Towards a Biblical Masculinity (Part 1)
Genesis 3:1-6
(1) Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” (2) And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, (3) but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.”
(4) But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. (5) For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
(6) So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
The Fall is often blamed on Eve, who listened to the serpent’s lies and ate from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. Some feminists have argued this passage has been used to justify oppressive treatment of women in the church, and conclude that Christianity is misogynistic and abusive towards women. I would agree, but come to a different conclusion.
The passage has been misused, but it is because of a gross misunderstanding of the portrayed gender roles.
Eve most certainly sinned, but she was not alone:
“… and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.”
It was Adam whom God told not to eat from the Tree:
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat* of it you shall surely die.”
In fact, Eve had not even been created yet! The responsibility for leadership in their union was upon Adam. Eve demonstrated that she knew of God’s command when the serpent twisted her words, so Adam must have told her beforehand that they were not to eat from the tree. Thus she does indeed bear some responsibility.
But what about Adam? He was with her and said nothing. He passively stood by and did not interject to save their lives. He did not fight for her, for their marriage, or for God. This critical lack of leadership has served as an archetype of masculine failure throughout history; yet in today’s culture, it is accepted, encouraged, and set up as the norm.
That is the theological root of the issue. In this passage, we see a biblical root for the men’s issues discussed on this blog. I know that the vast majority of material to date has discussed the “problem” more than the “solution.” I’ve constantly expounded on what masculinity is NOT, yet have not introduced a helpful definition or theory of true masculinity.
Now that the context is established, I will next discuss Genesis 3: 20, where Adam gives Eve her name.
“but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat* of it you shall surely die.” -God
you notice here in this story there’s a lot of problems. Serpent saying it’s okay to eat from the tree… God saying it’s not and the penalty is death… what’s the deal? Here’s something to ponder… why did God lie? The serpent was right! They didn’t die like God said they would… what’s the deal? Why would GOD lie?
“He was with her and said nothing…” _Brad
excellent! Phyllis Trible would be proud. Check out her work “Genesis 2; Reread” it’s pretty much the foundation of great feminist exegesis. (not just feminist, just great exegesis in total).
Luke,
Really? God lied? In what way did they not experience death?
For more on this discussion, I recommend my paper On Sin and Its Nature on our resources page.
I echo Mike.
“excellent! Phyllis Trible would be proud.”
Good deal! Isn’t it interesting that this archetype of masculine failure has served as a pattern across history? I image the conclusions I draw will be significantly different from the feminist perspective… although I have been wrong in my assumptions before. We’ll see in the next installment!
Everyone,
Any other thoughts? Is this reading and understanding of Genesis new to anyone?
. “He did not fight for her, for their marriage, or for God. This critical lack of leadership has served as an archetype of masculine failure throughout history; yet in today’s culture, it is accepted, encouraged, and set up as the norm.”
Do you believe Genesis 3:1-6 teaches us that the husband is the head of the house?
Jeff,
It depends on what you mean by “head of the house.” I really hate how simplistic the conversation can be on that topic, and how uncareful we are with our wording.
My short answer is “yes,” but I have a lot to unpack. Men are called to “love their wives as Christ loved the church,” (Ephesians 5). This is a sacrificial and selfless love. In the same breath, Paul exhorts wives to “submit to [their] husbands.” The assumption here is that the submission is to a God-glorifying, Christlike leadership. As such, Husbands should be servant leaders. They should put their wives first, love them dearly as God loves them, and pursue that with reckless abandon. This relationship reflects the relationship Jesus has with the church.
I once heard a pastor say that, if you ever have to quote that verse to your wife (trying to convince her to submit), you’ve already failed miserably to be a servant. The love and grace we pour out on our wives should be all the convincing they need, to earn the trust of your leadership.
So when I say “yes” to your question, I’m not talking about the chauvinistic abuse that often comes with hijacking this passage for selfish purposes. I’m also not insinuating that women are incapable, and need leadership out of some deficiency. But (as a recurring theme on this blog) we are created different. Men and women both reflect the image of God, so they are equally valued. But because we are created different, we were intended to complement each other in our strengths and weaknesses. To ignore that does a huge disservice to this discussion as a whole, and devalues men and women significantly.
