Chapter 2

Marriage and Gender

in the Old Testament
Ronald A. Simkins

a
Introduction
Marriage in the Old Testament is the expression of the gender relationship
between men and women in ancient Israel. What it meant to be a man and
a woman was realized by being a husband and wife. What ties marriage
and gender together in ancient Israel is procreation. Gender refers to the
socially recognized behavior of men and women as defined by the role of
each in procreation, whereas marriage is the socially recognized arena in
which procreation should take place. Because the relationship between the
husband and the wife, and between Israelite men and women in general,
is characterized by a gender asymmetry in which the husband dominates
his wife, Israelite marriage and gender are usually labeled as patriarchal.
But this designation begs a number of significant questions: 1 Given that
most societies manifest some form of male domination, in what ways was
the practice of Israelite marriage patriarchal? Or, in what ways and under
what circumstances did an Israelite husband dominate his wife? At the
core of understanding Israelite patriarchy and the Israelites' subordination
of women, however, is the fundamental question: How did the Israelites'
understanding of procreation shape their understanding of gender and their
practice of marriage?
The Bible unfortunately gives little attention to the Israelites' understand-
ing of procreation. Moreover, the Bible presents only a fragmentary, and
sometimes even a contradictory, view of marriage and the family in ancient
Israel. Nevertheless, a late Hellenistic text that places procreation in the
context of marriage provides a suggestive model for interpreting gender and
marriage in the Old Testament:
My child, keep sound the bloom of your youth,
and do not give your strength to strangers.
Seek a fertile field within the whole plain,
and sow it with your own seed, trusting in your fine stock.
So your offspring will prosper,
and, having confidence in their good descent, will grow great.
(Sir. 26:19-21)

21
22 Ronald A. Simkins

This text uses agriculture as a metaphor for procreation to define the roles
of the husband and the wife in marriage. The husband is like a farmer who
sows seed in a field; the wife is like a fertile field that receives and nurtures
seed so that it sprouts and matures.
Is this view of procreation also found in the earlier texts of the Old Testa-
ment? Although not stated so explicitly, this view is reflected in the common
Heblfw usage of zera', which is usually translated "seed," but when used
in reference to a male it may refer to either semen or the offspring produced
from semen. Moreover, the biblical writers' frequent use of creation meta-
phors drawn from their experiences with agriculture and the birth process
(see, for example, Ps. 139:13-15; Job 10:8-11; Isa. 45:8; Amos 9:15) sug-
gests that they perceived a metaphorical connection between agriculture and
procreation. 2 In this essay I will argue that the Israelites understood the pro-
cess of procreation in terms of agriculture, and that this metaphor shaped
their understanding of gender and their practice of marriage.

Procreation and Agriculture

in the Yahwist Creation Myth
The relationship between marriage and gender in the Old Testament is ex-
pressed most fully in the Yahwist creation myth in Genesis 2:4b-3:24. The
narrative begins with God's acts of creation that culminate with the in-
stitution of marriage; the gendered roles of the husband and the wife are
defined in the denouement of the story. Through the four-part structure of
the myth and the development of two gendered word-pairs, the Yahwist cre-
ation myth defines marriage and gender in terms of the relationship between
procreation and agriculture: the man ('adam) is born from the arable land
('adamah) (2:4b-17); the man is transformed into a husband ('ish) and his
wife ('ishshah) is made from him (2:18-24); the married couple gain sexual
awareness through eating the fruit of knowledge (2:25-3:7); as a result of
their sexual awareness, the wife ('ishshah) will bear children 3 and the man
('adam) will work the arable land ('adamah) (3:8-23).
The myth begins with the creation of man. In order to provide someone to
work the land and thereby bring vegetation to the dry, barren earth, Yahweh
God formed man ('adam) from the arable land ('adamah). This wordplay-
presented as male and female forms of the same word - attests to the man's
relationship to the land. The man is dependent upon the arable land from
which he was taken, and in the end he will return to the land. Yet the land
is dependent upon the man if it is to be anything more than a barren desert.
The land needs the man to till it and sow seed in it to produce vegetation.
For this reason the man was created.
The creation of humans from dirt or clay is a common ancient Near
Eastern creation metaphor, but the cultural understanding of this metaphor
is not readily apparent to modern readers. Whereas we might think in terms
 Marriage and Gender in the Old Testament 23

