Miriam, the punished prophet ( Ex 15:21, Num 12)

Leaving the enigmatic Zipporah, we move on to look at the life and experience of Moses' sister, Miriam. She figures more prominently into the story than his wife, though as always we still don't know as much about her as I'd like! The main topics we'll explore in her story are bulleted below to give you a preview. Keep reading for a deeper dive into the text.

What we learn about women:

• Miriam was known and acknowledged as a prophet.
• She led the Israelite women in singing after the Red Sea.
• When she and Aaron became confident enough to criticize Moses and believe she could equal his status, God punished her, though not to the same extent as other Israelites who asserted themselves against Moses' authority.
• There was a distinction in her rebuke from God from Aaron's, though they seem to have done the same thing.
• Moses' authority here is not how we normally think of "the man." He is plagued by his duty to keep the people safe, and prefers the idea of death to continuing in his work.

What I'm wondering:

• The obvious!: Why is Miriam punished with leprosy when Aaron is not?
• What was the role of a female prophet like in Israel? 
• How far off is our regular relationship with authority, both upward and downward, from this idea of a burden to care for those under you?

A prophet in Egypt
We have already discussed Miriam a bit when we talked about Moses' birth and first escape from Pharaoh as an infant in his basket in the reeds. Remember, Miriam stayed to keep watch over Moses, and then organized the recruitment of his mother to be his nurse for Pharaoh's daughter. Already at a young age, she was displaying great resourcefulness and ingenuity in solving problems and working out God's will.

When we come back to Miriam after the story of Moses, Pharaoh, and the plagues, she is re-introduced in an exciting way, as "Miriam the prophet, Aaron's sister." So far, in the Bible we haven't heard much mention of prophets. God calls Abraham a prophet when he speaks with king Abimelech about him, but we don't hear the title "Abraham the prophet" like we do here with Miriam. There are some very tricky parts of Miriam's story coming up in Exodus, but this detail in her introduction is really cool. Apparently everyone knew and acknowledged that Miriam had a relationship with God that was close enough to deliver his messages. We haven't yet met a woman in that kind of relationship with God.

We find Miriam the prophet playing music on her timbrel and leading the women of Israel in singing and dancing for joy and victory after they escape the Red Sea and Pharaoh's army. This must have been an incredible high point in Miriam's life. She has had the honor of having first saved her brother's life, and then seen his growth from exiled murderer to rescuer of her people. She is now in place with her two brothers as a spiritual leader of the nation of Israel. Considering her leading of the women in song, perhaps we are looking at the first women's ministry leader among God's people?

Complaints
From the Red Sea we enter the long and winding journey of the Israelites to the promised land, from which they will be rebuffed with unworthy faith to enter, and have to head back on another winding journey. If you, like me, are less than an Exodus scholar, you will probably, like me, find the timeline of all the camping and moving and complaining along the way to be a bit muddled in your mind. Also complicating things is that over the next few books of the Bible, there are extra details thrown in about what happened, either as further explanation, another version of the story, or recalled as summary. I am trying my best to keep it straight, but it's a little hard to follow. However, we'll see that the context of the journey: the refining of God's people as they get to know him and learn to develop awe of his holiness and fear of his power, is very important to understanding the remainder of Miriam's story.

As it unfolds, we find Miriam and Aaron complaining against and criticizing Moses. We talked about this criticism of Moses in the last post, because it had to do with Zipporah. There seem to be two parts to what Miriam and Aaron, who are not distinguished in their actions, were saying. First of all, they were "talking against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite." But also they were saying, "Has the Lord only spoken through Moses? Hasn't he also spoken through us?" In my mind these are very separate critiques, first of all that Moses marriage counted against him somehow, and second, that he was almost uppity about his relationship with the Lord. The second critique is what the Lord addresses in his response, contrasting his relationship with Moses with the comparatively lower ranking relationships he has with his prophets. The consequences of the Lord's anger and disapproval with Miriam and Aaron are dramatic. "The Lord left." And when the cloud disappeared, Miriam was left "white as snow" with leprosy.

Right away, my female antennae are up. If both Aaron and Miriam were complaining against Moses, why is Miriam the only one afflicted with leprosy? Aaron is horrified, and begs for Moses forgiveness, and that he will not let Miriam remain that way. He is apparently learning the lesson that Moses is special to God, and is the person through whom he should approach God. Interestingly, he attributes the punishment to Moses rather than God, saying to Moses, "Oh my Master! Please don't punish us for the sin we have so foolishly committed!"

Moses then does cry out for God to heal her. God relents, but explains to Moses, "If her father had done nothing more than spit in her face, wouldn't she be defiled for seven days? So keep her outside the camp for seven days, then she may be accepted back." Ouch. If I understand this right, God is saying that what has happened to Miriam is worse than if her father had spit in her face. God has effectively "spit in her face?" This is hard to wrap your mind around.

My guess is that what we are looking at is an issue of authority, wrapped in ancient cultural trappings. Even across the millennia, it seems clear that this gesture from a father to daughter could only be understood as harsh disapproval and even humiliation. Apparently at that time it would also be associated with deserving exile outside the camp for seven days. This must have been a clear enforcement of fatherly authority, displaying the relative lack of power a daughter would have had if she would cross him. We don't like that in our culture, it definitely speaks of stronger parental authority that we would like to acknowledge. (But I think also sometimes we are unsatisfied with the amount of influence parents are able to exert over wayward kids?) So if God is saying this punishment serves a similar function, that Miriam has shown disregard for Moses', and through Moses, God's authority, she deserves and receives the same type of censure.

But still, why just Miriam, and not Aaron? Is it due to her gender, or to another distinction that the text doesn't let us in on between Miriam's and Aaron's sins? Perhaps the very fact that Miriam is punished in this way is evidence that she was somehow the main instigator?

A wider angle
Either way, we get a lot of additional context for all this when we look at the rest of Numbers. What immediately precedes this episode is Numbers 11, subtitled "The people complain to Moses," which is followed by "the complaints of Aaron and Miriam." In the preceding chapter, we have a lengthy description of how the Israelites en masse are complaining about their lack of food compared with the "melons, leeks, onions, and garlic" they used to have in Egypt. As a result of this, fire from the Lord comes and consumes some of them (!), until Moses prays for it to stop. Then Moses and the Lord both become aggravated by the continual whining of the Israelites. Moses himself actually complains to the Lord about what a burden these people are, saying he would rather God just kill him and spare him the misery, than continue serving the troublesome Israelites. At this, God tells Moses to gather 70 respected elders, whom he will also pour out his spirit upon, to help Moses govern. These men are summoned to the Tabernacle, and God does pour out his spirit upon them so they can prophesy, "but this never happened again." Later on in the chapter, Moses tells a young Joshua, son of nun, "I wish that all the Lord's people were prophets and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them all!"

This is what immediately precedes the story of Aaron and Miriam's complaint. Moses has already been dealing with unjust whining and complaints about his leadership from the general public, and now it comes from his closest companions as well. In comparison with being consumed by fire, Miriam's temporary leprosy seems like a more measured punishment. Set alongside the complaints of the whole nation, and Moses' wish for more of God's people to share in his spirit, Aaron and Miriam's presumption, "hasn't he also spoken through us?" and complaints about Moses marriage also seem more offensive. We still have the question of why Miriam is struck with leprosy and not Aaron, but it becomes smaller in the grand scheme.

We don't hear about Miriam any more until her death, which happens just before Moses's sin involving the water from the rock, where he will be excluded from entering the promised land. The chapters in between are filled with dramatic events. When Miriam re-enters the camp, the next stop is the border of the promised land, where scouts are sent out to explore. The people rebel, refusing to enter, and are almost destroyed completely by God, except for Moses' intervention. Korah leads another rebellion a few chapters later, along the same theme of Aaron and Miriam's complaints "What right do you have to act as though you are greater than the rest of the Lord's people?" It doesn't end well for him and his followers: they are swallowed up into the ground, or consumed by fire. When rest of the people complain about this harsh punishment, a plague begins among them, and is only stopped when Aaron burns incense to purify them and runs between the healthy and sick people to stop it's spread. Following that, when the people despair that the Lord is just too dangerous for them to be around, God proves through the budding of Aaron's staff that Aaron and his descendants will be the priests who alone are allowed to approach God for the people. The Lord says "This should put an end to their complaints against me and prevent any further deaths." Alas, the complaints continue, prompting both water from the rock, and attack by poisonous snakes. This cycle of the people repenting when they see God's power, only to forget and complain again when things get difficult will characterize God's relationship with his people for the rest of history. Miriam and Aaron's complaining, set in this context, is just part of the pattern. But it does show that even they are not immune from sin and it's consequences.

