Along the same lines as David and
Jonathan we have Ruth and Naomi and the assertion that they were gay. Frankly,
there is not much evidence to go on to defend a homosexual relationship in the
Book of Ruth (Helminiak 126). Again we
are confronted with a single verse of Scripture to base a homosexual
interpretation on.
The claim is that Ruth 1:14 is a
biblical assertion that these Biblical women were gay. They base a majority of
their argument on one passage (like Daniel 1:9) that seems clearly torn from
its context of loyalty and family and the overarching theme of the Kinsman
Redeemer (Levirate marriage) in the book of Ruth (Cundall 242). It is in this
passage that shows Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi (Cundall et al 259) that many within
the homosexual community claim is an
affirming “messages for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people” (Would Jesus
Discriminate?-Ruth and Naomi). They
claim that in the story of Ruth we see the Bible address the question: Can two
people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing
of God? They are implying that this loving committed relationship could
potentially be sexual.
Ruth 1:14 “And they lifted up their
voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to
her.”
The focal point in this passage for the
gay community is a single word: דָּ֥בְקָה /dabaq or clung. Orpah kissed her mother but Ruth, her daughter-in-law clung to her. The word דָּ֥בְקָה is
indeed the exact same term used by Genesis 2:24 to describe the how man will
leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife or specifically how
Adam was to cling or cleave to Eve. It is a word that does show the unique
closeness that can be experience in a marriage relationship (Wolf 522).
Interestingly, the word order in the Hebrew places Ruth ahead of דָּ֥בְקָה
/dabaq therefore it emphasizes the contrast between the response of Orpah and
Ruth. The purpose of the writer of Ruth was to show the two women who were
initially viewed as equals to be actually quite different. Orpah goes with a
natural course of obeying Naomi’s wishes but Ruth picks the harder spiritual and
emotional course but one that is more loyal to Naomi (Block 638).
This is a relationship of closeness
founded in faith and loyalty not lust (similar to David and Jonathan). There is
a familial relationship taking place here. It is indeed possible to have a very
close familial relationship similar to that of a husband and wife in other
relationships in a family. It does not follow that the relationship needs to also
contain aspects of sexuality or eros like that of Adam and Eve. This is a
fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. It is no different than saying: Gay
people hug in a loving and affectionate manner, Naomi and Ruth hugged in a
loving and affectionate manner, therefore Naomi and Ruth have to be gay. There
are other reasons in Scripture that people clung/cleaved and they were not
sexual in their motive. Clearly this passage concerning the gleaning of Boaz’s
fields that uses the same verbiage is not homosexual in its intent and it
resides right within Ruth:
Ruth 2:21 ~ Then Ruth the Moabitess said
[speaking to Naomi], “Furthermore, he [Boaz] said to me, ‘You should stay close
[cleave/cling] to my servants until they have finished all my harvest
It is interesting to note that the supposed
homosexual passage of Ruth 1:14 is immediately followed by a declaration of
faith in God by Ruth (which is conspicuously absent from many homosexual
arguments). Had these verse that immediately followed verse 14 been read and
taken into account also in this context, it would easily dispel the assertion
that Ruth is clinging to Naomi in a sexual or romantic manner. She is clinging
physically to Naomi but spiritually and in the context of Scripture, she is
clinging in faith to God.
Ruth 1:15-18 Then she said, “Behold,
your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your
sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from
following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge.
Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will
die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the Lord do to me, and worse, if
anything but death parts you and me.” When she saw that she was determined to
go with her, she said no more to her.
Ruth immediately responds to Naomi in a theological manner in verses 15-18, not
a homosexual manner. She states that Orpah has gone back to her people and “her
gods.” Ruth then followed her initial statement with an immediate statement
that she wouldn’t leave Naomi nor would she leave Naomi’s God. Far from being a
sexual assertion, this passage is a profound theological statement from Ruth
about her faith in Naomi’s God (the God of the Bible) and how that ties into her relation to Naomi
(Block 639). This is an issue of spirituality, not sexuality. To read sexuality
into this passage is to re-frame the context of the passage.
This scenario also begs the question. If
Ruth was indeed a lesbian, why would she inevitably marry Boaz and also sleep
with Boaz to produce offspring (Ruth 4:13). At the point of Obed’s birth we see
Naomi taking the child, laying him in her lap, and becoming his nurse. This
hardly seems like the behavior of a jilted lesbian lover.
1 comment:
Apparently it seems, no one can have platonic love for another person of the same sex (said with sarcasm).
Post a Comment