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. 

Purity Culture: marriage and sex in the Law (passages in Ex through Deut)

"Purity culture" is the name given to the facet of evangelicalism that encourages sexual purity in the form of modesty, boundaries for sexual activity before marriage, and particularly abstinence before marriage. Joshua Harris's book, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is probably the banner piece of culture from this movement which also included purity rings. Many look back on it and point out its damaging effects, particularly on women who felt guilty for not maintaining their purity. I'm not sure exactly what to think about it. It makes sense to me that we should preserve the specialness of sex within marriage. As far as condemning women as worthless if they have sex without being married while giving men a complete pass and even honor for their extramarital exploits, that's obviously completely wrong. But using our common sense, we can see why the stakes for women who have sex outside of marriage are so infinitely much higher than they are for men. Perhaps without saying so, people want to use the idea of purity for women as a tool for their safety against irresponsible men who would love them and leave them. But if that doesn't work, other protective mechanisms must step in and help, not exploit and condemn. So much for purity culture musings. Israelite culture fully subscribed to it under the law. 

What we learn about women

• Marriage and sex are really closely related here, almost equated. Marriage is the only context where sex can happen, and marriage is prescribed as a solution if eligible people are caught doing it.
• Incest is forbidden, along with homosexuality, prostitution, and bestiality. Polygamy is not.
• Generally the laws follow the "two to tango" pattern, both parties are guilty.
• Punishments are harsh for sexual misbehavior, it's most often punished by death.
• Divorce is allowed, it can be initiated by men.

What I'm wondering

• Why is there so much more emphasis on women's virginity here than on men's? Why no tests for men's virginity or faithfulness?
• Why are the punishments for sexual sin so harsh?
• Given women's clearly weaker position in society, why are so many of the laws set against them in favor of men?
• Knowing God intends sex and marriage to go together completely, should purity culture have a place in modern Christianity?

The Rules

 There are a lot of laws having to do with marriage and sex in Exodus through Deuteronomy. As usual, they are scattered and not super-organized, so I'll do my best to talk through them in a thematic way. Overall, I think the main patterns are that marriage must be absolutely pure, partners can't be family, but they also can't be foreigners, and that women are in their culturally typical dependent position in the arrangement.

There is a detailed list in chapter 18 of Leviticus of who a man cannot have sex with. As always, the laws are written by and for men, since women are too busy with their kids and their nests to read or write. Also, most men are too busy with their farms and their military service. The first line is "You must never have sexual relations with a close relative, for I am the Lord." And then it goes on to spell out who all that entails. Plus there are instructions not to have sex with a woman during her period or with other men, or animals. Also the helpful advice, maybe passed down directly from Israel himself who was husband of both Rachel and Leah, "While your wife is living, do not marry her sister and have sexual relations with her, for they would be rivals."

The rules and consequences are directed toward men, women aren't directly addressed, but they are included in the punishments for sin. When it comes to rape, there are specific guidelines for whether women consented and were therefore guilty or not. Punishments for many of these sins are given in chapter 20 and they are mostly death sentences for both parties. Modern readers find this level of punishment clearly ludicrous and unjust. I'll try to make sense of that later in the post. But marrying a sister  only means the couple must be cut off from society (Abraham and Sarah were in this situation). The same punishment happens to a couple who has sex during a menstrual period. Other not so close relatives who become sexual partners bring about disgrace and childlessness. For priests there are more restrictive rules about who they can marry, and who their daughters can marry. Men and women dressing in each other's clothes is also prohibited.

These laws and punishments are linked closely with the idea that Israel must be set apart and different from the other nations they are driving out of the land, who do all these things. But there is the possibility that if Israel sins in this way, the land will "vomit them out" too. Gross. In Deuteronomy 27, similar rules are understood in the curses given on Mount Ebal for those who do not obey God's laws. There are 12 curses that specify different varieties of disobedience, like not honoring father and mother, making idols, and leading a blind person astray. But four of them, a full third, refer to specific types of sexual sin. Three out of those four specify incestual relationships (the other one prohibits bestiality).

One interesting way to think about this is to compare the rules about sex in the law with our modern take. The law places the greatest emphasis on avoiding incest, followed by bestiality, then homosexuality. Polygamy is never mentioned as a problem though. Our modern rules would probably also say that incest and bestiality are the worst kind of sexual problems. It think for us polygamy and homosexuality switch though. We don't talk about polygamy much, but it's obvious to us that it is really wrong, so much so that only people on the fringes of society would consider it. Homosexuality may be a bit inconvenient because of reproductive differences, and prejudice against it, but basically we are fine with it. I would imagine in ancient times homosexuality would have been obviously wrong and at the fringes, while polygamy would have been possibly inconvenient due to rival wives, but basically accepted as no big deal. I just wanted to note that to remind us that our own heebie jeebies about sex may not come from infallible intuitions about right and wrong in these relationships, but from our culture. But is there an infallible right and wrong here? Christians who believe in ultimate right and wrong generally should look for it here, as everywhere. If you think it's all up for discussion, probably you will just land where things feel right to you, based on what your culture is.

Distilled Women
When it comes to infidelity and divorce, we find the most emphatic differences in requirements for men and women about marriage. The requirement of purity for women is absolute. The only places it is mentioned for men (that I can find) is in the tenth commandment, that they may not covet their neighbors wives, and in the commands against paying for sex with prostitutes. But purity for women in marriage is huge, illustrated by three texts.

