Ruth · Chapter 4

Verse 1. Then went Boaz up to the gate] We have often had occasion to remark that the gate or entrance to any city or town was the place where the court of justice was ordinarily kept. For an account of the officers in such places, see Clarke’s note on “Deuteronomy 16:18”. Ho, such a one!-sit down here.] This familiar mode of compellation is first used here. The original is ynmla ynlp hp hbv 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. ynmla almoni comes from אלם alam, to be silent or hidden, hence the Septuagint render it by krufe thou unknown person: ynlp peloni comes from hlp palah, to sever or distinguish; you of such a particular place. Modes of compellation of this kind are common in all languages.

Verse 1. Then went Boaz up to the gate — Where the elders sat. The Chaldee interprets it, “He went up to the gate of the house of judgment, where the Sanhedrim sat.” Behold, the kinsman came by — Providence so ordering it that he should come by thus opportunely when the matter was ready to be proposed to him. Great affairs are frequently much furthered and expedited by small circumstances.

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

THE COUNCIL AT THE GATE OF BETHLEHEM, 1-12.

Closely connected with the customs and the law of levirate marriage was another law concerning the redemption of property. Jehovah claimed the land of Israel as his, and commanded that it should never be sold by his people. Therefore an inheritance was not allowed to pass permanently into the hands of another family than that whose original possession it was. If through poverty one was obliged to sell a piece of land from the family estate, (as Naomi, see verse 3,) it was the duty of the nearest kinsman to redeem it. He who acted as redeemer in such cases purchased, properly speaking, not the land itself, but the use of it until the next year of Jubilee. See the law, as detailed in Leviticus 25:23-34. But in case the kinsman performed the double part of buying the property and marrying the widow, then the inheritance would pass to the offspring of that marriage, and thus the kinsman would build up his brother’s house.

This chapter affords us a life-picture of an ancient court of justice assembled to arbitrate a case under the above-mentioned law. Every circumstance serves in some measure to illustrate the simplicity of that age.

1. Went… up to the gate — Not from the harvest field, for, according to Ruth 3:15, (see note,) he went into the city after he sent Ruth away; but he went up from his house in the city. The gate itself may have been on no higher elevation than his own house, but, being the place of judgment, and therefore a place of honour in the eyes of the people, his going to it is spoken of as a going up. Sat him down there — As one that had an important case for judgment. From the earliest times the gates of cities were the places where the courts of justice were held. The custom probably grew out of the fact that the gates were places easy of access to all the people, and witnesses and other persons concerned could come there with least inconvenience. See note on Matthew 16:18. Compare also Genesis 23:10, 18; 34:20; Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 17:8; Joshua 20:4; 1 Kings 22:10. Ho, such a one — An idiomatic expression. ynmla ynlp, Peloni almoni; that is, Mr. Such a one, of such a place. Boaz probably called the kinsman by his proper name, but the author of this book has substituted for it this idiomatic phrase.

V. 2. Ten men-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.

Verse 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!

Verse 2. He took ten men — 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.

2. Elders of the city — Whose years and judgment gave weight to all their decisions. Why ten were called does not appear, but perhaps that was the number required to constitute a court.

V. 3. Naomi-Both Naomi and Ruth had an interest in this land during their lives, but he mentions only Naomi, because all was done by her direction; lest the mention of Ruth should raise a suspicion of the necessity of his marrying Ruth, before he had given his answer to the first proposition.

Verse 3. Naomi-selleth a parcel of land] She was reduced to want; the immediate inheritors were extinct, and it was now open for the next heir to purchase the land, and thus preserve the inheritance in the family according to the custom of Israel.

Verse 3. Naomi — Both Naomi and Ruth had an interest in this land during their lives, but he mentions only Naomi, because all was done by her direction; lest the mention of Ruth should raise a suspicion of the necessity of his marrying Ruth, before he had given his answer to the first proposition. Which was our brother Elimelech’s — He calls him their brother, because he was near of kin to them. And he mentions Naomi’s return out of the country of Moab, to intimate that her poverty constrained her to sell her estate which her husband left her.

3. Naomi… selleth a parcel of land — According to the law, (Numbers 27:8-11,) when a man died and left no son, his property passed to his daughter; if he had no daughter, it passed to his brethren; if he had no brethren, it passed to his father’s brethren; and in case his father had no brethren, it passed to his next nearest kinsman. In no case did it pass to the wife of the deceased. Hence comes the question, What right had Naomi to sell Elimelech’s property? The solution of the difficulty is probably this, that, as the law did not designate the time when the proper heirs took possession of the inheritance, custom did not allow it to pass to them while the widow of the deceased was living. Naomi therefore would have the control of Elimelech’s property as long as she lived, and the selling of it was, as we have shown in the note at the head of this chapter, not a permanent disposal, but an annual renting of it till the year of jubilee.

