This week saw the conviction of Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb receiving sentences of seven and six years in jail, respectively, by an Ontario Superior Court judge for their orchestrating a massive accounting fraud at theatre company Livent Inc. This has been a drama playing out for the past ten years that have captivated those from the arts to the business community.
There is something about a legal drama that continues to interest so many. From Matlock to Perry Mason, from Judge Joe Brown, to Jude Judy, the unfolding of deceipt, legal strategy and justice brings a mix of drama and strategy.
The final Chapter of Ruth, chapter 4, transpires at the gate of Bethlehem, that is, in the legal setting of a court. It brings to a conclusion the questions of Ruth`s future by her present redemption.
It also answers questions for us in our future though the assurance of Redemption. Examining the legal drama of Ruth 4:1-10 shows us though the fulfillment in the legal redemption that Christ accomplished for His saints. We can have hope knowing what the future will hold and have present assurance though faith that is brought by the redemption of Christ.
These answeres are shown though the legal drama of: (1) Boaz’s preparation for court action (vv. 1–2), (2) the transcript of the court proceedings (vv. 3–8), (3) Boaz’s response to the outcome of the court proceedings (vv. 9–10).
(1) Boaz’s Preparation for Court Action (4:1–2)
Ruth 4:1-2 [4:1]Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And behold, the redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. So Boaz said, "Turn aside, friend; sit down here." And he turned aside and sat down. [2]And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, "Sit down here." So they sat down. (ESV)
The beginning of this segment of drama with ``now`` is intended to show the immediate flow of action following up from the promise of immediate action at the end of chapter 3. Boaz’s midnight promise to take action on behalf of Ruth “in the morning” (3:13) and Naomi’s expression of confidence that Boaz will not rest unless he settles the matter “today” (3:18), this episode must be understood to have transpired that very day.
That Boaz had gone up to the gate here is idiomatic for him “to go to court,”. City gates in Palestine in the early iron age were complex structures with lookout towers at the outside and a series of rooms on either side of the gateway where defenders of the town would be stationed. But these gateways also served a secondary purpose, as a gathering place for the citizens of the town (Z. Herzog, “Fortifications (Levant),” ABD 2.848–52.). No preliminaries were necessary in summoning one before the public assemblage; no writings and no delay were required.
In a short conversation the matter was stated and arranged—probably in the morning as people went out, or at noon when they returned from the field (Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. Ru 4:1).
Normally when individuals would come in from the fields and go up to the town, they would pass right through the gate and go straight to their homes. But Boaz seems to have had no time to go home. Having arrived at the gate, he “sat down there.” The citizens would recognize this as an official act; he had arrived for legal business. No sooner had he sat down than the gōʾēl “just happened” to pass by. The word hinnēh, “Behold,” expresses Boaz’s surprise at his appearance. With a superficial reading of the book the timing of the kinsman-redeemer’s arrival may seem coincidental, but a deeper reading will recognize again the hidden hand of God. In 3:13, when Boaz had suggested to Ruth that he would take action in the morning, he had invoked the name of Yahweh in an oath as a sign of his determination to resolve the issue quickly. Now Yahweh ensures the quick resolution of the matter by sending him by the gate just as Boaz was sitting down. Presumably the gōʾēl was on his way out of town to work in his fields.
Addressing the man directly, Boaz invited the gōʾēl to turn aside and sit down. But the way in which he addressed the man is curious. The expression pĕlōnî ʾalmōnî, rendered “my friend”. He addresses him as Mr. “So-and so” or `Hey You``. Why would the narrator, who is otherwise so careful with names, keep this character anonymous? Whatever the motivation, the effect is to diminish our respect for him. To be sure, nothing overtly negative is said about him, but like Orpah, who serves as a foil for Ruth in chap. 1, this man presents a contrast to Boaz. He may be the gōʾēl, but he will shortly be dismissed as irrelevant to the central theme of the book: the preservation of the royal line of David.
