The Levirate Marriage - A question on genealogy

[Rachel20]

Hey everyone.


I have a question regarding the Levirate Marriage custom in the Old Testament, which is specified as this --->

Deuteronomy 25:5-6

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.


Also reading Jesus' geneology, both in Matthew and Luke, Obed is noted as the son of Boaz, and Perez as the son of Judah. (Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38)

In Ruth, Boaz redeems Ruth, Mahlon's widow so that the name of the dead would not be forgotten

Ruth 4:10

Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You are witnesses this day.”

As for Perez, the story between Judah and Tamar is in this Genesis 38

However in the NT, in Jesus' genealogy both Boaz and Judah are listed as fathers of these. So was this custom void or did it even have any significance?

Anyone care to explain?

 

[john832]

Hey everyone.


I have a question regarding the Levirate Marriage custom in the Old Testament, which is specified as this --->

Deuteronomy 25:5-6

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.


Also reading Jesus' geneology, both in Matthew and Luke, Obed is noted as the son of Boaz, and Perez as the son of Judah. (Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38)

In Ruth, Boaz redeems Ruth, Mahlon's widow so that the name of the dead would not be forgotten

Ruth 4:10

Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You are witnesses this day.”

As for Perez, the story between Judah and Tamar is in this Genesis 38

However in the NT, in Jesus' genealogy both Boaz and Judah are listed as fathers of these. So was this custom void or did it even have any significance?

Anyone care to explain?

There are two genealogies in the N.T. and they differ.

Contradiction? Nope, one is Joseph's, one is Mary's.

 

[Rachel20]

There are two genealogies in the N.T. and they differ.

Contradiction? Nope, one is Joseph's, one is Mary's.

No I am aware of the difference, and I've heard the theory about that being one of Joseph's and one being Mary's. I still haven't researched that, so I reserve my statements.


However my question wasn't even that.


My question was - why is Obed listed as the son of Boaz, and likewise Perez as the son of Judah, seeing that they are sons from a levirate marriage. Would they not have been listed as son of Mahlon/ or likewise Perez, son of Er?

 

[john832]

No I am aware of the difference, and I've heard the theory about that being one of Joseph's and one being Mary's. I still haven't researched that, so I reserve my statements.


However my question wasn't even that.


My question was - why is Obed listed as the son of Boaz, and likewise Perez as the son of Judah, seeing that they are sons from a levirate marriage. Would they not have been listed as son of Mahlon/ or likewise Perez, son of Er?

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

 

[Rachel20]

*bump*




....


OK why is it that I always make the most unpopular threads on Bible Discussion? Seriously, how do you guys do it?

 

[Angela53510]

Sorry, I have no answer to that question. My guess would be that it is the actual lineage, not the Levirate one!

Anyone else?

 

[Rachel20]

Also, about the difference in genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, gotquestions.org has this answer - that it is due to Levirate marriage (Eusebius' view) .

However it did add that Biblical scholars have a different view today, which is akin to John832's answer.


Excerpt from the answer-



"Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture:Matthew 1andLuke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12;Luke 3:27).

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legallyandthe “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

Read more:Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

"

 

[psalm6819]

Hi Rachel20, with regard to Ruth, in the Lerverite marriage Boaz is the Kinsman Redeemer. That is a foreshadow of Jesus as our Kinsman Redeemer. Boaz marrying Ruth (the Gentile Bride) Redeeming the land for Naomie (representing Israel)

Joseph was adopted by Mary's father, this was a custom approved by Moses and instituted by Joshua, it was the daughters of (can't spell this but I'll give you scripture later) Zephilhad. daughters no sons for the daughters to inherit and keep the land thier husbands were adopted by the father-in-law.

Mary was descended through David's line by Nathan, (son younger than Solomon) Joseph from Solomon.

 

[Sophia]

This topic is actually really complex for us westerners, but supposedly makes perfect sense in mid east culture.
Someone told me that it works like our last names. The lineage, "having sons for" is out of honor of the union of the brother to his wife. It carries on the "last name", but the father is still the father. It's more about who is the grandfather, and so on.

If a king has 2 sons, and the first one dies before having a son with his wife, out of respect for his brothers marriage to that woman, she deserves a son from the kingly line. I can't say I understand or relate to it at all, but it seems to be the system given by God.

The "bloodline" idea is very important in the Bible.

I don't know how to apply this principle to my personal life, but I'm sure there is a Living, Biblical, usable principle within that passage.

 

[Rachel20]

Thank you for the responses Psalm6819 and Sophia.

Hi Rachel20, with regard to Ruth, in the Lerverite marriage Boaz is the Kinsman Redeemer. That is a foreshadow of Jesus as our Kinsman Redeemer. Boaz marrying Ruth (the Gentile Bride) Redeeming the land for Naomie (representing Israel)

Joseph was adopted by Mary's father, this was a custom approved by Moses and instituted by Joshua, it was the daughters of (can't spell this but I'll give you scripture later) Zephilhad. daughters no sons for the daughters to inherit and keep the land thier husbands were adopted by the father-in-law.

Mary was descended through David's line by Nathan, (son younger than Solomon) Joseph from Solomon.

Thank you, I forgot about the tradition by Moses for daughters to inherit the land, and their husbands being adopted.

This topic is actually really complex for us westerners, but supposedly makes perfect sense in mid east culture.
Someone told me that it works like our last names. The lineage, "having sons for" is out of honor of the union of the brother to his wife. It carries on the "last name", but the father is still the father. It's more about who is the grandfather, and so on.

