Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER FOURTH

Ruth 4:1-12

The Israelite without Guile

1Then went Boaz [And Boaz went] up to the gate, and sat him down there: and behold, the kinsman [redeemer] of whom Boaz spake¹ came [passed] by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down 2 And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down 3 And he said unto the kinsman [redeemer], Naomi, that is come again out of the country [territory] of Moab, selleth [sold] a parcel of land4[the field-portion], which was our brother Elimelech’s: And I thought to advertise thee [determined to inform thee ²], saying, Buy it before the inhabitants [the sitters, i.e. those present³], and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it; but if thou⁴ wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it besides thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. 5Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest⁵ the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy [thou buyest] it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance 6 And the kinsman [redeemer] said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar [injure] mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right [my redemption, i.e. that which it is my right or duty to redeem] to thyself; for I:7 cannot redeem it. Now this was the manner [custom] in former time in Israel concerning [in cases of] redeeming and concerning [in cases of Exodus -] changing, for to confirm all things [every matter]; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his 8 neighbour: and this was a [omit: a] testimony⁶ in Israel. Therefore [And] the kinsman [redeemer] said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So [And] he drew off his shoe 9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and 10 Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi. Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased [acquired]⁷ to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day 11 And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The Lord [Jehovah] make the woman that is come [that cometh] into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily [lit. make thou 12 strength] in Ephratah and be famous [and get a name] in Beth-lehem: And let thine house be like the house of Pharez [Perets, Perez], whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord [Jehovah] shall give thee of this young woman.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

1 Ruth 4:1.—Sc. “to Ruth,” Ruth 3:12. אֲשֶׁר is the accus. after דִּבֶּר־, cf. Genesis 19:21; Genesis 23:16.—On the forms סוּרָה and שְׁבָה, cf. Ges48, 5; 72, Rem3; 69, 3, 2; on וַיָּסַר, 72, Rem4.—Tr.]

2 Ruth 4:4.—Lit. “And I said, I will uncover thine ear,” i. e. I determined to inform thee. אָמַרְתִּי, is the same in sense as the fuller אָמַרְתִּי בְלִבִּי, Genesis 17:17, etc, cf. Exodus 2:14, etc. It might be supposed to refer to what Boaz said to Ruth, Ruth 3:12 f.; but as Ruth is not spoken of until the next verse, this is less likely. The expression “to uncover the ear,” originated in the practice of removing the hair that hangs over the ear, for the purpose of whispering a secret to a person. In general it means to communicate anything confidentially, but is here used in the wider sense of imparting information. The suffix of the second per. in *אָזְכְךָ is perhaps best explained by regarding the whole clause after אָמַרְתִּי as mentally uttered by Boaz, while considering how to proceed in the matter of Ruth. In this consideration, the nearer kinsman was present to his mind, and to him he addressed the conclusion, which he now only rehearses, “I will inform thee,” etc.—Tr.]

3 Ruth 4:4.—So Dr. Cassel. Keil: “Many translate הַיּשְׁבִים by ‘inhabitants,’ sc. those of Bethlehem. But although according to Ruth 4:9, a goodly number of the people, besides the elders, were present, this can scarcely be conceived to have been the case with the inhabitants of Bethlehem generally, so as to meet the requirement of גֶנֶד. Nor would the inhabitants have been named before, but as in Ruth 4:9, after, the elders as principal witnesses [but cf. Ruth 4:11]. For these reasons יָשַׁב is to be taken in the sense ‘to sit,’ and הַיּשְׁבִים is to be understood of the same persons who form the subject of ויֵּשׁבוּ in Ruth 4:2, the elders. The following וְנֶבֶד זִקני is to be taken explicatively: before those who sit here, even before the elders of my people.”—Tr.]

4 Ruth 4:4.—The Text. Recept. reads יִגְאַל, third per, concerning which Keil remarks, that “it strikes one as singular, since one expects the second person, תִּגְאַל, which is not only read by the LXX, but also by a number of MSS, and seems to be required by the context. It is true, the common reading may (with Sebastian Schmidt, Carpzov, and others) be defended, by assuming that in uttering this word Boaz turned to the elders, and so spoke of the redeemer as of a third person: ‘if Hebrews, the redeemer here, will not redeem;’ but as this is immediately followed by a resumption of the direct address, this supposition—to our mind at least—seems very artificial.”—The substitution by the Keri of וְאֵדְעָה for וְאֵדָע is not necessary, cf. Ges127, 3 b.—Tr.]

