[Marg]

As some of you know, I'm going through the OT, slowly, and commenting about every Old Testament woman on facebook.  I've actually learnt a lot so far. 

Anyway . . . I've been thinking about something.  My thoughts are not fully formed and I'd appreciate any extra insight people can contribute. 

It seems to me that the women in Genesis are not held accountable when they do wrong or questionable things.

For instance, Rebekah plans and facilitates the ruse to trick Esau.  Jacob goes along with it and is called a deceiver.  As far as I know, nothing negative is said about Rebekah in the Bible. 

Another example:  Leah goes a long with Laban's trick to get Jacob to marry Leah first, and not Rachel.  It is difficult to know how willing Leah was in this.  But nothing bad is said about Leah.

I'm wondering whether there was some kind of understanding in Bible times like the patriarchal coverture law in England. 
Info on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

If so, this may explain why Adam seems to get most of the blame for introducing sin into the world by Bible writers such as Paul.    God, however, holds Eve responsible for her part in eating the forbidden fruit.

Any thoughts?

[Victorious]

Rebekah plans and facilitates the ruse to trick Esau.  Jacob goes along with it and is called a deceiver.  As far as I know, nothing negative is said about Rebekah in the Bible. 

I believe when Rebekah inquired of the Lord as to the struggle within her womb, His answer was a near/far prophecy.  One was regarding the immediacy of the two boys and the other (far) about the two nations of the Edomites and Israelites.  Rebekah, however, didn't understand the far implication but did understand the near implication.  That's why she, like Sarah, set out to bring about the fulfillment of God's word to her by getting Isaac to bless Jacob when he wrongfully was going to bless Esau.  She saw that as a mistake on the part of Isaac because of the word given her that the older would serve the younger and was attempting to bring that to fruition.  Jacob, on the other hand, evidently went along with his mother with the full intent of deceiving since we are not told she conveyed the prophecy to him.

Could it be that motive is very important to God?  Remember when Tamar deceived Judah in order to become pregnant as the law permitted?  And Judah says she is more righteous than he.  It appears her motive was more important than her method of bringing about the desired result.

That's my understanding.

[linjha]

Interesting thought, Marg. It would be an alternative explanation for the federal head thing.

[Victorious]

There were many laws in ancient Mesopotamia that may have been a factor in some of the Genesis narratives.  For example, while many think Sarah was cruel in sending Hagar away, she was well within her rights to do so according to the laws of the land, namely  Code of Hammurabi which is the most well known code of that time.  While monogamy was the rule, a childless wife might give her husband a maid (who was no wife) to bear him children, who were reckoned hers. She remained mistress of her maid and might degrade her to slavery again for insolence, but could not sell her if she had borne her husband children.  Since scripture says Hagar did act insolently toward Sarah following the birth of Ishmael, Sarah took the action afforded her by the law in sending her away.

It seems Israel's law was influenced by the Code of Hammurabi, but because the Code was defined with a pagan slant, God's laws were far superior.  God doesn't work within a vacuum, but rather within a people's culture and their traditions. 

Research may find that the reason for Laban's insistence that Leah be married first was codified in the law of the land and/or their tradition. 

Just some thoughts....

[Deborah]

Interesting question, Marg.

[Don]

One of the keys for Genesis for me is that I see it as an extended covenant preamble to the Mosaic Sinai covenant.  Therefore the main purpose of it is to establish the covenant faithfulness of God, esp. in relation to the patriarchs and matriarchs of Israel.  So the main plot line that repeats is (A) covenant put in jeopardy by a human or humans and (B) covenant kept by God's actions.

This also means that potential story line elements that are not part of the above may be omitted, such as judgment of sin.

[Marg]

Thank you for you answers.  Victorious, Thanks for reminding me that Rebekah already knew that the younger was gong to rule the older one (Gen 25:23).  I appreciate your insight and knowledge.

Don: So (A) Rebekah, like Sarah took things into their own hands, and then (B) God has to sort things out.

