And Boaz went up to the gate, and sat down there. And behold, he that had the right of redemption, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. And he said, Thou, such a one, turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside and sat down.
The town gate of Bethlehem was its courthouse, and Boaz goes there to settle Ruth's case. What he does there decides who may buy back a widow's lost land — and who may marry Ruth.
The place Boaz chooses is not a casual meeting spot.
Boaz had two things in mind: redemption and marriage. So he went to the "gate." Everyone knew it as an open court of justice. There the older, respected and wise men of the city looked into civil and criminal cases. Moses set up this form of local government. It was part of his final instructions to the children of Israel on the borders of the land of Canaan (compare Deut. 16:18-20; Deut. 21:18-21; Deut. 25:7-9). So the elders of the city were its civil rulers, and God had "ordained" them to be such. They rewarded and protected the good, and punished the evil. They used their authority according to His law (Joshua 20:4; Rom. 13:1-4).
Elders had a set role in this kind of deal:
Whenever a redemption of an inheritance was made official, the elders were called together as witnesses. Ruth 4:1-12.
Boaz did not hold the first legal claim, and the man who did had done nothing.
Boaz knew that another man was a closer relative. That gave the man a greater claim than Boaz had to the right of redemption, the right to buy the estate back from the leaseholder. Elimelech and Naomi had probably handed the estate over to that leaseholder when they left for the land of Moab. If no one redeemed it, the land would stay with the leaseholder or mortgage holder until the year of jubilee (Lev. 25:28). So far, though, the next-of-kin had done nothing to redeem the inheritance. To that extent he had neglected the widows. Boaz wanted action at once. He called the lawful authorities together in the gate and raised the question before them.
Boaz could have approached the man privately. Instead he settles it in daylight, before people whose word would stand.
The gate matched the courts of today, where legal business is completed. In the matter Boaz had in hand, nothing was to be done "in a corner." Everything had to have the full agreement of those concerned. It had to be witnessed in broad daylight, by men the law authorised to give their approval.
The text never names the other relative. The ESV has Boaz call him "friend"; older translations read "such a one," which leaves him nameless.
The first person who appears is this "nearest kinsman." His claim had to be met first, or his right of redemption had to be set aside first. Only then could Boaz step in as redeemer, however willing he was. It is significant that this person is not named. He is the nearest kinsman of Elimelech and the natural redeemer of his inheritance, yet we never learn his name. That silence has meaning when we look at the spiritual sense.
He only stops because Boaz calls him:
And now the other redeemer, who cannot redeem, appears. Boaz sits in the gate and calls out to the one he knew as he passed by. He calls him not by name but says, "Ho, such a one! turn aside, and sit down here." If Boaz had not called him he would surely have passed by... This powerless redeemer is the law.
Boaz goes up to the gate on his own. Ruth is nowhere in the scene.
In this final chapter we learn how Boaz worked for Ruth. Ruth had no part in that work. Boaz is alone when he goes "up to the gate" (v. 1). The gate was the place where judgment was given. Justice must be satisfied before Ruth can be blessed, and before the purpose of Boaz is fulfilled. At the gate Boaz meets and settles every question that can be raised... Does this not picture the mighty work of our great Redeemer? He alone went "up to the gate," the place of judgment. There, on the Cross, He settled every question between the believer and God.
The other side of Boaz working alone is that Ruth has nothing left to do.
Boaz settles the whole affair. Ruth has only to "sit still," as Naomi had told her. Her Kinsman is faithful and her Redeemer is mighty.
- Gate. The town gate was a real court. Moses set it up, the city elders ran it, and they stood as witnesses when an inheritance was redeemed.
- Claim. A nearer relative held the first right and had done nothing with it. Boaz will not go around him. He takes the case to the lawful authorities at once.
- Open. Nothing is done in a corner. Boaz settles it in daylight, before witnesses whose approval makes the transfer binding.
- Nameless. The closer kinsman is never named, and he would have walked straight past if Boaz had not called him. One writer sees in him a picture of the law: close at hand, but powerless to redeem.
- Rest. Boaz goes to the gate alone, because justice must be satisfied before Ruth can be blessed. He pictures a Redeemer who settled every question at the cross. The one He redeems has only to sit still.
And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit down here. And they sat down.
Boaz moves at once to settle Ruth's case, and he does it in public — at the town gate, with ten of Bethlehem's elders seated as a court. Why does a redemption need witnesses at all, and why ten of them?
Boaz did not pick a casual meeting spot. The gate was where the town did its legal business.
Boaz had a double purpose in mind — redemption and marriage. So he went to the "gate." Everyone recognised the gate as an open court of justice. There the older, wise and respected men of the city looked into civil and criminal cases. Moses authorised this form of local government in his final instructions to Israel, on the borders of the land of Canaan (cp. Deut. 16:18-20; Deut. 25:7-9). The elders of the city were therefore its civil rulers, "ordained of God" to be such. They rewarded and protected the good and punished the evil, using the authority of their office according to His law (Joshua 20:4; Rom. 13:1-4).
