No takers yet? I was hoping someone had the answers...

 

Well, speaking as a father, I would say:

You ask too many questions. Run and play, now.

 

I think I figured it out. It seems obvious to me now, but that is how the rubiks cube seemed after I took a hammer to it the first time too.

 

I also have this question. It seemed like a very big deal to raise up an heir and then not list the name of the one that was suppose to receive the extension of his line.

 

Anonymous, I had the same problem, it seemed like a very big deal to raise up an heir for Mahlon and then not list Mahlon as the father of Obed.

Had Boaz been married already and had he had sons from this previous marriage, those sons would be the heirs to the properties of Boaz, and the sons of Boaz through Ruth would be the sons of Mahlon.

But since Boaz didn't have a wife or any heir at the time he took Ruth, their child (Obed) was not only the heir to Mahlon through this marriage - but he was also the heir to Boaz since Boaz had no heir. Had there been other siblings, perhaps they could have divided the land, but with only Obed, He became the sole heir of both Boaz and Mahlon. Yet only one name could show up in the genealogy - and the writers of scripture used the name of Boaz over Mahlon, because while Obed was the legal son of Mahlon, he was also both the legal, and the physical son of Boaz - thus the name Boaz had a greater claim to being in the genealogy.

Obed had two legal fathers, Boaz whom he was the heir of, and again, Mahlon, and through Mahlon Elimelech. But even though he was the heir of Elimelech through Mahlon - yet that doesn't erase his claim to being the heir of Boaz - for it is not as if Boaz had to give his inheritance to a stranger just because Obed was legally the son of Mahlon.

If that straightens it out.

 

Have you found any other place that addresses this issue?

 

I talked to a few people about this, pastors I know - and none had any insight on the situation; of course I checked online and in books and though I found a fair bit concerning levirate marriages, the bulk of that was directed at defining whether or not this union was in fact considered a levirate, etc.

I spent some time in prayer, and study, and after some time it dawned on me that I was so preoccupied with the fact that Obed was Elimelech's heir, that I never even considered the fact that he was also the heir of Boaz. It wasn't like *because* Obed was the rightful heir of Elimelech through the levirate union, that Obed had no claim to the inheritance of Boaz. With no other contender, Obed was the closest living relative to Boaz, so that even though he was the heir of Elimelech, he also was the heir of Boaz.

Obed was a rather peculiar case, as the firstborn of Boaz, he was entitled to his "birthright" - (if his inheritance was to be split amongst siblings, he was to be given a double portion). As the firstborn of Boaz, he was to be consecrated to the Lord (and consequently redeemed) - as Boaz's son. Even if a man had two wives, one loved, and the other a unloved wife (perhaps from a levirate union?) the first born, even if born of the unloved, still got the inheritance (c.f. Deut 21:15-17) - which is to say, there is a sort of rare situation here, if Boaz did not have two wives - his marriage to Ruth did not cause his own inheritance to evaporate - someone had to be the heir of Boaz, and that ended up being his physical son through this levirate union.

Scripture doesn't record any other children from this union, and Rabbinic tradition even claims that Boaz died shortly after the marriage took place. It seems that there were no other heirs, and so I concluded, that this was why the authors of scripture entered the genealogy this way: They (being more familiar with levirate unions) recognized that although Obed was the legal heir of Elimelech, but that didn't mean that Obed was disqualified from being the son of Boaz - as though he had to be one or the other.

I was looking for the either/or scenario, and that was why I missed the both/and scenario. When I saw it, I saw it, but I haven't found anyone else who articulated it that way - however scripture does record Boaz as the Father of Obed, and that is what this understanding I have laid out yeilds, and it does so (I hope) without doing injury to either the text, or the notions of the levirate union - though it is a little jarring at first to our preconceived notions of either/or.

If that helps.

 

Yeah, I get it! Thank you for taking so much time on this with me. Maybe this wouldn't be important to most people, but for some reason I wanted to know what was going on. I don't know a lot about the Jewish law, so I thought it might be a matter of knowing the law or maybe how the nation was running during the time of the judges. Again, thank you so much for digging into this with me.

