Being a Christian and actually understanding how it is to operate truly requires a complete reset of the mind. Jesus spent three years with His disciples to train them and teach them to be in a position to start the church, but this motley bunch had some pride issues. They knew they were going to be a key part of a new kingdom, but they thought they were going to rule Judah and finally drive out Rome. They often battled with each other as to who was the greatest, and they wanted to have positions of power and influence. But Jesus had another plan for it all.
The greatest in God’s Kingdom is the one who serves and takes the lowest seat. The ones who get God’s approval and recognition are the ones who take a position to serve, not to rule. The Christian leader is the one who leads by serving. I was involved with missions for 22 years growing up, and one of the common threads I saw in engaging with different church groups and ministries we connected with was this: when someone came and said they wanted to preach and lead, the first thing they were handed was a toilet brush. Because if they refused the toilet brush, they were not fit for any platform or spotlight position.
We have a severe problem in the church today, and it is an addiction to “celebrityism.” We put preachers who can preach well in the spotlight. We give platforms to people who can articulate things well and refute atheism. Some are legitimate and have paid their dues. Others truly have no business representing the faith on the stage because they have not learned the basics correctly. And some have gotten such an ego from being on the stage that they think that they are above those in the audience. That is one thing I am so grateful to my church for; I was heading that direction, and they, without knowing they were doing it because it was the Lord through them, put a leash on me and pulled me back. My pastor is a very humble man, and he has been through the ringer to get there. While I am viewed as a church leader and I have played roles in leadership without a title, I can see the wisdom in their being patient and taking their time to not be too eager to give someone authority. One reason is that they had seen, and I have seen, those who have the doctrinal knowledge but not the maturity of what it means to be “great” in the Kingdom, seeking positions so they can run their own kingdoms and platforms. What happened to true service in the church when the ones who have the positions of authority don’t actually want them?
To be a Christian, and especially to be a Christian leader, properly has a cost. Jesus warned those who said they wanted to give up everything to follow Him what it really means to give up everything. It means your home is not your own. It means your family may turn on you. It means you may lose your job and friends. He said to count the cost. A builder wants to make sure he has the budget and resources for the project because if he is short and the building is incomplete, it makes him a failure as an architect. If a king is facing a war with an army twice the size of his, he’ll assess if he can win with his resources; if not, he’ll seek to make terms of peace. This is missing in our evangelism today. We give this message of, “Give your life to Jesus, He’ll make everything better, and you get to go to heaven.” It’s heresy. It’s not the Gospel. A simple version of the Gospel is: “You are on your way to Hell. Turn away from your sin, give up your current lifestyle, turn back, and come to God, and you will be saved.”
There is a cost to being a Christian. You can’t live your life the way you want anymore. You can’t seek the pleasure of sin anymore. You are not to think or operate as the rest of the world operates anymore. As Christians, we belong to a new kingdom, a new ruler, and a new culture. Yes, it will take time to adapt, and yes, it will take time to realize that the old living style really was not doing us any good. And yes, God will replace the heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh, and He will exchange our desires from the old sinful life to a new life that seeks after Christ, but we have to walk in that way, too. We must exercise our faith and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. It will be hard; Jesus never said it would be easy. We will be hated by this world and its culture, because our message is that its deeds are evil.
Now understand this: our worldly culture, especially now in the U.S., is more than morally evil. It has a new “god” that Martyn-Llyod Jones aptly named “the man of knowledge” (at the 6-minute mark of this sermon). Our culture worships academia and head knowledge. If the “consensus” teaches it, that is the ultimate authority. But God stands up and says, “No, I am the authority, and I always have been the authority and always will be the authority.” We have a choice: who are we going to follow? Most of the church today has chosen to submit to modern academics, no matter how ludicrous their theories are, and they will change the message of the church to accommodate those academics instead of staying true to Scripture. There are pastors out there who make Christianity just an intellectual study and not a pursuit of Jesus. There are apologists who seek to “lower the bar” so as many people can “get in” as possible, but they refuse to speak of the cost and refuse to warn them that being a Christian means you will not be popular with those in the world. You may be respected due to your quality character, but when you actually give the message that says “repent,” that is when they will turn on you.
Have you counted the cost? Are you prepared to have your name slandered, mocked, and lied about, especially by professing Christians who are jealous of your unwavering faith because they quit a long time ago? You can’t do that in the flesh, and it takes the supernatural power of God to love those who do that to you. And there is a cost to get it. That cost is self. For some, it took years of torture in prison to learn it. If we call ourselves Christians, have we counted the cost? Or do we just want this title to make ourselves look good? If you just want to make yourself look good, do yourself a favor and don’t call yourself a Christian. To be a Christian requires you to deny self, and that includes no longer caring about your reputation among the heathen. Have you counted the cost? Have I?