The elders had a standing role in this kind of case:
Every city had its elders. As the responsible members of the community, they could act in all matters of common welfare... Whenever the redemption of an inheritance had to be confirmed, the elders were called together to be witnesses. Ruth 4:1-12.
Boaz could have settled this in private with his relative. He refused.
With the promptness and energy of a heart fully engaged, Boaz goes up to "the gate." This was the place of rule, where every matter was settled and every transfer made... In the matter he was engaged in, nothing was to be done "in a corner." It all had to have the full agreement of those concerned, and be witnessed in the light of open day, by men with legal authority to give their approval.
More was at stake than food for two widows. The field belonged to God.
The inheritance was Jehovah's gift to this family, and for that reason it had to be recovered and secured to them. Back in the days of Joshua, the plot of ground came by lot to Elimelech's forefathers, to be held by them and their heirs for ever. Jehovah was the landowner: "the land is mine" (Lev. 25:23). Any question about who should inherit, or who should hold the land, had to be settled on a righteous basis in the eyes of Jehovah. Redemption was a sacred transaction, and not a mere matter of human bargaining.
Some writers see meaning in the number itself:
Notice also that this is done before a jury of ten men, witnesses of the law and the facts. These ten may well remind us of those "ten words," or commandments. They bear full testimony to the claims of God, to the ruin of man, and to their own powerlessness to redeem. All is done legally... The law itself witnesses to its own powerlessness to redeem.
One writer presses the same point into a warning:
The ten commandments are our Boaz's witnesses that the law cannot do anything for a sinner's salvation... But people make this great mistake. Because God is in fact merciful, they think He will not require the righteousness which the law requires, which the ten commandments specify, but something below this — they do not know how much. Yet though He may be patient, and give time, and give repeated opportunities, He never lowers His demand. He can never accept less than what is lawful and right.
This is a picture drawn from the scene, not the plain sense of the story.
Everyone else in the scene is seated. Only one man is doing anything.
Boaz is seen alone when he goes "up to the gate" (v. 1). The gate was the place where judgment was given. For justice must be satisfied before Ruth can be blessed, or the purpose of Boaz fulfilled. At the gate Boaz meets and settles every question that can be raised. Ten witnesses are called. They are told to sit down, because they do nothing but witness to the inability of the first kinsman. At the same time they witness that his claims have been recognised and met. Does this not picture for us the mighty work of our great Redeemer, who alone went "up to the gate," the place of judgment? There, on the Cross, He settled every question between the believer and God. There too He fully showed how unable the law was to meet our case, while fully recognising and meeting its just claims.
- Place. The gate was Bethlehem's open court. Elders set up under God's law judged cases there and witnessed the redemption of an inheritance.
- Public. Boaz refused to settle anything "in a corner." Men with legal authority watched the whole transfer in open daylight.
- Sacred. The land was Jehovah's gift to Elimelech's family. Redeeming it had to be righteous before God, not a private bargain.
- Ten. Several writers see the ten witnesses as the ten commandments. They testify to God's claims, to man's ruin, and to the law's own inability to redeem.
- Seated. The witnesses only sit and watch. The redeemer alone acts — a picture of Christ, who went alone to the place of judgment and settled every question there.
And he said to him that had the right of redemption Naomi, who is come back out of the country of Moab, sells the allotment that was our brother Elimelech's.
Boaz sits at the town gate with ten elders as witnesses. He opens the case by naming the property: a field that once belonged to Elimelech, now up for sale through his widow Naomi. That one sentence raises questions of law, family duty, and who really owns the land.
Naomi has no money and no husband, yet she appears here as the seller. Commentators trace this back to the day the family left Bethlehem in the famine.
Boaz knew that another man was a closer relative. That man had a greater claim than he did to the right of redemption. A leaseholder held the estate, and Elimelech and Naomi had likely handed it to him when they left for the land of Moab. If no one redeemed it, the land would stay with that leaseholder or mortgagee until the year of jubilee.
Boaz names Naomi, not Ruth. In law the two widows stood in different places.
Naomi, in the eyes of the law, was the seller of the property, although it had no doubt been leased or mortgaged in the days of the famine to its present occupier. As soon as the kinsman-redeemer bought the inheritance back, Naomi would receive its value to use and enjoy at once. Ruth was not a daughter of Elimelech, so she had no title to the property under the special "statute of judgment" that applied to daughters (Num. 27:6-11). But as the widow of Mahlon, she had a recognised place in the family.
Why not simply feed the two widows and leave the field alone?
The inheritance was Jehovah's gift to this family, so it should come back to them and stay theirs. In the days of Joshua, the lot gave this piece of ground to Elimelech's ancestors, for them and their heirs to hold forever. Jehovah was the landowner: "the land is mine" (Lev. 25:23). Every question about the line of succession, or about a change of occupant, needed an answer that was righteous in Jehovah's eyes. Redemption was a sacred transaction, not a mere matter of human bargaining.
Boaz does not say "Elimelech's field." He says our brother's. That one word puts him inside the family.
Boaz had called himself "brother" to the dead Elimelech (v. 3), in the broad sense of a near relative. So he accepted a brother's duty under the law in Deut. 25:5-10, and he carried it out. He married the widowed Ruth and raised up offspring, so that Elimelech's name and inheritance would continue in the tribe of Judah and in the land of Israel.
