Metaphors of the Cross Part 4

Redemption - The Captivity Metaphor

Redemption; the Captivity metaphor, is one of the strongest 'Metaphors of the Cross' that we are looking at in this series. The central idea to this doctrine is that we are captive and imprisoned as a result of our sin, and need someone to be our redeemer, to pay the ransom for our release and to rescue us.

In this 17th Century painting by the Italian artist Antonio de Bellis we see the Acts 12 passage of Peter in prison, chained between two guards, and the angel of God coming to free him.

Peter and the Angel (Antonio de Bellis):

Here then is a picture of our redemption; just like Peter, we are imprisoned  and need some to redeem us and rescue us. Our chains are the emotional and spiritual chains of sin, but we still need release. To the church at Colossi Paul talks of Christ as the one who:

"has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of  his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgive- ness of sins"    [Col 1:13-14]


And in that verse there this idea of deliverance and rescue, but what does it really mean? 

Part of the challenge we face is that we use the words 'redeem' and 'redemption' as part of our everyday language and so we think we know what is meant by them:

• If you go shopping at the supermarket you might have some vouchers that you can redeem for groceries
• We talk of someone who has let people down of needing to 'redeem' themselves
• And we live in a hostile world where people can be taken hostage and held for ransom (the price that is paid to redeem someone)

All of these ideas are in this world and so we have this idea that redemption means to 'buy back' or 'to exchange'. and certainly with the idea of hostages we have the idea of people being held captive - the Captivity metaphor. 

But all of that falls far short of what this would have meant to people reading Paul's letters in the first Century because this was a word rich in meaning and implication - it was a very profound and significant statement to make, the idea that we have been redeemed by Christ would have excited the early church.  To explore the deep meaning of this doctrine we need to look at it through the lens of the culture of the time, and in particular, through the story of Ruth, because her journey of redemption parallels ours.

The story starts with a man called  Elimelech; an Israelite from the town of Bethlehem, in Judah. Elimelech is married to Naomi and they have two sons; Mahlon and Chilion. However as the story opens there is a famine in Israel, and it is not possible for Elimelech to support his family on the land he has and so he sells his land and takes his wife and their two sons to live in the neighbouring country of Moab. Elimelech then died, but the family carries on; his two sons married women from the region and so we have Naomi with here two sons and her two daughters in law; Orpah and Ruth.  Then tragedy struck again and both of Naomi's sons died leaving her with her two widowed daughters in law. This was a tragedy beyond this obvious heartache of losing loved ones for in a time where there was no welfare state and no men to head up and provide for the family Ruth and her daughter in law had no means of support.

Parallel One - The Need for Redemption

Here are these three women lost in a hopeless situation, captive to circumstances beyond their control, and we can parallel that with our position outside of Christ, lost and alone, indeed held captive, and in need of someone to rescue us. Outside of Christ we are in an equally desperate situation - held captive by our sin and in need of rescue.

Returning to the story, Naomi decides to return home to Judah. partly because she hears the famine is now over and there is again food in the land, but also because the were laws in place to protect widows and orphans, an Old Testament welfare state, if you like, that did not exist in Moab or the surrounding countries, and this will be key to the story. Orpah decides to stay in Moab, but Ruth decides to return with Naomi,

One part of the law was the law of 'gleaning'. This meant that when the men harvested the fields they were not allowed to pick up any barley that fell to the ground. This had to be left and the poor and the widows and orphans could come a pick, or 'glean' this. And so Naomi and Ruth return the region around Bethlehem and Ruth starts to glean in the nearby fields, and in particular a field belonging to a man called Boaz, who happened to be related to Elimelech, Naomi's dead husband.

Ruth & Boaz
(George Frederick Watts 1817-1905)

Boaz comes notice Ruth and indeed starts to have an affection for her such that he tells her to remain in his field and with the women that were part of his household because there she will be afforded  degree of protection rather than wandering around other fields as a single woman. All of this Ruth tells to Naomi. And Naomi wisely says:

"It is good my daughter that you go out with his young women, lest in another field you be assaulted." [Ruth 2:22]

But this is good news for another reason that brings us back to the doctrine of Redemption. Naomi also says to Ruth:

"This man is a close relative of ours, one of our redeemers" [Ruth 2:20]

And here we find another aspect of Old Testament law that is so key to this story, the year of Jubilee. Although it seemed at the beginning of the story that Elimelech sold his land that wasn't strictly true. In an agricultural society that depended on the land for survival, the law prohibited the outright selling of land otherwise it would be very easy for the land to be owned by a minority of rich people and leave the majority of the population to be poor and destitute, this is another  example of a social equality that God gives his people through the law that was far superior to that which existed in the surrounding nations.

