Women of War: Deborah and Jael (Judges 1-5)

Welcome to Judges!

Today, we begin looking at the book of Judges. Other than the story of Rahab, which we covered last time, there were only 2 more places in Joshua, our last book, where women are even mentioned, and both of those stories are also found in other books. One, the story of Zelophehad's daughters, we dealt with already when we were reading the Law. The other is here in Judges, and we'll look at it briefly in this post because it's pretty short and somewhat inscrutable. It's the story of how Othniel, the first judge of Israel found his wife. But the main part of this post will look at the lives of Deborah and Jael, such a treat for our study of women in the Bible! Deborah is always held up as an example of a biblical woman in a non-traditional role, so I am really looking forward to examining her story! Bound up with it is one that's perhaps even more fascinating, the story of Jael of the mighty tent-peg, who you may not have heard of unless you read your Bible quite diligently. 

One opening observation about the book of Judges: I said above that Joshua hardly speaks of women at all. They aren't even listed as existing in towns where wars are taking place, it is only Joshua and his men against the Canaanite men. But Judges is just full of female characters in roles large and small, tragic, and heroic. We are going to enjoy this book. 

What we learn about women

• In the three stories in this post, women are contrasted with men whom they outshine.

• Deborah was a prophet and a judge, but saw Barak's request for her accompanying presence in battle as detracting from his own military glory.

• Jael is honored for her decisive action in luring Sisera into her tent and then killing him.

• Deborah's song provides commentary that honors God for his action in giving victory to his people when they are a weaker military force. It also gives a strongly female perspective on the death of Sisera and the effect it has on his people.

What I'm wondering

• Is Deborah an example for all women to aspire to this kind of leadership? What do we make of her rebuke to Barak?

• What is Jael's back story? The text refers to "The days of Jael." It also says her family was allied with King Jabin, but she acts purposefully to kill Sisera, his commander.

• What was going on in Barak's mind through the story? We know as little about him and his thoughts as we often know about women in the male-dominated stories we've looked at.

Acsah and Othniel and the wedding gift

Let's begin with our first woman in the book of Judges, Acsah. She is the daughter of Caleb, who offers her hand in marriage to the person who captures the town of Kiriath-Sepher. Othniel, Caleb's nephew, is the one to achieve this and they get married. At the marriage, the text gives us this strange detail, all the information we really have about their marriage. "When Acsah married Othniel, she urged him [or he urged her] to ask her father for a field. As she got down off her donkey, Caleb asked her, 'what's the matter?' She said, 'Let me have another gift. You have already given me land in the Negev; now please give me springs of water, too.' So Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs." 

This story is short but intriguing. So many questions: who was urging who to ask Caleb (translators can't tell whether Othniel urged her to ask for this gift or the reverse)? why are we told she was getting off her donkey? did they want a field or springs? I think we can at least guess that it was Acsah who wanted the springs. If Othniel wanted the field, Acsah could have changed the plan and asked for springs. If she wanted the field she probably wouldn't have then asked for springs instead. Right? The other place where this story is recorded word for word is in Joshua in the part where land distributions are recorded. So one guess is that it is there just to point out that those springs do in fact belong to Othniel's family. (Which is also Acsah's family anyway. . . ?) But is it also a foreshadowing of the way women frequently enter the narrative in Judges almost to shame men who are not doing what they ought to do. Here, the story introduces Othniel who will be the first Judge of Israel. If Othniel wanted the field, maybe he should have asked for it himself, and perhaps he would have gotten it instead of the springs? Maybe that's reading too much into it, but it loosely fits a pattern we'll keep seeing.

Continuing on in Judges, chapter 3 tells us that the Israelites have fallen completely into idolatry and intermarriage with foreigners. Because of God's anger over this, they have been "turned over" to King Cushan-rishathaim of Aram. They cry out to the Lord who raises Othniel up to bring about military victory over Aram for Israel, which leads to peace in the land for 40 years. Othniel is followed by Ehud, the assassin who kills the obese King Eglon. It's quite a colorful story complete with toilet humor and graphic descriptions of Eglon's large body. Ehud is succeeded by Shamgar, who is described with only one sentence, "He once killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad." What a legacy! But his story is almost skipped over--next, Deborah's story begins by saying that after Ehud's death (which was before Shamgar's time) "the Israelites again did evil in the Lord's sight." Because of this evil, God allowed them to be oppressed by King Jabin, and his fearsome army commander Sisera.

