Category: Women’s Genealogies

Posted on

Section 1. Sarah in Social Context: Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East

Sarah in Genesis

(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.

Next week: 

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.  

Epilogue… 

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. 

WATCH VIDEO

“The City Sarah left behind to journey to Canaan… 

“The Royal Tombs: Ur of the Chaldees”

FOOTNOTE
Posted on

Chav-ah’s Matriline: Looking Backwards and Forward (1B)

Chav-ah Matriline Looking Forward Backward
Read Naamah: The Other End of Chev-ah’s Matriline

Chav-ah’s Matriline: A Template

Thus the first woman’s matriline prepares for what is to come. Not unlike mothers universally, the mothers in the Hebrew Scriptures are easily dismissed by the patriarchal commentators. Unlike fathers, when a child is born, mothers, in the main, empty themselves by taking the form of a servant. The male commentators of the Bible ensure they keep their place.

Despite their dismissal, the first mother and her daughters stand tall and strong above the list of male genealogies they support. They are, like bookends, strong and steady. These however are no common bookends.

Instead, they stand majestic, and though seemingly of no reputation, other than Eve whose reputation has been tarnished beyond recognition, they go largely unnoticed. Yet, when we take the time to look closely we discover their names are recorded for a reason: these are the mothers of the seemingly endless male genealogies of the Hebrew race.

Adam’s male genealogy

Of all of the seemingly illustrious line of males in Adam’s genealogy,

Adam: Murderer

‘Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned’ (Romans 5: 12-21).

Cain’s Line

Two murderers: Cain and Lamech

 

Godly Enoch in Cain’s line: ‘Enoch lived 365 years before he was taken by God’ reads that this Enoch stood faithful and was rewarded by God. This is interpreted as Enoch’s entering heaven alive in some Jewish and Christian traditions.

Who did Cain marry?

‘Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch’.(Gen 4:17)

Given there are two lineages coming from Eve’s Mother House it is not impossible, therefore, that Cain married his first or second cousin on Seth’s side. Eve had other sons and daughters sired by Adam. However, only the unnamed daughters of Seth’s line are mentioned in the following way “the sons and daughters of” found in Genesis chapter 5.

Seth’s Line

The line “the sons and daughters of” is repeated for Adam(v 4), Seth (v 7), Enos (v 10), Cainan v 13), Mahalaleel (v 16), Jared (v 19), Enoch (v 22), Mathuselah (v 26). The same information is not recorded for Cain’s linage of males. Rather three women are named as we have discussed in a previous paper and Naam-ah, here.

Ungodly Enoch, in Seth’ line, led the entire population into idolatry, worshipping the creature more than the Creator. I will comment on the beginnings of idolatry and Israel’s problem with it. (Genesis 2:20 in my ‘Genesis Commentary:  1-6’).

The Book of Enoch

This book attributed to Enoch in Seth’s line is the cause of much damage even being quoted in Genesis 5 and Jude Ch 3. [i]. Jude does not believe this, nor the Apostle Peter. They are referring to the Book of Enoch wherein “godless and silly myths” are perpetrated. Their comments on it denote not the dominion of fallen angels, but the dominion of God.

Methuselah, son of the above Enoch in Seth’s line

He is said to have died at the age of 96 and lived the longest of all figures mentioned in the Bible. He was the son of the above Enoch and was the grandfather of Noe, who “found grace in the sight of God.”

The named daughters of Chav-ah (Eve)

Daughters in Cain’s line

On the other hand, the named daughters of Chav-ah (Eve) are exemplary. I have developed the women in the line of Cain, for us to slow down enough to take a closer look at them.  Adah and Zillah receive our attention below and in a previous paper.

Daughters in Seth’s line

Unlike Cain’s record, Seth’s linage is like a fast-running river. It is as if this river is so intent on getting to the important landmark in Israel’s development that it does not appear above ground to name women until it finds its expression in the two most important women in Israel’s development: Milc-ah (‘queen’) and her sister, Sar-ah (‘chief’). 1

Seth’s line: Milc-ah (‘queen’) and her sister, Sar-ah (‘chief’)

These two women’s names denote royalty. When their names are finally recorded the river might be seen as finding a fissure in the earth, a blowhole. Its visibility then surges forth by its own power to the surface. This is when, finally, these sisters Milc-ah and Isc-ah (Sarai) are named. These two women act as important signposts on God’s road map of the early development of the nation Israel.

The account of these two matriarchs shows the importance of maintaining the linage of the mothers. Patriarchal interpretation places no importance on the matriline of Israel. It has blotted out Israel’s matriline. This is to their loss and the damage done (though not irredeemable) to our Christian interpretation and heritage.

But God …

Sarah’s Mother House

Looking beyond Adam’s genealogy, Eve’s matriline runs through Sar-ah with her sister Milc-ah contributing to Sarah’s house being built. It continues on to Rebekah and Leah and to Tamar and Bathsheba, through the line of Judah’s queens, finally ending with Mary the mother of Jesus. The Mothers are first and at the forefront in Israel’s history-making. Even more importantly, for Christians, they are important links in the matrilineage of Jesus, the only begotten Child of God, the Seed of the Woman, born without male intervention.

Jesus natural birth: Unique but not-so-unique: a New Creation in kind

The birth of Jesus the Son of God was unique in that Jesus was God incarnate born of woman. The birth of Jesus was unique. Jesus is God in human form. Something like what happened to Mary has to happen to us.

We read that the Holy Spirit hovered over Mary and the life of God was conceived within her and the Son of God appeared. When Jesus spoke of being born again, the New Birth, this is what happens to us. The Holy Spirit comes into our lives and the life of God is put within us and what emerges is the new birth, we are born by the Spirit into the life of God.

Was the Virgin Mary sinless?

Now, certain Christians claim that Mary was born sinless. Hence the ‘Immaculate Conception.’ From this premise comes the assumption prevalent within and without certain fundamental patriarchal circles that Eve tempted Adam and therefore caused the ‘Fall’ of the human race. [ii] I think the logic of this argument (researching the history of Catholic dogma) is that if Mary was born sinless then she is not like us, is not one of us. Rather, she is fundamentally ‘different’.

That being so, the child Jesus would not be one of us either – not fully human – if not fully human then he has not become our saviour he cannot fully identify with that which he came to redeem.

The patriarchal reasoning behind this is that through all of Eve’s daughters comes sin: through the mother’s blood. Therefore, though the reasoning may not be stated, Mary had to be sinless to give birth to God’s Son. [iii] We can also say, then, there is the thought that the virgin birth had to avoid the ‘contamination’ of the seed of man (see John 1, below) and Genesis 3 records it was Eve’s seed not made impure by the man’s semen.

God’s only begotten, yes begotten, not created, a child is unique. The sons of the First Adam were rejected. This birth signified the birth of the second Adam, like the first but without the will of the man. This child was born of faith. The Law of Faith teaches: “I believe therefore I speak”. Mary represents this kind of faith.

‘And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the messenger departed from her’. (Lk 1: 38).

‘children born not of blood, (kinship and by blood being shed 2, not born of natural descent, nor of human decision 3 or a husband’s 4 will, 5 but born of God’ (God’s will) (Jn 1: 13a).

Believers are reborn—not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan, but a birth that comes from God, showing the way for all to follow, to identify the Jew’s coming Messiah and God’s Son, Saviour of the world.

Why so few named women?

Why doesn’t the Scripture name all the women as it does the men in their own women’s genealogies, why does it not stop to name the daughters of Eve in Seth’s line until it gets to Milc-ah and her sister Isc-ah (Isc-ah- later identified as Sar-ah)?

This is a case for those 50 or more proverbs in the bible that teach when less is more. Because the names of women for the sake of naming them is of no importance until the set time has come. That is when the foundation stone is laid. This foundation stone is Sar-ah.

Sar-ah is the beginning, the chief cornerstone, the head of the corner of the twelve tribes of Israel. Sarah’s mother’s genealogy is there, through Leah (Mother of the tribe of Judah). Finally, this bright red hidden menstrual bloodline carries the woman’s seed, the Seed of salvation that leads to Jesus.

Therefore, in the case of Adah and Zillah, we are not told the name of the two sisters’ mother. It doesn’t matter in the grand plan. We have to get over these small irritating incidentals to allow the bigger picture to come into play. It’s like looking at a bas-relief: If we only concentrate on the background plane we will miss the sculpted material which has been raised above it.

It is, therefore, the women’s genealogy, this beautiful hidden bloodstream carrying the seed of the woman onto its final destination, like an underground river, that is of vital import. It only bubbles above ground to signal important landmarks. These appearances of the women in Israel’s matrilineal genealogies stand like prophetic signposts appealing to the reader to pay special attention.

The patriarchal interpreters in the main missed these signs. One of the reasons is their misogynistic outlook. This negative attitude is especially prevalent against women’s menstruation flow. This has been throughout the centuries, even up to today. Isn’t it interesting that the woman’s monthly flow of blood is intrinsically connected to the ‘Seed of the Woman.’ The woman’s seed is carried along by a hidden river of blood,  flowing steadily through the hidden wombs of women until finally, it comes to rest in Mary who gave birth to Jesus.

According to early Genesis’ record, the seed of the woman was passed from Eve through unnamed daughters to Naam-ah, then on to Milc-ah, and Sar-ah, to Le-ah, Din-ah, and so forth. (Rachel and the two handmaids, according to Jewish sources were sisters of Leah and Rachel but none of these are in a direct line to Mary). Mary was Jesus’ uterine mother, the first begotten of God, without male intervention.

Naam-ah is therefore an important link in the line of the matriarchs of early Genesis. She links Chav-ah with Sar-ah through both Cain and Seth’s line. If Naam-ah had not crossed over to take her distant cousin, Noe of Seth’s line, into her tent the Cainites (Kenites) would not have survived the flood.

Thus in my model, Chav-ah and Naam-ah act as women ‘encompassing a man’: these women are the first of many comparable bookends, in this instance, surrounding Adam’s male genealogy. This is the ‘new thing in the land, a woman encompassing (turning to) a man.

This scripture represents the church of Jesus Christ, a woman and a bride, ‘turning’ back to her husband, in the OT, Israel to YWJH, and finally, in the NT, Believers to Jesus.

Confusion about Naam-ah

Patriarchal scholars of the OT, in the main, seem confused about Naam-ah, even treating her with disdain. This is glaringly obvious when you consider comments on comments by male scholars regarding Naam-ah.

Naam-ah (1). The wife of Noe.

