In the second chapter of Recovering From Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, on the subject of recovering how we read the Bible, Aimee Byrd asks “Why Not the Book of Boaz?”.
She is talking about the book of Ruth which is squeezed between Judges and 1 Samuel. It is the first book in the Bible that we come across named for a woman. This is a little book with a big message.
Ruth was not simply a woman, but a Moabite woman who had been married to an sojourning Israelite who died. Moabites were bad news. Their tribe originated from Lot’s child from his daughter after she got him drunk (Gen. 19). Born of incest they were known to be immoral. They were also prohibited from entering Israelite worship (Deut. 23:3), in part for hiring Balaam to curse Israel, and then following his advice to send women to seduce the men into false worship (Numbers 22-23, 25).
Yes, a book of the Bible named after a Moabite widow. This Moabite widow converted to the worship of YHWH and went back to Israel with her mother-in-law to take care of her.
Byrd wants to show us how the female voice functions in Scripture. Ruth doesn’t seem to fit the mold of biblical womanhood (though some memes try to make her fit it by ignoring some things). While the “male voice” arrives at the end of the book, the majority of the book focuses on Ruth. It focuses on “the plight of women in ancient culture- it exposes their difficulties and it shows us a faithful, brave woman who took initiative to rescue her family, as well as an honorable response from Boaz.” Ruth is not passive, waiting for Boaz, or anyone else to take care of Naomi. She takes initiative, and this is seen as a good thing (Boaz commends her!) particularly when we discover who her great-grandson is going to be.
She is reliant on Bauckham and Carolyn Custis James as numerous footnotes reveal. Most of this is helpful. One time, at least, it is less than helpful but confusing. “This male voice is quote not … in order to undermine the female voice of the narrative, but on the contrary, in order to be exposed by the female voice of the narrative as pitifully inadequate in its androcentric selectivity.” It doesn’t undermine her voice! That I get and agree with. I’m not sure what he means by that last phrase about being exposed as inadequate. The patrilineal records complement and explain the significance of the this story: David!
Rumors had probably spread about David and his sketchy origins (the politics of personal destruction is not a new concept). But the truth was this woman was a godly woman who did right by her adopted faith and her distressed mother-in-law. This defends her honor and his.
“The Bible isn’t a book of masculine history. There is women’s literature in Scripture! … We don’t need to take these gynocentric stories out and publish them in books for women’s ministries. All of Scripture is meant for coed reading and understanding.”
She also argues that Ruth is not just about Ruth. “Naomi’s situation parallels Israel’s.” This takes place during the decline of Israel during the time of the Judges. Her husband did what was right in his own eyes by moving his family to Moab during a famine, and allowing his two sons to marry Moabite women despite the prohibition of the Law. He betrayed his name which declared “My God is King”. This book is a study of hesed, covenant faithfulness as displayed not only by Ruth but also Boaz and ultimately by YHWH.
“Hesed is driven, not by duty or legal obligations, but by bone-deep commitment- a loyal, selfless love that motivates a person to do voluntarily what no one wants has the right to expect or ask of them …” quoting Carolyn Custis James
One of the things we should see in Ruth is that “God put man and woman on this earth, and he intends to use both sexes in his mission.” This woman is “in the world” and working in the fields. She’s “bringing home the bacon”. Ruth’s faith and commitment is contrasted with Naomi’s despair and grief. God used a strong woman to preserve Naomi and keep the line alive that would produce the Seed that crushes the head of the serpent.
Rembrandt
Ruth is not a feminist icon. She’s not fighting the system of patriarchy. She is a woman committed to fulfilling her vows. Ruth does, however, not fit into many of the categories of femininity expressed by some complementarians, especially the CBMW. Piper and Grudem’s definition of femininity doesn’t seem to fit Ruth. She’s not waiting for a man to show initiative. This seems to be the point Byrd wants to make in this chapter. Godly women in the Bible don’t match the Big Blue Book’s definition.
