Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ruth 4:3
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:
3. selleth ] The tense is perfect, and implies is resolved to sell; the sale does not take place till Rth 4:9. Cf. Gen 23:11; Gen 23:13, for the same idiomatic use of the perfect. Naomi came into possession of her husband’s property after his death, see Rth 4:9 n.; this was not in accordance with Pentateuchal law, which says nothing about the inheritance of widows.
our brother ] in the wider sense of member of a family or race; cf. Exo 2:11, Lev 19:17, Jdg 14:3 etc.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
According to the law Lev 25:25-28, if any Israelite, through poverty, would sell his possession, the next of kin (the ga’al) had a right to redeem it by paying the value of the number of years remaining until the jubilee (see the marginal reference). This right Boaz advertises the ga’al of, so as to give him the option which the law secured to him of redeeming our brother Elimelechs land, i. e. our kinsmans, according to the common use of the term brother, for near relation (see Gen 13:8; Gen 24:27; Lev 25:25; Num 27:4; Jdg 9:1).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. Naomi – selleth a parcel of land] She was reduced to want; the immediate inheritors were extinct, and it was now open for the next heir to purchase the land, and thus preserve the inheritance in the family according to the custom of Israel.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Both Naomi and Ruth had an interest in this land during their lives, but he mentions only Naomi, partly because all was done by her direction, to which Ruth wholly submitted herself; and partly lest the mention of Ruth should raise a suspicion of the necessity of his marrying Ruth, before he had given his answer to the first proposition.
Selleth a parcel of land; which she might do because of her poverty, Lev 25:25.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. Naomi . . . selleth a parcel oflandthat is, entertains the idea of selling. In hercircumstances she was at liberty to part with it (Le25:25). Both Naomi and Ruth had an interest in the land duringtheir lives; but Naomi alone was mentioned, not only because shedirected all the negotiations, but because the introduction of Ruth’sname would awaken a suspicion of the necessity of marrying her,before the first proposition was answered.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he said unto the kinsman,…. That is, Boaz said to the kinsman he called to, and who sat down by him before the ten elders that were present:
Naomi, that is come again out of the land of Moab, selleth a parcel of land; meaning, that she was determined upon it, and was about to do it, and would do it quickly, and he had it in commission to propose it to a purchaser:
which was our brother Elimelech’s; not in a strict sense, but being akin to the kinsman and himself, and having been a neighbour of them all, and an inhabitant of the place, he is called their brother; though some Jewish writers f say, that he was in a strict sense a brother of Boaz and this kinsman, and that Tob, Elimelech, and Boaz, were brethren, and so Tob was reckoned the nearest kinsman, and had the first right to redeem, because he was the elder brother but this does not seem likely; [See comments on Ru 3:13].
f Midrash Ruth, fol. 34. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(3) Naomi selleth . . .Rather, the portion of land, which belonged to our brother Elimelech. has Naomi sold. The present tense of the English Version seems to suggest that the sale is taking place at this particular time, but the meaning clearly is that Naomi, as the representative of the dead Elimelech had, so far as it was possible for an Israelite to part with a family estate, sold the land to obtain in some sort the means of living. In the year of Jubilee, the property would return to the family, on which it was, so to speak, settled, but Boaz proposes to the Goel that he should redeem the property at once. We might perhaps compare this to the owner of a freehold buying from a leaseholder under him the residue of his lease, so that he may occupy his own estate.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Naomi selleth a parcel of land According to the law, (Num 27:8-11,) when a man died and left no son, his property passed to his daughter; if he had no daughter, it passed to his brethren; if he had no brethren, it passed to his father’s brethren; and in case his father had no brethren, it passed to his next nearest kinsman. In no case did it pass to the wife of the deceased. Hence comes the question, What right had Naomi to sell Elimelech’s property? The solution of the difficulty is probably this, that, as the law did not designate the time when the proper heirs took possession of the inheritance, custom did not allow it to pass to them while the widow of the deceased was living. Naomi therefore would have the control of Elimelech’s property as long as she lived, and the selling of it was, as we have shown in the note at the head of this chapter, not a permanent disposal, but an annual renting of it till the year of jubilee.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ And he said to the near kinsman, “Naomi, who is come again out of the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech’s.”
Then Boaz explained his purpose. He explained to the near kinsman that Naomi, who had recently come out of the country of Moab, was selling the family land which had belonged to her deceased husband, Elimelech. But as we have seen above, it was not as simple as that. For the land belonged to YHWH, and it had been allotted by Him to a family in Israel who was represented by the head of the family (who had in this case been Elimelech). What was therefore seen as of crucial importance was that ‘the name’ of that family, in this case the family of Elimelech, should be maintained in Israel, and that would be done by the redeemer who bought the land begetting children through the surviving females in the family, where all the menfolk had died. This was the responsibility of the goel (redeemer).
As can be seen, the survival of the ‘name’ of the family was seen as of vital importance. A man lived on in his sons, and no family was to be allowed to die out in Israel. It was the equivalent in the Old Testament of ‘eternal life’. Every means therefore had to be used in order to ensue the survival of the family name.
