d. Boaz redeems Ruth the Moabitess (4:1–12)
d. Boaz redeems Ruth the Moabitess (4:1–12)
In a passage of absorbing interest our narrator gives us the details of the process whereby Ruth became betrothed to Boaz. This vivid narrative is important as one of the few documents from the ancient world which tell how a legal process of this kind was carried out.
1. Then (AV) is not to be taken as indicating strict sequence. By avoiding the waw consecutive construction (the Hebrew is ûbō‘az ‘ālâ) the author simply indicates that Boaz went up, but he does not indicate whether this was before, after, or simultaneous with the preceding. It is a piece of paragraphing technique, turning our attention to Boaz. His first move was to go up to the gate and sit there. For went up, cf. 3:3, where the verb ‘go down’ is used of a journey in the opposite direction. The threshing-floor was apparently below the level of the town.
The gate played a large part in the cities of Judah of antiquity. Excavations reveal that Palestinian cities were generally very closely built and there were no large open spaces like the Roman forum or the Greek agora. Instead room was found at the gate, and the gate accordingly tended to become the centre of city life. It was the place for any important assembly, and, for example, we find the kings of Israel and of Judah sitting on thrones in an open place ‘in the entrance of the gate of Samaria’ (1 Kgs 22:10). Similarly King Zedekiah sat ‘in the gate of Benjamin’ (Jer. 38:7). But pre-eminently it was the place for legal business. When Absalom wanted to make capital out of the way justice was administered, he ‘rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate: and it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom called unto him …’ (2 Sam. 15:2, AV). The gate was the place to find such men. Similarly Amos can speak of ‘him that rebuketh in the gate’, and of the unjust judges who ‘take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right’, and he exhorts the people, ‘Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate’ (Amos 5:10, 12, 15, AV; cf. Prov. 22:22). People were condemned before ‘the elders of the city in the gate’ (Deut. 22:15, AV), and the gate is mentioned in connection with executions (Deut. 22:24). Less formally it was a place for social intercourse (Ps. 127:5). It is the supreme tragedy of a city when ‘The elders have ceased from the gate’ (Lam. 5:14, AV). It is of special interest in the present connection that if a man died childless and his brother refused to marry the widow the woman was bidden ‘go up to the gate unto the elders’ (Deut. 15:7, AV) to begin the process of public humiliation of the offender. The gate was the normal place for public business, and specifically for the kind of business described in this chapter.7
Presently the kinsman (AV, RV) of whom Boaz had spoken to Ruth passed by (the participle signifies, ‘was passing by’). There is no indication that he knew what was afoot. But Boaz knew that he was bound to pass the gate so he awaited him there. When he came Boaz called on him to break off his journey and sit down. The Hebrew uses two words of address with a meaning rather like our ‘so and so’. It is a way of showing that a definite person is meant without mentioning his name. Hence such a one (AV) is nearer to it than friend (RSV). Moffatt renders, Ho, you! but this is hardly it. Boaz used the man’s name (Knox, called him by name) though the chronicler does not care to give it (or perhaps does not know it). Some hold that the Hebrew implies that the ‘naming’ of the man was a specific part of the legal process. But in any case the kinsman is not an important figure. He appears only to renounce his claim on Ruth and then disappears. Thus his name is of no consequence. Cassel comments, ‘it remains … an instructive fact that he who was so anxious for the preservation of his own inheritance, is now not even known by name.’ The expression used here is found in two other places only in the Old Testament, and in both there may be a deliberate concealment involved (1 Sam. 21:2 [Hebrew 21:3]; 2 Kgs 6:8). It is also possible, of course, that no more is meant than that a specific name was used in each case.
