Matriarchs of Genesis: Conclusion

The five mentioned matriarchs of Genesis are interesting characters for modern day readers to know and appreciate. However, as it was pointed out several times in class, the Old Testament is not feminist literature. I acknowledge that point and even affirm it to a point. Yes, it is not feminist literature in that it was not written to support women or fully explore the difficulties faced by women in the days of the Old Testament. Yes, it is not feminist literature in that it was most likely written by men, for men, and the stories about women were to support or explain the men around them....

But, I do not truly think that is all there is to the definition of feminist literature. The mere fact that women, specifically in Genesis, are given such prominent roles and storyline is a commentary all on its on. Women did not need to be included. Women did not need to be named. Women did not need to save the day. Women did not need to direct the action of the story. Women did not need to 'trick' the men in their lives. There is a lot that women did not need to do, but they did and the narrative supports that.

Part of feminist literature is not just writing something that is feminist. It is also reading something that is not seen as 'feminist' and trying to understand how it could be applied to our understanding of women yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I read the scriptures as something that lives and breaths within the midst of modern day Christianity, that to state that the stories are to be read one way and only one way is a false statement. A good story is not the story that means only something to the people during the time it was written but mean something to individuals throughout the rest of time. I can connect with Sarah's story whenever I comprise on an assignment because I'm scared that if I don't finish it sooner someone else will take the credit. I can relate to Rebekah's story when I have aunts telling me that certain populations of men are not fit for me to marry. I can relate to Leah's story as an older sister with a much prettier younger sister, and that there is tremendous pressure to be the first to get married. I can relate to Rachel's story because it's difficult to be denied the one thing you want and desire, and there's nothing I can do about it.

No these stories are not "feminist", but they can, do, and will mean many things to me as a woman.

Matriarchs of Genesis: Rachel

Rachel was beautiful, lovely to look upon, and instantly attracted the attention and love of the handsome stranger. Jacob, said stranger, was immediately taken with Rachel and offered her father the only thing he had: hard work. How Rachel felt about him the narrative does not say, but the reader is led to assume that she returned Jacob's love and affection. However, she may have felt an stronger love for her sister Leah...

A Jewish tradition says that Rachel was in on tricking Jacob on what should have been her wedding night. Legend says that Jacob and Rachel had developed secret signs so that Jacob would know without a doubt that he was with Rachel. However, for whatever reason, Rachel taught these signs to Leah so that on the wedding night Jacob would not stop the events until it was too late. Maybe Rachel felt she had no choice when her father Laban approached her and told her what he was planning. It's not hard to imagine Laban using threats or violence to get his way, which was for Leah to be married first. However, as the tradition suggests, Rachel also acted out of love for her sister, and through her actions she secured a placement within a household for her sister.

However, if this tradition is true, then Rachel created a life that may have contained more hurt and frustration than if she had alone married Jacob. Without knowing it, she had entered herself into a womb contest with Leah that she was never able to win. She also was not made the mother to the heir, as that honor went to Leah. Although Joseph did many great things, Jacob did not make him the heir. Instead, Judah, Leah's son was given everything and it his name we read in the genealogy line to David. 

Rachel made a difficult choice in allowing her sister to marry Jacob before her. I wonder if she imagined the consequences of such a decision, that she tried to imagine all the bad that could occur being married to the same man as her sister. But, what if Leah remaining within their father's household was a punishment Rachel was not willing to subject her sister to. That not only would Rachel be escaping Laban's household, but now Leah would be too. Sisterly love may have initially trumped whatever romantic love was between Rachel and Jacob....

Matriarchs of Genesis: Leah

I think Leah gets a lot of flack for her role within the biblical narrative. Her story is not romantic, so there goes half of the female readership. Then, readers like to blame all of Rachel's problems on Leah, so there's another quarter of female readership gone. Next, readers tend to view Leah as unremarkable...

Well, apparently that is what Jacob thought as well, which is why God chose to honor Leah over Rachel. Rachel's son Joseph may have become a powerful leader in Egypt, but Leah's son Judah is a part of the Line of David, ergo the line of Jesus. It is Judah's sons through Tamar that continue to provide the connection between Abraham and David.

Then, since God saw that Leah was originally unloved by Jacob, he gave her many sons to make up for her husband's lack of emotions. Leah conceived and bore five sons before Rachel had even one, giving Leah a placement within the household that would difficult for Rachel, the beloved wife, to win against. Jacob would never set Leah aside because she had given him many sons in which to build up his household.

However, it must have been difficult for Leah to watch how this affected her sister within the household. Yes, Leah wanted the love of her husband, but she also must have loved her sister as well. Balancing her desires and needs to have a solid placement within her husbands household and the pain/suffering Rachel felt at being barren must have been difficult for Leah. Watching her sister try repeatedly to become pregnant and to only fail each time would be difficult for any sister who felt a semblance of love or caring for her sister.

As the older sister myself, it is difficult to not assume that Leah would not look out for her needs or try to make the best of a situation, but she may have also tried to take care of her little sister. Was she perfect at it, no, but I wish I could hear Leah tell her side of the story from her point of view...

Matriarchs of Genesis: Rebekah

Rebekah may be my most favorite matriarch in the Genesis narrative. She is portrayed as a strong character, who makes decisions that are followed through, drives the narrative, pulls the strings... I think she is great! In fact, I think is one of the few female characters within the narrative to truly outshine and out perform the male characters within her story.  She is portrayed as being stronger and smarter than her father, Isaac, Esau, and even Jacob.

Her father asked her opinion about whether she wants to journey to a foreign land to marry Isaac. He allowed her to have the final decision rather than dictating to her what she had to do. An unusual custom when fathers typically made all the decisions for their daughters.

Narrative seems to imply that Isaac was not much of an even match for her. Even when Isaac takes a chapter from his father's book of trying to pass Rebekah off as his sister, it doesn't work out for him at all. King Abimelech sees Isaac and Rebekah together almost immediately and thus Rebekah's chastity within her marriage is never questioned. Later in the narrative, Rebekah receives a direct message from God describing the twin brothers that will be born to her. Special because it is the mother, the woman, Rebekah who receives the message and not the father, the man, Isaac.

Finally, it would be wrong to state that Rebekah did not control her household. It may have been Isaac's household, but it was Rebekah who ultimately exerted the dominant influence over everything. Her quick actions and plans resulted in her favored son, Jacob, receiving the blessing that meant for his older brother. She was instrumental in hoodwinking Isaac, pushing Esau out of the picture, and establishing Jacob as the one to get it all. Interestingly, Esau does not retaliate against Rebekah, but reserves all his anger towards Jacob and his parents as a whole.

In my opinion, Rebekah is one of the strongest female characters within the entire biblical narrative. She was not perfect, but she commanded her family with strength and authority that is unmatched by few others...

Matriarchs of Genesis: Sarah

Oh Sarah, how I wish I knew more about you and your side of the story. Your husband decides to leave his homeland, most likely yours too, and to start wandering through out the country side. Were you okay with it? Did you protest, say that you didn't want to go, or did you say "wherever you go, I'll go"? Oh, and you mean so much to Abram that he is willing to put your life at risk to save his own by calling you his sister and not his wife. In fact, he valued you so much that he did it twice! Yet, you were the first wife and the only person you had to answer to was Abram. You helped manage his household, the servants, workers, slaves. You had the status, but not always the circumstances to back up your placement within your own household. You were considered barren.

How long did it take for you to start to panic over not having a child? You must have worried greatly to take another woman and suggest your husband lay with her. A slave woman, a woman who was "less" than you would be able to provide the heir that you had not been able to provide yourself. The narrative says that you grew resentful towards Hagar, but how long did it take? The night Abram didn't come to your tent? When her pregnancy started to show physically? When did you start to regret your decision? 

Then, you are told by visitors that you will conceive, at 90 years of age. You'll have a baby! The text says you laughed, but I don't think it was a laugh of joy or poking fun at the visitors. I think it was a laugh of remorse. The laughter that is often followed by tears of frustration, anger, sadness. You had tried to solve the problem of having a heir, and here was God finally granting you your boon. I would have thought God was a little late to the party, and why he couldn't have shown up sooner.

You had a lot to deal with. A husband who treated you well, but not always great. A body that would not corporate with desires and wishes. Making plans, doing what you thought was best, but having those plans and decisions blow up in your face. How did you handle it all?

I wish I knew more about you and your side of the story....

