CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.—
Ruth 4:1. Then went Boaz up. Bethlehem situated on a hill, while the cornfields and threshing floor would be in the valley below [cf. on Ruth 2:4, p. 101, also p. 6.] The gate. The place of resort where business was transacted. I have seen in certain places, Joppa for example, the Kady and his Court sitting at the entrance of the gate hearing and adjudicating all sorts of causes in the audience of all that went in and out thereat (Thomson). And sat. Stone seats would be there. The attitude expressive of deliberation. Eastern people are never in a hurry at such times. The judges sat in the gates that the country people might not be compelled to enter the cities and so suffer detriment (Lange). And behold. Set forth as with a starry note (Trapp). Possibly calls attention to the fortunate coincidence or Providence of the thing. Lange thinks Boaz came early not to miss his man. He such a one. κρὐῳιε hidden one (LXX). Conveys the idea of his being kept anonymous purposely. The Hebrew words peloni almoni are derived from palah to distinguish, to point out, and alam to conceal (Gesen 53, 677), and signify a person who is pointed out, but whose name is concealed (Wordsworth). At present any anonymous donor to the synagogue funds is habitually styled “Almoni Peloni” (Picciotto). The name of the kinsman was Tob (Midrash). Impossible (Lange).
Ruth 4:2. And he took ten men. So Abraham bargained for a place of sepulchre in the field of Machpelah, in the presence of those who stood at the gate of Hebron (Genesis 23:17-18). Possibly ten were chosen because it was a perfect number. The requisite number for a local court of magistracy (Groser). In later days ten men were needed to form a worshipping assembly in the synagogue (Ibid). Of the elders of the city. Elderly persons of the city (Morison).
Ruth 4:3. And he said unto the kinsman [redeemer.] The narrator again avoids using the name, though there is little doubt it must have been known.
Naomi that is come again. The Athenians had a law, that no woman should be permitted to plead her own cause. The custom of all Eastern nations lay in the same direction. Selleth [sold] a parcel of land. Rather, hath sold (Wordsworth, Lange, Wright). Naomi had already sold her interest in the land during the terms of years that intervened between the date of sale and the year of jubilee, when the land would revert to the representatives of Elimelech; and the nearest of kin could [only] gain immediate possession by redeeming it, that is, by paying the worth of the land during the term of years which still remained to the jubilee (Wordsworth). She had mortgaged her own and Ruth’s life interest in the land (Braden). That, contrary to the opinion of the earlier commentators, a widow could do this—see Lange in loco. Probable that Elimelech had sold his interest before he went into the land of Moab (Elliot). In this case, the reversionary interest of Ruth, as the widow of Mahlon, would have to be purchased by the next of kin, as well as the life interest of Naomi (Ibid). Others think that the destitution of the widows arose, not from having lost their property, but from their inability to turn it to a profitable account. Morison views the use of the perfect here as expressing such an unalterable determination to sell the land, that it may be looked upon as already accomplished, and translates “Has resolved to sell,” So Drusius, Vatable, etc. “Offers for sale” (Luther, Coverdale). She may have put up the land for sale, for the express purpose of putting the law in motion, and compelling her kinsman to redeem it (Cox). Our brother Elimelech’s. Or kinsman Elimelech’s. The word not to be interpreted in a strict sense [cf. on Ruth 2:1 Crit. and Exeg. Notes, p. 89.]
Ruth 4:4. And I thought to advertise the—Determined to inform thee (Lange). Lit., I said I will uncover thine ear; ἀποκαλνῳω τὁ οὗς σου (LXX.), by lifting up the hair which covers it [cp. 1 Samuel 9:15; 2 Samuel 7:27] (Wordsworth). Buy it before the inhabitants. In the presence of those sitting here (LXX. Vulg. Syr. Arab). So also Lange, Wordsworth, etc. If thou wilt not redeem it. The Text. Recept. reads, “If he will not. The common reading is supported by Schmidt, Lange, Carpzov, Keil, etc., and is more natural. So fifty MSS. in Kennicott (Wordsworth). And he said, I will redeem. Shows he had the ability. Would add to his own estate to procure the property of the dead Elimelech. Supposed he would only have to pay Naomi a certain annual allowance till her death, and the inheritance would pass to him as the lawful heir (Steele and Terry.)
Ruth 4:5. Thou must buy [thou buyest] it also of Ruth. Must take the widow of Mahlon who had a claim upon the land. The children born of such a marriage would inherit the state, to the exclusion of children by an earlier wife. Would stand as the direct descendants of Mahlon, and be called by his name. The Moabitess. Here was the difficulty, and Boaz presents it thus fairly and delicately. The goel does not lay hold of the fact that the law against marriage with a Moabitess, if such existed [cf. on i:4] may have been suspended because Ruth had cast in her lot with Israel.
Ruth 4:6. I cannot. Means I will not for certain reasons [Ruth 4:4]. The Targum says he had a wife and children. Lest I mar [injure] mine own inheritance. By spending time and attention besides money upon that which would revert to the name and estate of another. This possibly only an excuse. The true reason found in his superstitions fears. Thinks he ought not to take into his house a woman marriage with whom has already been visited with the extinguishment [according to popular ideas] of a family in Israel (Lange).
