Why did the first kinsman redeemer refuse to marry Ruth?
The book of Ruth in the Bible tells the story of Ruth, a Moabite woman who married an Israelite named Mahlon. After Mahlon’s death, Ruth traveled to Israel with her mother-in-law Naomi and sought to provide for herself by gleaning in the fields. There she met and eventually married an Israelite man named Boaz, who became her kinsman-redeemer. However, before marrying Boaz, Ruth sought for a closer relative of her deceased husband to fulfill the duty of kinsman-redeemer first. This man is unnamed in Scripture but is referred to simply as “the kinsman.” He initially agreed to redeem Mahlon’s land and marry Ruth, but later changed his mind and refused to marry her.
There are several potential reasons why this first kinsman redeemer refused to carry out the full duties of kinsman-redeemer for Ruth’s situation:
1. He did not want to jeopardize his own inheritance. Marrying Ruth would have complicated the inheritance of his own estate, as any son born to them would be the heir of Mahlon. This could potentially take away from the inheritance of the kinsman’s existing sons. He was concerned about “endangering my own inheritance” (Ruth 4:6).
2. He did not want to marry a Moabite woman. The Moabites were longtime enemies of Israel, and there was animosity between the two peoples. Although the law made allowance for Moabite converts like Ruth, the kinsman may still have been reluctant to dilute the purity of his Israelite lineage by marrying a foreigner.
3. He was concerned about potential loss of wealth. As kinsman-redeemer, he would have had to purchase Mahlon’s land from Naomi. This would have been a financial burden, and if he later had a son with Ruth, part of his estate would go to that son as Mahlon’s heir. It was a risk he was not willing to take.
4. He did not have strong family loyalty or sense of duty. As a relative, he should have been eager to “raise up the name of the dead” and preserve Mahlon’s line (Deut 25:6). But he chose to forgo this family obligation and duty when it became inconvenient.
5. He may have had suspicions about Ruth’s character. As a foreigner, Ruth would have been viewed with some suspicion. The kinsman may have been worried that Ruth would not be a good wife and mother to his children if he married her. His hesitations show a lack of knowledge about Ruth’s true character.
6. He may have already had a wife and children. If the kinsman was already married with multiple sons, this would have complicated fulfilling the duty of kinsman-redeemer to Ruth. He would not have wanted to complicate his existing family structure and inheritance plans.
7. He was thinking only of himself, not others. The kinsman’s choice seems mostly motivated by self-interest – preserving his own inheritance, wealth, and family line. He did not consider the need to care for the widowed women Naomi and Ruth. His refusal showed a lack of sacrificial love.
So in summary, the first potential kinsman-redeemer refused to fulfill his duty to Ruth because of selfish motivations, concern for his own interests, fear of financial loss, distrust of foreigners, and lack of commitment to family loyalty. His choice contrasts starkly with the later sacrificial love shown by Boaz in being willing to marry Ruth and redeem her. Boaz did not let personal inconvenience prevent him from doing what was best for Ruth and Naomi. The kinsman’s refusal sets the stage for Boaz to step in as the ideal kinsman-redeemer, committed to compassion and family duty regardless of cost. Though nameless, the kinsman serves as a foil to Boaz’s greater righteousness and integrity.
Ruth’s scheming mother-in-law Naomi instructs Ruth to seek marriage through the cultural tradition of kinsman-redemption after both become widowed and destitute in Moab. Returning to Naomi’s homeland of Bethlehem, the impoverished women must rely upon extended family ties and levirate marriage for survival. Naomi hopes to obtain economic security for Ruth while carrying on the family line of her deceased son Mahlon through any potential child born to Ruth by one of Mahlon’s relatives. According to Deuteronomic law, the nearest unmarried male kinsman was obligated to marry a widow, father a child who would inherit the dead husband’s property, and provide ongoing economic support through marriage.