First of all, in Numbers 5, there is a test for unfaithfulness a woman must undergo if her husband suspects her of infidelity, even if he has absolutely no evidence. To me, it is reminiscent of tests for witches from the 17th century, but that probably goes the other way, that they copied from Numbers! She has to drink a potion made of muddy water from the temple floor (temple floors must have been gross, right? All the blood from animal sacrifice!). If she's guilty the water should make her infertile, but if innocent it won't harm her. There is no mention of even the occurrence of a situation where a woman would suspect her husband. But in general, aren't men the ones more likely to cheat? And women more likely to suffer in that situation?

In Deuteronomy 22, a woman's virginity at the time of her marriage can be proven by blood on the sheets of the marital bed, if her husband doubts her. If the husband accuses falsely, he is fined for falsely accusing the woman, and may never divorce her. If he was right according to the sheets, the woman is stoned to death.

A third interesting mention of the importance of a woman's purity comes in Deuteronomy 23. If a woman has been divorced by her husband, and remarries, she cannot remarry her first husband again if the second one divorces her or dies, because she is defiled.

These passages seem to show that despite the law being generally addressed to men as its readers, surprisingly, women are really held accountable for their virginity and purity within marriage more than men are. This is confusing to me. It seems that if the general pattern of the strong helping the weak is to be in place, the men should be the ones we really enforce these laws on. They may have no other consequence of sexual misbehavior in their lives, where women have every motivation to avoid the natural consequences of sex outside of marriage.

Divorce
Divorce is only mentioned as being initiated by men. It's description is heart-breaking, "Suppose a man marries a woman but she does not please him. Having discovered something wrong with her, he writes her a letter of divorce, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house." (Deut 24:1) Doesn't this feel so foreign to our modern American way of thinking about relationships? I'm sure this hierarchical authoritative structure of marriage is not uncommon in the modern world generally, but it feels so cold and cruel here. I think this is a pretty dire characterization of a marriage gone wrong, even for the Bible though. We have the Song of Solomon! And Ruth and Boaz! Hopefully this was a desperate measure for desperate times, one that was not offered to women because they couldn't read or study, because hardly anyone had time to--especially busy mothers, and therefore the law was not written for them? Maybe.

Sex and worship
One more topic to bring in before we try to pull this together and make some sense of it generally. We recently discussed laws about wives taken from among prisoners of war. This situation is legalized in the Torah. But in Numbers 25 we find an episode of Israelite men being seduced by Moabite women and coming under God's judgment. This at first struck me as a bit of a contradiction, but on closer reading, it seems like the crucial factor was that the sex went along with joining the women in worship of Baal. It makes sense that God would take great offense at that kind of sexual behavior. Temple prostitutes and sex-related stuff generally seems to often find its way into pagan religions. This combination is a double sin, and God takes it so seriously that the men involved with Moabite women and Baal worship are executed "in broad daylight." A rather horrifying detail of the event is that a couple composed of Zimri, a son of a family leader from Simeon's tribe, and Cozbi, the daughter of a Moabite leader are caught in the act at just the moment when God's judgment of the whole situation is apparent. They are speared, together. The names just make it that much more intense.

Washed by the cleansing of God's word
So purity, for Israel as a nation in worship of God alone, and sexual purity within marriage, specifically for women, is a big big deal in the law. We've accumulated quite a list of questions in observing these passages. Though we are going through the Bible starting in the Old Testament, Christians need to read it all in light of what Jesus has revealed in the New. Here I think we've got to go to our prime marriage passage in Ephesians to get the needed context. Here's 5:25, "For husbands, this means love your wives just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her to make her whole and clean, washed by the cleansing of God's word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead she will be holy and without fault."

The Church as the bride of Christ is a common image in the New Testament, and some places in the old (Hosea and Ezekiel for instance). The Old Testament does not mince any words or ideas about the seriousness of sin in general and God's judgment of it. The New Testament reveals how our impossible task of pleasing God can be accomplished through Christ. If marriage at large is a symbol of God's people united to him in marriage, this goes a long way toward explaining why the ideal of marriage is set at such a high standard, and also why the purity of the wife (the people) is such a big deal. A woman who is impure or unfaithful pretty much gets death, as do God's people who are in sin. But Christ purifies us from our sin, and he purifies his wife too. Ideal religion is participated in by perfect people, ideal marriage involves a perfectly pure wife. Under the OT law, both sinful people in general and impure wives suffer for their faults.

As far as the practical consequences of unfaithfulness and impurity for women, that they may bear children without a father, this could parallel the way people in general, and the fruit of their sin and idolatry, become alienated from their Father in heaven because of their sin.

Now. That holds water for me symbolically. But in specific cases of broken marriages, and specific women who have sex outside of a safe marriage and suffer for it, Christ's mercy should apply. How it went in Israel I'm not sure. I hope mercy was offered to unfaithful women, as it was to all unfaithful people again and again, despite the high standards of the law. I think there's hope that this was true when we consider what we noted above, that Abraham married his sister, and that Israel married women who were sisters, both of which are forbidden in Leviticus. This is a model for at least showing men mercy!

