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.

 

[steve]

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.

As I like to say, legalism is easy.
Yes, it doesn’t line up with the exact wording of the definition of Levirate marriage (a word that I couldn’t even find in the King Jim)

So the question is, where does the concept of kinsman redeemer come from? There is instruction about redeeming the land, and that was the premise that Boaz approached the nearer kinsman on, but Ruth was offering marriage, the land was something that was tied to her. Even the nearer kinsman was willing to marry her, but balked at the land issue.

So we have an issue where the kinsman redeemer had a very clear parallel to Levarite marriage, but the actual concept seems to be non-existent in Scripture.
Yet even a (seemingly uneducated) female was aware of the principle that Ruth should be married to a close relative.
There are three witnesses in this story to the understanding of a widow needing to be married to a close relative.

But yet your judgment is that unless it was a brother living in the same household, it doesn’t qualify.
So the question for you, is where does the concept of kinsman redeemer come from? It, apparently, isn’t specified in the Bible.


So are you claiming that the book of Ruth is based on a misunderstanding and therefore un-Biblical?

 

[steve]

I apologize to everyone who posted comments that I didn’t respond to, I was going for the meat of this issue.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Ruth was offering marriage, the land was something that was tied to her

No, the land was tied to Naomi. Boaz specifically says so.

Even the nearer kinsman was willing to marry her, but balked at the land issue.

It was the other way around; he wanted the land but not Ruth.

o are you claiming that the book of Ruth is based on a misunderstanding and therefore un-Biblical?

I’m claiming that our approach to Ruth is based on a misunderstanding and this un-Biblical. Ruth itself is very Biblical.

Ruth is an interesting book. We never hear from God in it and there is no outside observer offering us moral validation of any character or actions. It’s very clear that this is a villain-less story; everyone in it acts in an honorable or admirable way, but we’re not told that their actions represent the explicit and exact will of God. I know we use the phrase a lot but that’s because it’s accurate; this is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

I believe the kinsmen redeemer is rooted in the story of the daughters of Zelophehad as stated. Naomi owned land that she could not pass on to anyone else. Boaz offered a path to keep someone connected to Naomi attached to the land.

I don’t consider this a dominuation of the story but it’s correct context and one that will make it’s impact and implications even more profound.

 

[Mark C]

So we have an issue where the kinsman redeemer had a very clear parallel to Levirite marriage, but the actual concept seems to be non-existent in Scripture.
Yet even a (seemingly uneducated) female was aware of the principle that Ruth should be married to a close relative.

I stand on my original point, and agree.

Were we to be overwhelmed with 'Zecalism' - there'd be no metaphor of value in Scripture, much less a simile or parable. There'd be no value in understanding the symbolism of Pesach/Passover. No understanding of His two wives, much less two "sticks." And don't even THINK about trying to ponder the Red Heifer!

 

[Mark C]

Given the expressed logic, this is but a distraction, which does not affect the bottom-line fallacy. BUT, it should be disposed with:

...Levirate marriage has nothing to do with “nearer of kin”, it’s brothers of the same household.

Says who? The Hebrew master?

Of any number of brothers exceeding three, there is one who is "nearer of kin" to another. And who defined 'brother' in this context, much less the original language?

And fer CRYIN' out loud, WHO said it had to be the "same household?"

"When brethren dwell together" doesn't specify a radius. For those who go "super anal" on the text, I'd like to see that spelled out. Do they have to be in the same bedroom? Tent? One acre parcel? A 'sabbath day's walk?' Or does the same town count? I won't claim to define it when He doesn't. Especially since I'd say the precedents for "other issues" are far more clearly spelled out in other stories...

 

[steve]

No, the land was tied to Naomi. Boaz specifically says so.

It was the other way around; he wanted the land but not Ruth.

I’m claiming that our approach to Ruth is based on a misunderstanding and this un-Biblical. Ruth itself is very Biblical.

Ruth is an interesting book. We never hear from God in it and there is no outside observer offering us moral validation of any character or actions. It’s very clear that this is a villain-less story; everyone in it acts in an honorable or admirable way, but we’re not told that their actions represent the explicit and exact will of God. I know we use the phrase a lot but that’s because it’s accurate; this is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

I believe the kinsmen redeemer is rooted in the story of the daughters of Zelophehad as stated. Naomi owned land that she could not pass on to anyone else. Boaz offered a path to keep someone connected to Naomi attached to the land.

I don’t consider this a dominuation of the story but it’s correct context and one that will make it’s impact and implications even more profound.

You are not addressing marriage to Ruth being tied to the land.
She offered herself to Boaz and he said that he couldn’t take her without being kinsman redeemer for her and the land.

Where is that ever stated in Scripture?

 

[steve]

Given the expressed logic, this is but a distraction, which does not affect the bottom-line fallacy. BUT, it should be disposed with:

Says who? The Hebrew master?

Of any number of brothers exceeding three, there is one who is "nearer of kin" to another. And who defined 'brother' in this context, much less the original language?

And fer CRYIN' out loud, WHO said it had to be the "same household?"

"When brethren dwell together" doesn't specify a radius. For those who go "super anal" on the text, I'd like to see that spelled out. Do they have to be in the same bedroom? Tent? One acre parcel? A 'sabbath day's walk?' Or does the same town count? I won't claim to define it when He doesn't. Especially since I'd say the precedents for "other issues" are far more clearly spelled out in other stories...

There ya go confusing the kids again.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Given the expressed logic, this is but a distraction, which does not affect the bottom-line fallacy. BUT, it should be disposed with:

Says who? The Hebrew master?

Of any number of brothers exceeding three, there is one who is "nearer of kin" to another. And who defined 'brother' in this context, much less the original language?

And fer CRYIN' out loud, WHO said it had to be the "same household?"

"When brethren dwell together" doesn't specify a radius. For those who go "super anal" on the text, I'd like to see that spelled out. Do they have to be in the same bedroom? Tent? One acre parcel? A 'sabbath day's walk?' Or does the same town count? I won't claim to define it when He doesn't. Especially since I'd say the precedents for "other issues" are far more clearly spelled out in other stories...

So it can mean anything ? There’s no parameters on “when brothers dwell together”?

And you still haven’t dealt with the nearer kinsmen’s treatment or the fact that Obed is the son of Boaz. You have three departures from a direct command. At some point keeping the law has to mean you keep the law.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You are not addressing marriage to Ruth being tied to the land.
She offered herself to Boaz and he said that he couldn’t take her without being kinsman redeemer for her and the land.

Where is that ever stated in Scripture?

It’s not. That’s my point. Levirate marriage is very clearly defined in scripture. Kinsmen redeemer is not. You have to at least see the connection with Numbers 36 though right? You can at least admit that it has as much connection to the case as Deuteronomy 25?