The Mother of All Living Sermons

I would like to start with a prayer request. I’m not a fan of the unspoken prayer request, but I imagine the person involved in the prayer request would not appreciate strangers knowing about her business, so I will not name any names. Please pray for a friend from quizzing. When I first met her, she was a bright and bubbly Christian. In fact, she joined quizzing because she just wanted to get to know better her Lord and Savior, who she loved so much. The only problem, however, is that her Christian fellowship was a Christian fellowship that thought to hold to certain religious beliefs, you had to hold certain political beliefs, and no true Christian would hold to any political beliefs contrary to what this Christian fellowship believed, which was simply not true. She too did indeed know it was simply not true. Not only did see conflicts between their political beliefs and their religious beliefs, she saw how her differing political views actually correlated better with her religious views, but her Christian fellowship refused to listen. Nevertheless, she sought out a group of friends who would encourage and support her political stances. Unfortunately, this group of friends further verified that indeed her political stances did contradict her religious stances (again, not true), but her political views were correct, and her religious views were incorrect, so she had to abandon her religion to hold stronger to politics. At worst, I worry she’s falling away from the faith, and at least, she’s stunting her spiritual growth. Please pray for my quizzing sister in Christ, that Jesus will keep her strong, that she may be a witness to both her Christian fellowship and her friends, and that I may know how to counsel her through this rough time.

So far, my witness to her is to converse with her on the lies the group of friends have fed her, and one sticks out as peculiar, which fits well into a Mother’s Day sermon. One of the lies told by her friends is that the Bible is misogynist. Merriam-Webster defines misogyny simply as “the hatred of women.” Therefore, a misogynist hates women. Thus, to call the Bible misogynist is to say the Bible hates women. Yes, this is what her friends have claimed about the Bible: The Bible hates women. According to them, at best, the Bible treats women like second-class citizens, at worst, the Bible treats women like slaves, property to be bought, sold, and traded, so why would any self-respecting woman read the Bible? It would not surprise if so many Christian, both brothers and sisters in Christ, have heard this argument. So, while the best thing to do is pray for my quizzing sister in Christ, the next best thing to do is talk about how you can combat this lie.

Of course, there are some easy, low-hanging fruits we can go to for easy retorts. Turn to the book of Judges, turn to the fourth chapter, and read about Deborah, a prophetess, or a female prophet, who takes reign of the army of Israel when Barak refuses to do so, and she leads Israel to victory of Canaan. Turn to the book of Esther and read how the Jewish girl Hadassah becomes Esther queen of Persia, and she uses whatever little power she has to save her people from genocide across the empire. These women are hardly second-class citizens or slaves. If this is too Old Testament for you, the New Testament has lesser known but more important examples. Turn to Romans 16:1 and read how Phoebe was a deaconess. Yes, I know that can translate into “servant,” but the Greek term διάκονος (diakonos) is literally where the English word “deacon” come from, so I will be brave to enough to say, I think English Bible translations who translate it into “servant” instead of “deacon” do so to avoid alienation from the churches who have a hard stance against women leadership in church. Turn to Colossians 4:15 and read how Nympha had a church meet in her house. Yes, while “church in her house” can simply just mean she hosted a church, a lot of scholars now agree a person hosted a church because that person led the church (cf. Acts 16:15&40). Both the Old Testament and the New Testament praise women in leadership, which highly contests the notion that the Bible makes women second-class citizens or slaves.

Of course, like I’ve said, that’s easy, low-hanging fruit. Graham doesn’t do easy, low-hanging fruit; Graham does hard, high-hanging fruit. What is the high-hanging fruit of this topic? Let’s a pick a woman from the Bible that opponents of the Bible would use to prove that the Bible is misogynist. What a better character than Eve! How fitting for Mother’s Day, for the name Eve means “mother of all living,” so she everybody’s mother. I have heard some wild accusations of the Bible about Eve, and maybe you’ve even heard crazy ones yourself. Some say, “Eve is created second, making her secondary to man!” Others will say, “Eve is created differently, making Eve a lesser human!” Still other will complain, “Eve is blamed for the fall of man, and Eve is punished unreasonably harshly.” Those who oppose the Bible with these comments truly have never read the Bible themselves, for those who have read the Bible should see that, not only are all these statements false, but the Bible goes out of its way to teach the opposite.

 

Without further ado, please turn to the book of Genesis. As you turn there (like it would take anyone a long time, unless your Bible has a massive introduction and/or preface), let me point out that, from the onset, since an account of woman’s creation even exists in the Bible, the Bible cannot be misogynist. Comparing the Bible with ancient creation myths around the world will reveal the Bible is in the minority just solely in the fact it records the how woman became living human. A majority of ancient creation myths do not record any story about the creation of the woman; only a minority of the ancient creation myths do. Some have tried to justify this by declaring that the creation of woman is assumed alongside the creation of man, but others rightfully state that the ancient creation myths without retelling the creation of women subtly hint that the world has no need for women.

 

The minority of ancient creation myths that do mention the creation of women have a habit of putting the creation of women in a negative light. For example, look no further than the famous Greek myth of Pandora’s Box. According to the Ancient Greeks, the myth takes place during the Golden Age, when there were just men (and no women), when technology rapidly advanced, when no man had any want or need because man shared all resources equally, and man had no enemies or foes…except Zeus. See, with the help of Prometheus, the Greek titan Zeus assigned to creating men, men had tricked Zeus into accepting offering of bones instead of the fat of the meats, and men had stolen fire, sacred to the gods. Now Zeus had already punished Prometheus by chaining him to a mountain and having an eagle eat his liver daily. As for man, however, Zeus thought man had it going too well, so he wanted unleash sorrow and suffering onto them. Fortunately, he had a jar (yes, you heard me right: jar. Apparently, Erasmus mistranslated it during medieval times, and nobody ever bothered to correct him. Since, however, everybody is used to calling it a box, I will continue to call it a box.) that held sorrows and suffering. Unfortunately, Zeus could not open it on man, or else the suffering and sorrows would come back on him. Furthermore, men were on edge because Prometheus warned them not to take anything from Zeus, so men could not easily be tricked. Therefore, Zeus decided to try creating a human himself, and this human would become the first women. Zeus got all the gods involved. For example. Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, to make her beautiful. As another example, Hermes, the messenger god, taught her an eloquent tongue to speak well. Hence, her name was Pandora, meaning “all endowed” or “all gifted.” Finally, Zeus gave her 2 gifts: the gift of curiosity and the gift of the box full of sorrows and suffering. Zeus told Pandora, “Don’t open the box, for no mortal should look on it,” conveniently leaving out what is in the box. Well, a box with unknown contents and a curious woman are a bad combination, and it is only a matter of time before Pandora opens the box and unleashes the curse of sorrows and suffering on man. The moral of the story seems to be, “Darn those women and their curiosity! If it wasn’t for woman’s curiosity, humanity would be cursed with suffering!” Now at this point, one may think, “Well, that may explain why women suffer, but it does not explain the suffering of men because a woman opened the box, not a man.” That’s right! What you heard was the more famous, rated G version of the story. There’s an alternative, rated R, version of the story in which Pandora says to men, “Hey, if you can open this jar for me (maybe this is where the stereotype of the woman not able to open the pickle jar comes from), I’ll do anything with you,” to which the men say, “Anything?” and Pandora replies, “Anything!” Yes, that’s exactly what you think it means. This is worse! At least with the former legend, curiosity just got the best of Pandora. In this myth, Pandora actively seduces man to bring curses upon humanity. The clear moral of this story is, “Beware of women! They will use the sexuality to seduce you and to curse you, which will always bring sorrow and suffering!” Now the reason for man’s suffering falls less on the contents of the box/jar and more on the woman herself. Why do men seek to become richer, so much so that they will make other men poor in the process? To impress women, of course! Why do men seek to become the most powerful kings and emperors, to the point of enslaving other men? So, they can marry any woman they want, of course! Now that’s a sexist and misogynist origin story! As stated earlier, and pointed out now, many ancient myths do not mention the creation of the woman, and those that do, a lot of them mention the creation of woman as a negative thing. The Bible, however, does mention the creation of the woman, and as will be drawn out soon, the Bible puts the creation of woman in a positive light.

