Samual 1:20 and Book of Ruth to biblically justify homosexuality

[Florida_mom]

I just came from an event this weekend in which my gay brother “married” his partner. (Married is in quotes as it is not a legal marriage, but that was their intent.)

The ceremony was in a church. I googled it prior to going to get the address, and they had an essay on their website about homosexuality and the bible and how it isn’t mentioned much so God must not have thought it so important to mention it since he’s “okay” with it. That is the summary of the article. It is written by a pastor who is female and explains the few points in the Bible where sodomy is mentioned and how those passages do not refer to loving relationships but rather abusive relationships.

Fast forward to the ceremony. I was there in human body, but not in spirit. It was rather uncomfortable for me–especially when they did the readings as I don’t agree with the “God doesn’t judge and therefor he’s okay with it” argument. My sister (who is fully supportive) and a friend of theirs read the story about Jonathan and David and Ruth and Naomi. My ears perked up as to how this could be. The Bible has stories about Gay lovers and lesbians? Say what?

So this is the first opportunity that I have been able to look them up and from what I gather it is a story of DEEP friendship. Especially for Ruth and Naomi–two widows left with nearly nothing who were bonding in their grief and rebuilding. Ruth even got remarried–so how that story affirms they are lesbians and God is approving that is beyond me.

As for David and Jonathan–a quick google took me to some pro-homosexual websites and they are the epitome of “God says it is okay based on this story.” They claim that we are placing our present day prejudice by unjustifying the relationship and making it out to be “just friends”. (Who in their right mind, would give their precious gifts to someone they just met if it wasn’t for “that” kind of love"?)

So I am wanting to know the true interpretation of these passages.

If it can be read that the few anti-homosexuality passages aren’t truly anti-homosexual–then how can the leap be made that a human can decide how to interpret these other passages as a demonstration of God’s acceptance/blessing of homosexuals.

I’m asking as this is how those readings were presented at this ceremony.

I mean–how many times is prostitution mentioned in the Bible–and what about that part where Jesus essentially tells folks to leave the prostitute alone. I’m not sure prostitutes are using that as their badge of honor in what they do.

 

[Nita]

The correct interpretation of those verses is that there was a strong bond of “agape” love between David and Jonathan and between Ruth and Naomi. Agape love is caring for and doing what is for the good of another person – especially for their eternal good – to the point of sacrificing ones own desires/welfare/life for the other.

There was no homosexual bond with corresponding acts between David/Jonathan and Ruth/Naomi. Such would have endangered all of their eternal souls. That would be the total opposite of the love God calls us to have for each other.

Scripture may not speak of homosexuality many times, but in the times that it does speak concerning it, the message is always the same (OT and NT) and it is VERY clear.

Genesis 18:20 thru 19:38 (Sodom and Gomorrah)
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Romans 1:26-27
1 Timothy 1:10
Jude 7

 

[Florida_mom]

Thanks Nita–I believe those are the scriptures used to “affirm” the absence of homosexual condemnation.

I just don’t get it.

(In general) homosexuals would like us to stop consulting the bible as a means to explain the immorality of what they are doing. But then they will use it to say–look here, see, God is okay with it.

It makes no sense to me.

Humans like companionship–it does not necessarily have to be with a life partner, and to pervert the scripture to show that there are gays and lesbians in the Bible–precise reason why I didn’t want to go to the ceremony, but for family reasons–my body showed up.

I’m trying to remember what they were reading–but I was only half paying attention. In the Bible, Ruth goes on to marry a man and have a child–if they were so hunky dory with being lesbians–why on earth would she do THAT if God was okay wihht her being a lesbian. (IOW–the scripture contradicts itself if a homosexual pastor is using that to show that that type of love is okay with God and okay with everyone.)

 

[bpbasilphx]

What’s strange is that Ruth’s words to Naomi, so often sung at heterosexual weddings (“Whither thou goest, I will go…”), were, in context, about REJECTING finding a husband and heterosexual marriage.

I’m not saying that Ruth and Naomi were sexually involved, but it’s clear from the entire book that Ruth’s primary emotional bond was with Naomi, and her marriage to Boaz was principally one of convenience, as all women of a certain age were expected to be married.

Her sleeping at his “feet”–frequently used in the Bible as a euphemism for genitals–showed she intented to put him in a compromising position to force their marriage. And then the obvious symbolism of the passing of the shoe to Boaz clinches it.

 

[Florida_mom]

Hmmmm…

Well, Naomi was returning to her homeland with her daughters in law. She told them to go home and they both continued to stay with her. Orpah finally kissed her MIL and left but Ruth Continued on with her.

These are 2 widows on a journey.

Isn’t this a popular plot in the movies. Ruth stayed with her so that she would not be alone on the journey and would continue to walk with her once they arrive.