Early Jewish Midrash Henesis Rabba (23.3) identifies this Naam-ah, the daughter of Zill-ah and Lamech, as the wife of Noe. Still, others say Naam-ah married Noe and produced Shem.

Naam-ah (2).

The wife of Shem. Some Jews say Naam-ah married Shem, Noe’s son, from which comes the Jewish race.

Nama-ah (3).

The daughter of Enoch, Noe’s grandfather (medieval Midrash).

Naam-ah (4)

as the wife of Ham, son of Noe. The 17th-century theologian, John Gill, mentioned a theory which identified Naam-ah instead with the name of the wife of Ham, (giving her no reference with Shem). Gill believed Naam-ah may have become confused with Noe’s wife.

My comment:

Why would the scriptures record her name if Naam-ah were the wife of Ham? Surely the record we have is pointing us to Mary and the birth of the Coming One! What has Ham got to do with that?

One male scholar Gordon Wenham can’t figure out why Naam-ah gets a mention at all! Wenham says he has no clue why Naam-ah’s name is mentioned here in what he sees as a male genealogy. He says, “the reason she (Naam-ah) should be picked out for special mention remains obscure.”

Some Jewish teachers claim Naam-ah was Noe’s wife. Based upon all the evidence I have decided to make Naam-ah second in importance to Chav-ah. It’s a given that the human race cannot continue through a man alone.

In the overall scheme of things, my thesis on this subject exposes the lack of attention the patriarchal interpreters give to the women in the OT women in general and the important matriline leading to Mary the mother of Jesus. Further, the disinterest in them identifying Naam-ah, the woman through whom Chev-ah’s line leads to the Semites and the Kenite.  Naam-ah eventually leads to the Israelites through whom the world is blessed. 6 Sar-ah’s tribes are collectively known as the nation of Israel. Or, in patriarchal speak: ‘Noe’s son, Shem through Abraham to Jacob and his sons’. Sar-ah’s genealogy through Le-ah, finally end with Mary, mother of Jesus: Begotten of God.

Abraham’s had two other wives beside Sarah: Matriarchs Hagar and Keturah. We will examine these two women’s matrilines along with their relationships with Sarah’s tribes. (The genealogy of Abraham appears in Genesis 5, Genesis 10:1-7, 20, 22-23, 31-32, and Genesis 11).

Jacob was named Israel: ‘Prince’. This was in keeping with Chief Sar-ah, (Heb. ‘sar’: Chief or Prince) Jacob’s Mother’s House.

I hope you enjoyed reading this study as much as I in researching it,

I look forward to meeting up again when we ‘look to Sarah, who gave you birth’ (Isa 51: 2).

Rich blessings in Christ,

Patricia

In closing ….

Chav-ah’s Matriline …

Paul wrote …

‘Among the mature, especially of the completeness of Christian character, however, we speak a message of wisdom (Gr. ‘sophos’), that is, insight, skill (human or divine), intelligence, but not the wisdom of the world, of this age (especially a Messianic period) or of the rulers of this age, namely, governor, leader, leading man with the Jews, an official of this age, a member (of the executive) of the assembly of elders and the church religious professionals, who are coming to nothing, literally or figuratively.

No, contrarywise, we speak a secret or ‘mystery’, concealed, hidden wisdom of God, keep secret, concealed, which God destined ‘to limit in advance, i.e. predetermined’ for our glory, before time began’. [Paraphrased by Patricia with added research in Strong’s].

Jesus said

Jesus had been speaking of the rejection of John the Baptist and of Himself and the unbelief that characterised that generation, saying, “But I tell you that it will be more tolerable for Sodom on the day of justice than for you”.

He prayed:

At this time, Jesus prayed this prayer (below).

Join me in prayer if you so desire:

“O God Almighty, Supreme in authority in Eternity and on the earth. Thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise, clever, learned, cultivated, intelligent, and skilled in the ancient languages and the false doctrines of inequality in the body of Christ, but having not the Spirit.

Thank you for disclosing them, revealing them to those of us of childlike simplicity, in as much as we are not as learned as the more advanced scholars in understanding and knowledge, but who especially long for and pursue the completeness of Christian character, living in holiness, without which no one will see God”. Amen.  (Mt 11: 25). [Paraphrased by Patricia with added research in Strong’s].

God bless you!

END

ENDNOTE

[i] Paul warned Timothy to have nothing to do with “godless and silly myths” (1 Tim 4:7). Jude is quoting from the Book of Enoch. What Jude says of the angels corresponds with the doctrine of the angels contained in the Book of Enoch. According to the Book of Enoch 12:4, what is meant is their forsaking of heaven, and their descent to earth in order to go after the daughters of men but not, (as some think), the loss of the heavenly dwelling, which they drew upon themselves by conspiring against God

[ii] Judaism does not have a concept of “the fall” or “original sin” and has varying other interpretations of the Eden narrative. Traditionally, women have received the major blame for the Fall of humanity. The subordination exegesis is that the natural consequences sin entering the human race, was prophesied by God when the phrase was made: the husband “will rule over you”.

This interpretation is reinforced by comments in the 1 Timothy, where the author gives a rationale for directing that a woman (NIV: possibly “wife”) should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man (NIV: possibly “husband”); she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 1 Tim 2:11-14.

Therefore, some interpretations of these passages from Genesis 3 and 1 Timothy 2 have developed a view that women are considered as bearers of Eve’s guilt and that the woman’s conduct in the fall is the primary reason for her universal, timeless, subordinate relationship to the man.

Alternatively, Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger argue that “there is a serious theological contradiction in telling a woman that when she comes to faith in Christ, her personal sins are forgiven but she must continue to be punished for the sin of Eve.” They maintain that judgmental comments against women in reference to Eve are a “dangerous interpretation, in terms both of biblical theology and of the call to Christian commitment”.

They reason that “if the Paul was forgiven for what he did ignorantly in unbelief” including persecuting and murdering Christians, “and thereafter was given a ministry, why would the same forgiveness and ministry be denied women” (for the sins of Eve, their fore-mother, eons ago). Addressing that, the Kroegers conclude that Paul was referring to the promise of Gen 3: 15 that through the defeat of Satan on the cross of Jesus Christ, the woman’s child (Jesus) would crush the serpent’s head, but the serpent would only bruise the heel of her child.

This interpretation is reinforced by comments in the First Epistle to Timothy where the author gives a rationale for directing that a woman (NIV: possibly “wife”).

‘Women should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man (NIV: possibly “husband”); she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.’ 1 Tim 2:11-14).

Therefore, some interpretations of these passages from Genesis 3 and 1 Timothy 2 have developed a view that women are considered as bearers of Eve’s guilt and that the woman’s conduct in the fall is the primary reason for her universal, timeless, subordinate relationship to the man.  (Sourced from Wikipedia).

I, Patricia, thoroughly recommend this book.  It can be purchased through my website via Amazon. Please go to K Kroeger, Richard C. and Catherine C. Kroeger. I suffer not a woman: rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in light of ancient evidence”. Baker Book House, 1992. ISBN 0-8010-5250-5  or visit my bibliography for more book recommendations.

[iii] 2nd Century:

In the second century, Tertullian taught that all women share the ignominy of Eve. Like Eve, all women are “the devil’s gateway. . . the unsealer of that forbidden tree… the first deserter of the divine law” who destroyed “God’s image, man.” Because interpreters assumed Eve was inferior to Adam, they translated the Hebrew word ‘ezer’ (Genesis 2:18) as ‘helper.’

4th Century

Ambrose, a 4th-century bishop and one of the four great “doctors” of the Latin church, refers to Eve as a procreative “helper for the purpose of generating human nature” and concludes that “this then is the way in which a woman is a good helper of less importance.”

13th Century

Thomas Aquinas significantly extended the argument in the 13th century, claiming that women were defective by nature: “Misbegotten males” born female because of some defect in the active force or maternal disposition, or because of some external force such as a moist south wind.

15th Century

The consequence of such thinking is in works like the Malleus Maleficarum (“Hammer Against Witches”). This 15th-century document, which draws heavily on Genesis 3, provided the Inquisition its principal theological justification for persecuting women as witches. In the decades following its publication, thousands of women were dead. The themes of inferiority, evil, and seductiveness continued to appear in the writings of Luther, Calvin, and Knox .

21st Century

These themes of inferiority, evil, and seductiveness remained disturbingly prominent in the 20th century and this century in places as diverse as papal encyclicals and TV fundamentalist preaching.

FOOTNOTES
Posted on

Naam-ah: The Other End of Chev-ah’s Matriline (1a)

Naamah Mount Ararat Peaks

The other end of Chav-ah’s pair of bookends is Naam-ah. These two famous women support the names of the patriarchal record of the ‘Generations of Adam.’ Chav-ah (Eve) is at the head of her Mother House. I have coined this phrase thus with the meaning, ‘all those of the same kin’, that is, ‘uterine sisters and brothers and kin springing from her.’ 1

Naam-ah acts as sturdy support at the other end of Chav-ah’s weighty list of male character’s names, particularly Seth’s linage. Just as the three sons of Adah and Zillah are the founders of the human vocation, all aspects of human culture, linked to their archetypal occupation. This is in contrast to divine mythological creators of cultural roles that characterise many mythological beginnings tales.

The Root of Naam-ah’s Name

Naam-ah’s name comes from the Hebrew root n’m: ‘to sing’. This would make Naam-ah the ancestral singer, the archetypal founder of vocal music and the arts: music, poetry, psalmody, prophetic. There is an intimate connection between women composing and presenting solo and group songs accompanied by the prophetic throughout the OT Scriptures, carried through into the NT.

Indeed it is claimed that musical diversity is the natural state of Jewish culture. Singing women of Israel in the Hebrew scriptures are accompanied by drums and timbrels, dancing and worship, reciting blessings, prophetic utterance. They became the doorkeepers in the keeping alive of ancient stories in the oral tradition.

Singing Women

Examples are Miraim, Deborah, the Levite women singers in the wilderness sanctuary and the temple in Jerusalem, and many others. Indeed, wherever worship happens, singing women are found widely across cultures beginning with mothers crooning to their infants to women working together and every other aspect of life and community where women are involved.

Chav-ah’s two male genealogies are Cain and Seth. Seth was born after Cain murdered her second son, Abel.

Chev-ah’s two sons: Cain and Seth

Cainite Line

 

Two women, Adah and Zillah, are recorded within Cain’s linage. No doubt there were any number of men the sisters could have chosen, (names not recorded), but these two women made Lamech famous by their choice of him. Other than this, Lamech’s only other claim to fame suggests he was infamous, a violent perpetrator, boasting he had killed a man. This shows Lamech was a man not unlike Cain his father.

