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.