c. If you buy it back, buy it back: When Boaz formulated it in relation to a pure land transaction, there was no hesitation on the part of the close relative. Of course, he said, « I`m going to buy it back. » d. Come away, friend, sit here: Literally, in ancient Hebrew, when Boas greeted the next of kin, he called him « Mr. So-and-so. » Ruth`s scribe never identified the name of the next of kin because he was not worthy of honor. He refused to fulfill his obligations as Ruth`s next of kin. Although the common assumption that the rite described in Ruth 4 is traditionally considered an example of levirate marriage, it seems likely that it is rather an excellent example of the shoe ceremony. Ruth`s salient part reads: « (Now, in ancient times in Israel, when the redemption and transfer of ownership became final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.) Then the parent-savior said to Boaz, « Buy it yourself. » And he took off his sandal » (New International Version, Ruth 4:7-8). [35] Commenting on this passage, it is said: First, unlike the widowed woman in Exodus chapter 25, Ruth does not spit in the face of the man who refuses to marry her, which many sources call a necessary part of the Leverian wedding ceremony. [7] One commentator noted that the Bethusians or Sanhedrin « believed that the Jewama was indeed required to spit in the face of levir, and this is also said in two manuscripts of the Septuagint, in the antiquities of Josephus, and in some of the apocryphal books, but Talmudic scholars considered it sufficient for the ancients to see them spitting. » [8] Since Ruth does not spit on her intention or on the ground, their marriage cannot be levirate.
It is also pointed out that the nameless male parent-savior (gō`ēl) suffers no shame in Ruth`s story if he refuses to play his role. [9] If this is an example of Levitatic marriage, it contradicts the practice dictated by the Bible. Isaiah 54:4-8 describes the beautiful ministry of Jehovah as our Goel, our Parent-Savior: Do not be afraid, for you will not fall out of favor, for you will not be ashamed. Your [relative] Savior is the Holy One of Israel. For the Lord has called you as an abandoned woman, married in spirit. with eternal goodness, I will have mercy on you, said Jehovah, your [related] Savior. Buy it from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to immortalize the names of the dead through her inheritance: Boas explained what everyone knew – that it was a package. If someone wanted to exercise the right of the parent-redeemer against the deceased Elimelech, he had to fulfill the duty both in terms of property and offspring. You redeem my right to salvation for yourself, for I cannot redeem it: these are glorious words in the ears of Ruth and Naomi.
A moment earlier, all seemed lost when the next of kin said, « I`ll buy him back. » But Boaz`s plan came with unexpected surprise and wisdom. And it worked! If you had to seal a contract by exchanging a common object, what would it be? How important is it to you whether you are or are legally married? Is the marriage contract a public or private matter? Second, in the story of Ruth and Boas, it is not the woman who takes off the man`s shoe. Rather, it depicts how the nameless male savior-parent (gō`ēl) takes off his own shoe. This, too, contradicts the law on levirate marriage and what happens in the passage of Deuteronomy in question. [10] Thus, something different from the usual levirate marriage is presented here. I. As Naomi was older and went beyond the years of childbirth, the close relative was not expected to marry Naomi and raise children with the surname of her late husband Elimelech. But Ruth was another thing – she could marry and give birth to children. As an example of such an unjustified assumption, we turn to the Book of Ruth and the story of Boaz`s marriage to the icon of fidelity and devotion, Ruth. In the fourth chapter of Ruth, we read, « This was how it was in Israel in terms of salvation and change, to confirm everything; A man tore off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor: and it was a testimony in Israel.
That`s why the parent told Boas: Buy it for you. Then he took off his shoe » (Ruth 4:7-8). So if Ruth 4:7-8 is not an example of Levitical marriage, what is it? While we can`t say for sure and the chapter offers us few clues, [18] there are a few elements that can at least help us form a hypothesis about what the author wanted to understand to his audience. Our main goal will be to remove the shoe. However, we must be careful to approach the passage in an exegetical and not energetic icy way [19] if we want to avoid the traps encountered by previous exegetes. Third, in the book of Ruth, the nameless parent-savior (gō`ēl) is not the brother of Ruth`s husband – as required by Jewish law. He seems to be a distant relative at best. [11] This, too, cannot be an attempt to fulfill the custom of Levitical marriage.
Something completely different is presented here. Levirate marriage is the name given to the old law that requires the surviving brother of a deceased man to unite in an intimate relationship with his brother`s childless widow. This was done to raise the seed for the name of his brother, who died prematurely (see Deuteronomy 25:5–6). [1] Like many Hebrew laws, levirate marriage had accompanying rituals necessary for its formal and legal implementation. Thus, towards the end of the deuteronomic passage dealing with this law, an explanation comes from what a woman should do if her surviving brother-in-law (or levyr) refuses to marry her. We read: « Then his brother`s wife, in the presence of the elders, will come to him and detach her shoe from his foot and spit in his face and answer and say, `This is what will happen to the man who will not build his brother`s house. And his name will be called in Israel, the house of him whose shoes are loosened » (Deuteronomy 25:9-10). I. But the contemplation of Jesus in this book of Ruth does not begin with the mention of King David; Jesus reviewed the entire book represented by Boaz and the office of the Parent-Savior. · Boaz, as Ruth`s savior-parent, took her as his wife; the people Jesus redeemed are collectively called His Bride (Ephesians 5:31-32; Revelation 21:9). In modern and ancient cultures, shoes have performed not only a practical function, but also aesthetic. However, when shoes are used in biblical rituals, they have an almost exclusively symbolic purpose.
[20] For example, they may be the preparation of a task (see Exodus 12:11; Ephesians 6:15; Matthew 10:10; Mark 6:9). Sometimes they involve the status of the wearer—freedom for the shod (see Luke 15:22), and slavery or poverty for the barefoot man (see 2 Chronicles 28:15; Isaiah 20:2). Walking barefoot, on the other hand, is sometimes used as a sign of sorrow (see 2 Samuel 15:30; Ezekiel 24:17, 23). [21] Finally, perhaps the most commonly associated meanings have to do with taking off one`s shoes when entering a sacred place (see Exodus 3:5; Joshua 5:15; Acts 7:33). [22] Therefore, we view footwear as more than a convenience and more than an accessory. Shoes, slippers, and sandals are important symbolic objects for ancient and modern Israel—God`s covenant people. In addition to the above symbolic uses of the shoe or slipper, there is an additional use worthy of our investigation. It is the ceremony of the shoe [23] to which reference is made in the Hebrew Bible, in the annals of ancient Mesopotamia [24] and in the sacred rites of the modern covenant of Israel. Who was the first man to be called left-handed?| Benjamin | Ehud | Isaac | Terah | According to the custom of the time, before Boaz could legally marry Ruth, he had to obtain release from a closely related relative known as the « Guardian Savior » or « Relative Redeemer » (Ruth 3:12–13). Even after this nameless man decided that it was financially unsustainable for him to redeem Ruth (Ruth 4:1-6) to make the trial legal, Boas had to seal the deal with a strange ritual.
In a tradition perhaps comparable to the modern spitting handshake or the little oath, a shoe was removed and exchanged to ratify the agreement (Ruth 4:7-8). · Boas, as Ruth`s savior-parent, assured Ruth a glorious destiny. Jesus, as our Savior, provides us with a glorious destiny. However, the links that are sometimes made between the shoe ceremony and the removal of the shoes when entering the sacred space are not so weak. As mentioned above, a main message when you take off your shoes during the ritual is that you are separating from the property or property. It is a legally binding recognition that what once belonged to you is no longer, of your own free will and choice. .