Let’s dive into the actual text. The meat of the text will come from Genesis 2, but the trip to Genesis 2 requires a pitstop in Genesis. For those unfamiliar with the book of Genesis, Genesis has 2 creations accounts. Commentators have different explanations on why, with some more blasphemous or heretical others. Personally, I believe Genesis records 2 different creation narratives because it tells the same story from different perspectives. Genesis 1 talks about the creation from God’s point of view, as God lays out an organized plan to bring order to the chaos. Genesis 2 tells the creation story from the human’s point of view, as God creates the perfect habitat around man. Since Genesis 2 comes from the human’s point of view, most of the theology about woman will come from Genesis 2, but Genesis 1 does have an important fact worth noting.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ~Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

While so much can come out from this verse, pertinent to this study, three words need extra highlighting. The “man” in “So God created man in his own image” is the Hebrew term אָדָם (adam). Now the “man” here in אָדָם (adam) is short for “human,” which is short for “human being.” The last line of the verse states that God created them זָכָר (zāḵār) and נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh). Most, if not all, Bibles translate the two Hebrew words as “male” and “female,” and rightfully so. Unfortunately, some people living in the 21^st century insist that that gender and sex are not interchangeable, and they also insist that gender is a social construct (which I actually understand to extent). Therefore, I must state this bluntly: a זָכָר (zāḵār) has a penis, and a נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh) has a vagina. For proof, look further than a few chapters later. In Genesis 6&7, the Lord commands Noah to bring animals in the ark, זָכָר (zāḵār) and נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh), with the clear intentions for them to multiply and fill the earth after the flood. There is no way around it and for good reason. In this one little verse in Genesis 1:27, God warns the reader, “Alright, when you go into the next chapter, you will discover that I created the woman after the man, and you will also find out that I created the woman in a different manner. This does not make her more or less in the image of God. The woman is equally made in the image of God.” Thus, the theology taught about the woman from Genesis 1:27 is that the woman was equally made in the image of God. Now let’s advance to meat of the creation story of the woman.

Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. ~Genesis 2:19&20 (ESV)

Although the text does not paint the most vivid picture, it has enough description to imagine what happened here. (Disclaimer: what you read in the remainder of the paragraph consists of nothing original, as the rest of the paragraph contains bits and pieces I have picked up from pastors and comedians alike.) The Lord says to Adam, “Okay, here’s the deal, I’m going to bring these animals to you one by one, and whatever you want to name them, that’s its name. Seriously, the first thing that comes to your mind, that’s its name.” Adam responds, “Okay, no problem, I got this.” God brings in the first in the first animal, “Alright, Adam, I got this animal. It's one of the larger animals. It’s gray. It’s got a big jaw. It likes being in the water. What are we calling it?” Adam announces, “Hippopotamus!” Picture a stenographer angel off to the side, asking “How do you want me to spell that?” The Lord tells the angel, “Oh, just sound it out.” Then God turns to Adam and says, “Okay, I’m bringing in the next animal. This animal is also one of the large ones, and it’s gray, too. This one, however, has a horn. What’s its name?” Adam is now starting to get in the groove, and he declares, “Rhinoceros!” The poor stenographer angel is mumbling under his breath, “Wow, seriously, where did he get this guy?” Unfortunately, as time passes, and as the animals get smaller, Adam is getting tired, and not one creative idea is left. “Alright, Adam,” the Lord tells Adam, “Here’s the next one. What its name?” Adam replies, “Dog?” God is like, “Hey, that’s just my name backwards…never mind, whatever, here’s the next one, Adam. What’s its name?” Adam sighs and states its name, “Cat?” God is like, “Oh, hey, wait, I didn’t make one of those…” (Just joking! Just kidding! Just playing! I own a cat, and I love my cat!) If you think that’s bad, it got worse when it came time to name insects! The Lord asks Adam, “Hey Adam, what are we calling that insect hopping along the grass?” Adam takes a big sigh and announces, “Grasshopper.” God proceeds, “Okay…well, what are we naming that insect flying around that animal you named a horse?” Adam takes a deeper sigher and declares, “Horsefly.” At this point, the Lord probably told Adam, “Let’s take a break, before you name all the fishes swims…”

In all seriousness, though, something has to be going on here, for the naming of animals interrupts the creation of the woman. Imagine that the Lord is not merely brining Adam the animals to name one by one, but rather, picture God bring Adam the animals two by two. Not only does Adam name the animal species, but he also gives names to both the males and the females. (I apologize in advance, for I am neither a zoologist nor a farmer, so I will probably butcher this, but you should still understand the illustration.) Imagine Adam saying, “Alright, this animal species we shall call a horse, which the males we will call stallions, and the females we will call mares.” Picture Adam stating, “This animal we will name bovine, which we will name the males bulls and the females cows.” Imagine Adam announcing, “This animal species we shall call pig, which the males we will call boars, and the females sows.” Picture Adam declaring, “The animal we will name a chicken, which the males will be named roosters, and the females hens.” As Adam goes through the process, he comes to a realization. He must have realized, “I’m a אָדָם (adam), or a human being, and the זָכָר (zāḵār)/male human is a אִישׁ (ʾîš), then where is the נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh)/female human being?”