God's victory at the hands of Deborah and Jael

Verse 4 of chapter 4 introduces Deborah as the wife of Lappidoth, and as the prophet who was judging Israel at the time. She would hold court under the "Palm of Deborah" (what a fun visual) and people would come to see her for judgment. But as this story opens, Deborah actually is the one seeking out Barak from Naphtali with a message from the Lord. 

God's message for Barak is a command and a promise. He must call his 10,000 warriors from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun, and confront Sisera's army. God promises to give him victory in the battle. Barak's response to this commission is a little odd, "I will go, but only if you go with me." This army commander seems to want hand-holding from Deborah the prophet. What does he hope she will do? Is he looking for her to commit to her message and put her own life on the line? Deborah agrees to go with him but declares, "you will receive no honor in this venture, for the Lord's victory will be at the hands of a woman." This makes it sound like she will actually be leading the troops, but the text says that Barak calls the troops and leads the attack. Somehow Deborah's presence and moral support is enough to compromise his glory. This is an obvious episode of women in Judges serving to point out the failings of men.

Deborah, though, is fully confident and prophetic as she accompanies Barak and inspires him to lead the troops to victory. In accordance with her message from God, Sisera's army is thrown into complete confusion and panic during the attack, and they all flee. Sisera escapes on foot. The rest of the army is chased and slaughtered by Barak and his troops. Enter our second female heroine, who's story is even more intense than Deborah's and whose confidence is nearly equal.

Jael is related to Moses's father-in-law Jethro. Jethro's family is settled among the Israelites in the promised land, not far from the Kishon river where this battle takes place. After Sisera escapes the battle he runs straight to Jael's tent because her husband is on friendly terms with King Jabin. However, Jael's part in the story throws that detail into doubt. Jael welcomes Sisera into her tent, even telling him, "don't be afraid." She gives him milk and settles him comfortably to rest with a blanket. As I summarize it here, it strikes me as a lot of motherly imagery. But it's leading up to quite a twist. When he is asleep, Jael creeps up to him with a hammer and a tent peg, and hammers the peg right through his temple! This is a more familiar role than Deborah's for a woman, inside the tent, providing food and comfort. But her action is maybe even less what you might expect from a woman. Can you imagine the chutzpah necessary to plan and execute this killing by hammer and tent peg? I feel like even just using a hammer would be less intense. Phew!

Next, Barak arrives at Jael's tent in search of Sisera. Again he has lost his chance for battle glory to a woman. Jael says, "Come, and I will show you the man you are looking for." She has the situation under control, and Barak is a day late and a dollar short. Though I'm sure she was glad to have Sisera removed from her tent! 

Deborah's Song

This military victory is decisive, leading to Israel's eventual destruction of King Jabin's rule. We can find some more hints on how to process the great contributions of women to this conflict in Deborah's song, which runs the length of Chapter 5. Judges is full of long speeches and dialogue, but this is maybe the most spectacular example in the book. 

There are several things about Deborah's song that I want to point out. First of all, it gives us a window into Deborah's thoughts about this battle. She is completely focused on the Lord and his victory. She does point out her role, alongside Barak, as being used by God. She praises Barak for leading the troops, but is proud of her own actions as well. She describes how Israel was languishing under King Jabin and Sisera. "In the days of Shamgar son of Anath, and in the days of Jael, people avoided the main roads, and travelers stayed on winding pathways. There were few people left in the villages of Israel-- until Deborah arose as a mother for Israel." This passage is so interesting for a few reasons. First of all it mentions Shamgar, who as we said above is rather skipped over in the storyline of judges. It also talks in what seems to be a parallel construction about "the days of Jael." What does that mean?? Jael was not a judge. Is this implying she had some military power or prowess even before she killed Sisera? We've got to leave that one there. But what warms my heart is that Deborah sees herself as a mother for Israel. She is clearly in a high position with many roles: judge, prophet, you could even say general. But she sees her overall role as mothering her nation. And she sees mothering as delivering messages for God, serving as moral support in military action, and composing epic poetry. 

