Boaz: Already married? How many wives? Single?

[FollowingHim]

Why no mention of Daniel's wife? Or Samuel's wife? Or Luke's wife? Or the wives of most other men named in scripture? Simply because they had no key role in the events being narrated. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Ruth's marriage to Boaz had nothing to do with any other wives he may or may not have had. So no need to mention whether or not he was already married.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Great explanation. Makes sense.
But why not mention these details in the narrative? Have we gone so far into time and so removed from biblical/Hebrew culture that we don't see the allusions? Would they have just been plain assumptions to the ancient readers? Plenty of other wives in scripture have been mentioned along with their husbands and "sister wives".

Absolutely true. It's not in the text so we can't get dogmatic about it one way or the other. But it makes sense and is probably the more likely explanation. I believe it does talk about Boaz's other servant girls at one point and I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong, that can be servants that were concubines.

 

[steve]

All that we know for sure is that Naomi counseled Ruth to offer herself to a known kinsman but not the closest kinsman. Surely she knew the Leverite law and who had first responsibility.
The story must fit those parameters. Period.
If anyone has a narrative that fits better, let us entertain it.

 

[steve]

Concubines are wives, definitely.
We really don't know the differences, but I will steadfastly maintain (with the complete inability to prove it) that the difference starts with the marriage ceremony, if not with the actual betrothal.
I believe that there is an element of truth to the idea that servants taken as wives are concubines (total lack of wedding festivities and betrothal period), but that servant wives are not the definition of concubines.
Wedding celebrations typically lasted a week, Solomon quite simply did not have time for all of that with every maiden given to him by foreign kings. The more important ones presumably received a full wedding.

 

[FollowingHim]

We have very few records in scripture of wedding ceremonies. The ones that are recorded mostly lasted a week (except for one in the deuterocanonical book of Tobit that lasted for 14 days). But this was tradition, not law, so we don't need to assume Solomon would have followed it.
On the other hand, the parable of the ten virgins shows the King planning to marry ten women at the same time. If this parable is based on actual custom, then it is reasonable to assume that Solomon may have married women in groups and held the seven-day wedding celebration simultaneously for many women. For instance, if there was a particular time of year that many kings brought him tribute, including women, he may have held a feast to welcome their ambassadors, accept their gifts including the women, marry the women (however many there were) and have a seven-day feast that doubled as entertainment for the ambassadors and the wedding celebration. This way he could have married an unlimited number of women with full ceremonies just using a single annual seven-day wedding celebration.
But all this is speculation. We really don't know. And I don't think it matters much.

Steve, personally I think the difference between "wife" and "concubine" comes back to the contractual arrangements present or absent, so back to the betrothal as you have stated, which may then be reflected in the wedding ceremony. A slave woman's purchase would substitute for a betrothal (as at this point she leaves her father's home and enters the master's home), from any point after that the master could take her as his wife or give her to another man in the household without any further formalities, all necessary formalities already being completed so no need for another betrothal period. She was sold on the assumption she would end up as a wife (Ex 21:7-9). You may be correct that all women who ended up with no wedding celebration were considered "concubines", but we have so little info that this too is highly speculative.

 

[Mojo]

On the other hand, the parable of the ten virgins shows the King planning to marry ten women at the same time. If this parable is based on actual custom, then it is reasonable to assume that Solomon may have married women in groups and held the seven-day wedding celebration simultaneously for many women.

This parable is confusing to me. Since it is so many virgins, is it a marriage to all ten, or are the virgins part of a wedding party ensemble? I always see this parable as evidence of polygyny in the NT, but am wary of using it...especially since parables and allegories tend to break down after some point.

Can anyone link credible evidence for either. Remember, there are cultural, historical, and scriptural backgrounds for each parable.

 

[FollowingHim]

The usual Christian interpretation is that they are all bridesmaids. But there were no bridesmaids mentioned in any Biblical wedding, unless you count the servants that some brides happened to have (Rachel & Leah had servants for instance). As far as I have been able to determine, bridesmaids originated in Rome, dressed exactly like the bride, and their purpose was to confuse evil spirits so that they wouldn't know which woman was the bride. They aren't biblical, so wouldn't have been used by Yeshua in his parable.

According to this site, after betrothal, a man would go to prepare a place for his bride. He would only return for her once it was completed to the satisfaction of his father, so he did not know the day or the hour when he would return, only the father knew. He could return at any time of the day or night, because the moment his father gave the ok he'd probably leave to grab her, so it was customary for a bride to have a lamp constantly burning in case her husband arrived in the middle of the night. Lots of parallels there as you'll notice! So the fact that every one of the virgins had a lamp indicates that they were all brides, the only reason to think otherwise would be because of monogamous presuppositions.

