Mary Jo Bowman
March 1, 2007

I. Introduction

I’m going to be preaching on Psalm 51, and in a minute or two I’ll be asking you to read the Psalm with me from the hymnal. Please go ahead and turn to that now—it’s #818. 1

But, first let me tell you a story. It seems that a young priest in the 1970s was so taken with the latest bestseller “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” that he gave it a rave review in one of his sermons. When he was greeting people at the door afterwards, he asked one of his parishioners what he thought of the sermon. The man responded, “I haven’t read the book. Maybe it really is better than the Bible. But as you were preaching I kept thinking of Adam and Eve, Moses and Aaron and the golden calf. And David and Bathsheba. Even more, I kept thinking of Christ on the Cross saying to those who were watching him die: ‘If everybody’s okay, what am I doing up here?’”2

If I’m okay and you’re okay, then we don’t need Lent or Easter. We don’t need God’s mercy. We don’t need confession, repentance, forgiveness, and a clean heart. We don’t need Psalm 51! However, I believe none of us is okay. I chose to preach on Psalm 51 because I think we need to recover the practice of confession—as individuals and as a church.

In some liturgical traditions and monastic communities, Psalm 51 is used frequently—weekly or even daily—in communal prayers. However, I’ve noticed that confession of sin is often not included in the worship services at my church, and I tend to forget to include confession in my personal prayers. I think that needs to change.

Psalm 51 can serve as a model prayer and help us revitalize the practice of confession. Taking a careful look at this psalm of penitence and lament3 may help us to reflect on our own practices of prayer and worship, and how confession of sin and God’s creative work of cleansing shapes our ministry.

If you look the psalm in the hymnal, you’ll notice that it’s basically the NRSV, with a few changes in wording. Notice that the hymnal leaves out vs. 13-14, which is kind of disappointing to me because I think they are especially important. I’ll read them myself as we come to that point, between the last two sections. There are two more verses at the very end that are also not printed here, and because of time I am not going to deal with them, except to say that vs. 18-19 are believed to have been a later addition to the Psalm, after the restoration of the temple.4 These last verses remind us that Psalm 51 has a communal as well as a personal message. I encourage you to look them up on your own.

As we read the psalm together, I invite you to notice that all the way through, the psalmist speaks directly to God. Notice the rich variety of words about who God is and what God is asked to do, about the reality of human sin and God’s creative work of cleansing and making new. And notice that towards the end the psalm the focus shifts from the inward work of confession to reaching outward in teaching and testimony.

Please join me in reading the psalm together.

II.Section 1: vs. 1-2 Plea for mercy God’s and forgiveness (Address to God)

This psalm begins with “Have mercy on me, O God.” This is the best place for confession to begin: with an appeal to God’s steadfast love and abundant mercy, or as the NIV translates it: “unfailing love and compassion.” We find the same Hebrew words about God’s mercy in Ex. 34:6, where the LORD responds to Israel’s first major rebellion—their worship of the golden calf (Ex. 32). Even though the people had broken the covenant with Yahweh, God is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.”5 What does a person or community do in the presence of such a merciful God? We can almost see the psalmist fall to his knees, weighed down by guilt. At the beginning of the psalm, there are three words for wrongdoing, the same words found in Ex. 34:7 6 First, “transgressions,” which means rebellion, disobedience, defiance or revolt. It implies a willful act of deviating or straying.7 Second: “iniquity” which means “bending or twistedness”8, crookedness, perverseness9 or guilt.10 And third, plain old “sin” points to “failure or missing the mark.”11

Facing the reality of guilt, the Psalmist asks for cleansing: “Blot out my transgressions,” “wash me,” “cleanse me from my sin.” In the OT, sin was understood as defilement, dirt, or stain that created a barrier between people and God. Purity laws and rituals for cleansing recognized God’s holiness and made provision for cleansing as a regular part of worship.

III. Section 2: vs. 3-6 Confession of Sin (Complaint against self and sinfulness)

While a specific sin is not named in Psalm 51, the superscription connects it with the story of David and Bathsheba, one of the greatest OT soap operas—the king of Israel, guilty of adultery (or perhaps rape)12 and responsible for the death of a man and an illegitimate child (2 Samuel 11-12). Whether it was written at the time of David or considerably later,13 Psalm 51 acknowledges the recurring problem of sin in the story of God’s chosen people. David’s story becomes our story, and gives us an opportunity to recall our own personal sins and those of our church communities, now and throughout history.

