Ruth 4:9,10 – “Redeemed”

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

⁹And Boaz said to the elders and the all of the people, “Witnesses you [are] today that I have bought all which [belonged] to Elimelech and all which [belonged] to Chilion and Mahlon from the hand of Naomi, ¹⁰and also Ruth the Moabitess the wife of Mahlon I have bought for myself to [be my] wife to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance and not to be cut off the name of the dead from among his brothers and from the gate of his place. Witnesses you [are] today.”

These are two crazy verses in the Bible. You can read them and yawn and say, “Isn’t that nice?” Or you can stop and ponder on them and they just literally explode. I posted some thoughts last time regarding how much we learn about Boaz’s character just from these few words. But the other thing that I think is of enormous import is the whole picture of redemption, displayed succinctly in two such seemingly simple verses. In fact, I think it might even answer my question about why the land redemption/levirate marriage thing is so important to God.

Here is what I think – what we have here is the very picture of redemption. It is literally the redemption of Elimelech’s property and name. But it is also a picture of our redemption. But that said, it is in a sense infinitely more than a picture our individual redemption. God placed Adam in the Garden and gave him dominion over it. He was to be God’s servant there “to keep it and to till it” and to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. When Adam sinned, he lost it all. He and Eve were cast out of the Garden and condemned to “eat their bread in the sweat of their faces.” In fact cherubim were placed at the gate of the Garden to prevent Adam from ever returning. At that time, God promised to raise up the “seed of the woman” to crush the head of the serpent – God’s promise of redemption.

Notice that the redeemer was to be the “seed of the woman” – a direct descendant, a family member. I don’t think anyone would debate the statement that, from the very beginning, God intended His creation to be filiocentric (family-centered). We’re told in the NT that a supposed believer who will not care for his own is “worse than an infidel.” The family is the very cradle of civilization. No wonder that a redeemer should be the closest family member. Family should take care of family. And when Jesus came He specifically came to be one of us – “Both the One who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers … Since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil and free (redeem!) those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death (Heb 2:11-15).

And notice too that redemption is not just a matter of buying us back out of slavery to sin, it is also about restoring the entire fallen creation – “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:20,21). Adam will not only be redeemed himself but his lost possession will be regained.

Somehow in God’s great economy of things, our attachment to land is highly significant. When He called Israel out of Egypt it was not only that “He might be their God and they might be His people” but it was also to give them the Land. Like Adam, when they violated His covenant, they were cast out of the land. Final restoration of the Jewish people is not just that they should be saved but that they should be restored to that land.

God’s redemptive purposes for us reach far beyond simply saving our souls!

That is why Boaz’s words are so important. Naomi has lost or is in danger of finally losing her husband’s land. The family itself is on the verge of extinction. Naomi and Ruth are in a hopeless state. And God’s whole picture of redemption shows up to rescue them in the person of this man Boaz, their kinsman-redeemer.

I think this is precisely why it is all so important to God, why the redeemer should be a family member, why it is important to restore to the very man himself his lost estate, why it is so important that an heir be raised up to keep the land in the family – it is all wrapped up in the entire plan of redemption itself. Adam sinned and lost everything until the Seed of the Woman comes to redeem it all and restore it. Elimelech would have lost his estate except there was a redeemer named Boaz. And all we like sheep have gone astray, we’ve each forfeited our interest in the Divine estate, until our great Kinsman-Redeemer comes to save us and to restore to us all we’ve lost.

All of that in two verses! Amazing love! How can it be???

Ruth 4:9,10 – “Owning It”

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

⁹And Boaz said to the elders and the all of the people, “Witnesses you [are] today that I have bought all which [belonged] to Elimelech and all which [belonged] to Chilion and Mahlon from the hand of Naomi, ¹⁰and also Ruth the Moabitess the wife of Mahlon I have bought for myself to [be my] wife to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance and not to be cut off the name of the dead from among his brothers and from the gate of his place. Witnesses you [are] today.”

As always, I am so impressed with Boaz. What a fine example of a man. He certainly doesn’t beat around the bush or mince words. He says exactly what needs to be said, says it clearly, and makes sure there are no loose ends.

