Ruth 4

*** For to confirm all things.** To make the bargain valid. v A man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour; and this was a testimony in Israel] A sufficient evidence, that he transferred all his right unto that person to whom he delivered his shoe. It is not easy to give an account of the original of this custom; but the reason of it is plain enough, it being a natural signification that he resigned his interest in the land, by giving him his shoe, wherewith he used to walk in it, to the end that he might enter into it, and take possession of it himself. The Targum, instead of his shoe, hath the right-hand glove; it being the custom, perhaps, in his time> to give that in room of the shoe. For it is less troublesome to pull off a glove than a shoe, and deliver it to another, though it hath the same signification; as now the Jews deliver a handkerchief to the same purpose. So R.Solomon Jarchi affirms, We acquire, or buy, now by a handkerchief, or veil, instead of a shoe.

Ruth 4:1

JL HEN tvent Boaz up to the gate. Where there was a great concourse of people; and where the judges sat. So the Chaldee paraphrast, He tvent to the gate of. the house of judgment, where the Sanhedrin sat. (See my note uponDeut.xvi. 18.) And sat him dotvn there.] Among the elders, as the forenamed paraphrast will have it: but that is not likely, for he called the other kinsman to come and sit down by Iiiin, And, behold, the kinsman qfwhom Boaz spake came by.] Sec iii. 12.. Unto ivhom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside,- sit down here.] When they could not think of a man’s name, or did not think fit to name it, they used these words, Peloni almoni; which Daniel -contracts into one word, Falmoni, (viii. 13.) and is the same with the Greek 6 Suva. 2G Microsoft® [chap. IV* And he turned aside, and sat down.] Supposing Boaz had some business with him, he did not go on his way, but turned aside to speak with him. This was about noon (as Josephus saith),whcn greater multitudes were wont to be assembled in such public places, than at other times of the day. ^

Ruth 4:2

Andhe took ten men. He would have a sufficient number of witnesses of what he did; which, as Maimonides observes, was very necessary in the espousal of a person to one’s wife. For, saith he, if it had been enough to do it privately, many would have taken a harlot into their houses for a time, and pretended she was their wife,; therefore it was ordained, that, after any man had espoused a woman, ho should marry her publicly, after the example of Boaz, of whom we read, he took ten men, &c. (More Ncvochim, par. iii. cap. 49.), Of the elders of the city.’] How many elders there, were in every city, is not certain; insomuch that Bertram conjectures, there were as many as there were captains of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and tens, in every city. Josephus, indeed, saith, there w T ere seven, (lib. iv. Antiq. cap. 6.) which perhaps was the determinate number in his time. But anciently, one ^vould think, there were more, because here Boaz mentions ten elders (who were the same with judges) in the cityof Beth-lehcm, which made Bertram (de llepubl. Judaica, cap. 9.) the more confident, that, as the captains of thousands, &c. in every city, were the elders of that city, so there were as many in every city, of the one as of the other.. As for what the Talmudists say, that there were three judges^in pecuniary causes, and three-andtwenty in capital, it must belong, if it be true, to later times. And said, Sit you down here. And they satdoum.] To, hear the cause he intended to bring before them.

Ruth 4:3

And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come out of the country ofMoab, selletk a parcel of land, which was our brother ElimelecKs. He calls him their brother, because he was near of kin to them. And he mentions Naomi’s return out of the country of Moab, to intimate, that her poverty constrained her to sell her estate, which her husband left her. That interest she might part withal, to supply her necessities, but it could not take away the right of redemption; for, as Mr. Selden observes in his book de Successionibus, cap. 16. both Elimelech the father, and Mahlon the son (unto both which Boaz was of kin), gave this patrimony to their wives before they died (for otherwise they could not have had the possession of it): or rather, the former gave his interest to Naomi, and the latter his to Ruth; which, how it was done, Maimonides shews in his treatise de Donationibus, cap. 6.

Ruth 4:4

And I thought to advertise thee of it, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the ciders of my people. Before those that sat in the gate of the house of judgment, and before these elders, as the Targum expounds it; that is, the ten elders beforementioned, that the bargain might be firmly made, and the estate legally passed over to him. Jfthou ivilt redeem it, redeem it; bnt if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may £nou;.] That is, understand thy mind in this matter. For there is none to redeem it besides thee, and lam after thee.’] That is, no other kinsman remaining of that family but they two. And he said, I will redeem it.] For it is likely it lay convenient for him.

