Ruth Uncovered

When we made our move to Trussville we decided to exchange the name “Sunday School”, which generally implies Christian education classes that meet on Sunday, for CLG, or Christian Life Group, a term we felt better reflected our purpose for Christian education and the fact that not all of our groups meet on Sunday. Most of us, including myself, steeped in SBC tradition still slip up and use the term Sunday School. So yesterday, when confronted several times with the question, “Have you read today’s Sunday School lesson,” I knew something was stirring in our CLG’s.

The ruckus is over Ruth. In Lifeway’s Masterwork series Ralph Douglas West has written a provocative account of the biblical narrative found in Ruth 3. In short, West portrays Ruth and Naomi as two women of great faith who tiptoed and toyed with sexual scandal. In Ruth 3 the biblical writer shares an account of how Naomi and Ruth scheme to secure the favor of Boaz as Ruth’s kinsman redeemer. To do so, Naomi instructs Ruth to visit Boaz at the threshing floor, in the middle of the night, “uncover his feet, and lie down.” West does not paint them innocent and makes some shocking statements about their character. “Naomi sometimes seems like a saint and sometimes like a hussy. Her advice borders on the worldly, but it also borders on the godly (p. 61).”

The nuances of this story West exposes make for fun debates in Seminaries, but not in Sunday Schools. In his writing West is very forthright and leaves very little to the imagination. For laymen who are accustomed to a less descript interpretation of Ruth, West’s portrayal of the incident was shocking. So shocking that I am not sure any of our CLG’s were able to concentrate on the ultimate teaching of West from Ruth 3. The intended message of Ruth 3 and West is that God is working in love to redeem a sometimes troubling and puzzling world. I’m not sure any of our CLG students were as concerned about what God was trying to do through Ruth as they were about West and what was, in their minds, a scandalous portrayal of Ruth.

So where do I land on this?

1. There is nothing that West writes in his interpretation of Ruth that I have not read or heard before. West has said nothing new. I think on his behalf, that is a very important point. There is no denying that there is a sexual nuance to Ruth and Naomi’s plot that is not well conveyed in the English interpretation of the text. There is no doubt that in the original language the phrase rendered “uncover his feet” can be taken as an idiom to suggest that Ruth should expose Boaz’s genitalia. I think West is right in acknowledging that the Bible is not quite as white washed as we would like to think. The Bible is at times an ugly story and within that ugliness God is working to redeem His people. As is certainly the case in the chronological context of Ruth as it falls “In the days when the judges ruled (1:1).” At times the Biblical text is scandalous, sexual, devious, and disturbing. Yet our God is good. He is able to redeem a very troubling world.

2. Even if one did not dig into the Hebrew, the English in Ruth 3 is sufficient enough to suggest there is a sexual risk to the plot. In that way I guess we could say it is risqué. Noami states that Boaz is around young women during this time of the year (v. 2) and there is a danger of being assaulted (2:22). It is true that during the time of threshing men would sleep near their harvest. It was not uncommon for women to visit them in the night and the threshing floors look more like Bourbon Street. While this may be true, we cannot say that in the way Ruth 3 is written, that this cultural nuance plays a major role in the plot of the story.

3. Most commentators agree that Naomi was taking a big risk with Ruth’s reputation and her life. He could have taken advantage of her sexually. He could have labeled her a whore. Or he could have done as he did, which was to initiate steps necessary to redeeming Ruth and making her his bride. While most readers can easily discern the risk, we should not allow our imaginations to overshadow the story. The Biblical narrator goes to great lengths to establish the reputations of Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth. We cannot ignore Naomi’s confidence that things would turn out in their favor. She tells Ruth, “Go and uncover his feet and lie down, and he will tell you what to do.” That is exactly what Boaz did. We should not make this story as much of a sexual gamble. Naomi and Ruth were not gambling on sex, they were banking on virtue. Naomi was a righteous woman who knew how to secure a virtuous future for her widowed daughter-in-law. Ruth was a woman with a virtuous reputation which Boaz recognized immediately (3:11). Boaz was a man of great virtue (2:1). Naomi knew Boaz’s character. Boaz knew the character of Ruth. Virtue prevailed, and in Naomi’s eyes there was no surprise as to the outcome. Therefore there is no need for West to portray this as “Naomi’s racy experiment (p. 63).”

