![TopCommentsRedux](http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6527365151_bdfb5dbe16.jpg)
I published this same diary back in July of this year, however it didn't get much attention. So, this seems like a good time to republish it since I have no other topic to discuss and it's just a wonderful/great Bible story.
I've already done a diary on the relationship of David and Jonathan, so I figured that I needed to do one for Ruth and Naomi as well. Many believe this relationship to also be a romantic one. We have no evidence, however, that it was sexual. It could have been or might not have. Nevertheless, the emotional bonds between these two women was clearly intense. Follow me below the fold for the story.
But First, A Word From Our Sponsor:
Top Comments recognizes the previous day's Top Mojo and strives to promote each day's outstanding comments through nominations made by Kossacks like you. Please send comments (before 9:30pm ET) by email to topcomments@gmail.com or by our KosMail message board. Just click on the Spinning Top™ to make a submission. Look for the Spinning Top™ to pop up in diaries posts around Daily Kos.
Make sure that you include the direct link to the comment (the URL), which is available by clicking on that comment's date/time. Please let us know your Daily Kos user name if you use email so we can credit you properly. If you send a writeup with the link, we can include that as well. The diarist poster reserves the right to edit all content.
Please come in. You're invited to make yourself at home! Join us beneath the doodle...
|
![Pieter Lastman: Ruth Declares her Loyalty to Naomi](http://images.dailykos.com/images/152420/large/ruth-naomi_grt.jpg?1436140843)
Ruth and her husband, Elimelech, are from Bethlehem, and it was a time of terrible famine which made it difficult to find food. So, they take their two sons and move to Moab. However, Elimelech dies shortly after they arrive. Naomi's sons eventually marry Ruth and Orpah. And, then before they can have children, both of the sons die as well. The three women are left with no sons and no husbands.
From Would Jesus Discriminate:
To understand the full impact of what happened, we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. When this story was written, women had only two acceptable places in society: They could be a daughter in their father’s household or a wife in their husband’s household. A woman without a man had no social standing. There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. (See note 1.) The constant biblical command to “look after widows and orphans” stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.
This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father’s family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can’t offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she’ll only be a burden. Orpah, sensibly, returns home.
But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, “Ruth clung to [Naomi].” The Hebrew word for “clung” is “dabaq.” This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.
Ruth 1:14 (KJV):
And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
And, then she uttered some very loving, tender, and intense words to Naomi.
Ruth 1:16-17 (KJV):
16) And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
17) Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
Again, from
Would Jesus Discriminate:
When Ruth spoke those haunting words, “Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried,” she wasn’t talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn’t do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.
And, then in the book of Ruth, we are told of the life that the two women had together. Ruth eventually marries an older man (Boaz), but that marriage seems to be portrayed as one of convenience. We don't get any mention of Ruth's love for her husband. When Ruth finally bears a son from this marriage, the focus is on Naomi's reaction to the wonderful news, and not that of the father. In Ruth 4:17, it states that a son has been born to Naomi. It seems clear from the text that the most important relationship that these two women had is the one that they shared.
Again, from Would Jesus Discriminate:
Instinctively, and perhaps unwittingly, Christians throughout the centuries have acknowledged the validity of this interpretation. The vow Ruth makes to Naomi (quoted above) has been read at Christian weddings for centuries because it so perfectly captures the essence of the love that should exist between spouses. It seems more than a little inconsistent to use these words to define and celebrate spousal love, but then adamantly insist that those who originally spoke the words did not love each other like spouses.
From
The Guardian:
Ruth's declaration of love for Naomi is not only one of the finest and most profound in the Bible, it is the only speech in scripture that approaches our wedding vows. Indeed it goes beyond them, exceeding the promise of "till death do us part". And it brings Naomi back to life. Naomi is sunk in bitter grief and despair, but as the story unfolds we witness her resurrection, until at the end the women of Bethlehem celebrate her and Ruth as a couple, and declare of the child born to Ruth and Boaz: "A son has been born to Naomi", as if Naomi is the father and the husband.
Yes, that is in the text.
Ruth 4: 15-17 (KJV)
15) And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him.
16) And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.
17) And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
In the previous diary about Ruth and Naomi, thanatokephaloides posted an excellent and insightful comment. And, since this is a top comments diary, I'd like to reproduce it here:
Ruth's marriage to Boaz occurred because Boaz was one of the "nearest of kin" to Elimelech, the last surviving male of that line. This "levirate" marriage would always be a secondary one, and the children (especially the sons) of the marriage would legally belong to Elimelech, not Boaz. Nonetheless, Boaz goes out of his way to make sure that the marriage takes place and that both Ruth and Naomi are provided for. The birth of Obed -- and Obed's grandson becoming King David, the ancestor of Jesus -- would never have happened if Boaz had been unwilling to show these kindnesses.
And then it took another, similar set of kindnesses from another man of this very selfsame line -- Joseph the Carpenter, the betrothed of Mary -- to get Jesus safely born at all.
So I can see why Jesus was reticent to hate or discriminate -- He Himself was the beneficiary of men and women who showed mercy rather than insisting on the letter of the law!
Now, how can we get today's fundamentalists to heed these lessons, so clearly written in the plain Scriptures?