Miriam is absent from any more action in the text, though Aaron is a central figure, as the first priest of Israel. Her death is announced with none of the fanfare present when Aaron is called up the mountain to join his fathers. We hadn't heard much about her before the complaining, and we have nothing afterward, so it's hard to say if her rebuke from God defined her life afterward the way it defines the story we have of her.

Authority in general
But we can combine two interesting things we know about her to create a picture that's admittedly a little vague, but still has some meaningful form. She was definitely a prophet, and yet she was singled out for rebuke by God when she critiqued the person in spiritual authority over her. God knew her and revealed himself to her, but when she became too familiar and disrespected Moses she was not immune to punishment that was only removed through his mediation. As contemporary women we can take a parallel that we may know God intimately and serve him in a powerful capacity while not being free of authority structures he has ordained.

There's also a further observation to be made here about authority in general. In these chapters where complaining and insubordination lead to such harsh punishments from God, it's interesting to note that one of the main functions of Moses authority is to protect the people from God's anger. We rebel against the idea of a head honcho resting on his laurels and bossing everyone else around. But in Moses' case, his authority is very different. Again and again, he is distraught at the burden of having to continually correct the people and keep them from getting themselves killed by God. So much of his job involves helping them, keeping them safe, and pleading for God to have mercy on them. If we could learn to view our authorities in this way, as keeping us from getting ourselves into trouble with the highest heavenly authority, and learn to view those under our authority as in need of protection from God's judgment of their offenses against him, we might improve the health of all of our hierarchical relationships. God does not appear tame and cuddly in these chapters. We tend to forget this part of his nature. When we do so, we start to forget our awe in general, and also in particular our respect toward those he sets in place to administer his will.

The family of foreigners: Zipporah's difficult cross-cultural marriage (Ex 2-4, 18)

We opened Exodus with wonderful female characters in stories that were thrillingly easy to appreciate and understand. Not so with our next woman, Zipporah. We know just a little about her--enough to really pique our interest and, frankly, leave us very perplexed. She is a foreigner, not an Israelite, and there is a veil over a lot of the details of this exotic woman's life. But lets dive in and learn what we can.

Beautiful strangers meet in Midian
By the time Moses meets Zipporah, his life has become even more complicated than it was at his birth, which is saying a lot. He has been raised in Pharaoh's house, but feels a sense of identity with his own people, the Hebrews, who are enslaved and bitterly oppressed by Pharaoh. After his identity conflict boils over and causes him to commit murder of an Egyptian who was whipping a Hebrew slave, he is forced to flee to the wilderness.

Exiled from the home into which he was adopted, out of his own people, who are exiles themselves, Moses is a foreigner in so many senses when he sits down by a well in Midian. We, however, are in familiar territory, knowing exactly what happens when young men show up at wells in foreign lands. When the priest of Midian's seven daughters come to water their flocks, they are chased away by other shepherds, but Moses rescues them from the shepherds and wins himself an invitation to dinner with Reuel or Jethro, the priest of Midian. And sure enough, we are not kept waiting for the news, in the next sentence, we learn that "In time Reuel gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses for a wife." When they have a son, Moses names him Gershom, "foreigner." You can read Moses' mind easily here. Though he seems to have settled happily in Midian, he still feels like an alien.

The lovely thing about a romance that occurs when you are away from home is that it is exempt from the stresses of your other life. Moses, having run away from his really complicated identity situation in Egypt, could be, in Midian, nothing but the herder of Jethro's sheep, and the husband of Zipporah. Moses had a small and manageable world in his escape. To Zipporah, Moses must have seemed brave, exotic, and just troubled enough to be interesting.

But when God breaks into Moses' life and interrupts his avoidance strategy, Zipporah's life, as well as Moses', will be completely turned upside down. Surely God's call to Moses disrupted and completely changed his life, but he had a context for it. He was receiving a redemptive challenge that would bring together his life struggle, focus it, and define both himself and and God's people.  But for Zipporah, who didn't share Moses cultural identity and history, it must have felt quite disorienting. She probably had entertained the idea that her foreigner might someday want to visit home, but she couldn't have imagined a scenario like this, where her husband would be called to face off with Pharaoh, and she would eventually need to travel with a whole nation of in-laws through the red sea and then the desert.

But Moses doesn't lead with his unique calling from God when he approaches Jethro about returning to Egypt. He goes with the milder, "Please let me return to my relatives in Egypt, I don't even know if any of them are still alive." Jethro gives his blessing and the family sets off. This journey from Zipporah's home culture to Moses' will change who is the "foreign" spouse. Did Zipporah know what her family was getting into? Probably, when you consider what she seems to know in the story that follows.

The Bridegroom of Blood
They are on the road when the most substantial paragraph we have in the Bible about Zipporah occurs. Moses is already gearing up for his task of confronting Pharaoh, hearing a message from God that reminds him of what he must do in Egypt. Immediately after God speaks to Moses, we have this strange story, which I will transcribe fully, because it is short, and odd enough that we should remember exactly what happens: 

At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death.  Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.

This is another story that is so confusing to me that I did some extra googling to see if real theologians know what to do with it. Unfortunately, they don't. That doesn't make it easier, but it does give us more free reign to try to figure it out! 

Here is my take. One main problem with understanding the story is that we don't know who the "him" refers to in the first sentence, whom God sought to kill. Moses? Pharaoh's son, who has been mentioned in the previous sentence? Moses' son? My guess is that the "him" is Gershom, Moses' son--that along the way Gershom's life was endangered at the hand of God. Here's why.

The death of the firstborn of Pharaoh is mentioned in God's message to Moses which immediately precedes this. The death of Pharaoh's firstborn is contrasted with the rescue of God's firstborn, Israel. But which household does Moses' firstborn belong to? Pharaoh's household or God's? The question seems open based on Moses life story. In seeking the death of uncircumcised Gershom, maybe God was pushing Moses toward full identification with Israel, reminding him of what would happen to the children of Egypt.

Moses had been living as a foreigner away from his people, and had obviously not circumcised his son yet. But in light of Moses' calling, their family identity with the Jews would need to be complete. Perhaps at home in Midian, Zipporah had not felt the urgency to abide by this foreign custom, even if Moses may have mentioned it to her. But with their purpose clear, and her son's life on the line, Zipporah begins to realize what her marriage to Moses will mean for their family. They must all fully join God's people, and circumcision is necessary to establish this. She circumcises Gershom, throws the foreskin (ugh, so weird to be talking about foreskins!) at Moses, and in distress mixed with resignation, calls him a bridegroom of blood. Strange that the text gives us an explanatory note here that Zipporah's exclamation had to do with the circumcision, but leaves so much else unclear. 

What I think is clear is that Zipporah is upset over the bloodiness and injury her son must experience, but grudgingly understands what is necessary. In this take on the story, we are, admittedly, guessing about who's life was in danger. But whoever it was, Zipporah seems less worried about the mortal danger and thankful for having avoided it, than upset by the circumcision. This is a clue to me that this identification with God's people is a main issue here. Zipporah is the person who would struggle with it most, out of their family of three. Returning with Moses into Egypt would have brought this family identity issue to a crisis, and I think that's what the story is about.

Before we move on, let's note that here again in Exodus, we see the supreme importance to life of bearing children, in that the ultimate plague and worst punishment imaginable for the Egyptians is the death of a child.

The separation
Before studying Zipporah this time, I had never noticed how little Moses' family factors into his life once he returns to Egypt, and thereafter. But the text after this story turns completely to Moses, Pharaoh, the plagues, the passover, all the major themes of the Exodus. The next time we hear anything about Zipporah and her sons, they are coming back with her father Jethro, because, whoops, Exodus forgot to tell us that "Earlier, Moses had sent his wife, Zipporah, and his two sons back to Jethro, who had taken them in." It's mentioned as an aside to explain why the family is visiting, and you can't really tell when it happened. 

Why did Moses and Zipporah separate? I'm really dying for a little more detail about their family life after leaving Midian. So let's try to reconstruct a bit. In the last story we have about Zipporah, she appears upset with Moses about the circumcision, which was only the beginning of her passage into Hebrew life. If the circumcision was a problem for her, that she would bear, but with some distress, how will she handle becoming part of an enslaved group of people, and watching Egypt suffer under all the plagues? Could Moses have "sent her back" to Jethro for her safety and peace of mind? Maybe. 

With Moses taking on the mantle of his role as the leader of God's people out of Egypt, their marriage and family life would surely have been affected. He transitioned from a shepherd to a  prophet, miracle worker, and head of state. We can imagine how the family of the president of the United States must completely sacrifice their claim on him while he is in office, and this is probably a fair parallel to what Moses' family had to do. But while Moses was consumed with his work, Zipporah would have lacked other support. She was among complete strangers in Egypt. If Moses was a foreigner in Midian, now Zipporah is one in Egypt, but without the fellowship of a spouse, or her extended family. Maybe that's why it made sense for her to go back. 