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.
So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When he made love to her, the LORD enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. The women said to Naomi: “Praise be to the LORD, who this day has not left you without a guardian-redeemer. May he become famous throughout Israel! He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”
Then Naomi took the child in her arms and cared for him. The women living there said, “Naomi has a son!” And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.
- Ruth 4:13-17
While these verses are not the final verses in the book of Ruth, they do provide a great conclusion for this narrative. They show how God has transformed what started out as a tragedy into a triumph.
At the beginning of the narrative, Naomi's life was marred by loss and bitterness. Having left Bethlehem due to famine, she returned years later a widow and childless, declaring, “Don’t call me Naomi… Call me Mara, because the Almighty has made my life very bitter” (Ruth 1:20). Her husband Elimelech and her two sons had died in Moab, leaving her without security, posterity, and hope. For an Israelite woman, particularly in that patriarchal society, the absence of a husband and sons was economically and socially devastating.
Yet by chapter 4, a miraculous reversal has occurred. Boaz, a guardian-redeemer, marries Ruth, Naomi’s Moabite daughter-in-law, ensuring not only Ruth's future but Naomi’s restoration as well. We see the women of Bethlehem affirm this in verses 14-15, praising God for not leaving Naomi without a guardian-redeemer and expressing how Ruth’s love has been more valuable than seven sons, which was a significant statement in a society that highly valued male offspring.
While it is clear from verse 13 that the child biologically belonged to Boaz and Ruth, Obed is spoken of as Naomi's son in verse 17: “Naomi has a son!” While this seems very strange to our modern Western culture, this makes sense when viewed through the lens of Israelite customs, particularly the practice of levirate marriage and inheritance laws.
While the marriage between Boaz and Ruth is not technically a levirate marriage (since Boaz is not Ruth's deceased husband’s brother), it functions in a similar spirit. In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, the Mosaic law prescribed that if a man died without children, his brother should marry the widow to produce offspring to carry on the deceased brother’s name. The primary goals were to preserve the deceased man’s lineage and ensure that family land inheritance remained within the clan.
In Ruth's case, Boaz acts as a guardian-redeemer, a male relative who steps in to protect the interests of the extended family, including redeeming land and marrying the widow. Boaz's actions restore Elimelech’s family line, and their son Obed is considered, legally and culturally, to be the heir of Mahlon (Ruth's late husband and Naomi’s son). By extension, this child rejuvenates Naomi’s family line and secures the ancestral estate.
Beyond lineage, the birth of Obed ensures Naomi's security socially. In an agrarian society where survival often hinged on family support networks, an elderly widow with no sons faced poverty and marginalization. The announcement that Naomi “has a son” symbolically anchors her back into the community with renewed protection and provision. The community’s recognition emphasizes that Naomi's status is now restored, not merely Ruth’s.
Ancient Israel viewed individuals through the lens of communal identity. One’s honor, name, and future were deeply intertwined with family and tribe. The association of Obed with Naomi is not a denial of Ruth’s maternity but rather an affirmation of the family's restoration within its communal and covenantal framework. Naomi’s losses are reversed, and her name continues through Obed, who became the father of Jesse and the grandfather of King David.
Though God’s direct actions may not have been explicit in Ruth, His providence permeates the narrative. The conception of Obed is described as divinely enabled (“the Lord enabled her to conceive” in verse 13), echoing similar Old Testament motifs where barren women like Sarah, Rebekah, and Hannah bear pivotal sons by God’s intervention. Naomi's story testifies to God’s quiet, redemptive work through ordinary human faithfulness, especially that of Ruth.
Ruth, a Moabite and a foreigner, is grafted into Israel’s covenant family, culminating not only in her son Obed but in her inclusion in the lineage of Jesus as the Messiah (Matthew 1:5). This underscores a theological motif that God’s redemptive plan transcends ethnic and national boundaries. Ruth’s faithfulness and loyalty to Naomi find divine reward, illustrating that God's blessings can flow through unexpected people and relationships.
Our world today is often driven by individualism, but Ruth’s story champions steadfast love (hesed) and communal responsibility. Ruth’s selfless commitment to Naomi triggers a chain of redemptive events that restore not only Naomi’s life but also shape the future of Israel through David and, eventually, Jesus Christ. Boaz’s integrity and willingness to redeem reinforce the importance of acting honorably and compassionately within one's community.
