Text -- Ruth 4:1-10 (NET)

Boaz Settles the Matter

4:1 Now Boaz went up to the village gate and sat there. Then along came the guardian whom Boaz had mentioned to Ruth! Boaz said, “Come here and sit down, ‘John Doe’!” So he came and sat down. 4:2 Boaz chose ten of the village leaders and said, “Sit down here!” So they sat down. 4:3 Then Boaz said to the guardian, “Naomi, who has returned from the region of Moab, is selling the portion of land that belongs to our relative Elimelech. 4:4 So I am legally informing you: Acquire it before those sitting here and before the leaders of my people! If you want to exercise your right to redeem it, then do so. But if not, then tell me so I will know. For you possess the first option to redeem it; I am next in line after you.” He replied, “I will redeem it.” 4:5 Then Boaz said, “When you acquire the field from Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the wife of our deceased relative, in order to preserve his family name by raising up a descendant who will inherit his property.” 4:6 The guardian said, “Then I am unable to redeem it, for I would ruin my own inheritance in that case. You may exercise my redemption option, for I am unable to redeem it.” 4:7 (Now this used to be the customary way to finalize a transaction involving redemption in Israel: A man would remove his sandal and give it to the other party. This was a legally binding act in Israel.) 4:8 So the guardian said to Boaz, “You may acquire it,” and he removed his sandal. 4:9 Then Boaz said to the leaders and all the people, “You are witnesses today that I have acquired from Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech, Kilion, and Mahlon. 4:10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, as my wife to raise up a descendant who will inherit his property so the name of the deceased might not disappear from among his relatives and from his village. You are witnesses today.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Rut 4:2

To be witnesses: for though two or three witnesses were sufficient, yet in weightier matters they used more. And ten was the usual number among the Jews, in causes of matrimony and divorce, and translation of inheritances; who were both judges of the causes, and witnesses of the fact.

Wesley: Rut 4:3

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.

Wesley: Rut 4:5

According to the law, Deu 25:5. To raise, &c - To revive his name, which was buried with his body, by raising up a seed to him, to be called by his name.

Wesley: Rut 4:6

Either because having no children of his own, he might have one, and but one son by Ruth, who, though he should carry away his inheritance, yet would not bear his name, but the name of Ruth's husband; and so by preserving another man's name, he should lose his own. Or, because as his inheritance would be but very little increased by this marriage, so it might be much diminished by being divided amongst his many children, which he possibly had already, and might probably have more by Ruth.

Wesley: Rut 4:6

Which I freely resign to thee.

Wesley: Rut 4:7

That is, in all alienation of lands. So that it is no wonder if this ceremony differ a little from that, Deu 25:9, because that concerned only one case, but this is more general. Besides, he pleads not the command of God, but only ancient custom, for this practice.

Wesley: Rut 4:7

He who relinquished his right to another, plucked off his own shoe and gave it to him. This was symbolical, and a significant and convenient ceremony, as if he said, take this shoe wherewith I used to go and tread upon my land, and in that shoe do thou enter upon it, and take possession of it.

Wesley: Rut 4:7

This was admitted for sufficient evidence in all such cases.

Wesley: Rut 4:10

That is, from among the inhabitants dwelling within the gate of this city, which was Bethlehem - judah.

JFB: Rut 4:1

A roofed building, unenclosed by walls; the place where, in ancient times, and in many Eastern towns still, all business transactions are made, and where, therefore, the kinsman was most likely to be found. No preliminaries were necessary in summoning one before the public assemblage; no writings and no delay were required. In a short conversation the matter was stated and arranged--probably in the morning as people went out, or at noon when they returned from the field.

JFB: Rut 4:2

As witnesses. In ordinary circumstances, two or three were sufficient to attest a bargain; but in cases of importance, such as matrimony, divorce, conveyancing of property, it was the Jewish practice to have ten (1Ki 21:8).

JFB: Rut 4:3

That is, entertains the idea of selling. In her circumstances she was at liberty to part with it (Lev 25:25). Both Naomi and Ruth had an interest in the land during their lives; but Naomi alone was mentioned, not only because she directed all the negotiations, but because the introduction of Ruth's name would awaken a suspicion of the necessity of marrying her, before the first proposition was answered.

JFB: Rut 4:4

(See on Deu 25:5). The redemption of the land of course involved a marriage with Ruth, the widow of the former owner.

JFB: Rut 4:6

This consequence would follow, either, first, from his having a son by Ruth, who, though heir to the property, would not bear his name; his name would be extinguished in that of her former husband; or, secondly, from its having to be subdivided among his other children, which he had probably by a previous marriage. This right, therefore, was renounced and assigned in favor of Boaz, in the way of whose marriage with Ruth the only existing obstacle was now removed.

JFB: Rut 4:7-8

Where the kinsman refused to perform his duty to the family of his deceased relation, the widow was directed to pull off the shoe with some attendant circumstances of contemptuous disdain. But, as in this case, there was no refusal, the usual ignominy was spared; and the plucking off the shoe, the only ceremony observed, was a pledge of the transaction being completed.

JFB: Rut 4:9

Although the widow of Chilion was still living, no regard was paid to her in the disposal of her husband's property. From her remaining in Moab, she was considered to have either been married again, or to have renounced all right to an inheritance with the family of Elimelech.

JFB: Rut 4:10

This connection Boaz not only might form, since Ruth had embraced the true religion, but he was under a legal necessity of forming it.

Clarke: Rut 4:1

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 the note on Deu 16:18

Clarke: Rut 4:1

Ho, such a one! - sit down here - This familiar mode of compellation is first used here. The original is שבה פה פלני אלמני shebah poh , peloni almoni ! "Hark ye, Mr. Such-a-one of such a place! come and sit down here."This is used when the person of the individual is known, and his name and residence unknown. אלמני almoni comes from אלם alam , to be silent or hidden, hence the Septuagint render it by κρυφε thou unknown person: פלני peloni comes from פלה palah , to sever or distinguish; you of such a particular place. Modes of compellation of this kind are common in all languages.

Clarke: Rut 4:2

He took ten men - Probably it required this number to constitute a court. How simple and how rational was this proceeding

1.    The man who had a suit went to the city gates

2.    Here he stopped till the person with whom he had the suit came to the gate on his way to his work

3.    He called him by name, and he stopped and sat down

4.    Then ten elders were called, and they came and sat down

5.    When all this was done, the appellant preferred his suit

6.    Then the appellee returned his answer

7.    When the elders heard the case, and the response of the appellee, they pronounced judgment, which judgment was always according to the custom of the place

8.    When this was done, the people who happened to be present witnessed the issue

And thus the business was settled without lawyers or legal casuistry. A question of this kind, in one of our courts of justice, in these enlightened times, would require many days’ previous preparation of the attorney, and several hours’ arguing between counsellor Botherum and counsellor Borum, till even an enlightened and conscientious judge would find it extremely difficult to decide whether Naomi might sell her own land, and whether Boaz or Peloni might buy it! O, glorious uncertainty of modern law!

Clarke: Rut 4:3

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.

Clarke: Rut 4:4

I thought to advertise thee - Both Dr. Kennicott and Father Houbigant have noticed several corruptions in the pronouns of this and the following verses; and their criticisms have been confirmed by a great number of MSS. since collated. The text corrected reads thus: "And I said I will reveal this to thy ear, 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, tell me, that I may know; for there is none to redeem it but thou, and I who am next to thee. And he said, I will redeem it. And Boaz said, In the day that thou redeemest the land from the hand of Naomi, thou wilt also acquire Ruth, the wife of the dead, that thou mayest raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance;"Rth 4:4, Rth 4:5. - See Kennicott’ s Dissertations, vol. i., p. 449; Houbigant in loco; and the Variae Lectiones of Kennicott and De Rossi. This is Boaz’ s statement of the case before the kinsman, and before the people and the elders

Clarke: Rut 4:4

I will redeem it - I will pay down the money which it is worth. He knew not of the following condition.

Clarke: Rut 4:5

Thou must buy it also of Ruth - More properly, Thou wilt also acquire Ruth. Thou canst not get the land without taking the wife of the deceased and then the children which thou mayest have shall be reputed the children of Mahlon, thy deceased kinsman.

Clarke: Rut 4:6

I cannot redeem it for myself - The Targum gives the proper sense of this passage: "And the kinsman said, On this ground I cannot redeem it, because I have a wife already; and I have no desire to take another, lest there should be contention in my house, and I should become a corrupter of my inheritance. Do thou redeem it, for thou hast no wife; for I cannot redeem it."This needs no comment. But still the gloss of the Targum has no foundation in the law of Moses. See the law, Deu 25:5-9.

Clarke: Rut 4:7

A man plucked off his shoe - The law of such a case is given at large in Deu 25:5-9. It was simply this: If a brother, who had married a wife, died without children, the eldest brother was to take the widow, and raise up a family to the brother deceased; and he had a right to redeem the inheritance, if it had been alienated. But if the person who had the right of redemption would not take the woman, she was to pull off his shoe and spit in his face, and he was ever after considered as a disgraced man. In the present case the shoe only is taken off, probably because the circumstances of the man were such as to render it improper for him to redeem the ground and take Ruth to his wife; and because of this reasonable excuse, the contemptuous part of the ceremony is omitted. See the note on Deu 25:9.

Defender: Rut 4:5

The right of a kinsman-redeemer to redeem the property of a dead relative, thereby preventing it from passing outside the family, is set forth in Lev 25:25-34. These events described in the book of Ruth indicate that this right of property redemption was also directly linked to the responsibility of raising up children to preserve "the name of the dead upon his inheritance.""

Defender: Rut 4:6

The redeemer must not only be a kinsman (Lev 25:25), but must also be willing, free and have the necessary price. As our great Kinsman Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ indeed fulfills all the conditions (Rev 5:1-10)."

TSK: Rut 4:1

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

TSK: Rut 4:2

the elders : Exo 18:21, Exo 18:22, Exo 21:8; Deu 29:10, Deu 31:28; 1Ki 21:8; Pro 31:23; Lam 5:14; Act 6:12

TSK: Rut 4:3

he said : Psa 112:5; Pro 13:10

TSK: Rut 4:4

I thought : Heb. I said I will reveal in thine ear

Buy it : Jer 32:7-9, Jer 32:25; Rom 12:17; 2Co 8:21; Phi 4:8

before the inhabitants : Gen 23:18; Jer 32:10-12

for there is none : Lev 25:25-29

TSK: Rut 4:5

What day : Or rather, according to the emendations proposed by Houbigant and Dr. Kennicott, and which have been confirmed by a great many manuscripts since collated, and agreeably to the ancient versions, ""In the day thou purchasest the land from the hand of Naomi, thou wilt also acquire Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of the dead,""etc. This is Boaz’ s statement of the case to his kinsman, before the people and elders.

to raise up : Rth 3:12, Rth 3:13; Gen 38:8; Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6; Mat 22:24; Luk 20:28

TSK: Rut 4:6

I cannot : The Targum seems to give the proper sense of this passage: ""I cannot redeem it, because I have a wife already; and it is not fit for me to bring another into my house, lest brawling and contention arise in it; and lest I hurt my own inheritance. Do thou redeem it, for thou has no wife; which hinders me from redeeming it.""Rth 4:6

TSK: Rut 4:7

a man plucked off : This custom does not refer to the law about refusing to marry a brother’ s widow, but was usual in the transfer of inheritancescaps1 . fcaps0 or this relative was not a brother, but simply a kinsman; and the shoe was not pulled off by Ruth, but by the kinsman himself. The Targumist, instead of his shoe, renders ""his right hand glove,""it probably being the custom, in his time, to give that instead of a shoe. Jarchi says, ""When we purchase anything new, it is customary to give, instead of a shoe, a handkerchief or veil.""Deu 25:7-10

TSK: Rut 4:9

Ye are witnesses : Gen 23:16-18; Jer 32:10-12

TSK: Rut 4:10

have I : Gen 29:18, Gen 29:19, Gen 29:27; Pro 18:22, Pro 19:14, Pro 31:10, Pro 31:11; Hos 3:2, Hos 12:12; Eph 5:25

the name : Deu 25:6; Jos 7:9; Psa 34:16, Psa 109:15; Isa 48:19; Zec 13:2

ye are witnesses : Isa 8:2, Isa 8:3; Mal 2:14; Heb 13:4

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rut 4:1

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.

Barnes: Rut 4:2

Every city was governed by elders (see Deu 19:12; Jdg 8:14). For the number "ten,"compare Exo 18:25. Probably the presence of, at least, ten elders was necessary to make a lawful public assembly, as among modern Jews ten (a minyon) are necessary to constitute a synagogue.

Barnes: Rut 4:3

According to the law Lev 25:25-28, if any Israelite, through poverty, would sell his possession, the next of kin (the גאל gā'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 גאל gā'al of, so as to give him the option which the law secured to him of redeeming "our brother Elimelech’ s"land, i. e. our kinsman’ s, 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).

Barnes: Rut 4:4

See the margin; a phrase explained by the act of removing the end of the turban, or the hair, in order to whisper in the ear (see 1Sa 9:15 : 2Sa 7:27).

Barnes: Rut 4:5

Observe the action of the Levirate law. If there had been no one interested but Naomi, she would have sold the land unclogged by any condition, the law of Levirate having no existence in her case. But there was a young widow upon whom the possession of the land would devolve at Naomi’ s death, and who already had a right of partnership in it, and the law of Levirate did apply in her case. It was, therefore, the duty of the גאל gā'al to marry her and raise up seed to his brother, i. e. his kinsman. And he could not exercise his right of redeeming the land, unless he was willing at the same time to fulfill his obligations to the deceased by marrying the widow. This he was unwilling to do.

Barnes: Rut 4:6

I mar mine own inheritance - The meaning of these words is doubtful. Some explain them by saying that the גאל gā'al had a wife and children already, and would not introduce strife into his family. Others think that there was a risk (which he would not incur) of the go’ el’ s own name being blotted out from his inheritance Rth 4:10. Others take the word translated as "mar"in a sense of wasting or spending. If he had to find the purchase-money, and support Naomi and Ruth, his own fortune would be broken down, if, as is likely, he was a man of slender means. Boaz, being "a mighty man of wealth,"could afford this.

Redeem thou my right ... - Literally, redeem my redemption - perform that act of redemption which properly belongs to me, but which I cannot perform.