Boaz could have approached the nearer relative quietly. He did the opposite.
Boaz goes up to "the gate" with the promptness and energy of a heart fully engaged. The gate was the place of rule. There people settled every matter and made every transfer. It answers to the courts of today, where people complete their legal business. In this matter nothing was to be done "in a corner." Everyone concerned had to agree, and men with legal authority to approve it had to witness it in broad daylight.
At this stage the nearer relative says yes. Some commentators read the story as a picture of Israel. They point to what Boaz names here: the land, Naomi, and a dead brother — but not yet Ruth.
The nearest kinsman quickly agrees to redeem the inheritance for Naomi. The law had this merciful provision. Whenever any of the people turned truly to God and kept His law, He would be "merciful to His land and to His people." As long as the buying was from Naomi's hand, and for her, the kinsman agrees at once, for she was the widow of "our brother Elimelech." As long as it is Israel according to the flesh, and only disobedient, the law, with that merciful provision, could step in and bring back the forfeited inheritance.
Commentators set this scene beside a later act of Jeremiah, and see both pointing to Christ.
But there is more than this. These actions of Boaz and of Jeremiah anticipate, in types and figures, the ways of our Lord Jesus. He made Himself our Kinsman, and He has done a Kinsman's part in ways that outshine every comparison. He is like a more self-sacrificing Boaz. At a price that cost Him everything, He has rescued not only a childless, penniless kinsman, but one guilty and ruined and sold into shameful captivity.
- Lost. The field was Elimelech's family portion. The family let it go in the famine, and another man held it until redemption or the year of jubilee.
- Owned. Because God said the land was His, buying it back was a sacred act, not a private deal.
- Claimed. By calling Elimelech "our brother," Boaz stepped into the family and took on a brother's duty under the law.
- Witnessed. Boaz did nothing in a corner. He made the transfer in the open court of the gate, before men with legal authority.
- Fulfilled. Boaz paid to rescue a penniless household. Christ took a Kinsman's part for the guilty and ruined, at a price that cost Him everything.
And I thought I would apprise thee of it and say, Buy [it] in the presence of the inhabitants, and in the presence of the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem [it], redeem; but if thou wilt not redeem, tell me, that I may know; for there is none to redeem besides thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem [it].
Boaz moves from the threshing floor to the town gate. There he offers Elimelech's land to the man with the first right to redeem it, and waits for his answer.
Boaz does not settle this privately. He takes it to the one place in the town where such business belonged.
Boaz goes up to "the gate" with the promptness and energy of a heart fully engaged. This was the place of rule, where people settled every matter and made every transfer. It matches the courts of today, where people complete all legal business. In the matter he had in hand, nothing could happen "in a corner." Everyone concerned had to agree, and men with legal authority to approve it had to witness it all in broad daylight.
That is why Boaz asks him to buy it in front of the elders and the people sitting there.
Boaz is not just being careful with the law. The land itself was no ordinary property.
In the gate of Bethlehem, Boaz shows himself to be a man full of gracious care for the two widows. He also shows the utmost regard for the righteous requirements of Jehovah's law in the land of Israel... The inheritance was Jehovah's gift to this family, and for that reason it had to be recovered and made secure for them... Jehovah was the landowner: "the land is mine" (Lev. 25:23). Any question about who inherited the land, or who lived on it, had to be settled in a way that was right in Jehovah's eyes. Redemption was a sacred transaction, not a mere matter of human bargaining.
Boaz names his own position last: he stands second in line. He will not step over the other man's claim.
Boaz was not the nearest kinsman. So he could only use his right to redeem after the man with the closer claim had either refused that duty or shown that he could not carry it out.
"I will redeem it" sounds like the end of the story. One verse later the same man says the opposite, twice.
The kinsman-redeemer who could claim a closer relationship than Boaz was certainly willing to redeem, but his willingness was limited by his ability. He could say, "I will redeem it," yet twice he had to admit, "I cannot redeem it." He had his own inheritance to look after, and he found that more than enough to deal with. To try his brother's redemption was beyond him. I suggest that something like this was in the Psalmist's mind when he wrote, "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life" (Ps. 49:7). He was not saying that none of them would redeem his brother if able to; he was saying it was an impossible task.
Another writer traces why the man said yes, and then why he backed out:
When Boaz challenged the kinsman nearer than himself about redeeming Elimelech's inheritance, the man at first offered to act. All that occurred to him for the moment was the question of buying, and it might have been a profitable deal. Then Boaz reminded him that redemption went further than buying. It meant taking up all the rights and duties tied to the estate, lifting up the fallen, and entering into personal relationship with Ruth, and through her with Naomi. At that, he declined.
Commentators differ over whom this unnamed man pictures. One reading finds a meaning in Israel's history, and even in the number of witnesses Boaz called:
This close relative pictures the covenant of law. The law had a claim on Israel from the time they came out of Egypt (Ex. 20)... It did have a claim on them. But could it act on that claim and restore the nation after its long centuries of disobedience? This hearing before the ten witnesses gives the answer. The ten witnesses remind us of the ten commandments, which stand there to bear witness to what the law cannot do.
