After the heart stopper/dropper, that news must have thrilled her heart as it came back up from her ankles! How could she go to sleep at his feet with the uncertainty looming in her mind? Naomi failed to mention to her of another relative closer than Boaz. She was cruising into a wide open sea with no way to get off the boat if the closer relative chose to do his duty. She had no idea what this man looked like, his personality, his temperament, his spirituality, his standing in the community, his family, and so forth. She was committed to either outcome. Then we left off at Ruth 3:18 waiting on the morning to break and Boaz going to seek out this closer relative and discover his mind in the matter.
When Naomi told Ruth she would seek security for her (Ruth 3:1), she had three things on her mind that needed closure: seeking Ruth’s security, preserving the family name, and keeping the land in the family that belonged to Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion. In her mind, she would make the sale of the land conditional, that the nearest kinsman would have to enter into a levirate marriage with Ruth. A levirate marriage is the custom where a man marries his brother’s widow. Levirate comes from the Latin word Levir which means “brother-in-law or “her husband’s brother.” Since Naomi was too old to have children (Ruth 1:11-13), Ruth would be the catalyst to make all three concerns a reality.
The Mosaic Law only required for the kinsman redeemer to marry the widow of the deceased brother (cf. Deut 25:5-6; there was an additional requirement in this passage but apparently it was not an issue here), not the wives of his children. She would leverage the deal with Ruth in order to provide a home and future in Israel for Ruth. Naomi would get out of this an heir who would be entitled to the family land; mission is accomplished. Here is the cool thing; Ruth already told Naomi Boaz would perform the duty if the nearer relative declined (Ruth 3:16); and if he didn’t, Naomi had nothing to lose by driving a hard bargain.
Did you notice what a godly man Boaz was in this story? He observed not only the rule of law (Moses) but also the spirit of the law (cf. his treatment of Ruth). Let’s fast forward to New Testament times where the rule of God’s law was replaced by the rule of tradition (R.O.T).
The rabbinical interpretations of the law were developed to help the Jews “keep” the Mosaic Law; unfortunately, the keeping of the traditions became of greater importance to the Jewish leaders than keeping God’s law, and they used their authority to leverage on the people. The Israelites got so far off course, even in Isaiah’s day, that Jesus summed up the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem in Mt 15:6b-9 (also see Mk 7:8) and quoting Isaiah the prophet (Isa 29:13),
Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips [cf. Mt 6:5; Lk 18:11], but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
History was repeating itself. As my history professor was fond of saying, “One thing we learn about history is that man doesn’t learn from history.” As in Isaiah’s day and in Jesus’ day the Word of God was replaced by man-made rules and deemphasized, ignored, neglected, or nullified. Outwardly, the spiritual leaders pretended to be pious, but inwardly, they were wicked, whitewashed sepulchers. Customs, rules, ordinances, and traditions can be a good thing provided these are in accord with the Word of God in faith and practice.
When the commandments of men (R.O.T.) are given a higher priority than the Word of God, the Word of God is nullified. R.O.T. does not promote the fruit of the Spirit and true worship, only dead, cold, and lifeless orthodoxy, mere legal formalism.
A church covenant can be Bible-based, containing a conservative statement of faith and practice and posted on the wall along with the Ten Commandments in its worship center, but if conventional standards contradict or are held in higher esteem than the Word of God, you got lips without heart, vain worshippers. We need to be Word walkers who worship the God of the Bible, not the Bible, in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24).
Moving forward for I have kept us far too long on the edge of the cliff, we read in Ruth 4:1 where Boaz hiked up to the gate to seek out this closer relative than him and settle this matter quickly. I love his godly eagerness in this (Do you think he might have a hankering for Ruth?). I think Naomi might have had an inside track on Boaz – for the man will not rest until he has concluded the matter this day (Ruth 3:18) which is why she sent him to Boaz in the first place? Let’s get off the cliff and up to the city at the concourse.