Verse 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;” Ruth 4:4, 5.-See Kennicott’s Dissertations, vol. i., p. 449; Houbigant in loco; and the Variæ Lectiones of Kennicott and Deuteronomy Rossi. This is Boaz’s statement of the case before the kinsman, and before the people and the elders.

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

Verses 4, 5. I thought to advertise thee — I have had it in my mind to speak to thee about it. There is none to redeem it besides thee — That is, thou hast the first right to do so; for it is plain Boaz had a right, but it was in the second place: and if he had refused, the next kinsman would have had the right, and so on. Thou must buy it also of Ruth — According to the law, Deuteronomy 25:5. To raise up seed — To revive his name, which was buried with his body, by raising up a seed to him to be called by his name.

4. I thought to advertise thee — Literally, as margin, I said, I will reveal in thine ear. That is, I will make known the matter to thee. Before the inhabitants — Those of the inhabitants of the city who are sitting here to witness the judgment of this case. The gate of the city was usually thronged by a concourse of people, who would naturally resort thither to while away their leisure hours, and hear all passing news. If thou wilt not redeem — The Hebrew has the third person, lagy al µa, if he will not redeem. This reading may be defended on the supposition that Boaz at this point of his discourse turned to the elders and spoke of his kinsman in the third person. But the English version is more natural, and is supported by the Septuagint and several Hebrew MSS. I will redeem it — It would add so much to his own estate to procure also the property of the deceased Elimelech. Not knowing the condition which Boaz makes known in the next verse, he supposed that he would only have to pay Naomi a certain annual allowance till her death, and then the inheritance would pass to him as the lawful heir.

V. 5. Buy it-According to the law, Deuteronomy 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.

Verse 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.

Verses 4, 5. I thought to advertise thee — I have had it in my mind to speak to thee about it. There is none to redeem it besides thee — That is, thou hast the first right to do so; for it is plain Boaz had a right, but it was in the second place: and if he had refused, the next kinsman would have had the right, and so on. Thou must buy it also of Ruth — According to the law, Deuteronomy 25:5. To raise up seed — To revive his name, which was buried with his body, by raising up a seed to him to be called by his name.

5. Thou must buy it also of Ruth — The estate of Elimelech would have been Chilion and Mahlon’s had they lived. Chilion’s widow had gone to her mother’s house in Moab, and perhaps married again, so that she had no legal claim on the property; but Mahlon’s widow, Ruth, had clung to Naomi, and therefore while she lived had a share with her mother-in-law in Mahlon’s inheritance. Naomi was too old to expect a husband, (Ruth 1:12,) or to claim of her deceased husband’s kinsmen the duty of the levirate marriage. But not so Ruth, who was young and beautiful, and had a right to ask in marriage the man who redeemed the inheritance of Mahlon. To raise up the name of the dead — According to the law (Deuteronomy 25:6) the firstborn of the levirate marriage succeeded in the name of the deceased husband of his mother. Thus the family to whom the deceased belonged did not become extinct in Israel. See on verse 10.

V. 6. Mar-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. My right-Which I freely resign to thee.

Verse 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, Deuteronomy 25:5-9.

Verse 6. Lest I mar mine own inheritance — It seems he had a wife and children already, which made him afraid to marry a poor woman with a small parcel of land, which would not provide for the children he might have by her, lest he should thereby diminish the inheritance of which he was already possessed. The Chaldee paraphrase on the passage is, “I cannot redeem it on this condition,” namely, the condition of marrying Ruth; “because I have a wife already, and do not choose to bring another into my house, lest quarrels and divisions arise in it, and I hurt my own inheritance.”

6. I cannot — This kinsman already had, according to the Targum and the general supposition of interpreters, a wife and children. Accordingly, had he married Ruth, his children by her would have succeeded to Elimelech’s estate, and so his own inheritance would not only have received no addition, but might have suffered much by having his time and attention largely drawn from it in care for the interests of another. Others suppose that it was Ruth’s Moabitish nationality that formed the ground of this kinsman’s refusal to marry her. The death of Elimelech’s sons may have been popularly attributed to their marriage with Moabitish women, and this kinsman feared that by attempting to redeem his relative’s estate he would involve himself in like misfortunes.