One of the highest complements I was EVER given was from my wife before we were married. We were talking about this subject and she told me that she would not only be comfortable submitting to my leadership, but she welcomed and looked forward to it. That responsibility is… it is both amazing and humbling. It makes me want to love her more and better… this cycle of love only builds upon itself, glorifies God, and is a beautiful snapshot of what it looks like to be in relationship with and submitting to our gracious God.
Hehe, is that a long enough answer?
Really? God lied? In what way did they not experience death?” -Mike
because the story doesn’t end, they’re kicked out of the garden, they do not die and are buried. a metaphoric death, sure. a literal death, no! so then (and this question requires much more thought), why did God lie?
“why did God lie?” (Luke)
I am not here to defend God - but are you sure God lied in this instance?
Adam and Eve do eventually die - outside the garden - a real, human death. In that sense alone, God did not actually lie to them.
Genesis 2:17
God only assures Adam ‘he will most definitely die’ if he eats from that tree - which does happen to him later on. The serpent re-ittirates this same claim in Genesis 3:3. There is not certainty of claim that once they eat the fruit they die immediately. At least, I can see that being debated pretty easily.
I thought when I first read your comment - did God lie in that passage? I tended to think you may be right - upon further thought - no - Adam and Eve both die - Genesis 5:5…well Eve is never mentioned in death to be honest.
Luke,
I agree with SocietyVs, but I will add another layer.
In Sex God, Rob Bell has a chapter called Animals and Angels where he looks at the biblical description of animals as purely physical, angels as purely spiritual, and humans as a unique blend of both. We are physical and spiritual beings.
SocietyVs spoke to the physical death Adam and Eve experienced, which they would not have experienced were they to remain in the Garden.
But there is intentional focus by the narrator on the intense separation that has occured between man and God and man and woman. This is empitomized in Genesis 3:12. This separation from God is spiritual death, a theme that echoes throughout the Bible and continues to impact the relationships we have with others.
So no, God didnt lie.
“This separation from God is spiritual death, a theme that echoes throughout the Bible and continues to impact the relationships we have with others.” (Mike)
I disagree with the spiritual death argument - since it makes no sense to me. I can agree on some type of intentional spiritual seperation from the actual presence of God - which is well known to humanity now - having never seen God.
Where I disagree is that we die spiritually - what does that even mean? What does it look like for a person’s spirit to be ‘dead’?
Reason I disagree is because as far as I can remember, even as a child, I had the ability to have ‘faith/belief’. Now if I was born into that position - there should be no way on earth I could have either faith in God as a child nor faith in my parents or what have you. That ability seems a part of the human experience to me - as much as choice is.
Also the passages do not mention a spiritual death at all - this is something not even hinted at…the fact being Adam dies and this seems to be the point of the ‘curse of death’ (it’s physical). If there was some spiritual death in the passage - then Adam and Eve and their children should have none of this faith thing going on…which we actually find in their children Cain and Abel.
I am not even sure where this spiritual death idea comes from - enlighten me Mike. I think you are getting a ‘being born of the spirit’ from Jesus’ words in John - but that’s not exactly death as much as it is being ‘born’. It’s not that we were dead before - but that we never were intact with God’s Spirit nor gave it much mind.
Brad,
Thank you for sharing. I agree with your take on leadership and submission. I might even go a bit further and say that Jesus taught that leadership and submission are synonymous.
His words, ”You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Where I am having difficulty, is that your interpretation of Genesis 3:1-6 seems to suggests that the husband is the head of the house (in a good way), because he has more revelation.
“It was Adam whom God told not to eat from the Tree . . . . The responsibility for leadership in their union was upon Adam.” God’s will had been revealed to Adam, therefore he is responsible for providing leadership in this relationship. Adam then revealed God’s will to Eve. “Eve demonstrated that she knew of God’s command when the serpent twisted her words, so Adam must have told her”
When a wife submits to the leadership of a husband is she acknowledging that he has more revelation?
