Obligatory Polygyny

[Mark C]

But the part people do miss is that this is only applied to brothers who "dwell together". So maybe it applies to any male relative, but only male relatives who live in the same household, or at least in the same camp or town? That would of course mean that even if broader relatives are obligated...

That's a pretty good analysis, Samuel. (And Lot is called Abraham's 'brother' of course.)

But the broader point, as it must always, has to do with "obligation." Or whether we just simply seek to walk in obedience to His 'instruction.'

The brother is not "forced." But Scripture, as always, shows that there is a blessing for a sincere attempt to do His will.

 

[NVIII]

But the part people do miss is that this is only applied to brothers who "dwell together". So maybe it applies to any male relative, but only male relatives who live in the same household, or at least in the same camp or town?

Could it be that it refers not to the dead, but to the living? In other words, Ruth's husband died in Moab, and nobody sent back home for a kinsman redeemer. But, when Naomi had established herself back in town, that opened up opportunities (or created obligations?), and she sent Ruth to Boaz to invoke the custom.

It's notable in 3:9 that Boaz asks, "Who are you?" We would say he already knew who she was because he had seen and taken note of her. So, his question was more significant, and the obviously abbreviated account of her answer tells us the kind of details she went into. In other words, prior to this talk, it was unknown who Ruth was, so that could be why no action had been taken yet.

But then, he calls it a kindness that she came to him and did not run after younger men, which surely sounds like I need to take back what I said earlier about levirate marriage being automatically obligatory of both parties @Mark C. Although, he could have said it because no one really knew who Ruth was...she had to make herself known to him before he realized his obligation(?)...and because of that she could have gotten away with not following the custom. Probably also unbeknownst to him, for Ruth, this one was obligatory since Naomi sent her, so he may have been thinking it was her choice to make herself known.

Later, while talking to the nearer kinsman in 4:4, Boaz refers to the buying of the land and acquiring of the attached widow as a "right", not a responsibility. So, perhaps not obligatory for the man either, but again, Boaz is offering himself as a substitute for the other man, so it may be that it would have been obligatory otherwise.

Tough to nail down absolutes from one sketch of one event. If Boaz hadn't taken such a shining to Ruth, it would be easy to say it was obligatory. As it is, there is sufficient doubt.

Side note: it escaped me until now that Jesus's lineage included the hacked marriage of Tamar!

 

[Mark C]

Side note: it escaped me until now that Jesus's lineage included the hacked marriage of Tamar!

It's good you see that, @NVIII, because it's a vital point, and Scripture spends quite a bit of 'ink' on it...

 

[frederick]

It's notable in 3:9 that Boaz asks, "Who are you?"

Ruth 3:8-9 Now it happened at midnight that the man was startled, and turned himself; and there, a woman was lying at his feet. And he said, "Who are you?"
Maybe, just maybe... it was dark(?)

 

[paterfamilias]

Given that the question was not explicitly asking for opinions from a biblical point of view, I tend to see it as more of a pragmatic equation.

I don't know the specific scenario @JudahYAHites had in mind so I am thinking broad stokes here. Would be cool if he jumped in and gave us a hypothetical outline over and above the very broad initial question. Might change some of our answers potentially.

Going to start by reiterating something I have said before in that I am not conceptually opposed to companionesque marriage that is more partnership than romantically inspired. Perhaps my stoicism is slipping a bit but I certainly want the romantic aspect as well and am not looking for companionesque, just saying I can see the point of it being a valid choice for some.

In a personal experience story, I have had to say no very overtly after the interest had been expressed equally overtly.
Without going into detail, the offer and expressed interest was not in me personally and was expressed almost immediately. I could have been any man representing a family open to another wife.

I am fine with putting myself last after children and wife's, it is part of my job. That being said, not only do I not wish my family disrupted, their feeling hurt and worse the potential for their to be conflict over custody if new children come into the mix after a new whim or better perceived opportunity has her going down the road...but in the end I don't want my own guts ripped out. Even if it were something that was companionesque like in some of the various scenarios some of the guys have been batting around.

For me it was just an untenable glaring red flag in the situation I encountered.

I simply did not feel obligated just because she claimed she wanted to marry me almost immediately.

I can see the point of caring for your brother's wife, with kids or otherwise. Csn see the argument for it being an obligation. I don't have to marry her however to provide that care or to bring them under my roof. Not saying it is not possible but it certainly is not something my mind goes to immediately by any means.


Probably the best way to answer this question is to flip it on it's head. Are woman obligated to marry men who say they wish to marry them?

 

[Keith Martin]

I was discussing Scripture, not what someone else wrote about it.

I'm always heartened to learn when anyone recognizes that the Talmud is no more legitimate than papal encyclicals.

As we all know, that source can be informative but isn’t considered definitive.

This is understatement. Dickipedia is so frequently inaccurate that one often almost might as well just make up what one wants to believe. In this case, though, it at least comports quite closely not only with Scripture but also with sources I trust to be generally accurate for at least reporting on contemporaneous POV.

I found the statement that the brother to marry her has to be older than the brother who died

It's funny; I first read this . . .

"3. The brother performing yibbum was born before his brother's death" . . .

. . . as meaning that the brother-in-law had to be older than the deceased husband/brother, but it's just stating that the brother performing levirate had to be alive at the moment of his brother's death.

 

[steve]

but it's just stating that the brother performing levirate had to be alive at the moment of his brother's death.

You are correct, I didn’t read it carefully enough.
It still doesn’t agree with the example given by Boaz, so I don’t accept it as Scripturally accurate.