Barnes: Rut 4:7

In former time in Israel - Showing that the custom was obsolete in the writer’ s days. The letter of the law (see the marginal reference) was not strictly followed. It was thought sufficient for the man to pull off his own shoe and give it to the man to whom he ceded his right, in the presence of the elders of his city.

Poole: Rut 4:1

The gate the place where controversies were decided, and the people assembled, and where they used to go out and come in to the town; where he was most likely to find his kinsman. Ho, such a one! doubtless Boaz both knew his name, and called him by it; but it is omitted by the holy writer, partly because it was unnecessary to know it; and principally in way of contempt, as is usual, and as a just punishment upon him, that he who would not preserve his brother’ s name might lose his own, and be buried in the grave of perpetual oblivion.

Sit down here I have some business of importance with you.

Poole: Rut 4:2

He took two men to be umpires or witnesses between them; for though two or three witnesses were sufficient, yet in weightier matters they used more. And

ten was the usual number among the Jews, in causes of matrimony and divorce, and translation of inheritances; who were both judges of the causes, and witnesses of the fact. See 1Ki 21:8 .

Poole: Rut 4:3

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 .

Poole: Rut 4:4

Before the elders of my people before this assembly, that it may be legally and firmly made over to thee.

Poole: Rut 4:5

The wife of the dead according to the law, Deu 25:5 Mat 22:24 , &c.

To raise up the name of the dead to revive his name, which was lost and buried with his body, by raising up a seed to him, to be called by his name.

Poole: Rut 4:6

Lest I mar mine own inheritance either, first, Because having no children of his own, he might have one, and but one, son by Ruth, who, though he should carry away his inheritance, yet should not bear his name, but the name of Ruth’ s husband; and so by preserving another man’ s name, he should lose his own. Or, secondly, Because as his inheritance would be but very little increased by this marriage, so it might be much diminished by being divided amongst his many children, which he possibly had already, and might probably have more by Ruth.

Redeem thou my right which I freely renounce and resign to thee.

Poole: Rut 4:7

For to confirm all things i.e. in all alienation of lands. So that it is no wonder if this ceremony differ a little from that Deu 25:9 , because that concerned only one case, but this is more general. Besides, he pleads not the command of God, but only ancient custom, for this practice.

A man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: he who relinquished his right to another, plucked off his own shoe, and gave it to him. This was symbolical, and a significant and convenient ceremony; as if he said, Take this shoe wherewith I used to go and tread upon my land, and in that shoe do thou enter upon it, and take possession of it.

This was a testimony in Israel this was admitted for sufficient evidence in all such cases.

Poole: Rut 4:10

From the gate of his place i.e. from among the inhabitants dwelling within the gate of this city, which was Bethlehem-judah.

Haydock: Rut 4:1

Gate, where justice was administered. ---

Calling. Hebrew Ploni Almoni. (Calmet) ---

Protestant, " Ho! such a one." (Haydock) ---

This form of speech is used concerning a person whose name we know not, or will not mention, 1 Kings xxi. 2. (Calmet) ---

The name of this man is buried in eternal oblivion, perhaps because he was so much concerned about the splendour of his family, that he would not marry the widow of his deceased relation. (Tirinus)

Haydock: Rut 4:2

Here, as witnesses, not as judges, ver. 9. (Calmet) ---

This number was requisite in matters of consequence. (Grotius)

Haydock: Rut 4:3

Will sell. Some Latin copies read, "sells, or has sold." But the sequel shews that she was only now disposed to do it. But what right had Noemi or Ruth to the land, since women could not inherit? The latter might indeed retain her title, as long as she continued unmarried. But Noemi only acted in her behalf. Selden thinks that their respective husbands had made them a present of some land. Josephus (ver. 11) asserts, that the person whom Booz addressed had already possession, and that he resigned his claim, as he would not take au other wife. (Calmet) ---

Our brother. He was his nephew, and calls him brother, as Abraham did Lot. (Worthington)

Haydock: Rut 4:4

This. Hebrew, "I thought to uncover thy ear," or to admonish thee. Virgil (frag.) uses a similar expression, Mors aurem vellens, vivite, ait, venio: "Death pulls the ear; live now, he says, I come." ---

Not. Hebrew printed erroneously, "But if he will not redeem it." (Kennicott)

Haydock: Rut 4:5

When. Hebrew again corruptly, "On the day thou buyest the land of the hand of Noemi, I will also buy it of Ruth," &c. It ought to be, conformably to some manuscripts and the ancient versions, "thou must also take Ruth," ver. 10. (Capel, p. 144, and 362.) (Kennicott) (Haydock) ---

We see here the observance of two laws, the one preserving the inheritance in the same family, and the other obliging the next of kin to marry the widow of the deceased, if he would enjoy his land, Leviticus xxv. 10., and Deuteronomy xxv. 5. (Calmet) ---

Such widows as designed to comply with this condition, took possession of the land on the death of their husband, and conveyed it to those whom they married, till their eldest son became entitled to it. (Abulensis, q. 30 to 61.) ---

Inheritance. The son to be born, would be esteemed the heir of his legal parent. (Menochius)

Haydock: Rut 4:6

Family. Hebrew, "I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I spoil my own inheritance." He was afraid of having too many children, and sensible that the first son that should be born of the proposed marriage, would not be counted as his. (Haydock) ---

The miserable Onan had the same pretext, Genesis xxxviii. 9. Chaldean, "Since I cannot make use of this privilege, having already a wife, and not being allowed to take another, as that might cause dissensions in my family, and spoil my inheritance, do thou redeem it,….as thou art unmarried."

Haydock: Rut 4:7

Israel. Hebrew, "and this was the testimony in Israel." The ceremony here specified is very different from that which the law prescribed, Deuteronomy xxv. 7. But Josephus says, that they complied with all the regulations of the law, and that Ruth was present on this occasion. (Calmet) ---

Perhaps the law was not executed in all its rigour, when another was found to marry the widow, (Worthington) and when no real brother was living. (Tirinus)

Haydock: Rut 4:9

Chelion. As Orpha, his widow, took no care to comply with the law, all his possessions devolved on his brother’s posterity. (Menochius) ---

It was presumed that she would marry some Moabite. (Calmet)

Haydock: Rut 4:10

Moabitess. The sons of Elimelech were excused in taking such women to wife, on account of necessity, and to avoid the danger of incontinence, which is a greater evil. Booz was under another sort of necessity, and was bound to comply with the law; (Calmet) so that he was guilty of no sin, as Beza would pretend. (Tirinus) ---

Some also remark, that the exclusion of the people of Moab from the Church of God, regarded not the females, (St. Augustine, q. 35, In Deut.; Serarius; Tirinus; &c.) particularly if they embraced the true religion. According to the Rabbins, Obed should have been accounted a Moabite, as they say children follow the condition of their mothers: but we need not here adopt their decisions. ---

People. Hebrew, "and from the gate of his place." In the assemblies, the legal son of Mahalon would represent him, though he was also considered as the son of Booz, at least if the latter had no other, as was probably the case.

Gill: Rut 4:1

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 Dan 8:13. The name of this man was "Tob" or "Tobias", according to some Jewish writers; see Gill on Rth 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.

Gill: Rut 4:2

And he took ten men of the elders of the city,.... Who were such, not merely in age but in office, who were the heads of thousands, fifties, and tens; ten of whom were a quorum to do business in judiciary affairs, to determine such matters as Boaz had propose, as to whom the right of redemption of a brother and kinsman's widow, and her estate, belonged, and who were the proper witnesses of the refusal of the one to do it, and of the other's doing it and from hence the Jews ^e gather, that the blessing of the bride and bridegroom at their marriage is not to be done by less than ten persons:

and said, sit down here, and they sat down; and so made a full court.

Gill: Rut 4:3

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 Gill on Rth 3:13.

Gill: Rut 4:4

And I thought to advertise thee,.... To give him notice of it; or "I said" ^g; he said in his heart and mind, purposing to do it; or he said it to Ruth, promising her that he would do it:

saying, buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people; or before those that sat there, even the elders, as witnesses of the purchase:

if thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: for it was redeemable by a near kinsman according to the law, even when said to another, in Lev 25:25,

but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know; what to do in this affair, whether to redeem it or not:

for there is none to redeem it besides thee, and I am after thee; he was the first, and Boaz was the next near kinsman, to whom the right of redemption belonged:

and he said, I will redeem it: he chose to make the purchase, he liked the land, which he probably full well knew, and it might lie near his own, and make a good addition to it; and as the widow was determined, and under a necessity to sell, he might expect to have it at a cheap rate; all which might induce him at once to agree to be the purchaser.

Gill: Rut 4:5

Then said Boaz,.... In order to try the kinsman, whether he would abide by his resolution, he acquaints him with what he had as yet concealed:

what day thou buyest the field of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead; the wife of Mahlon, who was dead, the eldest son of Naomi, and so his widow, Ruth the Moabitess, had the reversion of the estate; wherefore the purchase must be made of her as well as of Naomi, and the purchase could not be made of her without marrying her; which, though no law obliged to, yet it seems to be a condition of the purchase annexed to it by Naomi, that she would sell it to no man, unless he would consent to marry Ruth, for whose settlement she had a great concern, having been very dutiful and affectionate to her; which is clearly intimated in the next clause:

to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance; and so Naomi had another end to answer thereby, not only to provide a good husband for her daughter-in-law, but to perpetuate the name of her son, agreeably to the design of the law in Deu 25:5.

Gill: Rut 4:6

And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself,.... On such a condition, because he had a wife, as the Targum suggests; and to take another would, as that intimates, tend to introduce contention into his family, and make him uncomfortable; so Josephus says ^h, he had a wife and children, for that reason it was not convenient for him to take the purchase on such a condition:

lest I mar my own inheritance; he considered, that as he had a wife and children already and as he might have more by marrying Ruth, his family expenses would be increased, and his estate diminished; and what would remain must be divided among many, and this estate in particular go to Ruth's firstborn, whereby his own inheritance would be scattered and crumbled, and come to little or nothing; add to all which, he might suppose that her ancient mother Naomi would be upon his hands to maintain also:

redeem thou my right for thyself which I am ready to give up to thee, for thou hast no wife, as the Targum expresses it:

for I can not redeem it; in the circumstances I am, and upon the condition annexed to the purchase.

Gill: Rut 4:7

Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming,.... It is a custom, and not a law, that seems here referred to, when an estate was bought and sold; not the law in Lev 25:25, though that respects the redemption of an estate by a near kinsman, yet no such manner was enjoined as here practised afterwards, made mention of; nor the law in Deu 25:5 which does not concern the redemption of estates, nor a kinsman's marrying the widow of a deceased kinsman, but a brother's marrying the widow of a deceased brother, and the rites and ceremonies there enjoined upon refusal are different from those here used; though Josephus ⁱ is express for it, that the law is here referred to; but this is not only concerning purchase of estates, but "concerning changing" also one field for another as Aben Ezra interprets it: "for to confirm all things"; the following custom was observed for the confirmation of any bargain whatever, whether by sale or barter, and where there was no marriage in the case:

a man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbour; signifying thereby, that he yielded his right to him in the thing sold or bartered; the Targum says, he plucked off the glove of his right hand, which perhaps was then in use, when the Targumist wrote, and answered the same purpose; and, according to Jarchi, it was a linen cloth, vail, or handkerchief, that was used, and delivered by the one to the other; and of this way of buying writes Elias ^k; at this day, says he, we purchase by a linen cloth or handkerchief called "sudar", which is a garment; and this two witnesses take, and explain before them the words of their agreement, and each of the witnesses stretches out the skirt of the garment, and those that take upon them to confirm every matter, touch the skirt of their garments; and this is called purchasing by "sudar", or the linen cloth:

and this was a testimony in Israel; a witness to, or a confirmation of the bargain made; but who gave the shoe, whether the kinsman or Boaz, is not certain from the text; and about which the Jewish writers are divided, as Jarchi observes.

Gill: Rut 4:8

And therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, buy it for me,.... Which is repeated to show he gave his full consent to it, that he should make the purchase of it if he pleased, and which he confirmed by the following rite:

so he drew off his shoe; thereby signifying that he relinquished his right to the purchase of the estate, and ceded it to him; the Targum has it,"and Boaz drew off the glove off his right hand, and bought it of him;''and so Aben Ezra,"and Boaz drew off his shoe, and gave it to his kinsman,''as if this was some acknowledgment for yielding his right unto him; and about this there is a great dissension among the Jewish writers ^l; one says it was the shoe of Boaz that was plucked off; another says it was the shoe of the kinsman; which latter seems most correct: and it may be observed, that this custom is different from what is enjoined Deu 25:6 there the woman was to pluck off the shoe of him that refused to marry her, but here the man plucked off his own shoe, who chose not to redeem; nor is there mention of spitting in his face; nor does it appear that Ruth did the one or the other; though Josephus ^m affirms it, and says, that she both plucked off his shoe, and spit in his face; neither of which are mentioned.

Gill: Rut 4:9

And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people,.... Who were present at the gate of the city, or in court:

ye are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech's; all the land which belonged to him, who was the husband of Naomi, and the father of Ruth's husband, whose estate Boaz now bought, paying the value for it to Naomi:

and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's; the two sons of Elimelech, who, had they been living, would have enjoyed their father's estate; but they being dead, it devolved on the mother, and after her on the widows, who must therefore agree to the sale of the estate, as Ruth did, see Rth 4:5. Of Orpah no notice is taken, because she returned to her own land; and besides Mahlon, the husband of Ruth, was the elder brother, and therefore had the first right to the inheritance; but as it was in the hands of Naomi now, the purchase was made of her principally, and therefore Boaz is said to purchase it

of the hand of Naomi; to whom the money was paid, and who delivered the estate to him.