of modeling clay figures, the various contexts in which this metaphor is

used indicate that it is a vehicle for understanding the birth process. In
the Mesopotamian myth of Atrahasis, for example, Enki's treading of clay
and BeIet-iIi's pinching off of fourteen pieces in order to create humans are
juxtaposed to a description of the process and rites of childbirth. In this
context the fashioning of clay served as a metaphor for gestation during
pregnancy: the first humans were shaped in the earth-womb from which
they were born just as Enki and BeIet-iIi continue to work in the wombs of
women to produce children.
Most scholars have compared Yahweh's creation of the man not to Enki
and BeIet-iIi's creation in Atrahasis, but rather to Khnum's fashioning of
humans on his potter's wheel. Indeed, this comparison with the Egyptian
creator god is appropriate; Yahweh's creation of the man from dirt does
evoke the image of a potter who forms a vesseI on his wheel. But as sev-
eral hymns to Khnum make clear, 4 the ancient Egyptians also attributed
to Khnum the necessary and critical task of forming human fetuses during
gestation. His role during the birth process is illustrated on a series of wall
reliefs in the mortuary temple Hatshepsut at Deir el Bahari. In the first reI-
evant scene, the chief god, Amun, who assumes the form of the king, is
tastefully depicted having intercourse with the queen, Hatshepsut's mother.
After the intercourse, the next scene portrays Khnum fashioning Hatshepsut
on his potter's wheel. Then in the following scenes, Khnum and his spouse
Heket, a birth-goddess, lead the pregnant queen to the birth chamber where
she delivers Hatshepsut. According to these reliefs, Khnum is clearly the one
who forms and shapes the fetus during gestation. His work and skill as a
potter serve as a metaphor for the god's activity in the birth process. 5
Returning to the Yahwist creation myth, Yahweh's forming the man from
the arable land should be interpreted as a metaphor for man's birth from
the earth. Yahweh acts as a potter in the manner of Khnum by forming
the human fetus in the earth-womb, and then Yahweh acts as a midwife by
delivering the man out of the earth, breathing into his nostrils the breath
of life. The relationship of the man ('adam) to the arable land ('adamah) is
thus both agricultural and natal.
In the second part of the myth, the man's primary relationship to the
arable land gives way to a new relationship: the relationship between
husband ('ish) and wife ('ishshah). Faced with the problem of the man's
loneliness, Yahweh creates new creatures from the arable land (presumably
in the same way that the man was created) with purpose of finding an
appropriate helper for the man. Unable to create such a creature, Yahweh
then takes a new approach to the problem. Yahweh takes one of the man's
ribs and from it makes a wife ('ishshah) for the man. The man in turn is
transformed into a husband ('ish).
The relationship between the
myth is complex. Some scholars have argued that because both the husband
and the wife have their origin in the original 'adam, the 'adam should be
 24 Ronald A. Simkins

