Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
THANKSGIVING DAY In the autumn of 1621 the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag tribe met together to celebrate the colony’s first successful harvest. Today here in America we pause to celebrate a day of
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I apologize in advance for the length of the question.
The book of Ruth is incredibly romantic and powerful, but I don’t understand the legal portion of the drama:
Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And behold, the redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. So Boaz said, “Turn aside, friend; sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down. Then he said to the redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech. So I thought I would tell you of it and say, ‘Buy it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders of my people.’ If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you will not, tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I come after you.” And he said, “I will redeem it.”—Ruth 4:1-4 (ESV)
So far, so good. The property must remain in the family:
If your brother becomes poor and sells part of his property, then his nearest redeemer shall come and redeem what his brother has sold.—Leviticus 25:25 (ESV)
(In passing, it’s interesting to see that Naomi would be paid for the land so the effect of the rule is that widows retained some form of property ownership.)
Then Boaz said, “The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance.” Then the redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.”
Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one drew off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was the manner of attesting in Israel.—Ruth 4:5-7 (ESV)
I do see that the custom of perpetuating the name of the dead had legal basis:
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’—Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (ESV)
But why does Boaz say, “The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite”? How does redeeming some land also introduce a levirate marriage obligation?
Guest;
This is what we KNOW thus far Link Hudson
– there was no turkey – came later with the masons
– natives brought 5 dead deer
– few pilgrims shot some birds for supper
– there were plenty of meat and fruit pies
– may have been some gravy {not too sure}
– there were no stores so no black friday sales
– Englishmen eat together – both puritans and criminals
BUT there was a great celebration of FREEDOM
It was significant theologically as a first harvest feast
governor thanked GOD for the natives for teaching them how to hunt and survive the cold winter – most Englishmen who came were craftsmen or city criminals with no farm / hunt skills
None of the pilgrims had proper papers and did NOT follow the migration process. They actually fled in a caravan, storm the eastern sea border and simply entered Jan Dixon Sykes
Yes many of them were real criminals running from the law in Europe and proceeded to establish gangs that held the common wealth trade some of which illegal gun and drug related Gerardo de Dominicis
No it did not work too well for the native citizens, but somehow by the grace of GOD here we are 500 years ALL thankful for SUCH history
Guest;
The pilgrims arrived to no ones land. The natives didn’t consider the land their own so it wasn’t an “invasion”. Turkeys are American birds and could be found in North America (the Aztecs used to eat it before the Spaniards arrived and called it guajolotl).
Guest;
Like a welcome festival?
Guest;
The pilgrims arrived to no ones land? Gerardo de Dominicis HOW can anyone claim that? What about Columbus and his illegal conquistadors who burnt down whole civilizations? No ones land too?
Guest;
I read the book 1492 and i learned a lot from that. Before Columbus there were thriving cities with better sewage systems than Paris at the time. It was truly a devastating disaster.
Guest;
Just south of st. Louis was Cahokia i believe.
Guest;
Gerardo de Dominicis Paula Peters, a member of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe and an expert on Wampanoag history told me the real story.
“This is not revisionist history,” Peters promised. “This is history that’s just been overlooked because people have become very, very comfortable with the story of happy Pilgrims and friendly Indians. They’re very content with that — even to the point where no one really questioned how is it that Squanto knew how to speak perfect English when they came.”
Here’s what really happened.
In 1614, six years before the Pilgrims landed in modern-day Massachusetts, an Englishman named Thomas Hunt kidnapped Tisquantum from his village, Patuxet, which was part of a group of villages known as the Wampanoag confederation. (Europeans had started visiting the northeast of what is now the United States by the 1520s, and probably as early as the 1480s.)
Hunt took Tisquantum and around two dozen other kidnapped Wampanoag to Spain, where he tried to sell them into slavery.
“It caused quite a commotion when this guy showed up trying to sell these people,” Mann said. “A bunch of people in the church said no way.”
Tisquantum escaped slavery — with the help of Catholic friars, according to some accounts — then somehow found his way to England.
He finally made it back to what is now Massachusetts in 1619. As far as historians can tell, Tisquantum was the only one of the kidnapped Wampanoags to ever return to North America, Peters notes.
As far as historians can tell, Tisquantum was the only one of the kidnapped Wampanoags to ever return to North America.
But while Tisquantum was in Europe, an epidemic had swept across New England.
“The account that’s recorded by Gov. Bradford of Plymouth Plantation is that there’s a shipwreck of French sailors that year on Cape Cod,” Mann said. “One of them carried some disease and it wiped out a huge percentage of the population in coastal new England. … The guess is it was some kind of viral hepatitis, which is easily communicated in water. It exploded like chains of firecrackers.”
When Tisquantum returned to Patuxet, he found that he was the village’s only survivor.
“Into this bumbled the Pilgrims,” Mann said. “They had shown up in New England a few weeks before winter. … Up until the Pilgrims, the pattern had been pretty clear. Europeans would show up, and Indians would be interested in their trade goods, but they were really uninterested in letting [Europeans] permanently occupy land.” Often, armed native people would even force Europeans to leave if they attempted to stay too long. “Patuxet ultimately becomes Plymouth,” Peters explained. “They find this cleared land and just the bones of the Indians. They called it divine providence: God killed these Indians so we could live here.”
Guest;
Natives were not resistant to bacteria like Europeans were. And Europeans were not as resistant to parasites as the natives were. Bacteria spread through America like a wildfire.
Guest;
“The graveyard of [Tisquantum’s] people became Plymouth Colony.”
Massasoit, a local Wampanoag leader, didn’t trust Tisquantum. “He looks at this guy and smells trouble,” Mann said. Massasoit kept Tisquantum under what was essentially house arrest until the Pilgrims showed up and promptly started starving to death.
Patuxet wasn’t the only native village decimated by the plague. The entire Wampanoag confederation had been badly hit — as much as 75 percent of the Wampanoag population was wiped out, Mann said. But the Narragansett, a rival neighboring group, basically weren’t affected by the disease at all. That put the Wampanoag in a precarious strategic position. Massasoit had an idea.
“He decides we’ll ally with these guys, set up a good trading relationship, control supply of English goods, and the Narragansett won’t be able to attack us,” Mann said.
On March 22, 1621, Massasoit went to meet with the Pilgrims. He brought Tisquantum along to translate.
Guest;
If one checked the Catholic records of Mexico you would find millions of deaths recorded during that time.
Guest;
Gerardo de Dominicis you are just plain wrong about the land property customs Up until the Pilgrims, the pattern had been pretty clear. Europeans would show up, and Indians would be interested in their trade goods,
but they were really uninterested in letting [Europeans] permanently occupy land.”
Often, armed native people would even force Europeans to leave if they attempted to stay too long
Guest;
Again NOT true Gerardo de Dominicis Plymouth was a native built and owned village settlement overtaken by the pilgrims