these terms, lest I mar my own inheritance." The land, he thought, would be an improvement of his inheritance, but not the land with the woman; that would mar it. Perhaps he thought it would be a disparagement to him to marry such a poor widow that had come from a strange country, and almost lived upon alms. He fancied it would be a blemish to his family, it would mar his blood, and disgrace his posterity. Her eminent virtues were not sufficient in his eye to counterbalance this. The Chaldee paraphrase makes his reason for this refusal to be that he had another wife, and, if he should take Ruth, it might occasion strife and contention in his family, which would mar the comfort of his inheritance. Or he thought she might bring him a great many children, and they would all expect shares out of his estate, which would scatter it into too many hands, so that the family would make the less figure. This makes many shy of the great redemption: they are not willing to espouse religion. They have heard well of it, and have nothing to say against it; they will give it their good word, but at the same time they will give their good word with it; they are willing to part with it, and cannot be bound to it, for fear of marring their own inheritance in this world. Heaven they could be glad of, but holiness they can dispense with; it will not agree with the lusts they have already espoused, and therefore, let who will purchase heaven at that rate, they cannot. 5. The right of redemption is fairly resigned to Boaz. If this nameless kinsman lost a good bargain, a good estate, and a good wife too, he may thank himself for not considering it better, and Boaz will thank him for making his way clear to that which he valued and desired above any thing. In those ancient times it was not the usage to pass estates by writings, as afterwards (Jer 32:10, etc.), but by some sign or ceremony, as with us by livery and seisin, as we commonly call it, that is, the delivery of seisin, seisin of a house by giving the key, of land by giving turf and a twig. The ceremony here used was, he that surrendered plucked off his shoe (the Chaldee says it was the glove of his right hand) and gave it to him to whom he made the surrender, intimating thereby that, whatever right he had to tread or go upon the land, he conveyed and transferred it, upon a valuable consideration, to the purchaser: this was a testimony in Israel, Rut 4:7. And it was done in this case, Rut 4:8. If this kinsman had been bound by the law to marry Ruth, and his refusal had been a contempt of that law, Ruth must have plucked off his shoe and spit in his face, Deu 25:9. But, though his relation should in some measure oblige him to the duty, yet the distance of his relation might serve to excuse him from the penalty, or Ruth might very well dispense with it, since his refusal was all she desired from him. But bishop Patrick, and the best interpreters, think this had no relation to that law, and that the drawing off of the shoe was not any disgrace as there, but a confirmation of the surrender, and an evidence that it was not fraudulently nor surreptitiously obtained. Note, Fair and open dealing in all matters of contract and commerce is what all those must make conscience of that would approve themselves Israelites indeed, without guile. How much more honourably and honestly does Boaz come by this purchase than if he had secretly undermined his kinsman, and privately struck up a bargain with Naomi, unknown to him. Honesty will be found the best policy.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain Then went Boaz up to the gate,.... In the…
Then went Boaz up to the gate,.... In the middle of the day, as Josephus (d) says, to the gate of the city, where people were continually passing and repassing to and from the country, and where he was most likely to meet with the person he wanted to see and converse with, and where courts of judicature were usually held, and where it was proper to call one to determine the affair he had in hand; so the Targum,"and Boaz went up to the gate of the house of judgment of the sanhedrim:''
and set him down there; waiting for the person or persons passing by, with whom be chose to speak:
Read full note →
and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; the kinsman that was nearer than he, of whom he had spoke to Ruth, that if he would not redeem her, he would; a "behold" is prefixed to this, to observe the providence of God that ordered it so, that he should come that way just at the time Boaz was sitting there, and waiting for him; who perhaps was going into his field to look after his threshers and winnowers, as Boaz had been:
unto whom he said, ho, such an one; calling him by his name, though it is not expressed; which the writer of this history might not know, or, if he did, thought it not material to give it, some have been of opinion that it is purposely concealed, as a just retaliation to him, that as he chose not to raise up seed to his kinsman, to perpetuate his name, so his own is buried in oblivion; though it might be done in his favour, that his name might not be known, and lie under disgrace, for refusing to act the part he ought according to the law to have done; hence the plucking off the shoe, and spitting in his face, were done to such an one by way of contempt and reproach. The words are "peloni almoni", words used by the Hebrews of persons and places, whose names they either could not, or did not choose to mention, which two words are contracted into "palmoni" in Dan 8:13. The name of this man was "Tob" or "Tobias", according to some Jewish writers; see Gill on Rut 3:13, to him Boaz said,
turn aside, and sit down here; and he turned aside, and sat down; instead of going right forward, as he intended, about his business, he turned on one side as he was desired, and sat down by Boaz.
(d) Antiqu. l. 5. c. 9. sect. 4.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain The next kinsman refuses to marry Ruth, ver. 1-8.…
The next kinsman refuses to marry Ruth, ver. 1-8. Boaz marries her, ver. 9-12. Their issue, ver. 13-22.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Boaz gathers a council of the elders at the…
CHAPTER IV
Boaz gathers a council of the elders at the city gates, states
Read full note →
the case, and proposes to the nearest kinsman to redeem the
inheritance of Elimelech, and take Ruth to wife, 1-5.
The kinsman refuses, and relinquishes has right to Boaz, 6.
The manner of redemption in such cases, 7, 8.
Boaz redeems the inheritance in the presence of the elders, and
of the people, who witness the contract, and pray for God's
blessing upon the marriage, 9-12.
Boaz takes Ruth for wife, and she bears a son, 13.
The people's observations on the birth of the child, 14, 15.
It is given to Naomi to nurse, 16.
The neighbouring women name the child, and the book concludes
with the genealogy of David, 17-22.
NOTES ON CHAP. IV
Verse 1. Then went Boaz up to the gate] We have often had occasion to remark that the gate or entrance to any city or town was the place where the court of justice was ordinarily kept. For an account of the officers in such places, See Clarke on De 16:18.
Ho, such a one! - sit down here.] This familiar mode of compellation is first used here. The original is שבה פה פלני אלמני shebah poh, peloni almoni! "Hark ye, Mr. Such-a-one of such a place! come and sit down here." This is used when the person of the individual is known, and his name and residence unknown. אלמני almoni comes from אלם alam, to be silent or hidden, hence the Septuagint render it by κρυφε thou unknown person: פלני peloni comes from פלה palah, to sever or distinguish; you of such a particular place. Modes of compellation of this kind are common in all languages.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Rth 4:1. Then went Boaz up to the gate…
Rth 4:1. Then went Boaz up to the gate — Where the elders sat. The Chaldee interprets it, “He went up to the gate of the house of judgment, where the Sanhedrim sat.” Behold, the kinsman came by — Providence so ordering it that he should come by thus opportunely when the matter was ready to be proposed to him. Great affairs are frequently much furthered and expedited by small circumstances.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain The gate is the place of concourse, of business,…
The gate is the place of concourse, of business, and of justice in Oriental cities (see Jdg 19:15 note; Gen 34:20; Deu 16:18).
Ho, such a one! - Indicating that the name of the kinsman was either unknown or purposely concealed 1Sa 21:2; 2Ki 6:8.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Gate, where justice was administered. --- Calling. Hebrew Ploni…
Gate, where justice was administered. --- Calling. Hebrew Ploni Almoni. (Calmet) --- Protestant, " Ho! such a one." (Haydock) --- This form of speech is used concerning a person whose name we know not, or will not mention, 1 Kings xxi. 2. (Calmet) --- The name of this man is buried in eternal oblivion, perhaps because he was so much concerned about the splendour of his family, that he would not marry the widow of his deceased relation. (Tirinus)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain The Israelite without Guile
CHAPTER FOURTH
Rth_4:1-12
Read full note →
The Israelite without Guile
1Then went Boaz [And Boaz went] up to the gate, and sat him down there: and behold, the kinsman [redeemer] of whom Boaz spake1 came [passed] by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down. 2And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down. 3And he said unto the kinsman [redeemer], Naomi, that is come again out of the country [territory] of Moab, selleth [sold] a parcel of land 4[the field-portion], which was our brother Elimelech’s: And I thought to advertise thee [determined to inform thee 2], saying, Buy it before the inhabitants [the sitters, i.e. those present3], and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it; but if thou4 wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it besides thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. 5Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest5 the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy [thou buyest] it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. 6And the kinsman [redeemer] said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar [injure] mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right [my redemption, i.e. that which it is my right or duty to redeem] to thyself; for I 7cannot redeem it. Now this was the manner [custom] in former time in Israel concerning [in cases of] redeeming and concerning [in cases of ex-] changing, for to confirm all things [every matter]; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his 8neighbour: and this was a [omit: a] testimony6 in Israel. Therefore [And] the kinsman [redeemer] said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So [And] he drew off his shoe. 9And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and 10Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi. Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased [acquired]7 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. 11And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The Lord [Jehovah] make the woman that is come [that cometh] into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily [lit. make thou 12strength] in Ephratah and be famous [and get a name] in Beth-lehem: And let thine house be like the house of Pharez [Perets, Perez], whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord [Jehovah] shall give thee of this young woman.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
[1 Rth_4:1.—Sc. “to Ruth,” Rth_3:12. אֲשֶׁר is the accus. after דִּבֶּר־, cf. Gen_19:21; Gen_23:16.—On the forms סוּרָה and שְׁבָה, cf. Ges. 48, 5; 72, Rem. 3; 69, 3, 2; on וַיָּסַר, 72, Rem. 4.—Tr.]
[2 Rth_4:4.—Lit. “And I said, I will uncover thine ear,” i. e. I determined to inform thee. אָמַרְתִּי, is the same in sense as the fuller אָמַרְתִּי בְלִבִּי, Gen_17:17, etc., cf. Exo_2:14, etc. It might be supposed to refer to what Boaz said to Ruth, Rth_3:12 f.; but as Ruth is not spoken of until the next verse, this is less likely. The expression “to uncover the ear,” originated in the practice of removing the hair that hangs over the ear, for the purpose of whispering a secret to a person. In general it means to communicate anything confidentially, but is here used in the wider sense of imparting information. The suffix of the second per. in *אָזְכְךָ is perhaps best explained by regarding the whole clause after אָמַרְתִּי as mentally uttered by Boaz, while considering how to proceed in the matter of Ruth. In this consideration, the nearer kinsman was present to his mind, and to him he addressed the conclusion, which he now only rehearses, “I will inform thee,” etc.—Tr.]
[3 Rth_4:4.—So Dr. Cassel. Keil: “Many translate הַיּשְׁבִים by ‘inhabitants,’ sc. those of Bethlehem. But although according to Rth_4:9, a goodly number of the people, besides the elders, were present, this can scarcely be conceived to have been the case with the inhabitants of Bethlehem generally, so as to meet the requirement of גֶנֶד. Nor would the inhabitants have been named before, but as in Rth_4:9, after, the elders as principal witnesses [but cf. Rth_4:11]. For these reasons יָשַׁב is to be taken in the sense ‘to sit,’ and הַיּשְׁבִים is to be understood of the same persons who form the subject of ויֵּשׁבוּ in Rth_4:2, the elders. The following וְנֶבֶד זִקני is to be taken explicatively: before those who sit here, even before the elders of my people.”—Tr.]
[4 Rth_4:4.—The Text. Recept. reads יִגְאַל, third per., concerning which Keil remarks, that “it strikes one as singular, since one expects the second person, תִּגְאַל, which is not only read by the LXX., but also by a number of MSS., and seems to be required by the context. It is true, the common reading may (with Sebastian Schmidt, Carpzov, and others) be defended, by assuming that in uttering this word Boaz turned to the elders, and so spoke of the redeemer as of a third person: ‘if he, the redeemer here, will not redeem;’ but as this is immediately followed by a resumption of the direct address, this supposition—to our mind at least—seems very artificial.”—The substitution by the Keri of וְאֵדְעָה for וְאֵדָע is not necessary, cf. Ges. 127, 3 b.—Tr.]
[5 Rth_4:5.—קכיתי. Keil: “According to sense and connection, this form must be the second per. masc.; the י at the end was either added by a slip of the pen, or it arose from an original ו, so that we must read either קְנִיתָ (with the Keri) without an accusative, or, with an accusative, קְנִיתוֹ, ‘thou buyest it.’ ”—Tr.]
[6 Rth_4:7.—תְּעוּדָה. Gesenius and Fürst define this word here as “custom having the force of law,” “attested usage.” Dr. Cassel’s rendering, Weissthum, is probably intended to convey the same idea (cf. Hoffmann’s Wörterb.). But it seems better to take the word here in its proper sense of “attestation,” as in E. V. So the ancient versions, Bertheau, Keil, etc. Cf. the root עוּד.—Tr.]
[7 Rth_4:10.—The Heb. קָכָה is less specific than our word “purchase.” It means to obtain, to acquire; which may be done in a variety of ways. The rendering “purchased” is unfortunate in this particular case, as it tends to convey the erroneous idea that Ruth was treated as a chattel, or at least as a sort of adscripta glebœ. The same word is used also in Rth_4:4-5; Rth_4:9, where there is no particular objection to represent it in English by “buy,” although “acquire” would be preferable for the sake of uniformity.—Tr.]
EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL
Rth_4:1. And Boaz went up to the gate, and seated himself there. Very early, even before Ruth with her burden of barley had yet started for home (Rth_3:15), Boaz, energetic in deed as he was kind in word, took the way to Bethlehem. It was necessary to set out so early, in order to be sure of reaching the gate before the person with whom he wished to speak, and who like himself was probably in the habit of coming to the city from the country. The gate, it is well known, was the place where judicial business was transacted and markets were held (Deu_21:19 ff.; cf. Psa_127:5). This is still the case in the East. In Zec_8:16, the prophet says: “Judge truth and the judgment of peace in your gates;” on which Jerome (ed. Migne, vi. p. 1474) remarks: “It is asked, why among the Jews the gate was the place for administering justice. The judges sat in the gates that the country-people might not be compelled to enter the cities and suffer detriment. Sitting there, they could hear the townsmen and country-people as they left or entered the city; and each man, his business finished, could return at once to his own house.” At the gate was the proper forum; and it is certainly more satisfactory than all other explanations of the Latin word, to derive it, notwithstanding the later central situation of the place to which it was applied, from the archaic fora, gate, whence foras, cf. biforis, septiforis.
Certain Some-one, come and seat thyself. We have here the whole course of an ancient legal procedure before us, with its usages and forms. The fact that Boaz sat at the gate, plainly declared that he sought a judicial decision. When the person for whom he waited made his appearance, he made no delay to seat himself as requested, for the language addressed to him was a formal judicial summons. His name is not mentioned. Peloni almoni is a formula like our German N. N. [used as in English we now generally use a simple—or “blank.”—Tr.] In former times, it was customary among us, in legal documents, to use in the same way names that were very common, such as Hans, etc. (cf. my Erf. Bilder u. Bräuche, p. 29). The underlying idea of Peloni almoni is a different one from that of δεῖνα (cf. Mat_26:18) or quidam. It intimates that the name is unknown and hidden. It conveys the idea of anonymus, in every sense of the word. There is an ancient explanation to the effect that the name of the first goel is not given, because he was unwilling to raise up a name for his deceased relative. This is the reason, probably, why the LXX. here have κρύφιε, “hidden one.” Without maintaining this, but even supposing that the narrator omitted the name merely because he did not know it, it remains none the less an instructive fact that he who was so anxious for the preservation of his own inheritance, is now not even known by name.