The sisters’ main purpose in choosing Lamech the Cainite and inviting him into their tents was for him to sire children at their bidding. This was the way of women 2 of endogamous unions. [i] It ensured their individual interest were met in building up their own Mother House and staying on their land.

This is the first record of this kind of matrimonial arrangement where uterine sisters choose one husband. [ii] The sisters’ son’s achievements are remarkable and are recorded in a previous paper, Adah and Zillah. 3 Their mothers’ influences on them is obvious. 4 Only one daughter is recorded: Naam-ah,  born to Zill-ah.

Chav-ah’s Cainite and Shemite Line united in Naam-ah

In due course, Naam-ah of Zill-ah the Cainite took her distant cousin, Noe of Shem’s line, into her tent (B’reshith Rabba). 5

Her background is identified as Noe’s wife [iii] Before the deluge, Naam-ah’s three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, sired by Noe were born. At the proper time, these three sons of Naam-ah met with cousins from (unnamed) Sethite women who received their siring partners into their woman’s tent.

Following the flood, Naam-ah’s sons at their wives’ bidding produced children. These three sons 6 of Mother Naam-ah, Shem, Ham [iv] and Japheth, sired by Noe, are recognised by the Jews as the tribal heads of all nations. 7

Cain and Shem of Chav-ah’s linage united through Mother Naam-ah

To recap, the matrimonial arrangement of the Cainite woman Naam-ah with the Shemite, Noe, united Cain and Seth’s two lines of Mother Chav-ah, prior to the flood. This union saved the famous Kenite tribe (Cainites) and the Shemites, that is, the Semitic race, from extinction. [v]

The salvation of these two races of people was solely due to Naam-ah choosing Noe. We do not know if she knowingly made this choice. I name Naam-ah, and other women like her, women champions, saviours in Israel.

Finally, these three couples, together with mother Naam-ah and her husband Noe entered the ark. These eight were safe from the great flood (1656 BC). Thus the human race began again with Naam-ah as its ‘Mother of All Living.’

Chav-ah, Ad-ah, Zill-ah, and Naam-ah.

Thus ends Chav-ah’s matriline. I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I did research it. More on this in the next publication in this series: Paper 1b/ Chav-ah’s Matriline: Looking Backwards and Forward

END

 

ENDNOTES

[i] Endogamy can serve as a form of self-segregation. A community can use it to resist integrating and completely merging with surrounding populations. Minorities can use it to stay ethnically homogeneous over a long time as distinct communities within societies that have other practices and beliefs. Judaism traditionally mandates religious endogamy, requiring that both marriage partners be Jewish while allowing for marriage to converts.

Orthodox Judaism maintains the traditional requirement for endogamy in Judaism as a binding part of Judaism’s religious beliefs. Whilst the more liberal Jewish religious movements are far more permissive with regard to interfaith marriage and conversion requirements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogamy.

The isolationist practices of endogamy may lead to a group’s extinction, as genetic diseases may develop that can affect the increasing population. However, this disease effect would tend to be small. Unless there is a high degree of close inbreeding, or if the endogamous population becomes very small in size.

ENDNOTES

[ii] You will note I’ve turned the interpretation around. The patriarchal interpretation infers the women are passive bystanders waiting and hoping some man will choose them. Then he can carry them off to his father’s house and kin to bear children ultimately build up his tribe. It’s not the Jewish way.

ENDNOTES

The Code of Jewish Law clearly states that a child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, regardless of the father’s lineage (or whatever else may show up in a DNA test), while the child of a non-Jewish mother is not Jewish. Matrilineal descent has been a fundamental principle of Torah since the Jewish people came into existence.

It’s up to the reader to interpret, but take note, the patriarchal interpretation of marriage doesn’t fit the image we have been given of Jesus returning for His bride. Jesus came to us and is returning to us. We will marry and Jesus will join us with our kin. The bride will live with her husband amongst her kin on this earth.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism.

ENDNOTES

[iii] I note the feminine ‘ah’ wherever women’s names are used. The spelling of No-ah ends in the feminine ‘ah’. I will call ‘Noah’ the male equivalent ‘Noe’ from here on in my writings. There is debate amongst some scholars whether this No-ah is a woman or a man. (there is another Noah in the Scriptures and it denotes a daughter (of Zelophehad, Num 36: 5-11, etc.)

Some notable Jewish Rabbis have made some progress in this regard. According to rabbinical interpretation, this is due to the text itself. The Rabbis interpretation accepts it as the ‘male sons of Noah’ going into her tent. This misdemeanour happened following the flood when No-ah drank too much. There, Ham uncovered No-ah’s nakedness, a euphemism for improper sexual conduct. If No-ah is a woman, she is the Matriarch who re-started the human race after the deluge and not Naam-ah.

For our reading here I have made a choice. Either Naam-ah or No-ah is the post deluge ‘Mother of All Living’. Either way, Naam-ah is a notable matriarch in the matriline of Eve through to Sar-ah. As no one can know for sure it’s a matter of what happens to fit your particular slant on the subject. My goal here is to build an argument for the matrilineal line from Eve to Sar-ah and how this translates into the NT. I have therefore chosen Naam-ah.

This conversation is liable to upset those who set in their fundamentalist doctrine. For them, all conjecture is disconcerting. But I’m simply here to share what I have found through my research and join the discussion. My main work is to trace the ‘woman’s seed’ through the genealogy of the Semites leading to Mary. I, therefore, present the argument here and leave Naam-ah and No-ah for the woman reader to ponder further.

ENDNOTES

[iv] I have posted this article below to bring a better understanding of the issue of inequality in the church. Issues of injustice such as inequality regarding gender, race, slavery, children born out of wedlock, inheritance rights, divorce, nepotism … the list is long. Where past mistakes are rectified gives us an opportunity to rejoice. Below is Dake’s family statement in regards to what was part of an outdated version of ‘The Dake Annotated Reference Bible’.

About Finis Dake

Finis Dake grew up in an era where this was definitely a topic of debate in Christian and social circles. Some fought for an end to injustice, some fought to keep the status quo. Racism and the use of Biblical text to explain, support, or justify racism was simply a reality of the time and place.

Nor is Dake alone in this regard, for the footnote on the 1945 edition Scofield Bible I obtained contains questionable interpretations of the story of Noah, Shem, and Ham in Genesis, which also seems to have been noted by Dake.

https://www.amazon.com/review/R5L4VGU3BCJLC

Warm regards

Patricia

A note from the Dake family website explains, “…And so in the fall of 1996, we discussed the matter as a family. We made a unanimous decision to edit or remove any note that could be misconstrued as a racist comment.  The first printing to reflect these changes happened in January 1997.”

“30 reasons for segregation of races”.

The Dake Annotated Reference Bible KJV (Page 159 of the 1967 edition) notes in one of the side list. Finis J Dake wrote (The Dake Annotated Reference Bible KJV) is titled “30 reasons for segregation of races”. The Dake family removed this list. Recent editions no longer include it. Among the 30 reasons given are:

“1. God wills all races to be as he made them, any violation of God’s original purpose manifests insubordination to him (Acts 17:26, Rom 9:19-24) 2. He made everything to reproduce after his own kind (Gen 1:11-12, 6:20, 7:14) 3. God originally determined the bounds of the habitations of nations (Act 17:26, Gen 10:5, 32, 11:8, Dt 32:8) Kind means type and colour or he would have kept them all alike to begin with. 4. Miscegenation means the mixture of races, especially black and white races, or those of outstanding type of colour.

The Bible even goes farther than opposing this. It is against different branches of the same stock intermarrying such as Jews marrying other descendants of Abraham (Ezra 9-10, Neh 9-13, Jer 50:37, Ezek 30:5) 5. Abraham forbad Eliezer to take a wife for Isaac of Canaanites (Gen 24:1-4). 6. Abraham sent all his sons of the concubines, and even of his second wife, far away from Isaac so their descendants would not mix (Gen 25:1-6). 19.

Jews recognised as separate people in all ages because of God’s choice and command (Mt 10:6 Jn 1:11). Equal rights in the gospel give no right to break this eternal law. 29. Wearing Garments of mixed fabrics forbidden (Dt 22:11 Lev 19:19) 30. Christians and certain other people of a like race are to be segregated (Mt 18:15-17 I Cor 5:9-13,6:15, 2 Cor 6:14-18, Eph 5:11, 2 Thess 3:6-16, I Tim 6:5, 2 Tim 3:5[….]” (page 159 of NT).

ENDNOTES

[v] The interweaving of marriages between Chav-ah’s two lines, Cain and Seth, through Naam-ah, helps us understand why, later, the Kenites and Israel were friends. I show in my paper on the Kenites that members of this tribe frequently inter-married with Judahites.

The Kenites were Bedouin, (though not all), and this meant moving continually. Marriage between these two tribes was especially prominent amongst those Kenites living in Judah’s territory in the South. I am surmising they stayed in Judahite territory enjoying the protection this offered them. More on this when we read ‘The Kenites’ due for publication as soon as possible on my website.

The first instance of Kenites is when Abraham sired children with a Midianite woman, Keturah, mother of Midian. Later, Zipporah the Kenite woman and priest of the monotheistic God, YWJH, invited Moses into her tent. This physical union pre-empts the later spiritual union of Hobab the Kenite a priest of Midian with Moses and finally Israel.

Zipporah was one of the seven daughters of Jethro, a Kenite shepherd who was a priest of Midian (Ex 2: 18). Zippor-ah also a Priest first taught Moses the ways of YWJH when she acted as a priest in circumcising her son and saving Moses’ life. We will learn more of this in my paper ‘The Kenite Mothers’ (published in late 2020).

FOOTNOTES
Posted on

Adah & Zillah: Chav-ah’s (Eve’s) Genealogy

Adah Zillah Genealogy Arabia
Map: What is happening in Arabia in 1000BCE? Up until around this date, most of Arabia has been entirely uninhabited. Nomadic groups live on the margins, where grasslands allow their herds of sheep and goats to graze, but the barren interior has not allowed any peoples to establish a foothold. At around this time, however, the camel is domesticated. These hardy animals allow nomads to travel long distances in the desert. Trade routes across the Arabian peninsula begin to be pioneered, and oases begin to be populated. The classic “bedouin” lifestyle begins to take shape. Perhaps related to these developments, a new civilization is emerging in southwest Arabia, based on large-scale irrigation systems which bring the dry but fertile soil of the region to life. Credit: Timemap

Previously…

In the first post in this series, we looked at Chav-ah (Eve), the first woman and the beginning of her matrilocal Mother House, situated East of Eden.  Eve gave birth to three named sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth.  Cain murdered Abel, his brother. From Cain come the Kenites 1.

The Semitic languages 2 respectively. For those tribes to develop there had to be women’s seed (ovum) which brings us now to the Mothers.

The Mothers: Ad-ah, Zill-ah, and Naam-ah

There are three Mothers in Cain’s patriarchal genealogy and none recorded in Seth’s linage. These three Cainite Mothers, Ad-ah, Zill-ah, and Zillah’s daughter, Naam-ah, stem from Eve’s Mother House. They are very important players in God’s plan for future Israel.

The Cainites (Kenites) play an important role in Israel’s future. Pleas watch for the paper ‘Kenites’ in the near future. We do not encounter women in Seth’s linage until Sarah and her sister Milcah are named after the flood.

The women built up their own Mother Houses in Eve’s matriline: it was ‘in the way of women’ to do so. It was in keeping with the ancient system of kinship and land ownership and land inheritance through the Mother. 3

Matrilineal kinship through women-only

In ancient times, matrilineal kinship through women-only prevailed throughout the earth. In this way individuals related through a common female relative. Husbands and wives had different kinship affiliations. Children were of the same kinship group as their mother. In matrilineal systems, the mother’s brother (maternal uncle to his sister’s children) played a vital role, since a child often inherited from his mother’s brother. 5

When we read Genesis chapters 4 and 5, the children are recorded as Adam’s offspring. These genealogies are overwhelmingly made up of men’s names. In many cases the gender or genuineness of those names cannot be proved.

According to female kinship, the names recorded there are ‘kin’ in the truest sense of the word: all of one Mother’s House. Therefore, listed under their mother’s names they are all of one blood. The Hebrew Scriptures identify these kin as: ‘bone of bone and flesh of flesh’.

We now begin our journey to trace the building of the Mother’s matrilines as they continue through daughters born to them. 6.

To date I have not read any bible commentary on sisters marrying by deciding to take the same man into their tents for the sake of siring children. This is the opposite of the patriarchal record always showing the (proactive) man marrying the (passive) woman. However, there are two instances that cannot be ignored here in early Genesis which shows that this may have been practiced.  Here, the sister’s, Adah and Zilpah’s marriage relationship with Lamech appears to reflect that motif 7 to Lamaech shows the first breakaway from the model of one woman and one man in a monogamous relationship. According to patriarchal interpretation, however, they are the first women to suffer the fate of polygamous marriage. This patriarchal interpretation suggests Lamech their husband instigated this polygamous arrangement. But to do so presumes the women were subservient, passive, and passionless. It also advances the idea that the sisters readily left or were stolen from their Mother’s House.

It suits patriarchal interpretation to hypothesise the notion that the sisters were stolen away or willingly left their kin to marry Lamech. In leaving their kin, it then follows that they dwelt in and produced children in a patrilineal household. However, a plain reading of the text does not show that. The women are listed in Eve’s linage under her son, Cain. My argument here challenges the patriarchal interpretation as one of an exogamous marriage and a male instigated polygamous relationship with Lamech as the head of the house.

To interpret as a polygamous relationship fits the patriarchal social model of exogamy resulting in a patrilineal household. It also constitutes violence against women. Rather, the evidence shows that the marriage arrangement of the two sisters with Lamech, all recorded in Chav-ah’s  line, through Cain, was an endogamous one. 8

In summarising the above, and just as the patriarchal interpreters do, let’s allow the speculation. That is, it is possible the women entered into an arrangement acceptable to them, that satisfied them. It is entirely possible the sisters were satisfied with just one man to sire their children. Perhaps this was common 9. Certainly, it was paramount to the continuity of the family structure of the Mother’s House that the land was not broken up. (E/n [iii]).

This means, the members of the mother’s house identified themselves as close kin (today we would say, ‘extended maternal side of the family’). This included the mother’s brothers, sisters,  cousins,  aunts, and uncles. Marriage between aunt and nephew is recorded where a woman named Jochebed, a daughter of Levi, the mother of Miriam, Aaron and Moses.

Jochebed married Amram, her nephew, of the same mother’s house and also a Levite. Jochebed is Amram’s aunt (Ex 6:20). Both spring from the unnamed wife of Levi, albeit different generations. This account offers both matrilineal and patrilineal  descent from Levites. The general comment on this is it may be in order to magnify the religious credentials of Miraim, Aaron and Moses.

As the kinship units grew, they became households. From these maternal clans formed: (a larger group of sisters and brothers, cousins and distant cousins). Finally groups of rural villages clustered together, spreading and more established.

They only identified as tribes, while all still relating to the one mother, when collectively they united under the name of the one patriarch. This is seen in the instance of  internal and external disputes threatened Israel. Internally, Israel’s tribes gathered together under one mother’s house or where an external war threatened they gathered as tribes under one father.  Hence those long male genealogies.

Later, in the matter of violence toward women we do find violence accompanied the stealing of mother’s daughters from their land and house. One particular case stands out. That is the unique case of the daughters of Benjamin. 10‘

In the case of external wars outside, the tribes of Israel certainly practiced stealing foreign women. It was impossible to stamp out, Moses had no option but to provide laws to restrain such practice which went against the social order of endogamy.

Further, the endogamous household and kin had no daughters-in-law or sons-in-law. This is a more recent invention of patriarchy to accommodate their social system. 11

WOMEN’S GENEALOGY: CHAV-AH’S  LINE

Ad-ah and Zill-ah

The only women named in Eve’s linage are three mothers: Ad-ah, Zill-ah, and Naam-ah. It is accepted generally that two of the women Adah and Zillah were sisters. These two, through Cain, are the first in crucial matters concerning a change in marriage in the early kinship of women. 12

‘And Ad-ah and Zill-ah married Lamech’ (Gen 4: 19)  [Paraphrased by Patricia].

AD-AH and her two sons: Jabal and Jubal

Jabal

Adah gave birth to her first son Jabal. Jabal was the originator of those who dwells in tents and has livestock (a condition characterising the later Kenites (Gen 4: 20).

Tents and Livestock

Comment:

Tents and Livestock: a condition characterising the later Kenites (other than the Rechabites). Cain himself was sedentary. He built and lived in a city. However, the murderer’s descendants were landless.

Cain’s line: Bedouins

The first bedouins, unlike nomads, who lived in tents only during certain seasons, lived in tents, thus continually moving following their livestock. A famous Kenite Bedouin woman named Jael lived in her tent. 13 When we look at the Kenites as a tribe, however, we will find some others were not nomadic.

The Bedouin way of life, moving with the flocks and living in tents signals a new social order arising out of a need for stock and pastures. It appears  their wives accompanied them on their wanderings, but living in their own tents.

On the other hand, Abraham was nomadic. He wandered with his flocks in Beersheba. Sarah did not wander with him. She lived in her tents with her flocks and servants atop Hebron’s plateau and did not move around.

Jubal.

Jubal was the originator of all those who plays the lyre and pipe. (Gen 4: 21).  [Paraphrased by Patricia]

Comment:

Jubal’s maternal aunt was Naam-ah, of whom we learn more about in the next paper. Several Jewish traditions associate Naam-ah with singing, others with teaching. It means Naam-ah had a strong influence on Jubal, her maternal nephew.

Zill-ah and her two children: Tubal-cain (son) and Naam-ah (daughter)

Tubal-cain,

Tubal-Cain was the ‘forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron (Gen 4: 22a , also Ezk 27: 13).

Cutting instrument of brass and iron

A condition characterising the later Kenites. Lamech the father of Tubal-cain appears as if he may have had a strong influence on Tubal-cain, his son. Given his swaggering words, Lamech is associated with violence and murder. 14

The Kenites were important in the spiritual development of early Israel (see my paper ‘Kenites’ published late December 2020). This famous tribe spring from Adah and Zillah’s sons and their unnamed wives (presumably their maternal aunts and / or cousins). 

Continued next time …  Zillah’s daughter: Naam-ah (Gen 4: 22b).

Hope to meet up next time when we take a closer look at Naam-ah.

Much love,

Patricia

 

 

Thinking about Adah and Zillah …

We may have read these two women previously and thought of them as used and abused. Yet looking at them in a new light allows hope to shine through.

Consider …

Have you previously read the bible and thrown it away from you or skipped over certain passages due to patriarchal interpretation as those readings only added to your pain and disappointment in your experience of patriarchal Christianity?

Have you cried out to God for answers and largely due to lack of scriptural evidence your hope was deferred, and you grew sick in heart?

Do you plan to stay in that state now that you have found a new source of hope?

Will you not turn back from your backsliding ways and renew your vows to your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

If so, pray this prayer with me:

Almighty Everlasting Eternal God …

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done

I put everything I am, and own, on your altar

I give to you all that I am, all I shall ever be.

Make me as one that serves.

Lead me, show me your will,

Take away anything that is holding me back

from knowing Jesus

the face of the HOLY MYSTERIOUS ONE, the Great I AM, the Almighty God,

Take away that which prevents me from becoming who I am becoming.

I forgive …. Please forgive me.

Please supply my daily needs.

Give me the personal conviction I lack

to live these days in embodied prophetic action

Amen.

END

 

 

ENDNOTES

[i] Says Prof. Robertson Smith of Cambridge: ‘In Genesis, marriage is (defined as implying that a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh. This is quite in accordance with what we find in other parts of the patriarchal story. Mr. McLennan has cited the marriages of Jacob, in which Laban plainly has the law on his side in saying that Jacob had no right to carry off his wives and their children; and also the fact that when Abraham seeks a ‘wife for Isaac, his servant thinks that the condition will probably be that Isaac shall come and settle with her people. All these things illustrate in Genesis 2:24 as the primitive type of marriage.’

Bushnell comments: In this case, Abraham would not consent, because Sarah had requested she come to take her place as Chief in her tent in Hebron to continue building her house and also knowing God had expressly called them away from practicing idolatry. Joseph’s children by his Egyptian wife became Israelites only by adoption: and so in Judges 15, Samson’s Philistine wife remains with her people and he visits her there. And we might ask, what does that primitive form of language mean,–‘cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh,’ but that he shall become of the same kin as his wife? The same writer says: ‘Mother kinship is the type of kinship, common motherhood the type of kindred unity, which dominates all Semitic speech.’

