Methodology, Expected Results, Scope, and Limitations. Thesis Structure.
Read Part 1 HERE
The method adopted in this study will be influenced by Don C Benjamin’s comparative method used between Sargon and Moses in the matter of the women in the Ancient Near East and the women of Deuteronomy land distribution rights. 1 This thesis will show inheritance by daughters was permissible, related to the issue of carrying on the ‘father’s familial name’ (Numbers 27: 1-11). This paper draws upon the work of key scholars work and the Hebrew Bible which relate to the current debate in this arena. The elite strident loud male’s voices will be minimized to accentuate the voices of the marginalised women. 2 Documents from the ANE will be compared with the Hebrew Bible. To situate the project in the discussions and show progress there are three strands which can be used together to estimate its value, study in context and explain my text.
(1) historical and sociological questions of women and society. One of my primary sources to investigate these questions is Carol Meyers. 3 Meyers introduces the concept of Heterarchy, to show how it fosters partnerships of mutual dependence and interdependence in their tribal setting. 4 Mcclenney-Sadler confirms Israel was a consensual two-pronged endogamous society. 5 Chapman’s work “reconfigures kinship studies” using indigenous kinship terminology. 6
(2) the type of literature we’re looking at to compare one with the other. The ANE primary source used here is Zafrira Ben-Barak. 7 A consideration of comparable cases (including and especially Babylonian) will justify Benjamin’s approach. 8
(3) what sort of legal text are we looking at in Numbers 27:11? The question is, how is a “statutory ordinance” instigated by Moses in this case, similar or different to other laws in the Old Testament?
EXPECTED RESULTS OR OUTCOMES:
This thesis will conclude ancient Israelite women typically inherited land. 9 This thesis will highlight and correct an imbalance in the ways the rights of women in ancient Israel are perceived. This thesis will show through the investigative study conducted in ANE documents different results emerge from various places, but all bar one testify to women inheriting; some, daughters and their brothers inherited together, just as Job’s daughters did, as is shown in a “unique legal document from Alalah (eighteenth century B.C.); further evidence is found in Akkad of daughters inheriting after sons.” 10 By comparison, the sons of Israel inheriting was conditional on them marrying those women recognised by YHWH, the owner of the land. 11 Overall, the knowledge gathered here on women inheriting land in the ANE, particularly Babylon, when compared with Israel, will contribute to the advancement of feminist theories, particularly in the understanding of women’s standing and social relationships in ancient Israel and their rights to land distribution. Those who benefit from the findings in this paper are the scholarly community and the wider public. Finally, the church’s testimony to the attributes of an impartial God is justified (Isa 61:8).
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
Using Numbers 27: 1-11 as a case in point the theme of this paper is women’s right to inherit land in ancient Israel and the inherent rights to land distribution. This will broaden out to investigate ANE documents of the same concern. These will be compared with the Hebrew Bible on the same theme. The levirate marriage, where widow’s inheritance is concerned, is not addressed. Neither Leviticus chapter 18, that limits itself to denoting endogamous society is also not addressed. The research undertaken into the social aspects of the women of Israel is confined within the women’s familial relationships, in particular, the endogamous marriage arrangement, the different marriage arrangements, the indigenous language used in relation to this social order, and the women’s role in the choice of heir and the legal right of land distribution. The investigation of these allows a process of careful consideration that add weight to the significant role women played in them and in furthering the understanding of the women’s lives. No biblical exegesis will be conducted on Numbers 27 at this time due to length limits on this paper. The extent of the study of the ANE Law codes factors in the ANE legal instructions on women’s right to inherit land and land distribution rights which are compared with Israel as recorded by Moses in the book of Deuteronomy.
Chapter two addresses the cultural identity of ancient Israel embedded in its written record with its necessity for social order. This indicates the connection of inheritance rights and stable land management policies, conducted through the women’s distribution of land rights. The sociocultural concept of heterarchy as recognising a way of living in the small villages of Israel and meeting the essential needs of a multidimensional lifegiving community are considered. Examples will be given from the Hebrew Bible and scholarly feminist work. These serve to illustrate the way the households in Israel lived and the way it delivered lifestyles that brought meaning to life by empowering the people; its flexibility to support the laws of inheritance; the heritage of land by both sons and daughters, while reinforcing the women’s rights of land distribution.
Chapter three questions the rights of the women of Israel and their place as heirs to land leading to comparison between law cases of ancient Assyro-Babylonian literature and Semitic languages of this period with Israel. The legal ruling in Numbers 27, namely, the “statute and ordinance” once summarised and contextualised, will widen our understanding and lead to making some inferences about when and how widely it would have been applied in Israel. It will show that the present concept of patriarchy is unjust once the threads of this thesis are drawn together.
Chapter four shows the conclusion drawn from the research carried out in the Ancient Near East documents and the biblical narrative that ancient Israel provided for women to inherit land and legal rights to its distribution. The idea that Israel was strictly a patrilocal, patrilineal patriarchal society is disputed; rather, Israel was overwhelmingly an endogamous, two-pronged, heterarchical society, indicating, therefore, an elevated status for women rather than a subservient one. Proposed subjects for future research is the gap found on “statute and ordinance,” which will be taken further in this research (Numbers 27: 11). The broader research will deliver greater depth to what makes it distinctive and how it compares to other types of commandments. The women’s role in the distribution of land rights, like inheritance, was widely recognised in the ANE. Finally, with increased knowledge of the women in the Hebrew Bible the modern reader is the winner here and the character of God and future work of feminist theology of the Bible will only bring greater depth of understanding for all interested participants.
Patricia Erlandsen Semester 1 Test 3. June 2021 Introduction, Thesis Statement, Literature Review and Bibliography.
There is a theory that ancient Israel was inequitable in that it was a patriarchal society 1 This is at variance with the Psalmist: “God is fair and just.” (Ps 25:8 translation????) This inconsistency leaves the believer in a quandary as the patriarchal theory suggests daughters fail to meet the mark. One reason for this stance of gender bias is the Hebrew Bible is not sufficiently nuanced to account for the experiences of ancient Israelite women in their households, and in the wider community.
This leaves the believer with unanswered questions, such as, do only sons inherit land in ancient Israel? Is the locality of the household always patrilocal? Do the daughters always have to leave their home, and join their husband’s household? These questions and many more in the same vein, not mentioned here, reveals a gap in modern interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and as a result, God’s character the biblical principle of a just God is repudiated (Ps 89:14). The reading in Num 27: 1-11 where the Daughters of Zelophehad petition Moses, and the leadership assembly for recognition of their rights in the matter of inheritance and land suggests that the Daughters of Zelophehad thought the same. The situation was complex, leading to the question of this thesis: were women passive bystanders in Ancient Israel in the matter of inheritance and who held the legal title and rights to the land, and the choice of an heir?
This thesis will argue that the present patriarchal model of ancient Israel’s society is defective and, the son’s inheritance of the father’s house, without any conditions, as deficient as it does not reveal the conditions imposed upon the heir, due to the women holding the legal title to the land, and with it the rights to its distribution. 2
The women’s lives, in ancient Israel were enmeshed in a net of personal, communal, and administrative responsibilities through the essential matters of life: birth, marriage, and death. These complex matters, managed well, helped establish a sound social structure for the ancient Israelite society. This means the women were involved at the base level of delivering a stable society, enveloped in the endogamous marriage relationship through close kinship ties. 3 “Technically, land could not be sold in the world of the Bible.” 4 Therefore, each household dwelt securely on the portion of land inherited from the deceased father, within their own tribe’s geographical borders, with the mother of that household holding the land distribution rights. The households were tied in a co-operative communal knot of mutually common purpose, and in covenantal relationship with YWYH, ancient Israel’s “divine Patron,” and owner of the land. 5
The literature review will show the conversations taking place surrounding the theme of this thesis and their relevancy. The paper will be set out under three headings:
(1) Who is discussing the social structure of Ancient Israelite Society, and the women’s rights regarding inheritance, and land distribution
(2) Who is discussing inheritance by Daughters in the ANE, and Ancient Israel
(3) Case in point: the Daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27: 1-11).
(4) The social structure of ancient Israelite society, and the women’s rights regarding inheritance, and land distribution:
The scholars quoted here are in discussion about ancient Israel’s society. Naomi Steinberg stresses the exclusivity of the endogamous marriage arrangement as important due to its interrelatedness to the women endorsed by YWYH who occupy the central role as it she who bears the heir; this establishes direct linage of Abraham, and Sarah’s forebears. 6 The women’s centrality to the economic survival of the household is also established due to the mother elect bearing the heir, selected by YWYH. It is the mother also who holds the legal title to the land, and its distribution rights. 7 The ‘father’s house’, (bet ab,) the smallest basic unit of social organization, and its patriline, are under scrutiny in my thesis, due to it not being the only residence in Israel. 8
The households of Israel, and women’s life-matters are intimately intertwined with birth, marriage, and death. In giving birth, mothers “predominantly named their children,” 9 When married, daughters were granted land as dowry; in the matter of conflict between heirs, mothers mediate. 10 Upon their husband’s death, widows continued to exercise their land rights. 11
The view of Israel as a patriarchal society is contested: it is not a biblical term but rather, a “social-science theory.” 12 Naomi Steinberg identifies Israel as a patrilineal society “without exception.” 13 Cynthia Chapman builds on the differentiation by showing a “neatly schematic patriline,” when, on occasions, the male descent line splits laterally and records mother’s lines: the “House of the Mother” (Bet em,) hence revealing the uterine family “nested” in the father’s house (Bet ab). 14
Chapman also discusses the patri-matriline of Jacob’s uncle, as the ‘house of the father of his mother’ (bêt-’ăbî ’immô) and his ‘father’s house’. 15 This scenario may provoke a political struggle, whereby the daughter’s father’s house was never left entirely, but instead, could provide for the mother a “support base” in “her sons bid for succession in his father’s house.” 16 This shows land inheritance does not run along straight descent lines of the patrilineal ‘father’s line’ as the basic unit according to the patriarchal assumption.
Instead, it shows the naivete of the patriarchal assumption that those most affected, the mothers, daughters, and disinherited sons, have no say or reward in its outcome, yet they willingly play a subjective role in its success. Accordingly, the son who inherited the land of his deceased father did not inherit its legal title. 17 In the first instance, the land ownership and all rights, Moses assigned to YWHW, Israel’s divine patron with Israel as YWYH’s client. 18 In the second instance the land distribution rights, Moses assigned to the mother. 19
Carol Meyers contests the patriarchal model, by identifying the ancient society of Israel as a “Heterarchy.” 20 Benjamin agrees with this. 21 The alternative model to patriarchy is compelling. 22 Meyers says patriarchy manifests itself in two ways: the clans are under the father’s control, by extension, “the organization of an entire society in ways that exclude women from community positions”. 23
The heterarchical model, alternatively, allows for “different power structures” to exist at the same time, rather than “fixed, hierarchical gender patterns” allowing for “autonomous actors in multiple aspects of household and community life.” 24 Benjamin explains women could hold legal title to the land and its distribution rights. 25
Madeline Gay Mcclenney-Sadler identifies five different patterns of marriage in the family structures represented in the ‘father’s house.’ 26 These five, all nestled within Israel’s endogamous clans, reveal an interpersonal, intertwined, clustered knot of familial relationships. Mcclenney-Sadler goes on to discuss the plausibility of Israel practicing a matrilocality (living near the relatives of females) hence a one-sided patrilocal society was defective. 27 The patrilocal model is unsupported by the anthropological and documentary evidence and the different kinship terminology used. 28 She questions the idea of simplified inheritance from father to son and the heir decided by the father as being the norm. 29 Benjamin concurs, asserting, “ancient Israel was not matrilineal, but it was also not rigorously patrilineal.” 30
Benjamin’s proposes, by making a comparison between the similarity of Sargon and Moses’ birth motifs, shows the way Sargon delegated to the woman, Enheduanna, to distribute land use rights to the women of Akkad; he sees the similarity in the way Moses does the same to the women in Deuteronomy. 31 In this, Benjamin shows conclusively, both Sargon and Moses bestow upon their peoples to supply an enduring need; the need for survival in the world of Bible – how to acquire land but also how to manage it. 32 In this way, the women the land, and sustainable practice are entwined.
