Ruth and The Feet


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

Most people reading the Book of Ruth tend to get hung up on the whole thing about Boaz's feet.  What was up with that?

What I was surprised by was how many people assume the worst and believe that Ruth was doing something untoward to Boaz.  Even Matthew Henry seems to get this impression.  But he relents and chooses to believe it only "seemed" that way.  But it still shouldn't have been done.  So, he splits the difference and blames Naomi for encouraging her.  Still a LOT of commentators (both past centuries, and current ones) tend to believe it was a euphemism.  Many of those pushing the unseemly narrative show their ignorance of the Hebrew language and of the customs of the people of that day.  But most of the more modern ones tend to be less scholarly. The more scholarly sources seem to point out historical and cultural context that indicates that it was all above board.

So, why should we care? She was human.  She could sin and repent.  Why bother clearing her name?  Well, we certainly don't want to tarnish the reputation of someone who was deemed a virtuous woman, especially if we do so simply out of ignorance. 

We know that she was a woman who was touched by the Spirit.  A convert to the religion of Israel, she left her homeland and all she knew to live by the commandments of a God she came to accept as her own.

The Law of Moses required that her near kinsman take her to wife.  And (as far as she knew at the time) that was Boaz.  It was her actual RIGHT to demand that he marry her and care for her.  But she didn't do that.  And the way she went about it showed just how humbly she went about it.

First, it was a custom for some trusted servants to sleep at or near the feet of their master (like a dog, one might say).  So, when it says she was sleeping at his feet, she was really sleeping at his feet.  And it was a sign of humility and submission.

This was further amplified by uncovering his feet. 

Quote

7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.

8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.

 -- Deut 25: 7-9

This process has been called chalitzah.  The shoe thing was part of Middle Eastern culture prior to the Law of Moses.  It was a means of "sealing the deal."  That's why it was added as part of the instruction for chalitzah.  Nowadays it is the more common choice among Jews who have been widowed because of various practical reasons.  I don't know how much they spit in each others' eyes anymore.

Basically, Ruth was letting him know that she was aware of his duty under the law, but she was also saying that she was perfectly willing to accept chalitzah if he chose not to.  She already began the process of rejection by uncovering his feet so it would be easier to take his shoe off.  (Remember he was in the threshing room floor.  One does not walk around that with bare feet).  She did this to let him know that she was not embarassing him in public and forcing him into a marriage that he wouldn't want (there was a certain amount of shame when a man chose this and the woman did not).  So, she just brought the choice to him in the least threatening way possible.

That is what the feet thing was about.

I'm not going to go into all the linguistic reasoning why the "euphemistic" interpretation would be stretching the imagination.  But suffice it to say, it just wasn't so.

As Boaz instructed Ruth to leave, he wanted her to remain stealthy so people didn't get the wrong idea.  There was no "wrong idea" if they had actually done the deed.  It is much more likely that nothing immoral occurred, and they both wanted to keep it that way.  They also didn't want anyone else to think incorrectly.

When Boaz spoke with the near kinsman in front of a crowd of witnesses, he took his shoe off of his foot to seal the deal that Boaz would marry Ruth and that the kinsman wanted nothing to do with her.

 

EDIT: An interesting thing to note was that Ruth was in fact offering a proposal of marriage when she said 

Quote

...spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.

 -- Ruth 3:9

And the "spread thy skirt" was actually a euphemism.  But it was meant to be within a formal marriage.

Further evidence that this was still chaste is

Quote

And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that thou requirest: for all the city of my people doth know that thou art a virtuous woman.

