Ruth and Naomi: The Bible on Lesbians
Ruth and Naomi, Orpah departing, 1902
by Philip Hermogenes Calderon (1833-1898)
“Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” - Ruth 1:16-17
In the Bible, Ruth and Orpah were married to Naomi’s sons. All their husbands died for different reasons, leaving them to fend for themselves - at a time when it was unthinkable for a woman to survive without a man. Orpah went back to her family, as it’s the most sensible thing to do, but Ruth insisted on staying with Naomi, not minding the hardships they would endure together. Interestingly, the quote above, uttered by a woman for another woman, has always been a popular marriage vow.
The book The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships suggests that what Ruth and Naomi had was actually a lesbian relationship. The Bible uses the same word - “dabaq” (Genesis 2:24, Ruth 1:14) - to describe Ruth’s feelings for Naomi, a feeling spouses are supposed to feel toward each other.
Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship. If we set aside our preconceptions of what is possible in the Bible, the book of Ruth reads like the story of two women in love.
I was raised as a Catholic, but I do not feel any need to validate myself by what’s written in the Bible. However, I have seen many friends whose relationships have been ruined because of religious teachings. And, in that sense, I see the importance of re-examining the text from a different perspective. It’s fair to ask, would jesus discriminate?
Didn't find what you were looking for?
10 Users Commented In " Ruth and Naomi: The Bible on Lesbians "
the true and deep love of a younger woman for her mother figure does not have to be sexual in nature–not even if the younger woman is, say, as old as 30 (old enough to truly know herself). continue to read the story–ruth marries Boaz and their union eventually preserves the Messianic line. I don’t have an issue with lesbians or women who choose to express themselves sexually with other women. But i do object to seeing every deeply committed relationship between women as inherently lesbian. i don’t think this story implies that. what it does imply more strongly is a bond of filial love as a daughter for her mother. read the WHOLE story.
“what it does imply more strongly is a bond of filial love as a daughter for her mother”
No a mother, a mother-in-law. For me, it’s obvious they loved each other emotionally, perhaps physically as well, and that’s lesbianism.
it wouldnt be the first time two married “straight” women fell in love. isnt the bible all about love? love is a many splendoured thing after all and whil eman does not understand the love of two women for each other, god does. maybe the truth is this: god created all love and all love is sacred. man created ways to try and control love and spirituality. since when has man ever been without flaw or error? that being said, how can anyone with a heart of sght and truth say that every word in the man-written bible is all god’s utterances without error?
The relationship between Naomi and Ruth was nothing more than the close, personal bond of agape love between a mother and her daughter-in-law.
When Ruth’s husband died, Naomi told her she wished she had another son, or that she could give birth to a son, for Ruth to marry but she did not and she was too old and widowed to have any more children.
When Naomi tried to send Ruth and Orpah back to their families, Ruth stayed with her and followed Naomi back to her homeland. There, Naomi encouraged and supported Ruth’s marriage to Boaz.
There is no evidence and no reason to think that Naomi and Ruth had any type of sexual union; they were simply bound by respect and devotion to each other just like a mother and daughter.
Yes, the Bible is all about love and relationships more than it is about rules and regulations. But it is also about obedience to God and to His plan. His plan for sexual unions is clearly stated as being reserved for a man and woman. We do not have the authority to change that.
I failed to address the reference to the Hebrew word dabaq. Yes, it is used in Genesis 2:24 and Ruth 1:14. However, it does not refer to a sexual union.
Dabaq is used three other times in Ruth. Two times are when Boaz tells Ruth to “stay close” to the maidens one night and “stay close” to the field hands during the day while they are harvesting. The third tells that Ruth “stayed close” to the maidens that night.
Dabaq means to cling to, stay close to, keep close, pursue, and overtake. The link above is to a Hebrew Lexicon that gives the various meanings of dabaq and all 53 occurrences of it found in the Old Testament. In one reference, it says that King David “clave to his sword”. I certainly hope that was not a sexual encounter!
In Ruth 1:14, it simply means that Ruth held on to Naomi to stay close to her. It does not indicate a lesbian relationship. Beside, they would have been guilty of incest if that was the case.
Ruth saw her mother-in-law, broken, distraught, and bitter. Though she had also just lost her husband instead of allowing the loss to consume her, she remained loyal to the promise and LOVE she felt for her husband by caring for Naomi.
Ruth loved Naomi as a gracious daughter to a mother. Their bond was strong as they both experienced loss together, traveled together and faced an unknown hard future. Ruth’s love for Naomi was one of great devotion, courage, obedience and faith.
They were not passionately in love as one would see as Lesbian. They were not physically attracted or involved with on another.
Naomi’s biggest fear for Ruth was that she would not have a husband to marry.
“But Naomi said, “Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the LORD’s hand has gone out against me!” (Ruth 1:11-13)
Once Ruth told Naomi she would not leave, “Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her.” (Ruth 1:18)
Note the stopped urging. Naomi still did not wish for Ruth to come for she knew the hard ship Ruth would face in Israel.—
Ruth was a Moabitess. From a cursed race, that was enemies with Israel. And once more a widow, who often were received with suspicion for possible involvement with the death of husband. Naomi knew going to Bethlehem would be a nightmare for Ruth and Orpah. That is why she begged for them to leave. —
However, she knew she would not be able to persuade Ruth so she did not argue. And all the while in Bethlehem Naomi looked for an opportunity to find Ruth a husband.
It is clear in the bible that homosexuality is not accepted by God. And it is clear in he story of Ruth her love for Naomi was simply one of deep care. I am sure that if you had just lost every family member you had except one… you would be willing to do anything to stay connected with them, ease their bitterness, and care for them. At least this is what God gives as a holy purified example of how to remain loyal.
i love the way you laid that out esthersen
I agree with you bill, I also love the way estherson laid it out.
Hagis, you wrote:
“…how can anyone with a heart of sght and truth say that every word in the man-written bible is all god’s utterances without error?
If you believe in God, and you believe that as such, He is all powerful and all knowing, able to create all, wouldn’t he most assuredly be able to make certain that his Words for His children, and especially as instruction for, were written without error? He is God, I couldn’t see His not being able, nor not making certain of, that His Words and instructions were written complete and without error. Think about that. Do you really think the God, creator of all, would be lacking in ability to do so, and would be lacking in foresight to do such? It doesn’t make any sense to think that God wouldn’t make sure that His Word is complete and accurate. I’m not saying this to be mean, but it doesn’t even make for common sense to believe what you have said if you believe in God. I’m sure that you just haven’t given it enough thought and why I wanted to point this out to you.
