The Intro
[ Parent Saves Video ]
It’s always fun to watch these videos, isn’t it? When I was looking these up, my kids gathered around to watch and we all ooh’d and ahh’d and laughed and gasped and good times were had by all.
But that parental instinct is a strong one, isn’t it?
In fact, not all the videos I saw were this fun or funny or heartwarming. Some made me squeamish and some were downright heartwrenching. Some saw parents being hit by cars to save their children. I even saw video of the last moments of someone’s life, and in that moment, she had no consideration at all for herself, her only concern was to save her child. Risk of bodily injury or death didn’t even occupy a moment’s thought, because they were laser-focused on their kids.
We saw that not so long ago in Afghanistan when the Americans were pulling out and these Afgan women were literally throwing their babies and toddlers over the razor-wire fences to American Troops in hopes of getting them on the transport to the U.S. These women weren’t worried about what would happen to them. In fact, they couldn’t even be sure they would even see their children again, but the hope of a better future was a risk-reward proposition they felt was worth the trade-off.
But the thing is, when you hear these stories about a parent saving their child’s life, no one is ever surprised by them. The stories can be heart-breaking or heart-warming, but they are never surprising. This is expected behaviour for parents. It would only be surprising if they did nothing.
What is surprising is when someone performs such an act for strangers. We just recently passed an auspicious anniversay. 20 years since the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City. A date stamped forever in the world’s psyche. Here is a photo of a scene we all know so well.
[ WTC SMOKE ]
This famous photo was first published on October 5, 2001. And if we scroll down to the bottom.
[ LADDER 118 ]
We see Hook & Ladder 118 responding. All six men on that truck would die when the towers finally gave way and collapsed.
[ clear ]
These and many others are rightly remembered as heros for doing what any parent would do in a heartbeat. So what’s the difference? These men made that sacrifice for strangers.
Whether you are a parent, a spouse, a friend, neighbour, stranger, or – yes – even enemy… Real love is sacrifical. Real love puts others first. I was torn for my opening song, I ended up using “Lookin’ Out For No. 1” by Bachman Turner Overdrive in a kind of ironic sense, but I almost went with “Hurts So Good” by John Mellencamp. Because sometimes love don’t feel like it “should”, make it hurt so good.
Let’s throw that in our pockets for now and read our passage for this morning. You’ll remember that Ruth asked Boaz to marry her, but he told her there is another redeemer who must be given the rights of first refusal. Our story picks up the following morning, starting in Chapter 4 and Verse 1. I’m reading – as usual – from the New English Translation.
The Verse
Now Boaz went up to the village gate and sat there. Then along came the guardian whom Boaz had mentioned to Ruth. Boaz said, “Come here, what’s-your-name, and sit down.” So he came and sat down. 2 Boaz chose ten of the village leaders and said, “Sit down here!” So they sat down. 3 Then Boaz said to the guardian, “Naomi, who has returned from the region of Moab, is selling the portion of land that belongs to our relative Elimelech. 4 So I am legally informing you: Acquire it before those sitting here and before the leaders of my people. If you want to exercise your right to redeem it, then do so. But if not, then tell me so I will know. For you possess the first option to redeem it; I am next in line after you.” He replied, “I will redeem it.” 5 Then Boaz said, “When you acquire the field from Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the wife of our deceased relative, in order to preserve his family name by raising up a descendant who will inherit his property.” 6 The guardian said, “Then I am unable to redeem it, for I would ruin my own inheritance in that case. You may exercise my redemption option, for I am unable to redeem it.” 7 (Now this used to be the customary way to finalize a transaction involving redemption in Israel: A man would remove his sandal and give it to the other party. This was a legally binding act in Israel.) 8 So the guardian said to Boaz, “You may acquire it,” and he removed his sandal.
The Prayer
The Breakdown
Verses 1
Now Boaz went up to the village gate and sat there. Then along came the guardian whom Boaz had mentioned to Ruth. Boaz said, “Come here, what’s-your-name, and sit down.” So he came and sat down.
If you’re like me, when reading this, the first thing you’ll notice is the other would-be redeemer’s name. Or lack thereof. Conrad, why does Boaz call this man “what’s-your-name”. Great question….
So the “village gate” – we’ve talked about this before – is something of a town square. This would have been a commerce center and a port of entry and exit. Anything that was happening, was happening at the village gate. But the question naturally becomes, why in the world would Boaz – who wants to deal with this issue immediately – go downtown looking for a specific man. I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to just go to the man’s house to sort this thing out?
Actually there are two reasons why Boaz would choose this locale.
The first is that the Village Gate severd not only as a commerce and tourism hub, but also as a Town Hall of sorts as well as… a courthouse. Now, there is no criminal component to this, it is merely a civil matter.
The second reason why Boaz would look for this other redeemer here is answered by verse 2…
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah! Conrad, you galloping galamimus, I hear you say, why are you rushing off to verse 2 when we still don’t know why the other redeemer’s name has been omitted!.
Interesting… interesting…
So in verse 2 we read:
Verse 2
Boaz chose ten of the village leaders and said, “Sit down here!” So they sat down.