This is beginning to remind me of Paul’s discussion in Romans of “1st the Jew, then the Gentile.” Indicating that God revealed his command to the Jew first. But then, Paul is quick to say “God does not play favorites.” (Romans 2:11) Paul also led the Galatians to believe that in Christ there is “no Jew or Gentile, male or female.”
After 20 years of marriage I must admit God has revealed things to me through my wife.
Failing to submit to God’s revelation can lead to disastrous results. It matters not who “led” us to the revelation.
My role as husband? Be faithful to the revelation.
Thanks again,
Jeff
ah, okay.. but notice how this is an attribute we have to apply, the story doesn’t come right out and say it either way. would they die in the garden? never says! it’s something have to put onto the story. God says death, but it’s not said if it’s immediate or a later death.
what i was getting at is, it’s all speculation.
Luke,
“the story doesn’t come right out and say it either way”
If that were true, then why would you come out and emphatically declare God a liar?
Comment #1 “Why would GOD lie?”
A hypothetical question to get to this main point. I have reasons for posing things the way I do.
Okay sometimes…
okay, rarely, but we covered this in Bible study before.
SocietyVs,
“Where I disagree is that we die spiritually - what does that even mean? What does it look like for a person’s spirit to be ‘dead’?”
I always love how honest your questions are! There are many areas that Christians can take for granted, and it is the questions that we ask that enable us to take our faith as our own. Those who never ask will never know.
I want to dig a bit deeper into where you are coming from on this. So let me ask, if there were not a corruption of the human spirit at Genesis 3, why would God seek to replace it with His own (Ezek. 36:25-27)? Wouldnt that lead us to believe something was wrong with the one we have, and that we needed another uncorrupted Spirit inside us?
Jeffodist,
I am gonna let Brad respond to your question, but I just wanted to say “hi.” It is always good to have you here.
I know this was directed at SVS, but ” So let me ask, if there were not a corruption of the human spirit at Genesis 3, why would God seek to replace it with His own ”
that would make God a crappy creator wouldn’t it? If God created something that didn’t go the way God wanted or fore-saw, then that makes God either not all-powerful or all-knowing. And what happened to the first chapter where God declared all things good?
I never understood this for the life of me.
“let me ask, if there were not a corruption of the human spirit at Genesis 3, why would God seek to replace it with His own (Ezek. 36:25-27)? ” (Mike)
How does He replace it with His own? There is no clear mention of that in that scripture? God may be the ultimate guider of the process for Israel in that passage - but something is required on their part - obedience to the asking. And some did not.
And again your throwing in a passage from Genesis and trying to cut n paste it with a scripture from the prophets. I commend you on that but still - it’s hundreds years removed from that incident in the garden - which it does not address squarely in any single passage. This goes back to the Torah more or less (yes, the Law). Ezekiel 36:32 - to the community in Israel (a warning).
I see no corruption of the human sprit - Ezekiel is a horrible passag to use as evidence.
Jeff,
“I might even go a bit further and say that Jesus taught that leadership and submission are synonymous.”
I love this! We cannot lead our wives if we are not actively, intentionally, and continually submitting to God, as well as submitting our selfish desires to the needs of our wives. Well said!
“When a wife submits to the leadership of a husband is she acknowledging that he has more revelation?”
That’s tricky… I don’t think so. Like you, God has spoken to me through my wife on countless occasions. The revelation is not the authority/rubberstamp that gives husbands leadership responsibility, it is God’s decree. When he created Eve, his intend was to give him a “helper suitable” (Gen 2:18). The primary responsibility for stewardship was given to Adam, and Eve was given the support role to complement him.
Sarah Edwards, the wife of renown theologian Jonathan Edwards, was said to have some incredibly intense spiritual experiences. Jonathan wrote about them only sparingly, but he was continually in awe of the depth and personal nature of these experiences. Jonathan was brilliant, he had a deep understanding of God’s grace, and had a “God-entranced vision of all things” (his term describing the life of a Christian). But he never had the kind of spiritual experiences and revelations that Sarah had. Nevertheless, Sarah’s loving support of her husband enabled him to write some of the most church-shaping and world-rocking books this world has seen. The siritual experiences/reveations she had encouraged and strengthened her for this calling. As a result, we will be benefiting from his work for centuries to come. In Sarah’s diary, she reflected on the importance of that support, realizing that her role was at least as important as her husband’s. We have her to thank as much as her husband for their contributions.