Knowing what we do know now about Christ's love for his people and his deep desire to purify us, I think we can hold to a high standard of sexual purity, with a standing offer of mercy to those who haven't met it. I'm not going to throw purity culture out with the bathwater, I guess. We just need to apply it in the context of New Testament redemption which surpasses Old Testament righteous judgement. 

The Red Tent: childbirth and menstruation in the law (passages in Exodus through Leviticus)

When it comes to our female identity, these topics are where the rubber meets the road. They are the details of life that make women different from men. This is evident, not just from the way the Bible talks about these things, but from observation available to anyone.  This part of female experience is common ground for all of us, regardless of our other ideas about what it means to be women. Not all women have children, and not all of us even have periods, but no one does either of those things who is not a woman.

What we learn about women

• Women experience ceremonial uncleanness while they are having their periods or bleeding after childbirth.
• Normal bleeding is distinguished from abnormal bleeding or discharge--with normal discharge you don't have to live outside the camp like you do with possible contagious disease processes.
• Though men are also "unclean until evening" when they ejaculate, women spend much more of their lives unable to enter the temple than men do.

What I'm wondering

• Since discharges keep you from being allowed to approach God in the temple, perhaps this kind of body function will not occur in our redeemed bodies?
• What was it like "outside the camp"? I assume they didn't just leave sick people out there with no shelter. Was there a sort of hospital there?
• Do we acknowledge the physical toll of being a woman too much or too little these days?

Passages about childbirth and menstruation
Ex 21:  If a pregnant mother is injured and her baby is lost, the baby's death is taken into account legally.

Ex 23:26  no infertility or miscarriages is a promised reward for serving the Lord only

Lev 12: purification after childbirth

Lev 15: discharges, and menstruation

The importance of giving birth
In the law, childbirth and menstruation are mentioned in a couple of ways. The obvious gift of new children to God's people is a primary and unmitigated blessing, brought about by women, but at the center of everyone's concern and joy. Success in reproduction was God's initial promise to the patriarchs and their wives, and it is promised as a blessing to all of the Israelites in Exodus 23:26 "You must serve only the Lord your God. If you do, I will bless you with food and water and I will protect you from illness. There will be no miscarriages or infertility in your land, and I will give you long full lives."

A theme of blessing for your children is a primary promise of blessing through the scripture, and is a prime area of concern for all people. We've already mentioned often how central and irreplaceable for humanity is the reproductive work women do. Minimizing this role for women or disassociating it from women's identity does us a great disservice. We only do it when we become jaded to the wonder of life, and distracted from what is arguably our main biological purpose as people--to continue the survival of humanity in order  to continue worship of God and enjoyment of him. We do this by creating, nurturing, and protecting human life. I'd venture to say that all other facets of civilization ultimately serve this goal in some fashion. Childbirth, and the menstrual cycle it depends on, are where the work is accomplished or not.

Uncleanness
However, the bulk of the text to do with menstruation and childbirth is in the middle of Leviticus, in the midst of how to take care of kind of gross physical problems like mildew, sores, discharge, and skin diseases. Menstruation, and bleeding after birth are counted as fairly standard "discharges" with required washing, changing of clothes, and waiting. These discharges cause people to be ceremonially unclean until they have been taken care of in the proper way.

The first obvious question is, what does it mean to be ceremonially unclean? The next is, why would this go along with bleeding? And then, practically, what would this mean for the lives of women? If you are unclean, what does life look like compared with when you are clean?

From Numbers 5, it seems that those who were unclean must live outside the camp. But if you count a seven day period and seven days waiting afterward, as it sounds like you might need to in the text, does this mean women were spending half of their lives during their childbearing years outside the camp? Who was making dinner?! In doing some research, I found two excellent articles which I highly recommend if this topic interests or confuses you.

The first helpful article is an entry from Baker's evangelical dictionary (https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/clean-unclean.html). I found these few sentences defining clean/unclean to be very helpful in understanding what we are talking about here:

In Old Testament times the ordinary state of most things was "cleanness, " but a person or thing could contract ritual "uncleanness" (or "impurity") in a variety of ways: by skin diseases, discharges of bodily fluids, touching something dead ( Num 5:2 ), or eating unclean foods ( Lev 11 ; Deut 14 ).
An unclean person in general had to avoid that which was holy and take steps to return to a state of cleanness. Uncleanness placed a person in a "dangerous" condition under threat of divine retribution, even death ( Lev 15:31 ), if the person approached the sanctuary. Uncleanness could lead to expulsion of the land's inhabitants ( Lev 18:25 ) and its peril lingered upon those who did not undergo purification ( Lev 17:16 ; Num 19:12-13 ).

It seems that a lot of the concern with ceremonial uncleanness is related to like, physical uncleanness. Though menstrual blood and semen are not infectious generally, they still could create unsanitary conditions if not cleaned up afterward. (The mother of young children in me is very curious as to how vomit got left out of this discussion, in my mind the most disgusting and infectious symptom there is! But have I gone too far?) It's interesting that there's a jump from these hygiene problems to the approach to God in his temple. Cleanliness is next to godliness? People with really contagious problems are asked to live away from the camp, while men and women with normal discharge are just to keep away from the temple. What we know about God's character tells me that these people outside the camp would have been in deep fellowship with him, perhaps even more than those healthy ones less aware of their physical weakness and mortality who were worshiping at the temple. But if the temple is a representation of people actually redeemed and in open fellowship with God as we will be when creation is restored, perhaps this is why symptoms of disease and even physical phenomena that are just a little less than sanitary are to keep away.

