Todd Austin

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Attending to waywardness over generations #1818

    I know. I had the same reaction when I first saw Goldingay’s work on this. “Carrying the waywardness” also resonates with the voice of the prophets. This translation is the piece that makes the puzzle come together on Exodus 34.

    in reply to: Wilderness #1680

    Thanks for the encouragement. Matthew is pretty radical in what it proposes and demands. I hope this does it justice.

    in reply to: Ruth Question #1631

    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…

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)