5 Ruth 4:5.—קכיתי. Keil: “According to sense and connection, this form must be the second per. masc.; the י at the end was either added by a slip of the pen, or it arose from an original ו, so that we must read either קְנִיתָ (with the Keri) without an accusative, or, with an accusative, קְנִיתוֹ, ‘thou buyest it.’ ”—Tr.]

6 Ruth 4:7.—תְּעוּדָה. Gesenius and Fürst define this word here as “custom having the force of law,” “attested usage.” Dr. Cassel’s rendering, Weissthum, is probably intended to convey the same idea (cf. Hoffmann’s Wörterb.). But it seems better to take the word here in its proper sense of “attestation,” as in E. V. So the ancient versions, Bertheau, Keil, etc. Cf. the root עוּד.—Tr.]

7 Ruth 4:10.—The Heb. קָכָה is less specific than our word “purchase.” It means to obtain, to acquire; which may be done in a variety of ways. The rendering “purchased” is unfortunate in this particular case, as it tends to convey the erroneous idea that Ruth was treated as a chattel, or at least as a sort of adscripta glebœ. The same word is used also in Ruth 4:4-5; Ruth 4:9, where there is no particular objection to represent it in English by “buy,” although “acquire” would be preferable for the sake of uniformity.—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Ruth 4:1. And Boaz went up to the gate, and seated himself there. Very early, even before Ruth with her burden of barley had yet started for home ( Ruth 3:15), Boaz, energetic in deed as he was kind in word, took the way to Bethlehem. It was necessary to set out so early, in order to be sure of reaching the gate before the person with whom he wished to speak, and who like himself was probably in the habit of coming to the city from the country. The gate, it is well known, was the place where judicial business was transacted and markets were held ( Deuteronomy 21:19 ff.; cf. Psalm 127:5). This is still the case in the East. In Zechariah 8:16, the prophet says: “Judge truth and the judgment of peace in your gates;” on which Jerome (ed. Migne, vi. p1474) remarks: “It is asked, why among the Jews the gate was the place for administering justice. The judges sat in the gates that the country-people might not be compelled to enter the cities and suffer detriment. Sitting there, they could hear the townsmen and country-people as they left or entered the city; and each man, his business finished, could return at once to his own house.” At the gate was the proper forum; and it is certainly more satisfactory than all other explanations of the Latin word, to derive it, notwithstanding the later central situation of the place to which it was applied, from the archaic fora, gate, whence foras, cf. biforis, septiforis.

Certain Some-one, come and seat thyself. We have here the whole course of an ancient legal procedure before us, with its usages and forms. The fact that Boaz sat at the gate, plainly declared that he sought a judicial decision. When the person for whom he waited made his appearance, he made no delay to seat himself as requested, for the language addressed to him was a formal judicial summons. His name is not mentioned. Peloni almoni is a formula like our German N. N. [used as in English we now generally use a simple—or “blank.”—Tr.] In former times, it was customary among us, in legal documents, to use in the same way names that were very common, such as Hans, etc. (cf. my Erf. Bilder u. Bräuche, p29). The underlying idea of Peloni almoni is a different one from that of δεῖνα (cf. Matthew 26:18) or quidam. It intimates that the name is unknown and hidden. It conveys the idea of anonymus, in every sense of the word. There is an ancient explanation to the effect that the name of the first goel is not given, because he was unwilling to raise up a name for his deceased relative. This is the reason, probably, why the LXX. here have κρύφιε, “hidden one.” Without maintaining this, but even supposing that the narrator omitted the name merely because he did not know it, it remains none the less an instructive fact that he who was so anxious for the preservation of his own inheritance, is now not even known by name.