V. 7. All things-That is, in all alienation of lands. So that it is no wonder if this ceremony differ a little from that, Deuteronomy 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. Gave it-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-This was admitted for sufficient evidence in all such cases.

Verse 7. A man plucked off his shoe] The law of such a case is given at large in Deuteronomy 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 Clarke’s note on “Deuteronomy 25:9”.

Verse 7. Now this was the manner in Israel, &c. — We do not know that there was any law of God enjoining any such ceremony as is here mentioned; but only it was a long-established custom to act thus in transferring one man’s right in any land to another. To confirm all things — That is, in all alienation of lands. So that it is no wonder if this ceremony differ a little from that mentioned Deuteronomy 25:9, because that concerned only one case, but this is more general. Besides, he alleges, not the command of God, but only ancient custom for this practice. A man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour — That is, he who relinquished his right to another did this. The reason of the custom, as Bishop Patrick observes, is plain enough, “it being a natural signification that the man resigned his interest in the land by giving to the person redeeming his shoe wherewith he used to walk in it, to the end that he might enter into it, and take possession of it himself.” Or it might signify that as he pulled off, and divested himself of his shoe, so he divested himself of that which he was about to surrender. “It is now the custom with us,” says Rabbi Jarchi, “that a handkerchief or veil be given, instead of a shoe, when we purchase any thing.” This was a testimony in Israel — This was admitted for sufficient evidence in all such cases.

7. The manner in former time — This remark implies that the custom was no longer in use when this book was written. Concerning redeeming and concerning changing — That is, concerning the buying and exchanging of property. A man plucked off his shoe — “The custom itself, which existed among the Indians and the ancient Germans, arose from the fact that fixed property was taken possession of by treading upon the soil; and hence taking off the shoe and handing it to another was the symbol of the transfer of a possession or right of ownership.” — Keil. “The shoe symbolized a possession which one actually had, and could tread with his feet at pleasure.” — Cassel. A testimony in Israel — Rather, an attested usage: a custom in Israel. This custom, it will be observed, is not precisely the same as that recorded Deuteronomy 25:9, in which the widow that claimed the right of marriage came into the presence of the elders and loosed the shoe, and spat in the face, of the man who refused to marry her. This nearest kinsman of Elimelech could not properly marry Ruth, and therefore the transaction between him and Boaz at the gate of the city was but an honourable transfer to his relative of his right to redeem the inheritance. It was but an instance of the ancient Israelitish custom concerning redeeming and changing. But the custom of Deuteronomy 25:9, is said to be still in use among the Jews in some localities, and Burckhardt tells us that the modern Arabs, in speaking of a repudiated wife, say, “She was my slipper; I have cast her off.”

THE COUNCIL AT THE GATE OF BETHLEHEM, 1-12.

Closely connected with the customs and the law of levirate marriage was another law concerning the redemption of property. Jehovah claimed the land of Israel as his, and commanded that it should never be sold by his people. Therefore an inheritance was not allowed to pass permanently into the hands of another family than that whose original possession it was. If through poverty one was obliged to sell a piece of land from the family estate, (as Naomi, see verse 3,) it was the duty of the nearest kinsman to redeem it. He who acted as redeemer in such cases purchased, properly speaking, not the land itself, but the use of it until the next year of Jubilee. See the law, as detailed in Leviticus 25:23-34. But in case the kinsman performed the double part of buying the property and marrying the widow, then the inheritance would pass to the offspring of that marriage, and thus the kinsman would build up his brother’s house.

This chapter affords us a life-picture of an ancient court of justice assembled to arbitrate a case under the above-mentioned law. Every circumstance serves in some measure to illustrate the simplicity of that age.

1. Went… up to the gate — Not from the harvest field, for, according to Ruth 3:15, (see note,) he went into the city after he sent Ruth away; but he went up from his house in the city. The gate itself may have been on no higher elevation than his own house, but, being the place of judgment, and therefore a place of honour in the eyes of the people, his going to it is spoken of as a going up. Sat him down there — As one that had an important case for judgment. From the earliest times the gates of cities were the places where the courts of justice were held. The custom probably grew out of the fact that the gates were places easy of access to all the people, and witnesses and other persons concerned could come there with least inconvenience. See note on Matthew 16:18. Compare also Genesis 23:10, 18; 34:20; Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 17:8; Joshua 20:4; 1 Kings 22:10. Ho, such a one — An idiomatic expression. ynmla ynlp, Peloni almoni; that is, Mr. Such a one, of such a place. Boaz probably called the kinsman by his proper name, but the author of this book has substituted for it this idiomatic phrase.

