Ruth 4:6
Ruth 4:5 Then In Strength (Boaz) said, “On the day you acquire the field from the hand of My Pleasant One (Naomi), you also acquire Companion (Ruth) the Moabitess, the widow of the deceased, in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance.”
6 At which point the family redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself,
lest I harm my own inheritance.
Redeem it for yourself;
you may have my right of redemption,
for I cannot redeem it.”
Introduction
Our text this morning continues our study of the book of Ruth.
Now 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 will redeem Ruth by marrying her. If he will not, Boaz is next in line.
However to our surprise, Boaz opens the proceeding (not with the marriage of Ruth but) by telling the closer relative about some piece of property that Naomi is having to sell due to her impoverishment.
As it turns out, this other relative agrees to buy the land and thus act as the family’s redeemer. Thus, to our shock, it seems that Boaz is out.
However, before the closer relative can sign the document, Boaz informs him that to redeem the land he must also redeem Ruth. Why? In order to raise up an heir for Elimelech on Elimelech’s family land.
In our text this morning the drama builds, as every eye in the court now turns to this other relative to see how he will respond.
Verse 4:6
Notice at once the drama: as soon as Boaz finishes laying out the legal condition that come with acquiring the land (i.e. marrying Ruth) every eye in the court turns to see how this other relative will respond. Will he fulfill his obligation, show compassion, and do the right thing by marrying Ruth? Or will he back out of the deal and leave his kinsfolk hanging. Importance: notice the significance of this dramatic build: think about it, the entire book (Ruth and Naomi’s wellbeing, the Davidic line, and even the eventual Messiah) all hang in the balance of this one moment/decision. Therefore, the author fully intends his audience to be holding their breath and on the edge of their seats as we watch to see what happens next FN#1. Notice then how the closer relative responds to the land-marriage package deal that Boaz just laid out (vs5): verse 6 tells us at that point the family redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself FN#2. Importance: notice it is at the very moment the other relative hears of Ruth and the requirement to marry her, that he backs out of the deal. In other words, his decision is based solely on this one additional factor. Ruth is the deal breaker. Not only that, notice the decisiveness of his refusal. There is no deliberation, there are no questions, nor is there a request for time to examine the feasibility of such a proposal. Instead, his refusal is immediate and unqualified. If Ruth is a part of the deal, then he will not go through with it. Notice the result: notice what this kinsman has just showed us about his heart: the kinsman was fine buying land and making a profit for himself. However, he has no interest in fulfilling his full role as redeemer. In other words, there is no concern for the things that matter to God (things like God’s people, or Naomi and Ruth’s wellbeing, or his own kin’s place in the future that God has promised). Instead, there is only a self-centered and worldly concern. Simply put, we now see firsthand the character of this man, which the author has been preparing us to see all along FN#3.
Next, notice the reason/excuse the closer kinsman gives for his refusal: he says that he cannot redeem the land because by marrying Ruth he will harm his own inheritance. That is, marrying Ruth and raising up a son for Elimelech’s line will diminish the inheritance that he will eventually leave to his own children. The question is how? We have three options:
Spoiler alert: What we will find is that each of these three possibilities serves as a real factor in the closer relative’s refusal. The first is an underlying cause. The second is what the relative actually tells the court but it will turn out to be just an excuse that allows him to back out while saving face. The third possibility is the real motive around which these other factors orbit.
first, because the redeemed land will go to Ruth’s son when he reaches adulthood, the kinsman is really only renting the use of the land. However, the care for Naomi and Ruth is a lifelong expense. Thus it may be that the closer kinsman knows that this is a losing financial proposition. As such, this arrangement would be a drain on his own estate (net worth) and thus diminish/harm the inheritance he will leave to his own children FN#4.
The second possibility is that Ruth’s son would have a legal claim to at least a part of the closer kinsman’s estate. Now the problem with this view is that Scripture is clear that the child born from this arrangement is legally counted as a part of Elimelech’s line (not the closer kinsman’s- Deut 25:5-6). Thus, Ruth’s child would not infringe on the inheritance of the kinsman’s son. Rather, Ruth’s child would inherit Elimelech’s estate, while the kinsman’s son would inherit his father’s estate FN#5. However, if the kinsman only has daughters this might all change. Now Old Testament law absolutely allows daughters to inherit their father’s estate. If there is no male heir, the land/estate goes to the daughters (Numbers 36:6-9). However, it appears that if the kinsman only has daughters, the redeemed son would preempt the normal line of succession (as laid out in Numbers 27:8-11). In such a case, Ruth’s son would be counted as the default son of both lines (both the redeemer’s and the deceased- since he is born of both houses). As such, he would either receive all or a part of what the daughters would have normally received and thereby diminish (or out-right ruin) their inheritance. Notice then, from the context and the way the kinsman has worded his refusal (in terms of inheritance, not cost), it seems likely that his is a house of all girls and thus this is his stated concern (a son born to Ruth will preempt his girl’s inheritance) FN#6.
Finally, the third possible way that Ruth’s son would diminish the relative’s line goes back to prejudice and the fact that he sees Ruth as nothing more than a pagan Moabite. Thus, in the closer kinsman’s eyes a Moabite wife and a half breed son would be a blight on and diminish the social standing (marriageability) of his entire house. Notice the result: in all likelihood, the kinsman’s refusal involves all three scenarios (cost, inheritance and prejudice) FN#7. However, it seems that the relative’s prejudice is the main factor at work here and that his stated concern about inheritance is simply a convenient and socially accepted cover/excuse. Notice then, the fact that Boaz strategically referred to Ruth as a Moabitess in the middle of the marriage stipulation (v 5) seems to indicate that Boaz anticipated this very prejudice. In turn, the relative’s refusal comes the moment Ruth is mentioned. Importance: such then means that that this relative has not just rejected the financial aspect of the arrangement. Instead, he has rejected Ruth herself, whom YHWH has received as His own child.
Next, notice (according to Boaz’s earlier offer FN#8) the closer kinsman tells Boaz to redeem the land for himself. Not only that, he also tells Boaz to take his full right of redemption for himself FN#9. In other words, in the hearing of all the elders and witnesses, the closer relative has just publically and officially stated his intention/agreement to transfer his full redeemership to Boaz FN#10. As such, Boaz will be the lawful kinsman redeemer of the family and therefore have the binding right/obligation to redeem/marry Ruth.
Finally, notice the kinsman once again insists that he cannot redeem the land. In other words, in such a legal proceeding he wants to make sure that the retraction of his former agreement to redeem the land (v 4) has been clearly understood by all. At the same time, notice again the heart of this kinsman. There is no hesitation or reconsideration. Instead, he doubles down on his resolve and the absolute nature of his refusal. Importance: at once, this other kinsman has demonstrated (both publically and for future generations) why he is not the redeemer that YHWH has chosen. At the same time, we also see by contrast why Boaz is that redeemer and YHWH’s chosen instrument FN#11.
Bottom line: as the closer kinsman officially states his intention to transfer full redeemership to Boaz there is a boisterous and jubilant cheer from the reading audience. We now know that God’s hand has been directing and blessing this whole affair. Boaz is indeed the Strength and deliverer of YHWH; Naomi and her plan are in fact Pleasing to God; and we all now know whose Companion Ruth will be. However, that said, saying and doing are two different things. And though the intent to transfer has been officially declared, the transfer itself has not been actually made. Thus, there is still plenty of time for stupid to happen. So don’t leave your seats just yet. There is more we need to see.
Footnotes
1] One further point here: notice in a book that is all about names, and as we prepare to hear this closest relative’s response to Boaz’s stipulation regarding Ruth, the text once again reminds us of his character. Notice then, at the heart of a legal proceeding his name remains left out of the account and thus left off the legal contract/paperwork. Simply put, we see again that this guy has been comprehensively deleted from the record. However, at the same time, the text also reminds us of his official capacity and moral obligation. He is not just a relative. Instead, he is the family’s assigned redeemer, whose responsibility it is to care for the wellbeing of his kinsman’s line/house. Notice the result: by setting the contrast between this man’s character and his duty, the text is preparing us once again to see the true nature of his heart.
2] Notice the relative’s response expose his heart and focus. He does not merely say I cannot redeem the land. Instead, he says I cannot redeem the land for myself. In other words, his focus in this entire venture is not on Naomi and Ruth’s need, even though this need has been made front and center to the entire proceeding (v3). Rather, it is on his own financial gain. As such, buying the land is not something he wants to do for himself (regardless of how it affects Naomi and Ruth’s condition)
3] Not only that, notice that the character of this kinsman which we have just seen firsthand is something that both Boaz and Naomi already knew about him (that is why they both have done all that they can do to avoid his redeemership). In fact, this is exactly what the author has been preparing us to see and he wants it to register. Why? The author wants us to clearly see the character of this other relative because it explains so much of the book’s action leading up to this point. It explains why Naomi pursues Boaz as redeemer and not this other relative. It also explains why she must send Ruth to the threshing floor to initiate the request (she wants Boaz to redeem them but this other is 1st in line. Therefore Boaz can’t cut in line by taking the initiative). However, the author’s main concern is to establish the clear contrast between Boaz and this other kinsman. Why? As the book makes the case for the Davidic kingship, the author wants everyone to see the necessity, legitimacy, and propriety of Boaz’s intervention. In turn, he wants to make it clear that God’s hand has been at work all along raising up David’s line in righteousness and favor.
4] The problem with this view is that the relative does not frame his complaint in terms of cost. Instead, he frames it in terms of inheritance. Now this does not mean that the financial burden of this arrangement is not a real factor in his refusal (it is). It is just not the main or presenting factor of his complaint.