Gill: Rut 4:10

Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife,.... Which was the condition on which the purchase of the land was, that whoever bought that should take her for his wife; nor did Boaz do evil in marrying her, though a Moabitess. Moab was not one of the nations with whom marriage was forbidden; and though it was a Heathenish and idolatrous nation, and so on that account it was not fit and proper to marry with such, yet Ruth was become a proselytess; nor was this contrary to the law in Deu 23:3, since, according to the sense the Jews give of it, it respects men, and not women, and such men who otherwise were capable of bearing offices in the congregation;"an Ammonite, and a Moabite (they say ⁿ) are forbidden, and their prohibition is a perpetual one, but their women are free immediately:"

to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance; the name of Mahlon, Ruth's former husband, to whom the inheritance would have come had he lived; the raising up of his name is not upon a son of hers by Boaz, for her firstborn was called Obed, and not Mahlon, and is always spoken of as the son of Boaz, and not of Mahlon, but upon his inheritance, having bought his wife along with it, which the register of the purchase would show, and so cause his name to be remembered; and, as Jarchi says, when Ruth went in and out upon the estate or inheritance, they would say, this was the wife of Mahlon, and so through her his name would be made mention of:

that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of this place; might not be quite forgotten both in the city and in the court, and be remembered no more:

ye are witnesses this day; this is repeated, that they might answer to it, as they do in the next verse.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rut 4:1

¹ tn The disjunctive clause structure (note the pattern vav [ו] + subject + verb) here signals the beginning of a new scene.

² tn Sometimes translated “redeemer.” See the note on the phrase “guardian of the family interests” in 3:9.

³ tn Heb “look, the guardian was passing by of whom Boaz had spoken.”

⁴ tn Heb “turn aside” (so KJV, NASB); NIV, TEV, NLT “Come over here.”

⁵ tn Heb “a certain one”; KJV, ASV “such a one.” The expression פְלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי (pÿloni ’almoni) is not the name of the nearest relative, but an idiom which literally means “such and such” or “a certain one” (BDB 811-12 s.v. פְלֹנִי), which is used when one wishes to be ambiguous (1 Sam 21:3; 2 Kgs 6:8). Certainly Boaz would have known his relative’s name, especially in such a small village, and would have uttered his actual name. However the narrator refuses to record his name in a form of poetic justice because he refused to preserve Mahlon’s “name” (lineage) by marrying his widow (see 4:5, 9-10). This close relative, who is a literary foil for Boaz, refuses to fulfill the role of family guardian. Because he does nothing memorable, he remains anonymous in a chapter otherwise filled with names. His anonymity contrasts sharply with Boaz’s prominence in the story and the fame he attains through the child born to Ruth. Because the actual name of this relative is not recorded, the translation of this expression is difficult since contemporary English style expects either a name or title. This is usually supplied in modern translations: “friend” (NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT), “so-and-so” (JPS, NJPS). Perhaps “Mr. So-And-So!” or “Mr. No-Name!” makes the point. For discussion see Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 99-101; R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 233-35; F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 196-97. In the present translation “John Doe” is used since it is a standard designation for someone who is a party to legal proceedings whose true name is unknown.

⁶ tn Heb “and he turned aside” (so KJV, NASB); NRSV “And he went over.”

NET Notes: Rut 4:2

¹ tn Heb “and he took ten men from the elders of the town.”

NET Notes: Rut 4:3

¹ tn Or “redeemer.” See the note on the phrase “guardian of the family interests” in 3:9.

² tn The perfect form of the verb here describes as a simple fact an action that is underway (cf. NIV, NRSV, CEV, NLT); NAB “is putting up for sale.”

sn Naomi…is selling. The nature of the sale is uncertain. Naomi may have been selling the property rights to the land, but this seems unlikely in light of what is known about ancient Israelite property laws. It is more likely that Naomi, being a woman, held only the right to use the land until the time of her remarriage or death (F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 202-4). Because she held this right to use of the land, she also had the right to buy it back from the its current owner. (This assumes that Elimelech sold the land prior to going to Moab.) Since she did not possess the means to do so, however, she decided to dispose of her rights in the matter. She was not selling the land per se, but disposing of the right to its redemption and use, probably in exchange for room and board with the purchaser (Bush, 211-15). If this is correct, it might be preferable to translate, “Naomi is disposing of her rights to the portion of land,” although such a translation presumes some knowledge of ancient Israelite property laws.

NET Notes: Rut 4:4

¹ tn Heb “and I said [or perhaps, “thought to myself”], ‘I will [or “must”] uncover your ear, saying’”; NAB “So I thought I would inform you”; NIV “I thought I should bring the matter to your attention.”

² tn The phrase “before those sitting here and before the leaders of my people” appears to refer to the leaders who were specially chosen as witnesses (v. 2) and the larger group of community leaders standing by. It is possible, however, that the phrases “before those sitting here” and “before the leaders of my people” are appositional and that both refer to the ten leaders mentioned in v. 2 (cf. NLT “in the presence of these witnesses”).

³ tn Heb “if you will redeem, redeem” (KJV, NASB, NRSV all similar); NCV “If you want to buy back the land, then buy it.”

⁴ tn Heb “but if he will not redeem, tell me.” Most English versions emend the third person verb form (“he”) to the second person form because Boaz is addressing the closer relative. But it is possible that he briefly addresses the witnesses and refers to the closer relative in the third person. See J. M. Sasson, Ruth, 118.

⁵ tn Following the imperative, the prefixed verb form with vav indicates purpose or result.

⁶ tn Heb “for there is no one besides you to redeem, and I am after you” (NASB similar).

NET Notes: Rut 4:5

¹ tn Heb “in the day”; NASB, NIV “On the day.”

² sn Acquire the field. This probably refers to the right to redeem and use the field. See the note on the word “selling” in v. 3.

³ tn Heb “from the hand of Naomi” (so NASB, NRSV).

⁴ tc The MT וּמֵאֵת (ume’et) may be understood in two ways: (1) “and from” (vav conjunction “and,” plus preposition מִן [min] “from,” plus definite direct object marker אֵת) parallel to the preceding מִיַד (miyyad, “from [the hand of]”), suggesting the field would be purchased from Naomi and from Ruth; or (2) “and” (vav [ו] conjunction “and,” plus enclitic mem [ם], plus direct object marker [אֵת]) introducing the second part of the acquisition: the nearest kinsman would be acquiring the field and Ruth (for discussion see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 202). However, the BHS editors suggest reading גם את־ (“as well as…”; emphatic particle גם [“also”] and the definite direct object marker אֵת) introducing the second part of the acquisition: He would be acquiring the field and Ruth. This alternate reading is reflected in the Vulgate reading quoque (“and also”) and supported by parallel usage in v. 9, “I am acquiring the field from Naomi, and also (גָּם אֵת־, gam ’et) Ruth the Moabitess the wife of the deceased.”

⁵ tc The MT (Kethib) reads קָנִיתִי (qaniti, “I acquire,” Qal perfect 1st person common singular): “When you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, I acquire Ruth the Moabitess…” However, the marginal reading (Qere) is קָנִיתָה (qanitah, “you acquire,” Qal perfect 2nd person masculine singular, reflected in 2nd person masculine singular forms in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac): “When you acquire the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess…” The Qere is probably original because the Kethib is too difficult syntactically and contextually, while the Qere makes perfect sense: (1) Boaz stated in 3:13 that the nearest kinsman had the first right to acquire Ruth if he wanted to do so, and only the Qere reading here presents him with that option; and (2) Boaz announces in 4:9-10 that he was acquiring the field and Ruth as a package deal in 4:9-10, and only the Qere reading here presents the nearest kinsman with the same package deal. The Kethib probably arose by a scribe trying to harmonize 4:5 with the 1st person common singular form in 4:9-10 without fully understanding the ploy of Boaz in 4:5. See F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 216-17.

⁶ tc The presence of two difficult textual problems in this line (see two preceding notes) has produced a combination of four different ways in which this line can be rendered: (1) “When you acquire the field from Naomi, you must acquire [it] from Ruth the Moabitess the wife of the deceased” (KJV, NKJV); (2) “When you acquire the field from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabitess, you must acquire the wife of the deceased” (JPS, NJPS, NIV); (3) “When you acquire the field from Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess the wife of the deceased” (NASB, NCV, TEV, RSV, NRSV, NLT); and (4) “When you acquire the field from Naomi, then I acquire Ruth the Moabitess the wife of the deceased” (REB). The third option is adopted here.

sn Our deceased relative. This refers to Mahlon, viewed as Elimelech’s heir.

⁷ tn Heb “in order to raise up the name of the deceased over his inheritance” (NASB similar); NRSV “to maintain the dead man’s name on his inheritance.”

NET Notes: Rut 4:6

¹ sn I would ruin my own inheritance. It is not entirely clear how acquiring Ruth and raising up an heir for the deceased Elimelech would ruin this individual’s inheritance. Perhaps this means that the inheritance of his other children would be diminished. See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 245-46.

² tn Heb “redeem for yourself, you, my right of redemption for I am unable to redeem.”

sn Here it appears that the acquisition of Ruth along with the land was an obligatory package deal (“When you acquire the field from Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth…”). On the other hand, Boaz viewed marriage to Ruth as voluntary in 3:13 (“If he does not want to redeem you, I will redeem you”), and presented the acquisition of the field as voluntary in 4:4 (“If you want to exercise your right…but if not, tell me!”). Initially, Boaz makes the transaction appear to be a mere land deal in 4:4. When the nearest relative jumped at the land offer, Boaz confronted him with the attendant social/family obligation of marrying Ruth to raise up an heir for the deceased to inherit this very land. By conducting the transaction in public where the close relative would need to save face, Boaz forced him either to reject the offer entirely or to include Ruth in the deal – but he could not take the land and reject Ruth. Either way, Ruth would be cared for and Elimelech’s line continued. But if he took Ruth, the acquisition of the land would be more economically burdensome than beneficial, so he yielded his purchase option to Boaz. For discussion, see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 229-33.

NET Notes: Rut 4:7

¹ tn Heb “and this formerly in Israel concerning redemption and concerning a transfer to ratify every matter.”

² tn Heb “a man removed his sandal and gave [it] to his companion”; NASB “gave it to another”; NIV, NRSV, CEV “to the other.”

³ tn Heb “the legal witness”; KJV “a testimony”; ASV, NASB “the manner (form NAB) of attestation.”

NET Notes: Rut 4:8

¹ tc The LXX adds “and gave it to him” (cf. TEV, CEV), which presupposes the reading ויתן לו. This seems to be a clarifying addition (see v. 7), but it is possible the scribe’s eye jumped from the final vav (ו) on נַעֲלוֹ (na’alo, “his sandal”) to the final vav (ו) on לוֹ (lo, “to him”), accidentally omitting the intervening letters.

NET Notes: Rut 4:10

¹ tn Heb “in order to raise up the name of the deceased over his inheritance” (NASB similar).

² tn Heb “be cut off” (so NASB, NRSV); NAB “may not perish.”

³ tn Heb “and from the gate of his place” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “from the court of his birth place”; NIV “from the town records.”

Geneva Bible: Rut 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".

Geneva Bible: Rut 4:4

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] ^{( c )} beside thee; and I [am] after thee. And he said, I will redeem [it].

^{( c )} For you are the next of kin.

Geneva Bible: Rut 4:5

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 ^{( d )} inheritance.

^{( d )} That his inheritance might bear his name that is dead.

Geneva Bible: Rut 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 ^{( e )} testimony in Israel.

^{( e )} That he had resigned his right, (Deu 25:9).

Geneva Bible: Rut 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 ^{( f )} place: ye [are] witnesses this day.

^{( f )} Or, of the city where he remained.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rut 4:1-22

1 Boaz calls into judgment the next kinsman.

6 He refuses the redemption according to the manner in Israel.

9 Boaz buys the inheritance.

11 He marries Ruth.

13 She bears Obed, the grandfather of David.

18 The generations of Pharez unto David.

MHCC: Rut 4:1-8

This matter depended on the laws given by Moses about inheritances, and doubtless the whole was settled in the regular and legal manner. This kinsman, when he heard the conditions of the bargain, refused it. In like manner many are 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 they are willing to part with it, and cannot be bound to it, for fear of marring their own inheritance in this world. The right was resigned to Boaz. Fair and open dealing in all matters of contract and trade, is what all must make conscience of, who would approve themselves true Israelites, without guile. Honesty will be found the best policy.

MHCC: Rut 4:9-12

Men are ready to seize opportunities for increasing their estates, but few know the value of godliness. Such are the wise men of this world, whom the Lord charges with folly. They attend not to the concerns of their souls, but reject the salvation of Christ, for fear of marring their inheritance. But God did Boaz the honour to bring him into the line of the Messiah, while the kinsman, who was afraid of lessening himself, and marring his inheritance, has his name, family, and inheritance forgotten.