Robert A. Oden states, “all of Israel’s approved marriages, to some extent, were endogamous” (Genesis 12-36). 33 This brings this idea under the scrutiny of daughters leaving their mother’s house and consistently joining the father’s house. In some instances in the endogamous marriage relationship, daughters stayed within the protection of their ‘mother’s house. 34
The “house of the mothers” comes to the fore when Chapman questions, why, in those cases of a daughter marrying out, the house of the mother, her daughters, and their uterine brothers becomes centrally involved in the matter of an eligible daughter, whose groom would marry into her household? This anomaly reiterates the point that the will of the father was not the only determinant in matters relating to inheritance.
(2) inheritance by Daughters in the ANE and Ancient Israel
In the ANE sons inherited the father’s estate upon his death. Zafrira Ben-Barak shows documented evidence of women in the ANE inheriting land and women holding legal title to the land and its distribution rights. 35 Ben-Barak cites three distinct situations, attested to in different periods, and in four different societies: daughters may inherit with sons but as inferiors, or they may inherit with sons on an equal basis.” 36
The ANE legal title to the land and its distribution rights were held by the king: he represented the divine assembly who owned the land; as a rule, the distribution was assigned to a body of elite individuals who held the administrative rights. 37 Benjamin brings to the fore the similarity in the motifs of Sargon’s and Moses’ birth stories. 38 Based upon this and Sargon delegating to the woman Enheduanna to distribute land use rights to the women of Akkad. Benjamin makes comparisons between the two and concludes: “Moses appoints the women in Deuteronomy to hold legal title and to distribute land rights in ancient Israel.” 39 This just ruling puts the onus on the fathers of the households to care for the land and women, “as Deuteronomy envisions.” 40 Benjamin justly deduces, “only those fathers can endow their households with life as abundant as the life with which Sargon and Enheduanna endowed Akkad”. 41 However, a difference in point is, unlike the rest of the ANE, YHWH alone is the divine Patron of Judah. 42
A plain reading of Numbers 27: 1-11 appears as if the daughters of Zelophehad bring a petition to Moses to inherit their father’s land. However, Benjamin says this is an example of women asking Moses to allow them to exercise their land rights independently. 43 In other words, it is a dispute about the preservation of the land rights of households.
We have considered the parallels and comparisons of Benjamin with the ANE documents, between Sargon and Moses’ birth motifs; the dynamics involved in Israel’s endogamous marriage relationships, and finally, Moses’ granting the women of Deuteronomy to hold legal title to the land and its distribution rights. The various authors quoted discussing women’s inheritance and their land distribution rights frame my research topic in such a way as shown there are variances involving marriage, locality, and the diverse ways in which various players are involved in Israel’s ancient society which Chapman liberally covers.
In the instance where Moses passed a “statute and ordinance,” or more literally “a statute of ordinance” (Hebrew: חֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט). This means the evidence for inheritance in Israel is broader than here as it looks like a technical expression, which is only used here and in Numb 35:29. The similar expressions חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט and חֹק וּלְמִשְׁפָּט occur in Exod 15:25 and 1 Sam 30:25, respectively. This means a form-critical study which focuses on this particular type of commandment, will be carried out in the future to ask, what makes it distinctive and how does it compare to other types of commandments?
Finally, my thesis shows Israel’s ‘patriarchal’ society cannot be seen as simple as the father’s house and son’s linear descent providing for the inheritance needs to the full extent of that society. The hidden nuances and the complexities involved in such a diverse society provide justification for why my research should be undertaken.
Proposed subjects for future research is the future investigation into “statute and ordinance.” There is found to be a gap here. Further research would bring greater depth to what makes it distinctive and how does it compare to other types of commandments? Finally, with increased knowledge of the women in the Hebrew Bible the modern reader is the winner here and the justification of the just character of God and the future work of feminist theology of the Bible will only bring a greater depth of understanding for all interested participants.
to be continued
Ackerman, Susan. Celebrate Her for the Fruit of Her Hands: Essays in Honor of Carol L. Meyers. IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
Ackerman, Susan. “Digging Up Deborah”. Near Eastern Archaeology 66, no. 4: (2003), 172-184. http://doi.org/10.2307/3557917.
Ackerman, Susan, Charles E Carter, and Beth A Nakhai. “1. General (Including Introductions and Collections of Essays).” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40, no. 5 (June 2016): 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089216638248 .
Albertz, Rainer, Beth Alpert Nakhai, Saul M. Olyan, and Rüdiger Schmitt. Family and Household Religion: Toward a Synthesis of Old Testament Studies, Archaeology, Epigraphy and Cultural Studies. IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014.
Bader, Mary Anna. Genesis 34 and 2 Samuel 13. Dinah and Tamar: Their Brothers and Fathers, PhD diss., Lutheran School of Theology IL, 2002.
Ben-Barak, Zafrira. “Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Semitic Studies 25, no. 1 (1980): 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/25/1/22
Benjamin, Don C. “The Impact of Sargon & Enheduanna on Land Rights in Deuteronomy.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 49, (2019), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107918818040
Benjamin, Don, C. “The Land Rights of Women in Deuteronomy: In Memory of John J. Pilch. (1937–2016).” Biblical Theology Bulletin 47, (2017), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107917697901
Benjamin, Don C. The Social World of Deuteronomy: A new feminist commentary. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015.
Bess, Stephen Herbert. Systems of Land Tenure in Ancient Israel, PhD diss., University of Michigan, 1963.
Bridge, Edward J. “A Mother’s Influence: Mothers Naming Children in the Hebrew Bible.” Vetus Testamentum 64, no. 3: (2014), 389-400.
Cameron, Averil, and Amelie Kuhrt. Images of Women in Antiquity. LDN: Croom Helm (1983), 260-272.
Chapman, Cynthia R. The House of the Mother: The Social Roles of Maternal Kin in Biblical Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. New Haven, CT: University Press, 2016.
Cimosa, M. “Translating Go’ēl Ha-Dām: “The Avenger of Blood”.” The Bible Translator 41, no. 3 (1990): 319-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/026009359004100303 .
Classens, Juliana. “‘Give Us a Portion among Our Father’s Brothers’: The Daughters of Zelophehad, Land, and the Quest for Human Dignity.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37, no. 3 (2013): 319-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089213475399.
Coogan, Michael D. “Genesis.” In the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition, New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Biblical Studies Online. Accessed 22 April 2021.
Davies, Eryl W. “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage: Part 1.” Vetus Testamentum 31, no. 2 (1981): 138-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/1517677.
Harris, Rivkah. “Biographical Notes on the Nadītu Women of Sippar.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16, no. 1 (1962): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2307/1359426.
Heady, Patrick and Lale Yalcin-Heckmann. “Implications of Endogamy in the Southwest Eurasian Highlands: Another look at Jack Goody’s theory of production, property and kinship.” History and Anthropology 31 no. 2 (2020): 257-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2019.1640693
Hurvitz, Avi. “The Evidence of Language in dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study in Techical Idioms and Terminology.” Revue Biblique 81, no. 1 (January 1974): 24-56. Accessed April 29, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44089719
Levicheva, Larisa. “Family and Household Religion: Toward a Synthesis of Old Testament Studies, Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Cultural Studies.” Review [Untitled], Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 1 (2016): 88-90.
McEntire, Mark and Wongi Park. “Ethnic Fission and Fusion in Biblical Genealogies.” Journal of Biblical Literature 140, no. 1 (2021): 31-47. Accessed May 9, 2021. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1401.2021.2 .
Matthews, Victor H., and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels: laws and stories from the ancient Near East. NY: Paulist Press, 1991.
Matthews, Victor H., and Benjamin, Don C. Social World of Ancient Israel: 1250 – 587 BCE. 1st Edition, Ada, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.
McClenney-Sadler, Madeline Gay. Recovering the Daughter’s Nakedness a Formal Analysis of Israelite Kinship Terminology and the Internal Logic of Leviticus 18. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies; 476. New York: T & T Clark International, 2007.
Meyers, Carol L. “Gender and the Heterarchy Alternative for Re-Modeling Ancient Israel,” in The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Approaches to the Hebrew Bible, edited by. Susanne Scholz, 1-20. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, OSO, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190462673.001.0001
Meyers, Carol L. Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. NY: Oxford University Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199734559.001.0001
Meyers, Carol L. “Was Ancient Israel a Patriarchal Society?” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 1 (2014): 8-27. https://doi.org/10.1353/jbl.2014.0012 .
Nelson, Sarah M. Women in Antiquity: Theoretical Approaches to Gender and Archaeology. Gender and Archaeology Series. MD; UK: Alta Mira Press, 2007.
Oden, Robert A. “Jacob as Father, Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriarchal Narratives.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102, no. 2 (1983): 189-205. http://doi.org/10.2307/3261157 .
Quick, Laura. “The Book of Ruth and the Limits of Proverbial Wisdom.” Journal of Biblical Literature 139, no. 1 (2020): 47-66. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1391.2020.3
Russell, Stephen C. “Abraham’s Purchase of Ephron’s Land in Anthropological Perspective.” Biblical Interpretation 21, no. 2 (2013): 153-70. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-0015A0001
Russell, Stephen C. “The Legal Background of the Theme of Land in the Book of Joshua.” Hebrew Studies. 59, no. 1 (2018): 111-28.
Sakenfeld, Katharine D. Journeying with God: A Commentary on the Book of Numbers. International Theological Commentary. MI: Handsel Press, 1995.
Scholz, Susanne. The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Approaches to the Hebrew Bible. Oxford Handbooks Online. NY: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Stiebert, Johanna. Sex in the Family: First-Degree Incest and the Hebrew Bible. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. LDN: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/10.5040/9780567670076 .
Steinberg, Naomi. Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economic Perspective. (Minneapolis: MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1993).
Stol. “Women in Mesopotamia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 38, no. 2 (1995): 123-44. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568520952600524
Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Old Testament Series. PH: Fortress Press, 1971.
Ulrich, Dean A. “The Framing Function of the Narratives about Zelophehad’s Daughters.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 4 (December 1998): 529.
Wells, Bruce. “What Is Biblical Law?” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70, no. 2 (2008): 224-43.
Winslow, Karen Strand. “Ethnicity, Exogamy, and Zipporah.” Women in Judaism 4, no. 1 (2006): 1-13. https://search.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ethnicity-exogamy-zipporah/docview/200846475/se-2?accountid=8194
(a) Introduction: Marriage in Ancient Israel and ANE
Endogamy: A Sure Foundation Stone
The endogamous marriage arrangement and the social order stemming from it was first instituted in Genesis 2 as a foundation stone for Israel upon which to build their society. This unique social order which the Scriptures show prevailed throughout ancient Israel. It ensured security and protection for the women of Israel.