Ruth 4:5

Tlien said Boaz, What day thou buy est the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must bay it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the death. For they both had an interests it; but Boaz prudently conceals the name of Ruth, till he had consented to buy the land, and then tells him whom he must take along with it. To raise up, the name of the dead upon his inheritance.’] According to the law mentioned Deut. xxv. 5, &c. as it is commonly interpreted. But it was rather (in Mr. Selden’s opinion) the fulfilling of the law, mentioned Lev. xxv. 24, 25. lib.de Successionibus ad Leges Hebr. cap. 15. where he observes, that this phrase, to raise up the name of the dead, (which is mentioned also, ver. 10.) is quite different from that mentioned in Deuteronomy; being no more, as R. Solomon notes, (upon iii. 9.) than if he. had said, that the name of Iter dead husband may be had in remembrance,’ so that when she came into that field, men might say, This is the wife of Mahlon. There is a long discourse also in Abarbinel, upon Deut. xxv. to prove, that this doth not belong to that law, of a man’s raising up seed to his brother, (See Buxtorf, de Sponsal. et Divortiis, sect. 27.) But if it do, Grotius thinks that law only obliged bfio-nargiot, brethren by the same father to marry the brother’s widow; but custom, in process of time, obliged the next of kin to do it. (See upon Matt. xxii. 24.)

Ruth 4:6

And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for my self, lest I mar my oivn inheritance.* He had a wife and children already, which made him afraid to marry a poor woman with a small parcel of land, which would not provide for the children he might have by her, without diminishing his own inheritance of which he was possessed. To which the Chaldee paraphrast adds, that it might have made great contentions in his family: for thus he makes him speak, I cannot redeem?*(viz. on that condition), for I have a wife already; and it is not fit for me to bring another into my house, for fear brawling and quarrelling arise in it, and lest I hurt my own inheritance. In like manner the Midrasch, upon this book,, makes him discourse. But Rasi interprets the words, as if the meaning was, that he should bring a blot uj>on his posterity, by marrying a Moabitish woman (which he thought was forbidden by the law), for children are called a heritage, Psal. exxvii. 3. But in this he acknowledges the man was mistaken, as many of their ancient doctors were, for the law did not forbid the marrying a woman of that country. But the plainest sense is (as Mr. Selden observes), that many inconveniences might arise in his family by this marriage, not only by the disagreement of his wives, but by the difficulty of providing tfor so many children as she might bring him, and of giving tbem good education, and by distracting his inheritance, and such-like things; which he prudently considered as, good reasons of his refusal. (See lib.i. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 9.) Redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.] Which is’thus paraphrased by the Targum, Do thou therefore redeem it, because thou hast no wife, which hinders me from redeeming. -

Ruth 4:7

( iVbw this ivas the manner in former times in Israel, concerning redeeming, and concerning changing. There wris no law, that we can find, about the following rite, but only custom, which had long prevailed; when men redeemed lands that had been alienated, or gave possession of them to another person.

Ruth 4:8

Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. ’ After the accustomed manner. So he drew off his shoe.] And gave it Boaz, in token that he parted with all his right to him. The Jewish doctors, indeed, differ very much about this matter; for some say, he that parted with his right to redeem the land pulled off his shoe, and gave it to him that bought it; but others, thathe who bought:it, gave his shoe. to him that sold it. The truth is, the text may be either way-understood, but it seems to me most reasonable to think, that he who parted with his right parted with his shoe also. See Selden, lib. vi. de Jure Nat. et Gent, juxta Disciplin.‘Hcbr. cap. 5. where he observes again, how different this was from the rites used; when one renounced his brother’s wife. And Abarbinel looks upon this as a demonstration, that the plucking off the shoe here mentioned, is not the same with that in Deut. xxv. For Ruth doth not here appear to loose his shoe, (as the brother’s wife is there ordered to do, ver. 9.) much less did she come to spit in his face; of which there is not one word in this ceremony; which he shews wholly belongs to the sale of lands, or to their redemption, and bringing them back again into the family to which they belonged. This appears from the following words, where mention is made of nothing but of a purchase of Elimclech’s estate.

Ruth 4:9

And Boaz saidnnto the elders, and to all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, of the hand of Naomi.] She bad the first right in the land after the death of her husband, and her two sons after her; which she entirely parted withal by this contract unto Boaz, to whom the other kinsman had passed over his right of redemption, by the political ceremony of plucking, off the shoe.