But one thing that particularly warms my heart is how he clearly announces, “and also Ruth the Moabitess the wife of Mahlon I have bought for myself to [be my] wife…” As discussed in a previous post, it is possible the other kinsman didn’t want to marry Ruth precisely because she was a Moabitess. It was certainly true that “foreign” marriages were frowned upon and that Boaz could no doubt have had his pick of any of the available Jewish girls. And not only was Ruth a Moabite but a widow at that. The other kinsman got “off the hook” by simply saying “No,” and Boaz could have done the same. As I said earlier, I am not sure the Law actually required the kinsman-redeemer to take Ruth, precisely because she was a Moabitess. That may be why the other kinsman got off the hook so easily. And notice even how Boaz says it: “Witnesses you [are] today that I have bought all which [belonged] to Elimelech and all which [belonged] to Chilion and Mahlon from the hand of Naomi,…” “From the hand of Naomi.” I strongly suspect if Ruth had been a Jewish girl she would have been the acknowledged heir, not Naomi. If Ruth had been seen as a rightful heir, wouldn’t Boaz have at least said “from the hand of Naomi and Ruth?”

There’s a lot of cultural messiness in this whole affair, not the least of which is the fact that Ruth is a Moabite girl. But Boaz doesn’t sweep anything under the rug. If he’s going to marry Ruth, then he boldly and bravely puts it all up front: “and also Ruth the Moabitess the wife of Mahlon I have bought for myself to [be my] wife…” Yes, she is a Moabitess. Yes, she is a widow, the wife of Mahlon. And yes, I am taking her to be my wife. Any questions?

Just think how encouraging it must have been to Ruth to marry this man who very boldly and publically acknowledged exactly who she was and said, “And I want her to be my wife.” From then on, even if other people in Bethlehem ever looked at her askance or muttered “foreigner” under their breath, Ruth could always hold her head high and know in her heart, “Yes, but it doesn’t bother Boaz. He is happy to have me be his wife!” She was free to take shelter in his strength and his love.

Perhaps there are times and places in each of our lives where we need to boldly own our relationships with other people? There are those times where, for whatever reason, it may not be “popular” to admit someone is my friend or relative or whatever. But I think love would say, “Be like Boaz. Step up to the microphone and say, ‘This is my friend.’” Even if the other men are bashing on their wives, us Christian men ought not be the least afraid to make it very clear I love my wife, respect her, and appreciate her.

Strong people like Boaz give the rest of us the freedom to be who we are and not be ashamed. We should do the same for others. Jesus does it for us. He isn’t afraid to call us His own. “Go and do thou likewise.”

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!

Ruth 4:5,6 – “Big Hearts”

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

⁵And Boaz said, “In the day of your buying of the field from the hand of Naomi and from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, you have bought to raise the name of the dead upon his inheritance.” ⁶And the kinsman-redeemer said, “I am not able to redeem to myself lest I ruin my own inheritance. You, you redeem to yourself my redemption because I am not able to redeem.”

When, in vv. 3&4, Boaz offered the land to the kinsman, he was ready to buy it. However, here in vv. 5&6, when Boaz brings up his levirate responsibility, the man instead declines. In the last post, I pondered the question of whether the kinsman’s levirate responsibility actually would have extended to Ruth, since she was a Moabitess, or if, in the minds of the Jewish community, that obligation would have ended at Naomi. As I said there, the problem is we just don’t know. We don’t know why the kinsman was unwilling to take Ruth. I’m not even sure under a strict reading of the Law (since she was a Moabitess) he was “required” to take her and, as I said, the “requirement” as stated by Boaz could have simply been a condition of sale that Naomi had stipulated. We just don’t know.

But regardless of all of that, Boaz was willing.

That is what I want to ponder a while before moving on. Boaz was willing.

Boaz is a wealthy man and a “man of standing” in the community. He probably could have had any wife he wanted. He didn’t need to marry a widowed Moabite girl. I might inject here that I do suspect Ruth was a very pretty girl. David would be her great grandson and he was deathly handsome (I Sam 16:12). His daughter Tamar was described by the Bible itself as a beautiful girl (II Sam 13:1) and of his son Absalom it is recorded, “In all Israel there was not a man so highly praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the top of his head to the sole of his foot there was no blemish in him.” (II Sam 14:25). Obviously there were a lot of “good-looking” genes in David’s family and I strongly suspect Ruth was a part of it all. I want to say that up front because it certainly wouldn’t hurt Boaz’s interest in her if she was in fact a beautiful girl.

However, that admitted, the fact still remains that she was a Moabite girl and a destitute widow. No doubt there were plenty of pretty young Jewish girls who were from “good families” around Bethlehem. If that was all Boaz was interested in, once again he could probably have had anyone he wanted. But he chose Ruth – in spite of the fact that she was a Moabite and widowed and poor.