Ruth 4:7. Now this was the manner in former times concerning &c. Formerly in cases of redemption and exchange (Lange). That is in every bargain this was done. Shews that considerable time must have elapsed between the events recorded and the writing of the story. An old custom has fallen into partial disuse in the meantime [cf. Intro. p. 4]. A man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbour. A man pulled off his shoe and gave it to the ‘other (Lange). In acknowledgement that he to whom the shoe was given might tread and own where he the seller had previously stood as owner. The shoe is the symbol
(1) of motion and wandering,
(2) of rest and possession (Lange). When the prodigal is reinstated, he has shoes put on his feet (Luke 15:22) (cf. also Exodus 3:5; Ephesians 6:15).
Ruth 4:8. So he drew off his shoe, i.e., the kinsman drew it off, and so surrenders all claims. The woman had the right in ordinary cases to pluck the shoe off herself and spit in the face of the kinsman—a great dishonour [cf. Deuteronomy 25:7]. This shews that the present case was looked upon as exceptional. When an Arab divorces his wife, he says of her, “She was my slipper and I cast her off,” (Thomson).
Ruth 4:9. And Boaz said. He addresses the elders in their representative character. Under the theocracy the principle of representation was early carried out (E. Price). Possibly a pause follows Ruth 4:8, during which Naomi and Ruth may have been brought upon the scene. Ye are witnesses. Settled deeds of compact in our modern sense not used or needed. Enough, in a simple primitive age, that a solemn transaction should be committed to the memory of the people (E. Price). I have bought [acquired] all that was, etc. The three dead relatives are mentioned with legal precision and particularity, although no mention is anywhere made of Orpah’s claim, which, in contradistinction to Ruth’s, is looked upon as forfeited or lapsed, if it ever existed. Of the hand of Naomi. Evidently looked upon as heir to the properly now her sons are dead. To use a modern legal phrase, she was considered as a trustee until the birth of a male child (E. Price).
Ruth 4:10. Ruth the Moabitess. Deuteronomy 23:3. refers to males, not to women (Keil, E. Price), as with Canaanitish women [Deuteronomy 7:3]. Have I purchased. Acquired (Lange). Means to obtain, to acquire, which may be done in a variety of ways. The use of the word “purchased” unfortunate (Ibid). To raise up the name, etc. A Hebraism signifying the continuance of the relation he had sustained in the genealogy of his tribe (E. Price). From Ruth 4:21 it would seem as though popular opinion were too strongly in favour of Boaz to allow the usual law to come in to operation. The gate of his place. The Chaldee reads, “the sanhedrim of his place,” introducing in later idea (E. Price).
Theme—FRIENDS IN COUNCIL
“And next the valley is the hill aloft,
And next the darke night is the glad morrow,
And also joy is next the fine of sorrow.”—Chaucer,
Then went Boaz up to the gate.
The interesting and fascinating story draws near to its proper conclusion. Ruth’s virtue has been seen “in all the gate”; now her reward and recompense are to be as plainly apparent there. Another,—a goel, a redeemer has undertaken to perform the duties which fall upon him. Note.
(1) Here is an image of the final perseverance of the saints. Continuing first, then crowned afterwards, steadfast under discipline and temptation, then to be owned of Christ, and manifested to all as His own in the day of His glory. (Revelation 3:5, etc.).
(2) Here is a picture and illustration of virtue triumphant true to all ages. After humiliation, exaltation, after the bitter, sweet, after mourning, joy. So with Joseph in Egypt, Moses, David, etc.
It is not Ruth, however, so much who claims attention for the present, as her goel intent on her behalf. We have seen Boaz “diligent in business (Ruth 2:4, Ruth 3:2), fervent in spirit” (Ruth 2:4; Ruth 2:12), courteous (Ruth 2:4), quick to perceive goodness in others (Ruth 2:11, Ruth 3:10-11), ready to encourage and commend it (Ruth 2:12, Ruth 3:10), generous and hospitable (Ruth 2:8-9; Ruth 2:14-16, Ruth 3:15), wise and circumspect, and having his own spirit under complete control, in what otherwise might have been the hour of temptation (Ruth 3:10-14), acting always as in the presence of God. And here we are to see him as possessing other qualities, which go to make up the hero, and the true man, one commanding respect not less by his moral earnestness and diligence than by his wealth and social rank. We follow him to the gate and see him among his peers, evidently received as few men in Bethlehem would be.
I. This is how business should be attended to.
(1)
Speedily. The man is in earnest, “will not rest until he has finished the thing.” Gets up early to catch his man [see Crit. and Exeg. Ruth 3:15, p. 160].
(2)
Expeditiously. Will finish it before the day is over [see on Ruth 3:18, p. 164]. All that has ever been said in praise of the diligent may be said of Boaz here.
