17. Raising Up Seed to the Dead
Now being of the 'blood' of the fatherhood of Boaz, the Jewish biased
record or Stick of Judah, does tend to emphasize that David was a Judahite
and first Jewish King of Judah and then also King over all Israel. But this
associates King David and the ancestry of Christ with the unrighteous and
unworthy house of Judah who did not receive the birthright, that is the blessings
of the firstborn in Israel. However if one truely understandss the Law of
Moses to be God's Law of Marriage and has paid particular heed and
understanding of the laws of God governiing such marriage covenants, then
David as an Ephrathite would be of the rightful and legal lineage of Ephraim, being of the
and of the house of Elimelech and Mahlon, those Ephrathites (see Genesis
48:15-20; 49:1,22-26; Exodus 4:22; Jeremiah 31;9, 1 Chronicles 5:1-2)
The logic runs like this. Mahlon was an Ephrathite meaning Ephraimite. He
married Ruth and had no children prior to his death. Ruth was there for
a seedless vessel unto her first husband and the house of Elimelech, as
Elimelech had no decendants as his other son Chilion also died without
fathering any child for the house of Elimemech to be carried on by. Then
a 'near' kinsman named Boaz took it upon himself to perform the marriage
requirement of a vicarious performing 'brother', to raise up seed to the
dead house of Mahlon and Elimelech. Thus he takes as a concubine wife Ruth,
the widow of Mahlon to raise up just such seed to the dead. This requirement
is that the first born son of that 'pseudo marriage' would be legally and
rightfully the actual seed to the house of the dead, meaning of the seed
of Mahlon and the house of Elimenech. Obed was that first born son of Ruth
by the vicarious performing Boaz. And Obe begat Jesse 'that Ephrathite'.
And that Ephrathite Jesse begat David. And that Ephrathite David became
the ancestor to that promised Son of David, that Ephrathite Jesus Christ, the
very Son of God.
Now the Jewish compiled and edited with commentary book of Ruth exhibits the
bias that it states the 'bloodline' ancestory of Judah through Boaz without
ever deliniating the legal, rightful and letter of the law ancestry of
Obed being that of the house of Mahlon and Elimelech. And thus by blood,
Chris is shown to be of the blood of Judah through Boaz back to the lineage
of Pharez, Judah's bastard son born of Tamar, the widow of one of Judah's own
deceased son.
The Law of Moses establishes that a 'brother' or kinsman of a deceased man
whose marriage did not produce offspring has an obligation responsibilty to
raise up seed to his dead 'brother' or kinsman by taking into his house the
widow of the deceased and marrying her and producing such offspring. This
function is often referred to as being or acting as the 'redeemer'. And can
be closely symbolic of raising up of the dead to life or even to 'raising up
from these stones seed to Abraham' as John the Baptist would put it. And in
these senses, it is very symbolic of that the Savior can do and does for
mankind in adopting and raising up seed to himself by his redeeming gospel. The
fact that cousins are included in the extended as bothers may be an arguable point but the Bible well establishes that such cousins as Jacob and Laban and others still referred to each other as bothers. Even Abraham calls his niece Sarah, his sister, as was common throughout Israel. Thus while arguable that Boaz was not fulfilling the Law of Moses in raising up seed to the dead in Elimelech and Mahlon, the very words of the Book of Ruth chapter 4 well establish that this is exactly what he was doing in taking upon himself the Lawful responsibility of raising up seed to the dead as stipulated in the Law of Moses.
Of a side note, in ancient Israel where it was common place for a man to sometimes have more than one wife, the problem of a widowed woman not having a man to care for the household was in one respect taken care of by this very Law of Moses; And while the LDS faith is often maligned for having practiced the Law of Plural Marriage by the citizenry of the United States of America, it was neither immoral nor of ill repute for such well esteemed Biblical figures to have had more that one wife as the situation may demand. The Book of Mormon reports that plurality of wives is not to be practiced but for the reason of raising up seed unto the Lord and as commanded by God. But in another very real sense, the welfare of women and both their physical, spiritual and eternal progression needs and requirements are often not met but by such a practice of Celestial or Plural Marriage as practiced by the early saints of the restored gospel. What was the great sin of the matter was the ripping apart of families, wives from their husband and children from their father which was perpetuated by the United States upon the early saints and the small fractional percentage of them which were called upon by necessity to the practice of plural marriage as commanded by God.
Now back to God's Law, the Law of Moses and the raising up seed to the dead.