Whatever the meaning of Boaz’s expression for the gōʾēl, it communicated, and the man came and sat down with Boaz. With the principals in this court case present, it remained for Boaz to gather a quorum of witnesses in verse two. To say that Boaz took ten men (verb lāqaḥ) suggests that, unlike the gōʾēl, who happened to be passing by just then, Boaz had to go and round up enough men to constitute a legal assembly. Obviously the men were all full citizens of Bethlehem; being identified as elders they were responsible for the administration of the town. The fact that they left their work and followed Boaz reflects his stature in the community. In ordinary circumstances, two or three were sufficient to attest a bargain; but in cases of importance, such as matrimony, divorce, conveyancing of property, it was the Jewish practice to have ten (1Ki 21:8) (Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. Ru 4:2). The (elders) mentioned in this context would have been the heads of leading families, who formed the aristocracy of the town. As local authorities they were largely responsible for legal matters (see Deut 25.7; 1 Kgs 21.8–14) (Waard, Jan de ; Nida, Eugene Albert: A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Ruth. 2nd ed. New York : United Bible Societies, 1992, S. 63)
As noted earlier, the side chambers of town gates in ancient Israel were designed so that the town’s business could be done here, complete with plastered benches around the walls for the men to sit. If the gate at Bethlehem was the size of the tenth century B.C. Gezer gate (slightly more than seven by fourteen feet), there would have been room for all twelve men, but it would have been crowded; and observers would have had to look on from the passageway outside the chamber.
In setting up this court action, it is reminiscent of a humorous event in British law known as `the jury box episode``:
Illustration: 4747 Jury Box Episode
One afternoon John Scott Eldon, Lord Chancellor of England, noticed that there were only eleven men in the jury box. He was summing up and had already spoken for two hours, so was a little disconcerted.
“There are only eleven men in the jury box,” he told the foreman, “where is the twelfth?”
“Please, my Lord,” said the foreman, “he was called away by an urgent message just after lunch. But it’s all right—he’s left his verdict with me!”(Maxwell Droke as recorded in Tan, Paul Lee: Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations : A Treasury of Illustrations, Anecdotes, Facts and Quotations for Pastors, Teachers and Christian Workers. Garland TX : Bible Communications, 1996, c1979)
We have seen: (1) Boaz’s Preparation for Court Action (4:1–2)and now:
(2) The Report of the Court Proceedings (4:3–8)
These verses represent an ancient equivalent to modern transcripts of court proceedings.
A) BOAZ’S FIRST SPEECH (4:3–4c)
Ruth 4:3-4c [3]Then he said to the redeemer, "Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech. [4]So I thought I would tell you of it and say, ’Buy it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders of my people.’ If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you will not, tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I come after you." (And he said, "I will redeem it.") (ESV)
It seems Boaz wasted no time in getting to the heart of the matter. As in 2:3 the identification of the property in question as Elimelech’s portion (ḥelqâ; cf. Deut 33:21; Josh 24:32; 2 Kgs 9:21, 25) is rooted in the apportionment of the land among the tribes and clans of Israel under Joshua. According to Mosaic law this land was never to leave the family, and the institution of the gōʾēl was one of the nation’s customs designed to prevent this from happening (Lev 25:25–30).
Please turn to Numbers 29
Boaz reminds the man of a small but significant detail: the owner of the land was “our relative or brother,” that is, a relative to both of them.
How closely related they were we may only speculate. We have examined in previous weeks the legal levirate obligation of Deut 25:5–10, and how it applied to the immediate brothers of a deceased man (so also Genesis 38). While we have no textual documentation, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that according to Israelite custom (not law), in cases where there was no unmarried brother, the principle of levirate obligation was extended in accordance with the “pecking order” in inheritance law.
Numbers 27:1-8 [27:1]Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad the son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, from the clans of Manasseh the son of Joseph. The names of his daughters were: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. [2]And they stood before Moses and before Eleazar the priest and before the chiefs and all the congregation, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, saying, [3]"Our father died in the wilderness. He was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah, but died for his own sin. And he had no sons. [4]Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan because he had no son? Give to us a possession among our father’s brothers." [5]Moses brought their case before the LORD. [6]And the LORD said to Moses, [7]"The daughters of Zelophehad are right. You shall give them possession of an inheritance among their father’s brothers and transfer the inheritance of their father to them. [8]And you shall speak to the people of Israel, saying, ’If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. (ESV) [9]And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. [10]And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. [11]And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to the nearest kinsman of his clan, and he shall possess it. And it shall be for the people of Israel a statute and rule, as the LORD commanded Moses.’" (ESV)
According to Num 27:9–11, if a man died without a progeny (either son or daughter), his property would pass to his brothers; if he had no progeny or brothers, it would pass to his paternal uncles (father’s brothers); if he had no progeny, brothers, or paternal uncles, the property would pass to his nearest relative from his own clan.