Matriarchs of Genesis: Noah's Wife

A character not often discussed as important within the Biblical narrative is Noah's wife. A majority of the text of Genesis 6 through 9 is devoted to the actions of Noah and God. Very little is mentioned about Noah's wife, so little that she is not even named in the narrative. But, she is included in the command from God as to who should be on the ark. Carol Meyers suggests that Noah's wife was not included because of her ability to produce more children, as compared to Noah's sons' wives who were essential to repopulating the Earth. Instead, Noah's wife was included on the ark to provide companionship to Noah, which in Meyer's opinion suggests the narrative holds companionship in marriage in high regards.

Yes, the narrative is written by males, about males, and thus the focus would be on Noah and his actions. I get that. In fact, there are lessons I think anyone can learn from Noah regardless of Gender. However, as female reader who deals with gender stereotypes, limitations, and other difficulties associated with being a woman, it would have been nice to hear how Noah's wife dealt with a husband, who for all intents and purposes went off the deep end. Did she ever question him to his face, behind his back, or follow him blindly? Did she face criticism from the other wives around the city gathering places, the well, about her crazy husband? How instrumental was she in building or shaping the ark? Did Noah listen to her suggestions about how a kitchen should be set up on a boat, or did he build whatever he thought was fine without consulting what would serve her needs best? These are the questions to ask and the answers I want to know.

In the late 90s, a made for tv movie was released about Noah and building the ark. I don't remember much of the movie, but I do remember Noah's wife trying to throw all the spiders overboard. My mother, who hates all creatures that crawl or creep, was silently cheering her on, and was highly disappointed when Noah stopped his wife from ridding the world of spiders. Needless to say, my mother was on Noah's wife's side that evenings, not Noah's.

Matriarchs of Genesis: Introduction

I"m fascinated by the matriarchs in Genesis, particularly the stories of Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel. I find their stories to have complexities and drama that are not noticeable at first glance. I believe their stories have more to tell than what Christian theologians, pastors, teachers, deacons, etc have allowed them to project. Until 30, 40 years ago, the emphasis was always on Abraham, the guy who was willing to sell out his wife for safety, or Isaac, the guy who was repeatedly tricked by both his wife and his son. Lets not forget Jacob, the man who tricked his way into a birthright, and managed to acquire four wives (who ran the household and him). Alright, so may be they did great things too: found and perpetrate what would become one the worlds largest religion and people group.... but sometimes, I just don't relate to these men. Call me crazy, but it's not often that I fully understand how the male mind works. Sorry, my genetic makeup consists of two X chromosomes and not just one.

Until recently though,  I had never heard any scholar, preacher, teacher, theologian, missionary, etc "blaspheme" the name of one of the OT patriarchs, that the patriarchs were perfect and could do no wrong. As an individual with two older brothers and a distant father, I don't buy their patriarchs perfection or that they completely dominated the other characters around them. Thus, for me, to fully understand the story I look to how all the characters interact. Since a large portion of the narrative is centered around women, it makes sense that I would turn to feminist literature to try and gain a better perspective of what was going on within the story.

A classmate recently said that "No matter how many articles are written on it: the Old Testament isn't feminist", and then stated that he thought feminist research was on some level "disingenuous". Well, I have to disagree. I don't think the entire OT is straight, 100% feminist literature, but I do think the OT provides several accounts of the female characters not only being the individuals to control the action of the story but also being the character at the center of the story. In a highly patriarchal society, I'm amazed that the OT mentioned women by name, allowed them to control and trick their husbands/fathers/brothers, be at the center of a story, be the ones to save the day, etc. The writers didn't have to included their stories, especially the stories that made the men look bad, but they did. These women are presented as strong, determined, cunning, intelligent, equals in some respects. I agree that the narrative doesn't always come out and say it that way, but at times some reading between the lines and connecting the dots creates a picture of females that is in line with some feminist thinking.

Now, the matriarchs of Genesis were not perfect or blameless either, and sometimes committed much worse offensives than the men in their lives. However, they also at times controlled the story line and were the 'heros' of the story. Here's hopefully a more in depth look at what it was like to be a matriarch in Genesis. Not necessarily "feminist' literature, but pretty darn close.

