JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
I think everything I've read about this interprets it as: the first-born son of the new union is reckoned as being THE SON of the deceased man. Does anyone take the position that, rather: the first-born son of the new union is reckoned as being the actual (deceased) man (in terms of future lineage)?
It sounds weird, but the language of Scripture is confusing. Deuteronomy 25:6 in the NASB reads: "It shall be that the first-born whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother. . ." At first glance it seems like the child is reckoned as taking the place of the dead brother (rather than as the child of the dead brother).
And in Ruth 4, the neighbor women say: "A son has been born to Naomi!" (NOT: "A grandson has been born to Naomi"). But if the child of the new union is reckoned as being THE CHILD/SEED of the deceased, then the child of Boaz/Ruth wasn't properly Naomi's adopted SON, but her adopted grandson (reckoned as Mahlon's son). Right? (Or is it just figurative? They say "son" but it's actually "grandson"?)
It sounds weird, but the language of Scripture is confusing. Deuteronomy 25:6 in the NASB reads: "It shall be that the first-born whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother. . ." At first glance it seems like the child is reckoned as taking the place of the dead brother (rather than as the child of the dead brother).
And in Ruth 4, the neighbor women say: "A son has been born to Naomi!" (NOT: "A grandson has been born to Naomi"). But if the child of the new union is reckoned as being THE CHILD/SEED of the deceased, then the child of Boaz/Ruth wasn't properly Naomi's adopted SON, but her adopted grandson (reckoned as Mahlon's son). Right? (Or is it just figurative? They say "son" but it's actually "grandson"?)
Last edited: