Ruth 3:6-13

Ruth Speaks to Boaz Ruth 3:6-13

6 And she went down unto the floor, and did according to all that her mother-in-law bade her.
7 And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down.
8 And it came to pass at midnight that the man was afraid, and turned himself: and, behold, a woman lay at his feet.
9 And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.
10 And he said, Blessed be thou of the Lord, my daughter: for thou hast showed more kindness, inasmuch as thou followest not young men, whether poor or rich.
11 And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.
12 And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
13 Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman's part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the Lord liveth: lie down until the morning.

4.

What kind of corn was on the threshing floor? Ruth 3:7

In the days of the translating of the King James Version, the word corn indicated any kind of cereal grain. The average American reader visualizes corn as a grain which grows on a cob, since he has become acquainted with the grain called maize by the Indians when the first settlers came to America. Corn in Bible days was grain in a head. Notice has already been made in the narrative of the book of Ruth with regard to this kind of grain. Boaz and Ruth met in a time of barley harvest and a time of wheat harvest. Both these grains would be described by the word corn.

5.

What was the meaning of Ruth's request? Ruth 3:9

Ruth was proposing marriage to Boaz. She was primarily interested in reminding him of the duty of a near kinsman. According to the laws of Israel, a man's brother was to marry his widow and raise up children in the name of his brother whenever a deceased brother had no heirs. Such was the case with Mahlon. Ruth was widowed, and there were no children to carry on the name of either Elimelech or Mahlon. Ruth reminded Boaz that he was a near kinsman, one who had the right and the duty to redeem a deceased kinsman's land and marry his widow.

6.

Was her act improper? Ruth 3:11

Ruth was a virtuous woman (Ruth 3:11). Boaz would not break the Law. He said, There is a kinsman nearer than I (Ruth 3:12). Nothing in all the narrative suggests impropriety on the part of either Ruth or Boaz. Nothing transpired between Ruth and Boaz during the night while she was at the threshing floor. Had Boaz been a man of lustful nature, he would have immediately entered into an improper connubial relationship with Ruth; but since he was a man of honor, he reminded her of the presence of another whose right superseded his own. He thus asked her to wait until this man could be approached.

7.

Was a Levirate marriage connected with the redemption? Ruth 3:13

The Levirate marriage was a customary right which had received the sanction of God. It was given certain limitations through the Mosaic law. This was to be the marriage of a widow and her brother-in-law. We meet such marriages as early as Genesis 38:8. If an Israelite was married and died without children, it was the duty of his brother to marry the widow, that is to say, his sister-in-law. He was to do this to establish his brother's name in Israel. This was done by begetting a son through his sister-in-law. The son took the name of the deceased brother. Thus the brother's name did not become extinct in Israel. The son was the legal heir of the landed property of the deceased man (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5 ff.). The two institutions are not connected in the Mosaic law; nevertheless it was a very natural thing to place the Levirate duty in connection with the right of redemption. This had become the traditional custom. The Law merely imposed the obligation of marrying the childless widow upon the brother. It even allowed him to renounce the obligation if he would take upon himself the disgrace connected with such a refusal (see Deuteronomy 25:7-10). According to Ruth 4:5, it had become a traditional custom to require the Levirate marriage of the one who bought the property of the deceased relative. Thus the landed possession was permanently retained in the family, but also the family itself was not suffered to die out.