You could also interpret it as Moses "going off to war" and arranging for the safety of his family. Given the intensity of his task, that would also make sense.

Jethro brings his daughter and grandsons back to visit Moses, after he hears of the great success of the Exodus. Between the lines, I detect signals that Jethro is really wishing to reunite Zipporah with Moses. He comes with Moses' family, encouraging him and rejoicing with him over what he has achieved. But he also watches Moses and makes some helpful suggestions for how Moses can delegate work to have more time . . . for his family, perhaps? Moses takes this advice well, and implements Jethro's advice. At the end of the visit, "he went away to his own country," but there is no mention of Zipporah and the boys. Did they stay?

I don't see any evidence that Zipporah goes back home with Jethro, but neither is there any hint of her being around afterward. I guess it's possible that they enjoyed a supportive and warm home life, which Moses just did not think was important to mention in the rest of the Torah. I would love to go with that, though I wish we had more evidence for Zipporah not being left behind with her loving father while Moses abandoned her for his holy career. 

It's not clear. But they are not in the story again except for a brief mention years later when Aaron and Miriam find fault with Moses for marrying a Cushite woman. That critique seems a bit random in it's context to me. Check it out and see if you have any insight yourself: Numbers 12:1. My only guess is that this is the cultural identity issue coming up again? That maybe they are astonishingly doubting Moses' Hebrew credentials if his wife is a foreigner?

The episode is worth considering with reference to Zipporah, because God comes to Moses' defense, saying to Aaron and Miriam, "Of all my house, he is the one I trust. I speak to him face to face, clearly, and not in riddles. He sees the Lord as he is." The point is that God is clearly pleased with Moses' relationship with him. This question about his marriage is answered by God's pleasure in his unique relationship with Moses. God is saying that his marriage to Zipporah does not count against him in any way. 

One other option we haven't mentioned yet is that perhaps Zipporah just never could fully identify with Moses' people, that the cultural differences were too much, and she wanted to be back at home. Could she have abandoned Moses? An argument against this is that in 1 Chronicles Gershom and Eliezer are referred to as family leaders, so they it seems like they must have been living with the Israelite community. But I was not able to find any information about children they had or anything else.

Ultimately, we can imagine two main versions of Zipporah's life: either she tried to integrate with Israel, or she didn't. If she didn't, she would have been the responsible party for the distance in their marriage. If that scenario is true, that Zipporah went back home because life with her holy husband was too difficult, it's easier to understand. We expect God to be in the corner of people who are abandoned by their spouses. But I think we have a little more of a challenge understanding this marriage, because we know Moses "sent them home" himself, initially, and that his sons are later involved with the Israelite community as leaders. So to me it seems a little more likely that Zipporah was there, but that after Midian, she just didn't figure strongly into Moses life, which was dominated by his work and his relationships with God. Adding to the challenge, we know that God was pleased with Moses' work and relationship with God, though it kept him from involvement with his family, and his wife, who must have really needed him in the foreign culture he brought her into.

There are a lot of words on the cutting floor for this post. I would love to tie a bow around the the story of Moses and Zipporah's relationship, but we just don't have enough information about in the text to even know exactly what we are looking at. My mom points out that it's so biblical that we get a fairly sparse account that focuses on particular events, and leaves out backstory we are left scratching our heads over.

We should also keep in mind that according to tradition, Moses is the author of all of the Bible we have read so far. Maybe he doesn't want to detail his private home life and marriage details. We did have more to work with in the other families he wrote about in Genesis. But here he focuses on what God was doing for the Israelites at large. For him, Zipporah figures in to the story when he meets her in exile, and then when they establish their family identity as firmly Hebrew. That's the important part of her story for the purposes of Exodus. Though we do have the fact that they have separated for a while, which hints at some possible trouble in their marriage, that part isn't even totally clear. I would love to understand more of her life and experience, but it seems Zipporah must remain a bit foreign to us.

Takeaways:

• Moses and Zipporah faced a challenge uniting in culture and purpose after Moses' call to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.
• We know they separated for a while, but we don't know why, or even whether or not they reunited. 
• Zipporah does not seem to figure into the most important parts of Moses' life.
• God is pleased with Moses' life, whatever was happening in his marriage.

Questions:

• What do you think is the best explanation of Moses and Zipporah's relationship? Do you think Zipporah was left behind by Moses or the other way around? Did she live with Moses after Jethro's visit?
• What is the best way to deal with the given difference in priorities between husbands and wives, to have the most happy and satisfying marriage for both parties?
• Is there any chance God was happy for Moses and Zipporah to separate and for him to throw himself into his career and for her to live with her parents? That doesn't sit right with me . . . 

Infanticide and women helping women (Ex 1:15-2:20)

From Potiphar's wife, the categorical villainess, we move right along to the book of Exodus and our first unmitigated heroines, the Hebrew midwives, Shiprah and Puah. When we left off in Genesis, the Israelites had just arrived in Egypt at Pharaoh's invitation. The last 10 chapters or so of Genesis, though they feature a few women, are mostly about Joseph and his father and brothers and how God blesses them with the favor and wealth of Egypt. Important stories in God's plan, but not specifically useful for looking at what God has to say about women. But when Exodus opens, we are greeted by some truly incredible women handing awful circumstances with the courage, faith, compassion, and grit.

Parallels
However, to set the stage for their stories, we do need the larger context of what is going on with God's people at large. The Israelites arrived in Egypt in honor, which was afterward forgotten and replaced with persecution, oppression and enslavement.

The story of the Exodus has been treasured by oppressed people throughout history. Reading the part of the story we are focusing on, parallels between the plight of the Israelites and enslaved African Americans are plain, but I noticed a new similarity this time. The obvious parallel is that both groups are enslaved and oppressed, and feared because they are becoming too numerous. In the United States, as time has passed, some liberation for African enslaved people has been gained. But another similarity between these two people groups that was particularly salient for me at this cultural moment, and in thinking about the part women play in the story, involves the solution Pharaoh proposes to control the group he wants to oppress. This is where the Hebrew midwives, Shiprah and Puah, come in. Pharaoh tells them to kill the Hebrew baby boys as they are being born. “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.”

The concept that made this parallel jump out to me was "infanticide," which we have horrifyingly found in our headlines lately, around the national discussion of what we will allow when we permit abortion. Infanticide is the horrible extreme of the permission given to mothers to end the early lives of babies who would burden them. Pharaoh is clearly barbaric for ordering the murder of born-alive babies whose mothers want them to live. But there is some overlap in strategy between his plan and the historic racist eugenics movement, which has its current iteration in clinics in offering abortions to African Americans at a much higher rate than the rest of the population (some key statistics can be found on this page). The root idea employed there is the same--to manage an oppressed people by lessening their numbers, through keeping their offspring from living.

Women helping women
In our modern conversation, this topic appears much more complex, because abortion is linked to the idea of helping women avoid the loss of power and agency that happens to them when they bear children. Women are asked to participate in the decision to kill their babies, and encouraged that though the decision is difficult, it will be better for everyone if there are less dependents to care for. In one light, abortion is seen as a strategy that women must fight to make available, to help each other, despite it's terrible nature. Women who want to help other women often want to preserve the right to use it, with the idea that it will help some people, closing their eyes to the even more innocent people who it destroys. But can we really call this women helping women?

The way this "parallel" works when it come to the women in the story is actually not as a parallel, but a contrast in how women have seen their own flourishing and needs in biblical history versus our own moment. In ancient Egypt as well as 18th century America, there were similar conflicts between oppressive governments and enslaved people. Pharaoh relied on his evil authority to kill the baby boys among his slaves to keep them down, where as Margaret Sanger and her crew turned to the idea of eugenics for similar reasons. But the women upon whom the strategies were implemented reacted in very different ways then and now.

When it comes to Shiprah and Puah, the brave Hebrew midwives, we have a different dynamic of women helping women than what is offered in abortion clinics. In order to help their fellow women, the midwives defied, not an obvious moral standard, but rather the decree of an evil king. The reason they did not kill the Hebrew baby boys was because "they feared God." This is a sound way of choosing between right and wrong and determining a course of action in a difficult situation. Their fear of God led them to a reverence for the lives of the new people he was bringing into the world. They understood the miracle and blessing of new life, and they had too much fear of God to be able to listen to Pharaoh and commit murder.

What kind of blessing?
Verse 20 tells us that because of Shiprah and Puah's fear of God, God was kind to them, the people continued to increase, and in my favorite detail, "because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own." Mark down another instance of God rewarding women by blessing them with the gift and holy task of bearing children. I love that the reward comes to them because they helped babies live and helped mothers keep their children, and that the reward is for them to also have children. This is a banner story for women as mothers, and as helpers of mothers. We can so clearly see God's favor on these roles for women who fear him.