Naomi, who once declared her life as bitter and empty, now holds her grandson, a tangible symbol of hope and legacy. The cultural practice of associating Obed with Naomi reflects ancient Israel's dedication to family preservation and social restoration. But more profoundly, it demonstrates that God, through human faithfulness and societal structures, weaves together His plans for redemption and blessing.
The God we worship today is the same God who was faithful to Naomi and Ruth. He calls us, too, to persevere through the times of bitterness and suffering to wait on the plans that He has for us, plans that will result in our redemption when we are obedient to Him.
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.
Matthew 18 has been a very difficult passage for many people to properly break down, and that difficulty stems from treating the “headers” as different topics and events. Matthew 18 is the famous, or infamous, passage regarding church discipline followed by the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant. This chapter has some of the most misquoted passages in the Bible as well.
Matthew 18 explains how to deal with a brother who sins against you. This is regarding personal sin, one-on-one. This is not dealing with false teachings. This is about church conflict between members. Slander, gossip, rudeness, jealousy, and the list goes on. I am also not talking about being nosy; it is not our job to go around seeking to correct everyone in their sins, especially when we have our own to deal with. However, when someone sins against you, the first step is to go to that person and confront them. If they refuse to listen, then take a couple of witnesses who have seen the same behavior. If they still don’t listen, then go to the church, namely some church elders, who have seen the same behavior and confront the person with them. If they still refuse to listen, then they should not be welcome in the fellowship.
However, a very key part of this is the goal of restoration. Restoration is never to be granted without clear repentance. While one may forgive, one is not to restore until that sin is dealt with. It may not be perfect, but a mere “I am sorry, I got caught” is not going to cut it. There must be clear evidence of seeking to deal with that sin. And in that process of dealing with sin and dealing with restoration or removing from the congregation, we have this statement of “if two or three are gathered in my name, what you loose will be loosed and what is bound will be bound.” That passage is not talking about a church gathering. It is talking about the restoration or removal of a congregant who was in sin. It is not talking about getting two or three people to “bind Satan” or proclaim whatever thing comes to the mind to be set loose. No, it’s talking about dealing with sin in the church, confronting it, and seeing the sinner restored. It is also worth noting that if it gets to the point of removing someone from fellowship, and in some cases that needs to be done immediately, and the earlier steps need to be skipped, that person is not to be treated as a total outcast but as the mission field. If someone is that steeped in sin, chances are very high that he is not a believer and has not been born again. The issue is not if they have believed in Christ or not; the issue is if they have bent the knee to Christ or not. This was actually put into practice in the Corinthian church. Paul told the congregation to boot out a sexually immoral man, but after he repented, to restore him to the fellowship.
Then Peter asks how many times he must forgive before he can say “enough,” and Jesus says, “seventy times seven,” meaning more than you can count and keep forgiving. He then gives a parable of a servant with a truly unpayable debt to a master. The servant begged for mercy, and the master forgave the massive debt, but then this same servant refused to give the tiny trifles of a debt that he was owed. So the master put the massive debt back on that first servant. Jesus gave this parable to show that any of the sins we do against each other is next to nothing compared to the sins we have done against our Father in heaven. If God is able to forgive our massive rebellion against Him, why should we be so hard to forgive those who commit the tiniest offenses against us?
Now, a debate often arises whether one must repent before one can be forgiven. Some have argued that you can forgive in the context of surrendering the desire to see a wrong made right to the Lord to deal with and not hold a grudge. I have often presented that picture. But this does not allow for restoration until repentance is found. Others have argued that you cannot forgive until repentance is found, and one has to be careful with this position to not use that as an excuse to hold grudges. I am not going to try to solve that one here. I will say that there must be repentance and forgiveness together for restoration to be had.
If that sin is done by one in a position of authority, then there is another issue to deal with because the sinner didn’t merely sin against the person and against God, but they also violated the position of authority they held. And when I have seen proper church discipline done, when someone is restored after violating the position, they cannot hold that position again. They can be restored to ministry, but it must be a different ministry, and, more often than not, it is a ministry that will specifically help people deal with that very sin.
