May 8, 2020 – Next Step Bible Study

May 8 (2): Genesis 3:16, continued

Genesis 3:16 (continued)

In the previous note, I examined the punishment decreed by God for the woman in Gen 3:16. I concluded the discussion with the important observation that the situation in the last two lines of that verse, which establish a ‘subordinate’ position for women, reflect the sinful (“fallen”) human condition and should not be considered part of the good order of creation initially set by God (Gen 1:31). This is most significant in light of the Christian revelation; for, if in Christ, believers are no longer in bondage to sin and the old order of things (the “old man”), to what extent are we still to be bound by the conditions of Gen 3:16? Paul’s line of argument in Romans 5:5-21 would indicate that Christ’s work has effectively reversed or undone the effect of Adam’s (i.e. humankind’s) transgression (Gen 3). However, the discussion in chapters 6-7, as well as all throughout the other letters, makes clear that Paul’s view of the situation was more nuanced and realistic—believers, while free from the power of sin, were still living within the fallen order of creation (8:18ff), and still plagued by the impulse to sin which remains in the “flesh” (7:13-25). Only with the resurrection will believers (in their human bodies) be freed completely from the effects of sin and death. Until that time, humans (including believers) are still faced, essentially, with the physical/biological and psychological effects of Gen 3:16-19. But how exactly does this continuing “fallen” condition relate to believers in Christ, that is, in the Church? If we are truly a new creation (Rom 7:6; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:28; 6:15, etc), how far should we continue to uphold the old order of things within the body of Christ?

This brings us to the relation between men and women in the Church, as addressed in the Pauline letters; I have examined all of the principal passages, in Parts 1-6 of this series. There are two key passages which draw upon the Creation narratives in Genesis 1-3—1 Cor 11:2-16 and 1 Tim 2:11-15 (discussed in Parts 1 and 5, respectively). It will be helpful here to look at these references again.

1 Cor 11:2-16 (vv. 7-9)

In this passage, Paul is addressing the corporate worship-meeting, and the believers—men and women—who take active speaking/preaching roles in it. Their participation should take place according to certain established customs, including a specific dress-code, whereby women speak/preach with their head covered, while the men do so uncovered. Paul’s primary argument is that this maintains an appropriate order, and distinction between genders, which reflects the order of creation. This is not strictly an argument for the subordination of women, though a definite order and (hierarchical) chain of relation is declared in verse 3—man is the head of woman, Christ is the head of man, and God is the head of Christ. The same basic conceptual framework continues on into the argument from Scripture (vv. 7-9), in which Paul refers to the Creation account. Significantly, he does not refer to the “fall” nor the context of Gen 3:16; rather, his argument is based on an interpretive blending of Gen 1:26-27 and the narrative in chap. 2:

Verse 7—Paul states that a man (a)nh/r) is the “image and honor/glory of God”. This alludes to Gen 1:26-27; however, in the actual context of that passage, “man” (<d*a*) is best understood as humankind collectively—male and female both. Paul, by contrast, seems to interpret the “man” in the gender-specific sense of a male human being, presumably in light of chapter 2. He has also made two additions which are not found in the Genesis account: (a) he has added “honor/glory” (do/ca) to “image”, and (b) the distinction that while the man is the image/glory of God, the woman is the glory of the man.

Verse 8—Here he alludes to the actual process of the woman’s creation, as narrated in Gen 2:21-22—that she was formed out of (e)k, i.e. from) the man, and not the other way around. In a technical sense this would indicate the man/male’s priority, but it is doubtful that many readers today would find this a very convincing argument.

Verse 9—Along the same lines, Paul derives from Gen 2:18ff, the idea that the woman was created for the sake of the man, and not the other way around. The preposition dia/ (lit. “through”) may have a two-fold meaning: on the one hand, it effectively restates verse 8 (i.e. she was created from the man); on the other hand, she was created because of the man (i.e. to be his helper/partner).

It must be admitted that Paul has made relatively free use of the Genesis narrative, though his method of interpretation here can be said to be in accord generally with Jewish thought of the time. Unfortunately, he does not make at all clear just why the situation of Gen 2 should be considered normative for believers in Christ. In Part 1 (and the separate note on 1 Cor 11:10) I raised the possibility that verses 7-10a refer the old order of creation, while vv. 10b-12 refer to the new. According to such a view, Paul would actually be arguing that the situation in the Church should reflect a new (and transformed) order of things, where men and women serve together side by side, equally, but without entirely abolishing the gender-distinction of the old (original) order.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

In this passage, Paul (or the author of 1 Timothy [cf. Part 5]) seems to be addressing the role of women in the worship-meeting (and the congregation) more generally, in a manner similar to that of 1 Cor 14:34-35 (on this passage, cf. Part 2). Again, an appeal is made to the Creation account, but this time the author does make use of the “Fall” narrative in Genesis 3. In the context of 1 Tim 2:11-15, Paul instructs Timothy that women ought to behave and learn quietly, adding the personal injunction: “I do not turn over to a woman to teach or have power over [au)qentei=n] a man” (v. 12). This latter verb may well have brought to mind the final line of Gen 3:16—”and he [i.e. the man] will have control [lv*m=y]] with/over you”. For a woman to have power/authority over a man, would, in the mind of Paul (or the author), be a violation and distortion of the created order established by God. Verse 13 states bluntly what Paul had implied in 1 Cor 11:8-9—i.e., that the man was created first, before the woman. In verse 14f, however, we find an interesting (and, it would seem, highly problematic) use of Genesis 3:

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, came to be in transgression; but (yet) she will be saved through the bearing of offspring…”

This appears as a curious interpretive gloss on the narrative. A key question is whether “came to be in transgression” relates to Adam (and humankind) or specifically to the woman; the latter seems more likely here, but, if one were to accept the former, then the verse might be rendered: “And Adam was not deceived, but (by way of) the woman being deceived, came to be in transgression”. This would accord better with the proper sense of the Genesis narrative (and cf. Paul’s language in Rom 5:12ff). However, it is possible that the author specifically has in mind the punishment of Gen 3:16, which reflects the woman “in transgression”. Indeed, it is Gen 3:16 which emphasizes the bearing of children; though, again, the idea that this would result in her being “saved” seems quite out of place and intrusive to the creation narrative. Perhaps the thought was that, as long as the woman, like the man, remained faithful and obedient within the conditions in which God had placed her, she would be saved. This is suggested by 1 Tim 2:15b, though some commentators understand the phrase “if they should remain…” as referring to the woman’s children (rather than to women generally); even so, the proper rearing and education of her children would be evidence of the woman’s faithfulness.

The entire argument, it must be said, is foreign to our way of thinking today. Even commentators who prefer the traditional-conservative (“subordinationist”) view toward the role of women in the Church are unlikely to use the Genesis narrative in this way. It has been suggested that Paul (or the author of 1 Timothy) was addressing certain kinds of false teaching which emphasized ascetic behavior and the denial of marriage (1 Tim 4:3). Indeed, there were ascetic tendencies in early Christianity which encouraged celibacy and downplayed the importance of marriage. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul himself encourages believers, so equipped by God, and with the maturity or temperament for it, to remain single, which also meant staying celibate. According to the view of certain Gnostic groups, childbirth effectively kept believers bound to the “fallen” material condition, and so ought to be avoided—sexuality itself becoming sublimated and “spiritualized”. It is often thought that the Pastoral letters give evidence for early Gnostic thought which Paul (or the author) was combating. In an upcoming article of the current series, I will be discussing the subject of “Women in Gnosticism”.

If Christian women were being influenced by such teaching (cf. 2 Tim 3:6-7ff), this might explain the emphasis on childbearing (i.e. maintaining the marital and sexual bond). It is always difficult to read passages such as 1 Tim 2:11-15 without a complete knowledge of the specific issues and circumstances that the author is addressing. This, all the more, creates serious difficulties of interpretation for Christians today, especially in light of Galatians 3:28 and the noblest ideals associated with our union (and unity) as believers in Christ. How far should we attempt to apply 1 Cor 11:7-9 or 1 Tim 2:13-15 and adopt the particular understanding of Genesis 1-3 expressed in those passages? How exactly does the new order of creation (in Christ) relate to the old?

May 8 (1): Genesis 3:16

Genesis 3:16

This note is supplemental to the current series on Women in the Church (Part 8: The Old Testament), examining the portion of the Creation narratives in Genesis (chap. 3 on the “Fall” of humankind) addressed to the woman (hV*a!h*). In the narrative, God (YHWH) declares judgment (punishment) on each of the three characters involved: (1) the Serpent (vv. 14-15), (2) the Woman (v. 16), and (3) the Man (vv. 17-19). The punishment here is sometimes referred to as the curse, but actually the man and woman are not ‘cursed’ per se—the word rWra* (°¹rûr, lit. “bound”, i.e. by a curse or spell, etc) is only applied to the serpent (possible wordplay with <Wru* ±¹rûm, “cunning” in v. 1) and to the ground of the earth. There is an indirect curse upon the man, in that his punishment entails hard labor working the ground to grow food and earn a living—note the wordplay between “the man” (<d*a*h*, h¹°¹d¹m) and “the ground” (hm*d*a&h*, h¹°¦d¹mâ).

God’s declaration is recorded in poetic form, and the portion addressed to the woman (“To the woman he said…”) in verse 16 can be divided neatly into four lines:

“I will increase your pains and your engendering (children),
In pain you will give birth to sons,
And your longing (will be) to(ward) your man,
And he will have control on [i.e. over] you.”

Each element will be examined briefly:

hB#r=a^ hB*r=h^ (literally, “increasing, I will increase”)—this Hebrew syntactical form generally serves to intensify the verbal action; here it means something like “I will surely increase” or “I will greatly increase”, both in the sense of increasing the number and the degree. The Hiphil (causative) stem of the verb indicates that God will bring about the increase, within the order of creation.