Though not written in plain words in one sentence, its social order can be traced in the formation of Israel through the individual marriages recorded, showing the vital role the women played in these, particularly in early Genesis, the Book of Judges, and its monarchy. These relationships show the intricacies of the endogamous marriage arrangement.
Endogamy and Exogamy
Endogamy, which is the ‘insider’ type of marriage relationship and social order (Rebekah and Isaac), required no bartering about a bride-price exchanging hands, but rather, gifts. These were given by the bridegroom (and his family) to the bride (and the maternal uterine members of her family). Interestingly, the father is not involved, only those uterine siblings of their mother’s house. (Gen 24: 28).
Exogamy, on the other hand, is the ‘outsider,’ type of marriage to a male or female ‘foreigner.’ Israel was forbidden to enter into exogamous marriages, but did not obey (hence we will see the result of this fear in the slurring of the ‘foreign woman.’) The exogamous marriage arrangement meant women leaving their home, land, and kin (Deut 7:3.) Solomon and David both practiced this to excess for political reasons.
This led to the sharing of land between two elite males and their ‘people’ so as to increase goods, trade, women and their offspring, and as a way of preventing war. It meant paying a bride price to the family to sell their daughter to secure the partnership, as with Dinah and Shechem (Gen 34).
It meant rape, in some instances, in order to desecrate a young eligible woman, thus rendering her unmarriageable. This was often in an effort to make a land grab, such as Rachel may have been in danger of, when Jacob helped her at the well (Gen 29.) It meant daughters stolen from her uterine kin, her natural protectors, her mother’s house, taken away violently from amongst her people as did Sisera and his soldiers, and Israel, although there were laws against it. (Judges 5: 30; Jdg. 21: 23).
Clan Endogamy, Particularly Lineage Endogamy in Israel.
Lineal exogamy was, therefore, discouraged and clan endogamy, particularly lineage endogamy was the preferred social order in Israel. 1
Reading Abraham’s story in the beginning (Gen 12) it may appear as if his patrilineal linage stemming from Tarah is the only one mentioned, especially as it narrows down to Abraham and his two brothers Nahor, and their deceased brother, Haran. It gives the appearance as if Sarai appears at Abraham’s side from nowhere. Who is she? Who were her parents? Where does she come from?
Scholars differ, but Josephus recognises: ‘Iscah’ (or, sometimes ‘Iskah’), Milcah’s sister, is another name for Sarai (Gen 11: 29.) 2 This then makes Milcah, Sarai, and Lot uterine kin, ‘out of one mother’s womb” and their mother, the unnamed wife of Haran, their deceased father’ 3 These three are referred to elsewhere in scripture in the indigenous language of such a society 4, as “bone of bones” (Gen 29: 14 etc). I accept this I use this throughout my work.
It is only the maternal kin, that is identified in the OT as ‘ bone of bones and flesh of flesh’: the closest kind, namely ‘out of one womb’ that is, uterine kin. These are of one blood, through the mother, not the father. This is why cross cousins, (Jacob and Leah and Rachel,) uncles and nieces (Abraham and Sarah. Nahor and Milcah,) aunts and nephews (Aaron and Jochebed (Num 26: 59,) 5 half-brothers and half-sisters (Tamar and Amnon (2 Kngs 13: 13) could marry in those times and Leviticus 18 is about these relationships specifically. The indigenous terminology to identify these types of relationships in Israel are recorded in the OT and will be identified in my work. (Endogamous kinship terms are also used worldwide, depending upon the nationality, up to today).
Israel’s Patriline and Matriline
Therefore Abram and Sarah were joined in kinship through their mothers matriline and their fathers’ patriline. This means Israel were related through their father Jacob as twelve tribes but related through the mother in their individual tribe: through their mother’s house and as ‘Mother kin’. 6
Hence, Sarai, her sister, Milcah, and their brother, Lot as the heir to the land, and the sisters holding the land rights and its distribution. They are connected to Terah (father’s house) and his paternal forebears through their deceased father, and his patriline. They also belong to their unnamed mothers’ matriline (mother’s house ) and her maternal forebears and her matriline. As we shall see this distinction made between the mother’s houses and the father’s is also the case with Jacob’s tribes with the children relating to one of his four wives, maternal cousins. (Again scholars don’t agree but some claim the handmaids were sisters also of Leah and Rachel and I agree.)
Sarah and her sister Milcah are brought to the fore in the scriptures as the named fountain heads of Israel’s matriline. Thus the two uncles and their two nieces joining in matrimony, illustrate a perfect cameo of the endogamous union, in this instance, between two brothers, uncles, marrying two sisters, their paternal nieces, the siters having Lot, their uterine brother, as their protector.
Learn more about Sarai and her sister, Milcah, and the families of early Israel in the Genesis account.
What were the women’s rights concerning land and inheritance in Israel? Read my thesis (posted soon).
Learn more about the Ancient Near East social and political context Sarah lived in and its influences.
At the close of this study on Sarah, we will consider the NT allegories of Sarah and Hagar and what these mean to the church. To catch them all in a new light we will then move on to shine the spotlight onto Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah and the named women in their matrilines as well as other women’s matrilines, where related to Israel’s patriarchs.
Spiritual interpretation – for our own understanding …
As we read Sarah’s story, we can relate to some of the challenges and decisions she faced, and recognise her steadfast faith, along with the joys and sorrows she would have experienced. Genesis 2: The woman was “built” out of the human man’s substance: of bones and flesh. The woman ‘built’ out of the human man’s substance, of his bones and flesh, also has a spiritual interpretation. It acts as a signpost pointing forward to a spiritual woman and a future glorious time of fulfillment of a new creation (2 Cor 5: 17). See also Gen 2:24; Mt 19: 5; Mk 10: 7; Eph 5: 31. In regards to ancient Israel, this applied, generally, where the wife and the husband belonged to the same tribe and had a two-pronged linage: patriline and matriline, as is being shown here.
Alarmingly, the woman’s image is smudged by patriarchal interpretation of the scriptures. The ‘natural’ interpretation, that of human marriage, mainly quoted at weddings is generally skewed. It is because the ‘spiritual’ interpretation, the secret mystery, that is, the image portrayed through her, that of Christ’s bride, is very often misunderstood or simply ignored.
Jesus, however, did not ignore it. He returned to this foundation stone as His basis for refuting the Jews who asked Him about their two kinds of systems for divorce. (Mt 19: 3-6; Mark 10: 5-7.) The Apostle Paul also stood on the same rock of authenticity as a solid foundation stone for his teaching of the secret mystery it enfolds, now revealed to the church. “Therefore”, or, for this reason (the endogamous kind of marriage union), where “a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh” is a profound mystery: Paul said, “but I am illustrating the way Christ and the church are one”(Eph 5: 30-33).
In my opinion, the Genesis scripture quoted here (Gen 2:24) is the most significant prophetic signpost in the OT. The woman – built out of bones and flesh, taken out of the sleeping man’s side, directs the reader to what is to come: Christ and His bride, the church, made up of Jew and Gentile, male and female, all free, and one in Christ (Gal 3: 26.) The Apostle Paul eventually received the full revelation of the woman in Genesis and taught the church. It could not be interpreted in as plain a language as Paul gave us until Christ came in the flesh, died, and was resurrected.
“The City Sarah left behind to journey to Canaan…
“The Royal Tombs: Ur of the Chaldees”
Task 1: Thesis statement and annotated bibliography: The assessment strategy is intended to allow you to display development of thesis writing and research methods skills appropriate for an Honours thesis. All three assessment tasks are linked together so that the feedback received from each task also acts as a feedforward to help you prepare for the next task. Assessment task 1 enables you to display achievement of LO 1 by asking you to compile an annotated bibliography of relevant key resources for your proposed thesis topic and drafting a thesis statement, outlining the argument of your proposed thesis Requires students to demonstrate the skills of writing a thesis statement and compiling an annotated bibliography of relevant sources. Due Friday 26th March 2021 For this task, you are asked to write an annotated bibliography of ten selected relevant sources for your thesis project. Your annotations should be approximately 100 words each. Each annotation should explain what that resource is about and why it is an important resource for your thesis. You are also asked to include a draft thesis statement written at the top of the document. There is a guide to writing Annotated Bibliographies in Appendix A. Length and/or format: 1200 words: A single sentence thesis statement plus ten 100- word annotations. To enable you to gather ten key sources for your project and explain why they are relevant; and to support you in writing a thesis statement, which will provide direction for your thesis project. The annotated bibliography also provides a basis from which you can develop your Literature Review.
Patricia Erlandsen Draft Thesis Statement and Annotated Bibliography
The land of Canaan was divinely promised to Israel through their fore-parents, Abraham and Sarah. Due to acts of divine deliverance, Israel was now poised to enter the promised land.
Moses appointed to each tribe their portion of land. A discrepancy arose and the daughters of Zelophehad approached Moses. Their petition was twofold: “Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? give us property among our father’s relatives.” 1 To ensure the women remained with their land, endogamous marriage was instituted. A statute was passed that showed the land belonged to Yahweh: “the request of the daughters of Zelophehad is justified; you shall certainly give them a possession as an inheritance among their father’s brothers, and you shall transfer their father’s inheritance to them.” 2
This thesis attempts to answer the question, “what motivated the ancient Israelite custom reported in Numbers 27:7 of permitting daughters to inherit?; and is therefore, the matter of women inheriting land in Ancient Israel more of a theological justification about divine ownership of the land?; further, “did the women of Israel typically inherit land? and is this interrelated with widows inheriting land through the endogamous Levirate marriage law?”; so that, in reality, “was inheriting land by all members of the tribes and endogamous marriages a distinctive feature of Israelite society?”
Below: 100 words each Annotated Bibliography.
Ackerman, Susan. 2003. “Digging Up Deborah”. Near Eastern Archaeology 66, no. 4: 172-184. http://doi.org/10.2307/3557917.
Biblical scholar, Susan Ackerman, a biblical scholar, draws from Carol Meyer’s work using archaeology as a tool to uncover the sub text. This opens up indicators of deeper meaning between Iron I period in the book of Judges and Israel’s pre-monarchic era of Iron 11. Close attention is given to the way the ordinary everyday tasks of the women opened up ways for them to influence the society’s economical, judicial and legal affairs and to participate in religious observances. Ackerman also compares the ancient Semitic language and includes extra-biblical source materials, all adding valuable weight to my thesis.
Benjamin, Don C. 2015 The Social World of Deuteronomy: A New Feminist Commentary. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Both legal traditions and cultures in the bible world are brought together in Don Benjamin’s work. He brings to the reader empathetic insight into the social world of Israel’s women and their household members. Yahweh’s patronage allowed all Israel to receive a divine land grant: “The land that Yahweh is giving.” 3 The author engages feminist criticism, law, social life and customs. Benjamin explains simple lineages, segmented lineages, and genealogies. He uses social – scientific criticism to reconstruct the social institutions that appear in Deuteronomy’s traditions. Along with this, the book’s bibliography is of value in developing my thesis.
Brenner-Idan, Athalya. 1993. Feminist Companion to Genesis. London, Bloomsbury.