That law is stated in Deuteronomy chapter 25 verses 5-10 as set out in the
left hand column, verse by verse below. As one reads the Law of Moses and
compares it side by side to the actual events as recorded in the book of
Ruth, it seems imposible to draw any other conclusion than that Boaz was
performing the requirement and 'right' of a 'brother' or kinsman in his
'vicarious' providing of seed to the house of Mahlon the son of Elimelech.
Now some tend to intellectually pick at this all too obvious fact. And they
tend to confuse the matter by mixing potatoes with oranges. That is, in the
case of Boaz, Naomi and Ruth, there are two Laws of Moses being performed.
The first to which Ploni Almoni was favorable to perform is contained in
Leviticus 25:25. That is the 'right' of a kinsman to 'redeem' or purchase
the estate of a poorer relative who may have sold their estate under the
duress of poverty. This the family of Elimelech had done. To this Ploni
Almoni was favorable to do, to buy the lands of Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion
for himself and his immediate family.
The second law envolved, in the performance of Boaz, was that of raising up
seed to the dead Mahlon by marrying Ruth and having her first born son [Obed]
become the seed and heir of the house of Mahlon according to Deuteronomy
25:5-10. Ploni Almoni refused this second performance under the Law of Moses
since it meant the cost of giving at least Mahlon's estate of purchase over
to Obed the firstborn son of Ruth thus some how 'marring' his own inheritance,
Ploni Almoni was not welling to perform and he yielded to Boaz as Boas had
anticipated he would do.
Now why various scholars have taken various views which fail to note that
Boaz's performance and the two Laws of Moses envolved may be a combination
of varying motives and lack of understanding. But their views are not well
established in the facts of the statements of the scriptures which proceeded
straight from the mouth of Boaz himself as recorded in the book of Ruth.
Along with the parallel columns of the facts of the
scriptures is added below the obvious conclusive facts and are set out that
any who veiws them may see just what the facts of the matter are.
Lord's Law of Surrogate Marriage
|
Boaz's Vicarious Performance
|
"¶ If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the
wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's
brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto
her." ~ Deu. 25:5
'Brethern' and 'brothers' are kinsmen who are closely related as well set out
in item 15. And to dwell together means simply within the same land or city.
Orpha, by not accompanying Naomi to Bethlehem did not qualify as she did
not so dwell in that land. Ruth did qualify and as set out by Naomi, the
near kinsmen of Mahlon and Elimelech had an obligation to fulfill to the
widow of Mahlon (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). They also had a 'right' to purchase
a kinsman's property that may have been sold out of the family (Lev. 25:25).
Concerning the marriage matter, while of a more physical nature than our
vicarious temple work, the principle is the similar. Boaz accepted to
perform as 'surrogate' husband and provide Ruth with a first born son which
was to be considered in every way the son of Mahlon and the descendant of Elimelech and Noami. It should be noted
that any other children of the marriage of Ruth and Boaz would have
subsequently been considered children of Boaz. But Obed, the first born was
to be the son of Mahlon and of the family of Elimelech and Naomi. The whole
community clearly recognized that fact.
|
"And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman; howbeit there is a kinsman
nearer than I. . . . 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, . . . " ~ Ruth
3:12-13
" . . . our brother Elimelech . . . " ~ Ruth 4:3
"¶ And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself,
lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself, for
I cannot redeem it." ~ Ruth
4:6
In fairness to the nearer of kin, it could have taken a sizable amount of
wealth to redeem the lands of Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon (Lev. 25:25).
Boaz was wealthy and 'Ploni Almoni' may not have been so wealthy. It may
well have cut deeply into the inheritances Ploni Almoni's own family for
him to have redeemed the property, just to turn around and give it
back out to Ruth's first son, Obed, in the name of the dead Mahlon. What
parent would take out of his own child's mouth to feed another?
The actual Hebrew name of the nearer of kin was 'Ploni Almoni'. Most
consider that this was a 'John Doe' assigned to him either to save face or
perhaps to conceal his identity in anonymity. Perhaps Ploni Almoni was a
brother of the tribe of Elimelech and thus an Ephrathite. Boaz, a Judhite,
would have had connect through a maternal link like between Laban and Jacob.
|
"And it shall be, that the firstborn [Obed] which
she [Ruth] beareth shall succeed in the name of his [Boaz] brother [Mahlon]
which is dead, that his name [Mahlon] be not put out of Israel." ~
Deu. 25:6
Here inserted into the Law of Moses are the names of the participants in the
case of Mahlon, Boaz, Obed and Ruth. Boaz knew exactly what it was that
he was doing as the scritpures from Ruth in the right column state.
Obed was legally by God's law the son of Mahlon the son of Elimelech.