interpreted as a nongendered human creature. The husband and the wife

would thus represent complementary gendered parts of the human creature. 6
However, the husband ('ish) is identified with the 'adam throughout the rest
of the myth. Moreover, the text emphasizes that the wife is created "from the
husband" ('ish), just as the rib is taken "from the man" ('adam), suggesting
that the wife has her origin in the husband and thus is dependent upon
him. In relation to the arable land ('adamah) and other creatures the man is
'adam, but in relation to his wife ('ishshah) he is 'ish.
The wordplay between 'ish and 'ishshah suggests a complementary re-
lationship between the husband and the wife that corresponds to the
relationship between 'adam and 'adamah. In both cases, for example,
the wordplay represents a unity of substance between the two members
of the pair: the 'ish and 'ishshah share bone and flesh, just as the 'adam
and 'adamah share dirt. The shared substance between the husband and the
wife also implies a mutually dependent relationship between them, but un-
like the relationship between the man and the arable land, the dependencies
of this relationship are not yet defined. The correspondence between the
two relationships is suggestive, but it is important also to note how the two
relationships differ. First, the gender sequence of the pairs is different: the
male 'adam comes from the female 'adamah, but the female 'ishshah comes
from the male 'ish. Second, whereas the 'adam is born from the 'adamah,
the 'ishshah is simply brought to the 'ish. These two relationships are not
strictly parallel. The man's relationship to the arable land is agricultural and
natal, but his relationship to his wife will, in the third episode, be conjugal
and procreative. The 'ishshah does not simply replace the 'adamah in her
relationship to the man. She forms a new kind of relationship with him,
as indicated by his transformation from 'adam to 'ish. But the man also
remains 'adam and his relationship to the 'adamah persists, just as a man
continues to be the son of his parents even after he leaves them to marry
a wife (see 3:24). Although not identical, the relationship between 'adam
and 'adamah functions in the narrative to define the relationship between
'ish and 'ishshah. The character of this latter relationship is developed in the
second half of the myth.
The pivotal third episode of the myth focuses on the wife's dialogue with
the serpent and her and her husband's subsequent eating of the forbidden
fruit of knowledge. By eating the fruit, the man and woman become like
God, knowing good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil- probably
a merism 7 for universal or cultural knowledge 8 - is what distinguishes the
married couple from all the other creatures that Yahweh created from the
arable land. Through knowledge the man and woman gain the potential for
culture; the married couple become creators like God.
The specific way in which the married couple's newly acquired knowledge
makes them like God is indicated by the context. The episode frames the man
and woman's acquisition of knowledge with references to their nakedness.
 Marriage and Gender in the Old Testament 25

Before they eat the fruit, the married couple is naked and not ashamed. The
implication is that they are sexually unaware. Without knowledge they are
like children unacquainted with the significance of their bodies, and so their
nakedness means nothing to them. After they eat the fruit, however, the man
and woman know that they are naked and they appropriately cover them-
selves. The married couple is now aware of their sexuality; their nakedness
has significance and therefore they cover their genitals. The fruit of knowl-
edge has made the married couple like God, and their similarity to God is
symbolized by their knowledge of sexuality. The ramifications of this knowl-
edge, of the married couple being like God, are spelled out in the remainder
of the narrative.
In the final episode the Yahwist creation myth presents the particular gen-
der roles of the man and his wife as the consequence of the married couple's
new status of being like God. Scholars have traditionally interpreted the
consequences outlined in this episode to be Yahweh's punishments imposed
upon the married couple for disregarding Yahweh's prohibition against eat-
ing the fruit of knowledge. As a result, the married couple's gender roles are
interpreted as the consequence of their "fallen" state - that is, their roles
have been corrupted by sin. But this interpretation is inadequate. First, the
woman and the man are not cursed for their actions. Second, in only one
case does Yahweh impose what could be interpreted as a punishment on the
couple - Yahweh curses the arable land on account of the man's actions,
leaving it unproductive for agriculture. However, even in this case Yahweh
does not alter the condition of the land. Yahweh just withholds temporarily
the rain needed for agriculture, a condition that is alleviated with the flood.
And third, the structure of the myth suggests that the gender roles ascribed
to the husband and to the wife are the inherent consequences of their ac-
quisition of knowledge. The description of the married couple's gender roles
in this episode gives.content to the relationship between 'ish and 'ishshah
and defines how this relationship corresponds to the relationship between
'adam and 'adamah. Yahweh's narrative role serves primarily to institute
the married couple's gender roles and to explain the implications of their
knowledge and sexual awareness.
Yahweh inaugurates the wife's gender role by declaring that he will in-
crease her toils and pregnancies. Because the woman now has knowledge
and an awareness of her sexuality, childbirth is possible. She will bear chil-
dren, but such births will be painful. Her life will be filled with the labors that
are characteristic of a mother and wife in ancient Israel. Yet the woman's sta-
tus as mother will be dependent upon her husband, for her husband will rule
over her-that is, he will have control over her pregnancies. The woman's
relationship to her husband is analogous to the arable land's relationship to
the man. The land is dependent upon the man to bring forth vegetation. It
will remain a barren desert without the man to till it and sow seed in it. Sim-
ilarly, the woman's ability to bear children is dependent upon her husband,
26 Ronald A. Simkins