Isn’t that a sign of moral responsiblity and humanity. It does not necessarily have sexual meaning. It seems that is a modern liberal day application to that reading.

If this was a “God permitted” union–why is there no mention of protest when Naomi played match maker for Ruth?

Neither -"-I love you, but it is God’s plan for us to not be together" (to suppor the argument that God is not okay with it)

Nor–“I love you, but we must do what we should be doing even though God is okay with us to be together” (to support that it is society who condemns that which God has no issues with it.)

It is a noticeable absence when the entire context is read–verses removing single lines that once again are pulled to prove points that are not being made in the Bible.

---

It is also notable–that there are THREE “same-sex” relationships of significance…yet no notable proof that they were sexually active.

There are more scriptures that are against homosexuality even though they are few in number–yet we (the public, the Christian faithful) are to “buy” that these 3 mentions are the biblical proof of God’s blessings.

And no “I wish we could marry but society won’t let us” mentions in the Bible either.

 

[Florida_mom]

I am googling right now and looking up the number of times “marriage” is mentioned in the Bible.

But I came across this questionable essay:
freep.com/article/20090629/ENT03/906290306

So, let’s get back to the issue of homosexuality being so horrible and therefore a marriage being allowed for these “vile” creatures so needful of a preventative constitutional amendment. Here is where I have a problem with understanding: The text that was inspired by God doesn’t seem to express the same massive problems with homosexuality as we have been led to believe by the prejudiced rhetoric of a group of very bigoted individuals. If one is led to believe that the words of the Bible are sacrosanct, and he or she must follow them to the letter of the law, shouldn’t these bigots be brought to task and punished for their evil ways? And shouldn’t homosexuals be treated in the same vein as the need for celibacy, which happens to rate four references in the Bible?

I** am no Bible scholar**, so I have relied upon the works of Bible scholars to raise my questions. I am a believer in the good words of the Bible.** I am troubled by the words that flow from people’s mouths that have been twisted to fit agendas that appear to be far from Christ like.**

I look to the Bible for help in making my life reflect what is expected of me as a Christian, and** I do not appreciate the manipulation of the text to corrupt the truth**.

The essay is laughable–for its ommission of condmenation. But we must remember that our God is a love of God and what is peppered throughout scripture is the definition of marriage and what it means to be married.

If anyone is doing the twisting it is those with a same-sex marriage agenda and I only take issue with it–since they don’t wish the bible to be used for disapproval, but keep tally to demonstrate how God did not care.

It is laughable and insulting and sacreligoius.

What I want to know is why they aren’t referencing the context of marriage in the Bible–I’m googling right now to find out how many times–I found one person who said 500…that seems extreme.

But perhaps God was focusing on what was “right” and not what was wrong. The 10 commandments tell us what is wrong (thou shall nots). Is it to be assumed that as long as we avoid those 10 things, everything else is okay?

 

[Benadam]

David and Jonathan experienced a spiritual bond of brotherhood that is a brotherhood with all the rights of brothers by blood. David was welcomed at King Saul’s table. David became Saul’s son.

This bond points to the relationship Jesus and John had as brothers described as ‘beloved’. Like Jonathan Jesus gave John a place next to Him in His Kingdom.

Both are accused of expressing same sex attraction.
This bond is not to create a safe environment to reproduce but a manifestation of the deepest brotherly bond as offspring of God.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The common reference is 1 Samuel 18, no one even thought of this as refering to homosexuality til modern times. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.”(lev 18:22) is pretty clear on how God feels on “gay unions.”

Jesus preached to prostitutes and converted them, He didn’t leave them as prostitutes,

 

[solja247]

When I stummbled upon a website trying to defend homosexuality from the Bible I was quite suprised.

Now lets start with Ruth and Naomi.

Ruth was Naomi’s daughter in law. Naomi was Ruth’s mother in law. Is it normal for a daughter in law and a mother in law to engage into sexual relations? No it is not. It is idiotic to* even* think that Ruth and Naomi were engaging in sexual relations.

Rth 2:19 And her mother in law said unto her, Where hast thou gleaned to day? and where wroughtest thou? blessed be he that did take knowledge of thee. And she shewed her mother in law with whom she had wrought, and said, The man’s name with whom I wrought to day is Boaz.
Rth 2:20 And Naomi said unto her daughter in law, Blessed be he of the LORD, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen.
Rth 2:21 And Ruth the Moabitess said, He said unto me also, Thou shalt keep fast by my young men, until they have ended all my harvest.
Rth 2:22 And Naomi said unto Ruth her daughter in law, It is good, my daughter, that thou go out with his maidens, that they meet thee not in any other field.
Rth 2:23 So she kept fast by the maidens of Boaz to glean unto the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest; and dwelt with her mother in law.
Rth 3:1 Then Naomi her mother in law said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee?
Rth 3:2 And now is not Boaz of our kindred, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold, he winnoweth barley to night in the threshingfloor.
Rth 3:3 Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.
Rth 3:4 And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.
Rth 3:5 And she said unto her, All that thou sayest unto me I will do.

