Ruth 4:7
Ruth 4:7 Now this was the custom in former times in Israel
concerning the right of redemption and the relinquishing of such
in order to ratify the whole matter:
a man removed his sandal and gave it to his fellow kinsman;
and this was the legally binding act in Israel.
Introduction
Our text this morning continues our study of the book of Ruth.
Notice then the story thus far: remember Elimelech and his two sons have died leaving Naomi (his wife) and Ruth (his daughter-in-law) childless and impoverished.
Therefore, their relative, Boaz has gone to the city gate (the official courtroom of the community) to see if the family’s closest relative is willing to fulfill his role as family redeemer and buy a piece of property that Naomi is having to sell due to her impoverishment.
However, the moment Boaz informs this closer relative that to redeem the property he also has to redeem/marry Ruth, he backs out of the deal. He wants absolutely nothing to do with the Moabite woman, Ruth.
Therefore, the closer relative publically declares his intention to transfer his full right of redeemership to Boaz, who is next in line for the job.
In our text this morning, the author prepares us to witness the official transfer of this redeemership to Boaz by explaining the process to us.
Verse 4:7
Notice at once verse 7 opens by telling us that what follows “was the practice in former times in Israel. Importance: at once verse 7 alerts us that what we are about to see is a past custom (something done in prior times but not at the time the book was written). In other words, enough time has passed since the events recorded, that the way these customs were implemented has been modified/changed. Therefore, the original readers (just like us today) need an explanation of what they are about to see as well as its meaning/significance. Notice then what has happened to bring about this change in practice: as the time period of the Judges draws to a close, Samuel (the last judge) ends the chaos of the age by centralizing, standardizing, and reforming the customs of God’s people (I Sam 3:19-21 FN#1). As such, by the time the book of Ruth is written, the practices of just a few generations prior have altered FN#2. Therefore, the original readers (just like us today) require an explanation (like you and I would need a reminder of some practice that was standard during the early 1900s) FN#3.
Next, notice verse 7 tells us that the practice we are about to see was the custom in Israel. Importance: in other words, this custom was not merely a local tradition, practiced and accepted only in Judah or Bethlehem. Rather, it was a practice agreed upon and implemented throughout all of Israel. Notice then the point: as the book of Ruth builds the case for the Davidic kingship, verse 7 makes sure we understand that David’s line was not established by some fringe or isolated practice. Instead, it was established by a practice recognized by the whole nation. Importance: remember, David ruled as king over Judah (the southern kingdom) for 7 ½ years before he was accepted by the rest of Israel as their king (2 Sam 2:10; 5:3). Therefore, as the book builds the case for David’s acceptance by the whole nation, verse 7 underscores that the practice we are about to see take place in Bethlehem of Judah (south) was indeed the practice accepted in all Israel. In other words, the universal acceptance of this practice back then carries with it the expectation of a universal acceptance by subsequent generations. Simply put, Boaz and Ruth’s union (and thus the Davidic line it established) are legitimately founded, blessed by God, and based on a practice recognized by the entire nation. In other words, there is no funny business in the line of David.
Next, notice what this custom specifically addressed: verse 7 tells us it was the custom that dealt with the kinsman redeemer’s right of redemption and the manner in which he relinquished that right to the next in line FN#4. Importance: notice at once the flow of the passage: in verse 6, the closer kinsman verbally states his desire/intention to relinquish his right and give it to Boaz. Now in verse 7 we prepare to observe the way that this transfer is publically and officially enacted. Notice then the point and the weight of this custom: verse 7 tells us that this custom was done in order to ratify/confirm the entire matter. In other word, in a book that is all about legal transactions, this custom was an enacted oath. That is, it was the way that such a relinquishing of rights and claims was made public and binding. Importance: think about the need we have for a formal and public ceremony to ratify something like a royal abdication or a presidential inauguration. Such provides essential closure, a definite point of transition, and clarity for everyone moving forward. This then is the weight and binding public nature of what we are about to witness. Finally, notice the stress that verse 7 adds: verse 7 tells us that this custom ratified the whole matter. In other words, the text is stressing both aspects of the transaction taking place here. Thus, the kinsman is both giving up his right/claim (relinquishing it) as well as giving it over and thereby officially bestowing it in full to Boaz. Simply put, verse 7 alerts us that what we are about to witness is the official way that the comprehensive role of redeemership was transferred in total to the other relative. Importance: the text is making sure that subsequent readers understand that not only are these proceedings accepted throughout all Israel, they also solidify Boaz as the legitimate and legal redeemer of Elimelech’s line. In other words, Boaz has not presumed anything. Instead, the role of redeemer has been lawfully and officially bestowed upon him. Again, the Davidic line has followed all propriety.
Next, notice the specifics of the ceremony by which a redeemer’s rights were transferred to another: in a book that is all about feet, verse 7 tells us that the redeemer would remove his shoe and give it to his fellow kinsman, who was next in line FN#5. Why? Notice the imagery at work here is the very same imagery that was at work when Ruth uncovered Boaz’s feet and lay down beneath them (3:7). However, here the imagery works in reverse (it’s a letting go not a taking up). How? Remember, when Ruth uncovers Boaz’s feet and lays down, she is asking to be taken under his care and charge. In other words, the idea is that of putting on a responsibility/charge, like a pair of shoes. Thus, it is to say these are now the shoes I walk in, the responsibility I take on, and the role I stand in. However, here in verse 7, when the closer relative takes off his shoe and gives it to his fellow kinsman, he is officially relinquishing his claim/right/responsibility. He is saying these are no longer the shoes I walk in, the claim I maintain, or the role stand in. I hand all of these over to Boaz, my fellow kinsman for him to assume. Notice the result: by this point in the text we understand both the significance and the imagery at work in this central transaction. As such, we are now ready to witness the proceeding fully informed and knowledgeable.