Ruth 4:10

Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mah<- lon, have I purchased to be my wife. He had her by the right of the same purchase, and did not succeed into the right of a brother, mentioned in Deut. xxv.; for he was not brother to Elimelech, but only a remote kinsman of the same family, as Abarbinel theTe observes, who could not enjoy the land, while she lived, unless he would take her with it; to whom it belonged as long as she lived, and: was to go to her issue when she died. To raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance*) That the parcel of land -which he bought," might still be called by the name of Mahlon, whose wife Boaz married. That the name of the dead be not cut off from his brethren, and from the gate of his place.] That his name hereby, might be remembered, not only in his own family, T>ut in all the city of Beth-lehem; for by the gate of hisplace 9 is meant all the people that entered in at the gate. Ye are witnesses this’ day.] Both that he bought the land, and Ruth together with it, at such a time. Ver; 11. And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses.]’ Afterthis open declaration, there was no heed of any instrument in writing to confirm the purchase." - The Lord make the woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah.] Such a solemn benediction of those who were going to be married was very ancient, as we learn from Gen. xxiv. GO. and the Jews continue it to this day, which, they say, was always in the presence" of ten grave persons, at the least, (as Mr. Selden observes, lib. ii. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 12.) conformable to this example of Boaz, (ver. 2.) and the eldest of them pronounced the benediction,* -which was a ratification of what was agreed: so our Mr. Thorndike excellently observes, that the benediction, which we Christians use in marriage, is a sign of the allowance of the church “presupposed, as this benediction of Boaz and Ruth presupposeth the act to be allowed by the ciders, or consistory, who sat in the gate of Bethlehem. See Rites of the Church in a e Christian State, p. 241. In the Review of which he observes, that this seems to b6 confirmed by the opinion of Epiphanius, who saith, Our Lord was invited to the rnarriage of Cana in Galilee, that, as a prophet, he might bless the marriage^ w r hich, it is certain, the church hath always practised, to signify, that the marriage was approved to be made adcording to the laws of God. And therefore Conradus Pellicanus (an eminent man at the beginning of the Reformation) here well notes, that prayers and benedictions aire never to be omitted in marriage. Like Rachel and Leah.] That is, very fruitful. Which two did build up the house of Israel.] Were blessed with a numerous posterity. They do not mention the two handmaids, because these were Jacob’s principal wives (and Rachel chosen first, as she is here placed), whose servants bare children, not for themselves, but their mistresses. (See Gen. xxx. 3.) And do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Beth* lehem.] These two are but different names of the same place, where Boaz and Ruth also lived, who seems now to have been present, as Josephus represents her, and who they prayed might be a great example of all virtue in that city.’

Ruth 4:12

And let thy house be like the house of Pharez (whom Tamar bare unto Judah), of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman. Both Boaz, and all the Beth-lehemites, derived their original from Pharez, whose family was very illustrious in Israel; and therefore they could not have, wished Boaz a greater blessing, than to have as noble an issue as he was to Judah.

Ruth 4:13

So Boaz took Ruth. Carried her home to his own house, with all the solemnity, it is likely, which was usual in such cases. And she was his wife.] And all other rites, which w6rfc 2G2 Microsoft® A COTVIMENTARY UPON [chap. IV. observed* in those days,l>eing performed, they were completely made man and wife. And token he went in unto Iter, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son.] A year after their marriage, as Josephus saith

Ruth 4:14

And the women said unto Naomi. After Ruth’s delivery..’ • BlesSed be the Lord, tvho hath not left thee this day without a kinsman.] The Hebrew name otgoel (which we translate kinsman) properly belonged to’Boaz, and not to his son, who was now born: and yet the child seems to be here meant, which made the Arabic translator render it> hath not left thee without an heir, who being to succeed his father, what he had done might be ascribed to his son. That his name may be fainous in Israel.] They hoped God would make him an eminent person among them. » i

Ruth 4:15

And he shdll be unto thee a restorer of thy life. Such a comfort, as to make her, in some sort, young again. k " And a nourisher of thine old age.] And in old age take care of her, and support her. * For thy daughter-in-law, tvhich loveth’thee, tvhich is better 4o thee than seven sons, hath borne him.] For they hoped he would inherit his mother’s virtues, and particularly her affection to Naomi, which was so surpassing, lhat it made her a greater blessing to her, than a great many sons of her own body would have been; for they would scarce have been able, out of so small a fortune, to maintain themselves; whereas this being the son of a rich father, could afford her tdso a plentiful maintenance.. " Ver. 1G. And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her.own bosom,. and became nurse tinto it.] Brought it up with a most tender affection, for his mother gave him suck:,and •then Naomi took him from her, and educated him as her own child., •