The question may arise as to whether Naomi was able to sell the land. Legally speaking it was not hers, and had it been a question of simply selling the land the answer would probably have been ‘no’. But that is not the case here. The land was being sold conditionally on the purchaser producing a male heir to finally inherit the land. In fact the right of women to inherit was declared in Numbers 36. There the daughters of a deceased man were able to inherit his land where there were no sons, the only condition being that they would then marry within their tribe so that possession of the land would not go outside the tribe. So it would appear here that legally the land could be seen as Ruth’s, as wife of Elimelech’s heir, but on that basis she would only enjoy the right as long as she married within her dead husband’s tribe. While the position was not quite the same, Numbers 36 did suggest that where all male direct heirs within a family were dead, women could have an inheritance in the land of that family as long as when they married it remained within ‘the family’. This was probably the basis on which the sale here was able to proceed, with the sale being restricted to someone who could produce sons on behalf of the dead. In consequence the land would finally pass on to male heirs of Elimelech and Mahlon. From the point of view of the story what, of course, matters is not what exactly the Law said, but how it was being interpreted at this time in the light of custom.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
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.
If I do not greatly err, the chief point in the whole history turns upon this hinge. And if so, it will serve to throw a light upon the subject all along intended from it, in introducing under this endearing part of his character, by the representation of Boaz, the Lord Jesus Christ as our kinsman-Redeemer. Behold it in this light, and we see Jesus assuming our nature for the purpose of redemption.
We view him going forth from everlasting, as the great covenant head of his people. And when he saw our ruined nature, and everyone of the stock of Adam totally unable to redeem themselves, much less to save his brother, then Jesus, moved with compassion; resolved to undertake their cause. Angels durst not venture on redemption-work, for this would have been to have marred their own inheritance; therefore his own arm brought salvation, and of the people there was none with him.
In the law of redemption there were several things included which became necessary for the complete recovery and happiness of our ruined nature, and which none but our (Goel) kinsman-Redeemer, the Lord Jesus, could be competent to perform. He was, as Boaz proposed to the nearer kinsman to do, not only to redeem the mortgaged inheritance, but he was to marry the widow of the deceased kinsman, in order to raise up seed unto his brother. That our original birthright was lost is evident from our ruined and impoverished state. Our first father, deceived by Satan, sold his inheritance by tasting the forbidden fruit; and never could any of his own fallen seed have been found in circumstances sufficiently affluent to ransom it. But yet it must be recovered; and therefore the year of jubilee, which was typical of redemption by Christ, sent the insolvent home again to his possession. Jesus our brother, and Goel-Redeemer, then accomplished redemption. See Lev 25:23-28 .
But the redemption of the mortgaged inheritance was connected also with the marrying the widow of the deceased brother, and to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. And this the Son of God did, when in the fulness of time, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law. Gal 4:4 . Hence, by virtue of this mystical union, a foundation is laid for the marriage of believers with him, and that our nature, purified and made clean by this union, might recover its lost fruitfulness, without which it would have been forever barren and dead before God.
Neither was, this all. Though it be not noticed in this book of Ruth, there were two other grand offices belonging to our Goel-Redeemer, which the law enjoined, and which none but Jesus could perform. The one was, to ransom the poor brother who had not only lost his inheritance, but was in bondage also. And the other was, to avenge the blood of his slain kinsman on the slayer. Concerning the former, the, law enjoined, If a sojourner or stranger was rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger; after that he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brethren may redeem him. Lev 25:47-48 .
Blessed Jesus! were we not sold in the loins of Adam, when the enemy sojourned in Paradise, and our unhappy parent sold himself and all his posterity? Were we not brought into bondage, slaves to sin and Satan, and justly exposed to the anger of the broken law of God! And didst not thou, dearest Redeemer, as our brother, redeem us from the curse of the law, by being made a curse for us’? Gal 3:13 .
And concerning the latter: here again, blessed Jesus, we behold thee the avenger of the blood of thy slain kinsman; for when the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning, (Joh 8:44 .) murdered our whole nature in Adam; and no avenger could be found equal to the vast work of taking vengeance on the manslayer, then didst thou, because the children were partakers of flesh and blood, thyself likewise take part of the same, that through death thou mightest destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage. Heb 2:14-15 . And then was that sweet scripture literally fulfilled. Deu 19:11-12 . These are all sweet and interesting views of the Lord Jesus. And though I do not take upon me to say that all, or either of these things, are shadowed out in this scripture, yet I hope I may be forgiven for introducing them in this place, at the subject itself, without doing violence to it, seemed to lead that way.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Rth 4:3 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:
Ver. 3. And he said unto the kinsman. ] Without a pleader, without preface or passion, in few and fit words he propounds the cause and brings it to an issue. Men should not go lightly to law, or spin out their suits to that length they do.
Naomi, that is come again, selleth a parcel of land.] Boaz, having to do with a wily worldling, dealeth warily with him for prevention of further strife; telling him first of the land, and then of the wife that must go along with it. How forcible are right words!
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
country = fields.
a parcel of land = the parcel of the field.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
he said: Psa 112:5, Pro 13:10
Reciprocal: Num 27:11 – kinsman
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Rth 4:3. Naomi Both Naomi and Ruth had an interest in this land during their lives, but he mentions only Naomi, because all was done by her direction; lest the mention of Ruth should raise a suspicion of the necessity of his marrying Ruth, before he had given his answer to the first proposition. Which was our brother Elimelechs He calls him their brother, because he was near of kin to them. And he mentions Naomis return out of the country of Moab, to intimate that her poverty constrained her to sell her estate which her husband left her.