All of a sudden, Adam becomes sad. All of a sudden, the reader (and maybe the original audience of the Israelites? And maybe the angels watching Yahweh create?) panics! In Genesis 1, with every day of creation, God announces the day’s creation was טוֹב (tov), or “good.” In fact, when the Lord overlooks everything that he created, he declares the creation ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד (tov meod), or “very good.” For the first time in the Scriptures, located right in Genesis 2:18, the Lord has to state that something as לֹא־ט֛וֹב (lo-tov), or “not good,” and it’s the fact the man is alone. How can the very good creation, the perfect habitat for humanity, have something that is not good? Indeed, a good reason to panic! Before anyone can panic, God makes known that he has a plan.

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ~Genesis 2:18 (ESV)

In the Hebrew, Yahweh announces that he will make a עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (ʿēzěr k^eněḡěḏo) for man. Depending on your English Bible translation, the עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (ʿēzěr k^eněḡěḏo)  will translate into “helper suitable for him” (NASB), “helper fit for him” (ESV & RSV), “help meet for him” (KJV), “helper comparable to him” (NKJV), “helper as his complement” (CSB), “helper as his partner” (NRSV), “helper suitable for him” (NIV, both 1984 and 2011 editions) or “helper who is just right for him” (NLT). The כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (k^eněḡěḏo) part literally translate into “like what is in front of him.” Most commentators equate this to mean “corresponding to him” or “alongside him,” but I would even equate it to mean “equal to him” or “similar to him.” More interesting, however, is the עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr). From the root עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) comes the name Ezra, but most often עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) does not refer to a human, but it refers to the Lord himself! In Exodus 18:4, when Moses recognizes how God freed the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery, Moses calls Yahweh an עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr). David names the Lord an עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) whenever David escapes from his enemies or wins victoriously over his enemies (see Psalms 20:2, 70:5, 89:19, 121:1&2, 124:8 and 146:5). Between Moses and David, the common denominator lies within the fact that God has brought salvation or deliverance, thus making Yahweh a savior or deliver. This makes sense because the verb form of עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) is עָזַר (ʿāzar). The verb עָזַר (ʿāzar) means “to deliver from death” or “to save from danger.” Therefore, עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) could translate “savior.” Thus, the Lord declares here that he will make “a savior equal to him.”

My sisters in Christ, especially the wives and mothers out there, I am going to give you some fuel to the fire on this Mother’s Day. I imagine as the good Christian couples you are, you two don’t get into any fights, or arguments, or even debates 😉. You just sometimes get into some “intense discussions” 😉. Ladies, next time you find yourself in one of these “intense discussions” with your boyfriend, fiancé, or husband, if he starts getting a little mouthy with you, you snap back and say, “Hey! Remember I am your savior! There you were in your singleness! You were eating canned food and frozen meals because you couldn’t cook. Your living quarters were a pigsty! Your fashion sense so out of whack it was embarrassing to just stand around you! You had to get down on one knee and beg me to marry you, and you even had to bribe me with a diamond ring! You do not talk to your savior like that!” Now my brothers in Christ, I can imagine what you’re thinking. You are probably thinking to yourself, “Well, my girlfriend/fiancée/wife is not the perfectly sinless Son of God like my true savior is.” That’s true, you’re right, your girlfriend/fiancée/wife is not the perfectly sinless Son of God (sorry, ladies, you’re not getting away with that, even on Mother’s Day). I would also imagine, however, that Christ’s will for your life is not always how you wanted to go. I imagine you may have vented your frustration to Jesus. After all, if prayer is simply communicating with God, you may have prayed or communicated with God your frustrations. In venting your frustrations, however, you probably never used foul language, you probably never name called, you probably never used put downs or talked down, you probably never resorted to logical fallacies. In the same way, your girlfriend/fiancée/wife does not deserve foul language, name calling, put downs, belittling or logical fallacies in your “intense discussion.” If anybody gets anything out of this point, remember God created the woman to be your savior, so boyfriends and husbands, thank your girlfriend or wife for something that she saved you from, whether that be from loneliness, failure, lack, processed meals, a dirty home, or an out of whack fashion sense.

 

²¹ So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. ²² And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. ²³ Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” ²⁴ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ²⁵ And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. ~Genesis 2:21-25 (ESV)

According to Genesis 2:21 in the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh created the woman by taking man’s צֵלָע (ṣēlāʿ), which better translates into “side.” Quite possibly, somewhere along the translation line, somebody saw that the Hebrew manuscript said “side,” looked at the human anatomy, wonder to himself, “Now what side organ could the Lord have used to create the woman?” and from that he somehow concluded “rib,” which tradition just stuck with, even until now. Personally, I like to think this is the first recorded kidney transplant. I know some Christians still refuse organ transplants, claiming an organ transplant runs contrary to the Christian faith, but such an argument falls flat when God himself performs an organ transplant. Ultimately, the argument over which organ Yahweh used has no importance, for the symbolism carries the significance of the Lord making the woman out of the man’s side. Now I am going to do something I don’t quite often do: quote Matthew Henry. See, Matthew Henry is like a Nintendo 64: it was really great in its date, but now, it’s incredibly out of date and looks bad. This quote from Matthew Henry, however, has aged quite gracefully. In his commentary on Genesis 2:21-25, Matthew Henry comments, “the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” Everybody can let out an “aww” right now. Cuteness aside, Matthew Henry hits on an important part. Even the body part the Lord chose to make the woman out of reflects the woman’s equal status to man.

 

Matthew Henry

Genesis 2:22 records that God brought the woman to the man, just like he did with the animals. The text invites the reader to imagine Yahweh approaching the just awoken Adam, saying in a sing-song voice, “Oh Adam, I have someone else for you to name…” and Adam begins, “Oh come on, Lord, I just woke up, can’t you give me just a bit more time, I just need…” but then Adam sees God’s newest creation and says, “Woah man!” Yes, I couldn’t resist, but there’s a point to that, which will become apparent soon.

