TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Commentary on Ruth 4 verses 1–8
Here, 1. Boaz calls a court immediately. It is probable he was himself one of the elders (or aldermen) of the city; for he was a mighty man of wealth. Perhaps he was father of the city, and sat chief; for he seems here to have gone up to the gate as one having authority, and not as a common person; like Job, Job 29:7, etc. We cannot suppose him less than a magistrate in his city who was grandson to Nahshon, prince of Judah; and his lying at the end of a heap of corn in the threshing-floor the night before was not at all inconsistent, in those days of plainness, with the honour of his sitting judge in the gate. But why was Boaz so hasty, why so fond of the match? Ruth was not rich, but lived upon alms; not honourable, but a poor stranger. She was never said to be beautiful; if ever she had been so, we may suppose that weeping, and travelling, and gleaning, had withered her lilies and roses. But that which made Boaz in love with her, and solicitous to expedite the affair, was that all her neighbours agreed she was a virtuous woman. This set her price with him far above rubies (Pro 31:10); and therefore he thinks, if by marrying her he might do her a real kindness, he should also do himself a very great kindness. He will therefore bring it to a conclusion immediately. It was not court-day, but he got ten men of the elders of the city to meet him in the town-hall over the gate, where public business used to be transacted, Rut 4:2. So many, it is probable, by the custom of the city, made a full court. Boaz, though a judge, would not be judge in his own cause, but desired the concurrence of other elders. Honest intentions dread not a public cognizance. 2. He summons his rival to come and hear the matter that was to be proposed to him (Rut 4:1): "Ho, such a one, sit down here." He called him by his name, no doubt, but the divine historian thought not fit to record it, for, because he refused to raise up the name of the dead, he deserved not to have his name preserved to future ages in this history. Providence favoured Boaz in ordering it so that this kinsman should come by thus opportunely, just when the matter was ready to be proposed to him. Great affairs are sometimes much furthered by small circumstances, which facilitate and expedite them. 3. He proposes to the other kinsman the redemption of Naomi's land, which, it is probable, had been mortgaged for money to buy bread with when the famine was in the land (Rut 4:3): "Naomi has a parcel of land to sell, namely, the equity of the redemption of it out of the hands of the mortgagee, which she is willing to part with;" or, as some think, it was her jointure for her life, and, wanting money, for a small matter she would sell her interest to the heir at law, who was fittest to be the purchaser. This he gives the kinsman legal notice of (Rut 4:4), that he might have the refusal of it. Whoever had it must pay for it, and Boaz might have said, "My money is as good as my kinsman's; if I have a mind to it, why may not I buy it privately, since I had the first proffer of it, and say nothing to my kinsman?" No, Boaz, though fond enough of the purchase, would not do so mean a thing as to take a bargain over another man's head that was nearer a-kin to it; and we are taught by his example to be not only just and honest, but fair and honourable, in all our dealings, and to do nothing which we are unwilling should see the light, but be above-board. 4. The kinsman seemed forward to redeem the land till he was told that, if he did that, he must marry the widow, and then he flew off. He liked the land well enough, and probably caught at that the more greedily because he hoped that the poor widow being under a necessity of selling he have so much the better bargain: "I will redeem it" (said he) "with all my heart," thinking it would be a fine addition to his estate, Rut 4:4. But Boaz told him there was a young widow in the case, and, if he have the land, he must take her with it, Terra transit cum onere - The estate passes with this incumbrance; either the divine law or the usage of the country would oblige him to it, or Naomi insisted upon it that she would not sell the land but upon this condition, Rut 4:5. Some think this does not relate to the law of marrying the brother's widow (for that seems to oblige only the children of the same father, Deu 25:5, unless by custom it was afterwards made to extend to the next of kin), but to the law of redemption of inheritances (Lev 25:24, Lev 25:25), for it is a Goel, a redeemer, that is here enquired for; and if so it was not by the law, but by Naomi's own resolution, that the purchaser was to marry the widow. However it was, this kinsman, when he heard the conditions of the bargain, refused it (Rut 4:6): "I cannot redeem it for myself. I will not