Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ruth 4:1

Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the 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.

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.

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).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Rth 4:1-5

Then went Boaz up to the gate.

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.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER IV

Boaz gathers a council of the elders at the city gates, states

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 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. almoni comes from alam, to be silent or hidden, hence the Septuagint render it by thou unknown person: peloni comes from palah, to sever or distinguish; you of such a particular place. Modes of compellation of this kind are common in all languages.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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 brothers 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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. Then went Boaz up to the gate ofthe citya roofed building, unenclosed by walls; the placewhere, in ancient times, and in many Eastern towns still, allbusiness transactions are made, and where, therefore, the kinsman wasmost likely to be found. No preliminaries were necessary in summoningone before the public assemblage; no writings and no delay wererequired. In a short conversation the matter was stated andarrangedprobably in the morning as people went out, or at noonwhen they returned from the field.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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:

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 Da 8:13. The name of this man was “Tob” or “Tobias”, according to some Jewish writers,

[See comments on Ru 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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

“ Boaz had gone up to the gate, and had sat down there.” This circumstantial clause introduces the account of the further development of the affair. The gate, i.e., the open space before the city gate, was the forum of the city, the place where the public affairs of the city were discussed. The expression “went up” is not to be understood as signifying that Boaz went up from the threshing-floor where he had slept tot the city, which was situated upon higher ground, for, according to Rth 3:15, he had already gone to the city before he went up to the gate; but it is to be explained as referring to the place of justice as an ideal eminence to which a man went up (vid., Deu 17:8). The redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken – that is to say, the nearer relation of Elimelech – then went past, and Boaz requested him to come near and sit down. as in Gen 19:2, etc.: “ Sit down here, such a one. ” , any one, a certain person, whose name is either unknown or not thought worth mentioning (cf. 1Sa 21:3; 2Ki 6:8). Boaz would certainly call him by his name; but the historian had either not heard the name, or did not think it necessary to give it.

Rth 4:2-5

Boaz then called ten of the elders of the city as witnesses of the business to be taken in hand, and said to the redeemer in their presence, “ The piece of field which belonged to our brother (i.e., our relative) Elimelech (as an hereditary family possession), Naomi has sold, and I have thought ( lit. ‘I said,’ sc., to myself; cf. Gen 17:17; Gen 27:41), I will open thine ear (i.e., make it known, disclose it): get it before those who sit here, and (indeed) before the elders of my people.” As the field had been sold to another, getting it ( ) could only be accomplished by virtue of the right of redemption. Boaz therefore proceeded to say, “ If thou wilt redeem, redeem; but if thou wilt not redeem, tell me, that I may know it: for there is not beside thee (any one more nearly entitled) to redeem, and I am (the next) after thee.” is rendered by many, those dwelling, and supposed to refer to the inhabitants of Bethlehem. But we could hardly think of the inhabitants generally as present, as the word “before” would require, even if, according to Rth 4:9, there were a number of persons present besides the elders. Moreover they would not have been mentioned first, but, like “ all the people ” in Rth 4:9, would have been placed after the elders as the principal witnesses. On these grounds, the word must be taken in the sense of sitting, and, like the verb in Rth 4:2, be understood as referring to the elders present; and the words “before the elders of my people” must be regarded as explanatory. The expression (third pers.) is striking, as we should expect the second person, which is not only found in the Septuagint, but also in several codices, and is apparently required by the context. It is true that the third person may be defended, as it has been by Seb. Schmidt and others, on the assumption that Boaz turned towards the elders and uttered the words as addressed to them, and therefore spoke of the redeemer as a third person: “ But if he, the redeemer there, will not redeem.” But as the direct appeal to the redeemer himself is resumed immediately afterwards, the supposition, to our mind at least, is a very harsh one. The person addressed said, “ I will redeem.” Boaz then gave him this further explanation (Rth 4:5): “ On the day that thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou buyest it of the hand of Ruth the Moabitess, of the wife of the deceased (Mahlon, the rightful heir of the field), to set up (that thou mayest set up) the name of the deceased upon his inheritance. ” From the meaning and context, the form must be the second pers. masc.; the yod at the end no doubt crept in through an error of the pen, or else from a , so that the word is either to be read (according to the Keri) or , “ thou buyest it.” So far as the fact itself was concerned, the field, which Naomi had sold from want, was the hereditary property of her deceased husband, and ought therefore to descend to her sons according to the standing rule of right; and in this respect, therefore, it was Ruth’s property quite as much as Naomi’s. From the negotiation between Boaz and the nearer redeemer, it is very evident that Naomi had sold the field which was the hereditary property of her husband, and was lawfully entitled to sell it. But as landed property did not descend to wives according to the Israelitish law, but only to children, and when there were no children, to the nearest relatives of the husband (Num 27:8-11), when Elimelech died his field properly descended to his sons; and when they died without children, it ought to have passed to his nearest relations. Hence the question arises, what right had Naomi to sell her husband’s field as her own property? The Rabbins suppose that the field had been presented to Naomi and Ruth by their husbands (vid., Selden, de success. in bona def. c. 15). But Elimelech could not lawfully give his hereditary property to his wife, as he left sons behind him when he died, and they were the lawful heirs; and Mahlon also had no more right than his father to make such a gift. There is still less foundation for the opinion that Naomi was an heiress, since even if this were the case, it would be altogether inapplicable to the present affair, where the property in question was not a field which Naomi had inherited form her father, but the field of Elimelech and his sons. The true explanation is no doubt the following: The law relating to the inheritance of the landed property of Israelites who died childless did not determine the time when such a possession should pass to the relatives of the deceased, whether immediately after the death of the owner, or not till after the death of the widow who was left behind (vid., Num 27:9.). No doubt the latter was the rule established by custom, so that the widow remained in possession of the property as long as she lived; and for that length of time she had the right to sell the property in case of need, since the sale of a field was not an actual sale of the field itself, but simply of the yearly produce until the year of jubilee. Consequently the field of the deceased Elimelech would, strictly speaking, have belonged to his sons, and after their death to Mahlon’s widow, since Chilion’s widow had remained behind in her own country Moab. But as Elimelech had not only emigrated with his wife and children and died abroad, but his sons had also been with him in the foreign land, and had married and died there, the landed property of their father had not descended to them, but had remained the property of Naomi, Elimelech’s widow, in which Ruth, as the widow of the deceased Mahlon, also had a share. Now, in case a widow sold the field of her deceased husband for the time that it was in her possession, on account of poverty, and a relation of her husband redeemed it, it was evidently his duty not only to care for the maintenance of the impoverished widow, but if she were still young, to marry her, and to let the first son born of such a marriage enter into the family of the deceased husband of his wife, so as to inherit the redeemed property, and perpetuate the name and possession of the deceased in Israel. Upon this right, which was founded upon traditional custom, Boaz based this condition, which he set before the nearer redeemer, that if he redeemed the field of Naomi he must also take Ruth, with the obligation to marry her, and through this marriage to set up the name of the deceased upon his inheritance.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Ruth Refused by Her Kinsman.

B. C. 1312.

      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.   2 And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down.   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:   4 And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it.   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.   6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.   7 Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.   8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.

      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, ch. xxix. 7, c. 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 (Prov. xxxi. 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, v. 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 (v. 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 (v. 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 (v. 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, v. 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, v. 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, Deut. xxv. 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 (v. 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. xxxii. 10, c.), 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, &lti>v. 7. And it was done in this case, v. 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, Deut. xxv. 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.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Ruth – Chapter 4

Redeeming the Land, vs. 1-6

As he had promised Ruth Boaz went promptly about the business of fulfilling her request of the kinsman redeemer. He came to the gate of Bethlehem very early, before men started departing from their houses to go out to work in their fields. When the nearer kinsman came along Boaz stopped him and asked him to sit down in the gate, indicating by this that he had a business proposition for him. He next selected ten men of the elders of the city and asked them also to sit there to witness the transaction between the two men. This was the custom during those days.

When all was set Boaz stated his business. He may be considered to have been somewhat sly and subtle in the order in which he presented it. First, he said that Naomi, having returned from Moab, wished to sell a parcel of land which belonged to her deceased husband Elimelech. This man had the prior right to redeem it, but if he would not do so the right then fell to Boaz. He wished to know what the man would do in that regard. The man promptly said he would redeem the land.

It was then that Boaz divulged the whole story. Not only were the rights of Naomi to be considered, but Ruth also entered the picture. The women were demanding that the right of levirate marriage be performed in regard to Ruth, to raise up seed upon the inheritance of Elimelech and Mahlon; When the nearer kinsman heard this he quickly demurred and suggested that such would mar his own inheritance. What he meant by this is not clear. Perhaps he had all the family he could afford to care for already. So he gave Boaz permission to redeem the land.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

In the opening of the study we are impressed with

NAOMIS SOJOURN AND SADNESS

It is a moving story. There was a famine in the land. This sentence holds a special similitude. It is in perfect keeping with what we know to be repeated experiences in that section of the world; scorching sun and long continued draught, often produced the direst hardships. And a certain man of Bethlehem-judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

A grievous famine necessitated this sojourn. Every student of the Bible is impressed with the fact that famine, in that region, commonly sent its people southward to Egypt. It was a famine in the land that sent Abraham and Sarah, his wife, into Egypt (Gen 12:10-11). It was a famine in the land that sent the sons of Jacob, and finally brought Jacob himself, into Egypt (Genesis 42-46). And yet, who will claim that either was accidentally driven there, in view of the history that grew out of the sojourn of each? In the course of time Jesus will be carried into Egypt, and though it may appear that His parents are fleeing from the face of the murderous foe, it will eventually be proven that this also was in the Divine plan and unto the fulfilment of prophecy. Necessity is the mother of invention, and it is often much more; it is the highway of prophecy. Opposition and hardships often seem wholly from the adversary, but in the end, serve to illustrate the truth that God makes all things work together for good. This is a fact that weaklings seldom feel. They cannot see any profit in pain or hardship of any sort; they imagine that Divine blessing must take the form of health, happiness, prosperity. They reason that pampering is the only proof of parental love. History, however, is replete with illustrations to the contrary. Earthly fathers and mothers who pet and spoil children, may congratulate themselves that they are affectionate parents, but time will simply prove that they were affectionate fools; and while attempting to pamper, they have succeeded in spoiling.

There is at this present moment a desperate effort to have legislation against having children, under certain ages, work. It is a piece of legislation with which we have been in little sympathy. We believe that for an average youngster, brought up in a city where idleness is a daily occupation, particularly in the non-school session, that a few years in the workhouse would be more conducive to character than the idling custom. Our hearts go out in natural sympathy to those families, often big in proportion to their poverty, who must subsist upon the plainest and coarsest of food in order to continue existence at all; and yet we are firmly convinced that semi-famine is still working good to more people than men imagine; and that sojourns in Egypt represent a dual truth, human search for physical food and a Divine plan for producing character.

Continued sickness saddened this sojourn.

The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.

And Elimelech, Naomis husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons. (Rth 1:2-3).

This verse holds more of sadness than at first seems. On the surface it would appear that the death of Elimelech was the big bereavement of this Egyptian sojourn; but not so. The name Mahlon means weakness, and Chilion means wasting, and there is here a plain suggestion that the father went to his death in an unequal battle against hardship and poverty, since the four members of the family must look to him for sustenance, the sons being sickly and thereby incapacitated. The change of country and of climate, while but slight, and the greater ease of securing a living in a land enriched by the annual overflow of the Nile, doubtless improved the health of the boys so much so that they married women of Moab. Mahlon married Orpah and Chilion married Ruth, and they dwelt there about ten years. But when once tuberculosis has laid its insidious, spoiling hand upon the human frame, recovery is both difficult and improbable. And the house that held one widow shortly came to contain three, and the single bereavement was tripled.

These would seem to be almost unbearable experiences. A stout ship can brave the single wave, it matters little how high it runs; but the sailors say that when the waves come in threes, disaster is a common result. However, there are ships so constructed that they can ride almost any storm and come safely into port; and there are peopleGod be thanked for their couragewho can meet the winds and waves of adversity, even when the first is cyclonic and the second deluging. Hardship and suffering commonly have one of two effects, they either destroy or inspire; either kill or make alive. Upon some they work utter defeat; and upon others, they result in refinement and effectiveness. George Lorimer, in his volume, Isms Old and New, says, I do not recall any great production or any sublime endeavor that was not preceded by suffering of some kind. Pascal sorrowed deeply before he thought sweetly; and he thought painfully before he wrote sympathetically. Milton had tasted of misfortunes cup and had braved the storms of four and fifty years before he could sing of Paradise and of mans woeful fall. Poor Jean Paul but expresses his own experience when he says that the bird sings sweeter whose cage has been darkened, for his song broke not on human ear until he had struggled long with the thick, chill shadows of poverty. Carlyle was a dreary dyspeptic before he accomplished anything great in literature; and but for Robert Halls spinal malady the world might never have been thrilled by his matchless eloquence.

These successive deaths terminated this sojourn.

Then she rose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab; for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the Lord had visited His people in giving them bread.

Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on their way to return unto the land of Judah (Rth 1:6-7).

It is not difficult to imagine that when Elimelech died the two sons and their wives comforted and encouraged the mother, and said, Dont grieve, we will yet get on. When Mahlon went, the case became more discouraging; and when Chilion followed, the words of comfort were few indeed, for the stricken souls were dumb. And yet, who can doubt that this common sorrow knit these three women together as nothing else known to life could do; and for Naomi the thought of giving them up, Moabites though they were, to return to her people whom God had visited with bread, was heartbreaking.

How often that conflict of emotions has surged in the widows heart. Shall I stay with the people I have come to know and love, or return to those who are mine through blood relationship? It has ever been, and will forever abide, a debatable, baffling question. Doubtless one thing settled it, namely, that back in Judea God was worshipped, and in Moab He was not acknowledged.

One who truly believes can give up anything and anybody rather than lose God. We confess ourselves amazed, astounded, yea, even stunned, when we see men sojourning in the Egypt of the modernist University, surrender their God and accept an imaginary protoplasm instead, or cast away their Christ in favor of the uncaused cause. Our interest, therefore, and our admiration for Naomi grows as we see her turning herself from the women she had learned to love, who had become to her daughters indeed, and daughters doubly dear, to go back to the fellowship of the people who believed in God. Many a mother on the Western plains of America, far remote from any church, privileged not even a Sunday School to which she could send her children, has grown sick of the godless estate and the reckless society around her, and has said to her husband, Property or no property, I am weary of this; I want to go back to the eastern home where the church bell rings and the children assemble for instruction, and children and parents gather to worship God.

We may argue as we like, but Israels advantage over the other nations will never find other explanation than this, that she knew God; and Israels present scattered and suffering estate needs no other interpretation than that she had rejected her Messiah and so largely ceased from the worship of her God.

RUTHS DECISION ENDS SORROW

Her decision to go to Bethlehem-Judah gladdened Naomis heart. The entreaty of the mother-in-law,

Go, return each to her mothers house: the Lord deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.

The Lord grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband (Rth 1:8-9),

and her kisses and tears, as she bade them good-bye, is sufficient proof of Naomis sincerity; while their replies, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people, was a proof of their appreciation and must have strongly moved the mother heart.

It is not at all the unknown thing for in-laws to become dearer than ones own; and that these were to her daughters indeed, there seems no doubt. It was on that very account that her motherly spirit further expressed itself,

Turn again, my daughters; why will ye go with me? are there any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?

Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons,

Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes, that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me.

And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her (Rth 1:11-14).

Joseph Parker, commenting upon this incident, says, It is hard to fix upon a point where one mans quality exceeds another. For a long time they seem to be equal, but a critical juncture occurs, and at that point the quality of the man is determined. Still, let us not forget that the distinction is between loving and loving more, not between hatred and love, not between aversion and attachment, but between love and love. Orpah loved Naomi, and indeed wanted to go with her, with a constancy, however, that was open to reasoning; Ruth loved her and shut out all reasoning, because of the passion of her affection.

I am constant as the northern star,

Of whose true, fixed, and resting quality

There is no fellow in the firmament.

It is this fixed quality in loves affection that both gave proof of her character and Divine appointment to her place in history; and it is this same subtle something in the lives of men and women that makes one more loyal than another, and that gives him greater favor with men and makes possible even the bestowment of more of the Divine blessing. In the parable of the talents we are told that while they were ten and five and one, the Master bestowed upon each according to his several ability. There is, then, a unit of mercy in character itself.

Her decision to go to Bethlehem terminated her own sorrows. Weeping ended when the resolution became unalterable; and from that moment neither sorrow nor crying are recorded; the former things had passed away, the old pains are forgotten in the new plans and the mind that had dwelt upon its disasters now becomes occupied and animated with anticipations. True, it was only a journey of a few miles, fifty to a hundred, but made as it was, it involved more than a journey to Europe does in our day, and brought to her a new civilization, for the people of Judah were more removed from Egypt than the people of China are removed from America.

Then again, decision itself is exhilarating. It is always attended with a rising strength. The reason more people never know inspiration is that they never reach great decisions. The air-man who looks from the azure sky upon all the landscape of beauty below, is only privileged that vision when once he has made his decision to undertake the risk of a rise.

Decisive characters are seldom the subjects of despair. Before we finish this chapter we shall find Naomi naming herself Mara; or changing her name, that had been associated with youth and joy and bounding pulse, to one that expressed bitterness, as one who had gone out full, but had returned empty. In this lament Ruth joins not. Youth was hers. The new land and the new people were of interest; and the natural hope of human nature was asserting itself. And even without her knowledge, but doubtless in accord with her expectations and hopes, she was approaching an experience that would bring her joy, make her name immortal, and attach the same to thousands upon thousands of girls yet to be born.

Here she was to be married to Boaz. The second chapter opens with the introduction of this man.

And Naomi had a kinsman of her husbands, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz (Rth 2:1).

It was evidently a case of love at first sight, for no sooner was Ruth introduced than she said to Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace. Who will say that a woman is to be sought only, and is never to show concern or interest in the man who is goodly in her sight; and who will claim that such was ever the custom, all philosophizing to that end, notwithstanding?