 

Anon - no problem. When I first looked at this, I also thought it must be a matter of the law or something - I mean, shouldn't Obed be listed as the son of Mahlon or Elimelech? Why wasn't he? Perhaps it is something about the law that I don't get? But I thought I got it (head tilt)?

So because I, not unlike yourself, was not satisfied with, "it works but I don't know how", I prayerfully meditated on it, studied it, and continued to do so until it made sense.

I am glad you stuck with it until it did. Praise the Lord for when he opens our understanding, no one can close it again.

Grace and peace.

 

Good for you, Daniel. Keep asking questions, because only then will you get answers! Sometimes we ask questions that other people consider silly, but the answers that we get from the Lord are often astounding.

 

WOW, THANK YOU! I was studying the lineage of Jesus this day and had the same issue. I read this blog and the answer does make sense. Something to ponder, anyways.

Here is my question...Are we sure that the "Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah" is a double way of saying they were from Bethlehem? It seems redundant. Ok, I was wondering what relationship Boaz had to Elimelech? Boaz was from the Tribe of Judah. If the scripture means to identify Elimelech ("my God is King") as a descendant of Joseph through Epharim, well that would be curious in deed since it has long been the belief of Jewish scholars that there would be two Messiahs ...one being called the SON OF JOSEPH...and the other being called the SON OF DAVID. I personally feel that Jesus is both, the son of Joseph being His first coming and the son of David referring to His second coming but what if He was actually the son of BOTH JOSEPH (son of Jacob) and son of David. NOTE: SON means descendant. in other words, the scripture seems to point out that Jesus was very UNIQUELY qualified as Messiah as no other could be. Anyone have any comments???

 

Anon, In Genesis 35:19 we learn that the "old" name for the city of Bethlehem was Ephrath (c.f. Genesis 35:19, - " So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem),"). In other places in scripture, the term Ephrathite is used where we might be inclined to say, "Bethlehem-ite" (c.f. 1 Samuel 17:12 where Jesse, the son of Obed is called an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah ). It isn't really all that redundant to say, Bethlehem- Judah, rather it is just like saying New York-New York. The former names the city, the later the state, or in the case of Bethlehem-Judah, the city and the kingdom.

Given that the word "Ephrathite" refers to a citizen of Bethlehem, and not to an Ephraimite (a citizen of Ephraim), I don't think it would be very healthy to entertain any speculations that depend upon the phonetic similarities of completely different words. which is to say, if the foundation is ruined, I (personally) wouldn't build any speculation on it.

I hope that helps.

 

Daniel, I just came across your web site this morning as I am reviewing the story of Ruth as I am giving a sermon on it this morning.

I believe you are correct in believing Obed to be a true son of both according to Jewish law.

Best weshes,

Dick (Rick) Mann

 

I am soooo glad you wrote this post! I was just reading Ruth and had the exact same question. When I Googled: "How could Obed be the son of Boaz?" your post came up. Thank you! It was driving me nuts! Makes a lot of sense. Thanks again!
Jessie

 

Jessie,

I am glad it helped, and glad I wrote it because it gave me that opportunity.

Dan

 

Hey Daniel,

My wife is leading a Bible study on Ruth and we actually came upon this same question.

My initial thoughts was that Ruth must have had another son, where the first son belonged to Mahlon, and then Obed must have been the second son, to fit in with Levirate law (Deut 25).

But my wife pointed that cannot be the case since Obed is considered Naomi's son in Ruth 4:17.

So I searched online and found your blog. I think you're right. Obed is both Mahlon AND Boaz's son.

I found another post that agreed with your view.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/according-levirate-marriage-whose-son-obed-57316/

 

Thanks Daniel. I needed the eye-opener.