The text in Ruth does not indicate how far down this order Boaz and the gōʾēl were. In Ruth 2:1, however, the narrator does note that Boaz was from the clan of Elimelech. If the gōʾēl was a closer relative than Boaz (3:12), he must have been ahead in the pecking order.
According to Boaz’s opening line in Ruth 4:3, the need for the present court case was precipitated by a decision of Naomi, who had recently returned from the land of Moab. To be technical about what exactly Naomi was doing, according to ancient Israelite customs regarding land ownership, according to which Naomi, a widow, was in no position to sell the land. The regulations concerning the transfer of real estate in Numbers 27 cited above have the land of a deceased man passing to the son or daughter(!), or brother, or uncle, or another near relative; but there is no hint of a widow being allowed to claim the land. This explains why a widow’s lot in Israel was so precarious. With the death of her husband, she lost her base of support. It also explains why Mosaic law was so concerned to protect the widow, along with the orphan and the alien, from oppression and exploitation (Exod 22:21–24 [Hb. 20–23]; Deut 10:18; 14:28–29; 24:19–21; 26:12–13; 27:19). The precarious economic position of widows has been assumed in the previous chapters; why else would Ruth need to experience the humiliation of scavenging after harvesters, and why was she at the mercy of some gracious landowner (2:2).
Naomi’s action was not to sell the land that belonged to her deceased husband Elimelech; it was not hers to sell because by law ownership of the land would be transferred to the nearest relative (Num 27:8–11). What she had done was authorize the court to give it in (trust) to the gōʾēl.
What had happened to Elimelech’s land since he had taken his family to Moab and since he had died we can only speculate. It seems most reasonable that moving to Moab had been a last resort for Elimelech. Before he would embark on such a drastic (and shameful) course of action, he would have attempted every other alternative, including selling the land to an outsider (cf. Lev 25:25–30). Obviously the poverty continued; and after the money from the sale was used up, he seems to have been faced with two choices: sell himself into slavery (cf. Lev 25:47–55) or move to a place where food was available.
Meanwhile ten years had elapsed. During that time Elimelech and his two heirs had died in the land of Moab, and back in Bethlehem it appears the land had fallen into the hands of someone outside the family. When Naomi returned with Ruth, she could not automatically reclaim the land and begin making her own living from it. Consequently she and Ruth are left with no options but to scavenge for food. It seems, however, that because of Boaz’s generosity Naomi and Ruth had been assured of sufficient food for the near future, enabling the senior widow to turn her attention to the legal issues relating to the patrimonial holdings of her husband.
Boaz was now initiating efforts to get the land back into the family. He seems to have concluded from the events of the previous night that he must do something about the land; it is not right for it to remain in an outsider’s hands. Even though his conversation with Ruth at the threshing floor had not mentioned land at all, he knew that gaining the rights to the use of Naomi’s property was the key to winning the right to Ruth’s hand.
Having announced the occasion for calling the court to session in v. 3, that is, Naomi’s decision to dispose of her deceased husband’s land in v. 4, Boaz explained his own involvement in this case. Not presuming upon a favorable reception from the gōʾēl, he began cautiously and apologetically . When he says that he though I would tell you of it and say, the idiom he uses not automatically mean to
``inform``(Job 36:10) as if to instruct or command but he wishes to get the gōʾēl`s attention or make him receptive to communication.
Having won the gōʾēl’s attention, Boaz challenged him to acquire the rights to Elimelech’s land in the presence of the gathered witnesses.
Just as mākar in v. 3 does not mean “to sell,” so here qānâ does not mean “to buy” but to accept Naomi’s offer and “acquire the rights`` of (the land). The witnesses are identified as those sitting in the gate, that is, the officially summoned ten, along with the elders of his people. It is possible that “the elders of my people” represents a nearer definition of the quorum of sitting witnesses, but it seems more likely that by now others have gathered in the passageway to observe the spectacle. Boaz’s ultimatum is simple: if the gōʾēl wishes to perform the duty or exercise the rights of a gōʾēl, then let him act; but if he prefers not to do so, then he should let Boaz know.