Jesus makes a point in these teachings that our sin against each other is very small and tiny compared to our sin against God. David understood this. He committed terrible sins against Bathsheba, betraying one of his Mighty Men, one of his closest friends from his time of training on the run from Saul, and then having him murdered to cover for it. But David realized his sin against them was small in comparison to the real sin he had committed against God, by despising the Law of God, which he had repeatedly sung about and loved. If he had not sinned against God, he never would have sinned against Bathsheba or Uriah. David was restored because he repented, and while God let him keep the throne, it was not without consequence. David had violence in his house for the rest of his reign. David only got to keep the throne because of God’s promise to keep him on the throne.
Conflict will inevitably occur when people and relationships are involved, so follow what Jesus modeled as you deal with forgiveness and restoration when the need arises.
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.
Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelek, Kilion and Mahlon. I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from his hometown. Today you are witnesses!"
Then the elders and all the people at the gate said, “We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the family of Israel. May you have standing in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. Through the offspring the LORD gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.”
- Ruth 4:9-12
This pivotal moment in Ruth’s narrative doesn’t just bring closure to her personal journey, but it echoes through the annals of Israelite history and ultimately ties into the genealogy of Jesus Himself. In this, we see the importance of witnesses, and we see many ways that this story is connected to the rest of the narrative of Scripture.
The statement “You are witnesses” appears twice in verses 9-10 and again in the people's response in verse 11. This repetition is intentional. In ancient Israelite society, legal transactions—especially those involving land, inheritance, or marriage—required public validation. By declaring, “Today you are witnesses,” Boaz isn’t just following tradition; he’s binding the community to the moment.
In a time without written legal contracts, the spoken word held tremendous power. Legal transactions had to be ratified in the presence of community elders to be considered valid and binding. By gathering elders at the city gate, Boaz ensures that his redemptive act of buying Naomi’s land and marrying Ruth is recorded not on parchment, but in the collective memory of the town. Witnesses serve as both validators and protectors. If anyone ever questioned Ruth’s or her future child’s right to Mahlon’s legacy, the community could say, “We were there. We saw it. It is true.”
This public acknowledgment also carries spiritual weight. Ruth’s journey from Moabite outsider to beloved member of Israel is something worth celebrating and remembering. Boaz’s actions publicly reverse her shame into honor. The people affirm that they, too, accept Ruth – not only as Boaz’s wife but as a mother in Israel’s lineage.
Verses 11-12 include a powerful blessing from the townspeople. They invoke Rachel and Leah, the matriarchs of Israel, and Tamar, the widow who bore Perez to Judah. These names are all placed here with significance; each points to stories of struggle, blessing, and divine fulfillment.
Rachel and Leah, the wives of Jacob, were considered the mothers of the twelve tribes of Israel. Invoking their names is essentially asking that Ruth, a formerly barren Moabite widow, be considered a new matriarch, building the house of Israel further. This echoes the reversal seen in Ruth’s story. Much like Rachel and Leah, who endured jealousy, barrenness, and hardship, Ruth faced widowhood and cultural exclusion. Yet God, in His mercy, includes them all in His redemptive plan.
The part of the blessing that mentioned Ephrathah and Bethlehem roots Ruth and Boaz not just in a family, but in a place—Bethlehem, which means the House of Bread in Hebrew. This town is already becoming a location of divine drama. From Ruth would come David, Israel’s greatest king. And from David’s line would come Jesus, the Bread of Life (John 6:35), born in that very town. To be “famous in Bethlehem” is to be part of God’s enduring promise.
Finally, there is a reference to Tamar, Judah, and Perez. This reference may seem odd since Tamar’s story in Genesis 38 involves deception and scandal. Widowed and left childless, she disguised herself to force Judah, her father-in-law, to fulfill his duty. Yet from that messy situation came Perez, who became a significant ancestor in the line of David. Ruth’s story echoes Tamar’s. Both were foreigners (Tamar was likely a Canaanite), both were widows, both fought for their right to preserve a family line, and both were ultimately vindicated by God. In mentioning Tamar, the people of Bethlehem acknowledge a divine pattern: God can bring forth life, legacy, and royalty from even the most unlikely situations.
Even though the narrative of Ruth takes place in the time period of the Judges, Israel already had a rich history and legacy that they were preserving as a nation. Boaz’s fulfillment of the role of guardian-redeemer officially brought Ruth into the nation of Israel. But as the witnesses present that day at the city gate foretold, Ruth would also be part of the lineage of the long-awaited Messiah. Boaz’s redemption of Ruth was not required of him, just as Jesus’ redemption of us was not required. Both were done out of love and involved sacrifice by the redeemer.
Just as the witnesses at the city gate were important for acknowledging the redemption that occurred that day, we are important witnesses of the redemption that happened through Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross and resurrection centuries ago. While we did not personally witness it firsthand, we have the whole Bible and the Holy Spirit who testifies in our lives about the events of that day and what they mean for the salvation of the entire world.
