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?
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess Kyle Williams Philip Williams Steve Miller https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/browns-politicostalism/
Anonymous
Having known the late C Peter Wagner who founded NAR, and how Michael Brown is related to those associated with NAR teaching, i can see the gross ignorance of those making these charges. They invent their enemy.
Anonymous
Philip Williams oh how mormon of you again
you did not know C Peter Wagner who founded NAR PER SE
you knew C Peter Wagner as a salesman trying to sell him some land
you do not know Michael Brown as related and associated with NAR
you know Michael Brown as someone you asked about mormons
so with this trend of name dropping you can tell us
you know the POPE whom you sold some mormon land
BUt as far as mormon or NAR theology you say what exactly again?
Anonymous
Troy Day Peter and I spent some time talking about apostles and prophets, sharing our understanding. Unlike some here, he was a humble man.
As regards, Michael Brown, his connection to NAR charges is due to his friendship with Rick Joyner, the same as me, though Michael never knew Bob Jones.
Anonymous
Philip Williams what are you talking about ?
in his latter days Peter spoke theology ONLY when paid 🙂
AND about/with apostles and prophets only when paid even more
what sharing your understanding you could possibly do with Peter
Anonymous
Troy Day we also talked about that. I was much concerned about holding that South African prophet (since passed) to accountability. Peter was distressed about doing what I suggested.
Now, I remember. It was Kim Clement who prophesied that bin Ladin would be captured in 3 months. A false prophecy. Peter said that Kim Clement was much to arrogant to receive correction. So might be Troy Day.
Anonymous
Do you have a link to Dr. Browns work on Givett and Pivecs book? I’d love to read it
Anonymous
Kyle Williams I don’t even know about that. Who is Givett and Pivec?
Anonymous
Philip Williams they wrote Counterfeit Kingdom, against the NAR movement
Anonymous
Kyle Williams don’t waste your tine on invented enemies.
Anonymous
Philip Williams they’re not invented, unless you buy Dr. Brown’s naivete that the NAR doesn’t exist. False Gospels deceive those who are weak in the faith with underdeveloped spiritual discernment. And for that they are the foremost enemies of Christ and the Church. It’s the entire reason our brethren at Galatia were addressed so sharply by St. Paul.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams how do you mean? Do you have any pro-NAR proof?
Anonymous
Kyle Williams what is meant by ‘NAR exists!’? C Peter Wagner who coined that word was a real person as we sat and talked. He was a professor trying to understand Pentecostalism. His wife Doris and Chuck Pierce (prophet Windbag) used that for their ministry. They all blundered by anointing Todd Bentley based on Bob Jones’s prophecy. A mess for sure, but not bad men.
Anonymous
Troy Day the Fact that Bethel Redding exists is ample proof. And if you think to your self that they’re “just one local church” look no further than the influence they have over even non Charismatic “worship”.
Bethel
Jesus Culture
Cory Asbury
Brian and Katie Torwalt
Leyland
Cody Carnes
Dante Bowe
Steffany Gretzinger
Elevation Worship
Jenn Johnson
+ the tens of thousands of quasi- evangelical churches that sing the songs written and produced by this company. Take these things into consideration and I dare say the NAR has its teeth sank so far into American cultural Christianity that it must be tasting blood by now.
Anonymous
Philip Williams false prophets are not bad men?
Anonymous
Kyle Williams some are bad men. I wanted C Peter Wagner to understand that. But Peter wasn’t a bad man.
Anonymous
Oscar Valdez Duane L Burgess Peter Vandever Michael Ellis Carter Jr. Gary Micheal Epping Daniel J Hesse Nelson Banuchi For whatever reason, Dr. Brown chose to go on Alisa Childers’ podcast and debate whether or not NAR is a myth with Dr. Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec. Brown, who won’t typically debate any discerning Christians or those who won’t readily embrace him as a solid Christian brother, made the rare decision to interact with Geivett and Pivec, who wrote the book on NAR (literally). Geivett and Pivec’s book, A New Apostolic Reformation? challenges the NAR movement and explains its origins and outworkings in evangelicalism. The two have also written God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostle’s Movement. NOW then Philip Williams our Kyle Williams only knew WOF but not NAR … #over
Anonymous
I read where he restricted his use of the term to an organization by that name. There are those using for Charismatics in general.
Anonymous
Dr. Brown is tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.
And the NAR is a false theological system.
Do not be deceived.
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess are you saying he is NOT NAR anymore? Philip Williams should know way better
Anonymous
Troy Day NAR isn’t Calvinism. So Duane L Burgess is obviously wrong!
Anonymous
Philip Williams Church dropouts
Why did you stop going to church??
Anonymous
Troy Day because the bundles of tares will be burned.
Anonymous
Philip Williams of course all and while the bundles of wheat will be in the store house – as you know winter wheat is much lighter
Anonymous
Troy Day the Lord, not man, will gather the wheat!
Anonymous
Philip Williams not sure that even John Mushenhouse would know this
Anonymous
Philip Williams not sure that even John Mushenhouse would know this one
Anonymous
Dr Michael Brown definitely has theological problems. Most notably, he denies divine sovereign grace.
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess very few in this group believe John Macs theory which is basically NOT biblical I dont see even Kyle Williams agreeing much with John nonetheless Gary Micheal Epping Philip Williams and Link Hudson nor pre-tribbers Neil Steven Lawrence John Mushenhouse Darnell Henson Jr. Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Anonymous
Jerome Herrick Weymouth I would just state for the sake of Philip Williams that MBrown is NOT quite the opposite
Anonymous
He definitely has some favorites in that group, of whom he does not speak or criticize biblically or theologically.
Anonymous
Oscar Valdez how do you mean this basically
Gary Micheal Epping sat under him and saw no such things
Anonymous
Troy Day Do your homework!
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess which homework would you believe I have not done Have you read ALL my talks about Brown with Philip Williams in this group alone? Have you done your homework before placing blame again ?