Matthew Henry: Rut 4:1-8

Here, 1. Boaz calls a court immediately. It is probable he was himself one of the elders (or aldermen) of the city; for he was a mighty man of wealth. Perhaps he was father of the city, and sat chief; for he seems here to have gone up to the gate as one having authority, and not as a common person; like Job, Job 29:7, etc. We cannot suppose him less than a magistrate in his city who was grandson to Nahshon, prince of Judah; and his lying at the end of a heap of corn in the threshing-floor the night before was not at all inconsistent, in those days of plainness, with the honour of his sitting judge in the gate. But why was Boaz so hasty, why so fond of the match? Ruth was not rich, but lived upon alms; not honourable, but a poor stranger. She was never said to be beautiful; if ever she had been so, we may suppose that weeping, and travelling, and gleaning, had withered her lilies and roses. But that which made Boaz in love with her, and solicitous to expedite the affair, was that all her neighbours agreed she was a virtuous woman. This set her price with him far above rubies (Pro 31:10); and therefore he thinks, if by marrying her he might do her a real kindness, he should also do himself a very great kindness. He will therefore bring it to a conclusion immediately. It was not court-day, but he got ten men of the elders of the city to meet him in the town-hall over the gate, where public business used to be transacted, Rth 4:2. So many, it is probable, by the custom of the city, made a full court. Boaz, though a judge, would not be judge in his own cause, but desired the concurrence of other elders. Honest intentions dread not a public cognizance. 2. He summons his rival to come and hear the matter that was to be proposed to him (Rth 4:1): " Ho, such a one, sit down here."He called him by his name, no doubt, but the divine historian thought not fit to record it, for, because he refused to raise up the name of the dead, he deserved not to have his name preserved to future ages in this history. Providence favoured Boaz in ordering it so that this kinsman should come by thus opportunely, just when the matter was ready to be proposed to him. Great affairs are sometimes much furthered by small circumstances, which facilitate and expedite them. 3. He proposes to the other kinsman the redemption of Naomi's land, which, it is probable, had been mortgaged for money to buy bread with when the famine was in the land (Rth 4:3): " Naomi has a parcel of land to sell, namely, the equity of the redemption of it out of the hands of the mortgagee, which she is willing to part with;"or, as some think, it was her jointure for her life, and, wanting money, for a small matter she would sell her interest to the heir at law, who was fittest to be the purchaser. This he gives the kinsman legal notice of (Rth 4:4), that he might have the refusal of it. Whoever had it must pay for it, and Boaz might have said, "My money is as good as my kinsman's; if I have a mind to it, why may not I buy it privately, since I had the first proffer of it, and say nothing to my kinsman?"No, Boaz, though fond enough of the purchase, would not do so mean a thing as to take a bargain over another man's head that was nearer a-kin to it; and we are taught by his example to be not only just and honest, but fair and honourable, in all our dealings, and to do nothing which we are unwilling should see the light, but be above-board. 4. The kinsman seemed forward to redeem the land till he was told that, if he did that, he must marry the widow, and then he flew off. He liked the land well enough, and probably caught at that the more greedily because he hoped that the poor widow being under a necessity of selling he have so much the better bargain: " I will redeem it "(said he) "with all my heart,"thinking it would be a fine addition to his estate, Rth 4:4. But Boaz told him there was a young widow in the case, and, if he have the land, he must take her with it, Terra transit cum onere - The estate passes with this incumbrance; either the divine law or the usage of the country would oblige him to it, or Naomi insisted upon it that she would not sell the land but upon this condition, Rth 4:5. Some think this does not relate to the law of marrying the brother's widow (for that seems to oblige only the children of the same father, Deu 25:5, unless by custom it was afterwards made to extend to the next of kin), but to the law of redemption of inheritances (Lev 25:24, Lev 25:25), for it is a Goel , a redeemer, that is here enquired for; and if so it was not by the law, but by Naomi's own resolution, that the purchaser was to marry the widow. However it was, this kinsman, when he heard the conditions of the bargain, refused it (Rth 4:6): " I cannot redeem it for myself. I will not meddle with it upon these terms, lest I mar my own inheritance."The land, he thought, would be an improvement of his inheritance, but not the land with the woman; that would mar it. Perhaps he thought it would be a disparagement to him to marry such a poor widow that had come from a strange country, and almost lived upon alms. He fancied it would be a blemish to his family, it would mar his blood, and disgrace his posterity. Her eminent virtues were not sufficient in his eye to counterbalance this. The Chaldee paraphrase makes his reason for this refusal to be that he had another wife, and, if he should take Ruth, it might occasion strife and contention in his family, which would mar the comfort of his inheritance. Or he thought she might bring him a great many children, and they would all expect shares out of his estate, which would scatter it into too many hands, so that the family would make the less figure. This makes many shy of the great redemption: they are not willing to espouse religion. They have heard well of it, and have nothing to say against it; they will give it their good word, but at the same time they will give their good word with it; they are willing to part with it, and cannot be bound to it, for fear of marring their own inheritance in this world. Heaven they could be glad of, but holiness they can dispense with; it will not agree with the lusts they have already espoused, and therefore, let who will purchase heaven at that rate, they cannot. 5. The right of redemption is fairly resigned to Boaz. If this nameless kinsman lost a good bargain, a good estate, and a good wife too, he may thank himself for not considering it better, and Boaz will thank him for making his way clear to that which he valued and desired above any thing. In those ancient times it was not the usage to pass estates by writings, as afterwards (Jer 32:10, etc.), but by some sign or ceremony, as with us by livery and seisin, as we commonly call it, that is, the delivery of seisin, seisin of a house by giving the key, of land by giving turf and a twig. The ceremony here used was, he that surrendered plucked off his shoe (the Chaldee says it was the glove of his right hand ) and gave it to him to whom he made the surrender, intimating thereby that, whatever right he had to tread or go upon the land, he conveyed and transferred it, upon a valuable consideration, to the purchaser: this was a testimony in Israel, Rth 4:7. And it was done in this case, Rth 4:8. If this kinsman had been bound by the law to marry Ruth, and his refusal had been a contempt of that law, Ruth must have plucked off his shoe and spit in his face, Deu 25:9. But, though his relation should in some measure oblige him to the duty, yet the distance of his relation might serve to excuse him from the penalty, or Ruth might very well dispense with it, since his refusal was all she desired from him. But bishop Patrick, and the best interpreters, think this had no relation to that law, and that the drawing off of the shoe was not any disgrace as there, but a confirmation of the surrender, and an evidence that it was not fraudulently nor surreptitiously obtained. Note, Fair and open dealing in all matters of contract and commerce is what all those must make conscience of that would approve themselves Israelites indeed, without guile. How much more honourably and honestly does Boaz come by this purchase than if he had secretly undermined his kinsman, and privately struck up a bargain with Naomi, unknown to him. Honesty will be found the best policy.

Matthew Henry: Rut 4:9-12

Boaz now sees his way clear, and therefore delays not to perform his promise made to Ruth that he would do the kinsman's part, but in the gate of the city, before the elders and all the people, publishes a marriage-contract between himself and Ruth the Moabitess, and therewith the purchase of all the estate that belonged to the family of Elimelech. If he had not been (Rth 2:1) a mighty man of wealth, he could not have compassed this redemption, nor done this service to his kinsman's family. What is a great estate good for, but that it enables a man to do so much the more good in his generation, and especially to those of his own household, if he have but a heart to use it so! Now concerning this marriage it appears,

I. That it was solemnized, or at least published, before many witnesses, Rth 4:9, Rth 4:10. "You are witnesses,"1. "That I have bought the estate. Whoever has it, or any part of it, mortgaged to him, let him come to me and he shall have his money, according to the value of the land,"which was computed by the number of years to the year of jubilee (Lev 25:15), when it would have returned of course to Elimelech's family. The more public the sales of estates are the better they are guarded against frauds. 2. "That I have purchased the widow to be my wife."He had no portion with her; what jointure she had was encumbered, and he could not have it without giving as much for it as it was worth, and therefore he might well say he purchased her; and yet, being a virtuous woman, he reckoned he had a good bargain. House and riches are the inheritance of fathers, but a prudent wife is more valuable, is from the Lord as a special gift. He designed, in marrying her, to preserve the memory of the dead, that the name of Mahlon, though he left no son to bear it up, might not be cut off from the gate of his place, but by this means might be preserved, that it should be inserted in the public register that Boaz married Ruth the widow of Mahlon, the son of Elimelech, which posterity, whenever they had occasion to consult the register, would take particular notice of. And this history, being preserved for the sake of that marriage and the issue of it, proved an effectual means to perpetuate the name of Mahlon, even beyond the thought or intention of Boaz, to the world's end. And observe that because Boaz did this honour to the dead, as well as this kindness to the living, God did him the honour to bring him into the genealogy of the Messiah, by which his family was dignified above all the families of Israel; while the other kinsman, that was so much afraid of diminishing himself, and marring his inheritance, by marrying the widow, has his name, family, and inheritance, buried in oblivion and disgrace. A tender and generous concern for the honour of the dead and the comfort of poor widows and strangers, neither of which can return the kindness (Luk 14:14), is sure what God will be well pleased with and will surely recompense. Our Lord Jesus is our Goel , our Redeemer, our everlasting Redeemer. He looked, like Boaz, with compassion on the deplorable state of fallen mankind. At a vast expense he redeemed the heavenly inheritance for us, which by sin was mortgaged, and forfeited into the hands of divine justice, and which we should never have been able to redeem. He likewise purchased a peculiar people, whom he would espouse to himself, though strangers and foreigners, like Ruth, poor and despised, that the name of that dead and buried race might not be cut off for ever. He ventured the marring of his own inheritance, to do this, for, though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor; but he was abundantly recompensed for it by his Father, who, because he thus humbled himself, hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name. Let us own our obligations to him, make sure our contract with him, and study all our days how to do him honour. Boaz, by making a public declaration of this marriage and purchase, not only secured his title against all pretenders, as it were by a fine with proclamations, but put honour upon Ruth, showed that he was not ashamed of her, and her parentage and poverty, and left a testimony against clandestine marriages. It is only that which is evil that hates the light and comes not to it. Boaz called witnesses to what he did, for it was what he could justify, and would never disown; and such regard was then had, even to the contemned crowd, that not only the elders, but all the people that were in the gate, passing and re-passing, were appealed to (Rth 4:9), and hearkened to (Rth 4:11) when they said, We are witnesses.

II. That it was attended with many prayers. The elders and all the people, when they witnessed to it, wished well to it, and blessed it, Rth 4:11, Rth 4:12. Ruth, it should seem, was now sent for; for they speak of her (Rth 4:12) as present: This young woman; and, he having taken her to wife, they look upon her as already come into his house. And very heartily they pray for the new-married couple.

1. The senior elder, it is likely, made this prayer, and the rest of the elders, with the people, joined in it, and therefore it is spoken of as made by them all; for in public prayers, though but one speaks, we must all pray. Observe, (1.) Marriages ought to be blessed, and accompanied with prayer, because every creature and every condition are that to us, and no more, that God makes them to be. It is civil and friendly to wish all happiness to those who enter into that condition; and what good we desire we should pray for from the fountain of all good. The minister who gives himself to the word and prayer, as he is the fittest person to exhort, so he is the fittest to bless and pray for those that enter into this relation. (2.) We ought to desire and pray for the welfare and prosperity one of another, so far from envying or grieving at it.

2. Now here, (1.) They prayed for Ruth: The Lord make the woman that has come into thy house like Rachel and Leah, that is, "God make her a good wife and a fruitful mother."Ruth was a virtuous woman, and yet needed the prayers of her friends, that by the grace of God she might be made a blessing to the family she had come into. They prayed that she might be like Rachel and Leah, rather than like Sarah and Rebekah, for Sarah had but one son, and Rebekah but one that was in covenant, the other was Esau, who was rejected; but Rachel and Leah did build up the house of Israel: all their children were in the church, and their offspring was numerous. "May she be a flourishing, fruitful, faithful vine by thy house side. "(2.) They prayed for Boaz, that he might continue to do worthily in the city to which he was an ornament, and might there be more and more famous. They desired that the wife might be a blessing in the private affairs of the house, and the husband a blessing in the public business of the town, that she in her place, and he in his, might be wise, virtuous, and successful. Observe, The way to be famous is to do worthily. Great reputation must be obtained by great merits. It is not enough not to do unworthily, to be harmless and inoffensive, but we must do worthily, be useful and serviceable to our generation. Those that would be truly illustrious must in their places shine as lights. (3.) They prayed for the family: " Let thy house be like the house of Pharez, "that is, "let it be very numerous, let it greatly increase and multiply, as the house of Pharez did."The Bethlehemites were of the house of Pharez, and knew very well how numerous it was; in the distribution of the tribes, that grandson of Jacob had the honour which none of the rest had but Manasseh and Ephraim, that his posterity was subdivided into two distinct families, Hezron and Hamul, Num 26:21. Now they prayed that the family of Boaz, which was one branch of that stock, might in process of time become as numerous and great as the whole stock now was.

Keil-Delitzsch: Rut 4:1-5

"Boaz had gone up to the gate, and had sat down there." Thiscircumstantial clause introduces the account of the further development ofthe affair. The gate, i.e., the open space before the city gate, was the forumof 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 Boazwent up from the threshing-floor where he had slept tot the city, whichwas situated upon higher ground, for, according to Rth 3:15, he hadalready gone to the city before he went up to the gate; but it is to beexplained as referring to the place of justice as an ideal eminence to which aman 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 Boazrequested him to come near and sit down. סוּר as in Gen 19:2, etc.:" Sit down here, such a one. " אלמני פּלני , any one, acertain person, whose name is either unknown or not thought worthmentioning (cf. 1Sa 21:3; 2Ki 6:8). Boaz would certainly call him byhis name; but the historian had either not heard the name, or did not thinkit necessary to give it.

Rth 4:2-5

Boaz then called ten of the elders of the city as witnesses of thebusiness 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 havethought ( lit . 'I said,' sc., to myself; cf. Gen 17:17; Gen 27:41), I will open thineear (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 toanother, getting it ( קנה ) could only be accomplished by virtueof the right of redemption. Boaz therefore proceeded to say, " If thou wiltredeem, 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 Iam (the next) after thee ." היּשׁבים is rendered by many, thosedwelling, and supposed to refer to the inhabitants of Bethlehem. But wecould 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 ofpersons present besides the elders. Moreover they would not have been mentioned first, but, like " all thepeople "in Rth 4:9, would have been placed after the elders as the principalwitnesses. On these grounds, the word must be taken in the sense ofsitting, and, like the verb in Rth 4:2, be understood as referring to the elderspresent; and the words "before the elders of my people"must be regardedas explanatory. The expression יגאל (third pers.) is striking, as weshould expect the second person, which is not only found in theSeptuagint, but also in several codices, and is apparently required by thecontext. 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 theelders and uttered the words as addressed to them, and therefore spoke ofthe redeemer as a third person: "But if he, the redeemer there, will notredeem." But as the direct appeal to the redeemer himself is resumedimmediately afterwards, the supposition, to our mind at least, is a veryharsh one. The person addressed said, " I will redeem." Boaz then gave him thisfurther explanation (Rth 4:5): " On the day that thou buyest the field of thehand of Naomi, thou buyest it of the hand of Ruth the Moabitess, of thewife of the deceased (Mahlon, the rightful heir of the field), to set up (thatthou mayest set up) the name of the deceased upon his inheritance. "Fromthe meaning and context, the form קניתי must be the second pers. masc.; the yod at the end no doubt crept in through an error of the pen, orelse from a ו , so that the word is either to be read קנית (according to the Keri ) or קניתו , "thou buyest it." So far as the factitself was concerned, the field, which Naomi had sold from want, was thehereditary property of her deceased husband, and ought therefore todescend to her sons according to the standing rule of right; and in thisrespect, therefore, it was Ruth's property quite as much as Naomi's. Fromthe negotiation between Boaz and the nearer redeemer, it is very evidentthat Naomi had sold the field which was the hereditary property of herhusband, and was lawfully entitled to sell it. But as landed property did not descend to wives according to theIsraelitish law, but only to children, and when there were no children, tothe nearest relatives of the husband (Num 27:8-11), when Elimelech diedhis field properly descended to his sons; and when they died withoutchildren, it ought to have passed to his nearest relations. Hence thequestion arises, what right had Naomi to sell her husband's field as her ownproperty? The Rabbins suppose that the field had been presented toNaomi and Ruth by their husbands (vid., Selden , de success. in bona def. c. 15). But Elimelech could not lawfully give his hereditary property to hiswife, as he left sons behind him when he died, and they were the lawfulheirs; and Mahlon also had no more right than his father to make such agift. There is still less foundation for the opinion that Naomi was anheiress, since even if this were the case, it would be altogether inapplicableto the present affair, where the property in question was not a field whichNaomi had inherited form her father, but the field of Elimelech and hissons. The true explanation is no doubt the following: The law relating to theinheritance of the landed property of Israelites who died childless did notdetermine the time when such a possession should pass to the relatives ofthe deceased, whether immediately after the death of the owner, or not tillafter the death of the widow who was left behind (vid., Num 27:9.). Nodoubt the latter was the rule established by custom, so that the widowremained in possession of the property as long as she lived; and for thatlength of time she had the right to sell the property in case of need, sincethe sale of a field was not an actual sale of the field itself, but simply of theyearly produce until the year of jubilee. Consequently the field of thedeceased Elimelech would, strictly speaking, have belonged to his sons,and after their death to Mahlon's widow, since Chilion's widow hadremained behind in her own country Moab. But as Elimelech had not onlyemigrated with his wife and children and died abroad, but his sons had alsobeen with him in the foreign land, and had married and died there, thelanded property of their father had not descended to them, but hadremained the property of Naomi, Elimelech's widow, in which Ruth, as thewidow of the deceased Mahlon, also had a share. Now, in case a widow sold the field of her deceased husband for the timethat it was in her possession, on account of poverty, and a relation of herhusband redeemed it, it was evidently his duty not only to care for themaintenance of the impoverished widow, but if she were still young, tomarry her, and to let the first son born of such a marriage enter into thefamily of the deceased husband of his wife, so as to inherit the redeemedproperty, and perpetuate the name and possession of the deceased inIsrael. Upon this right, which was founded upon traditional custom, Boazbased this condition, which he set before the nearer redeemer, that if heredeemed the field of Naomi he must also take Ruth, with the obligation tomarry her, and through this marriage to set up the name of the deceasedupon his inheritance.

