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

[Mojo]

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.

So then in regards to Boaz, the principle that God laid down in the levirate was not to be followed as the only prescription? It was a starting point that expressed God’s provision for the widow (his love towards them). If it was extended beyond just household brothers, it would be following the spirit, not just the letter of the levirate?

So Boaz was, as Jesus put it, “going two miles, when only one was asked for”?

Am I correct in your position?

 

[Mark C]

So then in regards to Boaz, the principle that God laid down in the levirate was not to be followed as the only prescription? It was a starting point that expressed God’s provision for the widow (his love towards them). If it was extended beyond just household brothers, it would be following the spirit, not just the letter of the levirate?

So Boaz was, as Jesus put it, “going two miles, when only one was asked for”?

Am I correct in your position?

While I won't try to answer for Steve, that's not mine.

Boaz got himself [another] wife - good for him, that's a blessing, says Scripture, and he was obedient. Clearly a 'win-win.'

The fact that he did so in accord with (at least it RHYMES! ) the 'spirit' of the prescription for a kinsman-redeemer is important for another reason, and this, I will contend, is part of what got him an entry into the most important Written Record in human history.

Is it important to "paint a [shadow] picture of things to come? I suggest that Scripture suggests exactly that! We memorialize His Appointed Times (moedim) because not only are they reminders of history and prophecy fulfilled, but pictures of prophecy yet to be fulfilled. We practice for what we may well see come to pass.

Boaz did exactly that. And he (and Ruth) was rewarded not just with the 'standard' blessings of a new wife and children, and an heir for the departed in the land, but a place in the genealogy of the Most Important Man to ever walk the earth, THE Kinsman-Redeemer Himself.

 

[ASyers41]

Ruth and Boaz are incredibly important to lineage of Jesus. Without them there is no Jesus just like without Jacob marrying four ladies their would be no Judah for the Lion Of the Tribe of Judah to come through.

 

[Mark C]

Ruth and Boaz are incredibly important to lineage of Jesus. Without them...

Without every name in the list Yahushua would not have come the Way He did.

BUT, why them? And why the amount of ink, and background exposition (mishpatim), on that particular story? It is folly not to recognize that the Author told us what He did for a reason.

 

[ASyers41]

Absolutely everything in the Word is there for a reason even if it seems obscure to us as to the whys.

 

[steve]

So then in regards to Boaz, the principle that God laid down in the levirate was not to be followed as the only prescription?

How could it have been followed any closer?

Was not Boaz following it as close as he possibly could?

 

[Mojo]

How could it have been followed any closer?

Was not Boaz following it as close as he possibly could?

My apologies. I think I may have miscommunicated.

Let’s try again as I try to understand your position.

The letter of the levirate was not followed because it was not a direct “brother”.

Rather, it was the overall spirit of levirate because it still involved a more distant relative, just not a brother. Therefore, God’s love towards the widows could still be expressed in a modified (cultural custom?) described as kinsman redeemer. It doesn’t violate law, it extends the concept of that law in ways that were not originally detailed, but were not in contradiction of it?

*note: this would probably be easier to draw out in person.

Am I closer?

 

[Mojo]

While I won't try to answer for Steve, that's not mine.

Boaz got himself [another] wife - good for him, that's a blessing, says Scripture, and he was obedient. Clearly a 'win-win.'

The fact that he did so in accord with (at least it RHYMES! ) the 'spirit' of the prescription for a kinsman-redeemer is important for another reason, and this, I will contend, is part of what got him an entry into the most important Written Record in human history.

Is it important to "paint a [shadow] picture of things to come? I suggest that Scripture suggests exactly that! We memorialize His Appointed Times (moedim) because not only are they reminders of history and prophecy fulfilled, but pictures of prophecy yet to be fulfilled. We practice for what we may well see come to pass.

Boaz did exactly that. And he (and Ruth) was rewarded not just with the 'standard' blessings of a new wife and children, and an heir for the departed in the land, but a place in the genealogy of the Most Important Man to ever walk the earth, THE Kinsman-Redeemer Himself.

So, regardless of whether it was levirate or not, it was legal because she was a widow. It was a legitimate union. Levirate is just a side note?

The bigger picture is that Our Lord uses and records events that fit into His broader narrative and prophetic plot, even if it doesn’t fit neatly into our conceptions of the letter of his Law or personal expectations.

Am I close to what you’re saying?

 

[steve]

My apologies. I think I may have miscommunicated.

Let’s try again as I try to understand your position.

The letter of the levirate was not followed because it was not a direct “brother”.

Rather, it was the overall spirit of levirate because it still involved a more distant relative, just not a brother. Therefore, God’s love towards the widows could still be expressed in a modified (cultural custom?) described as kinsman redeemer. It doesn’t violate law, it extends the concept of that law in ways that were not originally detailed, but were not in contradiction of it?

*note: this would probably be easier to draw out in person.

Am I closer?

You are extremely close, you just have the wrong point of view.

If Boaz wanted to follow the levirate law, what could or should he have done differently?

 

[Mojo]

You are extremely close, you just have the wrong point of view.

If Boaz wanted to follow the levirate law, what could or should he have done differently?

Well, other than being adopted by Naomi, I’m not sure what else he could have done to follow levirate exactly.


