Ruth Question

[Liz Costello]

Hi Todd,

First of all…I loved episode one! Truly, thank you for showing why these women are included in Jesus’s story. My question is about Ruth. I have heard that interpretation before, but I would love your opinion of why the feet and threshing floor are such veiled references. Why not say it like sexual references in other parts of the Bible? I assume it is a translation issue, but obviously I don’t know. Also, what do you think that means for the bigger picture issue of sexual purity since Ruth is clearly not condemned for her action? I hope you read this in a spirit of genuine curiosity, not a challenge to your interpretation. Thank you, Liz

[Todd Austin]

I’m not sure why it’s veiled, and it may be that it’s not veiled at all. In English if we say “she slept with him” we know instantly that this isn’t about sleeping.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, “cover the feet” means to urinate. When Zipporah touches Moses’s “feet” with the foreskin of their son, it’s probably not Moses’s feet that it’s talking about. “Hair of the feet” in Isaiah 7 means pubic hair. In Deuteronomy 28 it talks about the afterbirth that comes out from a woman’s “feet.” In Ezekiel 16, a loose woman is one who spreads her “feet” to anyone who walks by (we would say “spreads her legs”). David urges Uriah to go to Bathsheba and “wash his feet,” but Uriah responds that he will not “lie with his wife.”

That does not mean that this text in Ruth is unquestionably about a seduction. In this post, I talk about that a bit more. But even if you didn’t know about “feet,” just reading the text of Ruth 3 makes you think, “is there something going on here?” Once you DO know about feet, I think it’s a stretch to read it any other way. On top of that, “lie down,” “threshing floor,” “make known,” and “spread your cloak” are all phrases that carry sexual implications in other Hebrew texts. These phrases are used so frequently in this chapter that we should be giggling with embarrassment by the time we get to the end of the story.

Regarding sexual purity, and “purity” in general, that’s a big topic. Fortunately, it’s one about which Matthew has something to say. I think one of the fears of “good church people” (like me) is that, if you don’t condemn Ruth, isn’t that the same thing as saying it doesn’t matter? But it’s not the same thing. More to come…

[Author]

Posts