This article  (https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/female-purity-niddah) about female purity is VERY THOROUGH, i.e. long, but so so helpful for thinking through how the verses about menstruation should be read, and how they have been interpreted by the Jewish community over the last few (thousand) years.  To attempt to grossly summarize (see what I did there?), the author shows that in the text there is a contrast between normal female and male discharges, which are menstrual bleeding and ejaculations, and abnormal bleeding and male discharge. Normal menstrual periods do not require a 7 day waiting period afterward afterward before purification, while abnormal bleeding does. But in the interpretation of these laws by (male) rabbis over the years, the traditions became more and more restrictive about waiting times after menstruation and requirements for women to be sure they were not bleeding and causing uncleanness to their families, especially in priestly families. The author points out that for a man to have sex with a menstruating woman, and then enter the temple for worship is an almost unforgivable sin which can curse the entire nation and be punished by death (see above description of clean/unclean). That's worth thinking about! Why on earth?

I think we have some real food for thought when it is implied that regular menstruation (and ejaculation) which is part and parcel of the normal experience of post fall men and women is not a part of God's ideal fellowship with us. Are periods a consequence of the fall?? We have Jesus's statement that after the resurrection we will not be married, could this have something to do with the way our bodies will work and not work for reproduction when they are glorified? No babies were born that we know of until after the fall, and it looks like no marriage, and possibly no menstruation or ejaculation afterward. Does that mean that this period of post-fall pre-redemption will be the only epoch where new humans are created? Whew the speculation is running wild here!

Weighing the burden
But leaving all that aside and taking as a given that this is just what God asks of the Israelites under the law, we should consider that this abstaining from the temple while menstruating creates a big difference for men and women in how they participate in the public life of the faith community. Periods heavily influenced the lives of women in the Israelite community, and still do for women today.

Even in the age of lots of reasonably convenient feminine hygiene products, periods are still a pain. And at this point in our blogging journey, it is perhaps time to lay out in detail what it means for women physically that ours is the burden of bearing children. Though it is also the greatest privilege, here let's look at the cost we cover to do it.

During our most productive adult years for one week out of four, we will have periods, which entail, at least, the extra logistical difficulty of constantly managing bloodflow. This absolutely must be dealt with, no matter how long the bathroom line, or how inconvenient to find and carry the necessary supplies. In addition, many women suffer physical pain and weakness from cramps, and headaches, and emotional trouble from chemical storms in our brains. Even if we are not pregnant, our immune systems take the week off to protect a potential new invading life, and we get sick more easily. This is happening for 25% of our lives when we are about 12-47. This, alone, is a uniquely female vulnerability that has serious consequences for what we are able to accomplish in life. But women are amazing, and we surmount these obstacles pretty deftly to compete with men, until . . . we become pregnant.

Bearing a child is an incredible experience. Though some people say they aren't interested in doing it, for many women, we know from the get go that this is something we hope desperately for. Until children our born, there's no way to understand how profoundly we will be changed, but for most women, we instinctively know we want to do this. The pursuit of this goal makes it a fairly straightforward decision for women to arrange their lives around giving birth to and caring for their children. And though again of course we are not speaking in absolute universals, for most women, this heaviest burden brings the most powerful joy. Joy in the life and blessing of their children causes women's priorities to change so that their own individual happiness and purposes are no longer in the drivers seat. Once a baby arrives, the ability to advance your own agenda is compromised by the alignment of your own goals with those of a completely helpless infant who turns into an unruly and irrational child. This is where the most profound weakness happens for mothers. Good men realign their lives in a similar way, though perhaps not quite as profoundly as women experience. But the standard biological man is free to create a child and never think about the fact again in a way that a woman is not.

These economics of power and blessing in reproduction are at such a deep level of human experience, that we often have to challenge ourselves to remember that they are going on despite the fact that they order the world we live in. The specific parts of the law that deal with hygiene related to bodily discharge are a testimony that this physical phenomenon is a real factor in daily life that it is fair to acknowledge. The fact that this kind of human dirt is not permitted in the temple is thought-provoking tidbit, tempting me to to think that our redeemed bodies will be easier to manage and (please God!) involve less cleaning up. But for now, it's good to know that in the law, some of the cost of the blessing of bringing new life into the world is counted.

As for an acknowledgement of the work of motherhood itself, I think this is reflected in the entire structure of Israelite society where women as a class are acknowledged as needing support and care from the men in their lives, their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons. You can see how the vision for patriarchy makes sense even though God knows, we all know, it has been horribly abused almost always. Next time we'll explore more about that in the context of how the law deals with marriage and sex.

But one final thing to think about: the law says menstruating women must not come to the Temple, and that sick people can't even live in the camp with everyone else. This seems like an additional level of hardship for people already dealing with some difficulty. But though it is not mentioned in the law, we know that God is with those who are weak and who suffer in a way that can be even more profound than when we experience in health and strength. Though they are not joining God's people assembled to meet him in cleanness in the Temple, I feel sure that God would have been meeting them in their trouble on the outside. He comes to sinners, to the weak, to the sick, to meet us, heal us, take up our cause and ultimately redeem us. When we are weak, then we are strong.

Captive women (Passages in Ex through Deut)

What to do with the fact that in the Bible we have the matter of fact discussion of slavery, enslaved women in particular, and women captured in war and taken as brides? These ideas are completely opposed to what we hope for as the ideal for women in a civil society. Yet here they are described and legislated in the Torah, God's law for his chosen people.

To understand this, we have to return to two concepts we have used already a few times when looking at strange and unacceptable cultural practices and patterns. First of all we have to say simply: times were different. Second, we have to remember that within the different times, people were the same, and God worked with them to restrain and root out their sin, and bring them to faith in his work in the world within the context where they found themselves.

I'd also like to add a third consideration though, that we have been thinking through as a pattern for how women experience life in the world. This is the idea that because of the physical factors of being a woman and bearing children, women are often both categorically and individually in positions of less power than the men around them. Though women are equal in value, (or you could argue that our unique ability to nurture new life makes us even more valuable!) we find ourselves in dependent positions in life because of the very thing that makes us so special: we have babies.

If the law had been penned by American intellectuals in modern times, surely our experts on morality, human rights, and ethics would have struggled to find some way to make life look more similar for the two main kinds of people there are in the world. But that "law" could only do so by writing off what women can uniquely accomplish with their bodies. Attempts to frame our moral law in this way have led to strategies as extreme as abortion, and switching genders, to make sure everything is equal and fair. But the law written by God is different. It operates in consideration of the relative vulnerability of women, and what to do with that in a culture of powerful men. (Is ours ultimately so different in that respect?)

What we learn about women

• Women had very little legal power and life agency in the culture the law pertains to, and under the law enslaved women were near the ultimate bottom of the power totem pole. 
• The law allows marriage to wives who are enslaved in some circumstances. 
• A woman's consent for marriage is not mentioned in these passages where women are in captive situations.
• There are different conditions required for male and female slaves to gain freedom. Women pay a lower price for redemption. But without paying for freedom, they are not necessarily freed after 6 years as men are.

What I'm wondering

• Why are there different laws in Ex 21 for male and female slaves regarding freedom?
• Is God ok with the Israelites having foreign wives or not? If they are slaves, is that the difference that makes it acceptable enough to legislate?
• What was the status of the rare captive wife who attained freedom when her husband neglected or was displeased with her? Where did these women fit in Israel? Did they?
• How does all this apply to our modern culture where we have provisions for women other than marriage to avoid physical danger and starvation? What would a modern civil Christian law look like regarding women? Or is this even necessary to consider since we know from Jesus's teaching that all of the law is contained in the commandments to love God supremely and to love our neighbors as ourselves?

The passages about women as slaves and captives
Ex. 21: slaves and their wives, freedom for male and female slaves and/or wives

Lev 19: sex with a slave girl promised to be married to another man - "since she is not a free woman, neither the man nor the woman will be put to death" followed by instructions for the forgiveness of the man's sin.

Lev 29: value of male and female people for "redemption"

Nu 31: virgin girls listed as plunder

Deut: 15: 17 ear-piercing as a symbol of a servant who wants to stay with his master's family applies to female servants too

Deut 21: a captive woman may be married after she has time to mourn for the family she lost in war. She cannot be sold or demoted to slave status if she displeases her husband.

Hebrew slaves, wait what?
When Moses meets God on Mount Sinai, the first instructions he brings down for the people are the ten commandments. But surprisingly, immediately after that, and before instructions for setting up the Tabernacle, we have rules dealing with slaves. How strange, that for this people whose whole identity is established in the moment they are freed from slavery, among the first of the regulations God gives to them are what to do, "if you buy a Hebrew slave."

The laws do say that a Hebrew slave is not a slave categorically and must be freed after 6 years. However they also give instructions for what to do if a slave is happy with his master and wants to stay on permanently. Even more interesting for us, the main reason given for why someone might want to stay has to do with marriage.

Remember, we are in a world where conditions of life are very different from our current ideals. We know from reading both history and the news that the human rights we want for each person are harder to come by in the world than we'd like. Twenty-first century Americans are at a high water mark for individual power compared with most of the rest of civilization throughout history, and yet still divisions between the haves and the have-nots, and oppression of the weak by the strong, are pervasive problems. Should we have expected to find in God's law the formula for a society where these dynamics are avoided? We certainly wanted to expect that. But let's do the exercise of really opening our minds to consider that maybe our ideas are influenced by our own culture (the same way we'd like to explain the standards we find here), and that in Scripture we are receiving revelation from God, applied to a particular culture, but according to truth that stands forever. With that in mind, let's do our best to imagine the context, and look for the truth that speaks to it, then bring our own context under that same truth.

So back to Hebrew slaves, and considerations for them about marriage, family, and freedom. In a world where the sharp edge of economic inequality forged from a combination of circumstance and human influence could cut deep enough to kill, a person might decide to offer their full service in exchange for sustenance. God does not rule this strategy out, clearly, but he also says that it must not be permanent. A person who does this must be considered to be in a particular situation, not to be a particular (inferior) kind of person. So at the end of six years, a slave must be offered freedom. But at that time the person's own assessment of his or her status as a slave/dependent on a master can be taken into consideration, and if a person finds himself weak and prefers to rely on the authority of a good master for life, he or she is allowed to stay. This scenario strikes me as neither categorically bleak nor optimistic. It takes into account how complex and unequal life can be.

The male-female power dynamic again
The part here about women though, puts them even less in control than male slaves.  The first part of the text says that if a man was single when he became a slave, he will "leave single" and if he brought a wife with him, she too will be free when he is. But the interesting third circumstance here is if a man was single when he became a slave, but his master "provided" him a wife and they have children. In that case, the wife and children would stay with the master and the man alone would be free. This is a perplexing situation. If the man wants to stay with his family, he has to declare "I love my master,  my wife and my children. I don't want to go free" (emphasis mine). And then he can become a permanent slave in a ceremony where before God, his ear is pierced with an awl into the doorpost. Ouch. But what if the slave would like to be free, but would not like to leave his family? It appears that he has to choose. This is because these women who are sold by their families into slavery are not freed at the end of six years.

Before we try to figure out why, notice in all this discussion that women are being given and taken and sold. They are not the decision-makers here. We really squirm with all of this because we don't like the idea of women with no power being forced into situations they didn't choose, with no recourse if they don't like them. But we are going to have to bust our molds again and think back at what we know about authority: that it is an obligation to help and protect. Women in Israel were clearly not in a powerful situation, probably partially due to the physical factors women always face, and partially due to cultural patterns set up around those physical facts, patterns that can wind up having equal or greater force than physical factors. In this way of living, men were in de facto authority. Because of that fact, they were responsible to care for, provide for, and protect the women in their lives. It was their responsibility not to take advantage of women, but to nurture them. We can look back with cynical hindsight at what often happens in these relationships. But the ideal itself could have been good.

The rest of the Exodus passage is anticipating the cynicism we are experiencing. It restricts men who have female slaves from selling them to foreigners (who would have no scruples about nurturing women) if they are displeased with them, denying them full daughterhood when they marry sons, or neglecting them in the inadvisable circumstance that they take another wife. (Ugh this is here again! I guess if Abraham, and Israel himself, did it we should not be surprised to see polygamy acknowledged in the law though.) As we'll see in a bit, I don't think it's entirely clear whether the other wife is an additional wife, or a different wife. If a first wife married out of slavery is neglected, this is the only way the text allows her to be freed.

Laws about wives who are slaves
Sorting through all these scenarios about marriage and Hebrew slaves, I realized I need some outside interpretive help. I found several interesting articles dealing with Hebrew slavery and how difficult it is to understand. Some of the articles also look at the other passages we have in our list above. Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15 both talk about freeing slaves after 6 years. Deuteronomy's version is not so caustic to our ears, either, it says that both male and female slaves should be freed after 6 years. Why the difference? A third passage in Leviticus gives us some clues, though it wasn't on our list of parts of the law about women specifically. This passage also links us to the other difficult verses for this post about women who have been captured in war. In Leviticus 25, there is more discussion of slavery in general. The key part for us comes in verses 44-46.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

This passage shows that the law actually allows permanant slavery for non-Israelites. Some think this means the enslaved women who are not freed after 6 years are women captured in war, non-Israelites. Since God called his people to be set apart from the unredeemed nations around them, he would not allow those who were not his people to live in community with them. As slaves, they could be in a dependent position, but not full members of society. I presume, that if they would turn to worship the true God, they could be counted as true Israelites and the laws that applied to them would change?

I'm actually not sure that "foreign women" argument holds up though, because in the Exodus passage, the female slaves have been given into slavery by their fathers, not taken in war. But I did find a direct Hebrew translation here (https://thetorah.com/hebrew-slave-exodus-leviticus-and-deuteronomy/) that to me gave a lot more help in how to understand what Exodus is saying.

The אמה (Slave-Wife) Law

כא:ז וְכִֽי יִמְכֹּ֥ר אִ֛ישׁ אֶת בִּתּ֖וֹ לְאָמָ֑ה לֹ֥א תֵצֵ֖א כְּצֵ֥את הָעֲבָדִֽים: כא:ח אִם רָעָ֞ה בְּעֵינֵ֧י אֲדֹנֶ֛יהָ אֲשֶׁר לא ל֥וֹ יְעָדָ֖הּ וְהֶפְדָּ֑הּ לְעַ֥ם נָכְרִ֛י לֹא יִמְשֹׁ֥ל לְמָכְרָ֖הּ בְּבִגְדוֹ בָֽהּ: כא:ט וְאִם לִבְנ֖וֹ יִֽיעָדֶ֑נָּה כְּמִשְׁפַּ֥ט הַבָּנ֖וֹת יַעֲשֶׂה לָּֽהּ: כא:י אִם אַחֶ֖רֶת יִֽקַּֽח ל֑וֹ שְׁאֵרָ֛הּ כְּסוּתָ֥הּ וְעֹנָתָ֖הּ לֹ֥א יִגְרָֽע: כא:יא וְאִם שְׁלָ֨שׁ אֵ֔לֶּה לֹ֥א יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה לָ֑הּ וְיָצְאָ֥ה חִנָּ֖ם אֵ֥ין כָּֽסֶף:

21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. 21:8 If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. 21:9 And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens. 21:10 If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her shelter.[2] 21:11 If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment.

I read in this article (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-slave-wife/) that daughters could be given into slavery temporarily, almost in place of a dowry, with the understanding that at the end of 6 years they would be married either to a man or to his son, and become full daughters/wives. And that seems to go along perfectly with this translation. (It sounds exactly like the arrangement Jacob entered into with Laban to marry his daughters, in fact.) The idea is more palatable as well, as a provision for a family whose daughter could otherwise not afford to marry.

I find this to be one of the most difficult passages related to women in the law to understand, but I feel somewhat satisfied by the servanthood/dowry agreement theory.

Women captured in battle
Next let's turn to Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21 which are about marriage to women captured in battle. This is probably has it's closest modern association in our minds with ISIS or Boko Haram. Phew. Again, we will need to time travel with our mindsets. The whole concept of the kind of warfare we find in the Old Testament is jarring to modern Americans. (Although, to be honest, as I watch Game of Thrones, fast forwarding a lot, I feel like I'm getting a whole new context for what the world was like in Bible times.) The ideas that redemption is possible for everyone, and things like wiping out enemies completely and using the death penalty are categorically wrong, come from Christian gospel principles. These principles have since been co-opted and applied by non-believers who always want mercy on physical life without concern for the weightier spiritual truths involved. Here in the Bible, in God's battles, physical life is not spared, showing the judgment deserved by all those who live apart from him in sin. The pagan armies that oppose the Israelites are generally not asking for mercy and if they too can live God's way. They are out to horribly destroy, and must be stopped by killing. But often the women, who have not been violently opposing the Israelites can be spared. This is a world where women living alone are not able to survive in safety and prosperity. So what to do, but place them in households where they will be supported and protected, and expected to contribute by working? And it makes sense that their rights are restricted since they are not pledged to live under God's law.

We do hear that these captured women may be taken as wives though. And we have the passage where if a man has sex with a female slave who is committed to become someone else's wife, he must pay a brideprice for her, neither of them are punished since she was not free. This is followed by instructions for his purification. You can see why a captive woman would not be punished for having sex with (or maybe even being raped by?) a free man, and the man is the one who would need to be purified. But maybe we are to read this as the man having to marry her, similar to the law we'll talk about later to do with what happens if a man seduces any virgin. But the woman's consent is not even thought of in any of these passages. It is apparently a more modern idea.

Later on in the Bible, and even just later in the law, though, we see God's great displeasure at marriages between the Israelites and "foreign women" who lead them away from God's commandments. How did the slave wife fit into this picture? Was God ok with foreign women being taken as wives, as long as they maintained a lesser status? That seems totally odd. I think perhaps the key is our romantic ideal of marriage (the source of a lot of relationship trouble these days, amiright?) versus the cultural structure of marriage that kept the weaker members of society, the women and children, taken care of.

Women captured in battle would have been completely vulnerable and needed to be somehow worked into society. They could be simply female slaves, or taken as wives by the Israelites. Presumably captive wives would have legitimately joined the civil and religious society, while slaves would only have been supported and managed. This distinction would fit with the instructions in Deuteronomy 21 for the transition of a captive woman from a slave to a wife. She is given time to mourn the loss of her family, and then is free to be married. But if later the husband is displeased with her, she cannot be demoted to a slave. She must be set free, echoing the passage in Exodus we looked at above.

Maybe the difference that causes God's later disapproval of marriage to foreign women comes when Israelite men marry women who were not vulnerable, who were living within their own communities, and would have been able to influence their husbands to accept their cultures rather than the reverse?

How much is a person worth?
There certainly is a LOT to stew on here. Before we finish, one last observation from to do with women and slavery from Leviticus 27. The way that either a male or female slave can be freed under the law is through the payment of a redemption price. In this passage, the prices for men and women for redemption are different. Men can be redeemed for fifty shekels of silver, women for thirty. I think the obvious reason for this seems correct, that men are generally bigger and stronger and can do heavier work than women. The value of the work they do is greater, therefore their prices as laborers is more.

This brings us full circle to the beginning of the post when I was wondering if you could actually say that women are worth more as people because of the ability we have to bear children. I don't actually think that. People find themselves in whatever circumstances they are in, weak or strong, able bodied or not, rich or poor, male or female, tall or short, sick or well. Their ultimate value is in their humanity which lives and learns to work within these circumstances. Value other than our humanity can only be assigned relative to certain categories. Men are worth more for carrying bricks. Women are worth more for carrying children. The well are worth more for considering possibilities, the sick are worth more for considering limitations. The rich are worth more for providing resources. The poor are worth more for stretching those resources. The true value-determining factor for everyone is the orientation of their heart, how completely it is set on loving God and trying to please him. What quantity of bodily resources we have to accomplish that aim are not what really counts.

On that note, let's wrap up. There is plenty here to file away as observations and questions, and save for continued context as we keep moving. The main thing to hold on to I think, is the factor of the difference in cultural structure in a far less gentle world than the one in which we currently live. This culture did not promote equality, but did require the protection of the weak by the strong.

Women in the Law: overview

Most of what we've been reading so far in the Bible has been historical narrative. We've heard and thought about specific events, specific people, and specific things that happened to them. But we are now moving into a section of laws. For pages and pages, we have directions, procedures, rules and consequences, for life in Israel. Lucky for us, many of these pertain to women and the differences between women and men. The law has many parts, and continues from Exodus through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. We will have to get to the book of Joshua before the narrative picks up. But there is SO much to discuss in these more abstract statements about the way things are or should be with regard to women in the Hebrew culture.

What we learn about women:

• There seem to be four main areas specific to women that the law deals with: female slaves and captive women, marriage and sex, childbirth and menstruation, and public life.
• Laws about these things are scattered throughout the Torah, we are grouping them together thematically
• Many of the different laws for men and women are related to how our bodies work in reproduction and physical/logistical repercussions of that.

What I'm wondering:

• Since the laws we find here deal with life in a society where sin is present and has to be punished, we can say these probably aren't perfect cultural ideals. What would the cultural ideal for men and women in society be?
• Why is the law delivered so piecemeal rather than organized into categories? How was it used in court?

The order of the Law in the rest of the Torah
For the sake of orientation, let me first chunk out the order of what is in the books that contain the Law. We are starting in Exodus, after the exodus really.

Generally, in Exodus, we have the Israelites brought out of Egypt, then God's initial instructions to Moses on Mount Sinai. These include the ten commandments, and some civil laws about slaves and personal injury, but the bulk of the Exodus instructions are about how to make the tabernacle--the temple in tent-form which they will need to worship in the desert.

Leviticus contains detailed instructions for the religious practice of the Jews, how to consecrate the priests, do the sacrifices and offerings, how the people can be ceremonially cleansed, and what the festivals entail.

Numbers is a mix of several kinds of text. It begins with a census of the Israelites, then records the history of them starting to consecrate priests and use the Tabernacle in the desert. This includes rebellions and battles, it's the context for Miriam's story from the last post. Numbers ends with a list of the clans descended from each of Israel's sons, a recap of their travels through the desert, and a statement of the boundaries of the new promised land. There are a few instructions for worship scattered in here and there too in Numbers.

Deuteronomy gives us Moses' personal message to the Israelites before his death and before the enter the promised land. It's part testimony, part instructions, and part inspiration. There are specific regulations given, but in the context of a lot of urging of how important it is for the Israelites to fully serve the Lord.

As we read through the specific parts about women within the law, it will be good to keep those contexts in mind. Don't worry, I'll remind you if I think it is important, but I just wanted to lay out the general shape of the rest of the Torah before we go to specific parts about women.

The four main topics involving women in the Law
Having paged through this entire section, I think the four main topics that we should look at are marriage and sex, menstruation and childbirth, women as slaves and captives (ready to get your cultural dissonance glasses on?), and public life: inheritance, vows, etc. I think we will have to treat each topic with a separate post to avoid exhaustion for both writer and reader. : ) Below I've listed the passages I've noticed that deal each area, but rather than printing them out, I will summarize. For those that really pique your interest, you may want to look yourself.

Marriage and sex
Ex 22: "seducing a virgin," exploiting widows and orphans

Lev 18: rules about sex

Lev 20: punishments for sexual sins

Lev 21: who priests can marry

Lev 22: daughters sharing the priests food, interesting tidbit about divorced women with no children returning to their father's houses.

Nu 5: test for a wife's faithfulness

Nu 26: Moabite women seducing Israelite men, and the punishment for this, including spearing a couple together, which stops a plague.

Deut 20:7 new marriage an excuse to stay home from war

Childbirth and menstruation
Ex 21:  If a pregnant mother is injured and her baby is lost, the baby's death is taken into account legally.

Ex 23:26  no infertility or miscarriages is a promised reward for serving the Lord only

Lev 12: purification after childbirth

Lev 15: discharges, and menstruation

Numbers: counting and dedicating firstborn sons

Slaves and captives
Ex. 21: slaves and their wives, freedom for male and female slaves and/or wives

Lev 19: sex with a slave girl and "since she is not a free woman, neither the man nor the woman will be put to death" followed by instructions for the forgiveness of the man's sin.

Lev 29: value of male and female people for "redemption"

Nu 31: virgin girls listed as plunder

Deut: 15: 17 ear-piercing as a symbol of a servant who wants to stay with his master's family applies to female servants too

Deut 21: marriage to captive women


Public life
Ex 35: women did the spinning and sewing for the tabernacle

Leviticus: which sex matters for sacrificed animals

Nu 26:46 only Asher's daughter mentioned

Nu 27: the daughters of Zelophehad (also in 26:33 and ch 36)

Nu 30: vows women make to the Lord and how their male family can influence those vows.

Deut 22:5: cross dressing

In all of these topics, it will be fascinating to tease out how the factor of a person's gender affects the way the law applies to them, and how life should work for them. I remember reading this part of the Bible as a small girl, and it was one of the first places it occurred to me that things are different for men and women in the Bible. Because God's law gives us his instructions which we would be happiest and most blessed if we were able to uphold, we should get some interesting insight about how gender should factor into the context of daily life in community. But let's also remember, that the law is intended for sinners, and refers to situations where the starting point is that things have gone wrong. It's good to keep in mind that Jesus tells us in Matthew that all the law and the prophets hang on the two greatest commandments, that we love God supremely, and love our neighbors as ourselves. However strange some of the specific laws seem, we should try to interpret them in this light. I will head into the section about women as captives and slaves with some trepidation at the fact that God gives us situations to work with where women have been captured in battle as slaves, or sold into slavery by their families. Praying for wisdom there! Let's hope this struggle to study and attempt to pull some overarching wisdom from this part of the Bible will be really useful for understanding who God intends us to be as women.

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.