If Rebekah had left it up to God, there may have been less animosity from Esau.  But then again, maybe Rebekah was acting under God's direction.

Still thinking about this . . .

[diamondnell]

Maybe Sarah had the right to send Hagar away, AND was being cruel to exercise it? 

This also means that potential story line elements that are not part of the above may be omitted, such as judgment of sin.

I have heard it said that events/actions are presented in Scripture that we are supposed to know are wrong, even though the author may not have taken the time to point out that the event/action just described is wrong. For example, when a king such as David takes multiple wives, the passage may not describe this as sin, but we are supposed to know from another passage that kings were commanded not to do this.

So I guess I don't see it necessary to give Rebekah the benefit of the doubt that she may have been acting under God's direction, when her actions are deceitful. I think we can just observe that she acted wrongly and go on from there. (But we can't say that she wasn't held accountable, just because Scripture is silent on whether she was ever directly confronted. Scriptural accounts sometimes seem very abrupt and leave out a LOT that leaves me wondering!)

[Don]

I think part of the purpose of Scripture is to allow for discussion, as a way to allow for community formation.

A covenant preamble consists of statements about earlier examples of covenants and dealings between the parties.  Sarah overhears a part of God's covenant with Abraham and laughs, this does not matter as God's promises are still fulfilled.  Rebekah has a covenant with God and takes matters into her own hands, God's promises are still fulfilled.  This idea culminates with Joseph, where his brothers meant the way they treated him for evil, but God meant it for good and therefore God's promises are still fulfilled.

One of the things to explain about any set of rules is the prioritization to use when they come into conflict.  As a simple example, the rule for circumcision on the eighth day overrides the rule for no work on the Sabbath.  But there are other such overrides and they can be discussed.

[TL]

Maybe Sarah had the right to send Hagar away, AND was being cruel to exercise it? 

Or maybe she needed to send Hagar away because Hagar's son was wrongly influencing Isaac, treating him badly, and causing problems in the family.  But perhaps the way it was done could have been done differently.  Why couldn't they have traveled back toward her her father's home and dropped her off near there. Or maybe that would have insulted her father?  But she could have been sent to other cities and been given a slave to assist her.   

[Don]

Ishmael had to be disinherited, as he can claim to be first born otherwise.  The way this is done is for Abraham to divorce Hagar.

[TL]

yes, exactly. 

However, IMO it all could have been done in a more considerate way.  If we put ourselves in Hagar's shoes, she didn't really want to be his slave in the first place, probably didn't want to have relations with him or to have his child.  Even though likely Sarah did treat her well in the beginning, eventually Hagar's anger got the better of Sarah. After all she was a Pharoah's daughter and should not have been given away as a slave in the first place.  Though she needed to be sent away, I wonder what other ways of doing that could have been considered.

Then there is the other possibility that she was behaving so terribly, along with her son echoing her attitude, that they were absolutely unbearable to live with another day. But I would have still given her a slave to help her and food supplies, etc.

[Marg]

Rachel is another Genesis woman who seems to get away scot free with misbehaviour when she steals Laban's household idols (teraphim).  Laban makes a futile search from tent to tent and Jacob gets angry for being accused of the theft; and all the while Rachel is keeping mum (Genesis 31:35-36).

[Don]

I see the basic theme of all these actions by various people that seem wrong as what Walton in NIVAC Genesis calls "covenant jeopardy".  This sets the state for God to show forth his covenant redemption.

[Victorious]

Rachel is another Genesis woman who seems to get away scot free with misbehaviour when she steals Laban's household idols (teraphim).  Laban makes a futile search from tent to tent and Jacob gets angry for being accused of the theft; and all the while Rachel is keeping mum (Genesis 31:35-36).

My guess is that since Laban has not dealt fairly with Jacob (v.7), and seems to have defrauded Rachel and Leah of their inheritance/dowry (v.14-16), she felt justified in taking the idols as their portion.  We aren't told of their monetary value, so it may have just been an act of vindictiveness.  Both Rachel and Leah become the "builders" of the house of Israel.  (Ruth 4:11)