What I would like to suggest is that Boaz was a big-hearted person, someone who escaped the usual petty Jewish prejudice against Gentiles. Simeon in the New Testament was another big-hearted person in the Bible. Out of all the “songs” sung over and around the birth of Jesus, Simeon’s was the only one that mentioned that this baby was come to help not only the Jewish people but the Gentiles as well (Luke 2:32). Even Mary, in her Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), mentions only “Abraham and his descendants forever.”

Like Simeon, Boaz for whatever reason could look above those natural and popular prejudices and see in this girl a woman of genuine worth, a woman of true character.

One immediately obvious explanation for this quality in Boaz could be found in the realization that his own mother was Rahab the harlot of Jericho (Matt 1:5). His father Salmon obviously was a man who could look past nationality and see a woman of genuine faith. So we could say “the apple didn’t fall very far from the tree.” Boaz is being like his father. Another factor that could come into play is the fact that his mother Rahab had been a harlot, a prostitute. Invariably, such women have suffered considerable abuse in their lives. Perhaps Boaz’s father was particularly loving and gentle with Rahab, Boaz’s mother, and Boaz picked up that male sensitivity for disadvantaged women? Much of this is just conjecture but it sure fits.

What is further of interest to me is to see that this “big-heartedness” still ran in the family as late as their great-grandson David. David, for whatever reason, was surrounded by Gentiles. If you look into his “mighty men,” a number of them were Gentiles. Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, was a Hittite. There were 600(!) Gittites who followed David – and realize these were men from Gath, the Philistine home of Goliath, whom David killed. In II Sam 15:18 we find them going with David as he fled from Absalom. David tried to dissuade Ittai (apparently their leader), but they would have none of it, and stuck with David through his trial. Ittai’s response to David was “As surely as the Lord lives, and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king may be, whether it means life or death, there will your servant be” (II Sam 15:21).

David surrounded himself with Gentiles and they followed him with impassioned loyalty. Obviously there was something in David that communicated worth and respect to these “foreigners.” They knew it and they loved him for it.

I guess I’m suggesting it “ran in the family.”

And then I am noting it because that’s how we all should be. God loves everyone in spite of their nationality and He very specifically called not only the Jewish people to Himself but us Gentiles as well. When He sent Jesus into the world He said to Him, “It is too small a thing for You to be My servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make You a light for the Gentiles, that My salvation may reach to the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6).

That was Boaz’s spirit. It is God’s spirit. And it should be ours. May the Lord give us all eyes to see people as He does, to look past the outward appearances and to value in people the things that really matter. Boaz did. David did. Jesus does. And we should too.

Ruth 4:5,6 – “What Matters”

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

⁵And Boaz said, “In the day of your buying of the field from the hand of Naomi and from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, you have bought to raise the name of the dead upon his inheritance.” ⁶And the kinsman-redeemer said, “I am not able to redeem to myself lest I ruin my own inheritance. You, you redeem to yourself my redemption because I am not able to redeem.”

As I study, read other commentaries, and ponder these verses, the first thing that strikes me (again) is how much we don’t know.

First of all, why did Boaz have to tell the kinsman about Ruth and the levirate obligation that went with the property? Bethlehem is a small town and I am quite sure everyone knew everything about everyone else. The kinsman had to know about Ruth and Naomi and that care of the widows came with purchase of the land. If Naomi was still in child-bearing age, he would know of his responsibility to her; and even if she wasn’t, he would know that Mahlon’s widow was still of child-bearing age.

So why does he think he’s “done” in v4, and why is v5 such a big surprise?

An interesting perspective, once again from Jewish tradition, is what was recorded in the Targum that what the kinsman actually said was, “On this ground I cannot redeem it, because I have a wife already; and I have no desire to take another, lest there should be contention in my house, and I should become a corrupter of my inheritance. Do thou redeem it, for thou hast no wife; for I cannot redeem it” (as reported by Adam Clarke, ca. 1820).

If this is true, it would certainly be understandable. That is probably the very first question that comes to my mind with the whole levirate marriage thing – what if the “brother” is already married? Of course, polygamy was culturally perfectly acceptable in itself but, that being said, I would still think a man would hesitate to take a second wife if he was happily married to his first. Both Abraham and Jacob suffered considerable domestic turmoil as a result of taking two wives. Acceptable or not, polygamy has to be a recipe for endless family contention.

So we could say it was understandable if he simply didn’t want to wreck his own home. However, there is no clause in the levirate marriage obligation that allowed the man to excuse himself for any reason. In fact, if he refused – for any reason – he got his sandal removed and spit in his face (Deut 25:7-9).

