5. RUTH REDEEMED : CHAPTERS 3 and 4
RUTH REDEEMED : CHAPTERS 3 and 4
Ruth at the feet of Boaz is a beautiful picture of the sinner at the feet of the Saviour, but whereas in the type Boaz does not undertake the work of redeeming until Ruth has thus sought his help, in the case of the seeking sinner at the feet of Christ the work of redemption is all fully done. He has already accomplished the work, and it but remains for the sinner to accept what the Redeemer is waiting to bestow. With Ruth it was the reverse; in other words, the type - painted onwards to a work of redemption which was yet future, whilst we look back to Calvary and there see a finished work crowned with glory and honour. At this juncture it behoves us to look more closely at the person of Boaz as a type of Christ, and a consideration of this "mighty man of wealth" will well repay the Bible student.
There are four important facts we do well to observe:
Firstly his name. The meaning of Bible names is always suggestive, and this is by no means an exception to the rule. Boaz means "In him is strength," or "In him the strong one," which as regards the Anti-type is true to a very far greater extent. In Jer 50:34 we read, "Their Redeemer is strong," or as the margin gives it, "Their Kinsman-Redeemer[1] is strong." Psa 89:19 says, "I have laid help upon One that is mighty, I have exalted One chosen out of the people." Of a truth our Divine Boaz is strong and mighty, and because of His almighty power "He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him" (Heb 7:25).
Boaz was not only strong, but he was also a mighty man of valour. He was possibly one of the richest men of that time, but whether that be so or not we know of a surety that our Redeemer is certainly "a mighty man of wealth." Not only can He claim the cattle upon a thousand hills, but "all things were created by Him and for Him" (Col 1:16). The sun, the moon, the stars, yea, the whole vast universe all belong to that One, Who, blessed be His Name, has made Himself my Saviour; and, what is more, has made me a joint-heir with Himself of all His vast inheritance. But more even than this He is mighty in wealth not only in possessions, but also as to His own blessed Person.
"For in Him all the fulness (of the Godhead) was pleased to dwell." (Col 1:19. J.N.D. translation).
"In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col 2:9).
What wealth to be sure, and how it should bow our hearts in adoring worship when we think that that One before whom seraphim and cherubim veil their faces and cry "Holy, Holy, Holy," permits poor frail faltering man when redeemed by precious blood, to draw nigh into His immediate presence with holy boldness. May we never forget, whilst realising our blessed portion, that reverence and godly fear befits such a Presence.
All the foregoing thoughts concerning both type and Anti-type have presented Christ in His essential Deity, but we must also consider the other equally important side of our Lord’s Person, namely, His Humanity.
Boaz whose name means "In him is strength," and who was the mighty man of wealth, was not thereby constituted a kinsman-redeemer; something else was essential for that, but once his position as such was clear, then these matters proved his ability to fulfil that office. So in the anti-type, whilst the very need of the sinner demanded nothing short of Deity to satisfy the holy and righteous claims of God, and to provide salvation for man, yet that of itself - wonder of wonders - was not sufficient to link the blessed Son of God with those whom He would redeem. We would pause and consider as we pen these words, for they seem so tremendous, and no mere mortal would dare utter them unless he were assured by the Scriptures that such was indeed the case, but as God Himself has seen fit to place such a wonderful fact on record we can but accept it by faith and seek to proclaim far and wide the glorious message that it contains. However, let us come back to our type, and consider this important phase of our subject in the light of it.
Boaz was a kinsman-redeemer, near of kin unto Naomi. As she herself says, "One of our next kinsmen" (2:20). Then if neither his name nor his wealth constituted him such, we must endeavour to find out what did bring him into this position, and thus we need to ask two questions: "Who could be a kinsman-redeemer?" and "What was required of such?" and for our answer we turn to Lev 25:25-26.
"If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it then shall he redeem that which his brother sold. And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it."
Also verses 47-49, "And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family: either his uncle or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he is able, he may redeem himself." From the law of the Lord contained in these verses we observe that only a near of kin could perform the part of the kinsman-redeemer - in other words, there must first of all be relationship to the one needing redemption, either a brother (Lev 25:25), or an uncle, or an uncle’s son (Lev 25:49). The kinsman-redeemer was to step in, in cases of disaster and difficulty, and buy back either the property or persons, or both, of the relatives who had sold themselves or their possessions to a stranger. More than this, the responsibility laid upon such was not to be shelved or evaded. The kinsman-redeemer who refused to fulfil his office was to be in disgrace in Israel. For this see Deu 25:5-10. That man through the fall was in a condition of disaster and difficulty there is no need to explain here, and further my reader will readily agree that a Redeemer was certainly needed, One who was both able and willing to save. But perhaps you have never thought or noticed from God’s word the necessity of such an One being related to us. If salvation was to be provided it had to come by One who could claim relationship, that is, relationship by birth. Hence it is that we are told in Heb 2:14-17 concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, "Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood He also Himself likewise took part of the same. For verily He took not hold of angels, but He took hold of the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." And again that well known passage in Php 2:7 tells us that He "made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men," and again Gal 4:4, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law," and just one other passage we would refer to in this connection, Rom 9:4-5, "Who are Israelites. and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." Here we have the true Humanity, as well as the Deity, of Christ set forth in the one verse.
