Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the land from Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property.”
At this, the guardian-redeemer said, “Then I cannot redeem it because I might endanger my own estate. You redeem it yourself. I cannot do it.”
(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.)
So the guardian-redeemer said to Boaz, “Buy it yourself.” And he removed his sandal.
- Ruth 4:5-8
In the previous section, we watched Boaz approach the town gate to initiate a legal transaction with a nearer relative, the guardian-redeemer. It looked promising. The land belonging to Naomi’s deceased husband was available, and the closer kinsman agreed to redeem it. But as the narrative progresses, the scene takes a dramatic turn.
Here, Boaz reveals the full cost of redemption—not just acquiring land, but also taking Ruth the Moabite as a wife to preserve the deceased family line. It’s a twist that reveals character, cultural values, and deep spiritual truths.
The other redeemer has just agreed to redeem the land, but in verse 5, Boaz introduces the hidden clause. The transaction isn’t just about property; it involves people. Specifically, it includes Ruth the Moabite, who must be married by the redeemer to “maintain the name of the dead.” This is Boaz’s strategic move. Earlier, he presented only the land. Now, he introduces Ruth, a foreign widow, as part of the deal. It’s not trickery but wisdom. Boaz is giving the man every opportunity to walk away, but only after understanding the entire responsibility of redemption.
The role of the guardian-redeemer wasn’t just a real estate opportunity; it was a sacred duty to preserve the family line of the deceased. This included marrying the widow and producing an heir on behalf of the late relative. It meant raising children who would not carry your own name but that of your deceased kin. This kind of self-sacrificing responsibility points us toward a key truth: redemption always involves giving something up for someone else’s good.
When Boaz reveals that Ruth is part of the package, the redeemer hesitates. He responds, “I cannot redeem it because I might endanger my own estate” (verse 6). With that, he formally steps aside. But what does that mean, that it might “endanger” his estate?
There are several possibilities. It could refer to financial risk since supporting another family, especially with a firstborn son who would legally inherit the redeemed property under Elimelech’s name, could jeopardize the redeemer’s current holdings or inheritance for his own children. It could refer to a dilution of his legacy, since any offspring from Ruth would not be counted as his own but as heirs of Elimelech (Ruth’s father-in-law) and Mahlon (Ruth’s late husband). The investment would yield no lasting benefit for his personal lineage. Or, it could refer to the social difficulties that could come from marrying a Moabite. Despite Ruth’s good character, this could have social implications in Israel due to Moab’s historical enmity with Israel.
We don’t know his exact concern, but the cost outweighed the benefit for this unnamed redeemer. He bows out—not unlawfully, but revealing that he wasn’t willing to pay the full price of redemption. Contrast that with Boaz, who is ready to sacrifice inheritance, resources, and status for Ruth and Naomi. In doing so, Boaz embodies a Christ-like love, one that doesn’t count the cost too high to redeem the lost.
Verse 7 gives us a brief but fascinating glimpse into ancient Israelite custom about the practice of removing a sandal. This seemingly odd practice represented ownership, rights, and walking away from a claim. The background comes from Deuteronomy 25:7-10, where levirate marriage is discussed. If a brother-in-law refused to marry the widow of his deceased brother, the woman would take off his sandal and spit in his face—a public act of shame. It meant he refused to "build up his brother’s house."
In Ruth, the situation is less combative. There’s no spitting or humiliation, only the ritual of sandal removal. But the symbolism remains powerful. The guardian-redeemer is relinquishing his right to walk the land, to claim it, or to act on its behalf. By giving his sandal to Boaz (verse 8), he’s saying, “You may walk where I will not. You carry the right of redemption now.” In the ancient Near East, feet and sandals often symbolized authority and presence. To "tread upon" land meant to possess it. By removing the sandal, the man gives up that right. By accepting the sandal, Boaz takes it up—not just the land, but the people tied to it. This action legalized the transaction before the elders and all who were present. It was both literal and legal, a visible testimony of surrender and substitution.
It is interesting that the other redeemer is never named. Back in verse 1, when Boaz first meets the redeemer at the gate, the Hebrew phrase he uses is like saying “Mr. So-and-So” or “John Doe.” The omission isn’t accidental. Scripture preserves Boaz’s name for all eternity, not only in Ruth but in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:5), but this man, who passed up the opportunity to serve God in this way, remains unnamed and is nearly forgotten.
This entire narrative echoes the redemption we find in Jesus Christ. Boaz took on financial, social, and legal risks to redeem Ruth, while Jesus bore the full cost of redeeming humanity. Jesus didn’t just “buy the land”—He bought the people, entering our story, embracing our shame, and making us His own. Where the unnamed redeemer said, “I cannot,” Jesus said, “I will,” even though He didn’t have to; it was our sins that condemned Jesus to death, not His, since He was sinless.
Redemption isn’t easy, but it is beautiful. It reveals a God who doesn’t shy away from the mess, who doesn’t walk away when things get complicated, and who never says, “It’s not worth it.” Jesus’s sacrificial death and resurrection show us that we are most definitely “worth it” to God.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
0 comments:
Post a Comment