5] Note, Deuteronomy 25:6 is clear that it is only the firstborn child of such an arrangement that is counted as the deceased man’s son/heir. Any other children born to the couple will belong to the house and line of the relative/redeemer. Therefore, one might argue that if multiple children were born, this would infringe on (dilute) the inheritance of the relative’s own children. However, there are two main problems with this view. First, the clear focus of the discussion in the text and thus the relative’s response concerns raising up an heir (singular) for Elimelech’s line (c.f. v 5). Thus, with no qualification or explanation from the relative that he is addressing another concern, it seems clear that he is responding to a dilemma brought about by the singular heir under discussion. The second problem is that throughout Scripture children are seen as a blessing that bring financial benefit and strength, especially in an agrarian culture. Thus, there are more hands to work more land and more swords to defend one’s interest (Gen 15:5; Ps 127:4-5). The result is that the idea that this other relative is complaining about any additional children that may come of this arrangement is highly unlikely and textually unfounded.
6] It should be noted that my understanding of the closer relative’s concern regarding inheritance is based on an assumption that there has been an application and expansion of the normal stated law of inheritance when it comes to cases involving Levirate marriage. Importance: such an application/expansion of the stated law is just the sort of thing that we have already seen in the book of Ruth regarding the Levirate law. Notice then, by the time we get to Ruth/Judges the redemption law has been expanded to include the closest kinsman (not just the brother of the deceased). Not only that, it has been made voluntary not mandatory for this closer kinsman. Thus, it seems that in 4:6, the closer relative is pointing to another such expansion/application of the principles of the Levirate law implemented to deal with the Goel’s son when he is the only male child born to the Goel’s house. As such, this extension pragmatically combines two principles of the law: (1) the principle of land remaining in the tribe (remember, in the case when there are only daughters, the girls can inherit the land. They just have to marry someone from within the tribe so that the land remains within that particular tribe- Numbers 36:6-9); this principle is then combined with (2) the priority of the firstborn male heir. The result is that the male born to the redeemer and the widow would be the expedient/natural choice to fulfill both the station of the firstborn heir (since he is the only male of the house) and he is the natural/expedient means by which the land would remain in the tribe.
Thus, while our understanding of verse 6 is based on an assumed application/expansion of Mosaic principles, (1) such and extension/application has direct precedence in the entire Goel scenario presented by the book. In other words, the whole redemption scenario in Ruth is an extension and adaptation of the stated Levirate law and (2) without some such amendment, the closer relative’s complaint makes no sense. Think about it: if he is only concerned about the cost of the arrangement, he would not have framed his complaint before the court in terms of inheritance (which they all would have recognized as unfounded). If he already has a male child, his inheritance is in no jeopardy. However, if he has only daughters, here too the inheritance is secure, unless there had been a practical extension (to go along with the other extensions to this same redemption law) whereby the son born of redemption stood as the firstborn of both houses when there were only daughters. Regardless, the acceptance of the closer relative’s reasoning without question by Boaz, the elders, and the town folk indicates that everyone knew and recognized some additional legal factor, some extension and application of the stated law as legitimate and in play here.
7] In all likelihood all three scenarios play a factor. Notice then, all three of these scenarios are attested to by the immediate text and all three are consistent with the kinsman’s misplaced priorities: first, Boaz opens the proceeding with the land (not Ruth) thus playing off of and exposing the kinsman’s known materialism. Second, Boaz sets up and plays on the closer kinsman’s prejudice when he goes out of his way to call Ruth a Moabites. Finally, the way the closer kinsman frames his refusal in terms of inheritance (not cost) points to an only son scenario preempting his daughters. That said, it seems that the relative’s prejudice is the main factor at work here and his stated concern about inheritance is just a convenient cover.
8] Notice the skillful and deliberate way that Boaz has conducted the proceeding. Remember back in verse 4 when Boaz said, if you do not want to redeem it let me know and I will redeem it, Boaz was quietly giving this other relative a socially acceptable way out (knowing that he would eventually take it). Thus, Boaz allows the closer kin to save face, while at the same time not publically pressuring him to agree to a situation that would be to the harm of Naomi and Ruth. Boaz the strength of YHWH is masterfully directing this entire event.
9] In other words, this is not merely a onetime concession concerning this particular property. Instead, (notice the callousness) this kinsman wants nothing at all to do with Ruth, Naomi, or Elimelech’s line (whereby this this pagan blemish was brought into the mix). At the same time, notice this other relative still only refers to this venture as a land deal (redeem it, the land for yourself). As such, his words betray his true focus/interest.
10] Notice it is not just what the relative says but the way that he says it that indicates/confirms to us the nature of what is transpiring here. Thus, in this exchange the closer relative uses an imperative of official charge as well as a formal independent pronoun (you sir redeem it). In other words, in a book that is all about legal transactions the language the closer relative uses here indicates that what is taking place is an official and legally binding statement of intent to transfer all rights to Boaz.
11] Thus as the book make the case for the Davidic kingship, it is clear that YHWH’s hand has been at work in the Davidic line all along, establishing it in righteousness and favor