As her song continues, she praises bravery of those who volunteered and went out to war, marching as "the few" against "the mighty." Again and again she emphasizes that God is the one who delivered Israel in this battle. She even uses cosmic imagery, the stars were fighting against Sisera and the river swept his army away. She also casts blame on the people of Israel who did not come to help. 

The last eight verses of her 31-verse song are about the killing of Sisera by Jael. Deborah has high praise for her sister in arms. "Most blessed among women is Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. May she be blessed above all women who live in tents." If you have any kind of Catholic background, you'll notice that the first part of that blessing is remarkably close to a line from the Hail Mary prayer, which comes from the angel's visitation to Mary, "Blessed are you among women." This is clearly not referring to that, being long before it in time. And I doubt the angel had this on his mind when he was greeting Mary. But it makes for quite a contrast in our minds!

The next part of the song is a poetic retelling of the events in Jael's tent. It ends with the somewhat lost in translation verse, "He sank, he fell, he lay still at her feet. And where he sank, there he died." I've always thought it was kind of redundant to the point of being silly. But if you think of him first sinking in exhaustion, falling asleep, and then laying still, and while laying still, then dying, it makes more sense.

The last part of Deborah's song is so interesting. It gives a brilliantly female perspective that is rare in the Bible. Deborah paints a picture of Sisera's mother looking out the window waiting for her son to come home from battle, wondering why he hasn't arrived. Boy is this waiting for men to come home common in the world of women! She speaks with her wise women about her concerns and they reassure her that he must be dividing the plunder. They hope for "a woman or two for every man"--yikes!, and also, completely understandably "colorful robes for Sisera and embroidered robes for me." "Yes," she muses, "the plunder will include colorful robes embroidered on both sides." 

These details are so illustrative to me about the way the world of the Bible was so different and so similar to our own, especially for women. How can we possibly understand hoping for two captive women for each man in our community? How can we deny our full understanding of waiting for a son to come home from danger and trying to distract ourselves from worry by thinking about awesome clothes (ahem, retail therapy)? And the way we turn over a problem with our wise women and repeat their words of encouragement back to ourselves? Is this Deborah's genuine female take on the world coming through over thousands of years? Or a historically based song put in her mouth by an inspired author? Whoever wrote it was at least making a reasonable attempt to think from a woman's perspective. If you are thinking I have been hugely stereotyping what the female perspective is in this paragraph, that's true. But the point is that something this stereotypically female has rarely made its way into the Bible at all in our reading up to this point, even as a stereotype. The author of judges really saw women having a place in the action.

There is no resolution to the vivid dramatic irony in which Sisera's mother waits. In the next verse, the song finishes beautifully, "Lord, may all your enemies die like Sisera, but may all those who live you rise like the sun in all its power!" Then the story of Deborah, Barak, Jael and Sisera ends. "Then there was peace in the land for 40 years." Just like after Othniel's life.

So, does Deborah prove anything about women's roles and identity?

What can we file away for our main project of hunting for God's thoughts about women in the Bible from this often referenced important story of Deborah the Judge (and Jael the Warrior!)? In case you somehow missed my interpretive assumptions for all of this, I do think God has different callings for men and women based on our biology that lead to real outworkings in our vocations. You probably didn't miss that. ; ) So what I say here will reflect that. 