THE COUNCIL AT THE GATE OF BETHLEHEM, 1-12.

Closely connected with the customs and the law of levirate marriage was another law concerning the redemption of property. Jehovah claimed the land of Israel as his, and commanded that it should never be sold by his people. Therefore an inheritance was not allowed to pass permanently into the hands of another family than that whose original possession it was. If through poverty one was obliged to sell a piece of land from the family estate, (as Naomi, see verse 3,) it was the duty of the nearest kinsman to redeem it. He who acted as redeemer in such cases purchased, properly speaking, not the land itself, but the use of it until the next year of Jubilee. See the law, as detailed in Leviticus 25:23-34. But in case the kinsman performed the double part of buying the property and marrying the widow, then the inheritance would pass to the offspring of that marriage, and thus the kinsman would build up his brother’s house.

This chapter affords us a life-picture of an ancient court of justice assembled to arbitrate a case under the above-mentioned law. Every circumstance serves in some measure to illustrate the simplicity of that age.

1. Went… up to the gate — Not from the harvest field, for, according to Ruth 3:15, (see note,) he went into the city after he sent Ruth away; but he went up from his house in the city. The gate itself may have been on no higher elevation than his own house, but, being the place of judgment, and therefore a place of honour in the eyes of the people, his going to it is spoken of as a going up. Sat him down there — As one that had an important case for judgment. From the earliest times the gates of cities were the places where the courts of justice were held. The custom probably grew out of the fact that the gates were places easy of access to all the people, and witnesses and other persons concerned could come there with least inconvenience. See note on Matthew 16:18. Compare also Genesis 23:10, 18; 34:20; Deuteronomy 16:18-20; 17:8; Joshua 20:4; 1 Kings 22:10. Ho, such a one — An idiomatic expression. ynmla ynlp, Peloni almoni; that is, Mr. Such a one, of such a place. Boaz probably called the kinsman by his proper name, but the author of this book has substituted for it this idiomatic phrase.

V. 10. From the gate-That is, from among the inhabitants dwelling within the gate of this city, which was Bethlehem-judah.

Verse 10. Ruth the Moabitess have I purchased to be my wife — He had her by the right of the same purchase, and did not succeed into the right of a brother, as mentioned Deuteronomy 25.; for he was not a brother to Elimelech, but only a remote kinsman of the same family, who could not enjoy the land while she lived, unless he would take her with it; to whom it belonged while she lived, and was to go to her issue when she died. From the gate of his place — That is, from among the inhabitants dwelling within the gate of his city, which was Beth-lehem-judah.

10. That the name of the dead be not cut off — The name of the child borne unto Boaz by Ruth was not called Mahlon, the name of the deceased husband, but Obed. Verse 17. To the question why this was so, Patrick answers that what Boaz did was in obedience to the law in Deuteronomy 25:6, for he was not the brother of Mahlon, but only a remote kinsman, and therefore not bound by the strict letter of the law in giving a name to the child. But the passage in Deuteronomy 25:6, need not be pressed to mean that, even if the redeemer be a brother, the child born of the levirate marriage must literally bear the name of the deceased brother; but rather, that all the facts of the case should be made known and preserved, as has been done in this history before us. Thus the name and memory of the dead Elimelech and of Mahlon were not cut off from among their brethren, nor from the gate of their native city, although the child of Ruth was not called after either of them.

V. 11. Rachel and Leah-Amiable and fruitful. These two are singled out, because they were of a foreign original, and yet ingrafted into God’s people, as Ruth was; and because of that fertility which God vouchsafed unto them above their predecessors, Sarah and Rebecca. Rachel is placed before Leah, because she was his most lawful, and best-beloved wife. Did build-That is, increase the posterity. Ephratah and Bethlehem-Two names of one and the same place.

Verse 11. We are witnesses.] It is not very likely that any writing was drawn up. There was an appeal made to the people then present, whether they had seen and understood the transaction; who answered, We have witnessed it. If any minutes of court were kept, then the transaction was entered probably in some such words as these: “On —— day of ——, Boaz bought the land of Elimelech from Naomi his widow, and took Ruth, her daughter-in-law, to wife; ——, who had the nearest right, refusing to buy the land on the conditions then proposed.”

The Lord make this woman-like Rachel and like Leah] May thy family be increased by her means, as the tribes were formed by means of Rachel and Leah, wives of the patriarch Jacob!