So, the first reason Boaz chose the Village Gate is because it is a defacto courthouse, and the second is because he needs village leaders, that is to say village elders. I know some of you are thinking “tell me why-ee”. And now some of you will have that song stuck in your head all day… I apologize for nothing. But the “why” is to oversee the proceedings in case there is any contention that arises, and to witness the proceedings as an official record. This was the role of elders in the towns and cities of the day. And note that Boaz didn’t call aside some random number of elders. He needed 10. Why ten?
Becayse this would be an official, legal proceeding. He needed something of a quorum.
Now, either the other redeemer would act on his duty/right as a redeemer, or he would pass on it and allow Boaz to step in. Now this would have been a genuine point of concern. Remember that Ruth has a well-earned reputation as a virtuous, hard worker, of excellent character. Boaz’ risk of losing out on Ruth was very real since she also came with land. Which, I realize – as I say it out loud – sounds like something only Dwight Schrute would be excited about, but trust me, this would have been a very real consideration. And we’ll see why in just a minute.
Verse 3–4
Then Boaz said to the guardian, “Naomi, who has returned from the region of Moab, is selling the portion of land that belongs to our relative Elimelech. So I am legally informing you: Acquire it before those sitting here and before the leaders of my people. If you want to exercise your right to redeem it, then do so. But if not, then tell me so I will know. For you possess the first option to redeem it; I am next in line after you.” He replied, “I will redeem it.”
So Boaz sets this guy up for the 1–2 punch, it’s a stroke of genius. Masterful. “Chef’s Kiss” as the kids say.
Just in case you aren’t totally understanding the incredible picture painted by Boaz here, let me reall tease out the thought process for you.
Naomi has some land, now there is some debate as to whether Naomi actually owned the land or whether Elimelich sold it before they moved to Moab. Either way, it was hers to sell. If she owned it outright, there’s no problem. If Elemilech sold it, then, upon his death the current owner would be obliged to sell it back to her if she wanted it.
Now, the thing is, this isn’t a coroporate merger, this is a family redemption. So the land, while technicallyowned by the redeemer, was owned on behalf of the woman being redeemed. So any profits made from the land of fruit of the land would be given to the woman. BUT! Naomi was an old woman. She wasn’t going to remarry. She wasn’t going to have any more children. Eventually she woudl pass away, then this unnamed redeemer would have the land revert to him. Now it would be a profit centre for him and an inheritance for his own children. This was not merely an opportunity to do the right thing, this was a sound financial investment!
This is a win-win. So the other man jumps at this opportunity. “I’ll take it!” he declares… then this happens.
[ COLUMBO – ONE MORE THING ]
Verse 5
Then Boaz said, “When you acquire the field from Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the wife of our deceased relative, in order to preserve his family name by raising up a descendant who will inherit his property.”
So Boaz gets this guy all excited about this land that he will own and that will be part of his inheritance for his children, and the profits to be made… then he lets the other shoe drop. And also, Ruth needs a home. And she needs to be taken care of, and she needs an heir to carry on the family name. Oh, and that land? That’ll belong to her child. Who you also will be responsible for raising.
Suddenly this went from a profitable venture to a money pit.
See, because here’s the thing: Redemption was a selfless act. Redemption was an outward-focused act. Redemption was a loving act. Redemption was a sacrificial act. And you know what, it still is.
So then, how does this man respond to this new… development?
Verse 6
The guardian said, “Then I am unable to redeem it, for I would ruin my own inheritance in that case. You may exercise my redemption option, for I am unable to redeem it.”
This man is worried about his inheritance. So the natural follow-up is: why? Why would this ruin his own inheritance?
There are a couple reasons,
- The Costs of Upkeep: It would cost him money to buy the land from Naomi. And he would be obliged to give her and money that the land earns. So she could get both of the monitary value of the land, plus any money the land brings in, and he woudl be responsible for keeping the land and working the land and any associated costs.
- Additional Heirs: Under the Deuteronomic Law, only Ruth’s firstborn would carry on Elimilech and Mahlon’s family line. Any additional children that are produced from his marriage to Ruth would then share his existing estate.
Now, there are a couple other niggly questions that crop up here and I don’t want to dwell on them, but I do think they should be briefly addressed. So join me for a quick trip to Tangent Town.
The first of these tangents is the idea that Boaz was also a family man, but was better positioned to absorb the costs beause of his position.
Firstly, how much Biblical evidence is there that Boaz already had a wife and children? None. There is none Biblical evidence. So, where do people get this idea from? Two places.
The first is Jewish Tradition. Now, this is a bit of a stretch to me, but the Jewish Baba Batra identifies Boaz with Ibzan from Judges 12, and Ibzan was married and had thirty sons and thirty daughters and they all died within his lifetime. So the story goes that Boaz was linked to this guy because they shared a similar story, so Boaz couple identify with naomi and Ruth’s situation. I find this… unconvincing.
The second is based on the idea that it was generally unlikely that a man of Boaz’s position would be a bachelor at his current stage of life. Well… let me just say that God is a God of the unlikely. So that’s not a strong enough arguement for me to jump on the Boaz-was-married train.