The next verse gets more introspective: “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.” Like an honest look in the mirror. As Eugene Peterson (in The Message) puts it: “I know how bad I’ve been; my sins are staring me down.”14 There’s no getting around it, no place to hide.

The Psalmist says to God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight.” This echoes the words of King David in 2 Samuel 12. When he was confronted by Nathan, David said “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Sam. 12:13). What are we to make of these words: “against you, you alone have I sinned”? Surely, in David’s case, he sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah, and betrayed the trust of his people. Yet, aren’t all offenses ultimately sins against God? —violation of God’s commands15 and failure to honor God?16

The Psalmist tells it like it is—“I have done evil in your sight.” He knows he deserves judgment and punishment. As Peterson puts it: “You have all the facts before you; whatever you decide about me is fair.”17

In verse 5 we find a troubling concept about guilt: The NRSV says: “Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.” This verse has been used by many throughout church history as a basis for the doctrine of original sin, including a negative view of sex. But let’s not get sidetracked with that. A better interpretation of this verse focuses on the universal human condition of sinfulness, 18 as expressed in wording in the hymnal: “I was born in the midst of iniquity; in the midst of sin my mother conceived me.” As the apostle Paul put it: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” ( Rom. 3:23)

Even though this section of the psalm focuses on the reality of sinfulness and God’s judgment, it ends with a message of hope: Sin is not the ultimate reality—God, in divine wisdom, provides a way that brings new life. 19“You desire truth—teach me wisdom” (v. 6). The focus on “truth” and “wisdom” here is similar to these words found in I John 1:8-9: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

IV. Section 3: vs. 7-12 Petition for Cleansing and Restoration

Let’s look at the images of “cleansing” here. First: “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.”(7a) “Purge” is a strong word—not a gentle rinsing. It’s more dramatic—like the process for cleaning out the bowels in preparation for a colonoscopy. (I’ve never had that done, but I hear it requires spending all day or all night very close to a toilet—a rather smelly, painful process!) That’s purge! And what is hyssop? It’s an herb used in cleansing ceremonies, as described in Leviticus (14:2-9 and 48-53)—for persons with leprosy, and also for cleansing of contaminated houses. Also, a hyssop brush was used to sprinkle blood on the doorposts at Passover (Ex.12:22).20 So, hyssop is a metaphor for rituals of purification and deliverance. The second image of cleansing is gentler: “Wash me, and I shall be whiter that snow.” Or as the hymnal puts it: “_purer_ than snow.” With cleansing comes joy, a kind of lightness, like the fragrance of a spring rain shower or the freshness of clean bed sheets.

But what does this sentence mean: “let the bones that you have crushed rejoice”? I’m not sure what to make of the suggestion that God is the one who crushed the bones—perhaps that is an expression of being judged and humbled by God. Several Psalms speak of problems with bones. For example, in Ps. 22:14, the psalmist’s bones are out of joint. And in Ps. 38: 3: “There is no health in my bones because of my sin.” In the ancient world, illness and other misfortunes were often understood to be a result of sin. I’m not sure what I think about this idea, but I do know about bone pain and how deep and excruciating it can be. When I broke my arm and had surgery on it—after the metal plates were screwed onto my bones, and before the morphine was hooked up—I felt like I had a truck crushing my arm!

Then there is the request: “Hide your face from my sins” (v 9a). In OT language, when God hides his face from someone, God is showing disapproval.21 Here, the psalmist asks God to turn away from the sin, not from the person. “Blot out all my iniquities” can be understood as a plea to remove the sins from God’s sight—like removing a stain from cloth, so the sin can no longer be seen or remembered.

This brings us to the most familiar part of this psalm, and a significant turning point.

“Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.” The word “create” used here is the Hebrew word that is used only for God’s work—the same word used in the creation story in Genesis, and in Isaiah 43:122: “Thus says the Lord who created you
, who formed you
; do not fear, for I have redeemed you.” God is able to make us new! Heart and spirit—the core of who we are, our breath, our life, our will. This is a chance to begin again!

With this cleansing comes a desire to be in God’s presence. “Do not cast me away from your presence. And do not take your holy spirit from me.” (v 11). Don’t reject me. As The Message says: “Don’t throw me out with the trash.”23 (v 12) “Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and sustain in me a willing (or generous) spirit.”

This familiar part of the psalm reminds us God can take our brokenness and make something new—to restore our connection with God, to replace remorse with joy. This good news evokes a voluntary, public response—a vow of praise—on the part of the psalmist. This is typical of laments, but is something I had never noticed before in Psalm 51.

V. Section 4: vs. 13-17 Vow of Praise and Public Contrition

In the final section of the Psalm, we find a vow to teach others and to praise. Let me read the two verses that are missing from the version in the hymnal: (v 13) “Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you.” This is a promise to tell others about God, with confidence that they will repent. And vs 14: “Deliver me from bloodshed, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your deliverance.” Evidently, the psalmist is not quite done with asking for God’s help—“save me from ‘bloodshed’—rescue me from “guilt” or “violence.”24 There is a hint of bargaining with God here: “Help me, and I promise to praise you.” Whatever the motive, the movement is into the public, social arena of testimony and worship: “O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.”(v 15)

“For you have no delight in sacrifice; if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased.” (vs 16) This sounds very much like the OT prophets, like in Hosea 6:6 “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice; the knowledge of God and not burnt offerings.” God wants humility. “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” (vs 17)

The kind of worship God desires is for us to bring our whole selves to God, in honest repentance, so that we can be cleansed, made new, and given a message of joy and hope to share with others.

VI. Conclusion

Finally, the practice of confession includes not only looking inward and telling God that we are sinners and naming what we have done wrong. The practice of confession includes affirming that we need God and that we trust God to heal us and make us new. And even more, what I noticed for the first time in Psalm 51 is that confession actually prepares us and equips us for ministry: As verse 13 says: “I will teach transgressors your ways and sinners will return to you.” There is a striking element of reaching out in mission—teaching, calling others to repentance and new life.

Praying Psalm 51 invites us into mission, to sharing the good news of God’s mercy—participation in what the apostle Paul called “the ministry of reconciliation.” In the end, Psalm 51 points us to the kind of ministry expressed in Paul’s words found in 2 Corinthians 5:17-20: 25

So, if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (NRSV)

Let’s pray: Have mercy on us, O God. We have sinned against you. Purge us, wash us, make us new creations by your spirit. Then we will teach others about you, as your ambassadors.

Deliver us from evil and equip us to be your ministers of reconciliation. O Lord, open our lips, and our mouths will declare your praise. Accept our humble prayer, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

Bibliography

Anderson, Bernhard W. Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.

Brueggemann, Walter, Charles B. Cousar, Beverly R. Gaventa, and James D. Newsome. Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary Based on the Nrsv, Year A. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

Forest, Jim. Confession: Doorway to Forgiveness. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2002.

Hymnal: A Worship Book. Elgin, Illinois: Brethren Press; Newton, Kansas: Faith and Life Press; Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Mennonite Publishing House, 1992.

J. Clinton McCann, Jr. “Psalm 51:1-19.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by John J. Collins, 883-89. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.

Peterson, Eugene H. The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002.

Tate, Marvin E. “A Confession of Sin and Prayer for Forgiveness (51:1-21).” In Word Biblical Commentary, edited by John D. W. Wattts. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Waltner, James H. Believers Church Bible Commentary: Psalms. Edited by Elmer A. Martens and Willard M. Swartley, Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 2006.

Young, Robert. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Endnotes

1.ÌęHymnal: A Worship Book, (Elgin, Illinois: Brethren Press; Newton, Kansas: Faith and Life Press; Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Mennonite Publishing House: 1992).

2. Jim Forest, Confession: Doorway to Forgiveness (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2002), 2. Adapted.

3. This Psalm is typically classified as the most important of the seven penitential Psalms in the Psalter. It is also usually considered a lament, with the structure of address to God (v. 1-2), complaint [against sinful self] (v. 3-6), petition (v. 7-12), vow of praise (v. 13-17).

4. James H. Waltner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Psalms, ed. Elmer A. Martens and Willard M. Swartley, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 2006), 260.

5. Jr. J. Clinton McCann, “Psalm 51:1-19,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. John J. Collins (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 885. It is interesting to note that Ex. 34:7 does include a judgement on future generations.

6. Ibid.

7. Marvin E. Tate, “A Confession of Sin and Prayer for Forgiveness (51:1-21),” in Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Wattts (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 15.

8. Ibid.

9. Waltner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Psalms, 257.

10. J. Clinton McCann, “Psalm 51:1-19,” 885.

11. Waltner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Psalms, 257.

12. Walter Brueggemann et al., Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary Based on the Nrsv, Year A (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 176. Text is ambiguous about nature of David’s encounter with Bathsheba.

