Why did the first kinsman redeemer refuse to marry Ruth?

According to the custom in Israel it was a question of raising up the name of the dead and of re-establishing his inheritance. This duty fell to the nearest relative. Now there was a man there who had closer rights than Boaz over Elimelech's inheritance. Boaz speaks to him in the presence of numerous witnesses. Indeed, this man would like to have had the inheritance, but knowing that “the seed would not be his own” he does not consent to take Ruth to himself. Had he done so he would have impoverished himself and marred his own inheritance, for Ruth's children's possessions would not have returned to him nor to his family.

This close relative is a graphic type of the law. Indeed, like this man, the law which had prior rights over Israel demands; it takes, and it gives nothing. It would just no longer be the law if it could undertake the work of grace. Nevertheless, its weakness does not come from itself, but from those to whom it is addressed. The law expects something from man; but man shows that he is incapable of pleasing God. It promises life on condition of obedience, but since man is a sinner and disobedient the law can only condemn him. The law is a minister of death and cannot give life to the dead. Barren as it is, the law will never produce a posterity and cannot give birth to sons as divine progeny of the Messiah.

Boaz had stated clearly what was the position respectively of the two widows in regard to the inheritance. He said (1) that 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. And as soon as the goel redeemed the inheritance, Naomi would receive its value for her own immediate use and enjoyment. He said also (2) that Ruth, not being a daughter of Elimelech, had no title to the property under the special "statute of judgment" applying to daughters (Num. 27:6-11). But as the widow of Mahlon, she had a recognised place in the family. Moreover, seeing that her sister Orpah, the wife of her husband's brother, Chilion, remained in her own country, Ruth was the only one from whom, by suitable marriage, an heir might be expected to Elimelech's inheritance. These two facts will be found to be of importance when the typical aspect of the narrative is being considered (see pp. 60-69, section G).

The "nearer" goel had declined to marry Ruth, "lest," he said, "I mar mine own inheritance." He thought that by his marriage with the Moabitess, he would bring upon his family the stigma of a "stranger." Moreover, he would be taking money from his own inheritance to redeem another's, and so he would "mar" it to that extent. He suggested therefore that Boaz had better perform the part of a kinsman-redeemer (goel). In fact, the law in Israel had proved its own impotence to redeem the poor and the stranger, and it stood aside that grace and truth in the person of Boaz might act for the blessing of Naomi and Ruth.

The fourth chapter of Ruth illustrates the point. When Boaz challenged the kinsman nearer than himself as to the redemption of Elimelech's inheritance, at first the man proposed to act. All that occurred to him for the moment was the question of purchase, and it might have been a profitable transaction. When Boaz reminded him that redemption went further than mere purchase and involved his taking up all the rights and duties connected with the estate, the lifting up of the fallen, the entering into personal relationship with Ruth, and through her with Naomi, then he declined.

In the presence of the elders in the gate, Boaz stated the case of the lapsed inheritance to the next-of-kin (goel). Naomi, the widow of their relative, was desirous that the allotment of land which was her husband's hereditary possession might be redeemed. Boaz pointed out to the goel that on account of his near blood-relationship in the family, the primary right of redemption belonged to him. Would he exercise this right? If not, Boaz himself would redeem the inheritance. "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 (kinsman) Elimelech's. 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" (Ruth 4:3-4).

The "nearer" kinsman-redeemer (goel) was ready to exercise his legal right and to purchase the property. By so doing he would add to his own estate. Altogether, the proposal seemed to him a good bargain. "And he said, I will redeem it" (Ruth 4:4). But apparently he was unaware that the transfer of the allotment to him required that he should also marry Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, Elimelech's son. "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" (Ruth 4:5). This compulsory marriage was in accordance with the provision made in Jehovah's law (Deut. 25:6), in order that the family name might continue with the family freehold, even though its head died without heir, as had been the case of both Elimelech and his two sons. And it was the will of Jehovah that the inheritance of each family of the righteous people should be its perpetual possession (Lev. 25:23).

The "nearer" goel, however, was not prepared to carry out the latter part of the bargain by taking Ruth to wife and preserving the name of the dead to the inheritance. He at once revoked his former decision. "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" (Ruth 4:6). By this declaration in the presence of the elders of Bethlehem he who had the prior right of redemption publicly surrendered this right to Boaz, and the way was opened for the latter to fulfil the generous purpose of his heart.