He was an Ephrathite and father to Jesse the father of David.
|
"Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have
I [Boaz] purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead [Mahlon]
upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead [Mahlon] be not cut off from
amoung his brethren, and from the gate of his place; ye are witnesses
this day." ~ Ruth 4:10 (see also 4:5)
"¶So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the
Lord gave her conception and she bare a son." ~ Ruth 4:13
"And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to
Naomi; and they called his name Obed; he is the father of Jesse, the father
of David." ~ Ruth 10:17
|
"And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto
the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his
brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's
brother." ~ Deu. 25:7
Each case in law differs in it uniqueness according to the situation as hand.
Ruth was a Moabitess and perhaps not 'welcome' to perform such an afront to
a Hebrew. Yet Ruth had already received a promise of performance, thus that
was never in dispute. So this case takes on its own unique proceeding. It
was a matter of who would perform and if there need to be a 'changing' from
the most appropriate Ploni Almoni to Boaz or not. Thus Boaz took it upon
himself to act as a sort of 'power of authorny' in behalf of the non present
Ruth. The 'two' near kinsmen, though one was nearer than the other, did not
jointly refuse Ruth her rightful performace unto the deceased husband Mahlon.
It was merely a matter as to who would the vicarious performer be. And
Ploni Almoni merely requested that Boaz be subsituted, that it be chaged to
Boaz to fulfill the performance rather than himself. And thus Boaz
facilitated to due process of law in the most 'agreeable' manner with as
little insult as possible before the witnesses of the elders and people of
the city at the city gate.
The 'gate' of the city is similar to the 'townsquare' where legal matters
were settled. It was the common gathering place for such transactions of
law to be settled. Each city did administer the Law in such manner at the
'city's gate'.
The ease with which Boaz had 10 elders and others of the city to witness the
proceeding at the gate, atests the commonality of the process even
with any planning and invitation by Boaz. All was in the spirit of
compliance to the Law of Moses.
|
"And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own
inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it." ~ Ruth
4:6
As presented above, it very could be that Ploni Almoni just did not have
the means of being able to finace the deal. He even stated that 'he
could not redeem it.' This simple statement should be taken at face value
and any speculation which cast shame upon Ploni Almoni should be avoid for it
must be presumed to be the fact of the matter. Thus the qustion was could
the responsibility to Ruth be 'changed' or conveyed to another. This is
exactly what this unique situation did next evolve into
"Now that was the manner of former time in Israel
concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all
things, a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour and this
was a testimony in Israel." ~ Ruth 4:7
Thus is seems that in the particular case when one 'brother' was not able
to perform unto the widow, that a 'changing' could be entered into which
did transfer the performance to antoher without the full rejection signma
of being 'assulted' by the widow according to the ruling of the Law in
Moses. This is law adapting to the circumstance of individual situations
which may not fit exactly the case situation as originally strickly set out
in the Law of Moses. Such is the nature of law when applied to each unique
situation.
The loosening, removal, and giving of the shoe in the case of 'changing' or
substitueing one 'redeeming brother' for another, was a milder convention
that that of throwing the shoe and spiting in ones face if the performace
was not to be assumed at all. Thus Ploni Almoni was the one with his
shoe loose and Boaz the vicarious performant.
|
"Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and
if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;" ~ Deu. 25:8
As stated, the question was not a 'refusal' by the envolved 'brothers'.
It was just a 'changing' and subsitution from the mearest kinsman
to the next nearest kinsman. Thus the proceedings of the Law of
Moses were adapted to what had become common in Israel to do in such
substitution and 'changing' procedings.
The 'Elders' of a city were certain renoun members of the society. Similiar
to a 'jury' of witnesses, matters of laws were sworn and atested before
such group of elders. It was a legal system void legal documents and the
formal legal system with which we are familiar. It was informal yet
proficient, placing the legality in the honor and minds of the people. There
were not a specific set of 'administering' elders, but just who were present
at the time. This is similiar to the participation of varios elders at the
naming and blessing of a baby in fast and testimony meeting. It is just a
matter of who is present and called upon to participate.
|
"Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and behold, the
kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by, unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn
aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
"And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here.