This step of Ruths was characteristic of her sex. She could not speak her love, but she could act it; and while the text says, her hap was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz, who doubts that she maneuvered in that direction? And who blames her? According to the text over which we have passed already, the first husband was a weakling in strength; according to this text, Boaz was a mighty man of strength. According to the text, her first husband was the subject of poverty; this, a man of wealth. All the world is interested when wealth and beauty meet, and still more gratified when kinship of high character is involved; and the whole text makes clear this combination. The language of Boaz to his reapers, The Lord be with thee, shows that he was a man of God; and their answer, The Lord bless thee, reveals his favor among his fellows. His question to his servant who was set over the reapers concerning this damsel was a revelation of his interest (Rth 2:2-5), while his counsel to the girl as to the place and ground of her work, and his treatment of her, when at the close of the day she slept at his feet, is a proof that boasted modernism is without occasion. It is very easy, and with certain of the intelligentsia, very popular, to refer to this period as one of primitive life and undeveloped ideals, and speak of the ancient man as a bit of improvement upon the beast supposed to have been his ancestor; but the fact remains that this four thousand year old story is nothing short of a reproof of modern morals. After all our boasted progress, this man Boaz still stands as a needed ensample of moral righteousness. The present-day critic takes pleasure in pointing out any place in the Bible where any man has immorality recorded against him; but he passes over the Book of Ruth because its high ideals and record of holy conduct gives him no ground of criticism.

RUTHS MARRIAGE AND THE MASTERS ANCESTRY

In this marriage we find essential links in Christs ancestral chain. The fourth chapter records this marriage, and prophetically effects this relationship. We will not enter into the habits of marriage that made it incumbent upon the nearest kinsman to redeem both the estate and raise up children to his brother, for to students of the Scripture that law of Israelitish life is well-known (Deu 25:5-10).

There is introduced, here, another fact which has played so conspicuous a part in all human history as to demand attention. This woman was not of Israel. She was a Moabitess instead. In the judgment of Israel, therefore, she was a social nobody, but by her marriage to Chilion had been elevated to recognized equality. Surely the paper walls that partition society are thin. By mere ceremony the Gentile could then have been made as a Jew, and mans method have not changed.

America has been much interested in a recent marriage that brought together the daughter of the Canadian woodsan uncultured beautyand the son of immense wealtha graduate of Princeton; and society has been about debate over a subject in which God has never been deeply concerned, since He is no respecter of persons, and was, even then, moving to make this Moabitess, this Gentile, an ancestress of His Only Begotten Son.

Ruth contributed a new strain to the Saviours blood. If one would take the pains to trace the Christ, he will find that Rahab, the harlot, is in His line, and now this girl that would have been denominated by bigoted Jews as a dog of a Gentile, becomes the great-grandmother of David. Shall we say it is strange that such elements should enter his ancestral chain? Nay, verily! God elected that it should even be so, for Christ was not the Saviour of the Jews only, but of all men; nor was He the descendant of the Jew only; He was the Son of Man! Into His veins the blood of all men from Adams day came, and through His arteries it coursed, for He was to be the High Priest, touched with the feeling of our infirmitiesa Saviour of sinners, a God to the despised, a Redeemer to the distressed, the poor, the brokenhearted, the helpless, the social outcast! There is no man nor woman who need fear to approach Him, or be alarmed lest He should not prove a brother.

Christ knew all things! He, therefore, knew who His forebears were, and when they brought the harlot to Him to be condemned, He might have thought of His unfortunate ancestress Rahab, and with all the compassion of a close relative, said, Neither do I condemn thee. There would have been little or no meaning in the human birth of Christ, had He come only of the holy and of the high, and there would have been no hope for a world full of sinners, had He not been touched with the feeling of our infirmitiesToday, we can invite the vilest sinner to Him whose ancestor was such, and ask the Jew and Gentile alike to become one in Him, since through His veins flowed the blood of both.

Finally, let us remember that we have here a type of our eternal redemption.

Now these are the generations of Pharez: Phares begat Hesron,

And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,

And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boas begat Obed,

And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David (Rth 4:18-22).

As Boaz became Ruths redeemer, and the redeemer of her whole estate, so Christ, Davids Greater Son, her descendant, redeems us. As her bereavement gave place to joy, and her labors were changed into rest, and her loneliness was met by love, so Christ comes to the Christian and to His Bridethe Church.

Jesus is coming to earth again, What if it were today?

Coming in power and love to reign, What if it were today?

Coming to claim His chosen Bride, All the redeemed and purified,

Over this whole earth scattered wide, What if it were today?

Satans dominion will then be oer, O that it were today!

Sorrow and sighing shall be no more, O that it were today!

Then shall the dead in Christ arise, Caught up to meet Him in the skies,

When shall these glories meet our eyes? What if it were today?

Faithful and true would He find us here, If He should come today?

Watching in gladness and not in fear, If He should come today?

Signs of His coming multiply, Morning light breaks in eastern sky,

Watch, for the time is drawing nigh, What if it were today?

Chorus:

Glory, glory! Joy to my heart twill bring;

Glory glory! When we shall crown Him king;

Glory, glory! Haste to prepare the way;

Glory, glory! Jesus will come some day.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

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. 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).

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 Ruths life interest in the land (Braden). That, contrary to the opinion of the earlier commentators, a widow could do thissee 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 Elimelechs. Or kinsman Elimelechs. 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 theDetermined to inform thee (Lange). Lit., I said I will uncover thine ear; (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 kinsmana 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 Orpahs claim, which, in contradistinction to Ruths, 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

ThemeFRIENDS 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. Ruths 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. 956].

(4)

An honourable mans 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 cityaged, experiencedelderly 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 anothers burdens, &c.; Look not every man on his own things, &c. (Php. 2:4).

E. Price on this: ThemeRESPECT 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 mans 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 Porteporte meaning gateby 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 suspensea form of anguish harder to bear than the certainty of disappointmenthave 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 Jehovahs 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 Ruths 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 mans 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

ThemeA 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 kinsmans 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 Ruths 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 botha 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 kings 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 Mahlons 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 foundfeared 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 uncommonnot 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 manto the man of God.
(4) Lest I mar mine inheritance.

(1) How easy to do this.
(2) In how many ways it may be doneways 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 himwhen he was reminded that there were widows to be cherished, as well as fields to be graspedthen 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 enforcedIbid.

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 epithetSuch 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 husbands kinsman shall go unto her, and take her to wife and perform the duty of a husbands 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 kinsmans wife, then let his kinsmans wife go up to the gate, unto the elders, and say, my husbands kinsman refuseth to raise up unto his kinsman a name in Israel; he will not do the duty of my husbands 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 kinsmans 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 kinsmans house. And his name shall be called in Israel, House of the shoe taken off.Deu. 25:5-10.

Rth. 4:9

ThemeTHE 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 Elimelechs, 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 flesha blow at the very foundation truth of the gospela 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 ita 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. (Macarlneys 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 Ruths 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 typea 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 Christs 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

ThemeTHE 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.

Ruths 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 moments 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. 2628.]

(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 peoplea truly Eastern picture. Note. The sanction of Christianity must ever rest upon kindred scenes. Christs 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 Christs 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 anothers life.Braden.

And may our love be neer 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 Godfor God is love.

Mrs. Browning

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Ruth Marries Boaz Rth. 4:1-22

Boaz Redeems the Inheritance Rth. 4:1-8

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.
2 And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down.
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 Elimelechs:
4 And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it.
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.
6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
7 Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor: and this was a testimony in Israel.
8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.

1.

Where was the gate to the city? Rth. 4:1

The gate was the open space before the city gate. It was the forum of the city, the place where public affairs were discussed. The statement that he went up signified the ideal eminence of the place of justice to which a man went up (see Deu. 17:8). In this instance, ten elders of the city were called to be witnesses of the business in hand. Lot was sitting in the gate of the city of Sodom when the two angels came to him (Gen. 19:1). The husband of the virtuous woman described in the book of Proverbs was known in the gates when he sitteth among the elders of the land (Pro. 31:23). The meeting of Boaz and the other near kinsman was typical of life in Bible times.

2.

Was it customary to take ten men as witnesses? Rth. 4:2

The law stipulated that matters should be decided on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deu. 17:6). A man might be condemned to death at the testimony of this small number of witnesses if the witnesses themselves were the first to lay hands on the accused. More serious matters were taken to the priests and the Levites for decision (Deu. 17:9). God foresaw the day when the people of Israel would need a king and made regulations concerning his installation (Deu. 17:14-20). Evidently the people of Israel had come to the place where they customarily had a council of ten men. Certainly none could say the matter was done in a corner when such a large number of people were involved in the decision.

3.

Why had the land been sold? Rth. 4:3

Elimelech and his family were evidently in need. There was a famine in the land. It was so severe that Elimelech had taken his wife and two sons to flee to Moab in order to survive. He would have needed funds for making the journey, and this may have necessitated his surrendering his title to his land. Although he had to give up the land temporarily, it would have returned to his family in the year of jubilee. If there were a kinsman who could redeem it for him, it was the privilege of this man to assist his needy brother. If the man himself came into better times, he also could redeem the land.

4.

Why take Ruth instead of Naomi? Rth. 4:5

Naomi was past the age of raising Up children. The whole purpose of the Levirate marriage was to raise up children in the name of a deceased brother who had died without heirs. Boaz naturally married Ruth instead of Naomi, who had earlier indicated she was not considering marriage for herself. She had provoked Orpah and Ruth to deep thought about their plans by asking, Are there yet any more sons in my womb? (Rth. 1:11). Later she said, I am too old to have an husband (Rth. 1:12).

5.

Why did the kinsman refuse his obligation? Rth. 4:6

The kinsman was selfish. He said he was afraid to mar his own inheritance. What he meant by this is hard to determine. Some suggest he was unwilling to marry a woman who was of foreign extraction. If such were the case, he was prejudiced against the foreign nations. More than likely he was afraid later generations would not be able to make a distinction between children born to him in the name of Mahlon and those born in his own household. In this way, some confusion might arise over title to family property and genealogical data.

6.

What was the origin of the custom of removing the shoe? Rth. 4:7

From the expression formerly, and also from the description given of the custom in question, it follows that the custom had gone out of use at the time when the book was composed. This custom also existed among the Indians and the ancient Germans. It arose from the fact that fixed property was possessed by treading upon the soil. Taking off the shoe and handing it to another was a symbol of the transfer of a possession or right of ownership (see Deu. 25:9).

7.

Was the law fully carried out? Rth. 4:8

The practice of spitting in the face of one who refused to perform his Levirate duty had evidently ceased. The Law had stipulated that the widow would come to the man in the presence of the elders and loose his shoe from off his foot. She was also instructed to spit in his face and say, So shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brothers house (Deu. 25:9). As a result of this, the man was called in Israel the house of him that hath his shoe loosed (Deu. 25:10). In this instance only the shoe was removed and given to the neighbor. The years intervening between the giving of the Law and the time of Ruth had caused the people to drop the spitting in the face from the practice of the day.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(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).

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.,ploni 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.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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.

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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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. , 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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘ Now Boaz went up to the gate, and sat himself down there, and, behold, the near kinsman of whom Boaz had spoken came by, to whom he said, “Ho, such a one! Turn aside, sit down here.” And he turned aside, and sat down.’

Boaz knew that his first task was to track down and talk to the one who was a nearer kinsman than himself. So in order to do this he went to the gate of the city. It was, of course, morning (Rth 3:15), and he was clearly aware that the man must shortly come through there, possibly on his way to his fields. The gate of a city was the hub of the city’s activities. It was there that the elders met to deliberate, and act as judges where it was necessary, and it was there that important business activities took place, especially those which involved witnesses. The gateway would include an enclosed between two gates, with the gatekeeper’s house on one side, and other rooms on the other side. There would also be areas for storage. The city itself would be a warren of houses crowded in on each other in unplanned fashion. It was thus only at the gate, together with the city square in front of the gate if there was one, that space could be found for such activities.

Sure enough he soon spotted the nearer kinsman passing through, and called on him to turn aside and sit near him. The nearer kinsman would recognise that Boaz had something official to say, or ask, and he therefore had no hesitation in taking a seat, intrigued as to what Boaz may want. The writer deliberately leaves out he name of the nearest kinsman, possibly because he is to be seen as disgraced for having refused to carry out his kinsman’s duties (compare Deu 25:9-10).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Predestined for Rest: God’s Glorification (Naomi and Ruth Find Rest) The fourth phase of Naomi’s and Ruth’s redemption is the rest that they find when Ruth marries Boaz. Rth 3:1 to Rth 4:22 focuses upon Ruth’s marriage to her redeemer Boaz, and the ultimate fruit of birth of King David, Israel’s redeemer.

Communal Sleep in Ancient Times In the ancient world, families generally sleep together in the home (Luk 11:7), unlike modern times where each individual enjoys a private bedroom. [14] Smaller homes probably had no bedrooms, and any room could accommodate sleeping. [15] Thus, Ruth’s approach to Boaz while he was sleeping on the threshing floor was not an entrance into his privacy, but rather, an approach closer to him in a communal sleeping arrangement (Rth 3:1-18).

[14] Charles Warren, “Bed,” in A Dictionary of the Bible Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents Including the Biblical Theology, vol. 1, ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908), 262.

[15] Charles Warren, “House,” in A Dictionary of the Bible Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents Including the Biblical Theology, vol. 2, ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), 434.

Luk 11:7, “And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.”

Rth 3:7  And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down.

Rth 3:7 “and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down” – Comments – Perhaps Ruth was counselled by Naomi to use this method in order to wake up Boaz without waking up those around him. This action of removing the covering on someone’s feet would mean that the feet would become cold and uncomfortable during the night, resulting in Boaz waking up.

Rth 3:9  And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.

Rth 3:9 “spread therefore thy skirt over thine land maid” Comments – To spread a skirt over one is, in the Eastern culture, a symbolical action denoting protection. Thus, this action symbolically meant that a garment was cast over one being claimed for marriage. We read in Ezekiel that God spread his skirt over Jerusalem as an act of marriage.

Eze 16:8, “Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee , and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.”

Rth 4:3-4 Comments The Law of Redemption – The act of redeeming a piece of land in behalf of a near kinsman was given in the Law of Moses (Lev 25:25; Lev 25:47-55).

Lev 25:25, “If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold.”

Lev 25:47-55.

Rth 4:7  Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.

Rth 4:7 Comments – The custom of removing one’s shoe and giving it to his neighbour was prescribed in the Mosaic Law (Deu 25:5-10). Why was a shoe used? Perhaps because this leather shoe carried a permanent and unique imprint of the owner’s foot. Therefore, it served as a signature or fingerprint of that individual. The one given this sandal had proof that the shoe that he possesses once belonged to a particular individual.

Deu 25:9, “Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.”

Rth 4:10  Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.

Rth 4:10 Comments – Ruth is figurative of God grafting in the Gentiles to the natural vine and cutting some of them off, like Noami’s husband and two sons were cut off because of unbelief, evidenced by leaving the nation of Israel and looking to another nation to provide their needs.

Rth 4:13  So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.

Rth 4:13 Comments – Just as Ruth became the bride of her redeemer, we have become the bride of Christ, our redeemer.

Rth 4:17  And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Rth 4:17 Word Study on “Obed” PTW says the name “Obed” means, “servant.”

Rth 4:21  And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed,

Rth 4:21 “Salmon begat Boaz” – Comments – According to the genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel, Salmon married Rahab (Mat 1:5). Most scholars agree that this individual could very well have been Rahab the harlot (Jos 6:25).

Mat 1:5, “And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;”

Jos 6:25, “And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.”

Rth 4:22  And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.

Rth 4:22 “Jesse begat David” – Comments – A missionary once visited my church in the mid-1980’s and said the Lord spoke to her and said that Jesse would have never been anything without David; but David would have never been anything without Jesse. This lady missionary, who was recently staying home to care for her elderly mother, had asked the Lord why she was not being able to go back out into the mission field. The Lord spoke the above words to her, explaining that her mother was a part and reason for her ministry. [16]

[16] Alethia Fellowship Church, Panama City, Florida, mid-1980’s

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

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.

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.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Rth 4:1

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 . A literal translation is impossible. The Latin N.N. corresponds.

Rth 4:2

And he took ten men of the elderly inhabitants of the city, and he said, Sit ye here; and they sat down. Boaz wished to have a full complement of witnesses to the important transaction which he contemplated.

Rth 4:3

And he said to the kinsman, Naomi, who has returned from the land of Moab, has resolved to sell the portion of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech. Boaz, it is evident, had talked over with Ruth the entire details of Naomi’s plans, and could thus speak authoritatively. Naomi, we must suppose, had previously taken Ruth into full confidence, so that Boaz could learn at second- hand what in other circumstances he would have learned from Naomi herself. The verb which we have rendered “has resolved to sell,” is literally “has sold,” and has been so rendered by many expositors, inclusive of Riegler and Wright. The Syriac translator gives the expression thus, “has sold to me.” The subsequent context, however, makes it evident that the property had not been sold to any one, and consequently not to Boaz. The perfect verb is to be accounted for on the principle explained by Driver when he says, “The perfect is employed to indicate actions, the accomplishment of which lies indeed in the future, but is regarded as dependent upon such an unalterable determination of the will that it may be spoken of as having actually taken place: thus a resolution, promise, or decree, especially a Divine one, is very frequently announced in the perfect tense. A striking instance is afforded by Ruth (Rth 4:3) when Boaz, speaking of Naomi’s determination to sell her land, says ‘, literally, ‘has sold’ (has resolved to sell. The English idiom would be ‘is selling’)”. In King James’s English version the verb is thus freely rendered “selleth.” Luther’s version is equivalentbeut feil, “offers for sale;” or, as Coverdale renders it, “offereth to sell.” Vatable freely renders it as we have done, “has determined to sell” so Drusius (vendere instituit). The kind family feeling of Boaz, shining out m the expression, “our brother Ehmelech,” is noteworthy. “Brother” was to him a homely and gracious term for “near kinsman.”