Either way, the empty "I will redeem it" clears the ground for the one who could and did:
These actions of Boaz... give us an advance picture of the ways of our Lord Jesus. He made Himself our Kinsman, and He has done a Kinsman's part in ways that outshine every comparison... Like a more self-sacrificing Boaz, at a price that cost Him everything, He has brought relief not only to a childless, penniless Kinsman, but to one guilty and ruined and sold into dishonourable captivity.
- Public — Boaz takes the case to the gate, the town's court. Nothing happens in a corner; witnesses see and approve every step.
- Sacred — the land was Jehovah's gift. Redeeming it was a sacred trust, not a bargain.
- Ordered — Boaz says "I am after you." He waits until the closer claim is either taken up or given up.
- Willing, not able — "I will redeem it" is sincere. But he can only do what he is able to do, and twice he will have to say "I cannot."
- Christ — where the nearer kinsman fails, the true Kinsman pays a price that costs Him everything.
And Boaz said, On the day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy [it] also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
Boaz has agreed to act as redeemer for Naomi and Ruth, but a man with a prior claim stands ahead of him. Boaz puts the land before that man. Then he adds the clause that changes everything: the field cannot be taken without the widow.
The other kinsman heard only the offer of land, and it sounded like a gain. What Boaz added was not his own idea. It was a standing rule in Israel.
The "nearer" kinsman-redeemer (goel) was ready to use his legal right and buy the property. That way he would add to his own estate, and the whole thing looked to him like a good bargain… But he did not seem to know that the transfer of the land to him also required him to marry Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, Elimelech's son… This required marriage followed the provision made in Jehovah's law (Deut. 25:6). Its purpose was to keep the family name with the family land, even when the head of the family died without an heir, as had happened with both Elimelech and his two sons. And it was Jehovah's will that the inheritance of each family of the righteous people should be its permanent possession (Lev. 25:23).
Buying a property and redeeming it are not the same thing. This verse is where the difference shows.
When Boaz challenged the kinsman nearer than himself about redeeming Elimelech's inheritance, the man at first offered to act. All he thought of at that moment was the purchase, and it might have been a profitable deal. Then Boaz reminded him that redemption went further than mere buying. It meant taking up all the rights and duties tied to the estate: lifting up the fallen, and entering into a personal relationship with Ruth, and through her with Naomi. At that, he declined.
Commentators differ over what this unnamed man stands for. One reads him as the law: it had the first claim, but it could never produce what God wanted.
The law does not fail because it is bad in itself, for it is good. It fails because man is bad — the first man, whatever advantages he may have. That is exactly what the kinsman shows us. He cannot raise up the name of the dead. Israel cannot have their blessing, as God purposed it, through the law and the first man. It is no surprise that this man was the nearer kinsman, for what is natural comes first, and what is spiritual comes afterwards.
Another writer reads him differently, and points to how willing the man was:
He was certainly willing to redeem, but his willingness was limited by his ability. He could say, "I will redeem it," yet twice he had to admit, "I cannot redeem it."… Since this kinsman was more closely related to Naomi than Boaz was, he seems to picture our fellow man rather than the law, for no one is a nearer kinsman to a man than his own family.
Boaz names her deliberately: not simply Ruth, but Ruth the Moabite. That word is the whole obstacle, because law by itself has no room for an outsider.
This explains why the kinsman, no matter how willing he might be to restore the heritage to Naomi, could not take it to raise up by Ruth the name of the deceased kinsman. His own inheritance would be marred. How truly that law, "holy, just and good" would be marred if the smallest jot or tittle of its righteous demands were abated. It abides in all its majesty and perfection.
Yet the same law held a door open, through a redeemer who was willing to bear the cost himself:
Ruth was a Moabite, yet she found a welcome among the people of Israel, even though the law forbade accepting a Moabite down to the tenth generation. Israel's own law had made room for a related redeemer to bring her in. In the same way, the law shut the ungodly Gentiles out of Israel, yet it still bore witness to the coming of the Lord Jesus, whose great sacrifice has brought redemption for the ungodly.
Commentators read this verse — field, widow, name of the dead — as a picture of Christ.
He was the Heir. He was to shed His blood, and that blood was to ransom the inheritance. Boaz, whose name means "In him is strength," had to buy the field from Ruth as well as from Naomi… So Christ had to buy the church, co-heir by grace — the one to whom the inheritance had passed by the decree of Jehovah — just as Boaz, a picture of Christ, bought the inheritance by taking Ruth as his wife.
Jesus told a story with the same shape:
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field" (Matt. 13:44). The field is the world. The hidden treasure stands for the souls in it who are precious to the Saviour's heart… For the sake of the treasure — "His own" — He buys all.
- Condition — The land came with a person attached. The law tied the family name to the family field, so no one could take the field and leave the widow behind.
- Cost — The nearer kinsman wanted the purchase, not the redemption. The moment the deal added a duty to the living, he withdrew.