Absolutely equal in value, complementary in function.
sometimes reading this blog makes me feel better about my life, because I remember that us self-proclaimed !!ARTISTS!! are not the only ones who can ramble on and on incoherently.
And I mean that in the nicest way possible. We’re compatriots. You all in your dedication to your spiritual journey through Christianity, me in my spiritual journey through art.
Having said that, I think it’s impossible to really know what God is thinking or intended. Here is God. Here is God’s word. Here is the flawed language in which it is communicated. Here is the human ear/eye. Here is the human MIND (THE HUMAN MIND!!!). Here is the impulse to respond. Here is/are the human mouth/fingers. Here is the medium through which the information travels. Here is the reader/listener. And so on.
In this discussion, I think people struggle against the impossibility of their desires, instincts and impulses, which is not to say the discussion or journey is futile.
I do the same thing with art.
Kyle,
Hah! You thought you cornered the market, did ya? Believe it or not, we’re fairly mild in comparison to some of our peers (my opinion anyway). This is why we have Jim on our team. You should see what our posts look like BEFORE he has had a chance to edit them… You think this is incoherent? Heh.
“Having said that, I think it’s impossible to really know what God is thinking or intended. ”
I would agree that it is impossible to know EVERYTHING God is thinking or intended. Augustine coined a phrase that (while intended doctrinally) I think also applies to the knowability of God: “In essentials, Unity. In non-essentials, Liberty. In all things, Charity.” There are some things that God lays out plainly, some that could be interpreted multiple ways, and other things that are pure speculation.
The assumption here is that there is some basic agreement on who God is. Christians (based on various ”clues” to God) take it on an act of faith that the Bible is God’s word. Others disagree based on their observable evidence, but the discussion and the journey for all of us is every bit a lifelong act of faith. We all have faith, we just disagree on what to put it in.
“In this discussion, I think people struggle against the impossibility of their desires, instincts and impulses, which is not to say the discussion or journey is futile.”
I love how you word that. If it were something merely easy or simple, then it would also be shallow and meaningless. Concepts such as this are both simple and easy in concept, but insanely deep and intricate at closer inspection.
And here I go proving your first point…
It took me a while, but I am gonna respond to Luke (#16) and SocietyVs (#17) in one full swoop.
“This goes back to the Torah more or less (yes, the Law). Ezekiel 36:32 - to the community in Israel (a warning). ”
I may have misunderstood, but it looks like you just divorced Genesis from Torah, and that is a big no-no. Torah makes no sense with Genesis removed, and this leads us into Luke’s comment:
“And what happened to the first chapter where God declared all things good? I never understood this for the life of me.”
Genesis begins with God creating everything (ch 1). This communicates to the audience that their personal God, YHWH, is not only God over them (as might be perceived in a polytheistic culture) but God over everyone on the planet. In essence, YHWH is a one-stop God-shop.
Genesis 2 zooms in on the 6th day and shows the intimate relationship that Adam and Eve had with God, and how every aspect of their being was intended for each other and for God.
So Luke’s ultimate question, and the one the Jews would have been asking is “It isnt today like it was described in Genesis 2! What happened?” The answer of course is Genesis 3.
I would refer you back to my paper Notes on Sin and its Nature to see the inner workings of what happens on a personal level with the sin introduced in chapter 3, but I am gonna zero in on Luke’s question and show how it pertains to SocietyVs point.
Everything that we were intended to be, body, soul and spirit, as indicated by chapter 2, gets broken in chapter 3. The rest of Hebrew scripture (of which I would include the New Testament) is a description of God’s fixing what we broke. So yes, I feel that Ezekiel 36:25-27 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 are quite appropriate in relation to the Genesis 3 material.
