I came across this article when I was searching on Google if there is a romance book based on the story of Ruth (like the book Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers is based on the story of the prophet Hosea), and I was curious to see where they managed to see elements "queer" in a book... FROM THE BIBLE! First of all, I have to admit that the article is so, SO absurd, that it's impossible not to have a good laugh with it (but the laughter and the beautiful painting by Jan Victors are the only good thing, obviously).
1st "Ruth and Naomi have the rare opportunity to make their own decisions, not tethered to any husband or master". Contrary to what the crazy feminist mind of the 21st century thinks, it was simply HORRIBLE for a woman not to have a husband: the law of inheritance instituted by God predicted that the first heirs are male children; if there are no sons, then the daughters will inherit; if there are also no daughters (which is the case of Elimelek, Mahlon and Kilion), the inheritance will go to the closest male relative of the deceased (see Numbers, 27). In other words, Ruth and Noemi had no house, no goods, they had NOTHING, as the right of inheritance belonged to Elimelek's male relatives. Certainly, Ruth would rather be a woman "tethered" to a kind and rich man like Boaz than a woman alone, poor and working in the barley fields.
2nd "Ruth’s proclamation makes it seem as though this choice to stay together is out of need—albeit emotional, not lawful—rather than want”. No, Ruth did not stay with Naomi out of “emotional necessity”, much less out of “want”. Ruth chose to stay with Naomi out of LOYALTY, unlike Orpah, who turned her back on her mother-in-law (turning her back is exactly why she is called Orpah, it is the meaning of this name). Ruth had a heart, she would not happily return home to live with her parents and leave her elderly mother-in-law alone, without relatives, land or money. She felt indebted to the woman who raised her husband, who accepted her as a daughter-in-law, and who needed her when Mahlon died.
3rd "One can argue that Boaz simply values family loyalty, but after the deaths of the men in their lives, Ruth and Naomi no longer have any familial obligation to each other". Ruth and Naomi no longer have any familial obligation to each other"??? REALLY?????? Again: Ruth was welcomed by Naomi into her family, lived for years with Naomi's son and was always treated well by her mother-in-law. So when her mother-in-law needs her, should Ruth turn her back like Orpah did because she "no longer has any family obligations"? Only a very selfish and heartless person would be capable of saying such nonsense. Ruth (as a good daughter of God and also as the woman Maalon loved) had a DUTY to care for the elderly and powerless Naomi.
4th "Naomi, wishing to find Ruth a new home, instructs Ruth to seduce Boaz, as Preser describes. The two do eventually marry and have a child (whose grandson will be King David), but Naomi becomes the baby’s mother: “Naomi took the child and held it to her bosom. She became its foster mother…” To Preser, this addition to the family does not negate Ruth and Naomi's relationship. She writes that this birth marks the creation of a new, unconventional family: Boaz is the biological father, Ruth is the biological mother, and Naomi is the child's foster parent and Ruth's lover". This paragraph here has SO MUCH nonsense: Ruth doesn't seduce Boaz, Ruth lies down at his feet (which meant, servitude, submission) and asks him to exercise the right of redemption (see Leviticus, 25) and also the Law of Levirate (see Genesis, 38 and Deuteronomy, 25), and it is precisely through the exercise of the Law of Levirate that the father of Boaz's son was Mahlon, the Naomi's son, and therefore she was the baby's grandmother. Boaz was the biological father, Ruth was the biological mother, Naomi was legally THE GRANDMOTHER and Maalon was legally THE FATHER, including for inheritance purposes.
5th "It's a powerfully feminist story". REALLY??? Feminism preaches that women don't need men for anything and can fend for themselves, but when Ruth and Noemi were alone, they were screwed: they were poor, without land, without goods, without a home, and they needed a man to exercise their right to the inheritance of dead husbands. They only became financially secure when Boaz married Ruth. Furthermore, when at the beginning of the book Naomi tells Ruth that she is old and will not marry again, but her daughter-in-law is young and can marry again, she is expressing the desire that Ruth find a loving and kind man: Naomi would not wanting less for Ruth than someone like Mahlon. Naomi wanted a man for Ruth, this is clear from the beginning of the book, and it becomes even clearer when Naomi suggests that Ruth marry the rich Boaz to free them from poverty and insecurity. They wanted and needed a man.