- Cannot — His refusal exposes a limit. Some read him as the law, some as our fellow man. Both readings end in the same words: I cannot.
- Claim — The barrier was Ruth's Moabite name. The law could not bend one requirement to let her in. Yet inside that same law God had already placed a redeemer's provision.
- Christ — Boaz buys the field to gain the bride. He points to One who gave up everything to buy the whole field for the sake of the treasure in it.
And he that had the right of redemption said, I cannot redeem [it] for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance. Redeem thou for thyself what I should redeem, for I cannot redeem [it].
The man with the first claim agrees to buy the field, then backs out the moment Boaz names Ruth as part of the deal. His refusal — "I cannot" — hands the whole matter to Boaz, and commentators ask why a willing buyer turns into an unwilling redeemer.
The offer he accepted and the offer he refused were not the same. One writer marks where his interest collapsed.
Boaz challenged the kinsman who was nearer than himself about redeeming Elimelech's inheritance. At first the man proposed to act. All that occurred to him for the moment was the question of buying, and it might have been a profitable deal. Then Boaz reminded him that redemption went further than buying. It meant taking up all the rights and duties connected with the estate. It meant lifting up the fallen, and entering into personal relationship with Ruth, and through her with Naomi. At that, he declined.
Older translations say "mar my own inheritance" where the ESV says "impair." His calculation was about family and money: Ruth came from Moab, a foreign nation.
The "nearer" redeemer had refused to marry Ruth. He was afraid, he said, that he would "mar my own inheritance." He thought that marrying the Moabite woman would bring on his family the shame of a "stranger." What is more, he would be taking money from his own inheritance to redeem another man's, so he would "mar" it to that extent. He suggested therefore that Boaz should take the part of the kinsman-redeemer.
Notice the verb. He does not say he will not. He says twice that he cannot.
The kinsman-redeemer who could claim a closer relationship than Boaz was certainly willing to redeem (see ch. 4:4), but his ability limited his willingness. He could say, "I will redeem it," yet twice he had to admit, "I cannot redeem it." He had his own inheritance to look after, and he found that more than enough to deal with. Trying to redeem his brother was beyond him. Something like this may well have been in the Psalmist's mind when he wrote, "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life" (Ps. 49:7).
The story never gives this man a name. Writers treat that silence as deliberate.
The first person who appears is this "nearest kinsman." Someone must first meet his claim, or set aside his right of redemption, before Boaz could step in as redeemer, however willing he might be. He is the nearest kinsman of Elimelech and the natural redeemer of his inheritance, yet we have no clue to his name. This in itself has significance when we look at the spiritual meaning.
Commentators differ on who the nameless man pictures. Many read him as a picture of the law; Vallance says he "seems to typify our fellow man rather than the law." On the first reading, his refusal is a matter of principle, not a failure of nerve.
This explains why the kinsman could not take the property to raise up by Ruth the name of the dead kinsman, however willing he might be to restore it to Naomi. His own inheritance would be marred. That law, "holy, just and good," would be marred just as truly if the smallest detail of its righteous demands were relaxed. It stands in all its majesty and perfection. But if the law can do nothing in a case like this, it can and does give up all right to the inheritance, and transfers those claims to Another.
He hands his right of redemption to Boaz, and that makes the rest of the chapter possible. One writer sets it beside the priest and the Levite who walked past the injured man.
The priest and the Levite were the "nearer kinsmen" of the wounded man, but they cannot help him. The law cannot help; it can only condemn those who are under it. The Samaritan, a picture of the Lord Jesus, was not obliged to touch the wounded man, who had no claim on him. Yet he came where he lay, picked him up, and put him in his own place. The law could not help the sinner, so by passing by it made the way clear for the Saviour. The nearer kinsman could not redeem, and that cleared the way for Boaz. There was no reason why Boaz should take up Ruth's case except that he loved her, and there is no reason why Christ should take up our case except that He loved us.
Everything the first man refused, Boaz took on.
Boaz redeems her inheritance, and marries her. He does not fear the marring of his own inheritance. He devotes himself to the interests of his dead kinsman, and of the childless, penniless widow he had left behind. By this marriage, and by the redemption of the inheritance that went with it, the house of Mahlon is revived. It is led up to royal honours, the very highest position of wealth and dignity in the land.
- Cost. He agreed to buy the field, then refused once Boaz added Ruth and her duties. He wanted the profit, not the obligation.
- Cannot. His word was not "I will not" but "I cannot"; his willingness ran out where his ability ran out.
- Nameless. Scripture never gives his name. Readers have taken him as a picture of the law, which cannot relax one demand to rescue anyone.
- Cleared. His withdrawal opened the road for Boaz, as the priest and the Levite left the road open for the Samaritan.
- Love. Boaz took the risk the other man refused, for no reason except that he loved her. That marriage raised a fallen house to royal honours.
Now this [was the custom] in former time in Israel concerning redemption and concerning exchange, to confirm the whole matter a man drew off his sandal, and gave it to his neighbour, and this was the [mode of] attestation in Israel.