meddle with it upon these terms, lest I mar my own inheritance." The land, he thought, would be an improvement of his inheritance, but not the land with the woman; that would mar it. Perhaps he thought it would be a disparagement to him to marry such a poor widow that had come from a strange country, and almost lived upon alms. He fancied it would be a blemish to his family, it would mar his blood, and disgrace his posterity. Her eminent virtues were not sufficient in his eye to counterbalance this. The Chaldee paraphrase makes his reason for this refusal to be that he had another wife, and, if he should take Ruth, it might occasion strife and contention in his family, which would mar the comfort of his inheritance. Or he thought she might bring him a great many children, and they would all expect shares out of his estate, which would scatter it into too many hands, so that the family would make the less figure. This makes many shy of the great redemption: they are not willing to espouse religion. They have heard well of it, and have nothing to say against it; they will give it their good word, but at the same time they will give their good word with it; they are willing to part with it, and cannot be bound to it, for fear of marring their own inheritance in this world. Heaven they could be glad of, but holiness they can dispense with; it will not agree with the lusts they have already espoused, and therefore, let who will purchase heaven at that rate, they cannot. 5. The right of redemption is fairly resigned to Boaz. If this nameless kinsman lost a good bargain, a good estate, and a good wife too, he may thank himself for not considering it better, and Boaz will thank him for making his way clear to that which he valued and desired above any thing. In those ancient times it was not the usage to pass estates by writings, as afterwards (Jer 32:10, etc.), but by some sign or ceremony, as with us by livery and seisin, as we commonly call it, that is, the delivery of seisin, seisin of a house by giving the key, of land by giving turf and a twig. The ceremony here used was, he that surrendered plucked off his shoe (the Chaldee says it was the glove of his right hand) and gave it to him to whom he made the surrender, intimating thereby that, whatever right he had to tread or go upon the land, he conveyed and transferred it, upon a valuable consideration, to the purchaser: this was a testimony in Israel, Rut 4:7. And it was done in this case, Rut 4:8. If this kinsman had been bound by the law to marry Ruth, and his refusal had been a contempt of that law, Ruth must have plucked off his shoe and spit in his face, Deu 25:9. But, though his relation should in some measure oblige him to the duty, yet the distance of his relation might serve to excuse him from the penalty, or Ruth might very well dispense with it, since his refusal was all she desired from him. But bishop Patrick, and the best interpreters, think this had no relation to that law, and that the drawing off of the shoe was not any disgrace as there, but a confirmation of the surrender, and an evidence that it was not fraudulently nor surreptitiously obtained. Note, Fair and open dealing in all matters of contract and commerce is what all those must make conscience of that would approve themselves Israelites indeed, without guile. How much more honourably and honestly does Boaz come by this purchase than if he had secretly undermined his kinsman, and privately struck up a bargain with Naomi, unknown to him. Honesty will be found the best policy.
For, by the law, when a man died, the marriage bond with his wife was passed on to his brother or other male next of kin, in order that the seed of the brother or next of kin might renew the life of the house. And so it was that Ruth, though she was foreign-born, had possessed a husband of the Jewish people who had left a kinsman of near relation. Although she was seen and loved by Boaz while gleaning and maintaining herself and her mother-in-law with what she gleaned, she could not become the wife of Boaz until she had first loosed the shoe from him whose wife she ought, by the law, to have become.The story is a simple one, but deep are its hidden meanings, for that which was done was the outward signs of something more. If indeed we should stretch the sense so as to fit the letter exactly, we should almost find the words an occasion of a certain shame and horror, that we should regard them as intending and conveying the thought of common bodily intercourse. Rather it was the foreshadowing of one who was to arise from the Jewish people—whence Christ was, after the flesh—who should, with the seed of heavenly teaching, revive the seed of his dead kinsman, that is to say, the people, and to whom the precepts of the law, in their spiritual significance, assigned the sandal of marriage, for the espousals of the church.