Initially appearing willing, the anonymous first kinsman balks upon realizing redemption of Mahlon’s land could undermine his own estate and inheritance plans. Likely already married with multiple sons to provide for, acquiring additional land and new widow Ruth as a wife complicated his patrilineal inheritance priorities, potentially diluting assets designated for existing sons. Financial implications and inheritance matters trumped observing kinship levirate duties. His undisclosed identity obscures motivations, but the nameless kinsman’s unilateral decision despicably abandoned helpless Naomi and Ruth to destitution, prioritizing self-interest and wealth over family redemptive obligations.
Given deeply ingrained ancient antipathy toward foreigners, the kinsman may have also objected to Ruth’s Moabite background. Intermarriage with non-Israelites was controversial despite Mosaic accommodation for converted immigrants like Ruth. Her status as a racial outsider and cultural foreigner potentially influenced the kinsman’s objection to levirate marriage. His unnamed identity conceals ethnocentric prejudices. Yet Ruth’s faithful character consistently demonstrated moral uprightness exceeding many Israelite women. The kinsman’s refusal due to Ruth’s ethnicity exhibited unmerited bias and rejection of a convert in contradiction to biblical teachings.
The biblical text provides no additional personal information about this unnamed kinsman, identified only by his relationship to Naomi’s family. But his actions spoke louder than words, willingly accepting land redemption to avoid poverty yet rejecting Ruth marriage after assessing levirate obligations more closely. His namelessness reinforces focus upon motivation and priority revealed through decisions. Despite kinship bonds and redemption laws urging protection of the vulnerable, the kinsman allowed self-interest to take priority over meeting redemptive needs of family widows. In doing so, he failed to live out Deuteronomic injunctions to community remedial justice.
Contrasted with Boaz’s later selflessness and integrity upholding both letter and spirit of kinsman law to aid the disenfranchised, the nameless kinsman’s refusal proved both morally and religiously deficient. It exhibited lack of sacrificial love commanded by God, disgracefully dismissing duties to destitute widows and aliens while advancing personal interests. The anonymous kinsman’s identity is irrelevant compared to timeless spiritual lessons from his choices. His namelessness emphasizes conduct over identity, underscoring that righteous character surpasses pedigree or status. By rejecting Ruth, the kinsman revealed misaligned priorities requiring correction by Boaz’s redemptive example.
Despite cultural stigma toward childless widows and female economic dependence, Naomi admirably supported Ruth’s
proactive pursuit of kinsman marriage to ensure their survival. Ancient patriarchal society offered few options for destitute single women lacking male protection. Yet Naomi respected Ruth’s dignity and personhood by guiding her to boldly exercise agency securing her own redemption. Naomi modeled principles of empowerment and autonomy centuries ahead of her time.
Ruth likewise demonstrated remarkable strength, integrity and initiative as she navigated formidable challenges and alienation as a minority female refugee. Her remarkable story reveals that marginalized people can possess honorable character exceeding even their advocates. Though the unnamed kinsman rejected Ruth due to her status as a foreigner and widow, Ruth’s perseverance led to vindication through Boaz’s protection. Her patient faith despite adversity offers timeless inspiration.
The unnamed kinsman’s story provides cautionary lessons about the hypocritical nature of selective legalism used for self-advancement rather than upholding redemptive spirit. Though obeying portions of kinsman-redeemer law benefiting himself, the kinsman rationalized rejecting aspects aiding the vulnerable women. His conflicting actions exposed faulty ethics, justifying selective obedience by magnifying financial risks and ethnic biases while minimizing moral duties to family and God. Legacy depends not on name but on upholding transcendent biblical principles.
Ruth deserved redemption regardless of ethnicity, gender or status. God expects aid for the disenfranchised without partiality, even at personal cost. By rejecting Ruth for self-interest, the unnamed kinsman revealed misplaced priorities requiring correction by Boaz’s kingdom values. The nameless kinsman remains in Scripture as a sobering example of selective morality rationalizing refusal of redemptive duties, against which Boaz’s sacrificial love shines brighter. For when personal gain contradicts redemptive calling, faithful purpose must prevail over comfort or convenience. God remembers nameless kinsmen who forsook family and spiritual obligation. But He rewards those like Boaz who uphold redemptive duties with integrity, honoring Him through compassion exceeding culture.