Rth_4:2. He took ten men of the elders of the city. That the number of elders in any city was not necessarily limited to ten, may be inferred from Jdg_8:14; but ten were sufficient to form a college of witnesses. In post-biblical times it was a maxim that an assembly for religious worship (עֵדָה, “congregation”), must consist of ten persons (cf. the Jerus. Targum on Exo_12:4); but the attempt of the Mishna (Sanhedrin, 1:6) to ground this biblically on the supposed fact that the ten faithless spies are spoken of as a congregation (Num_14:27), can hardly be deemed satisfactory. The custom, however, of selecting exactly ten men for such service as was here required, was so old and well-established among the Jews, that the term מִנְיָן, “number,” by itself, meant ten persons. Others, it is true, as we learn further on, had assembled about the two relatives; but the ten elders formed, so to speak, the necessary official witnesses.
Rth_4:3. The inheritance of our brother8 Elimelech, Naomi has sold. The expositors, with one consent, demand by what right Naomi could sell the inheritance of Elimelech, since the Mosaic law contains nothing to indicate that it considered the widow as the rightful heir of her deceased husband. But this view of the law is incorrect.9 The whole system of leviratical marriage presupposes that the title of the deceased husband’s property vests in the widow. When a man dies childless, leaving a widow, the brother of the deceased is to marry her, in order “that the first-born may enter upon the name of the dead,” i.e. that the name of the dead may continue to be connected with the inheritance which he has left behind, for in no other sense can the expression “to raise up the name of one” have any meaning in Israel; and, accordingly, in Rth_4:5 the words of the law, “to raise up the name of the dead,” are supplemented by the addition, “upon his inheritance.” But in case the brother-in-law refused to marry the widow, and consequently refused to raise up the name of his brother, he thereby also gave up all right to enter on the inheritance of his brother. The duty and the right were indissolubly connected. The law would have been illusory, if the brother, notwithstanding his refusal to marry the widow, had obtained the inheritance. In that case, possession remained with the widow, who, albeit childless, carried within herself, so to speak, the embryonic right of the heir. Of the symbolical act of drawing off the shoe, we shall speak farther on. But it is to be noted here that when the widow drew off the shoe of the recusant brother-in-law, she thereby declared that he must withdraw his foot from the possessions of his brother.
Naomi was a widow. But although she herself says (Rth_1:12) that she is too old to become a wife, even this fact gives no right to her property to any blood-relative, without marriage. Undoubtedly, the name of her husband would vanish from his estate as soon as she died; but until then it remained upon it, and Naomi had the same right and power to dispose of the property as the law gave to the husband himself. Now, in Lev_25:25, we read: “If thy brother become impoverished and sell his possession, let his nearest blood-relative (גֹאֲלוֹ הַקָּרֹב) come to him, and redeem that which his brother sold.” This contingency was here actually come to pass. Naomi had become impoverished,—she had sold. The name of Elimelech was still on the property: consequently the law demanded its redemption, and directed this demand to the nearest blood-relative. It is on the basis of this prescription, that Boaz begins his negotiation with the unnamed kinsman, in the interest of Naomi.
The sale of the land had hitherto not been mentioned. Nothing was said about it in the conversation between Ruth and Boaz on the threshing-floor. The fact that Boaz knew of it, confirms the surmise that before Ruth came to him with her great request, he and Naomi had already had some communication with each other. These communications, having reference to the sale of the land, and the necessity of its redemption according to law, may be regarded as having ultimately led to the proposition made by Naomi in Rth_3:1. Naomi advanced from the redemption of the land to that of the widow, just as Boaz does here in his negotiation with the nearer kinsman.
Rth_4:4. Buy it before these who sit here, and before the elders of my people. Boaz had said to Ruth, that he would ask the nearest kinsman whether he “will redeem thee; and if not, then will I redeem thee.” But this is not the way in which he opens his address to the man. He does not mention the name of Ruth at first. He desires of him apparently only the redemption of the land. This testifies to the uncommon delicacy of legal proceedings at that time, as conducted by pious and believing persons. The cause is entirely saved from appearing as if Boaz had begun it only in behalf of the woman. Nor does Boaz put the nearer kinsman under any constraint; for he says at once: “If thou wilt not redeem it, then will I, for I come next.” He admonishes the other of the duty imposed on him by the law, by the recognition of his own; while, on the other hand, he facilitates the other’s decision, by intimating his readiness to render the service demanded, if the other should prefer to be excused. He says nothing of Ruth’s connection with the matter. He leaves it to the kinsman himself to take the open and generally known relations between Naomi and Ruth into consideration, and to shape his answer accordingly. His address is gentle, noble, and discreet. It brings no complaint that the kinsman as nearest relative has not troubled himself about the matter in hand. It asks nothing of the other, that he is not willing to do himself. It is sufficiently discreet to wait and see how far the other will limit his duty. And withal, the interest and decision with which he urges the matter to a conclusion, make the transaction a forcible example to the people, teaching them to make the law a living spirit, and openly to acknowledge the duties which it imposes.
And he said, I will redeem. The kinsman, therefore, acknowledges the right of Naomi to sell, and also his own duty to redeem. But he thinks only of the land. He answers the question of Boaz only according to the literal import of its terms. By saying, “I will redeem,” he declares his readiness to buy back the land left by Elimelech, but his words do not indicate whether he is conscious of the further duties therewith connected. Boaz may have expected that he would make further inquiry concerning them; but as he did not do this, Boaz could not rest contented with the brief reply, “I will redeem,” seeing that he was chiefly solicitous about the future of Ruth, and that the duty to redeem not only the land but also the widow must be expressly acknowledged before all who were present. Hence he says farther:
Rth_4:5. In the day that thou buyest the field of Naomi, thou buyest it also of Ruth the Moabitess, …. to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. With these words, the law of entailment as recognized in Israel, becomes perfectly clear. Elimelech had left sons, who, had they lived, would have been the proper heirs. But they died. Now, if Ruth had not come from Moab with Naomi, Naomi would have been the sole possessor of the land. Having no means to cultivate it, she could hare sold it and the blood-relative could have bought it back without taking upon himself levirate duties, since her age rendered it improbable that they would answer the purpose for which they were instituted. But Ruth did come; and having entered into the Israelitish community, she also possesses Israelitish rights. She is, consequently, the heiress of Mahlon; and no one can redeem her inheritance, without at the same time providing for the continuance of the name of the dead. In her case, considerations like those which applied to Naomi, have no existence. Her husband Mahlon, whether he were the younger or the older brother, was an heir. Since Orpah remained in Moab, the claims of Chilion as heir, were also transferred to the estate of his brother. Separate possessions of their own, the sons of Elimelech probably had not, as long as they lived in Israel. Consequently, the land was the joint possession of Naomi and Ruth. And just because Ruth was part proprietress, the obligation existed not to let the names of Elimelech and Mahlon perish. The inheritance alone could not, therefore, be redeemed, as the anonymous relative proposed to do.
Rth_4:6. . And the redeemer said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I injure mine own inheritance. Thus far the kinsman has accurately acknowledged his duty as prescribed by the Mosaic law. He is ready to redeem the land. Nor does he challenge the right of Ruth, as wife of the deceased Mahlon. Why then does he think that the performance of levirate duty to her will damage his own inheritance? For although accepted even by the most recent expositors, the idea that he is influenced by the thought that the land which he is to buy with his own money will one day belong not to himself, but to his son by Ruth, has no great probability. There is something forced in an exegesis that makes a father regard it as a personal detriment and injury when his own son enters upon an inheritance. Nor could the kinsman justify himself with a ground so external, before the assembly present. No; as he has hitherto not failed to honor the requirements of the law, it is to be assumed that he deems his present refusal also to be not in contravention of its provisions. Boaz here expressly speaks of Ruth as the “Moabitess.” It must be her Moabitish nationality that forms the ground, such as it is, of the kinsman’s refusal. Elimelech’s misfortunes had been popularly ascribed to his emigration to Moab; the death of Chilion and Mahlon to their marriage with Moabitish women. This it was that had endangered their inheritance. The goel fears a similar fate.10 He thinks that he ought not to take into his house a woman, marriage with whom has already been visited with the extinguishment of a family in Israel. To him, the law against intermarriage with Moabites, does not appear to be suspended in favor of Ruth. He is unwilling to endanger his own family and inheritance; and as Ruth is a Moabitess, he holds it possible to decline what in any other case he would deem an imperative duty.
The man appears to be superstitious, and devoted to the letter of the law. He sees only its formal decisions, not the love that animates it. He fears; but love knows no fear. From anxious regard to the lower, he overlooks the higher duty. He thinks of Moab; whereas Ruth has taken refuge under the wings of the God of Israel. He does not comprehend the difference of the conditions under which Mahlon once married her, and those under which he is now called upon to act toward her. He knows not how to distinguish times and spirits. The legal severity which he would bring to bear on the noble woman, recoils on himself. He is unwilling to endanger his name and inheritance, and—history does not even know his name. While the guilt of Elimelech and his sons is removed through the love of Ruth, so that their name survives, his lovelessness toward Ruth is visited by namelessness.11 What a priceless lesson is hereby taught! What an honor does it award to love, and what a punishment does it hold out to the superstitious Pharisee!
Rth_4:7 f. Formerly,12 in cases of redemption and exchange, a man pulled off his shoe and gave it to the other. The symbolism of the shoe, as it existed in Israel and among other nations, has been so wretchedly misunderstood and perverted, especially in the books of a man whose distorted and dishonest compilations will be injurious to many (Nork’s Mythol. der Volkssagen, p. 459, etc.), that it will be worth the trouble to explain it, at least in outline.
The shoe is the symbol, first, of motion and wandering; secondly, of rest and possession. The following may serve to illustrate the first of these significations: When Israel is directed to eat the Passover in a state of readiness for instant departure, among other specific injunctions, is this: “your shoes on your feet” (Exo_12:11). With reference to the wanderings through the desert, it is said: “thy shoe did not grow old” (Deu_29:4 (5)), etc.13 The wanderings of the gods form a singular feature of the old heathenism, in its search after God. The fact of their passage was often supposed to be attested by the footprints they left behind; but in Chemmis in Egypt, a blessing ensued (as Herodotus tells us, ii. 91) whenever the gigantic shoe of Perseus was seen. It was not the shoe, but the god, who brought the blessing. Heathendom, especially Germanic heathendom, continued to search and wander even after death. The dead, when buried, were provided with an helskô, or shoe, for the journey they had to make (Grimm, Myth. 795). Even until comparatively recent times, there were popular legends concerning deceased persons who lament that they received no shoe (Stöber, Elassische Sagen, p. 34). In certain districts, any last token of respect shown the dead is, perhaps to this very day, called “the dead-man’s shoe.” The sorrowful idea expressed in the practice was that the dead must be helped on in his last journey. Simrock’s explanation concerning good works is entirely erroneous (Myth. 154). The passage of Pope Gregory on Exo_12:11, means something altogether different. Gregory intends there to refer to the example of pious persons who have gone before. The Christian Church opposed, rather than favored, the heathen usage.
Of cognate and yet very different signification are certain passages of the Talmud and the Midrash (Jerus. Talmud, Kelajim, § 9, p. 23, b; Midrash Rabba, § 100, p. 88 a), where the aged teacher desires that when he is buried sandals may be fastened to his feet, in order that he may be able to follow after the Messiah as soon as He comes.
Luther gave utterance to the saying: “Tie a pair of sandals to his door, and let them be called ‘Surge et ambula.’ ” Hence also the still current popular superstition of throwing the shoe on New Year’s day, the alighting of which with its toe pointing outward, is considered to be indicative of departure (cf. my Weihnachten, p. 273).
The shoe was the symbol, secondly, of rest and possession. With the shoe one trod the earth, whence on holy ground it must be pulled off; over it, one had complete control, and hence it symbolized the power of the possessor over his possession. In the Psalms (60:10 (8); 108:10 (9)), God casts his shoe over Edom. Rosenmuller (Morgenland, n. 483) has already directed attention to the practice of the Abyssinian Emperor, who throws his shoe over that which he desires to have. That which in ecclesiastical architecture is called Marienschuh14 points to nothing else than the dominion ascribed by the mediæval church to the mother of God. The custom of kissing the pope’s slipper, likewise refers to his dominion. The idea of the old Scandinavian legend, according to which, at the last day the wolf finally submits to Widar, who sets his shoe upon him, is that of the victory of the new earth over the old wicked enemy.
The shoe symbolized a possession which one actually had, and could tread with his feet, at pleasure. Whoever entered into this possession conjointly with another, put his foot into the same shoe, as in old German law was done by an adopted child and the wife (Grimm, Rechtsalterth. p. 155). Hence, when in our passage the goel pulled off his shoe and gave it to Boaz, he therewith surrendered to him all claims to the right of possession which would have been his had he fulfilled its conditions. Nor has that use of the shoe, of which the law speaks, in connection with the leviratical institute, any different meaning. The widow, whose brother-in-law refuses to marry her, is authorized to pull off his shoe, and to spit in his face. His house, hence-forth, is “the house of him that hath had his shoe pulled off.” Had he performed his duty, he would have set his shoe upon the inheritance of his brother (including wife and estate) as his own. But having contemned this, he undergoes the shame of having his shoe drawn off by the widow. The shame of this consisted in the fact that he must submit to it at the hands of the woman. A man might pull off his own shoe, and hand it to another, without suffering degradation. This was done in every instance of exchange. It was but the exercise of his manly right. But when the shoe was taken from him, he was, as it were, declared destitute of every capacity and right toward the widow symbolized by the shoe, and in this consisted the disgrace.
Now, although in our passage, strictly speaking, a similar case to that contemplated by the law in Deu_25:7 ff. occurs—for the kinsman refuses to marry Ruth—yet the ceremony of the kinsman’s delivering his shoe to Boaz was significant only of his simple, voluntary renunciation of his rights. On the one hand, Ruth was not his sister-in-law; and although custom, in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic law, acknowledged the duty even in cases of more distant relationship, the letter of the law did not reach him. On the other hand,—and this was undoubtedly a point of real weight,—his refusal to marry Ruth was itself based on regard for the law, albeit narrow and unspiritual; for from his readiness to redeem the land, it is but fair to infer that he would have been equally ready to do his duty by her, had she been an Israelitess. Inasmuch, therefore, as he thinks it possible to separate the redemption of the land from that of the woman, he comes off more honorably than would under ordinary circumstances have been the case. His language refers explicitly only to the estate, which had the effect of lessening the dishonor done to Ruth, especially as Boaz declares himself ready to take his place. Finally, according to Rth_3:18, Ruth was not present at the negotiation, the representation of Josephus to the contrary notwithstanding.15
Rth_4:9 f. And Boaz said, Ye are witnesses this day that I have acquired (do acquire), etc. The kinsman having drawn off his shoe, in token of his renunciation of his rights as nearest goel, Boaz arose, and declared, fully and formally, that he acquires everything that belonged to Elimelech, and (as is now expressed at full length) everything that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. He acquires it from Naomi; but as he cannot acquire it without also marrying the wife of Mahlon, as Ruth is here for the first time called,—for which reason he made special mention of the possession of the sons,—he adds that he takes her “to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, in order that his name be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place.” In these words, he thoroughly, albeit indirectly, refuted the motive by which the anonymous kinsman was actuated in his refusal. When the name of a brother is to be rescued from oblivion among his own people, all scruples vanish. The fulfillment of a duty so pious, lifts a man up beyond the reach of fear. Boaz apprehends no damage to his own inheritance; but hopes rather, while taking Ruth under his wings, to repair the evil which the migration to Moab has inflicted upon the house of Elimelech. This pious magnanimity, this humble acceptance of duty, this readiness to act where the nearer kinsman hesitates, and this true insight of faith, which looked not at the birthplace of Ruth, but at what she had done for Israel and now was in Israel, and thus dissolved all superstitious fear in the divine wisdom of love, win for him also the approbation of all present. The public voice spoke well of Ruth; all knew how loving, virtuous, and self-sacrificing she was (cf. Rth_2:11; Rth_3:11). Hence, not only the elders who had been summoned as witnesses, but also all the people, unitedly invoked the blessing of God upon him.