J.P. Peters, D.D., writing of this same passage in Genesis says: ‘In the relation which man is here represented as holding towards woman, we have, apparently, another of that incidental evidence of the great antiquity of this story. It is not the woman who leaves father and mother and cleaves to the man, but the man who leaves father and mother, and cleaves to his wife. It would seem as though we had a survival of the old matriarchate, that relation of the marriage of which we have an example in the Samson story, where the woman remains with her tribe, or clan, or family, and is visited by the man. The offspring in such a case belongs to the woman’s family, not the man’s’ (Bushnell. Early Hebrew Story, p. 223). Para 57.)

[ii] Katharine C. Bushnell (1856-1946) Free download. “Can’t recommend this book enough”! Patricia  https://godswordtowomen.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/gods_word_to_women1.pdf

[iii] The word in its purest form, polygamía, is a ‘state of marriage to many spouses’: the practice of marrying multiple spouses. Patriarchal interpretation only allows for one outcome: When a man is married to more than one wife at the same time. When a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, sociologists call this polyandry. In contrast to polygamy, monogamy is marriage consisting of only two parties.

My research shows polyandry was/ is more prevalent where land fragmentation means dividing up the land between men, thus lessening the bargaining power of blood brothers, the sons of one man/ sons of the man’s chief wife. When we consider my argument that the women-owned the land it is entirely possible sisters of one mother chose to marry only one man and had the siring rights to him.

In beginning, Adam was a murderer bringing death into the world through sin. The Hebrew scriptures show no Israelite murderer owned land. Men are the sons of Adam. The greed for land ownership exhibited by the majority of men and history records it. It still resonates in the male psyche today. This seems to me to echo a fear associated with landlessness. The Creator knew land ownership was/ is critical for women. Today the need has not abated. Below, India is an example.

The crucial point made here is, that although women in India have the legal right to own land, very few actually do as a result of the patriarchal practices which dominate the nation. Up until recently, Indian women have been left out of laws regarding the distribution of public land and were forced to rely on the small possibility of obtaining private land from their families. Inheritance laws that cater to men are one of the key issues behind inequality in land rights.

According to Bina Agarwal, land ownership defines social status and political power in the household and in the village, shaping relationships and creating family dynamics. Therefore, the inheritance of land automatically puts men above women both in the household and in the community. Without political pull in the village, and with limited bargaining powers within the household, women lack the voice to advocate for their own rights.

Another issue with land rights in India is that they leave women completely dependent on the lives of their husbands. A study by Bina Agarwal found that in West Bengal, prosperous families turn destitute when the male head of the household dies, as women are not permitted to take over their husband’s land. Also, due to cultural tradition, the higher the status of the woman, the less likely she is to have any developed skills that would be useful in finding work. These women are forced to beg for food and shelter once their husbands die because they have not been allowed to gain work experience (Kanakalatha Mukund).

Bina Agarwal argues that land ownership significantly decreases the chance of domestic violence against Indian women. Owning property elevates women to a higher status within the household, allowing more equality and bargaining power. In addition, owning property separately from their husbands allowed women an opportunity to escape from abusive relationships. Agarwal concluded that the prospect of a safe shelter outside of the main household decreases the longevity of domestic violence. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3146971?seq=1

FOOTNOTES

Posted on

The Mothers: Genesis 4 – Chav-ah’s (Eve’s) Genealogy

the-mothers-genealogy

Many times Eve’s life reveals suffering and trouble not of her making and of having to start a new life all over again… Eve’s life encourages us not to give up. Start over if you must. Others have, you can also. Find a new way of living, new friends, kind friends, people who genuinely care about you.  Allow yourself to dream again. Dream a new vision for your future. Let bygones be bygones.

Above all, believe in the promises of God, believe in yourself, believe in hope when there is no hope, sense the peace of God that passes all understanding. Let the false childish idea of a ‘happy’ life go and in its place accept the contentment and hope and courage that suffering and endurance bring. Hope is the anchor of your soul. Hope thou in God. Whatever the present circumstances, these too shall pass.

Eve’s Matrilineal Line Eve (CHAV-AH) – AD-AH – ZILL-AH – NAAM-AH to Sar-ah 1

 

CHAV-AH, ‘Life’, ‘Mother of All Living’

Eve’s matrilineality

In beginning, 2 the matriline of the Hebrew scriptures begins with Chav-ah, the first woman 3 Strong’s shows the name Chav-ah means ‘to tell, declare’ 4. Chav-ah was later named Eve, ‘Mother of All Living’ 5. Eve 6 had many daughters and sons sired by Adam. Eve’s matriline through her son Cain ends with a woman named Naam-ah who married Noah in her Sethite line. 7

 

Eve’s Sethite (Jesus’) line (Lk 3: 38) Eve’s Cainite line
Seth Cain (Heb qayin): Kenites: friends of Israel)
Enos, sired by Seth. Eve’s grandson. This is when people began to enter into idolatry according to the Hebrew understanding of Enos. This would have only added to Eve’s grief and shame, given Abel’s untimely and violent death by her son Cain. Seth is part of the genealogy of  Jesus (Lk 3: 38). Enoch
Cainan (Kenan), second son of Seth: The Book of Jasher describes Cainan, the possessor of great astrological wisdom, which has been inscribed on tables of stone.
Mahalaleel (Lk 3: 37)
Jared Irad
Enoch (figuratively, ‘to initiate or discipline’, ‘dedicate’, ‘train up’). The text reads that Enoch “walked with God: and he was no more; for God took him” (Gen 5:21-24) which is interpreted as Enoch’s entering Heaven alive in some Jewish and Christian traditions. Enoch is the subject of many Jewish and Christian traditions. He was considered the author of the Book of Enoch and also called Enoch the scribe of judgment. The NT has three references to Enoch from the lineage of Seth (Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5, “By faith, Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation, he had this testimony, that he pleased God. Jude 1:14–15). Mehujael
Methuselah said to have died at the age of 969, he lived the longest of all figures mentioned in the Bible According to Genesis Methuselah was the son of Enoch, the father of Lamech and the grandfather of Noah. Elsewhere in the Bible, Methuselah is mentioned in genealogies in 1st Chronicles and the Gospel of Luke. Methusael
Lamech (Sethite) in genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3: 36). ‘And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed. And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters.’ And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. (Gen 5:28-31) Lamech (Cainite). He was responsible for the “Song of the Sword.” He is also noted as the first polygamist mentioned in the Bible taking two wives, Ad-ah and Zill-ah (Tsel-ah). See below in the next post.
Noah: According to the Genesis account, Noah labored faithfully to build the Ark at God’s command, ultimately saving not only his own family, but mankind itself and all land animals, from extinction during the Flood Afterwards, God made a covenant with Noah and promised never again to destroy all the earth’s creatures with a flood. The flood narrative is followed by the story of the Curse of Ham, Noah’s grandson. Naam-ah (see below: ‘Eve to Sar-ah.’

 

The patriarchal emphasis:

‘This is the written account of Adam’s family line. God created humanity in the likeness of God.’ Genesis 5:1 NIV. 8 It is also referred to as the ‘Generations of Adam’. It begins, not with Eve the mother but the patriarchal emphasis. 

The brothers, Cain and Abel

Eve’s first son, Cain, in a jealous rebellious rage, murdered his brother Abel. As a consequence, in accordance with those times, Cain became landless. 9 He was banished from his Mother House and near kin, and sent to the Land of Nod (‘shaking and trembling’ ), east of Eden. This is not unlike his father Adam. Adam was also a murderer. He brought death to the world, also through the sin of rebellion.

‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned’. (Gen 5:12-18)

Adam was the first record of banishment. He went from safe stable living to landlessness. He was exiled from the Garden of Eden to live east of Eden. Eve followed him out of the garden. 10. In those times, if found wandering, it meant only one thing: you were disassociated from your kin and motherhouse, rejected for some wicked treasonous act. Justice was simple: an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. 11

With no distinguishing mark to identify Cain would mean the death sentence carried out immediately by those who met him in the way. To protect him, God marked him with a sign, similar to a totem, which signified his kinship group. This means, although banished, from living at close range amongst his kin, Cain remained in the land of his mother, Eve.

Endogamous marriage union: the building up the Mother’s House

Cain and his posterity recorded in Eve’s matriline signals Cain’s marriage was an endogamous relationship. 12 Cain’s wife was most likely a distant cousin, niece, aunt or great aunt, or another of one of Eve’s line of her nameless daughters, originally springing from her House. 13

Cain and Seth, therefore, as was the custom for maternal sons, nephews, and uncles of the Mother’s House helped build it up. 14 The ‘firstborn son’ is a patriarchal invention and God does not obey patriarchal dictates. Where it says, ‘firstborn son’ or, ‘sons’ (say, ‘of the priests’) it includes daughters.

Eve’s two matrilineal lines finally join again

Cain’s line leads to a Kenite woman named Naam-ah (or more correctly the Qenites) and from Seth, finally, comes Noah. From Naam-ah came Ham, Shem and Japheth sired by Noah. Therefore, the Semites (Jews) came through the matriline of Mother Naam-ah through Shem. This was the beginning of all nations according to Genesis and the Hebrew tradition. Through Shem, the Semites language and race began. Finally, came the Matriarch Sa-rah and the Patriarch Abraham 15 leading to Sar-ah and finally Le-ah, whose matriline leads to Mary (Miriam) the mother of Jesus.

’And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and bare Enoch’.

Cain built a walled city

‘Cain built a city and called it ‘Enoch’ after his son’ (Gen 4:17). To build the first walled town (Gen 4:17: bnh + town) signals Cain’s life was threatened due to blood feud (retributive justice). He needed the protection of a surrounding wall. We learn later, the descendants of Cain’s line, Ad-ah and Zill-ah’s descendants, the Kenites were nomads.

Eve’s third son, Seth

Following the tragedy of Cain murdering his brother Abel, Eve gave birth to another son, Seth (‘Appointed’).

Eve’s infamous grandson, Enos, through Seth.

Enos’ name means ‘profanated’: ‘not relating to that which is sacred or religious’, ‘secular’.  Enos began to teach people: ‘then began men and women (Heb. ‘ben’) to call upon the name of the Lord’ (Gen 4:26). 16 This is interpreted as idolatry by traditional Jewish interpretation, that is, that people started dubbing ‘Lord’ things that were mere creatures. 17 Eve also gave birth to ‘other sons and daughters’, sired by Adam.

Eve and Adam’s lineages

Both Eve’s and Adam’s linages of women and men were born to largely unnamed women. These women were not considered important enough to name. However, lists of unimportant men’s names are also in the patriarchal lineages.

