Schmitz Blitz: Shallow Understanding of Love and the Bible
Elizabeth Schmitz left a comment on my blog that was a verbatim repost of her latest entry. I decided to check out what she had to say, on the off chance that it might be interesting or informative. Her blog was plain, and no different than any other anti-Christian social issues blog I’ve ever seen. I dug a little bit on her blog and found this post, which bears commenting on.
Elizabeth says that this is one of her favorite passages in the Bible:
But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” (Ruth 1:16-17)
Her thought, shallow and unsophisticated though it is, on that verse is:
That is one woman speaking to another (Ruth to Naomi to be exact). The religious right tries as hard as it can to demonize the love between two individuals of the same sex, but this passage shows that it was alive and celebrated in the Bible, as I wish it only could be today.
First of all, no one demonizes love between the same sex, particularly if it is the same sort of love that Ruth is demonstrating to Naomi. There are a few things that Elizabeth is neither telling us nor considering into the context of this passage. There is also at least one underlying assumption she betrays that is false.
First, Elizabeth is skirting the issue of who these women are. Ruth is Naomi’s daughter-in-law. I really don’t see a romantic relationship developing between these two women. Naomi is older, too old to find a husband (1:12). Later in the story, Naomi helps Ruth find a husband, Boaz (Ruth 3). They marry and bear a son, Obed (Ruth 4) who is the grandfather of King David (verse 17).
The rest of the story shows that this statement made by Ruth is one of loyalty, not romantic love. Were these two lovers, would Naomi really have helped Ruth find a new husband? More importantly, would Naomi be as bitter as she was when she first returned home with Ruth (1:20-21) if the two were lovers?
The underlying assumption that Elizabeth betrays is that she thinks that all outward shows of love must be romantic love. Why can’t this be simple loyalty? Naomi was the family that Ruth was close to, so it make sense that she would cling to her mother-in-law after the death of her husband. Why return to her own family if they weren’t close? Choosing to stay with Naomi in this case isn’t a case of romantic love, but one of family loyalty.
So, who is Elizabeth Schmitz? Well, her About page is very mysterious. However, I have noticed the similarity in tone and opinion to someone I’ve taken on before. That is Eliza from DefCon. I think that Ms. Schmitz and Eliza are one in the same.
Thank you for taking a look at Schmitz Blitz.
I would be very much interested in examining the Book of Ruth with you, and plan to write up a response as well thought out as yours as soon as possible.
I justed wanted to provide a fact check on one aspect of your post, for now. On my honor (yes, even though I’m a ‘liberal’, honor still means something)I am not Eliza from DefCon. Though I must say, after you have pointed her out to me, I do notice a similarity in tone. Good call.
I’ve been wrong before. Your posts almost line up day-to-day. Same tone. Eliza, Elizabeth. I was so sure.
I will grant you that my initial post on the Book of Ruth lacked depth. Though I also feel that you present a somewhat naïve interpretation yourself, as you fail to address the language and the context of the Biblical story.
First order in supporting my claim that Naomi and Ruth had a potentially romantic relationship, I would like to look at a specific bit of language found in the Book of Ruth. Ruth (1:14) states that “Ruth clung to [Naomi]”. The usage of the verb to cling is significant in that it is found in Genesis to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve. Genesis (2:24) reads: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Thus it would seem in using this common language, that the relationship between Naomi and Ruth was similar to that of Adam and Eve.
Now to look at the context of the verse. You claim, “Ruth is Naomi’s daughter-in-law. I really don’t see a romantic relationship developing between these two women.” You are correct that that the women were mother and daughter in law, but I don’t understand how you can make the stretch from there that this means they could not be lovers. The Bible is full of passages about romantic relationships that we would not consider kosher in our modern world.
For example, the story of Judah and Tamar from Genesis 38, in which Tamar becomes pregnant by her father-in-law Judah. Like Ruth, Tamar was drawn to her dead husband’s parent after a string of failed levirate marriages.
You also question how Naomi and Ruth could possibly be lovers if Naomi helped Ruth marry Boaz. Again, you overlook other Bible passages in which people have intimate relationships with more than one person for the sake of carrying on a lineage. This is true of Abraham and Hagar, Jacob and his wives, David and Bathsheeba, etc.
Lineage was extremely important in Bible, as I’m sure you are aware. The Elimelech lineage, to which Naomi belonged, would have come to an end with the death Naomi’s sons (Ruth’s husbands). In order to continue that lineage, which would eventually produce both King David and Jesus, either Naomi or Ruth would have to have a child, and at that time, a man was the only way to do that.
And ff course, marrying a person of the opposite sex does not preclude one from being gay, as the stories of Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, et. al painfully reveal.
I believe the passages referring to the birth of Obed are also significant in that they show how Naomi and Ruth share parenthood with Obed. Ruth (4:16-17) reads, “Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse. The women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.”
Obed’s father Boaz is a minimal figure—pretty much that of a sperm donor. The passage clearly reveals that Naomi is a more important parental figure to Obed than Boaz. It seems that Naomi is playing the role of the non-biological mother that you see in modern lesbian families. Of course that is a difficult connection to make, given the different era and lack of further Biblical text, but it does not seem as far fetched as you would have it.
[...] 28, 2007 Cory Tucholski from Josiah Concept Ministries has challenged my interpretation of the book of Ruth. My response is as [...]