or unbecoming in what Ruth has done; on the contrary, he praises her conduct as surpassing all her

previous claims to his respect. Again, the language of Boaz implies that Ruth, although daring what she had

felt to be right, had done it with the fear which, in the circumstances, womanly modesty would prompt. We

almost seem to hear the low whispered tones, and the tremor of her voice, as we catch the gentle,

encouraging words of Boaz' reply: "My daughter," and as he stills the throbbing of her heart with his kindly -

spoken, fatherly: "Fear not!" No thought but of purity and goodness,334 and of Israel's law intruded on the

midnight converse of those who were honored to become the ancestors of our Lord.

And now he, on his part, has explained to Ruth, how there is yet a nearer kinsman, whose claims must first

be set aside, if the law is to be strictly observed. And, assuredly, if observance of the law of redemption,

with all that it implied in Israel, had not been the chief actuating motive of Boaz and Ruth, there would have

been no need first to refer the matter to the nearer kinsman, since there could be no possible hindrance to

the union of those whose hearts evidently belonged to each other.

The conduct of each party having been clearly determined, they lie down again in silence. What remained of

the short summer's night soon passed. Before the dawn had so far brightened that one person could have

recognized another, she left the threshing-floor, bearing to her mother the gift of her kinsman, as if in pledge

that her thoughts had been understood by him, and that her hope concerning the dead and the living would

be realized.335

The story now hastens to a rapid close. Early in the morning Boaz goes up to the gate, the usual place for

administering law, or doing business. He sits down as one party to a case; calls the unnamed nearer

kinsman, as he passes by, to occupy the place of the other party, and ten of the elders as witnesses or

umpires - the number ten being not only symbolical of completeness, but from immemorial custom, and

afterwards by law, that which constituted a legal assembly. To understand what passed between Boaz and

the unnamed kinsman, we must offer certain explanations of the state of the case and of the law applying to

it, different from any hitherto proposed. For the difficulty lies in the sale of the property by Naomi - nor is it

diminished by supposing that she had not actually disposed of, but was only offering it for sale. In general

we may here say, that the law (Numbers 27:8, 11) does not deal with any case precisely similar to that under

consideration. It only contemplates one of two things, the death of a childless man, when his next -of-kin

(speaking broadly) is bound to ma rry his widow (Deuteronomy 25:5); or else a forced sale of property

through poverty, when the next -of-kin of the original proprietor may redeem the land (Leviticus 25:25). It is

evident, that the former must be regarded as a duty, the latter as a privilege attaching to kinship, the object

of both being precisely the same, the preservation of the family (rather than of the individual) in its original

state. But although the law does not mention them, the same principle would, of course, apply to all

analogous cases. Thus it might, for example, be, that a man would marry the widow, but be unable to redeem

the property. On the other hand, he never could claim to redeem property without marrying the widow, to

whom as the representative of her dead husband the property attached. In any case the property of the

deceased husband was vested in a childless widow. In fact, so long as the childless widow lived, no one

could have any claim on the property, since she was potentially the heir of her deceased husband. All

authorities admit, that in such a case she had the use of the property, and a passage in the Mishnah (Yebam.

iv. 3) declares it lawful for her to sell possessions, though it does seem very doubtful whether the

expression covers the sale of her deceased husband's land. Such, however, would have been in strict

accordance with the principle and the spirit of the law. In the case before us then, the property still belonged

to Naomi, though in reversion to Ruth as potentially representing Elimelech and Machlon, while the claim to

be married to the next -of-kin could, of course, in the circumstances, only devolve upon Ruth. Thus the

property still held by Naomi went, in equity and in law, with the hand of Ruth, nor had any one claim upon

the one without also taking the other. No kinsman had performed the kinsman's duty to Ruth, and therefore

no kinsman could claim the privilege of redemption connected with the land. With the hand of Ruth the land

had, so to speak, been repudiated. But as the kinsman had virtually refused to do his part, and Naomi was

unable to maintain her property, she disposed of it, and that quite in the spirit of the law. There was no

wrong done to any one. The only ground for passing the land to a kinsman would have been, that he would

preserve the name of the dead. But this he had virtually refused to do. On the other hand, it was still open to