2. Boaz proceeded to empanel his jury, so to speak. He took ten of the city’s elders (Moffatt renders sheikhs) and sat them down also. Elders exercised judicial functions. Thus if a man fled from ‘the avenger of blood’ to one of the cities of refuge it was the elders who determined whether he was to be admitted or not (Josh. 20:4). And when Jezebel wanted Naboth executed in a judicial manner it was the elders she coerced into taking the necessary action (1 Kgs 21:8, 11). Such passages show that the elders possessed far-reaching powers. In the present case they appear to play little part other than as witnesses. But their importance was such that any transaction attested by them was of unimpeachable validity. We do not know whether there is any significance in the number ten. Obviously this could give a solid body of witness, but whether there was any legal requirement met by this number or not our information from antiquity does not reveal. In more recent times, ten, of course, is a significant number. Thus ten men are required for a synagogue service. Slotki sees in the number ‘The quorum required for the recital of the marriage benedictions. Boaz held them in readiness for the pending ceremony.’ However, he cites no evidence that the custom is so old. The Midrash Rabbah regards this passage as giving justification for ten at ‘the blessing of the bridegroom’ (vii. 8).
3. The court action begins with Boaz addressing the kinsman. He tells him that Naomi selleth a parcel of land (AV) which had belonged to Elimelech. Our brother (AV, RV) means, of course, ‘our friend’; the expression is not by any means confined to immediate family relationships. The verb selleth (AV, RV) is in the perfect in Hebrew, a tense which normally describes completed action. The construction here is described by A. B. Davidson in these terms, however: ‘The perf. is used to express actions which a lively imagination conceives as completed, but for which the fut. is more usual in Eng.—(a) The perf. of certainty … Naomi is selling the field-portion’ (HS, 41). Actually the consonants could be read as a participle, and some advocate this. But the perfect, though at first sight more difficult, is to be preferred (cf. Gen. 23:11 for the perfect in a similar situation, and cf. 4:9, where ‘I have bought’ refers to imminent action). The perfect could denote a past sale, and Wright, for example, accepts this view. It seems to be ruled out, however, by 4:5, which views the sale as future, and 4:9, where it is imminent. Moreover, had Naomi sold it, the gō’ēl would have been required to redeem it from the purchaser. The meaning is that Naomi is about to sell the land. Jeremiah 32:6–12 seems to show that land would normally be offered to a member of the family before being offered to anyone else. It is this that Naomi is doing.
For parcel of land see the note on ‘part of the field’ in 2:3 (the Hebrew is the same). The land in question was Elimelech’s share of the common field. Being part of a field in common ownership it may well have been difficult for Naomi to realize on it. This may be the reason she still had it despite the poverty to which she and Ruth had been reduced. But in any case it is difficult to see how she could have disposed of it much earlier. It would have been Elimelech’s before going to Moab, and she could scarcely take action until she returned to Bethlehem. There has been no mention of the land up till now, and no indication of how and when Naomi told Boaz about it. This is a further indication that there were contacts between Boaz and the widows which are not recorded. This means that Boaz’ readiness to marry Ruth rested on a better knowledge of her than a casual reading of the book might indicate.
There are problems arising from the fact that the land was Naomi’s. R. de Vaux says simply that a man’s widow ‘had no right to the inheritance’8 and this does seem to be the position in the Old Testament generally. Such a comprehensive statement as that in Numbers 27:8–11 does not envisage a widow as succeeding to her late husband’s property. The line of succession is first sons, then daughters, then the nearest male relative. The widow is not mentioned (though possibly she is presumed to be dead; if there were no sons she ought to marry the gō’ēl and the property would go to the son of the new marriage). Women could certainly succeed to land in later times. The woman of 2 Kings 8:1–6 was perhaps a widow, and Judith certainly was (Judith 8:7), while the Mishnah says that the schools of Hillel and Shammai both allowed a widow awaiting levirate marriage to sell (Yeb. 4:3). E. Neufeld thinks that, though the law did not provide for a widow to inherit, yet in practice this was not enforced.9 This gives a state of affairs intermediate between Numbers 27 and Judith 8. H. H. Rowley suggests that custom may have given rights in property to such a widow as Naomi, and he also thinks it possible that Elimelech had willed a life interest in the property to her, a custom attested in Nuzi texts.10 Selling the property, however, indicates the possession of more than a life interest. The Alalakh tablets give evidence that a widow could inherit11 but it is not clear how far we can reason from Alalakh to Israel.
The position, then, is that Naomi had rights in the land, but we have no knowledge of any legal process by which she could have obtained them. Our best guess is that a common-sense custom gave them to her.
