-
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.
Boaz: Already married? How many wives? Single?
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
I can only say that it is possible for Boaz to have had another wife. I can say that it is probable that a wealthy man advanced in years would have a wife or wives already. Boaz himself thought it was unlikely that a woman would desire him and not a younger man.
I don't know anything that would have prohibited him from having multiple wives, but I also don't pick up anything that says he did either.
I don't know anything that would have prohibited him from having multiple wives, but I also don't pick up anything that says he did either.
As the others said. We really can't tell, but we certainly have no evidence that he was the bachelor the church typically imagines when retelling this account. He had lots of "maidens" and "young men" in Ruth 2:8-9 to harvest his fields. The words behind these are the feminine and masculine forms of a word that means youth and implies servant. Who were these people? Probably all the young people in a large household, including hired servants, slaves, his daughters and sons, maybe concubines... It seems rather far-fetched to assume that a man wealthy enough to have a household like this would not at a bare minimum have a concubine, and to assume that none of these people would be his own children.
It's also interesting to note that the people blessed Ruth by saying may she be like Rachel, Leah, and Tamar - all being wives in polygamous households (4:11-12).
It's also interesting to note that the people blessed Ruth by saying may she be like Rachel, Leah, and Tamar - all being wives in polygamous households (4:11-12).
oh! so they were! noice.
The book of Ruth is one of those books of the Bible I now read with a whole different set of presuppositions. I very much agree with the comments above, and that there is nothing in the account itself that proves he was single prior to marrying Ruth. God blessed the marriage and that is what we need to remind people, just as He blessed the marriages and families of other faithful men. We see that God is pro marriage; pro any marriage that fits within the framework He has given for marriage - and polygyny and monogamy fit equally.
Yes! The Bible is pro marriage. So many can't see that.
You know what we call a man with more than one wife today...polygamist.
What doesthe Bible call him??? HUSBAND!
What does the Bible imply that a man is who sleeps around on his wife, and then divorces his wives to take up newer model wives...whoremonger, covenant breaker and promoter of adultery.
What do we call him today??? President-elect!
You know what we call a man with more than one wife today...polygamist.
What doesthe Bible call him??? HUSBAND!
What does the Bible imply that a man is who sleeps around on his wife, and then divorces his wives to take up newer model wives...whoremonger, covenant breaker and promoter of adultery.
What do we call him today??? President-elect!
dreamer
New Member
Not trying to get political, but the current President-elect apologized for some of his previous misdeeds. I do not believe that he is a promoter of adultery. From what I also understand is that he is a "baby Christian." If so, the things he did in the past are in the past, and if he has truly repented and asked for forgiveness, then he is forgiven.
I've been posting for a short time, but lurking for much longer. I don't get the feeling that this board gets too political or bent out of shape over politics. How many responded to my little rant? None til now.
I stand by all my words, as from memory, he has been known to have aggressive "locker room talk" about other men's wives (adultery by Jesus' standard) and you can paint me skeptical on his conversion. I think that is biblical. Judging is encouraged in scripture. Conversions in the middle of campaigns seem...opportunistic. I believe even Dobson walked that one back, so only the Almighty knows. I will judge by his fruits, of which I see very little right now.
But the overarching message was not meant to be political, only a commentary on society, and even American evangelicalism. Does anyone truly believe The Donald would be able to sniff the presidency if his three wives were concurrent, not consecutive? How forgiving would evangelicals be of that?
I hope all my words here will be taken in brotherly love. I get the sense around here that we all agree to disagree gracefully. I truly am trying to do that here. I don't want to be seen as hating our future president. I will pray for him as God commands, as I have every president since I can remember.
Baruch atah Adonai!
Ah James Dobson, heart of gold and head of mush. My favorite apostate, he has done more harm to the church and Christian families than any man may has ever done from inside.
He has blunted and misdirected all of the backlash against the liberalization of the church and has effected more change then the liberals ever could have by pretending to be conservative.
It will be interesting to see his reception in heaven.
He has blunted and misdirected all of the backlash against the liberalization of the church and has effected more change then the liberals ever could have by pretending to be conservative.
It will be interesting to see his reception in heaven.
Did someone say something about James Dobson? I tried to find it, but didn't see it. I agree, just wondering what brought his name up.