En@r)h@w+ En@obX=u! (“your pain[s] and your engendering [childre]n”)—here we have two plural nouns with a pronoun-suffix attached; the pairing probably represents hendiadys (two words for one thing), but also the second term builds upon the first., i.e. “your pains, that is to say (especially) your engendering”. One may even read the second term as the fulfillment of the first: “I will increase your pains and you will engender (children)”. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that God is introducing a physical/biological sexual component into the created order. The pain and toil the woman will have to endure is related principally to the process of conceiving and bearing children. The noun /orh@ (“engendering”, from the verb hr*h*) refers essentially to the conception of a child, as the result of sexual intercourse.

bx#u#B= (“in pain”)—this noun (bx#u#, ±eƒe») is closely related to that in the previous line (/obX*u!, ±iƒƒ¹»ôn), which is also applied to the man’s punishment in v. 17; both words fundamentally mean “pain”, either in the simple sense, or in terms of bodily “labor, toil”, or emotionally as “sorrow, grief,” etc. The first two lines are partly parallel:

“…your pains and conceiving (children),
in pain you will give birth…”

It has been suggested that both words indicating pain (bx#u#//obX*u!) reflect a wordplay with “tree” (Ju@, ±¢ƒ), the sin of the man and woman manifest in their eating from the tree (cf. Cassuto, p. 165).

<yn]b* yd]l=T@ (“you will give birth to [i.e. bear] sons”)—the verb dl*y` represents the second part of the childbearing process, the actual giving birth, during which the physical pain is most prominent and acute. In Hebrew “sons” (<yn]B*) often means children generally, and so presumably here; however, the specific male designation serves to foreshadow the situation in the last two lines.

Ev@ya!Ála#w+ (“and to your man”)—note the transition with the previous line: “sons” / “man”; here the noun vya! (°îš) is used for “man” instead of <d*a* (°¹d¹m), since the situation involves the relationship between man (°îš) and woman (°iššâ). These words can also mean specifically “husband” and “wife”; that is certainly the generally meaning here, but to translate with “husband” instead of “man”, while contextually accurate, distorts the important wordplay used throughout the passage. The preposition la# (“to”) indicates direction—i.e., “toward”.

Et@q*WvT= (“your longing”)—the root verb qWv seems to refer to something which drives or attracts (a person), i.e. “urge, impulse, desire, longing”, etc. The sexual connotation is obvious, as in Song 7:11; the only other occurrence of the word is in Gen 4:7 (cf. below). It is possible that a sense of (socio-economic) dependence is also implied, but this would be far secondary to the sexual emphasis in context. A verb has to be supplied (parenthetically) in translation: “and to(ward) your man (will be) your longing”.

aWhw+ (“and he”)—the pronoun is emphatic, as well as serving to fill out the rhythm of the line; it emphasizes the position of the man (in relation to the woman).

EB*Álv*m=y] (“will have control on/over you”)—the verb lv^m* is usually rendered “rule”, but tends to indicate specifically a person having control in or over a particular situation; we might translate it here “he will exercise control”. In other words, it signifies not so much a position of authority, but the guiding/governing control such a person exercises. The preposition B= has a wide range of use in Hebrew, typically meaning “in” or “with”, in a locative or relational sense. Sometimes a relation of tension or opposition is indicated (i.e. “against”), as well as a distinction of position (“toward, over”, etc). The phrase is parallel with that in the previous line: “to(ward) your man” / “he…with you”. It is possible that these two lines are set in contrast:

“your longing (will be) to(ward) your man,
and (yet) he will rule [i.e. exercise control] with/over you”

Most commentators prefer to read a contrastive conjuction between the second and third lines—i.e., the woman is to experience great pain in bearing children, and yet she will still have (sexual) longing/desire toward her man. Does the fourth line continue the primary sexual theme of the verse, or does it extend to the wider social circumstances of the (new) relationship between men and women (esp. in marriage)? At the very least, it would seem to foreshadow the context of verses 17-19, which deal with (the man’s) hard labor in working the ground, to raise food and earn a living. Interestingly, nothing is said of the man’s sexual urge/desire toward the woman in this passage; the declaration in v. 16 is entirely from the woman’s standpoint. This should not be misconstrued, as though men do not suffer in various ways as a result of sexual attraction; but the punishment announced by God has to do specifically with physical pain and suffering. In the literary form and context, this has been divided into clear spheres: (1) childbearing, with its related sexual implications (for the woman), and (2) life-long manual labor, esp. in agriculture and working the ground (for the man).

With regard to the last line of verse 16, which establishes a ‘weaker’, subordinate position for women, it is important to remember that this is a result of the “fallen” human condition, it is not something established initially by God as good (1:31). Admittedly, the evidence from the Creation narrative is slight, but it would seem that the relationship between man and woman prior to the “fall” was egalitarian, i.e. in equal position and partnership (1:27ff; 2:18, 22-25). Sexuality (and sexual intercourse), if it is to be assumed at all in the original created order, had a very different sense about it—note the clear distinction between 2:25 and 3:7, 10ff. The connection between sexual desire and sinful desire generally, would seem to be confirmed by a comparison between 3:16 and 4:7:

3:16—”your desire [Et@q*WvT=] (will be) toward [la#] your man, and he will exercise control [lv*m=y]] with/over [B=] you”
4:7—”its [i.e. sin’s] desire [otq*WvT=] (will be) toward [la#] you, and (yet) you will [i.e. can] exercise control [lv*m=T!] with/over [B=] it”

The precise similarity of language and vocabulary is hardly coincidental; it indicates that the situation in 3:16b, reflects the sinful (fallen) condition of humankind. Unfortunately, many commentators (especially men), including quite a few Christians today, read this as part of the good created order intended by God. This view (or assumption) has been influenced, in part, by the use of the creation narrative in the Pauline letters (1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy). I have discussed this already in Parts 1 and 5 of this series, but it is necessary to examine again in light of the study on Gen 3:16 here. This I will do in a second daily note.