God certainly gave evidence of using Deborah to deliver his messages of prophecy and judgement. This is not such a new thing for biblical women--we have already learned that Miriam was called "the prophet" and held a leadership role alongside Moses and Aaron until her harsh rebuke from God. But Judges is so often frank about what is happening in Israel, recording even really evil deeds with no moral commentary other than, "In those days Israel had no king and everyone did as they saw fit." So we can't automatically say everything the main characters do should set an example. But that sentence doesn't appear in this story, where the main point is God's deliverance of Israel, using even women to accomplish this. The tone feels less like, "should women be allowed to lead?" and more like "wow, God can even work through women when he wants to!" It's unexpected and amazing. But the expectation for Barak was that he should have done this without so much help from Deborah, and later from Jael. A pattern is being broken, and it doesn't look good on Barak.

Specifically because of Deborah's message to Barak, delivered in the same tone of voice as her other messages from God for him, that he is missing out on glory intended for him when she joins him in battle, I don't think we'd be justified in saying, "See? God doesn't care if men or women are the leaders." But, I think we would be right to focus on God's action and the importance of joining his plan without focusing on particularly who must practically lead in specific circumstances. Deborah is happy to jump in in an unexpected role, that ultimately does support Barak as the military leader, and she is proud of what God has done through her. But she is really the most proud of God, not herself as an empowered female. Does Deborah's story serve as an example for women to try to level the playing field or get authority over men in leadership? No. This was not Deborah's goal--it would be more self-serving than God-serving for any of his followers to be primarily concerned with their own status. Does it give us encouragement to follow God wherever he leads when our leaders are failing us? Yes. But instead of focusing on which people get to be leaders, with Deborah and Barak we should be rejoicing over what our true overarching Leader has accomplished. 

 

The Law on women in public life: from skillful spinners to social activists

When women are specifically mentioned in the Law, it is often in reference to their status as wives or mothers. Even now this family role is a crucial and often defining feature of women's lives, and it would have been even more so in ancient times. But there are a few places in the Torah where women are mentioned apart from their family lives and in a larger community context. In this post we will look at those passages. They deal with things like skilled work, economic provision for widows, inheritance and legal action, and the effects of the patriarchal structure on obligations for vows women made.

What we learn about women:

• One part of the "women's work" in ancient Israel was spinning thread, which they were called on to do for the construction of the tabernacle.
• Widows are provided for under gleaning laws, and protected from exploitation in some sense as their cloaks may not be taken for a pledge.
• Zelophehad's daughters changed legal precedent that discriminated against women even within a patriarchal society when they brought their case before the assembly.
• Israel's patriarchal structure had implications for whether women would be held accountable for vows they made to the Lord. If husbands or fathers objected to these, women were not required to fulfill them.

What I'm wondering:

• There are a few mentions of widows being under separate laws than other women. What was a widow's life like? Maybe Ruth will provide that insight later on.
• Given the story of Zelophehad's daughters, was it uncommon for women in Israel to act in the legal sphere? 
• What is the deal with Asher's daughter Serah??
• How large a part of women's lives and family lives were vows to the Lord? There is a whole chapter devoted to this. 

Threads in the Tapestry

The first place in the Torah where women are mentioned in community roles is Exodus 35 where women who are skilled spinners spun the thread necessary to build the tabernacle. This is one neat peak into the specific work women must have done in Israelite society. In the passage all people, "men and women" mentioned explicitly, are invited to bring jewelry and other fine materials for the construction of the tabernacle. But then "skilled women" are particularly noted as the ones who will spin, and then "bring what she had spun--blue, purple or scarlet yarn or fine linen. And all the women who were willing and had the skill spun goat hair." Later on master craftsmen are appointed to lead all those who are skilled and can make things for the temple in metalworking, weaving and embroidering, and construction. The only craft women are specifically mentioned as performing is spinning. It makes me think of the line from Cinderella where the female mice sing to the male ones, "Leave the sewing to the women! Now you go get some trimmin'!" Women nowadays are more likely to be the stereotypically crafty ones. It was different in ancient Israel, but they still had their gender-conscripted skills. 

Taking this to a more poetic level, isn't it lovely that the first level of construction of all of the fabric for the tent of the Tabernacle was formed by the hands of women? It's parallel to the way the outer world of human civilization is built upon the first level work of women to bring human beings into the world. This fundamental work is the basis for civilization, which could not exist without it. It brings to the mind the image that each of us are "just threads in the tapestry."