Contrast this picture of blessing for women and the one we often maintain in this century: women as self-sufficient, unencumbered by the heavy work of bearing and caring for children, empowered to pursue any agenda without thought for this aspect of their lives. The two ideas are very different. We have lost the understanding that children and motherhood are at the heart of some of the greatest purposes and blessings for women. This devaluing of our feminine humanity has lead to terrible consequences. When motherhood is a hindrance that we need to dispense with in order to live fully, it is not a big jump to see actual children as hindrances that need to be dispensed with. But this is a great and tragic error. Its consequences keep women from the most fulfilling (though surely also the most costly and demanding) parts of life, and encourage them to commit murder to avoid experiencing them. To the babies themselves, the error denies the blessing of life.

For modern mothers, even if we believe that abortion is wrong, it's worth looking at our assessments of our lives and asking which kind of blessing we are valuing more heavily? Are our goals in life encumbered by our care for our children, or vice versa? What will the result be of our struggle to "have it all"? Can we win it? If we have to land on one side or another, which side will we land on?

Though we have been really emphasizing the privilege and goodness of motherhood for women here, there is another beautiful piece of this story for women who are not mothers. Shiprah and Puah only receive their reward of having families at the end of their part in it. In their work supporting women and families, they are full participants and heroines in God's plan. Motherhood is not required for a meaningful and influential life as a woman in God's sight, though it may become a reward from him, for women who bravely and faithfully live in holy fear of him. The midwives are single ladies, and fully serving God in that role.

I drew him out of the water
Moving on in the story--tragically, Pharaoh will not be completely outwitted by the Hebrew midwives. His next step goes further than subtly making it look like the baby boys are being born dead. To ensure that live baby boys are not allowed to live, he orders them to be thrown into the Nile.

Moses' mother and sister are the next two brave, God-fearing women we meet in this section. His mother is in a terrible situation where she cannot legally provide for her son. Horribly, Pharaoh has instructed "all his people" to throw the Hebrew baby boys into the Nile. Moses is in terrible danger from which his mother can't save him. But she does what she can to help him survive. Technically she does put Moses into the Nile, but she sets him in a little basket boat, nestled in the reeds, and sends his sister to watch over him. It's hard to imagine being in this horrible position as a mother. Perhaps she was planning to just keep him in the basket "in the Nile" and continue to care for him there? That would have been an ingenious solution if you ask me.

But this desperate mother receives help when it is desperately needed. Pharoah's daughter hears the baby crying, understands his plight, and decides to take care of him. Moses' sister Miriam cleverly inserts herself into the situation, offering to find a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby. I just wonder if they are all aware of what is going on here, if Pharaoh's daughter understands how Miriam and the "Hebrew woman" are related to Moses. I like to think so. Pharaoh's daughter "adopts" Moses to save him, but then brings his mother along, keeping her in the picture and supporting her to allow her to care for her son. This is an incredibly beautiful picture of how women can truly help and encourage each other. It is a stark contrast from women helping each other to abandon and kill their babies to make a better life for themselves. Rather these women are helping each other provide for babies, sharing the burden in really difficult and dangerous circumstances. God is deeply involved with them, unfolding his plan to save the whole nation of his people. They have a role of honor, bravery, and privilege both trusting him in their lack of power, and using what power they have to save life, and mother together.

At this part of the story we can discuss another component of the abortion issue. Openness to adoption is the obvious required corollary to a pro-life stance. But adoption is also critiqued sometimes as a means for babies to be taken from families who can't support them and effectively bought by wealthy families of the dominant culture who then assimilate the children into that culture, robbing them of their cultural identity, and robbing other communities and families of their youth.

Because it can be so difficult, open-adoption, where biological parents maintain contact with children who are adopted by other families, is often avoided. But here we have a different perspective, where a whole family is adopted and supported through the resources of a wealthy, concerned woman. Maybe this is a better way? Pharaoh's daughter names the baby Moses- "I drew him out of the water." What if Christian women with power and resources everywhere listened for those crying babies in trouble, drew them from the water, and then found their mothers to help them and bring them along too? The application seems obvious, though it's much easier to write about than to actually do.

These stories read to me like a ballad of honorable women: Shiprah and Puah, Moses' mother, Miriam, Pharaoh's daughter, all heroines. What a delightful place to stop and think about women in God's plan.

Takeaways:

• Pharaoh's plan to kill the Hebrew baby boys is a prefiguration of the racist policy of selectively offering abortion for African Americans more than other races. Both attack babies to oppress a population.
• God shows his favor to women by giving them children again in this story.
• The heroic action of the midwives, Moses' mother and sister, and Pharaoh's daughter are a key component of God's plan to bring his people out of Egypt.
• God provides for Moses' mother when a wealthy, powerful woman intervenes and supports their family as a unit.

Questions:

• Did Pharaoh's daughter know who Miriam and the "Hebrew woman" were?
• If you are a mother, do you honestly see yourself as more blessed or burdened by your children? Probably a combination, right?
• What exactly is the current way to find families with babies in the reeds and help them?

Potiphar's wife and the Billy Graham Rule (Gen 39)

Guess what?! We've almost made it through the first book of the Bible. It's been even richer than I had hoped for learning about women, from creation, to the curse, to the first families, to our prominent roles in how God's plan moves forward with the gift of children, to different situations to do with marriage and sex.

The women of Genesis have been complex. Their motives and their actions are neither shining examples of faith and femininity, nor cautionary tales. We've seen unique personalities, and varying levels of intimacy with God. Marriages have been both happy and horrible. Childbirth has always been dramatic and fraught with emotion. Both sin and faith have directed the lives of the women we've looked at, and their actions have often been motivated by a combination of both at once.

Potiphar's wife 
But the last woman we meet in Genesis is simple. Potiphar's wife is described in only one role, in only one scenario. She is a sexual temptress. She is really only a side-character in Joseph's story. And that part is interesting to me, that we pretty much only hear about Potiphar's wife from Joseph's perspective, how he experiences her. We don't know any backstory about her family, her marriage, whether she had children, any ulterior motives for her attraction to Joseph or her plan to get him in bed, or anything that happens to her before or after this one role she plays. The point of all of it is Joseph's strength of character in resisting Potiphar's wife's advances.

After having examined the interior lives and experiences of several women in Genesis, we now see what is really only an objectified woman, in the place we always find objectified women: displayed in front of men to hook them sexually.  As women, we don't feel like objects when we are seen in this role, because of course we aren't! But there are times when men see us this way. Rather than appreciating a female human being with hopes, fears, a backstory, weaknesses and unique talents, sometimes men simply see a body. This is how Potphar's wife comes across in the story, though we aren't told whether Joseph feels desire for her or not. Interestingly, while Potiphar's wife herself is so simply a temptress in this story, we also find her objectifying Joseph physically in return!

Potiphar's wife is attracted to Joseph, who was "a very handsome and well-built man." "Day after day" she continues to try to get him to come to bed with her. Joseph rightly understands that this would be wrong. He doesn't consider his own desires for her, we don't know how he feels. But he "kept out of her way as much as possible." This makes me think of the "Billy Graham rule" about avoiding one on one interactions with the opposite sex, though I don't think this is a strict application of it, since Joseph only begins to avoid Potiphar's wife after he senses the temperature rising in her relationship with him.

One day when Joseph does happen to be alone, what he was trying to avoid happens. Potiphar's wife grabs his cloak to get him into bed with her, and when he runs off, leaving it behind, she falsely accuses him of attempting to rape her.

I think it is so even-handed and true to life that within just a few chapters in Genesis we have a tragic reporting of an actual rape, a story of a woman using her feminine wiles and sexuality to lure an unjust man into giving her justice, and a woman using her feminine wiles to falsely accuse a good man and bring down his career. These situations can all happen in the real world, and they are all right here in the Bible. Neither "men are always trying to have sex with women," nor "women are always falsely accusing men of trying to have sex with them," are more categorically true from the biblical perspective. It's always complicated.

But in this situation, we have the dangerous seductress narrative in full effect. Potiphar's wife is up to no good with Joseph. She is completely out of line, and seems to have no regard for her own marriage faithfulness, nor Joseph's trust with his boss. She is simply trying to get him to fall, wanting to satisfy her own physical desires without any regard for right and wrong.

This story also brings to my mind the warning from the very beginning of Genesis about sin wanting to rule over a man, and his obligation to resist it and overcome. Remember we found that strange parallel between Eve's curse: "you will desire to control your husband but he will rule over you," and Cain's warning: "Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be it's master."? The two ideas come together in this scenario. I still don't know entirely what to make of all of that. But I did like something I found that John Piper wrote about it. (See here if you're curious. It's more than halfway through the article.)