At this point in Genesis 2:23, the narrative prose stops and poetry begins. The shift in writing style probably intended to highlight the creation of the woman. The first word to come out of Adam’s mouth is הַפַּ֗עַם (hapǎǎm), or “at last” or “finally,” pointing back to conflict of Adam not finding his equivalent when naming the animals. Adam’s first comments observe how the woman has the bone and flesh and he does. On the surface level, by doing so, Adam observes that Yahweh has made the woman out of the same stuff as him, which already makes her his equal. This is why I included Genesis 2:25 as part of the Scripture. Because both are naked, Adam can clearly see different body parts, yet he states she is made of the same stuff. In Hebrew poetry, however, bones typically symbolize strength, and flesh typically symbolize weakness. Therefore, Adam’s comments observe how the woman shares in the same strengths and weaknesses as he does, further emphasizing the equality. Even more to the point, the ancient Hebrews used the phrase “my own flesh and bones” like modern English-speakers say, “my own flesh and blood.” The saying emphasizes a relationship, even more further highlighting equality.

To cap everything off, Adam names the Lord’s newest creation “woman,” or in the Hebrew text אִשָּׁה (ʾiššā). The Hebrew term for “man” (as in male human) is אִישׁ (ʾīš), and now the Hebrew word for “woman” (as in female human) is אִשָּׁה (ʾiššā). Even without knowing the Hebrew language, anybody can see the terms are remarkably similar, almost the exact same word, with the exception of the extra letter in the end. In fact, this will become a pattern in the Hebrew language, for most, if not all, of the female animal names will simply be the male animal names with a hey at the end. For example, for horses, the male stallion Hebrew is סוּס (sûs), and the female mare is סוּסָה (sûsāh). Even in the naming of the woman reflects the similarity of the woman to the man, almost the same, which displays her equality.

 

¹⁴ The Lord God said to the serpent,

       “Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

       on your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

¹⁵    I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

       he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.”

¹⁶ To the woman he said,

       “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;

in pain you shall bring forth children.

       Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,

but he shall rule over you.”

¹⁷ And to Adam he said,

       “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

and have eaten of the tree

       of which I commanded you,

‘You shall not eat of it,’

       cursed is the ground because of you;

in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

¹⁸    thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;

and you shall eat the plants of the field.

¹⁹    By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread,

       till you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

       for you are dust,

and to dust you shall return.”

~Genesis 3:14-19 (ESV)

 

While I want to focus in on Yahweh conversing with the woman, I put the Lord’s whole dialogue here, in the hopes of seeing a pattern and a lack thereof. Note how God never explicitly curses the woman. Literally, the term “curse,” or אָרַר (ʾārǎr) in the Hebrew text only applies to the serpent (3:14) and the ground (3;17). Notice how Yahweh’s speech the serpent and to Adam begins with “because you…” but the Lord omits this beginning when talking to the woman. Between these two observations, it would seem that what God tells the woman falls more under descriptive than prescriptive. In order words, Yahweh does not actively penalize the woman here, but rather, the Lord passively reminds the woman that sin has its consequences, God makes her fully aware of those consequences. In all fairness to the woman, the serpent deceived the woman, whereas the serpent and the men deliberately rebelled in their sin, as evident by their punishment starting with “because you…”

A lot could be said about Yahweh announcing a multiplication of the woman’s pain in childbearing, but more pertinent to our point about the misogyny entering the world as a result of the fall, Genesis 3:16b deserves more examination. The key words in Genesis 3:16b are תְּשׁוּקָה (t^ešûqāh) and מָשַׁל (māšǎl). Now תְּשׁוּקָה (t^ešûqāh) is an exceedingly rare word in the Hebrew Old Testament, only appearing three times. The first one appears here in Genesis 3:16b. The last one happens in Song of Solomon 7:10, in which, ironically, the man desires the woman, as opposed to Genesis 3:16b, in which the woman desires the man. The middle instance occurs in Genesis 4:7, and this instance also pairs with מָשַׁל (māšǎl). In Genesis 4:7, the Lord informs Cain of what sin wants to do to him. Just as mankind and sin find themselves in a constant struggle of control, as evident by Genesis 4:7, so the man and the woman will find themselves in constant struggle of dominating and submitting, as evident by Genesis 3:16b. What Yahweh intended to become an equal relationship, sin would make a power struggle of dominance and submission. What the Lord intended to become “to love and to cherish” became “to dominate and to submit.” What God intended for reciprocal love would turn into marital stress and strain. Some have used their verse to explain why, even in the most patriarchal societies, despite a woman’s craving for independence, she would still succumb to a marriage. Other have even gone as far as using this verse to explain why some women will still stay with the most abusive husbands. Either way, even if these points are true, the truth remains that sexism, misogyny and patriarchy are the result of evil sin infiltrating Yahweh’s good creation.

The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living ~Genesis 3:20 (ESV).

 Scholars could and have said much about the name of Eve. Without diving too much in the Hebrew language, a few things deserve pointing out for the name Eve. First, note that the Hebrew name for Eve, חַוָּ֑ה (havvah), looks nothing like the Hebrew term for humans, אָדָם (adam), or the Hebrew word for man, אִישׁ (ʾîš). Already, the sinful nature has begun taking over Adam, and he has already begun distancing himself from Eve. Second, notice how Eve’s name means “mother of all living.” No longer is the woman “a savior equal to him,” but rather, Adam sees Eve as just “the mother of his children.” Ouch! Again, the sinful nature in Adam desires to distance himself from Eve. Together they reveal that, when Adam names the woman Eve, he treats her no differently than when he named the animals, asserting his dominance over the woman, demanding her submissiveness. Once again, the sexism, misogyny and patriarchy came about as a product of humanity’s fall into sin.

Not only does Genesis 3 not direct the primary blame for the Fall upon the woman Eve, the whole Bible does not direct the primary blame for the Fall, especially including the New Testament. Take a look at a couple New Testament verses-

¹² 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— ¹³ for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. ~Romans 5:12-14 (ESV)

²¹ For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. ~1 Corinthians 15:22&23 (ESV)

Note how both Scriptures don’t say “the woman” or “Eve.” Notice how both passages don’t even say “the man and the woman” or “Adam and Eve.” Both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 merely put the blame of sin and death on the man, on Adam. The idea of woman solely bringing sin, death, sorrows and suffering into the world would make sense to either the Old Testament Jew or the New Testament Christian.

Before closing, let me briefly touch on some objections some may have, but please note that these 2 exceptions I will bring up deserve a close and thorough examination, each on their own.