The Probe, Ruth 4:1-4
| Verse | Comments |
| Ruth 4:1 | Went up (cf. Ruth 3:3, go down to the threshing floor) apparently the elevation of the threshing floor was below the level of the gate. Bethlehem is hilly land. Gate [H8179, shaar, 4 occurrences in Ruth] 3:11, town (NKJV), city (KJV); gate, Ruth 4:1, 10, 11. It refers to a space inside the gate, e.g., marketplace or place of business, a forum or public meeting place, a place where legal matters were settled (cf. 2 Sam 15:2; Job 29:7; Lam 5:14), not referring to an entrance here in Ruth. This passage takes place at the gate, stays at the gate, and no movement is recorded from the gate or public meeting place. Close relative Wade through this if you will. It is given to you for the purpose of showing how the translators translated gaal in Ruth, particularly NKJV and KJV. [H1350, gaal, 27 occurrences (NKJV), 26 (NASB), 21 (KJV) in Ruth]. 2:20, close relatives (NKJV), kinsmen (KJV); 3:9, close relative (NKJV), kinsman (KJV); 3:12, close relative, relative (NKJV), kinsman [x2] (KJV); 3:13, perform [x3], close relative (NKJV), kinsman [x4] (KJV); 4:1, close relative (NKJV), kinsman (KJV); 4:3, close relative (NKJV), kinsman (KJV); 4:4, redeem [x5] (NKJV, KJV); 4:6, close relative, (NKJV), kinsman (KJV), redeem [x3] (NKJV, KJV); 4:8, close relative (NKJV), kinsman (KJV); 4:14, close relative (NKJV), kinsman (KJV). The kinsman redeemer is a goel which means to redeem, receive or buy back. Kinsman redeemer is a dominant theme in the book of Ruth. And behold, the close relative of whom Boaz had spoken came by Note the behold factor, an interjection that providence was in motion. Have you noticed how things just “happened” in Ruth, for e.g., · Ruth 1:6, Naomi happened to have heard about God visiting His people in Bethlehem. · Ruth 1:16, Ruth just happened to stick with Naomi. · Ruth 1:19, Naomi and Ruth happened to arrive at Bethlehem safely. · Ruth 1:19, It happened the town was excited of Naomi’s return. · Ruth 1:22, It happened to be barley harvest. · Ruth 2:3, Ruth happened to pick Boaz’s field. · Ruth 2:5, Boaz happened to notice Ruth in the field. · Both Boaz and Ruth happened to have Gentile mothers. · Ruth 3:8, It happened at midnight Boaz discovered Ruth at his feet. · Ruth 3:14 It happened no one saw Ruth with Boaz. · Ruth 4:1, The close relative just happened to come by the gate when Boaz was looking for him. Do you recall those markers I talked about last week? I guess we could call them the Behold factors, those interjections of providence in our lives! “Oh, work on, dear Lord, though I may be clueless of late! Work on!” Have you beheld any lately? Have you even been looking for any markers of God working in your life? Listen, folks, nothing is coincidental in the life of a believer, nothing just happens out of some random chaos, nothing emerges by luck; there is no “Serendipity, baby!”We need to be reminded that our God is sovereign! Never let go of that truth. Hang on to it for dear life! Our God is the LORD Almighty! Selah. Friend This does not suggest that Boaz doesn’t know his relative’s name (cf. Ruth 3:12). The Holy Spirit chose not to mention his name in the book of Ruth; the reason is uncertain. It is conjectured that the close relative’s unwillingness to perpetuate a family member’s name may have been the reason. He passed his sandal to Boaz (Ruth 4:8), giving up his right to be a kinsman redeemer, but there was no spitting (Deut 25:9), which was symbolic of contempt, recorded. If the kinsman bought Naomi’s property without Ruth in the negotiations, once Naomi died the kinsman redeemer would get all of her property and pass it on to his kids. |
| Ruth 4:2 | Ten Only two or three witnesses needed in judicial proceedings (cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15). Ten may have been necessary for a quorum for official business transactions. |
| Ruth 4:3 | Our brother Elimelech The unnamed relative was either a brother or cousin. |
| Ruth 4:4 | Buy it back the legal right to do so was authorized in the law of Moses (Lev 25:23-28) |
The Problem, Ruth 4:5-8
