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

[steve]

I looked up the words kinsman redeemer and the only place that I could find it was in Ruth.

I would contend that the basis for the idea of kinsman redeemer is Deut. 25 where a brother is instructed to marry his brothers widow if she has not had children and raise a son to his brother. He is redeeming his brother’s bloodline, so to speak.
The specific statement was “the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man.“
If the brother was unwilling there was some process that involved pulling off his sandal and spit in his face. In Ruth there isn’t any statement about spitting, but taking off the sandal definitely was a part of it.

The original law was only about a brother living with his brother who died, but wouldn’t it be logical if the principal extended to the nearest kin in the absence of a brother who qualified? A near kinsman would fulfill the purpose of keeping her from having to marry a stranger, outside of the family.
Isn’t this the actual basis for Boaz turning down Ruth’s offer until the nearer kinsman had signed off?

 

[Mojo]

I looked up the words kinsman redeemer and the only place that I could find it was in Ruth.

I would contend that the basis for the idea of kinsman redeemer is Deut. 25 where a brother is instructed to marry his brothers widow if she has not had children and raise a son to his brother. He is redeeming his brother’s bloodline, so to speak

It might hinge on what the Hebrew or cultural understanding of what brother is. Is brother one who shares a mother or father, or someone from the same broader family lineage? Cousins included?

 

[ASyers41]

I would contend that it totally could be a form of

 

[The Revolting Man]

I will weigh in on this briefly in a a day or two. I have to do some research. I don’t see any way that Ruth is a Levirate situation.

 

[ASyers41]

There are a couple reasons one could make a claim that it is a type of Levirate marriage. The first one being that Ruth was a widow with no offspring from Mahlon. Both concepts would have required the next male of Kin to continue the lineage of Ruth’s late husband. This would be my strongest reasoning on how one could make the case that they are the same. Also, her husband was a Jew so I would argue they are the same.

 

[nathan]

Just one foundational point, and not making a case one way or another (though seems kinda Levirate-y to me, not sure it's something we can definitively answer): Many who don't even support PM today agree with the idea that Boaz was likely already married. Here for instance: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/86294/could-boaz-have-had-a-first-wife-and-family (and his included Jewish Encyclopedia link).

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright, I will show in the text that the marriage of Boaz and Ruth does not conform to the clear model of Levirate marriage laid out for us in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

Instead what we are seeing in the story of Ruth is the implementation of the instructions surrounding the daughters of Zelophehad, that widows with an inheritance were required to marry within their tribe so that the land did not move between tribes. This is found in Numbers 36:1-12 but let’s stick with Deuteronomy for now.

The text of Deuteronomy 25:6-10 reads:

5 ¶ “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

6 “It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall fnassume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7 “But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’

8 “Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’

9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall fndeclare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’

10 “In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’ Verse 5 pretty much clinches the argument by itself, Levirate marriage is constrained to brothers of the same household. Boaz does not fit this description. Furthermore he wasn’t even the closest relative. There was a nearer relative who refused to take on Ruth. Verses 7-10 tell is how that man should have been treated, he was to be humiliated in front of everyone at the gate. There was no provision made for the marriage pass to anyone else. And we can’t forget the purpose of Levirate marriage, so that the dead man would have an heir and his name would not be forgotten. But we know from multiple genealogies that Ruth’s son was the son of Boaz and not her first husband’s. Now there is the matter of the removed sandal but it’s pretty clear from the text that thats just coincidence. It’s a practice that had arisen separately .

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sorry that posted weird, I did something with the formatting that I couldn’t figure out.

But that’s it, nothing about the marriage of Ruth and Boaz conforms to the direct commands given us about Levirate marriage. It was not a Levirate marriage.

 

[Mark C]

A quick lesson in logic:

....nothing about the marriage of Ruth and Boaz conforms to the direct commands given us about Levirate marriage.

- She was married; her husband died, leaving no male heir.
- there was a direct reference to "nearer of kin."
- there was Naomi's instruction, and the message of '6' (arguably, meaning one-short of 7, or 'not complete.' Something to be done.)
- there was a meeting at the gate.
- the 'closer of kin' said that he "will not perform the duty" (his reason is not a factor, but also supports the story.)
- Boaz said that he was to "raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance." Which he did.
- there was a sandal/shoe involved.

That is hardly "nothing."

Ergo, the statement is false.

It was not a Levirate marriage.

Which is therefore unsupported by the claim.

It is a different thing to claim that it IS, than to make the claim that it is NOT, in the presence of significant evidence to the contrary.

The burden of proof rests on the attempt to deny the evidence. Which requires a claim, perhaps even from Scripture, that specifies just how MUCH of the total description must fit precisely. Is 80% sufficient?

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "it may not repeat exactly, but it sure as heck rhymes."


Note: Some might argue that Yahushua does not look much like either a lion OR a lamb. And therefore claim, "He was not a lamb," much less "The lamb.." My response would be similar: How much has to rhyme?

 

[The Revolting Man]

there was a direct reference to "nearer of kin."

So what? Levirate marriage has nothing to do with “nearer of kin”, it’s brothers of the same household. There is no provision for it to pass out of the household.

there was a meeting at the gate.

There were lots of meetings at the gate for all kinds of things.

Boaz said that he was to "raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance." Which

Inheritance, yes. It was always about the land.

involved.

 

[The Revolting Man]

A quick lesson in logic:


- She was married; her husband died, leaving no male heir.
- there was a direct reference to "nearer of kin."
- there was Naomi's instruction, and the message of '6' (arguably, meaning one-short of 7, or 'not complete.' Something to be done.)
- there was a meeting at the gate.
- the 'closer of kin' said that he "will not perform the duty" (his reason is not a factor, but also supports the story.)
- Boaz said that he was to "raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance." Which he did.
- there was a sandal/shoe involved.

That is hardly "nothing."

Ergo, the statement is false.


Which is therefore unsupported by the claim.

It is a different thing to claim that it IS, than to make the claim that it is NOT, in the presence of significant evidence to the contrary.

The burden of proof rests on the attempt to deny the evidence. Which requires a claim, perhaps even from Scripture, that specifies just how MUCH of the total description must fit precisely. Is 80% sufficient?

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "it may not repeat exactly, but it sure as heck rhymes."


Note: Some might argue that Yahushua does not look much like either a lion OR a lamb. And therefore claim, "He was not a lamb," much less "The lamb.." My response would be similar: How much has to rhyme?

All we have to do is read the text, Ruth 4:3 3 Then he said to the fnclosest relative, “Naomi, who has come back from the land of Moab, has to sell the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech“

This was about the land.

Even the removal of the shoe is about the land ; verse 7 says that was a customary way to transfer land.

7 ¶ Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning the redemption and the exchange of land to confirm any matter: a man removed his sandal and gave it to another; and this was the manner of attestation in Israel.

According to the Law of Levirate marriage, if brother’s shoe was going to be taken off it was Ruth who would do it right before she spit in his face.

Boaz even says multiple times in the passage that he is redeeming the land. Then in the very book itself Obed is listed in an official genealogy as the son of Boaz. I’m sorry but if this is a story or Levirate marriage it is a story of a bunch of sinful law breakers who have no concern about God’s commands.