Biblical Studies

The significance of “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife” (Genesis 3:17) for a theology of gender

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Within evangelicalism over the past couple decades, much ink has been spilled over the debate between so-called “complementarians” and egalitarians. Both groups have debated and sought different answers to the question, what is Biblical manhood and womanhood? One crucial area, if not the fundamental place, for sorting out a Biblically accurate response to this question is the opening chapters of scripture, Genesis 1-3. As Ortlund explains,

“Why go all the way back to the first three chapters of the Bible, if our concern is with manhood and womanhood today? Because as Genesis 1-3 go, so goes the whole Biblical debate. One way or the other, all the additional Biblical texts on manhood and womanhood must be interpreted consistently with these” (Ortlund, Kindle Locations 2146-2148).

This paper in particular seeks to examine the phrase כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ (Gen 3:17) and determine its potential significance for a theology of gender.

As introduced by a כִּי conjunction, כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ provides the reason or grounds for Adam’s punishment—Adam listened to his wife. The crucial question for this paper’s concern is whether issues of differing gender roles are being addressed, assumed, or alluded to in this clause. (1) Is this mention of Adam’s “listening” (idiomatic for “obeying”; Wenham, 82) to his wife meant to communicate his failure to “listen” to God? In other words, is כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ a rhetorical way of referring to Adam’s disobedience as spelled out in the following phrase (וַתֹּ֨אכַל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ)? Or, (2) does כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ reflect a complementary male-female creation design that was subverted in this original sin (i.e., man not only sinned, but was lead into sin by woman)?[1] If the former option—a rhetorical use—is accurate, then this phrase may contribute very little (if anything) to the debate concerning biblical manhood and womanhood. And, as indicated by וַתֹּ֨אכַל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ, the rhetorical meaning is clearly present. In fact, Wenham (82) and Westermann (264) seem to assume that a rhetorical use is the sole significance of this phrase.[2] However, that “listened to the voice of your wife” is rhetorically equivalent to “and you ate from the tree” does not preclude the reality that creation-established gender roles may also be assumed here.

In fact, several reasons indicate creation-designed gender roles are assumed behind כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒. First, if God was merely addressing Adam’s disobedience (i.e., וַתֹּ֨אכַל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ), the addition of כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ would be superfluous and unnecessary. As Ortlund states, “Adam sinned at two levels. At one level, he defied the plain and simple command of 2:17. That is obvious. . . . At another level, Adam sinned by ‘listening to his wife.’ He abandoned his headship” (Kindle Locations 2559-2560). Second, the immediate context of 3:16 addresses the relationship between man and woman; therefore, the presence of כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ is likely not coincidental but deliberately addressing the subversion of that relationship in this original sin. Third, although Eve takes of the fruit first, Adam is addressed for the sin. Adam was “with her” (3:6) and is ultimately held responsible for their disobedience (cf. Rom 5:12-21). It is because of Adam (“you,” 3:17), and his eating of the fruit, that the ground is cursed. And fourth, this last point is consistent with the larger context of chapters 1-2, where the woman is created subsequent to man and, therefore, as man’s helpmeet (2:18-25). Correspondingly, man is to serve as the leader of the family. In sum, although כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ clearly refers to Adam’s act of eating from the tree (וַתֹּ֨אכַל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ), this phrase also assumes the complementary relationship between man and women—ontologically equal (i.e., both fully created in the image of God) yet different in regards to relational roles (i.e., headship and subordination).

[1] Of course to say that this phrase has reference to the established male-female relationship is not to claim that Adam is rebuked for letting his wife influence him, as if man may never listen to his wife. On the contrary, God chastises Adam for his failure to lead his wife (note: Adam was “with her,” 3:6) and demonstrate the headship to which he was called.

[2] And interestingly, some commentators make absolutely no comment on this phrase whatsoever, e.g., Hamilton.