Mojo just mentioned him in connection to The Donald.
In reference to The Donald (when he takes the oath, I will refer to him by his title...just not now) and his "conversion". I recollected that it was Dobson who spread the conversion story to the masses as a "I heard from a friend of a friend, of an uncle" scenario that it was TRUE. He then walked it back, and just said it was what "he heard", but didn't witness personally. It was enough to take on a life of its own before any retraction. I will look for a link soon.
"I stand by all my words, as from memory, he has been known to have aggressive "locker room talk" about other men's wives (adultery by Jesus' standard) and you can paint me skeptical on his conversion. I think that is biblical. Judging is encouraged in scripture. Conversions in the middle of campaigns seem...opportunistic. I believe even Dobson walked that one back, so only the Almighty knows. I will judge by his fruits, of which I see very little right now. "
Was Boaz already married? I find it highly probable.
The Hebrews back in those days understood that the first command given to mankind was to be fruitful and multiply. Any leader in the community would, of course, be married. Otherwise he would not be respected.
Personally, I believe that Naomi knew that her nonvirgin, foreign daughterinlaw didn't stand a chance as a wife in the standard sense. I believe that she had Ruth offer herself as a concubine. Concubines did not celebrate a standard marriage, it was more about an agreement and consummation. This is why she offered herself in the dark of night.
Boaz didn't want to commit concubinage with her because he evidently wanted to have a full marriage with her. So he told her to sneak out and he would take the legal steps. Naomi obviously didn't expect Ruth to qualify for a Leverite marriage.
The Hebrews back in those days understood that the first command given to mankind was to be fruitful and multiply. Any leader in the community would, of course, be married. Otherwise he would not be respected.
Personally, I believe that Naomi knew that her nonvirgin, foreign daughterinlaw didn't stand a chance as a wife in the standard sense. I believe that she had Ruth offer herself as a concubine. Concubines did not celebrate a standard marriage, it was more about an agreement and consummation. This is why she offered herself in the dark of night.
Boaz didn't want to commit concubinage with her because he evidently wanted to have a full marriage with her. So he told her to sneak out and he would take the legal steps. Naomi obviously didn't expect Ruth to qualify for a Leverite marriage.
Last edited:
Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification
Excellent explanation. Steve. I never picked up on that.
Great explanation. Makes sense.
But why not mention these details in the narrative? Have we gone so far into time and so removed from biblical/Hebrew culture that we don't see the allusions? Would they have just been plain assumptions to the ancient readers? Plenty of other wives in scripture have been mentioned along with their husbands and "sister wives".
The more I ponder this, the more I come to see that there is no clear line between "wife" and "concubine". Rather, a man can take a wife under a range of different contractual arrangements, with those women having arrangements at one end of this spectrum occasionally being given the label "concubine". This may explain the lack of detail in the narrative. If we think that "wife" and "concubine" were completely different, obviously we'd expect the narrative to make very clear which one she was offering herself as - but they are not very different. On the other hand, she may well have offered herself as his wife under any terms (ie as a concubine), yet he chose to be far more generous with the terms he offered than she anticipated (giving her the full levirate marriage covenant treatment). Which is essentially what Steve stated. But if this is a spectrum, and any terms he had offered would still have been acceptable, there is no need to specify the difference.
Because it isn't a big difference. Just as there isn't a big difference between "wife whom I marry yet keep all my assets protected by a pre-nuptial agreement" and "wife to whom I give 50/50 ownership of my assets". The difference is so slight that nobody outside the couple even knows it exists. They're just as married either way. There is a large legal difference when it comes to inheritence rights, yet at the same time it is such an unimportant detail it would never be a story the kids told the grandkids and would simply be forgotten by future generations.
Because it isn't a big difference. Just as there isn't a big difference between "wife whom I marry yet keep all my assets protected by a pre-nuptial agreement" and "wife to whom I give 50/50 ownership of my assets". The difference is so slight that nobody outside the couple even knows it exists. They're just as married either way. There is a large legal difference when it comes to inheritence rights, yet at the same time it is such an unimportant detail it would never be a story the kids told the grandkids and would simply be forgotten by future generations.
This also sounds reasonable, but why no mention of a current wife, for those who believe he did have one?