Rth_4:11. Jehovah make the woman that cometh into thy house, like Rachel and Leah which two did build the house of Israel. From Rachel and Leah came the tribes of Israel. As these built the house of Jacob, so, say the people may Ruth build thy house. The extent of the general delight, may be measured by the fact that it wishes for Ruth the Moabitess a blessing equal to that of the wives of Jacob who were Israelitesses. The Jewish expositors point out that Rachel stands before Leah, although younger and less blessed with children, and although the tribe of Judah, and Bethlehem with it, descended from Leah. It is probable that the whole sentence was already at that time, the usual formula of blessing in Israelitish marriages. However that may be, the traditions of Israel made Rachel more prominent than Leah. Rachel was Jacob’s first and best beloved Rachel took away her father’s idol images. As she suffered many sorrows up to her death, so the prophet represents her as weeping bitterly after death for her children (Jer_31:15; Mat_2:18). It was Rachel, too, who after she had been long unfruitful, as Ruth in Moab, had brought forth most of those sons in whom Jacob was most highly blessed. But the people desire not merely that many children may adorn her house; they proceed: עֲשֵׂה חַיִל, may she make, produce, strength, ability, heroism.16 They wish that sons may be born, who, like Boaz, shall be heroes of strength (cf. Rth_2:1), so that “great names” may proceed out of Bethlehem.17 The blessing was most abundantly fulfilled.
Rth_4:12. And be thy house like the house of Perez. After the general comes the special wish, which in this instance is of peculiar importance. Boaz was descended from Perez, and Perez was the son of Tamar. Now, although the history of Tamar (Genesis 38) is not as pure as that of Ruth, it yet contained features which might have served as precedents to Boaz. Tamar’s first two husbands had died on account of their sins, and Judah, their father, would not give her the third, “lest he also die as his brethren.” This was the same motive as that which must have influenced the nearer kinsman. The very fact that he had this history before him, confirms the conclusion we have already reached concerning the grounds of his refusal. Tamar suffered injustice, her right being withheld from her. The same thing happened to Ruth. No one thought of her rights, until she laid claim to them. Tamar did the same, albeit not in the pure and graceful manner adopted by Ruth. Nevertheless, Judah, when he found himself outwitted by her, said: “She is more righteous than I,” thus acknowledging his injustice. Boaz had not been guilty of any such injustice; but he felt it his duty, in behalf of the members of his family, to see that that which had hitherto been neglected was neglected no longer. His proceeding involved an admission that Ruth had not received what was her rightful due in Israel. The confession of injustice draws after it a blessing; especially here in the case of Boaz, whose kind and noble conduct is beyond all praise.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
“Ye are witnesses this day that I take Ruth the Moabitess to be my wife.” What a noble pair confront each other in the persons of Ruth and Boaz! They are types for all times of the mutual relations of man and woman. The remark of Pascal, that the Old Testament contains the images of future joy, is here especially applicable. Ruth acts to the utmost of her power out of love: Boaz is a man of unfeigned faith. Ruth takes voluntary duties upon herself from love to Naomi: Boaz meets these duties in the spirit of obedience to the commands of God. Ruth, moved by love, dares to risk the delicate reserve of woman; and Boaz offsets her deed by a delicacy of faith which would comply, if it were but to avoid wounding, and gives all, in order to satisfy. He promises everything, if only he may relieve Ruth from fear. Ruth followed into poverty from love; and Boaz, though rich, regards only the duty prescribed by faith. Ruth was ignorant of the prejudices that stood in her way; Boaz knew and overcame them. Ruth thought she had a right to claim; Boaz was under no obligation, and yet acted. The nearest redeemer retreated, most probably because Ruth was a Moabitess; Boaz. says, “Ye are witnesses that I take the Moabitess to wife.” An ancient church-father says: “Boaz, in accordance with the merito-riousness of his faith received Ruth for his wife, in order that from so sanctified a marriage a royal race might be born. For Boaz, well advanced in years, received his wife, not for himself, but for God; not to fulfill the desires of the flesh, but to fulfill the righteousness of the law, in order to raise up a seed for his relative. He was inflamed more by conscience than by passion; he was old by years, but youthful by faith,—and for this perhaps he was called, Boaz—’in him is virtue.’ ”
Footnotes:
[1][Rth_4:1.—Sc. “to Ruth,” Rth_3:12. אֲשֶׁר is the accus. after דִּבֶּר־, cf. Gen_19:21; Gen_23:16.—On the forms סוּרָה and שְׁבָה, cf. Ges. 48, 5; 72, Rem. 3; 69, 3, 2; on וַיָּסַר, 72, Rem. 4.—Tr.]
[2][Rth_4:4.—Lit. “And I said, I will uncover thine ear,” i. e. I determined to inform thee. אָמַרְתִּי, is the same in sense as the fuller אָמַרְתִּי בְלִבִּי, Gen_17:17, etc., cf. Exo_2:14, etc. It might be supposed to refer to what Boaz said to Ruth, Rth_3:12 f.; but as Ruth is not spoken of until the next verse, this is less likely. The expression “to uncover the ear,” originated in the practice of removing the hair that hangs over the ear, for the purpose of whispering a secret to a person. In general it means to communicate anything confidentially, but is here used in the wider sense of imparting information. The suffix of the second per. in *אָזְכְךָ is perhaps best explained by regarding the whole clause after אָמַרְתִּי as mentally uttered by Boaz, while considering how to proceed in the matter of Ruth. In this consideration, the nearer kinsman was present to his mind, and to him he addressed the conclusion, which he now only rehearses, “I will inform thee,” etc.—Tr.]
[3][Rth_4:4.—So Dr. Cassel. Keil: “Many translate הַיּשְׁבִים by ‘inhabitants,’ sc. those of Bethlehem. But although according to Rth_4:9, a goodly number of the people, besides the elders, were present, this can scarcely be conceived to have been the case with the inhabitants of Bethlehem generally, so as to meet the requirement of גֶנֶד. Nor would the inhabitants have been named before, but as in Rth_4:9, after, the elders as principal witnesses [but cf. Rth_4:11]. For these reasons יָשַׁב is to be taken in the sense ‘to sit,’ and הַיּשְׁבִים is to be understood of the same persons who form the subject of ויֵּשׁבוּ in Rth_4:2, the elders. The following וְנֶבֶד זִקני is to be taken explicatively: before those who sit here, even before the elders of my people.”—Tr.]
[4][Rth_4:4.—The Text. Recept. reads יִגְאַל, third per., concerning which Keil remarks, that “it strikes one as singular, since one expects the second person, תִּגְאַל, which is not only read by the LXX., but also by a number of MSS., and seems to be required by the context. It is true, the common reading may (with Sebastian Schmidt, Carpzov, and others) be defended, by assuming that in uttering this word Boaz turned to the elders, and so spoke of the redeemer as of a third person: ‘if he, the redeemer here, will not redeem;’ but as this is immediately followed by a resumption of the direct address, this supposition—to our mind at least—seems very artificial.”—The substitution by the Keri of וְאֵדְעָה for וְאֵדָע is not necessary, cf. Ges. 127, 3 b.—Tr.]
[5][Rth_4:5.—קכיתי. Keil: “According to sense and connection, this form must be the second per. masc.; the י at the end was either added by a slip of the pen, or it arose from an original ו, so that we must read either קְנִיתָ (with the Keri) without an accusative, or, with an accusative, קְנִיתוֹ, ‘thou buyest it.’ ”—Tr.]
[6][Rth_4:7.—תְּעוּדָה. Gesenius and Fürst define this word here as “custom having the force of law,” “attested usage.” Dr. Cassel’s rendering, Weissthum, is probably intended to convey the same idea (cf. Hoffmann’s Wörterb.). But it seems better to take the word here in its proper sense of “attestation,” as in E. V. So the ancient versions, Bertheau, Keil, etc. Cf. the root עוּד.—Tr.]
[7][Rth_4:10.—The Heb. קָכָה is less specific than our word “purchase.” It means to obtain, to acquire; which may be done in a variety of ways. The rendering “purchased” is unfortunate in this particular case, as it tends to convey the erroneous idea that Ruth was treated as a chattel, or at least as a sort of adscripta glebœ. The same word is used also in Rth_4:4-5; Rth_4:9, where there is no particular objection to represent it in English by “buy,” although “acquire” would be preferable for the sake of uniformity.—Tr.]
[8] אָחִינוּ. It is only necessary to refer to the Commentaries of Bertheau and Keil, to perceive in what respects I have deemed it needful to depart from their expositions of this passage. Benary (de Hebrœorum Leviratu, Berlin, 1835, p 23 ff.), following Jewish example, has made Boaz a nephew, and the Peloni a brother, of Elimelech. But no great stress is to be laid on this tradition. אָח, brother, as our passage itself shows, is often used where the relationship is more distant than that which exists between sons of the same parent. Blood-relatives, and even friends, are also “brothers.” The very law, by which the usage now under consideration is sanctioned, uses the term in a wider sense, Deu_25:5 (cf. Hengst. Pentateuch, ii. 83 ff., Ryland’s ed.).
[9]Compare the later determinations in the Mishna (Jebamothְ 4, 3), the spirit of which, at least, confirms what is said in the text. Both Rabbinical schools admit that a wife can sell.
[10]This view of the reason of the refusal is also indicated by the Midrash (Ruth Rabba 35 a). Le Clerc is very far from the right understanding. Other opinions, to which he refers, come no nearer to it. Cf. Selden, Uxor Hebrœa, lib. i. cap. 9.
[11]The Greeks also spoke of an οἶκος ἀνώνυμος γενόμενος, in case a family died out without leaving heirs to its name, Cf. Isocrates, 19:35.
[12] לְפָנִים. Formerly it was customary to pull off the shoe on every occasion of exchange or barter; now, i.e. at the time when the writer of our Book lived, it was done only in the special case contemplated in Deu_25:7 ff., and then it was removed not by the man himself, but by the woman. The present case does not fall under the latter head (Cf. the Introd. p. 8).
[13][Wordsworth: The returning prodigal in the gospel has shoes put on his feet (Luk_15:22): he is reinstated in the lost inheritance. We, when reconciled to God in Christ, have our “feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace” (Eph_6:15).—Tr.]
[14][Marienschuh, “Our Lady’s slipper.” A sculptured representation of the flower or plant usually called “Lady’s slipper?”—Tr.]
[15]Although, singularly enough, Grotius has adopted it an the manner in which the law against the recusant goel was executed in the times of the second temple, cf. the Mishna, Jebamoth, cap. xii.
[16][It is perhaps superfluous to remark, that our author intends this as an interpretation, not as a translation. His translation is bracketed in the text.—Tr.]
[17]These great names, as sprung from Boaz, would of course redound to his honor. To be nameless was to be fameless, as is illustrated in the Peloni. The Greeks also used ἀνώνυμος as the opposite of κλεινός, i.e. in the sense of fameless, like בְּלִי שֵׁם. Cf. Schleussner, Lex. on the LXX., i. 315.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain THE COUNCIL AT THE GATE OF BETHLEHEM, Rth_4:1-12.
THE COUNCIL AT THE GATE OF BETHLEHEM, Rth_4:1-12.
Closely connected with the customs and the law of levirate marriage was another law concerning the redemption of property. Jehovah claimed the land of Israel as his, and commanded that it should never be sold by his people. Therefore an inheritance was not allowed to pass permanently into the hands of another family than that whose original possession it was. If through poverty one was obliged to sell a piece of land from the family estate, (as Naomi, see Rth_4:3,) it was the duty of the nearest kinsman to redeem it. He who acted as redeemer in such cases purchased, properly speaking, not the land itself, but the use of it until the next year of Jubilee. See the law, as detailed in Lev_25:23-34. But in case the kinsman performed the double part of buying the property and marrying the widow, then the inheritance would pass to the offspring of that marriage, and thus the kinsman would build up his brother’s house.
Read full note →
This chapter affords us a life-picture of an ancient court of justice assembled to arbitrate a case under the above-mentioned law. Every circumstance serves in some measure to illustrate the simplicity of that age.
1. Went… up to the gate — Not from the harvest field, for, according to Rth_3:15, (see note,) he went into the city after he sent Ruth away, but he went up from his house in the city. The gate itself may have been on no higher elevation than his own house, but, being the place of judgment, and therefore a place of honour in the eyes of the people, his going to it is spoken of as a going up.
Sat him down there — As one that had an important case for judgment. From the earliest times the gates of cities were the places where the courts of justice were held. The custom probably grew out of the fact that the gates were places easy of access to all the people, and witnesses and other persons concerned could come there with least inconvenience. See note on Mat_16:18. Compare also Gen_23:10; Gen_23:18; Gen_34:20; Deu_16:18-20; Deu_17:8; Jos_20:4; 1Ki_22:10.
Ho, such a one — An idiomatic expression. פלני אלמני, Peloni almoni; that is, Mr. Such a one, of such a place. Boaz probably called the kinsman by his proper name, but the author of this book has substituted for it this idiomatic phrase.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Ch. 4. Ruth’s marriage and descendants
Ch. 4. Ruth’s marriage and descendants
1. Now Boaz went up] He had decided to redeem Elimelech’s estate if the next of kin refused the obligation; this is the primary meaning of the transaction about to be described. went up, i.e. from the threshing-floor; cf. go down Rth_3:3, of the opposite direction. Bethlehem is situated on the summit of two knolls.
Read full note →
the gate] where family law was administered, Deu_25:7; cf. Deu_3:11 n. Boaz knew that the Go’el would be passing out of the town in the morning.
Ho, such a one!] A form of address indicating a definite person without expressly naming him; cf. 1Sa_21:2, 2Ki_6:8 (of a place).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) Went up.—Inasmuch as the town stood on a…
(1) Went up.—Inasmuch as the town stood on a hill: so in Rth_3:3, Ruth is bidden to go down to the threshing-floor.
The kinsman.—The Goel. (See Rth_3:12).
Read full note →
Turn aside.—The form of the imperative is such as to give a hortatory turn, pray turn aside and sit down.
Such a one.—Heb.,p’loni almoni. This phrase is used like the English so-and-so, such-and-such, of names which it is thought either unnecessary or undesirable to give. The derivation is probably from palah, to mark out, to separate, to distinguish, and alam, to hide, giving the twofold notion of one who is indicated, though in a certain sense concealed. The phrase is used of places, 1Sa_21:2, 2Ki_6:8; see also Dan_8:13. Why the name is not recorded here does not appear; possibly it was not known to the writer, or it may have been thought unworthy of recording, since he neglected his plain duty in refusing to raise up seed to the dead. We know nothing of this unnamed person save the fact of the offering of the redemption set before him, and his refusal of it, an offer which involved the glory of being the ancestor of the Christ who was to be born in the far-off ages.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain And Boaz went up, to the gate, and sat…
And Boaz went up, to the gate, and sat there. He "went up," for the city stood, as it still stands, on a ridge. (see on Rth_1:1 Rth_3:6) "And sat there," on one of the stones, or stone benches, that were set for the accommodation of the townsfolk. The gateway in the East often corresponded, as a place of meeting, to the forum, or the market-place, in the West. Boaz had reason to believe that his kinsman would be either passing out to his fields, or passing in from his threshing-floor, through the one gate of the city. And lo, the kinsman of whom Boaz had spoken was passing; and he said, Ho, such a one I turn hither and sit here.
