A verse by verse commentary on RUTH chapter 4 dealing with the marriage of Ruth and Boaz and the birth of Obed who became the father of Jesse who became the father of DAVID.

1. RUTH 4 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Boaz Marries Ruth
1 Meanwhile Boaz went up to the town gate and
sat down there just as the guardian-redeemer[a]
he had mentioned came along. Boaz said,
“Come over here, my friend, and sit down.” So
he went over and sat down.
BARNES, "The gate is the place of concourse, of business, and of justice in
Oriental cities (see Jdg_19:15 note; Gen_34:20; Deu_16:18).
Ho, such a one! - Indicating that the name of the kinsman was either unknown
or purposely concealed 1Sa_21:2; 2Ki_6:8.
CLARKE, "Then went Boaz up to the gate - We have often had occasion to
remark that the gate or entrance to any city or town was the place where the court of
justice was ordinarily kept. For an account of the officers in such places, see the note
on Deu_16:18.
Ho, such a one! - sit down here - This familiar mode of compellation is first
used here. The original is ‫אלמני‬ ‫פלני‬ ‫פה‬ ‫שבה‬ shebah poh, peloni almoni! “Hark ye, Mr.
Such-a-one of such a place! come and sit down here.” This is used when the person of
the individual is known, and his name and residence unknown. ‫אלמני‬ almoni comes
from ‫אלם‬ alam, to be silent or hidden, hence the Septuagint render it by κρυφε thou
unknown person: ‫פלני‬ peloni comes from ‫פלה‬ palah, to sever or distinguish; you of
such a particular place. Modes of compellation of this kind are common in all
languages.
GILL, "Then went Boaz up to the gate,.... In the middle of the day, as Josephus
(d) says, to the gate of the city, where people were continually passing and repassing
to and from the country, and where he was most likely to meet with the person he
1

2. wanted to see and converse with, and where courts of judicature were usually held,
and where it was proper to call one to determine the affair he had in hand; so the
Targum,"and Boaz went up to the gate of the house of judgment of the sanhedrim:''
and set him down there; waiting for the person or persons passing by, with whom
be chose to speak:
and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; the kinsman that
was nearer than he, of whom he had spoke to Ruth, that if he would not redeem her,
he would; a "behold" is prefixed to this, to observe the providence of God that
ordered it so, that he should come that way just at the time Boaz was sitting there,
and waiting for him; who perhaps was going into his field to look after his threshers
and winnowers, as Boaz had been:
unto whom he said, ho, such an one; calling him by his name, though it is not
expressed; which the writer of this history might not know, or, if he did, thought it
not material to give it, some have been of opinion that it is purposely concealed, as a
just retaliation to him, that as he chose not to raise up seed to his kinsman, to
perpetuate his name, so his own is buried in oblivion; though it might be done in his
favour, that his name might not be known, and lie under disgrace, for refusing to act
the part he ought according to the law to have done; hence the plucking off the shoe,
and spitting in his face, were done to such an one by way of contempt and reproach.
The words are "peloni almoni", words used by the Hebrews of persons and places,
whose names they either could not, or did not choose to mention, which two words
are contracted into "palmoni" in Dan_8:13. The name of this man was "Tob" or
"Tobias", according to some Jewish writers; see Gill on Rth_3:13, to him Boaz said,
turn aside, and sit down here; and he turned aside, and sat down; instead
of going right forward, as he intended, about his business, he turned on one side as
he was desired, and sat down by Boaz.
HENRY 1-2, "Here, 1. Boaz calls a court immediately. It is probable he was himself
one of the elders (or aldermen) of the city; for he was a mighty man of wealth.
Perhaps he was father of the city, and sat chief; for he seems here to have gone up to
the gate as one having authority, and not as a common person; like Job, Job_29:7,
etc. We cannot suppose him less than a magistrate in his city who was grandson to
Nahshon, prince of Judah; and his lying at the end of a heap of corn in the threshing-
floor the night before was not at all inconsistent, in those days of plainness, with the
honour of his sitting judge in the gate. But why was Boaz so hasty, why so fond of the
match? Ruth was not rich, but lived upon alms; not honourable, but a poor stranger.
She was never said to be beautiful; if ever she had been so, we may suppose that
weeping, and travelling, and gleaning, had withered her lilies and roses. But that
which made Boaz in love with her, and solicitous to expedite the affair, was that all
her neighbours agreed she was a virtuous woman. This set her price with him far
above rubies (Pro_31:10); and therefore he thinks, if by marrying her he might do
her a real kindness, he should also do himself a very great kindness. He will therefore
bring it to a conclusion immediately. It was not court-day, but he got ten men of the
elders of the city to meet him in the town-hall over the gate, where public business
used to be transacted, Rth_4:2. So many, it is probable, by the custom of the city,
2

3. made a full court. Boaz, though a judge, would not be judge in his own cause, but
desired the concurrence of other elders. Honest intentions dread not a public
cognizance. 2. He summons his rival to come and hear the matter that was to be
proposed to him (Rth_4:1): “Ho, such a one, sit down here.” He called him by his
name, no doubt, but the divine historian thought not fit to record it, for, because he
refused to raise up the name of the dead, he deserved not to have his name preserved
to future ages in this history. Providence favoured Boaz in ordering it so that this
kinsman should come by thus opportunely, just when the matter was ready to be
proposed to him. Great affairs are sometimes much furthered by small
circumstances, which facilitate and expedite them.
JAMISON, "Rth_4:1-5. Boaz calls into judgment the next kinsman.
Then went Boaz up to the gate of the city — a roofed building, unenclosed by
walls; the place where, in ancient times, and in many Eastern towns still, all business
transactions are made, and where, therefore, the kinsman was most likely to be
found. No preliminaries were necessary in summoning one before the public
assemblage; no writings and no delay were required. In a short conversation the
matter was stated and arranged - probably in the morning as people went out, or at
noon when they returned from the field.
PETT, "Introduction
Boaz Negotiates For Ruth And Make Her His Bride (Ruth 4:1-11 a).
In order to further his cause with Ruth Boaz made his way to the city gate. The
gate of any city, in which there would often be an enclosed space between an
inner and outer gate, and a gate house, together with rooms/alcoves for
conducting official matters, was the place where much business took place and
where the elders of the city met to make decisions and act as judges. Markets
would be held there. It was a centre of activity. Knowing that the near kinsman
he sought would almost certainly pass through there he sat down and waited,
and sure enough the man whom he sought approached. Sitting him down, and
calling for the elders as witnesses, Boaz then began to put to him the situation.
The land of Elimelech was for sale and he as the nearest kinsman had the first
right to buy it, but what he had to recognise was the fact that whoever bought it
would be obliged by custom to take Ruth the Moabitess as wife in order to beget
a son for the dead husband. Learning of this the man declined and granted Boaz
permission to take his place as near kinsman, at which Boaz announced to the
elders that he would be purchasing Elimelech’s land, and marrying Ruth in
order to bear sons on behalf of the deceased Elimelech and his deceased sons in
order to perpetuate their names.
Analysis.
3

4. aNow Boaz went up to the gate, and sat himself down there, and, behold, the
near kinsman of whom Boaz had spoken came by, to whom he said, “Ho, such a
one! Turn aside, sit down here.” And he turned aside, and sat down. And he took
ten men of the elders of the city, and said, “You sit down here.” And they sat
down (Ruth 4:1-2).
bAnd he said to the near kinsman, “Naomi, who is come again out of the country
of Moab, is selling the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech’s” (Ruth
4:3).
c“And I thought to disclose it to you, saying, “Buy it before those who sit here,
and before the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you
will not redeem it, then tell me, so that I may know, for there is none to redeem it
besides you, and I am after you” (Ruth 4:4 a).
dAnd he said, “I will redeem it” (Ruth 4:4 b).
eThen Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you
must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name
of the dead on his inheritance” (Ruth 4:5).
dAnd the near kinsman said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar my own
inheritance. You take my right of redemption on you, for I cannot redeem it”
(Ruth 4:6).
cNow this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and
concerning exchanging. To confirm all things, a man drew off his shoe, and gave
it to his neighbour, and this was the manner of attestation in Israel. So the near
kinsman said to Boaz, “Buy it for yourself.” And he drew off his shoe (Ruth
4:7-8).
bAnd Boaz said to the elders, and to all the people, “You are witnesses this day,
that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and
Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi. Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of
Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead on his
inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren,
and from the gate of his place. You are witnesses this day (Ruth 4:9-10).
aAnd all the people who were in the gate, and the elders, said, “We are
witnesses.” (Ruth 4:11 a).
Note that in ‘a’ Boaz approaches the Gate and calls the elder as witnesses, and in
the parallel the people who were in the Gate, and the elders, declare that they are
witnesses. In ‘b’ Boaz explains that Naomi is selling the family land which was
Elimelech’s, and in the parallel he states that he is buying all that was
Elimelech’s, both land and woman. In ‘c’ Boaz calls on the near kinsman to buy
4

5. the land, and in the parallel the near kinsman tells him to buy the land. In ‘d’ the
near kinsman says he will redeem the land, and in the parallel he says that he
cannot redeem the land. Centrally in ‘e’ Ruth the Moabitess goes with the land.
Although not outwardly apparent, this was in fact the central point at issue with
the writer.
Boaz Marries Ruth And They Produce A Son Whom They Name Obed, A Son
From Whom Will Be Descended The Great King David (Ruth 4:11-17).
The story now builds up to its conclusion. The passage commences with the pious
expression, no doubt by a leading elder, that Boaz’s house should be like the
house of Perez, as a result of the ‘seed of YHWH’ being implanted in him by
Ruth, and ends by describing the genealogy of Perez which finally results in the
birth of David. It is this parallel which explains why the genealogy begins with
Perez rather than Judah.
Analysis.
a“YHWH make the woman who is come into your house like Rachel and like
Leah, which two did build the house of Israel, and do you worthily in
Ephrathah, and be famous in Beth-lehem, and let your house be like the house of
Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, of the seed which YHWH will give you of
this young woman” (Ruth 4:11-12).
bSo Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he went in unto her, and
YHWH gave her conception, and she bore a son (Ruth 4:13).
cAnd the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be YHWH, who has not left you this
day without a near kinsman, and let his name be famous in Israel” (Ruth 4:14).
d“And he will be to you a restorer of life, and a nourisher of your old age, for
your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has
borne him” (Ruth 4:15).
cAnd Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse to it
(Ruth 4:16).
bAnd the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, “There is a son born to
Naomi,” and they called his name Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of
David (Ruth 4:17).
aNow these are the generations of Perez: Perez begat Hezron, and Hezron begat
Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, and
Nahshon begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed, and
Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David (Ruth 4:18-22).
Note that in ‘a’ Boaz’s house is to like the house of Perez, and in the parallel the
5