In conclusion … Reading the bible as a woman

Reading the bible as a woman demands the named women and the narrative surrounding them get our special attention. Stop reading about Abraham and his arguing with God. That root has been axed. Stop reading about David and his killing Saul’s family and his political ambitions – you are meeting him every day in the church. Stop supporting the patriarchal leaders in the church. Leave them to continue with their patriarchal 18 turf wars and their sinning openly to gain the upper hand and bring down anyone opposing them.

Stop putting your money in bags with holes in them. Start giving to women who need your financial support to get by. Those single mothers and their children, barely surviving in the patriarchal church. Give to elderly women, many homeless and living near destitution. Start living the God kind of life of equality, of equal balances and weights.

The women in the OT provide for the astute reader the matriarchal linage leading to Jesus. Also the matriarchs of the important tribes of that time. Some were friends (distant kin of Israel through the mother’s kin). Others were against Israel.

Further, where you find the description of an event that happened to a woman or a group of women, or all the women of one tribe, such as when the daughters of Rachel (Benjamin), were stolen. This instance highlights it. The account and the circumstances surrounding it register significant changes in the society they lived in affecting the women in particular.

Those changes also give us insight into the ways in which patriarchy was making inroads into the very fabric of society. To do this the original social law of endogamy was changed to exogamy (patriarchy). That social change disfigures the image of Christ and His Bride.

Metaphorically Speaking

The named women, therefore, might be likened to those canaries the miners took with them underground to alert them to danger of a change in the atmosphere to their otherwise tolerant environment. The most important thing to understand is, individual women in the OT are the only source we have to teach metaphorical teachings in the NT.

These are largely ignored by patriarchal teachers and interpreters of the Bible be they male or female. Forget the false teachings of some mythical being named ‘Satan’ as warring against you. Instead, patriarchal teachings and false teachers peddling this doctrine are the true robbers and the enemy of our soul. The OT women speak into the future in relation to the New Testament ‘new creation’ realities.

Such teachings as Mary’s confession of faith, ‘be it unto me according to your word’ brought about the conception of the only-begotten child of God. Jesus’ birth was according to Mary’s faith, likewise, the new birth follows this pattern.

The church is a woman: the Body and the Bride of Christ. The Husband and His wife are depicted through the lens of an endogamous marriage relationship, not patriarchal interpretation of early Genesis. The Family of God here on earth is not a mirror image of patriarchal exogamous marriage.

Our understanding is further enlightened when we realise the NT use of ‘brethren’ relates to mother kin: meaning, ‘all of one mother’.Greek, ‘adelphos’ denotes “a brother, sister/ or near kinsman/ kinswoman;” in the plural, “a community based on the identity of origin or life. 19

 

Then there is land ownership and inheritance. These NT themes begin to emerge anew as God’s divine plan, put in place in early Genesis. They were deposited in preparation of the NT pattern that was to come and is now here. Its time has come. The teachings are fully formed and made known through the Gospel. 20 Let’s preach it! As we begin to understand the determination of the Mothers to build up their House so we can understand better the value of daughters.

The second coming of Christ becomes clear: Jesus joining his bride and they two living together here: the new heavens and a new earth. This world is our home, those other members of the one body are her kin.

Away with the patriarchal idea of the bride joining her Husband in His home in a patriarchal father’s house in heaven. This is misinterpreted because of the patriarchal lens applied. These stem from patriarchal concepts of an exogamous marriage relationship, of a ‘Baal’ domineering husband, removing his betrothed to his house. Not so Jesus!

We shall learn more about this change to society as we go on to read of the Mothers, Ad-ah and Zill-ah. Their husband Lamech, in Cain the murderer’s linage, was the first polygamist. These are recorded for our learning. However, It does not mean God agrees or instigated these changes. Further, God does not obey worldly patriarchal dictates such as the ‘firstborn male’, ‘son’s’ inheritance, or land ownership. We shall discover all these things and more as we continue to study the woman.

Other than Eve, I find no woman of Israel willingly leaving her home to join her husband and his family on foreign soil. The idea that these women would enthusiastically enter into a patriarchal (exogamous) marriage relationship is absurd.  Why would they freely choose to follow their husband and cross over to another tribe of Israel or a Canaanite tribe? They would lose their autonomy and authority.

They would lose their children and their inheritance: their identity, the identity of their children, their land, mothers, aunts, great mothers and great aunts, sisters and daughters, nieces and matriarchal brothers and uncles, one another’s children under their direct care, planning and sharing together to build up their inheritance, to leave it all behind, for what? Do you see?

The scenario of women leaving all this in the bible occurs only through war or selling their daughters to an outsider. That is when women are forcibly removed from their mother kin and become sex slaves and abused workers or worse. It happened then and is still happening today. This is when patriarchy has reached its zenith.

This is the reason treasonous Esau is made an example. It is said his mother, ‘Rebek-ah grieved’ and ‘God hated Usau’. Esau sold his inheritance for a common meal, the poorest of the poor survive on it: a lintel stew. So too, we women!

I’m not writing in an attempt to reconcile us with patriarchy. I jumped overboard and found the river of God to swim in many years ago. I suggest you do the same. Underneath are the everlasting arms. God loves women. God’s got your back. Patriarchy does not. Patriarchy is your enemy.

Finally, in the Book of Revelation we read of The Woman, The Bride, The Marriage of the Lamb, The Heavenly Jerusalem, The City of God. Certain named women are of significant importance to anyone wanting to trace the Coming One, born of a woman, without male intervention and women saviours of Israel who did everything they must to protect the promised woman’s seed. All these subjects and more are brought to the fore in my papers on the woman of the OT.

 

To be continued …  The Mothers: Ad-ah, Zill-ah and Naam-ah

Much love,

Patricia

End

Thinking about Eve…

Life and loss: Cause and effect: Eve’s life reveals great pain and suffering because…

Like us, Eve’s humanity meant she was who she was and there was no getting away from herself.

Consider…

Have you made foolish decisions or have others made them for you that changed the course of your life so dramatically you have never fully recovered and wonder if you ever will?

Have you suffered a death in yourself due to the loss of a child and the grief became amplified in its magnitude?

Do the shockwaves of grief still overwhelm you when others have moved on but you know deep down you are standing still and there is simply no one to share this with that you feel fully understands where you are at.

Has a profound silence fallen upon you because of life and the struggles you have endured for generations that have resulted in you being left with a hole in your stomach? An empty void that nothing can fill?  Nevertheless, it left you with such a deep abiding sense of wisdom that you have nothing to say to anyone. Frivolity, nonsensical loose talk, and useless socialising have gone forever.

Perhaps you have suffered from the effects of violence? It may be due to one member of your family suffering at the hands of another? What about the judgment of others, the misunderstanding of the circumstances that led to it?

Did you spend yourself in the early years of bringing up a darling child with wonderful potential only to have him/her bring upon you, public embarrassment, shame on your head, a personal sense of disappointment because of their foolish choices?

It may have been a husband you followed against all good and loving advice from wise friends whose advice finally proved true.  Because of his huge ego, deception and cover-up, rebellion against God, and good friend’s sound advice, you have lost everything?

Are you landless? Homeless? Eve suffered all of these things and more. Life did not work out the way she expected.

Patriarchal marriage and the family do not live up to its expectations. Patriarchal marriage and family are myths. They are not all they’re cracked up to be.

The upside however of Eve’s life reveals a depth of spirituality which was borne out of the grief and disappointment. Nevertheless, it would have helped level out the sense of loss and those things that were irrecoverable.

Think again about Eve…

Have you nurtured a continuous relationship with God that nothing and no one can shake?

Do you have hope in the midst of all your trials that can only be explained as God carrying you through it all?

Are you still waiting on promises from God’s word that brought great encouragement into your life at the time and although not yet come to pass, have never abated?

Can you look around you and see the wonderful women friends God has surrounded you with? In particular that one who has walked with you daily or come in and out of your life but remained steady, whether together or years apart, near or distant, a constant in your life.

Eve’s life reveals times of great perseverance … of highs and lows; of desolation and restoration. Can you look back and see the rewards of your tenacity during those periods of endurance? Of trials and suffering? Do you have a sense of a future that is yet to deliver the best there is?

#hangon-graceisonitsway.

Eve’s life reveals many times of having to start all over again …

Eve’s life encourages us not to give up. Start over if you must. Others have, you can also.

Find a new way of living, new friends, kind friends, people who genuinely care about you.

Allow yourself to dream again. Dream a new vision for your future. Let bygones be bygones.

Above all, believe in the promises of God, believe in yourself, believe in hope when there is no hope, sense the peace of God that passes all understanding. Let the false childish idea of a ‘happy’ life go and in its place accept the contentment and hope and courage that suffering and endurance bring. Hope is the anchor of your soul. Hope thou in God. Whatever the present circumstances, these too shall pass.

A Perpetual Covenant of Peace for Women Isa 54

1 “Sing, O barren, You who have not borne! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, You who have not laboured with child! For more are the children of the desolate Than the children of the married woman,” says the Lord.

2. “Enlarge the place of your tent and let them stretch out the curtains of your dwellings; Do not spare; Lengthen your cords, And strengthen your stakes.

3. For you shall expand to the right and to the left, And your descendants will inherit the nations, And make the desolate cities inhabited.

4. “Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed; Neither be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame; For you will forget the shame of your youth,
And will not remember the reproach of your widowhood anymore.

5. For your Maker is your husband, The Lord of hosts is His name;
And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He is called the God of the whole earth.

6. For the Lord has called you
Like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit,
Like a youthful wife when you were refused,”
Says your God.

7. “For a mere moment I have forsaken you,
But with great mercies I will gather you.

8. With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment;
But with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you,”
Says the Lord, your Redeemer.

9.“For this islike the waters of Noah to Me;
For as I have sworn That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, So have I sworn That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.

10. For the mountains shall depart And the hills be removed,
But My kindness shall not depart from you, Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,”
Says the Lord, who has mercy on you.

11. “O you afflicted one, Tossed with tempest, andnot comforted,
Behold, I will lay your stones with colourful gems, And lay your foundations with sapphires.

12. I will make your pinnacles of rubies, Your gates of crystal,
And all your walls of precious stones.

13. All your children shall betaught by the Lord, And great shall be the peace of your children.

14. In righteousness you shall be established; You shall be far from oppression, for you shall not fear; And from terror, for it shall not come near you.

15. Indeed they shall surely assemble, but not because of Me.
Whoever assembles against you shall fall for your sake.

16. “Behold, I have created the blacksmith Who blows the coals in the fire,
Who brings forth an instrument for his work; And I have created the spoiler to destroy.

17. No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue whichrises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This isthe heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,”
Says the Lord.