Which two did build the house of Israel] We have already seen that בנ ben, a son, comes from the root hnb banah, he built; and hence אבנ eben, a stone, because as a house is built of stones, so is a family of children. There is a similar figure in PLAUTUS, Mostell. Act i., sec. 2, ver. 37. ————————Nunc etiam volo

Dicere, ut homines ædium esse similes arbitremini.

Primum dum parentes fabri liberum sunt,

Et fundamentum liberorum substruunt.

“I would also observe, that ye men are similar to houses; ye parents are the fabricators of the children, and they are the foundation of the building.”

Verse 11. Rachel and Leah — Amiable and fruitful. These two are singled out, because they were of a foreign original, and yet ingrafted into God’s people, as Ruth was; and because of that fertility which God vouchsafed unto them above their predecessors, Sarah and Rebecca. Rachel is placed before Leah, because she was his most lawful and best beloved wife. Which two did build the house of Israel — Were blessed with a numerous posterity. They do not mention the two handmaids, because the former were Jacob’s principal wives, whose servants bare children not for themselves, but their mistresses.

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

11. All the people… and the elders, said, We are witnesses — “And thus,” says Clarke, “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!” Like Rachel and like Leah — The two wives of Jacob, who were accounted mothers of all the tribes of Israel. Genesis 29:30. Which two did build the house of Israel — That is, bore him offspring to establish his name. “By a common oriental metaphor, house is transferred to a family and children; and whoever begets children is said to build a house. Hence ˆb, son, comes from the idea of building; that is, of begetting. The same metaphor is elegantly carried out in Plautus, Mostellaria, 1, 2, 37.” — Gesenius. So in modern times great lineal families are designated by this word; as, house of Bourbon, house of Brunswick. The passage in Plautus to which Gesenius here refers is as follows: “Now this I will say, that ye men may be compared to buildings, as long as parents are chiefly builders of children, and the foundation of children they do lay,” Do thou worthily — Acquire power and influence. Be famous — Literally, Call out a name. That is, perpetuate thy name by means of a numerous posterity. Ephratah… Beth-lehem — Different names of the same place, (Genesis 35:19,) used here in the way of poetic parallelism.

V. 12. Pharez-As honourable and numerous as his family was; whom, though be also was born of a stranger, God so blessed, that his family was one of the five families to which all the tribe of Judah belonged, and the progenitor of the inhabitants of this city.

Verse 12. Like the house of Pharez] This was very appropriate; for from Pharez, the son of Judah, by Tamar, came the family of the Beth-lehemites and that of Elimelech.

Verse 12. Like the house of Pharez — As honourable and numerous as his family was; whom, though he also was born of a stranger, God so blessed, that his family was one of the five families to which all the tribe of Judah belonged, and the progenitor of the inhabitants of this city.

12. Whom Tamar bare unto Judah — See the history, as given in Genesis 38. There was a peculiar appropriateness in this allusion to Boaz’s ancient ancestors, for Tamar’s playing the harlot with Judah was not from lust on her part, but a forcing of him unawares to perform the part of a kinsman to her. His two sons Er and Onan had married her, and died leaving her childless. He then had promised her his younger son, but seems not to have kept his word, and therefore she took the bold step to be redeemed by Judah himself from the lonely estate and condition of a childless widow. Nor was Pharez, the offspring of that connexion, ever regarded as illegitimate, but he figures most honourably in the genealogy of David and the Messiah.

V. 13. Took Ruth-Which he might do, though she was a Moabite, because the prohibition against marrying such, is to be restrained to those who continue Heathens; whereas Ruth was a sincere proselyte and convert to the God of Israel. Thus he that forsakes all for Christ, shall find more than all with him.

Verse 13. So Boaz took Ruth] The law of Moses had prohibited the Moabites, even to the tenth generation, from entering into the congregation of the Lord; but this law, the Jews think, did not extend to women; and even if it had, Ruth’s might be considered an exempt case, as she had been already incorporated into the family by marriage; and left her own country, people, and gods, to become a proselyte to the true God in the land of Israel.

Verse 13. Took Ruth — Which he might do, though she was a Moabitess, because the prohibition against marrying such is to be restrained to those who continued heathen; whereas Ruth was a sincere proselyte and convert to the God of Israel. Thus he that forsakes all for Christ, shall find more than all with him.

MARRIAGE OF BOAZ AND RUTH, AND BIRTH OF OBED, 13-17.

13. Boaz took Ruth — Whatever scruples a pious Hebrew might have had about marriage with a Moabitess, Boaz could have had none in this case, inasmuch as Ruth was the widow of an Israelite, and had left her native land and kindred to become a proselyte to the Hebrew faith. Compare note on Ruth 1:4.