6. house of Perez is described. In ‘b’ Ruth bears a son, and in the parallel the son is
seen as coming from Naomi. In ‘c’ Naomi is no longer left alone because the new
born son will be her near kinsman, and in the parallel Naomi lays the son in her
bosom and becomes nurse to it. Central in ‘d’ is what the son will mean to Naomi
as the restorer of life and the nourisher of her old age.
Verse 1
‘Now Boaz went up to the gate, and sat himself down there, and, behold, the near
kinsman of whom Boaz had spoken came by, to whom he said, “Ho, such a one!
Turn aside, sit down here.” And he turned aside, and sat down.’
Boaz knew that his first task was to track down and talk to the one who was a
nearer kinsman than himself. So in order to do this he went to the gate of the
city. It was, of course, morning (Ruth 3:15), and he was clearly aware that the
man must shortly come through there, possibly on his way to his fields. The gate
of a city was the hub of the city’s activities. It was there that the elders met to
deliberate, and act as judges where it was necessary, and it was there that
important business activities took place, especially those which involved
witnesses. The gateway would include an enclosed between two gates, with the
gatekeeper’s house on one side, and other rooms on the other side. There would
also be areas for storage. The city itself would be a warren of houses crowded in
on each other in unplanned fashion. It was thus only at the gate, together with
the city square in front of the gate if there was one, that space could be found for
such activities.
Sure enough he soon spotted the nearer kinsman passing through, and called on
him to turn aside and sit near him. The nearer kinsman would recognise that
Boaz had something official to say, or ask, and he therefore had no hesitation in
taking a seat, intrigued as to what Boaz may want. The writer deliberately leaves
out he name of the nearest kinsman, possibly because he is to be seen as
disgraced for having refused to carry out his kinsman’s duties (compare
Deuteronomy 25:9-10).
COFFMAN, "THE MARRIAGE OF RUTH AND BOAZ AND BIRTH OF
OBED
Such is the importance of this chapter that we shall examine it one verse at a
time.
"Now Boaz went up to the gate, and sat him down there; and, behold, the near
kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn
aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down."
"Boaz went up to the gate." Morris thought that the threshing-floor was at a
lower altitude than the city;[1] and it might have been. However, if there was a
6

7. hill of higher elevation than the city, that would have been a better place to catch
the breeze for the winnowing. To us, therefore, it appears that Boaz' going "up
to the gate" is a reference to the high authority invested in the elders and
magistrates who assembled at the gate in ancient cities. The words "go up to the
gate" were used in the same sense that Israel always referred to "going up" to
Jerusalem. The city gate, in those times, was the place where the city's business
was conducted; it was the equivalent of the modern city hall. The purpose of
Boaz' appearance there was to fulfill his promise to Ruth, which he certainly did,
promptly and effectively.
"Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down." These are the words with which Boaz
greeted that near kinsmen as he came along, probably on the way to his field. We
may be sure that Boaz addressed him by name, but the author of the Book of
Ruth was either ignorant of his name or simply did not wish to mention it, which
is the more likely. Moffatt rendered the expression. "Ho, you"! And, as we might
say to a close acquaintance, "Hi, fellow!
ELLICOTT, "(1) Went up.—Inasmuch as the town stood on a hill: so in Ruth
3:3, Ruth is bidden to go down to the threshing-floor.
The kinsman.—The Goel. (See Ruth 3:12).
Turn aside.—The form of the imperative is such as to give a hortatory turn, pray
turn aside and sit down.
Such a one.—Heb.,p’loni almoni. This phrase is used like the English so-and-so,
such-and-such, of names which it is thought either unnecessary or undesirable to
give. The derivation is probably from palah, to mark out, to separate, to
distinguish, and alam, to hide, giving the twofold notion of one who is indicated,
though in a certain sense concealed. The phrase is used of places, 1 Samuel 21:2,
2 Kings 6:8; see also Daniel 8:13. Why the name is not recorded here does not
appear; possibly it was not known to the writer, or it may have been thought
unworthy of recording, since he neglected his plain duty in refusing to raise up
seed to the dead. We know nothing of this unnamed person save the fact of the
offering of the redemption set before him, and his refusal of it, an offer which
involved the glory of being the ancestor of the Christ who was to be born in the
far-off ages.
TRAPP, "Ruth 4:1 Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and,
behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such
a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
Ver. 1. Then went Boaz up to the gate.] Which was the place of judicature among
the Jews; as for other reasons, so to put all that entered into the city in mind of
their duty, whilst they were imminded, that
7

8. “ Hic locus odit, amat, punit, conservat, honorat,
Nequitiam, pacem, crimina, iura, bonos. ”
And sat him down there.] As a judge, and a principal person; for he took place.
The Hebrews make him the same with Ibsan, as was forenoted.
And, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by.] Not without a guiding
hand of divine providence: hence it is set forth with a behold, as with a starry
note.
Unto whom he said, Ho, such a one!] Heus tu: ( ω δεινα). Boaz called him by his
name, doubtless, for he also was a man of quality, and sat next to Boaz above the
other ten elders or senators; but the Spirit of God nameth him not, haply because
he would not continue the name of his deceased kinsman upon his inheritance,
but being totus in se, like the snail, that is still in his house, he loved land better
than the law of his God, desiring the one, but not caring to obey the other.
HAWKER, "Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and,
behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such
a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down. (2) And he
took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat
down.
It appears to have been the custom in Israel to settle all points of law at the gates
of the city: perhaps, that all going by might attend if they pleased. It was
therefore an open court. Hence the Psalmist describes the happiness of the man
that had his quiver full of bows, in a plentiful progeny. And he saith, such shall
not be ashamed, when speaking with the enemies in the gate. Psalms 127:5. To
this spot Boaz came attended by the 'elders, and called the other kinsman, which
had a prior claim in the mortgaged inheritance of Elimelech's family. There is a
great beauty in the expression, Ho! such an one! turn aside. The gospel call is,
Ho! every one. But when the Holy Ghost makes that call personal, like the young
man of the prophet's to Jehu, it is delightful indeed. See Isaiah 55:1; 2 Kings 9:5.
CONSTABLE, "A. The nearer kinsman's decision 4:1-6
The gate of cities like Bethlehem was the place where people transacted official
business (cf. Genesis 19:1; 2 Samuel 15:2-6; 1 Kings 22:10; Amos 5:10; Amos
5:12; Amos 5:15).
"In ancient cities the 'gate' was a short passageway through the thick city wall
which provided the town an entrance and exit. A series of small alcoves lined the
passage, and the whole gate area served as both bazaar and courthouse. There
8

9. the ancients gathered to buy and sell, to settle legal matters, and to gossip. Hence,
'gate' here represented the city as a whole (the whole town), not a specific legal
body like a 'town council.'" [Note: Hubbard, p. 216.]
The writer did not preserve the name of the nearer kinsman (Ruth 4:1; cf. 1
Samuel 21:2; 2 Kings 6:8). He wrote that Boaz called him "such a one" (AV,
better than "friend," NASB, NIV Heb. peloni almoni). Probably God did not
record the man's name in the text as a kind of judgment on him for refusing to
perpetuate the name of his deceased relative by redeeming Ruth (cf.
Deuteronomy 25:10). [Note: Bush, p. 197.] The reason the writer withheld his
name was not that it is simply unimportant, because he could have made no
reference at all to it.
". . . he who was so anxious for the preservation of his own inheritance, is now
not even known by name." [Note: J. P. Lange, ed., A Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures, vol. 2: Numbers-Ruth, "The Book of Ruth," by Paulus Cassel, p. 46.]
The Mosaic Law did not specify the need for 10 elders to decide such cases (Ruth
4:2). Perhaps this number was customary. In any case, Boaz chose his jury so the
nearer kinsman's decision would stand. [Note: Bush, p. 199.] The presence of 10
elders would also have put some social pressure on the kinsman to do what was
right.
"In a time when few written records were kept, attestation by a number of
witnesses made transactions legally secure." [Note: Huey, p. 544.]
The text does not reveal the precise relations of the nearer kinsman and Boaz to
Ruth. This was unimportant to the writer. One important point was that both
men possessed legal qualifications to redeem Ruth and to raise up seed in the
name of her dead husband. Another was that the nearer kinsman had first rights
of acceptance or refusal, and Boaz had second rights.
Redeeming the property of a relative in financial distress and marrying a near
relative's widow to perpetuate his name and family in Israel were separate
procedures. Leviticus 25:25-28 legislated the redemption of property, and
Deuteronomy 25:5-10 regulated levirate marriage. The actions did not always go
together. [Note: Jack Sasson, "The Issue of Ge'ullah in Ruth," Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 5 (1978):60-63.] In this case, Boaz wanted to do both
things. [Note: Donald A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old
9

10. Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth, pp. 209-53.]
Boaz raised the issue of redeeming Naomi's land first (Ruth 4:3-4). For the first
time in the story we learn that Naomi controlled some property. In spite of this,
she and Ruth were poor, or else Ruth would not have had to glean. Naomi may
have wanted to sell her property to raise cash for living expenses, though the
Law specified that it had to be sold within her husband's tribe. We can only
speculate about why Naomi was poor even though she controlled property.
Perhaps she had annexed ownership of this land while she was in Moab and
therefore derived no income from it. [Note: Hubbard, p. 54.] Perhaps someone
took control of the property when Naomi's family moved to Moab. [Note:
Howard, p. 138.] She may have had to mortgage her late husband's property to
survive. [Note: Merrill, "Ruth," p. 200.] She may have been acting as guardian
of her husband and sons' property rights and was now ready to dispose of their
land. Or the issue may have been acquiring the right of holding and using her
property without wasting its profits until the next Jubilee Year. [Note: Block, p.
710.]
We should not interpret Boaz's reference to Elimelech as the "brother" of the
nearer kinsman and himself (Ruth 4:3) to mean they were necessarily blood
brothers. The expression in Hebrew, as well as in English, is a broad one
meaning "friend." Elimelech may have been their blood brother, but the
expression does not require that. Since these three men were relatives, the
possibility is strong that the field Naomi wanted to part with bordered on the
lands of the other two men. [Note: Morris, p. 300.]
The nearer kinsman desired Naomi's land and was willing to buy it from her
(Ruth 4:4). Why the nearer kinsman had to marry Ruth if he decided to buy
Naomi's property is not clear in the text. The Mosaic Law did not command that
levirate marriage should accompany the redemption of family property
whenever possible. Perhaps the following explanation provides the solution to
this problem.
When the nearer kinsman chose to purchase Naomi's land he identified himself
as the nearest kinsman. Since he was the nearest kinsman he was certainly under
a moral, if not a legal, obligation to marry the wife of his deceased relative if he
could (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). [Note: Block, p. 715.] His refusal to do so would
have brought disgrace on him (Deuteronomy 25:7-10). Huey believed that none
10

