(1) Boaz.--It has been already said that if there are any gaps in the genealogy, these are most probably to be referred to its earlier portion. According to the line, however, given in Ruth 4:18 seq., Boaz is grandson of the Nahshon who was prince of the tribe of Judah during the wanderings in the desert and son of Salmon and Rahab of Jericho. It may be noted that the difficulty of date may be lessened by supposing that in the last two generations we have children of their fathers' old age.

Verse 1. - And Naomi had, on her husband's side, a friend. The C'tib reading מְיֻדַּע (absolute מְיֻדָע) is much to be preferred to the K'ri מודַע. But מְיֻדָּע is ambiguous in import. It primarily means known, well-known, acquainted, an acquaintance (see Job 19:14; Psalm 55:13; Psalm 88:8, 18). But as intimate acquaintances, especially in a primitive and comparatively unwelded state of society, are generally found within the circle of kinsfolk, the word may be used, and is here used, in reference to a kinsman. The Vulgate translates it consanguineus. The translation is interpretatively correct; but the original term is less definite, and hence, in virtue of the ambiguity, there is not absolute redundancy in the appended clause, of the family or elan of Elimelech. This friend of Naomi on her husband s side is said, in King James's version, to be a mighty man of wealth. But the expression so rendered has, in the very numerous passages in which it occurs, a conventional import that stretches out in a different and nobler direction. It is the expression that is so frequently translated "a mighty man of valor (see Joshua 1:14; Joshua 6:2; Joshua 8:3; Joshua 10:7; Judges 6:12; Judges 11:1, etc.). In only one other passage is it rendered as it is by King James's translators in the passage before us, viz., in 2 Kings 15:20. There it is correctly so translated, interpretatively. Here there seems to be a leaning in the same direction, and yet it is not strongly pronounced. Cassel, however, takes the other cue, and translates "a valiant hero "Probably," says he "he had distinguished himself in the conflicts of Israel with their enemies." The expression originally means "strong in strength" (δυνατὸς ἰσχύι, Sept.), but is ambiguous in consequence of the many-sided import of the latter word מִשְׁפָחָה, which means originally, either strength, and then valor; or, clannish following (see Raabe), and then military host, or force, or forces; also, faculty or ability, and then, as so often "answering all things," riches or wealth. The idea the writer seems to be that the friend of the widow's husband was a strong and substantial yeoman. He was of the family or clan of Elimelech. The word family is conventionally too narrow, and the word elan too broad, to represent the import of שָׂדֶה as here used. The idea intended lies somewhere between. And his name was Boaz. The root of this name is not found, apparently, in Hebrew, as was supposed by the older philologists, and hence its essential idea is as yet undetermined. Raabe finds its original form in the Sanscrit bhuvanti, which yields the idea of prosperousness.

2:1-3 Observe Ruth's humility. When Providence had made her poor, she cheerfully stoops to her lot. High spirits will rather starve than stoop; not so Ruth. Nay, it is her own proposal. She speaks humbly in her expectation of leave to glean. We may not demand kindness as a debt, but ask, and take it as a favour, though in a small matter. Ruth also was an example of industry. She loved not to eat the bread of idleness. This is an example to young people. Diligence promises well, both for this world and the other. We must not be shy of any honest employment. No labour is a reproach. Sin is a thing below us, but we must not think any thing else so, to which Providence call us. She was an example of regard to her mother, and of trust in Providence. God wisely orders what seem to us small events; and those that appear altogether uncertain, still are directed to serve his own glory, and the good of his people.And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's,.... That was her kinsman by her husband's side, who now lived at Bethlehem; and yet it does not appear that Naomi made any application to him for assistance in her circumstances, though well known to her, as the word used signifies; which might arise from her modesty, and being loath to be troublesome to him, especially as he was a relation, not of her own family, but of her husband's; but, what is more strange, that this kinsman had taken no notice of her, nor sent to her, who yet was a very generous and liberal man, and had knowledge of her coming, for he had heard of the character of Ruth, Ruth 2:11 but perhaps he was not acquainted with their indigent circumstances:

a mighty man of wealth; a man of great wealth and riches, and of great power and authority, which riches give and raise a man to, and also of great virtue and honour, all which the word "wealth" signifies; to which may be added the paraphrase the Targumist gives, that he was mighty in the law; in the Scriptures, in the word of God, a truly religious man, which completes his character:

of the family of Elimelech; the husband of Naomi; some say that his father was Elimelech's brother; see Gill on Ruth 2:2,

and his name was Boaz; which signifies, "in him is strength", strength of riches, power, virtue, and grace; it is the name of one of the pillars in Solomon's temple, so called from its strength. This man is commonly said by the Jews to be the same with Ibzan, a judge of Israel, Judges 12:8, he was the grandson of Nahshon, prince of the tribe of Judah, who first offered at the dedication of the altar, Numbers 7:12, his father's name was Salmon, and his mother was Rahab, the harlot of Jericho, Matthew 1:5. A particular account is given of this man, because he, with Ruth, makes the principal part of the following history.