And he turned and sat down. Boaz called his kinsman by his name; but the writer does not name him, either because he could not, or because he would not. The phrase "such a one," or "so and so," is a purely idiomatic English equivalent for the purely idiomatic Hebrew phrase ynimola ynilop. A literal translation is impossible. The Latin N.N. corresponds.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-12. The bridal of Boaz and Ruth.
I THERE WERE SOME OBSTACLES IN THE WAY. There were none, indeed, in Boaz"s heart; it was full of pure esteem and love for Ruth. There were none in his financial circumstances; he was able to provide amply for her comfort, and for all his own necessities and conveniences. There were none in his physical condition; he had been temperate in all things, and was in the enjoyment of health and strength. Neither were there any obstacles in Ruth"s heart. It had already sought for refuge under the wings of Boaz"s protection and sympathy. Nor were there any in her physical, intellectual, or moral condition. She was exceptionally "capable" in every respect, and eminently virtuous and good. She was filled, and had for long been filled, with the love "that seeketh not her own things." Although reduced in circumstances, she really belonged to the very class in society in which Boaz himself was moving. Nor were there obstacles on the part of Boaz"s friends on the one hand, nor on the part of Ruth"s one precious friend on the other. The obstacles were technical, arising out of the legal prerogative of a third party. Boaz set himself, in full concert with Ruth and Ruth"s mother-in-law, to deal with these obstacles.
II HE DID NOT LOITER OVER THE MATTER, or protract the proceedings unfeelingly from day, to day, week to week, month to month, and even year to year, until "hope deferred" ate out every atom of enthusiasm from his own spirit, and made the heart of Ruth grow "sick." He took steps, without a single day"s delay, to get his prospects and the prospects of Ruth righteously settled (see vers. 1-4).
III Yes, "RIGHTEOUSLY SETTLED?" For it was not so much the simple settlement as the righteousness of it that he longed for. He would not gratify his desire to obtain Ruth greatly as he esteemed, prized, and desired her if he could not get her righteously and honorably. Hence the forensic scene in the gateway of the city.
IV It is AN OLD-WORLD PICTURE that is drawn in the narrative, unveiling to view the grave, solemn manners of primitive but well-mannered times. The city had but one gate, through which, therefore, every one who went out or came in must needs pass. It would hence become the principal place of concourse for the townsfolk. It was the place of primitive marketing and bartering. It was the place of primitive judicature. It was, as it were, the senate-hall or parliament-house of the town. The elders and fathers "did congregate" there, in the presence of the casual public, to discuss the incidents that were transpiring, or the topics that were interesting the public mind. It was the place of morning and evening lounge. Boaz was careful to be early in the morning at this gateway, and immediately on arrival he took steps to secure a judicial settlement, if needed, and, at all events, a complete attestation of the facts of any nuptial arrangement that might be made. The people would begin to assemble leisurely. They would salute one another courteously. Every one would be of staid demeanor. There would be no rush, or push, or panting haste. The true Oriental likes to be self-possessed and leisurely. Some would be passing out, some passing in; but all would be ready to pause and hail one another respectfully. Kindly salutations would be directed to Boaz, and returned. It would be manifest from his countenance, from the tones of his voice, from his entire demeanor and manner, that he meant business that morning. See him as he moved about, stable, yet elastic, and wound up. He invites certain venerated fathers to be seated on the stone benches set in a row at the base of the city wall, as he had an affair to transact which he wished them by their presence to attest. Other citizens, meanwhile, one by one, would be arriving on the scene, some of them younger men and some older. They are grouped about. They feel that something unusual is in the air.
At length there is a full conclave, and Boaz opens his case with his kinsman. It was this: Naomi, who had so recently returned from the land of Moab, was now unfortunately in such reduced circumstances that she had resolved to sell the property which had belonged to her deceased husband. Now then was the opportunity of the nearest kinsman. In virtue of being the nearest in kinship, he was entitled to the first offer of the property. "Buy it, therefore," said Boaz, "before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt act the part of the nearest kinsman (as thou art entitled to do), then act it, and buy the property" (ver. 4). The kinsman seemed glad that he should have such an opportunity of adding to his patrimonial estate, and accordingly, in presence of the elders and other, inhabitants, he heartily said, "I will act the kinsman"s part." As he thus spoke there would, in all likelihood, be murmurs of applause round and round. Who could object to the kinsman getting the estate if he should offer to pay a liberal price to the reduced widow? It was, in its own little sphere of things, quite a crisis. Deep-drawing interests, affections, and desires were trembling in the balance. Boaz looked grave. But it was evident to perceptive eyes that he had not yet unfolded the whole case to view. After the briefest possible pause he resumed, and said, in the presence of the judicial conclave, "In the day when thou buyest the land from Naomi, thou must buy it not from her only, but from Ruth also, as prospective heiress; and more, thou must buy it with Ruth at present upon it, as its inalienable appurtenant, in order that the name of her deceased husband may, by the blessing of the God of Israel, descend with it in the line of her posterity (ver. 5). It was only for a moment that the fate of the gentle Moabitess trembled in its scale. The kinsman was not prepared to accept the property on Naomi"s terms. He feared that new interests would spring up to fritter into insignificant patches the property which he already possessed. Hence he said to Boaz, in the presence of the elders and the other citizens, "I cannot act the part of the nearest kinsman; do thou it, Boaz, in my room" (ver. 6). Boaz would triumph in his heart; and so, when she became informed of the decision, would Naomi; and so would Ruth. But some legal formalities required to be observed ere the renunciation of the prerogative attaching to the nearest kinsman became absolutely binding in law. "This," says the writer, "was formerly a custom in Israel on occasion of surrendering rights of kinship, or selling and buying land, in order to confirm every matter. A man drew off his shoe and gave it to the contracting party. This was attestation in Israel" (ver. 7). Accordingly, the nearest kinsman in the case before us drew off his shoe and tendered it to Boaz, in testimony that he therewith resigned all right to walk upon the ground in question (ver. 8). After this formality had been completed, and Boaz had courteously, in presence of the assembled witnesses, returned the symbolic shoe, he seems to have sent for Naomi and Ruth, and to have finished with them, in the presence of the people, the arrangement which was the most momentous into which he had ever entered, and which promised to be big with blessing to others as well as to himself. It was not only a marriage settlement; it was a bridal ceremony. The antique benisons of the elders and the other citizens fell round him thick and fast (vers. 912), and that blessing which maketh rich, and to which no sorrow is added, the blessing of the God of families and of all family love, descended and crowned the union.
V It is infinitely becoming that all things in marriage should be done "DECENTLY," "IN ORDER," and ABOVE-BOARD. Let everything clandestine be sensitively avoided. Whenever there is anything in marriage or its preliminaries that needs smothering up, the wind is sown, and the whirlwind will need to be reaped.
VI If stable HAPPINESS AFTER MARRIAGE be desired, care should be taken to have all preliminaries duly, clearly, and righteously prearranged, more particularly such as have reference to possessions, money, rights, or prerogatives. There should be also, especially in these modern times, distinct preliminary arrangements regarding the chief manners and customs of the home, and the relationship that is to be sustained to Churches, and Church assemblies and ordinances. Much indeed must be left to future and incidental adjustment; but great regulative principles should be mutually settled.
VII If, in "the estate of marriage," there be, as there should be and might be, on both sides a continual aim after whatsoever things are true, honest, seemly, honorable, just, pure, lovely, virtuous, and praiseworthy, then the light of life will shine in the home and in the heart with inexpressible sweetness and brightness. But if there be suspicion, jealousy, hard authority, tyranny, a dictatorial spirit, or any grossness, or secret faithlessness, or the neglect of courtesy, or the extinguishment of kindness and daily benevolence, if there be hard selfishness, however glitteringly glozed over with a semblance of good manners, then the light of life will be not only partially, but totally eclipsed. When the selfishness unmasks itself to the full, the last feeble flame, flickering in the socket, will die out, and be succeeded by a darkness that is the very "blackness of darkness." The true ideal of conjugal relationship is presented by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians. (Eph_5:25-33) The husband"s love should be as the love of Jesus to his Church. The love of the wife should be as the love of the Church to Jesus. Then the marriage is "in the Lord;" and, what is better still, the life after the marriage is life "in the Lord," and life to the Lord. It was from ages and generations "a great mystery," but now it is made manifest in every Christian home that is Christian indeed.
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON Vers. 1, 2. A primitive council.
The writer of this book depicts for us in this passage a very picturesque scene. We observe
1. The place of judgment and public business. "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates... throughout thy tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment." The parents of the disobedient son were to "bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place." Absalom, when plotting against his father"s authority, "Stood beside the way of the gate," and intercepted those that came to the king for judgment.
2. The court in whose presence important business was transacted elders of the city." Such elders were prescribed, as is evident from several passages in Deuteronomy; and the early books of the Old Testament contain frequent references to them and to their duties. Allusion is made to the elders of Succoth, of Jezreel, and of this same Bethlehem in the time of Samuel. Ten seems to have been what we should call a quorum. There is wisdom, gravity, deliberation, dignity, in the proceedings here recorded.
I HUMAN SOCIETY REQUIRES INSTITUTIONS OF LAW AND JUSTICE. The relations between man and man must not be determined by chance, or left to the decision of force or fraud. "Order is Heaven"s first law.
II LAW AND JUSTICE SHOULD BE SANCTIONED BY RELIGION. Religion cannot approve of all actions done by all in authority; but it acknowledges and respects government as a Divine institution, and awakens conscience to support justice.
III THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN CONFORMITY WITH WHICH PUBLIC BUSINESS SHOULD BE TRANSACTED.
1. Openness and publicity.
2. Solemn and formal ratification and record of important acts.
3. Equality of citizens before the law.
4. As much liberty as is compatible with public rights.
5. Integrity and incorruptness on the part of those who administer the law. T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain Then went Boaz up to the gate.
Rth_4:1-5
Then went Boaz up to the gate.
Read full note →
Friends in council
I. this is how business should be attended to.
1. Speedily.
2. Expeditiously.
3. Righteously.
II. this is how difficult affairs should be settled, delicate claims adjusted, fair rights allowed and satisfied.
1. Openly and publicly.
2. By the advice of wise men.
3. Calmly and deliberately.
4. With care and exactitude.
III. this is the way the affairs of the destitute and needy especially should be attended to. (W. Baxendale.)
Judicious methods of attaining our ends
1. The most probable means ought judiciously to be used in order to the accomplishing of our proposed ends. Thus Boaz, being restless for obtaining his promised end (Rth_3:18), uses the likeliest means to obtain his end. Many a man loses a good end for want of right means tending to the end.
2. A marvellous providence doth attend Gods servants that do wait upon God in the way of obedience. The guiding hand of God doth make many a happy hit in the occurrences of His people. Thus the comely contexture of various providences are very marvellous to those that make observation of them. (C. Ness.)
Redemption proposed
How completely this proposal illustrates the proposition of our great Redeemer in our behalf. Thus publicly He agreed, in the presence of the angels of God, to make Himself an offering for sin. Thus legally would He fulfil all righteousness for man, and be made under the law, that He might redeem those who were under the law from the bondage of its condemnation. Thus perfectly and completely would He buy back all that man had lost, and unite unto Himself the nature which had sinned and fallen. But angels were a created nature, far nearer in relation to man. Might not the proposition be made to them? Would they not redeem the lost? Ah, willing they might be--we doubt not they were. But able they could never be. The redemption of a soul they must let alone for ever. The Son of God remained alone. His own arm must bring salvation. His righteousness must sustain Him. He was content to do the will of God, and His law was in His heart. Here was to be complete redemption. He would take the shoe, like Boaz, and acknowledge the obligation, and perform the duties of which it was the token. He would stand in the sinners place. He would make Himself an offering in his stead. All this exercise and work of redeeming love was in the fulness of His own grace, without any connection of yours with it. Yes; just as the proposal of Boaz was without Ruths presence or knowledge--made in her absence, while she was with her mother at home, and not to be made known to her until it was completed--so was this great proposal of the Son of God to be your Kinsman, and to fulfil for you all the kinsmans obligations, made without your counsel and accomplished without your help. This is the unsearchable riches of grace. We call it sovereign grace. It ruled over every obstacle. It met every difficulty. We call it free grace. It is extended to sinful man with no conditions. It invites him, and offers its bounties to him without any qualifications whatever. It announces a redemption all complete, and begs him to receive and to enjoy it. Thus God has chosen to redeem. And thus He has chosen us to be the subjects of His redemption. (S. H. Tyng, D. D.)
Fair dealing and good principle in Boaz
There are two things especially worthy of notice in this language of Boaz.
1. The spirit of candour and fair dealing by which it is distinguished. He knew the preference which both Naomi and Ruth had for himself; he was conscious too that he no longer regarded with indifference this beautiful daughter of Moab. His fine sense of honour was not blunted either by covetousness or by inclination, nor would his conscience allow him, even when seeking a good and generous end, to have recourse to sharp practice. Here is that clear and round dealing which is the honour of mans nature. He was one of those men who, at the close of a transaction, could have borne to be cross-examined regarding his part in it by an enemy.
2. Then remark how much the following of principle simplifies a mans course. Boaz had his own wishes as to the way in which the transaction should terminate; and suppose him to have stooped, as thousands in his circumstances would have done, to crooked courses and carnal concealments, in order to make the matter end according to his wishes, what must have been his perplexity and anxiety, not to speak of his self-contempt and self-accusation! These are what Lord Bacon has called the winding and crooked goings of the serpent, which goeth basely upon the belly and not upon the feet. But in following the course of simple duty, and making his inclinations and preferences wait on the disposal of God, he at once retained peace of conscience, self-respect, and a good name. His eye was single, and therefore his whole body was full of light.(A. Thomson, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain Ruth 4
THE MARRIAGE AT THE GATE
Ruth 4
Read full note →
A SIMPLE ceremony of Oriental life brings to a climax the history which itself closes in sweet music the stormy drama of the Book of Judges. With all the literary skill and moral delicacy, all the charm and keen judgment of inspiration the narrator gives us what he has from the Spirit. He has represented with fine brevity and power of touch the old life and custom of Israel, the private groups in which piety and faithfulness were treasured, the frank humanity and divine seriousness of Jehovahs covenant. And now we are at the gate of Bethlehem where the head men are assembled, and according to the usage of the time the affairs of Naomi and Ruth are settled by the village court of justice. Boaz gives a challenge to the goal of Naomi, and point by point we follow the legal forms by which the right to redeem the land of Elimelech is given up to Boaz and Ruth becomes his wife.
Why is an old custom presented with such minuteness? We may affirm the underlying suggestion to be that the ways described were good ways which ought to be kept in mind. The usage implied great openness and neighbourliness, a simple and straightforward method of arranging affairs which were of moment to a community. People lived then in very direct and frank relations with each other. Their little town and its concerns had close and intelligent attention. Men and women desired to act so that there might be good understanding among them, no jealousy nor rancour of feeling. Elaborate forms of law were unknown, unnecessary. To take off the shoe and hand it to another in the presence of honest neighbours ratified a decision as well and gave as good security as much writing on parchment. The author of the Book of Ruth commends these homely ways of a past age and suggests to the men of his own time that civilisation and the monarchy, while they have brought some gains, are perhaps to be blamed for the decay of simplicity and friendliness.