 

[Mojo]

The usual Christian interpretation is that they are all bridesmaids. But there were no bridesmaids mentioned in any Biblical wedding, unless you count the servants that some brides happened to have (Rachel & Leah had servants for instance). As far as I have been able to determine, bridesmaids originated in Rome, dressed exactly like the bride, and their purpose was to confuse evil spirits so that they wouldn't know which woman was the bride. They aren't biblical, so wouldn't have been used by Yeshua in his parable.

According to this site, after betrothal, a man would go to prepare a place for his bride. He would only return for her once it was completed to the satisfaction of his father, so he did not know the day or the hour when he would return, only the father knew. He could return at any time of the day or night, because the moment his father gave the ok he'd probably leave to grab her, so it was customary for a bride to have a lamp constantly burning in case her husband arrived in the middle of the night. Lots of parallels there as you'll notice! So the fact that every one of the virgins had a lamp indicates that they were all brides, the only reason to think otherwise would be because of monogamous presuppositions.

Again, I ask questions to get clarity, not for contention:

This is a great explanation of the rituals, but there are no explanations about 10 at once. There are no mentions of multiple spouses taken at one time in scripture either (silence us no argument, I know). I'm not saying it's not a polygynous marriage, but it seems so far away from the norm that I need more for my peace of mind.

I can wrap my head around Boaz, Moses, and Hosea as polygynists, but the groom and 10 virgins still leaves me unconvinced for now.

Got more?

 

[torahlovesalvation]

Well. lets not forget this is talking about our poly bridegroom, who will then present us to the father clean, with out spot or wrinkle. We are his beloved and betrothed (technically married) upon acceptance of his sacrifice (price paid) and awaiting his return for the marriage feast/marriage supper (Formally married). As best I can tell he plans on doing all of our feast all at once.

 

[Mojo]

okay, you're getting me closer, but what of ten? The scriptures are filled with numerical significance. Does that play into it? Why not five, seven, two?

Again, not trying to cause debate (I'm on your side). I just need more for this parable to become part of my apologia of polygyny.

 

[FollowingHim]

10 northern tribes of Israel? Representing the 10 lost tribes among the gentiles, and by extension the gentile nations as a whole who will be grafted in with them, being joined back to Messiah in marriage?

 

[Mojo]

10 northern tribes of Israel? Representing the 10 lost tribes among the gentiles, and by extension the gentile nations as a whole who will be grafted in with them, being joined back to Messiah in marriage?

But not all are accepted. Five aren't prepared, so how does that grafting happen?

 

[aineo]

@Mojo, I understand your hesitation with accepting this because of it being outside of the norm, but I think of it a little differently.

First off, I don't really know what the norms were then. There is a lot of folks who claim to know, but sadly, many times their explanations aren't backed with evidence, and they seem to just be opinion.

Anyhow, my point is that there very well could have been marriages to multiple brides at once among kings or the wealthy at this point in time, or there may not have been. If I read Matthew 25:1-13 without any preconcieved notions, it is hard to not consider the virgins to be potential wives. As I said, I think of it a little differently - I'd rather someone prove to me that these are not potential wives. So far, I haven't been able to find that proof.

 

[mystic]

Jesus spoke in terms people could relate to. Most folk have ten fingers. (And for most of those people they're divided into two groups of five.)

For expressing the concept of "half" perhaps nothing else is as ready-to-hand as hands. Five of the virgins were wise, and — on the other hand — five were foolish.

Ten fingers is all of them. And when all nations are gathered to be judged — divided in two — some will be set on the right hand and some on the left.

According to this site, after betrothal, a man would go to prepare a place for his bride [...]

The story sounds fanciful to me. And too tidy a fit, given how it corresponds with the parable (right down to its wording in English) while corresponding to nothing else in human nature or tradition. Fathers concerning themselves with such details? For up to a year? For two men to spend so much time feathering a woman's bed sounds like a monogamist princess power-trip fantasy, and anyway I'd have to wonder if such a dimwitted son could wipe his own backside, let alone marry.

 

[Mojo]

The story sounds fanciful to me. And too tidy a fit, given how it corresponds with the parable (right down to its wording in English) while corresponding to nothing else in human nature or tradition. Fathers concerning themselves with such details? For up to a year? For two men to spend so much time feathering a woman's bed sounds like a monogamist princess power-trip fantasy, and anyway I'd have to wonder if such a dimwitted son could wipe his own backside, let alone marry.

I hear you on this. It does seem fanciful, but Jesus did live within his society as an "in it, but not of it" figure. Most would agree that he spoke Aramaic (the language of the day). Jewish traditions may have evolved from the traditional nomadic/tribal ways of the OT. Who knows?

I researched this parable on the net, and some liberal scholars question its veracity/authenticity. I won't go that far. Perhaps they see the polygamist implications and recoil?