³ But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…⁷ For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. ⁹ Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; ¹² for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. ~1 Corinthians 11:3,7-12 (ESV)

Please recall that the epistles are highly contextualized. Paul writes to a certain people at a certain place at a certain time, to address occasions that may arise out of that historical, geographical and cultural. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, the Greek term κεφαλή (kephalē) literally means “head,” but figurately it means “authority” or “source.” I prefer the latter because then 1 Corinthians 11:3 points back to Genesis 2:21&22. 1 Corinthians 10:7 reminds the reader that Paul wants to address why he believes men should prayer and prophesy with heads uncovered, while women should pray and prophesy with their heads covered. A cult in Corinth allowed women to pray with their heads uncovered, which would sometimes come off as sexual. Paul did not want the new and budding church in Corinth to get mixed with the cult. Paul’s command here for women to cover their heads intended to distance the church from the cult, and also quite possibly prevent women from becoming a sexual distraction in the Christian church. The idea of woman becoming the glory of man does not put her is a submissive or servient role. To the contrary, the woman received glory by giving glory to her husband. If anything, Paul presents giving glory to the husband as another opportunity women could give glory to God. Paul recollects the creation of the woman in Genesis 2 to remind the Christian women in Corinth how God created the women to turn something not good to something good in the very good creation, and likewise, Paul calls on the women to serve God in the same exact way.

¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ~1 Timothy 2:12-15 (ESV)

Again, please recall that the epistles are highly contextualized. Paul writes to a certain people at a certain place at a certain time, to address occasions that may arise out of that historical, geographical and cultural. When Timothy takes over the church in Ephesus, a heresy known as Gnosticism became quite popular. Gnosticism loved combining Greek and Roman philosophy with Jewish, and sometimes Christian, religion. Mixed in with all the heresy, Gnosticism at this time proclaimed a liberation and empowering of women. Paul did not necessarily oppose the liberation and empowering of women. Rather, he feared that message would lure in good Christian women, who would buy into the heresy just to get a taste of the liberation and empowerment, and then these women would proclaim the heresies back at the church. In other words, Paul feared that Gnosticism would deceive the good Christian women of Ephesus, hence why Paul emphasizes how Eve got deceived. At the current time, as the best advice Paul could think up, he advised Timothy to put hiatus on women teaching, until the church could determine the women remain uninfluenced by any heresy. Likewise, a church should only hold back on a woman preaching or teaching if they fear she will preach or teach heresy from the pulpit. Otherwise, let her preach and teach!

To conclude, anybody who claims the Bible is misogynist lies. First, while so many creation myth lack a creation of woman story, and for those that do, a lot of them put the creation of the woman in a negative light. To the contrary, the Bible does have a creation of woman story, and it does put it in a positive light. Second, the Bible clearly announces the man and the woman equally made in the image of God. Third, the Lord makes the woman with the intention that woman will become “ a savior equal” to man. Fourth, by calling her “woman,” man identifies his sameness and equality to her. Fifth, because of the lack of “because you” or “cursed” in the woman’s penalty, Yahweh deflect putting all the blame on the woman for the fall. Sixth, not until after the Fall of humanity into sin does Adam assert his dominance by naming her Eve. On this Mother’s Day, women thank the Lord for creating you the way he did, and men, thank God for putting the women, whether mother, aunts, sisters, cousins, wives, sisters or friends, into your life to serve as your “savior.”

Not Rape but Restoration (Exodus 22:16&17)

INTRODUCTION

If you would’ve read the Midway newspaper on a certain morning, under the police report, you would have read that he Midway Police Department issues Kasity Roberts’s citation to shut down her business or else face fines and even imprisonment. At first glance, it may not seem like a big deal, but it will all the sudden become a big deal when you learn that Kasity is girl in elementary school. The business she was illegally running? A lemonade stand. Upon receiving the news, Amy Roberts, Kasity’s mother, marched down to the police station, demanding to know the reason for the citation. Kelly Morningstar, the Midway chief of police, sat down with Amy and kindly explain that the state laws regarding food safety in food service are meant to protect its citizens from unsafe and unhealthy food and drink. The police didn’t know who made the lemonade or what the lemonade was made with, and therefore needed to shut down the operation until the business was deemed to safe to serve. Amy reluctantly agreed, but she still felt a bit baffled. After all, different police officers from the Midway Police visited the lemonade stand the previous day, bought lemonade, and then complimented Kasity for choosing to make lemonade from fresh lemons instead of a powdered drink mix. You think that’s bad?

It gets worse. In Scottsdale, Arizona, Dr. Reed Turozi received a citation and fine breaking Scottsdale’s “nuisance of property maintenance” law. His crime? He was growing an illegal tree in his yard. The fine was for $2,000, and for every day he did not cut it down, he would receive another $2,000 fine. if he could not pay, he would face imprisonment. Reed was baffled. That tree has been growing at that house for all 10 years he lived in it, and nobody said a thing. In fact, he recalls that part of the reason he bought the house 11 years earlier was that it came with that tree. He marched down to City Hall to look through all the laws, and sure and off he found out that his tree was not approved by the city of Scottsdale. He still decided to take it to trial. In his defense, he pointed out all his neighbors grew the same tree in their yard. The authorities replied, “just let us know, and we’ll cite and fine then, too!” Needless to say, Reed is not a friend with his neighbors anymore.

It gets even worse. Abner Schoenwetter ran his own seafood importing company. For 13 years, he ran his buisness the exact same processes and procedures, and every time he cleared both customs and FDA regulations without any problems. Then, one day, in his 14^th year of business, he wakes up to hear a knock on his door. There’s 13 FBI agents on his deck. They proceed to arrest Abner. His crime? He transported the lobsters in plastic bags, not wooden crates. What makes this so interesting is that a Honduras law, not a United States law. Since Abner transported the lobsters from Honduras, he had to follow Honduras law. Since the United States did not want to ruin relations with Honduras, they had to arrest Abner. A judge sentenced Abner to 8 years in prison. After 6 years in jail, Abner appealed the ruling. He spent thousands of dollars on a attorney, who got a Honduras government official to testify that no such law ever existed in Honduras. By then, it was too late. Out of business for 6 years, Abner and his family went broke, and it broke apart the family.

Just when you think it can’t get any worse, this is the worst. Jack and Jill (no joke, that’s their real name) wanted to build a new house on their property. The county government came down to inspect the foundation, and they approved the building of the house. There was only one problem. A drainage ditch, owned by the state government, was clogged with logs. Jack ass the state government to fix their drainage ditch. That’s the government admitted that they were six months backed up, so it would at least take half a year to get to his problem. Jack volunteered to do it himself. State government, not wanting to have to pay more money, gladly agreed to give him permission to clear out the clog with his backhoe. Shortly after clearing the clog and building the house, the federal government handed Jack and Jill a felony citation for building on a wetland, which is protected by federal law. Yes, the clogged drain flooded the ground, which gave the appearance of a wetland, and the EPA stepped in protect it. Jack dug an 8-foot-deep hole to prove no water ever existed there prior to the flooding, yet the EPA wouldn’t listen. They still brought him to court. A jury did find Jack not guilty, but at a price. Jack had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an attorney to prove his innocence. They had to sell their home to prevent bankruptcy. They now live in a trailer in a trailer park, and they miss their farm dearly.

