According to Levirate Marriage, whose "Son" was Obed?

[Semper Fidelis]

I was teaching on Ruth today and remarking about how gracious Boaz was to Naomi and Ruth. The closer relative refused to redeem the property and to marry Ruth (Leviirate Marriage), because he did not want to jeopardize his own inheritance.

My understanding of the Law is that the land is redeemed by a close relative to keep the inheritance of a relative alive. Hence Obed would have inherited Elimelech's property that Boaz redeemed even though he was born to Ruth and Boaz. According to genealogy, then, wouldn't Obed be seen as coming through Elimelech as well or could he be thought of as being descended from both?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess my question might seem stupid considering the fact that Obed is listed in Boaz' genealogical line. Is it possible that Obed is the second son of Boaz and Ruth and that the first son (unnamed) carried on the line of Elimelech?

 

[Wayne]

Rich:

The fullest treatment I know of relating to your question would be the doctoral dissertation by Donald A. Leggett, long a faculty member at the Tyndale College & Seminary.

The published version of his thesis was The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament, with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth.
(Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack Publishing Co., 1974), 351pp., including bibliography and translation.

If seriously interested in this book, you could borrow it via interlibrary loan, or purchase one of the two copies available on the world-wide used market, prices ranging from $45-60 USD, and the two stores holding copies are in the Netherlands and Germany. See AddALL book search and price comparison.

Meanwhile, let's see if this quote answers your question, or at least comes within reach of it:

There are two main positions regarding the identification of the goel in 4:14. One is that the goel refers to the new-born child, Obed. This seems to be the more obvious meaning of the text. The second possibility is to see Boaz as goel since he has been featured in this role throughout the book. The latter position has been defended by several scholars {2} Bettan comments, "The reference is to Boaz, who fulfilled the obligation of a near kinsman; and this very day, having secured an heir for Mahlon, has given full effect to his office." Herbert affirms that one should place the full stop after the next-of-kin and begin the new sentence: "May his name (the child's) be famous in Israel." {4}
Earlier we mentioned two main options for understanding who the goel is in 4:14, 15: either Boaz who appears as such throughout the book, or Obed. Before looking at the latter position we must note that a third possibility has been mentioned: to interpret the goel as Yahweh. . . This is a very awkward rendering and leaves 4:14b, where the reference cannot be to Yahweh, entirely disconnected.
It is preferable to see Obed as the goel, for in so doing we do justice to ha'yom, which refers to the birth of the child just mentioned in 4:13. It allows us to take sh'mo (his name) as the goel's, which is the most normal and immediate antecedent. It is also most natural to relate the goel to the phrase "who hath born him" in verse 15. The question then becomes, In what sense may Obed be referred to as goel? Some see Obed as the heir who returns the property to the family. . .
The description in 4:15 of what the goel will do for Naomi gives us the clearest indication of how the child may be referred to as goel. "He shall be to you a restorer of life, and a nourisher of your old age." We can say that in a very general way the child is viewed as the protector of the widow, Naomi. The word "goel" is probably not employed here in a technical sense. Such usage demonstrates that the words "goel" and "gaal" are sometimes employed with a more general meaning.

{2} G. Cooke; I. Bettan; A.S. Herbert; A. Hervey; J. Bewer; L.P. Smith]
{4} Herbert's tranlation does not do justice to ha'yom, which word he neglects to mention.]
[pp. 255-259]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Wayne,

I appreciate the offer. I don't really have the time to research in-depth as it was a curiosity. I'm not sure I understand the cited portion except that the first paragraph seems to allude to what I was referring to: Mahlon having an heir secured. If Obed is that heir then it seems he is of that line, which is why I'm wondering if Obed might be another child born to Boaz unless I'm understanding Levirate marriage differently.

 

[Wayne]

One of those good questions to jot down in a commonplace book, for later study, when there is time.

I regret I don't have time just now to plumb the answer from a rather lengthy book.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Because Boaz does not seem to be married already when he takes Ruth to wife (perhaps he was unmarried, or a widower), there does not seem to be any objection to an understanding of this marriage as one that joins two heritages.

If a man only had daughters (ala Zelophehad) she had to marry within her tribe if the family name was to be preserved. However, that would have necessitated some sort of merger of landed inheritance. The situation woudl be even more obvious in the case of "only-children" marrying.

Formally speaking, neither Naomi nor Ruth (being married into Elimelech's family) are in any position to truly maintain the heritage of Elimelech. So, there isn't any very "neat" or "obvious" arrangement here, whereby a brother is giving his deceased brother a son, and preserving a separate family.

Bottome line, Boaz functions in the story as the human-redeemer. However much Obed (the child) may be viewed as some sort of redeemer, it has to be in a kind of signal manner, something like naming a person in order to make a witness or testimony to something.