Ruth 4:2. He took ten men of the elders of the city. That the number of elders in any city was not necessarily limited to ten, may be inferred from Judges 8:14; but ten were sufficient to form a college of witnesses. In post-biblical times it was a maxim that an assembly for religious worship (עֵדָה, “congregation”), must consist of ten persons (cf. the Jerus. Targum on Exodus 12:4); but the attempt of the Mishna (Sanhedrin, 1:6) to ground this biblically on the supposed fact that the ten faithless spies are spoken of as a congregation ( Numbers 14:27), can hardly be deemed satisfactory. The custom, however, of selecting exactly ten men for such service as was here required, was so old and well-established among the Jews, that the term מִנְיָן, “number,” by itself, meant ten persons. Others, it is true, as we learn further on, had assembled about the two relatives; but the ten elders formed, so to speak, the necessary official witnesses.

Ruth 4:3. The inheritance of our brother⁸ Elimelech, Naomi has sold. The expositors, with one consent, demand by what right Naomi could sell the inheritance of Elimelech, since the Mosaic law contains nothing to indicate that it considered the widow as the rightful heir of her deceased husband. But this view of the law is incorrect.⁹ The whole system of leviratical marriage presupposes that the title of the deceased husband’s property vests in the widow. When a man dies childless, leaving a widow, the brother of the deceased is to marry her, in order “that the first-born may enter upon the name of the dead,” i.e. that the name of the dead may continue to be connected with the inheritance which he has left behind, for in no other sense can the expression “to raise up the name of one” have any meaning in Israel; and, accordingly, in Ruth 4:5 the words of the law, “to raise up the name of the dead,” are supplemented by the addition, “upon his inheritance.” But in case the brother-in-law refused to marry the widow, and consequently refused to raise up the name of his brother, he thereby also gave up all right to enter on the inheritance of his brother. The duty and the right were indissolubly connected. The law would have been illusory, if the brother, notwithstanding his refusal to marry the widow, had obtained the inheritance. In that case, possession remained with the widow, who, albeit childless, carried within herself, so to speak, the embryonic right of the heir. Of the symbolical act of drawing off the shoe, we shall speak farther on. But it is to be noted here that when the widow drew off the shoe of the recusant brother-in-law, she thereby declared that he must withdraw his foot from the possessions of his brother.

Naomi was a widow. But although she herself says ( Ruth 1:12) that she is too old to become a wife, even this fact gives no right to her property to any blood-relative, without marriage. Undoubtedly, the name of her husband would vanish from his estate as soon as she died; but until then it remained upon it, and Naomi had the same right and power to dispose of the property as the law gave to the husband himself. Now, in Leviticus 25:25, we read: “If thy brother become impoverished and sell his possession, let his nearest blood-relative (גֹאֲלוֹ הַקָּרֹב) come to him, and redeem that which his brother sold.” This contingency was here actually come to pass. Naomi had become impoverished,—she had sold. The name of Elimelech was still on the property: consequently the law demanded its redemption, and directed this demand to the nearest blood-relative. It is on the basis of this prescription, that Boaz begins his negotiation with the unnamed kinsman, in the interest of Naomi.

The sale of the land had hitherto not been mentioned. Nothing was said about it in the conversation between Ruth and Boaz on the threshing-floor. The fact that Boaz knew of it, confirms the surmise that before Ruth came to him with her great request, he and Naomi had already had some communication with each other. These communications, having reference to the sale of the land, and the necessity of its redemption according to law, may be regarded as having ultimately led to the proposition made by Naomi in Ruth 3:1. Naomi advanced from the redemption of the land to that of the widow, just as Boaz does here in his negotiation with the nearer kinsman.