Joseph is up to the challenge. He resists temptation for the two reasons we said Potiphar's wife had no regard for. "My master trusts me with everything in his household  .  .  . you are his wife. How could I do such a wicked thing?"

But, as in the nightmares of many a man, when Potiphar's wife makes up a story about him, he is judged guilty and unfairly sent back to prison. This is Joseph's second major fall, after being sold into slavery, from which he has risen in the ranks to become the right hand man of an important official. (It will happen again on a grander scale.) But "the Lord was with Joseph in the prison and showed him his faithful love."

Some of the last few stories in Genesis have shown men and women acting in their own interests, sexual and otherwise, with great drama ensuing, but no mention of God's perspective or involvement. In contrast, here we have a declaration of God's favor with Joseph in his unfair suffering. God is pleased with how Joseph got through this scenario with his boss's wife. What could have been seen as a win-win for Joseph, if he had been able to keep an affair secret while maintaining his high position in Potiphar's house, in actuality became a major loss, when the consequences of exploiting the situation came to him even when he received no "benefits." But the theme of Joseph's story is God using for good what others intended for bad, of Joseph continuing in righteousness and faithful acceptance, no matter what circumstance he is faced with, and being rewarded by God.

Billy Graham's Rule?
Let's look for something women can take away to understand ourselves better from this story. Obviously, Potiphar's wife is a negative example, showing how we can act wrongly as women, by seducing honest men. Not an extremely nuanced lesson, but fair to note: using our power of sexual attraction to get what we want from men is not ok.

What else? Even though in this story the initiative goes the opposite way that we might expect--the woman is after the man for sex, we have a connection to modern life when we consider the false accusation plotline, which is one we are very familiar with. How many times within the last year has a woman come forward to accuse a powerful man of unwanted sexual advances, with an ensuing investigation of whether she is just trying to bring him down or whether he is really guilty?

I think the best help this story can give us in these situations is to point to the practicality of something like the Billy Graham rule. This was definitely part of Joseph's initial strategy with Potiphar's wife, though it was only put in place after her advances. A blanket Billy Graham rule has the disadvantage for women that they miss opportunities for professional advancement if they can't have one on one interactions with men who are often the ones in leadership roles. But arguing for the complete interchangeability of men and women in social interactions is not as simple as some would hope. Biological sparks do fly. And sparks sometimes start fires, even unintentional ones. How to deal with this dynamic is something that we have not totally solved, and with all the headlines lately, it seems like we are more *fully grasping the problem* than *reaching a solution* at this point.

The story tells us, at least, that when facing sexual temptation it would be wrong to act on, avoidance is a fine strategy. It's actually not clear in this circumstance how tempted Joseph was by Potiphar's wife's advances. But whether the feeling was one sided or mutual, it was important for Joseph to remove himself from the situation. Ultimately he was vulnerable when he was alone, and the appearance of evil was enough to convict him.

Can we use this story to give approval to a strategy of never being alone with the opposite sex? I don't think it takes us all the way there. But I do think it shows one reason why the strategy has been chosen by some people. If we think that sometimes avoidance of sexual temptation is the best policy, how could we logistically implement that on a case by case basis? Wouldn't there be some awkwardness around only denying one on one meetings to people you find attractive, while taking meetings with people who are then obviously classified as completely unattractive? You definitely could not openly have that as your policy! Wouldn't it be better if we all just use a little self control and do our best to navigate those possibly dangerous sexual situations without falling into sin? Yes, but I think it's an open question whether the potential for sexual sin, or the lost opportunities for platonic or professional interaction, is a bigger danger. I respect the stance of taking the safe route against sexual sin. I also think you could hope and expect that the care for others that stance represents would at the same time be exhibited in finding ways to help and bring along people of the opposite sex, even without regularly being alone with them.

Women's deepest vulnerability and greatest gift
As I've written the posts for Genesis, I've noticed some patterns taking root in our expectations for the lives of the women we are looking at. When we began, in the first few chapters of Genesis, we could imagine the whole world as fresh and full of potential for human development and relationships, including our focus: what is going on with women in the Bible stories.  But as things have unfolded, we have settled into accepting patterns like a woman being dependent on her father, brothers, and sons to care for her, and the rule that what is most important for women in life is having children, particularly sons. These ideas were accepted in ancient history, where we are reading, and have continued to be though valid for an awful lot of the rest of history as well, though they are quite controversial in our moment. I just want to acknowledge these patterns we have seen developing at the beginning so we don't have to stop and say, "why is this happening, where did this all come from?" as we keep reading.

After thinking through the experiences of the women in Genesis, my own understanding of why these patterns exist goes something like this. Eve was created after Adam and would have looked to him as a leader. There was a relationship that had a leader/follower dynamic at the perfect beginning, but it was in an ideal state. Exactly how it worked, we don't know. This is especially true because children only enter the narrative after the fall, and childbearing is so crucial to the relationship between men and women. After the fall, the curse deeply shapes how men and women relate, particularly in a struggle for control and mastery of each other. Women, partially due to the physical trouble and vulnerability caused by bearing children, are limited and can expect to lose these power struggles.

We can see from the beginning the centrality of reproduction, as the difference and the connection between the genders. Also we find God's primary concern for the lives of his people being wrapped up in the children they are having, or wishing they could have. Starting with Adam and continuing forward, men are serving as representatives for families, and women are doing the dramatic and miraculous work of bearing the children. With a lack of power for women comes the incredibly important task of bringing children into the world. But they go hand in hand. Women are vulnerable because of this work, and we are also privileged to be so deeply involved in the unfolding of humanity in this incredible, overwhelming, and exclusively feminine way. The fact that being able to bring children into the world is not something we can do through our own strength or will increases our vulnerability, but this vulnerability is the context for many of the deep relationships between God and the women in Genesis, and the same context is where he meets many of us today as well.

I want to put a flag here saying that where women lose power through their physical weakness in having children, they receive a gift of joining with God in the supernatural work of creation that can bring joy that surpasses anything they could have used superior physical power to work for. I think this pattern of gifts being worth more than gotten gains is vital, both throughout the Bible and throughout the whole of life. And it shows up early and prominently here in Genesis in the identity of women.

I'm looking forward to learning even more about how this plays out as we jump into Exodus next!

Takeaways:

• Joseph tried to avoid Potiphar's wife in order to avoid sexual sin.
• When they were alone, she had an opportunity to claim that he tried to assault her.
• Though Potiphar's wife was as complicated as the rest of us, in this situation, she is reduced to just her sexual role, and she reduces Joseph to his in the same way.
• Genesis has shown us a pattern of the importance of childbearing as a driving factor in women's lives. It causes deep vulnerability and brings great blessing at the same time.

Questions:

• Is it fair to avoid all one on one interaction with the opposite sex due to the potential for sexual temptation?
• If something like the Billy Graham rule is good to follow, how can we help each other along in the world as men and women without being in compromising situations?
• If you think the Billy Graham rule doesn't work, what do you think is a good way to navigate this and avoid temptation to sin?
• What do you think are the most important themes about women from Genesis for us to keep in mind as we move on?

Injustice for Dinah and Tamar (Gen 34, 38)

Mixed in with the stories of the patriarchs and their wives in Genesis, there are two interludes where the main characters are women with injustice done to them by men. Dinah's story involves rape, romance, and murder. Tamar's story features a series of bad marriages, prostitution, and a death sentence. They are vivid stories, and their main female characters present a contrast in ways of approaching life as a woman that is much more stark than the pretty/plain contrast we saw between Rachel and Leah. I think this contrast is an interesting way to look at their stories, so I'm going to write about them together.

So far, Genesis has featured many stories where women are fairly bold: speaking, acting, influencing their husbands and the action. They talk to God, and he often talks to them. Tamar fits this mold, except that she does not interact with God. But Dinah is different in every way. Dinah is Leah's last child, the only daughter born to Jacob. The meaning of her name is not given in the text, but it means "judged," which turns out to be a bit prophetic, as we will see.

Dinah
Dinah, being a girl, would not grow up to found one of the tribes of Israel, like her brothers. But you can imagine that as the baby sister, she might have been doted on. That her brothers love her fiercely and feel possessive of her becomes evident as the story unfolds.

Almost all we know about Dinah's life takes place in one tragic episode. In her story, Dinah takes only one mild action, visiting some young women who lived nearby. The rest of the developments happen to her. On her visit, a local prince, Shechem, sees her and "seized and raped her." This is described as a violent crime, not a romantic interlude. But in the next sentence Shechem "fell in love with her, and he tried to win her affection with tender words." He is completely serious and tells his father to get involved so that he can marry Dinah. How must Dinah have experienced this? I think it is extremely hard to read. Shechem's affection (*after the RAPE*) seems genuine and strong. Dinah must have initially been terrified and violated, but did she change in her feelings? We cannot know. Dinah does not contribute to the movement of the story here, she is just raped, and then pursued for marriage.

