Breaking the Mold
Ruth the Moabite said, “He even told me, ‘Stay close to my workers until all my harvest is finished.’” Ruth 2:21 JPS
Workers – Phyllis Trible observes that Ruth must work within the culture and against the culture in order to transform the culture. This verse captures Ruth’s daring enterprise with typical Hebraic clues. Nothing is explicitly stated but a great deal is subtly included. Perhaps understanding Ruth’s actions helps us set a course for transforming the worlds we occupy.
First, notice that Ruth is still referred to as “the Moabite.” Ruth may have declared her loyalty to Naomi, Naomi’s people and Naomi’s God, but even the narrator suggests that no one but Ruth believes her. Lesson One: Don’t expect instant acceptance. As far as others are concerned, you will have to earn your new identity by the way you live, not by what you say.
Secondly, notice what Ruth says about Boaz’s request. In Hebrew, Boaz tells Ruth to stay close to his na’arot (his female workers). But Ruth deliberately misquotes Boaz by saying that she is to stay close to his ne’arim, his male workers. Custom required Ruth to stay with the women, but Ruth breaks the cultural mold by working alongside the men. She is the breadwinner. She takes the breadwinner’s role. Ruth does not allow the culture to dictate how she should act when life and death are on the line. She isn’t timid, but she isn’t pushy. She just does what must be done in order to provide for the two of them. Lesson Two: Be prepared to bend the rules if necessary. Know the difference between God’s instructions and Man’s expectations.
The rabbis noticed this misquotation of Boaz, but they provided a different explanation. They suggested that Ruth doesn’t pay attention to the strict separation of men and women because Ruth is a Moabite. They suggested that Moabites did not observe gender roles as Israel did, and they attribute this lack of propriety to the fact that Moabites come from incest, a complete lack of respect for sexual moral norms. It seems to me that the rabbis go out of there way to support gender differences and castigate anyone who challenges those differences. But I find no biblical support for this argument. It reflects the elevation of cultural tradition to the place of holy instruction. Ruth reminds us of the difference. Lesson Three: Know where your beliefs come from. Don’t allow what is customary and usual to become “God’s word” unless God says it.
In the next verse, Naomi “corrects” Ruth’s lack of gender consciousness by insisting that Ruth stick with the women. This is perhaps the last little lesson for today. Sometimes those we love still don’t see the bigger picture. Sometimes they are too much a part of the trees to see the forest. How we treat them says more about us then any stand we take principles. Sha’ul addressed this same lack of vision in his famous comments on stronger and weaker brothers. Lesson Four: Love is sometimes more important than being right.
Topical Index: workers, ne’arim, na’arot, culture, Ruth 2:21, gender roles
Good TW.
Just a bit of clarification,… you said:
“It seems to me that the rabbis go out of there way to support gender differences and castigate anyone who challenges those differences. But I find no biblical support for this argument.”
Perhaps we have just lost the way of how to CORRECTLY differentiate the roles of men and women. As I understand it, the Hebrew language at it’s core differentiates the genders — words meaning the same thing are to be spoken differently by a male speaker or a female speaker. Also, verses like Deuteronomy 22:5 seem to reinforce gender distinction.
It seems as if our culture simply differentiates in mostly wrong ways, but we really ought to seek God’s will to differentiate MORE than we currently do – but in ways pleasing to God.
Actually, the verse you cite is not about gender. It is about tribes. MALE members of any other tribe than Levi are also excluded as priests (and, by the way, that applies to Yeshua), so this verse does not support GENDER differentiation as much as it does TRIBAL distinction. Now, it is true that within the tribe of Levi only males can be priests, but I am sure you can see that this differentiation could not apply to all gender differences since males and females of all the other tribes are equal.
This verse?
“A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing ; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. ” Deut. 22:5
This is about tribal distinction?
I have read Guardian Angel, and I loved it. I also know ‘gender differentiation’ has historically meant ‘gender subordination’, however, I can think of many things that have a tarnished reputation simply because of our twisted EXECUTION of the principle. Child discipline, for one example.
However, I think gender differentiation should be ideally increased – not decreased. BUT,… the battleground should not necessarily be over power (e.g. the final say between a couple) or vocation (who works and who stays with the kids, ect). I’m just not sure I know what the ‘right way’ to differentiate looks like yet.
Makes me wonder about the symbolism of clothing, maybe there is some wisdom in looking deeper into what it means to “swap clothes” with the opposite gender?
Sorry, I looked at the wrong verse! I misread your comment. This verse clearly applies to all within the community. The question that must be asked is WHY. We must think as the audience that heard this first. How many changes of clothes did they have? What did clothes symbolize in the community? What was the reason for making this decree? What would it mean to the people coming out of Egypt (e.g. did Egypt have clear distinctions between gender dress?)?
While I am sure that this does endorse gender specificity, I am not sure how it can be applied in a modern culture where identity is not a function of clothing.
Sounds like a good start.
These are four very powerful truths. To be written down later today and posted in my office.
What kind of clothing did men and women actually wear during the time that Deu. 22:5 was written? From what I imagine it to be the clothing during that time period is far different from our culture’s clothing. It seems to me in that time period the clothing of men and women was more similar than the clothing of men and women today. So, I’m wondering, did the men wear something additional that was symbolic of their status as men? And if a man didn’t wear that symbol it would be to dress more femininely…and vice versa….