4. I think where West may have become most offensive is in his very cavalier manner of retelling the story. I have noticed this trend in preachers and in writing, that we feel the need to “Americanize” a Biblical account, making it more like a Hollywood script than a sacred text. When it comes to the Biblical text we should recognize it as Holy and reverence the fact that it says what it says the way it says it. We should not say what it says the way we want to say it. There are several instances in which West runs roughshod over the Biblical text and injects his own interpretation. What may be even more of a mistake is that West makes no indication that his quotations are more of his own summation than what the Bible actually says. It takes little discernment to see that this is the case, but as a pastor who spends a great deal of time studying the text, even I am left throwing up my hands at West and asking, “Where in the world did you get this?” For instance:

a. Page 62, “Boaz will have been working hard all day, and his muscles will be wearied by the stress of harvest. Go out and work near where Boaz works. Here’s what I want you to do while he is working. Go in and bathe yourself, make yourself presentable. Daughter, I know the aloes that you normally bathe with would be odorous enough, but do a little extra-go a little further. Put on your best perfume. Yeah! Put it on, girl. Let down your hair. Get rid of that hideous bun you usually wear when you’re working in the fields. Remember that peignoir you used to wear when you were married? Dig it out! Put it on! Don’t be too forward, but don’t be afraid to be enticing. Tempt him . . . keep your chastity . . . but tempt him!”

b. Page 62, “She moved in compliance. Naomi had told her, ‘What I want you to do is walk down to where Boaz will be resting for the night. Now, Ruth, it can become rather tricky, because as you know the field hands often bring their prostitutes to the threshing floor. Be careful that you don’t let Boaz be overly driven, sexually. Be sure he desires you but doesn’t violate you. Be careful. If I know Boaz’s men like I think I do, they’ll be eating and drinking. Boaz will be right there with them. Wait until Boaz has drunk his fill and overeaten. When his heart is merry, when he gets slightly tipsy, find out exactly where he’s going to lie down. Mark the spot. Once he’s sound asleep go in and lift the skirt of his tunic an snuggle in with him. Lift his kilt all the way up to his waist until the lower half of his body is exposed. And then I want you to lie down. Now, this is dangerous business Ruth, because if it’s handled wrong, if either of you become so aroused you lose your self-control, you might destroy a glorious future!”

c. Page 63, “This fear of the obscene played out into the thinking of Ruth when she said, ‘is this thing as scandalous as the ancestors and ancestresses [sic] in my past?”

I am not sure our sexually loose American worldview is an appropriate lens with which to read this story. West makes it look more pornographic than redemptive. Furthermore, the statement of Ruth on page 63 may be an expansion from a Targum (I think that may be the source), but it is not canonized Biblical text and should not be portrayed as such. Preachers take liberty in preaching. I am guilty as well. But we should not take so much liberty as to change the tone of a text and as a result change the intended message of a text.

5. In writing literature intended to guide teachers and students in a Christian education context, West would have better served his readers by at least acknowledging the alternative, far less seedy and more common, interpretations of this text. There are good arguments on both sides, share them. In Dr. Daniel Block’s commentary on Judges and Ruth from the New American Commentary series, Block offers a balanced approach, giving face time to both arguments. He then offers evidences to support his position in the debate. For instance, according to Block, Ruth’s dress in one manner could be interpreted as that of a prostitute. But it just as well can be interpreted as a common covering for a peasant. Her act of “perfuming” herself may not be as much of a sexual proposal as it is a declaration she is finished mourning her dead husband. In doing so she is sending a clear message to Boaz, I am ready to be redeemed, take me as your own. Furthermore we should acknowledge that the phrase interpreted “uncover his feet” is ambiguous and the customs surrounding it are VERY unclear. It could accurately be said, they are virtually unkown. In literature intended for teachers and students, these are nuances of the text that should be readily acknowledged.

As a pastor I am disappointed not only in West’s portrayal of this magnificent story, but I am also disappointed in Lifeway’s seeming carelessness in releasing this chapter to the churches that patronize its business in good faith. If West wants to write a book about Ruth and sell it on the open market, do so. Yet, to include what I consider to be a gross misrepresentation in a subscription based Christian education quarterly is a foul. West is accountable for the way he teaches his people. I am not appreciative of the way Lifeway has welcomed him, in this particular instance of Ruth 3, to teach mine. When pastors approve a subscription to an educational series, again, it is in good faith that it will sustain a certain general course that is safe for their people. Sure, there will be variances and controversies from time to time, but Lifeway should be more careful not to deviate from the chosen path so far that the only result is that it disturbs laymen rather than edifies them.

I want to add one more paragraph to say that I know pastors, people, and the blogosphere. As a fellow servant of God I respect Ralph Douglas West as such. I DO NOT THINK HE IS A BAD MAN, PASTOR, OR PERSON. Honestly, I know little to nothing about him and as such cannot judge his character. At the same time, I have written this article only to judge something he has written. He and LIfeway have chosen to publish it. I have simply responded to what has been commonly published. I am, in posting to my blog, publishing as well and realizing that people have every right to respond just as I have responded to Ralph Douglas West’s interpretation of Ruth 3 and Lifeway’s choice to distribute it in education literature for church laymen. All I ask is that when you respond to this article, please refrain from name calling, personal attack, or undue criticism of any party involved. Sometimes people mistake negative emotion for scholarship. Let’s not kindle those flames and make the same mistake.