References marked “Cassuto” above are to U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I: From Adam to Noah, translated by Israel Abrahams, Magnes Press (The Hebrew University: Jerusalem), 1989 (original Hebrew publication 1944).

Women in the Law (Torah)

(This article is a supplement to the current series Women in the Church [Part 8])

Reading the Old Testament Law (Torah) for Christians today is a difficult matter, as I have discussed at length in my series on The Law and the New Testament. Without a proper understanding of the religious and cultural context of the time, many passages will doubtless seem strange indeed. With regard to the position and role of women, one may be disappointed that there is so much that runs contrary to modern ideals of women’s rights and gender equality. Even in terms of the surrounding societies of the ancient Near East, the legislation in the Torah presents no marked progress (from our modern perspective) in these areas; in fact, in certain respects, it reflects an even more restrictive position for women (on this, cf. below). The traditional-conservative approach, which takes the text at face value—i.e., the commands are God’s revealed word to Israel—introduces an especially acute theological difficulty: how can God have established laws for Israel which seem to contradict, at times and in various ways, the finest ideals both of the New Testament and of an ‘enlightened’ modern society? It is not possible to address this question here in any detail, and I will limit my brief study in this article to an honest and straightforward examination of the passages in the Torah which relate to the role of women.

Male Orientation of the Law

To begin with, it is clear from the very beginning of the tradition—i.e., in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments)—that the Law is being addressed primarily to men (cf. the wording in Exod 20:17). This reflects the patriarchal and patrilineal character of Israelite society, as, indeed, of most societies in the ancient Near East. Men serve as the heads of the household, and of the larger clan, tribe, etc., and similarly function in the leading religious roles (the priesthood), and as ruling elders, judges, etc., of the Israelite tribal union (Exod 24:9-11; Num 11:16ff). This male orientation is evident in various aspects of the Torah commands and regulations; I note the following:

The importance of the (male) firstborn—This is emphasized in Exod 34:19-20, 23; Num 3:11-13, 40-51; 8:5-26; 18:1ff. The Torah draws upon ancient religious beliefs and traditions regarding the sacred position of the firstborn—the firstborn males are consecrated as an offering to God (Deut 15:19-23). This is taken literally in the case of animals; for human beings, the firstborn son is to function in a priestly role. In ancient Near Eastern culture and religion, the eldest son held a (semi-)official position, especially with regard to the care of the ancestral spirits. For the religious cultus in Israel, the ritual duties are assumed by a specialized priestly group—the males from the tribe of Levi take the place of the firstborn sons of Israel as a whole, who are purchased back (redeemed) to their families in a special symbolic rite (Num 3:44-51; cf. Luke 2:22ff).

Circumcision—All Israelite males were to have the foreskin of their genitals “cut around” (circumcised). Normally this would occur on the eighth day after birth (Lev 12:3), but might be done for adult converts as well (Gen 34:15-24; Exod 12:44, 48). It is hardly unique to Israel, as various forms of circumcision were common and widespread throughout the ancient world, and even today in traditional/tribal societies. However, in Israel it was specifically established as a rite symbolizing the covenant between God and his people (Gen 17:10-27). As such, it always held a special significance within Israelite/Jewish society with regard to a person’s religious identity (cf. Acts 10:45; 11:2ff; 15:1ff; 21:21; Rom 2:25-29; 3:1; Gal 2:1-10ff, etc).

The rights of husbands and fathers (i.e. over their wives and daughters)—Several of the regulations in the Torah make clear that men (husbands and fathers) have specific rights over women, in terms of their conduct, crimes committed against them, and so forth (cf. Exod 21:22ff; 22:16-17; Num 30:3-16). In such matters, women do not hold the rights themselves, as would be the ideal in modern society. Note especially the regulation regarding divorce, which was the prerogative of the husband (Deut 24:1-4), and the notorious ritual (ordeal) for a woman suspected of unfaithfulness/adultery (Num 5:11-31, cf. below).

Sexual regulations—Generally the commands/regulations regarding sexual conduct (Lev 18:6-23; 19:20-22; 20:10-21, etc) are oriented toward the male: it is he who is commanded against “uncovering the nakedness” of women, in instances where sexual relations are prohibited.

The “Holy War”—The rules laid down for the “consecration” (<r#j#), i.e. holy warfare, allow for Israelite men to take women (and children) as booty/spoils of war (i.e. slaves), and to make such a woman his wife (Deut 20:10-14; 21:10-14). The entire matter of the <r#j# is exceedingly difficult (and troubling) for many Christians and concerned readers of the Old Testament today, and cannot be dealt with here.

Equality of Men and Women

In certain respects, men and women were treated more or less equally under the Law. This is particularly so with regard to their own (physical) bodies and persons. Note especially:

Sin—The regulations regarding sin and its ritual (sacrificial) atonement apply equally to men and women, without any apparent distinction (Num 5:6ff; Deut 17:2ff)

Impurity/Uncleanness—For the most part, the purity laws (Lev 11-15) apply to men and women equally. The only exception involves the special case of the impurity of a woman following menstruation/childbirth (cf. below).

Religious participation—Apart from the priesthood, which was reserved for men, there do not seem to have been any notable restrictions as to the participation of women in the religious ritual—i.e. involvement in the feasts/festivals, access to the sacred space of the Tabernacle, etc. Special religious vows, including that of the Nazirite, were open to women as well as men (Num 6:2ff; 30:2-16).