It is curious that Boaz speaks of the land before mentioning Ruth. It is possible that the land was in some way bound up with the marrying of Ruth. Thus Knight says, ‘Our author is suggesting that Ruth the person cannot be redeemed unless her property is redeemed along with her’; ‘Men are not separable from the environment in which God has placed them as living souls. Here our author insists that the fields are to be redeemed along with Ruth herself. Ruth’s redemption implies the redemption of all that she has.’12 This would be more plausible if it were not that Naomi is said to be selling the land.
Boaz may well have decided that it would be good tactics to approach the matter in this way. He may have feared that, if it were a matter only of marrying Ruth, or only of redeeming the field, the kinsman would carry out his responsibility. By linking the two he presented the man with a double financial burden, that of buying the field, and that of providing for Ruth’s maintenance (see further on Ruth 4:6). But in doing this he must have had some law or custom behind him, for the kinsman raises no objection.
For the form that is come again (AV, RV) see on 1:22 (where the identical Hebrew is rendered ‘which returned’, AV, RV), and for the country of Moab, on 1:1.
4. Boaz reveals his thoughts on the matter. His I is emphatic. He leaves no doubt that he is taking the initiative. To advertise thee (AV) is a picturesque expression, meaning literally, ‘I will uncover your ear’, i.e. acquaint you with the facts. The expression may have been used originally of confidential information, and denoted the lifting of hair or headgear which would be necessary if one were whispering (so Lattey). But there is nothing of the confidential about its use here. Incidentally, the expression could be used of God (1 Sam. 9:15), as well as of man. But Boaz did more than pass on facts. He gave the advice that the kinsman should buy the land (or ‘acquire’ it; qānâ is usually translated ‘buy’ but it means ‘get, acquire’, see BDB, KB). The importance attached to preventing property from passing out of the family seems strange to us, but the law provided that a family’s property should not be permanently alienated. If a man were hard up he might raise money by disposing of his land, but he could do this only as a temporary measure, and when things improved he had the right to ‘redeem’ his land, i.e. buy it back again. If he were totally unable to do this one of his kinsmen could do it. If none of his family could do it for him then it was provided that the land should return to him in ‘the year of jubilee’ (Lev. 25:28). The basic principle is laid down in these words: ‘The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land’ (Lev. 25:23, 24, AV; see verses 25ff. for the detailed regulations). We see the firmness with which this might be upheld in the refusal of Naboth to dispose of ‘the inheritance of my fathers’ (1 Kgs 21:3) even to the king. A family’s right to its own land was inalienable. All this lies behind the present chapter. Naomi was poor and could not retain her land. But it was a solemn family obligation to see that the land was not lost. It is interesting that AV takes the next expression as before the inhabitants and RSV, in the presence of those sitting here. Either could be defended, for the same verb can mean ‘to sit’ or ‘to dwell’. It is perhaps more likely that Boaz refers to those sitting by who were witnesses. It is not probable that the inhabitants of Bethlehem as a whole were present. he specially singles out the elders of my people. It is not clear why he says my people, as presumably they were also the kinsman’s people. It may be his way of retaining the initiative, or it may be an ancient legal formula. Now he invites the kinsman to make up his mind. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it (AV, RV) shows clearly the legal position. The kinsman had a perfect right to go ahead, and if he did none could say him nay. Alternatively, if he would not redeem it (for if thou wilt not redeem [AV, RV] the Hebrew curiously has ‘if he will not redeem’, but the meaning does not appear to be in doubt) Boaz asks him to say so. There is none to redeem it beside thee (AV, RV) does not, of course, mean there is no other possible redeemer. In the same breath Boaz goes on to assure him that he himself is ready to take over the task. He means that there is no-one ahead of the kinsman. He has the first right. Berkeley, however, renders, there is nobody to redeem it except you, with myself next, thus making the kinsman and Boaz the only two possibilities. Knox (as also the Vulg. he is translating) is similar with his, thy right comes first, and mine second; there is no other kinsman (this reads something into the narrative as Knox also does earlier by rendering gō’ēl as rival claimant and lē’mōr qĕnēh as challenge thee). It is not without its interest that Boaz’ I is emphatic when he says, I am after thee (AV, RV), and that the kinsman responds with an equally emphatic I, I will redeem it.