Keil-Delitzsch: Rut 4:6-13

The redeemer admitted the justice of this demand, from which we may seethat the thing passed as an existing right in the nation. But as he was notdisposed to marry Ruth, he gave up the redemption of the field.

Rth 4:6-13

"I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance." The redemption would cost money, since the yearly produce of the fieldwould have to be paid for up to the year of jubilee. Now, if he acquired thefield by redemption as his own permanent property, he would haveincreased by so much his own possessions in land. But if he should marryRuth, the field so redeemed would belong to the son whom he would begetthrough her, and he would therefore have parted with the money that hehad paid for the redemption merely for the son of Ruth, so that he wouldhave withdrawn a certain amount of capital from his own possession, andto that extent have detracted from its worth. "Redeem thou for thyself myredemption," i.e., the field which I have the first right to redeem.

Rth 4:7-8

This declaration he confirmed by what was a usual custom atthat time in renouncing a right. This early custom is described in Rth 4:7, andthere its application to the case before us is mentioned afterwards. " Nowthis was (took place) formerly in Israel in redeeming and exchanging, toconfirm every transaction: A man took off his shoe and gave it to another,and this was a testimony in Israel. "From the expression "formerly," andalso from the description given of the custom in question, it follows that ithad gone out of use at the time when our book was composed. The customitself, which existed among the Indians and the ancient Germans, arosefrom the fact that fixed property was taken possession of by treadingupon the soil, and hence taking off the shoe and handing it to another was asymbol of the transfer of a possession or right of ownership (see theremarks on Deu 25:9 and my Bibl. Archäol. ii. p. 66). The Piel קיּם is rarely met with in Hebrew; in the present instance it wasprobably taken from the old legal phraseology. The only other places inwhich it occurs are Eze 13:6; Psa 119:28, Psa 119:106, and the book of Esther,where it is used more frequently as a Chaldaism.

Rth 4:9-10

After the nearest redeemer had thus renounced the right ofredemption with all legal formality, Boaz said to the elders and all the (restof the) people, " Ye are witnesses this day, that I have acquired this day allthat belonged to Elimelech, and to Mahlon and Chilion (i.e., the field ofElimelech, which was the rightful inheritance of his sons Mahlon andChilion ), at the hand of Naomi; and also Ruth the Moabitess, the wife ofMahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to raise up the name of the deceasedupon his inheritance, that the name of the deceased may not be cut offamong his brethren and from the gate of his people "(i.e., from his nativetown Bethlehem; cf. Rth 3:11). On the fact itself, see the introduction toRuth 3; also the remarks on the Levirate marriages at Deu 25:5.

Rth 4:11

The people and the elders said, "We are witnesses," and desiredfor Boaz the blessing of the Lord upon this marriage. For Boaz had actedas unselfishly as he had acted honourably in upholding a laudable familycustom in Israel. The blessing desired is the greatest blessing of marriage:" The Lord make the woman that shall come into thine house (the participle בּאה refers to what is immediately about to happen) like Racheland like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel ("build"as in Gen 16:2; Gen 30:3); and do thou get power in Ephratah, and make to thyself aname in Bethlehem ." חיל עשׂה does not mean "getproperty or wealth,"as in Deu 8:17, but get power , as in Ps. 60:14 (cf. Pro 31:29), sc., by begetting and training worthy sons and daughters. "Make thee a name," literally "call out a name."The meaning of thisphrase, which is only used here in this peculiar manner, must be thefollowing: "Make to thyself a well-established name through thy marriagewith Ruth, by a host of worthy sons who shall make thy name renowned."

Rth 4:12

" May thy house become like the house of Perez, whom Tamarbore to Judah "(Gen 38). It was from Perez that the ancestors of Boaz,enumerated in Rth 4:18. and 1Ch 2:5., were descended. As fromPerez, so also from the seed which Jehovah would give to Boaz throughRuth, there should grow up a numerous posterity.

Constable: Rut 4:1-22

III. GOD'S PROVISION ch. 4

The climax of this fascinating story and the resolution of the problem laying in the way of Ruth's union with Boaz and realization of rest become clear in this chapter. Naomi and Ruth's plan (3:1-5) comes to a successful completion.

Constable: Rut 4:1-6

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; 2 Sam. 15:2-6; 1 Kings 22:10; Amos 5:10, 12, 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.'"⁶⁵

The writer did not preserve the name of the nearer kinsman (v. 1; cf. 1 Sam. 21:2; 2 Kings 6:8). He wrote that Boaz called him "such a one" (AV, better than "friend," NASB, NIV). Perhaps 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.

". . . he who was so anxious for the preservation of his own inheritance, is now not even known by name."⁶⁶

The Mosaic Law did not specify the need for 10 elders to decide such cases (v. 2). Perhaps this number was customary. In any case, Boaz chose his jury so the nearer kinsman's decision would stand. The presence of ten 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."⁶⁷

The text does not reveal the precise relation 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. Leviticus 25:25-28 legislated the redemption of property, and Deuteronomy 25:5-10 regulated levirate marriage. The actions did not always go together.⁶⁸ In this case, Boaz wanted to do both things.⁶⁹

Boaz raised the issue of redeeming Naomi's land first (vv. 3-4). For the first time in the story we learn that Naomi owned some property. In spite of this, she and Ruth were poor or Ruth would not have had to glean. Naomi may have wanted to sell her property to raise cash for living expenses. Evidently she had been acting as guardian of her husband and sons' property rights and was now ready to dispose of their land.⁷⁰

We should not interpret Boaz's reference to Elimelech as the "brother" of the nearer kinsman and himself (v. 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 sell bordered on the lands of the other two men.⁷¹

The nearer kinsman desired Naomi's land and was willing to buy it from her (v. 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, and perhaps even a legal, obligation to marry the wife of his deceased relative if he could (Deut. 25:5-6). His refusal to do so would have brought disgrace on him (Deut. 25:7-10).⁷² 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.⁷³

"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."⁷⁴

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.⁷⁵ The writer did not fault the nearer kinsman for doing what he did. Rather he pictured Boaz as acting with extraordinary loyal love.

The fact that the genealogy at the end of the book (4:21) connects Boaz and Ruth's son with Boaz rather than Mahlon does not mean he failed to perpetuate Mahlon's 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 descendent.

"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."⁷⁶

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 (v. 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 descendents, 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 (2:1).

Robert Hubbard, Jr., has 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.⁷⁷ He regarded the unnamed kinsman redeemer's change of mind "the book's thorniest legal problem."⁷⁸

". . . 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 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 vv. 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 (v. 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 (v. 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. 2:17-18) meant considerably more expense than anticipated. Hence, he willingly waived his redemption rights in favor of Boaz (vv. 6-8)."⁷⁹

Constable: Rut 4:7-12

B. Boaz obtains the right to marry Ruth 4:7-12

Probably the practice of standing on land one possessed led to the custom of using the sandal as a symbol of possession in land transactions (v. 7; cf. Gen. 13:17; Deut. 1:36; 11:24; Josh. 1:3; 14:9).⁸⁰ Most scholars believe that it was the kinsman who removed his sandal to symbolize the completion of the transaction (v. 8).

Boaz's emphasis on raising up the name of the deceased (v. 10), namely Mahlon, and his father, Elimelech, shows Boaz's concern for the reputation and posterity of his family line. These were important concerns in Israel because of God's promises concerning Abraham's seed and especially Judah's descendents (Gen. 49:10).

The witnesses to Boaz's transaction wished God's blessing of numerous descendents on him. They cited Rachel and Leah, both of whom, like Ruth, had joined the Israelites and had entered their land from alien nations that had demonstrated hostility to God's people. Rachel's tomb was near Bethlehem. She and her sister had given Jacob 12 sons directly and through their maids. They had indeed "built the house of Israel" (v. 11). The people also wished wealth (cf. 2:1; 3:11) and fame on Boaz, which he did obtain thanks to God's blessing on his family, especially through Ruth and David.

The reference to Perez (v. 12) is also significant. There are many parallels between the story of Boaz and Ruth and the story of Perez's parents, Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38). Ruth and Tamar were both foreigners who had married into Israel. The first husbands of both women died leaving them widows. Both women participated in levirate marriages. Tamar seduced Judah under cover of a disguise, but Ruth encouraged Boaz under the cover of night. When Judah and Tamar appeared before a public tribunal they were ashamed and condemned, but when Boaz and Ruth did so they received praise and blessing. In both cases the husbands were considerably older than the wives. Both women, however, bore sons in the Davidic messianic line. Tamar bore Perez, and Ruth bore Obed (v. 21).

"Like Ruth, Tamar was a foreigner who perpetuated a family line threatened with extinction, one which later became Judah's leading house, and thereby gained herself fame as its founding mother. If fertile, may not the equally creative (ch. 3) foreigner, Ruth, also preserve Elimelech's line, and, if that line became famous, thereby earn a similar grand destiny?"⁸¹

Perez's descendents included many leaders who were a blessing to Israel. The tribe of Judah led the Israelites in the wilderness march and in the settlement of the land following Joshua's death (Num. 10:14; Judg. 1:1-2).

The witnesses also recognized that children are a gift from God (v. 11; cf. Ps. 127:3-5). God is the source of all blessing.

Guzik: Rut 4:1-22

Ruth 4 - The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth

A. The nearer kinsman declines his right of redemption.

1. (1-2) Boaz meets the nearer kinsman at the city gates.

Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there; and behold, the close relative of whom Boaz had spoken came by. So Boaz said, "Come aside, friend, sit down here." So he came aside and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, "Sit down here." So they sat down.

a. Now Boaz went: The previous chapter left us at a dramatic point. Ruth and Boaz were obviously in love and wanted to get married, with Boaz exercising the right of the goel - the kinsman-redeemer. Yet, there was a kinsman closer to Ruth and he had priority. Would he claim the right of kinsman-redeemer towards Ruth, and keep her and Boaz from coming together?

b. Boaz went up to the gate: The gate of the city was always the place where the esteemed and honorable men of the city sat. For an ancient city in Israel it was a combination of a city council chamber and a courtroom.

i. The city gate was "A kind of outdoor court, the place were judicial matters were resolved by the elders and those who had earned the confidence and respect of the people . . . a place for business and as a kind of forum or public meeting place." (Huey)

c. The near kinsman of who Boaz had spoken came by: Boaz surprised Ruth in 3:12 by telling her there was a nearer kinsman than himself. Now this man came by the city gates as Boaz sat there.

i. Because Ruth had quietly gone back home after being at the threshing floor at Boaz's instruction (Ruth 3:14), Boaz's approach to this nearer kinsman was be a complete surprise to the other man. Clearly this was a tactical advantage to Boaz.

d. Come aside, friend, sit down here: Literally, in the ancient Hebrew, when Boaz greeted the nearer kinsman he called him "Mr. So-and-so." The writer of Ruth never identified the name of the nearer kinsman, because he was not worthy of the honor. He declined to fulfill his obligations as the nearer kinsman to Ruth.

i. "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 a just punishment upon him, that he who would not preserve his brother's name might lose his own, and lie buried in the grave of perpetual oblivion." (Poole)

2. (3-4) Boaz asks the nearer kinsman to redeem the land of Naomi (and Elimelech).

Then he said to the close relative, "Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, sold the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech. And I thought to inform you, saying, 'Buy it back in the presence of the inhabitants and the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if you will not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know; for there is no one but you to redeem it, and I am next after you.' " And he said, "I will redeem it."

a. Naomi . . . sold the piece of land: The duty of the goel - the kinsman-redeemer - was more than the duty to preserve the family name of his brother in Israel. It was also to keep land allotted to members of the clan within the clan.

i. When Israel came into the Promised Land during the days of Joshua, the land was divided among the tribes and then among the family groups. God intended that the land stay within those tribes and family groups, so the land could never permanently be sold. Every fifty years, it had be returned to the original family group (Leviticus 25:8-17)

ii. But fifty years is a long time. So God made provision for land that was "sold," that it might be redeemed back to the family by the kinsman-redeemer.

iii. Again, the kinsman-redeemer had the responsibility to protect the persons, property, and posterity of the larger family - and all of these duties went together.

b. The piece of land: When Boaz brought the matter up to the nearer kinsman, he brought it up as a matter regarding property - something any man would be interested in. Anyone would want to buy back a piece of property and keep it in the family name by keeping it for one's self.

c. If you will redeem it, redeem it: When Boaz put it in terms of purely a land transaction, there was no hesitation on the nearer kinsman's part. Of course he said, "I will redeem it."

i. Certainly Ruth and Naomi were watching and listening. How their hearts must have sunk when they heard the nearer kinsman say, "I will redeem it." They heard from his own lips that he would exercise his right at kinsman-redeemer, and that meant that he would gain not only the property in question, but also marry Ruth - instead of Boaz. But Boaz knew exactly what he was doing, and he had the situation all under control.