Laws, am I right? We all know we need laws. Laws exist to keep the citizens in a society safe and to protect their rights. The laws I mentioned do seem to fall under that purpose. Midway Chief of Police Kelly Morningstar did have a point. I should be eat or drink at any restaurant, rest assured it’s safe and healthy, not worrying who made or how they made it. Perhaps the tree Dr. Reed Turozi had in his yard is an invasive plant species that would have taken over Scottsdale, Arizona like a weed. Maybe marine biologists and animal activists determined that it was cruel to transport lobsters in plastics bags. And wetlands deserve protection. As much good as these laws intended, how could they miss the mark, criminalizing people who aren’t criminals.

THE PROBLEM WHEN CHRISTIANS READ OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Honest Christians might admit that they feel the same way about God’s Laws found in the Old Testament. They have all read Psalm 19:7-11. They have all read the positive impact God’s Laws had on David, and they rush to the Pentateuch to gain the same benefits. When Christians read these laws in the Torah, however, they struggle to reap the reward David received for reading them. They find the laws repetitive, boring, harsh, confusing, outdated, obsolete or irreverent. Therefore, most Christians end up marginalizing or neglecting the laws found in the Pentateuch. When these laws surface, people end up belittling or vilifying the law, they end up spiritualizing or allegorizing the law, or they abuse the law, like pushing a political agenda.

Paul doesn’t seem to help the Christian here. Just look at what Paul says in the book of Romans alone. On the one hand, Paul informs Christians that they are “not under the law but of grace” (Romans 6:14) and “released from the law” (Romans 7:6). Furthermore, Paul reminds Christians that “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4). On the other hand, Paul describes the law as “holy and righteous and true” (Romans 7:12), as well as “spiritual” (Romans 7:14). As matter of fact, Paul encourages Christians to uphold the law (Romans 3:31)! What gives, Paul?

THE SOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS READING OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Fortunately, Paul did provide a hermeneutic for how Christians living in the New Covenant on how to exegete Old Testament Law. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul appeals to the church in Corinth that pastors deserve pay. Paul adds many proofs to his thesis, but one stick as odd. In 1 Corinthians 9:9, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. Deuteronomy 25:4 reads, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading the grain.” Any reader, either back then or now, might think, “What does that have to do with anything?!” Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 9:10, “Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.”

From 1 verse, Paul has made a 6-point hermeneutic. First, Paul reminds believers that law came from the Word of God. Second, since the law comes from the Word of God, it reflects God’s heart and mind. Third, since the law has come from the Word of God, it has more authority than humanity authority. Fourth, God spoke the law into existence with humanity’s sake in mind. Fifth, this law, originally, spoken to the young nation of Israel before the time of Christ, still has relevance to Gentile Christians in the 1^st century A.D. Sixth, all God’s laws have relevance to New Covenant Christians, not just the 10 Commandments. Some Christians try to solve Old Testament law problem by claiming that only the 10 Commandments have significance in the Christian’s life, and all other laws in the Old Testament have no importance. On the contrary, Paul would disagree, as he quotes a law which many Christians would call obscure.

From those 6 principles, Dr. Timothy R. Valentino, pastor at Fleetwood Bible Church and professor of Biblical Studies and Practical Theology at Evangelical Seminary, has created a 4-step hermeneutic for interpreting Old Testament Law. His hermeneutic modifies Dr. David Dorsey’s “CIA” hermeneutic, adding in Cristocentrism at the beginning and the end. I have adopted a very similar hermeneutic, which, being the good Cristocentric Mennonite I am, further strengthens the Cristocentrism aspects.

First, back-read the law from the New Testament context. Does the New Testament reference it? What does the New Testament have to say about the law? Whatever New Testament has to say trumps the actual law in the Old Testament. For example, Leviticus 21:7 forbids anyone to marry a prostitute, and in 1 Corinthians 6:15, Paul states that a Christian should never unite with a prostitute because a Christian is united with the Lord Jesus. Since the 1 Corinthians 6:15 command repeats the Leviticus 21:7 command, Christians should keep the command in its present form. Leviticus 11 lists the unclean animals which Israelites cannot eat. In Acts 10, however, a sheet drops from heaven, full of unclean animals, and a voice from heaven tells Peter to kill and eat. When Peter objects, calling the animals unclean, the voice from heaven reprimands Peter for calling something God made unclean. Therefore, Christians can conclude that God now allows Christians to eat meat once considered unclean.

Second, examine the law in its Old Testament context. Old Testament laws did not come from a timeless and spaceless vacuum. They came from a history, a geography and a culture. They had a context. This step requires Christians to understand what the author meant and how the original, intended audience would have understood the text. This step requires Christians to understand when the text is historically, where the text is in geographically and what the text is culturally.

Third, theologize the law to its universal context. At this step, the Christian does not look for a what but a who. The Christian does not look for a principle but for a person, that is, God. The Christian asks, “What does this passage reveal about God?” This truth might include God’s attributes, his character, his thought, his feelings, his priorities or his morals. Furthermore, a Christian should ask, “How does this law point forward to Christ? How did Christ fulfill this law? Did Jesus live out the law, so Christians must also live out the law, or did Jesus live out the law, so Christians don’t have to?” From these universal truth, the Christian can move on to the next step.

Fourth, apply the law to the current context. If the New Testament referenced the law in step 1, whatever commandment that came with the New Testament reference gets carried over to step 4. In step 4, the applications come from the truths about God in step 3, not necessarily the understanding of the law in step 2. The application may look exactly like the commandment found in the Torah, but the application might also look nothing like the commandment in the Pentateuch. Just like step 2 brought about understanding in the history, geography and culture of back then and there, step 4 should bring about understanding about the history, geography and culture of here and now.

A CASE STUDY OF EXODUS 22:16&17

Of course, you know me. I don’t let you off easy. Of course, I picked an awkward, uncomfortable and controversial (in the sense in might cause offense) law I could find. My pick, however, comes with good reason. This law can serve as an apologetic. Many anti-Christian atheists will use this law to attack God’s holiness and righteousness. They will read this law and say, “Just look at your God! This poor girl gets raped, and your God commands the girl and the rapist to marry, and the rapist only has to pay a fine?! How can you call your God both holy and loving when he treats young women like that?!” Did God really say that? Did he really command that? If so, how do Christians follow that command in their everyday life? Let’s BETA test it!