I'm always heartened to learn when anyone recognizes that the Talmud is no more legitimate than papal encyclicals.

I must say that I’m a bit surprised that you would see us as believing anything other than the plain reading of Scripture (modified by checking the actual meaning of words used in the original language), and using other sources as possible expansion of understanding.
Remember, if you ask 2 rabbis you will get 3 opinions. Reading just one source is never enough.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

In a personal experience story, I have had to say no very overtly after the interest had been expressed equally overtly.
Without going into detail, the offer and expressed interest was not in me personally and was expressed almost immediately. I could have been any man representing a family open to another wife.

...and then you promptly referred her to modernpolygamy.com and Biblical Families, where there are more families looking for a second wife, than there are single women looking to join a family

 

[FollowingHim]

Later, while talking to the nearer kinsman in 4:4, Boaz refers to the buying of the land and acquiring of the attached widow as a "right", not a responsibility.

Which reminds me of how Sara's father talks about her to Tobias in the book of Tobit. Tobias is Sara's second cousin. When he enquires about marrying her, her father says to him "Eat, drink, and make merry: for it belongs to you to take my child" and “Take her to yourself from now on according to custom. You are her relative, and she is yours. The merciful God will give all good success to you.”

Tobit is set later, during the Exile, but if the culture was still comparable, this suggests that relatives in general were considered to have a right to marry each other. Just as today I would instinctively feel a degree of obligation to allow my cousin to borrow my car if he needed it, but feel less of an obligation to lend it to anybody else. In the same way, in that culture, if my cousin's son asked for my daughter in marriage I may feel a degree of familial obligation to say yes, which would not be felt when anybody else asked.

So the relatives felt they had first right to Ruth and her family property by merit of being relatives. When you think about it, that's actually reasonable and normal given it's still how inheritance works today.

 

[Keith Martin]

Dickipedia

Elon Musk has offered Wikipedia $1billion to change its name to this.

I was just listening to Joe Rogan's most recent interview with Graham Hancock, who asserted, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of lies."

 

[steve]

Elon Musk has offered Wikipedia $1million to change its name to this.

I was just listening to Joe Rogan's most recent interview with Graham Hancock, who asserted, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of lies."

To steal from Billy Crystal, it’s only mostly lies.

 

[Keith Martin]

To steal from Billy Crystal, it’s only mostly lies.

And thus predominantly unreliable truths.

Then again, the same can be said to a significant degree of many Bible translations.

 

[MemeFan]

Elon Musk has offered Wikipedia $1million to change its name to this.

I was just listening to Joe Rogan's most recent interview with Graham Hancock, who asserted, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of lies."

Miss by 1000X.

Random Comments

I need some advice: my Yahoo account has suddenly become very problematic with all sorts of demands for information about me, they want me to subscribe and pay for their service, and signing in is now a very cumbersome process. I need a new secure email account. Any suggestions? I looked at...

biblicalfamilies.org

 

[Keith Martin]

Miss by 1000X.

Random Comments

I need some advice: my Yahoo account has suddenly become very problematic with all sorts of demands for information about me, they want me to subscribe and pay for their service, and signing in is now a very cumbersome process. I need a new secure email account. Any suggestions? I looked at...

biblicalfamilies.org

Thanks for catching my typo. Freudian-slip unconscious unfathomability of $1 billion!

 

[paterfamilias]

...and then you promptly referred her to modernpolygamy.com and Biblical Families, where there are more families looking for a second wife, than there are single women looking to join a family

I did in fact send here here. This was either before modern polygamy existed or at minimum before I learned of it.

I have sent about 8 woman here over time

 

[JudahYAHites]

Given that the question was not explicitly asking for opinions from a biblical point of view, I tend to see it as more of a pragmatic equation.

Hi @paterfamilias , just so you know I am always looking at things and considering things from a biblical viewpoint, as I believe that is what we are meant to do as disciples of the MessiYAH

I don't know the specific scenario @JudahYAHites had in mind so I am thinking broad stokes here. Would be cool if he jumped in and gave us a hypothetical outline over and above the very broad initial question. Might change some of our answers potentially.

Cool, I was sitting considering some actions of my past and was pondering the exact same question before I was in dialogue with @Keith Martin on another thread which prompted me to pose the question that had been circulating in my mind.

It has been interesting reading through the comments and responses that have been written, there was one comment by @steve that I concurred with because I have done similar.

What is going through my mind is that as disciples of MessiYAH we have the examples of the holy men of YAH in the torah and the prophets, but, shouldn't we consider how MessiYAH deals with us?

That being said, these words were really the thing that has been on me and the basis of my initial question on here, I know what I believe because I was personally convicted in light of how as a man my relationship with the women YAH gives to me is to mirror the relationship with MessiYAH and his church/body.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. — John 6:37 KJV

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. — John 6:39 KJV

Our women are COHEIRS with us as their man, their husband.

I could go on but hopefully that gives you a gist of where I am coming from.

I know that the question may well be a personal question that I am being dealt with by YAHushuWaH/Jesus in the life he has given me in my walk with him.

It is however an interesting question that has illicited interesting points of view from all who have engaged in this discussion.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Pretty comprehensive and accurate representation, for Dickipedia.

I wonder if there is a polygyopedia out there.

 

[Keith Martin]

I wonder if there is a polygyopedia out there.

WikiGyny

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

WikiGyny

Sounds good! I'll have to look into it. I can't say that I have ever started a wiki page before.