 

[Wayne]

Bruce:

Not to argue Leggett's case in his book, but if you care to review his work, that book is available in a dozen or so libraries up that way:

US,MI ANDREWS UNIV EXN
US,MI CALVIN COL & THEOL SEMINARY EXC
US,MI DETROIT BAPTIST THEOL SEMINARY D9B
US,MI PURITAN REFORMED THEOL SEMINARY MIPRT
US,MN BETHEL THEOL SEMINARY LIBR BTA
US,MN CENTRAL BAPTIST THEOL SEMINARY MNCBT
US,MN LUTHER SEMINARY LIBR LNT
US,MN MARTIN LUTHER COL DML
CA,ON THEOLOGICAL COL/CANADIAN REFORMED CHURCH THZ
CA,ON TYNDALE UNIV COL & SEMINARY CNTCS

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm sure he does a much better job than I, Wayne. I don't know but I've seen the book you referenced somewhere, maybe in CWBogue's personal library. Might be a nice addition someday.

But simply for answering the question Rich posed, that's all I want to offer. I just had someone at church ask me a similar question. In some way, a plain reading of the text leaves me with the impression that Obed was reckoned both the son of Boaz, and the son of Naomi. I'm fine with just that, and so I explained it to the young lady.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Because Boaz does not seem to be married already when he takes Ruth to wife (perhaps he was unmarried, or a widower), there does not seem to be any objection to an understanding of this marriage as one that joins two heritages.

If a man only had daughters (ala Zelophehad) she had to marry within her tribe if the family name was to be preserved. However, that would have necessitated some sort of merger of landed inheritance. The situation woudl be even more obvious in the case of "only-children" marrying.

Formally speaking, neither Naomi nor Ruth (being married into Elimelech's family) are in any position to truly maintain the heritage of Elimelech. So, there isn't any very "neat" or "obvious" arrangement here, whereby a brother is giving his deceased brother a son, and preserving a separate family.

Bottome line, Boaz functions in the story as the human-redeemer. However much Obed (the child) may be viewed as some sort of redeemer, it has to be in a kind of signal manner, something like naming a person in order to make a witness or testimony to something.

Bruce,

If Obed is an only child then I think I agree with a merger. If not, then, as I understand Levirate marriage, Boaz would have been ensuring that Mahlon has an heir. Thus, Obed would have been Mahlon's heir. If Obed is an only child then he is both Boaz' and Mahlon's heir.

If Boaz had more children then Obed would be Mahlon's sole heir and also receive a double-portion from Boaz as his firstborn.

Either way, Obed can be seen as Boaz' heir even if he is also Mahlon's.

Is that how you understand it?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rich,
Here's how I understand the Levirate situation, if it is "cleanly" or "neatly" or "ideally" constituted: Two men, two wives, two families.

Perhaps (as with the sons of Judah, an early instance) the younger son isn't even married yet, but the levirate arrangement is not a "love-match" or a situation that assumes marriage in other-than a special case. I do not understand that the leveriate-wife should expect a long-term conjugal relationship. She needs a child to care for her in old age, to assume other family duties/inheritance, and that child is reckoned to the dead brother's name.

The living brother, if already married, already presumably has a family he is raising to his own inheritance. I would assume that even if not married yet, most guys plan on some other marriage than this levirate-marriage for "his own" children.

One thing I assume about Judah's second & third sons was that either from hate, spite, or pure selfishness (HE stood to inherit double, rather than some child given to the firstborn brother) each refused to give Tamar a child.

One man dies, no children. Sleeping with the widow (marrying her, actually) to give his brother an heir--it is love to the brother, love to a family situation bigger than you are.

Would Boaz's firstborn to Ruth be Mahlon's, and not his, if this remained an "only" marriage, and they had other children?

I don't know. The complexities of the land-inheritance, the whole social fabric, that is all interesting on one level (and I have been known to really dig into that stuff on occasion). But, I don't know that it is vital to getting to the heart of this one book, and the point that is being made regarding the fulfillment of God's promises, the Redeemer concept, etc. We don't absolutely need to have total clarity on that set-up to understand what is going on.

We don't know of any other children, and Obed is counted as Boaz' child in some sense, so perhaps it is best to see a familial merger as the reality, coming out of this situation. The child is called "Naomi's" child too, so indeed he is also counted as Elimelech's/Mahlon's. The "other guy" didn't want to jeaprodize his own inheritance through such marriage.

Boaz took the risks, got the rewards.

Maybe I'll post a paper I wrote in Seminary on this topic. It doesn't answer all the questions by any means, but it lays out my biblical-theology of Ruth.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks Bruce. I don't think the clean answer to my question affects the story. It was a matter of curiosity. I find the statement by the closer relative interesting:

6 Then the redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.”

There is obviously a little more going on than simply agreeing to marry Ruth.

I think I agree that a levirate-marriage would be a special case where Boaz could have married another after fulfilling the levirate marriage role for Mahlon. I think what makes the story gracious is that he doesn't have any proximate responsibility but there is redemptive love toward her where he pursues the marriage that he is not obligated to fulfill.

Perhaps, then, I could understand it as Boaz deciding that not only will he be the husband to Ruth to fulfill Levirate marriage but that he wants her to be his wife, period.

Thanks for the interaction.

 

[a mere housewife]

Maybe I'll post a paper I wrote in Seminary on this topic. It doesn't answer all the questions by any means, but it lays out my biblical-theology of Ruth.

Bruce, is this the paper: http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/ruth-redemption-hope-23576/

(I read through it this morning: I had bookmarked it a bit ago to read at some point and am glad I read it just now: it was very helpful, thank you.)