Is not the transaction between Boaz and the kinsman in Ruth 4:3–8 contrary to the stipulations in Deuteronomy 25:5–10?
There is not a contradiction to the general law of the levirate in Deuteronomy 25. The basic rules there for a formal rejection of the duty to the widow and also for a public acceptance of that responsibility were carried out by both men. Ruth’s failure to carry out an active role in accusing and shaming the other go’el amounted to the voluntary surrender of her right to perform this ceremony, in view of the fact that the essential purpose of the levirate ordinance was about to be achieved in a far more desirable and acceptable fashion through Boaz himself.
Related Questions
- Why is the Catholic Church opposed to birth control? Where in the Bible is birth control condemned as being contrary to the Will of God?
- Is not the transaction between Boaz and the kinsman in Ruth 4:3–8 contrary to the stipulations in Deuteronomy 25:5–10?
- Was Ruth being immoral by lying at the feet of Boaz while he slept (3:7–8, 13–14)?
