Bible Commentaries

Boaz Marries Ruth - Ruth 4

To redeem the promise he had given to Ruth, Boaz went the next morningto the gate of the city, and calling to the nearer redeemer as he passed by,asked him, before the elders of the city, to redeem the piece of land whichbelonged to Elimelech and had been sold by Naomi; and if he did this, atthe same time to marry Ruth, to establish the name of the deceased uponhis inheritance ( 4:1-5). But as he renounced the right of redemption onaccount of the condition attached to the redemption of the field, Boazundertook the redemption before the assembled people, together with theobligation to marry Ruth ( 4:6-12). The marriage was blessed with a son,who became the father of Jesse, the father of David ( 4:13-17). The bookcloses with a genealogical proof of the descent of David from Perez ( 4:18-22).

“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 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., Deuteronomy 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 Genesis 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. 1 Samuel 21:3; 2 Kings 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.

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. Genesis 17:17; Genesis 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 4:9, there were a number ofpersons present besides the elders. Moreover they would not have been mentioned first, but, like “all thepeople” in 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 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 bySeb. 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 ( 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 (Numbers 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., Numbers 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.

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.

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.

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 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 Deuteronomy 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 Ezekiel 13:6; Psalm 119:28, Psalm 119:106, and the book of Esther,where it is used more frequently as a Chaldaism.

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. 3:11). On the fact itself, see the introduction toRuth 3; also the remarks on the Levirate marriages at Deuteronomy 25:5.

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 participleבּאה refers to what is immediately about to happen) like Racheland like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel (“build” as in Genesis 16:2; Genesis 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 Deuteronomy 8:17, but get power, as in Ps. 60:14 (cf. Proverbs 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.”

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 4:18. and 1 Chronicles 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.

This blessing began very speedily to be fulfilled. When Boaz had marriedRuth, Jehovah gave her conception, and she bare a son.

4:14

At his birth the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord,who hath not let a redeemer be wanting to thee to-day.” This redeemer wasnot Boaz, but the son just born. They called him a redeemer of Naomi, notbecause he would one day redeem the whole of Naomi's possessions(Carpzov, Rosenmüller, etc.), but because as the son of Ruth he was alsothe son of Naomi ( 4:17), and as such would take away the reproach ofchildlessness from her, would comfort her, and tend her in her old age, andthereby become her true goël, i.e., her deliverer (Bertheau). “And let hisname be named in Israel,” i.e., let the boy acquire a celebrated name, oneoften mentioned in Israel.

4:15

“And may the boy come to thee a refresher of the soul, and anourisher of thine old age; for thy daughter-in-law, who loveth thee (whohath left her family, her home, and her gods, out of love to thee), hath bornhim; she is better to thee than seven sons.” Seven, as the number of theworks of God, is used to denote a large number of sons of a mother whomGod has richly blessed with children (vid., 1 Samuel 2:5). A mother of somany sons was to be congratulated, inasmuch as she not only possessed inthese sons a powerful support to her old age, but had the prospect of thepermanent continuance of her family. Naomi, however, had a still morevaluable treasure in her mother-in-law, inasmuch as through her the loss ofher own sons had been supplied in her old age, and the prospect was nowpresented to her of becoming in her childless old age the tribe-mother of anumerous and flourishing family.

4:16

Naomi therefore adopted this grandson as her own child; shetook the boy into her bosom, and became his nurse.

4:17

And the neighbours said, “A son is born to Naomi,” and gavehim the name of Obed. This name was given to the boy (the contextsuggests this) evidently with reference to what he was to become to hisgrandmother. Obed, therefore, does not mean “servant of Jehovah”(Targum), but “the serving one,” as one who lived entirely for hisgrandmother, and would take care of her, and rejoice her heat (O. v. Gerlach, after Josephus, Ant. v. 9, 4). The last words of 4:17, “he is thefather of Jesse, the father of David,” show the object which the authorkept in view in writing down these events, or composing the book itself. This conjecture is raised into a certainty by the genealogy which follows,and with which the book closes.

“These are the generations of Perez,” i.e., the families descended fromPerez in their genealogical order (toledoth: see at Genesis 2:4). The genealogyonly goes back as far as Perez, because he was the founder of the family ofJudah which was named after him (Numbers 26:20), and to which Elimelechand Boaz belonged. Perez, a son of Judah by Tamar (Genesis 38:29), begatHezrom, who is mentioned in Genesis 46:12 among the sons of Judah whoemigrated with Jacob into Egypt, although (as we have shown in ourcomm. on the passage) he was really born in Egypt. Of this son Ram(called Aram in the Sept. Cod. Al., and from that in Matthew 1:3) nothingfurther is known, as he is only mentioned again in 1 Chronicles 2:9. His sonAmminidab was the father-in-law of Aaron, who had married his daughter(Exodus 6:23), and the father of Nahesson (Nahshon), the tribe-prince of thehouse of Judah in the time of Moses (Numbers 1:7; Numbers 2:3; Numbers 7:12). According to this there are only four or five generations to the 430 yearsspent by the Israelites in Egypt, if we include both Perez and Nahesson;evidently not enough for so long a time, so that some of the intermediatelinks must have been left out even here. But the omission of unimportantmembers becomes still more apparent in the statement which follows, viz.,that Nahshon begat Salmah, and Salmah Boaz, in which only twogenerations are given for a space of more than 250 years, which intervenedbetween the death of Moses and the time of Gideon. Salmah (שׂלמה or שׂלמא, 1 Chronicles 2:11) is called Salmon in 4:21; a doubleform of the name, which is to be explained form the fact that Salmah grewout of Salmon through the elision of the n, and that the terminations an andon are used promiscuously, as we may see from the form שׁריה in Job 41:18 when compared with שׁרין in 1 Kings 22:34, and שׁריון in 1 Samuel 17:5, 1 Samuel 17:38 (see Ewald, §163-4). According to the genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1:5, Salmon married Rahab;consequently he was a son, or at any rate a grandson, of Nahshon, andtherefore all the members between Salmon and Boaz have been passedover. Again, the generations from Boaz to David ( 4:21, 4:22) may possiblybe complete, although in all probability one generation has been passedover even here between Obed and Jesse. It is also worthy ofnotice that the whole chain from Perez to David consists of ten links, fiveof which (from Perez to Nahshon) belong to the 430 years of the sojournin Egypt, and five (from Salmon to David) to the 476 years between theexodus from Egypt and the death of David. This symmetrical division isapparently as intentional as the limitation of the whole genealogy to tenmembers, for the purpose of stamping upon it through the number ten asthe seal of completeness the character of a perfect, concluded, andsymmetrical whole.

The genealogy closes with David, an evident proof that the book wasintended to give a family picture form the life of the pious ancestors of thisgreat and godly king of Israel. But for us the history which points to Davidacquires a still higher signification, from the fact that all the members of thegenealogy of David whose names occur here are also found in thegenealogy of Jesus Christ. “The passage is given by Matthew word forword in the genealogy of Christ, that we may see that this history looksnot so much to David as to Jesus Christ, who was proclaimed by all as theSaviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that we may learn with whatwonderful compassion the Lord raises up the lowly and despised to thegreatest glory and majesty” (Brentius).