Brenner’s approach of feminist criticism and interpretation examines sexism and sex in the bible. Wives controlling their husband’s sexual activity through the wife’s directive led to controlling childbirth. Women therefore were central to building up their clan leading to the growth of the tribe. Brenner concludes it does not infer domination. However, that is questionable. This is relevant to my thesis in showing the way women had autonomy in critical issues and decision making. It also ensured a woman’s relative freedom in preventing sexual harassment. It infers they were not overtly patriarchal households.
Brenner-Idan, Athalya, and Brenner,Athalya. 1993. Feminist Companion to Ruth. London, Bloomsbury.
An explicitly feminist approach is adopted as Brennan shows the way in which the Levirate law in Israel is applied on behalf of widows in Israel. Redemption is the theme. Its central issue is twofold: retention of land and name which works through endogamous matrilineal kinship ties. Brenner insight defines the way in which the matriline is the strength of the society they live in as it provides the source of female authority to help cull the potential of aggressive male domination.
Bridge, Edward J. 2014. A Mother’s Influence: Mothers Naming Children in the Hebrew Bible. Vetus Testamentum 64, no. 3: 389-400.
Edward Bridge shows during the pre-Israelite pre monarchic and monarchic periods women exhibit significant standing and influence in Israel. They predominantly named their children, educated and chose their children’s language. They expressed preference for children over husbands; singularly inquired of God; some were recognised as wise. One saved a city, another built them; others were prophets and mediums, others served at the tabernacle. The Shelomith seal, late fifth early sixth century BC, has a woman acting in the capacity of government official or functionary. Overall, Bridge demonstrates it is a gross misrepresentation to interpret Israelite women as docile which is in keeping with my thesis.
Chapman, Cynthia R. 2016. The House of the Mother: The Social Roles of Maternal Kin in Biblical Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. New Haven, Connecticut.
To provide a lens to magnify ancient Israelite kinship ties, Chapman combines biblical and extra-biblical linguistic analysis with anthropological theory, ethnographical insights, and archaeological data. These serve to help the readers’ gaze converge on what Chapman calls “horizontal lines”. These are matrilineal lines leading to far more complexity in the patriarchal structure of the tribes of Israel than might once be thought. Chapman refers to these as a “more complex maternally subdivided household”. These are identified as “the House of the Mother”. Chapman’s study supports the argument that one-dimensional patrilocal marriage and male only line of descent is inaccurate.
Carol Meyers scholarly feminist critique: “Was Ancient Israel a Patriarchal Society?” seeks to reexamine the concept of patriarchy as a negative descriptor of ancient Israel. Employing historical text analysis, anthropology, archaeology, Hebrew language, science and society, the author highlights the social problems associated with patriarchal interpretation. Meyers says other scholars such as third-wave feminists, social theorists and feminist archaeologists agree. Meyers disagrees with the way theorists use the Roman “paterfamilias” as an example to compare with the families of Ancient Israel. This archaic view has never been entirely corrected. I agree with Meyers: it is too long a time period to make any relevant comparison.
Meyers, Carol. 2013. Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meyer’s feminist study investigates the popular view of Israelite women in their households being at the bottom of a blatantly patriarchal social structure in Iron Age 1 Israelite society. Meyer considers the mundane lives of such ordinary women agrarians residing in matrilineal kinship groups. It reveals a micro-view of their economic, social, political, and religious significance in the tribe’s internal and external cohesion. The author draws upon archaeological discoveries from that period. In support my thesis in as much as it allows a broader picture of Ancient Israelite women’s roles, their worth in the family as well as their interactions amongst themselves and the broader community.
Oden, Robert A. 1983. “Jacob as Father, Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriarchal Narratives”. Journal of Biblical Literature 102, no. 2 189-205. http://doi.org/10.2307/3261157.
Robert Oden’s emphasis in the study of biblical literature is about modern analysis of kinship studies. This offers the reader the opportunity to research the Hebrew texts in greater depth. In this instance, Jacob and Laban are brought to the fore to examine the special relationship between a man and his maternal uncle. Its most prominent features concern kinship studies and genealogy in the family of Abraham, Sarah and their descendants, allowing preservation of its system of land tenure. The author helps me articulate my argument in the way in which endogamy served Israel.
Zafrira, Ben-Barak. 1980. “Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East”, Journal of Semitic Studies 25, no. 1, 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/25/1/22
Zafrira’s approach is one of bible criticism and interpretation It deals with ancient Assyro-Babylonian literature and Semitic Languages of this period. It ascertains that the situation of women’s right to land also occurred in the course of establishing justice in Middle Eastern society. Certain documents from there show widows orphans and daughters become heirs; this occurs when there is no son. The author explores Job’s daughters inheriting land. The endogamous marriage arrangement is also considered. Zafrira’s study enables comparison between law cases listed here to the one concerning the five daughters of Zelophehad.
The Bachelor of Theology (Honours) is a one-year programme for high-achieving students who have completed the Bachelor of Theology pass degree or equivalent.
Undertake a focused research project framed by one-on-one supervision with one of our internationally-recognised academic staff, and engage in an in-depth study of an area of theology or biblical studies in which you are particularly interested.
|Date of offer||17-FEB-2021|
|Course||Bachelor of Theology (Honours)|
|Fee type||Commonwealth Supported|
My application included the following outline of my interest in matrilineal Biblical Studies. Below is an extract from my series online: Genealogies of Women in OT: ‘Sarah’.
I write from the viewpoint that the Israelites began as a matriarchal society, but translators and interpreters have rendered it a patriarchal one. My argument supports the practice of endogamous marriage, of marrying within a specific social group, caste, or ethnic group, rejecting those from others as unsuitable for marriage or other close personal relationships. Endogamy is common in many cultures and ethnic groups. Endogamy is the social norm prescribed in Genesis 2: 24.
‘For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh’ (KJV).
Such marriages rely on female kinship and each mother’s innate knowledge of her children. History shows that women-owned land and resided in matriarchal households. As the land was settled, regions, cities, and towns in early Canaan history are named after the women of Israel possibly signifying them and their kin as the rightful owners. Women were not without standing in the community of Israel. It was in the mother’s and their daughter’s best interest to build up their matriarchal kinship houses and extended groups.
Careful scrutiny of documents that relate to Chief Sarah’s time that Sarah occupied a very dignified position in Mesopotamia, ‘land of the two rivers, and finally, Canaan. This was not unusual, for women of Sarah’s day also held places of public and private power in Egypt Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Canaan, and Asia Minor. In all those civilisations, the matriarchate, that is, mother-right can be traced. Her household was not small (Gen 12: 5). Abraham was seventy-five years old and Sarah was sixty (Gen 12: 4). Many of these servants likely made-up part of her dowry from her family 1 and, in keeping with the tradition of that time, would have remained her property.
Sarah’s family belonged to the Semitic races and mother-kinship dominated all Semitic speech. As a father was not able to prove paternity and was reliant on the woman’s integrity, mother-kinship provided the kindred unity. When the tribes of Israel entered Canaan they still held to this social order of matri-locality and mother-right. This social order was also practiced in Egypt, where Israel previously dwelt and worked as slaves. In Canaan where the tribes of Israel eventually settled after leaving Egypt, the language patterns of matri-locality and mother-right continue there. Regions, cities, villages, and meadows were named after notable women of Israel.
‘Mother tongue’ was also cognizant of matrilocality. The inhabitants of a place collectively in Israel were recognised as ‘daughter’ (Heb. ‘bath’). Not only was Israel’s name (‘Prince’) the stem of Sarah’s name (Chief or Prince) but individual cities and regions were also recognised by women’s names. 2 Such language usage denoted the sphere of influence the women of Israel held. It also strengthens the evidence that, based on the first social law (Gen 2: 24) kinship in those golden years for women was reckoned through the mothers and their daughters.
‘We know that in parts of Asia Minor, notably among the Lycians, a matrilineal system was still in existence, and it may be that certain privileges enjoyed by women among the Hittites represent vestiges of this.’ In various Scriptures, ‘mother-kin’, in Scripture, is referred to as ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’.
‘There is indisputable proof that kinship was reckoned through women during the time of history when Sarah lived. The Tel el Armana tablets, decreed by one King Amraphel, have helped us greatly with understanding the social law under which she lived. These tell their own story of women’s plight concerning the bearing of children and divorce. Because of such archaeological discoveries as the Tel el Armana tablets, the code of Hammurabi 3 and the numerous finds around Ninevah, Egypt, Babylonia, and other ancient places, scholars have been able to reconstruct, to a considerable extent, the manners and customs of these people of early ages’. 4
In the past, male scholars have ignored the body of evidence available that gives insight into the lives and achievements of women in ancient times. To study the Bible and ignore this evidence as immaterial is equal to saying that the lives of women and their achievements were and are of no value; that there is nothing to be learned from such an approach to bible study.
In keeping with this, Bible dictionaries, commentaries, encyclopedias, and other Bible study resources generally omit material that reveal women’s lives. An example of such gross negligence of women’s history by male scholars is highlighted by a Jewish feminist, Ross Kramer (1992).
‘The study of Jewish women generally subsumed within the discussion of “Women in the New Testament” or, ‘Early Christian Women’ can be substantiated by the widespread ignorance of the Jewish women who make up the majority of women in the New Testament’.
Other feminist scholars, such as Karen Jo Torjensen (1993) are reconstructing women’s early Christian history. With the ever-increasing body of work carried out by feminist scholars, a plethora of different approaches in relation to studies in religion, the ancient societies they lived in, and the participation of women within those societies in which they thrived as active members now exist. This body of work includes such approaches as identifying the methodological problems involved in a study of women in ancient history. Out of this feminist methodology, feminist sociology and anthropology has emerged accompanied by textual, political, and feminist criticism.
The Bible itself contains traces of former matrilineal inheritance and matrilocal marriages. However, some are difficult to trace, because they have been tampered with.5 Furthermore, unless you are looking for the matriarchal mother-kin theme, the patriarchal, paternalistic, androcentric, and overall tone of the Bible can at times not only be overwhelming but also can give the impression that no other form of social order ever existed.
Historically, during the Neolithic period (8500-4000 BC) the matrilineal clan system and the rule of mother-right were followed almost everywhere. 6 Barbara Walker’s work includes proof from Egyptian and Greek writings,
‘the most significant revolution in Greece was the transition from matrilineal to patrilineal succession and the resulting destruction of clan loyalties. In many other areas, the matrilineal system survived to a later date and was still in existence in parts of the British Isles up to the 9th Century. In most ancient societies young men went forth from their maternal homes to seek their fortune elsewhere because their sisters inherited the family home. It was a fixed habit of Greek men to leave home and seek a matrilocal marriage with an heir (ess) in a distant land’ (Walker, 1996, 620-624).
Bushnell points out that distinctive features of the matriarchate included the recognised head of the clan was a woman. The descent was reckoned through the female line. The husband severed connection with his own gen to join that of his wife, and a woman was entirely free in the choice of a mate. The woman retained, after marriage, absolute control of her person and the arrangement the women entered into as regards marriage.
The matriarch, Milcah, sister of Iscah (Gen 11: 29), in the Jewish traditions, according to Josephus, says that Iscah is Sarai, making Lot, Milcah and Sarai one kin, their unnamed mother being the wife of Haran. Haran died and Abram and Nahor married the two sisters. These men were not of the sister’s immediate kinship group. They were not ‘bone of bone and flesh of flesh’. When Abram and Sarai left Ur Lot, Sarai’s brother, in keeping with the tradition of that day, of the brother’s protection of his sister, (Abram’s nephew), went with Sarai and her husband, Abraham. Sarai and Lot left the Mother house leaving Milcah in Ur, with Sarai’s inheritance, given the matri-locality of the situation.