5. Now Boaz brings out his real interest in the matter. Ruth, as well as Naomi, is concerned with this field. There is some difficulty about the right reading as illustrated by the translations of AV, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess (supported by FF), and of RSV, you are also buying Ruth the Moabitess (supported by Moffatt, Knox, Berkeley, Joüon; for the Moabitess see on Ruth 2:2). The former reflects the Hebrew text, but some of the versions, namely the Old Latin, Vulg., and the Syriac, give us the latter. This accords with Ruth 4:10, but for that reason may be a scribal harmonization. If it be accepted we should probably understand the verb to mean ‘acquire’ rather than ‘buy’ (see on verse 4). There would be no question of paying a dowry for Ruth, either to her parents in Moab or to Naomi. She would be ‘acquired’ but in no sense ‘bought’, AV gives the more difficult reading and this may be right (scribes would be more likely to alter it to the other to fit in with Ruth 4:10, than to manufacture this reading out of that presupposed by RSV). If this is so then Boaz is saying that Ruth also has a stake in this field, and since she is the widow of a childless kinsman this involves marrying her to raise up a child for the deceased as well as treating it as a property matter. It was important to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance (AV, RV). Once again Knox paraphrases rather freely, to perpetuate the name of the kinsman whose lands thou dost enjoy. This may give expression to the rationale of levirate marriage, but it does not give the meaning of the text here. The text says nothing about enjoying the lands. It is concerned only, as AV and RV say, with perpetuating the name of the deceased, which would be done by raising up an heir to take over his lands. The dead here, of course, is Mahlon, the husband of Ruth, who has just been mentioned. But in raising up Mahlon’s name that of Elimelech would also be continued. Joüon, however, takes it to refer to Elimelech, but to call Ruth his wife seems more than strange. Joüon also points out that in the case of a dead man the Hebrews spoke of his wife and not his widow, citing the case of Abigail (1 Sam. 27:3; 30:5; 2 Sam. 2:2; Ruth 3:3).
6. The knowledge that redemption of the field and marriage with Ruth went together altered the whole complexion of things for the kinsman. He does not say, ‘I will not redeem’, but I cannot redeem, and this is strong language. The reason he gives is lest I mar mine own inheritance (AV, RV). The meaning of this is not completely clear but probably the kinsman was not rich. He could redeem the field, but now he sees that it will not be an augmentation of his own property. It will mean rather a diminution of it, for he must pay to buy the field, and then it will belong not to his own family, but to the son of Ruth. Normally in a marriage of this type the field would presumably belong to the widow, not to the widow’s mother-in-law. In marrying the widow the kinsman would secure the field which he could then set against the cost of supporting her. In this case he had to buy the field and in addition provide for Ruth. It might involve quite an expenditure. The kinsman was certainly ready to buy the field without marrying Ruth. He may well have been ready also to marry Ruth without buying the field (as Rowley thinks). What he could not face was doing the two things. Yet they went together. Perhaps we should mention the idea of Cassel (and others). He finds it incredible that a man should refuse marriage on the grounds that his son would inherit, and prefers the explanation that Ruth was a Moabitess, which is expressly mentioned here. One family had been extinguished subsequent to Moabite intermarriage and he did not care to repeat the experiment. There is, however, nothing in the text to indicate that this was the kinsman’s meaning. It is much more likely that he could not assume the double financial burden of buying the field and supporting the widow. It would mar his inheritance (see further on verse 3). Under the circumstances he withdrew his claim to redeem and invited Boaz to take it up. Thou is emphatic and is strengthened by to thyself. Right incidentally is cognate with redeem and with kinsman. It is not the concept of abstract right, but the specific right of redemption that is meant. The kinsman repeated his statement that he was not able to redeem. He apparently wanted there to be no doubt on this point.