3. (5) Boaz informs the nearer kinsman of his duty to redeem the posterity of Elimelech, if he will redeem the property of Elimelech.

Then Boaz said, "On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also buy it from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance."

a. On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also buy it from Ruth the Moabitess: Boaz then put the surprise on the nearer kinsman. He told him that he wasn't only dealing with Naomi and the property of Elimelech, he also had to deal with Ruth.

i. Because Naomi was older and beyond the years of bearing children, the nearer kinsman was not expected to marry Naomi and raise up children to the family name of her deceased husband Elimelech. But Ruth was another matter - she was able to marry and bear children.

b. Buy it from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance: Boaz explained what everyone knew - that this was a package deal. If someone was going to exercise the right of kinsman-redeemer towards the deceased Elimelech, he had to fulfill the duty in regard to both the property and the posterity.

i. Because of Boaz's wise (perhaps shrewd) way of framing the occasion, this was the first time the nearer kinsman considered this, and it was a pretty big question to take in all at once. When it was just a matter of property, it was easy to decide on; but if he must take Ruth as a wife, that was another matter.

4. (6) The nearer kinsman declines his right of redemption towards the property and posterity of Elimelech.

And the close relative said, "I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it."

a. I cannot redeem it for myself: Though it would be great to receive the property associated with Ruth, the nearer kinsman knew that taking her into his home and raising up her children would ruin his own inheritance.

b. Lest I ruin my own inheritance: Probably, the man had grown sons that had already received their inheritance of lands. The problem of dividing that inheritance among future children he would have with Ruth was more than he wanted to deal with.

i. Also, no doubt, the man was married - and knew it would be awkward (at best!) to bring home Ruth as wife number two.

c. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem it: These were glorious words in the ears of Ruth and Naomi. A moment before, all seemed lost when the nearer kinsman had said, "I will redeem it." But Boaz's plan had a surprise and an unexpected wisdom to it. And it worked!

i. Some might of have thought Boaz's plan was foolish: to gain Ruth by offering her and her land to the nearer kinsman. How could that work? But the seemingly foolish plan did work.

B. The ceremony to document the proceedings.

1. (7-8) The custom of the sandal in transactions.

Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was a confirmation in Israel. Therefore the close relative said to Boaz, "Buy it for yourself." So he took off his sandal.

a. It was the custom in former times in Israel: Deuteronomy 25:5-10 describes the ceremony conducted when a kinsman declined his responsibility. The one declining removed a sandal and the woman he declined to honor spat in his face. But in this case, because there was no lack of honor was involved, they just did the part of the ceremony involving the sandal.

b. Buy it for yourself: The nearer kinsman said, "The land is yours to redeem, because you are also willing to redeem the posterity of Elimelech by taking Ruth as wife, something I am not willing to do."

2. (9-10) Boaz's announcement to the elders and the people.

And Boaz said to the elders and 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, from the hand of Naomi. Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You are witnesses this day."

a. Boaz said to the elders and all the people: Boaz joyfully proclaimed - legally sealing the transaction - that he would redeem both the property and the posterity of Elimelech, and (best of all!) take Ruth, the woman he loved, as his wife.

i. That the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of this place is a good description of the idea of preserving the posterity of the deceased.

b. Ruth . . . I have acquired as my wife: Back in chapter one, Ruth seemed to be giving up on her best chance of marriage by leaving her native land of Moab and giving her heart and life to the God of Israel. But as Ruth put God first, He brought her together in a relationship greater than she could have imagined. Today, God will bless those wanting to get married in the same way if they will only put Him first.

c. You are witnesses this day: This explains why a marriage ceremony is important, and why it should be recognized by the civil authorities. Boaz had a love for Ruth that was public, a love that wanted to be publicly witnessed and registered.

i. Sometimes, people wonder why a marriage ceremony or a marriage license is important. "Can't we just be married before God?" But there is something severely lacking in a love that doesn't want to proclaim itself; that does not want witnesses; and that does not want the bond to be recognized by the civil authorities. That love falls short of true marital love.

ii. So, those who say "Well, if we were on a desert island and no one was there to marry us, could we still be married before God?" need to hear the answer: "Yes - on a desert island. But you aren't on a desert island. There are witnesses and civil authorities for you to proclaim your commitment of marital love to. God wants you to do it!"

3. (11-12) The blessing of the witnesses to the wedding.

And all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, "We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the LORD will give you from this young woman."

a. All the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, "We are witnesses": No doubt, the crowd cheered! The men thought Ruth was beautiful and the women thought Boaz was handsome. Everybody could see what a romantic, loving occasion this was.

b. Like Rachel and Leah: These two had thirteen children between them, and were the "mothers" of the whole nation of Israel. This was a big blessing to put on Boaz and Ruth.

c. Like the house of Perez: What was so special about Perez? The story of his birth is in Genesis 38:27-30.

i. Trapp on May your house be like the house of Perez: "That breach-maker, as the midwife called him, because he would needs be born before his brother, and carried away the first birthright: and afterwards became happy in a numerous and honourable posterity."

ii. "Indeed, it seems that Pharez was the ancestor of the Bethlehemites in general (1 Ch. 2:5, 18, 50f.). Moreover, Pharez gave his name to the section of the tribe of Judah that was descended from him (Num. 26:20)." (Kidner)

C. Happily ever after.

1. (13) Ruth and Boaz have their first child.

So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

a. The LORD gave her conception: The gift of children was never taken for granted in Israel. The fact that Boaz and Ruth were able to raise up a son to the deceased Elimelech was evidence of God's blessing.

2. (14-16) The blessed life of Naomi.

Then the women said to Naomi, "Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a close relative; and may his name be famous in Israel! And may he be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him." Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her bosom, and became a nurse to him.

a. Blessed be the LORD: Look at blessed Naomi! She now had a grandson; she was now famous in Israel; and she got to be a nurse to her own grandson.

b. Who has not left you this day without a close relative: It was fitting that these blessings in the life of Naomi be given so much attention at the end of the book. Naomi was the one whose original returning to the LORD began all this great work of God. If Naomi had not decided to go back to Bethlehem, the land of Israel, and the God of Israel, none of this would have happened.

i. This is a marvelous demonstration of what God can do through one poor woman who gets right with Him.

ii. It is also fitting because Naomi was the one who said in chapter one, the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me . . . the LORD has brought me home again empty . . . the LORD has testified against me (Ruth 1:20-21). If only Naomi could have seen then how greatly the LORD would bless her at the end!

iii. We can't blame Naomi - we certainly do the same kind of thing. But we should also learn from what she learned. We should learn that God's plan is perfect and filled with love, and even when we can't figure out what He is doing and it all seems so desperate, He still knows what He is doing. We should learn that all things work together for good for those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).

3. (17-22) Ruth and Boaz: Great-grandparents to David, king of Israel.

Also the neighbor women gave him 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. Now this is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David.

a. There is a son born to Naomi: The son of Ruth and Boaz was named Obed. He had a son name Jesse. He had a son named David. And David had a descendant named Jesus!

i. "God's hand is all over history. God works out His purpose, generation after generation. Limited as we are to one lifetime, each of us sees so little of what happens. A genealogy is a striking way of bringing before us the continuity of God's purpose through the ages. The process of history is not haphazard. There is a purpose in it all. And the purpose is the purpose of God." (Kidner)

b. The father of David: Naomi's return to Bethlehem, and the roots of David in Bethlehem, going back to Ruth and Boaz, are why Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem to register in the census of Augustus (Luke 2:1-5). Ruth and Boaz are the reason why Jesus was born in Bethlehem!

i. But the consideration of Jesus in this book of Ruth doesn't begin with the mention of King David; Jesus has been through the whole book, pictured by Boaz and the office of the kinsman-redeemer.

· The kinsman-redeemer had to be a family member; Jesus added humanity to His eternal deity so He could be our kinsman and save us.

· The kinsman-redeemer had the duty of buying family members out of slavery; Jesus redeemed us from slavery to sin and death.

· The kinsman-redeemer had the duty of buying back land that had been forfeited; Jesus will redeem the earth that mankind "sold" over to Satan.

· Boaz, as kinsman-redeemer to Ruth, was not motivated by self-interest, but motivated by love for Ruth. Jesus' motivation for redeeming us is His great love for us.

· Boaz, as kinsman-redeemer to Ruth, had to have a plan to redeem Ruth unto himself - and some might have thought the plan to be foolish. Jesus has a plan to redeem us, and some might think the plan foolish (saving men by dying for them on a cruel cross?), yet the plan works and is glorious.

· Boaz, as kinsman-redeemer to Ruth, took her as his bride; the people Jesus has redeemed are collectively called His bride (Ephesians 5:31-32; Revelation 21:9).

· Boaz, as kinsman-redeemer to Ruth, provided a glorious destiny for Ruth. Jesus, as our redeemer, provides a glorious destiny for us.

ii. But it all comes back to the idea of Jesus as our kinsman-redeemer; this is why He became a man. God might have sent an angel to save us, but the angel would not have been our kinsman. Jesus, in His eternal glory, without the addition of humanity to His divine nature might have saved us, but He would not have been our kinsman. A great prophet or priest would be our kinsman, but his own sin would have disqualified him as our redeemer. Only Jesus, the eternal God who added humanity to His eternal deity, can be both the kinsman and the redeemer for mankind!

ii. Isaiah 54:4-8 describes the beautiful ministry of the LORD as our goel - our kinsman-redeemer: Do not fear, for you will not be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame . . . your [Kinsman] Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel . . . For the LORD has called you like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit . . . with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you, says the LORD, your [Kinsman] Redeemer.

iii. From eternity, God planned to bring Ruth and Boaz together, and thus make Bethlehem His entrance point for the coming of Jesus as our true Kinsman-Redeemer, fully God and fully man. Spiritually, we need to come to Bethlehem and let Jesus redeem us. As it was written in the Christmas hymn, O Little Town of Bethlehem:

O little town of Bethlehem, how still we see thee lie!

Above thy deep and dreamless sleep the silent stars go by;

Yet in thy dark streets shineth the everlasting Light:

The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.

How silently, how silently, the wondrous gift is given!

So God imparts to human hearts the blessings of His heaven.

No ear may hear His coming, but in the world of sin,

Where meek souls will receive Him still, the dear Christ enters in.

O holy Child of Bethlehem! Descend to us, we pray;

Cast out our sin and enter in, be born in us today.

We hear the Christmas angels, the great glad tidings tell;

O come to us, abide with us, our Lord Emmanuel!

© 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Rut 4:3

RUTH 4:3-8 —Isn’t the arrangement between Boaz and Ruth contrary to the law of the Levirate marriage?

PROBLEM: Deuteronomy 25:5-10 delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?

SOLUTION: Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.

Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited ( Lev. 25:25 ). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility ( Ruth 4:6 ), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage.   

Critics Ask: Rut 4:4

RUTH 4:3-8 —Isn’t the arrangement between Boaz and Ruth contrary to the law of the Levirate marriage?

PROBLEM: Deuteronomy 25:5-10 delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?

SOLUTION: Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.

Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited ( Lev. 25:25 ). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility ( Ruth 4:6 ), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage.   

Critics Ask: Rut 4:5

RUTH 4:3-8 —Isn’t the arrangement between Boaz and Ruth contrary to the law of the Levirate marriage?

PROBLEM: Deuteronomy 25:5-10 delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?

SOLUTION: Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.

Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited ( Lev. 25:25 ). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility ( Ruth 4:6 ), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage.   

Critics Ask: Rut 4:6

RUTH 4:3-8 —Isn’t the arrangement between Boaz and Ruth contrary to the law of the Levirate marriage?

PROBLEM: Deuteronomy 25:5-10 delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?

SOLUTION: Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.

Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited ( Lev. 25:25 ). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility ( Ruth 4:6 ), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage.   

Critics Ask: Rut 4:7

RUTH 4:3-8 —Isn’t the arrangement between Boaz and Ruth contrary to the law of the Levirate marriage?

PROBLEM: Deuteronomy 25:5-10 delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?

SOLUTION: Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.

Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited ( Lev. 25:25 ). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility ( Ruth 4:6 ), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage.   

Critics Ask: Rut 4:8

RUTH 4:3-8 —Isn’t the arrangement between Boaz and Ruth contrary to the law of the Levirate marriage?

PROBLEM: Deuteronomy 25:5-10 delineates what is known as the law of the levirate marriage. If a man dies and leaves his wife childless, the man’s brother was morally obligated to take his brother’s wife and raise up children in the name of his deceased brother. This practice insured that the brother’s name would not die out. However, Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s dead husband. Wasn’t this marriage arrangement contrary to the law of the levirate marriage?

SOLUTION: Although it was a more complicated incident, the arrangement between Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth was certainly not contrary to the law of the levirate marriage. The primary concern of the levirate marriage was to perpetuate the family line of the deceased. Certain factors indicate that by the time of Boaz and Ruth, some additional provisions had become customary. First, if there was no surviving brother in the immediate family, then the obligation of the levirate marriage became the responsibility of the nearest surviving male relative. In this case, there was one individual who was nearer to Naomi’s family than Boaz. However, when he declined the invitation, Boaz became the nearest male relative and the next in line to legally fulfill this moral obligation.

Second, along with the responsibility to raise up children in the name of the deceased, there came the responsibility to redeem any property that belonged to the deceased and that had been sold or forfeited ( Lev. 25:25 ). Because the nearest kinsman was not financially able to assume this responsibility ( Ruth 4:6 ), he relinquished his right and responsibility to redeem Naomi and marry Ruth and passed that obligation on to Boaz. There is nothing in the account of the redemption of Naomi and the marriage of Boaz and Ruth that is contrary to the law of levirate marriage.   