And they sat down." ~ Ruth 4:1-2
Boaz had set up a conference to determine what was to be done in the
matter of Ruth and the house of Elimelech and Mahlon. The negociated
outcome was likely what Boaz anticipated. The likely older and more
wealthy Boaz was more able to carry the 'burden' of taking on additonal
family including raising up seed to Mahlon and providing hiw with Mahlon's
family inheritences. And the likely younger and less prepared Ploni Almoni
was not so well prepared to take on the additional obligations of caring
for another wife and her offspring obligated to a separate house of
inheritance. Thus the 'changing' which Boaz anticipated was transacted in
the manner that had become common in Israel in such matters of caring for the
widows and finding one who was capable of fulfilling the obligation.of
raising up seed to the dead.
|
"Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the
elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face,
and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will
not build up his brother's house." ~ Deu. 25:9
This performance upon the part of Ruth was not required in the current set
of circumstances. Boaz had already guarnateed that the performance of
building up seed to the house of Mahlan, the son of Naomi and Elimelech
would be fulfilled. The only matter to be settled was who it was that would
so perform, Boaz or Ploni Almoni. Ruth had no quaral with Ploni Almoni, as
the one she had approached under the instructions of Naomi was Boaz, and Boaz was seeing to it that such
obligation was being filled even if it was to be done by himself. He
had already made that promise and commitment to Ruth that he would
perform the 'brother' or 'kinsman' obligation if no one else would.
|
"Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and
concerning changing, for to confirm all things, a man plucked off his shoe,
and gave it to his neighbour and this was a testimony in Israel." ~ Ruth 4:7
The process of taking off one's shoe and giving it to another was not the
same requirement of Ruth if she had been refused of taking off the shoe and
spiting in the face of the refuser. She was not being refused. What was
happening was that Boaz through the process of witnesses and by the action
of Ploni Almoni taking and giving his shoe to Boaz was symbolically
transfering to Boaz by agreement that Boaz was to take his place in the
obligation to Mahlon's widow to raise up seed to Mahlon's house. And Obed
was that legal seed of Mahlon, making Mahlon the ancestor to Jesse and David,
making them Ephrathites, as well of Jesus Christ being of his posterity..
|
"And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath
his shoe loosed." ~ Deu. 25:10
Now Ploni Almoni, who according to his declaration ws not capable of
performing the obligation of a 'brother' to the widow Ruth, would well be
said to be 'the house of him that hath his shoe loosed'. But the stigma,
if any was not the traditional required insult of the widow. It was merely
that Ploni Almoni 'transfered' or 'chnaged' his right and/or obligation
of performance over to Boaz. And irrespective of Ploni Almoni's transfering
the responsiblity of the 'redeemer' to Boaz, Obed was stil the son of the
house of Mahlon and the posterity of Elimelech. Boaz was only the surrogate.
He is not the rightful and legal ancestor of Obed, Jesse, David and Jesus
Christ.
Obed was the son and seed of Mahlon. Obed was an Ephrathite. Obed's
surrogate father was Boaz. But Mahlon's legal and lawful father is Mahlon.
That is the performance of the letter of the law.
|
"Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee, So he drew off his
shoe.
"¶And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses
this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was
Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
"Moreover Ruth the Moabites, the wife of Mahlon, have I
purchased to be my wife [Ruth], to raise up the name of the dead [Mahlon]
upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead [Mahlon] be not cut off from
amoung his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this
day." ~ Ruth 4:8-10
Boaz's surrogate vicarious performance included that he would provide to the
firstborn son of Ruth, namely Obed, with all the rightful inheritance from
his legal father Mahlon. Boaz was wealthy enough to do this. Boaz is a
great, good, and kind man. But he is not the legal parent of Obed. By the
Law of Moses, Obed is the son of Mahlon, an Ephrathite (Ephraimite) of the
house of Elimelech.
|
Obed, the Son of Mahlon the Ephrathite
Given the understanding that under the Law of Moses, Obed was legally and
rightfully of the house of Mahlon, the son of Naomi and Elimelech, one must
then ask why the Jewish Bible does not provide the rightful and legal
ancestry of David, Jesse, and Obed as being through Mahlon and thence on back
through Elimelech. The Jews have always been sticklers for adhereing to the
'letter of the law'. And by the Law of Moses and declared by Boaz to that
intent, the ancestry of Obed was to be the son of Mahlon and inherit the
rights and blessings of the house of Mahlon and Elimelech, Ephrathites.
Yet the Jews are set upon representing David, Jesse, and Obed as sons of Boaz
without any mention of the Ephrathite lineage of the true ancestry back
through the house of Mahlon. Why have the compliers of
the 'stick of Judah' hiden this understanding in not providing the true
ancestry of Obed in a clear, clean and straight forward manner and thus
causing a violation of the full intent of the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy
25:6 by causing that 'Mahlon's and Elimelech's' names be 'put out of Israel'
and out of Israel's ancestries?