11. of the disgrace of this regulation was present in Boaz's dealings with the nearer
kinsman. [Note: Huey, p. 544. See also Bush's excursus on the nature of the
transaction that Boaz proposed in Ruth 4:3-5 a, pp. 211-15.] The Mosaic Law
required levirate marriage only when the male was legally able to marry his
brother's widow. If he already had a wife, he could not do so. The law did not
require him to become a polygamist. [Note: See J. R. Thompson, Deuteronomy,
p. 251. Bush, pp. 221-23, provided an excursus on levirate marriage in the Old
Testament.]
". . . it had become a traditional custom to require the Levirate marriage of the
redeemer of the portion of the deceased relative, not only that the landed
possession might be permanently retained in the family, but also that the family
itself might not be suffered to die out." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, p. 482. See
further their helpful discussion of the transfer of property on pp. 488-90.]
"Ruth was the only one who could raise up a son to inherit the estate of
Elimelech. Therefore, she was not only an important link in the chain of
genealogy, but she sustained certain rights over the property which Boaz was
discussing with the other kinsman. To redeem the property therefore would
involve the goel in the affairs of the foreigner from Moab. The one who
redeemed the estate would have to redeem Ruth also, as she and her affairs were
legally bound up in the field of Elimelech. This was the legal technicality upon
which Boaz was depending for his victory." [Note: McGee, p. 109. See also
Block, pp. 716-17; and Reed, p. 426.]
The desire to raise up a name for the deceased was one of the major motivations
in Boaz's action. Boaz wanted to honor Mahlon by perpetuating his name in
Israel. [Note: See Oswald Loretz, "The Theme of the Ruth Story," Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 22 (1960):391-99.] The writer did not overtly condemn the
nearer kinsman for doing what he did, though by withholding his name he put
him in a bad light. Rather the writer focused on Boaz as acting with
extraordinary loyal love.
The fact that the genealogy at the end of the book (Ruth 4:21) connects Boaz and
Ruth's son with Boaz rather than Mahlon does not mean he failed to perpetuate
Mahlon's line and reputation. The son would have been eligible to inherit from
both Mahlon and Boaz. The Israelites regarded him as the son of both men.
Naturally he was Boaz's son, but legally he was Boaz and Mahlon's son as well as
Elimelech's descendant.
11

12. "The same person could be reckoned genealogically either in different family
lines or at different places in the same line. In this case, Obed was probably
reckoned to Boaz (and, ultimately, to Judah) for political reasons; at the same
time, for theological reasons (i.e., to show the providence behind David's rise), he
was also considered to be Elimelech's son." [Note: Hubbard, pp. 62-63.]
Faced with the double financial burden of buying the field and marrying and
providing for Ruth (and Naomi?) the nearer kinsman declined Boaz's offer
(Ruth 4:6). Note that he said he could not rather than would not redeem it. The
reason he gave was that he would jeopardize his own inheritance. His inheritance
evidently refers to the inheritance he would pass on to his descendants, not an
inheritance he might receive from an ancestor. He felt he would have little left to
pass on to his own heirs if he bought Naomi's property and married Ruth.
Apparently he was not a wealthy man like Boaz (Ruth 2:1).
Hubbard concluded that the obligation to marry Ruth as well as purchase the
land must have been a legal one either known throughout Israel or unique to
Bethlehem. [Note: Ibid., p. 58.] He regarded the unnamed kinsman redeemer's
change of mind "the book's thorniest legal problem." [Note: Ibid., p. 56.]
". . . the surprise element must be something other than the obligation to marry a
deceased's widow since the kinsman probably expected that. While certainty is
impossible, a careful reading of Ruth 4:3-5 suggests that the new information
was the sudden, unexpected substitution of Ruth for Naomi as Elimelech's
widow. The progression of thought would be as follows. Cleverly, Boaz steered
the conversation away from Ruth to focus on legal matters concerning Elimelech
and Naomi in Ruth 4:3-4. If the thought of a marriageable widow associated with
the land crossed the kinsman's mind at all, he probably assumed her to be
Naomi. Advanced in age beyond child-bearing, she posed no threat to his
prospective profitable purchase. The alluring proposition offered him double
returns for a small investment. He would not only increase the size of his own
holdings but also enhance his civic reputation as one loyal to family. Future
profits from the land would offset any expense incurred in caring for Naomi;
indeed, given her awful suffering, one might not expect her to live much longer
anyway. In any case, there was no risk of losing his investment to the claims of a
future heir. A required marriage to Ruth (Ruth 4:5), however, was a very
different matter. Much younger, she might bear several sons, the first eligible to
claim Elimelech's property as his heir, others perhaps to share in the kinsman's
own inheritance (Ruth 4:6). That possibility made the investment all too risky
and perhaps even flustered him ... The profit to be turned would be his only until
the child acquired Elimelech's land, probably on attaining adulthood. Further,
12

13. the care of a younger, obviously robust wife (cf. Ruth 2:17-18) meant
considerably more expense than anticipated. Hence, he willingly waived his
redemption rights in favor of Boaz (Ruth 4:6-8)." [Note: Ibid., p. 61. Other
writers who held essentially the same view include E. W. Davies, "Ruth 4:5 and
the Duties of the go'el," Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983):233-34; Campbell, p. 159;
E. Robertson, "The Plot of the Book of Ruth," Bulletin of the John Rylands
Library 32 (1950):221; and Howard, p. 138.]
TODAY IN THE WORD
Ruth 4:1-22
Every great story has a great ending, and Ruth’s story has one of the best. The
writer doesn’t reveal the “punch line” until the last few verses, where we read
that God blessed the romance and marriage of Ruth and Boaz by placing them in
the line of the Messiah. Their son Obed was the grandfather of David. But to
reach this point, one more dramatic scene was necessary. Boaz had to find out
whether his other kinsman was willing to give up his right to assume
responsibility for the property of Ruth’s late husband and his right to marry her.
At a solemn meeting in the town gate, where such business was usually
conducted, the other relative passed the right of redemption on to Boaz. Now it
was time for wedding bells. The elders of the city pronounced a blessing on Boaz
and Ruth. From this anointed union, Obed was born. Naomi was overjoyed, and
may have sensed something special about her new grandson. Although David
was still two generations away, God’s favor was on this family. Because the
writer of Ruth took the time to record a brief genealogy of this portion of the
godly line, let’s take a look at it. What we discover is the grace of God at work
again, using all kinds of people in various situations to accomplish His will. We
need to begin with the last part of the blessing the elders gave to Boaz. “May
your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah” (Ru 4:12).
We have already met Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah (see the July 11
study). Perez was one of the sons born to Tamar after her affair with Judah. God
did not overlook Judah’s sin, but he did bless the family line. Ruth 4:21 says
Salmon was Boaz’s father. Matthew 1:5, in the genealogy of Jesus, reveals that
Salmon’s wife, and Boaz’s mother, was Rahab. She was the Canaanite prostitute
who hid the Israelite spies in Jericho (Joshua 2:1ff).
APPLY THE WORD We can’t get away from the reality of God’s grace this
month. The fact is that the story of the Savior’s line is saturated with examples of
God’s grace. (Today in the Word)
13

14. Ruth 4:1-22
TODAY IN THE WORD One popular dramatic technique for creating a sense of
romantic tension involves placing two characters in a social or religious system of
rules that prohibit them from being together. You can undoubtedly see it
employed by more than a few television shows and movies available for viewing
on this day that is considered a celebration of romance. By defying the
oppressive system that threatens to keep the two apart, the love intensifies as the
rules are shattered.
By that standard, Ruth and Boaz's love story is a bit ho-hum. Ruth and Boaz
each followed the rules of the culture explicitly. They offended no one. They
deceived no one. They broke no social codes. Theirs was a nice story, and despite
the lack of scandal, it's possibly the most enthralling love story in the Bible.
Today's passage begins with Boaz doing due diligence in extending the
responsibilities and opportunities of kinsman-redeemer to the nearest eligible
relative. Boaz loved Ruth and wanted to marry her as kinsman-redeemer. But
rather than hide the matter, he dealt with it immediately and directly. Boaz
presented the kinsman-redeemer, unnamed in the story, with the option of
purchasing Naomi's land and acquiring Ruth's hand in marriage, and the man
balked at the prospect of including Ruth in the acquisition.
With that, Boaz had the right to pursue marriage to Ruth. Boaz retained his
integrity and his allegiance to God. Had the couple skirted the rules and put
their own interests ahead of their responsibility to honor God, they would have
cheapened their love. Instead, they preserved it with honor and glory to God.
Boaz and Ruth's love for each other affected generations in both directions—
Naomi received honor beyond measure with a new grandson and a restoration of
family. The generations to come received a king in David, and the world was
given the King of Kings in his descendant, Jesus Christ. In those days when
everyone did as they saw fit (Ruth 1:1; Jdg. 21:25), at least one family loved and
obeyed faithfully.
14