In a separate but also fabric-related topic, a quick note that in a few words the law forbids men from dressing like women or women from dressing like men in Deuteronomy chapter 22:5. What a long discussion we could get into over that topic. But I think I will leave it there for now--the law is concise, let me be as well. 

We can also relate a third sub-topic to fabric! In chapter 24 of Deuteronomy in the midst of many rules about being sure to show mercy to vulnerable people in various situations, instructions are given that a widow's cloak must not be taken as a pledge. 

In the section immediately following that (alas no common thread here), we read about about gleaning, which is another provision for widows that will become an important topic in the life of a really well-documented biblical woman who's story is coming up: Ruth. Gleaning is a harvesting practice. When Israelites harvested their crops, they were not to go back and pick up what had been left behind after the first pass through. That portion was to remain free for the widow, the fatherless and the alien to come and take. Though hopefully these people could have been incorporated into families in Israel, they were provided for just in case. 

After both the gleaning verses and the previous section about widows' cloaks, it is repeated, "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this." How fascinating and illuminating: our not taking advantage of the vulnerable should flow from our remembrance that we who are more secure are not as self-sufficient as we pretend. We all care for the vulnerable, because we are all inherently vulnerable. Our power and our wealth are circumstantial. The Lord is the one who provides them.

Zelophehad's daughters

To introduce what I find to be the most interesting part of this post for our modern ways of thinking, we need to talk a bit about inheritance. I admit I have not studied this deeply, but I think my basic understanding is correct, that Israelite fathers passed property down to their sons. Daughters would bring dowries but not land to their marriages and they nearly became a part of their husband's possessions. This is not an uncommon set up in world history. If you read old testament genealogies you will notice that they almost exclusively feature males, following the patriarchal system--but only almost completely, which is a little odd. If they are only featuring males because that is how inheritance and tribal lines are traced why are there any daughters mentioned? In some, the women featured had important historical roles (like Ruth and Rahab who are mentioned in the one in Matthew), but it's not always the case. 

In Numbers there is a lot of talk about land, tribes, and inheritance, and there are two censuses taken. At the end of the book, in the second census, all the people listed are males with three exceptions. The first exception is the most strange to me and I have no explanation for it: Numbers 26:24 remarks, "Asher had a daughter named Serah." It clearly couldn't be true that that no other daughters were had in the other any of the other tribes descendants recorded. Scratching my head. Second, in the record of the Levite clan, we learn the name of Amram's wife, Jochebed, and their daughter . . . because she was Miriam!--sister to Moses. That one makes sense. But the most interesting exception is in 26:33. "Zelophehad son of Hepher had no sons; he had only daughters, whose names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah." These ladies have a very cool story that obviously merits their entry into a genealogy that is based on male inheritence.

In Numbers 27, Zelophehad's daughters come to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present an issue to the leaders of Israel. Their father had no sons and so there will be no one to inherit the land he would have received. They ask, "Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son?" 

There are a couple of places I could quickly find in Numbers where people come to the entrance to the tent of meeting as a court, or government center. The daughters of Zelophehad are making an official petition here, to change a rule that is affecting their family in an unfair way. Given our current climate of righteous indignation over injustice from the privileged to the less so, I am tempted to see this as an episode of activism where these women are advocating for fairer circumstances in a system that has not considered their needs. But if we believe that "the Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul" as in Psalm 19, what is going on here? Was there room for improvement in God's law? 

The way Moses responds to their request is so heartening. He brings their case before the Lord. And God responds, "What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives, and turn their father's property over to them." This is cool. At the instigation of vulnerable petitioners, the Lord reveals more of his will about how to govern to the leaders he has chosen. God then reveals explicitly how property can be passed through families, including daughters. 

