Not according to Deut 25:5-10. In fact the word "Levirate" comes from the Hebroew word "levir", which literally means, "husband's brother".
-
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.
Let's make some pro polygyny memes
- Thread starter Elijahsfire
- Start date
Yes, Gesenius' lexicon (and Strongs) both clearly state that this is specifically the husband's brother. Which would mean that neither Boaz or the other man were strictly required to marry Ruth - although this could have become the way it was interpreted by the judges in cases when the husband had no living brothers, which would be a reasonable application of the intent of the law. But I don't think we can say the closer relative broke any obligations, because he didn't have any written obligation to marry her.
Boaz never said the other kinsman had an obligation to marry her either. Rather:
"And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman's part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the LORD liveth:"
And at the city gate:
"for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee."
The impression I get is that the closer kinsman had the first right to choose to redeem the property and Ruth, but did not have an obligation to do so. Boaz just had to give him the first choice in the matter. Also, as none of this is clearly outlined in the law, I gather this is basically "case law" from the judges, or possibly simply tradition, built on top of the written law. .
Boaz never said the other kinsman had an obligation to marry her either. Rather:
"And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman's part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the LORD liveth:"
And at the city gate:
"for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee."
The impression I get is that the closer kinsman had the first right to choose to redeem the property and Ruth, but did not have an obligation to do so. Boaz just had to give him the first choice in the matter. Also, as none of this is clearly outlined in the law, I gather this is basically "case law" from the judges, or possibly simply tradition, built on top of the written law. .
It's just a matter of whom it was mandated for. Once the (most likely hypothetical) widow spoken of by the Sadducees died, she didn't have any more brothers left who were required to marry her. I'm not so certain, I would have wanted to marry a widow maker, myself.
There can only ever be 1 driver.
Public Domain by the way. 
Stumbled across this card while searching in the grocery store. I'm sure this was intended for a poly wedding, right??
A few days before our second son was born two of his aunts got married. It was a sorta rare occasion. Sisters marrying brothers. They are still very happily married too. Just celebrating their 21st anniversaries today. 
Modern Rome's envy.
Not sure about the copyright on this one: it isn't the full strip, so it would count as a quote, right? Though we wouldn't want to be accused of implying Schulz endorsed something he didn't. This'll probably just be an inside joke. It would be cool (heh) to have on a T shirt though, to stroll around in with your two (or two of your) wives.
Not sure about the copyright on this one: it isn't the full strip, so it would count as a quote, right? Though we wouldn't want to be accused of implying Schulz endorsed something he didn't. This'll probably just be an inside joke. It would be cool (heh) to have on a T shirt though, to stroll around in with your two (or two of your) wives.
Mr. "Joe Cool" Snoopy would be the guy with two chicks.
In my initial FB discussion when I came out as poly, everyone gangpiled on us, esp me. An elder I used to respect PM'd me to say that he knew that there was no Biblical grounds to condemn polygyny, but he had to publicly pile on in order to keep his position & his congregation in the church.
My in-laws are members there. They left their previous church when the elders refused to take the dogmatic "one drink is a sin" stance my MIL grew up w. My FIL tried to show the truth of the elders position, but she said, "I don't care what that book (Bible) says. If they aren't teaching what my dad taught me, they're wrong." My FIL sat aghast for a moment, closed his mouth, closed his Bible, and stopped even attempting to discuss ut w her.
My wife no longer allowed to attend any family functions unless she divorces me: no funerals, weddings, holiday parties, etc. Since we're over 1,000 miles away now, it's less of an issue. All family communication goes through her sister who hasn't disfellowshipped her.
So the neighbor across the street, the local CoC preacher, argued w Alexa about marriage: specifically about "wives submit to your husbands" by hiding behind the "submit to one another" excuse.
He tried to get her to get ME in line w what HE wanted me to do. So, he expected MY wife to submit to him but not his own. He then got offended when she refused saying, "If you have a problem w my husband, take it up w him. I submit to him, not him to me."
Alexa definitely had spirit. I always liked that about her. She vacillated between fearless and fearful. Eventually, fear won.
1) "European Christ"? Is that even a concept? Until here, I'd never heard of it.What is crazy Rockfox is that I thought to myself today, "I would like to make an expanding brain meme." (Not because I had seen one anywhere that I know of.) I came on here to post it and there you were...
Anyway, here's mine:
2) While many have taken the concept and ran w it in unBiblical ways, local churches submitted to local elders. Thus the "members" knew who their elders were, and, conversely, the elders knew who their church was. Similarly, they knew who to expect submission from and who not to, thus when members from Jerusalem taught heresy in Antioch they sent a delegation back to their elders in Jerusalem to hash out the discrepancy in teaching (Acts 15). This whole concept is rooted in masters/slaves similar to husbands/wives. If the neighbor kid behaves badly, you take it up w his parents, right? So those who belong under this eldership are those "members". How can an elder "watch over your soul" (Heb 13:17), if you don't acknowledge his guardianship of it?
3) Wedding rings: Gen 24:22 Abram's servant gives a ring and bracelets to Rebekah as a promisory of the wedding proposal.
4) "Officiated marriage": I have no real disagreement here. Biblical marriage was either very private him/her and no one else such as Adam & Eve or semi-public parties between the 2 families. There seems to be no 3rd party involved until RCC and later the government.
5) Sermons: Everywhere Paul went, he spoke to crowds to establish the local church. When he returned, the church often gathered and stayed to here him speak.
Acts 20:7
"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight." Sounds like a sermon to me.
The more unBiblical concept is the paid, local evangelist. Instead, it teaches "mutual edification".
1 Corinthians 14:26
"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up."
BTW, there it is again "a lesson". Sounds like a sermon to me. But this is everyone sharing something weekly, not the same 5 people doing everything and everyone else doing nothing.
6) "Sunday sabbath": There are 3 ways if viewing this phrase.
A) Sunday - Jesus rose on the 1st day of the week just before dawn when the women came to attend His body. This is then commemorated by the early church such as Acts 20:7 earlier "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,..." This was their regular habit. By the time of Revelation it was aka "The Lord's Day" (Rev 1:10).
B) Sabbath - Sabbath means 7th. So Sunday is 1st. Sabbath is 7th. So "1st 7th" is nonsense in this case. The Mosaic law of "keeping the sabbath" makes it synonymous w rest. So "Sunday rest" makes sense in keeping w the principle from Exodus 23:12 “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; ..." Of the 10 commandments, 9 are repeated. Only "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" is NOT repeated in the New Testament. Thus worship is moved from weekly to daily; gathering is moved from Saturday to Sunday; Jesus is our rest and no official rest will come until He returns, but rest is important and should be engaged in.
7) "Multiple wives" is this entire forum so, again, no disagreement here.
So sad the way it turned out, but I am still praying for restoration for you guys.
Last edited:
I love how you always tie things to Scripture. I wish @AlexaH could appreciate that.
What a brilliant observation, the mainstream church will deny the pastor's wife has to submit to her husband but the parishoner's wive's should. I wonder if the pastor's wife would have to submit to the husband in his capacity as pastor. That's funny.