The story pauses here to explain a custom its first readers no longer kept. To settle a matter of redeeming or exchanging property, a man pulled off his sandal and handed it to the other man. That closed the deal. Why a shoe, why in public, and why did it count as legal proof?
The nearer relative did not simply say no in private. The sandal turned his refusal into a legal act.
The kinsman-redeemer refused out loud to redeem the inheritance. Ancient custom made that refusal public and legally binding: he handed Boaz one of his sandals. By this he gave up to Boaz his claim on the whole inheritance, and on every part of it, down to the last foot's breadth. A foot's breadth pictured the smallest piece of land a man might hold as an inheritance (see Deuteronomy 2:5; Acts 7:5). Receiving the sandal was also a pledge that Boaz would receive the whole inheritance in due course.
The sandal was not a random token.
Taking off the shoe was also an ancient custom, used, according to Ruth 4:7, in cases of redemption and exchange, to confirm business deals. The custom came from the way a man took possession of land. He walked on the soil and claimed his right to it by standing on it in his shoes. So taking off the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol that a man gave up his position and his property.
Commentators often read the man who stepped aside as a picture of the law. It stood nearest to Israel, yet could not save it. The sandal he took off was his own admission of this.
This is why, in Ruth 4:1-8, a relative closer than Boaz had his sandal taken off when he could not become Ruth's husband. This relative stands for the law. The law was closely related to Israel, but it was helpless to redeem the nation. Boaz pictures the Lord Jesus, the only One who can redeem... the removed sandal showed that the man admitted his weakness before someone greater. In the same way the law must admit its weakness next to Christ, the Man of strength and of infinite grace.
The same writer names what that stepping aside made room for.
The law in Israel had proved that it had no power to redeem the poor and the stranger. So it stood aside, and grace and truth in the person of Boaz acted for the blessing of Naomi and Ruth.
The verse calls this the way of attesting in Israel. Attesting needs witnesses. Ten men of the city watched, and their presence made the sandal evidence of three failures.
This was the end of all dispute, the very end of every claim by the other kinsman... So the ten men of the city witnessed that the other kinsman's claims were over. He could not redeem. He could not raise up the name of the dead. He could not give rest to poor, forsaken Ruth.
The custom served to confirm a transaction. It closed the matter for good.
Once the kinsman had pulled off his shoe, Ruth's case could never come to a second trial on his side. The question was settled for ever. It was so with the law... To try to get back past the cross, and to put yourself on trial again under law, is sheer madness. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
Commentators differ on how far to take the scene. Some urge restraint.
So here we see two features of God's dealing with Israel rather than with us. Clearly the earthly people and the land go together. This has no application at all to the church of God. You may, of course, use the picture... but it needs a delicate touch.
Others take the scene straight to Christ.
The nearest relative removes his sandal — the law hands over its rights to Christ. The witnesses, gathered for this very purpose, acknowledge those rights. Boaz redeems the inheritance so that he may have Ruth, for he cares more about this stranger's well-being than about all that belongs to her.
- Custom — Removing the sandal was Israel's old way of confirming a redemption or exchange. The shoe stood for the foot that walked the land. Handing it over meant giving up the property and the position with it.
- Confession — The sandal came off the man who could not act. It was his admission of weakness before someone stronger. The law stood aside so grace could work.
- Transfer — What one man gave up, Boaz received. The sandal was his pledge that the whole inheritance would follow.
- Testimony — Ten men of the city turned a private refusal into public evidence. He could not redeem. He could not raise up the name of the dead. He could not give Ruth rest.
- Rest — Once the shoe came off, the case could never be reopened. Commentators differ on how far to press the picture. On this they agree: the failure was closed, and the redeemer stepped in.
And he that had the right of redemption said to Boaz, Buy for thyself; and he drew off his sandal.
At the city gate of Bethlehem, ten elders sit as witnesses while a nearer relative refuses to buy Naomi's field along with Ruth. He seals that refusal not with a signature but with a sandal.
The gesture came from the way a man took hold of land in the first place.
Taking off the shoe was an ancient custom too. According to Ruth 4:7, people used it in cases of redemption and exchange, to confirm a business deal. The custom came from the way a man took possession of land. He walked on the soil, and he claimed his right to it by standing on it in his shoes. So taking off the shoe and handing it to another man became a symbol of giving up his position and his property.
The handover gave away every inch of the claim. It also gave Boaz a pledge of what was still to come.
The kinsman-redeemer said out loud that he would not redeem the inheritance. The ancient custom confirmed that refusal in public and made it legal: he handed Boaz one of his sandals. By this he gave up to Boaz his claim on the whole inheritance, and on every part of it, down to a foot's breadth. A foot's breadth pictured the smallest piece of land a man might hold as an inheritance. Receiving the sandal was also a pledge that Boaz would receive the whole inheritance in time.
The man was willing. He was simply not able.
Notice that the kinsman-redeemer who was more closely related than Boaz was certainly willing to redeem, but his ability limited his willingness. He could say, "I will redeem it," yet twice he had to admit, "I cannot redeem it." He had his own inheritance to look after, and he found that more than enough to deal with. Redeeming his brother was beyond him. Because this nearer kinsman was more closely related to Naomi than Boaz, he seems to picture our fellow man rather than the law. Surely no man has a nearer kinsman than those of his own family.