We are part of the legacy and heritage of the family of believers, just as Ruth became part of the legacy of the nation of Israel. We are called to bear witness to the faith that we have been given by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Live your life as a witness to this truth.
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.
Jesus showcased His power and authority through many miracles and teachings that no one had heard before. But there is one moment where Jesus gave a tiny glimpse of His true glory before His resurrection: the transfiguration. Jesus took His three closest disciples – Peter, James, and John – to a mountain, and there He transformed before them into His glorified form. He was still recognizable, but He was no longer in a mere physical body, and with Him were Elijah and Moses. How Peter recognized Elijah and Moses is not given, because it’s not like they had physical pictures of them. Peter, good old foot-in-mouth Peter, had no idea what to say or do, and so he offered to build tents, one for each. Instead, he heard a voice from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son. Hear Him!” Then it all ended.
Why this? And why with only three witnesses? Weren’t only two needed? Actually, one reason Jesus brought three witnesses was because He knew that James, one of these three, would be the first to be executed. That left Peter and John for several decades to write their letters in which both referenced this very moment, saying: “What we have seen and heard, this we proclaim to you.” John cites this moment among his accounts so that the church of Ephesus could partake in the joy he had in Christ. John, who received Revelation, recognized Jesus’ glorified form and fell before Him as though he were dead. I am certain he recalled the moment of the transfiguration at that point, too. Peter cites this moment to show that he is not making anything up and even goes on to say that, even above his witness of the transfiguration, the prophecy of Scripture is more sure, more solid, than anything we can experience. If there was any doubt about who Jesus was among these three, the transfiguration sealed it.
So why didn’t Jesus show this to the rest of the disciples, let alone go public with it? As I have mentioned in this series, Jesus was not going for a show. He was not going for crowds. He was not seeking anyone’s acceptance except that of the Father. I imagine Jesus knew there would be too much infighting among the disciples if they all saw it, AND among the twelve was the betrayer. Jesus knew Judas’ heart, and if Jesus invited all twelve to see this moment, Judas would have seen it, which very well could have altered how prophecy would have been fulfilled. I am not sure whether Judas would have truly surrendered to the Lord or if he would have shrieked away, but his heart was wrong the entire time. I do believe Jesus kept Judas from seeing several specific miracles, not just this one, because of that.
Moses and Elijah showed up with Jesus. Moses had died, and his body was actually disputed over between Satan and Michael. Moses was never buried on Mt Nebo. We just know he died. God buried him, but no one knows where. Elijah was one of only two men recorded not to die; he was taken to heaven on a chariot before Elisha’s eyes. Why these two men? Why not David or Abraham? The answer is simple: these two men, unlike any others, represented the Old Testament Scriptures. Moses is the figure for the Law, the first five books of the Old Testament, and the history of the establishment of God’s people. Elijah is the face of the prophets. Though he was not the first prophet, nor the last, nor did he even witness to the southern kingdom of Judah, Elijah is the most well-known. Elijah and Elisha were the only two prophets to be able to perform miracles. More time is given to Elijah and Elisha than to any other prophet in the history books of the Old Testament. Along with Moses, these two were the only people in the Old Testament whom God used to perform miracles. No one did them before, no one did them in between, and no one did them after until Jesus showed up.
The Father’s message to Peter, James, and John identified Jesus as the Son, and to hear Him. Moses and Elijah, the Law and the Prophets, speak of Jesus. All of the Law was to showcase the necessity of absolute perfection to be with God and to show that man both could not and did not meet such standards. Moses showed from the Fall of Man forward the need for a Savior and the need for a holy, perfect substitute. The prophets, through the rest of the Old Testament history, and the prophecies showcase more pictures and snapshots of who the Messiah would be, centuries before it would happen, so no one would ever be able to manufacture it. And all pointed to Jesus, the one whom they all wrote about and longed to see and to meet. And here the Father said, “Hear Him!” Moses said to listen to the prophet who would come after him. The prophets, of whom Elijah was the “head,” said we would recognize the Messiah with these features and characteristics and actions. And here Jesus came, actually doing it.
Peter, James, and John had no idea what to make of this, and they did not need to at the time. When the resurrection and then Pentecost happened, everything clicked, and thus the New Testament era, the Church era, was born. Instead of looking forward to the Messiah as Moses and Elijah did, now we look back to what He did and is still doing and will continue to do until all things are completed. One day, we will get to see Jesus in His glorified form as well. That will be the sight of all sights to behold.