An examination of “the LORD was with the judge” (Judges 2:18)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In verse 18, the author briefly mentions in passing that God was with the judges. This peculiar phrase is somewhat ambiguous and indefinite and requires further thought and investigation. Initially, this reality would seem to be linked with the judges’ function and success; and therefore, the meaning of this brief phrase likely has significant implications for understanding the office of judge in ancient Israel. What exactly does this phrase mean, and what does this presence indicate about these judges? Although few commentators care to investigate these questions to any significant degree (or at all), I suggest that the exegete does well to sort out the meaning and implications of this phrase.

First, this presence indicates God’s validation of the judges. This is assumed by God being “with” the judges and is explicitly mentioned in the preceding phrase: “YHWH raised up judges for them” (2:18). עִם serves to indicate an accompanying relationship (Arnold and Choi, 124-125), a special or particular (not general or common) relationship between God and His judges. Therefore, primarily, this presence also indicates God’s favor and blessing upon the judges with accompanying real, concrete results in terms of the socio-political and hopefully religious state of Israel. As Block notes, this presence indicates the “secret” to the judges’ success (129). For example, Butler observes, “God’s presence, not the judge’s leadership or military skills, brings victory” (48). This is clearly indicated by the phrase immediately following וְהָיָ֤ה יְהוָה֙ עִם־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט. “And He saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge (2:18). “They [the judges] represented agents of the divine presence” (Block, 129). Given this apparent relationship between God’s presence and superhuman victories worked through the judges, this presence likely entails charismata. This is clearly exemplified in the subsequent narratives throughout the book (e.g., Samson’s superhuman strength, etc.) Moreover, this presence also indicates God’s tangible compassion for His people; such victories resulting ultimately from God’s presence with His appointed judges demonstrate His maintained compassion for His people. Finally, that God’s presence is with those whom He appoints indicates that YHWH is fundamentally faithful to His judges despite whether or not Israel herself is (cf. 2:17) (Butler, 48).

In conclusion and summary, this presence seems to indicate, imply, or result in the following realities: (1) God’s appointment, (2) a special, particular relationship, (3) God’s faithfulness to the judges despite Israel’s wavering faithfulness, (4) God’s blessing and favor, (5) God’s compassion, (6) God’s working through these agents, specifically in terms of success in deliverance, (7) and conversely, that these victories are due to God’s power, not the military strength of the judges, and finally (8) a charismatic gifting.

An investigation of “they whored after other gods” (Judges 2:17)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In 2:17 the author states that Israel whored (זָנ֗וּ) after gods other than YHWH. The question for the exegete is multi-faceted. What theological implications does this language carry? What does it mean for Israel to “whore” in this seemingly metaphorical sense? What does this language imply about Israel’s relationship to God? Might a more thorough evaluation of the word זָנ֗וּ or its semantic range provide any assistance in wading through these questions? Most assuredly, rich interpretive insight is bound up with answers to these questions. The exegete does well to investigate this matter for clarity and perception.

As Holladay (90) notes, זָנ֗וּ can denote the literal action of fornication, adultery, whoring, having illicit sexual encounters, cult prostitution, etc. (Gen 38:24; Num 25:1; Isa 23:17; Ezek 16:17, 24; Hos 4:13) (Holladay, 90). Such actions of course connote an extreme level of faithlessness. Consequently, Biblical authors at times use such language to express Israel’s faithlessness to God (as Holladay says, to “wantonly turn from” e.g., Hos 1:2; 4:12; Holliday, 90). However, Soggin claims that this word is a “generic term for prostitution” and is not that which is used for cultic prostitution (39). This faithlessness, placed in terms of adultery, would seem to assume a level of commitment, specifically the commitment involved in Israel’s covenantal relationship. As Soggin notes, this relationship was often understood in terms of and parallel to a marriage bond (39). Implied is the equation of Israel with God’s unfaithful spouse (Niditch, 49). In other words, because of Israel’s covenantal relationship with God, Israel’s act of worshiping other gods besides YHWH was a violation of that covenant relationship, an act of infidelity and spiritual whoredom far more severe than the violation of any human marriage relationship. In concrete terms, this “whoredom” meant polytheism and idolatry. Boling believes that this theological metaphor arose “from the early clash of Yahwism with the commonly assumed fertility rites of sub-Mosaic religion” (75). Likewise, Block adds that adultery serves as an appropriate metaphor for Israel’s unfaithfulness because (1) YHWH’s relationship with Israel is often placed in terms of marriage (hence adultery) and (2) “the gods competing with Yahweh for the allegiance of his people are lusty young fertility gods, who seduce the Israelites with promises of prosperity and security” accompanied with erotic cultic rituals (129). And as a final note, this theme is not unique to Judges, but is in fact picked up by various authors across redemptive history. Throughout scripture, God often describes his relationship to his people in terms of a marriage covenant (e.g., Eph 5:32; Rev 19:6-9); and likewise, His people’s infidelity is expressed in terms of unfaithfulness to that relationship (e.g., Ex 34:15-16; Deut 31:16; Hos 2; Jer 2; Ezek 16).

In conclusion, this author believes that the metaphor indicated by זָנ֗וּ is most likely adultery (assuming a covenantal relationship) rather than prostitution. Whether or not זָנ֗וּ carries the semantic range of “prostitute,” in the given context, in which Israel has an established relationship with God, it assumes faithlessness to that relationship, not pure erotic and/or cultic indulgence. Conversely, this metaphor assumes a covenant marriage relationship with God, one explicitly mentioned in 2:20, a relationship that demands absolute faithfulness.

The Office of Judge

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

As indicated by the book’s title, the office of judge serves as a key component of the book’s storyline. Therefore, it goes without saying that a solid comprehension of this office and its function(s) is necessary to understand the book well. However, this ancient near eastern position is likely quite foreign to many contemporary readers and interpreters. Consequently, the astute exegete of any text in Judges, but particularly of 2:11-23, does well to thoroughly investigate this office of judge.

שׁפט is traditionally rendered “judge.” However, this translation can be misleading to the modern reader for several reasons. Interestingly, none of the characters typically identified as judges (e.g., Samson, Gideon, Ehud, etc.) are ever identified as “judges” in the book itself. On the other hand, “judge” serves as a general description for leaders, of course including those traditionally considered judges, during this time in Israel (2:16-19) (Block, 21-22). As a verb, שָׁפַט describes the action of many of these so-called judges (e.g., Othniel [3:10], Deborah [4:4], Tola [10:2], Jair [10:3], Jephthah [12:7], Ibzan [12:8, 9], Elon [12:11], Abdon [12:13, 14], and Samson [15:20; 16:31]). But only Deborah actually demonstrates a judicial function of sorts (4:4-5). On the contrary, these judges function more so as socio-political delivers (Block, 23). For example, in 2:16, the author specifies the judges as leaders who had the following characteristics. (1) They were God’s agents of Israel’s deliverance from oppressors. (2) They were to be listened to, implying some sort of instructive-exhortative role. As Niditch says, the judge was “to be a leader who models proper covenantal behavior, inspiring Israel to maintain loyalty to Yhwh.” Note that Deborah is called a prophetess (4:4), implying this exhortative function. (3) They had YHWH’s presence with them, designating that, if nothing else, God worked through these individuals. And as Niditch points out, this latter characteristic is intimately related to the first; this charisma leads to military success. However, if their function was primarily soteriological rather than judicial (Block, 23), then why were they called “judges” in 2:16-19? Fundamental to answering this question is recognizing the semantic range of שָׁפַט. It appears that שָׁפַט carries the general sense of seeking justice. At times, this might imply a judicial function. However, at other times it might mean executing justice through deliverance. Block provides the following helpful semantic diagram (23):

This non-judicial sense is also attested to in other Old Testament texts (e.g., 1 Sam 8:5; 2 Kgs 15:5; Isa 40:23; Amos 2:3; Pss 2:10; 94:2; 96:13; 148:11. Niditch notes that Ruth 1:1 seems to assume that this era of the judges demarcates a particular time period defined by a certain type of government, namely, a time in which so-called judges ruled (2). In like vein, Block suggests “tribal rulers” as an accurate interpretation/translation (25).

