But Ruth Clung to Her

July 26, 2018 will mark the fifteenth anniversary of the wedding between my wife and I.  Time seems to move faster as it goes on, I think, and it is remarkable to me that fifteen years will have gone by so quickly.  In just a few short years, I will have spent more of life with my wife than without her.

The vows that my wife and I chose for our wedding ceremony came from Ruth 1.16-17, which I just preached on this past Sunday: "...where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay.  Your people will be my people and your God my God.  Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.  May the Lord deal with me if anything but death separates you and me."  As he was reciting these vows for my wife and I to repeat, my father-in-law (who performed the ceremony) had a slip of the tongue and said, "Where you die I will die, and there I will be married" instead of "buried."  Everyone had a good laugh.  I think every wedding ceremony needs a slip-up or two to remind us that nothing is perfect.

As I prepared to preach this text this past week, I read K. Lawson Younger Jr.'s commentary on Ruth.  Toward the end of his comments on chapter 1, he has a section that argues that the use of Ruth 1.16-17 as wedding vows is a misuse of this text, as the circumstances between Ruth's commitment to Naomi are completely different than those between a husband and wife.  Having read Younger's argument (and perhaps, much to the chagrin of my wife!), I am inclined to agree with his assessment.  The context of Ruth 1.16-17 is not at all similar to that of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman.  Moreover, it would be downright wrong for a person to commit to another that "your God will be my God," as though he or she would follow the lead of one spouse from god to god!  That being said, I do believe that the commitment of Ruth to Naomi is one that is admirable and which all husbands and wives should seek to emulate toward their spouses.

The broader context of the story of Ruth helps to illustrate this.  Naomi (Ruth's mother-in-law) saw herself as a marked woman, a target for the displeasure of God.  After all, her husband and both of her adult sons had died, leaving her a destitute woman.  As such a woman in a patriarchal society, Naomi had no prospects of joining the work force and providing for herself.  There was a very real danger of her facing death by starvation.  At best, she could be a beggar who subsisted on the leavings of and charity of others.  Needless to say, the outlook on her life was grim to say the least.

This is why Naomi encouraged her daughters-in-law (Ruth and Orpah) to go back to their hometowns, remarry, and live happy lives.  If they were to stay with Naomi, they would share a similar fate of destitution and even potentially death by starvation.  "And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her" (Ruth 1.14).

At her mother-in-law's insistence, Orpah takes off with a kiss goodbye.  But Ruth "clings" to Naomi.  What is pictured by these words is an embrace - an extended and passionate hug.  But there is much more that is going on.  By "clinging" to Naomi, Ruth is throwing in her lot with Naomi to the extent that they will share a common destiny, a common fate.  Whatever happens to Naomi will happen to Ruth; however Naomi suffers, Ruth will suffer; wherever Naomi goes, Ruth will go; wherever Naomi dies, that is where Ruth will die.

Just think about what Ruth was willingly accepting by "clinging" to Naomi: Naomi was too old to remarry, but Ruth wasn't.  By clinging to Naomi, Ruth was willfully giving up the prospect of remarrying and having children (note: this wasn't ultimately the case for Ruth, however - read Ruth 4!).

By clinging to Naomi, Ruth was giving up her cultural and social identity and taking on a new one: that of a destitute widow.

By clinging to Naomi, Ruth was accepting the fate of Naomi: most likely death by starvation.

By clinging to Naomi, Ruth's identity was wrapped up in Naomi's.  Whatever happened to Naomi would happen to Ruth.  If one suffered, they both suffered; if one rejoiced, they both rejoiced.

Compare Ruth's commitment to Naomi to the sentiment communicated by traditional vows that are used in wedding ceremonies: "I take you to be my husband/wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in scenes and in heath, to love and to cherish, till death do us part."  They sound pretty similar to me.

I imagine that Ruth wasn't excited about the prospect of becoming a destitute widow who faced starvation - especially when she had the opportunity to go back to her homeland, remarry, and live happily ever after - but that's what she chose to do.  Why?  Because she was clinging to Naomi.   I'm sure she also wasn't excited about moving from her homeland to go to Naomi's homeland where Ruth would be a foreigner.

What it meant for Ruth to "cling" to Naomi is exactly what it means for us to "cling" to our spouses: to take on a common destiny or fate.  To stand by each other regardless of the circumstances we face individually or as a couple.  Sometimes one spouse does something that creates difficulty and tension for the other spouse, or in the marriage, or even in the family in general.  And the results can be miserable: discontentedness, strife, emotional distress, and so on.  But still, we cling.  We have intertwined our fates together, our individual destinies have become one destiny together.  "Where you go, I will go; how you suffer, I will suffer; where you die, I will die."  Sometimes clinging to a spouse isn't very fun or enjoyable - indeed, sometimes it's downright miserable.  But still we cling.

It's important to note that this type of clinging in marriage doesn't give one spouse license to run roughshod over the other spouse, or to be intentionally harmful, manipulative, or abusive.  It's not as though one spouse can behave terribly and demand allegiance from the other spouse under the guise of clinging to one another.  This would be to completely misunderstand Ruth's commitment to Naomi.