 -- Ruth 3:11

If they had already done it, he wouldn't have to promise "I *will* do" emphasizing the fact that she is a VIRTUOUS WOMAN.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no expertise to say one way or the other. I do notice that you are more certain of your non-euphemistic interpretation than many others I have read on this (Ben Spackman, for example: https://benspackman.com/2022/06/gospel-doctrine-20-ruth-and-samuel-1/). I see no reason to think it is necessary to assume innuendo in the story, but neither do I see any reason to flat out reject the possibility. It also seems that this has been long debated for many years. I doubt a post on thirdhour is going to settle the debate once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're on the topic of euphemisms, the phrase "to cover one's feet" does not mean "to take a nap". It means "to defecate". So when Saul went into a cave to "cover his feet" and David cut off a piece of his robe, Saul was not taking a nap, as so many commentaries seem to want to say. He was pooping, and thus very vulnerable; had David wished to do so, he could easily have killed Saul. Similarly, when King Eglon was disemboweled by Ehud, Ehud told the servants that the king was "covering his feet". That's why the servants waited so long (because they were embarrassed to interrupt the king—"ashamed" is the word the KJV uses) before finally going in and finding him dead.

Also, for the record, the phrase "pisseth against the wall" (as used by David to talk about the revenge he would take on all the males of Nabal's household) was not necessarily vulgar. The Anglo-Saxon-derived verb "to piss" simply meant (and means) the same as the Latin-derived "to urinate". Which is why we have the baby-talk word "pee"; it's the first letter of "piss".

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I see no reason to think it is necessary to assume innuendo in the story, but neither do I see any reason to flat out reject the possibility.

I see this as a perfectly reasonable position.  And I don't exactly outright reject the possibility either.  I hold primarily two points:

1) The reasoning and arguments used (at least the couple dozen that I read) to assume the innuendo do not hold water when you consider all the usage.  I also found no evidence that some of the assumptions made about meanings and customs were even verifiable.  They seemed to be made up out of whole cloth.

Could it still be so?  Of course.  But why jump to an unseemly conclusion when the preponderance of the evidence and stronger arguments indicate the simpler explanation is probably the correct one?  People seem to want to believe something just because it is sensational, not because it is more likely or true.

2) Ruth was a virtuous woman.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

It also seems that this has been long debated for many years.

You noticed that too?

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I doubt a post on thirdhour is going to settle the debate once and for all.

Again, you're assuming things about my intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can add little except to recommend the Spackman post @MrShorty links above.  My understanding is that the Hebrew here is full of double entendres.  The author isn’t necessarily saying that they had intercourse—but he probably wants us to wonder if they did.

Additionally—talking of extramarital sex in an ancient Hebrew context is complicated by the fact that so far as we know, there wasn’t a formal ecclesiastical wedding ceremony.  The “wedding” was basically a big feast, at a certain point of which the bride and groom retired to a private room, consummated the marriage, and then the bloody sheets from the bed (the “tokens of her virginity”) were shown to the bride’s and groom’s fathers (and the other guests)  to affirm that the bride had been a virgin; and they were considered “married” at that point.  And here Ruth, as a widow, isn’t even a virgin anyways.  This isn’t to say that ancient Israel was a sexual free-for-all.  But in the context of the story of Ruth, it’s awkward to assert that pre-wedding sex would have been inherently sinful; because in a significant way the sex was the wedding.

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just learned an interesting addition to the story of Ruth.

Many people have theories about why the near kinsman rejected the marriage to Ruth.  But all the ones I'd read were about his money being split or some such.  But I just came across another theory.

Moabites were specifically forbidden from worshipping with the Israelites.  A curse was placed upon them up to the "10th generation" (interpreted as 10 generations from the marriage of a pure Moabite).  So, the kinsman may have feared that his children would not be able to join in worship.  And he'd have to marry another woman to have children to worship with.

But if he had thought that (and I believe it would have been an understandable presumption) he was wrong.

The curse was about the blood descendants of Moab (son of Lot).  But as noted in Deuteronomy and Joshua, the Moabites were ejected from the land of Moab. Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh inhabited those lands.

At the same time, when Ruth said, "Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God," she indicated that the separation of these tribes from the body of Israel sent them on an apostate road.  They had not kept the Law of Moses, and no longer worshipped Jehovah.  So, it was very easy for a person removed from the history by a couple of generations to miss this detail.  Yet, it seemed that Boaz was aware of this distinction.  He wasn't worried about it.

