 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Ruth 4: Reflections (3:1-18) (Avi Katz, Ruth Cuddleth with Boaz)Katz seems to depict Ruth as the "hottie" that Stacy suggested her to be. Is the biblical author condoning this act? It certainly seems so, for after this "act" she is deamed all the more a "woman of worth" by the author. What might this mean? I encourage you to think critically about your own presuppositions and biases that you bring to your interpretation of Ruth 3:1-18. Do you think that they had sex or not? Does it matter? If this is an intentional recasting of the Judah and Tamar story, as I contend, what are the implications for the Church today? In other words, what might the storyteller be trying to communicate to us about the ethics emcombant upon the covenant community? The Ruth story seems more concerned with the plight of the widows, Ruth and Naomi, than about sustaining the lineage/name of Mahlon. What might this signify? Please share your interpretations with the rest of us. Then you can read my interpretation (ignore the formatting on my Hebrew words). RuthPaperBody.pdf posted by Jake at 1/15/2005 10:40:00 AM  
1 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Blogger anonymity ------------ The Barreto Admiration Society ------------ Can't we all just [not] get along? ------------ The Myth of a 'Pure Gospel' ------------ Worship at the Well ------------ Campolo on Emergent ------------ The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 2) ------------ Deconstructing Delta ------------ Should pastors set the tone for Emergent? ------------ I have a vision ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
There are other instances in the Old Testament where the word "know" or "knew" refer to the act of sex. Although, you musn't misinterpret the text in this case or the character (integrity) of both Ruth and Boaz. I know some of you perverted people would like to believe that the writer is condoning sex outside of marriage in this Bible story, but it's just not the case. I am also a seminary graduate and I'd like to illuminate you guys on what really happened that night on the threshing floor. First, let's don't read anything more than what was written in the passage. It is important to note that ONLY the place of Boaz's feet was involved in the uncovering. This ancient custom was a symbolic proposal of marriage, whereby Ruth expressed her desire for Boaz to take her under his loving protection as husband. Also notice that the passage reveals that Boaz woke up in the middle of the night "STARTLED" because he saw a woman laying at his feet and he asked her, "Who are you?" Now does this sound like two people who had been "going at it" all night, I don't think so. The text also makes it clear that both Boaz and Ruth were people of integrity and character. Boaz especially was a man of God and would not stoop to making Ruth out to be a whore. Please, search the heart of this beautiful story and don't pervert the truth.