The excuse that Boaz and Elimelech were consided by the Jews as having the
same descent from Judah is 'lame' at best. That is no excuse for deleteing
a portion of one's rightful ancestry and writing out the names of at least
Elimelech and Mahlon from Israel. And the truth is to be found in a much
greater reason for the concealment and vage anomymity surrounding this event
as currently recorded in the last verses of chapter 4 of Ruth. And that
simple truth is found in the second verse of the opening chapter of Ruth were
it did survive to be reported that Elimelech, Chilion and Mahlon where
actually all of the family, clan and tribe of Ephrathites, not Judites.
True, all the promises were made to king David that the promised Savior,
Jesus Christ, the Son of David, would come of his lineage. And David is the
son of Jesse, that Ephrathite of Bethlehem. So despite David's own preference
of Judah over Israel, of which house and tribe is David, Jesse, Obed and
Christ really, rightfully and legally from? Are they not all Ephrathites?
And is not the patriarchal blessing of Joseph fulfilled as 'from thence is
the shepherd, and the stone of Israel'?
Perhaps one should not be overly misunderstanding upon this matter. Bible
scholars and historians have set out that the Jewish Old Testament was not
assembled, compiled, edited, and various commentary added until after
Jerusalem had been destroyed and the Jews taken captive to Babylon. What
records survived that destruction and captivity where thus compiled and
editied into the Old Testament as we have it today post the time of Lehi.
And certainly the northern kingdom was long gone and scattered, thus the
Jews may well have considered that they were the only ones left of the
house of Isreal. And they had also considered that thus they had
'prevailed' over Ephraim.
According to the Jewish perspective of bias, the other 10 tribes of
Israel had 'rebelled agaisnt the house of David when they rejected the
wicked and highly repressive king Rehoboam. And even earlier than that,
David had apparently chosen Judah over Ephraim as will be shown later in
another chapter. Thus for a number of 'reasons' the jewish scholars who
did compile the Bible, did set out Obed's surrogate generic bloodline
ancestry through Boaz the Jew over and above that of Obed's legal and
Lawful sonship of being of the house of Mahlon, the son of Elimelech the
Ephrathite.
Some might say, that Mahlon and Elimelech where Jews anyway from the
Rabinically reported perspective, So what does it matter? If so, then
all the more reason for not having not left Mahlon and Elimelech out of
the ancestral recorded as supplied as appended to the end of the record of
the book of Ruth. The Book of Ruth clearly begins by well establishing
the family of Elimelech, his sons and wife as being the Ephrathite family
of who the book is all about. Boaz's entrance into the story is as a
near kinsman to that family. And Goaz's only significance come from his
taking upon himself the obligation of performing according to the Law of
Moses and raising up seed to the dead that his name may not be cut out
of Israel. And then that is precisely what the Jewish editors and compilers
of the records do. Mahlon and the house of Elimelech is virtually cut out
and replaced with the ancestry of Boaz back to Judah. The very purpose of
the law of surrogate fatherhood in teh Law of Moses has been thwarted
by the Jewish bias and preference that Boaz back to Judah be shown as the
ancesters to the house of David rather than Mahlon, Elimelech and the
rightful lineage given. Shame on such recordkeeping that so purposefully
'cuts off the name and lineage in Israel.
"And it shall be, that the firstborn which she [Ruth] beareth shall succeed
in the name of the brother [Mahlon] which is dead, that his name [Mahlon] be
not put out of Israel." ~ Deuteronomy 25:6
"Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I [Boaz] purchased
[that is to say redeemed] to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead
[Mahlon] upon his inheritence, that the name of the dead [Mahlon the
Ephrathite] be not cut off from amoung his brethern, and from the gate of
his place ye are witness this day" ~ Ruth 4:10
It is this law and pledge which has been violated by the recordkeepers in
that the name of the dead, Mahlon of the house of Elimelech, has been
put out, cut off, from the record of Israel in the stick of Judah by not
properly giving the true ancestry of Obed as being the son of Mahlon and
grandson of Elimelech and the rest of that ancestrial line properly stated
in the scriptural record. Rather than giving this
true ancestry under the Law of Moses, a mockery of the Law of God is had by
only giving the vicarious surrogate ancestry of Boaz. It is only this
surrogate substitued ancestry which is properly given to the shame of the
preparer of the record. Perhaps at one time the legal and rightful ancestry
was properly given in the record by the original prophet writer. Perhaps the
brass plates of Laban will one day shed its light upon this matter. But it
is a disgrace to the record's compilers that this information is lost and not
properly preserved according to the letter of the Law of Moses.