More than one reason may be found for supposing the book to have been written in Solomons time, probably the latter part of his reign when laws and ordinances had multiplied and were being enforced in endless detail by a central authority; when the manners of the nations around, Chaldea, Egypt, Phoenicia, were overbearing the primitive ways of Israel; when luxury was growing, society dividing into classes, and a proud imperialism giving its colour to habit and religion. If we place the book at this period we can understand the moral purpose of the writer and the importance of his work. He would teach people to maintain the spirit of Israels past, the brotherliness, the fidelity in every relation that were to have been all along a distinction of Hebrew life because inseparably connected with the obedience of Jehovah. The splendid temple on Moriah was now the centre of a great priestly system, and from temple and palace the national and, to a great extent, the personal life of all Israelites was largely influenced, not in every respect for good. The quiet suggestion is here made that the artificiality and pomp of the kingdom did not compare well with that old time when the affairs of an ancestress of the splendid monarch were settled by a gathering at a village gate.
Nor is the lesson without its value now. We are not to go back on the past in mere antiquarian curiosity, the interest of secular research. Labour which goes to revive the story of mankind in remote ages has its value only when it is applied to the uses of the moralist and the prophet. We have much to learn again that has been forgotten, much to recall that has escaped the memory of the race. Through phases of complex civilisation in which the outward and sensuous are pursued the world has to pass to a new era of more simple and yet more profound life, to a social order fitted for the development of spiritual power and grace. And the church is well directed by the Book of God. Her inquiry into the past is no affair of intellectual curiosity, but a research governed by the principles that have underlain mans life from the first and a growing apprehension of all that is at stake in the multiform energy of the present. Amid the bustle and pressure of those endeavours which Christian faith itself may induce our minds become confused. Thinkers and doers are alike apt to forget the deliverances knowledge ought to effect, and while they learn and attempt much they are rather passing into bondage than finding life. Our research seems more and more to occupy us with the manner of things, and even Bible Archaeology is exposed to this reproach. As for the scientific comparers of religion they are mostly feeding the vanity of the age with a sense of extraordinary progress and enlightenment, and themselves are occasionally heard to confess that the farther they go in study of old faiths, old rituals and moralities the less profit they find, the less hint of a design. No such futility, no failure of culture and inquiry mark the Bible writers dealing with the past. To the humble life of the Son of Man on earth, to the life of the Hebrews long before He appeared our thought is carried back from the thousand objects that fascinate in the world of today. And there we see the faith and all the elements of spiritual vitality of which our own belief and hope are the fruit. There too without those cumbrous modern involutions which never become familiar, society wonderfully fulfils its end in regulating personal effort and helping the conscience and the soul.
The scene at the gate shows Boaz energetically conducting the case he has taken up. Private considerations urged him to bring rapidly to an issue the affairs of Naomi and Ruth since he was involved, and again he commends himself as a man who, having a task in hand, does it with his might. His pledge to Ruth was a pledge also to his own conscience that no suspense should be due to any carelessness of his; and in this he proved himself a pattern friend. The great man often shows his greatness by making others wait at his door. They are left to find the level of their insignificance and learn the value of his favour. So the grace of God is frustrated by those who have the opportunity and should covet the honour of being His instruments. Men know that they should wait patiently on Gods time, but they are bewildered when they have to wait on the strange arrogance of those in whose hands Providence has placed the means of their succour. And many must be the cases in which this fault of man begets bitterness, distrust of God, and even despair. It should be a matter of anxiety to us all to do with speed and care anything on which the hopes of the humble and needy rest. A soul more worthy than our own may languish in darkness while a promise which should have been sacred is allowed to fade from our memory.
Boaz was also open and straightforward in his transactions. His own wish is pretty clear. He seems as anxious as Naomi herself that to him should fall the duty of redeeming her burdened inheritance and reviving her husbands name. Possibly without any public discussion, by consulting with the nearer kinsman and urging his own wish or superior ability, he might have settled the affair. Other inducements failing, the offer of a sum of money might have secured to him the right of redemption. But in the light of honour, in the court of his conscience, the man was unable thus to seek his end; and besides the towns people had to be considered; their sense of justice had to be satisfied as well as his own.
Often it is not enough that we do a thing from the best of motives; we must do it in the best way, for the support of justice or purity or truth. While private benevolence is one of the finest of arts, the Christian is not unfrequently called to exercise another which is more difficult and not less needful in society. Required at one hour not to let his left hand know what his right hand doeth, at another he is required in all modesty and simplicity to take his fellows to witness that he acts for righteousness, that he is contending for some thought of Christs, that he is not standing in the outer court among those who are ashamed but has taken his place with the Master at the judgment bar of the world. Again, when a matter in which a Christian is involved is before the public and has provoked a good deal of discussion and perhaps no little criticism of religion and its professors, it is not enough that out of sight, out of court, some arrangement be made which counts for a moral settlement. That is not enough, though a person whose rights and character are affected may consent to it. If still the world has reason to question whether justice has been done, -justice has not been done. If still the truthfulness of the church is under valid suspicion, -the church is not manifesting Christ as it should. For no moral cause once opened at public assize can be issued in private. It is no longer between one man and another, nor between a man and the church. The conscience of the race has been empanelled and cannot be discharged without judgment. Innumerable causes withdrawn from court, compromised, hushed up or settled in corners with an effort at justice, still shadow the history of the church and cast a darkness of justifiable suspicion on the path along which she would advance.
Even in this little affair at Bethlehem the good man will have everything done with perfect openness and honour, and will stand by the result whether it meet his hopes or disappoint them. At the town gate, the common meeting place for conversation and business, Boaz takes his seat and invites the goal to sit beside him and also a jury of ten elders. The court thus constituted, he states the case of Naomi and her desire to sell a parcel of land which belonged to her husband. When Elimelech left Bethlehem he had, no doubt, borrowed money on the field, and now the question is whether the nearest kinsman will pay the debt and beyond that the further value of the land, so that the widow may have something to herself. Promptly the goel answers that he is ready to buy the land. This, however, is not all. In buying the field and adding it to his estate will the man take Ruth to wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance? He is not prepared to do that, for the children of Ruth would be entitled to the portion of ground and he is unwilling to impoverish his own family. "I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar my own inheritance." He draws off his shoe and gives it to Boaz, renouncing his right of redemption.
Now this marriage custom is not ours, but at the time, as we have seen, it was a sacred rule, and the goal was morally bound by it. He could have insisted on redeeming the land as his right. To do so was therefore his duty, and to a certain extent he failed from the ideal of a kinsmans obligation. But the position was not an easy one. Surely the man was justified in considering the children he already had and their claims upon him. Did he not exercise a wise prudence in refusing to undertake a new obligation? Moreover the circumstances were delicate and dispeace might have been caused in his household if he took the Moabite woman. It is certainly one of those cases in which a custom or law has great weight and yet creates no little difficulty, moral as well as pecuniary, in the observance. A man honest enough, and not ungenerous, may find it hard to determine on which side duty lies. Without, however, abusing this goal we may fairly take him as a type of those who are more impressed by the prudential view of their circumstances than by the duties of kinship and hospitality. If in the course of providence we have to decide whether we will admit some new inmate to our home worldly considerations must not rule, either on the one side or the other.
A mans duty to his family, what is it? To exclude a needy dependant, however pressing the claim may be? To admit one freely who has the recommendation of wealth? Such earthly calculation is no rule for a true man. The moral duty, the moral result are always to be the main elements of decision. No family ever gains by relief from an obligation conscience acknowledges. No family loses by the fulfilment of duty, whatever the expense. In household debate the balance too often turns not on the character of Ruth but on her lack of gear. The same woman who is refused as a heathen when she is poor, is discovered to be a most desirable relation if she brings fuel for the fire of welcome. Let our decisions be quite clear of this mean hypocrisy. Would we insist on being dutiful to a rich relation? Then the duty remains to him and his if they fall into poverty, for a moral claim cannot be altered by the state of the purse.
And what of the duty to Christ, His church. His poor? Would to God some people were afraid to leave their children wealthy, were afraid of having God inquire for His portion. A shadow rests on the inheritance that has been guarded in selfish pride against the just claims of man, in defiance of the law of Christ. Yet let one be sure that his liberality is not mixed with a carnal hope. What do we think of when we declare that Gods recompense to those who give freely comes in added store of earthly treasure, the tithe returned ten and twenty and a hundred fold? By what law of the material or spiritual world does this come about? Certainly we love a generous man, and the liberal shall stand by liberal things. But surely Gods purpose is to make us comprehend that His grace does not take the form of a percentage on investments. When a man grows spiritually, when although he becomes poorer he yet advances to nobler manhood, to power and joy in Christ-this is the reward of Christian generosity and faithfulness. Let us be done with religious materialism, with expecting our God to repay us in the coin of this earth for our service in the heavenly kingdom.
The marriage of Ruth, at which we now arrive, appears at once as the happy termination of Naomis solicitude for her, the partial reward of her own faithfulness, and the solution, so far as she was concerned, of the problem of womans destiny. The idea of the spiritual completion of life for woman as well as man, of the woman being able to attain a personal standing of her own with individual responsibility and freedom, was not fully present to the Hebrew mind. If unmarried, Ruth would have remained, as Naomi well knew and had all along said, without a place in society, without an asylum or shelter. This old-world view of things burdens the whole history, and before passing on we must compare it with the state of modern thought on the question.
The incompleteness of the childless widows life which is an element of this narrative, the incompleteness of the life of every unmarried woman which appears in the lament for Jephthahs daughter and elsewhere in the Bible as well as in other records of the ancient world had, we may say, a two-fold cause. On the one hand there was the obvious fact that marriage has a reason in physical constitution and the order of human society. On the other hand heathen practices and constant wars made it, as we have seen, impossible for women to establish themselves alone. A woman needed protection, or as the law of England has it, coverture. In very exceptional cases only could the opportunity be found, even among the people of Jehovah, for those personal efforts and acts which give a position in the world. But the distinction of Israels custom and law as compared with those of many nations lay here, that woman was recognised as entitled to a place of her own, side by side with man, in the social scheme. The conception of her individuality as of individuality generally was limited. The idea of what is now called the social organism governed family life, and the very faith that was afterwards to become the strength of individuality was held as a national thing. The view of complete life had no clear extension into the future, even the salvation of the soul did not appear as a distinct provision for personal immortality. Under these limitations, however, the proper life of every woman and her place in the nation were acknowledged and provision was made for her as well as circumstances would allow. By the customs of marriage and by the laws of inheritance she was recognised and guarded.
Now it may appear that the problem of womans place, so far from approaching solution in Christian times, has rather fallen into greater confusion; and many are the attacks made from one point of view and another upon the present condition of things. By the nature school of revolutionaries physical constitution is made a starting point in argument, and the reasoning sweeps before it every hindrance to the completion of life on that side for women as for men. Christian marriage is itself assailed by these as an obstacle in the path of evolution. They find women, thanks to Christianity, no longer unable to establish themselves in life; but against Christianity, which has done this, they raise the loud complaint that it bars the individual from full life and enjoyment. In the course of our discussion of the Book of Judges reference has been made once and again to this propaganda, and here its real nature comes to light. Its conception of human life is based on mere animalism; it throws into the crucible the gain of the centuries in spiritual discipline and energetic purity in order to make ample provision for the flesh and the fulfilling of the lusts thereof.
But the problem is not more confused; it is solved, as all other problems are, by Christ. Penetrating and arrogant voices of the day will cease and His again be heard Whose terrible and gracious doctrine of personal responsibility in the supernatural order is already the heart of human thought and hope. There is turmoil, disorder, vile and foolish experimenting; but the remedy is forward, not behind. Christ has opened the spiritual kingdom, has made it possible for every soul to enter. For each human being now, man and woman, life means spiritual overcoming, spiritual possession, and can mean nothing else. It is altogether out of date, an insult to the conscience and common sense of mankind, not to speak of its faith, to go back on the primitive world and the ages of a lower evolution and fasten down to sensuousness a race that has heard the liberating word, Repent, believe, and, live. The incompleteness of a human being lies in subjection to passion, in existing without moral energy, governed by the earthly and therefore without hope or reason of life. To the full stature of heavenly power the woman has her way open through the blood of the cross, and by a path of loneliness and privation, if need be, she may advance to the highest range of priestly service and blessing.
To the Jewish people, and to the writer of the Book of Ruth as a Jew, genealogy was of more account than to us, and a place in Davids ancestry appears as the final honour of Ruth for her dutifulness, her humble faith in the God of Israel. Orpah is forgotten; she remained with her own people and died in obscurity. But faithful Ruth lives distinguished in history. She takes her place among the matrons of Bethlehem and the people of God. The story of her life, says one, stands at the portal of the life of David and at the gates of the gospel.
Yet suppose Ruth had not been married to Boaz or to any other good and wealthy man, would she have been less admirable and deserving? We attribute nothing to accident. In the providence of God Boaz was led to an admiration for Ruth and Naomis plan succeeded. But it might have been otherwise. There is nothing, after all, so striking in her faith that we should expect her to be singled out for special honour; and she is not. The divine reward of goodness is the peace of God in the soul, the gladness of fellowship with Him, the opportunity of learning His will and dispensing His grace. It is interesting to note that Ruths son Obed was the father of Jesse and the grandfather of David. But was Ruth not also the ancestress of the sons of Zeruiah, of Absalom, Adonijah, and Rehoboam? Even though, looking down the generations, we see the Messiah born of her line, how can that glorify Ruth? or, if it does, how shall we explain the want of glory of many an estimable and godly woman who fighting a battle harder than Ruths, with clearer faith in God, lived and died in some obscure village of Naphtali or dragged out a weary widowhood on the borders of the Syrian desert?
Yet there is a sense in which the history of Ruth stands at the gates of the gospel. It bears the lesson that Jehovah acknowledged all who did justly and loved mercy and walked humbly with Him. The foreign woman was justified by faith, and her faith had its reward when she was accepted as one of Jehovahs people and knew Him as her gracious Friend. Israel had in this book the warrant for missionary work among the pagan nations and a beautiful apologue of the reconcilation the faith of Jehovah was to effect among the severed families of mankind. The same faith is ours, but with deeper urgency; the same spirit of reconciliation, reaching now to farther mightier issues. We have seen the Goal of the race and have heard His offer of redemption. We are commissioned to those who dwell in the remotest borders of the moral world under oppressions of heathenism and fear, or wander in strange Moabs of confusion where deep calleth unto deep. We have to testify that with One and One only are the light, the joy, the completeness of man, because He alone among sages and helpers has the secret of our sin and weakness and the long miracle of the souls redemption. "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation: and lo, I am with you." The faith of the Hebrew is more than fulfilled. Out of Israel He comes our Menuchah, Who is "a hiding place from the wind and a covert from the tempest, as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Rth_4:1. Then went Boaz up. Bethlehem situated on a…
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.—
Rth_4:1. Then went Boaz up. Bethlehem situated on a hill, while the cornfields and threshing floor would be in the valley below [cf. on Rth_2:4, p. 101, also p. 6.] The gate. The place of resort where business was transacted. I have seen in certain places, Joppa for example, the Kady and his Court sitting at the entrance of the gate hearing and adjudicating all sorts of causes in the audience of all that went in and out thereat (Thomson). And sat. Stone seats would be there. The attitude expressive of deliberation. Eastern people are never in a hurry at such times. The judges sat in the gates that the country people might not be compelled to enter the cities and so suffer detriment (Lange). And behold. Set forth as with a starry note (Trapp). Possibly calls attention to the fortunate coincidence or Providence of the thing. Lange thinks Boaz came early not to miss his man. He such a one. κρὐῳιε hidden one (LXX). Conveys the idea of his being kept anonymous purposely. The Hebrew words peloni almoni are derived from palah to distinguish, to point out, and alam to conceal (Gesen 53, 677), and signify a person who is pointed out, but whose name is concealed (Wordsworth). At present any anonymous donor to the synagogue funds is habitually styled “Almoni Peloni” (Picciotto). The name of the kinsman was Tob (Midrash). Impossible (Lange).