After my a recent memorial service for my mother, we had lunch with my side of the family. Due to my mother’s long-term illness it had been a few years since CavWife saw my side of the family, particularly my sister-in-law. My brother’s wife related that mine was a “bad ass” because she stood up to my mother. My wife is strong. Not headstrong or domineering, but strong. She knows who she is and wants to do what is right. She wasn’t waiting for me to “take the lead” and deal with my mother. She was gentle but firm, not abrasive.
Byrd doesn’t stop with Ruth, so to speak. She reminds us that Boaz’s mother was a Canaanite prostitute named Rahab. Like Ruth, she came to faith in the God of Israel, protected her family by protecting the spies. She became a member of God’s household. Knowing her likely prepared Boaz to welcome a kindred spirit in Ruth.
When Byrd begins to peel back the wallpaper (back to the metaphor), she wants us to see “women played an active role alongside men in passing down the history and teachings of God’s covenant people as tradents of the faith.” She doesn’t want to make more of this than it is; or less.
“Women aren’t left out. They aren’t ignored; they are heard. They are more than heard; they contribute.”
Additionally, the book of Ruth functions to provide a critical eye for today’s church. The issue is how God’s hesed works among His people. She wants us to see that He works through both men and women to reveal His hesed. Too often we are concerned with what women are “permitted” to do (and she’ll get back to this often). Our lists, at the very least, need to be evaluated by Scripture. Another way of putting this is asking if godly women in Scripture fit the list. Scripture is more important than the list.
The question I wrote at the bottom of the page at the end of this chapter is: “God gives women a voice to be used. Will we listen?”
I got some push back on my previous blog post. People seem to think Byrd is saying that women need women to “interpret” the Bible to them. Or that they cannot read Calvin or other theology. Byrd is saying the opposite! She doesn’t want theology dumbed down for women. She quotes a variety of male authors and teachers in this book. She’s not reading fluff.
In some ways Byrd is an example she wants others to follow: forsake the fluff and eat the meat of the Word. But she’s also saying that a woman doesn’t learn the breadth and depth of Scripture and theology to teach 3rd graders. She thinks God raises up both men and women to teach in Christ’s church.
She not wanting us to look for the feminine voice like it is a needle in the haystack. It is pretty clear. It is not meant to compete with the rest of Scripture but to complement it.
She hasn’t done any exegesis of any of the important passages involving this topic yet. In a later chapter she deals with 1 Corinthians 11-14. I hope she deals with 1 Timothy 2 in the final chapter (since she hadn’t thus far).
But so far we’ve seen:
- A godly king seek the wisdom of a prophetess to whom he listened for the good of the nation.
- Women quoted in Scripture whose words and/or actions that inform and shape our faith.
- Books of the Bible, written from a woman’s perspective, show us strong women who change the fortunes of God’s people, in His providence.
- The Bible’s portraits of godly women don’t match the definition of mature femininity put forward by the CBMW.
Let me end with a story. As a new Christian I worked in a bookstore. Utterly clueless, I bought a Hal Lindsey book or two. I became a dispensational pre-millennialist. I advocated for the position. I was sure this was right. However, over time as I read and re-read the Bible I was filled with increasing cognitive dissonance. I found that my views didn’t make the most sense of the Scripture.
I was at a crossroads. Would I stick to Lindsey and company’s interpretation or would I change my view to one more consistent with Scripture? I chose the latter option.
As a more mature Christian, I submit to the Westminster Confession of Faith as a summary of what the Bible teaches. I believe it is consistent with Scripture, and it provides healthy boundaries for me. This standard doesn’t address these issues. I want to go where the Scripture leads as I affirm that the church is Reformed and always reforming.
Don’t panic. This is not the slippery slope of feminism or liberalism. It is an expression of sola Scriptura. The Scriptures do teach that only qualified men are to be elders (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1), and that the husband is the head of his own wife (Ephesians 5). These are non-negotiables.
What I am discovering is not that my views are changing, but that my views (which I’ve held for many years and taught from the pulpit) are not in synch with the CBMW’s understanding of masculinity and femininity on key points. This will be developed in further posts.
Thankfully Crossway has just released 
Cavman Considers 