So apparently he did know about the levirate obligation. He just didn’t want to; and apparently it was culturally acceptable for him to refuse, simply on the grounds, “I don’t want to.” How could this be? How could it be culturally acceptable in Israel for a man to just disregard a very clear Scriptural injunction? It could be because we are in the period of the Judges when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” This period in Jewish history isn’t exactly characterized by careful observance of the Law! All it would take is a few cases where men refused their levirate obligations, suffered no consequences at all, and now no one takes the obligation seriously any more. That certainly wouldn’t be surprising.

There is also an entirely different perspective. It is possible that, culturally speaking, no one thought the levirate obligation applied to “foreign” marriages. Perhaps the kinsman was quite aware of the levirate obligation but thought it only extended as far as Naomi, but not to Ruth. And if Naomi was past child-bearing age, he simply didn’t think he had any obligation to this “Moabite foreigner.” I can hear the Bethlehem gossip chain: “Elimelech should have never gone to Moab and Mahlon should not have married a Moabite girl. It was all wrong.” In fact, they might have even thought it was wrong to marry Ruth, since she was a Moabitess. It’s even possible that, as much as people may have admired Ruth’s character, perhaps as far as marriage was concerned she had already been branded as “bad luck,” that no man would seriously want to marry her after what happened to Mahlon – and therefore, no one even thought the levirate obligation would include Ruth.

But then, if culturally speaking, no one thought the kinsman had any obligation to Ruth, why does Boaz say he did? I can think of two possibilities. It is possible that Boaz is such a good man that he doesn’t care what is or isn’t culturally acceptable. Even if popular opinion is that the kinsman “doesn’t have to” (regardless of what the Law said), Boaz is simply standing his Scriptural ground and saying, “Oh, yes, you do.” It is also possible and I think this the most likely that Naomi had made it a condition of the purchase that whoever redeemed the land had to marry Ruth and give her children. Remember back in 3:1 Naomi said, “My daughter, should I not try to find a home for you, where you will be well provided for?” We do know for a fact that Naomi is trying to get Ruth a husband and, if she had the opportunity to include a levirate responsibility with the sale, you can bet she would.

So here is what I think is going on: As far as the land is concerned, people were still following the Biblical process of redemption and following the “order” of succession, so there was no question the other kinsman was “first” and Boaz next after him. As far as the levirate obligation to Ruth, either they simply weren’t following those Scriptures or perhaps they sincerely didn’t think it applied to Ruth since she was a Moabitess. Regardless, Naomi has made it a condition of the sale that Ruth does go with it. All of this would explain how it was possible the other kinsman didn’t “know” about his obligation to Ruth. This would also explain how he could “get out of it” so easily. Apparently no one saw it as an obligation that went with the land. But Naomi, in her desire to provide for Ruth, had made it a condition of the sale. So he could say yes, I want to buy the land, then, when he found out there was a condition of the sale, simply say, “If that’s the condition, then no I don’t want to.”

That would certainly make sense. This explanation would also leave everyone in the best light, particularly the kinsman. I rather think myself this the best position, to not leave the kinsman condemned. It very easily looks like he was a villain for not accepting his responsibility; but, even if we were to convene a court today and put him on trial, I think we’d end up stuck on the fact that Ruth was a Moabitess, and whether or not the levirate responsibility really extended beyond Naomi to her.

The problem with it all is that we simply don’t know. All we really know is what is written, that Boaz offered the kinsman his rightful privilege and he refused it, leaving Boaz the full, uncontested right to purchase the land and marry Ruth.

Obviously, that is all the Lord thinks we need to know. And perhaps that is because it is all written down for a much larger purpose than to satisfy our curiosities about the affairs of an ancient culture. As I said in an earlier post, I strongly suspect that this is all wrapped up in the analogy of Redemption. Naomi is Israel, Ruth is the Gentile church, Boaz is Christ, the kinsman is the Law – and when offered the opportunity to redeem both Israel and the Gentile world, the Law can only respond to Jesus, “You redeem them, for I cannot.”

Whether that analogy was actually of divine intent or simply a fractal of reality, I’m not sure, but it certainly “works!”  There is so much we don’t know (about so many things), but one thing we do know is that the great Redeemer is not only willing but also able. Our great Boaz did in fact prevail and welcomes us from our world of hopeless poverty into the safety and security of His fabulous wealth.

The Lord doesn’t explain everything to us, but He sure tells us what matters most!