When Abram sent his steward Eleizer back for a wife for Sarah’s son, Isaac, he came to Milcah’s household. Milcah also became the mother of twelve tribes (Gen 22: 20-23). Milcah takes the root of her name from mlk – ruler. ‘These names have been interpreted as honorific descriptions of the individual’s position within the family group’ (Anchor Bible Dictionary).
When Jacob returned here seeking refuge and a wife, on his mother’s authority, the social order remained the same. Whereas Lot had left the home in Padan Aran with Abraham, Rebekah’s brother, Laban, had remained with the property and daughters were born to him of an unnamed woman presumably of the same kin. As Milcah’s granddaughters, the property in Padan Aram belonged to Leah and Rachel.
However, Laban sold his daughters to Jacob, very different from matrilocal and mother kin practices of the past where the daughters would receive a dowry from their kin, and the husband would bring a gift (Gen 29: 1-30; 31: 14-16 & 25-43). Instead, Laban profited from their marriages. However, when Laban catches up with Jacob he is still talking mother-tongue ‘ my daughters’, the children born to the women, ‘my children’, the cattle, ‘my cattle’, ‘all that you see is mine’, all members of his clan, not Abraham, Isaac or Jacob’s.
Laban relented and said to Jacob, ‘Now therefore, come let us make a covenant, a witness ‘if you afflict my daughters or if you take other wives beside my daughters, no man is with us’. In other words, even though my daughters are leaving their matrilineal location and inheritance, changing the marriage relationship from ‘sadica’ or ‘beena’ relationship, denoting mother kin and matrilocality to a ‘baal’ marriage, where the wife leaves her kin and goes to her husband’s home. Nevertheless, you are to treat them the same as if they had their brothers to look after them. If you break this covenant, no one will keep you from my sword. ‘Mizpah’ – the Lord watch between us to see you keep this covenant. Do not cross this line to claim anything from me and I will not cross this line to claim anything that belongs to my daughters. If you cross this line or do not look after my daughters and their children, by the agreement we make today, I have the right to kill you’ (Gen 31: 47-55). Jacob agreed out of fear of his father, Isaac (v. 53).
This type of marriage relationship is referred to as ‘sadica’ by Professor Robertson Smith in his groundbreaking work, ‘Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia’. This is where the man leaves his father and mother and joins the wife and her clan. This is in keeping with the way in which Abraham and his brother, Nahor did, when they married their deceased brother’s daughters, Sarai and Milcah, respectively.
Jacob also, when he married the two sisters, his matrilineal cousins, Leah and Rachel. Robertson Smith states that the term comes from ‘sadac’, the ‘gift’ given to a wife by her husband upon marriage, as contrasted with the gift given to the father in the purchase of a wife by her husband, her ‘‘baal’’ ‘master’. The ‘sadica’ type of marriage meant that the wife remained with her kin and the husband visited her there.
The place where she and her kin resided was identified as a matri-locality. Her children were named after her; her family ties were with her own clan. Kindred were linked together chiefly through the bond of their maternity, as the tribes of Israel were relegated to their various mother’s clans. A map of the placement of the tribes when they entered Canaan in relation to their mothers various tribes reveals this. Another example of this type of relationship is found in the term ‘erebu’ ‘marriage’; it means ‘to come in, pay visits (to one’s wife)’ as in the case of Samson when he visited his wife in Timnah (Jdgs. 15: 1-6 etc). 7
Where descendants are traced through the mother rather than the father and son, the woman’s position is assured in the family structure. Her mother’s brothers and sons, her uncles and brothers, remain her natural protectors. In the ancient gens, descent was limited to the female line. It embraced all common female ancestors through the female, the evidence for this being a common gentile name. It would include this ancestor and her children, the children of her daughters, and the children of her female descendants through females in perpetuity. The children of her sons, and the children of her male descendants, through males, would belong to other gentes, namely those of their respective mothers. Such was the gens in its archaic form, when the paternity of children was not certainly ascertainable and when their maternity afforded the only certain criterion of descents (Ancient Society. Lewis H. Morgan 1877: 47).
Congratulations, Patricia – you’re in!
It’s time to celebrate – your application was successful and we’re delighted to offer you a place to study at Australian Catholic University (ACU). Your offer details:
Name: Patricia Erlandsen
Course: Bachelor of Theology (Honours)
Place: Commonwealth Supported
Faculty: Faculty Theology & Philosophy
Campus: Brisbane (check out their campus)
Intake: 2021 Academic Year
Bachelor of Theology (Honours): A one-year programme for high-achieving students who have completed the Bachelor of Theology pass degree or equivalent; students undertake a focused research project framed by one-on-one supervision with one of our internationally-recognised academic staff, and engage in an in-depth study of an area of theology or biblical studies.
More news soon… Watch this space!
It is my desire is to help women read the Bible in a fresh way. This will give them a new perspective. It will help them see the how the traditional reading, which is by and from a male perspective has introduced a bias to the reading.
I am very aware that this is a debate central to a reformation of the church and I have been engaged at its very heart with many others interested in biblical equality in the church and home over many years. My hope is that study will influence the church and thereby society in this and succeeding generations.
The questions I ask when reading the Scriptures are these: are the Hebrew (Old Testament) scriptures written only for the men of Israel? Are the New Testament scriptures written only for men, albeit now of all nations? Have male translators, interpreters and commentators constructed a community of male elites and thus women become the excluded other? How does this thereby marginalize women to the sidelines.
I hope my discussion will raise significant questions among women who feel sidelined when reading the scriptures. I also hope it will highlight how this damaging attitude is widespread and if not brought to a halt, will cause an ever-widening gap in the Christian community.
In the past scholars have identified and examined three types of marginalization and I will add a fourth.
- the person between cultures or cultural worlds.
- involuntary marginality of the ‘poor and expendable’ or of a culture or society.
- voluntary marginality, based on a conscious choice to live outside the norms and structures of a given social system.
- And my fourth: being a woman.
All women do not necessarily fit within the first three yet are identified within the fourth and by that fact alone, experience some form of discrimination and marginalization.
The focus of my study is women who identify as Christian and how the destructive influence of male bias occurs firstly in the interpretation of scripture and second, in failure to recognize women’s gifts and calling in the Christian community. This results in women being under-used in the church, to its detriment resulting in a negative rather than a positive influence on society at large.
I challenge the Christian community, whose elite members remain predominately male, leaders to examine and ponder their elitist attitudes.
Change your mind, interpret the scriptures in such a way as to be more inclusive of the women, all women not just those few token women deemed acceptable, so long as they keep to their designated place. Examine yourself and your attitudes. Study to show yourself approved, by all those you teach, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.
Preach and teach in such a way as to show all the biblical characters, named and unnamed, had their important part to play in the formation of Israel, the early church, and the overall plan of God. By so doing you are in harmony with the Spirit of love, peace, and unity, thereby making the church of Jesus Christ prepared for his return.
Let This Mind Be In You. 1
It’s All In The Mind
The Apostle Paul said he imitated Christ and for the Believer to do likewise 2. Paul obviously had discovered the key that enabled him to change his Pharisaic way of thinking. We are Gentiles and as such we do not have the same mind-set as Paul. Nevertheless, we must also change our minds.
Stop And Turn Around
The bible word for this is metanoia, often translated ‘repentance’, which is a poor translation because it just has the idea of ‘being sorry’. Metanoia – is something quite different. It means ‘stop and turn around’. It is calling us to change the way we think about ourselves and importantly, about God. It is also to stop thinking the way the world thinks and the way we think about the world.
To be like Jesus we are to stop conforming to the world. Instead, start mirroring Jesus’ teachings in our everyday life. We are to all be of the same mind. How do we cultivate this change of mind? First, we work on ourselves.
Work On Ourselves
It is our responsibility to change the way we think of ourselves. One time I evaded this. I convinced myself I was tired of it. This mindlessness on my part meant I got back into bad-habits. Rather than listening to my ‘self’ and ardently seeking change, I went to sleep. As a result, I began to revert back to the old me.
If we fall into a state of slumber we lose our edge. We stop being watchful. Our speech acts as a snare. Old speech patterns return. We slip back into saying the same old exaggerated boastful or negative scripts from the past.
These old scripts are lies. They’re stories we’ve built up over the years. The only way to get back to telling the truth is to correct ourselves as it comes out of our mouths.
We also listen to our inner voice accusing ourselves. By thinking in a new way, taking note of what God says about us, we form a new identity: a new way of doing and living. This new way of living is the very opposite of the way the world thinks, speaks, acts and lives.
Jesus Set the Standard By His Words And Deeds
Jesus was not like other people. Jesus marched, as the saying goes, to a ‘different drumbeat’. He put His faith in God into words and action. He told people to do likewise, to follow Him.
Paul also told His readers to follow him. For Paul to say this he must have ‘tried’ Jesus’ teachings by putting them into action and found they worked
Paul Activated Jesus’ Teachings By Doing Them
Paul taught in word and deed. This was so as to visibly show his followers what Jesus was like. To do this, a particular mind-set of Paul’s was cultivated by him. This is opposite to the world’s way of thinking.
By allowing that mind of Christ to be in us will lead us out of the maze of self-deception. This self-deception is our false self. It has been carefully constructed. We have fashioned it from our past experiences.
These scripts we tell ourselves and others consist of what people have told us and what we’ve told ourselves. Our moth ensnares us. We are the accuser of ourselves and of others.
Believers Are Called To Live In Peace.
Only then, will we find the God-kind-of-peace promised us. Only when we let that mind of Christ be in us instead of the old one we live with now. As Believers in Jesus, we are called to live in peace. How can we find the paths that lead to peace? How can we find this mind that must be in us?
Believers are called to live in peace. To do so it is imperative we change our mind, words, and deeds, so as to find a new way of living. How can we find the paths that lead to peace? We must look to Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith.
How Can We Change Our Mind?
Where can we find the supreme example of Jesus? Its principles are laid down in the three temptations Jesus faced. He was tempted by His own inner voice. He overcame the accusing voice by the Word of God.
Gaining an understanding of these three temptations will bring about change. I hope to learn more along with you. We must change!
Nothing is accomplished without practice. There is an example given for us and a practice that will change our minds. Its principles are laid down in the three temptations Jesus faced and overcame as described in scripture (Matt 4). As we gain an understanding of these we can then practice a daily minute by minute lifetime of metanoia (change) to bring about this transformation in our personality we so desperately desire.
Exposing Our Identity Lies
This model Jesus has shown is not recognisable by the indicators the world attributes to successful living. Indeed, those indicators the world recognises are the lies we have cultivated about ourselves. We all have spent a lifetime building up a reputation for ourselves.
Now, some reputations attributed to people are inevitable. They are built by their followers. In such a case it’s not dependent upon what is said or not said. It’s a product of a certain way of life that’s noted by others rather than one that’s boasted about.
A reputation is also built by what people tell others about themselves. This is in order to impress others. It is done in an attempt to bolster the original self-lies we say about ourselves.
We want others to believe them. In the finish, all going according to plan, we don’t have to keep telling everyone. If we have done our work sufficiently our press club does this for us.