A theory.  But we do know that Ruth's "Moabite-ness" didn't stop David (only three generations later) DID enter the temple.  So, apparently, it wasn't actually an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2022 at 8:13 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

But in the context of the story of Ruth, it’s awkward to assert that pre-wedding sex would have been inherently sinful; because in a significant way the sex was the wedding.

If Boaz were the nearest kinsman, then there would have been no problem.  But because he wasn't, there was a problem specifically because she was a widow under Mosaic Law.  Sex/marriage with any man other than the near kinsman would have been considered adultery.  Only after satisfying the chalitzah was she free from that condition.  Then she could marry whomever she wished(*).

*I have not read about how it was observed among ancient Israelites, if this allowed her to marry whomever she wished, or if that meant she was to ask the next near kinsman.  But among Orthodox Jews today, it is considered adultery if they do not observe the chalitzah.  Today, the chalitzah is the default.  But they still observe it because they all know it is written in the Law of Moses.  I don't know if they still do the spitting in the eyes.  Once the observance is satisfied, she is free to marry anyone she wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I just learned an interesting addition to the story of Ruth.

Many people have theories about why the near kinsman rejected the marriage to Ruth.  But all the ones I'd read were about his money being split or some such.  But I just came across another theory.

Moabites were specifically forbidden from worshipping with the Israelites.  A curse was placed upon them up to the "10th generation" (interpreted as 10 generations from the marriage of a pure Moabite).  So, the kinsman may have feared that his children would not be able to join in worship.  And he'd have to marry another woman to have children to worship with.

But if he had thought that (and I believe it would have been an understandable presumption) he was wrong.

The curse was about the blood descendants of Moab (son of Lot).  But as noted in Deuteronomy and Joshua, the Moabites were ejected from the land of Moab. Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh inhabited those lands.

At the same time, when Ruth said, "Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God," she indicated that the separation of these tribes from the body of Israel sent them on an apostate road.  They had not kept the Law of Moses, and no longer worshipped Jehovah.  So, it was very easy for a person removed from the history by a couple of generations to miss this detail.  Yet, it seemed that Boaz was aware of this distinction.  He wasn't worried about it.

A theory.  But we do know that Ruth's "Moabite-ness" didn't stop David (only three generations later) DID enter the temple.  So, apparently, it wasn't actually an issue.

I had never connected Ruth’s Moabite ancestry as a reason that the nearer-kinsman may have declined to marry her; that’s an awesome point.

I’m not quite sure how to put together the other points that you make.  If you’re suggesting that Ruth isn’t really a Moabite because there were no longer any ancestral Moabites after the conquest and that “Moabite” in this context is just a generic term meaning “apostate Israelite”, I think Map 3 of our Bible would disagree.  Moab seems to have continued as a political entity to the southeast of Israel long after the conquest and, if I’m not mistaken, well into the monarchical period.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If Boaz were the nearest kinsman, then there would have been no problem.  But because he wasn't, there was a problem specifically because she was a widow under Mosaic Law.  Sex/marriage with any man other than the near kinsman would have been considered adultery.  Only after satisfying the chalitzah was she free from that condition.  Then she could marry whomever she wished(*).

*I have not read about how it was observed among ancient Israelites, if this allowed her to marry whomever she wished, or if that meant she was to ask the next near kinsman.  But among Orthodox Jews today, it is considered adultery if they do not observe the chalitzah.  Today, the chalitzah is the default.  But they still observe it because they all know it is written in the Law of Moses.  I don't know if they still do the spitting in the eyes.  Once the observance is satisfied, she is free to marry anyone she wishes.