 

The law of Faith:

I believe therefore I speak.

Believe and speak new beginnings into your life. Name your future. Rename yourself; your children’s surname. Don’t put it off. Take back what is yours.

God’s richest blessings to you and yours.

Amen.

End

FOOTNOTES

Posted on

‘ALL ABOUT EVE’ SERIES: EVE: The First Woman – Mother of All Living

Eve: Garden of Eden - Modern Map

 

There has always been a lot of hype about Eve! Many conflicting ideas about her are drawn from the translations and commentaries on her, along with ancient writings. It may then come as a surprise that Eve does not attract any attention from the ancient writers of the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, she is not referred to again after the early chapters of Genesis.

The Christian Scriptures (NT)  only referred to Eve by name twice. Yet interest surrounding Eve is embedded in the Greco-Roman culture. This influence is found in many of the teachings Paul addresses concerning women. A thorough examination of these scriptures cannot be presented here as this is not my purpose (E/n [i]).

Rather, I want to raise the consciousness of the woman reader who believes the bible translation she holds in her hands to be infallible. In my mind, to take at face value the words on the page is to ignore the treasure below the surface of every word. With this in mind may I ask, to give one example, if you have considered that the original Hebrew words did not have vowels.

These vowels were inserted later to make it easier to read. Does it occur to you that if there is bias in the mind of those who inserted these that if one changed the inserted vowel to another it would change the word to another and carry with that change a new word and meaning?

Biased interpretation

It is impossible not to bring an element of bias to the interpretation of the text. As you read my papers you are going to encounter my partiality. I am not gender-inclusive. I have a bias towards the masculinisation of the language. I want to expose the patriarchal bias in the interpretation of the text. I adopt the well known feminist position of reading with suspicion everything male writers and commentators have to say about the women in the bible.

I am definitely prejudiced against patriarchy. I have no toleration for it, be it male or female practising or preaching it. I am very much aware that when men preach about life in general and life’s experiences they are not preaching to the reality women face, living in a mysoginistic culture as we do.

I am writing for women readers of the bible. I am endeavouring to shine a light on the bias against women in the translation and interpretation of Scripture as well as in Christian circles. I am not polite in saying what I want to say. I’m too old now to hold back. Time is short for me and I have nothing to lose.

Based on my research and my own deductions over the last fifty years arising out of comparing scripture with scripture, so I reinterpret it. I attack the false doctrines arising out of the misconstrued teachings through my writings. I make no apology for that.

Women, like Eve,  have many antagonists. This makes any interpretation of the first woman far more complex and of greater import than her antagonists like to admit,  or, permit, where their power holds sway. (E/n [ii]). For example, as would be expected, in both the Old and the New Testaments, skewed teachings exist about a woman’s place in God’s economy being less equal to a man’s. I  refute this in every one of my teaching papers and publish them on my website.

These false teachings and translation and interpretation of scripture show these biases in gender roles and types assigned to the male and the female in both books of the Bible. Another aspect overlooked is the hatred of women that prevailed in the ancient prescriptive writings of men of renown. We can read them but it’s a problem when people actually believe those diatribes railed against women. This was unfortunately of the periods the Hebrew and Christian scriptures were finally accepted as canon. (E/n [iii])

Early Genesis Account about Eve

Yes, it is true; Eve was deceived through craftiness, described visually as coming from a walking, talking serpent. Eve is depicted as naive and Adam as rebellious and passive, the serpent as having cunning intelligence. Nowhere does it say the serpent represents Satan or a devil or a devilish spirit.

In ancient times the serpent represented many things good, beautiful, and evil.  Judaism makes no reference to such a creature supposedly fallen or cast down from heaven. Modern-day interpreters have misconstrued scriptures and made up doctrines that can’t be substantiated throughout scripture.

Further, the Jews knew nothing of an angel falling from heaven, neither of their demise and ‘going to heaven.’ Indeed their mantra was ‘eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die”. They wanted to live long on this earth, inherit land, and embrace prosperity. I am not saying one thing or another about their lifestyle but I am saying what they did not give any heed to.

Eve’s warning and the consequences of her naivety

When questioned by God Eve told the simple truth about her part in eating the fruit of the tree of death (of the knowledge of good and evil). Adam, on the other hand, blamed the woman and God for his partaking with the woman and eating of the same fruit . Adam tried to escape his part in it by blame-shifting.

‘Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” Genesis 3: 12

Eve did not blame God or the man. Rather, she told it like it was. She was deceived and placed the blame squarely upon the serpent.

‘And the woman said, “The serpent beguiled (deceived or charmed) me, and I did eat’ (Gen 3:12-13).

Eve’s motives were pure, albeit she was naïve. The serpent and Adam had full knowledge of the two trees in the garden. Adam was given clear instructions from God concerning the eating of the fruit of the two trees. The result of doing so was as follows: the consuming the fruit of the one led to life eternal, the other, eternal death. There is no mention Eve heard these instructions. Adam blame-shifted it onto Eve and God.

[Whoever may be arguing the case with you here, I suggest you ask them to show you where Eve was given or heard the instructions about the two trees].

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” This is recognised as blame-shifting.

Eve’s Warning and the consequences of her disobedience

God warned Eve

Eve (Heb. Chavah: ‘mother of all life’) was in immediate danger!  God warned her not to ‘turn’ (teshequa – from the tree of life) and follow Adam. God’s warning was she was ‘turning’. By  her ‘turning’ away from the source of eternal life, grace, love and protection, to the man, he would take advantage of that choice.

Eve ‘Turned’

The prophet Jeremiah alludes to the first created woman ‘turning’ when he calls out to Israel to ‘turn back’.

“How long will you go here and there, O faithless daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth– A woman will encompass a man.” (Jer 31:22).

In the immediate context the prophet is crying out to the nation of Israel,  relating her to the cities as a daughter, or, daughter-cities, who are as a nation, turning away: (‘chamaq’ : Strong’s #2559: to ‘turn away’, also used in Songs 5:6 ‘But my beloved had turned away[and] had gone!.

In the earlier scripture relating to this, Eve ‘turned’ away from the tree of Life to follow the man. In Jeremiah’s cry, the daughter-cities  had turned away from their God. Jeremiah calls to them to return.

There, he utters a future event, of a new ‘creation’, (Heb. ‘bara’: used in Genesis 1, but not in Genesis chapter 2), of  a new thing in the land. This new creation and the new thing in the land will be a woman will ‘turn back’,( surround, encompass, a man.

The newly created thing in the land is this: a woman will ‘turn back’,’ to cause to go around, to surround’ a man. Who is this woman? She is  the New Creation, the church, the Bride of Christ. We all are called upon to ‘turn around’ our thinking and the direction we are heading in, that is to repent, literally, “think differently afterwards’.

Testimony against Adam the man

Take note, the Hebrew text is not quiet on Adam and his culpability. The central figure in the Book of Job, considered to be the oldest book in the Bible, accuses the man, Adam, as responsible for what’s known as the ‘fall from grace’. Job’s accusation:  ‘Adam hid his sin in his bosom.

If I have covered my transgressions as Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom. Job 31: 33.

Whenever the man is mentioned the spotlight is turned up always depicting him as in a state of outright rebellion against the express command given by the Lord  God to him alone. Therefore both Jobs in the Old Testament and Paul in  Romans 5 in the New Testament lay the final blame five times fully on the man.

‘wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin’ (Rom 5: 12- 19).

Adam was expelled from the garden. There is no mention of Eve being expelled along with him.

[If anyone is arguing with you ask them to show you where it says Eve was expelled from the garden].

Eve and her daughters blamed

Alas! Throughout recorded history, the first woman and her daughters have carried the blame (E/n [vi]). The misogynist writings of men such as Aristotle, blame a woman for the ills of humankind. He and others like him spew out their hatred over their readers. If you have not read any I cannot emphasise the importance of you doing your own research on the web. Frankly, you will be shocked.

It cannot be emphasised enough how much is at stake for women to understand these early chapters of Genesis.  The perversion of these scriptures, in particular, destroys her rightful place as equal to the man and her spiritual status, decreed in Genesis 2, and finally her social status and what it signifies to the church in chapter 3.

Yet, God the Creator places upon her protection and honour, but knowing the end from the beginning, warns her of impending disaster.

Woman’s equal standing

Here in Genesis chapters 1-3 her equal standing before God is declared, her future secured, her accountability in the ‘fall’ is recorded for our learning.  It is high time women awakened out of their spiritual stupor and shake off the shackles and grasped hold of what belongs to us.

It is high time we took hold of our full freedom in Christ and share it with our sisters. Given what is at stake we must examine the blatant manipulation of the scriptures concerning the role and place of women in God’s great plan of salvation.

In Genesis chapter 3 the woman is named as the seed bearer from whose womb the Redeemer would come. What an honour! This glory God bestowed upon her is  seldom if ever mentioned in the church.

Yes, Eve was naive and was fully deceived, causing her to stagger, stumble, and to fall. Like a tree being blown down by the wind, she floundered and lurched from standing upright to finally staggering and coming to rest in a state of misperception rather than faith.

Faith acknowledges God’s Sovereignty

A double-mindedness ensued, one that arose from confusion and resulted in deception. Who is right and who is wrong? Will I or won’t I? What will I do? A double-mind brings with it instability in every decision.

Procrastination will also accompany such a state of mind. Often such people can’t express an opinion. They calculate between one goal and another. Faith is weakened. This kind of mind is a result of being torn between faithfully serving God and serving the world and money.

The litmus test is this: Jesus taught ‘if you do the doctrine, you shall know it. ‘Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise person who built their house on the rock’. (Mt 7: 24)

Eve, therefore, in her ignorance, carries the dishonour of having ‘fallen’. Adam on the other hand did not stumble, lurch or fall, neither was he pushed. A superficial reading of this scripture has had a negative impact on women and girls throughout the world.

It infers that a gender hierarchy is ordained by the Creator with Eve responsible for the fall. It also carries the false idea that through pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, and disciplined living, God has provided women’s salvation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What is known as the ‘curse of Eve’, has enabled men to create a  position and an agenda through which they promote themselves and put women down. That agenda springs from the false belief that they have been granted special privilege, God has decreed a lower social status for women with men having been given the right to subjugate them and regard them as mere chattels. Both created in the image of God, what kind of men I ask insist on women being less than themselves?

Paul does not teach that the men who teach this deception are themselves deceived; they certainly are not. They are in the same sin as Adam; they sin knowingly. They do not have the Spirit. In every generation, such men oppose the gifts of the Spirit given freely to women as to men.  They are anti-Christ.

