Is a man OBLIGATED to take a woman as his "wife" when she has made it clear she wants him as her "husband" ?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Obligatory Polygyny
- Thread starter JudahYAHites
- Start date
There is nothing to indicate that to be the case in the Bible. We see the example of the godly man Boaz who Ruth presented herself to, but he knew of another man who could take her so investigated that possibility first (cf. Ruth 3:11-13).
No. Why do you ask?
When a woman with zero headship over her makes this request, I would feel some obligation to help her get under headship in some manner to a good man, whether he be myself or another.
See her request for what it actually is, not just for what her expression was.
See her request for what it actually is, not just for what her expression was.
This is both a good answer and a bad one.
The good:
The original question was if she simply "wants" him, in which case I believe you were right to say, "There is nothing to indicate...".
The bad:
1. Boaz and Ruth is a case of Levirate marriage, in which both are bound to follow the law, not her choice, and the man absolutely is obligated to take her in that case. See Onan.
2. Ruth didn't choose to initiate with Boaz, but Naomi did. Ruth's appeal to Boaz was made at Naomi's command, irrespective of Ruth's desires. The appeal she carried out was not an offer or a request, but was meant to make him aware of his duty.
3. As you pointed out, there was a nearer redeemer who could have taken Ruth instead if he wanted. It's "could have" and "wanted" only because Boaz gave him an out. Without Boaz, that kinsman absolutely would have been obligated to take Ruth.
That's as far as a man can be obligated to a woman as far as taking in marriage goes. If there is no case of Levirate law, then there is no duty to take a woman. Certainly not simply because of anything she wants or needs. As far as female desire or even consent weighs into the equation, the only illustration of that I can think of is Jesus knocking on the door (door of the human heart, the husband being an image of Christ and the woman being an image of mankind), but only entering to (wedding) those that open to Him. If even salvation isn't given to us because we want it or need it, but only because He first loves us and choses to offer it (and if we accept it), then surely what a woman wishes for doesn't obligate a man. This is in contrast to the first marriage of God and mankind, in which there was no offer, but the bride was chosen and could not refuse. Or, at least, I fail to see any indication that there was an option to refuse, and the Israelites were constantly referred to as the "chosen people", not the "people who wanted it".
Scripture does not indicate that the obligation to marry, extends beyond the immediate brother, but it does indicate that the closest kinsman in the absence of any immediate brother, is most desirable. I think that is the only conclusion we can draw from the Ruth-Boaz example. There was no shame placed upon the nearer kinsman for refusing to take Ruth, and likewise there would not have been any shame placed upon Boaz if he had not done so. Why would Boaz be put to shame and the nearer kinsman escape this? The story gives us hints that Boaz did in fact desire to have Ruth, but he felt obligated to allow the nearer kinsman the first option of taking her.
Can you elaborate on this, as well as explain why Boaz is called a kinsman-redeemer if the obligation does not extend beyond the immediate brother? If I am wrong about this, then I have a few things to take back.
Btw, yes, clearly Boaz did like what he saw in Ruth. Otherwise he would not have offered to take the closer kinsman-redeemer's place. I feel like there's a great spiritual lesson in there somehow.
Thank you for your input @NVIII. I have no desire to derail this thread so will point out the original question:
To keep it simple I gave an example with Ruth who approached Boaz, and Boaz was not obligated to take her. Cheers
Once the man who was obligated refused, was the next man (closest male relative) obligated?
Levirate marriage is described somewhere in Deutronomy or Levicitus. Just check there.
I just come home after 8h of physical work. Too tired to check.
Nooooooope
My take is that the obligation of polygyny goes beyond Levirate Law. Given the frequency with which YHWH demands that widows and orphans be fully taken care of throughout His Word, I exegesously interpret this to be a wholistic command to men in general to ensure that enough men practice the generous structure of polygyny, given that that's the only way that those widows and orphans will be properly cared for. Each individual man isn't required to practice polygyny, and any particular man would generally not be required to bring a particular woman into his home just because she asserted her desire, but I agree with @steve in this regard:
Someone should step up for her, and I can tell you that, when I've been in that exact circumstance, I considered myself responsible not to be the one to marry her (although I even gave it very serious consideration even though my gut told me it was a bad match), but I didn't rest easy until she found not only a husband but perhaps the very perfect husband for her.