(3)
Righteously. In the spirit of candour and fair dealing. Hence he seeks the advice of friends; “the Council at the gate.” Conceals nothing, overstates nothing, speaks apparently without bias. In few and fit words he propounds the cause and brings it to an issue (Trapp). Note. (a) That a true and right result may be obtained in this simple honourable way. Crooked courses are not always the best courses. (b) An example of the right use of arbitration which might often be followed with advantage. The justice may be administered in a rough and ready way to our Western ideas, but it is justice none the less that is sought and obtained. And the decision arrived at will be solemnly ratified as in the sight of God.
Note.—(a) That which is done with the heart is done with cheerfulness and readiness. Love lends wings to the feet, and strength to the hands, and persuasive eloquence to the tongue. So with Boaz in the chapter before us. Duty and affection alike urge him. (b) When God appoints, he prospers and gives wisdom in the direction of the affair. How much there is to be admired in the way Boaz proceeds to settle this delicate affair once and for all. And as if the Divine favour is to rest upon him at once, the man he seeks and upon whom everything depends comes by as soon as the business is fairly set afloat [On Seeming Chances, Real Providences, see Ruth 2:3, p. 95–6].
(4)
An honourable man’s dealings while perfectly frank and open are not to be deficient in wise circumspection. Boaz having to do with a wily worldling deals warily with him (Trapp). Tells him first of the land, and then of the wife that must go along with it (Ibid). The man of God is to be wise as well as harmless in his dealings with men.
II. This is how difficult affairs should be settled, delicate claims adjusted, fair rights allowed and satisfied.
(1)
Openly and publicly. That is unless scrupulous justice can be administered privately in a better way. The rights between man and man must not be left to chance or fraud. Note. (a) Greed and rapacity flourish best in secret. Naturally seek to hide their deeds. Honest men can bear and covet the light. (b) The fountains of justice are best kept pure by being constantly open to public inspection.
(2)
By the advice of wise men. We have here an old world picture of a city council. (a) Abundance of witnesses to attest the proceedings, (b) of counsellors to give advice, (c) of judges to determine difficulties. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses” every word would “be established;” while “in the multitude of counsellors” there would be “safety.” Notice again they were the choice men of the city—aged, experienced—elderly men upon whom devolved the conducting of affairs in Bethlehem. Note. Age and experience give weight to advice and decisions.
(3)
Calmly and deliberately. They sat down. Undue haste to be deprecated in conducting important affairs like these.
(4)
With care and exactitude. Business should be done in a business-like manner, not only to make provision against defects in integrity, but also to prevent difficulties arising from failures in memory, &c. Note. A Scripture precedent here for scrupulous exactness in transactions like these, transactions involving questions of property. You have the wisdom, dignity and grave deliberation, the solemn careful procedure such a case demanded.
III. This is the way the affairs of the destitute and needy especially should be attended to. All this for two poor widows! Yes, but this is the public care. “The poor ye have always with you.” It was no personal concern of these elders and yet they gave time and attention to it, and that readily. Note. Thus early in human history the claims of the weak were recognised and responded to publicly. Christ answers the question so often asked as to “Who is responsible?” in the parable of the Good Samaritan. So the Apostle, Bear ye one another’s burdens, &c.; Look not every man on his own things, &c. (Philippians 2:4).
E. Price on this: Theme—RESPECT FOR PROPERTY.
The modern war against property can never be justified by the far-seeing Laws of Moses. And, of course, Boaz would hold himself bound to observe them, as here illustrated.
1. He conforms to the letter of the enactment as for as possible.
2. He avows the fact publicly: before the elders and the people.
3. He evokes the confirmatory act of adequate witnesses.
4. He, nevertheless, is careful in stating his claims in order to enforce his full rights.
Observe then, how it was through the sanctified ‘property’ the hopes of the world were met, in the advent of the Messiah. And
(2) how the observance of righteous rules respecting this ‘property,’ restricts no man’s real liberty.
“The gates of ancient cities played many parts: they were guard-houses; they were markets, they were courts of justice; they were places for public deliberation and audience. Necessarily, therefore, they were massively built, with recessed chambers or divans in the sides, and often with chambers also above the arch. Here the inhabitants of the city were wont to assemble, either for the transaction of business or to hear and tell the news. Here the judges sat and administered justice to all comers. Here even kings came to give audience to other kings, or to their ambassadors. Some faint resemblance to these ancient gates may be found In the structures called ‘Bars,’ in London and Southampton, though these modern gates are much smaller than their ancient prototypes; and some faint reminiscence of their character as seats of judicial and royal authority in the titles Sublime Porte, or the Ottoman Porte—porte meaning gate—by which the Government of Turkey is still designated.”—Cox.
“Boaz was worthy of the confidence reposed in him. He at once seeks the nearer kinsman, and brings the matter to a decided issue, How many an hour of bitter anxiety, of suspense—a form of anguish harder to bear than the certainty of disappointment—have the unhappy to undergo, simply because those who have undertaken their cause, gratulating themselves on the benevolence of their intentions seem to think that, if they accomplish the service, the time and manner are of no importance, but that in these they may suit their own convenience. If, like Boaz, we would judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow, let us, like him, ‘not be in rest until we have finished the thing.’ ”—Macartney.