who must first impregnate her. The woman is like the arable land in that
the fecundity of both is linked to the man's sowing of seed, but whereas
the land's fecundity is expressed in terms of agriculture, the woman's fecun-
dity is expressed in terms of procreation. The arable land also gave birth to
the first man, but as the result of Yahweh's activity. Now all future genera-
tions will be born from the woman as a result of her husband's activity. The
woman will replace the arable land as the mother of all living.
Although the Yahwist myth describes the woman's gender role ('ishshah)
in relation to her husband ('ish), the man's gender role ('adam) is described in
relation to the arable land ('adamah). The man's newly acquired knowledge
and awareness of sexuality is expressed, not in terms of procreation, but in
terms of agriculture. The man now has the knowledge to work the land,
which is the purpose for which he was created. No longer will the man
live off the fruit of God's garden. Through his toil and sweat the man will
provide for his own subsistence - a task that is made more arduous until the
advent of rain. The man will be like Yahweh in his gender role of working
the soil. Just as Yahweh planted a garden and caused trees to sprout up from
the earth, the man will also bring forth life from the barren land.
According to the Yahwist creation myth, the Israelites' understanding
of procreation is expressed in terms of agriculture, and this understand-
ing shaped their understanding of marriage and gender. The man's role in
procreation is metaphorically compared to the role of a farmer and the
woman's role is compared to the arable land. Just as a man sows seeds
into the land and thereby causes the earth to produce vegetation, a man
can sow his seed - his semen - into a woman causing her to give birth
to a child. This view of procreation, of course, is not the view shared
by most people in the Western world. 9 According to the current scientific
understanding of procreation, the birth of a child is dependent upon the
joining of a man's sperm and a woman's egg in conception and the de-
velopment of the fetus within the woman's uterus until parturition. Both
the man and the woman contribute equally to the genetic makeup of the
child, each contributing twenty-three chromosomes. This understanding of
procreation, however, is the result of relatively recent discoveries - about
a century old - that were not evident to the ancient Israelites. The Is-
raelites instead understood procreation in terms of the natural processes
with which they were familiar. The similarities between agriculture and the
process of childbirth were well known to the people of the ancient Near
East and are widely attested in their literature. The references in the Yah-
wist myth to the man's birth from the arable land, the wife's creation from
and dependence upon her husband, the association of the fruit of knowl-
edge with sexual awareness, the wife's identification with the arable land,
and the corresponding relationships between 'adam and 'adamah and be-
tween 'ish and 'ishshah all indicate that the Israelites shared this view of
procreation.
Marriage and Gender in the Old Testament 27