V. 14. Which hath not, &c.-The words may be rendered, Which hath not made, or suffered thy kinsman to fail thee; that is, to refuse the performances of his duty to thee and thine, as the other kinsman did. Famous-Heb. and his name shall be famous in Israel, for this noble and worthy action.

Verse 14. The women said unto Naomi — After Ruth’s delivery. Which hath not left thee without a kinsman — The words may be rendered, who hath not made, or suffered, thy kinsman to fail thee; that is, to refuse to perform his duty to thee and thine, as the other kinsman did. The Hebrew lag, goel, which we translate kinsman, properly belonged to Boaz, and not to his son who was born; and yet the women seem to speak this with a reference to the child, which probably induced the Arabic translator to render it, hath not left thee without an heir. That his name may — Hebrew, and his name shall be famous in Israel; On account of this noble and worthy action.

14. The women — The women of Beth-lehem, Naomi’s neighbours and friends. Verse 17. Not left thee this day without a kinsman — The kinsman or redeemer in this passage refers not to Boaz, but to the child born to Ruth, as is evident from the words that follow. That his name may be famous — Rather, and may his name (that is, the child’s name) be famous; become honourably perpetuated by a numerous and worthy posterity in Israel.

V. 15. Thy life-That is, of the comfort of thy life. Born him-Or, hath born to him; that is, to thy kinsman a son. Better than seven sons-See how God sometimes makes up the want of those relations from whom we expected most comfort, in those from whom we expected least! The bonds of love prove stronger than those of nature.

Verse 15. A restorer of thy life — Of the comfort of thy life, such a comfort as to make thee, in some sort, young again. For they hoped the child would inherit his mother’s virtues, and particularly her affection to Naomi, which was so surpassing, that it made her a greater blessing to her than a great many children of her own body would have been. Better than seven sons — See how God sometimes makes up the want of those relations from whom we expected most comfort, in those from whom we expected least! The bonds of love prove stronger than those of nature.

15. He shall be — That is, the child shall be. Boaz was the goel or redeemer of Ruth but the child Obed was the goel of the aged Naomi. Restorer of thy life — He shall make thee feel the glow of youthful life and joy again. A nourisher of thine old age — A source of comfort, since the birth of this son would take away the reproach of childlessness from her husband’s family. Better… than seven sons — Because through Ruth “the loss of her own sons had been supplied in her old age, and the prospect was now presented to her of becoming in her childless old age the tribe-mother of a numerous and flourishing family.” — Keil. “It would seem as if there was already a kind of joyous foretaste of the birth and infancy which, in aftertimes, was to be forever associated with the name of Beth-lehem.” — Stanley.

Verse 16. Naomi took the child] This might do for Naomi, but it was bad for the child. A child, unless remarkably healthy and robust, will suffer considerably by being nursed by an old woman, especially if the child sleep with her. The aged gain refreshment and energy by sleeping with the young; and from the same means the young derive premature decrepitude. The vigour which is absorbed by the former is lost by the latter. It is a foolish and destructive custom to permit young children, which is a common case, to sleep with aged aunts and old grandmothers. Bacon’s grand secret of the cure of old age, couched in so many obscure and enigmatical terms, is simply this: Let young persons sleep constantly with those who are aged and infirm. And it was on this principle that the physicians of David recommended a young healthy girl to sleep with David in his old age. They well knew that the aged infirm body of the king would absorb a considerable portion of healthy energy from the young woman.

MARRIAGE OF BOAZ AND RUTH, AND BIRTH OF OBED, 13-17.

13. Boaz took Ruth — Whatever scruples a pious Hebrew might have had about marriage with a Moabitess, Boaz could have had none in this case, inasmuch as Ruth was the widow of an Israelite, and had left her native land and kindred to become a proselyte to the Hebrew faith. Compare note on Ruth 1:4.

V. 17. A name-That is, they gave her advice about his name; for otherwise they had no power or right to do so. Obed-A servant, to thee, to nourish, and comfort, and assist thee; which duty children owe to their progenitors.

Verse 17. The neighbours gave it a name] That is, they recommended a name suitable to the circumstances of the case; and the parents and grandmother adopted it.

They called his name Obed] dbw[ obed, serving, from db[ abad, he served. Why was this name given? Because he was to be the nourisher of her old age, Ruth 4:15. And so he must be by lying in her bosom, even if services in future life were wholly left out of the question. These neighbours of Naomi were skilful people. See on Ruth 4:16. Other meanings, of which I am not ignorant, have been derived from these words; those who prefer them have my consent.