Ruth 4:4. Buy it before these who sit here, and before the elders of my people. Boaz had said to Ruth, that he would ask the nearest kinsman whether he “will redeem thee; and if not, then will I redeem thee.” But this is not the way in which he opens his address to the man. He does not mention the name of Ruth at first. He desires of him apparently only the redemption of the land. This testifies to the uncommon delicacy of legal proceedings at that time, as conducted by pious and believing persons. The cause is entirely saved from appearing as if Boaz had begun it only in behalf of the woman. Nor does Boaz put the nearer kinsman under any constraint; for he says at once: “If thou wilt not redeem it, then will I, for I come next.” He admonishes the other of the duty imposed on him by the law, by the recognition of his own; while, on the other hand, he facilitates the other’s decision, by intimating his readiness to render the service demanded, if the other should prefer to be excused. He says nothing of Ruth’s connection with the matter. He leaves it to the kinsman himself to take the open and generally known relations between Naomi and Ruth into consideration, and to shape his answer accordingly. His address is gentle, noble, and discreet. It brings no complaint that the kinsman as nearest relative has not troubled himself about the matter in hand. It asks nothing of the other, that he is not willing to do himself. It is sufficiently discreet to wait and see how far the other will limit his duty. And withal, the interest and decision with which he urges the matter to a conclusion, make the transaction a forcible example to the people, teaching them to make the law a living spirit, and openly to acknowledge the duties which it imposes.

And he said, I will redeem. The kinsman, therefore, acknowledges the right of Naomi to sell, and also his own duty to redeem. But he thinks only of the land. He answers the question of Boaz only according to the literal import of its terms. By saying, “I will redeem,” he declares his readiness to buy back the land left by Elimelech, but his words do not indicate whether he is conscious of the further duties therewith connected. Boaz may have expected that he would make further inquiry concerning them; but as he did not do this, Boaz could not rest contented with the brief reply, “I will redeem,” seeing that he was chiefly solicitous about the future of Ruth, and that the duty to redeem not only the land but also the widow must be expressly acknowledged before all who were present. Hence he says farther:

Ruth 4:5. In the day that thou buyest the field of Naomi, thou buyest it also of Ruth the Moabitess, …. to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. With these words, the law of entailment as recognized in Israel, becomes perfectly clear. Elimelech had left sons, who, had they lived, would have been the proper heirs. But they died. Now, if Ruth had not come from Moab with Naomi, Naomi would have been the sole possessor of the land. Having no means to cultivate it, she could hare sold it and the blood-relative could have bought it back without taking upon himself levirate duties, since her age rendered it improbable that they would answer the purpose for which they were instituted. But Ruth did come; and having entered into the Israelitish community, she also possesses Israelitish rights. She is, consequently, the heiress of Mahlon; and no one can redeem her inheritance, without at the same time providing for the continuance of the name of the dead. In her case, considerations like those which applied to Naomi, have no existence. Her husband Mahlon, whether he were the younger or the older brother, was an heir. Since Orpah remained in Moab, the claims of Chilion as heir, were also transferred to the estate of his brother. Separate possessions of their own, the sons of Elimelech probably had not, as long as they lived in Israel. Consequently, the land was the joint possession of Naomi and Ruth. And just because Ruth was part proprietress, the obligation existed not to let the names of Elimelech and Mahlon perish. The inheritance alone could not, therefore, be redeemed, as the anonymous relative proposed to do.

Ruth 4:6. . And the redeemer said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I injure mine own inheritance. Thus far the kinsman has accurately acknowledged his duty as prescribed by the Mosaic law. He is ready to redeem the land. Nor does he challenge the right of Ruth, as wife of the deceased Mahlon. Why then does he think that the performance of levirate duty to her will damage his own inheritance? For although accepted even by the most recent expositors, the idea that he is influenced by the thought that the land which he is to buy with his own money will one day belong not to himself, but to his son by Ruth, has no great probability. There is something forced in an exegesis that makes a father regard it as a personal detriment and injury when his own son enters upon an inheritance. Nor could the kinsman justify himself with a ground so external, before the assembly present. No; as he has hitherto not failed to honor the requirements of the law, it is to be assumed that he deems his present refusal also to be not in contravention of its provisions. Boaz here expressly speaks of Ruth as the “Moabitess.” It must be her Moabitish nationality that forms the ground, such as it is, of the kinsman’s refusal. Elimelech’s misfortunes had been popularly ascribed to his emigration to Moab; the death of Chilion and Mahlon to their marriage with Moabitish women. This it was that had endangered their inheritance. The goel fears a similar fate.¹⁰ He thinks that he ought not to take into his house a woman, marriage with whom has already been visited with the extinguishment of a family in Israel. To him, the law against intermarriage with Moabites, does not appear to be suspended in favor of Ruth. He is unwilling to endanger his own family and inheritance; and as Ruth is a Moabitess, he holds it possible to decline what in any other case he would deem an imperative duty.