Boaz concluded his first speech by asserting his need to know in a legal sense, “that I may have it confirmed for the purpose of taking legal action” as well as giving the reason for presenting the demand to the gōʾēl: he has first rights to acquire the land, and he, Boaz, is next in line. As recorded, he did not declare that he would like to acquire the rights, but the implication would have been clear to everyone.
B) THE Gōʾēl’s FIRST SPEECH (4:4d)
His simple response:
Ruth 4:4d And he said, "I will redeem it." (ESV)
If Ruth was watching, her heart must have sunk. Boaz had expressed resignation to the will of the gōʾēl earlier (3:13), but in Ruth’s mind this was probably not an acceptable option.
The word redeem means “to set free by paying a price.” In the case of Ruth and Naomi, Elimelech’s property had either been sold or was under some kind of mortgage, and the rights to the land had passed to Ruth’s husband Mahlon when Elimelech died. This explains why Ruth was also involved in the transaction. She was too poor, however, to redeem the land.
When it comes to spiritual redemption, all people are in bondage to sin and Satan (Eph. 2:1–3; John 8:33–34) and are unable to set themselves free. Jesus Christ gave His life as a ransom for sinners (Mark 10:45; Rev. 5:9–10), and faith in Him sets the captive free (Wiersbe, Warren W.: Be Committed. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1996, c1993 (An Old Testament Study. Ruth and Esther), S. Ru 4:1).
C) BOAZ’S SECOND SPEECH (4:5)
Ruth 4:5 [5]Then Boaz said, "The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance." (ESV)
Boaz hereby reminded the gōʾēl that this transaction is more complex than merely acquiring usufruct rights to Elimelech’s field. Elimelech had a son whose death has left a second widow in the picture. This woman is implicated in any action that he as a gōʾēl might take. The manner in which Boaz introduced Ruth is significant. He introduced Ruth by her full name, “Ruth the Moabite.”
This more precise identification seems intended to cast doubts about the wisdom of acquiring the rights to Elimelech’s land in the mind of the gōʾēl. For Boaz, who has had direct contact with the woman, this is no problem, but he may have been counting on a measure of anti-Moabite sentiment on the part of his kinsman, rendering him less inclined to accept Naomi’s offer.
Boaz added that if the gōʾēl would acquire rights to the land, he must also acquire Ruth with the specific purpose of marrying her and fathering a child through her on behalf of Elimelech and his son. Since the clause in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance or “to establish the name of the deceased on his patrimonial land” borrows heavily from Deut 25:7, we observe here for the first time in the book an explicit reference to the levirate law.
The word šēm, “name,” does not mean simply the label by which one is identified. Boaz was not asking the gōʾēl to recover the name “Elimelech” (or “Mahlon”) by giving it to someone. Rather, he used the name in its dynamic sense as a designation for the memory of a person’s deeds and achievements, ones’ reputation and honor, as well as a metonymic expression for one’s descendants, who give one a sort of posthumous existence (A. S. van der Woude, “שם šēm Name.” THAT 2.935–63, esp. 948.)
• In the ancient world one of the most fearful curses one person could invoke on another was “May your seed perish and your name die out.” (1 Sam 24:21; 2 Sam 14:72, 18:18 )
Technically there is nothing in the prescription concerning the levirate marriage in Deut 25:5–10 that obligated either Boaz or the gōʾēl to marry Ruth and establish the name of Elimelech or Mahlon. The Mosaic prescription had the immediate brothers of the deceased in mind, and this is assumed in the application of the custom in Genesis 38 and 2 Sam 14:7. Accordingly, when Boaz challenged the gōʾēl to “establish the name of the deceased,” he was not appealing to the letter of the law but its spirit (“Of Barley, Bulls, Land, and Levirate,” in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of S. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, VTSup 53 [New York/Leiden: Brill, 1994], 123–38).
• Neither man was legally bound by Deut 25:5–10, but this does not eliminate a moral obligation. Boaz was prepared to operate on these grounds.
D) THE Gōʾēl’s SECOND SPEECH (4:6)
Ruth 4:6 [6]Then the redeemer said, "I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it." (ESV)
Whatever enthusiasm the gōʾēl may have had after Boaz’s first speech for acquiring the rights of usufruct to Elimelech’s land was completely dampened by his second speech.
