Thursday, November 4, 2010
God Is At Work - The Story of Ruth Part IV - The Providence of God, Part 7 of 23
TEXT: "Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave it to the other; and this was an attestation in Israel. Therefore the near kinsman said to Boaz, 'Buy it for yourself.' So he took off his sandal" (Ruth 4:7-8).
IDEA: What is promised in private is made permanent in a formal public declaration.
PURPOSE: To help listeners realize why a personal commitment needs to be made public.
How do you respond to someone who says that a couple's commitment is all that really matters? A marriage license is nothing more than "a piece of paper"?
How do you respond to people who argue that because you don't have to be baptized to be a Christian, therefore baptism is unnecessary?
I. There is an answer to that question in an interesting interruption in the story of Ruth. It describes an ancient legal custom that the storyteller feels is necessary for his readers to know about:
Ruth 4:7-8 – "Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave it to the other; and this was an attestation in Israel. Therefore the near kinsman said to Boaz, 'Buy it for yourself.' So he took off his sandal."
This is one of the few documents from the ancient world to tell how a legal process was actually carried out. What actually happened?
Apparently the man waiving his right to something gave his sandal (or sandals) to the other party. How do you think that symbol in a public ceremony may have come about?
In the Old Testament, to "set foot" on the land was associated with ownership of it (Deuteronomy 1:36, 11:34).
In texts outside the Old Testament, to validate a transfer of real estate, the old owner would lift up his foot from the property and place the new owner's foot on it.
The sandal custom in Ruth 4:7 may be a symbolic offspring of such ancient customs. Originally what was associated with land transfer became a symbol for other transactions as well. In this case, a transfer of RIGHTS is involved.
It is a visual way for the elders and the bystanders to be legal witnesses.
Why do you think that the author stopped the flow of the story to talk about this?
II. Is the fact that this was a strange way to make legal a personal and somewhat private transaction insignificant?
What about a marriage ceremony for a couple? What does it say?
What about a baptism for a Christian?