My God, what nonsense!
I came across this article when I was searching on Google if there is a romance book based on the story of Ruth (like the book Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers is based on the story of the prophet Hosea), and I was curious to see where they managed to see elements "queer" in a book... FROM THE BIBLE! First of all, I have to admit that the article is so, SO absurd, that it's impossible not to have a good laugh with it (but the laughter and the beautiful painting by Jan Victors are the only good thing, obviously).
1st "Ruth and Naomi have the rare opportunity to make their own decisions, not tethered to any husband or master". Contrary to what the crazy feminist mind of the 21st century thinks, it was simply HORRIBLE for a woman not to have a husband: the law of inheritance instituted by God predicted that the first heirs are male children; if there are no sons, then the daughters will inherit; if there are also no daughters (which is the case of Elimelek, Mahlon and Kilion), the inheritance will go to the closest male relative of the deceased (see Numbers, 27). In other words, Ruth and Noemi had no house, no goods, they had NOTHING, as the right of inheritance belonged to Elimelek's male relatives. Certainly, Ruth would rather be a woman "tethered" to a kind and rich man like Boaz than a woman alone, poor and working in the barley fields.
2nd "Ruth’s proclamation makes it seem as though this choice to stay together is out of need—albeit emotional, not lawful—rather than want”. No, Ruth did not stay with Naomi out of “emotional necessity”, much less out of “want”. Ruth chose to stay with Naomi out of LOYALTY, unlike Orpah, who turned her back on her mother-in-law (turning her back is exactly why she is called Orpah, it is the meaning of this name). Ruth had a heart, she would not happily return home to live with her parents and leave her elderly mother-in-law alone, without relatives, land or money. She felt indebted to the woman who raised her husband, who accepted her as a daughter-in-law, and who needed her when Mahlon died.
3rd "One can argue that Boaz simply values family loyalty, but after the deaths of the men in their lives, Ruth and Naomi no longer have any familial obligation to each other". Ruth and Naomi no longer have any familial obligation to each other"??? REALLY?????? Again: Ruth was welcomed by Naomi into her family, lived for years with Naomi's son and was always treated well by her mother-in-law. So when her mother-in-law needs her, should Ruth turn her back like Orpah did because she "no longer has any family obligations"? Only a very selfish and heartless person would be capable of saying such nonsense. Ruth (as a good daughter of God and also as the woman Maalon loved) had a DUTY to care for the elderly and powerless Naomi.
4th "Naomi, wishing to find Ruth a new home, instructs Ruth to seduce Boaz, as Preser describes. The two do eventually marry and have a child (whose grandson will be King David), but Naomi becomes the baby’s mother: “Naomi took the child and held it to her bosom. She became its foster mother…” To Preser, this addition to the family does not negate Ruth and Naomi's relationship. She writes that this birth marks the creation of a new, unconventional family: Boaz is the biological father, Ruth is the biological mother, and Naomi is the child's foster parent and Ruth's lover". This paragraph here has SO MUCH nonsense: Ruth doesn't seduce Boaz, Ruth lies down at his feet (which meant, servitude, submission) and asks him to exercise the right of redemption (see Leviticus, 25) and also the Law of Levirate (see Genesis, 38 and Deuteronomy, 25), and it is precisely through the exercise of the Law of Levirate that the father of Boaz's son was Mahlon, the Naomi's son, and therefore she was the baby's grandmother. Boaz was the biological father, Ruth was the biological mother, Naomi was legally THE GRANDMOTHER and Maalon was legally THE FATHER, including for inheritance purposes.
5th "It's a powerfully feminist story". REALLY??? Feminism preaches that women don't need men for anything and can fend for themselves, but when Ruth and Noemi were alone, they were screwed: they were poor, without land, without goods, without a home, and they needed a man to exercise their right to the inheritance of dead husbands. They only became financially secure when Boaz married Ruth. Furthermore, when at the beginning of the book Naomi tells Ruth that she is old and will not marry again, but her daughter-in-law is young and can marry again, she is expressing the desire that Ruth find a loving and kind man: Naomi would not wanting less for Ruth than someone like Mahlon. Naomi wanted a man for Ruth, this is clear from the beginning of the book, and it becomes even clearer when Naomi suggests that Ruth marry the rich Boaz to free them from poverty and insecurity. They wanted and needed a man.