Rth 4:4

And I said (to myself). There is little likelihood in the opinion of those who maintain, with Rosenmller, that the expression, “I said,” refers to a promise which Boaz had made to Ruth (see Rth 3:13). It is a primitive phrase to denote internal resolution. There is a point where thought and speech coalesce. Our words are thoughts, and our thoughts are words. I will uncover thine ear, that is, “I will lift the locks of hair that may be covering the ear, so as to communicate something in confidence.” But here the phrase is employed with the specific import of secrecy dropt out. It is thus somewhat equivalent to “I will give thee notice;” only the following expression , i.e. to say, must be read in the light of the undiluted original phrase, “I will uncover thine ear to say. The whole expression furnishes the most beautiful instance imaginable of the primary meaning of . The thing that was to be said follows immediately, viz; Acquire it, or Buy it. It is as if he had said, “Now you have a chance which may not occur again.” It is added, in the presence of the inhabitants. This, rather than “the assessors,” is the natural interpretation of the participle (). It is the translation which the word generally receives in the very numerous instances in which it occurs. There was, so to speak, a fair representation of the inhabitants of the city in the casual company that had assembled in the gateway. And in presence of the elders of my people. The natural “aldermen,” or unofficial “senators,” whose presence extemporized for the occasion a sufficient court of testators. If thou wilt perform the part of a kinsman, perform it. The translation in King James’s English version, and in many other versions, viz; “If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it,” is somewhat out of harmony with the nature of the case. Naomi was not wishing Elimelech’s estate to be redeemed. It was not yet in a position to be redeemed. It had not been alienated or sold. She wished for it not a redeemer, but a purchaser. And as it was the right of a or kinsman to redeem for a reduced brother, if he was able and willing, the estate which had been sold to an alien (Le 25:25), so it was the privilege of the same or kinsman to get, if the reduced brother was wishing to sell, the first offer of the estate. It would, in particular, be at variance with the prerogative of the nearest of kin if some other one in the circle of the kindred, but not so near, were to be offered on sale the usufructuary possession of the family estate (Le 25:23, 27). Hence Boaz recognized the prior prerogative of his anonymous relative and friend, and said to him, “If thou wilt perform the part of a kinsman, and buy the property, then buy it.” It is added, and if he will not. Note the use of the third person he, instead of the second thou. If the reading be correct, then Boaz, in thus speaking, must for the moment have turned to the witnesses so as to address them. That the reading is correct, notwithstanding that some MSS. and all the ancient versions exhibit the verb in the second person, is rendered probable by the very fact that it is the difficult reading. There could be no temptation for a transcriber to substitute the third person for the second; there would be temptation to substitute the second for the third. The unanimity of the ancient versions is probably attributable to the habit of neglecting absolute literality, and translating according to the sense, when the sense was clear. Boaz, turning back instantaneously to his relative, says, Make thou known to me, that I may know, for there is none besides thee to act the kinsman’s part (with the exception of myself), and I come after thee. The little clause, “with the exception of myself,” lies in the sense, or spirit, although not in the letter of Boaz’s address, as reported in the text. And he said, I will act the kinsman’s part. He was glad to get the opportunity of adding to his own patrimonial possession the property that had belonged to Elimelech, and which Naomi, in her reduced condition, wished to dispose of. So far all seemed to go straight against the interests of Ruth.

Rth 4:5

And Boaz said, In the day when thou acquirest the land from the hand of Naomi, and from Ruth the Moabitess, (in that day) thou hast acquired the wife of the deceased, to establish the name of the deceased upon his inheritance. So we would punctuate and render this verse. Boaz distinctly informed his relative that if the land was acquired at all by a kinsman, it must be acquired with its living appurtenance, Ruth the Moabitess, so that, by the blessing of God, the Fountain of families, there might he the opportunity of retaining the possession of the property in the line of her deceased husband, that line coalescing in the line of her second husband. It was the pleasure of Naomi and Ruth, in offering their property for sale, to burden its acquisition, on the part of a kinsman, with the condition specified. If there should be fruit after the marriage, the child would be heir of the property, just as if he had been Machlon’s son, even though the father should have other and older sons by another wife.

Rth 4:6

And the kinsman said, I am not able to perform, for myself, the kinsman’s part, lest I should destroy my inheritance. Perform thou, for thyself, the kinsman’s part devolving on me, for I am not able to perform it. The moment that Ruth was referred to, as the inseparable appurtenance of Elimelech’s estate, a total change came over the feelings of the anonymous relative and the spirit of his dream. He “could not,” so he strongly put it, perform the kinsman’s part. The probability is that he already had a family, but was a widower. This being the state of the case, it followed that if he should acquire Ruth along with her father-in-law’s property, there might be an addition, perhaps a numerous addition, to his family; and if so, then there would be more to provide for during his lifetime, and at his death an increased subdivision of his patrimony. This, as he strongly put it, would be to “destroy“ his patrimony, inasmuch as it might be frittered into insignificant fractions. There can be no reference, as the Chaldee Targumist imagined, to his fear of domestic dissensions. Or, if he did indeed think of such a casualty, he certainly did not give the idea expression to Boaz and the assessors. Cassel takes another view. “It must be,” he says, “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 Chillon and Machlon to their marriage with Moabitish women. This it was that had endangered their inheritance. The goal fears a similar fate. 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.” But if this had been what he referred to when he spoke of the “destruction” of his inheritance, it was not much in harmony with the benevolence which he owed to Boaz, and to which he so far gives expression in the courtesy of his address, that he should have gratuitously urged upon his relative what he declined as dangerous for himself. The expressions “for myself” and “for thyself” ( and ) are significant. The anonymous relative does not conceal the idea that it would be only on the ground of doing what would be for his own interest that he could entertain for consideration the proposal of Naomi. He likewise assumed that if Boaz should be willing to act the kinsman’s part, it would be simply because it could be turned to account for his own interest. He did not know that there was in Boaz’s heart a love that truly “seeketh not her own,” but in honor prefers the things of another.

Rth 4:7

And this was formerly a custom in Israel, on occasion of surrendering rights of kinship, or of selling and buying land, in order to confirm any matter; a man drew off his shoe and gave it to the other contracting party. This was attestation in Israel. We give a free translation. The custom was significant enough. He who sold land, or surrendered his right to act as a kinsman in buying land, intimated by the symbolical act of taking off his shoe, and handing it to his friend, that he freely gave up his right to walk upon the soil, in favor of the person who had acquired the possession. Corresponding symbolical acts, in connection with the transfer of lands, have been common, and probably still are, in many countries. No doubt the shoe, after being received, would be immediately returned.

Rth 4:8

And the kinsman said to Boaz, Acquire for thyself; and drew off his shoe. On the instant that he said, “Acquire for thyself,” viz; the land with its living appurtenant, he drew off his shoe and presented it. Josephus allowed his imagination to run off with his memory when, mixing up the historical case before us with the details of the ancient Levirate law (Deu 25:7-9), which were, in later times at all events, more honored in the breach than in the observance, he represents Boaz as “bidding the woman loose the man’s shoe and spit in his face.” The actual ceremony was not an insult, but a graphic and inoffensive attestation. Yet it gradually wore out and was superseded. No vestige of it remained in the days of the writer, and the Chaldea Targumist seems to have been scarcely able to realize that such a custom could ever have existed, tie represents the anonymous kinsman as drawing off his “right-hand glove” and handing it to Boas. But take note of the German word for “glove,” viz; Handschuh (a hand-shoe).

Rth 4:9

And Boaz said to the eiders and all the people, Ye are witnesses this day that I have acquired the whole estate of Elimelech, and the whole estate of Chillon and Machlon, from the hand of Naomi. It is absolutely necessary that, at this part of the narrative, as well as in several other portions, we read “between the verses.” Naomi, either personally or by representative, must have appeared on the scene, to surrender her territorial rights and receive the value of the estate that had belonged to her husband. But the writer merges in his account these coincidences, and hastens on to the consummation of his story. In the twofold expression, “the whole estate of Elimelech, and the whole estate of Chillon and Machlon,” there is a kind of legal particularity. There was of course but one estate, but there was a succession in the proprietorship.

Rth 4:10

And likewise Ruth the Moabitess, wife of Machlon, have I acquired to myself to wife, to establish the name of the deceased upon his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased may not be cut off from among his Brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day. This, to Boaz, would be by far the most delightful part of the day’s proceedings. His heart would swell with manly pride and devout gratitude when he realized, amid all the cumbrous technicalities of old Hebrew law, that Ruth was his. And he would rejoice all the more, as, in virtue of her connection with Machlon and Elimelech, both of their names would still be encircled with honor, and might, by the blessing of Yahveh, be linked on distinguishingly and lovingly to future generations. Note the expression, “that the name of the deceased may not be cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place.” The people who assembled at the gate might on some future day be able to say, “This boy is the heir of Machlon and Elimelech, who once migrated to Moab.”

Rth 4:11

And all the people who were in the gateway, and the elders, said, Witnesses! May Yahveh grant that the wife who has come into thy house may be as Rachel and Leah, who built, the two of them, the house of Israel! The people of the city in general, and the venerable elders in particular, were pleased with every step that Boaz had taken. They felt that he had acted a truly honorable part, at once in reference to Naomi, and to Ruth, and to the nearest kinsman, and likewise in reference to themselves as the representatives of the general population. Blessings rose up within their hearts, ascended into heaven, and came downcharged with something Divine as well as something human and humanein showers upon his head, and upon the head of his bride. When they prayed that the woman who was the choice of their fellow-citizen’s heart should be as Rachel and Leah, they simply gave expression to the intensest desire that Israelites could cherish in reference to an esteemed sister. When they spoke of Rachel and Leahthe mothers of Israelas “building up the house of Israel, they first of all compared the people to a household, and then they passed over from the idea of a household to the idea of a house as containing the household. They added, more particularly in reference to Boaz himself, Do thou manfully in Ephratah. The expression is somewhat peculiar, ringing changes on the peculiar and remarkable term that occurs both in Rth 2:1 and in Rth 3:11. The expression is . The people meant, “Act thou the part of a strong, substantial, worthy man.” They added, in a kind of enthusiastic exclamation, Proclaim thy name in Bethlehem. They had, however, no reference to any verbal proclamation, or tribute of self-applause. The spirit of ideality had seized them. They meant, “Act the noble partthe part that will without voice proclaim in Bethlehem its own intrinsic nobleness.”

Rth 4:12

And may thy house he as the house of Pharez, whom Tamer bare to Judah, (springing) from the seed which Yahveh will give to thee of this young woman! Pharez’s descendants, the Pharzites, were particularly numerous, and hence the good wishes of Boaz’s fellow-townsmen (see Num 26:20, Num 26:21).

Rth 4:13

And Boaz took Ruth, and she became to him his wife; and he went in to her, and Yahveh gave her conception, and she bore a son.

Rth 4:14

And the women said to Naomi, Blessed he Yahveh, who has given thee a kinsman this day! May his name become famous in Israel. Of course it is Ruth’s son who is the kinsman referred to, the nearest kinsman, still nearer than Boaz. The kinsman was given, said the women, “this day,” the day when the child was born. The expression which we have rendered, “who has given thee a kinsman,” is, literally, “who has not caused to fail to thee a kinsman.” The sympathetic women who had gathered together in Boaz’s house were sanguine, or at least enthusiastically desirous, that a son so auspiciously given, after most peculiar antecedents, would yet become a famous name in Israel. Canon Cook supposes that the kinsman referred to by the women was not the child, but his father, Boaz (‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ in loc.). Yet it is obvious that the kinsman specified was the one who, as they said, had been given, or had not been caused to fail, “that day.” He was, moreover, the one of whom they went on to say, “May his name become famous in Israel, and may he be to thee a restorer of life, and for the support of thine old age,” &c. Dr. Cook‘s objections are founded on a too narrow view of the functions devolving on, and of the privileges accruing to, a goel.

Rth 4:15

And may he be to thee a restorer of life, and for the support of thine old age: for thy daughter-in-law, who loved thee, hath borne him, and she is better to thee than seven sons. The number seven suggested an idea of fullness, completeness, perfection. The whole inhabitants of the city knew that Ruth’s love to her mother-in-law had been indeed transcendent, and also that it had been transcendently returned.

Rth 4:16

And Naomi took the boy, and placed him in her bosom, and she became his foster-mother. She became his nurse in chief.

Rth 4:17

And the women, her neigh-bouts, named the child, saying, A son has been born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David. “Obed,” if a participle of the Hebrew verb , naturally means serving, or servant. No other derivation, apparently, can at present be assumed (but see Raabe’s ‘Glossar.’). Josephus gives the participial interpretation as a matter of course, and Jerome too. If the objective correlate of the servitude referred to were Yahveh, then the word might be equivalent to worshipper. If the name, however, as seems to be the case, was imposed first of all by the matronly neighbors who had come to mingle their joys with those of the mother, and of the grandmother in particular, then it is not likely that there would be an overshadowing reference, either on the one hand to servitude in relation to Yahveh, or on the other to servitude in the abstract. Something simpler would be in harmony with their unsophisticated, impressible, and purely matronly minds. It is not at all unlikely that, in fondling the welcome “New-come,” and congratulating the overjoyed grandmother, they would, with Oriental luxuriance of speech and Oriental overflow of demonstrativeness, speak of the ‘lad’ as come home to be a faithful little servant to his most excellent grandmother. The infirmities of advancing age, aggravated by anxieties many, griefs many, bereavements many, toils many, privations many, disappointments many, had been one after another accumulating on “the dear old lady.” But now a sealed fountain of reviving waters had been opened in the wilderness. Might it for many years overflow! Might the oasis around it widen and still widen, till the whole solitary place should be blossoming as the rose! Might the lively little child be spared to minister, with bright activity and devotedness, to the aged pilgrim for the little remainder of her journey! The word which the sympathetic neighbors, with not the least intention to propose a real name, had been affectionately bandying about, while fondling the child, was accepted by Boaz and Ruth. They would say to one another, “Yes, just let him be little Obed to his loving grandmother.” Naomi, soothed in all her motherly and grandmotherly longings and aspirations, would seem to have yielded, resolving, we may suppose, to train the child up to be a servant of Yahveh.

Rth 4:18-22

And these are the lineal descendants of Pharez. Pharez begat Hezron, and Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David. This is the genealogy of King David, and it is therefore an integral part of the genealogy of King David’s great descendant, his “Lord” and ours. As such it is incorporated entire in the two tables that are contained respectively in the first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, and the third of the Gospel according to Luke. Some of the names are somewhat Grecised and otherwise modified in those New Testament tables. Instead of Hezron we have Esrom; instead of Ram we have Aram; instead of Nahshon we have Naason; instead of Boaz we have Boos; in 1Ch 2:11 we have Salma instead of Salmon. It has been keenly debated by chronologists and genealogists whether we should regard the list of David’s lineal ancestors, given here and in 1Ch 2:10-12, as also in Mat 1:3-5, and Luk 3:31-33, as complete. It is a thorny question to handle, and one not ready to be finally settled till the whole Old Testament chronology be adjusted. It is certain that in the larger tables of our Lord’s genealogy there was, apparently for mnemonic purposes (Mat 1:17), the mergence of certain inconspicuous links (see Mat 1:8); and it would not need to be matter of wonder or concern if in that section of these tables which contains the genealogy of King David there should be a similar lifting up into the light, on the one hand, of the more prominent ancestors, and a shading off into the dark, on the other, of some who were less conspicuous. It lies on the surface of the genealogy that the loving-kindness and tender mercies of Yahveh stretch far beyond the confines of the Hebrews, highly favored though that people was. “Is he,” asks St. Paul, “the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes,” the same apostle answers, “of the Gentiles also” (Rom 3:29).

HOMILETICS

Rth 4:1-12

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 verses 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 Ruthgreatly as he esteemed, prized, and desired herif 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” (verse 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 (verse 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” (verse 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” (verse 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 (verse 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 (verses 9-12), 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 pre-arranged, 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 (Ruth 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.

Rth 4:13-22

Little Obed.

A birth, and in particular a first birth, in the homes of the “excellent of the earth” is always an interesting and exciting event. What multitudes of beginnings there are in childhood! What multitudes of buds and beautiful rose-buddings! What possibilities and uncertainties! What wonderful littlenesses of hands and feet, and other organs, all so marvelously harmonized and complete! What wondrous and wondering eyes, looking, and still looking, as if they would really read your very heart! What winsome smiles and early recognitions!

I. LITTLE OBED WAS A FORTUNATE CHILD. He had three great privileges. He had a good father, a good mother, and a good grandmother. What a blessing! His father was one of the most upright, most honorable, most gracious of men. His mother was “one among a thousand.” She had a large heart, full of singular affection and self-denying devotedness. His grandmother was a woman with bold outline of character, but with a capability of yearning and attachment unfathomably deep.

II. If little Obed grew up, as is likely, IN THE FEAR AND FAVOR OF GOD, then what was long afterwards said of Timothy might by some one be said of him, “I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt at first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded in thee also” (2Ti 1:5).

III. FROM HIS VERY BIRTH HE WOULD BE CRADLED IN LOVE, the threefold love of Ruth, Boaz, and Naomi, intertwined into a delightful unity of affection.

IV. GREAT WOULD BE THE REJOICINGS OVER HIS ADVENT.

1. Ruth would think of Machlon, and rejoice.

2. Naomi would think of Elimelech, and rejoice.

3. Boaz would think of both the deceased, and rejoice that their names were not to be cut off from among their brethren.

Then again

(1) Ruth would rejoice for her husband’s sake, whose home would be brighter now than ever. And she would have peculiar joy for Naomi s sake, whose fondest wishes and hopes and plans had been so happily consummated.

(2) Boaz would rejoice over the joy and consolation of Ruth and Naomi; and he would drink from another fountain of joy as he realized that he himself, instead of being the terminal link in the genealogical chain, might now have a place in the line of future generations.

(3) Naomi would rejoice because her deepest desires had been brought up into the light, and crowned with the blessing of the Almighty. No longer was He the embitterer of her lot (Rth 1:20) Her name was true, and not to be exchanged for Mars. She was herself again Naomi, for “sweet is Jah.” His character is “sweet,” his thoughts, his feelings, his plans, his ways, all are “sweet.”

V. In another respect would there be peculiar rejoicings over Obed’s advent. HE WAS THE MUCH LONGED–FOR HEIR OF TWO DISTINCT ESTATES. Let us hope that he would be trained up to think of the responsibilities as well as of the privileges that would come to him in virtue of being born into a good position in society.

VI. HIS NAME WOULD BE BEAUTIFULLY SIGNIFICANT TO HIM IN PROPORTION AS HIS MIND UNFOLDED AND EXPANDED. He would have various ministries to fulfill. A ministry to his grandmother. A ministry to his mother. A ministry to his father. A ministry to his dependents. A ministry to his friends and neighbors, and countrymen in general. Above all, he would have a ministry to the God of his fathers and of their children’s children. It would be his business to be OBED in all relations. Even Jesus, out of all compare the greatest of his descendants, became OBED, and took upon himself “the form of a SERVANT,” and took far more than the form; he came “not to be ministered unto, but to minister.”

VII. It was the hope of the congratulatory matrons who fondled the welcome child, that he would be to his grandmother “a restorer of life” and “a nourisher of her old age” (verse 15). High is the privilege of children and grand-children thus to brighten to the aged the evening of life, when the long shadows are stretching far away. Happy they who count this a privilege!

VIII. What a charm is thrown over infant life by the action of Obed’s great descendant in reference to children. He said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” He took them up in his arms, laid his hand upon their heads, and blessed them. At another time he called a little child to him and set him in the midst of his ambitious disciples, and said, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 18:2, Mat 18:3). In this love for little children Jesus, as in so many other respects, was “the imago of the invisible God.” He shows us exactly what is the heart, and what are the heart affections, of God. Such as was the visible Jesus in feelings and character, such is the invisible God. He, therefore, he, even he, is a lover of little children, without distinction or exception.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

Rth 4:1, Rth 4:2

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”the 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.