15. TODAY ALONG THE WAY Not everything done “in the name of love” is
automatically justifiable, even on Valentine's Day. If you want to show
meaningful love to someone today, do so within God's guidelines. You could
show love to a superior in the form of respect and compliant service. You could
show love to coworkers by refraining from inappropriate flirtation. You could
love someone who is suffering by praying for them and writing a note of
encouragement. It might not be the stuff greeting cards are made of, but
obedience honors God!
Ruth 4:9-10 Boaz Claims Ruth- Redemption
During the American Revolution, the British Crown offered General Joseph
Reed a bribe. He replied at an August 11, 1778, meeting of the Continental
Congress by saying,
"I am not worth purchasing, but such as I am, the King of Great Britain is not
rich enough to do it."
Boaz was rich enough to take Ruth as his wife. As a close relative of Naomi,
Ruth's mother-in-law, Boaz paid the price out of duty, but apparently he also
loved Ruth. The Old Testament redeemer had to be a near relative, be willing,
and be able to pay the price. Although love for the redeemed was not a
requirement, it sometimes motivated the redeemer. More important, God
Himself redeemed Israel because He loved the people.
Roman law added an obligation to the rules of redemption: The redeemed had to
repay the ransom price. Redeemed people were in debt to their redeemer until
they cleared the liability. Like Joseph Reed, we were not worthy of being
purchased, but God loved us so deeply that He bought us with His Son's life. And
we can only repay the Redeemer by offering our own lives in return. (Our Daily
Bread, Copyright RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted by permission.
All rights reserved)
Ruth 4:10 Ruth have I purchased to be my wife.
15

16. So this exquisite idyll, which began with three deaths and famine, ends with
marriage rejoicings. Shall not all God’s idylls end thus? Shall it be left to the
dream of the novelist only to make happy for ever after? God has eternity at his
disposal, as well as time. Only trust Him; “thy darkest night shall end in
brightest day.”
It is impossible not to read between these lines and see the foreshadowing of
another marriage, when the purchase of the Church shall issue in her everlasting
union with the Son, in the presence of God the Father. Let us, however, apply
these words to ourselves as individuals.
The Lord Jesus has purchased us to be his own, not with corruptible things, as
silver and gold, but with his precious blood.
He has also won back our patrimony; this earth is his; and shall be yet rid of all
intruding evil, to shine as the brightest jewel in his crown.
He has received the shoe, the symbol of dominion and authority. He is not only
our lover, but our Lord.
He waits to take us to Himself, in a love that shall not cease, and compared to
which all the love we have ever known is as moonlight compared with sunshine.
(Meyer, F. B. Our Daily Homily)
Ruth 4:1-22
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and
Jesse the father of King David. - Matthew 1:5-6
TODAY IN THE WORD
On their fiftieth wedding anniversary in 1992, Thomas and Ann Johnson
recalled how they met and married. “I'd had my eye on Ann for about a year but
I was nervous to ask her out. When I heard I'd be shipped out to the war, I
found Ann in the library and just asked her to marry me! Turns out she liked
me, we got married a week later, and here we are after fifty happy years!”
16

17. Boaz would have understood; once he found out that Ruth was willing to marry
him, he wasted no time. As in all good stories, an obstacle emerged—another
man who was actually a closer relative had the first opportunity to buy the
land . . . and to marry Ruth. The dramatic tension builds in verses 4-6: now that
Boaz and Ruth want to be together, will another relative stand in the way?
To understand the extent to which Boaz modeled faithfulness it's helpful to note
that no one was obligated to take the role of kinsman-redeemer. In Leviticus 25,
the provision is simply that a relative may do this. In Ruth, the nearest relative
preferred not to be inconvenienced, but Boaz accepted the responsibility.
As we conclude our study, let's look at the larger picture. First, Naomi had come
full circle. Through the selfless acts of loyal love by Ruth and Boaz, she was
restored to fullness. Second, even in the dark days of Judges, God was working
to provide Israel with what they needed—godly leadership. The child born to
Ruth and Boaz became the grandfather of King David, a man after God's own
heart.
Finally, God's salvation extends beyond the borders of Israel. Ruth, a Moabite, is
part of the royal line. And a descendant of David reigns forever, Jesus Christ. He
is the ultimate Kinsman-Redeemer. He paid the price to redeem us from sin, and
God has exalted Him above every principality and power (see Phil. 2:6-11). He is
our Lord, our gracious Judge and Deliverer.
TODAY ALONG THE WAY
Praise is an appropriate way to end our study this month. To begin, you could
focus on praising Jesus as Judge, Deliverer, and Kinsman-Redeemer. You could
praise God for His acts of faithfulness, provision, and mercy. You could do this
in an extended prayer time, through singing, or even in focusing your thoughts
and heart on what God has revealed about Himself in our study this month. As
Psalm 92:1 says, “It is good to praise the Lord.”
BI,1-4, "Then went Boaz up to the gate.
Friends in council
I. this is how business should be attended to.
1. Speedily.
17

18. 2. Expeditiously.
3. Righteously.
II. this is how difficult affairs should be settled, delicate claims adjusted, fair rights
allowed and satisfied.
1. Openly and publicly.
2. By the advice of wise men.
3. Calmly and deliberately.
4. With care and exactitude.
III. this is the way the affairs of the destitute and needy especially should be
attended to. (W. Baxendale.)
Judicious methods of attaining our ends
1. The most probable means ought judiciously to be used in order to the
accomplishing of our proposed ends. Thus Boaz, being restless for obtaining his
promised end (Rth_3:18), uses the likeliest means to obtain his end. Many a man
loses a good end for want of right means tending to the end.
2. A marvellous providence doth attend God’s servants that do wait upon God in
the way of obedience. The guiding hand of God doth make many a happy hit in
the occurrences of His people. Thus the comely contexture of various providences
are very marvellous to those that make observation of them. (C. Ness.)
Redemption proposed
How completely this proposal illustrates the proposition of our great Redeemer in
our behalf. Thus publicly He agreed, in the presence of the angels of God, to make
Himself an offering for sin. Thus legally would He fulfil all righteousness for man,
and be made under the law, that He might redeem those who were under the law
from the bondage of its condemnation. Thus perfectly and completely would He buy
back all that man had lost, and unite unto Himself the nature which had sinned and
fallen. But angels were a created nature, far nearer in relation to man. Might not the
proposition be made to them? Would they not redeem the lost? Ah, willing they
might be—we doubt not they were. But able they could never be. The redemption of a
soul they must let alone for ever. The Son of God remained alone. His own arm must
bring salvation. His righteousness must sustain Him. He was content to do the will of
God, and His law was in His heart. Here was to be complete redemption. He would
take the shoe, like Boaz, and acknowledge the obligation, and perform the duties of
which it was the token. He would stand in the sinner’s place. He would make Himself
an offering in his stead. All this exercise and work of redeeming love was in the
fulness of His own grace, without any connection of yours with it. Yes; just as the
proposal of Boaz was without Ruth’s presence or knowledge—made in her absence,
while she was with her mother at home, and not to be made known to her until it was
completed—so was this great proposal of the Son of God to be your Kinsman, and to
fulfil for you all the kinsman’s obligations, made without your counsel and
accomplished without your help. This is the unsearchable riches of grace. We call it
sovereign grace. It ruled over every obstacle. It met every difficulty. We call it free
grace. It is extended to sinful man with no conditions. It invites him, and offers its
bounties to him without any qualifications whatever. It announces a redemption all
18

19. complete, and begs him to receive and to enjoy it. Thus God has chosen to redeem.
And thus He has chosen us to be the subjects of His redemption. (S. H. Tyng, D. D.)
Fair dealing and good principle in Boaz
There are two things especially worthy of notice in this language of Boaz.
1. The spirit of candour and fair dealing by which it is distinguished. He knew the
preference which both Naomi and Ruth had for himself; he was conscious too
that he no longer regarded with indifference this beautiful daughter of Moab. 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.” He was one of those men who, at the close of a
transaction, could have borne to be cross-examined regarding his part in it by an
enemy.
2. Then remark how much the following of principle simplifies a man’s course.
Boaz had his own wishes as to the way in which the transaction should terminate;
and suppose him to have stooped, as thousands in his circumstances would have
done, to crooked courses and carnal concealments, in order to make the matter
end according to his wishes, what must have been his perplexity and anxiety, not
to speak of his self-contempt and self-accusation! These are what Lord Bacon has
called “the winding and crooked goings of the serpent, which goeth basely upon
the belly and not upon the feet.” But in following the course of simple duty, and
making his inclinations and preferences wait on the disposal of God, he at once
retained peace of conscience, self-respect, and a good name.” His eye was single,
and therefore his whole body was full of light.”(A. Thomson, D. D.)
2 Boaz took ten of the elders of the town and
said, “Sit here,” and they did so.
BARNES, "Every city was governed by elders (see Deu_19:12; Jdg_8:14). For the
number “ten,” compare Exo_18:25. Probably the presence of, at least, ten elders was
necessary to make a lawful public assembly, as among modern Jews ten (a minyon)
are necessary to constitute a synagogue.
CLARKE, "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
19

20. 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!
GILL, "And he took ten men of the elders of the city,.... Who were such, not
merely in age but in office, who were the heads of thousands, fifties, and tens; ten of
whom were a quorum to do business in judiciary affairs, to determine such matters
as Boaz had propose, as to whom the right of redemption of a brother and kinsman's
widow, and her estate, belonged, and who were the proper witnesses of the refusal of
the one to do it, and of the other's doing it and from hence the Jews (e) gather, that
the blessing of the bride and bridegroom at their marriage is not to be done by less
than ten persons:
and said, sit down here, and they sat down; and so made a full court.
JAMISON, "he took ten men of the elders of the city — as witnesses. In
ordinary circumstances, two or three were sufficient to attest a bargain; but in cases
of importance, such as matrimony, divorce, conveyancing of property, it was the
Jewish practice to have ten (1Ki_21:8).
PULPIT, "And Boaz went up, to the gate, and sat there. He "went up," for the
city stood, as it still stands, on a ridge (see on Ruth 1:1; Ruth 3:6). "And sat
there," on one of the stones, or stone benches, that were set for the
accommodation of the townsfolk. The gateway in the East often corresponded, as
a place of meeting, to the forum, or the market-place, in the West. Boaz had
reason to believe that his kinsman would be either passing out to his fields, or
passing in from his threshing-floor, through the one gate of the city. And lo, the
kinsman of whom Boaz had spoken was passing; and he said, Ho, such a one I
turn hither and sit here. And he turned and sat down. Boaz called his kinsman
by his name; but the writer does not name him, either because he could not, or
20

