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.