Adam and Eve - Both Had to Sin

I understand talking about Adam and Eve is taking us back to the beginning of the semester, but I was reminded of the story when reading St. Anselm Proslogion. In the first chapter, St. Anselm writes that "...the universal outcry of the children of Adam! He was satisfied to the full; we sigh with hunger...Why did he not preserve for us, as he easily could have done, what we so woefully lack?" Well in my opinion, Adam never stood a chance of preserving the Garden and full humanity for all time. 

Without getting into the debate of interpreting the Creation story literally versus as an analogy, I wonder if the story had to happen the way it did. That both humans, Adam and Eve, had to sin. That if one did, then automatically the other one had to too. Essentially, it wouldn't matter who sinned "first" because order doesn't matter when everyone is going to do the same thing.  

I question this because historically Eve has gotten more than her share of the blame. A common thought is that Eve caused the downfall of man! oh and then Adam sinned by not standing up to her and telling Eve "NO!". But did Adam really have a choice in the story? Did either character truly have a choice if one of them ate the fruit from the Tree? 

The continuing story would not have worked if both of them didn't "sin". Both of them had to be cast out of the Garden. Both had to be cast out into the 'real world' so they could procreate and make more humans. If one of them had stayed in the Garden, human civilization would have looked very different these days. 

I'm not trying to say it was Eve's destiny to eat the fruit and Adam's destiny to accept her offer. However, I do think that neither human would have been able to make it through the temptation of not eating the fruit, Eve was just the first one to go. I think the snake could have easily convinced Adam before Eve that nothing bad would have happen from eating the fruit, and thus Adam would have been received more of the blame for causing the down fall of Man. 

Eve's taken her share of the blame throughout history, but I think placing more "blame" on her is the wrong response to this story. 

David's Story = Classic Story Structure

Almost a year ago, I heard Donald Miller talk about his book, "A Million Miles In a Thousand Years", which is based on his experience of learning what it means to write a good story. A good story will follow a plot line, there will be character development, the reader will be able to understand what is happening, and the story is worth telling. A method for accomplishing a 'good story' is through the use of the Three-Act Structure, which is as follows: Act 1, act 1 climax, act 2/rising action, act 2 climax, finishing with act-3/resolution. While not guaranteed to generate a good story, it is the basic method of creating one.

When thinking about the story or narrative of King David of Israel, I was struck by how similar it is to the Three-Act Structure.  Now David's story could be broken into multiple Three-Acts, but here's my basic outline of the story:

Act 1: David's childhood, going off to fight Goliath, running from Saul, and then leading his band through the wilderness.
Climax 1: Saul Dies, David is finally made King
Act 2: David is King, he starts to make bad decisions, he's fighting his sons for power, etc...
Climax 2: At some point, David begins to turn back to God. He begins to go after "God's Heart" thus becoming a man after God's own heart.
Act 3: David as he was towards the end of his life, and God's power is highlighted rather than Davids.

While not a perfect outline, the basic ideas are the same. There is a rhythm to his story, an up and down movement that makes David's story interesting. He grows, he develops, he makes mistakes, he makes good choices, he has friendships, he gets married, he has children, he goes to war, he is crowned King, he defies another King, etc. David's story is not easy, simple, or basic anything. There are plot twists, character development, climaxes, resolutions, tension, irony, and other tools of story telling that make a narrative's plot a good one.

David was not perfect, but his story is a good one.

David and Jonathan: Soul Friends

A good friend of mine is convinced there is such a thing as "Soul Friends" and that they are almost the same thing as "Soul Mates". These are people, either gender, in our lives who we aren't physically attracted to, but if it wasn't for that factor we would be the elusive "soul mates". She says this goes beyond just being "good" or "best" friends, but it is a connection on the deepest level possible of the human conscience. These are the individuals we say "they just get me" or "I'd marry them if I 'swung' that way (same gender)".  In her mind, physical connections are not necessary for 'soul friends' to be just as connected to one another as we deem soul mates to be.

In my mind, David and Jonathan were 'soul friends' (first Bromance!), and that they weren't merely just 'friends'. I think David and Jonathan had everything that we would associate with 'soul mates' minus the physical attraction part. *Now, I'm not willing to 'die in the ditch' that they were or were not engaging in homosexual behavior because it truly does not matter to me. I'm leaning towards the side that they did not, but whether that was because the physical attraction simply wasn't there or they didn't act on it according to cultural norms is irrelevant to my argument.* My argument is that I don't think David and Jonathan had to be physically intimate to have a deep, truly intimate relationship with one another.


Does the dynamics of a physical relationship change things, I don't actually know nor can I claim to know. However, I do know that physical intimacy does not always lead to a deeper level of knowing, feeling connected to another individual. I also believe that while physical intimacy can lead to a deeper level, I don't think committed couples necessarily need it. My examples for these two are any of the "hook-ups" on the Jersey Shore (not having deep emotional connections after physical intimacies), and the relationship between Dana and Christopher Reeve (not needing physical intimacies to have deep, emotional connections). While I mourn the first example of both men and women being so causal with their lives and bodies, I deeply admire the second example of two individuals not allowing the apparent lack of physical contact to deny them from having a deeply connected relationship. Dana Reeve died within a year of her husband from lung cancer, she was a non-smoker...

Granted, I'm not married, nor am I anywhere near that state of being! but I don't think the concept of 'soul mates' and 'soul friends' are necessarily in competition with each other. I'll allow that it is easier to cultivate a stronger relationship when you can use all levels of connection: physical, emotional, spiritual, etc, but I don't think physicality is the strongest way to bind/connect. This is also presupposing that the only "physical connection" that exists is sexual intercourse rather than including any form of human, physical contact, such as hugging or hand holding.

In closing, one of my 'soul friends' and I joke occasionally that whoever marries us is getting a twofer, that we come together as a pair. Trying to separate the two of us from each other would be an impossible task that no man should even consider trying to do...

T.J. Wray: Issac and Rebekah - Both Strong Tricksters

As I am working my way through a mountain of books about the matriarchs of Genesis, I'm finding veins of gold about them that sheds a tremendous amount of light onto their stories. One writer, T. J. Wray, offers insight into the story of Isaac and Rebekah's.

Wray states that from the beginning of Rebekah's story till her end, she is portrayed as a major character. Rebekah is the only female character's who's birth is announced in the Old Testament, which signals that she will be a woman of prominence within the narrative. Her status as a powerful woman is demonstrated in her offering hospitality to Abraham's servant, her father/mother asking her opinion about whether she wants to leave and marry Isaac, and then her masterminding the scheme to get Jacob the birthrights and blessings from his father. Rebekah is portrayed as a woman who goes after what she wants, using "trickery" if she had too, and she usually got it.

So where does this leave the character of Isaac? Often, by this point in the story, Isaac is portrayed as old, blind, easily fooled by his wife and son, etc. Isaac was the patriarch of the family, and his wife (PS: she was a woman, they aren't supposed to be the stronger ones!) was controlling the family destiny. What?!?

Well, maybe that description is not actually accurate... Wray presents this interpretation of the story:

Isaac wasn't a stranger to trickery himself, such as when he tried to pass Rebekah off as his sister. Wray suggests that maybe Isaac was the orchestrator of the entire scheme in an effort to test the mettle of Jacob, to see how hard Jacob would work for the birth right. She basis this theory on after living with Rebekah, Isaac might actually know a thing or two about his wife. Wray mentions that Issac may have been no where near death's door, but he calls Esau to him to give him a "death bed" blessing. Hmm, knowing his wife's preference for Jacob, and her previous actions, what if Isaac made sure she over heard him talking to Esau so that she would then go tell Jacob? Thus, Isaac wouldn't have to be the one to give away the blessing of the first born to the second born, but rather the decision would be "taken out of his hands".

Wray concludes with saying, while this interpretation could be entirely false, it elevates the status of Isaac from a largely passive and weak role to a more prominent and strong role. This change in Isaac's role then elevates him to the same level of power and respect that is afforded to Rebekah. Thus, making him an "...appropriate mate for Rebekah. and lets face it: only a strong man... could handle likes of her".

Love and Marriage, part 2

As mentioned in the previous entry, there were multiple instances where the Biblical narrative explicitly states a man loves his wife/woman. However, that same emotion, action, state of being is not explicitly stated on behalf of the women in the narrative. The first instance (correct me if I'm wrong) of "love" being expressed by a woman for a man is the story of Michal's love for a young David (1 Samuel 18-19).

Michal is a younger daughter of Saul "who was in love with David", and thus her father Saul tried to use her love to his advantage against David. Saul demanded that David bring back the foreskins of 100 Philistines, thinking that David would be killed during such a battle. However, David agrees to the bride price to marry Michal, fulfills the price, and Michal becomes David's first wife.

Now the text does not say how or what David felt for Michal, but he was willing to meet the bride price to have her. He could have ignored it like he did when Saul offered Michal's older sister Merab to David to marry. Thus, David must have had some reason for accepting and risking his life to meet the price, and I do not think it was because he was wanting to become Saul's son-in-law. However, neither am I willing to say that David did it because he returned the feelings and actions of Michal.

In fact, this marriage is one sided in the effort and feelings expressed. Michal loves David, risk's her life to help him get away from a murderous Saul, and defends David to Saul. Her payment for her effort, she is given to another man as a wife. What does David do for Michal? Leaves her behind to face her father alone, marries multiple women while away, does not seek her out when she was going to be given to another man, and then demands her back when he comes into power. Never does David do anything for the benefit of Michal. Even bringing her back should be seen as a good thing for her, but is it really? Paltiel, her "husband", "went with her, weeping behind her all the way...". Paltiel is willing to express more emotion and desire than David ever did.

Her story has a very depressing ending. David, in his celebration to "God", dances naked in the street in front of everyone. Michal, I can imagine, was jealous, embarrassed, frustrated, upset, disappointed, etc with David's actions and rebuked him for it. David's response was to rebuke Michal that his dance was for "God" (alright, so maybe I'm highly cynical about David doing it purely for the benefit of God), and if other women saw him, then so be it! The passage ends with the line that Michal was then childless until the day of her death.

Michal's story of love and commitment to David seems like it should be the plot of a Shakespearean tragedy. Young woman loves young man, young lovers are separated, and when they are reconciled, they are different individuals and they aren't able to come back together. It's unfortunate that the first instance of a woman stating her love for a man in the Bible ends in tragedy for her.

Love and Marriage, part 1

The lyrics from Frank Sinatra's song, "love and marriage/go together like a horse and carriage/this, I tell you brother/you can't have one without the other" are what most 21st young adults in the United States view as an essential pairing for a good marriage to occur. Within my cohort of females, we tend to view practices such as arranged marriages as barbaric practices that we as "enlightened" females would never deign to participate in. We, as 21st females, get to choose, and the concept of "love" for marriage implies that two individuals are both choosing to join together as one entity. If we can't marry for love, why get married at all...

However, what we tend to forget is that not all women are afforded the same set of circumstances that allow for "freedom" to chose to marry for love. Throughout the world, and within the confines of the Biblical narrative, women marry because of political alliances, exchange of power dynamics, necessary for child bearing, escape from impoverished circumstance, or for money in her family coffers. A woman may have the choice in all these situations, but those choices may be between a rock and a hard place, not exactly the most desirable of options! 

An interesting thought though, women in the Old Testament may or may not have "loved" their husband, but there is plenty of examples of their husbands "loving" them. Issac loved Rebekah (Gen 24:67), Jacob loved Rachel (Gen 29:18), Jacob even "loved" Leah (Gen 29:30), Samson loved Delilah (Judges 16: 4), and Elkanah loved Hannah (1 Samuel 1:5). Why would the authors of scripture specifically mention the feelings of some men towards their wives or "women"? Did this signify a stronger feeling than what Abraham might have felt for Sarah or what David felt for his wives? 

Just some humor to end this blog on!

Samson and Joseph

While reading the story of Samson, I was struck by how many similarities could be found between the story of Samson and Joseph. 

Before their birth, both of their mothers prayed long and hard to have a child. Neither Samson nor Joseph had many siblings by their biological mothers, and thus they may have had the lonely only, privileged, get whatever they want upbringing. Although Joseph did have many half brothers, I can't say that he was particularly close to any of them.

When they were slightly older, they both told riddles that they only knew the answers to. Joseph told riddles about one day ruling over his family, and Samson’s riddles were about honey from the carcass of a lion. In both instances, the riddles got them into trouble and resulted in some terrible consequences for those involved. 

Both at some point were defeated by the actions of a woman. Joseph was thrown in jail for the accusations of Potiphar's wife, and Samson was defeated and captured because of the actions of Delilah. 

At this point their stories begin to diverge and go different directions. However, while not explicitly stated in the stories, one final similarity may occur between the two stories. During their times in captivity, both characters seem to go through a time of personal growth and maturity. Joseph comes across as less cocky and more forgiving, while Samson ends his life by using his superhuman strength for the betterment of others rather than just himself. 

Neither Samson nor Joseph led perfect or blameless lives. They were cocky, arrogant, and prideful individuals whose actions sometimes had negative consequences. However, both of the two men did govern the lives of many individuals. Joseph was in charge of the grain in Egypt and his brothers did eventually bow down to him. Samson was a too smart for his own good, and he did reign/judged over Israel for 20 years. His strength was through the will and power of God, and when Samson was faithful, God  was faithful. Both men faced both good and bad times, and their actions have made it into the history books. They must have done something rather significant. 

Death at the Hands of a Woman

Death at the hands of anyone or anything is very much a final state of being here on Earth. At least in terms of temporal things, once a life has ended, that is is it. However, apparently how you die can have lasting consequences. One such method of death that can have lasting consequences is death at the hands of woman. For a man to be killed by a woman is worse than for him to die in battle, because of an accident, the actions of another man, or death by almost any other means. To die at the hands of a woman is considered to a dishonorable manner for a man to go. It calls into question his ability to defend himself and his character as a man. This trend can be seen throughout history and multiple cultures. The Biblical narrative does not escape this manner of thinking and includes several stories about how women delivering delivering the final blow as a tool to bring dishonor on a man. 

One story is the story of Deborah and Jael in the book of Judges. Deborah received a message to go into battle with King Sisera, and summoned Barak to lead the Israelite army into battle. For an unknown reason, Barak is hesitant to act on Deborah's command without her support and presence going into battle. As a result, Deborah states that Barak will not receive the glory for the victory that Israel will experience, but rather the victory will be found in the hands of a woman. This is not only a slam on Barak's leadership, that he is not worthy enough to have the glory for the victory of the battle, but it will also shame the power of King Sisera to be defeated at the hands of a woman. Jael will ultimately win all the glory for the defeat of the King Sisera when she killed him in her family's tent, and she and Deborah will be the stars of their story. Barak only receives a mention as the commander of the military, but he is not credited with winning the battle. 

Another story is story in the book of Judges is that of Abimelech when he tried to capture the city of Thebez. As he was attacking a tower within the city of Thebez that contained both women and men, a woman dropped a stone on his head. His skull was cracked, and the reader must assume that death was imminent for him but not right way. Ambimelech quickly called to his armor-bearer and told him to kill him "so that they cannot say 'A woman killed me'". His servant did as he was commanded, and technically Ambimelech was merely wounded by a woman but killed by a man. In Ambimelech's mind, this somehow saved him from something, or it just merely saved his honor. 

In my mind, whatever the cause, death is death. However, I can understand that the stigma of death, while it may not affect the individual who died, can and does affect the family and friends left behind. If the view of eternal life for a man was that he lived on through the life of his children, then how he died would taint how his life would continue after death. The stigma associated with death because of a woman would not only taint the memory of the dead man, but also the family line after him. This could have had tremendous consequences for the family line, and a man would take steps to prevent that from happening. 

While the stigma of being killed by a woman is not as prevalent as it once was, other stigmas do exist in modern times. Death through a drug overdose or suicide can carry strong, negative stigmas that individuals left behind have to live with. Sometimes the genetics of the successive family members can be called into question or quality of life for the family greatly diminishes. 

Women on the Losing Side

No one wants to be on the losing side, especially during the days of the Biblical narrative. To be the losing side meant that your entire nation/city/group/family/ or kingdom would be destroyed and . The battles between the Canaanite clans were brutal and a fight to the death of the losing side, or at least death to all the MEN on the losing side. If you possessed a "Y" chromosome, chances were the winning side was not going to allow you to continue to live so that you could one day fight them again. Not necessarily ethnic cleansing, but insurance for squelching future battles that could arise from the male survivors.

The women of the losing side, however, often did not face the same fate as their men. Commentaries discuss that during the days of the Biblical narrative, child bearing age women were in short supply due to the physically and potentially deadly act of child birth. A community or group could only grow as strong as their women were able to have more children to support the community. If there was a shortage of women, then there would be a shortage of children, which would mean a shortage of workers and future leaders of the group. Therefore, if there was a shortage of women within the group, the men would have to go outside the group to find potential wives and concubines.

A manner to "get" more women into the tribe would be to collect the "booty" or women from the losing side of the battle. Although different accounts in the narrative stipulate what women were allowable into the community (some accounts no women were allowed and other accounts all women were allowed), if the importance of getting more women in to the community to provide more more children, then it make sense that the winners would want to ensure that the children were products of THEIR community and not the losing community.

I can understand the benefits behind bringing more women into the group in order for more children to be born. However, I do think such a plan could have backfired on the Israelites. Just because an individual is a woman, does not necessarily entail that she will not seek revenge on the individuals who killed her people and captured her. A mother can be a powerful influence on the development of her children, and if she is not able to accomplish revenge, she will get her children to do it. I can imagine a bitter and revenge filled woman passing on such thoughts and ideas to her children, and thus her male children could now become an equal threat as the adult males whom initially lost the battle.

While I'm not trying to read story lines into the Bible, it seems like by bringing any individuals from the losing side into the winning side could have had disastrous consequences. Even Moses rebelled against the household that had raised him, and I wonder how much of his up bringing did he use against the house of Pharaoh when he was arguing with Pharaoh. This practice seems to be ripe for an epic Greek story. 

A Silenced Scream

As I am reading through Deuteronomy, that are not too many instances where I find myself completely at odds with the laws and practices of the Israelites. I truly do not find myself arguing against the Israelites being commanded to Love and Obey the Lord (chapter 11), nor am I protesting the inclusion of a year where all debts are canceled (chapter 15). However, the laws/practices concerning women in chapter 22, specifically verses 20 - 24 and 28 - 29, are very difficult for me to accept or even rationalize into being acceptable.

As a 21st woman and social worker, I have an extremely difficult time reading the responses to how a woman should be treated when she is a victim of rape. My strongest reaction though is to the response mandated for a betrothed woman is raped within the confines of a city. If a betrothed woman is raped while she is in a city, then she and the raper are to be stoned, she "because she was in a town and did not scream for help..." Deut. 22:24. Apparently the Israelites did not have access to Law and Order: Special Victims Unit or half of the movies on Lifetime because I can think of several instances where a victim is unable to scream for help. The threat of death, being gagged or drugged can silence the voice of a woman even in the most violent of circumstances.

I understand that the thinking behind the passage is that if a woman did not scream out during her attack then she must have been a willing participant, which would have been a violation of her marriage contract. However, this is a much too simplistic answer to a situation that could be anything but simple.

The Importance of Midwives

When the importance of a midwife to the procreation of the Hebrews was presented during the simulation, I was pretty skeptical about it. I did not buy that a midwife would basically orchestrate every aspect of the procreation act, and that a husband and wife had to bow to a midwife's dictates. My 21st century mind was unwilling to fully accept this concept because of the vast amount freedom experienced by modern day couples. In my mind, a midwife would only be necessary and useful after the conception of a child, such as providing help with prenatal care, labor/delivery, and teaching new mothers infant care skills. It never occurred to me that a midwife's expertise would be required before the conception!

However, my opinion of the importance of midwife in arranging the details of procreation was changed after reading Leviticus chapter 15 on laws concerning discharges causing uncleanness. Any woman who is experiencing her monthly cycle will be unclean for two weeks; therefore she is only able to become pregnant two weeks out of every month. If her husband accidently comes in touch with her during that time, depending on the contact, he runs the risk of becoming unclean for one evening to an entire week. Opps! Also, anytime a man has an “emission” with his wife, both they and their linens must be washed with water, but all will still be unclean until evening. The Israelites only had a two week window of opportunity for procreation, which even during those two weeks, the happy couple had to be careful about when and where. What if the husband was a priest, and had to be “clean” in order to make the necessary sacrifices for the community? No procreation for him!

Thus, it makes sense why the services of a midwife would be necessary to navigate the complexities of procreation and uncleanness. A husband would need to know when his wife would be “clean”, and that period of time may need to be conducive to him having time to become “unclean” and then go through the process of becoming “clean” again. One afternoon and evening may not be a big deal for an Israelite man to experience being “unclean”. However if it’s at the wrong time, he could be “unclean” for an entire week, and that could cause difficulties within the life of the community. To prevent this happening, the Israelite community employed the use of midwife to ensure that any unnecessary difficulties did not occur.