Slaves—Again, for the most part, male and female slaves were treated equally (Exod 20:10; 21:20-21, 26-27, 32; Lev 25:6, 44; Deut 5:14ff; 12:12, 18; 15:17, etc). Only in Lev 27:1-8 do we see a difference, in terms of monetary valuation, which presumably reflects the ability to do certain kinds of physical work.

Special Cases and Concern for Women

There are several passages dealing with the treatment of women which are worthy of note:

- Special regulations for the treatment of female slaves—Lev 21:7-11
- Concern for widows and orphans—Exod 22:22-24; Deut 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14, etc. This is also the basis for the provision of “levirate marriage” (Deut 25:5-10)
- Women (daughters) are allowed to inherit property, when there are no sons, as long as they marry within the same clan—Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12 (the case of the daughters of Zelophehad). This regulation is actually more restrictive for women than in other ancient Near Eastern societies, as indicated by surviving laws from Sumer and Mesopotamia (including the Code of Hammurabi §§171-181), the cities of Nuzi and Ugarit, etc., where daughters were apparently allowed to inherit (alongside or in place of sons) with fewer restrictions (cf. Milgrom, pp. 482-4).

Two special cases, which reflect a particular ancient cultural worldview, now quite foreign to us today, need to be examined briefly:

Purification ritual for menstruation and childbirth

- Leviticus 15 records purity laws related to the bodily emissions of men and women—semen and menstrual fluid/blood. Both result in impurity which must be cleansed through a (ritual) process which involves both seclusion and sacrificial offering. For a man, he is unclean until the next evening, while a woman, following menstruation, is in a state of impurity for seven days. This difference is almost certainly due to the fact that the woman’s discharge involves “blood”, for which, in the ancient mind, there was an association with death, and with it, various taboos intended to safeguard society from any possible threat. It was especially important to keep impurity away from the religious sanctuary.
- There are similar purity regulations for the woman who gives birth, in Lev 12:2-8. However, one also finds a curious detail regarding the length of her required seclusion—seven days if it is a male child, fourteen days (twice the time) if a female child. It is not easy to come up with an adequate or meaningful reason for this difference. Perhaps the best explanation relates again to the sacred character of the blood: the female child, who will grow up to be child-bearing woman, carries this same blood as her mother, and so the situation requires special protection, symbolized by the doubling of the time of seclusion. This is not a valid reason from the standpoint of modern health and hygiene, but it may accurately reflect the ancient way of thinking. Cf. the discussion in Levine, pp. 249-50.

The ritual/ordeal in Num 5:11-31

Even more difficult to understand is the ritual provided in the case of woman who is suspected (or accused) by her husband of infidelity. The ritual serves as a means of testing the accused (i.e. trial by ordeal), involving:

(a) Presentation of the woman and preparation of the offering and (sacred) water (vv. 15-18)
(b) An oath taken by the woman, in penalty of God’s curse—the curse being written down and mixed into the water (vv. 19-24)
(c) The twin ritual act of the woman’s sacrificial offering and drinking the test-water (vv. 25-28)

This is similar in certain respects to other water/river ordeals known from the ancient Near East (cf. Milgrom, pp. 346-7), and its apparently superstitious character is unquestionably problematic for us today. However, there is no need for Jews and Christians to rationalize or explain away this aspect of the ritual, which, to a large extent, simply reflects the religious-cultural context of the time. Indeed, this is essential to a proper interpretation of the passage. The situation must be considered closely. As the text points out, the woman is only suspected/accused of adultery, but she has not been caught in the act, nor is there any definite proof. In a strict patriarchal society, such as in ancient Israel (and the Near East), the tendency might be for the husband (and/or his relatives) to rush to judgment and mete out punishment—which, in the case of adultery, was death (cf. John 8:1-11). An ordeal ritual, while quite foreign to us today, was relatively common and accepted practice in the ancient world, and actually served as a valuable protection for the woman, as it placed a determination of guilt and punishment out of the hands of suspicious/vengeful men and into the hands of God. It is not known to what extent this particular ritual was ever implemented; Rabbinic sources express some unease about the matter, but indicate that the Temple apparatus was equipped to carry out the rite (cf. Milgrom, p. 348). Interestingly, according to the Torah, even if the woman failed the test and was thus deemed guilty, she was not sentenced to death (the typical punishment for adultery), but was instead rendered sterile through the ritual itself.

References marked “Levine” and “Milgrom” above are to the JPS [Jewish Publication Society] Torah Commentary, volumes by Baruch A. Levine (Leviticus, 1989) and Jacob Milgrom (Numbers, 1990).

Women in the Church, Part 8: The Old Testament

Having examined most of the relevant passages in the New Testament, it is now time to look at some of the Old Testament references which can be said to be related, in some way, to our subject. I offer here only a brief survey, to which doubtless numerous other passages and comments might be added. Emphasis is given especially to those sections or examples which were influential on Jewish and early Christian thought, and which may inform the view of women in the New Testament.