Now, to some this may seem like a pretty paltry step, not exactly full gender equality. But we've got to remember that society here was set up for women to be supported in families, in subordinate positions with regard to authority, but exalted with regard to purpose for their contribution to the project of human life on earth. But Zelophehad's daughters situation shows that even though these family and society structures were in place, it didn't mean that women, particularly daughters, were just disregarded. They were able to help carry on the family line, and preserve the family wealth, which seems to have been quite an important task in their world. In a way, when they brought their issue to Moses they even helped receive the Law--quite an honor. 

To me the story gives great encouragement for women to talk about injustice we face when trying our best to navigate life and help our families and communities prosper. This was not women demanding that they be recognized as tribal leaders, they wanted to continue their father's line. But when hitting roadblocks on this goal, they didn't just throw up their hands as victims. They went to court. And the male leaders in this instance did what those in authority should always do. Moses brought their case before the Lord and listened to his instructions. When he listened to the women and to the Lord, he learned much more about how to govern effectively and what God's will was. 

This fine line between justice and equality is where both feminism and sexism often lose their footings. Feminism is wrong to seek perfect uniform equality between men and women. We are different in bodies and in life's work--it's actually unjust to suggest otherwise. Sexism is of course wrong to say that women's concerns, being often removed from the male sphere of military and economic power, have no validity. Inequality and difference are concrete and cannot be wished away, but they are no excuse for injustice. 

Where would we find Zelophehad's daughters in our modern world? Probably not running for president. Nor languishing in despair over the fact that they will never be able to succeed in the NFL. More likely they might be advocating for tax breaks for mothers who are taking time out of professional careers to nurture small children, or for medical research into women's health issues? I'm not sure here, but it's always fascinating to think how these ancient issues touch our modern ones. 

It seems the decision over the inheritance of Zelophehad's daughters set a real legal precedent, because it is returned to in the last chapter of Numbers, in fact it closes out the book. This time, the heads of the clans related to Zelophehad come to the assembly concerned that when the women marry, their tribal land will become the property of men from other tribes. Moses also brings this case before the Lord, who answers, " What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right." He goes on to explain that land must not pass from tribe to tribe among the Israelites, and that the women must marry within their father's tribal clan. Verse 10, "So the daughters of Zelophehad did as the Lord commanded Moses." 

Contingent vows

The whole of Numbers chapter 30 is about fulfilling vows made to the Lord, but only the first two verses deal with men making vows. The rest of the chapter is concerned with vows made by women and how they may be nullified by fathers or husbands. The first two verses say that a man is always bound by his vows and must keep them. But when a woman makes a vow, it is subject to her male authority figure giving his consent. If he doesn't allow her to fill it, she is not obligated to do so. Women who are widowed or divorced are bound by their vows in the same way men are. 

At first glance this strikes me as quite practical. The Lord ordains these authority structures. He then makes allowance for women to live within them without penalty. Could there be a situation in which a husband or father would truly be able to inhibit a woman's relationship with God? In a relationship with anyone else, this would be a fair question. But if we remember who God is, we know that he works within the circumstances which are always within his control. If a vow must be fulfilled, we could trust God to provide the way. If no way is made, the vow need not be fulfilled. Why is this so neat and explicit in this one set of circumstances where a male authority figure blocks a vow's fulfillment, versus inconvenience, natural disaster, illness or whatever other unavoidable circumstance might prevent it? That's hard to say. Maybe the issue was coming up often? 

From another angle, I think this passage is cool because it acknowledges that even "a young woman still living in her father's house" would be making vows or pledges to God. It implies that God expects to be in close relationship with women even within an authority structure where they are not in religious leadership. The patriarchy doesn't mean God thinks women unimportant, rather they are in certain roles which limit their independence, but not their spiritual life or their humanity. 