I believe this what we're being called out by His Word to do in this life.
Sorry my answer isn't unequivocal, but that's my reading of Scripture: not necessarily in an individual case, but YHWH most definitely is expecting men in general to take up the slack with all the excess/leftover/uncovered women.
I think about this a lot.
Some good responses in here, but also a need for correction:
But the "sin of Onan," (and no - it was NEVER 'masturbation'!
)
it was REBELLION to YHVH. He didn't have a problem 'doing the deed' with Tamar, he didn't want (it says!) to provide an heir in his own brother's name, so he performed 'interruptus.' And it cost him.
Both Ruth and Boaz not only chose to 'do the right thing' (and were rewarded for it) they both, evidently, came to recognize just Who the real 'matchmaker' actually was.
Not so fast, as has already been noted.
But the "sin of Onan," (and no - it was NEVER 'masturbation'!
)it was REBELLION to YHVH. He didn't have a problem 'doing the deed' with Tamar, he didn't want (it says!) to provide an heir in his own brother's name, so he performed 'interruptus.' And it cost him.
Both Ruth and Boaz not only chose to 'do the right thing' (and were rewarded for it) they both, evidently, came to recognize just Who the real 'matchmaker' actually was.
Deuteronomy describes the obligation of the immediate brother. In the case of Ruth, her husband's brother died.
It does, but does it ever specify that the immediate brother is the only one responsible?
Or does it merely establish that he is the first in line of responsibility?
Yibbum - Wikipedia
Pretty comprehensive and accurate representation, for Dickipedia.Yibbum - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
I was discussing Scripture, not what someone else wrote about it.Yibbum - Wikipedia
As we all know, that source can be informative but isn’t considered definitive. I found the statement that the brother to marry her has to be older than the brother who died and the later statement that if the living brother was still a child, she had to wait for him to grow up a pretty amusing proof that serious scholars aren’t involved in this “definition”.
So let’s go back to Scripture if you don’t mind.
What is obvious in the story of Ruth is that her husband HAD NO LIVING BROTHER.
So either Boaz and the man who he “knew” was a closer relative didn’t understand the rules, or your understanding is flat wrong.
Deuteronomy 25:5 has two different words for brother
First it literally reads "if relatives dwell together", the word there for brother being H251 which is not limited only to a husband's direct brother, but can more broadly mean any relative.
But then it states "her husband's brother shall go in unto her", and the word here (H2993) is unique and never appears in scripture other than in this passage, where the lexicons and translators say it means only a direct brother-in-law. Because it only appears here however that translation is impossible to verify from scripture itself.
The LXX translates both using the word "adelphos", which can mean either a direct brother, or a more distant relative. Does this lose some meaning in the second example, or does it clarify for us what the second word actually means? I have no idea honestly.
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, Boaz was still not bound to do this duty for Ruth, since her husband had most certainly not been "dwelling together" with Boaz when he died, they were in an entirely different country.
However he and the other relative may have taken this not as a legalistic obligation (which they could easily find a justification to get out of), but rather as a general principle of what is the right thing to do for a widow in the family.
First it literally reads "if relatives dwell together", the word there for brother being H251 which is not limited only to a husband's direct brother, but can more broadly mean any relative.
But then it states "her husband's brother shall go in unto her", and the word here (H2993) is unique and never appears in scripture other than in this passage, where the lexicons and translators say it means only a direct brother-in-law. Because it only appears here however that translation is impossible to verify from scripture itself.
The LXX translates both using the word "adelphos", which can mean either a direct brother, or a more distant relative. Does this lose some meaning in the second example, or does it clarify for us what the second word actually means? I have no idea honestly.
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, Boaz was still not bound to do this duty for Ruth, since her husband had most certainly not been "dwelling together" with Boaz when he died, they were in an entirely different country.
However he and the other relative may have taken this not as a legalistic obligation (which they could easily find a justification to get out of), but rather as a general principle of what is the right thing to do for a widow in the family.