Ruth 4:17

And the women her neighbours gave it a, name. ’ It did not belong to the neighbours, but to the father -or mother, to name the child; but they advised Nkomi to call it by a name suitable to their foregoing discourse. (See Luke i. 39, &c.) * Saying, There is a son bom unto Naomi.^ Unto whom they -had promised such great comfort from this child, that it moved them to desire it might have “the following name. • And they called his name Obed.] T&at is, one who should^ be very serviceable unto her; for Obed signifies SovXtvw, a servant, as Josephus interprets it. By which name, saith he, Na6mi called the child Kara avpfiovXiav yvvtuKwv, by the advice and counsel of the women, ikV yrjpoK6f.ii$ avrTjg r/>a^Tj(ra/xevov, as one appointed to take care of her in old age. The Targum thus paraphrases upon this name, Who served the Lord of the world with a perfect heart; a piece •of which service consisted in giving due honour unto parents.- Some make it a question, why this child was not calledMahlon, according to the law which seems to require it? But this hath been answered already, th&t what Boaz did, was not in obedience to the law in Deut. xxv. for he was not the brother of Mahlon (in which case the child must have borne Mahlon’s name), but only a remote kinsman. • * He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.] l? or •whose sake this whole book seems to have been written, that it might be certainly known from whom he was descended, the Messiah* beihg’.to spring from hiiji; which is the reason why the following genealogy is annexed for the conclusion of this book. Vor. 18. Now these are the generations ofPharez.] He begius no higher, because every one knew thatPharez was the grandson of Jacob, and he the son of Isaac, &c. Pharez begat Hezron.] In the land of Canaan, beforfc they went down into Egypt, as we read Gen.xlvi. 12. “>

Ruth 4:19

And Hezron begat Ram. So he is called in LChron. ii. G. but in the New Testament, Aram, (Matt. i. 3. Luke iii. 33.) And Rain begat Amminadab.’] These two were boni in the land of Egypt, where Amminadab also begat Nalishon*.

Ruth 4:20

And Amminadab begat Nalishon. Who was prince of the children of Judah, when they came out of Egypt, as the author of the book of Chronicles observes, (1 Chron. ii. 10.) which is confirmed by Moses, in his words, Numb. i. 7. vii. 12. x. 14; where we find, that, in the second year after their coming out of Egypt, he was the ^principal person in Tiis tribe..,r •’ And Nalishon begat Salmon.] Who was born in the wil^ derness, in all probability, and was called also Salma, (1 Chron. ii. 11.),

Ruth 4:21

And Salmon begat Boaz. Of Rahab, whom lie took to be his wife after the taking of Jericho, (Matt. i. 5.) And Boaz: begat Obdd.] Here the Targum makes Boaz the same with Ibzah, Jiidg. xii. 8. (which is altogether improbable),” in whose days he saith the famine, spoken of in this book, happened; from which they were delivered by.the prayers of Boaz.’ •. *

Ruth 4:22

And Obed begat Jesse. Who was also called Nahash, as some think, and is. expressly aflirmed by the Targum, because Zeruiah and Abigail are said to be David’s sisters, 1 Chron. ii. 1G. and Abigail is said to be the daughter of Nahash, 2 Sam. xvii. 25. * But David’s mother, perhaps, had a former husband, whose name was Nahash, by whom she had these daughters. And Jesse, begat David.] Unto whose time there being but •four generations; and Salmon, the first of the four, married Rahab, after their entrance into Canaan; from thence, to the fourth year of king Solomon, there being four hundred and forty years, (as appears from 1 Kings vi. 2.) it must necessarily* follow, that, unless we suppose some other coming between (for which we have no good warrant), these four* persons^ Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse, begat a -child in their old age. And, indeed, Boaz supposes himself to be no young man, when he spake those words to Ruth, iii. 10. And Jesse was counted an old man, when David his son was a youth, (1 Sam. xvii. 12.) and therefore, that account which primate Usher hath given of this matter, in his’Chronologia Sacra, par. i. cap. 12. seems very reasonable, that taking out’of that number of four hundred and forty, the seventy years that David lived, and the four first years of Solomon’s reign; then, from their coming into the land of Canaan, to the nativity of David, there remain three hundred sixty and six, as Aben Ezra observes in the conclusion of this book. Now these years may be thus’commodiously distributed, if we suppose Rahab to have borne Boaz in the forty-second year after they entered Canaan; and if we assign a hundred and two years before he begat Obed; and a hundred and eleven to Obed, before he begat Jesse; and as many to Jesse before he begat David;’ which make the just sum of three hundred W^?^Sf I CHAP. I.]