13. Waltner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Psalms, 256-57.

14. Eugene H. Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002), 975.

15. Tate, “A Confession of Sin and Prayer for Forgiveness (51:1-21),” 17.

16. J. Clinton McCann, “Psalm 51:1-19,” 885.

17. Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language, 975.

18. Tate, “A Confession of Sin and Prayer for Forgiveness (51:1-21),” 19.

19. J. Clinton McCann, “Psalm 51:1-19,” 886. “God desires not sinfulness but faithfulness or ‘truth’; see Pss 26:3, 45:4). The wisdom the psalmist requests consists of openness to Go and dependence upon God (see Pss 37:30, 49:3, 90:12, Prov 1:7, 9:10).”

20. Tate, “A Confession of Sin and Prayer for Forgiveness (51:1-21),” 21.

21. Ibid.

22. Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers), 210.

23. Waltner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Psalms, 259. The term “holy spirit” (with a small h) is used only one other place in the OT, in Is. 63:10-11, in a communal psalm of lament about Israel’s history with God—“They rebelled and grieved his holy spirit.”

24. J. Clinton McCann, “Psalm 51:1-19,” 887.

25. Various commentators point to this New Testament corollary.

Mary Jo Bowman
February 15, 2005

Introduction

The stories of several women in Genesis illustrate how deception was used by the people of Israel to tell stories about themselves. By exploring the schemes of Lot’s daughters, Rebekah, Rachel, and Tamar, this paper will highlight various interpretations of the use of trickery in the stories of patriarchal families. These stories can be interpreted as lessons in the status and character of women in early Israel. They can also be understood more broadly as entertainment, sagas of survival, and expressions of nationalistic pride and even religious piety. Themes of sexuality, alcohol, family dynamics, violence, justice, divine will, customs, and law presented in these stories suggest multiple ways to study and interpret them. We can only hope to glimpse some of their meaning in this brief exploration.

A striking theme throughout each of the stories in this study is that there is no explicit moral indictment of the use of deception. In his thesis on these and other stories in Genesis involving trickery, Adam White asserts that the functions of these stories would be spoiled if the narrator were to pass judgment on the deceptive behavior. The scheming characters “get away with” scandalous acts. White puts forth four paradigms for understanding the use of deception in these stories: humor, survival, nationalism/patriotism, and exoneration. First, he insists that making a moral judgement about cunning would spoil the humor, irony, and intrigue found these stories. Second, when viewed as stories about survival in precarious social and political settings, deception can be viewed as a necessity for survival when faced with limited options. Third, within a nationalist/patriotic paradigm, stories of deception can be used to express prejudice against and claim supremacy over other nations. Finally, White suggests that tales of trickery were told without a moral tone because deceptive humans are understood as agents of divine will among God’s chosen people. The narrators are matter-of-fact about deception in various Genesis stories as a way of preserving the “piety of the ancestors.”1

White asserts that stories involving deception were preserved because they express the “hope, dreams, and identity of a people.”2 While his study is not focused solely on the female characters, White’s conclusions are pertinent to this study of women in Genesis as tricksters. He points out that the narrators of the stories in Genesis saw themselves as “apiru,” a class of marginalized people in the ancient near east. He cites Naomi Steinberg’s argument in her work on “Israelite Tricksters.” She writes that the motif of trickster is a part of “an expression of the values of the oppressed—both men and women” where, in a subversive way, the lowly get the upper hand over those in power.3

Melissa Jackson explores the trickster theme in more depth. While trickster stories are common in folklore, especially in African and Native American traditions, she notes that there are many tricksters—both male and female—in the Hebrew Bible. She highlights Jacob as probably the best known. The women featured in this study, Lot’s daughters, Rebekah, Rachel, and Tamar, are all on her list.4 Jackson summarizes Ann W. Engar’s description of the unique characteristics of female tricksters in the Old Testament: “First, in using her intelligence, the female exhibits greater understanding of the needs of her family and nation than the corresponding male does. Second, as a matter of faith, she more closely understands God’s purposes than does her male counterpart. Third, with regard to sexuality, she is not a passive sexual object. She determines when and with whom she will have sex and bear children.”5 With these broad views of how to read these narratives of feminine deception, let us now turn to the stories themselves.

Lot’s Daughters

In Genesis 19:30-38, Lot (the nephew of Abraham) and his daughters have fled the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and are living in a cave. The men who were to marry Lot’s daughters have been left behind. Lot’s daughters, who saw no other potential men to give them children, plotted to get their father drunk so he would have sex with them. Their scheme worked. They each became pregnant and bore sons, the ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites. At first glance, it is easy to agree with Willis: “That the author of Genesis condones or commends Lot’s daughters’ having sexual relationships with their own father is incredible
If (this) had been acceptable, there is no reason why they would have felt it necessary to make him drunk
Their father would not have approved of such perverted sexual practices 
 At the same time, Lot is no less guilty or responsible just because he was so drunk that he did not know what his daughters were doing
That his daughters knew he was so weak
is a further reflection on his inferior character and influence.”6

Unlike Willis, White has an explanation for the inclusion of this story in Genesis. In his view, the story serves an ethnological function, representing nations rather than individuals. The namelessness of the daughters further suggests that this story is not meant to portray an historic event. When told from an Israelite perspective, this story functions as an ethnic joke about the incestuous origins of Israel’s neighbors, a mockery of Israel’s enemies.7 There is also evidence that his story has Ammonite-Moab origins, which accounts for its shameless portrayal of the women as maternal heroes, and the depiction of Lot as passive.8 This story then serves a patriotic purpose for both the non-Israelite descendents of Lot’s daughters and for Israel.9

According to Sharon Pace Jeansonne, this incest story needs to be read in the context of the earlier part of Genesis 19, where Lot disregarded the welfare of his daughters. In the face of the humiliating possibility of homosexual gang rape of his guests, Lot offered his virgin daughters to the men on the streets of Sodom.10 It is important to note that homosexual acts were a capital offense in Old Testament law, although for non-Israelites consensual homosexual acts were likely allowed. Homosexual gang rape would have been completely outside the norms of hospitality for the ancient near east. By offering his daughters to the mob, Lot put protection of his guests over protecting the welfare of his daughters.11 Further, Jeansonne points out that Lot was generally inept at protecting his family and put his daughters in a position of desperation regarding their desire to have offspring to continue their family.12 She sees the daughters’ trickery of Lot as a “poetic justice” in the face of his disregard for their welfare. Deception became resourcefulness.13

Rebekah

Our next story (Genesis 27:1-40) is about Rebekah, wife of Abraham’s son Issac. Rebekah helped her favorite son Jacob trick his father Issac into giving him the blessing intended for his twin brother Esau. In fact, she seems to have initiated and directed the plot. Willis sees all the participants in this event as “guilty of the grossest sins.”14 According to Jeansonne, Rebekah’s role in this deception is often viewed pejoratively— as favoritism, disrespect for her husband, and harmful to the family.15 In the Hebrew family system, wives were expected to defer to their husbands, and sons were expected to have a higher regard for their father than their mother.16 Rebekah overstepped these bounds.

An important clue to Rebekah’s motives—the prenatal oracle (Genesis 25:22-23)—is often overlooked. In that part of the story, God reveals to Rebekah what Isaac does not know: Jacob, who would be the second born of the twins, is God’s chosen. White argues that Rebekah believed that Isaac was attached to the social convention of giving the blessing to the firstborn son, who was Isaac’s favorite. Issac was unable to see that Esau, a hunter who sold his birthright and chose Hittite wives, was a poor candidate for carrying on the blessing promised to his grandfather Abraham. Rebekah’s awareness of Issac’s “blindness” motivated her to act to fulfill God’s will. Her willingness to take the risk of bringing a curse upon herself underscores Rebekah’s determination to fulfill God’s purposes, even with deception. White notes that some ancient interpreters suggested that God had an active hand in the deceiving, by preventing him from seeing through the sham. 17 Jeansonne accesses Rebekah’s role in this way: “The portrayal of Rebekah shows that women in Israel were viewed as persons who could make crucial decisions about their futures, whose prayers were acknowledged, who might know better than men what God designed, and who could apparently take the steps necessary to support God’s plans for the community.”18

Along with interpreting this story as a use of deception to fulfill God’s promise to Abraham, White also points out that this story fits into other paradigms. The rivalry between Esau the hunter and Jacob the semi-nomadic farmer expresses an ethnological theme of the national rivalry, which can be read in the triumph of the younger son (Israel) over the older son (Edom).19 Closer to home, the conflict between Jacob and Esau which began in the womb contributed to a dramatic family saga in which rivalry, deception and humor continued to play out for generations.

