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!