He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.] And for the sake of this conclusion, to ascertain the line of David, and in the counsel of God to fix and ascertain the line of the Messiah was this instructive little book written.

Verse 17. Her neighbours gave it a name — That is, gave her advice about his name; for it did not belong to them, but to the father or mother, to name the child. They called his name Obed — That is, a servant, meaning to express their hopes that he would nourish, comfort, and assist her, duties which children owe to their progenitors. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David — For whose sake chiefly this whole book seems to have been written, that it might be certainly known from whom he was descended, the Messiah being to spring from him; which is the reason why the following genealogy is annexed for the conclusion of this book.

Ver. 17. They called his name Obed, that is serving, because of Ruth’s condition. Ancient names were generally conferred conformably to prominent circumstances attendant on the birth of a son.

17. There is a son born to Naomi — The son of Ruth was called Naomi’s, and that aged and childless widow herself rejoiced over the birth just as Rachel and Leah, who built the house of Israel, (verse 11,) rejoiced over the children borne them by Bilhah and Zilpah. their maid-servants. Genesis 30:1-13. By the birth of this child she was assured that the name of her precious dead would not be cut off from among their brethren. Verse 10. They called his name Obed — The name means, literally, one who serves; and, as the context seems to suggest, was given to the child of Ruth and Boaz because he served to gladden Naomi’s old age. From this it appears that the law of Deuteronomy 25:6, was not understood to mean that the firstborn child of the levirate marriage must be called after the very name of the dead. See note on verse 10. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David — Thus at last is brought out fully and significantly the author’s manifest object in writing this brief but deeply interesting history of Ruth. It throws a calm and peaceful light upon the ancestry of the greatest personage of Israelitish history.

Verse 18. Now these are the generations] The Targum gives a copious paraphrase on this and the following verses, I shall insert the principal parts in their proper places.

GENEALOGY OF DAVID, 18-22.

This genealogical table presents us with ten names, a round and even number; and this fact, taken in connexion with the well known love of the old Hebrews for a perfectly drawn, symmetrical family register, may at least suggest that some unimportant names have been designedly left out. This is most naturally to be supposed in a list that bridges over many hundred years. The position that every individual link in this ancestral chain, stretching back from David to Pharez, is given here, is an unwarrantable assumption, and utterly destitute of proof. We may, therefore, pass over without notice all questions of chronology which have been raised upon this genealogy. The passage appears again, with but trifling verbal differences, in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ, (Matthew 1:3-6,) so that from a lofty spiritual point of view we may look upon it as a carefully finished document, looking not to David only, but also to Messiah. It is a noticeable fact, and worthy of special mention here, that the first two genealogies of Genesis — that of Cain (Genesis 4:17-22,) and that of Adam through Seth, (Genesis 5:1-29,) — contain each precisely ten names.

18. Pharez — Son of Judah by his daughter in law Tamar. See Genesis 38:29. Thus David and Messiah trace their lineage directly up to Judah. Hezron — Mentioned in Genesis 46:12, and 1 Chronicles 2:5.

Verse 19. Hezron begat Ram] He is called Aram here by the Septuagint, and also by St. Matthew, Matthew 1:3.

19. Ram — Or Aram, as in Matthew 1:3. Amminadab — He was father in law of Aaron. Exodus 6:23.

Verse 20. Amminadab begat Nahshon] The Targum adds, “And Nahshon was chief of the house of his father in the tribe of Judah.” Nahshon begat Salmon] In the Hebrew it is hmlc Salmah, which Houbigant thinks was an error of an ancient scribe, before any final letters were acknowledged in the Hebrew alphabet: for then the word would be written ˆwmlc Salmon, which a scribe, after final letters were admitted, might mistake for hmlc Salmah, and so write it, instead of ˆwmlc Salmon, the w vau and ˆ final nun in conjunction (ונ) bearing some resemblance to h.

The Targum calls him “Salmah the Just; he was the Salmah of Beth-lehem and Netopha, whose sons abolished the watches which Jeroboam set over the highways; and their works and the works of their father were good in Netopha.”

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

20. Nahshon — Prince or chief captain of the tribe of Judah during the journeys of the wilderness, (Numbers 2:3,) and whose offering to the Lord among other tribe-princes is described at Numbers 7:12-17. Salmon — hmlc, Salmah; whilst the name in the next verse is ˆwmlc, Salmon; whence Dr. Kennicott conjectures that these are the names of two distinct persons, and that one link has been dropped out between Nahshon and Boaz, which might be thus supplied: Nahshon begat Salmah, and Salmah begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Boaz. Some names, doubtless, have been left out; but no weighty argument can be made from so slight a difference in the orthography of the names of persons.