Although Ruth's exact words to Naomi may not be appropriate to recite during a wedding ceremony, the principle behind her words are exactly the kind of commitment that husbands and wives should endeavor to display in their marriages.  Be like Ruth, and cling.

A Biblical Model For Marriage?

A couple weeks ago in one of my seminary classes someone mentioned a "biblical model for marriage" during a class discussion. This ignited some fireworks amongst the students, but especially amongst the teachers (there are two teachers for this class: a main teacher and a co-teacher). In general, I think their sentiment could be summed up by saying they didn't think there was any evidence for a singular "biblical" model for marriage. The co-teacher said that the "biblical model for marriage" that she saw most prevalently in the Bible was one of polygamy. After all, it seems like everyone in the Old Testament had several wives. This doesn't seem to jibe with the modern Christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, so how do we explain that (it should be noted that she said this in somewhat of a flippant manner, to show how supposedly ridiculous it is to suggest that the Bible would actually insist on a particular model for marriage, and to ostracize those who would believe that they have discovered it)? The professor stated that "I can't find a biblical model of marriage that I can get excited about." His sentiment was based on the fact that pretty much every time you can see a marriage in the Bible, it's screwed up: David, Solomon, etc.

But I think this line of thinking is, to say the least, really uninformed, not to mention completely fallacious in its attempt to discount the idea that marriage is designed by God to be between one man and one woman, which, to be sure, was the intention of my teacher(s). Especially the bit about polygamy being the supposed biblical model for marriage. Just because polygamy existed - even amongst the Old Testament saints - does not mean that it was a God-ordained model for marriage. God did not give his "rubber stamp" of approval on those who had many wives. In fact, God said that having many wives would lead to sin and difficulty. So just because many, if not most, of the folks in the Old Testament had several wives, it doesn't mean that God condoned their actions. In fact, coupled with what Jesus says, it would seem that a lot of those OT saints were living in perpetual adultery. Just because people practiced polygamy didn't make it God's "design" for marriage, or even OK.

In Matthew 19 Jesus says that Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce their wives because they had hard hearts. In other words, because they were sinful - prideful, lustful, and selfish. Divorce was not God's ideal for marriage, and it still isn't. It was permitted by Moses, however, because the people were hard hearted. So, using my professor's line of thinking, is God OK with divorce because the Israelites practiced it? No. Does the fact that divorce took place in the Bible nullify an ideal biblical design for marriage? Certainly not. To suggest that it does would be ignorant.

I would argue the same for all deviations from what I believe is the God-ordained plan for marriage: one man and one woman, for as long as they both shall live. Anything other than this, while perhaps culturally acceptable (or is made acceptable by a hard-hearted generation) is not the ideal. This would mean that all of the Old Testament saints that had multiple wives were not following God's ideal design for marriage.

This gets interesting when we look to other cultures, however. In some cultures, women are completely dependent upon men for their livelihood. They won't eat or have anywhere to live unless they are married to a man who is able to provide for them. So, when a woman's husband dies, she may be forced to marry her dead husband's brother or some other relative just so she can survive. So in some cultures, polygamy can be used as a means of providing for the needy and showing compassion. Maybe this was part of the reasoning of the Old Testament saints, as well. I don't know.

But I think we can still say that this is not God's ideal for marriage. Yes, widows are being provided and cared for, and yes, it is a cultural system in which polygamy is used almost as a means of compassion. Does that mean it isn't sin? I don't know. God will judge that. But I believe it still stands that this is not what God intended.

When my professor said he couldn't find a biblical model of marriage that he could "get excited about," based on the screwed up marriages of people like David and Solomon, he similarly lacked perspective about marriage and the people involved in it. David didn't screw up his marriage because God's plan for marriage was flawed. David screwed up his marriage because David was a fallen, sinful human being. Solomon didn't take 700 wives and 300 concubines because God's plan for marriage wasn't good enough. Solomon took all those women because Solomon was selfish, prideful, and lustful. In every case where marriage doesn't "work," the problem is not the institution of marriage - it's the sinful, fallen people in the marriage. The fact that people in the Bible screwed up their marriages doesn't prove that God's design for marriage was/is wrong. It only proves that the people in the marriage were sinful people!

We need to also note that for all the ways that people can goof up or not follow God's design for marriage, there are an equal number of ways to bring about forgiveness and restoration to marriage and to the lives of the people involved. There is always hope. There is always the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness. And I would also argue that this is part of the genius of God's design for marriage. When people work through the difficulties in marriage in order to conform it more to what God desires for it, it shows the value of the institution.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on what the Bible says about marriage, and God knows that my own hard heart confounds his ideal for my own marriage. But what I do know for sure is that pointing to the polygamy of the Old Testament as proof that God does not have an ideal model for marriage, or that unsuccessful marriages show that God's design is flawed, are arguments that lack serious historical and biblical perspective.