I’ve taken her on before and after almost a month-long delay. I’m here to take her on once again. Elizabeth Schmitz of has in response to. Elizabeth has posted an article that has a four-part argument in favor of Naomi and Ruth being lesbian lovers. The first part is the use of language; specifically the word cleave which is used to describe both Ruth and Naomi as well as marriage in general. The second part is the existence of many non-traditional relationships in the course of the Bible. The third part is the importance of lineage to the Hebrew people. And the final part refers to Ruth 4:16-17 where Naomi is like a second mother to Obed.
Elizabeth admits that the lack of detail within the text is a problem. This creates a bigger problem than Elizabeth may be aware of. This allows us to use a rabbinical argument from silence which basically states that if the Bible doesn’t explicitly state it.
The argument of He. 7 is similar to the rabbinic argument from silence which assumed that nothing exists unless Scripture mentions it. Since Genesis says nothing of Melchizedek’s parents genealogy birth or death he serves as a type representing the eternal Son of God (v. 3). In rabbinical logic and reasoning statements could be made which were “arguments from silence.” If the Bible didn’t specifically say something about a person place or incident various conclusions could be drawn for the sake of the claim or discussion being presented. ()
So for the sake of this discussion. I can conclude that nothing happened between Ruth and Naomi. Even a casual search of the Bible will reveal that it is explicit where sex and sin occur. It rarely just says that two people bore a child; it explicitly states that the two people in question had sex. And it states that in unmistakable terms. The same is true with sin. The Bible deals very frankly with those subjects.
What about the rest of Elizabeth’s arguments? First in regard to language she points out that “cleave” is used in both Genesis 2:24 to describe marriage and in Ruth 1:14 to describe Ruth and Naomi’s relationship. Granted but there is no specific talk of sex or sexuality. As I explained above the Bible is very frank when discussing sex between two people. It wouldn’t have stopped here.
Next. Elizabeth brings up several non-traditional relationships that occur in the Bible. While she mentions Jacob having multiple wives she neglects that this is not uncommon during patriarchal times.
Abraham and Hagar is another relationship that Elizabeth mentions. I should note that God honors His promise to raise a nation from Abraham’s offspring by promising Ishmael that he will sire 12 princes but that the covenant promises will only be given to Isaac as Isaac is the descendant that God promised Abraham.
Likewise with David and Bathsheba. God took their first child as punishment for the adultery and murder. None of these non-traditional relationships help make a case for Ruth and Naomi being lesbian lovers. Ruth and Naomi would have clearly been in the wrong as with Abraham and Hagar and David and Bathsheba. God punished those couples. There is no reason to assume that He wouldn’t have punished Ruth and Naomi.
The third part to Elizabeth’s argument is that lineage is very important in the Old Testament and that people go to great lengths to preserve their lineage. True but irrelevant. No lineage is possible from a homosexual couple and the lineage is the man’s not the woman’s. This argument merely strengthens the position that Ruth and Naomi had only a platonic relationship.
The final piece of Elizabeth’s argument is that Naomi acts as the “second mother” in the way one would expect a modern lesbian couple to behave. This argument is blatant eisigesis. Nursemaids are not uncommon in the Bible. What Elizabeth is doing is taking a modern relationship and reading it back into a culture where it never existed. No one in that day would see Naomi as a “second mom” the way a lesbian life partner acts today because that practice was unheard of in those days.
The Bible despite its frank dealing with sex never mentions a sexual relationship between Ruth and Naomi. Of the non-traditional relationships it mentions the ones that are sinful in God’s eyes are punished by Him swiftly. Lineage is irrelevant to a homosexual couple. Nursemaids are not lesbian life partners. Elizabeth’s arguments fall apart easily under scrutiny.
fine response except I never once contended that Naomi and Ruth had a sexual relationship. I made a case on how the two could be involved in a lesbian/romantic relationship. We are clearly operating on different terms if you interpret all terms as one and the same.
On another note you write. “What Elizabeth is doing is taking a modern relationship and reading it back into a culture where it never existed.” I will grant you that. If contextualism is such a concern of yours perhaps you would refrain from taking the ancient/tribal mores and applying them to modern life…
[...] Why Do I Follow Tribal Codes from 1400 B. C.? Posted on November 2. 2007 by Cory Tucholski The lovely Elizabeth Schmitz has challenged me yet again: [Y]ou write. “What Elizabeth is doing is taking a modern relationship and reading it back into a culture where it never existed.” I will grant you that. If contextualism is such a concern of yours perhaps you would refrain from taking the ancient/tribal mores and applying them to modern life… (source) [...]
Related article:
http://josiahconcept.org/2007/10/26/delayed-reaction-lesbianism-and-the-book-of-ruth/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