| Ruth 4:5 | Naomi had annexed to the purchase of her land that provision be made to marry Ruth. Naomi’s intent was to provide a future for her daughter-in-law (cf. Ruth 3:1) and to perpetuate the name of her son. The Law didn’t require the marriage of Ruth (cf. Deut 25:5, 6), but Naomi was past child rearing and needed to perpetuate her family name. The marriage of Ruth and mentioning that she was Gentile, the Moabitess, were subtle inclusions in the negotiations. Whatever Boaz’s personal agenda was he was exemplifying going above and beyond the law, or it is possible that the local custom may have treated redemption of land and marriage as inseparable, the one came with the other (cf. Gen 38:8 with Mt 22:23-28)? Do you remember that night when Boaz mentioned to Ruth at the threshing floor that there was a closer relative than him (Ruth 3:12)? I want you to note what a godly man Boaz was and his willingness to obey the law of God over any possible feeling he might have had for Ruth (Ruth 3:13). He told Ruth if the closer relative will perform his duty, “good; let him do it.” But if not, he would perform the duty for her. God’s law took precedent over his feelings in the matter. He wanted to do what was right. Boaz was an honorable man; this is another piece of information to indicate there was no hanky panky that night. |
| Ruth 4:6 | Lest I ruin my own inheritance property was one thing; Ruth was the wrench in the cog. Whatever the close relative’s reason, he considered it detrimental to his inheritance. The absence of spitting (Deut 25:9) argues against any violation of law by the closer relative; however, his being quick to seize the opportunity of redeeming Naomi’s lands (Ruth 4:4) (the whole city knew she was back in town, Ruth 1:19, and beyond child bearing, Ruth 1:11-13) and his failure to act on Naomi’s dilemma ( to perpetuate the name of the dead, Ruth 4:5), indicated he was an opportunist and self-serving. Unlike Boaz, the observing of the spirit of the law is not evident in a self-centered heart. In this vein he may have been a dirt bag for not feeling a moral obligation to his departed relative and widow, but he didn’t deserve a lady like Ruth, anyway; and we knew Boaz was better suited for Ruth and a better kinsman redeemer. She was too godly and virtuous a woman for the likes of the friend (Ruth 4:1). |
| Ruth 4:7 | Took off his sandal Transferring of legal right. See Lev 25:25 and Deut 25:5-10. Has to do with a brother marrying the widow of a decease widow. Who got the shoe is debated; more than likely, it was the close relative’s sandal that was given to Boaz. There is some sole-food for thought here, but I will not play the gumshoe... |
| Ruth 4:8 | The close relative gives up his legal right and tells Boaz to buy it for himself and passes his sandal to Boaz to confirm the transaction. Since the one-sandal-man was technically not required by law to marry Ruth, he apparently was able to dodge the “spit.” There may have been a ripple effect of another kind, however; the record does not say. The absence of his name in the biblical record gives rise to speculations in this matter. |
The Purchase, Ruth 4:9-10
| Ruth 4:9 | And Boaz said to the elders and all the people Boaz got pumped up; Boaz had to tell not only the ten witnesses but everybody within earshot! I have bought all that was Elimelech’s and his sons all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi. Boaz paid Naomi, and she turned over the estate to Boaz. |
| Ruth 4:10 | Widow of Mahlon Ruth’s husband is identified. Poor old Chilion missed out all the way around didn’t he! I have acquired a wife Because Ruth put God first (leaving Moab and giving her heart and life to God), He gave her a relationship greater than could be imagined, dreamed, or hoped for. Blessing comes in a marriage and remains in a marriage when God is put first; I cannot emphasize this enough. Name of the dead The law of Moses addresses the importance of perpetuating the family name (Deut 25:6; cf. 1 Sam 24:21, King Saul’s grave concern!). Witnesses (also in v. 11, cf. Ruth 4:2, ten men of the elders, the witnesses consisted of ten men). |
The Praise, Ruth 4:11-12