Eavesdropping

As we finish looking at what we find written about women in the Torah, particularly in these parts about women in the culture at large, to me there's a strong feeling that women are being talked about, and are not part of the discussion. This was true--women were not priests, scribes or teachers. So all these things we read are discussions between men about how to deal with women in the community. As a woman interacting with this material it can feel a bit like eavesdropping, not in the sense that we shouldn't be privy to this information, but that we are observers. This is just a mood I've noticed in the text, I haven't got a takeaway from it other than what we've already said before: that God must have been working in the lives of women offstage from what is written in the law, as we saw he was so intimately involved with Sarah, Hagar, Rebekah, and Rachael and Leah. Or maybe the takeaway is that if we are unsatisfied with the content we find in the law related to women, the law is not where God is most active with women. Instead, in narrative passages of Scripture, we find him hearing women's prayers about their families and the issues in their lives. Women without literacy in a community that was quite paternal would have participated in the culture shaped by the law, but the overt politics of the society would have been happening in a different sphere than the one they dwelled in. Their sphere was not recorded, we only have their larger context. But it's been quite interesting to look at what happened when the society of men did turn it's focus to women outside their homes and families. 

The Curse (Gen 3:8-24)

I wonder how long Adam and Eve had to suffer in shame in paradise before they heard God walking in the garden "when the cool evening breezes blow." This little detail is so poignant to me. A walk with the Lord himself in Eden when the cool evening breezes blow. To think that was the old normal--

Covered in their fig leaf disguises, they further hid themselves in the trees, but the Lord sought them out, calling to them, and they had to answer. Adam answers, giving away his new knowledge, that he is hiding due to his fear and sense of nakedness. The Lord confronts him on his sin, which he acknowledges. He blames the woman for giving him the fruit. God confronts her, and she claims deception by the serpent, but also acknowledges eating the fruit. 

Though modern day interrogators would certainly ask for more details like we were asking for in the last passage, the Lord God does not. In contrast to our concern with why, and how, and what would have happened, the Lord's question-yes or no?-- results in immediate judgment.

Does God put any stock in the blaming that takes place? He does curse the serpent as a direct response to Eve's confession. The curse for the woman doesn't mention the serpent's influence. It is simply judgment for having eaten. The curse for the man however does start by indicting him for listening to his wife, in contrast to the God's commandment. In the context it seems like more of a description of the sin, than a mitigating factor. From this maybe we could take an application that when God asks us to do something, we aren't let off the hook if there are circumstances that made disobedience extra tempting. It is, "will you obey? yes or no?" 

The first part of the serpent's curse is to wallow on it's belly. So interesting. Do snakes mind crawling on the ground the way we mind childbirth and slaving away to make a living? Hostility between the offspring of the woman and of the snake has certainly come true . . . mostly. I think a Christian wildlife specialist would have a real appreciation for snakes though. Is this metaphorical somehow? Why is the snake as an animal wrapped up in this story? "He will strike your head and you will strike his heel," is the first prophecy of the triumph of the son of man over the offspring of the serpent, and the sin the serpent brought into the world. 

Also interesting is that the hostility is between the serpent and the woman, and its offspring and her offspring. The woman is really central in this curse, and in this story, and in the prophecy of the triumph of humanity. That could be all because it was the serpent and the woman who were involved with each other directly in the first sin. But the shakeout in history is that the woman has had major influence, negatively, and then in redemption.

The men's and women's curses are an astoundingly succinct summary of the things that actually plague men and women in life. They are prophetic, and profound, but also, in a way, mundane. They have to do with childbirth, marriage, and work. Let's take them one at a time. 

The woman's curse is shorter, but it has two parts: pain in pregnancy and childbirth, and (futile) control struggles in her marriage. I think I could boil down the hardest parts of my life to trying to bear and raise my children, and trying to negotiate with my husband about how to plan my life (that is set my own agenda, or control family life). Our marriage has modern traditional roles: he works in an office, I homeschool the kids. And this probably makes this curse feel particularly applicable to me. However, through the course of history, our time is very unique in its understanding of gender and its lack of applicability to life work. For most of history, I think women have felt solidarity with my experience. 

So many evenings I find myself waiting for Paul to arrive home after work completely exhausted from trying to coach 3 small children through the increasing wind up of energy that precedes bedtime, desperate to know when he will arrive (in 10 minutes or an hour and a half?), pressing him for information on this front, and either receiving incorrect answers or no answer at all. This is the curse playing out in my life and it is one of the hardest normal things I deal with day to day.