Finally, notice verse 7 emphatically declares that this practice of removing and giving the sandal was the legally binding act by which the transaction was officially and publically solidified. Not only that, for the second time, verse 7 underscores that this was the universally held practice in all of Israel. In other words, verse 7 doubles down on the significance and the comprehensive acceptance of what we are about to see. Why? The author wants to make sure you are clear on its solemn and official nature as well as its accepted legitimacy by the whole nation (north and south). In other words, the author drives home the point that this was not a local practice. Rather, it was one that was recognized/ received by all. In turn, David is not a local king. Rather, his line has been established by the amazing work of God in this book for His whole people.
Bottom line: as the narrator finishes his explanation, the curtains open and Boaz and the closer relative walk out on stage. As they do so, a hushed silence falls over the audience as we prepare to witness this solemn and binding ceremony, a ceremony, which (in a book that is all about legal transactions) will absolutely change the direction and trajectory of the entire nation (and even the whole world). Thus, as we watch them take their place on the stage, there is a sense of the pressing weight of glory and the palpable air of significance that are so often present when God’s hand is at work in the midst of His people. What we are about to see is a very big deal.
Footnotes
1] 1 Samuel 3:19 Thus Samuel grew and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fail. 20 And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was confirmed as a prophet of the LORD. 21 And the LORD appeared again at Shiloh, because the LORD revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.
Note: Dan is the northernmost city of the promise land while Beersheba is the southernmost city. Thus all Israel. Thus a consolidation and with it a standardization of worship, word, and practice. Compare this situation with the disarray of Judges 21:25
2] Ruth 4:21 and to Boaz was born, Obed, 22 and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.
In other words, Boaz is David’s great grandfather. In turn, with Samuel’s reforms and the time that has pasted between Boaz and David’s day, the need for an explanation of former practices is understandable.
3] Importance: the custom we are about to see in verse 7 represents an example of real life/real time faithfulness. In other words, it shows us God’s people seeking to faithfully apply the principles taught by the law (in this case the principle of the kinsman redeemer) to related situations that arise in day to day life but which are not specifically covered by the law. Thus, the law of redeemership, which was limited to the brother of the deceased and was mandatory, has been expanded on a voluntary basis to other close relatives. In turn, verse 7 represents an adaptation of the ceremony by which the refusal/transfer of redeemership was expressed in the case of a closer relative during the days of the Judges (See note #5 below for a further discussion).
4] Please note: many translations render the Hebrew here to read, “concerning the redemption and exchange of land” (they add the word “land” which is not in the text). Now while this translation is lexically possible it is contextually unfortunate. Why? When we actually look at the custom being announced we find that it has absolutely nothing to do with the procedure of redeeming and then paying for land. Instead, it has everything to do with how one relinquishes that right and bestows it upon another (which is not only within the lexical range of the words used in the text, it is front and center to their meaning. In turn, such is also the meaning of the Greek words used here by the Septuagint translation. In other words, it is how ancient translators understood the Hebrew of this passage as well).
The noun (גְּאֻלָּה – redeem) can also mean the right or duty of redemption, which belongs to the Goel (BDB p 145b, #3). This meaning also holds true and is the main understanding of the Greek term used here by the LXX translation (ἀγχιστεία –Lust p 5b). Thus, verse 7 reads, “concerning the right of redemption”. In turn, at its core, the second Hebrew word of interest (תְּמוּרָה- exchange) points to what is given up or given over (i.e. relinquished). Thus, verse 7 reads, “concerning the right of redemption and the relinquishing of such”. Land is nowhere mentioned nor is buying land the focus of what the text is about to show us.
Simply put, as we look at the proceeding introduced by verse 7 what we find is not the process for acquiring land. Instead, what we actually find is the process by which the right of redemption is formally relinquished and given up to another- a process which is well within the common range of meaning of the Hebrew words used to describe it. In other words, verse 7 describes the manner in which one formally, publically, and officially relinquished all his claims as the rightful redeemer and gives them to the next in line.
5] Notice at once the entire book of Ruth demonstrates an application of the principles behind the Levirate law: thus, in Deut 25:5-10, the law of redemption is restricted to the deceased man’s brother and is mandatory. However, by the time we reach the book of Ruth the principle of redemption has been extended to the closest kinsmen and is voluntary. Furthermore, in Duet 25:9, if the brother refuses to redeem, it is the widow who comes before the elders, removes his sandal, and spits in his face as a mark of great shame. However, here in Ruth, the extension of the principle and its voluntary (though morally desirable) nature have softened a kinsman’s refusal to redeem. Not only that, though the removal of the sandal is retained, its meaning has shifted in the case of a voluntary closer relative from shame and disgrace to that of a public transfer of rights. Notice then, in verse 7 it is the kinsman who removes his own sandal in front of the elders (not the widow).