Marriage is an Economic Contract

Ruth 3 & 4

Context
If you're just jumping in to this blog, start with Ruth 1 in the entry Devotion.

Women in Ruth's day are considered property. In Israel, great concern was given to the male name being passed down through male children; if a man married but did not have children, it was the responsibility of a kinsman to take his wife and have children in his name.

At some times in Israel's history, the term "feet" is used as a euphemism for genitals. That's my guess for what's going on in Chapter 3, but there may be some other social custom going on involving literal feet.

There are many other ancient customs in these chapters, but their purpose can be inferred by careful reading.

Listening to the writer
Whatever is going on in Chapter 3, it's a bit shady - Ruth has to sneak in and out. But it is told by the writer in a matter-of-fact way, without moral commentary.

Note the concern with economic details in Chapter 4.

Listening to God
Ask God for guidance in selecting and thinking about one or more of the following questions:
How do societies change with regard to acceptable courting behavior? What recent changes are appropriate/inappropriate? How might you advise friends, children or grandchildren on courting?

What rituals do we associate with business deals (e.g., check-writing, exchanging funny green pieces of paper, etc.). What makes these rituals work?

What does it say about God and Israel that King David’s great-grandmother was an immigrant? (This was of import to the early church - Matthew explicitly notes Ruth in Jesus' genealogy.)

Miscellaneous Meanderings
The book of Ruth is sometimes called a "love story". If so, whatever we typically associate with a modern love story is imported into the tale - there is no talk of romance or of Ruth's interest in Boaz. There are such tales in Scripture (the Song of Solomon, for example), but this is not one of them. Chapter 1 does highlight Ruth's devotion to Naomi - but is mostly about the difficulties of women who don't have men. Chapter 2 is about Boaz's interest in Ruth - but rather than seeking her affection, he asks "who does she belong to?" and makes sure she goes home with a gift. In Chapter 3, Naomi seizes her opportunity and has Ruth sleep with a replete Boaz, who sends her home with a down-payment to Naomi. Chapter 4 goes into the details of what territory and legal obligations will go along with this foreign property.

As a romantic, I've never found this story very enjoyable. But it does remind us that "biblical marriage" is primarily a civil contract, not theological one. Marriages are not performed at the temple - they are handled at the city gate. The Biblical Law books, when they discuss marriage, primarily deal with issues that protect ownership (of the father or husband) or provide rights (however minimal) to the woman. The marriage rite is not the purview of the priest, but of the civil authorities.

This carried over into the early church. Weddings were not performed in churches, or by churches, until the church merged with the state under Emperor Constantine.

There are also theological implications in a Christian marriage. Marriage is used in both testaments as a metaphor for the love between God and God's people. But there is clear evidence that the social contract of marriage changes as the culture changes. I hope my readers would agree that women are not property, and that adult men and women have the right to marry whom they choose without asking their parents' permission - unlike the situation described in most of Scripture.

The United Methodist Book of Discipline, while claiming that sex with a partner of the same gender is against the teachings of the Church, also insists that the civil rights of homosexuals must be protected. This is not a two-faced position; the Church consistently claims that the civil rights of all people must be protected, and that all people are sinners. If, then, marriage is a civil transaction... then shouldn't we be defending the rights of adult men to marry other men if they choose? This would not be stating that it was necessarily a moral choice - just as defending the right of free speech does not mean that we think all speech is moral. I'm convinced that if a man and woman have sex before marriage that it's immoral - but I also believe they have the right to do so, and I certainly don't want the police knocking on bedroom doors to see what's going on inside.

This is an emotionally-laden subject, and I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind. But then again, I'm just meandering. :-)

Dig deeper at TextWeek.