That’s really interesting, because going back to the text—Boaz knows there’s a nearer kinsman, but Ruth doesn’t.  So Ruth comes in (potentially, and absolutely innocently) ready to consummate a marriage, and Boaz—who could easily have taken advantage of Ruth’s willingness—tells her the truth, protects her (chastely) through the night, and sends her away before daylight so as to protect her good name. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If you’re suggesting that Ruth isn’t really a Moabite because there were no longer any ancestral Moabites after the conquest and that “Moabite” in this context is just a generic term meaning “apostate Israelite”, I think Map 3 of our Bible would disagree.  Moab seems to have continued as a political entity to the southeast of Israel long after the conquest and, if I’m not mistaken, well into the monarchical period.

I'm drawing a distinction from the "land of Moab" vs the "blood of Moab". 

I'm not saying "all" of the residents of the area were apostate Israelites.  Whether there were any other foreigners in the land at the time of Ruth, I have no idea.

I am saying that descendants of Moab were no longer living there because they were driven out.

Quote

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain

 -- Deut 2:34

While it says that they were "utterly destroyed", we know that there were some who remained, else why the prohibition in Deut 23:3?  So, those who survived were driven out of the land.

Deut 29:8 tells us about the land being given to the three tribes I mentioned before.

So, if we separate the "blood" from the "land", we see a different picture.

The prohibition in the Law was about the blood of Moab.  But even after the blood of Moab were driven out, the "land" was still called "Moab".  And very quickly, any inhabitants therein were called "Moabites".  So, regardless of who inhabited the land, whether apostate Israelites or some other group (so long as they were not of the lineage of Moab) the prohibition did not apply to them.  The fact that David came from that line only after three generations attests to that fact.

With respect, the fact that you seemed to have confused my description in this short thread gives credence to how the kinsman could have done likewise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm drawing a distinction from the "land of Moab" vs the "blood of Moab". 

I'm not saying "all" of the residents of the area were apostate Israelites.  Whether there were any other foreigners in the land at the time of Ruth, I have no idea.

I am saying that descendants of Moab were no longer living there because they were driven out.

While it says that they were "utterly destroyed", we know that there were some who remained, else why the prohibition in Deut 23:3?  So, those who survived were driven out of the land.

Deut 29:8 tells us about the land being given to the three tribes I mentioned before.

So, if we separate the "blood" from the "land", we see a different picture.

The prohibition in the Law was about the blood of Moab.  But even after the blood of Moab were driven out, the "land" was still called "Moab".  And very quickly, any inhabitants therein were called "Moabites".  So, regardless of who inhabited the land, whether apostate Israelites or some other group (so long as they were not of the lineage of Moab) the prohibition did not apply to them.  The fact that David came from that line only after three generations attests to that fact.

With respect, the fact that you seemed to have confused my description in this short thread gives credence to how the kinsman could have done likewise.

Hmm.  I’ll have to give a closer reading to the OT; but as I understand it, the inheritances of Reuben/Gad/Manasseh were drawn from lands formerly occupied by the Amorites and Ammonites, not the Moabites (cf Deut 2:9) (though concededly there is at least one reference in Joshua to calling the entire east Jordan as the “plains of Moab”).

Is there any scriptural or archaeological precedent for calling Israelites “moabites” just because they lived in the transjordan (especially in lieu of naming their Israelitish tribal affiliation)?  Is there any rabbinical tradition or scholarship, or LDS general authority or notable commentator, that asserts Ruth was in fact an Israelite?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Hmm.  I’ll have to give a closer reading to the OT; but as I understand it, the inheritances of Reuben/Gad/Manasseh were drawn from lands formerly occupied by the Amorites and Ammonites, not the Moabites (cf Deut 2:9) (though concededly there is at least one reference in Joshua to calling the entire east Jordan as the “plains of Moab”).

Is there any scriptural or archaeological precedent for calling Israelites “moabites” just because they lived in the transjordan (especially in lieu of naming their Israelitish tribal affiliation)?  Is there any rabbinical tradition or scholarship that asserts Ruth was in fact an Israelite?

You make a good point about the area where the inheritances were drawn.  As for evidence, I haven't looked into it deeply enough.  