Now Luke is worried about what the brokenness of our world implies about our creator. It is probably not enough to say that in the eyes of the narrator (of every book, not just Torah) God comes away from the story as the hero, not an inept creator and not a devious perpetrator. On the contrary, why would God tell Adam to protect (the word is “keep,” but it is the same word in Hebrew as “protect.” Think in relation to the keep of a castle) the garden in Gen 2:15 if He didnt want them to defend themselves against the wiles of Satan? He gave Adam His crystal clear command, and as Brad pointed out, not only did Adam allow that to get transmitted poorly, he also allowed the conversation to happen! Why would that be God’s fault?
The amazing thing is that even though God had every right to be done with us, to wipe his hands clean and walk away, He continues to work on our behalf. He made all the preparations, working intricately in time and space, to send His own son to restore every aspect of who we are, body, soul and spirit.
Mike,
I have no problem with “you will surely die” because lo and behold Adam and Eve are no longer alive, therefore they must have died. If they stayed in the garden without eating the fruit they would not have died.
My problem is, what do you do with the treatment of women in the OT? God wrote the laws that seem to indicate very clearly that men are of greater value then women. Wonen are treated as property and of equal value to livestock. Can anyone answer why this would be? Please don’t tell me it was cultural. God is beyond cultural limitations.
Rover,
First, can you give some examples? Let’s root this in something a little more concrete.
Generally, I won’t offer the “Cultural Copout” and dismiss that textual problem. To our perspective and cultural understanding, there may be real discrepancies. But it is also important to remember that for the time period(s) this text was written, women had SIGNIFICANTLY more rights than neighboring cultures. If anything, the OT was counter-cultural. The sheer fact that women were said to also bear the image of God is a MASSIVE statement of equality, one that has only truly been embraced/mirrored/followed in the last few decades of modern history (i.e. suffragist movements, civil rights movements).
But again, give us an example or two to root this conversation in. Otherwise, we’ll just fly all over the place.
Mike.. that’s a lot of eisegesis going on there… “Genesis 2 zooms in on the 6th day and shows the intimate relationship that Adam and Eve had with God, and how every aspect of their being was intended for each other and for God.”
but it isn’t.. the order is wrong and Gen. 2 comes from a completely different writer and tradition than Gen 1.
From Wiki:
There are two orders of events given which are contradictory. The earlier version appears in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 and key items follow this order of creation:
plants;
marine animals, birds;
land animals;
humans (man and woman together) (Genesis 1:20 – 27).
The second account begins with Genesis 2:4 wherein key items of creation appear in this order:
man (not woman);
plants;
land animals and birds (marine animals are omitted but omission is not a contradiction and the order of birds and beasts is not stated as being on separate days unlike chapter 1);
and, when no “help meet for him” is found, woman (Genesis 2:7, 9, 18 – 22).[9]
As for satan, where is satan? No where in this story to i see satan! Satan doesn’t appear until Job, written much later and even then it’s a title, ha-satan “the accuser” in court, NOT the devil: evil.
so in no way can i accept your claim that “Genesis 2 zooms in on the 6th day .”
another note, the Rabbis have been exegete’n this story for centuries before the christians, so how have they read it? One, God is all knowing, so when God asks where Adam and Eve are in the garden, that was a rhetorical question… namely a question Adam had to think about as God already knew. Two: God created the earth exactly as intended, but couldn’t send two humans out into the world unawares. They didn’t have parents to teach them nor could God teach them everything as it would imfringe on their free will. What God did though was create a test (the tree) and see how long they took to pass (eat the fruit) and when they did, they would be ready to go out into the “real world.” This is where the writers of the Matrix got their idea for Neo’s “Construct” metaphor.
my sources are the Babylonian Talmud, The Book of Legends, and THE TORAH, a Modern Commentary. It isn’t until the late 200s early 300s do we get any exegesis saying that this is about “sin” and “the fall.” I have read this exegesis and see its merit and some what agree with it. I don’t see it here in how you’ve laid it out.