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.
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.
There is a strange account in the Gospels where a woman comes up to Jesus with a desperate plea because her daughter was dealing with a demon. The problem was that she was a Gentile, and Jews and Gentiles were not to mix or intermingle. But she tried all her sources, and she had heard about Jesus. Like the woman who dealt with hemorrhages for 12 years, she knew He had what it would take to heal her. But Jesus did something very strange with her: He showed her no compassion and insulted her. How? Why? Let’s explore.
At first, Jesus simply ignored her. He didn’t bother responding. He only turned to her when, in total desperation, she persisted, even though the disciples tried to send her away. Then Jesus told this woman straight to her face that He was sent to the children of Israel (the Jews) and that you don’t give the food meant for children to dogs. He called her a dog, which was a street animal, hardly a step above a pig, an unclean animal.
How insulting! How could Jesus, the very man who told a crowd, “He who is without sin cast the first stone” to save a woman caught in adultery, succumb to such racism and total disdain? He ignored her and then insulted her with a “You don’t have a right to what I offer” statement. How many of us would respond to that? I know what we would do. We’d just dismiss Jesus as being rude, inconsiderate, “un-Christlike,” and walk away. But why would we do that? The answer is because we are too self-centered and not desperate enough. We have seen the films where a coach will utterly rip into a player, not be nice at all, and totally diss him, but those insults awaken a drive to finally do what the coach knew he was capable of doing. And then the coach says, “Now we’re talking.” Jesus was doing something similar here.
Jesus was not deliberately ignoring her. He knew who she was and why she was there. He was testing her to see how desperate she was. Jesus taught the concept of “importunity,” unyielding and unrelenting pursuit of what we need, particularly through prayer. He wanted her to come after Him and not quit. Her situation left her no other choice. Jesus was the last option, and her daughter would die with that demon if He did not do something.
Then Jesus insulted her, calling her a dog and saying she was not worthy of eating at the children’s table. How did she respond? With humility, she used the same analogy to admit, “Yes, I am a dog, and yes, I am not worthy, but can something trickle down to me?” She knew she didn’t deserve anything, but she loved her child and wanted to see her well.
Jesus was amazed at her faith, knowing her place, knowing His place, and even knowing His mission. He tested her, and she passed the test. But Jesus also could have been testing His disciples to see if they cared. At first, they didn’t, so what He told her was what they were thinking. This Gentile woman was asking for that which belonged to the Jews? What is up with that? Yet she persisted, and Jesus, out of the genuine compassion He had all along, granted her request. And like the Centurion’s servant, this woman’s daughter was healed by a spoken word.
At times, Jesus will remain silent to our prayers. Now, there are times where God will flat out not answer them because we have been sinning, because we have selfish desires, we’re asking amiss, or a variety of reasons, but there are other times where we ask true, genuine prayers and God does not answer for a while. Are we going to give up after the first silence? After the second? The third? The tenth? Most do. They don’t know how to persist. And if God tells us, “You aren’t worthy of this,” most will think that’s a lie from the devil. But in this case, it came from Jesus. Are we going to feel insulted because we think we are worthy of God answering us? Or are we going to realize we don’t deserve anything from God and that we are not even worthy to be called children, and even being called a dog is still higher than we deserve? At least dogs get to dwell with the master. This woman knew her place and pleaded like a dog begging for something from the master, and the master gave it to her. How much more will God give to those whom He has adopted as children! Let us learn how to persist in our prayers and how to keep praying until we have what we need, but we need to be Kingdom-focused first before we do that.
Another challenge is, will we be content if God actually says “no”? We need to remember that the daughter was not dealing with a chronic illness, but a demon. It is different to be physically paralyzed versus dealing with a demon. Jesus never healed every physically disabled person, but He did deal with the demonic. And sometimes He does not give the answer we want, either to test our faith, or to test the faith of those around us. Let us take our requests before God, but let us also be content with the answer God gives. In this case, Jesus did not say “no.” So until God says “no,” and if your request has been tested to be in alignment with God’s will, go for it until the answer is given.
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.
Meanwhile Boaz went up to the town gate and sat down there just as the guardian-redeemer he had mentioned came along. Boaz said, “Come over here, my friend, and sit down.” So he went over and sat down.
Boaz took ten of the elders of the town and said, “Sit here,” and they did so. Then he said to the guardian-redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our relative Elimelek. I thought I should bring the matter to your attention and suggest that you buy it in the presence of these seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, do so. But if you will not, tell me, so I will know. For no one has the right to do it except you, and I am next in line.”
