# Redeemer?



## jbergsing (Jul 28, 2007)

> *Ruth 3:9:*
> 
> "He said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer."(ESV)
> "He said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative." (NASB)


I've never examined Ruth before today. This popped out at me so I have to ask: When Ruth calls Boaz, a close relative, a "redeemer" (ESV), is she implying there was an extension to other relatives in the custom of levirate marriage? Having read the story through, it makes sense to me.


----------



## kbergsing (Jul 29, 2007)

I think you are right. Pretty blunt, huh?


----------



## SRoper (Jul 29, 2007)

I don't believe Boaz was under any obligation to marry her, however. He was being gracious to her as there would have been no shame in not marrying her.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 29, 2007)

The social convention of levirate marriage, clearly in evidence even among the patriarchs, continued to evolve into a social institution among the Israelite nation, even to the point that God incorporates provisions for it in the Mosaic code.

We can only draw out some of the _*goel*_, or "redeemer" principles, because there is no elaborate treatment of the institution preserved in or out of the holy records. But as expressed in Moses and the Hebrew culture, it certainly was utilized as a type of the Messiah to come.

I plan to post something I wrote on Ruth in the "Theological Journal" forum, and link to it from this page, hopefully to address this question, and other questions related to the _goel._ Suffice to say for now that the OT book "Ruth" indicates, to my reading, that by a transition from convention (in the loose sociology of the patriarchal era) to institution (in the sociology of a complex civilizational order) the _goel_ came to be an *office* of sorts.

By way of illustration, consider the role of "avenger of blood," part of the _goel_ responsibilities. Unless this was a recognized office, chaos and mayhem would naturally result, as clan-based feuds tore the whole society apart, if anyone could simply declare himself "the avenger." As we read in Ruth, there is a definite "hierarchy" of rank (determined by what we may not tell), but which must be publicly acknowledged when transferred.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 29, 2007)

Here is the article.

Note: this was written for a seminary class. This is not a popular treatment, ESPECIALLY part 1.

Parts 2-3 are much more relevant to the board, but I left the first part attached for completeness.


----------



## jbergsing (Jul 31, 2007)

Thanks, Bruce. I appreciate that article.


----------