Rachel

We turn now to Rachel, daughter of Rebekah’s brother Laban, an Aramean whose people were noted to be “crafty and cunning.”20 Rachel was married to Jacob, as was her sister Leah. Jacob and his father-in-law Laban had a long history of deception and conflict. Rachel’s use of deception (Genesis 31:17-35) arose out of Jacob’s decision to take his wives and children and livestock, and to get away from Laban. In the process of packing to leave, while Laban was away for sheep-shearing, Rachel stole her father’s household gods (vs. 19). Jacob didn’t know she had done this, so when Laban accused him of stealing them, Jacob declared that whoever was found to possess them would be put to death. When Laban went looking for them, he entered Rachel’s tent, but did not find them. She was sitting on them, and told him she could not get up because she was menstruating.

The significance of the household gods (teraphim in Hebrew) is crucial to understanding this story. The function and importance of the teraphim is not altogether clear. Most scholars agree that they likely were portable images objects of worship that were believed to protect the family. They may possibly have been images of ancestors, whom the living were expected to consult and honor. In the Old Testament, they were associated with the power to predict the future, or to reveal unknown information. Ownership of these images was connected with inheritance rights.21 Alice Ogden Bellis suggests that the gods represented matrilineal leadership in the family, with inheritance rights to be reckoned through the mother.22

Rachel’s menstrual blood would have defiled Laban’s teraphim. In ancient near east culture, menstrual blood was considered unclean. Men were not to touch menstruating women. It is not clear from the story whether Rachel was actually menstruating, or whether she was telling a lie. The point is, she used her wit to escape being found (and executed as the thief), and in the process apparently defiled the gods. We do not know what Rachel believed about the power of the teraphim. Her action can be read as a strong theological statement about the impotence of Laban’s gods and the superiority of Yahweh. Or perhaps she wanted to claim the power of the teraphim for economic purposes, or to prevent Laban’s use of them as a primitive compass to find her fleeing family.23 White argues that she was trying to ensure Jacob’s rightful claim to Laban’s estate; since Laban had sons of his own, and Laban and Jacob were at odds, this claim had poor chances of being realized otherwise.24 Whatever her intent, she used “the way of women” to defy her father’s control over her destiny and to circumvent the punishment invoked by her impetuous father. Rachel’s use of deception makes a statement about feminine power amidst a larger drama of deception and counter-deception in which the men are the main tricksters.

Paul Borgman points out that Laban had cheated Rachel out of the promise of being Jacob’s first wife. By stealing her father’s household gods, Rachel was exercising poetic justice. Her thievery and cover-up may have primarily been her exclamation of her resolve to leave her father and homeland in solidarity with her husband.25

Tamar

The legacy of deception in Jacob’s family provides the context for the last story of this study, Tamar’s deception of her father-in-law, Judah (Genesis 38:1-26). In the midst of a long narrative centered on Joseph ( Judah’s brother, favored by their father Jacob) we find the story of Tamar. She was the childless widow of Judah’s eldest son, Er. According to levirate marriage laws, Judah had assigned his next son, Onan, to fulfill his duty to marry Tamar and give her children. He obliged by having sex with her, but each time “spilled his semen on the ground”(vs. 9) to avoid providing her with offspring. After Onan died, Judah promised his remaining son, Shelah, to Tamar once the boy was old enough to marry. When Shelah came of age and the marriage did not happen, Tamar saw that Judah was failing to fulfill his responsibility for ensuring that she had children to carry on the family line. Taking matters into her own hands, she disguised herself as a prostitute and placed herself along Judah’s travel route. Judah propositioned her. She bargained for his signet, cord, and staff (signs of his wealth and authority) as collateral for the payment he promised to deliver later. He lay with her, and she became pregnant. When he learned of her pregnancy, he ordered her execution by burning, the penalty specified for the act of prostitution by a priest’s daughter (Lev. 21:9).26 Tamar vindicated herself by presenting Judah’s personal affects as proof that he was responsible for her pregnancy. Judah admitted his guilt and declared that “she is more in the right than I, since I did note give her my son Shelah.” (vs. 26).