The man's curse begins with the cursing of the ground from which he must "scratch a living." Though the man struggles to bring forth grain, the ground will bring forth thorns and thistles. Only through the sweat of his brow will the man have food to eat until he returns to the ground in death. There is poetry here with the man struggling with the ground until he returns to it. Maybe even a metaphor here, if the man is actually one with "the ground" and he is unable to bring forth good fruit from the ground, that is, himself, since he is now in sin? 

I am not a man, so this curse doesn't directly apply to me, but I do see it play out in the man I know best, as well as others I hear from. One of my husband's favorite activities is gardening, and another is building things. He gets great satisfaction from work, when it goes the way he wants and he is able to succeed. But I think some of his greatest challenges come from feeling compelled to work at things he does not want to work at. He has to struggle and scratch to make a living. He is very concerned with making a good living for himself and his family, but it is difficult and takes up almost all of his time. He has a real sense that he is using his time at hard work, while losing time he has left before returning to dust. The curse for him is being stuck at the office for most of his waking life when he would love to be adventuring or creating something he is passionate about. 

It's interesting that the woman's curse is partly about the man, and the man's curse doesn't really have anything to do with the woman. I think it does hint that women care about their relationships with men more than men care about theirs with women. That sounds terrible. But I think it is there. And I think you can find evidence of that in the way the world works. Partially, this may be because of the practical dependence in which women find themselves when they become mothers. I don't think it's all a result of the curse, but I don't think it would have been painful at all without the curse. Maybe men would have rejoiced in their work and women would have rejoiced in their families, without women feeling pain in childbearing or loss of control over their husbands or men feeling frustration in their jobs. What would it have been like? We'll never know. What will it look like redeemed? Let's hope further reading in the Word will reveal that to us. 

There is a short paragraph before the final part of the curse where Adam and Eve leave paradise and lose their immortality. In it, the man and woman receive their names. Adam is simply named in the text, but he names Eve "because she would be the mother of all who live." I love that Eve is named for her motherhood. My own identity as woman has been so shaped by motherhood, and I think potential motherhood is a defining characteristic of womanhood. After all, humans are designated as male or female by their reproductive parts, which are, of course, for reproduction. Though a woman's purpose from God seems to have been "helping," her role seems to be "mothering." This is where her life challenges are, and where in my life I have experienced my greatest rewards. Of course not all women are mothers, but the question of motherhood will be an issue for all of them, and the potential for motherhood is always there. For almost all women, the monthly cycle of preparation for motherhood will be present and have some (not necessarily small) effect.

That Eve is the mother "of all who live" sounds to me like it could also have to do with the fact that her offspring will crush the serpent's head and restore eternal life to those who will attain it and "live."

Another brief event to talk about in this passage is the Lord making clothes for the humans from animal skins, replacing their fig leaf clothes, I suppose. Animals would have had to die for this. Whether they were dying before the fall of man, I don't know. It may only have been humans who were immortal in Eden, or maybe this is one of the first results of sin, and one of the first foreshadowings of death being needed to cover over the consequences of sin.   

After these developments, God closes the chapter of humanity in paradise. He sends the humans out of Eden so they will not be able to eat the fruit from the tree of life and live forever. Who knows how depraved a human could become in sin for centuries or millenia. This is punishment, but also perhaps a mercy. But this is where the promise of death resulting from sin is fulfilled. 

God banishes them from Eden and sends Adam out to begin the work of "cultivating the ground from which he had been made." Another use of that metaphor about cultivating the ground and attempting to cultivate himself? Eve is not given a commission, though soon after they leave, she will bear her first child. 

Mighty cherubim and a flashing sword are stationed to keep the humans away from the tree of life from here on out. 

Takeaways

• In the curse of the serpent, we find that women are major players in the fall and redemption of humanity.
• Men's and women's curses are different, and apply to different life circumstances faced by men and women.
• Eve is named "the mother of all who live"

Questions

• How did a snake get mixed up in this situation?
• Do you think women have more invested in their relationships with men than the other way around?