“I will redeem it,” he said.
- Ruth 4:1-4
As we begin the final chapter of the book of Ruth, the scene shifts to the town gate, where Boaz, the guardian redeemer, makes a pivotal move toward securing redemption for Ruth and Naomi.
When verse 1 says, “Boaz went up to the town gate and sat down there,” this isn’t just a casual place to catch someone in passing. In the ancient Near East, especially in Israelite society, the town gate was the epicenter of public life—it was the place for legal matters, public announcements, business transactions, and social interaction.
The town gate was functionally a courthouse. Judges, elders, and respected citizens gathered there to make decisions, settle disputes, and validate contracts. It was like a blend between a city hall, a courtroom, and a town square. Boaz knew that if he wanted his business to be conducted lawfully and publicly, it needed to be done at the gate. This move shows both wisdom and integrity. By handling the matter at the gate, Boaz also ensured transparency. The community would witness the transaction, and thus it would be legally binding and socially recognized. In a society without centralized record-keeping or written contracts for the average person, public memory was the legal ledger, and witnesses were your signature.
Boaz doesn’t wait for events to unfold; he takes initiative. Previously in Ruth 3, after Ruth’s bold proposal at the threshing floor, Boaz promises to do things "properly" and by the book. Here, we see him make good on that promise. He goes to the gate early, deliberately positioning himself to meet the other potential redeemer. The term used in Hebrew refers to a kinsman (relative) with the legal responsibility to rescue or redeem a relative in difficulty. This could involve buying back land, avenging wrongful death, or—as in Ruth’s case—marrying a widow to preserve a family line.
Boaz’s character and integrity shine here. Though he clearly cares for Ruth and it appears that he wants to marry her, he gives the nearer kinsman first right of refusal. He doesn't manipulate, deceive, or force the outcome. He operates within the law and cultural norms, putting integrity before personal desire.
Boaz doesn’t approach this alone. Verse 2 says, “Boaz took ten of the elders of the town and said, 'Sit here,' and they did so.” These elders are more than passive observers; they function as legal authorities and cultural anchors.
The number ten was significant in ancient Jewish thought, symbolizing completeness and serving as a quorum for certain public decisions. In rabbinic tradition (which was developed later), ten men form the minimum number required for communal religious activity. While this tradition may not have been formalized in Ruth’s time, the principle of completeness and legitimacy attached to ten elders was already meaningful.
These elders are convened not just to witness a land transaction but a deeply moral act. Boaz is ensuring that Naomi is cared for, Ruth is protected, and Elimelech’s family line continues. These were not small things. The elders validate not only the legality but the righteousness of Boaz’s actions. Their presence adds weight and finality to the proceedings.
Boaz’s words in verses 3-4 are strategic. He first presents the opportunity to redeem the land, which was an attractive offer. The nearer redeemer responds, “I will redeem it.” But Boaz hasn’t mentioned Ruth yet; we’ll see in the next section how that changes the other redeemer’s response. This sequence shows Boaz’s wisdom. He frames the offer, secures interest, then presents the full cost. It’s not manipulation; it’s reality. True redemption is costly.
Boaz’s actions are public and deliberate; he doesn’t redeem Ruth in secret. This reflects a spiritual truth for us, that God’s redemption is also public. Jesus died in a very public way before the watching world, offering a legal and moral satisfaction for sin. The cross, like the town gate, was a place of judgment and reconciliation, though the cross, of course, has significantly greater implications and a wider reach for redemption. The cross of Jesus can redeem the whole world, rather than just one family line.
Boaz stands as a type of Christ, a redeemer who willingly pays the price to restore the broken and secure a future for those without hope. His actions at the gate are a foreshadowing of what Christ would later do: fulfill the law, redeem the undeserving, and bring outsiders (like Ruth) into the covenant community.
Interestingly, the gate is also symbolic in biblical theology. Jesus says in John 10:9, “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.” In Ruth, Boaz stands at the gate as a potential redeemer; in the Gospel, Christ is the gate and the true Redeemer of all mankind.
While our human attempts at redemption are beneficial and noble for this life, it is the redemption we receive through faith in Jesus Christ that truly matters.
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.
Throughout His ministry, Jesus gave many different parables and stories. As a teacher, Jesus knew how to explain concepts in ways that His audience would understand, but also so that those who had no interest in understanding would not get it. Jesus both gave straightforward teachings and taught in mysteries that others would not understand until the prophecies would be fulfilled, but all of them share key themes. So after the Sermon on the Mount, why did Jesus pretty well stop straight preaching and settle for parables? What was His mission with the parables? Let us explore.