Read full note →
Rth_4:2. And he took ten men. So Abraham bargained for a place of sepulchre in the field of Machpelah, in the presence of those who stood at the gate of Hebron (Gen_23:17-18). Possibly ten were chosen because it was a perfect number. The requisite number for a local court of magistracy (Groser). In later days ten men were needed to form a worshipping assembly in the synagogue (Ibid). Of the elders of the city. Elderly persons of the city (Morison).
Rth_4:3. And he said unto the kinsman [redeemer.] The narrator again avoids using the name, though there is little doubt it must have been known.
Naomi that is come again. The Athenians had a law, that no woman should be permitted to plead her own cause. The custom of all Eastern nations lay in the same direction. Selleth [sold] a parcel of land. Rather, hath sold (Wordsworth, Lange, Wright). Naomi had already sold her interest in the land during the terms of years that intervened between the date of sale and the year of jubilee, when the land would revert to the representatives of Elimelech; and the nearest of kin could [only] gain immediate possession by redeeming it, that is, by paying the worth of the land during the term of years which still remained to the jubilee (Wordsworth). She had mortgaged her own and Ruth’s life interest in the land (Braden). That, contrary to the opinion of the earlier commentators, a widow could do this—see Lange in loco. Probable that Elimelech had sold his interest before he went into the land of Moab (Elliot). In this case, the reversionary interest of Ruth, as the widow of Mahlon, would have to be purchased by the next of kin, as well as the life interest of Naomi (Ibid). Others think that the destitution of the widows arose, not from having lost their property, but from their inability to turn it to a profitable account. Morison views the use of the perfect here as expressing such an unalterable determination to sell the land, that it may be looked upon as already accomplished, and translates “Has resolved to sell,” So Drusius, Vatable, etc. “Offers for sale” (Luther, Coverdale). She may have put up the land for sale, for the express purpose of putting the law in motion, and compelling her kinsman to redeem it (Cox). Our brother Elimelech’s. Or kinsman Elimelech’s. The word not to be interpreted in a strict sense [cf. on Rth_2:1 Crit. and Exeg. Notes, p. 89.]
Rth_4:4. And I thought to advertise the—Determined to inform thee (Lange). Lit., I said I will uncover thine ear; ἀποκαλνῳω τὁ οὗς σου (LXX.), by lifting up the hair which covers it [cp. 1Sa_9:15; 2Sa_7:27] (Wordsworth). Buy it before the inhabitants. In the presence of those sitting here (LXX. Vulg. Syr. Arab). So also Lange, Wordsworth, etc. If thou wilt not redeem it. The Text. Recept. reads, “If he will not. The common reading is supported by Schmidt, Lange, Carpzov, Keil, etc., and is more natural. So fifty MSS. in Kennicott (Wordsworth). And he said, I will redeem. Shows he had the ability. Would add to his own estate to procure the property of the dead Elimelech. Supposed he would only have to pay Naomi a certain annual allowance till her death, and the inheritance would pass to him as the lawful heir (Steele and Terry.)
Rth_4:5. Thou must buy [thou buyest] it also of Ruth. Must take the widow of Mahlon who had a claim upon the land. The children born of such a marriage would inherit the state, to the exclusion of children by an earlier wife. Would stand as the direct descendants of Mahlon, and be called by his name. The Moabitess. Here was the difficulty, and Boaz presents it thus fairly and delicately. The goel does not lay hold of the fact that the law against marriage with a Moabitess, if such existed [cf. on i:4] may have been suspended because Ruth had cast in her lot with Israel.
Rth_4:6. I cannot. Means I will not for certain reasons [Rth_4:4]. The Targum says he had a wife and children. Lest I mar [injure] mine own inheritance. By spending time and attention besides money upon that which would revert to the name and estate of another. This possibly only an excuse. The true reason found in his superstitions fears. Thinks he ought not to take into his house a woman marriage with whom has already been visited with the extinguishment [according to popular ideas] of a family in Israel (Lange).
Rth_4:7. Now this was the manner in former times concerning &c. Formerly in cases of redemption and exchange (Lange). That is in every bargain this was done. Shews that considerable time must have elapsed between the events recorded and the writing of the story. An old custom has fallen into partial disuse in the meantime [cf. Intro. p. 4]. A man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbour. A man pulled off his shoe and gave it to the ‘other (Lange). In acknowledgement that he to whom the shoe was given might tread and own where he the seller had previously stood as owner. The shoe is the symbol
(1) of motion and wandering,
(2) of rest and possession (Lange). When the prodigal is reinstated, he has shoes put on his feet (Luk_15:22) (cf. also Exo_3:5; Eph_6:15).
Rth_4:8. So he drew off his shoe, i.e., the kinsman drew it off, and so surrenders all claims. The woman had the right in ordinary cases to pluck the shoe off herself and spit in the face of the kinsman—a great dishonour [cf. Deu_25:7]. This shews that the present case was looked upon as exceptional. When an Arab divorces his wife, he says of her, “She was my slipper and I cast her off,” (Thomson).
Rth_4:9. And Boaz said. He addresses the elders in their representative character. Under the theocracy the principle of representation was early carried out (E. Price). Possibly a pause follows Rth_4:8, during which Naomi and Ruth may have been brought upon the scene. Ye are witnesses. Settled deeds of compact in our modern sense not used or needed. Enough, in a simple primitive age, that a solemn transaction should be committed to the memory of the people (E. Price). I have bought [acquired] all that was, etc. The three dead relatives are mentioned with legal precision and particularity, although no mention is anywhere made of Orpah’s claim, which, in contradistinction to Ruth’s, is looked upon as forfeited or lapsed, if it ever existed. Of the hand of Naomi. Evidently looked upon as heir to the properly now her sons are dead. To use a modern legal phrase, she was considered as a trustee until the birth of a male child (E. Price).
Rth_4:10. Ruth the Moabitess. Deu_23:3. refers to males, not to women (Keil, E. Price), as with Canaanitish women [Deu_7:3]. Have I purchased. Acquired (Lange). Means to obtain, to acquire, which may be done in a variety of ways. The use of the word “purchased” unfortunate (Ibid). To raise up the name, etc. A Hebraism signifying the continuance of the relation he had sustained in the genealogy of his tribe (E. Price). From Rth_4:21 it would seem as though popular opinion were too strongly in favour of Boaz to allow the usual law to come in to operation. The gate of his place. The Chaldee reads, “the sanhedrim of his place,” introducing in later idea (E. Price).
Rth_4:1-5
Theme—FRIENDS IN COUNCIL
“And next the valley is the hill aloft,
And next the darke night is the glad morrow,
And also joy is next the fine of sorrow.”—Chaucer,
Then went Boaz up to the gate.
The interesting and fascinating story draws near to its proper conclusion. Ruth’s virtue has been seen “in all the gate”; now her reward and recompense are to be as plainly apparent there. Another,—a goel, a redeemer has undertaken to perform the duties which fall upon him. Note.
(1) Here is an image of the final perseverance of the saints. Continuing first, then crowned afterwards, steadfast under discipline and temptation, then to be owned of Christ, and manifested to all as His own in the day of His glory. (Rev_3:5, etc.).
(2) Here is a picture and illustration of virtue triumphant true to all ages. After humiliation, exaltation, after the bitter, sweet, after mourning, joy. So with Joseph in Egypt, Moses, David, etc.
It is not Ruth, however, so much who claims attention for the present, as her goel intent on her behalf. We have seen Boaz “diligent in business (Rth_2:4, Rth_3:2), fervent in spirit” (Rth_2:4; Rth_2:12), courteous (Rth_2:4), quick to perceive goodness in others (Rth_2:11, Rth_3:10-11), ready to encourage and commend it (Rth_2:12, Rth_3:10), generous and hospitable (Rth_2:8-9; Rth_2:14-16, Rth_3:15), wise and circumspect, and having his own spirit under complete control, in what otherwise might have been the hour of temptation (Rth_3:10-14), acting always as in the presence of God. And here we are to see him as possessing other qualities, which go to make up the hero, and the true man, one commanding respect not less by his moral earnestness and diligence than by his wealth and social rank. We follow him to the gate and see him among his peers, evidently received as few men in Bethlehem would be.
I. This is how business should be attended to.
(1) Speedily. The man is in earnest, “will not rest until he has finished the thing.” Gets up early to catch his man [see Crit. and Exeg. Rth_3:15, p. 160].
(2) Expeditiously. Will finish it before the day is over [see on Rth_3:18, p. 164]. All that has ever been said in praise of the diligent may be said of Boaz here.
(3) Righteously. In the spirit of candour and fair dealing. Hence he seeks the advice of friends; “the Council at the gate.” Conceals nothing, overstates nothing, speaks apparently without bias. In few and fit words he propounds the cause and brings it to an issue (Trapp). Note. (a) That a true and right result may be obtained in this simple honourable way. Crooked courses are not always the best courses. (b) An example of the right use of arbitration which might often be followed with advantage. The justice may be administered in a rough and ready way to our Western ideas, but it is justice none the less that is sought and obtained. And the decision arrived at will be solemnly ratified as in the sight of God.
Note.—(a) That which is done with the heart is done with cheerfulness and readiness. Love lends wings to the feet, and strength to the hands, and persuasive eloquence to the tongue. So with Boaz in the chapter before us. Duty and affection alike urge him. (b) When God appoints, he prospers and gives wisdom in the direction of the affair. How much there is to be admired in the way Boaz proceeds to settle this delicate affair once and for all. And as if the Divine favour is to rest upon him at once, the man he seeks and upon whom everything depends comes by as soon as the business is fairly set afloat [On Seeming Chances, Real Providences, see Rth_2:3, p. 95–6].
(4) An honourable man’s dealings while perfectly frank and open are not to be deficient in wise circumspection. Boaz having to do with a wily worldling deals warily with him (Trapp). Tells him first of the land, and then of the wife that must go along with it (Ibid). The man of God is to be wise as well as harmless in his dealings with men.
II. This is how difficult affairs should be settled, delicate claims adjusted, fair rights allowed and satisfied.
(1) Openly and publicly. That is unless scrupulous justice can be administered privately in a better way. The rights between man and man must not be left to chance or fraud. Note. (a) Greed and rapacity flourish best in secret. Naturally seek to hide their deeds. Honest men can bear and covet the light. (b) The fountains of justice are best kept pure by being constantly open to public inspection.
(2) By the advice of wise men. We have here an old world picture of a city council. (a) Abundance of witnesses to attest the proceedings, (b) of counsellors to give advice, (c) of judges to determine difficulties. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses” every word would “be established;” while “in the multitude of counsellors” there would be “safety.” Notice again they were the choice men of the city—aged, experienced—elderly men upon whom devolved the conducting of affairs in Bethlehem. Note. Age and experience give weight to advice and decisions.
(3) Calmly and deliberately. They sat down. Undue haste to be deprecated in conducting important affairs like these.
(4) With care and exactitude. Business should be done in a business-like manner, not only to make provision against defects in integrity, but also to prevent difficulties arising from failures in memory, &c. Note. A Scripture precedent here for scrupulous exactness in transactions like these, transactions involving questions of property. You have the wisdom, dignity and grave deliberation, the solemn careful procedure such a case demanded.
III. This is the way the affairs of the destitute and needy especially should be attended to. All this for two poor widows! Yes, but this is the public care. “The poor ye have always with you.” It was no personal concern of these elders and yet they gave time and attention to it, and that readily. Note. Thus early in human history the claims of the weak were recognised and responded to publicly. Christ answers the question so often asked as to “Who is responsible?” in the parable of the Good Samaritan. So the Apostle, Bear ye one another’s burdens, &c.; Look not every man on his own things, &c. (Php_2:4).
E. Price on this: Theme—RESPECT FOR PROPERTY.
The modern war against property can never be justified by the far-seeing Laws of Moses. And, of course, Boaz would hold himself bound to observe them, as here illustrated.
1. He conforms to the letter of the enactment as for as possible.
2. He avows the fact publicly: before the elders and the people.
3. He evokes the confirmatory act of adequate witnesses.
4. He, nevertheless, is careful in stating his claims in order to enforce his full rights.
Observe then, how it was through the sanctified ‘property’ the hopes of the world were met, in the advent of the Messiah. And
(2) how the observance of righteous rules respecting this ‘property,’ restricts no man’s real liberty.
“The gates of ancient cities played many parts: they were guard-houses; they were markets, they were courts of justice; they were places for public deliberation and audience. Necessarily, therefore, they were massively built, with recessed chambers or divans in the sides, and often with chambers also above the arch. Here the inhabitants of the city were wont to assemble, either for the transaction of business or to hear and tell the news. Here the judges sat and administered justice to all comers. Here even kings came to give audience to other kings, or to their ambassadors. Some faint resemblance to these ancient gates may be found In the structures called ‘Bars,’ in London and Southampton, though these modern gates are much smaller than their ancient prototypes; and some faint reminiscence of their character as seats of judicial and royal authority in the titles Sublime Porte, or the Ottoman Porte—porte meaning gate—by which the Government of Turkey is still designated.”—Cox.
“Boaz was worthy of the confidence reposed in him. He at once seeks the nearer kinsman, and brings the matter to a decided issue, How many an hour of bitter anxiety, of suspense—a form of anguish harder to bear than the certainty of disappointment—have the unhappy to undergo, simply because those who have undertaken their cause, gratulating themselves on the benevolence of their intentions seem to think that, if they accomplish the service, the time and manner are of no importance, but that in these they may suit their own convenience. If, like Boaz, we would judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow, let us, like him, ‘not be in rest until we have finished the thing.’ ”—Macartney.
“ ‘Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!’ He knew the preference which both Naomi and Ruth had for himself; he was conscions too that he no longer regarded with indifference this beautiful daughter of Moab, who had ‘come to trust beneath Jehovah’s wings;’ nor was he unwilling to pay even more for the redemption of the inheritance than this nearest kinsman. But he ‘would not go beyond or defraud his brother,’ or in the least take advantage either of his ignorance or of Ruth’s preference. All was open and above-board. His fine sense of honour was not blunted either by covetousness or by inclination, nor would his conscience allow him, even when seeking a good and generous end, to have recourse to sharp practice. Here is that ‘clear and round dealing which is the honour of man’s nature.’ ”—Thomson.
“Aristides being judge between private persons, one of them declared that his adversary had greatly injured Aristides. ‘Relate rather, good friend,’ said he interrupting him, ‘what wrong he hath done thee, for it is thy cause not mine, that I now sit judge of.’ Being desired by Simonides, the poet, who had a cause to try before him, to stretch a point in his favour, he replied: ‘As you would not be a good poet if your lines ran contrary to the just measures and rules of your art; so neither should I be a good judge or an honest man if I decided aught in opposition to law and justice.”—Percy Anecdotes.
“There then is the court of justice. How simple! How primitive! No lawyers and expensive forms; no long rhetorical arguments; but a quiet deliberative meeting, in which the persons concerned ‘sit’ and talk over the whole affair. Perhaps many a tangled matter would soon come out straight, many a dispute be quickly settled, if at first people would submit it to some such Board of Arbitration.”—Braden.
Rth_4:6
Theme—A SHORTSIGHTED POLICY AND ITS MERITED OBLIVION
“Despite those titles, power and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonoured and unsung.”—Scott.
I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance.