When the close relative of Elimelech told Boaz that he would redeem the property of Elimelech, Boaz then informed him that Ruth, the Moabitess was also involved in the matter, for she was the wife of Chilion the son of Elimelech, and the relative must take Ruth to perpetuate the name of Elimelech, by having at least a child by Ruth (v. 5). But this was too much for the relative, who said he could not do this lest he would ruin his own inheritance (v.6). He wanted the land, but not Ruth.

There was another who had a prior claim. This other man said, 'Yes, I want the belongings, I want the possessions that belong to the husband of Naomi but I am not prepared to sacrifice my good name and my inheritance for a Moabitess, No, I do not want her as my wife'. He had the prior claim. Well, we know the story well, that Boaz said he was prepared to marry Ruth, and he did. That we read at the end of chapter 4.

We observe that the kinsman redeemer who could claim closer relationship than Boaz was certainly willing to redeem (see ch. 4:4), but his willingness was limited by his ability.Whilst he could say, "I will redeem it" he had to twice admit "I cannotredeem it." He had his own inheritance to attend to, and he found in that more than enough for him to deal with, and to attempt his brother's redemption was beyond him. I suggest for my readers careful consideration that something akin to this was in the Psalmist's mind when he wrote "None of them canby any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him" (Ps. 49:7). He did not suggest that none of them wouldredeem his brother if able to do so, but that it was an impossible task. How many of us, like the nearer kinsman of Naomi, wouldgladly redeem our near of kin if we could, but, alas, like him we have to admit "I cannot." Seeing that the nearer kinsman was one who was more closely related to Naomi than Boaz, he seems to typify our fellow man rather than the law, for surely man has no nearer kinsman than those who are of the same kith and kin.

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. It is not made void, as it would be were a single item of its requirements ignored. So for the guilty people who rest in the law and vainly boast in their privileges as a nation there is nothing but condemnation. They are in the place of the Moabite.

The nearer kinsman at first says, “I will redeem it;” but when Boaz puts before him all that was involved in the transaction, he relinquishes all claim, saying, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.” This was like the law. It first proposed to give man life. “This do, and thou shalt live.” It held before him the promise of blessing on condition of his obedience. But, this obedience man never rendered; and so as a means of blessing to man the law failed utterly. In the twenty-seventh chapter of Deuteronomy two mountains are mentioned, Gerizim, the mount of blessing; and Ebal, the mount of cursing. From these two mountains the Levites, who represented the law, were to pronounce either blessing or cursing on Israel as the case might be — of obedience or disobedience. They were instructed fully as to the curses. Twelve times they were to cry, “Cursed!” and it was to be “with a loud voice.” But they did not once say, “Blessed,” for law can only bless the good; and “there is none good, no not one.” No Levite voice was ever heard on mount Gerizim pronouncing blessings on the head of Israel, for none but the righteous, under law, can inherit blessing; and “there is none righteous, no not one.” Must sinners, then, remain unblest? Must justice effectually and forever withstand God’s purpose of love? No! Listen: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin (or, as a sacrifice for sin), condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Sin, not the law, has met its condemnation in the cross of Christ. The law was weak through the flesh. It promised life and blessing on condition of obedience, but the flesh in man prevented his yielding that obedience; so, as a means of blessing, it was “weak.” It demanded, but gave with its demand no power to fulfil. The nearer kinsman said to Boaz that he could not act the part of a redeemer without marring his own inheritance. And how marred would be the majestic dignity of God’s holy law if it could let sin pass unpunished, and bless transgressors whom it was, in its very nature, bound to condemn and curse. So it must step aside, like the nearer kinsman, and say, not, I have no right to curse, but, I cannot bless.

“It is true,” said Boaz, “that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.” “Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there, and, behold, the kinsman, of whom Boaz spake, came by, to whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside and sat down.” He also takes ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit ye down here, and they sat down.” And lest there should be any after misgivings or complainings, he tells the other kinsman the whole case of Ruth, and gives him the first and the fullest opportunity of redeeming Ruth and her lands. The other kinsman can manage well with the land, but cannot possibly either redeem Ruth, or “raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.” “And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem for myself, lest I mar my own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself, for I cannot redeem.”