Lesbianism and the Book of Ruth

[efs5r]

From Schmitz Blitz (schmitzblitz.wordpress.com):

Cory Tucholski from Josiah Concept Ministries has challenged my interpretation (http://schmitzblitz.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/a-not-so-random-look-at-the-bible/)of the book of Ruth. My response is as follows:

I will grant you that my initial post on the Book of Ruth lacked depth. Though I also feel that you present a somewhat naïve interpretation yourself, as you fail to address the language and the context of the Biblical story.

First order in supporting my claim that Naomi and Ruth had a potentially romantic relationship, I would like to look at a specific bit of language found in the Book of Ruth. Ruth (1:14) states that “Ruth clung to [Naomi]”. The usage of the verb to cling is significant in that it is found in Genesis to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve. Genesis (2:24) reads: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Thus it would seem in using this common language, that the relationship between Naomi and Ruth was similar to that of Adam and Eve.

Now to look at the context of the verse. You claim, “Ruth is Naomi’s daughter-in-law. I really don’t see a romantic relationship developing between these two women.” You are correct that that the women were mother and daughter in law, but I don’t understand how you can make the stretch from there that this means they could not be lovers. The Bible is full of passages about romantic relationships that we would not consider kosher in our modern world.

For example, the story of Judah and Tamar from Genesis 38, in which Tamar becomes pregnant by her father-in-law Judah. Like Ruth, Tamar was drawn to her dead husband’s parent after a string of failed levirate marriages.

You also question how Naomi and Ruth could possibly be lovers if Naomi helped Ruth marry Boaz. Again, you overlook other Bible passages in which people have intimate relationships with more than one person for the sake of carrying on a lineage. This is true of Abraham and Hagar, Jacob and his wives, David and Bathsheeba, etc.

Lineage was extremely important in Bible, as I’m sure you are aware. The Elimelech lineage, to which Naomi belonged, would have come to an end with the death Naomi’s sons (Ruth’s husbands). In order to continue that lineage, which would eventually produce both King David and Jesus, either Naomi or Ruth would have to have a child, and at that time, a man was the only way to do that.

And of course, marrying a person of the opposite sex does not preclude one from being gay, as the stories of Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, et. al painfully reveal.

I believe the passages referring to the birth of Obed are also significant in that they show how Naomi and Ruth share parenthood with Obed. Ruth (4:16-17) reads, “Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse. The women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.”

Obed’s father Boaz is a minimal figure—pretty much that of a sperm donor. The passage clearly reveals that Naomi is a more important parental figure to Obed than Boaz. It seems that Naomi is playing the role of the non-biological mother that you see in modern lesbian families. Of course that is a difficult connection to make, given the different era and lack of further Biblical text, but it does not seem as far fetched as you would have it.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friend,

My thoughts on Ruth:

The word "cling" does not necessarily have either a romantic or sexual connotation, simply because it occurs in the Adam and Eve context.

I think our adversaries place too strong a "romantic" or "sexual" interpretation of the Adam and Eve story to begin with. For instance, "becoming one flesh" is interpreted as referring to heterosexual intercourse. Actually, if one looks at how the terms "flesh and bone" are used in the scriptures one finds that it has to do with family and tribal bonds, not with sex. To be of one flesh is to be joined together in one family. Your uncle is just as much "of one flesh" with you as is your spouse.

I think it's a mistake to argue that Ruth and Naomi had a sexual relationship. It is enough to read the plain meaning of the text and recognize that they created a "family" where their society expected a family to be at an end (when the men folk through whom Ruth and Naomi were related died). Ruth had no reason to remain with Naomi except for her love and commitment for Naomi. There is no need to suppose that they had sex.

The word "love" in the Book of Ruth only occurs near the end when the women of the village say to Naomi that "Ruth, your daughter-in-law, loves you." "Love" is never mentioned in relation to Ruth and Boaz.

I agree that the story of Ruth and Naomi, like the story of David and Jonathan, is an important text for LGBT people, but I don't think we can make claims about sexual relationships--nor do we need to.

Part of the issue here is that sex itself is not all that our relationships are about.