Commentators differ here. Vallance sees this man as a picture of our fellow man. Others, quoted below, see him as a picture of the law.
Ten men sat as the jury for this case. The number itself is worth a second look.
Notice also that all this happens before a jury of ten men, witnesses of the law and of the facts. These ten may well remind us of those "ten words," or commandments, which give full testimony to the claims of God, the ruin of man, and their own powerlessness to redeem. Everything is done legally. "Through the law I died to the law," says the apostle. So the law itself testifies that it has no power to redeem. "So that I might live to God," he adds — the law hands its claims over to Another.
Once the sandal changed hands, the case closed for good. That carries a warning for anyone who still hopes the law can save him.
Once the kinsman had pulled off his shoe, Ruth's case could never come to a second trial on his side. The question was settled for ever. It was the same with the law… So remember this: after the cross, no man can ever stand trial again under that other kinsman, the law. It has been proved once and for all that he is only lost and guilty, and that the law cannot give him redemption, a new life, and rest with God. Trying to get back behind the cross, and to put yourself on trial again under law, is sheer madness.
Nothing is lost in the handover. The claim moves from someone who cannot act to someone who can.
No, the law certainly cannot raise up the name of the dead man on his inheritance. Only the power of God in grace can meet the need pictured here. The kinsman passes his shoe — the sign of taking possession — to the one who has the power. The law testifies and gives up its rights to Christ, and He is declared the only possible Redeemer.
Boaz took the field, but the field was never the point.
Boaz redeems the inheritance to gain Ruth, because he cares more about this foreign woman's well-being than about all that belongs to her. Christ has done even more for the Church. He gave up all that was His to buy her.
- Sandal: The shoe walked the soil and marked ownership. Handing it over gave up every claim, down to a foot's breadth of ground.
- Refusal: The nearer kinsman was willing but not able. Twice he had to say "I cannot." His own inheritance was already more than he could handle.
- Witnesses: Ten men made the handover legal. They recall the ten commandments, which testify to man's ruin and to their own powerlessness to redeem.
- Transfer: What the shoe gives up, it gives to someone stronger — the rights pass to the one who has the power to act.
- Purchase: Boaz bought the land to gain Ruth. The redeemer wanted the person more than the property.
And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi;
Ruth 4:9 is the moment the deal is closed. In the gate of Bethlehem, before the elders and the whole town, Boaz names what he has bought back — everything that belonged to Naomi's dead husband and his two sons.
Boaz did not settle this privately with Naomi. He took it to the place where the town handled its legal business, in front of everyone.
With the promptness and energy of a heart fully engaged, Boaz goes up to "the gate." This was the place of rule, where people settled all matters and made all transfers. It would match the courts of today, where people complete all their legal business. In the matter he was handling, nothing was to be done "in a corner." Everyone concerned had to agree, and men with legal authority to approve it had to witness it in the light of open day.
The verse names three dead men — Elimelech, Chilion, Mahlon. Boaz was buying back the whole holding of a family that had died out. Two widows gained by it.
The account of what happened in the gate of Bethlehem shows that the redemption had two parts. First, he bought from Naomi everything that belonged to her husband and her two sons; all three men had died in the land of Moab. Second, he "bought" Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, to be his own wife. So both widows gained by the deal. Naomi received from Boaz the value of the inheritance to live on. She had depended on what Ruth gathered in the barley fields, and now, by comparison, she was "rich and increased with goods." And Ruth the "stranger" became the wife of Boaz of Bethlehem, the "mighty man of wealth." Boaz had admitted that he was a "brother" to the dead Elimelech, in the broad sense of a near relative. So he took on a brother's duty under the law (Deut. 25:5-10): to marry the widowed Ruth and raise up children to carry on Elimelech's name and inheritance in the tribe of Judah and the land of Israel.
This was more than charity for two poor women. Behind the sale stood a landowner with a prior claim.
In fact, this involved more than supporting the impoverished widows. The inheritance was Jehovah's gift to this family, and for that reason it had to be recovered and made secure to them. In the days of Joshua, Elimelech's ancestors received this piece of ground by lot, to hold for themselves and their heirs for all time. Jehovah was the landowner: "the land is mine" (Lev. 25:23). Any question affecting the line of succession or a change of occupant had to be settled on a righteous basis in the eyes of Jehovah. Redemption was a sacred transaction, and not a mere matter of human bargaining.
Someone held a claim on this land, and Boaz met it with money.
Boaz, however, redeemed the inheritance by paying for it, not by force. He was wealthy enough to pay what was asked to get it back. We are not told the price, but it fully met every righteous claim of the creditor. And the New Testament reveals this: by the immeasurable value and effect of His sacrificial offering, Christ Jesus "obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12).
Ruth came from Moab, a nation Israel's law kept at a distance. The same law provided the door she walked through.