In conclusion, although retaining the traditional translation of “judges” is preferred, this author suggests that these so-called judges should be understood to be tribal leaders appointed and anointed by God with a special charisma to rule Israel (potentially including a judicial function), deliver her, and exhort her to repentance and obedience.

The Significance of 1 Peter 2:9’s Use of Exodus 19 Language Concerning the Relationship between the Church and Israel

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In 1 Peter 2:9, Peter lathers Christian (Gentile) believers with descriptions once used exclusively of the nation of Israel (cf. Ex 19:5-6; Deut 7:6; Isa 43:20; Hos. 1:6, 9, 10; 2:23; Mal 3:17). Regarding Exodus 19 specifically, Peter quotes exactly from the LXX—βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον (“a royal priesthood, a holy nation”; Ex 19:6)—and alludes to וִהְיִ֨יתֶם לִ֤י סְגֻלָּה֙ (“and you will be to me a treasured possession”) with the words λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν (“a people for possession”; Ex 19:5). The application of such language to the Church has resulted in no little debate regarding the relationship between Israel and the Church. An investigation of Peter’s use of this language will help shed some light on this discussion.

Many scholars conclude that Peter’s application of Israel-designations to the Church indicates a level of continuity (often seen as typological and/or supersessionistic) between Israel and the Church. By using appellations of Israel in reference to the Church, Peter shows “how he understands the true line of continuity to run from the people of God under the old covenant to the people of God under the new covenant” (Carson, 1032; cf. Woudstra, 234; Grudem, 113). However, dispensationalists, whose theological presuppositions include the absolute separation of the Church and Israel (Ryrie, Kindle Locations 705-706), often understand Peter’s use as analogical. In other words, Peter is applying spiritual realities in Israel to similar spiritual realities present in the Church. Due to dispensationalists’ belief in a distinct future for national Israel apart from the Church, they are necessarily uncomfortable with applying “Israel” language to the Church or acknowledging a supersessionistic typological relationship between Israel and the Church. But as Progressive Dispensationalist, Robert Saucy, states, “The application to the church of these descriptions formerly used exclusively for Israel does not mean that the church now assumes that position exclusively for herself” (Continuity and Discontinuity, 241; emphasis mine). Elsewhere he argues that an initial typological fulfillment or application does not necessarily negate a future, ultimate fulfillment with national Israel (Progressive Dispensationalism, Kindle Locations 7035-7037). In other words, this relationship says something more than the OT texts, but not less (cf. complementary hermeneutics).

In conclusion, surely analogy is fundamental to Peter’s use of this OT language. But the lavishing of designations once used for Israel (Grudem, 113), as well as the specific type of designations, indicate something more. For example, what use is it to call the Church, a multi-ethnic community, a nation? Peter’s point is certainly not the Church’s national composition (hardly), but the realization of this special position once held by Israel. Or further, Peter does not merely apply one or two OT themes to the Church, but applies several designations for and descriptions of Israel to the Church in 2:9-10. And this Church, Peter has argued, is the people of God who has become the recipients of all the promises previously anticipated by the Old Testament people of God (1:3-12). In other words, Peter’s use of the language of Exodus 19 (as well as other OT texts) in application to the Church assumes an implied typological relationship between the Church and Israel. This doesn’t necessitate that the Church and Israel are indistinct and there’s no discontinuity between eschatological Israel (i.e., the Church; Gal 6:16) and Old Testament Israel; nor does it mean that the Church has “replaced” Israel (rather, believing Israelites are included) and ethnic Israel has no future in God’s redemptive purpose (cf. Rom 9-11). But this relationship does imply that all of God’s promises are realized in the Church, the eschatological people of God, of which all the true children of promise (Rom 9:8; Gal 4:28; cf. Rom 2:25-29; Gal 3:14, 29), Jew or Gentile, are a part.