However, the last word in all this is when people meet up face to face. It is then they can judge for themselves. This we all do.
Jesus Shows Us Another Way.
He shows us how to reinvent ourselves. This time it is believing what God says about us. In His temptation, His temptation consisted of three identity lies that must be believed by Him at that moment or pulled down. 3
Revealing Our False Self-Constructed Identity
I will show here these three self-constructed identity-lies we all cultivate. We will have no trouble recognising them because they are common to us. When these particular temptations come at crucial moments in our lives they reveal who we are. Jesus shows another way, how not to succumb to them. We can begin to tell others a new story about ourselves.
Temptations Common To Us Also Besieged Jesus
The tempting thoughts that besieged Jesus are common to us all. They give us insight into their nature. By upending these common lies, we can gain a new vista. We can stand under them and look up to examine their foundations. Jesus brought forth the right evaluation to destroy their power over Him. We can also.
Stand Under Rather than Over
To stand under rather than over gives us a different kind of perspective of life and of people. Our under-standing these three temptations reveal to ourselves the lies or the unreality we daily live in. If left unchecked, no amount of confessing the Word will change us. We will not see the desired change. We will not be like Jesus. We will instead mirror the world’s image.
To understand what I am saying here simply requires us individually to take time out from the daily chatter. It means to listen to our words and take note of them and our thoughts. It requires we consider the underlying motivations that drive us.
Begin to practice this on a daily basis. Firstly, each evening goes back over the day. Examine ourselves. Take note of where we missed the mark. Prayerfully ask God to help us change. Thoughtfully think about how to do it better next time.
This Is Not Self-Improvement
This is rather simply obeying the scripture: “examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith”. Once we do this self-examination we have the opportunity to repent.
Keep Ourselves In The Faith
Allow awareness, mindfulness, and repentance to become our daily practice. We can then increase the exercise by doing it on a moment-by-moment basis. The overall message is to repent, to turn around, in order to bring about change. Change can only happen through our awareness of ourselves and calling upon God’s grace to change us. It is our responsibility to keep ourselves in the faith. True faith shows by how much grace we demonstrate. Dear friends, I confess, I still have a long way to go! But like you, I press on.
We Are All Devils: Accusers Of Our Own Selves And Of Others
This example of Jesus’ facing temptation shows us we can’t stop the temptations from coming. How we deal with them reveals our true selves. Some try to blame shift it, by blaming the ‘devil’. 4
This is nonsense. If we live in a house (our mind) divided against itself, we will disintegrate. Its dualism. It is opposing ourselves.
A Change Of Mind Empowers Us
The three temptations Jesus faced also show us what society has deemed are our basic human needs. However, what we are not told is the emptiness loneliness and envy these reproduce in us. This is where changing our mind empowers us. The power of repentance allows us to take on a new identity already inscribed in us and waiting to be revealed through us in word, deed and living a new kind of life.
It Is Written.
By our changing our mind we turn ourselves around. It’s the type of character building we must undergo in order to add to our faith. This is so as to begin the lifelong journey, to be perfected in the image of Christ. This means to mature.
Mature Christians mirror the image of Christ. It’s not that we shall arrive here in this body, for we are in the world and live in this body of flesh and our mind is continually besieged by our own and others accusations. Nevertheless, we press on.
Next week: The First Temptation of Christ – “Turn stones into bread”: The False Identity Lie: I Am What I Do
Consider a moment the farmlands of Israel in Jesus’ day. Rather than thousands of acres of rolling plains where the seed is sown and harvested by machinery they were plots of ground with an edging of ‘wayside’ (downtrodden) soil around the plots.
These edges allowed the farmer and travellers traversing across the fields to walk upon them without harming the structure of the soil. For generations, feet had downtrodden such wayside soil, it had never been ploughed or tendered.
Although it may be good soil it would need a lot of care in order to seed it and produce a hundred-fold harvest. Wayside soil is so hardened and packed it lacks oxygen. Water runs off it. Any seed that falls here simply stays on the hard-packed earth until the birds of the air pluck it up.
Jesus likens wayside soil, not only to a hardened mind but also to one that lacks understanding. It also acts as a warning of how diligent we must be with our own mind, to be mindful, to keep it alive, creative, fresh and fertile, teachable and easily entreated, well ploughed and ready to receive the Word of God (Ezk 2:4; 3:7).
Let Wisdom Have Her Perfect Work
Proverbs teach that a woman called Wisdom cries out to simple folk at the crossroads, where daily decisions are made. For example, wise people are giving sound advice continually, wherever people meet and talk. Wisdom makes her boast of bestowing riches, honour and long life; wisdom comes from having a mind that under-stands rather than over-stands.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A proud mind has no understanding. Understanding comes from listening to wise counsel. It requires applying the Word of God to the circumstances of our lives, choosing the right way making the right decisions, and walking in the light. It means choosing to walk in the right direction (Prov. 1:20-25).
Be Fruitful and Multiply
The farmer who goes out to sow the seed must first be a partaker of the fruit (2 Tim 2:6). In other words, the seed one carries to others is the result of fruitfulness in our own lives. It is no good for us preaching on repentance, (turning around), active faith, or walking in the Spirit when we are not living in those truths ourselves. Only what we possess can we give away.
As farmers working in God’s fields, we would do well to consider and understand why people do the things they do. In evangelism, it is no use us reacting to their reactions. To understand why they are reacting so negatively to the gospel will help to make us become a link for them. In helping seeking people discover the answer their healing that they seek can manifest.
Wayside, hardened, downtrodden soil
This kind of soil is easily discernible. The impenetrable steely eyes and hard-line of jaw and lips are all signs of hurt and pain. This condition is often due to abandonment and rejection. We have already learned in another paper published here about leprosy eating away on the inside of the victim.
Soil needs water
This kind of compacted soil is in any age group or culture. It is best prepared for future sowing by watering, through prayer and intercession. The word ‘intercession’ means ‘to come alongside and lift’. To intercede on behalf of people means doing practical ministry.
Break up the Soil
Teach scripture in small bite sizes: easily digested. When coupled with genuine love and acceptance this help to break up and oxygenate the downtrodden soil. For example, nothing beats a caring extended family environment for today’s youth.
When this type of fresh readily dug soil in the hearts of the believer is encountered by those hurt by life, when they begin to mix with believers walking in the spirit of God’s immeasurable love, forgiveness will break up the hard wayside soil. The result will be a repentant heart towards God (Psalm 51).
My ministry took me into the streets mainly amongst youth that was in crisis. As well as accommodating up to nine of them in my home at any one time, I would hold an ‘open house’ twice a month. Up to thirty young people would attend.
The open house was strictly for youths in the church that did not have caring parents, or those living alone or off the streets. In this way, it acted as an outreach for street kids.
There is a fantastic opportunity for those in evangelism to create this sort of environment: food for the body and spirit, fellowship, and fun with steady solid, down-to-earth Christian workers involved. However, as was my experience, churches do not assist those with a heart for this kind of ministry. They alone are left to carry the burden with a few hard workers and to bear the burden financially.
One man, a greengrocer in the church where I carried out this type of ministry offered for me to come to his shop once a week and choose a box of veg and fruit at no charge. Everyone can help to sow the seed and bring in its harvest.
How wonderful, how beautiful when the body has a good relationship with itself (Psalm 133:1: Patricia’s paraphrase).
I suggest we stop putting our money in a bag passed around. We have no idea where it goes. Instead, sow seed where we’ve been planted. What can you and I do?
If not me, then who? And if not now, when?
Coming into a church service can be a culture shock for those unused to it. Entering a warm and welcoming home environment is not so confronting.
Any gardener knows that once hardened soil is broken up, it can be nourished and fed and will produce a harvest. A hard heart is replaced by a heart full of thanks as we give praise to God. This is called giving to God the fruit of our lips.
By giving thanks to God the Creator through our Jesus Christ our Protector, Provider and Saviour, the resurrection power of God is released through love; it brings hope.
Hope is the anchor of our souls. It conveys security. This kind of sowing in love brings reaping with joy. It causes souls to be born again, set free from the condemnation of the law of sin-and-death brings.
The Holy Spirit is the one who teaches us how to sow and reap. We must always turn to God who gives wisdom and counsel. Ask and we shall receive.
Have a heart
Downtrodden soil has been pressed down by the sheer weight of the feet that pass over it. In the main thoroughfares of life, we will find downtrodden soil. Other people’s opinions are important to those with downtrodden soil. They are fearful and sceptical.
Some are lost
For some, the greed of other things, position, and power, love of this world, enter in and believers fall away. Instead of servanthood, they seek a name, identity with the world, prestige, public approval, money. All the trappings of outward adorning become more important than God’s approval.
Give Love a Chance
Living by the ‘sweat of our brow’ is living under a curse, relating to the first creation and the fall. The believer is a new creation. Old things passed away. I’m not saying stop work. All I am saying is give God a chance to use us. Lift up our heads and look around. What is that in our hand? Give what we have, not what we don’t have.
Natural Creation by Design
Now, in the natural, all of creation is at work to disperse seed, such as birds, animals, snails, fish, tortoises, alligators, bats, wind, water and even ants. Some seeds are hitchhikers, like the burr and attach themselves to wool and travel all over the world. Some have wings to help the wind carry them.
There is a plant called ‘dwarf mistletoe’, in the USA. It is worth mentioning for what it could symbolize here. Pressure builds up in the womb of this seed as water passes in one direction across its membranes. The pressure then causes a building up inside that literally blasts the seeds out over distances of up to forty-eight feet with an initial velocity of about sixty miles per hour.
For our exercise here these natural examples might be likened to the Word of God at work in a person’s mind when it receives continual watering of the Word, kind deeds, and the like. Faith in the Word builds up until finally, there is no holding it in or down.
New Wine and New Wine Skins
That is how churches and new ministries are brought into being. New wine and new wineskins produce revival that will blow the cork off any denominational bottle. Any doctrine that is attempting to subdue and control the Holy Spirit’s power in an individual’s lives will fall away.
Enemies of the Gospel
Just as the birds and all other creatures assist in scattering seed, so too do the enemies of the gospel. These are people who have a personal stake in not wanting others to be saved. They will attempt to steal away the seed sown. The main work of these people is to afflict and persecute the believer. This is in their attempt to stop the Word from taking root in the seeker’s mind.
Remember, Jesus Christ upholds all things by the Word of his enabling (power). Without the Word of God taking root deep in our mind, we will be a woman or a man of doubtful reasoning, being of a double mind, unstable in all our ways.
When the Word of God is sown, its enemy comes immediately to steal it from the hearers (Mk 4:15). It is easily done if their minds are as ‘wayside soil’. Wayside soil will not yield any growth; the word disappeared before it even has time to germinate. These people need a change of attitude before they can receive the Word of God. This is able to save their souls. This kind of soul-winning generally requires friendship evangelism.
Now I’m free Lord, Now I’m free. I’ve flown free from the coup. I’m free as a bird. You’ve broken their feeble self-apportioned puny fabricated authority. Look up. See that bird? We’re as free as that bird in flight (Ps 124:7 (Patricia’s paraphrase).
Next time: Uncultivated Soil
NOTE: Did you like this post? Do you think other people would like to read this post? Be sure to share this post on Facebook and share a link on Twitter so that others may enjoy reading it too! Be sure to like my page on Facebook and subscribe to my website to read my latest papers every week.
