She talks about sex and whatnot in the bible, it's not terribly in depth or illuminating. However, she talks about Ruth and Boaz, and claims that it is an example of pre-marital sex being used for a blessing.
"Knust: Perhaps the most striking example is in the story of Ruth, though there are other examples as well. According to the Book of Ruth, when the recently widowed Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi were faced with a famine in Ruth's homeland Moab, they returned to Israel impoverished and with little hope of survival. Ruth took to gleaning in the fields to find food for herself and Naomi. The owner of the fields, a relative of Naomi named Boaz, saw Ruth and was pleased by her. When Naomi heard about it, she encouraged Ruth to adorn herself and approach Boaz at night while he was sleeping to see what would happen. Ruth took this advice, resting with him until morning after first "uncovering his feet" (in Hebrew, "feet" can be a euphemism for male genitals). The next day, Boaz goes to town to find out whether he can marry her, and, luckily, another man with a claim to Ruth agrees to release her. They do marry and together they produce Obed, the grandfather of King David.
None of this would have been possible if Ruth had not set out to seduce Boaz in a field, without the benefit of marriage."Knust is being a little disingenuous here. It's true that Ruth and Boaz probably had sex that night, but it wasn't just sex for the sake of sex. For the ancient Hebrews, there was an engagement period of one year prior to living together. This was called the Ketuvah (כתובה) (the three letter root of chet, tav, bet [כתב] in Hebrew just means that the word pertains to writing). The ketuvah could be initiated in three ways, a gift, a written document, or sex.
So in a sense, Boaz didn't so much marry Ruth out of altruism, but more because they had instigated the ketuvah and essentially had to marry her. So really, the most subversive thing about this union was that Ruth essentially proposed to Boaz. Feminism?
Perhaps Knust, through the example of Ruth, is suggesting that premarital sex is permissible, but she doesn't directly say she thinks it is a blessing. It is not surprising to me that scholars use biblical characters in which the ends justify the means of their sins, in this case Ruth being part of King David's lineage. However, this process seems inconsistent. Are we to argue that feigning the death of a sibling is okay just because it ultimately led to Joseph saving/feeding a ton of Egyptians and much of the world? We are sinful creatures and yet God uses us for His will on earth. If all the characters in the bible were perfect, how would we know mercy? For me, Ruth's story doesn't equate to condoning pre-marital sex.
ReplyDelete