Rth 4:3-8

The goel.

Every nation has its own domestic and social usages. Among those prevalent in Israel was the relationship of the goel. He was the redeemer, or the next kinsman of one deceased, whose duty it was to purchase an inheritance in danger of lapsing, or to redeem one lapsed. The duties were defined in the Levitical law. According to the custom and regulation known as Levirate, he was expected to marry the widow of the deceased, and to raise up seed unto the dead, in case no issue were left of the marriage dissolved by death. From this Book of Ruth it is clear that the two duties, that with regard to property and that respecting marriage, centered in the same person. Failing the unnamed kinsman, it fell to the lot of Boaz to act the part of the near relative of Ruth’s deceased husband. Usages and laws differ, but the fact of kindred remains, and involves many duties.

I. HUMAN KINDRED IS A DIVINE APPOINTMENT.

II. AND IS BOTH SUGGESTIVE AND ILLUSTRATIVE OF RELIGIOUS, OF CHRISTIAN TRUTH. E.g. of the fatherhood of God; of the brotherhood of man; based upon that of Christ.

III. KINDRED IS AT THE FOUNDATION OF HUMAN LIFE, AS SOCIAL AND POLITICAL.

IV. KINDRED INVOLVES CONSIDERATION AND REGARD.

V. AND, WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES RENDER IT EXPEDIENT, PRACTICAL HELP.

Appeal:Do we recognize the just claims of kindred? If we de not, is not our failure traceable to an imperfect apprehension of spiritual relationships?T.

HOMILIES BY W.M. STATHAM

Rth 4:4, Rth 4:6

Our own inheritance.

“Lest I mar mine own inheritance.” How many do this? They have noble inheritances, but in a multitude of ways they mar them.

I. THERE IS THE INHERITANCE OF PHYSICAL HEALTH. Most precious; not to be gotten for fine gold. Yet how often it is injured by sloth and sin, by intemperance and lust, or by the overtaxed brain, and neglect of the simple economy of health.

II. THERE IS THE INHERITANCE OF A GOOD NAME. This too is a priceless gift. More to be desired than gold, yea, than fine gold. Character. It takes years to winwhether for a commercial house or for a personal reputation; but it takes only a moment to lose. How many a son has marred his inheritance! The “good name” is irrecoverable in the highest sense. Forgiveness may ensue, but the memory of evil lives after.

III. THERE IS THE INHERITANCE OF A RELIGIOUS FAITH. “My father’s God.” Then my father had a God! There had been a generation to serve him before I was born! Am I to be the first to break the glorious chain, to sever the great procession? “One generation shall praise thy works to another.” How beautiful! Is my voice to be silent, my thought to be idle, my heart to be cold and dead to God my Savior? Let me think of the unfeigned faith of my grandmother Lois and my mother Eunice, and not mar the inheritance through unbelief.W.M.S.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

Rth 4:9-11

Honorable conduct honorably witnessed.

By the “shoe” in the context is meant, no doubt, the sandal, which in the East was, and is, the ordinary covering of the foot, fastened by means of a thong of leather. Although in a house, or in a temple, the sandal was dispensed with, it was always used in walking and upon a journey. It was taken off at meals, in every sacred place, and in the presence of every sacred person, and on occasion of mourning. The context brings before us a symbolical use of the sandal. In early timesfor even when this book was written the custom was obsoleteit was the usage of the men of Israel, in taking possession of any landed property, to pluck off the shoe. This was the survival of a still older customthe planting the foot upon the newly-acquired soil, outwardly and visibly to express the taking possession of it, and asserting a right to it as one’s own. Having, by the permission and at the suggestion of the unnamed kinsman, performed this simple symbolical act, Boaz proceeded to address the assembled elders of the city, calling them to witness two facts; his purchase of the field of Elimelech, and his resolve to take Ruth, the widow of Elimelech’s son, as his own wife. The eiders, in presence of one another, formally and solemnly declared, We are witnesses.

I. A RELIGIOUS MAN SHOULD RE SCRUPULOUSLY HONOURABLE IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF LIFE.

II. IN NOTHING IS THIS RULE MORE IMPORTANT THAN IN QUESTIONS AFFECTING PROPERTY AND IN MARRIAGE.

III. PUBLICITY, THE PRESENCE OF COMPETENT AND VERACIOUS, HONORABLE WITNESSES, MAY BE REGARDED AS OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE. Secret marriages and underhand proceedings with regard to property are to be avoided.

IV. A PUBLIC PROFESSION OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES IS WISE, RIGHT, AND EXPEDIENT.T.

Rth 4:10

The name of the dead.

Elimelech was dead, Mahlon was dead. But to Naomi and to Ruth, who survived, and even to Boaz, the kinsmen of the deceased, the dead were sacred. Not only was their memory treasured in the hearts of the survivors; the fact that they had lived exercised an influence, and a very marked influence, over the conduct of those still living. This was human, admirable, and right.

I. THE NAME OF THE DEAD SHOULD BE SACRED IN EVERY FAMILY. We were theirs, and they are still oursours whilst we live. To forget them would be brutish and inhuman. Their memory should be cherished. Their wishes, within reasonable limits, should be fulfilled. Their example, if good, should be reverently studied and diligently copied.

II. THE NAME OF THE DEAD IS A NATIONAL POSSESSION AND POWER. “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh.” But each generation inherits from its predecessor. Patriotism is fostered by the traditions of the great men who have gone, and whose memory is the national pride and glory. To us in England what inspiration does “the name of the dead” afford? The heroes, statesmen, patriots, saints, discoverers, etc. have left behind them imperishable names. “Let us now,” says the apocryphal writer, “let us now praise famous men and our fathers which begat us.”

III. THE NAME OF THE DEAD IS THE INSPIRATION OF THE WORLD‘S LABORS AND HOPES. All great names, save One, are names of the dead, or of those who soon will be such. One was dead, but lives again, and for evermore. His undying life gives true life and power to the great names of those whom he causes to live again; for he teaches us that nothing he has sanctified can ever die.

Query:What shall our name be when we are with the dead?T.

Rth 4:11, Rth 4:12

Good wishes.

When the marriage of Boaz with Ruth was resolved upon, the elders of the city, the bridegroom’s neighbors and friends, expressed with cordiality their congratulations and good wishes. They wished well to himself, to his Wife, to his house or family, to his offspring, his seed.

I. KIND WISHES ARE FOUNDED IN A PRINCIPLE DIVINELY PLANTED IN HUMAN NATURE. Sympathy is a principle of human nature. Benevolence is as natural as selfishness, though less powerful over most minds. And we should “rejoice with those who do rejoice.”

II. IT IS RIGHT THAT KIND WISHES SHOULD BE EXPRESSED IN WORDS. There is no doubt danger lest insincerity should creep into the customary salutations and benedictions of life; many compliments are utterly insincere. Yet even the most scrupulous and veracious may legitimately utter good wishes. It is churlish to withhold such utterances.

III. CHRISTIANITY GIVES A RICH, FULL MEANING TO THE KIND WISHES OF FRIENDSHIP. For our religion teaches us to turn every wish into a prayer. It is a sufficient condemnation of a wish that it cannot take this form. With Christians, “God bless you!” should be a hearty and fervent intercession.T.

Rth 4:13

The birth of a son.

With true piety as well as justice the author of this book refers the blessings of domestic life to him Who setteth his people in families, and of whom it is said, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” Whenever a child is born into the world the Spirit of wisdom teaches us, as Christians, lessons of the most practical and valuable kind.

I. GRATITUDE TO GOD FOR A PRECIOUS GIFT. Christian parents feel that they receive no gifts so valuable, so dear as the children bestowed upon them by the goodness of God. Thanks are ever due for the Divine favor thus shown.

II. A SENSE OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. He must be stolid and insensible indeed who, when his firstborn is placed in his arms, has no thought of the sacred charge laid upon him. Gifts are trusts. The parent’s desire and prayer should be for grace to fulfill solemn responsibilities.

III. RESOLUTIONS REGARDING EDUCATION. Remembering that for the first years of life a child is almost entirely under the parents’ influence, fathers and mothers will not only at the first seriously and prayerfully dedicate their offspring to God, but will consider how they may train them up in the way they should go, that when they are old they may not depart from it.

IV. A SPIRIT OF DEPENDENCE UPON “THE FATHER OF THE SPIRITS OF ALL FLESH” FOR A BLESSING. We cannot too much connect our children with the throne of grace. Private and family prayer will be the means of domestic happiness, and will assist parents in exercising a watchful care and faithful guidance, and children in using aright the opportunities of improvement with which they are favored.T.

HOMILIES BY W.M. STATHAM

Rth 4:13

The birth-hour.

“And she bare a son.” Memorable day that I Read to the end of the chapter: “There was a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of DAVID.” The old divines used to consider that Ruth the Moabitess becoming an ancestor of David was a prefigurement of the admission of the Gentiles into the Christian Church. Certain it is that the Jews did think this a dishonor to David, and Shimei in his revilings is supposed to taunt David with his’ descent from Ruth. Rut the descent of the same true spirit is the real descent of honor.

I. THE CHILD‘S NAME. Obed, a servant. It may be a remembrancer of duty. Just as the motto of the Prince of Wales is“Ich dien,” I serve. Any way it is beautiful never to despise service. A Christian is to be “meet for the Master’s use.” How many there are who are of no use in the world I Some dislike all service, and prefer the dainty hand that is never soiled, and the life that is never separated from selfishness.

II. THE BENEDICTION ON NAOMI. Naomi was there to receive congratulations. What a time for the mother in Israel to be with the new mother! There is sacred anxiety in such hours in the household. Why should the name of mother-in-law be the butt for satire? Many can testify how precious her care and kindness is in such a season. It is easy, but wicked as easy, to satirize a relationship which, if it creates responsibilities, confers also kindness which cannot be bought.

III. THE PROPHECY CONCERNING THE BABE. How soon infancy merges into youth and manhood. In a few years Naomi will be bent and bowed. The white winter of age is coming, and then this child shall be a nourisher of Naomi’s old age. A desolate time indeed for those who have no children’s children to brighten their declining days, and, if needful, to succor them when friend and helper are gone. But all here is traced, as in Hebrew history all is ever traced, to the good hand of God. “Blessed be the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman.”W.M.S.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

Rth 4:14-17

The benevolent happiness of old age.

The story of Ruth closes amidst domestic prosperity and happiness, and amidst neighborly congratulations. And it is observable that Naomi, whose trials and sorrows interest us so deeply at the commencement of this book, appears at its close radiant with renewed happiness: her daughter-in-law a mother, she herself a grand-parent, surrounded by rejoicing neighbors, expressing their congratulations, and invoking blessing upon her and those dear to her. The narrative loses sight of Ruth in picturing the felicity of her mother-in-law. The neighbors who before had asked, “Is this Naomi?” now exclaim, “There is a son born to Naomi: blessed be the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman.” She is encompassed with the blessings which, in the language of our poet, “should accompany old age””honor, love, obedience, troops of friends.”

I. UNSELFISHNESS IS REWARDED. Naomi had all along thought more of Ruth’s sorrows and of Ruth’s happiness than of her own. And now this very Ruth is made the means of her prosperity, comfort, and joy in declining years.

II. HOPES ARE FULFILLED. It was Naomi’s desire that Ruth might attain to “rest,” and her counsels had been directed to this end. Now she sees the Moabitess a happy wife, a happy mother.

III. A JOYOUS PROSPECT IS OPENED UP. The day has been cloudy and stormy, but how brightly does the sun shine out at eventide! “A restorer of her life,” “a nourisher of her old age,” is given her. The child Obed becomes her delight, and her imaginations picture his manhood, and his position in an honorable line of descent.

IV. SYMPATHY ENHANCES HAPPINESS. There is mutual reaction here; Ruth, Naomi, and the neighbors, with unselfish congratulations, rejoicings, and prayers, contribute to one another’s welfare.T.

Rth 4:18-22

The lineage of David.

This book closes with a genealogy. Readers of the Scriptures may sometimes have felt perplexed at the frequency with which genealogical tables occur both in the Old Testament and in the New. There is a sufficient reason for this.

I. SCRIPTURE SANCTIONS THE INTEREST HUMAN NATURE FEELS IN GENEALOGY. No one is insensible to his own ancestry, especially if among his progenitors have bee: men of eminence. Interest in ancestry may be carried too far, and may spring from, and minister to, a foolish vanity, but in itself it is good. It is a witness to the dignity of human nature; it may be an inspiration to worthy deeds; it may be a incentive to transmit influences of character and culture to posterity.

II. SCRIPTURE ATTACHES SPECIAL IMPORTANCE TO THE GENEALOGY OF THE DEECENDANTS OF ABRAHAM. Israel was the chosen people, and the lineage of the tribes of Israel, and especially of Judah, was a matter of national and local, but also of world wide, importance.

III. SCRIPTURE CAREFULLY RECORDS THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST JESUS. He was the Son of man, the Son of David, as well as the Son of God. By evincing this, provision was made for commending Jesus to the reverence of the Hebrew people; for making manifest the fulfillment of prophecy, which was thus authenticated; for presenting the Savior in all the power of his true humanity before the human race, as the object of faith, attachment, and devotion.

Lessons:

1. The obligations under which we individually may be laid by a pious ancestry.

2. Our debt to posterity.

3. The claims of the Son of man upon our hearts.T.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Rth 4:1. Boaz went up to the gate See on Deu 16:18. The Chaldee paraphrases this, He went up to the gate of the house of judgment, where the Sanhedrim sat.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

CHAPTER FOURTH

Rth 4:1-12

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 Elimelechs: 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 Elimelechs, and all that was Chilions and 10Mahlons, 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. is the accus. after , cf. Gen 19:21; Gen 23:16.On the forms and , cf. Ges. 48, 5; 72, Rem. 3; 69, 3, 2; on , 72, Rem. 4.Tr.]

[2 Rth 4:4.Lit. And I said, I will uncover thine ear, i. e. I determined to inform thee. , is the same in sense as the fuller , 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 * is perhaps best explained by regarding the whole clause after 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 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 . 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 is to be taken in the sense to sit, and is to be understood of the same persons who form the subject of in Rth 4:2, the elders. The following 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 , third per., concerning which Keil remarks, that it strikes one as singular, since one expects the second person, , 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 suppositionto our mind at leastseems very artificial.The substitution by the Keri of for is not necessary, cf. Ges. 127, 3 b.Tr.]

[5 Rth 4:5.. Keil: According to sense and connection, this form must be the second per. masc.; the at the end was either added by a slip of the pen, or it arose from an original , so that we must read either (with the Keri) without an accusative, or, with an accusative, , thou buyest it.Tr.]

[6 Rth 4:7.. Gesenius and Frst define this word here as custom having the force of law, attested usage. Dr. Cassels rendering, Weissthum, is probably intended to convey the same idea (cf. Hoffmanns Wrterb.). 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 .Tr.]

[7 Rth 4:10.The Heb. 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 gleb. 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 simpleor 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. Bruche, p. 29). The underlying idea of Peloni almoni is a different one from that of (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 , 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 (, 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 , 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 husbands 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 ( ) 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 others decision, by intimating his readiness to render the service demanded, if the other should prefer to be excused. He says nothing of Ruths 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 kinsmans refusal. Elimelechs 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, andhistory 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 (Norks 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 helsk, 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 (Stber, Elassische Sagen, p. 34). In certain districts, any last token of respect shown the dead is, perhaps to this very day, called the dead-mans shoe. The sorrowful idea expressed in the practice was that the dead must be helped on in his last journey. Simrocks 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 Years 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 medival church to the mother of God. The custom of kissing the popes 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. occursfor the kinsman refuses to marry Ruthyet the ceremony of the kinsmans 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 Jacobs first and best beloved Rachel took away her fathers 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: , 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. Tamars 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, Boazin him is virtue.

Footnotes:

[1][Rth 4:1.Sc. to Ruth, Rth 3:12. is the accus. after , cf. Gen 19:21; Gen 23:16.On the forms and , cf. Ges. 48, 5; 72, Rem. 3; 69, 3, 2; on , 72, Rem. 4.Tr.]

[2][Rth 4:4.Lit. And I said, I will uncover thine ear, i. e. I determined to inform thee. , is the same in sense as the fuller , 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 * is perhaps best explained by regarding the whole clause after 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 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 . 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 is to be taken in the sense to sit, and is to be understood of the same persons who form the subject of in Rth 4:2, the elders. The following 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 , third per., concerning which Keil remarks, that it strikes one as singular, since one expects the second person, , 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 suppositionto our mind at leastseems very artificial.The substitution by the Keri of for is not necessary, cf. Ges. 127, 3 b.Tr.]

[5][Rth 4:5.. Keil: According to sense and connection, this form must be the second per. masc.; the at the end was either added by a slip of the pen, or it arose from an original , so that we must read either (with the Keri) without an accusative, or, with an accusative, , thou buyest it.Tr.]

[6][Rth 4:7.. Gesenius and Frst define this word here as custom having the force of law, attested usage. Dr. Cassels rendering, Weissthum, is probably intended to convey the same idea (cf. Hoffmanns Wrterb.). 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 .Tr.]

[7][Rth 4:10.The Heb. 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 gleb. 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] . 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 Hebrorum 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. , 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., Rylands ed.).

[9]Compare the later determinations in the Mishna (Jebamoth 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 Hebra, lib. i. cap. 9.

[11]The Greeks also spoke of an , in case a family died out without leaving heirs to its name, Cf. Isocrates, 19:35.

[12] . 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 Ladys slipper. A sculptured representation of the flower or plant usually called Ladys 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 as the opposite of , i.e. in the sense of fameless, like . Cf. Schleussner, Lex. on the LXX., i. 315.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

This Chapter concludes this eventful History of Boaz and Ruth: and a most interesting conclusion, even in this point of view only, it forms. But in the higher relation of a spiritual tendency, it comes home infinitely more strongly recommended and endeared. The relationship of Boaz, and his claims to Ruth in consequence thereof, the chapter opens with, and the marriage which follows, under the auspicious blessings of the people of Israel, are recorded. And, as if to direct the Reader to the consideration of a much more important subject veiled under the history, the sacred historian closes the book with the genealogy of Boaz, leading from Pharez (the son of Judah, Jacob’s son) unto David, and consequently from David to Christ.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

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. (2) And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down.