In this way the law of Israel was kept perfectly. Ruth was a Moabite, and the law forbade accepting a Moabite to the tenth generation. Yet Israel welcomed her in, because Israel's law had also made provision for a related redeemer to do exactly that. In the same way, the law shut ungodly Gentiles out of Israel. But the law still bore witness to the coming of the Lord Jesus, whose great sacrifice has brought redemption for the ungodly.
Commentators see this call for witnesses as a picture of an announcement still to come for Israel.
Boaz calls the elders and all the people to witness that he has bought the whole forfeited inheritance and the Gentile widow Ruth. In the same way, our Lord will call everyone to witness His redemption of His desolate people. "Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned" (Isa. 40:1-2).
Ruth had been picking up leftovers in those fields. After this announcement, they belonged to her husband — and so to her.
For Ruth, the result was that Boaz became not only her redeemer but her bridegroom. The fields where she gleaned became hers too. She got the inheritance. Our true Boaz, our Kinsman, Redeemer and Bridegroom, will share with us His wide fields, His glorious inheritance. The saints are "heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ."
- Price — Boaz bought the land back instead of seizing it, and the price met every righteous claim.
- Right — the land was God's gift to that family, so the transfer had to be righteous, not a private bargain.
- Public — he took it to the gate, so nothing was done in a corner and the whole town could confirm it.
- Reach — the law itself provided a redeeming relative, so a woman from Moab came into Israel with no rule bent.
- Inheritance — her redeemer married her, so the field she once gleaned in became hers.
moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his place ye are witnesses this day.
At Bethlehem's gate Boaz says out loud what he has bought and why: a dead man's name must not vanish from his own town. Two things in that announcement surprise a modern reader — a woman is "bought," and the buyer never mentions his own gain.
Boaz's announcement covers a field and a marriage in one deal.
The redemption had two parts. First, Boaz bought from Naomi everything that had belonged to her husband and her two sons; all three men had died in Moab. Second, he "bought" Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, to be his wife. So both widows gained by the transaction. Naomi received from Boaz the value of the inheritance to live on. She had depended on Ruth's gleanings in the barley fields, and now she was well off. And Ruth the "stranger" became the wife of Boaz the Bethlehemite, the mighty man of wealth. Boaz had owned himself a "brother" — a near relative of the dead Elimelech. So he took up a brother's duty under the law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. He was to marry the widowed Ruth and raise up offspring. In that way Elimelech's name and inheritance would continue in the tribe of Judah and the land of Israel.
At the very moment she becomes a wife, she is still called by the name of the foreign nation she came from.
In the presence of the same ten men who had witnessed the first kinsman's refusal to buy the inheritance, he buys everything — the inheritance, and Ruth too, the Moabitess, as she is called to remind us of the grace of the transaction.
That title carried a legal barrier, and writers point out that the same law which shut Moab out also opened the door.
Ruth was a Moabitess, yet Israel welcomed her into its community. The law forbade accepting a Moabite until the tenth generation. That was possible because Israel's law had also made provision for a related redeemer to bring such a person in.
The nearer relative had the first legal right, and he refused it.
No, the law certainly cannot raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance. Only the power of God in grace can meet the need pictured here. The kinsman hands over his shoe — the sign of entering into possession — to the one in whom there is power. The law testifies and yields its rights to Christ, and He is declared the only possible Redeemer.
That man stands for the law itself.
Like this man, the law had prior rights over Israel. The law demands; it takes, and it gives nothing. It would no longer be the law if it could take on the work of grace… It is a minister of death and cannot give life to the dead.
The record never names the price Boaz paid, only the result.
The price that Boaz paid we are not told, but the property and the person he wanted both became his. Redemption gave him the title to claim Ruth as his bride… "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field" (Matthew 13:44). The field is the world. The hidden treasure means the souls in it that are precious to the Saviour's heart. For their sake He sells all that He has and gives up everything… For the sake of the treasure — "His own" — He buys all.
One writer dwells on what that day meant for Ruth herself.
What a day of gladness for poor Ruth! What a perfect work Boaz finished for her that day — what a complete change for her, what perfect rest! She is no longer the poor, sorrowing, outcast Moabitess. No more gleaning and beating out grain. No more coming and going. No more enjoying blessing with Boaz one hour and being away from him, desolate, the next. The stranger gleaner is now one with him forever… You had nothing to bring to him. Boaz had everything to give for you.
The two purchases, land and person, point beyond Bethlehem.
He buys the inheritance, and it becomes his. He also takes Ruth for himself, named the Moabitess here for the last time. Israel's land is yet to be known as Immanuel's, for indeed He has bought it at its full value. The people, also, are the purchased of His love. In Ruth's case the picture must fall short… "For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called" (Isaiah 54:5).
- Demand — the law had the prior claim, but it takes and gives nothing. It cannot give life to the dead, so it steps aside and hands its right to the One who has power.
- Purchase — Boaz buys the field and the widow in one act; the price is never named, only the result — both became his.
- Grace — she is still "the Moabitess" on her wedding day. The barrier was real, and a related redeemer removed it.
- Rest — the gleaner had nothing to bring. The day Boaz bought her ends her coming and going for good.
- Name — the purchase keeps a dead man's name alive on his own land; Israel's land and people will yet be known as Immanuel's.