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Ruth (Book Introduction)

RUTH is properly a supplement to the preceding book, to which, in fact, it was appended in the ancient Jewish canon. Although it relates an episode belonging to the time of the Judges, its precise date is unknown. It appears certain, however, that it could not have been written prior to the time of Samuel (see Rth 4:17-22), who is generally supposed to have been its author; and this opinion, in addition to other reasons on which it rests, is confirmed by Rth 4:7, where it is evident that the history was not compiled till long after the transactions recorded. The inspiration and canonical authority of the book is attested by the fact of Ruth's name being inserted by Matthew in the Saviour's genealogy [Mat 1:5].

JFB: Ruth (Outline)

• ELIMELECH, DRIVEN BY FAMINE INTO MOAB, DIES THERE. (Rth 1:1-5)
• NAOMI RETURNING HOME, RUTH ACCOMPANIES HER. (Rth 1:6-18)
• THEY COME TO BETH-LEHEM. (Rth 1:19-22)
• RUTH GLEANS IN THE FIELD OF BOAZ. (Rth 2:1-3)
• HE TAKES KNOWLEDGE OF HER, AND SHOWS HER FAVOR. (Rth. 2:4-23)
• BY NAOMI'S INSTRUCTIONS, RUTH LIES AT BOAZ'S FEET, WHO ACKNOWLEDGES THE DUTY OF A KINSMAN. (Rth 3:1-13)
• BOAZ CALLS INTO JUDGMENT THE NEXT KINSMAN. (Rth 4:1-5)
• HE REFUSES THE REDEMPTION. (Rth 4:6-8)
• HE MARRIES RUTH. (Rth 4:9-12)
• SHE BEARS OBED. (Rth 4:13-18)

TSK: Ruth (Book Introduction)

This book is evidently a supplement to the book of Judges, and an introduction to that of Samuel, between which it is placed with great propriety. In the ancient Jewish canon, it formed a part of the book of Judges; but the modern Jews make it one of the five Megilloth, which they place towards the end of the Old Testament. This book has been attributed to various authors; but the best founded and generally received opinion, and in which the Jews coincide, is that which ascribes it to the prophet Samuel; before whose time it could not have been written, as is evident from the genealogy recorded in Jdg 4:17-22. The time in which the events detailed in this book happened is involved in much obscurity and uncertainty. Augustine refers it to the time of the regal government of the Hebrews; Josephus to the administration of Eli; Moldenhawer, after some Jewish writers, to the time of Ehud; Rabbi Kimichi, and other Jewish authors, to the time of Ibzan; Bps. Patrick and Horne to the judicature of Gideon; Lightfoot to the period between Ehud and Deborah; and Usher, who is followed by most chronologers, to the time of Shamgar. The authenticity and canonical authority of this sacred book cannot be questioned; and the Evangelists, in describing our Saviour’s descent, have followed its genealogical accounts. To delineate part of this genealogy appears to be the principal design of the book; it had been foretold that the Messiah should be of the tribe of Judah, and it was afterwards revealed that he should be of the family of David; and therefore it was necessary, to prevent the least suspicion of fraud or design, that the history of that family should be written before these prophecies were revealed. And thus this book, these prophecies, and their accomplishment, serve mutually to illustrate each other. The whole narrative is extremely interesting and instructive, and is written with the most beautiful simplicity. The distress of Naomi; her affectionate concern for her daughter-in-law; the reluctant departure of Orpah; the dutiful attachment of Ruth; and the sorrowful return to Bethlehem, are very beautifully told. The simplicity of manners, likewise, which is shown in the account of Ruth’s industry and attention to Naomi; of the elegant charity of Boaz; and of his acknowledgment of his kindred with Ruth, afford a very pleasing contrast to the turbulent scenes described in the preceding book. And while it exhibits, in a striking and affecting manner, the care of Divine Providence over those who sincerely fear God, and honestly aim at fulfilling his will, the circumstance of a Moabitess becoming an ancestor of the Messiah seems to have been a pre-intimation of the admission of the Gentiles into his church It must be remarked, that in the estimation of the Jews, it was disgraceful to David to have derived his birth from a Moabitess; and Shimei, in his revilings against him, is supposed by them to have tauntingly reflected on his descent from Ruth. This book, therefore, contains an intrinsic proof of its own verity, as it reveals a circumstance so little flattering to the sovereign of Israel; and it is scarcely necessary to appeal to its admission into the canon of Scripture, for a testimony of its authentic character. Add to which, that the native, the amiable simplicity in which the story is told, is sufficient proof of its genuineness. There are several sympathetic circumstances recorded which no forger could have invented. there is too much of nature to admit anything of art.

TSK: Ruth 4 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rth 4:1, Boaz calls into judgment the next kinsman; Rth 4:6, He refuses the redemption according to the manner in Israel; Rth 4:9, Boaz buys the inheritance; Rth 4:11, He marries Ruth; Rth 4:13, She bears Obed, the grandfather of David; Rth 4:18, The generations of Pharez unto David.

Poole: Ruth 4 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 4

Boaz goeth up to the gate, calleth his kinsman; inquires whether he would redeem and marry Ruth, Rth 4:1-5 . He refuseth, Rth 4:6-8 . Boaz, the people witnessing and congratulating, buyeth the inheritance, and marrieth Ruth, Rth 4:9-12 . She beareth Obed the grandfather of David, Rth 4:13-17 . The genealogy from Pharez unto David, Rth 4:18-22 .

MHCC: Ruth (Book Introduction)

We find in this book excellent examples of faith, piety, patience, humility, industry, and loving-kindness, in the common events of life. Also we see the special care which God's providence take of our smallest concerns, encouraging us to full trust therein. We may view this book as a beautiful, because natural representation of human life; as a curious detail of important facts; and as a part of the plan of redemption.

MHCC: Ruth 4 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rth 4:1-8) The kinsman refuses to redeem Ruth's inheritance.

(Rth 4:9-12) Boaz marries Ruth.

(Rth 4:13-22) Birth of Obed.

Matthew Henry: Ruth (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Book of Ruth

This short history of the domestic affairs of one particular family fitly follows the book of Judges (the events related here happening in the days of the judges), and fitly goes before the books of Samuel, because in the close it introduces David; yet the Jews, in their Bibles, separate it from both, and make it one of the five Megilloth , or Volumes, which they put together towards the latter end, in this order: Solomon's Song, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. It is probable that Samuel was the penman of it. It relates not miracles nor laws, wars nor victories, nor the revolutions of states, but the affliction first and afterwards the comfort of Naomi, the conversion first and afterwards the preferment of Ruth. Many such events have happened, which perhaps we may think as well worthy to be recorded; but these God saw fit to transmit the knowledge of to us; and even common historians think they have liberty to choose their subject. The design of this book is, I. To lead to providence, to show us how conversant it is about our private concerns, and to teach us in them all to have an eye to it, acknowledging God in all our ways and in all events that concern us. See 1Sa 2:7, 1Sa 2:8; Psa 113:7-9. II. To lead to Christ, who descended from Ruth, and part of whose genealogy concludes the book, whence it is fetched into Mt. 1. In the conversion of Ruth the Moabitess, and the bringing of her into the pedigree of the Messiah, we have a type of the calling of the Gentiles in due time into the fellowship of Christ Jesus our Lord. The afflictions of Naomi and Ruth we have an account of, ch. 1. Instances of their industry and humility, ch. 2. The bringing of them into an alliance with Boaz, ch. 3. And their happy settlement thereby, ch. 4. And let us remember the scene is laid in Bethlehem, the city where our Redeemer was born.

Matthew Henry: Ruth 4 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have the wedding between Boaz and Ruth, in the circumstances of which there was something uncommon, which is kept upon record for the illustration, not only of the law concerning the marrying of a brother's widow (Deu 25:5, etc.), for cases help to expound laws, but of the gospel too, for from this marriage descended David, and the Son of David, whose espousals to the Gentile church were hereby typified. We are here told, I. How Boaz got clear of his rival, and fairly shook him off (Rth 4:1-8). II. How his marriage with Ruth was publicly solemnized, and attended with the good wishes of his neighbours (Rth 4:9-12). III. The happy issue that descended from this marriage, Obed, the grandfather of David (Rth 4:13-17). And so the book concludes with the pedigree of David (Rth 4:18-22). Perhaps it was to oblige him that the blessed Spirit directed the inserting of this story in the sacred canon, he being desirous that the virtues of his great-grandmother Ruth, together with her Gentile extraction and the singular providences that attended her, should be transmitted to posterity.

Constable: Ruth (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

This book received its title in honor of the heroine of the story. The name, Ruth, appears to have been Moabite and not Hebrew originally, though its etymological derivation is uncertain.¹ After Ruth entered Israel, and especially after the Book of Ruth circulated, the name became popular among the Jews and, later, Christians.

The same title appears over the book in its Hebrew (Masoretic), Greek (Septuagint), Latin (Vulgate), and modern language versions.

Date and Writer

It is safe to assume that the Book of Ruth was put in its final form after David became king in Hebron in 1011 B.C. since he is recognized as a very important figure in the genealogy (4:17, 22). How much later is hard to determine. The Babylonian Talmud attributed authorship of the book to Samuel.² This statement reflects ancient Jewish tradition. Modern critical scholars tend to prefer a much later date on the basis of their theories concerning the date of the writing of Deuteronomy, which many of them say was written during the Babylonian exile, and Joshua through 2 Kings, which they believe could not have been written before Deuteronomy. Most conservatives reject these theories as having no solid basis in the text or in history.

The writer is unknown to us, but he may have been Samuel or one of Samuel's contemporaries. Minor additions and changes may have taken place under the superintending ministry of the Holy Spirit after its original composition. However the structure and unity of the book argue for its being the product of one writer rather than a composite put together by many hands over a long time. A few writers have suggested that the writer was a woman since the story concerns two rather assertive women.³ However this suggestion is only speculation since there is no solid data to support it.

Scope

The writer said that the era in which the events recorded took place was during the period when the judges governed Israel (1:1). Many students of the book have concluded that the genealogy in 4:18-22 helps to identify when during this period Ruth lived. If the genealogy is complete, Boaz lived during the seventh generation after Perez, the son of Judah, and Boaz was King David's great-grandfather. Life spans during the patriarchal period were sometimes very long, so it may be safer to calculate back from David. Conservative dates for David's lifetime are about 1041-971 B.C.⁴ David was the seventh son born to his father (1 Chron. 2:15) who may have been born 35 years or more earlier. Boaz might have been born about 1150 B.C. and his son, Obed, by Ruth about 1100 B.C. Since most of the events recorded in Ruth took place shortly before Obed's birth we might conclude that these events happened around 1100 B.C. This would place Ruth in Israel during the judgeship of Samson (c. 1105-1085 B.C.) and the ministry of Samuel (c. 1115-1021 B.C.).⁵

The problem with these calculations is that four biblical genealogies also list Boaz as the son of Salmon, the husband of Rahab the harlot (Ruth 4:21; 1 Chron. 2:11; Matt. 1:5; Luke 3:32). Rahab was an adult when the conquest of the Promised Land began (c. 1406 B.C.). Boaz then may have been born shortly after that.⁶ This would mean that the three generations of Boaz, his son Obed, and his grandson Jesse covered about 360 years (c. 1400-1040 B.C.). This seems quite impossible.

Probably these genealogies are incomplete and record only the names of outstanding individuals in David's family tree.⁷ Consequently exactly when within the period of the judges the events of Ruth occurred remains a mystery.

"The Book of Ruth is a pearl in the swine pen of the judges."⁸

Message⁹

The Book of Ruth is one of the most fascinating and important short stories that anyone has ever written. As a piece of literature it is almost perfect. The German poet Goethe called it "the loveliest complete work on a small scale" ever written.¹⁰ Alexander Schroder, a literary critic, wrote, "No poet in the world has written a more beautiful short story."¹¹ Yet as a revelation from God it is equally impressive. I would like to point out some of the major revelations, some of the major values, and some of the major lessons of this book to introduce our study of it.

I believe that among many things the Book of Ruth reveals three that are of major significance.

First, Ruth reveals God's providence in providing a ruler for His people.

God had purposed to provide a ruler over His people. The first indication of this in Scripture is what God said to Abraham about His plans for his descendents. God's plan was to use Abraham's descendents to bring blessing to all humankind (Gen. 12:1-3). In the process Abraham's descendents would enjoy God's blessing themselves.

Later God told Abraham that kings would come from him (Gen. 17:6). Of course, many kings came from the lines of Ishmael and Esau. However other kings would come through the line of Abraham's descendents that God chose to use especially, namely Jacob's posterity.

When Jacob uttered his inspired blessing on each of his descendents who would become the heads of Israel's twelve tribes, he promised something special for Judah. A great king would come from Judah's branch of the family (Gen. 49:10). Judah would have the leadership among the tribes, and a king who would rule not only Israel but the world would come from him.

As history unfolded David proved to be the king God raised up from the tribe of Judah to lead His people and the nations round about Israel. Saul was not God's choice since he was from the tribe of Benjamin, though God allowed the people to place Saul on the throne. David was His chosen servant and son. David recognized this as is clear in 2 Samuel 7, 1 Chronicles 17, and Psalm 89.

Nevertheless David did not carry out the will of God completely. He was not entirely faithful to God. So later in history God raised up one of David's descendents. Matthew wrote his Gospel to show that Jesus Christ was the completely obedient Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Messiah. He was the ultimate Son of God sent to rule Israel and to reign over all people.

The Book of Ruth reveals God's providence in providing David. Providence refers to God directing the circumstances of life so that His will is accomplished.

One of the major revelations of Ruth is the crucial characteristic in particular individuals that God uses to bring His will to pass. It is not their natural condition but their faith in Him. Even though Ruth was a Moabitess, a childless widow, and poor, God used her to accomplish His purpose. His purpose was to provide a ruler over His people. He used her because she trusted in and committed herself to Yahweh (1:16-17). Her faith, in spite of her natural condition, made her usable by God.

A second major revelation in the Book of Ruth is God's faithfulness in providing rest for His people.

God had purposed to provide rest for His people. At Mt. Sinai, God promised to lead His people out of the wilderness and into rest (Exod. 33:14).

Moses reminded the generation of Israelites who crossed the Jordan River and entered the Promised Land that when they had defeated the Canaanites God would give them rest (Deut. 3:19-20; 12:8-11; 25:19).

