Was the marriage of Boaz and Ruth’s form of Levirate marriage?

[Mojo]

Here we go loopedy doo, here we go looepedy lah…..

The whole question is whether or not Ruth and Boaz were a Levirate situation. If they’re not then they can’t be used as an example of Levirate marriage.

Would you say Levirate adjacent? Maybe not exact prescription, but close enough to the legal description as to be seen as being on the target, just not the bullseye?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Would you say Levirate adjacent? Maybe not exact prescription, but close enough to the legal description as to be seen as being on the target, just not the bullseye?

Nope. I maintain that that was all about the land and keeping it in the tribe.

 

[Mojo]

Nope. I maintain that that was all about the land and keeping it in the tribe.

Which is about the land?

Levirate? Boaz?

How and why?

 

[Mark C]

Nope. I maintain that that was all about the land and keeping it in the tribe.

Never let it be said that YHVH might have more in mind than meets some eyes...

 

[The Revolting Man]

Which is about the land?

Levirate? Boaz?

How and why?

Boaz and Ruth. Read the earlier posts in this thread. I lay out the case pretty irrefutably.

 

[Mojo]

Irrefutable is a pretty strong statement.

I think others would say that they have refutations. You’re saying you won’t accept any position but yours.

It’s bold
It’s confident

Does it make it true?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Irrefutable is a pretty strong statement.

I think others would say that they have refutations. You’re saying you won’t accept any position but yours.

It’s bold
It’s confident

Does it make it true?

First off I said pretty irrefutably, but yes, the case is very strong. Everyone’s objections boiled down to “but that’s not what I always thought!”

I showed how Ruth didn’t fit the parameters of a Levirate marriage; how the text didn’t claim it was a Levirate marriage, and what the text did focus on, Naomi’s land and its disposition.

We can’t only be about restoring the centrality of God’s Word through a literal interpretation when it means we get to have sex with multiple women. It has to permeate every topic. All of our assumptions have to be on the chopping block. Ruth pretty much can’t be a Levirate marriage by any application of the scriptures we’re given about her situation or the particulars of Levirate marriage.

 

[Mojo]

First off I said pretty irrefutably, but yes, the case is very strong. Everyone’s objections boiled down to “but that’s not what I always thought!”

I showed how Ruth didn’t fit the parameters of a Levirate marriage; how the text didn’t claim it was a Levirate marriage, and what the text did focus on, Naomi’s land and its disposition.

We can’t only be about restoring the centrality of God’s Word through a literal interpretation when it means we get to have sex with multiple women. It has to permeate every topic. All of our assumptions have to be on the chopping block. Ruth pretty much can’t be a Levirate marriage by any application of the scriptures we’re given about her situation or the particulars of Levirate marriage.

Excellent explanation.

Thank you.