White declares that this “fits into the league of stories depicting powerful, self-actualizing women who seemingly begin the narrative on the down side of advantage only to ascend to greatness by cunning and thoughtful action.”27 Tamar obtained justice. She found a way to make Judah provide her with children, to ensure the survival of her people. Remarkably, one of her twin sons, Perez, was an ancestor of David. The story of Tamar and Judah found its way into Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus. Tamar “the prostitute” became a heroine of nationalistic proportions. She moved from belonging nowhere, as “neither a virgin nor a wife nor a mother
 on the fringes of Israelite culture”28 to becoming the “sole arbiter of her own fate, the prime mover and protagonist of her own story
and the “only woman in the Bible who is declared righteous.”29 This story goes farther in making a moral statement than the others in this study.

While Brueggemann puzzles over the placement and intent of this story, and suggests that its primary function may be as genealogy, he points out the text makes judgment about relative guilt: “Tamar has committed the kind of sin the ‘good people’ prefer to condemn—engaging in deception and illicit sex and bringing damage to a good family. For a moment, until aware of his own involvement, Judah reacts on the basis of that sort of ‘morality.’(v. 24). In ways apparently congruent with popular morality, Judah has spurned the claims of his daughter-in-law. By his indifference, he has violated her right to wellbeing and dignity in the community (v. 11). The narrative juxtaposes his prudent but self-serving withholding and her deceptive harlotry.”30

Summary

Each of these stories of deception by women fits into a larger context of family, culture, nation, and theology. While some commentators rush to add a moral lesson to each story, most of the scholars consulted for this study resist quick judgment and point to the moral complexities of the stories. Because the focus of this study is on the women in the narratives, their status, personality, and motives have been emphasized. These stories provide a window into the lives of women in early Israel, and how they exercised their power as daughters, wives, and mothers. As tricksters, women showed their intelligence, their discernment, their courage, and the power of their sexuality. These stories from Genesis add to the rich tapestry of tales about the people of God—full of humor (much of which may be lost in translation), pride, pathos, hope, and moral ambiguity. These stories of deceptive women evoke compassion for marginalized and desperate people. They demonstrate feminine resourcefulness in the face of difficulty. These stories help us to look at the Bible and at ourselves with fresh perspective on the mysterious ways of God.

Bibliography

Bellis, Alice Ogden. Helpmates, Harlots, Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

Borgman, Paul. Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2001 .

Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Jackson, Melissa. ” Lot’s Daughters and Tamar as Tricksters and the Patriarchal Narratives in Feminist Theology.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 98, June (2002): 29-46.

Jeansonne, Sharon Pace. The Women of Genesis: From Sarah to Potiphar’s Wife. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

Meeks, Wayne A., ed. The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993.

Petersen, John. Reading Women’s Stories: Female Characters in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

Wenham, Gordon J. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 2, Genesis 16-50. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1994.

White, Adam J. “On Getting Away with It: Toward an Understanding of Deception in Six Ancestral Sagas, Genesis 12-38, a Thesis.” 91¶ÌÊÓÆ”, 2004.

Willis, John T. Genesis. Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Company, 1979.

Endnotes

1. Adam J. White, “On Getting Away with It: Toward an Understanding of Deception in Six Ancestral Sagas, Genesis 12-38, a Thesis” (91¶ÌÊÓÆ”, 2004), 5,143-44.

2. Ibid.,144.

3. Ibid.,148.

4. Melissa Jackson, “Lot’s Daughters and Tamar as Tricksters and the Patriarchal Narratives in Feminist Theology,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 98, June (2002): 31-32.

5. Ibid.: 32. quoting Engar, ‘Old Testament Women’,pp. 143-57.

6. John T. Willis, Genesis (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Company, 1979), 269-70.

7. White, “On Getting Away with It”,37-38.

8. Ibid.,39.

9. Ibid.,43.

10. Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis: From Sarah to Potiphar’s Wife (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 36.

11. Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 2, Genesis 16-50 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1994), 55-56.

12. Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis,41.

13. White, “On Getting Away with It”,46.

14. Willis, Genesis,328.

15. Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis,65.

16. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 2, Genesis 16-50,207.

17. White, “On Getting Away with It”,63-68.

18. Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis,69.

19. White, “On Getting Away with It”,83-85.

20. Ibid.,51.

21. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 2, Genesis 16-50,273.

22. Alice Ogden Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 85.

23. White, “On Getting Away with It”,103.

24. Ibid.,96.

25. Paul Borgman, Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2001), 170.

26. Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis,105.

27. White, “On Getting Away with It”, 135.

28. John Petersen, Reading Women’s Stories: Female Characters in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 133.

29. Ibid.,153.

30. Walter Brueggemann, Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 308-11.