The Creation Account (Genesis 1-3)

The Creation narratives in Genesis are, as one might expect, fundamental to Jewish and early Christian views on the role of women and gender relations. There are three steps, or stages, in the overall Creation account, corresponding to each of the first three chapters:

1:1-2:4a—The summary of Creation, the relevant portion being the declaration in vv. 26-27:
“Let us make (hu)mankind [<d*a*] in our image [<l#x#], according to our likeness [tWmD=]…
And God created the (hu)man (being) in His image, in the image of God He created him—male and female He created them.”
2:4b-25—The Creation of Man and Woman:
(i) Creation of the man [<d*a*] (vv. 5-17)
(ii) Creation of the woman (vv. 18-22)
(iii) Relationship between man [vya!] and woman [hV*a!] (vv. 23-25)
Chap. 3—The rise of the current Human Condition:
(i) Deception of the woman and man by the serpent (vv. 1-13)
(ii) God’s curse/punishment on Creation: (a) the serpent (vv. 14-15), (b) the woman (v. 16), (c) the man (vv. 17-19)
(iii) Establishment of the human condition: (a) names (v. 20), (b) clothing (v. 21), (c) death/mortality, i.e. life-span (v. 22), (d) work and toil (v. 23), (e) separation from divine/eternal life (v. 24)

In the symbolism and language of this narrative, humankind (“Man” [<d*a*]) is first “the man” [<d*a*h*], then is separate into “male and female”, indicated two ways: (a) the narrative image of the joining “rib” (vv. 21-23), and (b) the wordplay of “man” [vya! °îš] and “woman” [hV*a! °iššâ]. This sequence and relational imagery is important for an understanding of subsequent Jewish and Christian thought. Jesus draws upon the Creation narrative (citing 1:27; 2:24) in his teaching on divorce in the Gospel tradition (Mark 10:2-12 par; Matt 5:31-32; Luke 16:18; cf. also 1 Cor 7:10-11). The emphasis is on the fact that humankind is man and woman, male and female, together, as symbolized in society by the marriage bond. Paul’s use (and interpretation) of the Genesis account in relation to gender distinction and the role of women in the Church is more complex, and problematic (from our standpoint today). I have discussed this already with regard to 1 Cor 11:3-9 and 1 Tim 2:11-15 in Parts 1 and 5 of this series. See also the supplemental note on Gen 3:16.

The Law and Israelite Religion

The commandments and legal passages of the Torah as recorded in the Pentateuch (Exodus–Numbers, and Deuteronomy) are instructive for establishing the position and role of women in ancient Israelite society. Many of the underlying ideas and precepts continued on in Judaism through the New Testament and subsequent periods. Due to the complex nature and sensitivity of some of this material, I have decided to address it in a separate supplemental article.

With regard to Israelite religion in particular, the following points may be noted here:

- The priesthood was reserved for men. Though this is never stated specifically in principle, it is always assumed. The high-priestly office was designated for “Aaron and his sons” (Lev 1:5, 7-8, etc; 8:2 et al; Num 3:1-4ff). Similarly for the Levites—according to the Torah, the males of the tribe of Levi took the place of the firstborn males in Israel, as priests in the service of God (Num 3:5-13, 41-51; 8:5-26).
- Otherwise, there is no indication that participation in public ritual and worship, including access to the Tabernacle/Temple, was restricted for women. The later Temple design did designate a limitation (partition) for access by women (the “Court of Women”, cf. Josephus Antiquities 15.417-19; Wars 5.192-200; Against Apion 2.103-5; Mishnah Midd. 2.2-5; Sukk. 5.2-4, etc), but this is not specified anywhere in the Torah and represents a subsequent development.
- Men and women shared in the tasks of building and decorating the original tent-shrine (Tabernacle), according to Exod 35:20-29; 36:2-7.
- While all of Israel was expected to participate in the sacred festivals (or “Feasts”), there was a specific directive for men—that all adult males would appear at the central sanctuary (i.e. the Temple in Jerusalem) for the three major (harvest) festivals (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16).

Women may have taken part in various religious rituals in an official capacity, as musicians, or in other attendant roles, such as indicated by Exod 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22; 2 Sam 19:35; 2 Chron 35:25; Ezra 2:65 (and Neh 7:67), but the precise details are not entirely clear.

Miriam

Miriam [<y`r=m!] was the sister of Moses and Aaron according to Exod 15:20; Num 26:59 and 1 Chron 6:3. She is presumably the sister mentioned in the infancy narrative (Exod 2:1-10, vv. 4, 7-8). Miriam appears in two important narrative episodes in the Pentateuch:

Exodus 15:20-21

Following the miraculous crossing of the “Reed Sea” (chapter 14), two poetic hymns are recorded in chapter 15—one composed and/or sung by Moses and the people as a whole (vv. 1-18, the “Song of Moses”, “Song of the Sea”), and the other by Miriam (v. 21, the “Song of Miriam”); likely only a small portion of this latter song has been preserved. In verse 20, Miriam is referred to as ha*yb!N+h^, “the (female) prophet” or “the prophetess“, the noun ayb!n` essentially signifying one who functions as a representative and spokesperson for God, who communicates his word and will to the people. Here the context implies that the song she sings is an inspired poem.