Page 2 of 6: The Mustard Seed
The Mustard Seed Tree
A little research into the plant world will reveal that the mustard bush does not grow into a tree. That is totally alien to its natural growth. By Jesus saying the mustard bush changes into a tree, he is drawing our attention to two things happening here simultaneously. They do not measure up to the laws governing nature.
Therefore, where unusual growth happens and in this instance the mustard bush becomes a tree and as a consequence the ‘birds of the air’ come and nest in it – this is unnatural. That tree has not grown from sowing the gospel seed – its planting may be the result of a mixture of seeds.
Keeping Within The Laws Of Nature.
Observe the church for instance. There can be throngs of people attending, but no-good seed being sown. No rich teaching of the kingdom truths.
I’ve gone into church preaching and training and as a consultant to help the leadership and the people to show how to grow the local church. I might go into three churches a day on a one-month tour into a country or region. On the other hand, I might go into one group of churches over a month and work with them daily to train people in it.
Being subjected to that kind of exposure left me in no doubt that the visible church is not perfect. The visible church is often a large tree that’s grown out of all proportion to what it’s supposed to be.
Birds of the air nest in trees
There, nesting in that tree there will be some wrong teachings, some people in it for their own ends, con artists in it for the money, worldly Christians, immorality, you name it. Jesus said let the mixed seeds all grow together. Harvest time will reveal their true nature.
Jesus said this unnatural misnamed ‘mustard tree’, when fully grown, attracts ‘birds of the air’. Wherever the term, ‘birds of the air’, is used in Scripture, it is symbolic of rotting meat-eating carrion birds, and not harmless doves.
Israel’s farming methods were in accordance with their laws: no mixed seed. Jesus is saying in effect, ‘A farmer (inadvertently) sowed mustard seed in the field. Embedded in this parable is what the listeners would know.
The mustard seed is not a large seed, quite small in fact and insignificant in comparison with all the seeds on the earth. Often, it is only grown for the purpose of being ploughed back into the earth again as a nutrient for the soil. When it is fully grown, it develops into a large bush.
No one wants thousands of mustard bushes in their plot of ground. To sow mustard seed is to cut it down and plough it back into the soil. Its nutrients are released to prepare the soil for the next sowing that takes place. Not all sowers reap the harvest, but all good harvests need sowers for soil preparation to prepare for the final harvest.
Now, any gardener knows a shrub (many short branches growing from the one root into a bush) and a tree (having only one trunk) are completely different. (Matt 13:31-32). The point Jesus is making is, that something very unusual begins to take place that is quite out of character with the mustard seed.
While it remains a bush, we can assume it was mustard seed that was planted. However, where a tree with one trunk begins to take shape and grows so big that its branches attract carrion birds of the air to nest in it, proves it was mixed planting – not only mustard seed but another kind of seed.
Jesus goes onto explain how anyone making observations of the Kingdom of Heaven will become aware of this unusual growth. When this ‘change’ happens, the household of faith, the church, takes on a new appearance, an unconventional character. It is no longer a ‘mustard bush’.
The Kingdoms Of This World
Having left its first estate, it no longer represents the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather, it takes on the image of the kingdoms of this world. Where this happens the ‘birds of the air’, the vultures, such as the cults, the counterfeits, the power-hungry, the false workers, the hierarchical patriarchal power-hungry, and the politicking, all come and lodge in its branches.
Church history, with all of its bloody wars as well as the increase in cults today and the fallout from the church, all proclaim a ‘works’ gospel. Some powerful trees have been planted in the earth and throughout the centuries have propagated ‘another gospel’. This confirms Jesus’ analogy.
The Gospel: the least of all seeds
The humble mustard seed, on the other hand, the ‘least of all seeds’, should grow as it’s supposed to. It grows into a ‘kingdom of God’ mustard bush. The local church is in likeness to this metaphor. The leader is known, their kids go to the same school as yours. It retains the same flavour and essence those early believers exhibited.
They mixed with the locals. They were involved in the local community. They went everywhere gossiping the gospel, doing kind deeds, speaking a kind word. They sowed common-looking small seeds, as they went about their business. This is not quoting text, this is acting it out so that the person can see and understand the message.
The disciples, ordinary women and men, turned the entire world upside down. They did what comes naturally to the believer. Like birds that depend on one another daily for their needs to be met, they tell those in the local neighbourhood about the provision they’ve found.
Gospel sowing is simple work
Mustard seed has its work to do of renourishing the soil. It is the simplest work, in its purest form, is to nourish the earth. Where it’s ploughed back into the soil, cast abroad, sown throughout the known world, dispersed by the wind of the Holy Spirit, scattered everywhere, it will have a different effect on different people, irritating some, feeding, nourishing, replenishing, and healing others.
The mustard seed is also an irritant; it is hot. It makes the eyes and nose water. It was and still is in some places used for healing the sick. Mustard is hot. It bites and it makes the sick person who is languishing sit up and take notice. The local church is to be like that. Springing up from a random seed sown where no one had particularly planted it.
Where the seed is scattered in the community surrounding the local church and believers, its effect can be seen. Its presence makes people’s eyes smart. Others start to feel very hot wherever it is sown. For others, it causes them to sit up and take notice, or, where ploughed back into the community, nurtures the soil of people’s minds.
Some seeds have an interesting appearance. The mustard seed has no outward appeal. The Gospel, the Word of God, is like that. When preached in simplicity, is not like other teachings, such as a doctrine of works.
Debaters And Philosophers Of This World
Those who love to debate, use ‘great swelling words’. These can be used even to show off someone’s intellectual prowess, or the like. (2 Pet 2: 18). They are often mingled with worldly ideas, of getting rich quick schemes.
It underscores vanity, ego, of ‘who is the greatest’ in the kingdom, of boasting and self-love. Its structure will definitely be hierarchical, with men only in the lead, women in their non-teaching, non-decision-making roles.
Jesus himself is the Word become flesh. It’s not about us, it’s about Him. The Scriptures say He was nothing to be desired. He was hiding until his appearance, which lasted on this earth just three and a half years.
When carrying out the work of the evangelist, take this, the principle governing the seed. It is the key that opens all the locks of a set of teachings on life. All of life on earth springs from a seed. The seed that gives birth to Spirit is the Word of God. It never changes.
Become a sower by taking up the seed and sowing it wherever we go. Allow the Word to become flesh – let it become our life. Give all of our life to its propagation.
Take what we can see in the natural world and use these as examples to teach spiritual truths to people. Learn ourselves by doing it and then teach others the spiritual principles springing from them. These spiritual realities are meat, reserved for those who are ‘grown up into Him in all things’ (Eph 4: 15).
Natural to Spiritual
The Creator God has given to us the natural realm to learn about realities in the spiritual realm. What a wonderful world! What could be simpler for us to understand than seed, soil, and harvest? God has created the seed to reproduce itself, after its own kind. Whichever kind of seed is sown, its fruit will be reaped.
The sower can affect the seed sown and there are many ways to do this. But finally, the main ingredients that can affect the seed sown is the soil’s condition, water, and light. This is the basic teaching we receive from nature itself. It is as unchanging as seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, light and dark.
“Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you”. Genesis 1:29 Source.
Next time: The Soil
NOTE: Did you like this post? Do you think other people would like to read this post? Be sure to share this post on Facebook and share a link on Twitter so that others may enjoy reading it too! Be sure to like my page on Facebook and subscribe to my blog to read my latest papers every week.
In loving memory of Pamela Birks: her faithful, unflinching life-long service to the Lord as a faithful minister of the Gospel at home and abroad.
I intend to show here that the Apostle Paul, by his language, life and teachings was a godly leader. Paul imitated Jesus. Jesus displayed the same attitude of leadership and practised it. This was often in the face of abusive controlling dominant male leadership.
The attitude of Leadership taught by Jesus and Paul
Jesus was despised by the Jewish religious hierarchy because his teachings went against their doctrine of one-upmanship. This is the practice of gaining an advantage or feeling of superiority over others. In Paul’s day, it was the same. Then the Christian Jews refused to listen to his teachings.
These Jews are sometimes referred to as ‘Judaisers’. 1 Today, the same attitude still prevails in the church. Aside from attitude, the problem of today’s translation of Greek to English compounds this problem further. Many recognised commentators bolster this by continuing to mistranslate certain words in relation to leadership.
These lead to the misuse of certain terms ascribed to Christian governance. The main goal of this paper then is to draw the reader’s attention to these mistranslations in relation to leadership. It is imperative we give the correct meaning of Paul’s original language used. To do this I use Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. 2
An example of this work of dishonest commentating on Christian leadership is Matthew Henry. Henry is best known for his six-volume biblical commentary Exposition of the Old and New Testaments. He lived 18 October 1662 – 22 June 1714. Although written around 300 years ago, Henry’s work has never abated.
It is still used and identifiable in the biased thinking today of Christian men’s superiority in particular over their sisters in Christ. They believe men have been, from the beginning, ordained by God to be in a superior role over women. 3 This supports them in their misogynist stance.
Is it due to past limited understanding regards women and men’s roles?
It also contributes towards the prominent role men take in leadership in the church and home. The role of ‘submission’ (read ‘subjection’) is expected only of Christian women.
We may say, wanting to be fair, this bias then was due to the limited understanding they then had about men and women. Therefore it came about as a result of it being embedded in their culture. However, it does not explain why the same attitudes prevail today.
This being the case, it is time for a change.
As members of the same body, we have the right to call on church leaders and those who support them to change their high-mindedness and ways of leadership. In a way, it is moralising about woman.
This is not anything new. It is also said here in light of the abundance of resources available to church leaders and bible teachers. There is a growing body of Christians teaching the same thing I am saying here.
Today, despite this problem, ordinary women and men are generally educated enough to do their own research. We can make up our own minds. Many of course have and as a result, have left the church. I am one of them.
In light of this fallout, and the overwhelming Christian public response to this, it now appears that those who continue in it are not ignorant. Instead, they are doing so because it works to their advantage. To put it simply they are dishonest.
If not now, when? If not us, who?
I, therefore, believe it is time for all of us to take our responsibility and expose them. There is no reason as members of the body of Christ why we cannot confront them privately and publicly, in the church and on the web. Confront them in every way possible in their deception.
It is imperative that we work with revealed truth. For women especially, spiritual ‘life and death’ are in the power of the language. It is the language that is used to reinforce their position.
In the Gospel of Matthew, we hear Jesus’ revealed truth in this regard when teaching on leadership.
‘But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘you know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many’. (Mt 20: 25-28).
The individual and co-operative dominant style of leadership in the church and the wider Christian community is toxic. This is especially so to the role of discipleship. Jesus’ teachings on humility and laying down one’s life, as did Paul’s turned the pagan gentile Greco Roman view of hierarchical subservience upside down.
Jesus and Paul following him in the same spirit as is taught in the Hebrew scriptures taught genuine kingdom greatness is not achieved through rank, position, leadership roles, titles, or family dynasties. Those who love the pre-eminence will have difficulty accepting such teaching.
Rather, they prefer to control and dominate others. They are in Paul’s words to Titus’ words, 4 fleshly, greedy and lustful. They are dishonest. In my experience, they are bullies and moralisers whose mouths must be stopped. We all have our part to play in this to see the church renewed.
Hope to meet up again with you next week: The way the Apostle Paul thought of himself.