The kinsman’s conduct here stands out as a contrast for all time with that of Boaz. Are we wrong in seeing in him an example of the mean equivocating worldling? When it is a question of the land (Rth_4:4) he will redeem, but when it is a question of the law which binds him to succour the widow as well as take possession of the land, he hesitates. He stands as a representative of that large class who say “I cannot” to every appeal. Note (a) Something will always come in to hinder from the path of duty if we will allow it. “A lion in every street.” No man ever equivocated, or prevaricated in such a moment but the devil helped him to a sufficient and plausible excuse. (b) We may miss or misuse the one opportunity in life. This man did so undoubtedly. May be profitable to look,
I. At some of the probable reasons for his action.
(1) A prejudice, and belief in a common superstition. Ruth a Moabitess. In Israel marriage with the daughter of an alien race was held to be “unlucky” even when it was lawful (Cox). No doubt, the popular voice affirmed that Mahlon and Chilion were cut off before their time because they married strange women (Ibid.) How superstitious fear rides some men against the plainest dictates of reason! It needs a strong mind, a truly noble spirit to shake off the control of popular opinion, to say nothing of popular superstition. No matter that Ruth’s virtues are known “in all the gate.” That shadowy, impalpable, intangible something which fear conjures up in the hearts of so many comes in probably to decide the question.
(2) Selfish regard for his own inheritance. Every way the thing must have seemed undesirable to such a man, indeed to most men. Ruth was poor, so was Naomi, and he must take charge of both—a double burden. If an heir should be born, he would be called by the name of Mahlon,—if more children, the inheritance would have to be divided among many. A shrewd, selfish man would be sure to say “No” under such circumstances, and the unnamed kinsman seems to have been such. (a) Took no care (b) made no enquiries about the widows until forced to do so thus publicly. A type of those who fear trouble and so say nothing. Let wrong continue, fraud, want, &c., multiply and go on their way as if they were neither responsible to God or man. Note on the other hand a danger from excess either way. Some will have to say at last “They made me keeper of the king’s vineyard, but mine own vineyard have I not kept.” No man is asked to neglect his own affairs, to their serious detriment.
(3) Want of a chivalrous and heroic spirit. This the secret of all else. The duty was clear, but the man was living in that state when duty is only felt as a burden. Of course there were difficulties, but they were just of that kind that a true unselfish man, would be delighted to overcome. Possibly the man was a just man according to his lights (Cox). May have honestly doubted whether he was bound to marry Mahlon’s Moabitish widow. Probably one of those cautious, common-place souls, who fail under severe tests, and in critical moments, when the law seems doubtful, and prudence can only discuss the question from a selfish standpoint, and who fail just for want of that larger vision, which looks at the spirit, not at the letter. So Orpah failed where Ruth triumphed [cf. on Rth_1:14 p. 53; also on p. 60]. So Lot was led to the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, while Abraham remained with God to receive the promises (Gen_13:10-17). So the kinsman as contrasting with Boaz. So the “child of sense” always as contrasting with the child of the spirit. Note! The reluctance and inability of the mere natural man to undertake and effect the work of doing and suffering (Wordsworth).
Look
II. At some of the certain results of his action.
His name is studiously avoided in the Scriptures, simply called “such a one,” almost an epithet of contempt. Note. There is an over-cautious, calculating selfishness which misses its mark by over-shrewdness.
This man sought fame and the remembrance a large inheritance would give, and this is what he found—feared that his “name” would be cut off from Israel, and his inheritance marred, since his children would be called by the name of another, and so he denied himself and let another go down to posterity as redeemer. Curious he is unnamed in the very book which recounts his story. We know him simply as the “anonymous kinsman” (Cox). His miserable, narrow policy brought its own defeat, while Boaz, who had no such selfish desire or ambition, lives in the pages of inspiration as the ancestor of Christ Himself. Note. A principle in this. Impossible that men should live both for the present and future, in many senses. The immediate policy often seems best when it is a selfish one, a narrow, degraded one. But wait! True, men exist from day to day by care and industry, but they live to posterity by virtue of unselfish and heroic deeds. There is a losing the life which is a saving it. Live to yourself and you perish with the present, but live for others, and the memory will be fresh and fragrant when you have passed away. Men speedily forget everything but goodness.
“Only the actions of the just
Smell sweet and blossom in the dust.”—Shirley.
IMPROVEMENT.
(1) The desire for fame natural to the human breast. Nothing so wrong in it after all. The desire to leave an inheritance behind not uncommon—not to be condemned of itself. The whole question is as to how the accomplishment of these desires is pursued, whether (a) To the forgetfulness of other claims and duties as here; (b) To the neglect of others’ rights. Then be sure it is a short-sighted policy, seen through by men, condemned of God? Best to do our duty, and leave the question of fame and heritage, as everything else, with Him!
(2) “If souls be made of earthly mould
Let them love gold;
If born on high,
Let them unto their kindred fly.”—Herbert.
(3) What is a hard duty to the worldling may show itself a delightful pleasure to the good man—to the man of God.
(4) Lest I mar mine inheritance.
(1) How easy to do this.
(2) In how many ways it may be done—ways of which we have no conception at the time. Striving to save it we may lose it, as this man did.
(3) How many do this? (a) Ruin health, (b) lose reputation, (c) make the estate bankrupt, (d) cast faith aside, etc.
“How very ready are we to acknowledge duties which are likely to benefit ourselves.”—Macartney.
“This person readily owned himself Elimelechs near relation and next kinsman, when the remnant of his property was to be got, and then he had plenty of money for the redemption: but when other duties were presented to him—when he was reminded that there were widows to be cherished, as well as fields to be grasped—then he discovered the danger to his own inheritance.”—Macartney.
“This makes many shy of the great redemption, they are not willing to espouse religion. Heaven they could be glad of, but holiness they can dispense with; it will not agree with the lust they have already espoused and therefore let who will purchase Heaven at that rate they cannot.”—M. Henry.
“When a man finds that he is living from conscience, and not from trust and love and peace; when he finds that he has not spontaneity nor generous impulses any more, he feels that he is going down to the lower level; and he is asking every day, “What is it my duty to do?” He does not get any higher than this. It is a sign of great retrogression. It is a sign that a man has lost the liberty of a son of God. It is a sign that he is no longer a friend, but a servant. He feels like doing his duty and that is all.”—Beecher.
“Go out with me to-day into the woods, where the white oak is, and where the beech is. Their leaves died last November, but they all hang on the trees yet. The trees have not strength enough to slough them. They always make me think of a great many people. Sap does not run in them any more, but their duties hang on them like dead leaves all over. They would not like to drop their duties; they are not quite in that state yet; but those duties are dry, sapless, and enforced”—Ibid.
“Ho, such a one!” The name of the kinsman who feared to mar his own inheritance is blotted out, whilst the name of him who was willing to marry the stranger and the outcast, has been transmitted to honorable remembrance. In like manner the name of the beggar has been left on perpetual record, whilst the name of the rich man at whose gate he lay has utterly perished.”—Elliot.
“The Muse of History does not trouble herself with useless names, but lets them drop into a congenial oblivion, and if compelled to record some facts about them, uses such a slightly contemptuous epithet—“Such a one.” A poor immortality that almost worse than utter neglect.”—Braden.
“The Pyramids of Egypt, selfishly reared it is thought, to perpetuate the fame of the mighty monarchs that built them, refuse to whisper their ambitious names; but the poor widow, who, without thinking of fame, silently dropped her two mites into the temple treasury, and the weeping penitent who, in the prodigality of her great love anointed the feet of her Savour with her precious spikenard, shall, wherever the gospel is preached to the end of time, have these acts spoken of for a memorial of them. In the highest sense, every true act of goodness is immortal.”—Thomson.
“If kinsmen dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside [i.e. outside the family circle], unto a stranger; her husband’s kinsman shall go unto her, and take her to wife and perform the duty of a husband’s kinsman unto her. And it shall be that the first-born whom she beareth shall stand upon the name [i.e. take the place, or arise in the place] of the kinsman who is dead, that his name be not wiped out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his kinsman’s wife, then let his kinsman’s wife go up to the gate, unto the elders, and say, ‘my husband’s kinsman refuseth to raise up unto his kinsman a name in Israel; he will not do the duty of my husband’s kinsman.’ Than the elders of the 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 kinsman’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe, from off his feet, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, ‘so let it be done unto the man who will not build up his kinsman’s house.’ And his name shall be called in Israel, House of the shoe taken off.”—Deu_25:5-10.
Rth_4:9
Theme—THE KINSMAN REDEEMER
“The man most man, with tenderest human hands
Works best for man, … as God in Nazareth.—Mrs. Browning.
Ye are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, etc.
Charity should begin at home, with that which is nearest. So redemption, deliverance must work along the same lines, from the same centre. In every way the claims of the nearest are first. How far Boaz recognised the force of this law may be seen in his respect for the rights of the nearest kinsman [cf. on Rth_3:12-13; Rth_4:3-4]. That failing only, the welcomed claim falls upon himself [cf. also Jer_32:7-8, etc.].
The same law is recognised and followed in the world-wide schemes of redemption. God is our Father, what nearer relationship can there be than this? Christ the elder brother. And in this link between the human and the Divine is the reason for the incarnation at Bethlehem, the agony at Gethsemane, the sacrifice at Calvary. He was redeeming his own. The sin was in the flesh, and the payment must be in the flesh. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, etc. (cf. Heb_2:14-16). More emphatically still is this law of kinship asserting itself on our behalf laid down in the epistle to the Galatians. The “children” are represented as seen “in bondage under the elements of the world,” Then when the “fulness of the time” had come, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal_4:3-5). The whole belongs to the family economy, the family arrangements for bringing back and buying back its own. Hence it is the spirit of Anti-Christ to say that Christ has not come in the flesh—a blow at the very foundation truth of the gospel—a denial of the one and only hope of humanity.
Notice then with regard to the office of this Kinsman Redeemer.
I. It was not an arbitrary institution. It was one resting upon principles inherent to man, that help comes or should come from those nighest to us.
1. It was reasonable. Founded upon the reason of things, and working in harmony with all that essentially belongs to the idea of human society. The family estate remained unimpaired because of it for any considerable length of time, and was kept from passing to others. The Hebrews would not lose a single family, or branch of the family if they could help it—a wise and statesman like arrangement. [cf. also Rth_2:20-21; p. 140.]
So in the wider sphere. Sin has brought disorder, alienation, loss of heritage, into the midst of the great family of God. But are there no remedial processes that spring out of the family life and bond? To deny this possibility is to deny every hope of humanity, and can belong to a creed born only of despair. No doubt as to the Scriptural answer to the question. They remembered that God was their Rock and the high God their Redeemer (Psa_78:35.) Christ hath redeemed, etc. (Gal_3:13). Ye are bought with a price (1Co_7:23). Cf. also 1Pe_1:18-19; 1Ti_2:6; Mat_20:28; Mar_10:45, etc., etc. And, however, we explain the utterance of Job (Job_19:25) it has this great hope of humanity underlying it. I know that my goel is not cut off, but liveth ever to make intercession for me; he will not forsake me, but will stand at the latter day upon the earth, having redeemed for me my forfeited possession, etc. (Macarlney’s Trans.)
2. It was necessitated. That is if the family tree be kept with all its branches flourishing. There must be some way of providing for lost and forfeited inheritances. So as between God and man, the scheme of redemption springs out of the necessities of the case, and is but the outcome of the character of God Himself, and His love for His alienated children.
3. It was legally and technically right. An express provision of the law. Law indeed in its best sense is only the endeavour to fix these great principles of human nature and give them expression. Note.
(1) Law is not enough for the law might and must fail at times as it did here. Either it absolved this kinsman, as Lange thinks, or it was too weak to carry out its own demands of him in the face of a popular superstition [see last outline].
(2) Love alone can truly undertake to redeem. (a) Looks through the letter into the spirit. The spirit of the law entirely on Ruth’s side even if the letter were against her [see Crit. and Exeg. notes]. (b) Rises superior to all thought of fear. (c) Works promptly and willingly as here. One passage alone will show how completely the gospel scheme of redemption is in harmony with this, God so loved, etc. (Joh_3:16).
4. It was Divinely sanctioned [cf. Deu_25:5-10; Lev_25:47-54].
II. It was not a mere passing custom, but one involving and foreshadowing glorious truths. Truly and in the deepest sense of the word a type—a figure of still better things to come.
See how significant the work of a goel is to those who believe in the redemption by Jesus Christ. His first duty was to purchase those who were otherwise lost. So with ourselves. We were “sold under sin,” “led captive of the devil.” But He came, gave Himself a ransom, bought us with His own blood, &c. [1Pe_1:18-19; Heb_9:12-15; Eph_1:7, &c.]. The second duty was to redeem the forfeited inheritance. The creature and the creation groan and are in travail, but they are redeemed and shall be delivered [Rom_8:20]. Man was made heir and lord over all (Gen_1:26-31; Psa_8:6). He is now only living as a discrowned monarch. But we see Jesus, the Apostle says (Heb_2:5-9), and in Him we have the hope of the final redemption of all things. The third duty was to protect and take to Himself. The concept of the Almighty as the Goel or Redeemer of Israel is a very common one in the Scriptures [Isa_49:7; Isa_53:3; Isa_54:8, &c.]. So with Christ and the Church [see next outline]. Note. Christ is the Goel or Redeemer whose shoe is never drawn off (Wordsworth). His work of Redemption is for eternity (Ibid).
IMPROVEMENT.
(1) How completely love is the fulfilling of the law!
(2) And even where the law fails love triumphs.
(3) We have here redemption (a) proposed, (b) accomplished, (c) applied.
‘And if the name of Redeemer be dear to us, conveying, as it does merely the idea of a benevol at person, who, by purchase, delivers a poor bondsman from servitude, how much dearer will it be when we find it setting forth to us the brotherhood into which the High and Lofty One, that inhabiteth eternity, enters with his best creatures, and the watchful, patients care which he exercises over them.”—Macartney.
“Our ancestors by corrupting the spirit and blood of humanity brought upon the Son of Man his sore travail. The degeneracy of the race is His humiliation. What ever reproach He may suffer, He will be numbered with transgressors, that through his straightness he may breack their bonds, and restore the integrity of their nature. He must redeem men ‘because He is the Son of Man.’ … The great secret of Christ’s power over men lies in the fact that in Him humanity is Divine. On the ground of his supreme humanity, nothing is more natural than that He should say ‘I will draw all men unto me’.… His drawing power was always in principle the same, ‘I drew them with cords of a man’ (Hos_11:4,).… In His descent into our earthly human condition He becomes himself the first example of his own law. “Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee which is not thy brother.’ (Deu_17:15,) Does not the Highest Authority for this law vanish if we deny the humanity of the Son of God?”—Pulsford.
“The kinship with the redeemed in short, is an invariable law and condition of redemption. And this law holds of the Divine Goel. ‘Forasmuch as we were partakers of flesh and blood Christ also himself took part in the same.’ ‘None but a man could be the Goel of men. No alien, no stranger, could interpose for us; only ‘the Man who is near of kin to us, our nearest kinsman’ Hence the Son of God became the Son of Man.”—Cox.
“Will the vexed accursed humanity
As worn by Him, begin to be
A blessed, yea, a sacred thing
For love and awe and ministering?”
Mrs. Browning.
“Under this manifold and most appropriate image we have presented to us the supreme facts in the moral history of the world, the truths which have most profoundly entered into our spiritual experiences. No poor Hebrew who had been compelled to part with the fields he had inherited from his fathers suffered a loss comparable with ours, when, by sin, we had lost the righteousness, the right relation to God and man, in which we were originally placed by the Father of our spirits No Hebrew sold, or selling himself, for a slave to a hard and alien master ever endured a bondage half so bitter and shameful as that into which we fell when, sold under sin, we sank into bondage to our lusts. No deliverance wrought by a Hebrew Goel is worthy to be compared with that by which Christ has made it possible for us to subdue our evil passions and lusts and to possess ourselves of a righteousness more stable, and more perfect.”—Cox.