Shechem approaches Jacob and Dinah's brothers (Leah's other sons) to ask for her hand. But the wedding negotiations appear to be between Dinah's brothers, and Shechem's father rather than between Jacob and Shechem's father. Shechem begs to marry Dinah, offering anything they will ask of him. Jacob's brothers respond, "deceitfully, "says verse 13. They pretend they will allow Shechem to marry Dinah, if he and all of his clan will be circumcised. Shechem, the text says here, is a highly respected member of his family. He presents the proposal to the leaders at the town gate and they accept in basically good faith, though they do have a motive of completely mixing with Jacob's family so that "all their livestock and possessions will be ours." Maybe this was just a motivation for accepting the terms and joining with the wealthy Israelites. But either way they are as good as their word, and all the men are circumcised in preparation for the marriage.

At this vulnerable moment for the men of Shechem's town,  Simeon and Levi fall upon them and murder every man in the town. They take Dinah from Shechem's house, and return to their camp. Then the rest of Jacob's sons arrive and plunder the the town, taking all the riches and even "their little children and wives . . . as captives." Ugh.

Jacob is furious with Levi and Simeon when he finds out, mostly because of his fear of repercussions for himself and his family. He is worried that the other nearby people will join together to crush them after such horrendous behavior, which seems reasonable. They prepare to leave town, and God tells them to go to Bethel to meet with him. From his reaction, it looks like Jacob was not in on the planned massacre. He was part of the meeting where the terms were agreed on, though he did not set them. Was he in approval of the match?

We never hear Dinah's reaction to all of this. But however she felt about the marriage, the murders were probably devastating to her. If she really hated Shechem, she may have been glad to be free of him. But two considerations make me think she might not have been. First of all, he seems to really treasure her approaching the marriage. If it was genuine and not obsessive, a human response to that kind of love just might be forgiveness and acceptance? The second is that however she felt toward Shechem, after having been publicly acknowledged as a rape victim, any more marriage prospects for her must have been difficult to come by in that society. With no husband and no children, Dinah's ability to achieve honor and advancement would have been really limited. I'm sure she was taken care of within Jacob's wealthy household. But when his descendants are listed as they depart for Egypt at the end of Genesis, where her brothers are listed along with their wives, children, and in some cases grandchildren, Dinah is just Dinah.

Tamar
Tamar's injustice is different. It develops much more slowly, and though it does also involve headline-worthy sexual scandal in the end, she is the one who commits it, in order to take care of herself, where Dinah is on the receiving end, and suffers for what happens to her.

Tamar's story starts out with an honorable arranged marriage to Judah's son Er. This marriage must have been hard for Tamar considering that her husband was "wicked in the Lord's sight," so much so that "the Lord took his life." This direct judgment is pretty rare in the Bible, but it happens twice to Judah's sons, who are Tamar's husbands, in this story. When Er dies, Tamar has not yet accomplished the important work of bearing a child to be Er's heir. Therefore, his brother Onan has a legal duty to marry Tamar, so she can have a son for Er. Onan does marry Tamar, and even sleeps with her, but he wickedly "spills his seed on the ground" so she can't actually have a child. God "considered it evil for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother. So the Lord took Onan's life too." Tamar has really had a poor lot of husbands to deal with at this point.

With his two sons dead, rather than take her in to provide for her as part of his family, Judah sends Tamar back to her parents house to wait until his third son Shelah is old enough to marry her. At this point, Tamar is not doing well in life. She hasn't yet been able to have a son, because two of her husbands were too wicked to live, from God's perspective. She is now back at home and her only hope of a family to be with her for the rest of her life is in Judah's last son. She must have been apprehensive after her marriages to Judah's other sons. Would Shelah be any different? But when he reaches marriageable age, nothing happens. Judah does not look like he plans to even do his legal duty to Tamar by letting her marry him. This is when Tamar springs into action.

When she understands her circumstances, that she will likely be neglected by the father-in-law who has a duty to care for her, she takes her future into her own hands. The text gives us cinematic detail of her changing out of her widow's clothes and putting on a veil to disguise herself. Then Tamar brazenly sits by the road where she knows Judah will be, to present herself to him as a prostitute. She must know Judah, and be fairly sure that this plan will work, to be bold enough to put it into action.

It goes like clockwork. Or as if it were divinely orchestrated? Judah does not recognize Tamar, but does want to have sex with her. She gets his identification markers, apparently as a deposit for the goat he promises as payment. But really of course, she wants these rather than a goat! Judah, embarrassingly, cannot find her later to get them back. She is holding onto them until the key moment when she is found to be pregnant.

At that moment, Judah's great hypocrisy, callousness, and lack of love for his daughter in law is revealed. It's interesting that before he understands what's going on, he has a clue that could have jogged his memory and made him wonder about the timing of everything. Judah was told (it doesn't say who told him), "Tamar, your daughter-in-law, has acted like a prostitute. And now, because of this, she's pregnant!" Did the message bearer know what had happened I wonder? The details in the accusation are perfectly correct, and it's hard to know how anyone else would know about this unless Tamar wanted them to.

Judah, horribly, says "Bring her out and let her be burned!" Apparently this is his public stance on prostitution. But he changes his tune when she sends a message to him  "as they were taking her out to kill her." She has tied the knot in her plan well. She shows Judah his id markers she has been holding onto, and she escapes her sentence when Judah has to acknowledge the truth of his behavior. All the talk of burning is forgotten, and Judah, convicted, now declares, "She is more righteous than I am because I did not arrange for her to marry my son Shelah." In a righteousness contest, most likely neither of these two would be near the top if their particular relationship with each other were considered. However, I do think he's right that Tamar would be ahead.

Judah gives Tamar twin sons, who in true biblical fashion, at their births switch their birth order: one baby's hand comes out first, then the other baby is actually born first. Their names are Perez and Zerah, and they follow Judah immediately in future geneologies, skipping the generation of Er, Onan, and Shelah. I'm not sure what the official geneology protocols are in this kind of situation. Technically of course the boys are Judah's sons, even though Tamar's sons were supposed to count as Er's sons if they had been fathered by one of his brothers. I think it is really interesting that Tamar is one of the only females mentioned in Jesus's geneology in Matthew, perhaps it is because of the tricky nature of the line here. I wouldn't say that that alone counts as an endorsement of Tamar's scheme. But there is another place where we have some interesting commentary on what happens to both Dinah and Tamar.

The final commentary in Jacob's blessings
At the end of Jacob's life, he calls together all his sons to bless them before he dies. We have thought a little about a father's blessing and it's effect before, wondering whether it is meant to actually influence the future, or to rather predict it. In this case Jacob gives us a clear answer for what he means to do. "I will tell you what will happen to each of you in the days to come." He intends these blessings as prophecies, and when he says things like "I will scatter them among the descendants of Jacob," it sounds to me like he is really speaking for God, since this is not something an old man at the end of his life will be able to do. He has a message for each of his sons, but I think what he says to his first four are particularly thought-provoking for us.

Reuben is chided " you are as unruly as a flood, and you will be my first no longer. For you went to bed with my wife; you defiled my marriage couch." A sexual sin which is mentioned in one sentence earlier in the text now keeps Reuben from the blessing of his firstborn status. Jacob does seem mainly concerned in this instance with how he has been dishonored in the affair, rather than with the personal sin of Reuben or Bilhah. But still, this is evidence of the importance of sexual and marriage purity in the evaluation of a life. In the Me Too era, this is noteworthy. How many men with illustrious careers have been found in sexual sin, which they try to say doesn't matter when you consider their great contributions to the world? This defense does not hold water for Reuben when Jacob judges him.

Simeon and Levi are lumped together and indicted for the violence they inflicted on Shechem and his town. Jacob says he does not want to join in their meetings or be party to their plans, because of their fierce anger and cruel wrath. (Speaking for God here?) Their murderous action is judged harshly here, even though it was retaliatory. In the hindsight of history given in Jacob's blessing, Shechem is remembered as a victim, not a perpetrator. And if Shechem is a victim, Dinah is an ultimate victim, suffering both in her rape, and then in the loss of the hope of a family for herself. Though it is so hard to know what her perspective on it all was, her story ends badly. Dinah was really treated as a pawn by Shechem and then her own brothers. They are cursed for their actions, but Dinah herself bears a lot of the burden of everything that happens. Remember her name means "judged." Two meanings for that could apply to the people who hurt her: Shechem judged by Dinah's angry brothers, and the brothers judged by Jacob.