Another issue is that the Bible is generally reluctant to speak of sex at all unless it uses euphemisms and innuendo. We should not expect us to tell us plainly what happened in the privacy of the tents of the patriarchs and matriarchs. For instance, it is only hinted that Ruth had sex with Boaz on the threshing floor. (In fact the word "threshing" is itself a euphemism for having sex.) If it wasn't for the fact that Boaz and Ruth have children together, we wouldn't know for sure that they had sex.

Your point about Boaz being a kind of surrogate father for the child of Ruth and Naomi is 100 percent correct, it seems to me. The text is quite plain that the child is to be considered Naomi's child. Boaz's role is that of a male relative's in that culture--he's a stand in for Naomi's dead son, the deceased husband of Ruth.

Ruth also plays a kind of surrogate role--bearing a child for Naomi when Naomi is too old for child-bearing. But, again, the text makes this clear that Ruth serves this role for no other reason but love for Naomi.

Steven Webster

[Alecto]

I might have missed it, but I thought efs didn't actually say anything about physical sex. I thought the bulk of the discussion was with regards to a romantic relationship (which may or may not include the physical expression of such).

[Steven E. Webster]

I might have missed it, but I thought efs didn't actually say anything about physical sex. I thought the bulk of the discussion was with regards to a romantic relationship (which may or may not include the physical expression of such).

Seems we need a definition of the word "romantic."

Steven Webster

[RedneckDyke]

The verse from Ruth about "Your people shall be my people..." has been used in many straight weddings as words of love and committment. I have seen wedding rings in jewelry catalogs that have that verse in Hebrew engraved on them. Those words are quoted every day as a pledge of romantic love. they were originally spoken by one woman to another. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around?

[Steven E. Webster]

The verse from Ruth about "Your people shall be my people..." has been used in many straight weddings as words of love and committment. I have seen wedding rings in jewelry catalogs that have that verse in Hebrew engraved on them. Those words are quoted every day as a pledge of romantic love. they were originally spoken by one woman to another. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around?

Granted, we now use these words from Ruth to Naomi in wedding services to express love and commitment between husband and wife.

At the very least, Ruth was making a pledge of family loyalty and commitment. As I said earlier, the only time that the word "love" is used in the entire book of Ruth is when it is said that Ruth loves Naomi. There seems to be zero evidence of "romance" between Ruth and Boaz.

However, I don't believe we have any proof that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian, nor that their love could be characterized as "romantic."

I do see support in the book of Ruth for alternative family structures--including that between same-gender partners. I just don't see evidence that Ruth and Naomi were sexually involved (or not). The Bible just doesn't address sex in a very direct ways. It uses lots of euphemism.

I guess I can say that we cannot rule out a sexual relationship between Ruth and Naomi. Also, we cannot rule out a sexual relationship between Saul and David, and Jonathan and David. A case could be made that the Bible makes strong hints in that direction--but no direct evidence.

Steven Webster

[u-dog]

Granted, we now use these words from Ruth to Naomi in wedding services to express love and commitment between husband and wife.

At the very least, Ruth was making a pledge of family loyalty and commitment. As I said earlier, the only time that the word "love" is used in the entire book of Ruth is when it is said that Ruth loves Naomi. There seems to be zero evidence of "romance" between Ruth and Boaz.

However, I don't believe we have any proof that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian, nor that their love could be characterized as "romantic."

I do see support in the book of Ruth for alternative family structures--including that between same-gender partners. I just don't see evidence that Ruth and Naomi were sexually involved (or not). The Bible just doesn't address sex in a very direct ways. It uses lots of euphemism.

I guess I can say that we cannot rule out a sexual relationship between Ruth and Naomi. Also, we cannot rule out a sexual relationship between Saul and David, and Jonathan and David. A case could be made that the Bible makes strong hints in that direction--but no direct evidence.

Steven Webster

I don't know how "romantic" it was but when Ruth uncovers Boaz' "feet"... its not really his feet that are getting uncovered (wink wink, nudge, nudge) and Boaz opens his household to Naomi pretty willingly and allows Naomi to become "foster grandma" to his son. So I think that there is plenty of evidence of serious affection between Boaz and Ruth.