When the famine came and Elimelech could not sustain his family on his land he could not sell it outright, but he could lease it, and this did, and took the money and relocated to Moab. But the freehold of the land remained in his family, and more-over ever fifty years the year of Jubilee came around and all land was given back to its original owner.  Naomi, as Elimelech's widow still holds title to this land, but as a widow, even if the year of Jubilee came around,  she would be unable to work the land and provide for herself and so she would be no better off. All she could then do would be to lease the land again and go back to gleaning, however another law now comes into play, the role of the kinsman-redeemer and this is the phrase that Naomi uses of Boaz.

Just as it was unacceptable for land to change hand permanently, it was just as unacceptable for a family line to end because of a lack of descendants. Naomi's sons are dead and their wives never had children and so Elimelech's line will end. The law made provision for this and is laid out in Deuteronomy:

"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family. [This is the position Naomi finds herself in]. Her husband's brother [Boaz] shall go into her and take her [Naomi] as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his [family] name shall not be blotted out of Israel. [Deuteronomy 25:5-6]

To preserve Elimelech's line the law requires that a relative of Elimelech, marry Naomi and that children from that marriage are regarded as children of Elimelech and Naomi and so continue the family name and gain the land back at the next Year of Jubilee thus keeping the land in the family as well This might offend our 21st Century social patterns, but this was clear provision for those in distress with no one to continue the family name. The only change here is that because Naomi is past child bearing age, the responsibility fall to Boaz to continue Elimelech's line by marrying Ruth - not a bad turn of events as he is falling in love with her.

Parallel Two - The Home of Redemption

From what has happened so far there are two more parallel between us and Ruth. Notice where does this redeemer come from? He comes from Bethlehem. Years later a far greater saviour who would redeem us would also be born in Bethlehem

Parallel Three - The Closeness of Redemption

There is a third parallel, that is really important, and this is the idea that you can only be redeemed by a family member. Someone with good intentions cannot redeem you; even a friend cannot redeem you, the law requires that it be a family member that performs this duty. This is the point that would have so excited the early church. If Christ has redeemed them, then apart from the obvious aspect of his saving act it means he is closely related to us - he is our brother.

"For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have the one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise" [Hebrews 2:11-12]

There is this inexorable link between redemption and close family relationship that would not have been lost on the early church. Indeed to jump to the end of the story, Ruth and Boaz do indeed marry and have children and in particular Obed who was the grandfather of King David. And fourteen generations later we come Joseph who betrothed to Mary who gave birth to Jesus Christ - our redeemer. This family bond or relationship runs all through the story and indeed through scripture.

Back to the story and  in Chapter 4 we find Naomi putting up for sale the land that belongs to Elimelech:

"Naomi who has come back from the country of Moab is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech"  [Ruth 4:2]

This might seem odd because Elimelech has already sold, or at least leased out the land, so how can it be sold again? Well now that Naomi has identified a close family relative who can redeem them, Boaz has the duty of not just providing offspring for Naomi but also materially providing for them by paying off the outstanding lease on the land - paying off the person who currently has use of it, and buying it back for Naomi and the children that they will have. They children will then inherit that land. Chapter four seems like a fairy tale ending, but there is one problem, Boaz , it turns out is not the closest male relative to Elimelech, there is another, to whom this duty of redeeming Naomi and Ruth should fall, and so we have this exchange that takes place in the market place before the elders. Boaz points out to this man his duty - we have already read the verse

"Naomi who has come back from the country of Moab is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech". [Ruth 4:2]

and he says to him:

"If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you will not tell me that I may know for there is no -one beside you to redeem it and I come after you." And he said, "I will redeem it".  [Ruth 4:4]

This is a good deal for this man. He has to marry Naomi and spend some money buying back the land. but because Naomi is past the age of bearing children there will be no-one to inherit the land and so it will become his, he stands to profit. But now Boaz plays his trump card and points out that whilst Naomi cannot have children, her daughter Ruth can, and the law will extend that far in order to preserve Elimelech's line.

