Boaz, married before Ruth or not....

[Paul not the apostle]

I always thought that he was already married due to his wealth, etc., but what about Obed being listed in the lineage of Christ as Boaz' son even though Boaz was the redeemer that was supposed to raise up seed for his dead relative. Shouldn't Obed be listed as Elimelech's son? Or am I completely misunderstanding something about the law and the lineage and who is credited as the son's father. Or is it through the mother due to being the firstborn son? or does any of this matter? This has to do with the lineage of Christ, so would it matter if Obed was not the firstborn of Boaz?

Thanks.

 

[CecilW]

A rose by any other name ... ?

 

[ravmoshe]

Yes Boaz was most likely married before Ruth. A wealthy landowner ike that was RARELY monogomous. Now he was supposed to marry Naomi as the kinsman redeemer, BUT bought all of Naomi's house and Naomi gave him the ok to lay with Ruth, which is what he was really after, who in turn allowed Naomi to raise Obed. That's the long and short of it. Shalom!

 

[steve]

......... RARELY monogomous. Now he was supposed to marry Naomi as the kinsman redeemer, .........

can we say that it would have been shameful in that culture to not have taken wives as he could afford them?

a questian about the kinsman redeemer, it is my understanding that this stems from the requirement of the brother to marry the widow if the first marriage had produced no children. as naomi's marriage had produced children, ruth's childlessness was the situation to be addressed. this would seem to fit the storyline and i have some insight on this if my understanding is correct. i hope that your understanding of the law and the customs will straighten this out for me.

thanx
steve

 

[ravmoshe]

......... RARELY monogomous. Now he was supposed to marry Naomi as the kinsman redeemer, .........

can we say that it would have been shameful in that culture to not have taken wives as he could afford them?

a questian about the kinsman redeemer, it is my understanding that this stems from the requirement of the brother to marry the widow if the first marriage had produced no children. as naomi's marriage had produced children, ruth's childlessness was the situation to be addressed. this would seem to fit the storyline and i have some insight on this if my understanding is correct. i hope that your understanding of the law and the customs will straighten this out for me.

thanx
steve

yes you are correct. Sincec Naomi had children, Ruth's childlessness as AN issue as was Boaz's "hots" for her. :?: Shalom Steve

 

[steve]

thanx, rav
i will be posting the story a little later in a way that i had never seen before, hope you like it

steve