| Ruth 4:11 | We are witnesses. Boaz got a city-wide revival started. The people got all pumped up over the pending union! Isn’t it great to see the blessing of God come upon Boaz and the people when we obey Him! Our obedience rubs off on other people; they saw it and rejoiced and blessed Boaz and Ruth! This is great news coming out of a long period of famine. Rachel and Leah Between them they gave to Jacob 12 sons and 1 daughter. Rachel had 2 sons (Joseph and Benjamin, Gen 35:24) and two by her handmaiden, Bilhah (Dan and Naphtali, Gen 35:25). Leah had 6 sons and 1 daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulon [Gen 35:23], and Dinah, Gen 30:21) and two by her handmaiden, Zilpah (Gad and Asher, Gen 35:26). Ephrathah Gen 35:19; 48:7 (Ephrath) and Micah 5:2 (Ephrathah) = Bethlehem. Micah prophesied that this city would be the birthplace of the Messiah (Micah 5:2; Mt 2:1). There are two Bethlehem’s in Israel. Jesus came out of Bethlehem of Judea, not Galilee, according to the biblical record. Please believe the biblical record over archaeological speculations! The Scripture is not a book on archaeology, but when it speaks of things pertaining to archaeology, it is always 100% accurate with a long proven track record. Historically, archaeology has only been able to confirm the biblical record, not improve upon it. Why? God is the Author (2 Tim 3:16-17); since He is all-knowing that makes Him the leading authority on everything that the Bible has to say about anything! |
| Ruth 4:12 | House of Perez Genesis 38 tells the story of Perez, Tamar, and Judah. When Er, Judah’s first son, died, his widow wife, Tamar, was denied a levirate marriage to Judah’s last remaining son, Shelah, after Onan’s death (Gen 38:8-10, 14). In order to secure her rights of inheritance for her family line, she disguised herself as a prostitute and tricked Judah, her father-in-law, into having sex with her. Tamar gave birth to twins, Perez and Zerah (Gen 38:27). While giving birth Zerah stuck out his hand, and the midwife tied a red thread on his hand. As Zerah withdrew his hand, his brother, Perez, came out of the womb first! Afterwards Zerah, coming in second, was born with a scarlet thread around his hand. Perez’s name means breach or breaking or pushing through. Perez came into the messianic line which continued through Boaz and Ruth to King David (Ruth 4:18-22; Mt 1:3). Ancestor of Bethlehemites (1 Ch 2:5, 18, 50ff; cf. Num 26:20). Offspring According to Deut 25:6, any sons after the firstborn son would be the legal offspring of Boaz. Legally, Obed would receive Naomi’s and her deceased sons’ estate and whatever else Boaz bequeathed to him. The other siblings would have no legal right over Obed’s inheritance. |
Postscript:
Can you see Romans 8:28 leaping out everywhere in the story of Ruth; and we aren’t finished with the story yet. The pinnacle of blessing is waiting in the wings. Regardless of the circumstances of life this side of eternity, we are destined for unreserved, unimaginable blessings from God. Boaz is a type of Christ. We have a future in Christ. Moab, a type of the world, can never do for us what Christ can do for us. Moab can only bury us; Christ raises us up to live with Him! Moab is spiritually barren but our spiritual Bethlehem (cf. Jn 6:35) is full of blessing.
The question is about who is holding the shoe? The close relative, “friend,” is a type of the law that cannot redeem. But somebody has to pay for our offences committed against a righteous and holy God. The issue of sin has to be dealt with in the heart of every man (Rom 3:23). The wages of sin is eternal death (Rom 6:23). Either man pays for his own sin by rejecting God's provision for sin or let Christ pay for his sin on the cross at Calvary.
If we pass our shoe to birthright (not of blood, Jn 1:13), or to good works (nor of the will of the flesh, Jn 1:13), or to anyone but God (nor of the will of man, Jn 1:13) we will lose; and our name will be lost in oblivion (the lake of fire). If, however, we decide to pass our shoe by faith to Christ (but of God, Jn 1:13), our Kinsman Redeemer, we are saying, I cannot redeem myself; I am a sinner and have desperate need of the Savior, the Redeemer, to pay the debt of sin I owe and cannot repay.
Only Jesus Christ can satisfy the just demands of a holy and righteous God (Rom 3:24-25). Salvation is not genetic; nor can you work your way to heaven; and neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12, KJV).
Are you satisfied with the sacrifice that satisfied the just demands of a holy and righteous God? There is satisfaction in passing the shoe of your life on to Christ for He will receive you unto Himself and forgive you of all your sins. It isn’t worth passing the shoe to those things that will never satisfy the judicial demands of God; let it go and pass your shoe on to Christ by asking Him to come into your heart and redeem you now (Eph 2:8-9)! Amen.