7. The narrator now explains a custom which had become obsolete. AV gives what is probably the sense of the opening of the verse, though there is nothing in the Hebrew to correspond to was the manner (AV). But LXX appears to be based on a different text. It seems to be a slavish rendering of mišpāṭ which will here mean ‘custom’, i.e. ‘this was the custom’, and this may be original. That the writer finds it necessary to explain the custom indicates that he wrote some time after the events he narrates. The custom concerned redeeming and changing (AV) (i.e. exchanging, RV, RSV). We have no means of knowing exactly what this latter term covered, though we should notice that Leviticus 27 deals with the possibility of ‘redeeming’ and of ‘changing’ beasts vowed for sacrifice; indeed, verses 10, 33 use our very word to denote an animal intended as an ‘exchange’ for another that was to be sacrificed. The only other Old Testament writer to use the word is the author of Job, who uses it of the emptiness which is to be the ‘recompense’ of the man with a badly based trust (Job 15:31), of the ‘restitution’ the wicked must make for his wronging of others (20:18), and of the impossibility of an ‘exchange’ for wisdom (28:17). The word thus appears to denote exchanges of very varied kinds. However, the redeeming and changing (AV) in mind here seem to be confined to situations where one kinsman takes over from another. The custom is misrepresented if it is said, as Cooke does, ‘When property was transferred, as in the present case, to take off the sandal and hand it to the person in whose favour the transfer is made, gave a symbolic attestation to the act and invested it with legal validity.’ The difficulty with this explanation is that no property was transferred at this point. It still remained with Naomi, and the man who drew off his shoe never did transfer the property. Boaz, on the other hand, who was concerned with the property transfer did not draw off his shoe. It is a transfer of rights, not property, that is in view. The custom is described simply. To confirm whatever was agreed upon, one man drew off (the tense is perfect; one might have expected a frequentative imperfect, but the perfect accords with the fact that the action was performed once only in each case) his sandal and gave it to the other. It is a curious custom, but at least its unusualness would mean that it attracted attention, and this probably was its object (cf. Knox, thus did the Israelites put the grant on record). People would know of the agreement reached. For AV, this was a testimony in Israel, we should read, ‘this was the testimony …’ There is an article and the meaning is ‘this is the way in which attestation was carried out’.
Some have objected that this account of it shows an ignorance of the custom, and that Deuteronomy 25:5–10 tells us what actually happened. The present passage, they reason, shows that the author of Ruth lived at a time when the custom had passed into oblivion, and he misunderstood it. But there is no conflict. In Deuteronomy 25:7 we have the case of the man who refuses to help his brother’s widow; he ‘refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother’ (AV). There is no mention of an alternative kinsman. The man is prepared to let his brother’s name perish and that for selfish reasons. He is to be treated with opprobrium accordingly. The widow is to spit upon him and his sandal is forcibly to be loosed. In Ruth it is different. The unnamed kinsman appears not to be a close relative, certainly not a brother of the deceased.13 And he may not have known Ruth. He can scarcely have known her well. There seems no reason why he should be humiliated. Moreover, Boaz is quite ready to marry Ruth. The question is not, ‘Will Ruth be wed?’ but, ‘Who will be the one to wed her?’ Under these circumstances the kinsman himself took off his sandal and handed it to Boaz. The loosing of the sandal is the action signifying that the transaction was completed: Ruth 4 shows how it was done when a man simply passed his rights on to another. Deuteronomy 25 shows how he was humiliated when he refused to carry out his responsibilities under family law.
That the shoe might be used in a symbolism which is not ours we see from Psalm 60:8, ‘over Edom will I cast out my shoe’ (AV), where the thought appears to be that of sovereignty and possession. There are several passages wherein the placing of the foot upon land and possessing it are connected (Deut. 1:36; 11:24; Josh. 1:3; 14:9). It may well be, as many commentators think, that this is the origin of the custom. The handing over of the shoe symbolized the handing over of what went with it. E. A. Speiser cites from the Nuzi documents examples of the ceremonial transfer of shoes as a means of validating transactions,14 and he sees in the present passage a further example of the same practice.