Step 1: Back-read from a New Testament Context

Back-reading from a New Testament asks the Christian to first seek what the New Testament has to say about this law. Indeed, the New Testament remains silent on this Old Testament law. The New Testament neither repeats the law with instructions to follow it, nor does the New Testament teach something contrary to that law. Therefore, the Christian can’t assume that the Christian, in the New Testament should continue to follow the law or cease to follow the law. The Christian needs to move on to the next steps, so the Christian can understand the verses in its original context, what the law teaches about God and how the Christian can apply it.

Before moving on, however, I want to remind us of 2 things. First, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes like shifting shadows. Therefore, this law reflects the character and nature of God, which was true back in Exodus and is true in the 21^st century. Second, Jesus has come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. As the fulfillment of the Law, this individual, specific law, found in Exodus 22, will somehow point forward to Jesus.

Step 2: Examine the Law in its Original Context

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible did not originally come in English. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Since this law appears in the Old Testament, the Israelites originally heard it in Hebrew. Anyone multilingual will tell anyone else that translating words into different languages does not always have a one-to-one correspondence. Therefore, some of the words in this law need more careful attention.

Seduce (v.): פָּתָה (pātâ). The root of this word means to be open. The full word means to allure, beguile, coax, deceive, entice or seduce. The Hebrew language might have went from the root to the full word is because a young, immature youth might easily be open to enticement or seduction, without thinking about the ramifications. The full word, in this context means “to convince someone to engage in coitus through taking advantage of immaturity and inexperience.” The Contemporary English Version provides a good translation: “talks her into having sex.” The New Century Version also provides both a good interpretation: “tricks her into having sexual relations.” The persuasion could have come about as result of coaxing, charming, flirting or deceiving, but it’s definitely not by force, so it’s definitely not rape.

Virgin (n.): בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh). The בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) has three qualifications. First, the בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) is a young woman, even as young as adolescence in age. This points back to our original point of פָּתָה (pātâ) about taking advantage of the inexperience and immaturity of youth. Second, the בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) is someone who has never engaged in sexual activity. Third, Old Testament Hebrew usually reserves בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) for an unmarried person. Now as we see in our Exodus 22 passage, בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) can also refer to someone not yet married, as in betrothed or engaged. The law in Exodus 22:16-17 probably refers to a woman in any or all qualifications. It refers to a young woman who has never had sex, whether that young lady is single, engaged or married.

Bride-price (n.): מָהַר (mohar). In English translations מָהַר (mohar) most often receives the translation dowry or bride-price, although the latter sounds a little deceiving. The מָהַר (mohar) is most definitely not the groom buying a bride. As part of the engagement, the groom-to-be agreed to pay a מָהַר (mohar). According to the traditions formed by the rabbis, on average, the מָהַר (mohar) equaled 50 shekels of silver, but the actual מָהַר (mohar) varied from woman to woman. Factors affecting the מָהַר (mohar) included the man family’s social standing, the woman’s family’s social standing, the number of possible future husbands, the woman’s attractiveness and the woman’s virginity. Anything less would result in a lower מָהַר (mohar). The man would pay the מָהַר (mohar) to the woman’s father, and the father would gift the מָהַר (mohar) to the bride on her wedding day. The מָהַר (mohar) was never considered the woman’s father possession before marriage or the husband’s possession after marriage. The מָהַר (mohar) is always considered the woman’s possession. The מָהַר (mohar) had a few functions in the Ancient Near East. First, it displayed the suitor’s dedication to the woman. The מָהַר (mohar) was not cheap. A man would have to save up a while to have enough. This demonstrated the man could earn, save and afford to bring in the young to his home and take care of her. Second, it would provide the young couple financial stability. If hard times arose, the young couple would have a “nest egg” on which they could fall back. Third, if the woman ever found herself widowed or divorced, and she had no family to fall back on, the מָהַר (mohar) would work as life insurance today, giving her money until she could remarry or some other means of income.

Now that terms have been carefully defined, let me create my own paraphrase by inserting the definitions into the verse. “If a man approaches a sexually-inactive, unmarried, young woman and convinces her to engage in sex through taking advantage of immaturity and inexperience, either by charm or deception, he must give the full, customary engagement gift and marry her. If the young woman’s father forbids to give the man the young woman in marriage, however, the man still has to go through paying the engagement gift.

Now that terms have been carefully defined, and we have a more clarified verse, let’s look at how the situation might play out in life. Imagine, if you will, Joe and Jane are 2 Israelite teenagers or 2 Israelites young adults, madly in love with each other. Only one problem arises. Jane has already been betrothed to John. One day, while the young couples grieves that they will never be together, Joe gets, what seems to him, a good idea. “Wait,” Joe says, “In your betrothal, your father promised you as a virgin, right?” “Yeah, so?” Jane answers, not putting one and one together. “That’s it!” Joe exclaims. “If you are a virgin no longer, John will no longer want to marry you. The betrothal will become null and void. Then we can get married! It only makes sense. We want to get married one day. I mean, I do love you. Don’t love me?” Jane thinks about it. She does love Joe. Not only does he look attractive, he’s always so nice and kind to him, always giving her a warm smile and a hearty laugh. She wishes she could marry him. If they did marry one day, they would consummate the marriage. Why not do it sooner? With no objection coming to her mind, Jane agrees. One day, when Joe and Jane know they will be unsupervised, they sneak off and have sex. Afterward, Jane does ask Joe to hold off saying anything, to which he agrees. Jane wants to wait for the “right time” to her father and John and to figure out a way to put them down nicely, without hurting their feelings. Besides, they still have time before the planned wedding. Soon, however, Jane finds out she doesn’t have as much time as she thought. Jane finds out she’s pregnant. This makes Jane uneasy, but it makes Joe feel even more easy. Joe felt ready to become a husband, but he did not feel ready to become a father. Now Joe plans to back out of his own plan. After all, only Jane heard Joe’s plan. With no witnesses around, Joe’s word would have more a say than Jane’s word.

Before moving on to our next section, our theology about God, I want close this section about the doctrine of sin. We commonly think of sin as the sinner committing the sin directly on a victim. Sin has bigger consequences than that. Sin victimizes everyone. Take a look at the possible scenario I gave and see how it turns everyone into a victim.

Obvious, the young woman is a victim. Because of what happened to her, she has become extremely vulnerable. In most Ancient Near East societies, the father, the fiancé or the future father-in-law could have the girl put to death, either legally or illegally, because of her fornication. In any other Ancient Near East society, despite the sex that went between the man the woman, since the man never officially got engaged with the woman, he never has to go through with marrying her. At the same time, her fiancé has every right to exit the marriage because she broke the contact Now the woman will find it harder to marry because she is not a virgin. Even if the man involved, or any man for that matter, agrees to marry her, she will get less or an engagement gift, if any gift at all.

