מַרְגַלוֹת and שָׁכַב

Mathieu — Zimbabwe (7/19/2011 5:37:29 AM)

Mark, while the way in which anonymous makes his point is rather crass, the idea is not without merit. The two words above in the context of Ruth 3 are in fact the topic of much debate among scholars. Both words are used euphemistically in Scripture. One notable example of the euphemistic use of רֶגֶל (feet) is Exodus 4:25. שָׁכַב is used much more frequently than the above in a euphemistic manner. So to say that "...none is present" would be uninformed. Check out some commentaries on Ru.3.

• • • • • • •

re: Anonymous from England

Mark — USA (4/13/2011 4:07:34 PM)

I would like to point out that anonymous from England seems to have been misinformed about what he said. This was not a sexual thing, it was asking for physical protection and provision through marriage. It is only in our sick society that people can't help but read evil into things where none is present.

• • • • • • •

Ruth: Men and Women

Alan — Australia (9/16/2010 10:22:47 PM)

We see the world through lenses of our culture. The writer of this article, like the writers of the two books that he mentions influenced him, has fallen victim to a silly generalization spawned by being hostage to the North American over-emphasis on capitalist, individualistic, achievement-oriented and physical appearance values. Many North American men and women may indeed tend to be as the writers state. But they, thank heavens, are not representative of humanity past, present or future.

• • • • • • •

The Righteous Ruth

Alice C. Linsley — USA (4/24/2010 5:05:16 PM)

No, Anonymous. Ruth's story is told to celebrate her as the ancestress of King David. As such, she would not be cast as an immoral woman.

• • • • • • •

Story of Ruth

Alice C. Linsley — USA (12/4/2009 10:00:25 PM)

A biblical treasure often neglected. The story of 3 widows, one of whom gives up home and family for the sake of righteousness. The pieces you offer on Ruth neglect the cultural context of the story in favor of modern interpretations. This is how NOT to understand the book. I'm speaking as a biblical anthropologist.

• • • • • • •

The book of Ruth

Anonymous — England (8/14/2008 4:51:32 AM)

Ruth is advised by her mother-in-law to wash and perfume and go to Boaz that night to lie 'at his feet'. That is Biblical euphemism for Boaz's genitals. Ruth did to Boaz what Monica Levinsky did to Clinton some 2,000 years later, but with a happier outcome.

• • • • • • •

the book of ruth

lawrence mcallister Sr. — canada (6/21/2008 3:08:02 PM)

Important personal lessons: Elemelech, whose name means, GOD IS KING, must have had Godly parents. But in time of famine he does not live up to his name but retreats to an idolatrous country, bringing eventual disaster. Boaz, on the other hand,weathers the famine with God's people. Lesson: What I do in life can seriously affect others. A serious study of this little book can be a blessing to you - READ IT.

• • • • • • •

the book of ruth

lawrence mcallister sr. — canada (6/21/2008 2:53:08 PM)

No question, Ruth is a most important book in the OT writings. I have taught it often - there are so many practical lessons for us today since the setting of the story, "In the days when the Judges ruled" were days when "every man did that which was right in his own eyes. See further comment

• • • • • • •

Ruth

Philip Jones — USA (6/19/2008 9:45:00 AM)

Adele Berlin's article on Ruth contains some acute insights into the meaning of this book. I think the point made about the remarkable incorporation of the foreigner (Ruth) into the life of her mother-in-laws community (Israel) finds support in William Dever's Who Were the Ancient Israelites and Where Did They Come From? published 2003 (after the original of Berlin's article). Dever makes a good case that the observed upsurge in population in the Judean highlands in the 12th century BCE is not evidence of a conquest, but represents an influx of the residents of Canaanite cities. After reading Dever's book it occurred to me that the real story behind the 12th century population boom for Israel is not in Joshua but in the book of Ruth. It is nice to see a hypothesis confirmed from two very disparate sources.

• • • • • • •