Ruth 4:7,8 – “Other Worlds”

As always, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

⁷And this formerly in Israel upon the redemption and upon the exchange to confirm every matter, a man drew off his sandal and gave to his neighbor and this the confirmation in Israel, ⁸and the kinsman said to Boaz, “Buy to yourself,” and he drew off his sandal.

Here is another verse that gives us a fascinating peak into the culture of some people who lived 3,000 years ago and half way around the world. The book of Ruth has been a goldmine this way, if a person finds this sort of thing fascinating, which I do.

A number of commentators associate the sandal removal with the kinsman’s refusal to redeem Naomi’s land if it included the levirate responsibilities to Ruth, based on the Deut 25:7-9 passage where the stilted widow was to remove the brother-in-law’s sandal and spit in his face. I totally don’t agree with that, specifically because the text clearly says otherwise. It says, “Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.” It has nothing to do with Deut 25:7-9. In fact, what is going on is that Deut 25:7-9 had everything to do with this practice of shoe exchange. Shoe exchange was simply part of how they transferred property – which is why it showed up in Deut 25 and why it shows up here as well – because in both places property transfer is in view.

Obviously from this passage and based on what a number of authors have written, it was very common back then (and apparently still is in some third world countries) to associate shoes with property. Apparently in their minds, these people see that a man walks around on his property with his shoes and so, if his shoe goes to another person, that is like transferring ownership of the land itself. One writer reported a recent third world event: a father was leaving on a mission from which he feared he would never return, so upon leaving, he removed his shoes and had his son stand in them. That was apparently to communicate to everyone that, should he not return, his land was to go to his son.

All of this seems very dramatic and peculiar to us but this is where, once again, we’re talking about people 3,000 years ago and half way around the world. I have noted before that the Jewish people were a very “picture-oriented” people.  We tend to just communicate information. They loved to paint pictures with their words and actions. So it totally doesn’t surprise me that they liked this shoe exchange thing.

Another thing that is interesting is that this practice is being explained as something done “formerly.” I personally strongly suspect the book of Ruth was written by Samuel or perhaps one of David’s other writers, as mentioned in I Chron 29:29,30: “As for the events of King David's reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer, together with the details of his reign and power, and the circumstances that surrounded him and Israel and the kingdoms of all the other lands.” David’s genealogy, being the king, would be of considerable interest to the Jewish people of his day, and that especially so when it included such an enchanting love story.

If I’m right, and the book of Ruth was written during David’s reign, then the “formerly” may only have been 100 years earlier. Here is what I think happened: Prior to Saul’s reign “there was no king in Israel.” What that meant was that there was no central government. There was no “city hall” where records were kept. So naturally, the transfer of property and other legal matters were performed in very public gatherings and in dramatic, memorable ways. It makes perfect sense to me that, in such a culture, Boaz would call together the elders in the city gate, along with all the interested passers-by who served as witnesses, and conduct this important legal transaction between himself and the kinsman, sealing it with the shoe exchange and (coming up in vv9,10) his very clear public announcement of the completion transaction.

This could have gone on for centuries. However, as soon as Saul was the king and had a palace, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they moved to the keeping of written records to maintain property ownership. Especially in those days, the king also served as the head judge for any kind of disputes. It would make perfect sense that he would want written records kept at the palace, so that, when people appeared before him with property disputes, he could call up the records and be able to have the facts of their case before him. (For whatever it’s worth, the other reason why kings – and any other form of government for that matter – want centrally kept records of property ownership is so that they can levy property taxes. That is why the keeping of current property records is one of the few things most governments do well – it’s a revenue source!). Once the “switch” was made and the king wanted written records, it wouldn’t take but a generation or two and no one would remember the old methods of property transfer.

So it makes total sense why Boaz and his contemporaries would have culturally appropriate, very public customs for property transfer, and then only a 100 years or so later, (after the advent of central government in Israel), a writer would have to explain the practices to those very people’s grand- and great-grandchildren.

People groups all over the world (and all through history) do what they do for reasons that make perfect sense to them at the time. I find it fascinating to ponder those practices and customs and try to see them through those people’s eyes!

Love it!