The young woman’s father is a victim. The father loves his daughter very much. All he wants is for his daughter to have a happy life. As any loving father, his deepest concern is that someone will love and take care of his daughter for the rest of her after he passes away. He has raised her to become a godly wife. He took the time to pick out a husband suitable for her, and her arranged for her to receive the perfect dowry. Now, because of his daughter’s sinful act, the daughter has brought down disgrace and humiliation upon her father’s name as head of the household. The daughter has disrespected the father’s careful choosing of a husband. He might have to have the awkward and embarrassing conversation with the fiancé and his family about his daughter breaking the engagement vow. The father will have a hard time arranging another marriage. If he can arrange another marriage, or even if the fiancé chooses to go through with the marriage, the father would collect a very small (if any) dowry price. All in all, whatever security the father planned for his daughter now will no longer happen.

The fiancé is a victim. Just because the woman loved another man does not mean the fiancé did not love his fiancée at all. As a matter of fact, the fiancé did love his fiancée very much, and he probably began preparing himself to become a husband. He might have learned the family trade, so he could earn an income of his own. He possibly either built his own wing right off his father’s house, or possibly built a house on his father’s property, so the newlywed couple would have a home where they could live. Most importantly, being the good Israelites he was, the fiancé had remained sexually pure until marriage, ready to present his virginity as a gift to his bride. Upon hearing his bride-to-bear gave up her virginity to another man, the fiancé now suffers from a broken heart. He had spent so much time and effort showing how much he loved her by preparing a future, especially remaining sexually pure, and she in return has done nothing for him. Now the fiancé has a tough choice to weigh out on his mind. If he chooses to marry her, he will have to live with the fact he shared her with another man (and has to deal with the gossip about it), or he can leave, despite loving her so much.

Even the man who seduced the woman is a victim. Back in the Ancient Near East before the time of Christ, a man who committed such a crime could face castration or even death. Even with Israelite law forbidding, the woman’s family and friends still might face the temptation to take matters into their hand and castrate or execute the man, no matter what the law says. If the man does not end up marrying the woman he seduced, he has reduced the likelihood of finding another woman to be his wife. A good Israelite woman would only seek out a man who has remained sexually pure. By become sexuality active, he has great reduced the number of women who would consider becoming his wife.

Step 3: Theologize the Law to Its Universal Context

God’s Law reflects the character and nature of God himself. Before diving into what this law specifically says about God, pause and take the time to appreciate how this law, like all the other laws, reflects God’s justice. God has compassion for the victim. His heart breaks when someone becomes a victim of a sin, and he mourns with the victim. When God administers justice, he rules in an equal, fair, rational and satisfying way. In his omniscient wisdom, God knows that unequal, unfair, irrational and unsatisfying ruling will only make things feel worse, causing more hurt among all those victimized. Now, let’s move on to the specifics of Exodus 22:16&17.

First, God has a very high reverence for all women. He wants all women to enjoy life to its fullest, having a happy life, a healthy life and a holy life. Because God makes every woman in his image, God sees all women as valuable, even when the people around her don’t. Therefore, even when a woman sins, makes the wrong choice or brings shame upon herself, God still loves her and has compassion on her. The Lord still offers her his protection and help.

Second, God expects men to keep his libido in check. Men should withhold from having sex until marriage. If a man does have sex with a woman, he should take responsibility by pursuing the relationship through to marriage, with her family’s blessing. If her family forbids it, the man must find a way to demonstrate he has truly repented.

Third, God truly loves the sinner and hates the sin. God hates the sin the sinner committed, and he expects the sinner to take responsibility. At the same time, God demonstrate his love for the sinner by finding a way for the sinner to reconcile with his God, the victim and the community.

Fourth, God is a God of culture. God speaks to people within their culture. God asks all his people to examine their culture in light of his principles. God only calls people to reject the parts of their culture which stands in stark contrast to the culture, and if they can fix any part of their culture to keep it, they should do so.

As for how this law points forward to Christ, during his ministry, Jesus encountered women who had questionable sexual history, like the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 and the adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11. In both of the instances references, Jesus held the women in high reverence. He forgave them of their sin, so they be reconciled, but he also requested that they put their sinful life behind them.

Step 4: Apply the Law to the Present Context

In general, this law falls under the category “love your neighbor as yourself.” More specifically, this law falls under the subcategory, “do not commit adultery.” Together, God calls all Christians to honor and respect those of the opposite gender, putting their self-esteem and well-being above sexual desires.

Christian men, as sons of the Most High God, respect all women as the daughters of God they are, made in the image of God. Just as God wishes all his daughters to have a healthy, holy and happy life, a godly Christian man also desires that all women, especially their sisters in Christ, will have that healthy, holy and happy life. Therefore, Christian men should pursue every women’s well-being over their own sexual desires. Good Christian men should not take advantage of women, especially young or immature women. Those who do will have to face God on the judgment throne.

Christian women, believe that the Lord values you as worthy of him. You are daughters of Yahweh, the king of king and lord of lords! As daughters of the king of heaven, that makes every Christian woman a heavenly princess! Therefore, God calls Christian women to think, speak and act like heavenly princesses. Do not surround yourself with men who only want to take advantage of you and your body. Instead, surround yourself with men who concern themselves with your happiness and who will keep you accountable as your pursue holiness. Respect all men, especially your brothers in Christ, as you want to be respected.

If anyone here, men or women, sinned and fell short of God’s expectations for you in life, remember your God loves you. God does not hold you accountable because he hates you. God holds you accountable loves you. He wants you to confess and repent because he wants to pour out forgiveness on you, and he wants to reconcile you to your original value and worth.

CONCLUSION

In Psalm 119:47&48, David wrote, "For I find my delight in your commandments, which I love. I will lift up my hands to your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statues." Let the words of David become your prayer. I pray that you will find the same love and delight of the Old Testament Law that David found, and I pray it will encourage you to study the Torah more.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I an eternally grateful to Dr. Timothy R. Valentino, Pastor at Fleetwood Bible Church and professor of Biblical Studies and Practical Theology at Evangelical Seminary, for fleshing the Christian approach to Old Testament Law in his paper "Imitators of Christ: A Theocentric Approach to the Christian Preaching of Old Testament Law," which can be found in Evangelical Journal Vol.32 No.2 (Fall 2014)

I also appreciate Joshua D.Jones, pastor of Therfield Chapel in Cambridge, England for his article "Does the Bible Encourage Rape?" on his blog Sanity's Cove (September 26, 2016).

I also consulted the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Robert Harris, Gleason Archer and Bruce Waltke (1981) for the Hebrew definitions.