PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Kinsman-Redeemer -- Book of Ruth



Frecs
Apr 14th 2010, 04:33 PM
This started as a short discussion in the Battle Thread. I noticed when recently reading through Ruth that Boaz was not the nearest kinsman to Naomi and so not the one with the most right to be the Kinsman-Redeemer. The nearer kinsman passed on the right when he realized it included taking Ruth as bride and fathering heirs for her dead husband's name.

Since, in typology, Boaz is a type of Christ as the Kinsman-Redeemer, what about the closer kinsman? My first thought is that the first Kinsman-Redeemer would be the First Covenant which was unable to accept/cover the requirements as the Kinsman-Redeemer since he didn't want to take the gentile bride or father heirs for another man's name. Thus, Boaz as the second Kinsman-Redeemer would be the Second Covenant through Jesus Christ who is willing to take the Gentile Bride.

Does that sound workable? It's just off the top of my head so there could be flaws in the reasoning.:idea:

jayne
Apr 14th 2010, 04:41 PM
Makes sense to me! I like it. :saint:

Ta-An
Apr 14th 2010, 04:47 PM
The word....Rejection come to my mind...??

Frecs
Apr 14th 2010, 04:51 PM
The word....Rejection come to my mind...??

In what sense? I'm not disagreeing...just wondering what we might dig out of that sense/thought...

Ta-An
Apr 14th 2010, 06:01 PM
:hmm: I dunno.....

Or

??I don't know what the word is...

maasive10
Apr 18th 2010, 02:42 AM
I always took it as... that our closest Kinsman-Redeemer who could be anyone from Adam, to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob... could not nor would want to fulfull the role of Kinsman-Redeemer, so God sent his Son Jesus to redeem us. Boaz redeemed Ruth by buying land and marrying her, pretty easy actually when you compare to what Christ had to do... no sinful human could redeem us.
J.I.Packer sums it up nicely:
"The Son of God emptied Himself and became poor. It meant a laying aside of glory.... a voluntary restraint of power... an acceptance of hardship, isolation, ill-treatment, malice and misunderstanding: finally, a death that involved such agony-spiritual, even more than the physical-that His mind nearly broke under the prospect of it. It meant love to the uttermost for unlovely men.. hope for a ruined humanity-hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory... because at the Father's will Jesus Christ became poor, and was born in a stable so that thirty years later He might hang on a cross. It is the most wonderful message the world has ever heard, or will hear"

Ta-An
Apr 18th 2010, 04:10 PM
I always took it as... that our closest Kinsman-Redeemer who could be anyone from Adam, to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob... could not nor would want to fulfull the role of Kinsman-Redeemer,:idea: Especially to a Gentile...:D
so God sent his Son Jesus to redeem us.Thank you LORD!!
Boaz redeemed Ruth by buying land and marrying her, pretty easy actually when you compare to what Christ had to do... no sinful human could redeem us.
J.I.Packer sums it up nicely:
"The Son of God emptied Himself and became poor. It meant a laying aside of glory.... a voluntary restraint of power... an acceptance of hardship, isolation, ill-treatment, malice and misunderstanding: finally, a death that involved such agony-spiritual, even more than the physical-that His mind nearly broke under the prospect of it. It meant love to the uttermost for unlovely men.. hope for a ruined humanity-hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory... because at the Father's will Jesus Christ became poor, and was born in a stable so that thirty years later He might hang on a cross. It is the most wonderful message the world has ever heard, or will hear" This makes sense indeed .... and He had to be squeeky clean to get all the sins of the Gentiles on Him...
Thanks

genealogist
Apr 19th 2010, 05:03 PM
This started as a short discussion in the Battle Thread. I noticed when recently reading through Ruth that Boaz was not the nearest kinsman to Naomi and so not the one with the most right to be the Kinsman-Redeemer. The nearer kinsman passed on the right when he realized it included taking Ruth as bride and fathering heirs for her dead husband's name.

Since, in typology, Boaz is a type of Christ as the Kinsman-Redeemer, what about the closer kinsman? My first thought is that the first Kinsman-Redeemer would be the First Covenant which was unable to accept/cover the requirements as the Kinsman-Redeemer since he didn't want to take the gentile bride or father heirs for another man's name. Thus, Boaz as the second Kinsman-Redeemer would be the Second Covenant through Jesus Christ who is willing to take the Gentile Bride.

Does that sound workable? It's just off the top of my head so there could be flaws in the reasoning.:idea:

In essence, you are correct and on the right track. But the mystery is very very deep. I'll give a clue. Think of Joseph who went down to Egypt. His brethren did not recognize him and considered him a Gentile. Now the Jews would not marry a Moabite woman, after all she was not perceived as being of their lineage, so she represented a Gentile in whom Christ would save. Yes, and that's not the tip of the iceberg even.

Frecs
Apr 20th 2010, 03:01 AM
In essence, you are correct and on the right track. But the mystery is very very deep. I'll give a clue. Think of Joseph who went down to Egypt. His brethren did not recognize him and considered him a Gentile. Now the Jews would not marry a Moabite woman, after all she was not perceived as being of their lineage, so she represented a Gentile in whom Christ would save. Yes, and that's not the tip of the iceberg even.

Not only were the Moabites not of their lineage, God said that the descendents of a Jew/Moabite marriage were forbidden to enter the assembly in the temple up to the 10 generation...this due to their refusal to allow the Jews to pass through their territory on their way to the promised land.