“ ‘Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!’ He knew the preference which both Naomi and Ruth had for himself; he was conscions too that he no longer regarded with indifference this beautiful daughter of Moab, who had ‘come to trust beneath Jehovah’s wings;’ nor was he unwilling to pay even more for the redemption of the inheritance than this nearest kinsman. But he ‘would not go beyond or defraud his brother,’ or in the least take advantage either of his ignorance or of Ruth’s preference. All was open and above-board. His fine sense of honour was not blunted either by covetousness or by inclination, nor would his conscience allow him, even when seeking a good and generous end, to have recourse to sharp practice. Here is that ‘clear and round dealing which is the honour of man’s nature.’ ”—Thomson.
“Aristides being judge between private persons, one of them declared that his adversary had greatly injured Aristides. ‘Relate rather, good friend,’ said he interrupting him, ‘what wrong he hath done thee, for it is thy cause not mine, that I now sit judge of.’ Being desired by Simonides, the poet, who had a cause to try before him, to stretch a point in his favour, he replied: ‘As you would not be a good poet if your lines ran contrary to the just measures and rules of your art; so neither should I be a good judge or an honest man if I decided aught in opposition to law and justice.”—Percy Anecdotes.
“There then is the court of justice. How simple! How primitive! No lawyers and expensive forms; no long rhetorical arguments; but a quiet deliberative meeting, in which the persons concerned ‘sit’ and talk over the whole affair. Perhaps many a tangled matter would soon come out straight, many a dispute be quickly settled, if at first people would submit it to some such Board of Arbitration.”—Braden.
Theme—A SHORTSIGHTED POLICY AND ITS MERITED OBLIVION
“Despite those titles, power and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonoured and unsung.”—Scott.
I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance.
The kinsman’s conduct here stands out as a contrast for all time with that of Boaz. Are we wrong in seeing in him an example of the mean equivocating worldling? When it is a question of the land (Ruth 4:4) he will redeem, but when it is a question of the law which binds him to succour the widow as well as take possession of the land, he hesitates. He stands as a representative of that large class who say “I cannot” to every appeal. Note (a) Something will always come in to hinder from the path of duty if we will allow it. “A lion in every street.” No man ever equivocated, or prevaricated in such a moment but the devil helped him to a sufficient and plausible excuse. (b) We may miss or misuse the one opportunity in life. This man did so undoubtedly. May be profitable to look,
I. At some of the probable reasons for his action.
(1)
A prejudice, and belief in a common superstition. Ruth a Moabitess. In Israel marriage with the daughter of an alien race was held to be “unlucky” even when it was lawful (Cox). No doubt, the popular voice affirmed that Mahlon and Chilion were cut off before their time because they married strange women (Ibid.) How superstitious fear rides some men against the plainest dictates of reason! It needs a strong mind, a truly noble spirit to shake off the control of popular opinion, to say nothing of popular superstition. No matter that Ruth’s virtues are known “in all the gate.” That shadowy, impalpable, intangible something which fear conjures up in the hearts of so many comes in probably to decide the question.
(2)
Selfish regard for his own inheritance. Every way the thing must have seemed undesirable to such a man, indeed to most men. Ruth was poor, so was Naomi, and he must take charge of both—a double burden. If an heir should be born, he would be called by the name of Mahlon,—if more children, the inheritance would have to be divided among many. A shrewd, selfish man would be sure to say “No” under such circumstances, and the unnamed kinsman seems to have been such. (a) Took no care (b) made no enquiries about the widows until forced to do so thus publicly. A type of those who fear trouble and so say nothing. Let wrong continue, fraud, want, &c., multiply and go on their way as if they were neither responsible to God or man. Note on the other hand a danger from excess either way. Some will have to say at last “They made me keeper of the king’s vineyard, but mine own vineyard have I not kept.” No man is asked to neglect his own affairs, to their serious detriment.
(3)
Want of a chivalrous and heroic spirit. This the secret of all else. The duty was clear, but the man was living in that state when duty is only felt as a burden. Of course there were difficulties, but they were just of that kind that a true unselfish man, would be delighted to overcome. Possibly the man was a just man according to his lights (Cox). May have honestly doubted whether he was bound to marry Mahlon’s Moabitish widow. Probably one of those cautious, common-place souls, who fail under severe tests, and in critical moments, when the law seems doubtful, and prudence can only discuss the question from a selfish standpoint, and who fail just for want of that larger vision, which looks at the spirit, not at the letter. So Orpah failed where Ruth triumphed [cf. on Ruth 1:14 p. 53; also on p. 60]. So Lot was led to the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, while Abraham remained with God to receive the promises (Genesis 13:10-17). So the kinsman as contrasting with Boaz. So the “child of sense” always as contrasting with the child of the spirit. Note! The reluctance and inability of the mere natural man to undertake and effect the work of doing and suffering (Wordsworth).