Luke,
Your basis for calling Mike’s analysis eisegesis is wikipedia??? Seriously? Your answer assumes (or at least reflects) the documentary hypothesis, of which there are MANY examples of eisegesis…. not to mention that the whole foundation for the documentary hypothesis is speculation drawn from the assumption that the Torah’s own claims of (mostly) unified authorship are wrong. I mean no disrespect, but seriously, Luke? You just cut your own argument out from underneath itself!
Also, many of your challenges would be answered if you just clicked over to the resource page and checked out Mike’s discussion of Sin and It’s Nature. He’s hashed this all out before.
Luke,
“my sources are the Babylonian Talmud, The Book of Legends, and THE TORAH, a Modern Commentary. It isn’t until the late 200s early 300s do we get any exegesis saying that this is about “sin” and “the fall.””
I am curious when you think the Babylonian Talmud was written. Because it seems as though you are saying that the interpretations you have quoted, presumably from Talmud, are older than the stuff from “the late 200s early 300s.”
As for your question about the Genesis accounts, check out Gordon Wenham, Chris Wright, and my favorite C. John Collins. But since you and SocietyVs have a preference of Jewish scholars in many of these matters, why not look at Nahum Sarna’s commentary on Genesis published by the Jewish Publication Society. I have it in my library and refer to it often, and he agrees with everything I asserted above.
“Your basis for calling Mike’s analysis eisegesis is wikipedia??? Seriously? ” -Brad
i wouldn’t have used it if it was wrong, it’s not, check the order… i could have written out the order using the bible, but decided to cut and paste as the orders correspond and one must cite something at all times (MLA ya’ know).
“Also, many of your challenges would be answered if you just clicked over to the resource page and checked out Mike’s discussion of Sin and It’s Nature.” -Brad
I take no issue with that paper, it’s Mike’s claim that the serpent was Satan that i claim is inncorrect as well as his claim that Gen 2 is a “focus” on the 7th day. I’ve read Plantinga’s “Breivity of Sin” and found that an adequate resource and takes a similar stand that Mike has WITHOUT reading backwards in scripture and cutting and pasting to make his hypothesis work
“When was the Bab. Talmud written?” -Mike
The Talmud Bavli was transmitted orally for centuries prior to its compilation by Jewish scholars in Babylon about the 5th century AD; however, we have scholarship dating back to 400 B.C.E. coming from Babylon that supports my argument.
As for Nahum Sarna’s work, he was taken back to theology 101 with Ava Zornberg’s “The Beginning of Desire” which covers Genesis in full detail.
Another note: What we’re argue’n over essentially is interpretation. I tend to be a tad literalist when it comes to Gen. 1-3 and stick to the narrative the scriptures contain. so if the story says “serpent” i don’t assume “Satan.” That’s not saying that I don’t assume, I assume the doc. hypothesis as all peer reviewed scholarship does among critical seminaries… i guess it’s my mistake assuming that Covenant is one of them.
Brad,
Here are some of the rights that women had in the OT.
A female captive in war was forced to be an Israelite man’s wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If a virgin who was pledged to be married was raped, she was to be stoned along with her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), while if a virgin who was not pledged to be married was raped, she was supposed to marry her attacker (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
Exodus 21:2-4: “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing….If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.” A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement,
Exodus 21:7: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.” A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has given birth to a boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl, the mother is unclean for 14 days. “If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days…But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks…” It would appear that the act of having a baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is twice as polluting as is giving birth to a boy.
Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.”
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away. There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an affair with another woman.
Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs the other man’s testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other man. “When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets. Then thou shalt cut off her hand…“
Luke,
1.) The serpent- Mike isn’t reading back into it anymore than the Bible itself is: Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2.
2.) “Another note: What we’re argue’n over essentially is interpretation.” Absolutely, but then you have to cede that the sword of “critical scholarship” cuts both ways. There are definite benefits from the work of the documentary hypothesis, but it is one of the most difficult to justify or prove. Cassuto and Whybray have done some amazing work to that end, and show that a “mostly-single” authorship is more likely in light of the internal evidence of the text.
3.) “i guess it’s my mistake assuming that Covenant is one of them.” Come now… Must we resort to vague insults? All I did was disagree with your explanation of