The Untold Story of Naomi and Ruth

(by Chris Masterson)

RUTH 1:14: And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Rüth clave unto her.

This rather intriguing story begins with an Ephrathite family from the city of Bethlehem-Judah who relocated to the land of Moab because of famine in their homeland. Ephrathites comprised one-half of the Hebrew tribe of Joseph (i.e. Ephraim and Manasseh). The head of the family was Elimelech; his wife, Naomi. They had two sons, Mahlon and Chilion. For reasons not mentioned, Elimelech died. This resulted in his sons taking Moabite wives; Rüth and Orpah (not Oprah). However, the story does not tell who was married to whom. As it turned out, ten years later Elimelech’s sons joined him. Like their father, the reason(s) for their demise is not clear. But perhaps their names are an indication: Mahlon (sickness) and Chilion (wasting away). At any rate, the three women were left to fend for themselves. Under the circumstances, the most sensible thing to do was to return to their respective families. As the above verse indicates, Orpah agreed to do this without hesitation. But Ruth decided differently.

Intimacy Between In-Laws?
Standalone, the above verse does not sound like much to go on. However, the depiction of the incident sheds a different light; howbeit still debatable. But if we examine the details more thoroughly, we might just get to the bottom of the debate. According to the text, Orpah kissed Naomi goodbye before returning to live with her blood relatives. However, the underlined text describes, "Ruth clave to Naomi." One might easily dismiss this as an “intense hug goodbye” versus a “goodbye kiss” like Orpah gave. But suppose it was neither? Suppose the text is describing a little more than affection between in-laws on Ruth’s part? In other words … INTIMACY. The only way to be sure is to go to the source! The underlined text in Hebrew is as follows ...

The first line is the original Hebrew text; read from right-to-left. The second line is the English transliteration (or pronunciation) of the Hebrew text. The third line is the raw English translation. And as you will notice, it reads slightly different than the official (authorized) English translation but they still pertain to Naomi and Ruth.

Official VS Unofficial
Getting off-topic (Naomi and Ruth) for a moment let me explain a few things. The official English translation of the Hebrew root, davaq (also dabaq) is: to cleave to (non-intimately). However, the initial biblical use of this same verb DOES involve intimacy. Consider the following verses:

GENESIS 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

GENESIS 34:3
And his soul (Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country) clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

The Hebrew davaq is found 50 additional times throughout the Old Testament; used in several non-intimate ways. But when the issue is exclusive to two individuals, davaq is used in an intimate sense. So, what ever else this word specifically means when applied to intimate couples (that the Powers-That-Be aren't sharing with us), Ruth did it IN(side?) Naomi. That is, versus UNTO her; as the official English translation suggests. As a matter of fact, “unto” is typically “presumed" and "inserted” to complete English syntax … not a direct translation of Hebrew text as in the above case.

On that note, if we further examine the underlined text of Genesis 2:24, we discover:

As you will notice, the raw English translation is not identical to the official one. And unlike the official translation, the man CLAVE IN the woman after which they became one flesh. This is THE ULTIMATE INTIMACY! In Genesis 34:3, it is what happened between Prince Shechem and Dinah before he made love to her. And it is also what happened between Naomi and Ruth.

Until Death Do We Part!
Moving right along; we can now put the words Rüth spake unto Naomi in their proper context:

RUTH 1:17-18
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: 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.

Many a marriage vow includes the words, “until death do you part.” Here we have Ruth making the same vow to Naomi. Contrary to traditional school-of-thought, the above text is one woman’s MARRIAGE VOWS to another! How could any one person express such undying devotion to another person, otherwise?

The Proper Perspective
There are those who rationalize, "Naomi and Ruth had husbands; how could they have been Lesbians?" A common mistake people make is super-imposing OUR culture onto the ancient one we read about in the Bible. The two are nothing alike! Back then on the other side of the planet, there was no such thing as an exclusive gay couple. There were two sets of laws; those for men and those for women.

In the culture of Naomi and Ruth, men had the property rights; women were the property. Women were owned by men beginning with their fathers. If a woman was born a Lesbian, very few people (if any at all) knew it or even cared. All women were created (and treated) equal. If they were not sold by their fathers for profit, they were married-off to the most well-to-do gentleman caller for profit. Howbeit, from the female's perspective there was very little difference between the two.

In the end, the same rules applied to the women in this story. But they found themselves in a rather unique position; both of their husbands were dead. This made them free to explore something else!

IF YOU ENJOYED READING THIS ARTICLE, YOU WILL ALSO ENJOY READING, "Faithful Army (of) God" ...

Throughout the ages, repressive means prevented the spread of information considered dangerous; ancient knowledge that encouraged people to think for themselves! The masses were convinced to blindly accept English translations as absolute truth! These omitted most famous people in the Bible were gay.

Privileged groups decided they had exclusive rights to such knowledge. They spoon fed information to the masses at their own discretion and let the chips of deceit, misinterpretation, discrimination and intimidation fall where they may. We can now change all of this; one reader at a time!