Lange Commentary - Ruth 2:1 - 2:1

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Ruth 2:1 - 2:1


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

CHAPTER SECOND

Rth_2:1

The Relative

1And Naomi had [in Bethlehem] a kinsman [lit. acquaintance,] of her husband’s, a mighty man of wealth [a valiant hero], of the family of Elimelech; and his name was Boaz.

EXEGETICAL AND DOCTRINAL

Before relating the wonderful deliverance through a kinsman, by which faithfulness and love are rewarded, the writer first informs us briefly of the existence of the person who is chosen to effect this deliverance. Hitherto the acting persons have been only women, both of them loving and excellent; now, the portrait of a man is drawn, who is the model of an Israelite, as family-head and as landlord, in war and in peace.

Naomi had a kinsman. The expression for this is îְéֻãָּò . In our texts, it is true, it is pointed îéֹãַò , with îåֹãָò , as Keri, in the margin. But îåֹãָò occurs only once more (Pro_7:4), and there also we must probably read îְéֻãָּò . The reading îåֹãָò was preferred by the Masora only on account of the fem. îåֹãַòַú , which occurs at Rth_3:2. The participle îְåãָּò is of more frequent occurrence, cf. Psa_55:14. Hitherto, Naomi could say, as does the Psalmist (Psa_88:9): “Thou hast put my kinsmen ( îְéֻãָּòַé ) far from me.” Compare also Rth_2:19 of the same psalm, where it stands in parallelism with àֹäֵá , lover, and øֵòַ , companion. She has likewise experienced what is written Psa_31:12, cf. Job_19:14. Literally, to be sure, the word means only an “acquaintance;” but it expresses more than we mean by that term. The man was not a very near relative, but one “known” to the family, as belonging to it. It was an acquaintance valid within the family lines; hence the word signifies as much as familiaris. It is used in a noteworthy connection at 2Ki_10:11, where Jehu slays all the great men, the îְéֻãְּòִéí , and the priests of Ahab,—i. e. everybody that adhered to him, whether from family connection or interest. The Latin notus may occasionally approximate to the idea of the Hebrew term even more closely than the Greek ãíþñéìïò ; not so much, however, in Catull. 79:4 (si tria notorum basia repererit), as in Liv. 3:44, where, with reference to the violence done to Virginia, is said: notos gratia (patris et sponsi) turbam indignitas rei virgini conciliat.

The fact is emphasized that Boaz was only a îִéֻãָּò This not only explains a certain remoteness of Naomi from him, but it makes the piety, which notwithstanding the distance (manifest also from Rth_3:12) of the relationship, performs what the narrative goes on to relate, more conspicuously great than it would appear if, according to an unfounded conjecture of Jewish expositors, he were held to be the son of Elimelech’s brother.

A valiant hero. These words are applied to Boaz in no other sense than to Gideon (Jdg_6:12), Jephthah (11:1), and others, and have no reference to his wealth and property. He was a strong and able man in Israel, in war and in peace. Probably he had distinguished himself in conflicts of Israel against enemies, perhaps against Moab. The ancestor of David is, as the Midrash (Ruth 31, d) remarks, rightly thus described. His name, Boaz ( áֹּòַæ ), is to be explained by reference to the name of one of the pillars erected by Solomon, and called Boaz, while the other was named Jachin (cf. my Gold. Thron Salomo’s, p. 45). It is not a compound of áּåֹ òָæ , but a contraction of áֶּïÎòַæ , “son of strength, of enduring vigor.” The signification alacritas (Ges., Keil, etc.), would hardly be applicable to the pillar.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The same characteristic is ascribed to Boaz as to Gideon, and to David. But concerning his warlike deeds nothing is related. In Israel, however, there was no valor, properly so called, except such as sprang from the acknowledgment of the living God. The word is not applied to wild battle-rage, but to moral strength, which valiantly repels distress and dishonor, as Abraham drew the sword for his country against foreign oppressors. Boaz was a hero in war through his virtue in peace. And this virtue comes so clearly to view in the Book of Ruth, that the narrator could justly add: he was a brave man. For morally brave he shows himself in every relation: 1. as landlord; 2. as confessor of God; 3. as man of action; and hence he receives the reward both of him who dispenses blessings and of him who receives them.

[Fuller: “This first verse presents us with two remarkable things: 1. Poor Naomi was allied to powerful Boaz. 2. Boaz was both a powerful man and a godly man.”—Tr.]