 

Does the levirate law apply to a marriage concerning a moabite, according to law, union to a moabite was forbidden anyway rite? Therefore you are outside the realm of that law anyway. Sounds legit lol

 

Michael,

Keil and Delitzsch, in their commentary on Ruth 1:1-5, say, “Marriage with the daughters of the Moabites was not forbidden in the law, like marriages with Canaanitish women (Deut. 7:3 - You shall not intermarry with them [i.e the Canaanites] giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,); it was only the reception of Moabites into the congregation of the Lord that was forbidden (Deut. 23:4 [3 Eng.]).” In their commentary on Deut 23:1-8 they define the assembly of the Lord as “the covenant fellowship of Israel with the Lord”.

The restriction of Deuteronomy 23:3-24 (“No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever, because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.") would not necessarily (according to that understanding) apply.

Not withstanding others are satisfied with simpler explanations. Ruth, in rejecting her nation, people, and their gods, was no longer of that nation, and so the restriction was relaxed. In the same way as 1 Cor 6:9 says no sinner shall inherit the Kingdom of God - yet sinners do inherit the Kingdom when they turn in faith and obedience to God through Christ.

Still others are satisfied with a simpler explanation- it was an exception that God graciously allowed.

Others note that a Benjaminite named Shaharaim fathered sons in Moab (1 chronicles 8:8) suggesting either that this affirms the notion that marriages were legitimate, or that perhaps Ruth was a descendant of one of these Bejaminite sons.

One thing is certain - no one at the time seems to have questioned the legitimacy of those marriages, and David was chosen by God to be King. It is clear that God did not regard David as being barred from entering into the assembly. The rest of it is just our trying to understand that in the context of the former texts.

 

Thank you so much! I was trying to understand this.

 

Is there a parallel between Obed and Jesus? Jesus was the legal son of Joseph and the actual Son of God. In this way is Obed a type of Christ?

 

Boaz’ Marriage to Ruth was not a levitate marriage. Compare the transaction in Ruth 4 with Deut. 25:5,6. Not the same. It was a business/property transaction and was explained as such in Ruth 4:7. Boaz functioned as a kinsman redeemer (not a brother in law) and redeemed Naomi and her husband’s property, which included Ruth. Thus the child born of Ruth was Boaz’ but at the same time regarded as maintaining the name of the deceased husband, Mahlon, so it did not disappear from the village records.

 

There may well be. We don’t know in which way Jesus was the son of David - a physical son, with an hereditary right to the throne, or a spiritual son in the way say John the Baptist is Elijah, or Christians are (adopted) sons of Abraham. We know that He had a right to sit on David’ Throne by virtue of his heritage, but we don’t know if that is a physical or spiritual heritage. Jesus was appointed a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not the order of the Levites. Perhaps his inheritance of the throne involved a similar association. Mary was impregnated supernaturally, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Joseph wasn’t the actual father - God could certainly have made it so - even if that seems strained (and it does to me). Jesus was certainly the legal son of Joseph and that is sufficient for a claim to the throne. So it may well be that obed is a type, as they say.

It’s not as easy a type as others as there is a great deal about how this all worked that is left unexplained in the scriptures, but it does seem to work given that some could argue that David Himself wasn’t fit for the throne on account of his questionable heritage, so Jesus may likewise be maligned as he was when the Pharisees insinuated that he was fathered illegitimately. Both David and Jesus were given (by God) as rulers over His people. So Obed also is -at the very least- involved in prefiguring Christ.

It’s not a type that’s easy to see, but I think the type fits.

 

Unknown (re: levitate[sic] marriage).

One reason Ruth and Orpah may have remained with Naomi is because they, as widows, had a legal right to their husband's lands in Israel.

Consider the nature of the discussion Naomi has with Ruth and Orpah in Ruth 1:11-13, But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? Have I yet sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? Turn back, my daughters; go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, even if I should have a husband this night and should bear sons, would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the Lord has gone out against me.”

The reason this portion of Naomi's discussion with Ruth and Orpah is included is because it gives us the context as to why they clung to Naomi. She encourages them to give up the hope of a levirate marriage - for that is the only thing she can be describing here - since she is not likely to remarry, and even if she did, they'd be waiting a long time for a husband.