8. The kinsman’s speech is resumed. He concludes by passing the responsibility on to Boaz. Buy it for thee (AV) (for buy see on Ruth 4:4), he says, i.e. ‘Take it to yourself’. So he drew off his shoe (AV, RV). Some Greek versions (LXX and Aquila) add, ‘and he gave it to him’, thus making it quite clear that it was the kinsman who drew off the shoe and then gave it to Boaz to seal the transaction. MT and thus AV could possibly mean that Boaz drew the shoe off in the spirit of Deuteronomy 25:9. We have no reason, however, for taking this to be the meaning, for that spirit is lacking from this chapter. Yet Knox translates, So now Boaz said to the rival claimant, Untie thy shoe. LXX gives the sense of it, whether it preserves the true text or merely interprets it.
9. Boaz begins this last speech. In this he directs the attention of those present to the salient points to which they were the witnesses. He addresses the elders first, as we might have expected, but he joins with them all the people. There is a single preposition linking the two (unless with Joüon and others we accept the reading of the one MS which repeats the preposition). This points to a close linkage, for the preposition is usually repeated in expressions of this sort. But though the two are closely linked they are not identical. In other words, though the witness of the elders is very significant and may be singled out for special mention the witness of the people is also important. The people are not present simply as bystanders and spectators. Like the chosen elders (4:2) they are legal witnesses. Their witness is mentioned again in 4:11. It is clearly important. Boaz may feel that his transaction is safe, attested by them all. This was very important as it was apparently a day of few written records. Nothing is said to have been put in writing throughout the whole transaction. But with a crowd of reliable witnesses everything would be safely established. I have bought should probably be taken in the sense of a present tense, ‘I acquire’ (for this meaning of the verb see on Ruth 4:4): ‘By these legal proceedings I acquire …’ His next words reveal the transaction to have been more far-reaching than we might have guessed from the preceding. Hitherto we have heard of ‘a piece of the field which belonged to our brother Elimelech’ (4:3), but now what Boaz has bought is all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s (AV, RV). He is establishing his full right to the family possession, and this not only with respect to Elimelech, but to both of his sons too. It is not at all clear how Chilion comes into this. After all Boaz was not marrying Orpah. Probably in the absence of an heir to Chilion his ‘name’ would die out and his claim to a share in the property pass to Mahlon’s heir.
10. Boaz comes to the heart of the matter. In buying the field he has also obtained Ruth to be his wife. Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon stands first in the clause, thus receiving emphasis. This is important. For purchased (AV, RV) see on 4:4. This verb is not often used of the process of acquiring a bride, but it is perfectly understandable in the circumstances. Once again Ruth is described as the Moabitess (see on 2:2). We learn here (and here only) that she had been the wife of Mahlon. The two sons were mentioned in Ruth 1:2 and the two wives in Ruth 1:4 but which wife belonged to which husband was not there made clear. Boaz proceeds to give the justification for his levirate-type marriage first positively and then negatively. It is to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance (AV, RV), i.e., to provide a son who would carry on the name of the deceased. Then, negatively, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place (AV, RV). The brethren will be the whole family, all his relations. His name is not to cease from the family circle. The gate of his place (AV, RV) is probably the gate of the city (Berkeley, from the gate of his home town; FF, however, renders, the gate of his Home). As we have seen, the gate was the centre of social and communal life, so this is equivalent to saying that the name of the deceased would be perpetuated in the community. Having thus formally set forth the effect and the purpose of his action, Boaz concludes by reminding his hearers that they are all witnesses.
Knight reminds us that this action of Boaz in redeeming the helpless Ruth has implications for the author’s view of God. We must ask ourselves, he says, ‘What reading did the author put on this act of redemption by Boaz? Did he realise that if a mere man, a creature of God, could behave in the manner described, and had indeed by his action exhibited the power to redeem an outcast and bring her into fellowship with the living God, then two things could be said of the Creator of Boaz?—(1) God must feel at least as compassionate towards all the Ruths of Moab and of Babylon and of every other land as his creature Boaz felt towards Ruth; (2) God must actually be a God of redemption, with the desire and the power to redeem all outcasts into fellowship with himself.’