Despite lack of evidence, we do have two facts as outlined in scriptures:

1. The Moabites were driven from the land of Moab (verse cited previously).
2. David entered the temple.

On the other hand, if we assume your initial idea was true, I wonder if it is possible that Ruth, herself was an exception.  Theory: Her family came from Israel to Moab just one generation before.  Hence Naomi's sons married them without any worries.  Thus she could accurately be called a Moabite because she was born there, and also not be subject to the prohibition for David to enter the temple.

As I said...a theory.  We may never know.  But it is an interesting variable in the mystery of why the kinsman refused, but Boaz didn't have a problem with it.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I was just reading Matthew 1:5, and something smacked me in the face that had never occurred to me before and perhaps has bearing on this discussion:

Boaz himself was half-Canaanite, the son of the harlot Rahab who had hidden the Israelite spies sent to Jericho by Joshua.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I was just reading Matthew 1:5, and something smacked me in the face that had never occurred to me before and perhaps has bearing on this discussion:

Boaz himself was half-Canaanite, the son of the harlot Rahab who had hidden the Israelite spies sent to Jericho by Joshua.

Do we know that "Rahab" of Matthew was the same Rahab of Jericho? I know many sources say it was the same woman.  Others say no. 

By the time Jericho was destroyed, Rahab was no spring chicken (people estimate her to be in her 50s).  She "ran" the inn.  She may not have been of child-bearing age by that time.  And even if she was, she was not likely to have been taken as a wife on account of both age and lineage.

As for my part, I acknowledge that it is possible.  But I'm leaning toward this being a different Rahab.

Even if it is the same Rahab, Boaz was most likely not "half" Canaanite.  If you look at the generation count, and the historical record, we find that this was not a literal, complete genealogy.  It is apparent that several generations were skipped and the counting was off.  Obviously Matthew was able to count.  And such an important record would have been checked an edited. And the generations from Abraham to David was wrong.  That line, above all, would have been kept, preserved, and well known to all Jews of the age.  So, why would there be such a glaring error?

The repetition of 14 generations was a literary device which Matthew used to indicate that DAVID was the center of this line (the gematriot for David = 14).  And the historical chronology indicates too great a span existed for this to be a complete genealogy.  So, the generations between Rahab and Boaz may have been omitted for the sake of this literary device.  

Another thing about the near-kinsman (let's call him Jabesh -- what they call him in the Living Scriptures video) he may not have been worried about her being a Moabite.  It was that his inheritance would be given to his sons that would then be treated as the sons of Elimelech.  Jabesh is often portrayed as a wealthy man.  He wanted his inheritance to go to his own sons.  Not the sons of Elimelech.

To me, this attitude is pretty stupid since biologically, they are his sons.  It was basically adoption in reverse.  It is a strange thing for modern western culture to understand because adoption was so codified back then that it affected culture.  As an adoptee myself, I find it strange to see why this was a fussy issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complain about how much of the Bible is devoted to genealogical material, but it's there for a reason. 

Even with the omissions and such, you can basically mark a straight line from Boaz and Ruth to David to Jesus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Do we know that "Rahab" of Matthew was the same Rahab of Jericho? I know many sources say it was the same woman.  Others say no. 

 

As you say, I think it depends on the source.  So far as I know, all the GAs have been silent on this.  I’ve seen multiple LDS and broader Christians who agree that it’s the same Rahab (and that her inclusion emphasizes either Christ’s messianic status to Gentile as well as Jew, or foreshadowing the circumstances of His birth in that every female mentioned in his ancestry was at the center of some sort of apparent scandal).

On the other hand, I believe the Talmud suggests that Rahab of Jericho converted and had additional children—but with Joshua.  (Additionally, she was supposedly one of the four most beautiful women who ever lived.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 she was supposedly one of the four most beautiful women who ever lived.

I wonder who the others were.  I'm sure Mary and Eve were among those four.  So, who would have been the last one? No gospel meaning, of course.   But it is interesting to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share