Having taken in the first three blessings, Judah's comes as a surprise to me. Reuben, Simeon, and Levi are held accountable for their sins, but Judah's treatment of and relationship with Tamar is not mentioned at all. Is this because of the "happy" ending? Judah gets the best, or second best blessing, tied with righteous and faithful Joseph. As the brother's stories play out, we do see Judah taking responsibility as an oldest son in their dealings with Joseph in his high position in Egypt. But Reuben does as well, and it seems, in the balance, that his sexual sin trumps his later good behavior.

If we follow the geneology in Matthew, when Judah blessed his sons at the end of his life, he would have been blessing Perez and Zerah, the sons of Tamar. How should we understand the ethics of what happened between them?? Judah's sin was in leaving Tamar, and his son Er, without any children. When Tamar set up an outside of marriage tryst, which Judah would have had to acknowledge was a sexual sin for him as he committed it, was she coercing him into doing what he should have done? The text says that his wife had already died when he set off on the trip where Tamar met him, but I don't think their family relationship would have allowed them to marry. And after their one meeting, he never has sex with her again. This is a real-world complicated story with real-world complicated characters and motives.

Dinah and Tamar in contrast
A final judgment on Judah and Tamar is difficult, but, let's look at the arcs of Dinah's and Tamar's stories in contrast, because I think that is really interesting.

• Dinah: Injustice is done to her, she does not act, the people who wrong her are judged, she suffers.

• Tamar: Injustice is done to her, she takes action in a questionable/sinful way, the person who wronged her is not judged, she escapes her suffering.

The major caveat to the above sketches is that God's justice is not fully administered until then end of each of our lives. We can trust that he provided full perfect justice for Dinah, Simeon and Levi, Shechem, Tamar, and Judah, ultimately. But I think Jacob's prophetic commentary should pique our curiosity about God's mercy for Judah and Tamar. The true answer, by which to set your compass, is that no matter your circumstances, you are not justified in using sinful means to try to make things better for yourself. But I think we see God having mercy on Tamar (and Judah!) in their sin here. I won't go so far as to say he finds no fault with what Tamar did. But her action brings conviction to Judah, children for herself, and no final judgment from Jacob. I will just leave it as a question mark, it would be way off to conclude that God doesn't care about sexual sin. But I do think you see the story showing that Judah's sin of neglecting Tamar is a bigger infraction than hers of ensnaring him for sex.

We've been learning that after the fall, the relationship between men and women is troubled by a power dynamic, where women want to control men, but men are destined to rule over them. The curse leads us to expect to see men exploiting their power over women; and the physical nature of femininity, with women doing the vulnerable work of childbearing, reinforces that. In these two stories, women suffering from lack of power choose two different responses. I'm sure of God's ultimate justice for Dinah, who simply suffered. But we can also see here God's patience with, and activity in, the life of a woman who did not lay by the wayside, but acted to try to bring about justice and regain power for herself.

Also, I don't think we can end our discussion of all this without noticing that none of the characters in these stories invite God into the action. No prayers are even mentioned. God is over all of this as a witness and judge, but he does not intervene, and he is not asked to. How might things have been different??

Takeaways:

• Tamar and Dinah both suffer injustice from men who should have provided for them. Dinah does not act and does not escape her suffering. Tamar does act, in a morally questionable way, and does escape hers, at least in some measure.
• Continue to notice the centrality of the feminine domains of marriage, sex, and childbearing to the plot of the Bible here.

Questions:

• Do you think Dinah forgave and loved Shechem, or would have been happy to be "rescued" and brought back to her father's house?
• How do we rate the morality of Tamar's scheme with Judah? Do you think Tamar gets completely off the hook? 
• If women experience injustice from powerful men in our own lives, how should we figure out how far to go to get justice for ourselves? As far as Tamar did? Further than Dinah? Is it different in for different people in different circumstances?

Lovely Rachel and Rejected Leah (Gen 29-35)

Welcome to the third generation of Abraham's family, which will officially begin the nation of Israel with its twelve tribes, formed from the descendants of Jacob's twelve sons.

As we begin to look at the lives of the women in these stories, let's note that Rebekah, our mover and shaker from the last episode, again starts the action in this story when she sends Jacob back to her family to look for a wife. She does this partly so he can escape the anger of Esau, whom she helped Jacob trick out of his firstborn's blessing from Isaac, and partly because she wants him to marry within her family rather than with a local Hittite woman like Esau has done.

Rachel and beauty
Jacob first meets Rachel at the well. This scene should remind us of when Abraham's servant met Rebekah: again there is animal watering and a beautiful eligible young woman. Rachel is introduced to us as a shepherd, which makes her the first career woman in the Bible. This time it is Jacob who takes the initiative, helping get the water and intervening in some local conflict over the well, and he is delighted to find that Rachel is a potential wife. They go to find Laban, who again is very happy to welcome an unexpected kinsman with marriage potential for his daughters.

After Jacob has been there a month, they arrange his future marriage to Rachel, which will take place after Jacob has served Laban for 7 years. Leah is mentioned as Laban's other daughter who is less desirable because of her "dull eyes." Translators tell us the meaning of the description isn't clear. But the point is that Rachel is much prettier.

Jacob clearly falls in love with Rachel instead of Leah because of her beauty. This is a major major topic among ideas about women. It's almost axiomatic that women's beauty is of high value in the world, where men's attractiveness is not as important. Beauty is considered to be a corollary of femininity. It's also pretty much universally acknowledged is that this is not fair. That most women would love to be absolutely beautiful is evidenced by all the trappings of fashion, makeup, jewelry, beauty products, fitness plans etc. It is a major deal in women's lives that takes up a lot of time, energy, and money. But we don't pursue all this stuff out of stupidity and frivolity. This story is the first Bible story giving evidence that the prettier a woman is, the more desirable and loved she will be, the more things will go well for her, and the more power she will have.  I can feel angry eyes burning back at me from the reading side of this post, but believe me mine are flashing from this end too, because it's not fair and it also affects me. But listen, let's acknowledge how this is and speak frankly about it.

Also, let's read along, and see where this advantage and disadvantage take Rachel and Leah in their lives, and how God deals with each of them in their own situation. In doing so let's look for clues about how he values physical beauty in women. He is its creator after all.

After the seven years fly by for Jacob who is so in love with Rachel that they "seemed to him but a few days," the day for the marriage arrives. Laban reveals himself to truly be from the same stock as his strategically dishonest sister Rebekah. In an almost identical trick to the one she played on Isaac, he substitutes Leah in for her sister when Jacob is unable to see her and recognize what is happening. When he realizes he's been tricked, it's too late. The deed has been done and Laban's agenda is achieved.

Laban's action is truly unfair to Jacob and he is right to be angry. But I do wonder if Laban's motivation was one of love to poor Leah, who he worried would not receive her own attention, and might not gain herself a husband on her own, and would therefore have no one to provide for her. He gives Rachel to Jacob as well, as promised, but gets seven more years of labor for himself out of the deal. Jacob takes this all as well as could be expected.

Leah and children
Immediately after the wedding, the narrative begins to take up Leah's case, that Jacob loves Rachel much more than her, and that the Lord sees this. "When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he enabled her to have children, but Rachel could not conceive." There is a lot going on there. God seems to have noticed that Leah was suffering from a lack of love from her husband, and mitigated that suffering by honoring her with children. Though we saw God's similar concern that Sarah would be the mother of Abraham's heir, the children God gives to Leah seem to be to comfort her even more specifically, since God will bless Jacob with many legitimate sons through several women in the end. God clearly finds her lack of received love to be wrong, and intervenes to compensate and bless her.

The meanings of the names Leah gives her boys are a peek into how her relationship with Jacob is developing:  Reuben -"The Lord has noticed my misery, and now my husband will love me"; Simeon - "the Lord heard that I was unloved and has given me another son"; Levi - "surely this time my husband will feel affection for me, since I have given him three sons"; Judah - "now I will praise the Lord!" Does the meaning of that last name show a development that Leah is at last giving up on Jacob's affection and turning to receive the affection of God, who blesses her regardless of what her husband does?

Rachel is on a different journey. Though she is loved dearly by her husband, she is unable to have any children. If beauty is one asset women are expected to have, fertility is another. And it was even more important in the historical setting of Genesis than it is today. Further, I think biologists would say that in the grand scheme of things, our ideas of attractiveness tend to be characteristics that indicate fertility. Beauty is often a sign of what nature deems really important between the sexes, ability to reproduce.