It appears to have been the custom in Israel to settle all points of law at the gates of the city: perhaps, that all going by might attend if they pleased. It was therefore an open court. Hence the Psalmist describes the happiness of the man that had his quiver full of bows, in a plentiful progeny. And he saith, such shall not be ashamed, when speaking with the enemies in the gate. Psa 127:5 . To this spot Boaz came attended by the ‘elders, and called the other kinsman, which had a prior claim in the mortgaged inheritance of Elimelech’s family. There is a great beauty in the expression, Ho! such an one! turn aside. The gospel call is, Ho! every one. But when the Holy Ghost makes that call personal, like the young man of the prophet’s to Jehu, it is delightful indeed. See Isa 55:1 ; 2Ki 9:5 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Rth 4:6

The revolutionary school always forgets that right apart from duty is a compass with one leg. The action of right inflates an individual, fills him with thoughts of self and of what others owe him, while it ignores the other side of the question, and extinguishes his capacity for devoting himself to a common cause.

Amiel.

The desire to raise the pyramid of my existence the base of which is already laid as high as possible in the air absorbs every other desire, and scarcely ever quits me.

Goethe to Lavater.

Reference. IV. 8. B. D. Johns, Pulpit Notes, p. 44.

Rth 4:16

It would seem as if there was already a kind of joyous foretaste of the birth and infancy which in after-times was to be for ever associated with the name of Bethlehem. It was the first appearance on the scene of what may by anticipation be called even then the Holy Family, for that child was Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Stanley.

Rth 4:17

There is no tradition in the Hebrew literature which is at first sight more purely composed of universal human elements than the story of Ruth. Hartley Coleridge, in verses commenting on the mysterious ‘tale of bloodshed’ which constitutes the history of Israel, has called this story an oasis of human beauty in ‘the wild and waste of Bible truth’. Yet the cause of its preservation and consecration among the chronicles of the nation is scarcely the loveliness of the rural picture of the young gleaner in the harvest fields of Bethlehem followed by the kindly eye of the rich farmer bidding his young men drop ears on purpose for her from the sheaves; nor even the mere devotedness of heart which made Ruth ‘cleave’ to Naomi. It is, on the one side, the exultation in the providential reward which was allotted to an alien woman of Moab for her abandonment of her country and gods in order to embrace the faith, and identify herself with the fortunes, of Israel; on the other side, the fact that David, the great King of Israel, was descended so directly from her, which made this beautiful narrative so precious to the Jews.

R. H. Hutton, Literary Essays, pp. 256, 257.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Rth 4

1. Then went Boaz up [the town stood on a hill] to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman [the Goel] of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such-a-one! [the name of the kinsman was either unknown or purposely concealed] turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.

2. And he took ten men of the elders of the city [every city was governed by elders], and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down.

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:

4. And I thought [literally, I said I will uncover thy ear] to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it [not knowing the whole case].

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.

6. And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself [literally, redeem my redemption]; for I cannot redeem it.

7. Now this was the manner in former time in Israel [showing that the custom was now obsolete] concerning redeeming, and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; A man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel:

8. Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe [and so resigned the right of walking on the land as master].

9. And 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 Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi.

10. Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.

11. And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel [her death and burial associated her with Bethlehem] and like Leah, which two did build [from the Hebrew word to build, are derived the words for son and daughter ] the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:

12. And let thy house be like the house of Pharez [see Gen. xxxviii.], whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman.

13. So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son.

14. And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman [a Goel], that his name may be famous in Israel.

15. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him.

16. And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.

17. And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed [“serving”]: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David [the first mention of David in Scripture].

18. Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron,

19. And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab,

20. And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,

21. And Salmon begat Boaz [in Matthew it is said that the mother of Boaz was Rahab], and Boaz begat Obed,

22. And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David. [“Some links of the chain have been dropped, and if so, then doubtless in the period before Boaz… We have here the distinguished names, others of less note being passed over.”]

Prayer

Almighty God, the heavens and the earth are thine: they are the work of thine hand; they are the witnesses of thy power; they are unto us as a great wonder by day and by night. Behold, who can measure thy strength, or understand thy wisdom? Thou settest creation fast upon the pillars of thy strength, and none can overturn them. We rest in the security of almightiness. Our hope is in the living God. We have no fear: perfect love casteth out fear; and in so far as thou hast wrought that love in our hearts we are delivered from the slavery of fear. We rejoice in all the work of thy hand. All thy work is ever new: every morning is a creation, every night a benediction, and all the time thou art doing us good because of thy tender mercy and thy lovingkindness. We would love thee in Christ Jesus more and more. In him thou hast outdone all thy greatest works: he is the brightness of thy glory; he is the express image of thy person; he is the fairest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely; he is the bright and morning star; he is our sun and shield; he is our all in all. We bless thee, therefore, most of all for the revelation of thyself in thy Son Christ Jesus. How gracious his word! how gentle his speech! how tender his Spirit! how full of love altogether! He died, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our iniquities. This is our last and greatest joy: than this there is surely no greater gladness in heaven. Is not a Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world, seated upon heaven’s own throne? and is not the anthem of heaven devoted to the praises of the Lamb? Bring us all nearer to Christ. May we feel more and more our need of him. May we answer his love by our faith; and, being sprinkled by his blood yea, cleansed by it from every stain of sin may we walk as those who are clothed in white, and keep our garments unspotted from the world. Thou hast set us in a strange place; thou hast caused us to pass under varied discipline: but thy rod is a rod of love, and it is in the hand of mercy. Help us to receive our daily task thankfully, resignedly, and to do it well in thy strength and love, knowing that God will judge us all, therefore may we not judge one another. We bless thee for all our hope, for all our secret gladness, for all the glory we have by faith seen beyond death and beyond the grave, so much so that we have mocked the monster and taunted him to his face, saying, O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Behold, we have triumphed in Christ, and because of his omnipotence we are delivered and are set in a great security. Help us to be wise men, truly knowing the times in which we live, fearlessly doing our duty, patiently awaiting God’s verdict and the whole issue of providence. May there be in us no sign of terror, no sign of evil apprehension, but with stout hearts, and constant faith, and diligent industry may we do thy will on earth. Comfort those who are distressed; dry the tears of anxious sorrow, intense and intolerable pain, and, above all, that secret and wordless misery which eats itself and which cannot draw upon the sympathy of those who observe it. The Lord direct us, protect us, be round about us be our shield and safety, be our buckler and our defence; then the battle shall be gladness, hard work shall be rest, and the eventide shall be a hint of that Sabbath all morning the glad, glad day of heaven. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

THE BOOK OF RUTH

XXXII

A CATECHISM

To what time in the history of Israel does the story of Ruth belong?

Ans. 1:1, to the period of the Judges.

2. What the relations of this book to the book of Judges, and its place in the Old Testament canon?

Ans. (1) It is an appendix to the book of Judges and the two were counted as one book in the early Jewish enumeration. It is an episode of the general story of the judges like the migration of the DANAIDES and the war with Benjamin in the latter part of that book.

(2) Its natural place of order is just after Judges, and it so appears in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and English Versions.

3. What its place in the Hebrew Bible, and why?

Ans. All the known Hebrew manuscripts are modern. The later Jews, for liturgical purposes, arranged their scripture into three grand divisions, to wit: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, or other writings. In the synagogues on their various sabbaths and on their great days appointed sections from these grand divisions were read, so that every Jew would know beforehand the scriptural lesson. Now, in this Hebrew Bible so arranged, Ruth was the fifth book of the third division, coming between the Song of Songs and Lamentations. (See Isaac Leeser’s English Version.) The date of this arrangement was after the Septuagint version was made but before the coming of our Lord, as there appear to be references to it in Luk 4:16-17 ; Luk 24:44 , and Act 15:21 .

4. What passages in the book itself bear on the date of the composition?

Ans. The most important are Rth 1:1 ; Rth 4:7-8 , and Rth 4:18-22 . The first passage in verse I seems to imply that the period of the judges had passed before the book was written. In Rth 4:7-8 , it seems that the custom of taking off a shoe as a token of relinquishing a kinsman’s right to redeem had passed away when the book was written, and in Rth 4:18-22 , the last paragraph of the book, the genealogy is carried to David’s time and stops with David, which seems to imply that the book was written in the time of David, but not later than David’s time.

5. On what grounds do the radical critics place the date of the composition to the time of the Exile, after the downfall of the Monarchy and even later?

Ans. Their principal argument, as usual, is based on philology, that is, the use of certain expressions or words that they claim must belong to a later date. It is enough for me to say that their argument is so very feeble and inconclusive it is hardly worth a dignified reply.

6. Who probably was the author?

Ans. The book itself does not say, only we know that every Old Testament book was written by some prophet. The probable author of the whole book was Samuel, who lived to anoint David as king.

7. The scene of the story?

Ans. There are two scenes, the Land of Moab and Bethlehem of Judah.

8. What the purpose of the book?

Ans. On the face of it the body of the book is to give a picture of domestic life in the period of the judges, and to show how faith and piety are rewarded even in this life and to trace the line of the coming Messiah.

9. What the literary characteristics of the book?

Ans. It is a true story of domestic life, both historical and biographical. The principal personages in the story were the ancestors of David, showing the Moabitish link not only in David’s genealogy but in the genealogy of our Lord. On account of this relation to the fields it is sometimes called a pastoral and is certainly a gem of literature.

10. Analyze the story.

Ans. This story is dramatic and consists of three acts and several scenes, thus:

ACT I At Bethlehem.

Scene 1 A Happy Family

Scene 2 A Sore Famine

Scene 3 A Fortunate Transition

ACT II In Moab

Scene 1 Arrival and Settlement

Scene 2 Marriage and death of sons

Scene 3 Departure for Judah

ACT III At Bethlehem Again

Scene 1 Visit of all Bethlehem to Naomi

Scene 2 Gleaning in the Field

Scene 3 Naomi the Matchmaker

Scene 4 Ruth and Boaz at the Threshing-floor

Scene 5 A Court in the Gate

Scene 6 A Man-Child is Born

EPILOGUE: The Messianic Line.

11. What the more important contrasts of the story?

Ans. (1) With wars and deeds of violence to which the book of Judges is mostly given. A writer has said, “Blessed is the nation which has no history,” because history mostly is made of wars and commotions. One would get from the repetition of the bloody wars in the book of Judges that the whole life of the nation was violent, but this book on domestic life shows us the contrast in the home with the exceptional phases of national strife.

(2) The second contrast is between Ruth and Orpah, the two daughters-in-law of Naomi, both of whom have the opportunity to become incorporated with God’s people and remain in connection with them, but Orpah when put to the test returns to her own people and their worship of idols. Ruth, through faith, clings to Jehovah and his worship and becomes the ancestress of the Messiah.

(3) The third contrast is between Boaz and the other kinsman mentioned, who stood nearer in blood ties to Naomi than Boaz did. The one for fear of endangering his own inheritance surrendered the privilege of the kinsman, the other availed himself of the surrendered privilege and becomes known throughout the world as the ancestor of the Messiah.

12. What are the special lessons of this book?

Ans. (1) The lesson on the levirate marriage, that is where a man after marriage dies without children the closest male kin under the Mosaic law takes the widow as his wife with the view to raise up seed in the name of the dead husband and who inherited his part of the land.

(2) The second lesson is the messianic picture. All through the history of Israel is an ever increasing prophetic light pointing to the coming of Christ and especially showing that among the ancestors of Christ were Gentile women, as Rahab the harlot and Ruth the Moabitess.

(3) The third lesson is to note how famine and pestilence cause shifting of population. It was a famine that took Abraham to Egypt and the whole family of Jacob.

(4) The fourth special lesson is the exquisite gem of Ruth’s reply to Naomi. It is poetic, pathetic, manifesting a high order of faith and steadfastness. I will give it in its poetic form: Insist not on me forsaking thee, To return from following after thee; For whither thou goest, I will go, And wheresoever thou lodgest, I will lodge, Thy people is my people, And thy God my God. Wheresoever thou diest, I will die And there will I be buried. So may Jehovah do to me, And still more, If aught but death part me and thee.

(5) The fifth special lesson is the significance of names. “Elimelech” means, God is King, “Naomi” means, God is sweetness; and these names were bestowed as expressions of faith of their parents. You will see in the book that Naomi refers to the meaning of her name, on her return from Moab, when she says, “Call me no more Naomi, meaning sweetness, but Marah, meaning bitterness.” meaning the opposite of sweetness, which shows how pessimistic she had become; that instead of God being sweet to her he had become bitterness to her. It is like the pessimistic passage in the book of Job in the culmination of his affliction and in one of the Psalms.

13. What the probable bearing of this story on David’s exile in Moab as described in 1Sa 22:3-4 ?

Ans. David’s ancestors on one side were Moabites and this may account for his carrying his father and mother to Moab for a time during his outlaw life.

SPECIAL QUESTIONS FOR RESEARCH

1. Point out an oath in this book.

2. Point out a benediction.

3. Point out at least three names of God in this book.

4. Mention at least three texts from which good sermons could be preached.

5. Where do you find the Mosaic law allowing the privileges of gleaning after reapers in the harvest fields?

6. In Rth 2:12 , Boaz says to Ruth, “Jehovah recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of Jehovah, the God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to take refuge.” Cite a passage in the Psalms about sheltering under the wings of God, and our Lord’s reference in Mat 23 to sheltering under wings, and the hymn of which this appears as a part: All my trust on Thee is stayed, All my help from Thee I bring; Cover my defenseless head With the shadow of Thy wing.

7. Was the marriage of the Jew and Moabite lawful? Compare Deuteronomy and Nehemiah and then answer.

8. Cite a passage from Thomson’s Land and the Book, p. 647, bearing on Rth 2:17 .

9. In Rth 1:22 , Naomi says, “I went out full and Jehovah hath brought me home again empty”; did she refer to property or husband and sons?

10. See Josephus on the handing over of the shoe.

11. Read carefully Rth 4:3-5 , and answer whether Naomi still possessed landed property. If she sold this property allowing the nearest kinsman the option of purchase, would the sale be absolute or would it be merely a lease until the Year of Jubilee?

12. Meaning of Ephrathite?

I

GENERAL INTRODUCTION HEBREW POETRY

As we are to deal with poetry, in the main, in the following discussions, it becomes necessary that we should here give attention briefly to some important matters relating to the poetry of the Bible. This is essential as the principles of interpretation are so different from the principles of the interpretation of prose.

Hebrew poetry, rich and multifarious as it is, appears to be only a remnant of a still wider and fuller sphere of Semitic literature. There are references to this poetic literature in several places in the Old Testament, viz: Jos 10:13 ; 2Sa 1:18 , where it is expressly said that they were written in the book of Jashar which was most probably a collection of national songs written at various times.

The character of the poetry of the Hebrews is both deeply truthful and earnestly religious. Much of the contents of the Scriptures has all the ordinary characteristics of poetry. Though prosaic in form, it rises, by force of the noble sentiment which it enunciates and the striking imagery with which these sentiments are adorned, into the sphere of real poetry. Example, Rth 1:16-17 :

“And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, and to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God; where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried; Jehovah do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.” This passage arranged in poetic form would appear as follows: Entreat me not to leave thee, And to return from following thee; For whither thou goest I will go, And where thou lodgest I will lodge; Thy people shall be my people, And thy God shall be my God; Where thou diest I will die, And there will I be buried; Jehovah do so to me and more also, If aught but death part thee and me.

We find the first poetry in our Bible in Gen 4:23-24 , the Song of Lamech, a little elegiac poem (See the American Standard Version), reciting a lamentation about a domestic tragedy, thus: And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: For I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me: If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

For an interpretation of this passage, see Carroll’s Interpretation, Vol. 1.

We now note all poetry found in the Pentateuch, as follows:

Gen 4:23 , the Song of Lamech, already referred to;

Gen 9:25-27 , a little poem reciting Noah’s curse and blessing on his sons;

Gen 25:23 , a single verse, forecasting the fortunes of Jacob and Esau;

Gen 27:27-29 , a beautiful gem, reciting Isaac’s blessing on Jacob;

Gen 27:39-40 , another gem recording Isaac’s blessing on Esau;

Gen 49:2-27 , Jacob’s blessings on his sons;

Exo 15:1-18 , Moses’ song of triumph over Pharaoh;

Num 6:24-26 , the high priest’s benediction;

Num 21:14-15 , a war song of Amon;

Num 21:17-18 , a song at the well of Be-er;

Num 21:27-30 , a song of victory over “Sihon, king of the Amorites”;

Num 23:7-10 , Balaam’s first prophecy;

Num 23:18-24 , Balaam’s second prophecy;

Num 24:3-9 , Balaam’s third prophecy;

Num 24:15-24 , Balaam’s fourth prophecy;

Deu 32:1-43 , Moses’ song;

Deu 33:2-29 , Moses’ blessing on Israel.

The poetry found in the historical books (Josh.-Esther) is as follows:

Jos 10:12-13 , Joshua’s little song of victory;

Jdg 5:1-31 , Deborah’s song;

Jdg 14:14 , Samson’s riddle;

Jdg 14:18 , Samson’s proverb;

Jdg 15:16 , Samson’s song of the jawbone;

1Sa 2:1-10 , Hannah’s song of exultation;

1Sa 21:11 , the song of the women about Saul and David;

2Sa 1:19-21 , David’s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan;

2Sa 3:33-34 , David’s lamentation over Abner;

2Sa 22:2-51 , David’s song of triumph over his enemies;

2Sa 23:1-7 , David’s last words;

1Ch 16:8-36 , David’s song of thanksgiving.

A great deal of the writings of the prophets is highly poetic, and many quotations from them in the New Testament are given in poetic form in the American Standard Version, but only a few passages appear in poetic form in the books of the Old Testament. These are as follows:

Isa 38:9-20 , Hezekiah’s song;

Lamentations;

Jon 2:2-9 , Jonah’s prayer;

Hab 3:1-19 , the prayer of Habakkuk.

Besides these passages, the great bulk of Hebrew poetry found in the Old Testament is in the poetical books Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon practically all of which is poetical in form, except Ecclesiastes which is poetic prose. These books constitute the basis of our present study.

There is quite a lot of poetry in the New Testament, consisting of original poems and many quotations from the Old Testament and some other writings, for the citations of which I refer the reader to the American Standard Version of the New Testament. These passages are in poetic form wherever they occur. This will give the reader some idea of the mass of poetical literature found in our Bible and it should impress him with the importance of understanding the principles by which it may be rightly interpreted.