Having received this added information, that Ruth came with the transfer, he declared that he could not “redeem,” that is, perform the obligation of a gōʾēl, for himself. No object for the verb gāʾal is specified. Ruth would be the nearer antecedent, but the “land” is apparently the primary object. The addition of lî, “for myself,” in the Hebrew text heightens the contrast between this man and Boaz, who appears throughout to be operating in the interests of others.
After Boaz’s second speech the gōʾēl found himself on the horns of a dilemma. Actually he was faced with four options: First, while not legally bound, he could accept moral responsibility for Elimelech’s estate, redeem the field, marry Ruth, and ensure the well-being of Naomi, the senior widow. This would have been an honorable course of action. Second, he could redeem the field and pledge to marry Ruth but then renege on the pledge after the transaction was complete. By doing this, however, he would have jeopardized his own reputation and standing in the community. Third, he could reject the offer, thereby ceding the rights to the land and the responsibility of raising up the name of the deceased to Boaz. This move would not necessarily have been irresponsible. After all, Boaz intimated his interest in assuming the role of gōʾēl by declaring that he was next in line (v. 4). Fourth, he could accept the responsibility of a gōʾēl and redeem the field but reject the responsibility of a levir and cede to Boaz the moral obligation and/or right to marry Ruth. This would doubtless have cost him considerably in terms of respect and honor in the community in the short range and in long-range terms could have proved economically precarious. If Boaz would raise up the name of Elimelech by producing an heir through Ruth, this heir could eventually claim the original patrimony of Elimelech.
Faced with this economic and ethical dilemma, the gōʾēl chose the third option. The negative purpose clause explaining his rationale suggests he seriously considered only the first two options. His rationale: pen-ʾaḥšît ʾet-naḥălātî, means “lest I impair/destroy/jeopardize my own inheritance/ patrimonial estate.”
When he added up the cost of redeeming the property, plus the cost of maintaining the widow Naomi, plus the cost of marrying Ruth, he may have concluded that this was not a fiscally sound move. Rather than enhancing his assets, the newly acquired responsibilities would drain resources from the holdings he had inherited from his own ancestors. Second, he probably also considered the implications of raising up the name of the deceased, that is, producing an heir for Elimelech. Given his own age and the age of Ruth, he may have thought that she might bear him no more than one child. Since this child would be legally considered the heir and descendant of Elimelech, upon the death of the gōʾēl , the child would inherit the property that had come into his hands through this present transaction as well as the gōʾēl’s inherited holdings. Furthermore, since the name of Elimelech had been established/raised up through the child, the gōʾēl’s entire estate would fall into the line of Elimelech, and his own name would disappear.
Third, in view of Boaz’s introduction of Ruth as “the Moabitess,” he may have have pondered the ethnic implication of the transaction, concluding that his patrimonial estate should not be jeapordized by falling into the hands of one with Moabite blood in his veins.
Having reflected on the implications, the gōʾēl announced his decision. In unequivocal and emphatic terms he declared Take my right of redemption yourself or (lit.), “Redeem for yourself, my redemption right [gĕʾullâ].” The noun gĕʾullâ, from the same root as gāʾal, is a technical term for the rights, privileges, and obligations of gōʾēl status (R. L. Hubbard, “גאל,” NIDOTTE 1.789–94.).
• We often evaluate our involvement in evangelism and ministries of mercy according to the same scale as Mr. So-and-So. We ask, `What is in it for me? Will it fulfill me? Will I enjoy it? What will it cost me?` In doing the arithmetic, we get the answers as completely wrong as he did, because we have left God entirely out of the equation (Iain M. Duguid. Esther & Ruth. Reformed Expository Commentary. P&R Press. 2005. p. 183.)
• When we base our actions only on what is the visible immediate perceived benefit, we always come out the lesser for it.
E) THE Gōʾēl’s NONVERBAL SPEECH (4:7–8)
Ruth 4:7-8 [7]Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one drew off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was the manner of attesting in Israel. [8]So when the redeemer said to Boaz, "Buy it for yourself," he drew off his sandal. (ESV)
In v. 7 the narrator interrupts the report of the court proceedings with a parenthetical comment concerning an ancient legal custom. Having said his piece in v. 6, the gōʾēl removed his sandal and handed it to Boaz. This was a symbolic act declaring his abdication of his own rights as the gōʾēl and their transfer to the next in line. The narrator’s insertion of the parenthetical comment in v. 7 suggests that this custom was no longer understood at the time of the writing of the book.
Sandals (naʿal) were the most common form of footwear in the ancient world, generally being made of leather and fastened with straps or laces. The act involved in this transaction is described as “drew or taking off” the sandal and handing it to the person to whom rights are ceded. The narrator notes that the gōʾēl’s action follows an ancient practice in Israel. This nonverbal gesture was performed particularly in legal contexts involving “redemption” (haggĕʾûllâ) and “transfer of property” (hattĕmûrâ).
The transfer of property was symbolized in the transfer of the sandal
Joshua 1:3 [3]Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses. (ESV)
The custom of taking off the shoe probably relates to the divine commandment to walk on the land and take possession (Gen. 13:17; Deut. 11:24; Josh. 1:3).
The passing of the sandal symbolized Boaz’s right to walk on the land as his property (Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 1:427)
• This would parallel the modern custom of concluding a transaction by signing a document or handing over a set of keys (Radmacher, Earl D. ; Allen, Ronald Barclay ; House, H. Wayne: Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary. Nashville : T. Nelson Publishers, 1999, S. Ru 4:7-8).
In years to come, the ten witnesses would be able to testify that the transaction had been completed because they saw the kinsman hand his shoe to Boaz. It symbolized the kinsman’s forfeiture of his right to possess the land (Wiersbe, Warren W.: Be Committed. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1996, c1993 (An Old Testament Study. Ruth and Esther), S. Ru 4:1).
The purpose of this legal gesture is defined with two expressions. The first is in the form of a purpose infinitive phrase (lit.), “to confirm a transaction or to put any matter into effect,” that is, to make it legally binding (NIV “to become final”). The second expression of purpose functions as a summarizing verbless clause (lit.), “Now this is/was the form of attesting/legalization in Israel.” The purpose was “to call to witness” as confirmed by Boaz’s declaration of the role of the observers in v. 9: they are ʿēdîm, “witnesses,” which derives from the same root.
Historically, there have been great stories of land and redemption
Illustration: 5964 Underneath Death Valley
In southern California there is a wilderness called “Death Valley.” It was given that name by various survivors of wagon trains that crossed the plains during the Gold Rush of 1849. This desert is really one of the magnificent places of interest in America. Upon the peaks that surround the valley gleams a cataract of color. The rose and the blue blend with the gold of the desert sunset. The valley itself lies 276 feet below sea level. It is the lowest spot in the United States, and geologists tell us that it was once an inland sea. But now for miles it is a waste of drifting sand dunes and lifeless. Sometimes the heat registers as much as 134 degrees Fahrenheit in the shade.
The great irony of this situation, is that the pioneers who lost their lives on these burning sands did not know that just beneath the surface two rivers flow, that fresh springs are near the salty crust of earth, and that the spiny cactus stores up life-giving water. (Tan, Paul Lee: Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations : A Treasury of Illustrations, Anecdotes, Facts and Quotations for Pastors, Teachers and Christian Workers. Garland TX : Bible Communications, 1996, c1979)
• In the story of Ruth, redemption lies beneath the land.
We have seen: (1) Boaz’s Preparation for Court Action (4:1–2), (2) The Report of the Court Proceedings (4:3–8)and only briefly:
(3) Boaz’s Response to the Outcome of the Court Proceedings (4:9–10)
Ruth 4:9-10 [9]Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon. [10]Also Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brothers and from the gate of his native place. You are witnesses this day." (ESV)
With the transfer of the sandal as the final legal gesture, the official court proceedings were complete. The rights and responsibilities of redemption vis-à-vis Elimelech’s estate had been officially transferred to Boaz, and he was legally recognized as the gōʾēl. Boaz’s legal standing had been advanced, but now the “peloni almoni” the previous gōʾēl (v. 1) may disappear from the scene. In relinquishing his rights in the present context his name also disappears from history.
In keeping with ancient legal proceedings, Boaz then turned to the witnesses and presented an impassioned closing speech, offering his interpretation of the significance of the scene they have observed and the last time we see Boaz speak in the Book of Ruth.