The man appears to be superstitious, and devoted to the letter of the law. He sees only its formal decisions, not the love that animates it. He fears; but love knows no fear. From anxious regard to the lower, he overlooks the higher duty. He thinks of Moab; whereas Ruth has taken refuge under the wings of the God of Israel. He does not comprehend the difference of the conditions under which Mahlon once married her, and those under which he is now called upon to act toward her. He knows not how to distinguish times and spirits. The legal severity which he would bring to bear on the noble woman, recoils on himself. He is unwilling to endanger his name and inheritance, and—history does not even know his name. While the guilt of Elimelech and his sons is removed through the love of Ruth, so that their name survives, his lovelessness toward Ruth is visited by namelessness.¹¹ What a priceless lesson is hereby taught! What an honor does it award to love, and what a punishment does it hold out to the superstitious Pharisee!

Ruth 4:7 f. Formerly,¹² in cases of redemption and exchange, a man pulled off his shoe and gave it to the other. The symbolism of the shoe, as it existed in Israel and among other nations, has been so wretchedly misunderstood and perverted, especially in the books of a man whose distorted and dishonest compilations will be injurious to many (Nork’s Mythol. der Volkssagen, p459, etc.), that it will be worth the trouble to explain it, at least in outline.

The shoe is the symbol, first, of motion and wandering; secondly, of rest and possession. The following may serve to illustrate the first of these significations: When Israel is directed to eat the Passover in a state of readiness for instant departure, among other specific injunctions, is this: “your shoes on your feet” ( Exodus 12:11). With reference to the wanderings through the desert, it is said: “thy shoe did not grow old” ( Deuteronomy 29:4 (5)), etc.¹³ The wanderings of the gods form a singular feature of the old heathenism, in its search after God. The fact of their passage was often supposed to be attested by the footprints they left behind; but in Chemmis in Egypt, a blessing ensued (as Herodotus tells us, ii91) whenever the gigantic shoe of Perseus was seen. It was not the shoe, but the god, who brought the blessing. Heathendom, especially Germanic heathendom, continued to search and wander even after death. The dead, when buried, were provided with an helskô, or shoe, for the journey they had to make (Grimm, Myth. 795). Even until comparatively recent times, there were popular legends concerning deceased persons who lament that they received no shoe (Stöber, Elassische Sagen, p34). In certain districts, any last token of respect shown the dead is, perhaps to this very day, called “the dead-man’s shoe.” The sorrowful idea expressed in the practice was that the dead must be helped on in his last journey. Simrock’s explanation concerning good works is entirely erroneous (Myth. 154). The passage of Pope Gregory on Exodus 12:11, means something altogether different. Gregory intends there to refer to the example of pious persons who have gone before. The Christian Church opposed, rather than favored, the heathen usage.

Of cognate and yet very different signification are certain passages of the Talmud and the Midrash (Jerus. Talmud, Kelajim, § 9, p23, b; Midrash Rabba, § 100, p88 a), where the aged teacher desires that when he is buried sandals may be fastened to his feet, in order that he may be able to follow after the Messiah as soon as He comes.

Luther gave utterance to the saying: “Tie a pair of sandals to his door, and let them be called ‘Surge et ambula.’ ” Hence also the still current popular superstition of throwing the shoe on New Year’s day, the alighting of which with its toe pointing outward, is considered to be indicative of departure (cf. my Weihnachten, p273).

The shoe was the symbol, secondly, of rest and possession. With the shoe one trod the earth, whence on holy ground it must be pulled off; over it, one had complete control, and hence it symbolized the power of the possessor over his possession. In the Psalm (60:10 (8); 108:10 (9)), God casts his shoe over Edom. Rosenmuller (Morgenland, n483) has already directed attention to the practice of the Abyssinian Emperor, who throws his shoe over that which he desires to have. That which in ecclesiastical architecture is called Marienschuh¹⁴ points to nothing else than the dominion ascribed by the mediæval church to the mother of God. The custom of kissing the pope’s slipper, likewise refers to his dominion. The idea of the old Scandinavian legend, according to which, at the last day the wolf finally submits to Widar, who sets his shoe upon him, is that of the victory of the new earth over the old wicked enemy.

