a. The field of Boaz (2:1–3)
a. The field of Boaz (2:1–3)
Ruth, the younger and more able-bodied, sets out to glean and finds herself in the field of a kinsman.
1. Boaz is now brought on the scene. He is described as a kinsman of Elimelech’s, though the exact relationship is not defined. In rendering kinsman, AV, etc. follow the Massoretic pointing. The consonantal text designates Boaz as an acquaintance only, but this is not in accordance with later statements (2:20; 3:2, 12; 4:3). Most commentators agree with AV. Joüon is of opinion that we should not translate of her husband’s, but ‘by her husband’. Boaz was not a relation of Naomi. He was connected with her only ‘by’ Elimelech. This is important. It was because of the connection with Elimelech that Boaz could be the gō’ēl. Relationship to Naomi would not have sufficed. Family here denotes a larger group than does a family with us, though a close community is certainly implied. It is rather like a Scottish ‘clan’. The exact expression rendered a mighty man of wealth (AV, RV) is elsewhere translated ‘a mighty man of valour’ (e.g. Judg. 11:1). We perhaps get the force of it by thinking of our word ‘knight’. This applied originally to a man distinguished for military prowess, but it is now used widely of those whose excellence lies in other fields. In the Old Testament it most often has to do with fighting capacity. Boaz may have been a warrior, for these were troubled times and any man might have to fight. But in this book he appears rather as a solid citizen, a man of influence and integrity in the community and it is likely that this is what the term denotes here. Some suggest ‘a powerful landowner’. The word rendered ‘valour’ is used of general moral worth in 3:11 (where see note), and something of this may be implied here. The name Boaz is found again as the name of one of the pillars in Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr. 3:17; D. J. Wiseman thinks that there it may be the first word of an oracle ascribing strength to the Davidic dynasty; see NBD, p. 593). Its meaning is not certain, but it may connect with the idea of quickness or of strength (Cassel derives it from ben ‘āz, ‘son of strength’).
2. Ruth now takes the initiative by suggesting that she should go to the field and glean. Notice that our author is not losing sight of his heroine’s origin, for he speaks of her as the Moabitess, a designation which is found five times (1:22; 2:2, 21; 4:5, 10) out of twelve occurrences of the name of Ruth. The Moabite nationality of his heroine is an important part of his story. Field is singular. We are not to think of many farms about the village with each man owning his own fields. There appears to be a common field where all grow their crops, with ownership vested in parts of the one great field. Ruth suggested that she glean ears1 after one with whom she should find favour (Berkeley, someone who is kind to me). The reference to him in whose sight I shall find grace is interesting for the law laid it down uncompromisingly that the land was not to be reaped in its entirety, but something was to be left for the poor to glean (Lev. 19:9f.; 23:22; Deut. 24:19). Gleaning was not dependent on the whims of landowners. It was a right and, moreover, a right specifically granted in the law to the widow (Deut. 24:19). But in the first place, Ruth may not have been fully conversant with the laws of her adopted country, and in the second, we need not doubt that a hostile landowner would have ways of making gleaning difficult for the friendless. It was better for Ruth to look for someone who would regard her with favour.
3. So Ruth went to the field and gleaned after the reapers. Slotki understands she went, and came (AV, RV) to mean, ‘She repeated the act of going out and coming back home again so as to familiarize herself with the bewildering network of country lanes, while at the same time making the acquaintance of decent folk to whom she could safely attach herself.’ But this seems to be reading a lot into the expression. Her hap was (AV, RV) is the translation of an expression which makes it clear that Ruth did not understand the full significance of what she was doing. She did not know the people, nor did she know the owners of the land. She came to the field and, apparently by chance, worked in a particular section of the field, the section which belonged to Boaz. Almost exactly the same expression is found in Ecclesiastes 2:14f. (‘one event happeneth’ to all men) and nowhere else in the Old Testament. It points to the truth that men do not control events, but that the hand of God is behind them as he works his purpose out. It was the fact that she came to this field and no other that was to lead to her acquaintance with Boaz and subsequent marriage with all that that involved (including, for example, the fact that it led up to the birth of David). Our author thinks of God as being in all this. The Hebrew refers to ‘the piece of the field belonging to Boaz’ and not ‘a part of the field of Boaz’. This probably means ‘that part of the common field which belonged to Boaz’. It is said that grain fields were not divided from one another by a fence or hedge, but that the boundary was simply indicated by stones (cf. Hackett, cited in Cassel). Alternatively, ‘the field-portion of Boaz’ might mean ‘the fields belonging to Boaz’. Our author repeats the information that Boaz was from Elimelech’s clan. The hand of God is over Ruth’s action, and he does not want us to miss this.