Let me caution you, cultural study is an important tool, but we cannot use it to add things into the Bible that aren’t there. Boaz being married would have had rather large implications on this story, and given that the author literally pauses the momentum of the story to explain the rationale for handing off sandals, it seems like the sort of detail that might get a quick mention.
So, if you hear someone suggest that Boaz was married, that’s the origin of the idea. But – for what it’s worth – the majority of the Boaz-Was-Married crew believer that he was a widower with no heris. So anyway… I just don’t think there is enough evidence for Boaz-Was-Married theory to allow it to factor into the story.
Secondly, Boaz seems to indicate that the marriage of Ruth and the redemption of Naomi’s land are separately addressable items. Now, that certainly could be the case, having one man redeem Naomi and her land, and a second redeem Ruth and her land. Now, based on the way Boaz pitches the story that doesn’t seem to be the case, but even if it were, the way Boaz put the other man on the spot to take on Ruth as well is genius. Because it forces the man to look like a jerk if he only takes the land and leaves Ruth swinging in the wind. This way, no matter who does the redeeming, Ruth’s prospective son will one day inherit his family land.
Eeeaaasy, there cowboy, I hear you say, “We still don’t know the other man’s name”.
Oh, yes, right. We’ve been putting that off long enough. Now, the explanation is actually quite long, and involved, requiriing a lot of historical digging and geneaologies. And rather than try to disseminate all that by myself, I thought it would be better to use a video to explain it.
[ IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS ]
His name doesn’t matter! Boaz certainly knew it. The author of the book certainly knew it. Why was it left out of the story? No one knows for sure, maybe because they didn’t want to make him look bad in the story, maybe because he decided not to carry on the name of Mahlon, so the author decided not to carry on his name, but leave it lost to the dustbin of history. It’s difficult to say for sure, but at the end of the day it just doesn’t matter what his name is.
And that’s the bottom line.
Carrying on:
7
(Now this used to be the customary way to finalize a transaction involving redemption in Israel: A man would remove his sandal and give it to the other party. This was a legally binding act in Israel.)
I feel like Jerry Seinfeld here. What’s the deal with the sandal? The fact of the matter is that this custom was already outdated and obscure to the original readers – which is why the author of Ruth exaplins it. But sandals come up throughout the old and new testaments on a fairly regular basis. They were a few footwear-conscious people in the ancient world, apparently. But rather than re-package the work someone else has done, I’ll just read this very informative passage from “Ruth” by Robert L. Hubbard:
In the Old Testament “feet” and “shoes” symbolized power, possession, and domination (Joshua 10:24, Psalm 8:6, 60:8, 108:9). When Moses removed his shoes (Exodus 3:5; cf. Joshua 5:15), he acknowledged Yahweh’s lordship; when David walked barefoot, he showed his powerlessness and humiliation (II Samuel 15:30; cf. Isaiah 20:2–4; Ezekiel 24:17, 23). Feet and shoes also played symbolic roles in ancient property transactions.
[ THAT’S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT ]
8
So the guardian said to Boaz, “You may acquire it,” and he removed his sandal.
The Application
When we think of love, the wider culture seems to always depict it like this:
[ HEATHER LOCKLEAR – SCRUBS ]
That’s not love, frendo. At best it’s infatuation. At worst it’s lust.
Or maybe you have this idea that love happens to you. It hits you like a bolt of lightning. Or – and how often have we heard this – I fell in love. You fell? Like love is a pit that stubled into and now you figured… what? You’re going to live here now?
Or maybe you got the idea that love is puppies and unicorns and rainbow sprinkles! Like, love is this neverending fountain of joy and happiness. Well… it is… but it’s also a neverending fountain of frustration, and worry, and heartache. The people we invest our love in have the greatest ability to hurt us, too. That’s something I suspect most people in this room already knew.
But here’s the thing; Love is not a noun. Love is a verb. It is an action word. And – most importantly – It is a choice. You know, when I was a mouthy, moody teenager and my mother was at her wit’s end trying to deal with me, she would say, “Conrad, I’ll always love you, but I don’t like you very much right now”.
As you might expect, the Bible has something to say about this:
1 Corinthians 13:4–7 famously desribes love this way:
Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
And in Luke 6:32–33 Jesus chaleenges us this way:
“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.
The Call
So here’s the challenge I want to leave you with this week; The implication of Jesus’ words would seem to be that we are to love those who do NOT love us. We are to do good to those who do NOT do good to us. In fact, Jesus explicitly tells us in Matthew 5:43 that we are to love not only those who do not love us, but indeed we are to love our ENEMIES! We are to pray for those who persecute us.
So, you feeling persecuted? Time to get on your knees and pray for your persecutor.
Someone REALLY push your buttons this week? Respond with kindness.
Let’s work hard to be salt and light in a world where when someone is walking down the street smiling everyone wonders “what’s wrong with that guy?”
Let us pray and strive to default to love. Even when it’s impossibly hard. Because sometimes love don’t feel like it should. Make it hurt so good.