If a king has 2 sons, and the first one dies before having a son with his wife, out of respect for his brothers marriage to that woman, she deserves a son from the kingly line. I can't say I understand or relate to it at all, but it seems to be the system given by God.

The "bloodline" idea is very important in the Bible.

I don't know how to apply this principle to my personal life, but I'm sure there is a Living, Biblical, usable principle within that passage.

Yes Sophia, the whole concept of levirate marriage can be really hard for many of us to swallow. However I think in that culture, and in those times it may have served as a form of protection for the women.

Seeing the genealogies, both Obed and Perez are noted as the sons of their natural fathers rather than their "legal" ones, so I wonder about the significance of this custom.

Maybe I will gain a better understanding of some of this, God willing !

 

[AVoice]

There are two genealogies in the N.T. and they differ.

Contradiction? Nope, one is Joseph's, one is Mary's.

That is the Catholic version. It is false. The account in Dt 25 accounts for the differences in the lists of male names in Luke and Matthew. From David they split off to Nathan and Solomon, there being a legal line (Luke) incorporating raising seed to the dead, and there being a literal biological line (Matthew) showing the actual biological fathers. A son could have two names designated to it. The actual biological begetter and the name of the brother who had died, whose name is being given that son for sake of his name not dying out of the records of the sons of Israel.

 

[AVoice]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw

This is how the concept of Dt 25 makes the two different lines work. The idea one line is Mary's and the other Joseph's is abominable to me since the names are all male names ending with a male name. The text becomes non literal under the Mary genealogy theory.

 

[4enlightment]

No I am aware of the difference, and I've heard the theory about that being one of Joseph's and one being Mary's. I still haven't researched that, so I reserve my statements.


However my question wasn't even that.


My question was - why is Obed listed as the son of Boaz, and likewise Perez as the son of Judah, seeing that they are sons from a levirate marriage. Would they not have been listed as son of Mahlon/ or likewise Perez, son of Er?

A family member of that certain tribes takes the widows as his wife to keep that certain branch from being cut off from the vine, and so they has grafted the cut-off branch unto their branch so that the name of that person will not be forgotten (blotted) from the book of life; and now Judah is still alive eventhough he is dead.

6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death.

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

11 Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Live as a widow in your father’s household until my son Shelah grows up.” For he thought, “He may die too, just like his brothers.” So Tamar went to live in her father’s household.

12 After a long time Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When Judah had recovered from his grief, he went up to Timnah, to the men who were shearing his sheep, and his friend Hirah the Adullamite went with him.

 

[CRC]

When the child Obed was born, neighbor ladies said: “A son has been born to Naomi,” considering the child the son of Elimelech and Naomi. Boaz and Ruth performed a service to Yaweh, the name given to their son meaning “Servant; One Serving.” Yahweh blessed this arrangement, for Obed became the ancestor of David and was, therefore, in the direct lineage of Jesus Christ.—Ru 4.
The right of levirate marriage evidently descended to the nearest male relative as outlined in the law governing inheritance of property, namely, the oldest brother, other brothers according to age, then the paternal uncle, and so forth. (Nu 27:5-11) So all of the legal apparatus according to the Mosaic law was thus set for Elimelech as well as Naomi to continue to benefit from all of the laws regarding hereditary provisions granted by the Mosaic Law. So for all practical and legal purposes Obed was Naomi’s and Elimelech’s son. In the genealogy of the New Testament apparently the emphasis of the biological origin of the Messiah is what accentuated.

 

[AVoice]

The first available or willing male in line, is who raised up seed to the dead since any male could simply refuse for whatever reason he had.
There appears to be two merges in the lines when comparing Luke and Matthew.

All men's names resulting at Joseph. Neither of these records pertain to Mary. They are both Joseph's line but identifying the differences between the literal biological fathers from the legal line that gave credit to the dead man as the father.

 

[BehindBlueEyes]

This is a very interesting question.

It seems easier to deal with the part of Judah and Tamar first. This is slightly different than the other, because Judah was her father-in-law and not her husband's brother. Onan was the one given the responsibility to take Tamar into his house and give her children, but he didn't complete this because 'he knew that child would not be his'. Tamar instead tricked Judah into impregnating her.
If you look back to the time of Jacob and Joseph, you can see how a father treated his grandsons. Though Ephraim and Manasseh were actually Joseph's sons, Jacob blessed him as his own and gave him inheritance among Jacob's brothers.
It would not seem to surprising then, that Judah counted Perez as his own descendant, and gave him the inheritance of his dead son.
Even if they skipped the name of Judah's son, and went straight from Judah and Perez in the genealogy, it does not make the genealogy incorrect, because the ancestry would still be correct.
(This is the conclusion I came to, with what the scripture presented. I'm not saying it's 100% correct, but it makes sense.)

Now the ordeal with Boaz and Ruth is a bit trickier. One of the major reasons for a Kinsman Redeemer is to keep the land within the family line. For Ruth, whoever bought this land for Naomi would also need to mary Ruth (the reason being, Naomi was beyond child-bearing age, as well as she already had sons to which the land should have belonged too). Though going to Boaz, there was a kinsman closer than he was, and Boaz approached this man. This man did not want to fulfil the responsibility, because he did not want to marry Ruth. This left Boaz to fulfil it, which he was glad to do.
Even though Obed is in the lineage of Christ through Boaz, he still received the inheritance that belonged to Ruth's first husband. In order to show the physical lineage of Christ, it was necessary to show Obed through Boaz, so it could be traced back to Abraham.