Men that Love the Preeminence love authority teachings

It is paramount for a certain kind of man (and their deferential wives, both of whom love the pre-eminence (E/n [xii]) to have women in a subservient role.  They are misogynous.  They are determined to dominate the leading positions in church and society in every generation (E/n [xiii]).  All Christians need to understand the motivation behind the arguments put forward. With such privileged position and power no wonder we see so many fall from such lofty heights.

What kind of people are easily deceived?

Eve was naïve concerning God’s word. Such people are simplistic in their thinking. They are called ‘silly’ in some bible translations. Silly people are envious. They wander around like empty-headed simple doves. They are accused of being thoughtless and unreflective: foolish senseless and silly. Filthy silly jesting, course talk. The bible teaches have nothing to do with irreverent and silly myths.

Such people are open to wrong teachings, to remaining ignorant. The deception is the love of this world. Eve looked on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and thought it made one wise. Deceived people love to ponder the vain empty philosophies of this world.

‘For this sort are they which creep into houses and lead astray captive silly (weak) women laden with sins led away with different greeds and wants and desires (2 Timothy 3:6).

The ignorant, those lazy people, those not willing to do the work for themselves, they want to be spoon-fed, those are easily deceived. They have stopped thinking and reasoning. They love other people to take the responsibility for them. They especially are drawn toward organisations that lay down the law and all they have to do is follow it.

But we must beware of following the teachings of others and fail to seek truth for ourselves through obedience to the Word. We’re to try the (human) spirit, whether those teaching hold the kernel of the gospel: faith. In other words watch if whether what they teach is being lived out by them and even more importantly, is it working for you? (E/n  [xiv]).

If we do not undertake this exacting work for ourselves. if we disregard history, if we fail to develop our research skills particularly in the original languages, we remain in ignorance. If we are not living the Christian life by doing the doctrines of Christ; if we do not take courage and speak up when we need to defend ourselves and our weaker sisters; then we with them will be subject to abuse.

Jesus taught: know the scriptures, obey them so as to prove the doctrine. You can only prove if a teaching is true by doing it (E/n [xv]).

Eve was not an accomplice, Eve was not an accessory before or after the fact, and Eve was not the deceiver. The Serpent was. Eve was not rebellious. Adam was. Eve was however counted in the transgression.

In Eve’s defense, she is the example of one not knowingly practising deception, but rather as a victim of a debate (vain reasoning: philosophy). The philosophers are the debaters of this world’s religions (E/n [xvi]). Identified by the translators as her tempter, a walking talking serpent could be understood as the voice of reasoning in her own head. There is much written about this and I prefer to expound on it in my Commentary on Genesis Chapter 3.

Eve somehow got a notion of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as offering things that she could thereby gain wisdom. Eve was naïve. Eve was unlearned. Eve was gullible. Eve was deceived. Adam however, was not.

Adam was fully aware of what the word of God was and what the law was and what was required. Eve did not.  Eve ‘fell’ into transgression. Adam did not ‘fall, he was instead complicit in the coverup.

God’s Plan

But God had a plan whereby death came into the world by one man, the first Adam, (not born of a woman), and was overcome by another man, the Second Adam (born of a woman). Recovery was delivered by the second man. That human reversed the sentence of death. The salvation of the human race came by one man of Eve’s seed. A daughter of Eve was the bearer of truth by employing the law of faith: I believe therefore I speak.  That woman of faith gave birth to the second Adam, the one who brought truth and light and life into the world.

The other man or the second Adam came as a human and took upon himself human form, made of clay, born of a woman. Thus chapter 2 of Genesis illustrates the first and the second Adam. What the first humans undid through Eve’s naïveté and Adam’s disobedience, the second Adam, Jesus Christ, came, obeyed, and restored what was lost.

Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. Ps 85:10.

For further understanding of the false translation of words in the early chapters of Genesis affecting women’s full freedom in Christ subscribe to this website to receive notifications of posts.

God bless you

Patricia

 

 

 

ENDNOTES

[i] A hasty reading of the two references of Eve in the NT generally results in the reader feverishly delving into male-dominated ancient Christian commentaries and modern-day versions all saying the same thing about ideas on women’s place and role in society. These multi-layered complexities of woman derived from Eve are then compared alongside the reading of biased interpretation in almost every bible, available online along with very ancient and hundreds of years old misogynistic commentaries which is mainly where the negative ideas about Eve and women, in general, came from in the first place only contributing to this kind of superficial reading. It might be said all of these combined contributed to today’s negative image of Eve and women in general. Here are some other interpretations of Eve by four women scholars: I advise you to keep reading…keep learning… make up your own mind.   https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/four-female-viewpoints-on-eve/

[ii]  https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/four-female-viewpoints-on-eve/ .

There are some other ideas about Eve for you as a reader to ponder.

[iii] There is much dispute amongst scholars regarding the final acceptance of canon and I suggest you do your own research as this is not my subject here.

[iv] Mt 19:4-6; Mk 10:7; Eph 5:31.

[v] Australian statistics publish the following: female prisoners (in Australia) decreased 4% (131 prisoners) to 3,494 prisoners, while male prisoners increased by less than one percent (195 prisoners). On 30 June 2019, there were 43,028 prisoners in custody. Males continue to comprise the majority of the Australian prisoner population (92% of total prisoners). https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4517.0Main+Features12019?OpenDocument

[vi] This long history is recorded in the book ‘The War Against Women’ by the author, Marilyn French ISBN10 034538248X. This ‘war against women’ is now acknowledged by journalists who due to rape in war which is so prevalent today they claim it not only serves the lower appetite of combining violence with sex it ultimately serves to wipe out whole communities. Rape and ripping open pregnant mothers has always been where ever and whenever men wage war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izTzCv4480k

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-against-women/

[vii] Deception in the church Deception tag # Was it a snake? The snake represents myths associated with goddess worship and other religion in the world. Religion can be explained as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. BBC ‘religion’. The serpent: probably from Greek, optanomai, (through the idea of sharpness of vision); a snake, figuratively, (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person, (especially Satan – serpent).myth as shown when Paul was on the island of Malta Acts  28:3-4 ‘Paul gathered a bundle of sticks, and as he laid them on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself to his hand. When the islanders saw the creature hanging from his hand they said to one another “surely this man is a murderer although he was saved from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live”.

[viii]  Adam, it appears, was in a ‘not good’ state. Adam was going it alone. This state is revealed by his passivity in as much as he stood by and listened to the serpent relaying the word of God to him but in a twisted way (Gen 3:1-5). Thus, Adam lost his place in the garden and brought death to the world; “by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin”.

[ix] Deceived: Strongs #538 Gr. apataó: to deceive, using tactics like seduction, giving dis­torted impressions, etc. 538 /Gr. apatáō (“lure into deception”) emphasizes the means to bring in error (delusion). Gr. apaté: Strong’s #539: deceit. a false impression made to deceive or cheat – i.e. deceit motivated by guile and treachery (trickery, fraud). The same meaning of the word in the NT: it is used in relation to wealth, the deceitfulness of riches, desires : lusts of the flesh, vain empty teachings that do not deliver, lacking the love of the truth, the deceit of unrighteousness;  the deceit of sin.

[x] A more enlightened translation of this scripture is as follows: “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman made a mistake as she was beguiled, and she will be saved by means of the Birth of the Child if they continue to be trustworthy, loving and holy and have good sense” (The Source, 1 Timothy 2:13-15) Scripture taken from ‘The Source New Testament’. Copyright ã 2004 by Ann Nyland. Smith and Stirling Publishing. Available through this website – go to Menu: Bibliography

[xi] Strong’s https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_timothy/2-15.htm

[xii] The mistranslation of these early chapters of Genesis still holds true. It is commonly believed that God cursed Eve and woman in general by granting the man permission to ‘rule’ over her. It follows, therefore, that women have inherited Eve’s (supposed) weakness, which, when applied (incorrectly) is the reason women ought to cover their heads. It is believed that women are open to deception and vulnerable to evil spirits. As a result, women are cast into the role of weak and easily deceived, temptresses, a danger to men. Unlike the Muslims, who teach that women are ‘fitna’, ‘chaos’ and men must be protected from them, Christian women are viewed as passive bystanders. Patriarchal Christianity teaches Christian women to need a male to protect and cover them from the god of this world and his minions: all seemingly have greater spiritual power over women than men. Many false doctrines have been fabricated, the foundation stones of which are in these false interpretations that surround Eve. I suggest you read ‘The Freedom Papers’ RWVM.online, for more about false doctrines invented to keep women in their ‘place’. The last four hundred years through the modern missionary movement, to its detriment, has served to confirm fallen humanity in its degradation of women. The result is, the battle of the sexes continues up to this present day. Not only do we now realise these inaccuracies and grieve the history of women, but it raises the question – are not men sons of Eve also?

[xiii] Eve was warned by God that her ‘desire’, or, literally, ‘turning’, (Heb. ‘teshequa’)  would be ‘toward her husband’ as previously stated, and the consequence of this would be domination: he ‘shall rule over’ her. This is not an imperative, in that all husbands are commanded to rule over their wives, rather that, in her ‘turning’ away from God and looking to a man she forfeited her own authority and autonomy. She had forfeited her personal privilege and relinquished her authority to the man. The result is the same today. In turning from the Tree of Life, the Lord God as their Source of Life and supplier of all their needs, an infantile state of ignorance ensues. Eve repented. She could have stayed in the garden; instead, she chose to follow the man. I suggest for further study, you go to ‘Genesis Revisited’, a commentary on words wrongly translated.  The war against women in the Christian church and home rests on these and other wrongly translated words.

[xiv] Be mature, put to the test the human spirit of those teachers who twist Scripture.( Spirit: Strong’s #pneuma: wind. breath). Spirit can also mean ‘the rational spirit, the power by which a human feeling, thinks, wills, decides; the soul’.

[xv] The doctrine of women in submission to men and men as leaders and women follow is erroneous: it generates bullying, its practice stems from wrong motives. In some instances domestic violence results. It feeds the male-ego… Now, this war against women is out in the open and an indictable offence. This means the perpetrators are being publicly exposed, called out, and held accountably. Violence against children includes verbal and physical bullying in the home outside of it and online and includes older/ stronger siblings. 

[xvi] Gr. suzététés: a disputer Strong’s #4804.. a debater: one who delves into philosophical and religious matters, i.e. fiercely dialogues with others. Or, someone who “sounds off” to look important (“impressive”), especially on moot (uncertain) subjects and without objective basis. A sophist.

END