I appreciate your sincere apology for having made so many false statements.
-
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
Wait a minute, which is it?Does it need to be explicit in the text or not? Or feels like you’re trying to play by two different sets of rules here.
Sarcasm doesn’t suit you Steve. It’s not natural for you and you don’t do it well.
I’m not giving definitive statements like you do.
I’m merely discussing possibilities, as should you.
I’m crushed!
Sarcasm is my native language, evidently I have been reining myself in too much.
We have a religion, not a menu.
You have a religion, I have a belief system.
Well that would explain the disconnect.
@steve
Let me see if I’m understanding the underlying premise behind your inquiry.
Common ground: We all find scripture authoritative, reliable and instructive.
Where we differ: We don’t all find scripture to be completely definitive or exhaustive on all matters.
Lacking clear definition or exhaustive instruction, we can refer or rely on precedent and cumulative understanding by others that have pondered various scenarios, including a holistic approach, and perhaps even historical anthropology?
Am I close?
Let me see if I’m understanding the underlying premise behind your inquiry.
Common ground: We all find scripture authoritative, reliable and instructive.
Where we differ: We don’t all find scripture to be completely definitive or exhaustive on all matters.
Lacking clear definition or exhaustive instruction, we can refer or rely on precedent and cumulative understanding by others that have pondered various scenarios, including a holistic approach, and perhaps even historical anthropology?
Am I close?
Thank you for refocusing this, I will rewrite it to reflect my beliefs.
100% so far.
It was never intended to be completely exhaustive nor definitive on all matters.
It was written to show principles and guidelines for us to learn from, but it was written as an enhancement for our relationship with the Author not a replacement for our relationship with Him.
It blows my mind that people argue about the meaning of things without bothering to ask the Author about His meaning. They adamantly insist on their interpretation of His meaning, all while ignoring Him.
I had a pastor who taught; “God gave you a mind and He expects you to use it.” Meaning that He expects you to be able to distill what His Word means without any help from Him. He also believed in not learning anything from any other teacher. Yeah, that worked so well for him that he destroyed his Bible believing church and Bible college.
Each of us is to be the priest of our families, it is up to us to ponder the various scenarios that others proclaim as the truth. Not one of us has all truth and we are specifically told that iron should sharpen iron.
Much flesh can be put on the bones that Yah has given us in His Word as we begin to understand the preponderance of the history of our faith that wasn’t included in the cannon due to the need to keep it as concise as it is.
Remember that Yeshuah taught in parables, he wasn’t teaching laws as much as he was teaching principles. Also the beatitudes, they weren’t laws, they were guidelines.
We lost an excellent leader, friend, and resource when Zec hammered the crap out of him with “BIBLE ONLY, BIBLE ONLY, and BIBLE ONLY!!!!!!”
Thank you. So then your approach is to also rely on God’s internal light that he gave in fashioning a mind of reason and discernment, and also Spirit led instruction?
I’m sure there are folks on this forum who agree with your approach.
To what do you say to those who feel like this might be a slippery slope to undefined doctrines? Could it be seen as the same approach that monogamy-only folks apply (i.e- “While scripture describes polygyny, the greater body of his witness reflects his true desire for monogamy)? How would you reconcile those two approaches?
Yes, the key word there is also.
I would say what I often say Legalism is easy.
Very few doctrines are not clearly defined, I can’t think of any. It’s just that most of the reason that people disagree on doctrine is a failure to take all of Scripture into account. Instead they just take a verse and stand on it.
As far as the monogamy only crowd, they only have one Scripture, repeated in multiple Gospels, to stand on. The requirements for a Deacon. They violate the rule that Yah laid out, that a matter is established in the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses. It has to be taught in another context elsewhere, which it isn’t.
As far as this whole kerfluffel about Boaz, it isn’t doctrinal. I find that understanding Yah’s heart on an issue is beneficial and invigorating. That’s why edicts ejaculated to shut down discussion irritate me. It flat out steals from brothers having profitable discourse.
In this approach, which are the two or three witnesses that would witness to your approach in defining what type of relationship defines Ruth and Boaz?
Does it begin with levirate and morph into its own specialized form? If so, what? Or is it undefined?
The problem is that one simple set of instructions has been sectioned off and labeled Levarite Marriage. You won’t find Yah making it that distinct.
We have made it a big deal because of the fact that He didn’t say that the instruction is off the table if the brother is already married. In other words, it is a case in which He required polygyny if the man already had a wife. In reality, it doesn’t affect any of our lives, but having a greater understanding, I feel, enriches our lives.
My point was that the concept that Levirate marriage was born out of was much broader and commonly understood than just the tiny circumstances of Levirate marriage.
It seems to me that it was important to Yah to give us this example of kinfolk taking care of kinfolk. We are to learn from it and grow in our concepts. It’s not about rules, it’s about our hearts for each other. Don’t overthink it and try to pigeonhole it.
So then levirate is the minimum, not the maximum? It could be applied more broadly without violating the minimum?
In your approach, do you end or begin with the rules?
There is no minimum or maximum, we just need to apply what applies. I don’t imagine that any of us are in a situation where this needs to be followed.
I try to see the reason for the rules and and work within His desires.
Yeshuah said that he did only what he sees the Father do. At that level the rules are superfluous.
I wanna be like him when I grow up.
Wait, what?
Are the rules suggestions or are they expected to be followed? Why deliver a rule if it wasn’t expected to be followed, especially when some of those rules come with consequences for not being followed?
The Father dwells outside the rules and in some ways, the rules don’t necessarily apply to him (He is both the giver and taker of life. He doesn’t need to act in self defense to take life). Is it advisable to see the rules as superfluous?
Please don’t misunderstand me, the rules are the bare minimum of our obligations.
If we don’t obey them, we aren’t even in the ballpark.