21. because he would not. The phrase "such a one," or "so and so," is a purely
idiomatic English equivalent for the purely idiomatic Hebrew phrase ‫י‬ִ‫נ‬ֹ‫מ‬ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫א‬ ‫י‬ִ‫˄נ‬ ְ‫.פ‬
A literal translation is impossible. The Latin N.N. corresponds.
COFFMAN, ""And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, sit ye
down here. And they sat down."
"And he took ten men." The fact that those thus bidden promptly obeyed Boaz is
an indication of his power and influence in the city, due no doubt to his age,
wealth, and reputation in Bethlehem. There may not be anything very special
about the number 10, although it was understood to be a perfect number, and
was the minimum number (quorum) of resident Jews in a city during later times
that was required for the erection of a synagogue. It might also have been the
usual number required to witness any important transaction.
COKE, "Ruth 4:2. Ten men— This number of witnesses, it seems, was necessary
for the ratification of marriages, divorces, and the conveyance of right and
property. See More Nevoch. pars 3: cap. 49: and Bertram de Rep. Jud. cap. 9:
Boaz, in representing the distress to which Naomi, the sister of their brother, 1:e.
their common relation, found herself reduced after her return from Moab, tells
the kinsman, that, in order to supply her present necessities, she designed to sell
the parcel of land which belonged to Elimelech; and that she had a right to do so,
in such a state of necessity, is supposed by the best writers on this subject. See
Selden de Success. in Bonis, cap. 15: p. 52.
TRAPP, "Ruth 4:2 And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye
down here. And they sat down.
Ver. 2. And he said, Sit ye down here.] Elders they were called for their gravity
and authority. Ten, haply, to immind them of the Ten Commandments, the rule
of their sovereignty. Sit they must, to teach them to be of a sedate and
considerate spirit, in hearing and determining controversies.
3 Then he said to the guardian-redeemer,
“Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is
selling the piece of land that belonged to our
relative Elimelek.
21

22. BARNES, "According to the law Lev_25:25-28, if any Israelite, through poverty,
would sell his possession, the next of kin (the ‫גאל‬ gā'al) had a right to redeem it by
paying the value of the number of years remaining until the jubilee (see the marginal
reference). This right Boaz advertises the ‫גאל‬ gā'al of, so as to give him the option
which the law secured to him of redeeming “our brother Elimelech’s” land, i. e. our
kinsman’s, according to the common use of the term brother, for near relation (see
Gen_13:8; Gen_24:27; Lev_25:25; Num_27:4; Jdg_9:1).
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "And he said unto the kinsman,.... That is, Boaz said to the kinsman he
called to, and who sat down by him before the ten elders that were present:
Naomi, that is come again out of the land of Moab, selleth a parcel of
land; meaning, that she was determined upon it, and was about to do it, and would
do it quickly, and he had it in commission to propose it to a purchaser:
which was our brother Elimelech's; not in a strict sense, but being akin to the
kinsman and himself, and having been a neighbour of them all, and an inhabitant of
the place, he is called their brother; though some Jewish writers (f) say, that he was
in a strict sense a brother of Boaz and this kinsman, and that Tob, Elimelech, and
Boaz, were brethren, and so Tob was reckoned the nearest kinsman, and had the first
right to redeem, because he was the elder brother but this does not seem likely; See
Gill on Rth_3:13.
HENRY 3-8, "He proposes to the other kinsman the redemption of Naomi's land,
which, it is probable, had been mortgaged for money to buy bread with when the
famine was in the land (Rth_4:3): “Naomi has a parcel of land to sell, namely, the
equity of the redemption of it out of the hands of the mortgagee, which she is willing
to part with;” or, as some think, it was her jointure for her life, and, wanting money,
for a small matter she would sell her interest to the heir at law, who was fittest to be
the purchaser. This he gives the kinsman legal notice of (Rth_4:4), that he might
have the refusal of it. Whoever had it must pay for it, and Boaz might have said, “My
money is as good as my kinsman's; if I have a mind to it, why may not I buy it
privately, since I had the first proffer of it, and say nothing to my kinsman?” No,
Boaz, though fond enough of the purchase, would not do so mean a thing as to take a
bargain over another man's head that was nearer a-kin to it; and we are taught by his
example to be not only just and honest, but fair and honourable, in all our dealings,
and to do nothing which we are unwilling should see the light, but be above-board. 4.
The kinsman seemed forward to redeem the land till he was told that, if he did that,
he must marry the widow, and then he flew off. He liked the land well enough, and
22

23. probably caught at that the more greedily because he hoped that the poor widow
being under a necessity of selling he have so much the better bargain: “I will redeem
it” (said he) “with all my heart,” thinking it would be a fine addition to his estate,
Rth_4:4. But Boaz told him there was a young widow in the case, and, if he have the
land, he must take her with it, Terra transit cum onere - The estate passes with this
incumbrance; either the divine law or the usage of the country would oblige him to
it, or Naomi insisted upon it that she would not sell the land but upon this condition,
Rth_4:5. Some think this does not relate to the law of marrying the brother's widow
(for that seems to oblige only the children of the same father, Deu_25:5, unless by
custom it was afterwards made to extend to the next of kin), but to the law of
redemption of inheritances (Lev_25:24, Lev_25:25), for it is a Goel, a redeemer, that
is here enquired for; and if so it was not by the law, but by Naomi's own resolution,
that the purchaser was to marry the widow. However it was, this kinsman, when he
heard the conditions of the bargain, refused it (Rth_4:6): “I cannot redeem it for
myself. I will not meddle with it upon these terms, lest I mar my own inheritance.”
The land, he thought, would be an improvement of his inheritance, but not the land
with the woman; that would mar it. Perhaps he thought it would be a disparagement
to him to marry such a poor widow that had come from a strange country, and
almost lived upon alms. He fancied it would be a blemish to his family, it would mar
his blood, and disgrace his posterity. Her eminent virtues were not sufficient in his
eye to counterbalance this. The Chaldee paraphrase makes his reason for this refusal
to be that he had another wife, and, if he should take Ruth, it might occasion strife
and contention in his family, which would mar the comfort of his inheritance. Or he
thought she might bring him a great many children, and they would all expect shares
out of his estate, which would scatter it into too many hands, so that the family would
make the less figure. This makes many shy of the great redemption: they are not
willing to espouse religion. They have heard well of it, and have nothing to say
against it; they will give it their good word, but at the same time they will give their
good word with it; they are willing to part with it, and cannot be bound to it, for fear
of marring their own inheritance in this world. Heaven they could be glad of, but
holiness they can dispense with; it will not agree with the lusts they have already
espoused, and therefore, let who will purchase heaven at that rate, they cannot. 5.
The right of redemption is fairly resigned to Boaz. If this nameless kinsman lost a
good bargain, a good estate, and a good wife too, he may thank himself for not
considering it better, and Boaz will thank him for making his way clear to that which
he valued and desired above any thing. In those ancient times it was not the usage to
pass estates by writings, as afterwards (Jer_32:10, etc.), but by some sign or
ceremony, as with us by livery and seisin, as we commonly call it, that is, the delivery
of seisin, seisin of a house by giving the key, of land by giving turf and a twig. The
ceremony here used was, he that surrendered plucked off his shoe (the Chaldee says
it was the glove of his right hand) and gave it to him to whom he made the surrender,
intimating thereby that, whatever right he had to tread or go upon the land, he
conveyed and transferred it, upon a valuable consideration, to the purchaser: this
was a testimony in Israel, Rth_4:7. And it was done in this case, Rth_4:8. If this
kinsman had been bound by the law to marry Ruth, and his refusal had been a
contempt of that law, Ruth must have plucked off his shoe and spit in his face, Deu_
25:9. But, though his relation should in some measure oblige him to the duty, yet the
distance of his relation might serve to excuse him from the penalty, or Ruth might
very well dispense with it, since his refusal was all she desired from him. But bishop
Patrick, and the best interpreters, think this had no relation to that law, and that the
drawing off of the shoe was not any disgrace as there, but a confirmation of the
surrender, and an evidence that it was not fraudulently nor surreptitiously obtained.
Note, Fair and open dealing in all matters of contract and commerce is what all those
23

24. must make conscience of that would approve themselves Israelites indeed, without
guile. How much more honourably and honestly does Boaz come by this purchase
than if he had secretly undermined his kinsman, and privately struck up a bargain
with Naomi, unknown to him. Honesty will be found the best policy.
COFFMAN, ""And he said unto the near kinsman, Naomi that is come out of
the country of Moab, selleth the parcel of land, which was our brother
Elimelech's.
"Naomi selleth ... the land." This is the first intimation that Naomi had any land,
and it indicates that there had been far more extensive contact between Boaz,
Naomi, and Ruth than had been mentioned thus far in the narrative. We do not
know how Naomi came to possess this land, but the probability is that she was
acting as an agent for her deceased sons in whom the land title was probably
vested. Matthew Henry supposed that Elimelech had been compelled to
mortgage the parcel during the famine that drove the family to Moab.[2] In that
event, the land would have reverted to Elimelech's heirs in the year of Jubilee.
Thus, what Naomi was selling really amounted to the use of the land for that
unspecified number of years.
"Our brother Elimelech's." The term `brother' is used here in the sense of
`brother Israelite,' as frequently in the Bible.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Naomi selleth . . .—Rather, the portion of land, which
belonged to our brother Elimelech. has Naomi sold. The present tense of the
English Version seems to suggest that the sale is taking place at this particular
time, but the meaning clearly is that Naomi, as the representative of the dead
Elimelech had, so far as it was possible for an Israelite to part with a family
estate, sold the land to obtain in some sort the means of living. In the year of
Jubilee, the property would return to the family, on which it was, so to speak,
settled, but Boaz proposes to the Goel that he should redeem the property at
once. We might perhaps compare this to the owner of a freehold buying from a
leaseholder under him the residue of his lease, so that he may occupy his own
estate.
PULPIT, "And he said to the kinsman, Naomi, who has returned from the land
of Moab, has resolved to sell the portion of land which belonged to our brother
Elimelech. Boaz, it is evident, had talked over with Ruth the entire details of
Naomi's plans, and could thus speak authoritatively. Naomi, we must suppose,
had previously taken Ruth into full confidence, so that Boaz could learn at
second- hand what in other circumstances he would have learned from Naomi
herself. The verb which we have rendered "has resolved to sell," is literally "has
24