"Then Boaz said, the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi you also acquire Ruth, the Moabite, the widow of the dead [Elimelich]. [Ruth 4:5]

This now changes the whole deal. Now this man has to spend money buying land that he will then have to give away to his step-children and never gain the benefit of it - and so with this news he now changes his mind.

"I cannot redeem it for myself lest I impair my own inheritance - Take my right of redemption yourself for I cannot redeem it. [Ruth 4:6]

Let us not see this as a shirking of duty, this man was quite right that in fulfilling this obligation he would erode the inheritance that was stored up for his own children and so this is both an understandable response and importantly for us, a perfectly legal response - for it brings us to our next parallel - the option to redeem.

Parallel 4: The option to Redeem.

With all that has been said so far about the law and duty and the rights of redemption we could come to the wrong conclusion that Christ has no choice but to redeem us. It was his job, his duty. Almost as the Roman church though it was acceptable to sin because that meant more grace came to them, so we could think; "why do we even need to be thankful - this is Christ's job- to redeem us." And of course that is not the case. The job of redeeming was optional and if someone did not want to fulfil the role they were first in line for then they could refuse, a principle that is covered clearly in the Old Testament law:

"You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the first born of your animals that are males shall be the Lord's. Every first born donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck"  [Exodus 12:12-13]

The principle in law is very clear; the first born belongs to the Lord and that means your donkeys, and if we had carried on reading the passage your sons as well. Thankfully you do not have to sacrifice them, because you can redeem them by offering a lamb instead, but the point is you don't have to redeem them. And importantly for us, just as the man who was first in line as redeemer for Naomi and Ruth did not have to redeem them if he did not want so, so Christ is under no compulsion to redeem us. It is something he does willingly.

There are two more parallels we can draw from this story

Parallel 5: The Cost of Redemption.

There isquite a money trail to follow here; Elimelech sells some land, someone else buys it, Boaz then buys it - there is a lot of 'person A' paying 'person B'. And if this is a picture of the redemption that Christ secures for us then the question we are left with is "Who does Christ pay?". If redemption is all about paying a price to rescue one held captive who walks away with the money?

Does Jesus pay satan? That seems wrong for it would imply satan had some power over Christ and could compel him to act - and we know that is not the case. The simple answer is it is possible to pay a great price in other ways that by exchanging money.

We talk of an athlete who paid a great price to win the medal. The athlete did not spend money but spent time and effort to train and to compete. In a similar way Christ pays the price for our release through his sheer effort and the sacrifice of the cross.

"You with your arm redeemed your people"    [Psalm 77:15]

"I will redeem you with an out-stretched arm and with mighty acts of judgement   [Exodus 6:6]

And of course Jesus did not redeem us with money, the cost that Jesus paid to redeem us was his precious blood:

"...knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ."  [1 Peter 1: 18-19]

Parallel 6: The Extent of Redemption.

And then lastly, as we have followed Ruth's story, we need to remember that she was not from the tribe of Judah, or indeed any of the twelve tribes of Israel. She cane from Moab - and was outside of God's people, she had just married into Naomi's family. Nevertheless redemption extended to her, and we can rejoice in the fact that no matter how far away from God we feel, no matter how undeserving of his love we imagine ourselves to be, his redemption can still reach out to us. As Peter reminds the crowd on Pentacost:

 "For the promise is for you, and for your children, and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lod our God calls to himself."  [Acts 2:39]

Application Questions:

1) Of the six parallels mentioned, which one particularly spoke to you; either as something you had not realised before or as something you wanted to apply to your life?

2) John 8:36 says; "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.". Do we feel fully rescued for every aspect of the bondage of sin? Are there areas in our life where we could realise that freedom more? And if so, how do we go about doing that.

3) There are so many other references to Redemption in both the Old and the New Testament. Can you think of any others that have fresh meaning or depth in the light of the story of Ruth?