“Kinsmen.” Lit. Goels. The distinction between this and other words used to designate one near of kin, is that whereas the latter denotes only relationship, this implies certain defined rights and obligations. The rights of the Goel who was the nearest living blood relation, consisted
(1) in the redemption of the inheritance, and when, he had sold himself into slavery, of the person of him who was near of kin to him,
(2) in his claim to restitution or satisfaction for wrong done to such an one, when he left no son behind him, and
(3) in the avenging the blood of such an one in the case of murder if intentional, and even if accidental, provided the manslayer were found without the precincts of the cities of refuge.”—Elliot.
Rth_4:10
Theme—THE BRIDEGROOM REDEEMER
“Love he sent to bind
The disunited tendrils of that vine
Which bears the wine of life, the human heart.”—Shelley.
“But now possession crowns endeavour,
I took her in my heart, to grow
And fill the hollow place for ever.”—Jean Ingelow.
Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess have I purchased … to be my wife.
Ruth’s recompense now is to be plainly and openly manifested. As with the wise men who sought they knew not what, she, too, had seen the star in the East., and followed it she knew not where. Faith had sustained her. With sublime, heroic self denial, leaving all behind, she had said to Naomi, “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” She had come to find neglect and penury in Israel, to be a lonely gleaner in the hot sun, known and pointed at as the Moabitish woman who came back with Naomi. Her virtue evident, and not unknown in the gate; whatever claims she had upon kinsmen had been ignored, because she was one of an “accursed race.” That which should have come to her unsought, she has not merely to demand, but to seek for and plead for (Rth_3:9) “Spread thy wing over thine handmaid for thou art a near kinsman.” And when her noble-hearted protector had demanded public justice for her the claim had been repudiated. But the path of the just shines none the less towards the perfect day because of obstacles like these. There was one generous spirited man in Israel at least who had marked her virtue, her self-respect, shining conspicuously, not only in the harvest field, but even during the difficult and delicate interview in the threshing floor. And now he shelters her under the spreading wings of his own fair name and social position, rejected as she is, takes her to himself before all. Did ever fiction conceive a more fitting climax to so sweet a story? “Marriage is honourable” everywhere and in all ages, where more so than here?
I. Marriage is honorable because of principles to be seen and illustrated here.—
(1) The relationship openly acknowledged. A most important thing this, which, if refused, can only be refused from mean and sinister motives. Clandestine marriages a fruitful source of misery. Why should there be any reason for not acknowledging the relationship entered upon before all? Boaz was not ashamed of Ruth, although she was a Moabitess. Not ashamed even of the peculiar motives which prompted his conduct. Nor will any true man be. Note. If there be cause to be ashamed of the moment’s confession, why should he seek a lifelong companionship? Love may begin in secret, but ends in being confessed openly.
(2). Publicly recognised. “We are witnesses,” they said, (a) Enforces fidelity, (b) gives legal protection, (c) secures permanence to the relationship, (d) hands down a good name to the children, and preserves them from the finger of scorn. Note. He that tampers with the institution of marriage touches the ark of God (Thomson) cf. Gen_2:18; Gen_2:21-25. [See also on “Marriages in Moab,” Rth_1:4, pp. 26–28.]
(3) Solemnly ratified. (a) With prayer. The Lord make, etc. What is religion intended for if it is not to come in at times like this? The secularisation of marriage means the separation of human life from divine things at its most solemn moments. A sorry match that has no prayer breathed over it, a disastrous beginning likely to have a worse end (Braden). Rather our religion should come in the more, to touch life and humanity everywhere, on all sides. Note. The prayers here are not official prayers, but those of the people, the elders and inhabitants of the city. (b) With lavish professions of good will, neighbourly expressions of esteem, desires for prosperity, etc. Ruth, indeed, taken with the approval and acclamation of the people—a truly Eastern picture. Note. The sanction of Christianity must ever rest upon kindred scenes. Christ’s first miracle was wrought at a marriage-feast.
II. Marriage is honorable because of what it is used to illustrate and shadow forth. The inspired Word has put honour by making it to express, represent, and illustrate some of the kindred relationships between God and man. (a) Between Israel and Jehovah: “Thy Maker is thy husband” (Isa_54:5); (b) between Christ and the Church (Eph_5:25; Rev_21:2). Note Relationships below are often only the faint shadow of grander relationships above. What else can we expect when man himself was made in the image of God (Gen_1:27). So Moses was commanded to make the tabernacle according to the pattern God showed him in the Mount.
In the union of Ruth the Moabitess with Boaz, of Bethlehem, the future birth-place of Christ, we have a foreshadowing of the mystical union and marriage between Christ and the Gentile world, and of the junction of Jew and Gentile in one body in Him (Wordsworth). Certainly the incident very beautifully illustrates Christ’s dealings with those who were once alien and reprobate.
(1) He takes them to Himself, just as Ruth was taken in her lowly estate and poverty a Moabitess.
(2) He covers them with His wing [cf. on the Overshadowing Wing, page 119, etc.].
(3) He clothes them with His righteousness. Ventured the marring of his own inheritance to do this, for though He was rich yet for our sakes He became poor (M. Henry).
(4) He redeems their inheritance, and presents them to a more lasting heritage.
IMPROVEMENT.—How strikingly the story here exemplifies the words of Christ, “Verily, I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, etc. (Mar_10:29-30).
“All Bethlehem seemed moved to a devout and gladsome sympathy, with an event which had such a history behind it. The little town kept holiday; and it was meet that it should do so. Far from us be that ungenial and narrow spirit, which would frown upon cheerfulness at such an hour. It is one of the marks of the Divinity of our religion that it touches our humanity on all sides. But farther still be that irreligious spirit which would degrade the marriage rite into a mere business transaction, and form a connection between two human beings for better or for worse, a union of interest and affections, of hopes and fears, so that ‘they twain become one flesh,’ and only the grave has power to break the bond with less of deliberation and solemnity than men usually display in the sale or the purchase of an animal. Surely the formation of the marriage bond pre-eminently ought to be ‘sanctified by the word of God and by prayer.’ ”—Thomson.
“Love is the best investment of all, save conscience and the sentiment of duty. These are the treasure-houses of life, the great market wherein the shares are always rising. The step can be easily taken, but never retraced. It brings with it, in all cases, additional sorrows as well as joys. The freedom of the man and woman is thereby in a certain sense limited and curtailed. Then each has to think not alone of self, but, also, and as much, if not more of another. Each has to act, not with a view to personal comfort and ease, but with the loving purpose of contributing all possible satisfaction and joy to another’s life.”—Braden.
“And may our love be ne’er a trailing robe,
To clog our feet along our heavenward way,
But a warm garment for our daily use.
Marriage is but for earth, but holy love
Will live in Heaven. Let us ever strive,
To grow more like to God—for God is love.”
—Mrs. Browning
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth. The Birth of…
The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth. The Birth of their Child
1. Boaz went up from the threshing floor to the open space by the city-gate, where the business he had in hand would have to be done, where, too, he would catch the other kinsman on his way out to the field. The author does not know this man's name, and therefore contents himself with calling him 'So and So.'
Read full note →
2. Ten was considered a perfect number (Jer_6:27; 1Sa_25:5; 2Sa_18:15): where ten Jews live there should be a synagogue; these ten elders are heads of the community, sheikhs, as they would be called today.
3-5. Elimelech was not their brother in the strict sense, but was a member of the same family (Gen_13:8; 1Sa_20:6, 1Sa_20:29; 2Sa_19:13). Naomi had already sold the land. Ruth's being under the necessity of gleaning shows that her mother-in-law was no landowner: Rth_2:18 is an eloquent testimony to their poverty. The kinsman had now the opportunity of buying it back for them, and it is plain from Rth_2:5 that this transaction would take the form of a purchase from Naomi: the presence of the elders and the other inhabitants, 'them that sit here,' would make it a valid bargain. But if he bought the land he must also purchase Ruth as his wife. There can be no doubt that Boaz said: 'Thou must also buy Ruth': Ruth has nothing to do with the sale; see also Rth_2:10. The money which the bridegroom used to give to the bride's family was compensation for the loss of her valuable services. And at the present time in Syria 'No marriage is strictly legal among the Mussulmans without a Mahr or settlement from the bridegroom to the bride. It may consist of only a few silver pence, still it must be made.' Jacob's services to Laban were prices paid for Leah and Rachel.
6. The kinsman draws back. The Rabbinic commentator thought that he was afraid of dying by God's judgment for marrying a Moabite, as Mahlon and Chilion had perished. But his motive seems to have been an unwillingness to encroach on his own property for the sake of a son by Ruth, who would be heir of the newly acquired land and would not be accounted his child.
7-10. In the case described at Deu_25:9 the woman removes the shoe of the man who declines to act; here the man himself takes it off: there, by that symbolic act, she takes away the right he will not exercise; here, he renounces it. At Psa_60:10; Psa_108:10 the shoe thrown over the land is a sign that possession is taken: see on Amo_2:6; Amo_8:6. Similar customs have existed amongst the Hindoos, the ancient Germans, and the Arabs. When an Arab divorces his wife, he says: 'She was my babuj (slipper) and I cast her off.' Boaz declares it to be his purpose to prevent the name of the dead from being cut off: if Ruth should bear a son he would be the representative of Mahlon, and men would remember the father's name whilst they called the child Ben-Mahlon, Mahlon's son.
11, 12. No Hebrew woman could desire a better fortune than to resemble the two wives of Jacob from whom the entire people had sprung. And the wish of the Bethlehemites for Boaz was that he might win a name which should be famous amongst them as the head of a powerful and illustrious house. Perez, whom they go on to mention, was the child borne by Tamar to Judah, when the latter unwittingly did her the justice (Genesis 38) which Boaz was so willing to render to Ruth. The cases were also parallel as regards the respective ages of the man and the woman.
13-16. It was an honour and a mark of divine favour to have a son, a discredit and curse both to husband and wife to be without: 'He who has not left a son to be his heir, with him the Holy One—blessed be He—is angry.' This son would take upon him all the duties of near kinsman to Naomi. He would be a 'restorer of life' (RV), reviving the fainting soul, inspiring fresh hope, joy, courage (Psa_19:8; Pro_25:13; Lam_1:16). His mother had been better to Naomi than seven (i.e. any number of) sons. And now the grandmother puts the child in her bosom, to indicate that he belonged to her (Gen_30:3; Gen_50:23), as a Roman father took up the child from the ground and thus owned him.
17. The women are still to the front. As a rule the father or mother named the child. But it is the neighbours who here call him Obed, 'Servant,' anticipating that he would minister to all the wants of the aged woman who had been a true mother to Ruth. The book originally ended with the simple intimation of the manner in which all good wishes were fulfilled in him: 'He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.' The verses which follow may have been borrowed from 1Ch_2:9-15 : in any case they were added later to bring out clearly the place of Boaz and David in the line of Judah. It is interesting to notice that notwithstanding Rth_4:5, Rth_4:10, though in agreement with 1Ch_2:12, they do not regard Obed as Mahlon's son, but give him, to Boaz.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain CHAPTER 4 The Redemption and Marriage
CHAPTER 4 The Redemption and Marriage
1. The other kinsman (Rth 4:1-5)
Read full note →
2. His refusal (Rth 4:6-8)
3. Boaz’s redemption (Rth 4:9-10)
4. The marriage (Rth 4:11-13)
5. Naomi’s happiness (Rth 4:14-17)
6. The ancestry of David (Rth 4:18-22)
And now the other redeemer, who cannot redeem, appears. Boaz sits in the gate and hails the one whom he knew as he passeth by. He calls him not by name but said, “Ho, such a one! turn aside, and sit down here.” If Boaz had not called him he would surely have passed by. Then ten men also sit down. The case is stated and the other redeemer is willing to redeem the land. But when he hears that he also must take Ruth the Moabitess, he declares his powerlessness to do it. “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance. Redeem thou my right to thyself, for I cannot redeem it.” Whom does this unnamed redeemer represent who can redeem the land but can do nothing for the poor stranger, the Moabitess? This powerless redeemer is the law. Ten witnesses are there confirming his inability to do it. These represent the Ten Commandments. The curse of the law rested upon the Moabitess for it is written, “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD, even to the tenth generation forever” (Deu 23:3). Therefore the law could not bring in Ruth, but only keep her out. Her case is indeed hopeless from the point of the law. Grace alone can help her. And this grace is beautifully seen in Boaz. He acquires both the land and Ruth, the Moabitess. “And Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife.” It is a blessed type of Him who has paid the redemption price for the land and the people. The great day is coming after He had the fan in His hand, at the time of the harvest, when He will redeem both by His gracious power. Then all the blessings will follow--which are but faintly seen in Ruth’s union with Boaz. “For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Fear not, thou shalt not be ashamed; neither be thou confounded: for thou shalt not be put to shame. For thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall He be called” (Isa 54:3-5). “Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land be any more termed Desolate. But thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah; for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married” (Isa 62:4).
The conclusion of this precious little book is the generations of Pharez ending with David. Ruth became the great-grandmother of David.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Nearer Relative Declines to Act
The Nearer Relative Declines to Act
v. 1. Then went Boaz up to the gate and sat him down there, he went early since he wanted to be sure of finding the man for whom he was looking, and the space just inside the city gate was used for the transaction of judicial business, as well as for the marketplace; and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake, namely, in his talking to Ruth, Rth 3:12-13, came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here, the legal formula for summoning a person when seeking a judicial decision. And he turned aside, and sat down.
Read full note →
v. 2. And he, Boaz, took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here, this being the customary complement of witnesses. And they sat down.
v. 3. And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land which was our brother Elimelech’s, she had disposed of this piece of land, the family inheritance. "The name of Elimelech was still on the property; consequently the law demanded its redemption, and directed this demand to the nearest blood-relative. It is on the basis of this prescription that Boaz begins his negotiation with the unnamed kinsman, in the interest of Naomi. " (Lange. )
v. 4. And I thought to advertise thee, literally, uncover thy ear, to inform him solemnly and officially, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants and before the elders of my people, the men sitting by acting as witnesses of the transaction. 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. Boaz came only in second place in the right to purchase the field according to law. While reminding the nearer relative of the duty imposed on him by law, he indicates his readiness to render the service demanded, in case the other should prefer to be excused. And he said, I will redeem it, believing that it was a mere matter of paying the purchase money.
v. 5. Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, for such was the law of entailment connected with levirate marriages, the oldest son springing from such a union continuing the inheritance in the family of his mother.
v. 6. And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, he could not fulfill that condition, lest I mar mine own inheritance, for he held it possible to decline in the case of a woman of Moab what he would otherwise have considered a plain duty; redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it; his mind was definitely made up to step back.
v. 7. Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, whenever real estate changed hands, for to confirm all things, the author here explaining a custom which had been discontinued, except in the case mentioned Deu 25:9; a man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor, thereby surrendering all claims to the right of possession which would have been his had he fulfilled its conditions; and this was a testimony in Israel. Similar selfish considerations as those urged by the unnamed kinsman in this case have caused many people to lose even greater inheritances than that of a piece of land.
v. 8. Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe. He relinquished all his claims.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 the gate
the gate
"the gate of the city" or "the gate of Bethlehem." This was the main entrance to the walled town of Bethlehem. There was an open area by the gate that was used as a meeting place to discuss community matters.
Read full note →
the near kinsman
This was the closest living relative to Elimelek.
elders of the city
"leaders of the city"
translationWords
Boaz
kin
elder
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 4:1 Most legal transactions, including property transfers, were carried…
4:1 Most legal transactions, including property transfers, were carried out at the town gate. • friend: Boaz might or might not have used the man’s name, but the author of Ruth avoided doing so.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.