All these Scriptures, and many more, speak of the humanity of the Saviour, and from them we learn that it was as essential for the Son of God to become Man as it was for the Saviour of sinners to be God Himself. The two wonderful themes are inseparable, the Kinsman-Redeemer for mankind must be, and can only be, God Incarnate - Man Divine - the God-man Christ Jesus. His humanity proves His right to redeem, for thereby He became related to us - sin apart - whilst His Deity supplies the ability to redeem. The essential qualifications of a kinsman-redeemer of old were:
1. His right to redeem.
2. His ability to redeem.
3. His will to redeem. As we shall see presently there was a kinsman-redeemer in the case of Ruth who could claim priority in relationship even over Boaz, one who most surely had the right to redeem, and further was willing to redeem, but alas he came short in the second qualification. His ability to accomplish that work was lacking and he was rendered helpless to undertake the task. But Boaz not only had the right to redeem and was willing to do so, but best of all, he was able. So in the case of the Saviour, He had the rightto redeem man, by virtue of His tremendous stoop from the highest glory to the deepest depths of humiliation. Because He was the Son of God became Man, it settles once and for all the question of the Redeemer’s righttoredeem, whilst the glorious fact that He who didbecome Man was also very God, establishes without doubt or controversy His abilityto undertake the work. But perhaps the crowning hate of all is to be found in the fulfilment of the requirement, namely, His willingness.Out of love to our souls the blessed Saviour willingly undertook our case, giving Himself a ransom for all, and now writer and reader can say (if the latter is a child of God) "The Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me." He who thus fulfilled all three qualifications of the Kinsman-Redeemer has accomplished the task to the entire satisfaction of a thrice holy and righteous God, and redemption is now a glorious fact, procurable by whosoever will. Appropriation by the sinner is all that is needed to obtain the blessing which Christ has secured.
One interesting observation we would make just here is that it was only the poor who needed a kinsman-redeemer. The rich had no need of such an one, but the poor Israelite who was in dire poverty was the one that needed the redeemer’s help. How true today. Not many noble, rich and wealthy, not the righteous Pharisee nor the moralist, but sinnersJesus came to call. May the Gospel preacher ever seek to show man his needof a Saviour by showing man’s utterly lost, hopeless and bankrupt condition. In order that Christ might be our Kinsman-Redeemer He became man, but there is another great wonder in the sequel, and that is, that when I put my trust in Him and accept His work of redemption, I not only find I have a Saviour related to me as Man, but I am brought into His relationship and become a child of God, a member of the Church of God which is His Body, and He Himself says that "He is not ashamed to call us brethren." His grace is thus shown in thus identifying His redeemed ones with Himself; but for us to speak of Him as "our elder brother," as one hears and reads so often, is, alas, sad and without Scriptural authority. He is to us Lord and Master, and whilst He in grace calls us "His brethren," may we never speak of Him as "our brother," but rather may we with the utmost reverence adore the blessed Person of our Redeemer. The fourth observation we would make regarding Boaz is also important. He was not the nearest kinsman, and therefore his right to redeem could only be exercised after the one who could claim prior relationship had either refused, or proved his inability, to fulfil that office.
Boaz having assured Ruth that he would do to her all that she required, takes upon himself to deal with the nearer kinsman, and takes the proper steps to ensure that the whole matter shall be dealt with in a proper manner and in full publicity. There was to be nothing done in a corner, everything must be witnessed and legally assured. But observe Boazsees to all this, Ruth does nothing. Naomi also counsels her daughter-in-law saying: "Sit still my daughter until thou know how the matter will fall, for the man will not be in rest until he has finished the thing this day" (3:18). All this betokens complete confidence in Boaz and shows that everything is left to him in the way of "doing" or working. So in dealing with seeking souls we need to counsel them to place complete confidence in Christ. Absolute faith in Him and His word is the only way of true peace and rest. As to the kinsman that was nearest of kin to Naomi there are many who teach that he is a type of the law, but this presents many difficulties, principally because the essential qualification of a kinsman-redeemer was relationship by birth,and how can the law be said to be related to man in this way? Rather would we say that the ten witnesses in chapter 4:2 typify the lawcontained in the ten commandments, for they try and test both the nearest kinsman and also Boaz, as to their respective ability and willingness to redeem the inheritance, and in the one case prove the inability to redeem, and in the other witness that the transaction was carried out in full accord with the requirements of the law of the God of Israel.
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" (Psa 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.
What Boaz does with regard to this nearer kinsman seems to confirm this suggestion, for it is in the presence of the ten witnesses that his inability to redeem is declared and proved, and as we look back over the stream of time we see that God Himself has been bringing men before His holy law, testing and proving them as it were, to see if there could possibly be found one among the sons of men who could undertake this work, but the law only condemns and proves us all guilty - therefore unable to redeem either ourselves or our brother. At the cross we see the final scene. Man shows himself in all his sin, and God condemns sin in the flesh in the Person of His Son, and for ever is it divinely assured that man can never accomplish redemption, but that Christ Jesus has once and for all "obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb 9:12).
Surely the scene in Ruth 4:1-22 is a type of Calvary for what type of redemption would be complete without a picture of that scene? The same law which proves man’s inability to redeem his brother or himself, gloriously witnesses to the perfection of the work of Christ, and He thereby becomes "the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth" (Rom 10:4). Hence forward we are not under law, but under grace, made "free indeed" by the Son Himself.
We have but to add a final word upon the subject of redemption, ere we draw to a close this most interesting, and we trust profitable, study.
There are many passages of Scripture speaking about redemption which appear to have a contradictory note about them, for in this, as in many other subjects of the Bible, one portion seems to teach the exact opposite to another portion. We say "seems to teach" because we know that really there is no discord, and it is but our failing to rightly divide the Word of God, or to distinguish things that differ that makes this apparent difficulty. But in case there may be some who are troubled and perplexed upon this subject, let us briefly consider one or two passages in this connection and seek help in understanding them. Take, for instance, two verses from the Epistles to the Ephesians:
Eph 1:7 "In whom we have redemption."
Eph 1:14 "Which is the Earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession". or again two other verses:
1Pe 1:18-19, "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold . . . . but with the precious blood of Christ."
Rom 8:23, "We ourselves, groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." In each case the first passage speaks of redemption as an accomplished fact, whilst in the second passage, in both instances, redemption appears to be yet future. Now, how should we interpret this, and what are we to understand by the distinction which the Holy Spirit has doubtless made for our instruction? We shall the better understand this, I think, by means of a simple illustration. A man of fairly moderate means owns several houses, but through diverse circumstances and financial difficulty he has to mortgage all his possessions, including the very house he lives in, assigning all right therein to another, and he himself is reduced to dire poverty. One day, however, a near relative, who is very wealthy, calls upon him and undertakes to re-purchase the property; in other words, to redeem it. This he does and secures the title deeds, proving that he is now the true owner of the property. There is not a shadow of a doubt about it, the property now belongs to that near relative - he has redeemed it - it is legally his, certified by a proper legal document, duly stamped and witnessed, and he can now say of all that man’s estate, "That now is mine, for I have redeemed it."
So, in the case of the sinner who realises his utter lost and bankrupt condition, and sees in Christ One who has redeemed him - bought him back. He no longer belongs to himself, nor yet to Satan whom he served so long, he is now not his own, but has been bought with a price - the precious blood of Christ. The Saviour can truly say of such an one, "Thou art Mine, I have redeemed thee," and in this respect redemption is an accomplished fact. The transaction has been completed and the matter is settled. Such is the teaching of Eph 1:7 and 1Pe 1:18, but now to revert again to our illustration, having redeemed the property this wealthy relative installs a representative to attend to all matters requiring attention. He is to have the whole place thoroughly cleaned, every sign of filth and dirt must go, new windows must be put in, all damage repaired - in fact, the whole place is to be made to look like new. This, of course, takes time, but when it is all finished the owner himself comes down and resides there permanently, and when he speaks of that house he says, "This is now my house." It was his before legally, but this is not what he means now. He means that it is his in a special sense now, it is fit for his presence and he and the original owner live together. Do you not see in this faint illustration a picture of what the Saviour does with all those He redeems. The Holy Spirit takes up His abode in us the moment we put our trust in Christ [to be precise: from the moment we have believed the gospel of our salvation and have been sealed with the Spirit], and throughout the rest of our life down here He is preparing us (maybe removing some of the hideous things which grew upon us in our unconverted days, or repairing the damage that sin had wrought in our lives, for there is coming a day - probably very soon now - when the Saviour Himself is coming, not to reside down here with us, but to take us up to live with Him - how necessary then is the work of the Holy Spirit today in removing all defilement and fashioning us for yon bright scene, and how careful we should be lest we hinder His gracious work. The day is fast drawing near when the Saviour will return for His spotless bride which He redeemed long, long ago. She is His now by right, but then, in that day, in a special sense and in a further degree He will say, "Thou art mine for I have redeemed thee." This is what Eph 1:14 and Rom 8:24 teaches when it speaks of the "redemption of the purchased possession," and "the redemption of our body." May we who "have this hope in Him purify ourselves even as He is pure," for "the Coming of the Lord draweth nigh." May we who havebeenredeemedlook forward with joyful anticipation to the time when the "purchased possession" shall enter into the final stage of its redemption.
G. F. VALLANCE
[1] Almost without exception where Christ is spoken of in Scripture as "The Redeemer," it should read "Kinsman-Redeemer," the meaning of which we are about to consider.