The shoe symbolized a possession which one actually had, and could tread with his feet, at pleasure. Whoever entered into this possession conjointly with another, put his foot into the same shoe, as in old German law was done by an adopted child and the wife (Grimm, Rechtsalterth. p155). Hence, when in our passage the goel pulled off his shoe and gave it to Boaz, he therewith surrendered to him all claims to the right of possession which would have been his had he fulfilled its conditions. Nor has that use of the shoe, of which the law speaks, in connection with the leviratical institute, any different meaning. The widow, whose brother-in-law refuses to marry her, is authorized to pull off his shoe, and to spit in his face. His house, hence-forth, is “the house of him that hath had his shoe pulled off.” Had he performed his duty, he would have set his shoe upon the inheritance of his brother (including wife and estate) as his own. But having contemned this, he undergoes the shame of having his shoe drawn off by the widow. The shame of this consisted in the fact that he must submit to it at the hands of the woman. A man might pull off his own shoe, and hand it to another, without suffering degradation. This was done in every instance of exchange. It was but the exercise of his manly right. But when the shoe was taken from him, he was, as it were, declared destitute of every capacity and right toward the widow symbolized by the shoe, and in this consisted the disgrace.

Now, although in our passage, strictly speaking, a similar case to that contemplated by the law in Deuteronomy 25:7 ff. occurs—for the kinsman refuses to marry Ruth—yet the ceremony of the kinsman’s delivering his shoe to Boaz was significant only of his simple, voluntary renunciation of his rights. On the one hand, Ruth was not his sister-in-law; and although custom, in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic law, acknowledged the duty even in cases of more distant relationship, the letter of the law did not reach him. On the other hand,—and this was undoubtedly a point of real weight,—his refusal to marry Ruth was itself based on regard for the law, albeit narrow and unspiritual; for from his readiness to redeem the land, it is but fair to infer that he would have been equally ready to do his duty by her, had she been an Israelitess. Inasmuch, therefore, as he thinks it possible to separate the redemption of the land from that of the woman, he comes off more honorably than would under ordinary circumstances have been the case. His language refers explicitly only to the estate, which had the effect of lessening the dishonor done to Ruth, especially as Boaz declares himself ready to take his place. Finally, according to Ruth 3:18, Ruth was not present at the negotiation, the representation of Josephus to the contrary notwithstanding.¹⁵

Ruth 4:9 f. And Boaz said, Ye are witnesses this day that I have acquired (do acquire), etc. The kinsman having drawn off his shoe, in token of his renunciation of his rights as nearest goel, Boaz arose, and declared, fully and formally, that he acquires everything that belonged to Elimelech, and (as is now expressed at full length) everything that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. He acquires it from Naomi; but as he cannot acquire it without also marrying the wife of Mahlon, as Ruth is here for the first time called,—for which reason he made special mention of the possession of the sons,—he adds that he takes her “to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, in order that his name be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place.” In these words, he thoroughly, albeit indirectly, refuted the motive by which the anonymous kinsman was actuated in his refusal. When the name of a brother is to be rescued from oblivion among his own people, all scruples vanish. The fulfillment of a duty so pious, lifts a man up beyond the reach of fear. Boaz apprehends no damage to his own inheritance; but hopes rather, while taking Ruth under his wings, to repair the evil which the migration to Moab has inflicted upon the house of Elimelech. This pious magnanimity, this humble acceptance of duty, this readiness to act where the nearer kinsman hesitates, and this true insight of faith, which looked not at the birthplace of Ruth, but at what she had done for Israel and now was in Israel, and thus dissolved all superstitious fear in the divine wisdom of love, win for him also the approbation of all present. The public voice spoke well of Ruth; all knew how loving, virtuous, and self-sacrificing she was (cf. Ruth 2:11; Ruth 3:11). Hence, not only the elders who had been summoned as witnesses, but also all the people, unitedly invoked the blessing of God upon him.

