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). [source][source][source]
"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 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."" [1][source]
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). [2] 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. [source][source][source]
". . . he who was so anxious for the preservation of his own inheritance, is now not even known by name." [3][source]
The Mosaic Law did not specify the need for10 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. [4] The presence of10 elders would also have put some social pressure on the kinsman to do what was right. [source][source][source]
"In a time when few written records were kept, attestation by a number of witnesses made transactions legally secure." [5][source]
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. [source][source][source]
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. [4] In this case, Boaz wanted to do both things. [7][source]
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. [8] Perhaps someone took control of the property when Naomi"s family moved to Moab. [9] She may have had to mortgage her late husband"s property to survive. [10] 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. [11][source]
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. [2][source]
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. [source][source][source]
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). [13] His refusal to do so would have brought disgrace on him ( Deuteronomy 25:7-10). Huey believed that none of the disgrace of this regulation was present in Boaz"s dealings with the nearer kinsman. [14] 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. [15][source]
". . . 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." [16][source]
"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." [17][source]
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. [15] 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. [source][source][source]
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 Song of Solomon , but legally he was Boaz and Mahlon"s son as well as Elimelech"s descendant. [source][source][source]
"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." [1][source]
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). [source][source][source]
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. [13] He regarded the unnamed kinsman redeemer"s change of mind "the book"s thorniest legal problem." [2][source]
". . . 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, 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)." [22][source]
|