Verse 21. And Salmon begat Boaz] The Targum goes on, “And Salmon begat Absan the judge; he is Boaz the Just, on account of whose righteousness the people of the house of Israel were redeemed from the hands of their enemies; and at whose supplication the famine departed from the land of Israel.”

And Boaz begat Obed] “Who served the Lord in this world with a perfect heart.”

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

21. Salmon begat Boaz — Matthew reads, Salmon begat Boaz of Rachab. It is not absolutely certain that this Rachab is the same as the Rahab who entertained the spies at Jericho, (Joshua 2:1; Hebrews 11. 31; James 2:25,) but such is the ancient tradition and common belief; and, if true, it is very clear that one or more names have been omitted between Salmon and Boaz, who must have lived some two hundred or more years apart. That such omissions were sometimes intentionally made, a comparison of Ezra’s genealogy, as given in Ezra 7:1-5, with the fuller table of 1 Chronicles 6:3-15, will abundantly show. The same may be seen in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ, (see notes on Matthew 1:17,) where, with a manifest effort to make the register bear the appearance of a symmetrical whole, and with noticeable respect for the sacred symbolism of numbers, he groups all the named from Abraham to Christ under three heads of fourteen generations each, though, as his own list shows, he has omitted several named, which may be supplied from the Old Testament tables.

Verse 22. And Obed begat Jesse] “Who,” says the Targum, “also is called Nachash, vjn because neither iniquity nor corruption was found in him, that he should be delivered into the hands of the angel of death, that he might take away his soul from him. And he lived many days until the counsel was remembered before the Lord, that the serpent gave to Eve the wife of Adam, that she should eat of the tree; by eating of the fruit of which they became wise, to distinguish between good and evil: and by that counsel all the inhabitants of the earth became guilty of death; and by this iniquity Jesse the Just died.” Here is no mean or indistinct reference to the doctrine of original sin: and it shows us, at least, what the very ancient rabbins thought on the subject. I should observe that these additions are taken from the London Polyglot; they are not found in that of Antwerp; but they are the same that appear in the Targum of the great Bible printed by Bomberg, at Venice, in 1547-49.

And Jesse begat David] To this no comment is added by the Targumist, as the history of this king is found in the following book. The ten persons whose genealogy is recorded in the five last verses, may be found, with a trifling change of name, in the genealogical list in Matthew 1:3-6, as forming important links in the line of the Messiah. To introduce this appears to have been the principal object of the writer, as introductory to the following books, where the history of David, the regal progenitor and type of the Messiah, is so particularly detailed. FOR the account of the birth of Pharez and his brother Zarah, the reader is requested to refer to Genesis 38:12-30, and to the notes there; and for several particulars in the genealogy itself, to the notes on Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38, where the wisdom, goodness, and providence of God, in the preservation of this line, are particularly noticed. MASORETIC NOTES ON RUTH

Number of verses in Ruth is 85.

Middle verse is Ruth 2:21.

We have already seen that Archbishop Usher places the event mentioned here in A.M. 2686, about one hundred years after the conquest of Canaan.

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

GENEALOGY OF DAVID, 18-22.

This genealogical table presents us with ten names, a round and even number; and this fact, taken in connexion with the well known love of the old Hebrews for a perfectly drawn, symmetrical family register, may at least suggest that some unimportant names have been designedly left out. This is most naturally to be supposed in a list that bridges over many hundred years. The position that every individual link in this ancestral chain, stretching back from David to Pharez, is given here, is an unwarrantable assumption, and utterly destitute of proof. We may, therefore, pass over without notice all questions of chronology which have been raised upon this genealogy. The passage appears again, with but trifling verbal differences, in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ, (Matthew 1:3-6,) so that from a lofty spiritual point of view we may look upon it as a carefully finished document, looking not to David only, but also to Messiah. It is a noticeable fact, and worthy of special mention here, that the first two genealogies of Genesis — that of Cain (Genesis 4:17-22,) and that of Adam through Seth, (Genesis 5:1-29,) — contain each precisely ten names.

18. Pharez — Son of Judah by his daughter in law Tamar. See Genesis 38:29. Thus David and Messiah trace their lineage directly up to Judah. Hezron — Mentioned in Genesis 46:12, and 1 Chronicles 2:5.