25. sold," and has been so rendered by many expositors, inclusive of Riegler and
Wright. The Syriac translator gives the expression thus, "has sold to me." The
subsequent context, however, makes it evident that the property had not been
sold to any one, and consequently not to Boaz. The perfect verb is to be
accounted for on the principle explained by Driver when he says, "The perfect is
employed to indicate actions, the accomplishment of which lies indeed in the
future, but is regarded as dependent upon such an unalterable determination of
the will that it may be spoken of as having actually taken place: thus a
resolution, promise, or decree, especially a Divine one, is very frequently
announced in the perfect tense. A striking instance is afforded by Ruth (Ruth
4:3) when Boaz, speaking of Naomi's determination to sell her land, says ָ‫נ‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫כ‬ ָ‫מ‬'
‫י‬ ִ‫,עמ‬ literally, 'has sold' (has resolved to sell. The English idiom would be 'is
selling')". In King James's English version the verb is thus freely rendered
"selleth." Luther's version is equivalent—beut feil, "offers for sale;" or, as
Coverdale renders it, "offereth to sell." Vatable freely renders it as we have
done, "has determined to sell" so Drusius (vendere instituit). The kind family
feeling of Boaz, shining out m the expression, "our brother Ehmelech," is
noteworthy. "Brother" was to him a homely and gracious term for "near
kinsman."
PULPIT, "Ruth 4:3-8
The goel.
Every nation has its own domestic and social usages. Among those prevalent in
Israel was the relationship of the goel. He was the redeemer, or the next kinsman
of one deceased, whose duty it was to purchase an inheritance in danger of
lapsing, or to redeem one lapsed. The duties were defined in the Levitical law.
According to the custom and regulation known as Levirate, he was expected to
marry the widow of the deceased, and to raise up seed unto the dead, in case no
issue were left of the marriage dissolved by death. From this Book of Ruth it is
clear that the two duties, that with regard to property and that respecting
marriage, centered in the same person. Failing the unnamed kinsman, it fell to
the lot of Boaz to act the part of the near relative of Ruth's deceased husband.
Usages and laws differ, but the fact of kindred remains, and involves many
duties.
I. HUMAN KINDRED IS A DIVINE APPOINTMENT.
II. AND IS BOTH SUGGESTIVE AND ILLUSTRATIVE OF RELIGIOUS, OF
CHRISTIAN TRUTH. E.g. of the fatherhood of God; of the brotherhood of
man; based upon that of Christ.
III. KINDRED IS AT THE FOUNDATION OF HUMAN LIFE, AS SOCIAL
25

26. AND POLITICAL.
IV. KINDRED INVOLVES CONSIDERATION AND REGARD.
V. AND, WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES RENDER IT EXPEDIENT,
PRACTICAL HELP.
Appeal:—Do we recognize the just claims of kindred? If we de not, is not our
failure traceable to an imperfect apprehension of spiritual relationships?—T.
TRAPP, "Ruth 4:3 And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out
of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which [was] our brother
Elimelech’s:
Ver. 3. And he said unto the kinsman.] Without a pleader, without preface or
passion, in few and fit words he propounds the cause and brings it to an issue.
Men should not go lightly to law, or spin out their suits to that length they do.
Naomi, that is come again, … selleth a parcel of land.] Boaz, having to do with a
wily worldling, dealeth warily with him for prevention of further strife; telling
him first of the land, and then of the wife that must go along with it. How
forcible are right words!
PETT, "Then Boaz explained his purpose. He explained to the near kinsman
that Naomi, who had recently come out of the country of Moab, was selling the
family land which had belonged to her deceased husband, Elimelech. But as we
have seen above, it was not as simple as that. For the land belonged to YHWH,
and it had been allotted by Him to a family in Israel who was represented by the
head of the family (who had in this case been Elimelech). What was therefore
seen as of crucial importance was that ‘the name’ of that family, in this case the
family of Elimelech, should be maintained in Israel, and that would be done by
the redeemer who bought the land begetting children through the surviving
females in the family, where all the menfolk had died. This was the responsibility
of the goel (redeemer).
As can be seen, the survival of the ‘name’ of the family was seen as of vital
importance. A man lived on in his sons, and no family was to be allowed to die
out in Israel. It was the equivalent in the Old Testament of ‘eternal life’. Every
means therefore had to be used in order to ensue the survival of the family name.
The question may arise as to whether Naomi was able to sell the land. Legally
speaking it was not hers, and had it been a question of simply selling the land the
answer would probably have been ‘no’. But that is not the case here. The land
was being sold conditionally on the purchaser producing a male heir to finally
inherit the land. In fact the right of women to inherit was declared in Numbers
36. There the daughters of a deceased man were able to inherit his land where
26

27. there were no sons, the only condition being that they would then marry within
their tribe so that possession of the land would not go outside the tribe. So it
would appear here that legally the land could be seen as Ruth’s, as wife of
Elimelech’s heir, but on that basis she would only enjoy the right as long as she
married within her dead husband’s tribe. While the position was not quite the
same, Numbers 36 did suggest that where all male direct heirs within a family
were dead, women could have an inheritance in the land of that family as long as
when they married it remained within ‘the family’. This was probably the basis
on which the sale here was able to proceed, with the sale being restricted to
someone who could produce sons on behalf of the dead. In consequence the land
would finally pass on to male heirs of Elimelech and Mahlon. From the point of
view of the story what, of course, matters is not what exactly the Law said, but
how it was being interpreted at this time in the light of custom.
HAWKER, "Verses 3-6
And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of
Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's: (4) And I
thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the
elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem
it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I
am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. (5) Then said Boaz, What day thou
buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the
Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his
inheritance. (6) And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar
mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
If I do not greatly err, the chief point in the whole history turns upon this hinge.
And if so, it will serve to throw a light upon the subject all along intended from
it, in introducing under this endearing part of his character, by the
representation of Boaz, the Lord Jesus Christ as our kinsman-Redeemer. Behold
it in this light, and we see Jesus assuming our nature for the purpose of
redemption.
We view him going forth from everlasting, as the great covenant head of his
people. And when he saw our ruined nature, and everyone of the stock of Adam
totally unable to redeem themselves, much less to save his brother, then Jesus,
moved with compassion; resolved to undertake their cause. Angels durst not
venture on redemption-work, for this would have been to have marred their own
inheritance; therefore his own arm brought salvation, and of the people there
was none with him.
In the law of redemption there were several things included which became
necessary for the complete recovery and happiness of our ruined nature, and
which none but our (Goel) kinsman-Redeemer, the Lord Jesus, could be
27

28. competent to perform. He was, as Boaz proposed to the nearer kinsman to do,
not only to redeem the mortgaged inheritance, but he was to marry the widow of
the deceased kinsman, in order to raise up seed unto his brother. That our
original birthright was lost is evident from our ruined and impoverished state.
Our first father, deceived by Satan, sold his inheritance by tasting the forbidden
fruit; and never could any of his own fallen seed have been found in
circumstances sufficiently affluent to ransom it. But yet it must be recovered;
and therefore the year of jubilee, which was typical of redemption by Christ, sent
the insolvent home again to his possession. Jesus our brother, and Goel-
Redeemer, then accomplished redemption. See Leviticus 25:23-28.
But the redemption of the mortgaged inheritance was connected also with the
marrying the widow of the deceased brother, and to raise up the name of the
dead upon his inheritance. And this the Son of God did, when in the fulness of
time, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he
might redeem them that were under the law. Galatians 4:4. Hence, by virtue of
this mystical union, a foundation is laid for the marriage of believers with him,
and that our nature, purified and made clean by this union, might recover its lost
fruitfulness, without which it would have been forever barren and dead before
God.
Neither was, this all. Though it be not noticed in this book of Ruth, there were
two other grand offices belonging to our Goel-Redeemer, which the law enjoined,
and which none but Jesus could perform. The one was, to ransom the poor
brother who had not only lost his inheritance, but was in bondage also. And the
other was, to avenge the blood of his slain kinsman on the slayer. Concerning the
former, the, law enjoined, If a sojourner or stranger was rich by thee, and thy
brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger; after
that he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brethren may redeem him.
Leviticus 25:47-48.
Blessed Jesus! were we not sold in the loins of Adam, when the enemy sojourned
in Paradise, and our unhappy parent sold himself and all his posterity? Were we
not brought into bondage, slaves to sin and Satan, and justly exposed to the
anger of the broken law of God! And didst not thou, dearest Redeemer, as our
brother, redeem us from the curse of the law, by being made a curse for us'?
Galatians 3:13.
And concerning the latter: here again, blessed Jesus, we behold thee the avenger
of the blood of thy slain kinsman; for when the devil, who was a murderer from
the beginning, (John 8:44.) murdered our whole nature in Adam; and no avenger
could be found equal to the vast work of taking vengeance on the manslayer,
then didst thou, because the children were partakers of flesh and blood, thyself
likewise take part of the same, that through death thou mightest destroy him that
28

29. had the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver them who through fear of
death were all their life time subject to bondage. Hebrews 2:14-15. And then was
that sweet scripture literally fulfilled. Deuteronomy 19:11-12. These are all sweet
and interesting views of the Lord Jesus. And though I do not take upon me to say
that all, or either of these things, are shadowed out in this scripture, yet I hope I
may be forgiven for introducing them in this place, at the subject itself, without
doing violence to it, seemed to lead that way.
4 I thought I should bring the matter to your
attention and suggest that you buy it in the
presence of these seated here and in the
presence of the elders of my people. If you will
redeem it, do so. But if you[b] will not, tell me,
so I will know. For no one has the right to do it
except you, and I am next in line.”
“I will redeem it,” he said.
BARNES, "See the margin; a phrase explained by the act of removing the end of
the turban, or the hair, in order to whisper in the ear (see 1Sa_9:15 : 2Sa_7:27).
CLARKE, "I thought to advertise thee - Both Dr. Kennicott and Father
Houbigant have noticed several corruptions in the pronouns of this and the following
verses; and their criticisms have been confirmed by a great number of MSS. since
collated. The text corrected reads thus: “And I said I will reveal this to thy ear, saying,
Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem
it, redeem it; but if thou wilt not redeem it, tell me, that I may know; for there is none
to redeem it but thou, and I who am next to thee. And he said, I will redeem it. And
Boaz said, In the day that thou redeemest the land from the hand of Naomi, thou wilt
also acquire Ruth, the wife of the dead, that thou mayest raise up the name of the
dead upon his inheritance;” Rth_4:4, Rth_4:5. - See Kennicott’s Dissertations, vol. i.,
29

