Ruth 4:1 - Meaning and Application

Here, Boaz immediately calls for a public meeting. He may have been one of the city elders himself, since he was a man of great wealth. He likely had a place of honor in the city, and he went up to the gate like a man with authority, not like an ordinary citizen. A night spent at the edge of a pile of grain on the threshing floor did not clash with a seat as judge at the gate, in those simpler times.

But why was Boaz so quick, and so eager about this marriage? Ruth was not rich, but lived on charity. She was not a woman of high rank, but a poor foreigner. Scripture never says she was beautiful, and if she once had been, sorrow, travel, and hard work may have faded her beauty. What drew Boaz to her was the testimony of everyone around her, that she was a virtuous woman. That made her worth far more to him than jewels (Proverbs 31:10). So he thought that if he could do her a real kindness by marrying her, he would also be doing himself a great kindness.

He brought the matter to a decision at once. Since it was not an official court day, he gathered ten men from the city elders to meet him at the gate, where public business was handled (Ruth 4:2). Ten likely made up a full court by the custom of that place. Even though Boaz may have been a judge, he would not judge his own case, but wanted the other elders to be there too. Honest plans do not fear public scrutiny.

Then he called his nearer relative to come and hear the matter he wanted to bring before him (Ruth 4:1). He said, “Come here and sit down,” using the man’s name, though the sacred writer does not record it. Since this man refused to preserve the name of the dead, he did not deserve to have his own name preserved in this history. God’s providence was also at work here, since this relative happened to arrive just when the matter was ready to be proposed. Big affairs are often helped along by small events.

Boaz first offered him the chance to redeem Naomi’s land, which may have been mortgaged for money during the famine (Ruth 4:3). It may have been land she held for life, and because she needed money, she was willing to sell her right to the nearest legal heir. Boaz gave this man proper notice, so he could have the first chance to buy it (Ruth 4:4). Whoever took it would have to pay for it, but Boaz would not quietly buy it over the head of a closer relative. He would not do anything underhanded, and he sets a good example for us to be fair, open, and honorable in all our dealings.

The relative seemed ready to redeem the land until he learned that the widow would come with it, and then he backed away. He liked the land well enough, and probably liked it even more because he thought Naomi’s need would make it a cheap bargain. “I will redeem it,” he said gladly, thinking it would add nicely to his estate (Ruth 4:4). But Boaz explained that there was also a young widow in the matter, and if he took the land, he must take her too. The land came with a burden, as property often does. Either God’s law or the custom of the land would require this, or Naomi would not sell unless that condition was included (Ruth 4:5).

Some think this was not about the law of marrying a brother’s widow, which seems to apply only to brothers of the same father (Deuteronomy 25:5), unless custom later extended it to the next nearest relative. They think it refers instead to the law of redeeming property (Leviticus 25:24-25), since here a redeemer, a near kinsman who restores what was lost, is being sought. If so, the marriage to the widow was not required by the law itself, but by Naomi’s own condition for the sale.

However it worked, the man refused once he heard the terms (Ruth 4:6). “I cannot redeem it for myself,” he said. “I will not take it, or I may harm my own inheritance.” He thought the land alone would help his estate, but the land with the woman would hurt it. Perhaps he felt it would lower his standing to marry a poor widow from a foreign country, one who had nearly lived on alms. He thought it would damage his family name and weaken his children’s place in the world. Her clear virtue was not enough, in his eyes, to make up for that.

The Chaldee paraphrase says he refused because he already had another wife, and taking Ruth might bring trouble and division into his house. Others think he feared that Ruth might bear many children, and that they would all claim a share of his property, leaving the estate divided among too many hands. This is how many people turn away from the great redemption. They are willing to speak well of religion, but they do not want to be tied to it. They are glad to hear of heaven, but not of holiness, because holiness would interfere with the sins they have already chosen. So they let others purchase heaven at that cost, while they refuse it themselves.

Then the right of redemption was openly given to Boaz. If this unnamed relative lost a good bargain, a good estate, and a good wife too, he had only himself to blame for not thinking more carefully. Boaz, on the other hand, had the way cleared for what he valued and desired more than anything else. In those days, estates were not usually transferred by written deeds, as they were later (Jeremiah 32:10). Instead, they were handed over by some sign or ceremony, like giving a key for a house or giving turf and a twig for land.

The ceremony used here was this: the man who gave up his right took off his shoe, or, as the Chaldee version says, the glove from his right hand, and gave it to the one receiving the right. This showed that whatever right he had to walk on, use, or claim the land, he was now transferring it for a fair price to the buyer. This is called a witness, or public proof, in Israel, as Ruth 4:7 says, and it was done in this case too, as Ruth 4:8 shows.

If this relative had been required by the law to marry Ruth, and if his refusal had been a shameful rejection of that duty, then Ruth would have been the one to take off his shoe and spit in his face, as Deuteronomy 25:9 says. But although his relationship to the family may have given him some duty here, the closeness of that relationship may also have kept him from the penalty. Or Ruth may have chosen to set the penalty aside, since all she wanted was his refusal.

Yet Bishop Patrick and the best interpreters think this had nothing to do with that law. They see the removing of the shoe not as a disgrace, as in that law, but as a sign that the surrender was real, open, and not gained by trickery. The point is clear: honest and open dealing in contracts and business is something all who want to prove themselves true Israelites, people without deceit, must carefully keep. Boaz gained this purchase in a far more honorable way than if he had secretly worked against his relative and made a private deal with Naomi without the man knowing. Honesty is still the best policy.