Look
II. At some of the certain results of his action.
His name is studiously avoided in the Scriptures, simply called “such a one,” almost an epithet of contempt. Note. There is an over-cautious, calculating selfishness which misses its mark by over-shrewdness.
This man sought fame and the remembrance a large inheritance would give, and this is what he found—feared that his “name” would be cut off from Israel, and his inheritance marred, since his children would be called by the name of another, and so he denied himself and let another go down to posterity as redeemer. Curious he is unnamed in the very book which recounts his story. We know him simply as the “anonymous kinsman” (Cox). His miserable, narrow policy brought its own defeat, while Boaz, who had no such selfish desire or ambition, lives in the pages of inspiration as the ancestor of Christ Himself. Note. A principle in this. Impossible that men should live both for the present and future, in many senses. The immediate policy often seems best when it is a selfish one, a narrow, degraded one. But wait! True, men exist from day to day by care and industry, but they live to posterity by virtue of unselfish and heroic deeds. There is a losing the life which is a saving it. Live to yourself and you perish with the present, but live for others, and the memory will be fresh and fragrant when you have passed away. Men speedily forget everything but goodness.
“Only the actions of the just
Smell sweet and blossom in the dust.”—Shirley.
IMPROVEMENT.
(1) The desire for fame natural to the human breast. Nothing so wrong in it after all. The desire to leave an inheritance behind not uncommon—not to be condemned of itself. The whole question is as to how the accomplishment of these desires is pursued, whether (a) To the forgetfulness of other claims and duties as here; (b) To the neglect of others’ rights. Then be sure it is a short-sighted policy, seen through by men, condemned of God? Best to do our duty, and leave the question of fame and heritage, as everything else, with Him!
(2) “If souls be made of earthly mould
Let them love gold;
If born on high,
Let them unto their kindred fly.”—Herbert.
(3) What is a hard duty to the worldling may show itself a delightful pleasure to the good man—to the man of God.
(4) Lest I mar mine inheritance.
(1) How easy to do this.
(2) In how many ways it may be done—ways of which we have no conception at the time. Striving to save it we may lose it, as this man did.
(3) How many do this? (a) Ruin health, (b) lose reputation, (c) make the estate bankrupt, (d) cast faith aside, etc.
“How very ready are we to acknowledge duties which are likely to benefit ourselves.”—Macartney.
“This person readily owned himself Elimelechs near relation and next kinsman, when the remnant of his property was to be got, and then he had plenty of money for the redemption: but when other duties were presented to him—when he was reminded that there were widows to be cherished, as well as fields to be grasped—then he discovered the danger to his own inheritance.”—Macartney.
“This makes many shy of the great redemption, they are not willing to espouse religion. Heaven they could be glad of, but holiness they can dispense with; it will not agree with the lust they have already espoused and therefore let who will purchase Heaven at that rate they cannot.”—M. Henry.
“When a man finds that he is living from conscience, and not from trust and love and peace; when he finds that he has not spontaneity nor generous impulses any more, he feels that he is going down to the lower level; and he is asking every day, “What is it my duty to do?” He does not get any higher than this. It is a sign of great retrogression. It is a sign that a man has lost the liberty of a son of God. It is a sign that he is no longer a friend, but a servant. He feels like doing his duty and that is all.”—Beecher.
“Go out with me to-day into the woods, where the white oak is, and where the beech is. Their leaves died last November, but they all hang on the trees yet. The trees have not strength enough to slough them. They always make me think of a great many people. Sap does not run in them any more, but their duties hang on them like dead leaves all over. They would not like to drop their duties; they are not quite in that state yet; but those duties are dry, sapless, and enforced”—Ibid.
“Ho, such a one!” The name of the kinsman who feared to mar his own inheritance is blotted out, whilst the name of him who was willing to marry the stranger and the outcast, has been transmitted to honorable remembrance. In like manner the name of the beggar has been left on perpetual record, whilst the name of the rich man at whose gate he lay has utterly perished.”—Elliot.
“The Muse of History does not trouble herself with useless names, but lets them drop into a congenial oblivion, and if compelled to record some facts about them, uses such a slightly contemptuous epithet—“Such a one.” A poor immortality that almost worse than utter neglect.”—Braden.
“The Pyramids of Egypt, selfishly reared it is thought, to perpetuate the fame of the mighty monarchs that built them, refuse to whisper their ambitious names; but the poor widow, who, without thinking of fame, silently dropped her two mites into the temple treasury, and the weeping penitent who, in the prodigality of her great love anointed the feet of her Savour with her precious spikenard, shall, wherever the gospel is preached to the end of time, have these acts spoken of for a memorial of them. In the highest sense, every true act of goodness is immortal.”—Thomson.