(I know, first and hardest step is to get those who thump the Bible to open the freakin' thing and read it instead...!!)
And, now on to the tops for today.
TOP COMMENTS
October 18, 2015
Thanks to tonight's Top Comments contributors! Let us hear from YOU
when you find that proficient comment.
From a2nite:
This comment by shanikka's is worthy of an entire diary in a diary with many great comments as usual. This comment can be found in Denise Oliver Velez's diary.
From ozsea1:
This is one of the best comments that I've read on Daily Kos in a long long time. It should be required reading for adults and adult-wannabes. Thank you for posting this, hestal !!! It can be found in herbanreleaf's diary.
From Denise Oliver Velez:
This comment by Wildthumb in my diary today about Ben Carson talks about an encounter with a man in a Carson tee-shirt at a yard sale.
From G2geek:
Joieau's comment deserves Top Comments because it insightfully and conclusively destroys a truly pernicious meme that has become entrenched in a powerful segment of the oligarchy. This is stuff that DKers need to know about. It appeared in the diary "Science and Mysticism" by Arodb, which is or was on the Community Spotlight list.
The following submissions are from Mopshell:
In the process rediscovered that writing about GOP watching is still fun! A very talented and witty bnasley then put together this fantastic analysis of the GOP field of wannabes via the science lab. You'll all have lots of fun reading this comment! The Murfster35 posted GOP watching not as much fun anymore. (a rant)
herbanreleaf wrote an excellent and, in my view, an overdue diary entitled Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse....For Bad Diaries. It sparked a really interesting conversation relevant to the legitimacy of Daily Kos's reputation as a reality-based site, and the general treatment of those kossacks who are lawyers. On the latter point, OldRedWolf wrote an excellent and very pertinent comment. Catte Nappe then followed up by highlighting from OldRedWolf's remarks what all of us should heed. I therefore commend both OldRedWolf and Catte Nappe to Top Comments.
In the GUS series of diaries, gchaucer2 has two scheduled spots: Sunday morning and Tuesday morning. On Oct 17 at 9:22pm EDT precisely, gchaucer2 posts her Sunday morning diary. Um... yes, Oct 17 was Saturday and yes, that is 9:22*pm*. She called for help and Fairy Godmother belinda ridgewood appeared in a cloud of sparkles! Fairy belinda explains how to unpublish and republish but gchaucer2 is concerned she'll lose it all (there's lots of drama in the whole thread). Then Fairy belinda leaves this comment. and I nearly fell off my chair laughing! Do read all of it - it's the best giggle you'll have all day - and don't miss gchauser2's reply to Trix as to how to get on the GUS Buddy List. ROFL!
In Th0rn's diary Backlash Against Trump for Stating the Obvious, Flyswatterbanjo nailed it in this comment quoting Think Progress article which endeavors to answer the thOrny question: was GWB president on Sept 11, 2001?
|
TOP MOJO
October 17, 2015
(excluding Tip Jars and first comments)
Got mik!
1) Doc Zombie by xxdr zombiexx +179
2) Just saw Alternet story emailed this morning by MsGrin +146
3) The Bush Years killed a lot of dreams. by xxdr zombiexx +119
4) It's authoritarian from top to bottom. by cany +110
5) Unfortunately, sometimes this community by BoiseBlue +99
6) particularly like by alguien +89
7) She Went Into A RED RED State... by stuhunter2 +84
7) Liz Warren interview w Moyers abt HRC as Senator - by flitedocnm +84
7) I hate to go all Godwin, and all, but, by agnostic +84
7) Oh, no. by 714day +84
11) In this case, it's nasty truths, unless you... by Meteor Blades +77
12) It's a sad commentary by virginislandsguy +75
12) Vitter is against abortion by quaoar +75
14) Calling out the GOP by Radiowalla +73
15) It sickens me what people will do by winglion +72
16) Cut it out, carbon! by pontechango +71
17) That's fair, but let's have an honest debate... by dclawyer06 +70
18) Yes by BoiseBlue +69
19) She was my Senator -I've earned my by Katio +66
19) Unfortunately for the Republican Party by MadScientist +66
21) Well, by LeftOfYou +65
22) A few thoughts about the Bill Maher interview by LoneStarMike +64
22) Just like Fox News. by Dopeman +64
24) How do you reconcile the fact that by PivotalGuy +62
25) Thinking aloud: Bernie Sanders Real Deal "tax cut" by k9disc +61
25) She sure comes off as plastic and calculating. by orlbucfan +61
27) If you missed the debate by LieparDestin +60
28) I try not to waste time with it anymore but by Dopeman +59
29) The sunk-cost fallacy at work in foreign policy... by Meteor Blades +58
30) same is true for other fights by rugbymom +57
30) There's a reason why by DouglasH +57
|
TOP PHOTOS
October 17, 2015
Enjoy jotter's wonderful PictureQuilt™ below. Just click on the picture and it will magically take you to the comment that features that photo. Have fun, Kossacks!
|
Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 7:41 PM PT: Minor correction:
As stated by Cali Scribe below; in the paragraph below the picture, I think you mean Naomi and her husband went to Moab, not Ruth and her husband.