The idea of a levirate marriage isn't being forced upon this situation - it is being suggested from the very onset of the book of Ruth. We hear of the marriage of these to Moabites to sons of Israel, and we hear of their becoming widows - then we hear Naomi tell her daughter-in-laws to give up on the inheritance they would have received because she (Naomi) believes that the calamity that has found her is such that Ruth and Orpah shall only share it if they continue with her - hoping to receive the inheritance in Israel that was due them as widows.

The notion that this Ruth's marriage therefore is not levirate but rather is a property matter, doesn't strike me as tenable. In Israel women were never regarded as chattel, and would never be treated as mere property. the property laws say nothing about widows. When the nearest relative had the opportunity to redeem the property, he was made aware that in order to redeem the property of Naomi's sons, he would need to raise up children for Ruth on that property - the man declined, because he wasn't willing to enter into the levirate marriage that would give him the right to the land.

I'm aware that there are certain women's groups who, desiring to portray the treatment of women in the scriptures as victims of a male dominated patriarch, would heartily rally around the portrayal of this marriage as rather 'another example' of 'misogyny in the bible' etc. But the text itself (in context) denies this kind of textual revision, which itself finds no support in the kind of 'evidence' that attempts to prop it up.

That's how I read it at least.

 

You are right. A levirate marriage in the dictionary is “ a custom of the ancient Hebrews and other peoples by which a man may be obliged to marry his brother's widow”. Mahlon wasn’t the brother of Boaz, if his brother Chilion had married Ruth after Mahlon’s death then that marriage would have been considered a Levirate and Ruth & Chilion’s son would have been the son of Mahlon.

 

I think you may be missing this point? Boaz wasn’t Mahlon’s brother but he was the nearest (living) relative to legally stand in the place of Mahlon’s brother. The way the law worked, if there was no immediate redeemer, that duty passed to the nearest kin. Boaz was acting as the nearest kin ‘stand-in’ for Mahlon’s brother in that levitate marriage.

The notion that it wasn’t a levitate marriage because Boaz wasn’t Mahlon’s actual brother ignores the next-of-kin provision which existed for situations exactly like this - where there was no living brother to fulfill the levitate duty.

 

This answer makes sense to the above significant question. I also think in the same way.

 

Hi! Yes Jesus was a decent of David through Joseph of Aremethia, father of Mary. The lineages are different in Matthew and Luke. One has an extra generation, Joseph husband of Mary, and Luke has the lineage of Mary, being one generation shorter. So He was both a legal relative, and a physical one. Jesus is also represented by Boaz because Jesus is our kinsman redeemer raising up spiritual sons in place of Adam who lost his spiritual\physical inheritance due to his transgression of the Law.

Also, as a side note, Jesus was not human sacrifice, as this would be against Torah. However, as all nations had been divorced from covenant with the Bridegroom Jesus, (Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the expelling of Judah in 70 AD) Jesus as the husband had to die in order for the wife to be free to remarry whom she would without being an adutlress (sorry I can't remember how to spell that this morning.) Jesus drank the cup of bitter waters taking on the punishment under the law for a cheating wife, so we would have the choice of whether or not we will face the second death.
Hope this helps! Yah bless you and keep you!

 

I doubt that Joseph of Arimathea, whom John describes a secret disciple of Jesus, was actually Jesus' grandpa.

If he was - Jesus wouldn't have commended his mother Mary to John, since that would be crazy inappropriate, since her father was still alive, and even a disciple of Jesus himself.

I also do not regard Jesus as a "Sacrifice". No one took Christ's life from him. No one sacrificed Him. He Himself sacrificed His life to secure the lives of those who by faith, are united with him in His death through their baptism into His life - so that thereafter they may be raised to life with Christ - having their old life put to death, and having been grafted into the eternal life of Christ.

For this reason our Saviour came - sacrificing his life to be an Ark that brings us through the judgment (death) against us - that we may pass through death unharmed - even as Noah passed through the judgment (the flood) that illustrates this point.

He wasn't a sacrifice - He sacrificed his life to bring us through death - through our union with him - and into life - through the same union.