“If kinsmen dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside [i.e. outside the family circle], unto a stranger; her husband’s kinsman shall go unto her, and take her to wife and perform the duty of a husband’s kinsman unto her. And it shall be that the first-born whom she beareth shall stand upon the name [i.e. take the place, or arise in the place] of the kinsman who is dead, that his name be not wiped out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his kinsman’s wife, then let his kinsman’s wife go up to the gate, unto the elders, and say, ‘my husband’s kinsman refuseth to raise up unto his kinsman a name in Israel; he will not do the duty of my husband’s kinsman.’ Than the elders of the city shall call him, and speak unto him; and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; then shall his kinsman’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe, from off his feet, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, ‘so let it be done unto the man who will not build up his kinsman’s house.’ And his name shall be called in Israel, House of the shoe taken off.”— Deuteronomy 25:5-10.
Theme—THE KINSMAN REDEEMER
“The man most man, with tenderest human hands
Works best for man, … as God in Nazareth.—Mrs. Browning.
Ye are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, etc.
Charity should begin at home, with that which is nearest. So redemption, deliverance must work along the same lines, from the same centre. In every way the claims of the nearest are first. How far Boaz recognised the force of this law may be seen in his respect for the rights of the nearest kinsman [cf. on Ruth 3:12-13; Ruth 4:3-4]. That failing only, the welcomed claim falls upon himself [cf. also Jeremiah 32:7-8, etc.].
The same law is recognised and followed in the world-wide schemes of redemption. God is our Father, what nearer relationship can there be than this? Christ the elder brother. And in this link between the human and the Divine is the reason for the incarnation at Bethlehem, the agony at Gethsemane, the sacrifice at Calvary. He was redeeming his own. The sin was in the flesh, and the payment must be in the flesh. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, etc. (cf. Hebrews 2:14-16). More emphatically still is this law of kinship asserting itself on our behalf laid down in the epistle to the Galatians. The “children” are represented as seen “in bondage under the elements of the world,” Then when the “fulness of the time” had come, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Galatians 4:3-5). The whole belongs to the family economy, the family arrangements for bringing back and buying back its own. Hence it is the spirit of Anti-Christ to say that Christ has not come in the flesh—a blow at the very foundation truth of the gospel—a denial of the one and only hope of humanity.
Notice then with regard to the office of this Kinsman Redeemer.
I. It was not an arbitrary institution. It was one resting upon principles inherent to man, that help comes or should come from those nighest to us.
1. It was reasonable. Founded upon the reason of things, and working in harmony with all that essentially belongs to the idea of human society. The family estate remained unimpaired because of it for any considerable length of time, and was kept from passing to others. The Hebrews would not lose a single family, or branch of the family if they could help it—a wise and statesman like arrangement. [cf. also Ruth 2:20-21; p. 140.]
So in the wider sphere. Sin has brought disorder, alienation, loss of heritage, into the midst of the great family of God. But are there no remedial processes that spring out of the family life and bond? To deny this possibility is to deny every hope of humanity, and can belong to a creed born only of despair. No doubt as to the Scriptural answer to the question. They remembered that God was their Rock and the high God their Redeemer (Psalms 78:35.) Christ hath redeemed, etc. (Galatians 3:13). Ye are bought with a price (1 Corinthians 7:23). Cf. also 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 Timothy 2:6; Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45, etc., etc. And, however, we explain the utterance of Job (Job 19:25) it has this great hope of humanity underlying it. I know that my goel is not cut off, but liveth ever to make intercession for me; he will not forsake me, but will stand at the latter day upon the earth, having redeemed for me my forfeited possession, etc. (Macarlney’s Trans.)
2. It was necessitated. That is if the family tree be kept with all its branches flourishing. There must be some way of providing for lost and forfeited inheritances. So as between God and man, the scheme of redemption springs out of the necessities of the case, and is but the outcome of the character of God Himself, and His love for His alienated children.
3. It was legally and technically right. An express provision of the law. Law indeed in its best sense is only the endeavour to fix these great principles of human nature and give them expression. Note.
(1) Law is not enough for the law might and must fail at times as it did here. Either it absolved this kinsman, as Lange thinks, or it was too weak to carry out its own demands of him in the face of a popular superstition [see last outline].
(2) Love alone can truly undertake to redeem. (a) Looks through the letter into the spirit. The spirit of the law entirely on Ruth’s side even if the letter were against her [see Crit. and Exeg. notes]. (b) Rises superior to all thought of fear. (c) Works promptly and willingly as here. One passage alone will show how completely the gospel scheme of redemption is in harmony with this, God so loved, etc. (John 3:16).
4. It was Divinely sanctioned [cf. Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Leviticus 25:47-54].
II. It was not a mere passing custom, but one involving and foreshadowing glorious truths. Truly and in the deepest sense of the word a type—a figure of still better things to come.
See how significant the work of a goel is to those who believe in the redemption by Jesus Christ. His first duty was to purchase those who were otherwise lost. So with ourselves. We were “sold under sin,” “led captive of the devil.” But He came, gave Himself a ransom, bought us with His own blood, &c. [1 Peter 1:18-19; Hebrews 9:12-15; Ephesians 1:7, &c.]. The second duty was to redeem the forfeited inheritance. The creature and the creation groan and are in travail, but they are redeemed and shall be delivered [Romans 8:20]. Man was made heir and lord over all (Genesis 1:26-31; Psalms 8:6). He is now only living as a discrowned monarch. But we see Jesus, the Apostle says (Hebrews 2:5-9), and in Him we have the hope of the final redemption of all things. The third duty was to protect and take to Himself. The concept of the Almighty as the Goel or Redeemer of Israel is a very common one in the Scriptures [Isaiah 49:7; Isaiah 53:3; Isaiah 54:8, &c.]. So with Christ and the Church [see next outline]. Note. Christ is the Goel or Redeemer whose shoe is never drawn off (Wordsworth). His work of Redemption is for eternity (Ibid).