Numbers 12:1-16

This wilderness episode is introduced with the statement that “Miriam and Aaron spoke with Moses on account of the Kushite woman he had taken (as his wife)” (v. 1). Their attitude in approaching him on the subject is indicated in verse 2, which summarizes their thought: “Has YHWH spoken only with Moses? Has he not also spoken with us?”. This may indicate that Miriam and Aaron were prophets in their own right, as it is said of Miriam in Ex 15:20; her name comes before Aaron’s here, which may mean that she was a more prominent figure, or simply that she was the older of the two. A kind of sibling rivalry may be reflected, not wishing to be accorded a lower standing of leadership and influence than Moses (note how the three are grouped together as leaders in Mic 6:4). In verses 4-9 God addresses the three together in the ‘Tent of Meeting’ where He confirms that Moses’ stature is greater even than prophets such as Miriam, since he receives revelation from God directly (face to face). The punishment Miriam receives, the whitening of her skin (i.e., ‘leprosy’), is probably related symbolically to the darker skin of Moses’ “Kushite” wife, who had been the reason for the dispute.

Deborah

Deborah (hr*obD=, lit. [The] Bee) was one of the <yf!p=v) of Israel in the early period. The verb fp^v* refers to the act of rendering a decision, or judgment, i.e. one who presides in an authoritative governing position (judge, ruler, law-giver, etc). Prior to the establishment of monarchy in Israel, persons were chosen to rule over the tribal league only on a temporary basis, usually in the face of a national emergency. Such persons were called fp@v) (usually translated as “Judge”), and their exploits are recorded in the book of Judges. As far as we know, Deborah is the only woman who filled this role in Israel (Judg 4-5). Unlike other <yf!p=v), she did not personally lead the armies into battle (this was done by the general Barak), but it is clear that she served as ruler (or Judge) during the period when Israel was being threatened by the Canaanite king of Hazor (4:1-6ff). It is also said of Deborah that she was a prophetess (ha*yb!n+), like Miriam before her (Exod 15:20); the ancient poem in Judg 5 is attributed to her (together with Barak), presumably as an inspired song. Following the great victory over Jabin of Hazor, the land “was at rest for forty years”. In association with this battle, we may note in passing the role played by another women (Jael) in killing the Canaanite general Sisera (Judg 4:17-22; 5:6, 24-27); according to the cultural sensibilities of the time, this would have been an extremely humiliating way for a military commander to die.

Occasionally (male) commentators have expressed unease at the idea of a woman in such a ruling position, and have sought to explain it in various ways. Often this reflects sexist thinking and prejudice as much as any kind of serious study of Scripture. One is reminded of John Knox’s regrettable “Trumpet-blast” against the “rule of women” in the Reformation period; that he (and others like him) were misguided in their views is confirmed by evidence from history and from Scripture itself. Indeed, women have proven to be able rulers alongside (or in place of) men, as may be documented throughout history, in spite of the added social/cultural pressures they often face. Perhaps the most famous example of the ancient Near East is the female Pharaoh Hatshepsut of Egypt (18th Dynasty, 1498-1483 B.C.). For every wicked Jezebel or Athaliah there is a virtuous Esther, much as we find in the case of men who rule. The idea sometimes floated, that God only chose Deborah because there were no qualified men available, is as fatuous as it is unwarranted.

Female Prophets and Joel 2:28-32

In addition to Miriam (Exod 15:20) and Deborah (Judg 4:4), several other female prophets are mentioned in the Old Testament: Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron 34:22), Noadiah (Neh 6:14), and the woman mentioned in Isa 8:3 who is otherwise unidentified. Such instances are relatively rare, perhaps, but they clearly indicate that women could serve (and be chosen by God) as prophet (ayb!n`)—that is, as a spokesperson who represents God before the people, and who communicates his word and will. Female prophets are known throughout the ancient world, the most famous certainly being the oracle of Delphi and the Roman Sibyls. While the priesthood in Israel was reserved for men (cf. above), women could function equally as prophets.

This egalitarian principle is confirmed in the (eschatological) prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 [Hebrew 3:1-5]:

“And it will (come to) be after this
(that) I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh
and your sons and daughters will speak (on my) behalf [WaB=n] i.e. prophesy]…
And also/even upon the (male) slaves and the (female) house-servants
will I pour out my Spirit.”

In the ‘end times’ (or the Age to Come, etc), God’s Spirit will come upon all people (“all flesh”)—men and women alike, even for the lowest of society (slaves and servants). This basic idea is reflected elsewhere in the Old Testament, as in the declaration (by Moses) in Numbers 11:29: “And who (would not) give that all the people of YHWH (should be his) spokespersons [<ya!yb!n+ i.e. prophets], and that God (would) give his Spirit upon them!” The prophecy in Joel 2:28ff came to have enormous influence on early Christian thought, being cited in the great Pentecost sermon-speech of Peter (Acts 2:14-36 [vv. 17-21]), following the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4ff). Admittedly, specific evidence for female prophets even in the New Testament is relatively slight (Acts 21:8-9; 1 Cor 11:2-16; and cf. chaps 12-14), but this may be due (in part) to historical circumstances. Other women function as prophets in the Gospel tradition, including Anna (Luke 2:36), Elizabeth and Mary (1:41-45, 46-55, cf. also v. 25); the latter oracle (the Magnificat) in particular is similar to the (inspired) poetic utterance attributed to Hannah in 1 Sam 2:1-10.