Ruth 4:11. Jehovah make the woman that cometh into thy house, like Rachel and Leah which two did build the house of Israel. From Rachel and Leah came the tribes of Israel. As these built the house of Jacob, Song of Solomon, say the people may Ruth build thy house. The extent of the general delight, may be measured by the fact that it wishes for Ruth the Moabitess a blessing equal to that of the wives of Jacob who were Israelitesses. The Jewish expositors point out that Rachel stands before Leah, although younger and less blessed with children, and although the tribe of Judah, and Bethlehem with it, descended from Leah. It is probable that the whole sentence was already at that time, the usual formula of blessing in Israelitish marriages. However that may be, the traditions of Israel made Rachel more prominent than Leah. Rachel was Jacob’s first and best beloved Rachel took away her father’s idol images. As she suffered many sorrows up to her death, so the prophet represents her as weeping bitterly after death for her children ( Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:18). It was Rachel, too, who after she had been long unfruitful, as Ruth in Moab, had brought forth most of those sons in whom Jacob was most highly blessed. But the people desire not merely that many children may adorn her house; they proceed: עֲשֵׂה חַיִל, may she make, produce, strength, ability, heroism.¹⁶ They wish that sons may be born, who, like Boaz, shall be heroes of strength (cf. Ruth 2:1), so that “great names” may proceed out of Bethlehem.¹⁷ The blessing was most abundantly fulfilled.

Ruth 4:12. And be thy house like the house of Perez. After the general comes the special wish, which in this instance is of peculiar importance. Boaz was descended from Perez, and Perez was the son of Tamar. Now, although the history of Tamar ( Genesis 38) is not as pure as that of Ruth, it yet contained features which might have served as precedents to Boaz. Tamar’s first two husbands had died on account of their sins, and Judah, their father, would not give her the third, “lest he also die as his brethren.” This was the same motive as that which must have influenced the nearer kinsman. The very fact that he had this history before him, confirms the conclusion we have already reached concerning the grounds of his refusal. Tamar suffered injustice, her right being withheld from her. The same thing happened to Ruth. No one thought of her rights, until she laid claim to them. Tamar did the same, albeit not in the pure and graceful manner adopted by Ruth. Nevertheless, Judah, when he found himself outwitted by her, said: “She is more righteous than I,” thus acknowledging his injustice. Boaz had not been guilty of any such injustice; but he felt it his duty, in behalf of the members of his family, to see that that which had hitherto been neglected was neglected no longer. His proceeding involved an admission that Ruth had not received what was her rightful due in Israel. The confession of injustice draws after it a blessing; especially here in the case of Boaz, whose kind and noble conduct is beyond all praise.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

“Ye are witnesses this day that I take Ruth the Moabitess to be my wife.” What a noble pair confront each other in the persons of Ruth and Boaz! They are types for all times of the mutual relations of man and woman. The remark of Pascal, that the Old Testament contains the images of future joy, is here especially applicable. Ruth acts to the utmost of her power out of love: Boaz is a man of unfeigned faith. Ruth takes voluntary duties upon herself from love to Naomi: Boaz meets these duties in the spirit of obedience to the commands of God. Ruth, moved by love, dares to risk the delicate reserve of woman; and Boaz offsets her deed by a delicacy of faith which would comply, if it were but to avoid wounding, and gives all, in order to satisfy. He promises everything, if only he may relieve Ruth from fear. Ruth followed into poverty from love; and Boaz, though rich, regards only the duty prescribed by faith. Ruth was ignorant of the prejudices that stood in her way; Boaz knew and overcame them. Ruth thought she had a right to claim; Boaz was under no obligation, and yet acted. The nearest redeemer retreated, most probably because Ruth was a Moabitess; Boaz. says, “Ye are witnesses that I take the Moabitess to wife.” An ancient church-father says: “Boaz, in accordance with the merito-riousness of his faith received Ruth for his wife, in order that from so sanctified a marriage a royal race might be born. For Boaz, well advanced in years, received his wife, not for himself, but for God; not to fulfill the desires of the flesh, but to fulfill the righteousness of the law, in order to raise up a seed for his relative. He was inflamed more by conscience than by passion; he was old by years, but youthful by faith,—and for this perhaps he was called, Boaz—’in him is virtue.’ ”

Footnotes