Those things which happened to Ruth should be seen as figures. For she was an outsider and had fallen into extreme penury; but Boaz, seeing her, did not despise her on account of her poverty, nor was he horrified on account of her impiety; even as Christ received the church, who was both a stranger and laboring, in need of great good things. Ruth is not joined with her consort before forsaking her parents and her nation and her native land: never was anyone so much ennobled by marriage. Thus the church was not made loveable to her spouse before she had forsaken her prior customs. The prophet says, “Forget your people.”
The elders confirmed the marriage with a blessing, saying, “The Lord made this woman,” etc. Moreover, “So that she may be an example of virtue in Ephrathah,” they predicted the salvific birth through which Bethlehem was made famous among all people.
It was an old custom that if a groom wished to divorce his bride he took off his sandal and this was the sign of the divorce. Consequently, he was ordered to take off his sandals, lest he approach the church wearing sandals like a bridegroom; for this office was reserved for Christ, who is the true bridegroom. However, the blessing of the ten elders showed that all Gentile peoples were saved and blessed in the name of Christ. For iota signifies ten in Greek, and this first letter will signify the name of the Lord Jesus in full; which shows, as we said, that all peoples are saved through him and are blessed. Therefore, let no one doubt these things that were said, since it may be seen that they were everywhere and from the beginning prefigured by antecedent figures; and they were clearly fulfilled in this way through the advent of the Lord; and which were superfluous, being completed in this way by the accord of all voiced in truth; and by all “figures” of the holy Scriptures, which he who promised [them] fulfilled through his son, Jesus Christ our Lord, king, and redeemer and savior, with whom is honor and glory from age to age. Amen.
Continue studying Ruth 4:7 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
Ruth 4:7 elucidates a crucial ancient Israelite legal custom, a formal and public ritual that served to confirm and legally bind agreements, particularly those involving the redemption of property or the transfer of rights. This verse explains that in "former time," the symbolic act of a man removing his sandal and giving it to his neighbor constituted an undeniable "testimony" or witness to the finality of a transaction. This ensured clarity, prevented future disputes, and upheld the integrity of matters concerning inheritance, property, and the sacred institution of kinsman-redemption within Israelite society.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The primary literary device at play in Ruth 4:7 is Symbolism. The act of plucking off a shoe and giving it to a neighbor is a profoundly symbolic gesture. The shoe, intimately connected with one's foot and thus with "possession," "standing," or "authority" over land (e.g., Deuteronomy 11:24), becomes a tangible representation of a legal right or claim. Its transfer symbolizes the complete relinquishment of that right by one party and its definitive acquisition by another. This concrete, visual act served as a powerful and unforgettable Legal Formula, making the transaction clear, binding, and publicly witnessed in a society where written documents might have been less common or universally accessible. The verse also employs Explanatory Narration, where the narrator pauses the immediate flow of the story to provide crucial background information on this ancient custom, ensuring that the reader fully grasps the legal weight and significance of the kinsman's refusal and Boaz's subsequent action, thereby enhancing the narrative's verisimilitude and dramatic impact.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Ruth 4:7, though detailing a specific legal custom, offers profound theological insights into the character of God and His ordering of human society. It reveals a God who is inherently just, who values order, integrity, and the sanctity of agreements. The meticulousness and public nature of this ancient legal process, designed to ensure clarity and undeniable witness, reflect a divine principle that truth, transparency, and accountability should govern human interactions, especially in matters of property, family, and covenant. God's providential hand is evident even in the seemingly mundane details of legal customs, as this specific transaction ensured the continuation of the lineage that would lead to King David and, ultimately, to the Messiah. The certainty and finality of this "testimony" foreshadow the absolute certainty of God's covenant promises and the definitive, unchangeable nature of His redemptive work on behalf of His people.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
While the specific custom of the shoe is no longer practiced in contemporary legal systems, the underlying principles embedded in Ruth 4:7 remain profoundly relevant for believers today. This passage serves as a powerful reminder of the divine value placed on integrity in agreements, the importance of public witness, and the certainty of our word. In a world often characterized by ambiguity, broken promises, and a pervasive lack of accountability, this ancient Israelite custom stands as a potent challenge, reminding us that God desires His people to be those whose "yes" means yes and whose "no" means no, reflecting the unwavering faithfulness of God Himself (Matthew 5:37). Our transactions, whether personal commitments, business dealings, or relational promises, should be clear, honest, and definitive, mirroring the character of a God who is utterly faithful to His covenants. Furthermore, the emphasis on a public "testimony" encourages us to live lives that consistently bear witness to our faith, where our actions visibly confirm our words, and our commitments are honored with integrity, thereby building trust within the community and bringing glory to God.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
What is the significance of the shoe in this ancient custom?