On the distinguishing characteristics of Hebrew poetry, I commend to the reader most heartily Dr. John R. Sampey’s Syllabus of the Old Testament. Dr. Sampey was a great Hebrew scholar and his discussion on any point touching the Hebrew language must be considered authoritative. Since there is no better statement on these matters to be found anywhere, I give you in the following paragraphs a brief summary of his discussion on the forms and kinds of Hebrew poetry, noting especially what he says about parallelism, the grouping of lines, the stanza, the meter, and the kinds of Hebrew poetry. The general characteristics of Hebrew poetry are: (1) verbal rhythm, (2) correspondence of words, (3) inversion, (4) archaic expression and (5) parallelism.

Recent research goes to show that the Hebrew poets had some regard for the number of accented syllables in a line. They were guided by accentual beats rather than by the number of words or syllables. The most common form called for three accents to each line. The difficulty in getting an appreciation of the verbal rhythm in Hebrew lies in the fact that there is almost a complete loss of the true pronunciation of the Hebrew.

By correspondence of words is meant that the words in one verge, or member; answer to the words in another, the sense in the one echoing the sense in the other, the form corresponding with form and word with word. Some examples, as follows: Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why art thou disquieted within me? Psa 43:5 He turneth rivers into a wilderness, And watersprings into a thirsty ground. Psa 107:33 The memory of the righteous is blessed; But the name of the wicked shall rot. Pro 10:7

By inversion is meant to invert the grammatical order or parts in a sentence for the purpose of emphasis or for adjustment. Though inversion holds a distinguished place in the structure of Hebrew poetry, it is only a modified inversion that prevails and by no means does it compare favorably with that of the Greeks and Romans in boldness, decision, and prevalence. Examples: In thoughts from the visions of the night, When deep sleep falleth on men. Job 4:13 Unto me men gave ear, and waited, And kept silence for my counsel. Job 29:21 And they made his grave with the wicked, And with a rich man in his death; Although he had done no violence, Neither was any deceit in his mouth. Isa 53:9

The archaical character of Hebrew poetry refers to the antiquity of the poetical elements as found in the Hebrew poetry, to the license, poetic hue and coloring, which cannot be confounded with simple, low, and unrhythmical diction of prose. Two elements, a poetical temperament and a poetical history, which are necessary to the development of a poetic diction, the Hebrews had as perhaps few people have ever possessed. Theirs was eminently a poetic temperament; their earliest history was heroic while the loftiest of all truths circulated in their souls and glowed on their lips. Hence their language, in its earliest stages, is surpassingly poetic, striking examples of which may be found in Genesis and Job.

By parallelism in Hebrew poetry is meant that one line corresponds in thought to another line. The three most common varieties of parallelism are: (1) synonymous, (2) antithetic, (3) synthetic. We will now define and illustrate each variety, thus:

(1) By synonymous parallelism is meant that in which a second line simply repeats in slightly altered phraseology the thought of the first line. Examples: He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh: The Lord will have them in derision.

Psa 2:4 And these lay wait for their own blood; They lurk privily for their own lives. Pro 1:18

Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? Or is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect?

Job 22:3 For thou hast taken pledges of thy brother for naught, And stripped the naked for their clothing. Job 22:6 But as for the mighty man, he had the earth; And the honorable man, he dwelt in it. Job 22:8 Therefore snares are round about thee, And sudden fear troubleth thee. Job 22:10

(2) By antithetic parallelism is meant that in which the second line is in contrast with the first. Examples: A wise son maketh a glad father; But a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother; Pro 10:1 He that gathereth in summer is a wise son; But he that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causeth shame; Pro 10:5 The memory of the righteous is blessed; But the name of the wicked shall rot. Pro 10:7

Most of the 376 couplets in Pro 10:1-22:16 are antithetic.

(3) By synthetic parallelism is meant that in which the second line supplements the first, both together giving a complete thought. Examples: My son, if sinners entice thee, Consent thou not. Pro 1:10 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, When it is in the power of thy hand to do it. Pro 3:27 Say not unto thy neighbor. Go, and come again, And to-morrow I will give: When thou hast it by thee. Pro 3:28 Devise not evil against thy neighbor; Seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. Pro 3:29 Strive not with a man without cause, If he hath done thee no harm. Pro 3:30

The less common varieties of parallelism found in Hebrew poetry are: (1) climactic, (2) introverted, and (3) emblematic. These are defined and illustrated as follows:

(1) In the climactic parallelism the second line takes up words from the first and completes them. Example: Ascribe unto Jehovah, O ye sons of the mighty, Ascribe unto Jehovah glory and strength. Psa 28:1 The rulers ceased in Israel, they ceased, Until that I Deborah arose, That I arose a mother in Israel. Jdg 5:7

(2) In the introverted parallelism the first line corresponds with the fourth, and the second with the third. Example: My son, if thy heart be wise, My heart will be glad, even mine; Yea, my heart will rejoice, When thy lips speak right things. Pro 23:15

3) In the emblematic parallelism the second line brings forward something similar to the first, but in a higher realm. Take away the dross from the silver, And there cometh forth a vessel for the refiner; Take away the wicked from before the king, And his throne shall be established in righteousness. Pro 25:4 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in network of silver. As an ear-ring of gold and an ornament of fine gold, So is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear. As the cold snow is the time of harvest, So is a faithful messenger to them that send him; For he refresheth the soul of his masters. Pro 25:11-13 As clouds and wind without rain, So is he that boasteth himself of his gifts falsely. Pro 25:14 Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble Is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint. Pro 25:19 As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon soda, So is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart. Pro 25:20 For lack of wood the fire goeth out; And where there is no whisperer, contention ceaseth. As coals are to hot embers, and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to inflame strife. Pro 26:20-21

The lines in Hebrew poetry are grouped as follows:

(1) Monostichs (Psa 16:1 ; Psa 18:1 );

(2) Distichs (Psa 34:1 ; Pro 13:20 ) ;

(3) Tristichs (Psa 2:2 ; Psa 3:7 );

(4) Tetrastichs (Gen 49:7 ; Psa 55:21 ; Pro 23:15 f);

(5) Pentastichs (Pro 25:6 f);

(6) Hexastichs (Gen 48:15 f);

(7) Heptastichs(Pro 23:6-8 );

(8) Octostichs (Pro 30:7-9 ),

A stanza in Hebrew poetry consists of a group of lines or verses upon the same subject or developing the same thought. There are four kinds of these stanzas, viz: the couplet, or a group of two lines; the tristich, or a group of three lines; the tetrastich, or a group of four lines; and the hexastich, or a group of six lines. In Psa 119 we have the strophe consisting of eight verses, each verse in this strophe beginning with the same letter.

There are four kinds of Hebrew poetry, viz: (1) lyric, (2) gnomic, (3) dramatic, (4) elegiac. These are defined and illustrated thus:

(1) Lyric is derived from the word, “lyre,” a musical instrument to accompany singing. There are many snatches of song in the historical books from Genesis to Esther. The Psalms are an imperishable collection of religious lyrics.

(2) By “gnomic” is meant proverbial. Proverbs, part of Ecclesiastes, and many detached aphorisms in other books of the Old Testament are examples.

(3) By “dramatic” is meant that form of literature that gives idealized representations of human experience. Job is a splendid example of this kind of literature.

(4) By “elegiac” is meant that form of poetry which partakes of the nature of the elegy, or lamentation. Lamentations is a fine example of this kind of poetry. There are other dirges in the historical books and in the prophets. 2Sa 1:19-27 and Amo 5:1-3 are examples. Much of Isaiah’s writing is poetic in spirit and some of it in form. So of the early prophetic writers, especially the early prophets. Now, according to this classification of Hebrew poetry, it should be an easy and profitable work for the reader to classify all the poetry of the Bible. This can be readily done with the American Standard Revised Version in hand. All the poetry of the Bible is written in poetic form in this version, and every student of the Bible should have it.

QUESTIONS

1. What can you say, in general, of the Hebrew poetry as we have it in the Bible?

2. What of the character of the poetry of the Hebrews?

3. Where do we find the first poetry in our Bible and what ia the nature of this little poem?

4. Locate all the poetry found in the Pentateuch.

5. Locate all the poetry found in the historical books (Josh.; Esther).

6. Locate the poetic passages in the prophets.

7. Where do we find the great bulk of Hebrew poetry in the Bible?

8. What of the poetry of the New Testament and how may it be located?

9. What book commended by the author on the forms and kinds of Hebrew poetry?

10. What the general characteristics of Hebrew poetry?

11. What is meant by rhythm and what renders an appreciation of verbal rhythm in the Hebrew now so difficult?

12. What is meant by correspondence of words? Illustrate.

13. What is meant by inversion? Illustrate.

14. What is meant by the archaical character of Hebrew poetry?

15. What is meant by parallelism and what the three most common varieties? Define and illustrate each.

16. What the less common varieties of parallelism? Define and illustrate each.

17. How are the lines in Hebrew poetry grouped? Give example of each.

18. What is a stanza in Hebrew poetry? How many and what kinds are found?

19. How many kinds of Hebrew poetry? Name, define, and illustrate each.

20. What suggestion by the author relative to classifying all the poetry of the Bible?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

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

“ 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: ( ). 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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

the kinsman. Hebrew. Goel = the next of kin, who has the right of redemption. See notes on Exo 6:6, and Exo 13:13.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 4

So when Boaz rose up he went to the gate of the city, he sat down there: and, behold, the kinsman of which he was speaking came by, and he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And so he turned aside, and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit down here. And so they sat down. And he said to the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, is selling a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech’s: And I thought to let you know, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and the elders of the people. And if you will redeem it, redeem it: but if you will 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 ( Rth 4:1-4 ).

Now another Jewish law declared that whenever you sold a parcel of land there was always a reversionary clause where you had the right to buy the land back again within a specified period of time. Usually they would write up the deed in a scroll, and then they would seal the scroll. In that specified period of time, when the right of redemption had come, or the reversionary clause, then you could bring the title deed, and you could break the seals and you could, with the elders of the city there present, and you will show that you have the right and the ability to buy the field back. You could always buy back your property. The revision clause was in every sale. The right of buying it back.

Now under the Jewish law if you were not able because you were too poor, to buy the land back when the time of redemption had come, then one of your family members could step in and buy it in order that it remained in the family, because God wanted to preserve the family inheritances in Israel. So the next of kin could come in and take your part, or your place in the purchasing, or the repurchasing of the land.

So when Naomi and Elimelech had moved to Moab they had sold their parcel, and according to the reversionary clause, the time was up, and now it was again coming on the block, the time to redeem it. So he said, “You know Naomi is getting ready to sell this parcel, she can’t redeem it. The right of redemption is yours and if you’re gonna redeem it, then redeem it. If not, there’s no one except me after you, and so what do you want to do?”

The fellow says, “Well, I’ll redeem it.”

And so Boaz said unto him, In the day that you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also buy it from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance ( Rth 4:5 ).

In other words, “You’re gonna have to take Ruth a wife and have a son in order that the name of the inheritance might continue.

The fellow said, “Oh man that would mess up my own inheritance.” Cause he’s already married, and he already had children lined up for the inheritance. He said, “Man, my wife wouldn’t go for that. We can’t handle that one.” He said to Boaz, “Why don’t you redeem it?” So Boaz was very happy about that turn of events.

And so the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for my self, lest I mess up my own inheritance: you redeem it take the right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it ( Rth 4:6 ).

Now there was a custom in the former times. Now this custom died out, however it is interesting, there was a lady recently in Israel who tried to get her brother-in-law to enact this old law because her husband died. So she tried to get him to marry her and all to fulfill the ancient law. He refused to do it, and so she insisted that he take off, she sued the poor thing, and take off the shoe so she could spit in his face and all. So they did go through this ceremony of recent vintage in Israel, but actually it was a custom that died out in time. But it is saying in the older days they did have this custom. So the book of Ruth was written at some later date.

And so he’s recording,

Now this was the manner in the former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man had to take off his shoe, and give it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel. [So the fellow took off his shoe and handed it to Boaz.] Therefore the kinsman said to Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe. And Boaz said to the elders, and to all the people, You are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi. Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead is not cut off from among his brethren, and the gate of his place: you are witnesses this day ( Rth 4:7-10 ).

So, “I have purchased the whole thing, all that belonged to Naomi, and to Elimelech, and to Mahlon, and Chilion, and I have purchased Ruth to be my wife.

Now here is an interesting case. Where because of his love for Ruth, he bought the field in order that he might obtain the bride. His primary interest was not the field at all. He was a very mighty man of wealth. He didn’t need any more fields. But he bought the field in order to obtain the bride. In that he becomes a very beautiful picture of Jesus Christ, who bought the world in order that He might purchase His bride, the church, out of the world. Not interested necessarily in the planet earth as such, but interested, and in love with His bride. Jesus purchased the world in order to take His treasure.

So in the kingdom parables, “The kingdom is like unto a man going through a field, discovering a treasure, who for the joy thereof immediately goes out and sells all that he had in order that he might buy the field, and obtain the treasure”( Mat 13:44 ). So Jesus seeing the treasure, His church, His bride, within the world, bought the whole world in order to take His bride out of it. Beautiful, beautiful sort of a parallel here with Boaz and Ruth, and Jesus and the church.

And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are the witnesses. The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem: And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman ( Rth 4:11-12 ).

Now it is interesting that they speak of Judah and Tamar and Pharez, because here is where this whole thing, this particular law I mentioned earlier, that one of Judah’s sons married Tamar, he died without having any children. Judah gave the other son; he died without having any children. Judah then was reluctant to give his third son, “Wait until he grows up; he’s too young.” After a period of waiting and all, Judah hadn’t come through with the third son. So as I said, Tamar took things into her own hands. What she did is she put on the clothes of a prostitute, and she went out and sat there at a place in the path where Judah was walking by. Judah-she was all veiled, had the garb of a prostitute on. He thought she was a prostitute. He propositioned her.

And she said, “Well, what will you pay me?”

He said, “Well, I’ll give you a little goat out of the flock.”

She said, “Well, how do I know you’ll come through with it?”

He said, “Well, I’ll give you my ring as a pledge.” So he came in unto Tamar, had relations with her, and gave her his ring as a pledge that he would send back a goat to her. That was what he propositioned for.

So Tamar took off the clothes of a prostitute, went back home, and was pregnant. Judah sent his servant back to get his ring back with a young little goat. The guy came and he looked and there was no prostitute sitting there in this area where Judah said she was. So he said to the guys around there, “Where’s the prostitute that usually hangs out here?”

They said, “There is no prostitute that hangs out here.”

So he came back to Judah and said, “Hey, I couldn’t find any, and the fellows said there isn’t any prostitute that hangs out there.” So Judah said, “Oh well let it go.”

Then word came to Judah, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is pregnant.”

He said, “Bring her forth, we’ll stone her!”

So she came forth, and she held out the ring, and she said, “By the man who owns this ring am I pregnant.”

Now you see it was the obligation of a kinsman to raise up a child for the dead son. Judah was trapped by the young gal into doing it. He acknowledged that she was, “You’re more righteous than I am. I was really withholding. You’re more righteous than I am.” The son that was born was called Pharez. He became a part of the line of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. So he was also of the line of Elimelech, coming on down, he was one of the ancestors of Elimelech.

So the people said, here’s a similar situation, an older man fulfilling the kinsman part, raising up a son, “And may the Lord bless you, and may she be like Tamar who bore Pharez. May you have a son and may there be a progeny that comes forth, a blessed progeny that comes forth from this relationship.” So the people in their congratulations to him go back into his own ancestry to a somewhat similar situation, at least the situation where the kinsman raised up the family name for those who had died. So, “Let your house be like the house of Pharez whom Tamar bore to Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman.”

So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son. And the women said to Naomi, Blessed be Jehovah, which has not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loves thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath borne him ( Rth 4:13-15 ).

So Naomi who said, “Call me bitter” is now experiencing really the blessings and the joy of a grandson knowing now that the family name is not gonna die. They’re saying, “May he be a blessing unto you,” and so forth, “and a nourisher of your old age.”

And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became a nurse unto it. [Actually she wet-nursed then her little grandson which was a very common thing in those days.] And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed [Which means “worshiper.”] and he is the father of Jesse, who is the father of David ( Rth 4:16-17 ).

So the grandfather of David, who became king of Israel, this is the parentage and all.

Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron, Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, Amminadab begat Nahshon, Nahshon begat Salmon, Salmon begat Boaz, Boaz begat Obed, Obed begat Jesse, Jesse begat David ( Rth 4:18-22 ).

So ten generations are listed from Pharez unto David. So we have the background of the genealogy of David, which also becomes the background of the genealogy of the background of Jesus Christ, for Christ came through the genealogy of David, which came through the genealogy of Pharez, who was born of Tamar, by Judah in this unsavory kind of a situation. Here you have a Moabitess who were cursed by God, as far as the children of Israel were concerned, who could not come into the house of God till the tenth generation and here happens to be ten generations listed to David. So you, you have the line of Christ, so that no matter what your background, you can always identify with Him. You say, “Well, my relatives weren’t the nicest people in the block.” Well, neither were His. Thus each man can identify with Jesus Christ in a unique and special way.

Even as Boaz was the kinsman redeemer, fulfilled the law, redeemed the property in order to get the bride, so Jesus Christ is our kinsman redeemer. He became a man in order that He might be next of kin to man, in order that He could redeem man. It was necessary for Him in order to be the kinsman redeemer, the goel, to become a man. That was an essential. That is why the incarnation, so that as a man He could be a kinsman redeemer to redeem man, because the earth had been sold by Adam to Satan.

Now the whole deal has been wrapped up in a scroll and it’s sealed with seven seals. Satan now rules the world: it’s his. It belongs to him. He took it from Adam, or Adam actually sold out to Satan. Jesus came to redeem the world back to God, to pay the price of the redemption, which was His own blood, His death. Now in Hebrews it says, “God has put all things into subjection unto Him, Jesus Christ” ( Heb 2:8 ), but we do not yet see all things in subjection to Him. We don’t see the whole thing established as it’s going to be, the Kingdom age. But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels in order that He might suffer death. Crowned with glory and honor, waiting really for that day in which the earth is to be redeemed back to God.

Now there is a period of time in the history of Israel when Saul was king over Israel. Because of his disobedience to God, God said to Samuel, “Go down to the house of Jesse and anoint one of his sons to be the king.” So Samuel came down to the house of Jesse, and the first son-Iliad came in, good looking, big strong guy. And Samuel said, “Wow what a good looking, surely this is the one God wants.”

God said, “Hey no, no. You look on the outward appearance, but I look on the heart.” So one by one Jesse paraded his sons through, and the Lord didn’t bear witness to any of them. Finally Samuel said, “Is that all the boys you’ve got?”

“I’ve got one more but he’s just a kid. He’s out there watching the sheep. I didn’t figure he was gonna count.”

“Well bring him in.” He went out and whistled. David came running in sweaty and dirty.

