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.