Joshua also reminded that generation that God had promised to give them rest (Josh. 1:13-15).

At the end of the conquest the Israelites were finally able to enjoy some rest (Josh. 21:44; 22:4; 23:1).

Unfortunately in the period of the judges, because of the Israelites' departure from God, they were not always at rest. Only when God raised up a judge and delivered their enemies into their hands did the Israelites enjoy rest. Often they lacked food, they were in danger, and their family lives underwent disruption.

That is the situation we discover in the Book of Ruth. Naomi and Ruth lacked food, they were vulnerable and in danger, and their families had broken up. It should be no surprise then when we read that Naomi desired rest for her daughters-in-law (1:9). She and Ruth devised a plan to obtain food and safety and so secure a degree of rest (2:2). Later having gained food and safety through Boaz's generosity they set about to secure full rest through the rebuilding of their family (3:1). Finally Ruth married Boaz and bore a son who would perpetuate the family of Judah as well as that of Boaz, Ruth, and Naomi.

Boaz was the source of rest for Ruth. As Ruth trusted in and committed herself to Yahweh, God provided rest for her through Boaz.

Ruth was the source of rest for Naomi and for all Israel ultimately. She became God's instrument of blessing for her mother-in-law by providing food, security, and descendents. Moreover she became God's instrument of blessing for all Israel and even the world by providing Obed from whom came David. Ruth became a model of what God intended Israel to be in the world: a blessing to others and blessed herself. God was faithful to bring this to pass because Ruth exercised faith in Him. Rest is God's reward for those who follow Him faithfully as Hebrews 3 and 4 make clear.

A third major revelation in Ruth is God's grace in providing a redeemer for His people.

God had also purposed to provide redemption for His people. He affected this for the nation of Israel as a whole in the Exodus from Egypt. There God purchased the nation for Himself.

God also made provision through the Mosaic Law whereby individual Israelites could experience redemption, that is, enjoy freedom from various conditions that enslaved them. One of these provisions was the kinsman redeemer law that allowed a close relative to pay a price to free his fellow Israelite from some enslaving condition. Another was the levirate marriage provision that enabled a widow to escape from her condition by remarrying her single brother-in-law. This man would then, under normal circumstances, raise up seed who would perpetuate the name and line of his deceased brother. Another provision was the redemption (buying back) of property that had passed out of the control of a family. In Ruth's case all of these provisions for redemption combined to set her free.

As history progressed, God's plan for the personal redemption of His own led to Jesus Christ, the ultimate redeemer, paying the ultimate price. He did this so we might be free from the ultimate slavery, our slavery to sin.

The Book of Ruth reveals God's grace in providing a redeemer. He provided Boaz to redeem Ruth and Naomi. Through Ruth He provided David to set Israel free. Through David He provided Jesus Christ to set the world free.

God did not have to provide redemption. He did it out of the love of His own heart. That is grace. Furthermore God did it all. There is nothing that the redeemed person could do to obtain his redemption but trust the person of his redeemer. That too is grace.

Putting all of these major revelations together I would summarize the message of the book as follows. God supernaturally works out His own purposes through human instruments. His purposes include a ruler, rest, and a redeemer. He brings these to reality supernaturally, sovereignly and providentially. He uses people to do so, people who trust in Him and commit themselves to Him.

Let me also point out three values of the Book of Ruth.

Historically the book ties the patriarchal period to the monarchical period of Israel's history. It does not just go back to the period of the judges or to the Mosaic era but all the way back to Perez the patriarch (4:18-22). This shows that the Davidic dynasty was a fulfillment of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. It did not rest on the conditional Mosaic Covenant. Because of this, David could function as a priest even though he was not a Levite. His authority superseded the Mosaic Law.

Morally the book demonstrates that faith and purity are possible even in a terrible moral environment. Ruth and Boaz's faith in God resulted in their excellent moral characters (2:1; 3:11). The power of their faith overcame their backgrounds and environments.

Doctrinally the book illustrates redemption. It also illuminates the character of God, particularly His providential working, His loyal love, and His boundless grace, as we have already pointed out.

Finally what are the major lessons we should learn from the Book of Ruth? Let me suggest three.

First, God uses people who trust Him and commit themselves to Him to be a blessing to others. Boaz and Ruth probably did not live to see David's greatness, much less Jesus Christ's. However, God found in them people whom He could use to produce a David. We are very results conscious in our society. We demand instant success and we grow impatient when we do not see God using us to bless others. We need to remember that we will not see all the fruit of our faith this side of heaven. G. Campbell Morgan wrote, "You may be God's foothold for things of which you cannot dream."¹²

Second, God blesses people who trust Him and commit themselves to Him. Ruth and Boaz were not only a blessing to others, but God personally blessed them. They received rest from God. God's blessing of Ruth came in the form of food, security, and a family. A loving and loyal wife of sterling character and a son to carry on the name of his family blessed Boaz's life. (I don't know whether he considered Naomi a blessing or not, though I believe she was.) He also obtained an added portion of the Promised Land. While God has not promised Christians the same kinds of blessings He promised the Israelites, He has promised to bless us. Our blessings are presently mainly spiritual (forgiveness, peace, joy, etc.), but we will receive both spiritual and physical blessings at the judgment seat of Christ. God will reward your faith as He rewarded the faith of Boaz and Ruth.

Third, circumstances do not make or break a believer. Faith does. Boaz was a wealthy man living in a spiritually apostate, morally corrupt environment. Nevertheless he overcame his temptations by faith in God. Ruth was a poor Moabite woman and extremely vulnerable. Yet she overcame her temptations by faith, too. From this we learn that circumstances are not determinative. They do not determine our spirituality. Our attitude and relationship to God do. No matter what circumstances you are up against you can be an overcomer like Boaz and Ruth by trusting in and committing yourself to God.

Constable: Ruth (Outline)

Outline

I. Naomi's predicament ch. 1

A. The deaths of Naomi's husband and sons 1:1-5

B. Naomi's inability to provide husbands for Ruth and Orpah 1:6-14

C. Ruth's profession of faith in Yahweh 1:15-18

D. Naomi's weak faith 1:19-21

E. Hope for the future 1:22

II. Naomi and Ruth's plans chs. 2-3

A. The plan to obtain food ch. 2

1. God's providential guidance of Ruth 2:1-7

2. The maidservant of Boaz 2:8-13

3. Ruth's privileges and responsibility 2:14-16

4. Ruth's blessing of Naomi physically 2:17-23

B. The plan to obtain rest ch. 3

1. Naomi's plan to secure rest for Ruth 3:1-5

2. Ruth's encouragement and Boaz's response 3:6-13

3. Ruth's return to Naomi 3:14-18

III. God's provision ch. 4

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

B. Boaz's securing of the right to marry Ruth 4:7-12

C. God's provision of a son 4:13-17

D. The genealogical appendix 4:18-22

Constable: Ruth

Ruth

Bibliography

Ap-Thomas, D. R. "The Book of Ruth." Expository Times 79 (October-September 1968):369-73.

Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Atkinson, David. The Message of Ruth. The Bible Speaks Today series. Leicester, England and Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983.

Berlin, A. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature series. Sheffield: Almond, 1983.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Campbell, E. F., Jr. Ruth. Anchor Bible series. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament." Paper submitted for course 685 Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, August 1967.

_____. "A Theology of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 89-113. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davies, E. W. "Ruth 4:5 and the Duties of the go'el." Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983):231-34.

Davis, John J. "Conquest and Crisis." In A History of Israel by John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Ruth, Book of," by H. A. Redpath.

Fewell, Danna Nolan, and Gunn, David Miller. Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation series. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990.

Fisch, Harold. "Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History." Vetus Testamentum 32:4 (1982):425-37.

Fuerst, W. The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

Gardiner, George E. The Romance of Ruth. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977.

Gottwald, Norman. The Hebrew Bible--A Socio-Literary Introduction. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

Grant, Reg. "Literary Structure in the Book of Ruth." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 (October-December 1991):424-41.

Gray, John. Joshua, Judges and Ruth. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Basingstoke, England: Marshall Morgan and Scott Publications, 1986.

Green, Barbara. "The Plot of the Biblical Story of Ruth." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (July 1982):55-68.

Hals, Ronald. The Theology of the Book of Ruth. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Harton, George M. "Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28-30 in History and in Eschatology." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Hongisto, Lief. "Literary Structure and Theology in the Book of Ruth." Andrews University Seminary Studies 23:1 (Spring 1985):19-28.

Hubbard, Robert L., Jr. The Book of Ruth. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Huey, F. B., Jr. "Ruth." In Deuteronomy-2 Samuel. Vol. 3 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Ruth, Book of," by A. S. Geden.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keil, C. F., and Delitzsch, Franz. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n. d.

Lacheman, Ernest R. "Note on Ruth 4:7-8" Journal of Biblical Literature 56 (1937):53-56.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 2: Numbers--Ruth, by John Peter Lange, William J. Schroeder, F. R. Fay, and Paulus Cassel. Translated by Samuel T. Lowrie, A. Gosman, George R. Bliss, and P. H. Steenstra.

Leggett, Donald A. The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth. Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack Publishing Co., 1974.

Lewis, Arthur H. Judges and Ruth. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

Loretz, Oswald. "The Theme of the Ruth Story." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 22 (1960):391-99.

Luter, A. Boyd, and Rigsby, Richard O. "An Adjusted Symmetrical Structuring of Ruth." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):15-28.

Manor, Dale W. "A Brief History of Levirate Marriage As It Relates to the Bible." Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin NS20 (Fall 1982):33-52.

McGee, J. Vernon. Ruth: The Romance of Redemption. 1943. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1981.

Merrill, Eugene H. "The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):130-41.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. "Ruth." In Judges and Ruth by Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1968.

Myers, Jacob M. The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955.

New Bible Dictionary. 1962 ed. S.v. "Marriage," by J. S. Wright and J. A. Thompson.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. "Ruth." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 267-72. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Porten, B. "The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study." Gratz College Annual 7 (1978):23-49.

Prinsloo, W. S. "The Theology of the Book of Ruth." Vetus Testamentum 30:3 (July 1980):330-41.

Reed, John W. "Ruth." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 415-29. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Robertson, E. "The Plot of the Book of Ruth." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 32 (1950):207-28.

Ross, Allen P. "The Daughters of Lot and the Daughter-in-Law of Judah: Hubris or Faith in the Struggle for Women's Rights." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):71-82.

Rowley, H. H. "The Marriage of Ruth." In The Servant of the Lord, pp. 171-94. 1952. Second ed. revised. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Sacon, K. "The Book of Ruth--Its Literary Structure and Themes." Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 4 (1978):3-22.

Sasson, Jack. "The Issue of Ge'ullah in Ruth." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5 (January 1978):52-64.

Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1974.

Trible, P. "Two Women in a Man's World: A Reading of the Book of Ruth." Soundings 59 (1976):252-79.

Wood, Leon. Distressing Days of the Judges. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.

_____. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Ruth (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION.

This Book is called Ruth , from the name of the person whose history is here recorded; who, being a Gentile, became a convert to the true faith, and marrying Booz, the great-grandfather of David, was one of those from whom Christ sprang according to the flesh, and an illustrious figure of the Gentile church. It is thought this book was written by the prophet Samuel. (Challoner) --- The Holy Ghost chose that the genealogy of David, and of the Messias, should be thus more clearly ascertained. (Theodoret) --- Christ proceeded from the Gentiles, as well as from the Jews, and his grace is given to both. (Worthington) --- Send forth, 0 Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth, from Petra, Isaias xvi. This was the capital city of Arabia Petrea, where Ruth is supposed to have lived, (Tostat) being, according to the Chaldean, &c., the daughter of Eglon, king of Moab. The Jews also pretend that Booz was the same person as Abesan, the judge. But it is by no means certain to what period this history belongs. Usher places it under Samgar, about 120 years after Josue. (Calmet) --- Salien believes that the famine, which obliged Elimelech to leave Bethlehem, happened under Abimelech, and that Noemi returned in the 7th year of Thola, A.C. 1243.[1243 B.C.] This event certainly took place under some of the judges; so that we may consider this book as an appendix to the preceding, like the last chapters, (Judges xvii.; &c.; Haydock) and a preface to the history of the kings. (Calmet)

Gill: Ruth (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO RUTH

This book is called Ruth, not because she was the author of it, but because she is the principal subject of it. In the Syriac and Arabic versions, it is called the Book of Ruth the Moabitess, which describes her by the country of which she was. Her name, according to Hillerus ^l, signifies beautiful, of a good aspect, the same with Calliope in Greek. As to the author of this book, some attribute it to Eli the priest, who seems to have been too soon to give an account of the birth of David; others to Gad or Nathan; some to Hezekiah, and others to Ezra; but what the Talmudists assert, which is most generally received, and most probable, is, that it was written by Samuel; so they say Samuel ^m wrote his own book, Judges, and Ruth; and it is commonly said that this book is an appendix to that of the Judges, and the introduction to Samuel, and is fitly placed between them both. According to Eusebius ⁿ, with the Hebrews, Judges and Ruth make one book they call Shophetim, or Judges; the principal design of it is to give the genealogy of David, whom Samuel had anointed to be king of Israel, and from whom the Messiah was to come, and who therefore may be said to be the aim and scope of it, as he is of all Scripture; and whereby it appears that he sprung both from Jews and Gentiles, and is the Saviour of both, and there is a good foundation for both to hope in him; and the call and conversion of Ruth the Moabitess may be considered as a shadow, emblem, and pledge of the conversion of the Gentiles. Manythings besides may be learnt from this little book, as the different circumstances of good people in this life, and the particular providence of God respecting them. It furnishes out examples of bearing afflictions patiently, of industry, courteousness, kindness to strangers, and young converts; and none can doubt of the divine authority of this book, that considers the use made of it in the genealogies of Christ by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke.

Gill: Ruth 4 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO RUTH 4

This chapter relates how an offer was made to the nearest kinsman of Ruth to redeem her, and the field her husband left, which he refused to do, Rth 4:1, upon which Boaz redeemed both, and married Ruth before the elders of the city as witnesses, and who congratulated him and her on that occasion, Rth 4:9, to whom a son was born, called Obed by the neighbours, Rth 4:13 and the chapter is concluded with the genealogy of David, who sprung from him, Rth 4:18.