First, a parable is NOT from the root “parabola,” in which every aspect of the story has a literal or practical counterpart. I have heard that taught, and it simply doesn’t work. Each parable had a specific purpose – to illustrate a singular primary point. I am not going to go through each of those, but it would be fun to do that sometime. With each parable, Jesus was pointing out specific things and key lessons. We see behavior markers, we see what salvation looks like, we see what false religion looks like, and we see what happens when those who have false religion take action.
One thing I have noticed (initially pointed out in a conference Q&A session I listened to) is that the majority, if not all, of Jesus’ parables make the distinction between true and false believers. Jesus hardly ever compared the believer to the unbeliever, except to point out that the Gentiles often had better faith and better placed faith than the people of Israel did. Jesus often compared and contrasted between genuine believers and fake believers and what they do and how they behave. He did this in the parables of the Sower, the Wheat and Tares, the Banquet, the Tenants, the Talents, and the list goes on; it’s about who belongs to Christ and who doesn’t. The parables teach us how the distinction works.
The Parable of the Sower is the key to understanding it all, as it is one of the few that Jesus explained. A farmer sowed seed on four types of ground, and Jesus explained how they each represent different hearts towards God’s message. Three types do not bear fruit, and only one does. I noticed in this parable that the only soil that bore fruit was the one that the farmer had prepared in advance. All the others were left as they were. If we understand that Jesus is talking about true and false believers here, all those who have heard the Word of God preached to them and how they responded to that word, then it helps us understand the others.
One disturbing thing people have done with Jesus’ parables is that they will say, “Jesus spoke in parables, therefore Genesis could be a parable.” I truly question the literacy and sanity of people who make that argument in sincerity. You cannot take one thing in Scripture and just put it somewhere else without considering the genre. Parables are the only fictitious stories in Scripture, and every single one of them is marked as a parable not only by the text literally labeling it as a parable but also by the fact that someone within the historical account is saying it. It’s not the author of the book saying it; it’s the person in the account saying it. All parables in Scripture are being told by a person in the account to someone in the account. It’s not a narrative by the author as Genesis, Exodus, Kings, Chronicles, etc. are. Take notice that the people making this argument are very selective about where and when they use this argument: at the point of Scripture in which they want it to be controversial, so they can have the “say” on what it should mean. That’s not belief. Jesus used parables, but He did not leave them “open for interpretation” but rather had people seek Him to find out what they meant.
The disciples did not understand the parables, and even when He explained the Sower and the Tares and Wheat, they really only got the message when Jesus explicitly told them. But when they asked Jesus what it meant, Jesus did not ask questions to leave things open, but rather to make people think. He asked the obvious, “Which one did the right thing?” or “What should be done with such people?” Everyone knew the answer because Jesus made the story so simple and clear. Even the Pharisees, who sought to entrap and figure out Jesus, knew what the right answers were. And with some of the Parables, especially the Parable of the Tenants, they knew precisely what Jesus was saying, because it was against them. So while the people would hear the Parables and not perceive them, at the same time, they were also crystal clear that they could not be “interpreted” openly. I find the same is true for most of Scripture. It is so clear that people know precisely what it says to the point of not having an excuse to not know what it says, but also obscure enough that those who don’t want to believe don’t actually get the message. Yes, that sounds like a paradox, but it’s generally how Scripture is written. The parables are not that different. It takes the revelation of God and spiritual discernment to actually get the message, but at the same time, no one has any right to blame God for not being clear.
The parables give us clear snapshots in a known setting to illustrate a spiritual truth. They are designed to give us an understanding of our thinking and our actions. When Nathan confronted David about Bathsheba, he didn’t directly accuse David of murder. He told a parable so David could see the severity of his actions. Jesus would often do the same. He would tell stories about what people should do and not do. The Good Samaritan not only showed the hypocrisy of the leaders who refused to lift a finger so they could “go to church” that the very people they hated the most, the Samaritans, were just as real people as they were… and perhaps better people than the Pharisees were. The real followers of Christ are those who do the things Jesus commands, which includes having compassion and mercy, but also issuing judgment. The false followers of Christ will profess the name but seek the glory for themselves; they do not have the King’s interests in mind at all.
When we read the parables, we need to discern which kind of believer we really are. If we see a discrepancy, then we need to deal with it. Otherwise, we may well not be who we think we are.
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.