11. The court session concludes with a statement from the witnesses. First all the people that were in the gate, and the elders (AV, RV) responded to Boaz’ last statement by affirming that they were indeed witnesses. Actually their assent is given succinctly in the single word witnesses. It is of interest that all the people are here mentioned ahead of the elders. Clearly their part was considered to be more than a formality. The following prayer seems somewhat long to have been uttered by the whole people and LXX may well be right in inserting ‘and the elders said’ after ‘witnesses’. This makes the people respond with one word and the elders carry on with the blessing. Notice that they do not content themselves with discharging their strict legal functions. They proceed to pronounce a blessing on Boaz and his bride.15 They begin with Ruth. Their verb is come (AV, RV) (or ‘has come’) looks on the imminent act as already completed. They pray that God will make her like Rachel and like Leah (AV, RV). It is interesting that, though they are Bethlehemites and thus descended from Judah, son of Leah (Gen. 29:35), they place Rachel before Leah. She was, of course, specially beloved, and she had died in the neighbourhood of their city (Gen. 35:19). Their prayer is a prayer for fruitfulness. These were the only two wives of Jacob and thus from them (together with their maidservants who became Jacob’s concubines, but had no standing so that their children were reckoned as in some way belonging to their mistresses) were descended the entire nation. This prayer then looks for a numerous and distinguished progeny. Then they think of Boaz. Do thou worthily (AV, RV) is general, and expresses a hope for Boaz’ prosperity in a broad sense. The word translated worthily is that rendered ‘of wealth’ in Ruth 2:1 (where see note). It points to excellence in almost any field with perhaps some emphasis on military prowess. In this context the stress is on wealth and prosperity rather than military eminence. It certainly looks for Boaz to be a happy and successful man. For Ephratah see on 1:2. Be famous in Bethlehem (AV, RV: lit. ‘call name [or a name] in Bethlehem’) goes on to the consequences of this. As a result of his goodly actions these well-wishers trust that Boaz will be renowned. Knox takes these last two clauses to refer to Ruth, but the Hebrew does not bear this out. KD understand them both of the begetting of children. This seems unlikely in the case of do thou worthily (AV, RV), which is quite general, but it is not at all impossible in the case of be famous. It may signify, as KD put it, ‘Make to thyself a well-established name through thy marriage with Ruth, by a host of worthy sons who shall make thy name renowned.’ But the Hebrew is unusual, and many propose alterations to the text. The exact meaning must remain uncertain, but clearly the expression is one of good will, and AV, RV are probably right.
12. They had looked for Ruth to be prolific, and now they repeat the thought with respect to Boaz. It is at first sight curious that they ask for his house (i.e. his ‘household’, more specifically, his descendants) to be like that of Pharez, for this man is not usually regarded as an outstanding example of fruitfulness or of anything else. But there are several reasons. As the speakers here point out, Pharez was one whom Tamar bare unto Judah (AV, RV). The story is told in Genesis 38, and, since Tamar’s situation had been not unlike Ruth’s, the story may be very relevant. Then we must bear in mind that Pharez was apparently the most important of Judah’s sons. At any rate, he seems to be mentioned more prominently than Shelah who was older. And of the twins, though he was not marked with the red cord meant to signify the first-born, yet he ‘came out first’ (Gen. 38:28f.). The tribe of Judah apparently depended on Pharez’ descendants more than on those of others. As the book of Ruth is set in the territory of this tribe the comparison becomes apt. Moreover, as we see from 4:18–21 Pharez was one of Boaz’ ancestors and thus a most suitable person to be mentioned. Indeed, it seems that Pharez was the ancestor of the Bethlehemites in general (1 Chr. 2:5, 18, 50f.). Moreover, Pharez gave his name to the section of the tribe of Judah that was descended from him (Num. 26:20). The verse concludes with a reference to the seed which the Lord shall give thee (AV, RV). There is a simple piety here. It is not natural fecundity but the gift of God for which they pray. FF takes ‘seed’ to refer to one child, the heir. The references to thy house (AV, RV) and to the seed which the Lord shall give thee (AV, RV) are probably best explained if Boaz was childless. It is unlikely that he was a bachelor but he may well have been a widower. In that case the first son of the marriage would be heir to Boaz as well as to Mahlon.16