30. p. 449; Houbigant in loco; and the Variae Lectiones of Kennicott and De Rossi. This
is Boaz’s statement of the case before the kinsman, and before the people and the
elders.
I will redeem it - I will pay down the money which it is worth. He knew not of
the following condition.
GILL, "And I thought to advertise thee,.... To give him notice of it; or "I said"
(g); he said in his heart and mind, purposing to do it; or he said it to Ruth, promising
her that he would do it:
saying, buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people;
or before those that sat there, even the elders, as witnesses of the purchase:
if thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: for it was redeemable by a near kinsman
according to the law, even when said to another, in Lev_25:25,
but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know; what to do in
this affair, whether to redeem it or not:
for there is none to redeem it besides thee, and I am after thee; he was the
first, and Boaz was the next near kinsman, to whom the right of redemption
belonged:
and he said, I will redeem it: he chose to make the purchase, he liked the land,
which he probably full well knew, and it might lie near his own, and make a good
addition to it; and as the widow was determined, and under a necessity to sell, he
might expect to have it at a cheap rate; all which might induce him at once to agree to
be the purchaser.
JAMISON, "Naomi ... selleth a parcel of land — that is, entertains the idea of
selling. In her circumstances she was at liberty to part with it (Lev_25:25). Both
Naomi and Ruth had an interest in the land during their lives; but Naomi alone was
mentioned, not only because she directed all the negotiations, but because the
introduction of Ruth’s name would awaken a suspicion of the necessity of marrying
her, before the first proposition was answered.
COFFMAN, ""And I thought to disclose it unto thee, saying; Buy it before them
that sit here, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem
it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me; for there is none to redeem it
besides thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it."
"And I thought to disclose it ... saying." "This is a primitive expression denoting
internal resolution, such as, `I said to myself.'"[3]
"And before the elders of my people." "Others besides the official ten witnesses
had also assembled,"[4] out of curiosity, no doubt, and to learn the news of what
might be taking place.
30

31. "My people." Some have expressed wonder at this, because the Bethlehemites
were, in a sense, as much the people of the near-kinsman, as they were of Boaz.
However, the prominence, wealth and age of Boaz had endowed him with a
patriarchal status that did not pertain to the near kinsman.
"I will redeem it." Why not? Indeed, this would have been quite a windfall.
Naomi was a poor widow and probably could not command a very high price for
the land; and besides that, in the year of Jubilee, which might not have been very
far away, it would revert, theoretically, to Elimelech's heirs. but, since he had no
heirs, it would have remained in the near kinsman's possession! It is not hard to
see that Boaz was handling this situation with masterful skill and discernment.
He had no doubt anticipated this answer.
ELLICOTT, "(4) And I thought . . .—literally, and I said I will uncover thy ear.
The inhabitants.—This should perhaps rather be, those who are sitting here [the
Hebrew word yashabh has the two meanings of dwelling and sitting, see e.g.,
Genesis 23:10, where the latter meaning should certainly be taken]. So the LXX.,
Peshito and Vulg.
If thou wilt not.—The current Hebrew text has here, if he will not, which is
clearly an error for the second person, which is read by a large number of
Hebrew MSS., and by all the ancient versions.
I will redeem it.—He is willing enough to redeem the land as a good investment,
forgetting, until reminded, the necessary previous condition. It involves
marrying Ruth, and this he declines to do.
PULPIT, "And I said (to myself). There is little likelihood in the opinion of those
who maintain, with Rosenmwller, that the expression, "I said," refers to a
promise which Boaz had made to Ruth (see Ruth 3:13). It is a primitive phrase to
denote internal resolution. There is a point where thought and speech coalesce.
Our words are thoughts, and our thoughts are words. I will uncover thine ear,
that is, "I will lift the locks of hair that may be covering the ear, so as to
communicate something in confidence." But here the phrase is employed with
the specific import of secrecy dropt out. It is thus somewhat equivalent to "I will
give thee notice;" only the following expression ‫ר‬ֹ‫ֵאמ‬‫ל‬, i.e. to say, must be read in
the light of the undiluted original phrase, "I will uncover thine ear to say. The
whole expression furnishes the most beautiful instance imaginable of the
primary meaning of ‫ר‬ֹ‫ֵאמ‬‫ל‬ . The thing that was to be said follows immediately,
viz; Acquire it, or Buy it. It is as if he had said, "Now you have a chance which
may not occur again." It is added, in the presence of the inhabitants. This, rather
than "the assessors," is the natural interpretation of the participle ( ‫ים‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ‫יּשׁ‬ַ‫ה‬ ). It is
the translation which the word generally receives in the very numerous instances
in which it occurs. There was, so to speak, a fair representation of the
31

32. inhabitants of the city in the casual company that had assembled in the gateway.
And in presence of the elders of my people. The natural "aldermen," or
unofficial "senators," whose presence extemporized for the occasion a sufficient
court of testators. If thou wilt perform the part of a kinsman, perform it. The
translation in King James's English version, and in many other versions, viz; "If
thou wilt redeem it, redeem it," is somewhat out of harmony with the nature of
the case. Naomi was not wishing Elimelech's estate to be redeemed. It was not yet
in a position to be redeemed. It had not been alienated or sold. She wished for it
not a redeemer, but a purchaser. And as it was the right of a ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ֹ‫נ‬ or kinsman to
redeem for a reduced brother, if he was able and willing, the estate which had
been sold to an alien (Le 25:25), so it was the privilege of the same ‫ל‬ ֵ‫גוֹא‬ or
kinsman to get, if the reduced brother was wishing to sell, the first offer of the
estate. It would, in particular, be at variance with the prerogative of the nearest
of kin if some other one in the circle of the kindred, but not so near, were to be
offered on sale the usufructuary possession of the family estate (Le 25:23, 27).
Hence Boaz recognized the prior prerogative of his anonymous relative and
friend, and said to him, "If thou wilt perform the part of a kinsman, and buy the
property, then buy it." It is added, and if he will not. Note the use of the third
person he, instead of the second thou. If the reading be correct, then Boaz, in
thus speaking, must for the moment have turned to the witnesses so as to address
them. That the reading is correct, notwithstanding that some MSS. and all the
ancient versions exhibit the verb in the second person, is rendered probable by
the very fact that it is the difficult reading. There could be no temptation for a
transcriber to substitute the third person for the second; there would be
temptation to substitute the second for the third. The unanimity of the ancient
versions is probably attributable to the habit of neglecting absolute literality, and
translating according to the sense, when the sense was clear. Boaz, turning back
instantaneously to his relative, says, Make thou known to me, that I may know,
for there is none besides thee to act the kinsman's part (with the exception of
myself), and I come after thee. The little clause, "with the exception of myself,"
lies in the sense, or spirit, although not in the letter of Boaz's address, as reported
in the text. And he said, I will act the kinsman's part. He was glad to get the
opportunity of adding to his own patrimonial possession the property that had
belonged to Elimelech, and which Naomi, in her reduced condition, wished to
dispose of. So far all seemed to go straight against the interests of Ruth.
TRAPP, "Ruth 4:4 And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy [it] before the
inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem [it], redeem
[it]: but if thou wilt not redeem [it, then] tell me, that I may know: for [there is]
none to redeem [it] beside thee; and I [am] after thee. And he said, I will redeem
[it].
Ver. 4. And I thought to advertise thee.] Heb., I said I will reveal in thine ear: so
32

33. the Latins say, Aurem tibi vellam. Honesty promoteth to plain dealing.
And before the elders of my people.] For more assurance, ratification, and
confirmation. Thus also amongst us many acts betwixt private persons are done
before a judge or public notary for like reason.
And he said, I will redeem it.] This showeth that he was rich, ready for a
purchase after so long a famine; but wretched, not willing to part with a penny
to his two poor kinswomen, as good Boaz did. Many are, the richer the harder.
PETT, "Boaz then called on the near kinsman, in front of ‘those who sit here,
even before the elders of my people’, acting as witnesses, to buy the land if he
wished to do so, so that it could remain in the family (that is why he was said to
‘redeem it’). If he was not willing to do so then the right passed on to the next
nearest kinsman, which in this case was Boaz.
As we have seen the purpose of redemption was so that the land might remain in
the family and not go to outsiders, but even more specifically it was in order for
it finally to be restored to the near family of its original owners. This would
require the maintaining of the name in Israel of the original owner (Ruth 4:10),
and that would be the duty of the purchase. So what was being bought in this
case was the right of use of the land until it could revert back to its original
owners, that is, to a son of the dead man as begotten through the goel (the
kinsman redeemer). Thus the redeemer, being a near kinsman, had the
responsibility to ensure that the family and name of the original owners
survived, and he did it by himself begetting sons through any womenfolk who
were left of the original family. The purpose of this was in order to ensure that
the name of the original owners survived in Israel, along with their ownership of
their land as originally allotted to them by YHWH.
On hearing that the land was available the near kinsman immediately said that
he would ‘redeem’ it. The rights to land were very valuable, especially land
which probably bordered on his own as a near kinsman, and the possibility of
obtaining it did not come up very often because of the rigid customs that
prevailed. It seemed too good an opportunity to miss. But he had not thought out
the consequences, possibly because he was not familiar with the Law, or possibly
because he had not connected Ruth with the situation (not how Boaz had spoken
of Naomi as the ‘seller’). That would not indicate that the law did not exist, only
that people are often very vague as to what exactly the law requires. It will be
noted that once it was drawn to his attention (and no doubt confirmed by the
listening elders) he yielded to Boaz’s arguments.
“I thought to disclose it to you.” Literally, ‘I have said (to myself) I will lay bare
(disclose) in your ear’, a good example of translator’s licence which is common in
33