Rachel becomes jealous of Leah's children, despite her clear victory over Jacob's affection. Her infertility also causes a relational wedge between her and Jacob. She demands that he give her children, "or I'll die!" Jacob is "furious" at this and says that God is the one keeping her from having children. But neither of them approach God for help. Instead, we see Rachel using mandrakes to try to increase her fertility. When Rachel finally does conceive, it says that God remembered her and answered her prayers. But there is no recorded conversation between either of Jacob's wives and the Lord compared with what we had with Rebekah and Sarah.

Rachel's infertility is first mentioned in contrast to Leah, who God enabled to have children because she was unloved. I would love to understand God's motivation here. It does seem that God is comforting Leah in her loneliness and rejection by giving her children. Is Rachel punished for being loved? My idea of infertility is typically that it's a problem--that scientifically, if the right things happen, a couple will get a baby. But maybe this is the wrong way to look at it. In each of the family stories we've read, the couple has been completely dependent on God for a child, and the child does not arrive without his intervention. When you consider even from a physical standpoint all the millions of tiny developments that have to go right for a healthy baby to arrive, it does seem miraculous that it ever happens at all. And perhaps this is the correct way to look at children. They are brought about by God as a gift. Though we participate, it is up to him to give them.

Servant-wives as teammates, not rivals, this time
This drama always seems less present, though, in the lives of the servant women recruited by their mistresses for help when God is not delivering on the timeline desired. Maybe though we don't know their stories as much as we know Leah's,  God is acting similarly for the servant women who are not honored and cherished in marriage?

But in this story, the servants Bilhah and Zilpah are pretty much completely accepted into the family. Where Sarah was jealous of Hagar's pregnancy, Rachel and Leah are delighted with the children of their servants, and take credit for them. Perhaps the difference in their emotional experiences is because of the competition between the sisters. Another reason that marriage is best with just one man and one woman--competition in this relationship is terrible! Because of the rivalry between the sisters, maidservants become teammates rather than rivals themselves.

It's noteworthy that where Ishmael was rejected as the heir and sent away, Bilhah and Zilpah's children are full tribes of Israel. God does accept them, and Jacob accepts them and blesses them on his deathbed (albeit with shorter blessings than Rachel and Leah's sons receive). Though the tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher are less legendary than the Levites, the tribe of Judah, and the others from the lines of Rachel and Leah, they are Israelites, where the Ishmaelites and the Edomites are not. Is this partly due to the real influence of Sarah and Rebekah who are both influential in their stories in favoring their boys? Of course God works through all of this. But perhaps in these stories we can also see these women's actions influencing the plot.

We don't know a lot about the servant women of Rachel and Leah other than that they were lauded for bearing children. After Zilpah bears her first son, Leah says, "Now the other women will celebrate with me!" Maybe this tells us that the women of the household were a bit of a support group for each other, in the absence of the relational support of a primary marriage relationship?

Leaving Laban
When all of his children are born, Jacob feels the need to separate from Laban. After some years of negotiating about livestock with shrewd Laban, Jacob receives a message from God that he should just go, and return to his homeland. I love that he consults Rachel and Leah about this move. They respond to the idea with hearty approval, seconding Jacob's disillusionment with Laban, saying that he will not give them any inheritance, and expressing that "all the wealth God has given you from our father legally belongs to us and our children." This discussion about money is the reason they think Jacob should "go ahead and do whatever God has told you."

They leave in secret, and in an interesting development, Rachel steals her father's household idols. Are they valuable, and is she hoping to get some "inheritance" back from her father after all? Is she doing it out of superstition? Laban chases the family down, angry both because they left without telling him and because of the stolen idols. Jacob is sure of his his innocence, and unknowingly puts Rachel in grave danger, by promising to put to death anyone who may have taken them. He also promises to give back any other stolen goods, not mentioning a death penalty in that case. Maybe he would be more upset to find anyone in his household worshiping idols than thieving.

Anyway, Rachel, proving her genetic connection to her father and aunt, sneakily avoids being caught, using a very feminine excuse (while sitting on the idols, she says she can't get up, she's having her period). After Laban unsuccessfully searches Jacob's belongings, Jacob makes a great speech defending his innocence and rubbing Laban's nose in it. And that's that. As far as we know, nobody ever finds out about Rachel's theft.

In the next part of the story, where Isaac returns home and has to face down Esau, we see a contrast between him and his father and grandfather when facing conflict with other powerful men. Where both of his forefathers used their wives as bargaining chips with local kings, offering them without qualms to their rivals, when Jacob goes out to meet Esau, he protects everyone. He appeases Esau with gifts before they arrive, and then divides his family into groups to attempt to keep some of them safe. His divisions clearly and openly show the rank of the women in his family. Least protected are the servant wives and their children who go to meet Esau first, then Leah and her children, and finally Rachel and Joseph.

The meeting goes well, and after reconciliation the brothers live in two different towns. But Jacob is forced to move again after a scandalous and murderous incident with a local tribe over his daughter Dinah. I think we'll talk about this one in separate post. They leave, and return to camp at Bethel, where Jacob has earlier met God. Here Jacob does order his household to get rid of all of their idols, so he must have had some knowledge of the presence of idols in his family after Rachel's theft. Also at Bethel, they hear of the death of Rebekah's old nurse. We learn her name, Deborah, and they name the tree where they bury her "the oak of weeping." She seems to have been much beloved. In contrast, we don't even know exactly when Rebekah dies.

The sisters' lives in hindsight
Jacob's family next moves to Ephrath, or Bethlehem. But on the way, Rachel goes into labor, and winds up being the first recorded woman in the Bible to experience the curse of difficult childbirth to such an extent that it causes her death. The story is very sad. She has intense labor pains and a difficult delivery, and she must have been having a terrible time because her midwife tries to comfort her "Don't be afraid--you have another son!" "With her last breath" she names the baby "son of my sorrow." We have her pain, her fear, and her sorrow, in the last moments of her life all recorded in these sentences. It makes my heart ache.

Jacob does not want to leave the baby with this legacy from his mother in his name, and changes it to "son of my right hand" or Benjamin. They bury Rachel there and leave a stone monument, which "can be seen there to this day." I wonder when it faded out of memory. Wouldn't that be amazing to find??

After Rachel's death, her maidservant Bilhah gets into trouble with Reuben, and in half a verse we are given the report of their affair, with no other commentary. But this sexual sin keeps Reuben from receiving the firstborn's blessing from his father, even though he is the only son of Jacob who will later keep his brothers from murdering Joseph.

We don't hear any more about either Rachel or Leah, except in much counting of their descendants over the next few chapters. Though Leah's death is not recorded, Jacob later tells us that she is buried with Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Rebekah at Mamre. Though she was less loved by her husband, she was honored to be the mother of the most important tribes of Israel and to be buried with the patriarchs, where Rachel was not.

These chapters are, among other things, a contrast study of the lives of a pretty woman and a plain woman. Beauty, often associated with fertility, turns out not to guarantee it for Rachel, but the favor of God does for Leah. However God does not completely deny Rachel, whose physical condition gives her the advantage in romance and disadvantage in family honor, and he also gives her a son at last. But judging from Rachel's tragic early death, beauty and a romantic spark did not ultimately give her the win in life. I wonder as the years rolled on for Leah how the pain of her rejection by her husband evolved, and whether she achieved peace and happiness in life.

Does either sister really know God? There is little evidence of their interaction. So for this story I think we can gain the most from looking at how God acts toward them. As we often see in the Bible, here God brings about a reversal, where the person you would expect to see in a place of honor: the young, pretty sister, does not receive favor from God as much as the older, less pretty sister.

About beauty itself, I think we see God acknowledging it as an asset for women, though of course he doesn't use it to calculate a woman's value. Instead, he blesses those who suffer for lack of beauty the same way he blesses the poor, who suffer for lack of money. Maybe that's a good analogy for considering beauty. Like money, or any other skill or asset, it's not good or bad in itself, it is just a resource to use for God's purposes, and he takes into account what we have been given and how we use it. Though money and beauty ease life for some, they don't guarantee happiness and can become completely irrelevant to whether we achieve it. But in neither case can they be completely ignored when you consider a person's situation in life. One difference is that money can be more attainable for most, where beauty is not as attainable. This contributes to the power dynamic between men and women where a general human lack of ability to become much more beautiful affects women more than men. But we can take heart that God sees and understands all this, and is good and trustworthy in the midst of it.

Takeaways:

• Both Sarah and Rebekah have real influence on the major plotline of the family God chooses to form his people.
• In this story we see the advantage that beauty gives some women in life being acknowledged and mitigated by God's favor.
• Neither Rachel nor Leah is recorded interacting with God. The only references to God in their lives are comments about their prayers when their children are born.

Questions:

• Why the difference in status for Ishmael compared with Bilhah and Zilpah's sons?
• How do you reckon with the intuitive way people value beauty in women? Not fair, but real. What do we do with it?