The explanations you all have given (TLS, FH, Aineo, Mystic) are great. They make sense. So, thank you. I just can't place this into my quiver as of yet.

Most parables can be appreciated even in our Western eyes, but then be super appreciated once we see the cultural implications in each. But this parable is hard to explain in either Western or Oriental traditions and cultures. I don't see the precedent (stubborn on my part I presume).

Our brethren on the other side of the aisle use eisegesis to twist monogamy into every narrative (Jacob repented of polygyny and turned to monogamy...??? Really???). I don't want to do the same and turn this parable into a polemic in favor of polygyny. If I were a lawyer, I would probably not include this in my presentation before the court. That's just me for now.

Now Boaz and Ruth???? I won't say she was a SW (one amongst several) but the implications that she might have been trying to be at the very least a concubine, makes good sense. I won't say definitively that Boaz was a polygynists, but when I see him in Glory, I wouldn't be surprised to find out he was.

 

[FollowingHim]

Mystic, I do agree with your concerns to some degree. I have been hunting for ancient references to Jewish wedding traditions, and cannot find them. There are lots of modern authors saying many things, some contradictory, and I can't find the evidence behind any of it. This is however largely because Google tends to bring up brief articles on modern wedding websites when you search for any of this stuff, so you really have to sift through a lot of junk, and I'm only doing web searches.

 

[JustAGuy]

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Yes... Yes he was

 

[ke4ke]

her nonvirgin, foreign daughterinlaw

Hi, I would like to focus on the foreign part. The KJV old testament uses the true foreigner meaning while the Septuagint does not. One point to remember is that the "Land of Moab" was not controlled or inhabited by Moabites at the time of Ruth. Moab had not lived there for quite a long time. Israel took possession of the old land of Moab when they returned to the land from Egypt. The 2 and a half tribes, Ruben, Gad and half of Manassah took the land as their own. So Ruth grew up as a part of one of those tribes. It was not uncommon to continue calling a land by it's old name. There must have been some significance to staying on the other side of Jordan? The Book of Jasher talks about an agreement made between the people of either side of Jordan to not forget their heritage together. Apparently they felt the need to do so.

Basically though, Ruth was an Israelite by birth. It would have been totally inappropriate for a respected member of the town to take a real Moabite as wife. Moab was a child of incest and on the forbidden to marry list for Israel.

Hehe, Scripture gets less and less politically correct the deeper you look!


Tim

 

[FollowingHim]

One point to remember is that the "Land of Moab" was not controlled or inhabited by Moabites at the time of Ruth. Moab had not lived there for quite a long time. Israel took possession of the old land of Moab when they returned to the land from Egypt. The 2 and a half tribes, Ruben, Gad and half of Manassah took the land as their own.

No, Moses was specifically instructed not to fight with the Moabites, because God had specifically given their land to Lot's descendents. In fact, he had actually used the Moabites for his purposes - they had driven out the giants from that land at God's instruction, to possess it for their own, just as Israel was commanded to drive out the giants from the land of Canaan and take it for their own. In the same way, Esau's descendents drove out the giants from the land of Seir and were given that land as a possession, and Israel was instructed not to fight with them, and the same went for the Ammonites, the other tribe descended from Lot. God specifically used all these descendents / close relatives of Abraham for His purposes, and wanted all these relatives to live alongside each other in peace (though they actually ended up fighting with each other instead). Read Deuteronomy chapter 2, this is clearly outlined there. Particularly:

And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession. The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the LORD gave unto them.

The 2 1/2 tribes inherited the land of Sihon king of the Amorites, not the land of Moab (Exodus 21).

Moab was certainly still in existence after the invasion of Canaan, Israel was even invaded by them and became subject to them for many years (Judges 3:12-14).

It would have been totally inappropriate for a respected member of the town to take a real Moabite as wife. Moab was a child of incest and on the forbidden to marry list for Israel.

Again, incorrect. Israel was forbidden to marry the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations only (Deuteronomy 7:1-3). They were never forbidden to marry Moabites.
Descendents of Moabite men were forbidden from entering the congregation until the tenth generation (Deut 23:3), but this had nothing to do with incest, rather their failure to assist Israel during the exodus (Deut 23:4).

God did not consider Moab an incestuous people and curse them because of their origins (incest had not been forbidden at the time anyway - if it was forbidden at the time, Israel would be equally cursed since Sarah was Abraham's sister / niece, completely forbidden in the Mosaic law). Incest wasn't even considered. Rather, He blessed them as children of the righteous man Lot, and kinsmen with Israel. Both Israel and Moab were blessed, despite BOTH being descended from incestuous marriages.

If you are going to make such large statements in future, please first look for references in scripture to back them up with - that way you'll also notice if you've made a mistake.

Ruth was a Moabite - a descendent of Abraham's nephew Lot, certainly a relation to Israel, but not an Israelite.