IMPROVEMENT.
(1) How completely love is the fulfilling of the law!
(2) And even where the law fails love triumphs.
(3) We have here redemption (a) proposed, (b) accomplished, (c) applied.
‘And if the name of Redeemer be dear to us, conveying, as it does merely the idea of a benevol at person, who, by purchase, delivers a poor bondsman from servitude, how much dearer will it be when we find it setting forth to us the brotherhood into which the High and Lofty One, that inhabiteth eternity, enters with his best creatures, and the watchful, patients care which he exercises over them.”—Macartney.
“Our ancestors by corrupting the spirit and blood of humanity brought upon the Son of Man his sore travail. The degeneracy of the race is His humiliation. What ever reproach He may suffer, He will be numbered with transgressors, that through his straightness he may breack their bonds, and restore the integrity of their nature. He must redeem men ‘because He is the Son of Man.’ … The great secret of Christ’s power over men lies in the fact that in Him humanity is Divine. On the ground of his supreme humanity, nothing is more natural than that He should say ‘I will draw all men unto me’.… His drawing power was always in principle the same, ‘I drew them with cords of a man’ (Hosea 11:4,).… In His descent into our earthly human condition He becomes himself the first example of his own law. “Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee which is not thy brother.’ (Deuteronomy 17:15,) Does not the Highest Authority for this law vanish if we deny the humanity of the Son of God?”—Pulsford.
“The kinship with the redeemed in short, is an invariable law and condition of redemption. And this law holds of the Divine Goel. ‘Forasmuch as we were partakers of flesh and blood Christ also himself took part in the same.’ ‘None but a man could be the Goel of men. No alien, no stranger, could interpose for us; only ‘the Man who is near of kin to us, our nearest kinsman’ Hence the Son of God became the Son of Man.”—Cox.
“Will the vexed accursed humanity
As worn by Him, begin to be
A blessed, yea, a sacred thing
For love and awe and ministering?”
Mrs. Browning.
“Under this manifold and most appropriate image we have presented to us the supreme facts in the moral history of the world, the truths which have most profoundly entered into our spiritual experiences. No poor Hebrew who had been compelled to part with the fields he had inherited from his fathers suffered a loss comparable with ours, when, by sin, we had lost the righteousness, the right relation to God and man, in which we were originally placed by the Father of our spirits No Hebrew sold, or selling himself, for a slave to a hard and alien master ever endured a bondage half so bitter and shameful as that into which we fell when, sold under sin, we sank into bondage to our lusts. No deliverance wrought by a Hebrew Goel is worthy to be compared with that by which Christ has made it possible for us to subdue our evil passions and lusts and to possess ourselves of a righteousness more stable, and more perfect.”—Cox.
“Kinsmen.” Lit. Goels. The distinction between this and other words used to designate one near of kin, is that whereas the latter denotes only relationship, this implies certain defined rights and obligations. The rights of the Goel who was the nearest living blood relation, consisted
(1) in the redemption of the inheritance, and when, he had sold himself into slavery, of the person of him who was near of kin to him,
(2) in his claim to restitution or satisfaction for wrong done to such an one, when he left no son behind him, and
(3) in the avenging the blood of such an one in the case of murder if intentional, and even if accidental, provided the manslayer were found without the precincts of the cities of refuge.”—Elliot.
Theme—THE BRIDEGROOM REDEEMER
“Love he sent to bind
The disunited tendrils of that vine
Which bears the wine of life, the human heart.”—Shelley.
“But now possession crowns endeavour,
I took her in my heart, to grow
And fill the hollow place for ever.”—Jean Ingelow.
Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess have I purchased … to be my wife.
Ruth’s recompense now is to be plainly and openly manifested. As with the wise men who sought they knew not what, she, too, had seen the star in the East., and followed it she knew not where. Faith had sustained her. With sublime, heroic self denial, leaving all behind, she had said to Naomi, “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” She had come to find neglect and penury in Israel, to be a lonely gleaner in the hot sun, known and pointed at as the Moabitish woman who came back with Naomi. Her virtue evident, and not unknown in the gate; whatever claims she had upon kinsmen had been ignored, because she was one of an “accursed race.” That which should have come to her unsought, she has not merely to demand, but to seek for and plead for (Ruth 3:9) “Spread thy wing over thine handmaid for thou art a near kinsman.” And when her noble-hearted protector had demanded public justice for her the claim had been repudiated. But the path of the just shines none the less towards the perfect day because of obstacles like these. There was one generous spirited man in Israel at least who had marked her virtue, her self-respect, shining conspicuously, not only in the harvest field, but even during the difficult and delicate interview in the threshing floor. And now he shelters her under the spreading wings of his own fair name and social position, rejected as she is, takes her to himself before all. Did ever fiction conceive a more fitting climax to so sweet a story? “Marriage is honourable” everywhere and in all ages, where more so than here?
I. Marriage is honorable because of principles to be seen and illustrated here.—
(1) The relationship openly acknowledged. A most important thing this, which, if refused, can only be refused from mean and sinister motives. Clandestine marriages a fruitful source of misery. Why should there be any reason for not acknowledging the relationship entered upon before all? Boaz was not ashamed of Ruth, although she was a Moabitess. Not ashamed even of the peculiar motives which prompted his conduct. Nor will any true man be. Note. If there be cause to be ashamed of the moment’s confession, why should he seek a lifelong companionship? Love may begin in secret, but ends in being confessed openly.
(2). Publicly recognised. “We are witnesses,” they said, (a) Enforces fidelity, (b) gives legal protection, (c) secures permanence to the relationship, (d) hands down a good name to the children, and preserves them from the finger of scorn. Note. He that tampers with the institution of marriage touches the ark of God (Thomson) cf. Genesis 2:18; Genesis 2:21-25. [See also on “Marriages in Moab,” Ruth 1:4, pp. 26–28.]
(3) Solemnly ratified. (a) With prayer. The Lord make, etc. What is religion intended for if it is not to come in at times like this? The secularisation of marriage means the separation of human life from divine things at its most solemn moments. A sorry match that has no prayer breathed over it, a disastrous beginning likely to have a worse end (Braden). Rather our religion should come in the more, to touch life and humanity everywhere, on all sides. Note. The prayers here are not official prayers, but those of the people, the elders and inhabitants of the city. (b) With lavish professions of good will, neighbourly expressions of esteem, desires for prosperity, etc. Ruth, indeed, taken with the approval and acclamation of the people—a truly Eastern picture. Note. The sanction of Christianity must ever rest upon kindred scenes. Christ’s first miracle was wrought at a marriage-feast.
II. Marriage is honorable because of what it is used to illustrate and shadow forth. The inspired Word has put honour by making it to express, represent, and illustrate some of the kindred relationships between God and man. (a) Between Israel and Jehovah: “Thy Maker is thy husband” (Isaiah 54:5); (b) between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:25; Revelation 21:2). Note Relationships below are often only the faint shadow of grander relationships above. What else can we expect when man himself was made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). So Moses was commanded to make the tabernacle according to the pattern God showed him in the Mount.
In the union of Ruth the Moabitess with Boaz, of Bethlehem, the future birth-place of Christ, we have a foreshadowing of the mystical union and marriage between Christ and the Gentile world, and of the junction of Jew and Gentile in one body in Him (Wordsworth). Certainly the incident very beautifully illustrates Christ’s dealings with those who were once alien and reprobate.
(1) He takes them to Himself, just as Ruth was taken in her lowly estate and poverty a Moabitess.
(2) He covers them with His wing [cf. on the Overshadowing Wing, page 119, etc.].
(3) He clothes them with His righteousness. Ventured the marring of his own inheritance to do this, for though He was rich yet for our sakes He became poor (M. Henry).
(4) He redeems their inheritance, and presents them to a more lasting heritage.
IMPROVEMENT.—How strikingly the story here exemplifies the words of Christ, “Verily, I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, etc. (Mark 10:29-30).
“All Bethlehem seemed moved to a devout and gladsome sympathy, with an event which had such a history behind it. The little town kept holiday; and it was meet that it should do so. Far from us be that ungenial and narrow spirit, which would frown upon cheerfulness at such an hour. It is one of the marks of the Divinity of our religion that it touches our humanity on all sides. But farther still be that irreligious spirit which would degrade the marriage rite into a mere business transaction, and form a connection between two human beings for better or for worse, a union of interest and affections, of hopes and fears, so that ‘they twain become one flesh,’ and only the grave has power to break the bond with less of deliberation and solemnity than men usually display in the sale or the purchase of an animal. Surely the formation of the marriage bond pre-eminently ought to be ‘sanctified by the word of God and by prayer.’ ”—Thomson.
“Love is the best investment of all, save conscience and the sentiment of duty. These are the treasure-houses of life, the great market wherein the shares are always rising. The step can be easily taken, but never retraced. It brings with it, in all cases, additional sorrows as well as joys. The freedom of the man and woman is thereby in a certain sense limited and curtailed. Then each has to think not alone of self, but, also, and as much, if not more of another. Each has to act, not with a view to personal comfort and ease, but with the loving purpose of contributing all possible satisfaction and joy to another’s life.”—Braden.
“And may our love be ne’er a trailing robe,
To clog our feet along our heavenward way,
But a warm garment for our daily use.
Marriage is but for earth, but holy love
Will live in Heaven. Let us ever strive,
To grow more like to God—for God is love.”
—Mrs. Browning