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?
-
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.
Was the marriage of Boaz and Ruth’s form of Levirate marriage?
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
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...
Boaz and Ruth. Read the earlier posts in this thread. I lay out the case pretty irrefutably.
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.
Then there's no example of even One True Levirate in all of Scripture. Judah's sons can't count, because they're not a Zec-style Perfect Fit, either, and besides, he predated Moses' Written Torah - so he couldn't POSSIBLY have known...
And, I can't help but note - Adam's 'marriage' counts for nothing, because nobody else got the "bone of my bone" treatment.
Makes you wonder why He even bothered to put those stories in there. Oh, wait - we can't use stories as precedent, I forgot, which is why Abraham's un-named servant, and his land purchase count for nothing, too.
Perhaps you'll tell us what He was thinking.
By definition, obviously. BF seems to have its own Pope.
I reacted strongly - again - to the claim of Infallibility, because of this:
It's not allowed to, DAMMIT.
If anybody ELSE even tries to mention the dreaded word "torah" - you censor the livin' hell out of it, and then usually lock the whole topic! Even the Ghetto has been destroyed by anti-Torah bigotry, and then you claim the "centrality of God's Word" has to "permeate every topic."
What filthy, anti-Scriptural hypocrisy!!!
YOU ARE THE REASON IT is not ALLOWED TO!!!!!!!
It's not allowed to, DAMMIT.
If anybody ELSE even tries to mention the dreaded word "torah" - you censor the livin' hell out of it, and then usually lock the whole topic! Even the Ghetto has been destroyed by anti-Torah bigotry, and then you claim the "centrality of God's Word" has to "permeate every topic."
What filthy, anti-Scriptural hypocrisy!!!
YOU ARE THE REASON IT is not ALLOWED TO!!!!!!!