I am sorry to say but Ruth and Naomi were not lesbians. They comforted, helped and supproted each other but were not gay. Ruth married Boaz, they had a son called obed etc.

Now David comes along.

If you try to say, ‘David and Jonathon were gay, they kissed!’ Then you do not understand the context or history.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

David was a Jew and followed the Mosaic law. Jonathon and David were like brothers, that is all. We even see that David looked after Jonathon’s Son, who was a crippled because of his love for Jonathon.

I dont believe at all the Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathon were gay. I think that is people just trying to twist the bible to say what they want it too.

 

[LilyM]

The only pre- or extra-marital sexual activity David is recorded as having been involved in was with Bathsheba (in itself an indication that David wasn’t gay!)

If he had done ANYTHING of a sexual nature as far as Jonathan went it would’ve been a sin, as Leviticus specifically forbids sex between two men.

You can’t read ‘man shall not lie with mankind as with a woman’ in Leviticus and reasonably interpret it to be anything other than a blanket rejection of homosexual sex - one which would have been every bit as taboo, and as sinful, for a faithful Jew like David as his adultery with Bathsheba, which he knew to be a sin and repented of.

 

[sydsydgray]

Ok let me say this first. Remember it is up to us Catholics to defend our faith and to reject heresy. However, it is also up to us to preach the gospel by living it. Therefore, though we do not agree with homosexual marriage (because marriage is between a man and a woman) DO NOT judge them or put them down. I do agree that in Leviticus it says not to lie with a man as a man does with a woman. However, this is sexually. Jesus calls homosexuals to be chaste. Remember our homosexual brothers and sisters who are engaging sexually with the same sex need our support and love as Catholic Christians. So Florida mom I do support you on going to that wedding because even though you have every right to not feel comfortable you have to do what Jesus would.

I say that homosexuals should be chaste because Jesus talks to eunuchs who were practicing homosexual acts and he told them that they must be chaste. I am not sure where this is in the bible. Just becoming Catholic myself a few months ago I had to decide whether or not I could accept this teaching since I am bisexual but I have never truly been able to choose between my attraction to men or women. But with God’s love, mercy and grace I have been able to be chaste towards women and find a deeper love of friendship for them. I still get feelings and urges but with God on my side its easier to deal with.

So when it comes to Ruth and Naomi’s story let me give you some insight to why people believe this is a lesbian union. When Ruth said “Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you for where you go I will go and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people; and your God my God.” (Ruth 1:16-17) This is very similar to what Adam says about Eve: Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)

The problem with this interpretation is this. Yes Ruth and Naomi may have loved each other in a true deep friendship that borderlines a romantic love, but they still kept to the laws of Bible by Ruth marrying a man and having his child. Ruth and Naomi did not have a sexual relationship. So this passage does NOT prove the validity of gay marriage.

 

[Mintaka]

Ruth and Boaz do NOT have a marriage of convenience! It’s one of the great Biblical love stories, just like Naomi is one of the great Biblical matchmakers!

Naomi sends her daughter-in-law – her foreign-born daughter-in-law – to wed the pride of her tribe, her relative, who is young, handsome, good, and rich. Her telling Ruth to go after the guy is telling her that she regards Ruth as her real daughter, also a member of her tribe, and eminently suited to marry such a catch as Boaz.

And that’s fair, because first we hear Ruth telling Naomi that she won’t be separated from her and would keep God as her god too, was telling Naomi that she regarded Naomi as her real mother, not just a temporary mother-in-law of foreign birth and belief.

Naomi found that, despite her sorrows and her comments about God, she was given a child by God who did survive – Ruth, a child not of her body but by her son’s marriage. This shows God’s faithfulness to a widow.

A mother and daughter should live together. A mother should look out for her daughter’s marriage. And Boaz was obviously destined by God for Ruth as a reward for faithfulness and love of her new family, because Boaz was not just a catch, but also the proper Levitical marriage partner after her husband died. (And contrariwise, Ruth as a reward for his righteousness was obviously the reason God hadn’t married off Boaz.Boaz’ easy acceptance of God’s will for him, and his kindness, acceptance, and faithful love of Ruth was another proof of his righteousness and love.)

Because Ruth made herself wholeheartedly a daughter of Israel and of her new family, and because Naomi accepted her gift, and because Boaz accepted Ruth’s right to his acceptance and love, Ruth and Boaz became ancestors of David and of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Davidic king forever and the salvation of all the world.

Beyond all that, the story of Ruth and Boaz (and Naomi, since she found herself giving rebirth to Ruth) is all about fertility and harvest, not to mention the “house of bread”, Bethlehem, and the production of Davidic children. There’s no room for lesbianism in a story full of bouncing babies and breadloaves.