NOTE: Did you like this post? Do you think other people would like to read this post? Be sure to share this post on Facebook and share a link on Twitter so that others may enjoy reading it too! Be sure to like my page on Facebook and subscribe to my blog to read my latest papers every week.
- To consider and adjust how we understand ourselves, how we are formed by our history, culture, and society.
- To explore and review fundamental truths about women and men; their relationship to the world and each other.
- To examine and contest many of the false doctrines present in much modern-day church culture.
- To understand and apply enlightened, comprehensive, contextual, theology to the original meanings of certain words and passages in scriptures.
- To discover and investigate the lives of important and significant women in the scripture from a social-anthropological frame of reference.
- To inform, and thereby free, both women and men so that we embrace God’s recreative work in Jesus Christ which holds all humanity equally, with no distinction.
“For centuries, the Bible has been used and misused to manipulate and prevent women from achieving their full potential as human beings equally created in the image of God. Women are ‘disinherited’, from the freedom God intended. This applies to all women and includes those of no religious faith. If we examine this biased biblical interpretation it will reveal widespread dishonest doctrines that continue to be maintained in education, culture, and society at large.
I invite women and men of all persuasions to learn how the bias of past and present translators, interpreters, and commentators has affected the daily life of women and men in both subtle and overt ways. Without correction, this problem perpetuates, passing on to the next generation. If we are to correct this and restore balance, we have to first adjust and release ourselves.”
Women’s Weekly Meet-Ups Face to Face
Refreshments: Coffee, wine, fresh juice, soft drinks, etc are available for purchase. After’s: 4.00 PM tapas, wine & chat.
Your Host: Patricia Erlandsen
Director, Run With The Vision Ministries (RWVM) – Launched 1985.
Financial contributions welcome. Goes to maintaining RWVM’s online presence.
Cash onsite or Bank Transfer details:
Click the button below to register for RWVM International Bible School of Ministries.
Click the button below to register for the Sunday Afternoon Discussion Group.
Click the button below to register for RWVM International Bible School of Ministries.
Paper 1 of 6: First The Natural Then The Spiritual.
A Parable is telling a story about the visible creation.
In the early days of Jesus’ ministry, he spoke plainly to those around him. He told parables. Jesus parables were stories about the natural things easily seen by the things that God made: the Creation. However, when His plain teachings and his reasoning were rejected, He began to veil these teachings of the kingdom (Mt 13:10-12).
There were those hungry enough to pose the question, “what does the parable mean?” These had already engaged with the story and its teller. They received and entered into it to learn its embedded spiritual lesson (Mk 4:10).
‘For whosoever has, to him shall be given and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not from him shall be taken away even that he has. (Mt 13.12)
Jesus Taught In Parables
A parable is not always the immediate lesson we might attribute to it. Parables are stories. Stories stay with us. They touch the heart. They bypass the mind. They’re easily understood. This is why we remember them and what they teach us whereas reading text by rote method or downloading the ‘facts’ do not.
For example, it’s hard to find someone who does not know what the story of the ‘Good Samaritan’ means. Or the ‘Good Shepherd’: the one who leaves a flock of ninety-nine sheep to find the one that got away. When you think about it, this is not good shepherding!
When Jesus used it his hearers knew he was not teaching them about being a good shepherd. The parables Jesus taught are teachings on the kingdom of God and the spiritual principals involved. You might say that the parables and the gospel point to an Upside-Down Kingdom – or we might more accurately say, a Right-Way Up Kingdom.
Jesus teachings are the other way around to the way we think and live our daily lives. To find a parable’s true application sometimes requires deep thought, of us thinking outside the box, or even trying standing on our head to see it differently.
A story breaks through our mesmerised daily living, speaking our daily scripts about the world from out viewpoint, the way we see ourselves and others in comparison to who we think are. We could say we go around in a dream, acting mindlessly.
We even drive our cars that way. We often ‘come to’, having driven a distance on ‘auto-pilot’. Parables jolt us into the reality of what the kingdom of God is like – and it’s nothing like the way in which we live in our bodies in this external world.
The semblance of the parable however is veiled; it is not always stating the obvious. The more we learn through experience about the Hebrew Scriptures and the good, the grace, and the justice of God and his righteousness, the easier it is to understand and interpret Jesus’ parables.
Parables and Fables: the Difference
The word ‘parable’ means, ‘a placing aside, to compare, though not always in agreement’. It is generally drawn from nature or human circumstances and the object of it in the bible sense is to set it forth as a spiritual lesson. The hearer must catch the analogy if they are to be instructed. This is different from a fable, which attributes to things that do not belong to them in nature i.e., half man and half beast, etc.
The Parable Of The Sower.
- A farmer
- The various kinds of soil
- The enemy of success
Jesus likened the kingdom of God to a mustard seed, a nondescript uninteresting common seed that no one would worry about if some were lost. It’s like seeing a one-cent coin on the road. Few would stoop to pick it up because on its own its worthless. But if one had a million of them then we would go and cash them in.
The Working of Miracles
Now, in the kingdom of God everything has value, everything counts. God doesn’t take anything for granted. Neither should we.
The poor are rich in faith. Any evangelist worth their salt lives in the realm of faith on behalf of themselves and the poor. Evangelism is the ‘working of miracles’ because it’s the poor in spirit that seeks the riches of salvation. A new creation is a miracle. People getting saved is a miracle!
Evangelism takes us sowing seed amongst the poor. It’s no-good encountering hungry people and sending them away to buy some food. When the disciples told Jesus to do that he put it back on them and told them “you give them something to eat”.
So, if you’re an evangelist, working amongst the poor, it apparently isn’t of any use asking Jesus to feed them. He’s not in the business of feeding people. He had already dealt with that temptation, “If you are the son of God turn stones into bread”. “Nope. That’s not what I’m here for”.
He was not going to be side-tracked from his goal. He had to go to Jerusalem as it was the time of the Passover. That was the miracle he was looking toward, the miracle of the resurrection. He didn’t ask the disciples to do what they could not do but only to feed people.
Show People How To Work Their Own Miracle.
I’ve helped people work their own miracle by giving them some money and instructing them they can use it for themselves, but I recommend that to work a miracle they find someone to give it to. You’ll even work your own miracle by doing that! It will be a double blessing: for them and you.
I was in the UK last year editing this when I gave a kind word to a bloke passing me in a food shop. I was at a table with a friend having a coffee. He said his name was Carl. He was homeless, living in his car, and had no job. I gave him twenty pounds which is all I had. Someone had given it to me, and I was passing it on. I instructed him to give it away and in this way work his own miracle.
Within five hours of that, I got given a selection of new suitable clothes. I needed some warm clothes as I’d come from Australia unprepared. Now, following our conversation a business owner/ friend heard the story. She offered to interview Carl for a job and provide him a place to live.
The irony is Carl never answered his phone or returned my call to get his miracle. We never heard from him again. It was only a small seed I know. A kind word and twenty quid, but it worked a miracle of provision both ways.
Sadly, he didn’t collect! But maybe he did and I just don’t know about it. So, this is the kingdom of God we’re talking about; it’s different from the way this world operates.
Size Does Not Matter: The Mustard Seed
Returning to the parable of the seed. Jesus is attempting to get us to think about the micro in life, to pull our thinking processes back from the macro. The micro is not the big picture, but it belongs in the big picture.
Jesus made an interesting statement when teaching his disciples the meaning of the parable of the sower. He challenged them, “don’t you understand this parable? If you don’t, then how will you be able to understand all the others that I give you?” (Mk 4: 11: Matt 13; Lk 8).
By this, Jesus is saying that this parable is more about the seed and the condition of the soil than it is about the sower. Of course ultimately God is the Sower, we are the field, the seed id the Word of God … but, first the natural.
Speaking of natural things it can be any sower. It’s the combination of the soil and the seed that take precedence as any wise gardener knows. This parable is the master-key for us as evangelist’s harvesting a good crop.
From The Natural To The Spiritual
Here Jesus is first using the natural to interpret the spiritual truth behind it. This same principle of interpretation, that of ‘first the natural, then the spititual’, can be used to unlock all of Jesus’ teachings. This is the key to having eyes to see the spiritual unseen Kingdom of God. An illustration of the seed in relation to the kingdom (household) of God is in Mk 4:30-32.
Seed Grows Gradually
Jesus is speaking here about a gradual process of growth, instead of the sudden manifestation of the kingdom. The parable of the mustard seed in the first instance may be referring to the commandment that prohibits the sowing of diverse kinds; it may be that the seed gets inadvertently planted amongst other seeds.
Here, we might deduct from what Jesus is saying is that the gospel seed may be sown among different types of people when they come together, say, chatting about everyday things. I have witnessed this many times when watching television interviews or listening to the radio, as well as in everyday witnessing where there is a group of people together.
Different messages are on repeat and I detect a grain of gospel seed got mixed up with other seeds being sown. Jesus does not say the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world (because it is not). However, it is insignificant.
Sow Common Insignificant Seed
Instead, He said it is less than all the seeds that are on the earth. The common unadorned gospel seed, like the mustard seed, is a seed sown in relation to everyday life. It doesn’t require an orator. Ordinary people can sow it.
Mustard seed is also like a weed that grows wild amongst crops. Keeping in context with the teaching about the kingdom, Jesus also infers that the gospel seeds get mixed up with other seeds. For example, I’m suggesting it can appear throughout the conversation, wherever people gather to talk.
When someone is sharing a humanistic perception of life, simply say, “no, I don’t believe that”. “Rather, this is what Proverbs says …. “. Give to them that are weary a kind word in season. Get into the habit of doing it. First, it breaks the monotony of everyday life for them and you. You’re also on their candid camera. A kind word in season is like a mustard seed that a person sows into another’s life.
The right word at the right time is like a commissioned piece of jewellery. Just what you wanted. (Prov 25:11-12.)
Be An ANGEL in Disguise
To be a specialist in the communication you must practice. Practice makes perfect. Cast a small seemingly insignificant seed into your neighbour’s spiritual garden as they walk out of their gate by smiling and greeting them! Speak a word to them at the right time. God is listening to perform the counsel of his messenger. Be as a divine messenger, an angel, would you?
A-N-G-E-L is simply a transliteration of the exact Greek letters. In English lingo, it actually means ‘messenger’. Hey, while you’re wheeling in your own bins off the street curb, why not take in the elderly neighbour’s bin for them? Or pick up that bit of paper in the roadway or in the workplace or home. Someone’s got to pick it up. Why not you?
Apart from helping to deal with the litter problem, someone observes you and it changes their day. Give a person a seat on the bus; it influences others. You figure it out. A word or a deed, in season, changes the dynamics around us and God is waiting to perform the word of God’s power. You and I are God’s messengers.
This is like, in the natural, lifting two tins of peas three times a day to strengthen our muscles. In other words, when change is essential, do something different! Anything!
‘For as the rain comes down and the snow from heaven and does not return back to the heavens but waters the earth and makes it bring forth a flower that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater’.
‘So shall my Word be that goes out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me empty of power, but it shall accomplish that which I want it to and it shall prosper in the thing where I send it’. (Isaiah. 55:10-1)
We are workers together with God.
Next time: The Mustard Seed
NOTE: Did you like this post? Do you think other people would like to read this post? Be sure to share this post on Facebook and share a link on Twitter so that others may enjoy reading it too! Be sure to like my page on Facebook and subscribe to my blog to read my latest papers every week.