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".