With this declaration he adds a second form of attestation to go along with the passing of the sandal he now has in his possession. In the future if his claims to the rights to Elimelech’s land or his claim to Ruth are ever questioned, not only will he be able to produce the sandal, but he also will appeal to this host of witnesses that has observed him gain this right through legal process.
Boaz’s summary of his actions consists of two parts. The first (v. 9b) focuses on the estate of Elimelech. Boaz refers to the estate as “all things that belongs to Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon.” The addition of the names of Elimelech’s sons raises the inheritance implications.
In the second portion of his summary Boaz declared that he had also acquired the rights to Ruth. He mentioned the estate of Elimelech first because his right to Ruth was contingent upon gaining the right to the property. The use of the full name in verse 10 “Ruth the Moabite” because of the legal context. His identification of Ruth specifically as the wideo of Mahlon is also illuminating. We had known since the beginning that both she and Orpah were married to the sons of Elimelech and Naomi, but now for the first time we learn which woman had been married to which man.
• In contrast to the land, Ruth was not bought. She did not require a purchase price nor was Boaz required to redeem her. He willingly chose to be her redeemer(Radmacher, Earl D. ; Allen, Ronald Barclay ; House, H. Wayne: The Nelson Study Bible : New King James Version. Nashville : T. Nelson Publishers, 1997, S. Ru 4:10)
The remainder of v. 10 is devoted to explaining Boaz’s motivation in the preceding legal proceedings. It is obvious that his primary interest is Ruth and not the estate. That Boaz specified his desire was for Ruth `to be my wife`` and explains that his first goal was to establish the name of the deceased on his own patrimonial holding. The infinitive phrase translated “to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, or in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property” is identical to the challenge he had put to the gōʾēl in v. 5. Boaz’s second goal was to prevent the name of the deceased from being (lit.) “cut off from among his brothers.” This is an expression for annihilating one’s honor and reputation and preventing one’s posthumous existence (Josh 7:9; Isa 14:22; and Zech 1:4). Boaz’s third goal is to prevent his name from being cut off from (lit.) “the gate of his native place.”
“His place” is a designation for the town, that is, Bethlehem. Here “gate” functions metonymically for “the assembly” that meets at the gate. This decision by Boaz is intended to guarantee Elimelech/Mahlon the right to representation in the gathering of the town council. In the end Mr. So-and-So will disappear without a name, but the security of Mahlon’s and Elimelech’s names is hereby guarded.
It’s worth noting that the nearer kinsman tried to protect his name and inheritance; but we don’t even know what his name was or what happened to his family! Boaz took the risk of love and obedience, and his name is written down in Scripture and held in honor. This also explains why Orpah’s name is missing in Ruth 4:9–10 (Wiersbe, Warren W.: Be Committed. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1996, c1993 (An Old Testament Study. Ruth and Esther), S. Ru 4:1).
1 John 2:17 [17]And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (ESV)
Boaz has redeemed property and person. In many ways, Boaz is a picture of Jesus Christ, our Kinsman Redeemer; and this scene is no exception to that. Like Boaz, Jesus wasn’t concerned about jeopardizing His own inheritance; instead, He made us a part of His inheritance (Eph. 1:11, 18). Like Boaz, Jesus made His plans privately, but He paid the price publicly; and like Boaz, Jesus did what He did because of His love for His bride.
However, there are also some contrasts between Boaz and the Lord Jesus Christ. Boaz purchased Ruth by giving out of his wealth, while Jesus purchased His bride by giving Himself on the cross. Boaz didn’t have to suffer and die to get a bride. Boaz had a rival in the other kinsman, but there was no rival to challenge Jesus Christ. Boaz took Ruth that he might raise up the name of the dead (Ruth 4:10), but we Christians glorify the name of the living Christ. There were witnesses on earth to testify that Ruth belonged to Boaz (vv. 9–10), but God’s people have witnesses from heaven, the Spirit, and the Word (1 John 5:9–13) (Wiersbe, Warren W.: Be Committed. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1996, c1993 (An Old Testament Study. Ruth and Esther), S. Ru 4:1).
(Outline and some base commentary from Block, Daniel Isaac: Judges, Ruth. electronic ed. Nashville : Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1999 (Logos Library System; The New American Commentary 6), S. 718)