Gender and the Practice of Marriage

The Israelites' view of procreation had significant implications for their
understanding of gender and the practice of marriage. Unlike our under-
standing of procreation in which the man and woman contribute equally
to the birth of a child, the Israelite understanding assigns the primary and
essential role in procreation to the man. Only the man possesses the seed
that will produce new life. The man's semen, like the seed that is planted
in the soil, determines the character or quality of what will be produced;
it contains all the essential characteristics of the child that will be born. A
fertile woman is necessary for procreation - a barren woman, like barren
soil, prevents the male seed from developing - but she contributes noth-
ing essential to the makeup of the newborn child. Her role is to carry and
nurture the man's seed until the child is born. Only after the child is born
does the mother contribute to the character of the child through training
and education. The woman's complete dependence upon the man's seed in
order to fulfill her role in procreation thus results in her husband ruling over
her (3:16).
Because the role of the woman in procreation is similar to that of arable
land, she is treated in some cases as a man's property: by her father as a
daughter, by her husband as a wife. In many cases regarding a woman's per-
son, the Israelites treated her similarly to a man. For example, if a woman
is injured by another or is murdered, her assailant is treated in the same
way as if he had injured or murdered a man. However, in cases involving a
woman's sexuality or procreative potential, she is treated like a man's prop-
erty. The betrothal of a woman in marriage, for example, is arranged as
an economic exchange. Because the groom's family will gain a potentially
productive "field" in the bride, they compensate the family of the bride
through the gift of a bride price. In the story in which Abraham's servant
seeks a wife for Isaac, the servant compensates Rebekah's family with gold
and silver jewelry, garments, and costly ornaments (Gen. 24:22, 53). A mar-
riageable daughter is thus an economic asset to her father. If another man
damages this asset - if a man seduces and has sexual relations with his vir-
gin daughter - then the father is entitled to compensation. The man who
seduces his daughter must pay a fine equal to the expected bride price (Exod.
22:16-17). A wife or daughter'S procreative potential has an economic value
like arable land, and thus in this regard she is treated like property.
Because the man possesses the seed in the process of procreation, the
children who are the product of his seed belong especially to the father. We
have already noted that the descendants of a man are referred to as his seed;
they are his descendants. Little attention is given to the contribution of the
mother. Whereas children, especially sons, are important to a mother for her
to fulfill her marital obligation to her husband and to provide for her in her
old age, they are important to the father to carry on his name. Ancient Israel
is thus a patrilineal society, and biblical genealogies are traced from father to
28 Ronald A. Simkins

son. Because a man's seed is equated with his posterity, several laws empha-
size the importance of preserving (i.e., not wasting) his seed. For example, a
man should not have sexual relations with a woman in menstruation (Lev.
18:19), for during this period she cannot become pregnant and the use of
his seed would be a waste. Similarly, a man should not have sexual relations
with another man or with an animal (Lev. 18:22-23)-his seed would like-
wise be wasted. Sexual relations with a kinsman's wife are also prohibited
in this context (Lev. 18:20), but for a different reason. Although the man's
seed would produce a child, the paternity of the child would be in question.
In other words, because the land (the kinsmen's wife) does not belong to the
man, his seed would be indistinguishable from the seed of the man to whom
the land belongs. Finally, in the case when a pregnant woman is injured so
that she has a miscarriage, those responsible for the injury must compensate
the woman's husband for his loss of seed (Exod. 21:22-25).
Marriage and gender in ancient Israel were indeed patriarchal; the
husband dominated his wife. This gender asymmetry that is attested to
in the Old Testament is rooted in the ancient Israelites' understanding
of procreation. Although procreation is a natural process, knowledge of
procreation is socially constructed. Whereas we employ microscopes and
sonograms to understand the process of procreation, the ancient Israelites
who lived in a primarily agrarian society drew upon metaphors from agri-
culture. A husband's role in procreation was like that of a farmer because he
planted seed in his wife, and his wife's role was like that of the arable land
because she received the seed and nurtured it until the child was born from
her. This view of procreation shaped the Israelites' understanding of gender
and practice of marriage in two significant ways: the husband was respon-
sible through his seed for the birth of his children, and the wife's sexuality
and procreative potential were treated as the property of her husband.

Questions for Discussion

1. The ancestor stories in Genesis provide us with the most information
regarding the Israelite family. Try to explain features of the stories in
terms of the Israelite understanding of marriage and gender. For ex-
ample, why is there a preference for marrying kin? Why is Abraham
reluctant to favor Isaac over Ishmael? Why does Sarai give her maid-
servant Hagar to Abram? How does this fulfin her marital obligation?
Why must Jacob work seven years before he can marry one of the
daughters of Laban?
2. Read the story of Zelophehad's daughters in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-
12. Why do you think that daughters did not inherit property from
their fathers? Why are daughters allowed to inherit? How do they
substitute for sons? Why must the daughters marry kinsmen?
Marriage and Gender in the Old Testament 29

3. Read the story of David's adultery with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11-

12. According to the prophet Nathan's indictment of David, what
was his crime? Why is Bathsheba compared to Uriah's lamb? Why
does God punish David by killing the child that resulted from David's
adultery?