Women in the Prophets and Wisdom Literature

Female imagery and character-types appear frequently in the Old Testament Prophets and Wisdom Literature, the most common type being that of the virtuous woman, which has its practical ideal in the wise, faithful, and dutiful wife—Psalm 128:3; Prov 5:18; 12:4; 18:22; 19:14; 21:9 (25:24); 27:15; Eccl 9:9; and, especially, Prov 31:10-31 (cf. also Sirach 26). This same basic type also serves to personify virtue (righteousness) and wisdom itself. This was altogether natural, since the Hebrew word hm*k=j*, like the corresponding Greek sofi/a, is feminine in its (grammatical) gender. Similarly, and by contrast, folly and wickedness are often portrayed as a prostitute or “loose” woman. For the use of these two types, cf. Prov 1:20-2:22; chap. 5; 6:23-29; 7:1-8:21; 9:1-6, 13-18; Eccl 7:26. True wisdom is also divine—it is a manifestation of the character and power of God, cf. Prov 3:19-20; 8:22-31, etc. For similar passages in the important deutero-canonical books of Wisdom and Sirach, cf. Wis 6:12-25; 7:22-8:21; chaps. 10-11; Sir 1:14-20; 4:11-19; 6:18-31; 15:1-10; 24:1-22. We can see how this basic type relates to some of the other female imagery found in the writings of the Prophets:

- Marital unfaithfulness (adultery) and prostitution are often used to symbolize Israel’s religious unfaithfulness toward God (which includes moral/ethical failings and corruption). Of the many references or allusions, cf. Hos 4:7-19; 5:3-7; 6:10; 9:1ff; Amos 7:17; Mic 1:7; Nah 3:4; Isa 1:21ff; 54:6ff; 57:3; Jer 2:20-25; 3:1ff, 20; 5:7-9; 9:2ff; 13:27; 23:10ff; 29:23; 44:15ff; Ezek 6:9ff; 16; 23; Mal 2:14-15. Most notable of all, perhaps, is the example of Hosea’s wife (Hos 1:2-3:5), which serves as a real and/or homiletic symbol for Israel’s sin and idolatry.
- Women are occasionally used to signify shame and suffering, etc., that will result from God’s judgment on his people (and/or the surrounding nations)—Psalm 68:11-24; Nah 3:13; Isa 3:12(?); 4:1; 19:16; 27:11; 32:9ff; Jer 7:19-20ff; 28:22-23; 50:37; 51:30; Lam 2:20; 4:10; 5:11.
- The pains of women in childbirth also serve to symbolize suffering, typically in relation to God’s Judgment—Psalm 48:6; Mic 4:9-10; Isa 13:8; 21:3; 26:17; 42:14; Jer 4:31; 6:24; 13:21; 22:23; 30:6; 48:41; 49:22, 24; 50:43. For related imagery in the New Testament, cf. Mark 13:8 par; Luke 23:28-29; Rom 8:22; 1 Thess 5:3; Rev 12:2-5.
- The same image of childbirth can also emphasize deliverance from pain/suffering—Mic 4:10; 5:3; Isa 65:23ff; 66:7-9; cf. also John 16:21.
- Occasionally, female imagery is applied to God (YHWH), usually that of the mother who gives birth or protects her young—Deut 32:11, 18; Ruth 2:12; Psalm 131:2; Isa 46:3-4; cf. also Luke 13:34, as well as the important birth imagery in the New Testament (John 1:13; 3:3-8; Gal 4:29; 1 Pet 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9, etc).

Concluding Note on Female imagery and Sexuality

It is interesting how rarely the actual relationship between man and woman (husband & wife) is emphasized, especially in terms of sexuality. Obviously, marital/sexual relations are a key element in many of the historical-traditional narratives in Genesis, etc., and often in such accounts the woman makes for a highly sympathetic figure in her own right (cf. the examples of Sarah, Hagar, Dinah, Tamar, etc). But throughout most of the Old Testament—especially in the Prophetic and Wisdom literature—sexuality is largely presented from a negative standpoint, as symbolizing sin and false worship (idolatry), under the euphemistic images of prostitution and adultery (cf. above). And, somewhat unfortunately perhaps (from our vantage point today), in this imagery the woman is typically seen as the source of error and deception (i.e. seduction). This is already evidenced in the Creation account (cf. above), and vividly depicted in the famous (though highly complex) narrative in Numbers 25. On the other hand, this negative type is counterbalanced by the contrasting image of the faithful and virtuous woman (wife), as discussed above.

Sexuality on its own is really only dealt with in the Song of Songs, a collection of poems written in the manner and style of ancient Near Eastern love poetry (numerous examples survive from Egypt and Sumer). The specific language and metaphor used is foreign enough to our culture today that the erotic nature of the Song is not always apparent on a casual reading (in translation). It has, of course, been interpreted various ways, but the underlying traditions which inform the material are purely those of Near Eastern love poetry. There would seem to be at least one main female protagonist in the Song, as well as a number of subsidiary characters.

Perhaps the most complete and well-rounded female character in Old Testament narrative is that of Ruth (tWr), central figure of the book which bears her name. It remains one of the most appealing and attractive of the Old Testament stories (for modern readers), with positive ‘role-model’ characters in Ruth and Naomi, as well as the central male figures; the scenes between Ruth and Boaz are tenderly depicted. Ultimately, of course, the primary purpose of the tale was to introduce the lineage of David (4:13-22), but we can be grateful that the rich and detailed narrative was included for men and women of all ages to enjoy.