In this case, the circumstances dictated the actions.

What’s your answer?

 

[steve]

Well, other than being adopted by Naomi, I’m not sure what else he could have done to follow levirate exactly.


In this case, the circumstances dictated the actions.

What’s your answer?

You just answered it.
He followed the law as perfectly as he could have.

Westerners look for the loopholes (I couldn’t follow the law because….), a heart for Yah says “What is the closest thing to following the law that I can do?”

 

[Mojo]

You just answered it.
He followed the law as perfectly as he could have.

Westerners look for the loopholes (I couldn’t follow the law because….), a heart for Yah says “What is the closest thing to following the law that I can do?”

Alright. We’ve arrived at Steve’s full perspective.

Thank you.

I’m curious what other perspectives are out there. @Mark C is your perspective on Boaz similar enough to Steve? Any other Torah wrinkles?

 

[Mark C]

@Mark C is your perspective on Boaz similar enough to Steve? Any other Torah wrinkles?

I think so. I've already suggested that "it rhymes." He was doing the best he could to be obedient to YHVH, and he got a wonderful wife in the process. And a place in history, and the Lineage of the Messiah.

And the story "goes to show you" that Yah can redeem a Moabite, and that such obedience also includes being a part of His line.

 

[Mojo]

Are there other perspectives on this scenario?

I’ve enjoyed reading Steve’s perspectives. Is there something else to consider?

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Are there other perspectives on this scenario?

I’ve enjoyed reading Steve’s perspectives. Is there something else to consider?

yes... The Hebrew word for Brother is much more expansive than a mere sibling from the same father.

Gen_14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Gen_14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

In this case, Lot is called Abram's brother even though it is his nephew.

Gen_20:16 And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

In this case, he is referring to Abram, Sarah's husband with the full knowledge that it is her husband that he is speaking about.

Num 36:1 And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spake before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel:
Num 36:2 And they said, The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters.
Num 36:3 And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance.

In this case, all the men in the tribe are called brothers, not just close family.


Num 20:14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:

In this case, they are speaking to another nation, reminding them that as descendants of Esau, their forefather was the brother to Jacob and thus, they are brothers to the current nation of Israel.

Deu_15:3 Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;

Here he is saying all that of the nation of Israel are brothers...


Deu_15:7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
Deu_15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
Here he is saying that all the poor in your cities are your brothers.


Deu 15:12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

Here your brother is one sold to you for six years, a male or a female...

Deu_17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

Here is a reassertion that the foreigner is NOT your brother implying that those of the nation are your brother.


I could go on but I think this sufficiently demonstrates that the word brother in Hebrew is more expansive than a sibling but not without limits...

Shalom...

 

[The Revolting Man]

yes... The Hebrew word for Brother is much more expansive than a mere sibling from the same father.

Gen_14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Gen_14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

In this case, Lot is called Abram's brother even though it is his nephew.

Gen_20:16 And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

In this case, he is referring to Abram, Sarah's husband with the full knowledge that it is her husband that he is speaking about.

Num 36:1 And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spake before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel:
Num 36:2 And they said, The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters.
Num 36:3 And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance.

In this case, all the men in the tribe are called brothers, not just close family.


Num 20:14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:

In this case, they are speaking to another nation, reminding them that as descendants of Esau, their forefather was the brother to Jacob and thus, they are brothers to the current nation of Israel.

Deu_15:3 Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;

Here he is saying all that of the nation of Israel are brothers...


Deu_15:7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
Deu_15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
Here he is saying that all the poor in your cities are your brothers.


Deu 15:12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

Here your brother is one sold to you for six years, a male or a female...

Deu_17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

Here is a reassertion that the foreigner is NOT your brother implying that those of the nation are your brother.


I could go on but I think this sufficiently demonstrates that the word brother in Hebrew is more expansive than a sibling but not without limits...

Shalom...

Except the instructions concerning Levirate marriage say that the brothers had to be raised in the same house. In this case it seems highly likely that we’re talking about biological brothers, that was certainly the example laid out with Judah and Tamar. There were plenty of cousins around to pawn her off on if that would have worked.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Except the instructions concerning Levirate marriage say that the brothers had to be raised in the same house. In this case it seems highly likely that we’re talking about biological brothers, that was certainly the example laid out with Judah and Tamar. There were plenty of cousins around to pawn her off on if that would have worked.

I realize that it is commonly thought that it is brothers living in the same house but the text does not necessarily mean that.

I believe it is because of the story of Judah and Tamar as well as the phrase "dwell together" in the verse talking about the Levirate marriage.

I think the best way to consider this more fully is to see what "dwelling together" can mean.

Consider the following:

Gen 13:5 And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents.
Gen 13:6 And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together.
Gen 13:7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.
Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.
Gen 13:9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.
Gen 13:10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.
Gen 13:11 Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.
Gen 13:12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.


In the first, it does not appear that they were in the same tents. The reason that they could not dwell together is that the size of their herds were so large that they were competing for grasslands and water wells. But up until the time that they separated, they were indeed, dwelling together.
Then Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan. Surely others dwelt there also... So, he would be dwelling with them. Same for Lot. He was dwelling near Sodom. Where others dwelt.


This means that dwelling together is not restricted to the SAME HOUSE. It is more expansive than that.