Answer: In Ruth 4:7, the shoe (Hebrew: naʻal) serves as a potent legal symbol representing a right, ownership, or possession, particularly concerning land or property. In ancient cultures, the act of walking on land with one's shoe could signify taking possession or asserting ownership (Joshua 1:3). Therefore, the act of a man "plucking off his shoe and giving it to his neighbor" visually and tangibly represented the complete relinquishing of his legal claim or right to the land or associated obligations, and the definitive transfer of that right to the recipient of the shoe. It was a public, undeniable sign that a transaction was completed and legally binding, serving as a "testimony" to the agreement before witnesses.
Is this the same shoe custom mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:9-10?
Answer: No, these are distinct customs, though both involve a shoe and carry legal implications. The custom described in Deuteronomy 25:9-10 relates specifically to the levirate marriage law. If a deceased man's brother refused to marry his widow and raise up an heir for him, the widow was to publicly remove his sandal and spit in his face. This act symbolized his disgrace and the shaming of his house for failing to fulfill his familial duty. In contrast, the custom in Ruth 4:7 is a voluntary act of transfer, signifying the legal confirmation of a transaction and the relinquishing of a right, without any associated shame or disgrace. It is a positive act of legal transfer rather than a punitive one.
What does "concerning redeeming and concerning changing" mean in this context?
Answer: "Redeeming" refers to the act of gᵉʼullâh (גְּאֻלָּה), which is the kinsman-redeemer's (go'el's) responsibility to buy back or reclaim family property, lineage, or even a family member from distress. This is the primary action Boaz is undertaking on behalf of Naomi and Ruth. "Changing" refers to tᵉmûwrâh (תְּמוּרָה), which denotes an exchange, substitution, or compensation. In this specific legal context, it signifies the transfer or relinquishing of rights or obligations. Thus, the phrase "concerning redeeming and concerning changing" indicates that this shoe custom applied broadly to both the act of redemption itself and any other legal exchange or transfer of rights, such as the first kinsman giving up his right to redeem the land and marry Ruth, thereby "changing" who held that right. It signifies the comprehensive nature of the legal confirmation provided by the ritual.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
The ancient custom described in Ruth 4:7, with its emphasis on a definitive, publicly witnessed transfer of rights and the certainty of a completed transaction, beautifully foreshadows the ultimate and perfect redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ. Just as the shoe symbolized the transfer of a legal claim and the finality of a deal, Christ, our divine Kinsman-Redeemer, definitively and publicly secured our salvation. He did not merely transfer a right; He paid the ultimate price, laying down His life on the cross, a transaction witnessed by heaven and earth, to redeem us from the bondage of sin and death (1 Peter 1:18-19). His resurrection from the dead serves as the ultimate "testimony" (Acts 17:31) that the redemption is complete, the debt fully paid, and the transfer of our spiritual inheritance secured. Through Christ, we receive not merely land or a preserved lineage, but an eternal inheritance (Ephesians 1:11) and a new identity as beloved children of God (John 1:12). The certainty of the shoe custom in Ruth, though significant, pales in comparison to the absolute, unshakeable certainty of our redemption in Christ, whose work on the cross was a once-for-all, perfect, and eternally binding act of love and grace (Hebrews 9:12).