The Lord said to Samuel, “That’s the one.” Samuel took this cruise of oil and poured it over David’s head, and this little kid’s standing there with oil running down him, and he didn’t know what was going on, you know. But God anointed him king over Israel.

Now what happened? Did Saul suddenly advocate the throne, and David’s sitting on it? Oh no, no, no. Saul now began to try to destroy David. He attempted to kill him, he attempted to drive him, ultimately drove him out of the country. For Saul was trying to hang on to that which was no longer rightfully his. He was doing his best by force to hold on to that which didn’t belong to him anymore.

Now we have a sequel to that. The world technically belongs to Jesus. He redeemed it, He paid the price. Yet, we do not yet see all things into subjection unto Him. Satan is still hanging on doing his best by force to drive Jesus out. To hang on to that which is no longer rightfully his, to hold by force that which is no longer rightfully his. But the day is coming as is according to the fifth chapter of the book of Revelation when this scroll with the seven seals will be brought forth.

The angel will declare, “Who is worthy to take this scroll, and to loose the seals?” And Jesus will step forth as the Lamb that hath been slain. He’ll take this scroll out of the right hand of God as the church sings his praises, “Worthy is the Lamb to take the scroll, and to loose the seals, for He was slain and has redeemed us by His blood.” This word redemption again. “He’s redeemed us by His blood out of all of the nations, tribes, tongues, and people, and hath made us unto our God, kings, and priests and we shall reign with Him upon the earth.”

Then as you go through the book of Revelation, you see Him beginning to break the seals. In the tenth chapter He comes back upon the earth, sets one foot upon the earth, one upon the sea, holds up the scroll that is now open, the title deed showing His right as they declare, “The kingdoms of this world have now become the kingdoms of our Lord.” He begins His reign, there shall be no longer delay, and He begins His reign over the earth. He takes that which is rightfully His, lays claim to it, and establishes God’s kingdom upon the earth.

So here you have in the history of Israel, actually in the history of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, a little foreshadowing of the future when Jesus comes as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, to take that which is rightfully His. But the whole transaction as Boaz had the elders of the city there, and they went through this whole thing, so the twenty-four elders gathered in heaven around the throne as this legal transaction takes place. Of course, we will be gathered there too, because we’ve got to sing this song, because only we can sing it. As this whole thing is consummated there in heaven. Oh, I can hardly wait.

You know Satan has had his day. You look at the world today, and you see the results of rebellion against God. “Oh Lord Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.”

Shall we pray.

Father, we thank You for the hope of Thy soon coming kingdom, Thy return for Your church and our being gathered together with Thee around the throne of God. When You take that authority and dominion that is rightfully Yours because You died. Your blood was shed for our redemption. Lord, give us that strength that we need, that guidance that we need, that wisdom that we need in the meantime, as we Lord, seek to represent You and Your kingdom in this foreign territory. In Jesus’ name we pray, Amen. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

The nobility and faithfulness of Boaz are clearly manifested in this story. It is hardly possible to read this Book without being convinced that Boaz had already found himself in love with Ruth, which accounts for the fact that he was ready and willing to take the responsibility of the next of kin. However, there was one who had a prior right and in loyalty to the law of his people Boaz gave him his opportunity.

The picture presented of the gathering of the elders in the gate and the legal statement of the case is interesting. The next of kin had a perfect right to abandon his claim if another were ready to assume it. This he did, and seeing that Boaz was ready to assume responsibility, he was justified in doing so on the ground that he did not desire to run the risk of impoverishing his own family, for it was evident that Boaz was well able to fulfil all the obligations of the case.

The whole story ends with poetic simplicity and beauty. “So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. . . . Nothing need be added to indicate the joy and reward of two faithful souls. Moreover, Naomi was comforted at last. The women of her own people spoke words of cheer to her, which unquestionably must have been full of comfort as they sang the praise of the one who had chosen to share her affliction and had become the medium of her succor.

There is a stately simplicity in the closing sentences. Of the child born to Ruth and Boaz it is said, They called his name Obed; he is the father of Jesse, the father of David. In these final words is manifest the divine movement in the history of chosen people. And yet a larger issue followed as centuries passed. From this union sprang at last, as to the flesh, Jesus the Messiah.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

in the Line of Davids Ancestry

Rth 4:1-22

We are admitted here to a graphic picture of the old world. Mens memories were longer and stronger than ours: and what was done publicly in the Gate, the place of public concourse, had the seal of permanence irrevocably attached to it. The transference of the shoe indicated the inferior position of woman, though she was honored in Israel more than in the neighboring nations.

What a happy ending! The gleaner need never again tread the fields, following the reapers footsteps. All the broad acres were now hers, since she had become one with the owner. When we are one with Christ, we no longer work for redemption; but being redeemed, we bring forth fruit unto God, Rom 7:4. The curtain falls on a blessed group. The tiny babe lies on Naomis bosom. The women who had gone together into the valley of the shadow of death stand together in the light of the mountain-top. God turns mourning into gladness, Psa 30:11. And let us Gentiles learn that we too have a part in Christ. In Him is neither Jew nor Greek, Col 3:11.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

CHAPTER 4 The Redemption and Marriage

1. The other kinsman (Rth 4:1-5)

2. His refusal (Rth 4:6-8)

3. Boazs redemption (Rth 4:9-10)

4. The marriage (Rth 4:11-13)

5. Naomis 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 Ruths 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.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Chapter 17

Boaz Redeems Ruth

Rth 4:1-22

We come now to the climax of the Book of Ruth. The things recorded in chapter 4 are the things to which everything up to this point has been leading. Read Rth 4:1-22 carefully. Everything in this chapter is designed by God the Holy Spirit to direct our hearts and minds to the Lord Jesus Christ and his great work of redemption.

Then went Boaz up to the gate and sat down there (Rth 4:1). Why? To intercede for Ruth. This is a picture of our Lord Jesus Christ who ha gone up to heaven for us, and sat down there to intercede for us. Boaz went up to the city to do his work – Christ has gone up to heaven because his work is done (Heb 10:11-14; Heb 1:1-3). Just as everything Boaz did as he sat at the gate of the city was for Ruth, so everything Christ does is for his people. Failure was not even considered. Boaz was resolved to take Ruth home with him that night. With our great Savior, failure is an impossibility (Isa 42:4). He shall save his people from their sins (Mat 1:21).

Boaz said to his kinsman, If thou wilt redeem, redeem: but if thou wilt not redeem, tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem beside thee; and I am after thee (Rth 4:4). This near kinsman, more than anything else represents the law. But the law cannot redeem, it cannot save without marring itself and the very character of God. The law identifies sin, but cannot forgive it. The law condemns us all, but changes none. The law slays, but can never save (Rom 3:19-20; Rom 3:28; Rom 8:3-4; Gal 3:10; Gal 3:13).

Next, Boaz said, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess. Ruth, as we have seen throughout this study, is a type of the church. The world is a great field. The church of God is a treasure hid in the field (Mat 13:44). Our heavenly Boaz, the Lord Jesus Christ, sold all that he had and bought the field so that he might get the treasure.

As a man, as the God-man Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ purchased all things. All things are his. He rules and disposes of all things for the saving of his people, whom he redeemed with his own blood. As Boaz bought all that was Elimelechs, so Christ bought all that was Adams. As God the Son, it was his before. But not it is his by right of redemption as our Mediator (Psa 2:8; Joh 17:2; Rom 14:9).

And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought Ruth the Moabitessto be my wife (Rth 4:9-10). Boaz bought all that was Elimelechs, but the object of his love and the purpose of his work was Ruth. As Boaz purchased Ruth to be his wife, so the Lord Jesus Christ purchased the church of Gods elect to be his wife (Eph 5:25-27). The object of his love, the purpose of his work was the salvation of his people. Here are nine things about Boazs redemption of Ruth which are also true concerning Christs redemption of Gods elect. It was

A PROPER REDEMPTION.

None but Boaz could redeem Ruth. He alone was both able and willing to redeem. Redemption, if it is proper, must be legal. And our redemption by Christ is a proper redemption. Deliverance without satisfaction is a violation of the law; and satisfaction without deliverance is a violation of justice. Christ alone is able to redeem us (Psa 24:3-6). He alone is willing to redeem us at the price demanded by divine justice (Heb 10:1-5. Christ alone is a just and legal Redeemer for sinners (Isa 45:20).

A PLEASURABLE REDEMPTION.

Boaz went through great pains, trouble, and cost to himself in order to redeem Ruth; but he did so with great pleasure. He did it all with the sweet prospect of having Ruth for himself. Even so, our Lord Jesus found great pleasure and satisfaction in the midst of his sorrows, as he anticipated having his elect with him forever (Heb 12:2; Isa 53:10-12).

Our dear Savior did not hesitate to pay the price required for our ransom. He willingly took our sins upon himself. He willingly took for us the cup of wrath. He willingly gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from the curse of the law.

Heres the compassion of our God

That when Christ, our Savior, knew

The price of pardon was His blood,

His pity neer withdrew!

A PRECIOUS REDEMPTION.

Naomi, Ruth, and all who understood what he did esteemed Boazs condescending work of redeeming her a matter of great grace, a precious deed on the part of one who made himself precious in their eyes (Rth 2:20; Rth 4:11-14). Even so, all who have tasted the free grace of God in Christ count him, his blood, and his redemption precious (2Co 9:15; 1Pe 1:18-20; 1Pe 2:7). It is precious because the redemption of the soul is precious (Psa 49:8). The redemption of our souls is precious because the price of our ransom was Christs precious blood.

Our redemption by Christ is a precious thing, because it was a great act of infinitely great and condescending grace. Boaz was not ashamed of Ruth, the poor Moabite stranger. She could not redeem herself; but this wealthy Prince stooped to lift her up and exalt her. What a great type of the Lord Jesus Boaz is. The Son of God stooped low (2Co 8:9; Php 2:5-8), that he might lift us high. This great Prince, the Prince of Heaven, calls to himself the poor, the wretched, the miserable, the halt, the lame, and the blind. And he is never ashamed to identify himself with them and to own them as his own brethren (Heb 2:9-11). As the great Boaz redeemed and married the lowly Ruth, as the great King David took the poor, crippled son of Johnathan, Mephibosheth into his house and caused him to sit at his table as one of the kings own sons, as Hosea redeemed the wretched Gomer and took her to be his wife after she had defiled herself so horribly, so the Lord Jesus Christ has redeemed and married us (1Co 1:26-29).

A PUBLIC REDEMPTION.

“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. And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down.” (Rth 4:1-2)

There were many witnesses to this great transaction. This thing was not done in a corner. When Boaz purchased Ruth everyone in Bethlehem knew it. So, too, There were many witnesses to the redemption of Gods elect by Christ. As the angels of God observed the great work., when God the Father, forsook his darling Son, who was made to be sin for us, the sun was darkened, the earth quaked, the stones split open, the graves were opened, and the veil in the temple was ripped apart, from the top to the bottom. The law of God being satisfied, the veil was ripped apart, showing that there is now open access for sinners to come to the holy Lord God by the blood of Christ. As Satan and the demons of hell observed the dying triumph of the God-man, all hell must have trembled!

Then, three days later, our great Emancipator rose from the grave! As Boaz pulled off his shoe as a token of the transaction being complete (Rth 4:8), so the Lord Jesus Christ took off his grave clothes and ascended up to heaven, having obtained eternal redemption for us! (Heb 9:12; Rom 4:25).

A PURPOSEFUL REDEMPTION.

“Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.” (Rth 4:10)

Boaz redeemed Ruth that the name of the dead be not cut off. And the Lord Jesus redeemed unto himself a people to be his seed, his peculiar people, to live forever (Psa 22:30; Isa 53:10; Tit 2:14). Boaz redeemed Ruth to be his wife, not his slave, but his wife. So, too, the Son of God redeemed us to be his wife. What a great boon of grace it would have been for such as we are to have been purchased as his slaves! But here is Gods super abounding grace to sinners Christ has purchased a people unfit to be his slaves to be his holy bride forever!

A PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.

Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased! (Rth 4:10). Let unbelieving religious men argue and debate as they will, the blood of Christ was shed for and redeemed a particular people. There is not even a hint of universal redemption to be found in Holy Scripture. Everywhere in the Bible, when redemption is typified, prophesied, and explained, it is set forth as being the particular, effectual redemption of a specifically chosen people called the elect (Isa 53:8; Gal 3:13; Eph 5:25-27; Heb 9:12; Rev 5:9).

A PRODUCTIVE REDEMPTION.

Boaz got Ruth. That was his purpose; and it was accomplished. Be assured, the Lord Jesus Christ will also accomplish his purpose. He will get his Moabite bride. As a direct result of this great transaction God brought his king to his holy hill of Zion (Rth 4:17). So, too, the Lord Jesus Christ, Davids great son and his Lord, was brought into his kingdom and made to sit upon his throne by means of the redemption he accomplished at Calvary (Act 2:22-36). As a result of this redemption, the Son of God was brought into this world (Mat 1:5). And as the result of that redemption accomplished in the death of Christ all Gods elect shall be brought into heavenly glory (Gal 3:13-14). A redemption which accomplishes nothing is a useless redemption. Such redemption is not found in the Bible.

A PERFECT REDEMPTION.

Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife (Rth 4:13). So too, our heavenly Boaz will finish this thing when the day is over. He will come again to take his Bride unto himself (Rev 19:1-9). What a day that will be!

A PRAISEWORTHY REDEMPTION.

There is no praise in this whole affair for Ruth, the redeemed. All praise goes to Boaz, the redeemer. The work of redemption was all his. Therefore, he was praised for it (Rth 4:11) Boaz was made famous in Israel. His house was filled. Why? Because he deserved it. Even so, our great God and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ has been made great. He alone is famous in Gods Israel. His house shall be filled. Why? Because he deserves it!

Let us adore and publish the name of our dear Redeemer. Make him famous where you live for his sovereign purpose of grace, for his electing love, for his adorable providence, for his immaculate mercy, and for his great, effectual redemption of our souls by his precious blood. Do not allow the care of this world to destroy you, as it did Elimelech. Cling to Christ, as Ruth did to Naomi. Cast yourself upon his mercy continually, as she cast herself upon the goodness and mercy of Boaz.

“Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

to the gate: Deu 16:18, Deu 17:5, Deu 21:19, Deu 25:7, Job 29:7, Job 31:21, Amo 5:10-12, Amo 5:15

the kinsman: Rth 3:12

such: Isa 55:1, Zec 2:6

Reciprocal: Gen 23:10 – all that Gen 23:11 – in the Gen 23:18 – all Gen 34:20 – the gate Deu 25:6 – that his name Jos 20:4 – at the entering Pro 31:23 – in the Amo 5:12 – in the

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Rth 4:1. The gate: the place of justice. Job 29. Genesis 19. Ten men judged and attested the fairness of the price until the jubilee. Such sales being open, were freer from disputes. Boaz took ten men to attest the sale of the land; in other places the witnesses only are named; but seven officers constituted a synagogue, and it is likely that those courts did not consist of less than seven. Deu 16:18.

Rth 4:11. The Lord make the womanlike Rachel and like Leah. Note, a woman must not be touched till the nuptial benediction is thus first pronounced by the legal authorities.

Rth 4:17. They called his name Obed, that is serving, because of Ruths condition. Ancient names were generally conferred conformably to prominent circumstances attendant on the birth of a son.

Rth 4:20-22. Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David; by which it appears that David was not descended from the firstborn of those fathers, but rather from the youngest sons; for on an average they could not have been less than eighty or ninety years of age when the sons here named were born.

REFLECTIONS.

Boaz, so fearful of offending in receiving a wife to his bosom, to whom another man had a prior claim; Boaz, so fearful of scandal and reproach, lost no time in receiving her in the manner prescribed by custom and by law. As early in the morning as circumstances would admit, he assembled the elders and the nearer kinsman, that he might honourably purchase the land, and marry the widow of Mahlon. His singular virtue, which had appeared on the preseding night, was now distinguished before the elders of his city by sound policy and superior address. With what fairness does this venerable man make the first overture to his relative, and with what firmness does he support the rights of the widow. The relative, fearful to mar his own inheritance by advancing money for the redemption of land, which would go to another branch of the family, and fearful perhaps of a numerous offspring from so young a widow, resigned at once all claims in favour of Boaz. How easily does providence soon or late applain our difficult paths when we act with prudence, and proceed in duty by honourable means. This good man by the haste of passion might have involved himself in a long and bitter enmity with his relative; but by waiting one day, the Lord added lustre to his name, and blessed his marriage with a son.

We ought not to overlook the singular happiness of the Moabian stranger. Inspired with the love of piety, and impelled with a sense of filial duty, she had abandoned her country, her relatives, and her gods, to trust under the wings of JEHOVAH; and now the Lord established her in the princely line of Judah, and with a thousand blessings from his people. From this poor, but virtuous woman, descended Obed; for the Lord had undertaken her cause. From her descended Jesse, the long promised root which should raise an ensign for the nation, and in whom the gentiles should trust. From her descended David, and a line of twenty three kings to reign in Jerusalem. From her descended many prophets, as Isaiah, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. In a word, from this poor stranger descended Jesus Christ, the hope of all nations, and the Redeemer of the world. What a chain of providences: what a reverse of situation from adversity to prosperity. What clusters of blessings are here comprised in one. What an argument for all young people, seeking their bread out of their fathers house, to seek the Lord, and trust in him alone. Learn then, oh my soul, to rely on the Lord, and to abide by his covenant. Apply to Jesus Christ, thy near kinsman, and he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. Repose thy confidence under his Almighty wings, and he will lead thee to participate of Davids mercies, and of eternal glory.

We ought not to forget, on this occasion, the greatness of Naomis joy. This woman had borne exile and afflictions for ten years; death had thrice repeated his strokes, and taken away a husband and both her sons; time had wasted the whole of her property; and her old age seemed menaced with a tempestuous winter. But confiding in the Lord, suddenly the sunshine of prosperity broke forth, and his blessings exceeded her utmost hopes. Happy is that widow who makes the Lord her portion, and calls upon his name night and day. The watchful eye of him who is the widows portion, and the orphans friend, shall raise her up benefactors on earth, and give her in due time an inheritance among the sanctified at his right hand.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Ruth 4. Ruths Marriage.

Rth 4:1. Instead of such an one! Boaz called the persons actual name, which the narrator either does not know or does not see any need for bringing into the story.

Rth 4:2. The elders of the city are called in as witnesses of an important transaction affecting the rights of a family. For selleth we ought to read hath sold. The point is that the property had passed out of the familys hands and required to be redeemed.