34. translating Old Testament Hebrew.
5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the land
from Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the
Moabite, the[c] dead man’s widow, in order to
maintain the name of the dead with his
property.”
BARNES, "Observe the action of the Levirate law. If there had been no one
interested but Naomi, she would have sold the land unclogged by any condition, the
law of Levirate having no existence in her case. But there was a young widow upon
whom the possession of the land would devolve at Naomi’s death, and who already
had a right of partnership in it, and the law of Levirate did apply in her case. It was,
therefore, the duty of the ‫גאל‬ gā'al to marry her and raise up seed to his brother, i. e.
his kinsman. And he could not exercise his right of redeeming the land, unless he was
willing at the same time to fulfill his obligations to the deceased by marrying the
widow. This he was unwilling to do.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "Then said Boaz,.... In order to try the kinsman, whether he would abide by
his resolution, he acquaints him with what he had as yet concealed:
what day thou buyest the field of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the
Moabitess, the wife of the dead; the wife of Mahlon, who was dead, the eldest
son of Naomi, and so his widow, Ruth the Moabitess, had the reversion of the estate;
wherefore the purchase must be made of her as well as of Naomi, and the purchase
could not be made of her without marrying her; which, though no law obliged to, yet
it seems to be a condition of the purchase annexed to it by Naomi, that she would sell
it to no man, unless he would consent to marry Ruth, for whose settlement she had a
great concern, having been very dutiful and affectionate to her; which is clearly
34

35. intimated in the next clause:
to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance; and so Naomi had
another end to answer thereby, not only to provide a good husband for her daughter-
in-law, but to perpetuate the name of her son, agreeably to the design of the law in
Deu_25:5.
PULPIT, "And Boaz said, In the day when thou acquirest the land from the
hand of Naomi, and from Ruth the Moabitess, (in that day) thou hast acquired
the wife of the deceased, to establish the name of the deceased upon his
inheritance. So we would punctuate and render this verse. Boaz distinctly
informed his relative that if the land was acquired at all by a kinsman, it must be
acquired with its living appurtenance, Ruth the Moabitess, so that, by the
blessing of God, the Fountain of families, there might he the opportunity of
retaining the possession of the property in the line of her deceased husband, that
line coalescing in the line of her second husband. It was the pleasure of Naomi
and Ruth, in offering their property for sale, to burden its acquisition, on the
part of a kinsman, with the condition specified. If there should be fruit after the
marriage, the child would be heir of the property, just as if he had been
Machlon's son, even though the father should have other and older sons by
another wife.
COFFMAN, ""Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of
Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise
up the name of the dead upon his inheritance."
"Ruth the Moabitess." These words scared the near kinsman right out of the
transaction. It was public opinion in Bethlehem that Chilion and Mahlon had
died for marrying Moabitish women, and when the near kinsman found out that
buying the land meant also marrying a Moabitess, he dramatically withdrew his
offer. Under the situation as thus explained, he would acquire another family,
lose the money paid for the land, for that would belong to his son by Ruth (if
they married) and would no longer be a part of his inheritance. Additionally, he
would be burdened with the support of another family! It is not hard to
understand why he made such a hasty exit from the transaction. Thus, Boaz had
played the trump card at precisely the right instant, and he would, as a result, be
free to marry Ruth, which was doubtless what he intended to do from the very
first.
COKE, "Ruth 4:5. Thou must buy it also of Ruth— This whole speech is
rendered very confused by the present printed Hebrew text; but if we admit of
some alteration from the best manuscripts, the passage will be cleared from
obscurity, and when corrected will run thus: Ruth 4:4. If thou wilt redeem it,
redeem it; but if thou wilt not redeem it, tell me, that I may know; for there is
none but thee to redeem it, except myself, who am after thee. And he said, I will
35

36. redeem it, Ruth 4:5. Then said Boaz, on the day thou takest the land of the hand
of Naomi, thou must also take Ruth the Moabitess. See Kennicott's Dissert. vol.
1: p. 447 and Houbigant, who has made the same observation.
ELLICOTT, "(5) What day . . .—When the person had been bought out to
whom Naomi had sold the land until the year of Jubilee should restore it to her
family, there remained Naomi’s own claim on the land, and after wards that of
Ruth, as the widow of the son of Elimelech. But further, this last carried with it
the necessity of taking Ruth to wife, so that a child might be born to inherit, as
the son of Mahlon, Mahlon’s inheritance.
TRAPP, "Ruth 4:5 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand
of Naomi, thou must buy [it] also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to
raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
Ver. 5. What day thou buyest the field.] Here God is making provision for these
two widows, his clients; maintenance for Naomi, and marriage for Ruth.
Henceforth it shall be no more Marah, but, as heretofore, Naomi: and while
Orpah lacked bread in her own country, Ruth is grown a great lady in Israel.
"Who would not serve thee, O King of Nations?" &c.
To raise up the name of the dead.] This Boaz kept in till now at last; at the
hearing whereof, the other relinquisheth his right in the land, since it was so
encumbered. It is a witty and pious advice that a grave divine giveth; When thou
art making a covenant with sin, saith he, say to thy soul as Boaz did to his
kinsman, At what time thou buyest it, thou must have Ruth with it. If thou wilt
have the pleasure of sin, the wages of wickedness, thou must also have the curse
that is due to it. And let thy soul answer as he there doth, No, I may not do it, I
shall mar and spoil a better inheritance.
PETT, "Then Boaz pointed out what this redemption involved. On the day that
he bought the land he would have the responsibility of ‘raising up the name of
the dead on his inheritance’, by begetting sons through the remaining womenfolk
who were selling the land, in this case Naomi and Ruth, the wives of the deceased
menfolk. That son would then take the name of the deceased (he would be ‘ben
Mahlon, ben Elimelech’). Note that it is made quite clear here that Ruth, though
a Moabitess, was now an essential part of Israel with certain rights of land
‘ownership’ of YHWH’s land. Thus the continual stress on her being a Moabite
(not only in his use of the descriptive title, but also in comments continually
made - Ruth 2:6; Ruth 2:11) is patently a part of the writer’s purpose. He wants
to stress that the great King David was descended from a Moabite, and his
purpose in this must have been in order to make clear that a foreigner, even a
Moabite woman, could become an essential part of Israel (compare how he later
describes her seed as ‘the seed which YHWH gives her’ - Ruth 4:12).
36

37. 6 At this, the guardian-redeemer said, “Then I
cannot redeem it because I might endanger my
own estate. You redeem it yourself. I cannot do
it.”
BARNES, "I mar mine own inheritance - The meaning of these words is
doubtful. Some explain them by saying that the ‫גאל‬ gā'al had a wife and children
already, and would not introduce strife into his family. Others think that there was a
risk (which he would not incur) of the go’el’s own name being blotted out from his
inheritance Rth_4:10. Others take the word translated as “mar” in a sense of wasting
or spending. If he had to find the purchase-money, and support Naomi and Ruth, his
own fortune would be broken down, if, as is likely, he was a man of slender means.
Boaz, being “a mighty man of wealth,” could afford this.
Redeem thou my right ... - Literally, redeem my redemption - perform that act
of redemption which properly belongs to me, but which I cannot perform.
CLARKE, "I cannot redeem it for myself - The Targum gives the proper
sense of this passage: “And the kinsman said, On this ground I cannot redeem it,
because I have a wife already; and I have no desire to take another, lest there should
be contention in my house, and I should become a corrupter of my inheritance. Do
thou redeem it, for thou hast no wife; for I cannot redeem it.” This needs no
comment. But still the gloss of the Targum has no foundation in the law of Moses.
See the law, Deu_25:5-9.
GILL, "And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself,.... On such a
condition, because he had a wife, as the Targum suggests; and to take another would,
as that intimates, tend to introduce contention into his family, and make him
uncomfortable; so Josephus says (h), he had a wife and children, for that reason it
was not convenient for him to take the purchase on such a condition:
lest I mar my own inheritance; he considered, that as he had a wife and children
already and as he might have more by marrying Ruth, his family expenses would be
increased, and his estate diminished; and what would remain must be divided among
many, and this estate in particular go to Ruth's firstborn, whereby his own
inheritance would be scattered and crumbled, and come to little or nothing; add to all
which, he might suppose that her ancient mother Naomi would be upon his hands to
maintain also:
37

38. redeem thou my right for thyself which I am ready to give up to thee, for thou
hast no wife, as the Targum expresses it:
for I can not redeem it; in the circumstances I am, and upon the condition
annexed to the purchase.
JAMISON, "Rth_4:6-8. He refuses the redemption.
The kinsman said, I cannot redeem it ..., lest I mar mine own
inheritance — This consequence would follow, either, first, from his having a son
by Ruth, who, though heir to the property, would not bear his name; his name would
be extinguished in that of her former husband; or, secondly, from its having to be
subdivided among his other children, which he had probably by a previous marriage.
This right, therefore, was renounced and assigned in favor of Boaz, in the way of
whose marriage with Ruth the only existing obstacle was now removed.
PULPIT, "And the kinsman said, I am not able to perform, for myself, the
kinsman's part, lest I should destroy my inheritance. Perform thou, for thyself,
the kinsman's part devolving on me, for I am not able to perform it. The moment
that Ruth was referred to, as the inseparable appurtenance of Elimelech's estate,
a total change came over the feelings of the anonymous relative and the spirit of
his dream. He "could not," so he strongly put it, perform the kinsman's part.
The probability is that he already had a family, but was a widower. This being
the state of the case, it followed that if he should acquire Ruth along with her
father-in-law's property, there might be an addition, perhaps a numerous
addition, to his family; and if so, then there would be more to provide for during
his lifetime, and at his death an increased subdivision of his patrimony. This, as
he strongly put it, would be to "destroy" his patrimony, inasmuch as it might be
frittered into insignificant fractions. There can be no reference, as the Chaldee
Targumist imagined, to his fear of domestic dissensions. Or, if he did indeed
think of such a casualty, he certainly did not give the idea expression to Boaz and
the assessors. Cassel takes another view. "It must be," he says, "her Moabitish
nationality that forms the ground, such as it is, of the kinsman's refusal.
Elimelech's misfortunes had been popularly ascribed to his emigration to Moab;
the death of Chillon and Machlon to their marriage with Moabitish women. This
it was that had endangered their inheritance. The goal fears a similar fate. He
thinks that he ought not to take into his house a woman, marriage with whom
has already been visited with the extinguishment of a family in Israel." But if
this had been what he referred to when he spoke of the "destruction" of his
inheritance, it was not much in harmony with the benevolence which he owed to
Boaz, and to which he so far gives expression in the courtesy of his address, that
he should have gratuitously urged upon his relative what he declined as
dangerous for himself. The expressions "for myself" and "for thyself" ( ‫י‬ִ‫ל‬ and
˃ְ‫)ל‬ are significant. The anonymous relative does not conceal the idea that it
would be only on the ground of doing what would be for his own interest that he
38