[andrewlittle]

I don't know how "romantic" it was but when Ruth uncovers Boaz' "feet"... its not really his feet that are getting uncovered (wink wink, nudge, nudge) and Boaz opens his household to Naomi pretty willingly and allows Naomi to become "foster grandma" to his son. So I think that there is plenty of evidence of serious affection between Boaz and Ruth.

I hate to say you're showing your ties to tradition, u-dog, but...

If uncovering his feet is assumed to be a euphemism, it would need supporting evidence as such - not just the assumptions and innuendo that tradition has supplied. There are no other references representing a pattern of use - biblical or otherwise - upon which this can be judged a euphemism.

The Bible records Ruth doing something extraordinary in that time - she was aggressive, even to the point of proposing marriage to Boaz. Decidedly breaks the gender patterns, don't you think? Ruth is the only person in scripture described as possessing and showing hesed, the endless-loving-kindness usually ascribed only to God.

Tradition tends to ignore the hesed, and paint Ruth as some kind of wanton slut, seducing and bedding Boaz - but without a shred of evidence to that effect other than a traditional interpretation that "uncovering feet" is a sexual act. It reeks of the kind of denigration that women have experienced, and continue to receive, at the hands of judgmental people. Strong women have historically been named witches, harlets and whores. If you can't argue against the truth they espouse, attack them by calling them immoral. THAT should sound familiar - it continues to this day, and this community is comprised of people who suffer the same denigration.

Does any of this say that Ruth and Naomi were lovers - no, but neither does it say they weren't.

[u-dog]

I hate to say you're showing your ties to tradition, u-dog, but...

If uncovering his feet is assumed to be a euphemism, it would need supporting evidence as such - not just the assumptions and innuendo that tradition has supplied. There are no other references representing a pattern of use - biblical or otherwise - upon which this can be judged a euphemism.

The Bible records Ruth doing something extraordinary in that time - she was aggressive, even to the point of proposing marriage to Boaz. Decidedly breaks the gender patterns, don't you think? Ruth is the only person in scripture described as possessing and showing hesed, the endless-loving-kindness usually ascribed only to God.

Tradition tends to ignore the hesed, and paint Ruth as some kind of wanton slut, seducing and bedding Boaz - but without a shred of evidence to that effect other than a traditional interpretation that "uncovering feet" is a sexual act. It reeks of the kind of denigration that women have experienced, and continue to receive, at the hands of judgmental people. Strong women have historically been named witches, harlets and whores. If you can't argue against the truth they espouse, attack them by calling them immoral. THAT should sound familiar - it continues to this day, and this community is comprised of people who suffer the same denigration.

Does any of this say that Ruth and Naomi were lovers - no, but neither does it say they weren't.

Perhaps I was less than clear, Andrew, about my position vis-a-vis the Book of Ruth.

The book of Ruth is about two women, who through covenant relationship with one another, challenge the structures of their society, claim their own agency in the world as women, and claim a blessing and an inheritance from God by doing so. In the LARGE picture, we see that God has used these two women as an integral part of God's plan for the reconciliation of the world to Godself since the "offspring" of ruth and Naomi (and, yes, Boaz) is first DAVID and later JESUS.

Ruth and Naomi practiced "HESED" - or covenant love - in their relationship with one another. They may also have practiced other things (which I am not indelicate enough to mention in polite conversation ... unlike other people who shall remain nameless...ANDY)

Even if Ruth and Naomi were lovers (and I like to think that they were) Boaz seems to be a pretty righteous and willing participant with them in their cultural insurrectionism. Clearly, SOMETHING other than feet got uncovered because a baby was concieved.

My point is that the sexual relationships of the characters are not that important to the author of Ruth. THEIR GENDERS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. Women are AGENTS. Women are ACTORS. Women are integral parts of what God is doing in the world. This is a radical piece of writing... in any age. Boaz isn't a PRIME mover in this story... but he isn't a prop either (as Elimilech and his sons ARE) The sexual/covenantal relationship between Boaz and Ruth isnt as important theologically as the the covenantal (and quite possibly sexual) relationship between Naomi and Ruth... but its not a mere "prop" either. Though God is not a strong, active character in this story He isn't a mere "prop" either. He is active in the lives and choices of courageous human beings and through their courage and faithfulness, "God is working his purpose out as year succeeds to year"