Rth 4:5. Here the meaning is entirely missed in our translation. Read, Thou buyest Ruth also (cf. Rth 4:10). Marriage by purchase was the ancient Semitic practice, but no more is meant here than that the redeemer of the property of Naomi was required at the same time to marry her daughter-in-law.

Rth 4:6-8. The next-of-kin, who at first expressed his willingness to redeem the property, drew back on second thoughts. Feeling that ho could not afford to be so generous to the widow of a dead relative, he declined to build up his brothers house (Deu 25:9). And in token of the fact that he renounced his rights, alike to the estate and to Ruth, he took off his sandal and handed it to Boaz, in the presence of the witnesses. The writer explains that this was the custom in former times. The right to walk over an estate at will belonged only to the owner, and the shoe was the natural symbol of possession (cf. Psa 60:8).

Rth 4:9. Boaz buys the estate which had belonged to Naomi; another indication of the lateness of the book, for the Mosaic Law did not admit the right of a widow to inherit her husbands property; but see Jdt 8:7.

Rth 4:14. Near kinsman conveys only part of the meaning of gol; to get the full sense we need the combination kinsman and redeemer. Some of the best interpreters think that in this verse a second gol now comes on the scenethe new-born child; but that is scarcely likely, though it is certainly the babe who is referred to at the end of this verse and in the next.

Rth 4:17. Obed means servant, i.e. servant of God. Here the idyll proper ends, the genealogy being doubtless the addition of another hand. It may well have been added long after the Book itself was written, in an age that was devoted to the study of pedigrees (Driver).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

THE FAITHFULNESS AND GRACE OF BOAZ

(vv. 1-12)

The same morning Boaz went to the gate of the city, the place of judgment, sitting there until the close relative of whom he spoke came by(v. 1).At the invitation of Boaz, he also sat down.Besides this, he asked ten men of the city to be witnesses (v. 2).

This close relative pictures the covenant of law, which had a claim upon Israel from the time of their coming out of Egypt (Exo 20:1-26).It was because of Israel’s disobedience to law, however, that they had forfeited all title to the land and become poor and desolate, as seen in Naomi.Now, when Israel is eventually brought back to the land, will the law then give them title to it and rescue them from the poverty of their desolate condition? The law did have a claim on Israel, but could it carry out the claim by actually restoring the nation from its long centuries of disobedience?This hearing before the ten witnesses provides the answer.The ten witnesses in fact remind us of the ten commandments of the law, which are there to bear witness as to what the law cannot do.

Boaz then informed them that Naomi had sold the land that belonged to her and Elimelech (v. 3), and the law of Israel gave permission to a close relative to buy it back (or redeem it). Therefore, Boaz told this man he might redeem it if he wished, and if not that Boaz would do so.The man answered, “I will redeem it” (v.4).But there was a problem!

When the close relative of Elimelech told Boaz that he would redeem the property of Elimelech, Boaz then informed him that Ruth, the Moabitess was also involved in the matter, for she was the wife of Chilion the son of Elimelech, and the relative must take Ruth to perpetuate the name of Elimelech, by having at least a child by Ruth (v. 5). But this was too much for the relative, who said he could not do this lest he would ruin his own inheritance (v.6).He wanted the land, but not Ruth.

Thus, in picture, the law might legally require the return of the land of Israel after the Jews had been scattered among the nations, but the law was powerless to redeem people who had broken the law. In fact, the law declared that no Moabite could enter the congregation of Israel even to the tenth generation (Deu 23:3).The law could not ignore this or it would ruin its own character.But “what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin:He condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3).

Boaz pictures Christ who transcends the law and has accomplished on Calvary the great work of redemption by which people who trust Him are redeemed for eternity.Boaz did what the other relative could not do.In accordance with custom in Israel the relative took off his sandal and gave it to Boaz (vv.7-8).This may remind us of Moses being told by the Lord to take off his sandals at the site of the burning bush (Exo 3:4-5) and of Joshua being told by the Commander of the Lord’s army to take off his sandal (Jos 5:13-15).Doing this indicates a confession of weakness in the presence of a superior, just as the law must acknowledge its own weakness in contrast to Christ (Rom 8:3).For if one’s feet are not shod, he is not prepared for warfare or for walking in rough terrain.

Boaz then addressed the elders and all the people present, declaring them as witnesses that he had bought all that had previously belonged to Elimelech and his two sons (v. 9).But more than that, he had acquired Ruth the Moabitess as his wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead (Elimelech and his sons), since Ruth had had no children by her husband, Chilion (v. 10).In this way the law of Israel was perfectly kept, and Ruth, though a Moabitess, was welcomed into the commonwealth of Israel in spite of the law that forbade the acceptance of a Moabite to the tenth generation.For Israel’s law had made provision for a related redeemer to accomplish such a reception.Just so, the ungodlyGentiles were excluded from Israel by law, but the law still bore witness of the coming of the Lord Jesus, whose great sacrifice has brought redemption for the ungodly, so that Gentile believers today are united to Christ in a bond that is pictured by marriage (2Co 11:2).

When Ruth came to the threshing floor, she had a totally private interview with Boaz, but the matter now is to be fully public, with everyone knowing that Ruth is redeemed as the wife of Boaz.When the Lord Jesus presents the Church to Himself, there will be a clear and universal announcement(Rev 19:6-7).

Yet the marriage of Ruth to Boaz does not primarily picture the marriage of the Lord Jesus to His heavenly bride, the Church, but rather the union of Israel, God’s earthly people, with the Lord Jesus at the end of the tribulation.Israel will be the earthly bride, but the church the heavenly bride, each being blessed in a different sphere.

The people who were present at the gate and the elders were fully agreeable to the words of Boaz, gladly taking the place of witnesses, and giving Boaz their unqualified blessing with the words of verses 11 & 12. There was no reserve on the part of the people because Ruth was a Moabitess, showing how God can resolve every national or racial problem by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

MARRIAGE AND ITS RESULTS IN BLESSING (vv. 13-22)

Being married to Boaz, Ruth gave birth to a son (v. 13), certainly a great joy to both the parents, but it is interesting that the women congratulated Naomi, saying, Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a close relative; and may his name be famous in Israel”(v. 14).Not only was Ruth’s widowhood taken away, but Naomi’s desolation was no more. Naomi picture that desolate state of Israel in being so deprived of blessing (now for centuries). What a change then for Naomi! — and due entirely to Boaz, “a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age” (v. 15). The life of Boaz was continued in his son.Also, it was Ruth who had borne him — a daughter- in – law who was better to Naomi than seven sons.So also, in a coming day, Israel’s desolation will be changed to most abundant joy and blessing when the Lord Jesus, the great Redeemer, will be recognized as their true Messiah.Naomi became a nurse to the new born child, and the neighbors said the son was born to Naomi, reminding us of Isa 54:1, for the one Son is promise of more to come. Israel has lost much through disobedience, but will gain much more than she has lost through the grace of the great redeemer, the Lord Jesus.

How beautifully this Book of Ruth illustrates His glory and His grace

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

5.

In the last chapter we learn how Boaz wrought for Ruth. In this work Ruth had no part. Boaz is seen alone when he goes “up to the gate” (v. 1). The gate was the place where judgment was dispensed. For justice must be satisfied before Ruth can be blessed, or the purpose of Boaz fulfilled. At the gate Boaz meets and settles every question that can be raised. Ten witnesses are called. They are told to sit down, as they do nothing but witness to the inability of the first kinsman, but, at the same time witness that his claims have been recognised and met. Does this not pass before us in picture the mighty work of our great Redeemer who alone went “up to the gate,” the place of judgment? There, on the Cross, He settled every question between the believer and God. There too fully demonstrated the inadequacy of the law to meet our case, while fully recognising and meeting its just claims.

Thus every hindrance removed, the day of the marriage is reached, when Boaz “took Ruth and she was his wife.” “And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses.” They witness the blessing of Ruth, but they ascribe power and fame to Boaz; for they say to Boaz, “Acquire power in Ephratah, and make thyself a name in Bethlehem” (v. 11, N. Tr.).

Very blessedly does this happy ending to the story of Ruth foreshadow that great day in view of which the Church has been espoused to Christ, and for which we yet wait – the day of which we read “the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready.” As the prophet John looks at this great vision he hears again as it were the praise of “the people that were in the gate and the elders,” though now the praise has swollen to a mighty song of infinite power, for John heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord our God the Almighty has taken to Himself kingly power. Let us be glad and rejoice and give honour to Him.

The day of the marriage of the Lamb will be the great answer to the work of redemption. The glory is the answer to the cross. In that day the Bride will be infinitely blessed, but the Lamb will acquire power and fame. All the glory will be His, but more, in that great day the Lord Jesus will see of the fruit of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied. We too shall behold His face in righteousness and we shall be satisfied when we awake in His likeness.

Oh day of wondrous promise,

The Bridegroom and the Bride,

Are seen in glory ever,

And love is satisfied.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

4:1 Then went Boaz up to the {a} gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, {b} Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.

(a) Which was the place of judgment.

(b) The Hebrews here use two words which have no proper meaning, but serve to denote a certain person, as we would say, “Ho, so-and-so”.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

A. The nearer kinsman’s decision 4:1-6

The gate of cities like Bethlehem was the place where people transacted official business (cf. Gen 19:1; 2Sa 15:2-6; 1Ki 22:10; Amo 5:10; Amo 5:12; Amo 5:15).

"In ancient cities the ’gate’ was a short passageway through the thick city wall which provided the town an entrance and exit. A series of small alcoves lined the passage, and the whole gate area served as both bazaar and courthouse. There the ancients gathered to buy and sell, to settle legal matters, and to gossip. Hence, ’gate’ here represented the city as a whole (the whole town), not a specific legal body like a ’town council.’" [Note: Hubbard, p. 216.]

The writer did not preserve the name of the nearer kinsman (Rth 4:1; cf. 1Sa 21:2; 2Ki 6:8). He wrote that Boaz called him "such a one" (AV, better than "friend," NASB, NIV; Heb. peloni almoni). Probably God did not record the man’s name in the text as a kind of judgment on him for refusing to perpetuate the name of his deceased relative by redeeming Ruth (cf. Deu 25:10). [Note: Bush, p. 197.] The reason the writer withheld his name was not that it is simply unimportant, because he could have made no reference at all to it.

". . . he who was so anxious for the preservation of his own inheritance, is now not even known by name." [Note: J. P. Lange, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, vol. 2: Numbers-Ruth, "The Book of Ruth," by Paulus Cassel, p. 46.]

The Mosaic Law did not specify the need for 10 elders to decide such cases (Rth 4:2). Perhaps this number was customary. In any case, Boaz chose his jury so the nearer kinsman’s decision would stand. [Note: Bush, p. 199.] The presence of 10 elders would also have put some social pressure on the kinsman to do what was right.

"In a time when few written records were kept, attestation by a number of witnesses made transactions legally secure." [Note: Huey, p. 544.]

The text does not reveal the precise relations of the nearer kinsman and Boaz to Ruth. This was unimportant to the writer. One important point was that both men possessed legal qualifications to redeem Ruth and to raise up seed in the name of her dead husband. Another was that the nearer kinsman had first rights of acceptance or refusal, and Boaz had second rights.

Redeeming the property of a relative in financial distress and marrying a near relative’s widow to perpetuate his name and family in Israel were separate procedures. Lev 25:25-28 legislated the redemption of property, and Deu 25:5-10 regulated levirate marriage. The actions did not always go together. [Note: Jack Sasson, "The Issue of Ge’ullah in Ruth," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5 (1978):60-63.] In this case, Boaz wanted to do both things. [Note: Donald A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth, pp. 209-53.]

Boaz raised the issue of redeeming Naomi’s land first (Rth 4:3-4). For the first time in the story we learn that Naomi controlled some property. In spite of this, she and Ruth were poor, or else Ruth would not have had to glean. Naomi may have wanted to sell her property to raise cash for living expenses, though the Law specified that it had to be sold within her husband’s tribe. We can only speculate about why Naomi was poor even though she controlled property. Perhaps she had annexed ownership of this land while she was in Moab and therefore derived no income from it. [Note: Hubbard, p. 54.] Perhaps someone took control of the property when Naomi’s family moved to Moab. [Note: Howard, p. 138.] She may have had to mortgage her late husband’s property to survive. [Note: Merrill, "Ruth," p. 200.] She may have been acting as guardian of her husband and sons’ property rights and was now ready to dispose of their land. Or the issue may have been acquiring the right of holding and using her property without wasting its profits until the next Jubilee Year. [Note: Block, p. 710.]

We should not interpret Boaz’s reference to Elimelech as the "brother" of the nearer kinsman and himself (Rth 4:3) to mean they were necessarily blood brothers. The expression in Hebrew, as well as in English, is a broad one meaning "friend." Elimelech may have been their blood brother, but the expression does not require that. Since these three men were relatives, the possibility is strong that the field Naomi wanted to part with bordered on the lands of the other two men. [Note: Morris, p. 300.]

The nearer kinsman desired Naomi’s land and was willing to buy it from her (Rth 4:4). Why the nearer kinsman had to marry Ruth if he decided to buy Naomi’s property is not clear in the text. The Mosaic Law did not command that levirate marriage should accompany the redemption of family property whenever possible. Perhaps the following explanation provides the solution to this problem.

When the nearer kinsman chose to purchase Naomi’s land he identified himself as the nearest kinsman. Since he was the nearest kinsman he was certainly under a moral, if not a legal, obligation to marry the wife of his deceased relative if he could (Deu 25:5-6). [Note: Block, p. 715.] His refusal to do so would have brought disgrace on him (Deu 25:7-10). Huey believed that none of the disgrace of this regulation was present in Boaz’s dealings with the nearer kinsman. [Note: Huey, p. 544. See also Bush’s excursus on the nature of the transaction that Boaz proposed in Rth 4:3-5 a, pp. 211-15.] The Mosaic Law required levirate marriage only when the male was legally able to marry his brother’s widow. If he already had a wife, he could not do so. The law did not require him to become a polygamist. [Note: See J. R. Thompson, Deuteronomy, p. 251. Bush, pp. 221-23, provided an excursus on levirate marriage in the Old Testament.]

". . . it had become a traditional custom to require the Levirate marriage of the redeemer of the portion of the deceased relative, not only that the landed possession might be permanently retained in the family, but also that the family itself might not be suffered to die out." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, p. 482. See further their helpful discussion of the transfer of property on pp. 488-90.]

"Ruth was the only one who could raise up a son to inherit the estate of Elimelech. Therefore, she was not only an important link in the chain of genealogy, but she sustained certain rights over the property which Boaz was discussing with the other kinsman. To redeem the property therefore would involve the goel in the affairs of the foreigner from Moab. The one who redeemed the estate would have to redeem Ruth also, as she and her affairs were legally bound up in the field of Elimelech. This was the legal technicality upon which Boaz was depending for his victory." [Note: McGee, p. 109. See also Block, pp. 716-17; and Reed, p. 426.]

The desire to raise up a name for the deceased was one of the major motivations in Boaz’s action. Boaz wanted to honor Mahlon by perpetuating his name in Israel. [Note: See Oswald Loretz, "The Theme of the Ruth Story," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 22 (1960):391-99.] The writer did not overtly condemn the nearer kinsman for doing what he did, though by withholding his name he put him in a bad light. Rather the writer focused on Boaz as acting with extraordinary loyal love.

The fact that the genealogy at the end of the book (Rth 4:21) connects Boaz and Ruth’s son with Boaz rather than Mahlon does not mean he failed to perpetuate Mahlon’s line and reputation. The son would have been eligible to inherit from both Mahlon and Boaz. The Israelites regarded him as the son of both men. Naturally he was Boaz’s son, but legally he was Boaz and Mahlon’s son as well as Elimelech’s descendant.

"The same person could be reckoned genealogically either in different family lines or at different places in the same line. In this case, Obed was probably reckoned to Boaz (and, ultimately, to Judah) for political reasons; at the same time, for theological reasons (i.e., to show the providence behind David’s rise), he was also considered to be Elimelech’s son." [Note: Hubbard, pp. 62-63.]

Faced with the double financial burden of buying the field and marrying and providing for Ruth (and Naomi?) the nearer kinsman declined Boaz’s offer (Rth 4:6). Note that he said he could not rather than would not redeem it. The reason he gave was that he would jeopardize his own inheritance. His inheritance evidently refers to the inheritance he would pass on to his descendants, not an inheritance he might receive from an ancestor. He felt he would have little left to pass on to his own heirs if he bought Naomi’s property and married Ruth. Apparently he was not a wealthy man like Boaz (Rth 2:1).

Hubbard concluded that the obligation to marry Ruth as well as purchase the land must have been a legal one either known throughout Israel or unique to Bethlehem. [Note: Ibid., p. 58.] He regarded the unnamed kinsman redeemer’s change of mind "the book’s thorniest legal problem." [Note: Ibid., p. 56.]

". . . the surprise element must be something other than the obligation to marry a deceased’s widow since the kinsman probably expected that. While certainty is impossible, a careful reading of Rth 4:3-5 suggests that the new information was the sudden, unexpected substitution of Ruth for Naomi as Elimelech’s widow. The progression of thought would be as follows. Cleverly, Boaz steered the conversation away from Ruth to focus on legal matters concerning Elimelech and Naomi in Rth 4:3-4. If the thought of a marriageable widow associated with the land crossed the kinsman’s mind at all, he probably assumed her to be Naomi. Advanced in age beyond child-bearing, she posed no threat to his prospective profitable purchase. The alluring proposition offered him double returns for a small investment. He would not only increase the size of his own holdings but also enhance his civic reputation as one loyal to family. Future profits from the land would offset any expense incurred in caring for Naomi; indeed, given her awful suffering, one might not expect her to live much longer anyway. In any case, there was no risk of losing his investment to the claims of a future heir. A required marriage to Ruth (Rth 4:5), however, was a very different matter. Much younger, she might bear several sons, the first eligible to claim Elimelech’s property as his heir, others perhaps to share in the kinsman’s own inheritance (Rth 4:6). That possibility made the investment all too risky and perhaps even flustered him . . . The profit to be turned would be his only until the child acquired Elimelech’s land, probably on attaining adulthood. Further, the care of a younger, obviously robust wife (cf. Rth 2:17-18) meant considerably more expense than anticipated. Hence, he willingly waived his redemption rights in favor of Boaz (Rth 4:6-8)." [Note: Ibid., p. 61. Other writers who held essentially the same view include E. W. Davies, "Ruth 4:5 and the Duties of the go’el," Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983):233-34; Campbell, p. 159; E. Robertson, "The Plot of the Book of Ruth," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 32 (1950):221; and Howard, p. 138.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

THE MARRIAGE AT THE GATE

Rth 4:1-22

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.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary