Baker, Writer, Teacher
I cannot believe that this country has just legalized torture. This country better stop claiming to be “Christian.” There is absolutely nothing Christlike about legalizing torture and inhumane abuse. I have been horrified since I found out the Senate passed this ungodly and un-Constitutional bill. I just don’t have the words to describe the horror I feel.
I found great comfort in this prayer of repentance.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
In two previous articles I looked at Deborah and Jael, and their prophetic and priestly ministries. Now I would like to look at two women who preceded them as prophets and priests: Miriam and Zipporah.
Deborah is not the first to sing a song of victory to Yahweh. Miriam began the tradition after the crossing of the Reed Sea. Miriam was also a prophet, worship leader, and a co-leader with Moses and Aaron (Micah 6:4). Tradition says she is the unnamed sister who kept watch over Moses and arranged for their mother to nurse the child for Pharaoh’s daughter. Jewish tradition also reports that it was Miriam’s well which provided the Israelites with water during the wilderness wanderings. She is the first woman named as a prophet and every verse, which describes women going out to sing and dance victory reflects back to her.
Exodus 15:19 is the first place Miriam is named. She is called a prophet and the sister of Aaron but not Moses. At first reading it appears that she leads only the women in a fragment of the song which Moses led the people in worship in 15:1-18. But a closer look at the whole literary structure of the passage offers a different interpretation. Exodus 15:21 ends the first major unit of the book. It began with women in chapter one: midwives who, instead of obeying Pharaoh, feared God. The narrative continued with the mother, sister, and daughter who saved Moses. The unit now ends with the sister and daughters worshipping the God who had just delivered them from the hand of Pharaoh; if Miriam is the unnamed sister of chapter 1 she is an inclusio to the Exodus narrative.
Although Miriam is named a prophet no where in Scripture does she function in the traditional prophetic role of speaking forth the word of God. She does start a liturgical tradition. It is agreed that Exodus 15:21 is one of the oldest texts in the Old Testament; it is also believed that the original “Song of the Sea” is Miriam’s. Verse 19 recounts Yahweh’s deliverance of the Israelite people and the destruction of Pharaoh’s troops at the Reed Sea. In the next verse Miriam apparently leads the women in dancing and celebrating Yahweh’s victory, but shir, “sing” has a masculine plural direct object (not feminine), which implies that she lead all the people in celebrating and worship.
In Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only Through Moses? Rita J. Burns shows that not only was dancing part of celebrating victories in Israel’s life, it was also part of it’s liturgical life. The thing that distinguishes Miriam’s dance and song from those of Deborah, Jephthah’s daughter, and the women in 1 Samuel 18:6 is that there is no human component in this fight and victory. Yahweh alone acted on Israel’s behalf–none of the Israelites fought against the Egyptians; they stood and watched Yahweh defeat their enemy.
Another way dance was used within the life of Israel and surrounding nations was re-presenting past victories. The battle was re-enacted through dance to celebrate the victory. There is no doubt for Israel that the Exodus is the foundation of their faith confession. The Exodus would be the definitive act of God among them for the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, and would undergird their belief that Yahweh would act on their behalf. This victory would become the paradigm for Israel’s worship.
In her analysis Burns uses the Exodus 32 narrative of the golden calves and the celebration happening around them to show that victory celebrations re-enacted the battle itself. In verse 17 Joshua hears the people’s revelry and thinks that there is a war going on in the camp. The people’s celebrations, which included dancing, sounded like a battle. The reason for the dancing and celebration in Exodus 32 is the same as in Exodus 15: Aaron told the people that the calves were the gods that had brought them out of Egypt, and the people were worshipping them and celebrating the victory at the Reed Sea. In fact throughout the Hebrew Scriptures dance is a “recurring feature in celebrations of victory” (Burns, 29).
In Israelite worship dance was used as a way of re-enacting the battle Yahweh had fought for them, so they could remember his deliverance and salvation and pass that faith on to the next generation. There are no instances of war dances in the Hebrew Scriptures where the celebration happened before the battle to insure victory. These dances always happened after Yahweh had acted, after he had saved the people and delivered them from their enemies.
This is the context of Miriam’s dance–she began the Israelite tradition of celebrating God’s victories through dance. It is very likely that this dance was enacted later, and used in shrine worship during the wilderness wanderings. Miriam began a liturgical tradition that would, not only remind the people what God had done for them, but introduce future generations to the power and strength of the Warrior God who would come and fight for them.
Scripture never tells us if Miriam was married. The only men she is connected with are her brothers, Moses and Aaron. Since these verses are from the earliest known traditions, it is clear that Miriam did play a big role in Israelite belief and life before the entrance into Canaan. Scripture also shows her as a leader among the people, and leading them in their first cultic celebration of God’s deliverance from the Egyptians. That she was a co-leader with Moses and Aaron during this time is seen in the prophetic tradition, which remembers, “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of slavery; and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (Micah 6:4). As part of the triumvirate that God used to deliver his people, Miriam played an integral role from watching over her brother on the Nile, to leading the people in celebration of what God had done for them, to establishing a liturgical tradition so that the people would remember the power and strength of their God.
Miriam does not fare as well later in the Torah. The book of Numbers categorically eliminates all other contenders to the priesthood, so that Aaron and his sons will be the rightful priests of the Israelite nation. Korah and his followers, although from the line of Levi, are denied the priesthood or any leadership role in Israel. They and their families die for their insubordination to Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16). The line is further narrowed to Phineas, son of Aaron, after his two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu offer “illicit fire” before Yahweh (Numbers 3:4). Nestled between these two accounts is another elimination: Miriam.
The account in Numbers 12 is after the anointing of the seventy elders to help Moses govern the people (along with Moses’ wish that more were called to be prophets) and the twelve spies sent to spy the land in chapter 13, and the people’s subsequent rebellion in chapter 14. The people refuse to go up and take the land that God has promised them, condemning themselves to wander another 40 years in the wilderness.
Numbers 12 is one of those passages that is hard to understand exactly what is going on. In verse 1 it appears that Miriam and Aaron have a complaint against Moses’ Cushite wife, but then in verse 2 they say, “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” It is this complaint that Yahweh answers to. Although there has been much speculation about the first complaint regarding Moses’ Cushite wife, I will focus on the second complaint and its consequences.
As soon as the words in verse 2 are out of Miriam and Aaron’s mouths, Yahweh hears and appears. He calls the three siblings to the tent of meeting and rebukes Miriam and Aaron for their audacity to claim equal leadership with Moses. Yes, Yahweh has spoken through prophets and priests like Miriam and Aaron through visions and dreams, but his relationship with Moses is unique: “With him I speak face to face–clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD” (Numbers 12:8). Moses’ special place within the Israelite cult is affirmed: he is not just a prophet: he is the prophet of Yahweh. Yahweh speaks to no one else as he does to Moses.
After the cloud leaves the tent of meeting, Miriam is found to have leprosy. She is the only one punished, and her co-instigator, not only gets away without punishment, Aaron is the one who intercedes on her behalf to Moses. As in the sin of making the golden calf and leading the people to worship it, once again the high priest Aaron is not punished or even rebuked for his sin. The Aaronic priesthood insures that its forefather maintains his purity to perform his duties as high priest. Once again another contender for leading cultic ritual is eliminated; this time it is the sister of the high priest, Miriam.
It is possible that these verses are a polemical against the worship of female deities. Within the prophetic tradition the worship of the goddesses Astarte, Tammuz, and the Queen of Heaven were denounced as idolatry, and the people were called to repent of worshipping deities other than Yahweh. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel called women who worshipped these deities to repent of their idolatry (Jeremiah 7:17-18 and Ezekiel 8:14), and both of them blamed the exile on idolatry and the forsaking of Yahweh for other gods. In the postexilic redaction of Numbers any female leader, especially one with cult associations and the sister to the greatest prophet and the first high priest in Israel, would be open to the diminishment of her leadership role. As noted above the prophetic tradition also remembers her being an equal with Moses and Aaron in leadership (Micah 6:4).
The fact that the people did not move on until Miriam could come back into the camp signifies her importance within the community. It is also significant that this passage comes right before the people’s rebellion that will lead them back into the wilderness for another 40 years. Miriam could symbolize Israel in these verses. Israel sinned against God and its leaders, and the adults would pay for it by dying in the wilderness and not entering the land. But they were forgiven, as was Miriam.
Miriam’s flesh being half-consumed is also a picture of one hanging between life and death. As Moses would stand in intercession between life and death many times for the people, and as Aaron would run between life and death with a censer of incense to stop a plague (Numbers 16:41-50), so Miriam would stand between life and death foreshadowing the grave sin the people would make in chapter 14. Although punished for her rising up against her brother and put out of the camp, she symbolizes the people who would rebel against God and yet live. As one who has lived between life and death, she also stands as an intercessor for them, mediating the grace and forgiveness that she received from God.
As Phyllis Trible has noted, although later redactors would reduce Miriam’s role and push her to the margins, they could not diminish her role absolutely. She would remain the first woman to be named prophet, and her liturgical tradition of dancing and singing Israel’s victories would continue for generations to come. The liturgical tradition she started in her celebration of Yahweh’s victory at the Reed Sea would continue through the ages re-telling the story of Yahweh’s deliverance to each new generation.
Numbers 20:1 records Miriam’s obituary: she died and is buried at Kadesh, a city that will later become one of the cities of refuge, a symbol of the cult and signify holy ground.
Miriam was not the only strong woman whom God called to stand between life and death in the life of Moses. Zipporah, the daughter of a priest, also acts in a cultic role. Like, Miriam she also looks over Moses and saves the lives of her family.
On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the LORD met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, “Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” So he let him alone. It was then she said, “A bridegroom of blood by circumcision” (Exodus 4:24-26).
With these three verses we turn to the next woman I want to look at who functions in a priestly role, Zipporah. These are three of the most mythic, problematic verses in the Bible. Commentators have had many and various ways these verses should be read and interpreted.
Zipporah is the wife of Moses. She, Moses, and their sons have just left Midian and are on their way to Egypt in obedience to what God has told Moses to do. Then Yahweh comes against either Moses or one of their sons to try to kill him. Quick thinking and quick acting Zipporah circumcises either her husband or her son, applies the bloody foreskin to one of their feet or genitals (feet are a euphemism for genitals in the Hebrew Scriptures), and the wrath of Yahweh is averted. Zipporah is the only human named, and the only human to act in this account.
In the verses right before this incident Yahweh tells Moses what he is to say to Pharaoh: he is to let Yahweh’s people go, and if he does not let Yahweh’s firstborn son go then Pharaoh’s son shall die. In light of the context these verses foreshadow the Passover.
But why should Yahweh come against Moses or one of his sons to try to kill him? Bernard Robinson thinks the reason is Moses’ reluctance earlier in chapter 4 to obey God’s calling to go and demand Pharaoh to release his people. He seems to think that either Moses or his son not being circumcised would not warrant this action on Yahweh’s part. Terrence Fretheim thinks it is a combination of both: “Moses’ continued resistance to the divine call, occasioning God’s wrath (4:14), and his failure concerning circumcision are signs that do not bode well for the future” (p. 81). Is Moses still having reprehensions? Is Yahweh growing tired of his excuses? We will never know.
What we do know is how Yahweh’s wrath was adverted and Moses (or his son) was spared. Zipporah quickly circumcises either Moses or her son and touches the bloody foreskin to the feet or genitals of one of them. She acts as mediator between Yahweh and her family. She also acts as a priest. In a salvific moment that will foreshadow the Passover she circumcises one of the men in her life and applies the blood to save one or both. This is the only written record we have of a woman performing an act of blood sacrifice in the Bible or in Near Eastern religion.
Ironically the priesthood that would later go on to minimize Miriam’s role in the wilderness traditions as a cultic leader begins with a woman, and not even an Israelite woman. A foreign woman is the first person in Exodus to offer a blood sacrifice that averts the wrath of God and once again saves Moses.
Two women with ties to the cult. One married and one single yet both stand on their own in their stories. As we saw in the previous articles these women hear God’s voice, see his actions, and respond, not only in obedience, but their actions (as Deborah and Jael’s) save the lives of others. Miriam and Zipporah are mediators and intercessors standing between life and death. One is also an usurper who reminds us that when we do overstep our bounds, there will be consequences, but also forgiveness.
The traditions of Zipporah and Miriam remind us that as women, we, too, are called to stand between life and death in the world we live–for our families, our communities, and even those who consider us to be outsiders. They were called, not because of who their husbands were or what their husbands did, but because they were available and open to God’s calling in their life. They heard his voice and they followed.
Sources
Shawna Renee Bound, Your Daughters Shall Prophesy: A Biblical Theology of Single Women in Ministry, unpublished thesis, (© by Shawna Renee Bound 2002).
Athalya Brenner and Fokkelien Van Dihk-Hemmes, On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible (New York: E.J. Brill, 1993).
Rita J. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only Through Moses? A Study of the Biblical Portrait of Miriam, SBL Dissertation Series 84 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987).
Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1993).
Ellen Frankel, The Five Books of Miriam: A Woman’s Commentary on the Torah (San Francisco: HarperCollins Publisher, 1996).
Terrence E. Fretheim, Exodus (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991).
E. John Hamlin, Judges: At Risk in the Promised Land (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990).
Bernard P. Robinson, “Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus 4:24-6,” Vetus Testamentum 36 (October 1986): 452-3.
Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Numbers: Journeying with God (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995).
Phyllis Trible, “Bringing Miriam Out of the Shadows,” Bible Review 5 (February 1989), 23-4.
Prophecies
The young woman from Palestine was emphatic
“Prophecy is not for sale!” She wasn’t referring
to the cheapness some now pass off as prophecy,
the predictions of rapture and hellfire to come
that some embrace for solid ground in these
quick sands of time.
No, it was with the breath
of Miriam and Deborah, Isaiah and Amos that
she breathed, remembering those whose prophecies
stood not as a foretelling but a forthtelling—
speaking forth the truth about what was happening NOW,
telling out the tales that others wanted to ignore.
I doubt these prophets ever passed the hat
because what they said wasn’t often popular, and
more than one risked death because they
refused to sell their prophecies, refused to
shape them into something that could more easily
fit their listeners’ ears
The young woman who has seen the rivers of blood
in her homeland has also heard the breath of Christians
at the door who believe that these are the days
of prophecies being fulfilled. Casting their lots
in the Holy Land, they gamble for the cloak of rapture
while the holy ones die all around them.
She just reminded me of you Hildegard, that’s all.
Prophecies and visions.
The real ones don’t often make you rich.
Jan L. Richardson, Sacred Journeys: A Woman’s Book of Daily Prayer, pp. 364-5.
The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that Could Change Everything by Brain McLaren, (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2006), $19.00.
Why is the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown’s book more interesting, more attractive, and more intriguing to these people than the standard version of Jesus they hear about from churches? Why would they be disappointed to find that Brown’s version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church’s conventional version? Is it possible that even though Brown’s fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church’s conventional versions of Jesus may not do him justice?
These are some of the questions Brain McLaren asks in the introduction to his latest book, The Secret Message of Jesus. McLaren also points out all of the interest in the Gnostic Gospels in the last few years. And he asks the same questions: why are people fascinated by the Jesus they see there and not the Jesus the church puts forth? Then he asks these questions, which are the thesis of the book:
What if the problem isn’t with our accepted stories of Jesus (the stories given us by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in contrast to these alternate accounts) but rather with our success at domesticating them and with our failure to see them in their native wildness and original vigor? What if, properly understood, the canonical (or accepted) Gospel of Matthew is far more radical and robust than the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, or the canonical Gospel of John is far more visionary and transformative than the apocryphal Gospel of Peter–if only we “had ears to hear,” as Jesus says?
McLaren’s point is that the Jesus we see at church; the Jesus televangelists proclaim, the Jesus presented to our culture in a variety of ways is not the Jesus of the Bible. This book is a search through the gospels for the Jesus they present.
McLaren begins by examining the history into which Jesus was born. He looks at the Jewish state under Roman occupation, and how the Jews had been under occupation since their return from exile under Darius. Throughout that time the apocalyptic literature began to form. Instead of the view that God would break into history and free Isreal from foreign occupation so they could be the people of God in the land of God, Jewish writers began to see God ending history and beginning a new era called the Kingdom of God, in which God’s Messiah would rule. The Jews could see no way for God’s kingdom to be realized in the world as it was. McLaren points out that one of the scandels of Jesus’ message was that Jesus said the Kingdom of God was at hand. The kingdom was here. It could be grasped; it could be attained. For the Jews of that time they could not imagine why Jesus would be saying this. Everyone knew the Kingdom of God could not come while the Romans ruled.
Jesus’ proclamation that the Kingdom of God is here–that it is growing among us like yeast working its way through dough–corrects one of the biggest heresies of Protestantism, particularly Protestant Evangelicalism. This heresy is that the gospel is personal and private. That this relationship is just between me and Jesus and nothing else matters. McLaren points out that yes, Jesus’ message is personal, but it is far from private. Jesus’ gospel is personal and public. Jesus told his followers how to treat their enemies, how to live under occupation, how to treat the poor and destitute, and how they should regard Caesar. His message was political, economical, and circled around the social justice of the prophets.
I think the most needed message the American Evangelicalism needs to hear today is the differences McLaren draws between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world:
Jesus says again and again, this kingdom advances with neither violence nor bloodshed, with neither hatred nor revenge. It is not just another one of the kingdoms of this world. No, this kingdom advances slowly, quietly, under the surface–like yeast in dough, like seed in soil. It advances with faith: when people believe it is true, it becomes true. And it advances with reconciling, forgiving love: when people love strangers and enemies, the kingdom gains ground.
The place where the heresy of personal and private does the most damage is where we separate how we treat others privately or corporately. For Christians this is not an option. We are commanded to love our enemies all the time, including enemies of our nations. Christians should be the last people to jump on the war bandwagon, and if it is necessary to go to war, it should be with great reservation and praying for forgiveness. War may be a necessary evil at times, but it is still evil and sin. And Christian leaders should not be watering down the real nature of war when their nation goes to war. The Kingdom of God does not advance through violence, whether it be by violence on the frontline, or violence behind the pulpit, trying to scare people out of hell and manipulate them into heaven. Our actions should be characterized by the same love, compassion, and mercy that we see in life of Jesus.
McLaren points out that one of the great paradoxes of the Gospels is that evil wins. Christ is betrayed, denied, whipped, and then crucified. He dies, and for a time evil wins. Why? What kind of kingdom comes in suffering and death? McLaren asks:
What if the only way for the kingdom of God to come in its true form–as a kingdom “not of this world–is through weakness and vulnerability, sacrifice and love? What if it can conquer only by first being conquered? What if being conquered is absolutely necessary to expose the brutal violence and dark oppression of these principalities and powers, these human ideaologies and counterkingdoms–so they, having been exposed, can be seen for what they are and freely rejected, making room for the new and better kingdom? What if the kingdom of God must in these ways fail in order to succeed?
The only way for Jesus to reveal the corrupt systems of this world–corruption in politics, religion, and other areas of life was to be conquered by those “powers and principalities.” In the defeat of the cross they are revealed for what they really are instead of what they masquerade as. In the victory of the resurrection, Jesus shows that His kingdom of forgiving enemies, turning the other cheek, and reconciliation can change this world in ways we never imagined–if we are brave enough and have enough faith to believe that God’s Kingdom does not grow and work by the standards of this world.
Throughout the book McLaren says that we have been asking the wrong question: “How do I get to the heaven?” Instead the questions we should be asking is “How do I live righteously in this life? How do I join in building the kingdom of God here and now? How do I be Christ at work, in my neighborhood, with my family?” Going to heaven is never the focus of the Gospels: the focus is the Kingdom of God is at hand: it’s here! The question is what are we going to do about it?
The Secret Message of Jesus is secret only because we refuse to see it. We have set up an idol in Jesus’ place in our image that tells us the things we want: power, war, revenge, and a million other sins are okay. But the Jesus we encounter in the Gospels is very different from the Jesus presented in many churches and by many organizations today. He is not a middle-class suburbanite. He is not a war-monger (after all he was the one who rebuked John and James for wanting to call fire down on a Samaritan village that did not welcome them). He is neither Rebuplican or Democrat or Libertarian, for that matter. He is the Son of God who demands us to radically realign our lives to his kingdom ethics that make no sense in this world: love your enemies, turn the other cheek, forgive and be reconciled, and take care of those who cannot take care of themselves: the poor, the refugees, the homeless, the prostitutes, the drug addicts: sinners. May be if this was the Jesus we met in church, people wouldn’t be so enamored with the Jesus of The Da Vinci Code. They might even think about coming to church to learn about Jesus instead of the Gnostic Gospels. May be it’s time for us to start proclaiming the “secret” message of Jesus.
Time’s cover article this week is Does God Want You to Be Rich? I haven’t had a chance to read it, but I have read two reviews of it that I highly recommend for a more biblical way of looking at money and wealth: New Testament prof Ben Witherington’s response is Just in Time—God Wants You Wealthy. He also gives the top ten reasons why God doesn’t want us wealthy.
Over at Street Prophets Sweet Georgia Peach has done this review: Prosperity Theology—Does God Want You to Be Rich?. As always there is a lot of good conversation going on in the comments.
Sweet Georgia Peach also puts together the Noonday Prayer from the Daily Office at Street Prophets and today’s prayer service is really good. So if you need a little breather for time with God this afternoon, go pray.
Starwoman has started a discussion on praying for our enemies and posted a prayer service praying for our enemies. I did not know that Friday was a day to be kept in the penitentional spirit because that is the day Christ died. I like that idea along with making that day to focus on praying for my enemies.
My first post is up at The CBE Scroll: The Importance of History.
I just posted this letter on Salon.com:
I am Rev. Shawna Atteberry, and I am an ordained minister in the Church of the Nazarene–an evangelical denomination. The Nazarene church has ordained women since its beginning in 1903. We are part of the American Holiness Movement that ordained their first woman pastor in 1859. Another evangelical denomination, The Salvation Army, has ordained women since its beginning in the 1860s. In fact, Catherine Booth would not marry William until he “saw the light” that women could preach. Their daughter, Evangeline, was the third general of the Army (i. e. leader of the entire denomination). Coming from a tradition that has ordained women for 150 years, I find Mark Driscoll’s view of women medieval to say the least.
Driscoll’s view is not biblical either. The Hebrew phrase in Genesis 2:18 that is mistranslated at “helper” actually means “a power equal to.” Woman was created to be a help or power equal to man–to be his eqaul in life, work, ministry, and marriage. There are several women leaders in the Bible: Deborah was a judge, prophet, and military leader (Judges 4–5); Miriam, the sister of Moses was a prophet (Exodus 15:20); and in the New Testament Priscilla and Aquila were co-pastors as well as made tents for a living together, and Junia was an apostle (Romans 16:7). In Romans 16:1 we find Paul sent the letter with Phoebe who was the pastor of the church in Cenchreae. Normally “pastor” is mistranslated as “helper,” but this is the same word that Paul uses to describe Timothy and Titus in their pastoral ministries.
Driscoll’s view of the roles of men and women are not biblical, and I believe harmful for both sexes. Biblically, both men and women are called to minister, work, and take care of their families together. Their highest priority is to obey God, and show Christlike love to each other and the world, not confine themselves into impossible gender roles.
Sincerely,
Rev. Shawna R. B. Atteberry
Update: My letter has been posted on Salon.com.
Salon has an article on Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church (Hat tip to the The Reclusive Leftist). I was so sad after reading this article. In short they’ve taken the post-WW2 culture, and they are trying to make it biblical.
Following Driscoll’s biblical reading of prescribed gender roles, women quit their jobs and try to have as many babies as possible. And these are no mere women who fear independence, who are looking to live by the simple tenets of fundamentalist credo, enforced by a commanding husband: many of the women of Mars Hill reluctantly abandon successful lives lived on their own terms to serve their husbands and their Lord.
So if Deborah went to Mars Hill, she would have had to resign from being a prophet and judge, and who would have led Israelite troops to victory over Sisera? I guess Isreal would not have had that 40 years of peace under her rule. I guess Phoebe would not have been a deacon in the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). The word that describes Phoebe as a “deacon” is the same word Paul uses when speaking of Timothy and Titus in their pastoral duties. At Mars Hill Phoebe would not have been allowed to pastor the church at Cenchreae, and she sure wouldn’t have been allowed to take Paul’s letter to Rome. Priscilla would not have been a tentmaker and copastor with her husband. Junia would not have been an apostle (Romans 16:7).
The online screening process that is used in Driscoll’s Acts 29 church planting application “begins with a lengthy doctrinal assertion that every word of the Bible is literal truth; the application plucks out the examples of creationism and male headship of home and church to clarify this doctrine.”
I have dealt with biblical literalism in Truth vs. Fact. In Does It Really Mean Helpmate? I looked at the creation account and showed that the Hebrew phrase ezer cenedgo means a help or power equal to, and that there is nothing submissive about the term. Woman was created equal with man to be partners with him in life, marriage, and ministry.
In other conversations I have pointed out that I am from rural Oklahoma. On the farm or ranch everyone worked. There was no man’s work and woman’s work–husband, wife, children, and who ever else lived there worked to bring in the crop and cows. If they didn’t they starved. The division of the family between separate jobs and home is a fairly new phenomenon within human history. I also come from a poor, working class family–my mom worked; she had to. I have always looked at the stay-at-home mother as a middle class luxury. In many places around the world both men and women work hard to keep their families from starving. Not everyone has the luxury of one person staying home. In fact, few people do. That’s why I call this the post-WW2 mentality–society has to be at a certain economic level within an industrialized or technological society to afford the luxury of the stay at home mom.
The bottom line is it’s not biblical. As my Career Woman of the Bible series shows God called women to be prophets, judges, and other leaders to obey him and lead his people. Women have the right to work: in Genesis 1:26 care and dominion of creation is given to both man and woman before the command to procreate in verse 28. Women are called to work in the world, work in ministry, and be ordained as pastors and ministers, because God has called us as the full witness of the Bible affirms.
Things like this used to make mad. Now I grieve. I grieve over the bondage that this lie puts on both men and women, and it is not God’s will.
I was getting caught up on my Christianity Today reading, and I thought I would share three very good articles.
Dr. Willard’s Diagnosis: Why we really need to die before we can live.
A Divine Conspirator: Dallas Willard on a quiet quest to subvert nominal Christianity.
In the last installment of Career Women of the Bible, I looked at Deborah and how she had functioned as a prophet and judge. Now I will look at her counterpart in the story, and the woman who would destroy Israel’s enemy: Jael. Again I will look at Judges 5 first since it is the older tradition and text.
Jael is first mentioned in Deborah’s song in verse 24: “Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed.” The only other woman in the Bible who is called “most blessed of woman” is Mary when she goes to visit Elizabeth after finding out she will be the mother of the Messiah (Luke 1:42). But Jael is being blessed for killing a man, and according to chapter four this man was the general of the king her husband had made an agreement with. She is being praised for killing an ally. Why would she kill Sisera in the first place?
In chapter five it is debatable if Jael is married. Ishshat heber is normally translated “wife of Heber.” But Abraham Malamat has given an alternate translation of 5:24. “Most blessed of women be Jael, A woman of the Kenite community, Of tent-dwelling women most blessed” (Qtd. in Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer Seductress, Queen, 99). He explains that from other texts written during the time of the Bronze Age that a cognate of heber can mean “a community unit, a clan, a band, or a tribe.” There are places in the Old Testament where heber does mean to be part of a group. In Hosea 6:9 it is used to describe a company of priests, and in 2 Samuel 2:3 the phrase “cities of Hebron” could mean that “Hebron” itself originally meant a group of towns or communities that settled close to each other. Jael could have simply been part of the Kenite community and not necessarily married.
Judges has already established that the Kenites were descended from Moses’ father-in-law (1:16). Although there is variance in what his name was, all the traditions agree on one thing concerning Moses’ father-in-law: he was a priest. Judges 4:11 is the first time we have seen “Kenite” since chapter one, and the writer once again points out that the Kenites are descended from Moses’ father-in-law, it can be assumed that the writer wants us to connect Heber and Jael with their priestly ancestor. If this is the case by connecting Jael to the Kenite community the writer is giving her actions priestly authority. By inserting one word he is telling his readers that Jael is functioning in a cultic role parallel to Deborah’s prophetic role.
The later redactor of chapter four elaborates on the priestly theme. Now Jael is the wife of Heber, and there is peace between her husband and King Jabin of Hazor. This peace is probably the result of a work arrangement: Heber being a smith is needed to keep Jabin’s chariots in good working order.
We also find out in 4:11 that Heber has moved away from the Kenites and he and Jael have encamped at Elon-bezaanannim, near Kadesh. Probably to be closer to where good business would be. Continuing to follow Ackerman’s argument that Jael is functioning in a priestly role, she says another clue given is the name Elon-bezaanannim, which means “the oak of Zaanannim.” This is a clue the place where they encamped is sacred space, because oaks were often used to symbolize the holy. Oaks are used in other places in Scripture to denote a theophany, and they are also places where divine revelations and teaching occur (see Gen. 12:6; 13:18; 14;13; 35:8; and Jud. 9:6). Ackerman also notes the root that oak is derived from in the Hebrew is the same root that “God” or “gods” comes from, el. For Jael’s tent to be pitched by or under an oak tree is to signify that it is a sacred spot, holy ground.
This is further confirmed in the next place name given to show where Heber and Jael live; they live near Kadesh. In Joshua Kadesh had been designated as one of the cities of refuge where someone who unintentionally committed murder could flee to escape the revenge of the kinsman redeemer. It is also a city whose lands were given to the Levites, so they could graze their animals, so Kadesh was also identified with both a sanctuary and Israel’s cult. It is also the only city in Naphtali that has this dual claim.
The redactor of Judges 4 has given us three major markers that Jael is to be seen in a cultic role: she is a Kenite, descended from Moses’ father-in-law; her tent is under or near a sacred oak, and she lives near Kadesh. The poem of Judges 5 uses the single word “Kenite” to clue the reader to her cultic status. Whether or not Jael is married, her tent is seen as sacred ground, and this is the reason why Sisera enters it in both stories. In Judges 4 he is given the additional insurance that there is a peace between Heber and Jabin. Sisera believes himself to be safe for both reasons.
Jael appears to be the perfect hostess at first, offering him luxuries to drink and eat. In Judges 5 there is no mention of Sisera lying down to sleep. Jael gives him food and drink, and while he is still on his feet strikes him with the tent peg and mallet. He falls at her feet with imagery of sex and death being intertwined (see Susan Niditch, “Eroticism and Death in the Tale of Jael”). In Judges 4 after feeding him Jael covers him with a rug and waits until he falls asleep before silently creeping to him to kill him.
There has been much debate over Jael’s flagrant disregard for her husband’s treaty and for the laws of Near Eastern hospitality (see Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, Heroes, 119-123 for an overview). The question is why would she do this? Why would she kill her husband’s ally? Why would she break the laws that governed hospitality? There has been much work done on the danger she was in if Barak did find Sisera in her tent. She would then be seen as Israel’s enemy. The verses that follow Jael’s murder of Sisera have Sisera’s mother saying that he delays because there is a woman (literally “womb”) or two for each man to rape, and she did not want to have the same fate befall her. It is also worth noting that if Sisera’s intentions were honorable, he would have gone into her husband’s tent and not hers. In my “Judges” class in seminary, we learned that the tradition of the time was for the husband and wife or wives to have their own separate tents. There was no reason for Sisera to be in her tent. If her husband came home, she would have been accused of adultery. She was protecting herself from possible rape as well as the possibility of being killed.
Ackerman presents another way to interpret Jael’s actions. In staying with the possibility that she is functioning in a cultic role then she acts because she is doing what Yahweh has told her to do. She knows that this is a holy war Yahweh is waging against the Canaanites to deliver his people from their oppression. This suspends the rules of sanctuary she could provide for Sisera. Jael is acting as Moses, Phineas, and the leaders of Israel acted when the men of Israel had sexual relations with women of Moab and yoked themselves to Baal of Peor by worshipping him (Numbers 25). Phineas’ zeal for upholding the covenant by killing an Israelite man, and Midianite women he brought into camp, is commended by God, and he and his family receive a blessing (verses 10-13). As Moses and Phineas protected Israel’s heritage as the people of Yahweh, so Jael does. She knows the deeds of this man: his arrogance, brutality, and what he would do if she were a woman of a tribe he defeated. She would finish the battle Deborah had started and help to insure 40 years of peace in Israel. With Deborah she would bring shalom to God’s people by obeying what she knew to be the will of God.
In the end I think Jael was a woman caught in a very tough position. She knew of Sisera and his reputation. She also knew of the battle, and that the Israelites would be right behind him. She did what she had to in order to protect herself and her family. Danna Nolan Fewell says this in conclusion of her interpretation of the Jael story:
The relationships depicted in this story may also reflect the evolving relationship between Yahweh and Israel. Yahweh’s authority, like that of Deborah, is questioned (4:1: “The Israelites again did evil in the sight of Yahweh”; 5:8: “new gods were chosen”). When people find themselves in dire straits, they appeal to Yahweh, just as Jael appeals to violence. And like Jael, perhaps Yahweh too does what must be done in order to save the family of Israel and is lauded, like Jael, not for who he is but for what he has done to benefit Israel (Fewell, “Judges,” 76).
As a priest it was Jael’s duty to stand between God and the people–to intercede. In order to save her family and possibly her people, Sisera had to be turned over to the Israelites. He became her sacrifice. Jael reminds us that standing between God and the people can be a very dangerous place. Hard decisions must be made, and in the end, there are times we wonder if what we did is what God wanted.
Sources:
Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (New York: Doubleday, 1998), “Most Blessed of Women” 89-127.
Alice Ogden Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994).
Shawna Renee Bound, Your Daughters Shall Prophesy: A Biblical Theology of Single Women in Ministry, unpublished thesis, (© by Shawna Renee Bound 2002), “Of the Cult and Priests,” 35-46.
Danna Nolan Fewell, “Judges” in Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992, 1998), 75-6.
E. John Hamlin, Judges: At Risk in the Promised Land (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990).
Susan Niditch, “Eroticism and Death in the Tale of Jael,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. Peggy L. Day (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989) 43-57.
All biblical quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
In comments left on Does It Really Mean Helpmate? Mary and Seeker wanted to know why women kept insisting on interpreting this phrase to mean that they were subordiante and submissive, and why some wouldn’t even entertain the idea that there could be another option. It’s part of a whole fundamentalist mindset. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, so I know the fundamentalist mindset very well, and I am very glad I no longer have it. They have built a house of cards around the Bible as literal truth (actually they see the Bible as literal “fact”). Part of this literalism is that a passage or text can have only one meaning. Both literalism and a passage having one meaning are totally foreign to Hebrew thought. The Israelites used symbolism, similes, and metaphors to picture truths that could not be contained in language. They never meant for certain passages and genres of Scripture to be taken literally. They also loved paradox. The Hebrew people had no problem juxtaposing two opposites and then leaving it up to the reader to work out the paradox for themselves. They believed that faith was lived out in the nitty-gritty day-to-day living, and therefore, there were no pat answers for every situation. This is really seen in the first five books of the Bible where Leviticus and Numbers basically tries to figure out how to live out the Ten Commandments in the Isrealite’s daily lives. They also had no problem admitting when they didn’t know the details and facts of something God did, and this is seen in the first two chapters of Genesis. There are two different creation accounts in Genesis 1:1–2:4 and Genesis 2:5-25. In these two accounts God creates the heavens and earth in different ways and in a different order. The Isrealites did not know exactly how God created the heavens and earth, and they had two traditions that told the “how” and included them in their Scriptures. Their statement of faith is: Yahweh created everything (not Molech, not Baal, not Marduk). Inspired writers of Scripture did not agree on the how only that God–Yahweh–created everything, and therefore no other god or idol was to be worshiped.
Back to the fundamentalist mindset–they interpret the Bible literally. And they have spent so much time and effort to “prove” that the Bible is “true” (i. e. fact) that they cannot admit to the figurative genres and methods that Biblical writers used. Because they’ve reduced the truth to mere fact and data, that means that each Biblical passage can only mean one thing and that thing only. That is why these women won’t listen to alternative readings: if there is an alternative reading then their house of cards falls down. In their minds if that happens, then somehow the Bible is not God’s word and this somehow means that God isn’t God. This also is why they refuse to see anything but creation in six actual days as the way God created the world. If God created the world in any other way than how Genesis 1 says he created the world, then everything else in the Bible is undermined. They have very convulated arguments that harmonize the two different creation accounts. This is also why Revelation is interpreted literally with no room that the whole thing is one big symbolic writing and had meaning for the people living in the first century–all of it applied to them, period.
I feel sorry for them. Their view of God is so small, and they don’t even realize it. For me God is God, period. Every word in the Bible could be a lie, and God would still be God, period. That’s what “sovereign” means. But when you have raised the Bible to be part of the Trinity, then you have to prove everything it says, or God’s sovereignty is somehow undermined, which is just crazy. The Bible is not God, in fact, it’s not even the word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, and the Bible is our faith confession of how God and Christ (and the Holy Spirit) come to us, and want to have an intimate relationship with us. The Bible is God’s people working out their salvation and trying to make sense of this God who dies for us and wants us after so much rejection and heartache. And the Bible is culturally influenced. God does not force us or coerce us, and he did not force or coerce the writers of the Bible: they wrote from a certain culture and way of life that they understood, which is why patriarchy is in the Bible (polygamy and slavery as well). It’s not in the Bible because God ordained it: it’s in the Bible because that is the broken, sinful culture that God had to work with. When you see inspiration as God working with us in relationship and not zapping us into robots and dictating everything, that gives us a little more leeway. That also means that not eveyrthing in the Bible as to be fact or data. The Bible says the sun revolves around the earth because that’s how ancient people saw it–not how God created it. But that wasn’t an integral part of God’s plan to reconcile creation to himself, so he didn’t “correct” the writers. Anything that does not pertain to salvation may not be “fact.” There does not have to be a big war between science and faith. When you view the Bible as a theological statement of faith in Yahweh, and not a document of facts and datum, then it’s okay if there’s scientific inaccuracies due to the culture at the time. Everything we need to know about God and how to have a relationship with God is there. Everything we need to know to enter the Kingdom of God and build the Kingdom of God in the here and now is there. And that’s the important stuff: not the periphals of creation in six days or what revolves around what in space.