Correct, but a legalist cannot accept the idea of obeying the intent of the law even if it is not specifically enumerated that way.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Was the marriage of Boaz and Ruth’s form of Levirate marriage?
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
Of course, it’s all interconnected!!!!!!!
Only a strict legalist could separate the concepts based on the fact that it isn’t stated in the same way in both places.
She has to marry a “brother” to keep the land in the same tribe! It’s plain as day.
Redeeming her widower’s lineage.
This is very true. Neither can a law keeper claim to be keeping the intent if he doesn’t keep the letter. The two are linked. Faith and works, spirit and flesh. Obedience that isn’t expressed is just well wishes.
It’s not interconnected in the text. In the text it’s two very distinct commands given at two very distinct times.
The 'burden of proof' is on those who claim that it is NOT what it appears, because, as I cited, there is plenty of evidence of what it appears to be.
Including the results.
I agree. Which mean the burden proof falls on you: It conforms to none of the instructions laid out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, not one.
And before you get all wee-weed about about brother look up the usage of brother in law later in verse 5.
Two different commands with the same intent.
What is interesting about all of this is something that I hadn’t really seen in depth before.
While Israel was a single nation, the tribes were separated and monolithic. Women could marry into other tribes, but they became part of that tribe. Their descendants were part of their husbands tribe and the land was to stay in that tribe, husbands death notwithstanding.
Remember that in the wilderness journeying the camp was always set up in the same way with assigned places for each tribe. They weren’t a melting pot.
Edit: This is especially interesting when you find out that Jacob’s wives were not all from the same skin color. The two sisters could have even been from different mothers/races.
While Israel was a single nation, the tribes were separated and monolithic. Women could marry into other tribes, but they became part of that tribe. Their descendants were part of their husbands tribe and the land was to stay in that tribe, husbands death notwithstanding.
Remember that in the wilderness journeying the camp was always set up in the same way with assigned places for each tribe. They weren’t a melting pot.
Edit: This is especially interesting when you find out that Jacob’s wives were not all from the same skin color. The two sisters could have even been from different mothers/races.
Last edited:
And completely different execution. One of which neither Ruth or Boaz fulfilled. Even if it was supposed to be a Levirate marriage they didn’t execute it as one and they didn’t obey the “intent” of the law because Obed is listed as the son of Boaz. You have to deal with this fact.
If intent is all that matters, and if it is why don’t we all go be Methodists or something nice and easy going, they didn’t obey the intent. They brought up an heir to Boaz. Intent is officially violated.
Because if a word is ever used differently in text, it takes the latter usage?
...According to Zec...
Turns out 'brother' is used almost 400 times in Scripture, including to describe Lot, who doesn't exactly fit your twisting, either.
Oh, yeah...and I suggest Yahushua had a broader understanding, too. But 'parables' like the Good Samaritan probably aren't in your wheelhouse.
So, I'm done "wee-weeing" on your parade.
Off-topic: But I'm curious where you heard that. I've also 'heard' (and find it likely) that Bilah and Zilpah were half-sisters, through Laban's other wives.
I haven’t studied that part of it, but would the possibility exist that Obed wasn’t the first born? Even if he was, everyone would have accepted him as Boaz’s son and listing him as such could be very inconsequential.
He would have been considered her first husband’s son for the land, but not necessarily in practice.
And I have no clue why the closer kin decided not to marry her due to inheritance issues. You would think that her son would have his mothers first husband’s inheritance, and his other sons would have his own inheritance.
So I still see unknowns in the story. Complications, but not problems.
An old guy that I knew some time back, who had had some pretty open conversations with a Rabbi that knew the oral history that hasn’t been shared.
Other minor items:
Mary was Joseph’s 4th wife, living in the house with them, they assisted in the birth and realized that he had not been dishonorable towards her. Until then they hadn’t really believed him.
Joseph’s family were boatbuilders and had money, hence the donkey that a poor city dweller couldn’t have afforded.
I said look up brother in law , not brother.
Also, of we look at the only other example of a Levirate marriage we have in scripture it was pretty obvious that Judah thought brother meant biological brother, he wasn’t trying to pawn Tamar off on any cousins. That seems like it might be a precedent …..
Well this has devolved into sheer fantasy land. I made a wrong case why Levirate marriage shouldn’t apply here. No one has made even the tiny little case there is to be made (which is am interesting one and has some layers to it) and no one has dealt with the daughters of Zelophehad other than to claim that that was probably Levirate marriage too.
Good work every one!
Good work every one!
There you go again, proclaiming what you cannot know with any surety.
After those deaths, do you really think that a cousin would chance it?
He may have tried his hardest, but you think that you have the right to declare that he didn’t.
That right there is arrogance.
Last edited: