Category: Blog

This blog gathers my public scholarly work on Scripture, disability, and embodied life in community. Here you’ll find close readings of biblical texts, especially stories of women and healing, alongside reflections on empire, state violence, and public grief. I also write about teaching the Bible with bodies in mind—designing accessible courses, engaging hard texts, and supporting ministers and students as they interpret Scripture for their own contexts.

  • ICE is Anti-Christ

    What the Gospel stories about refugees, children, and neighbors reveal about current U.S. immigration enforcement

    Anti-Christ as a Pattern, not a Person

    I realize this is a bold statement, and that the term “anti-Christ” carries a lot of connotations. But I’m not talking about the evangelical belief that there is one Big Bad for whom we need to be on the lookout. When I say “anti-Christ,” I mean a pattern of behaviors that are antithetical to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.

    The singular focus on the one monster who checks a certain set of boxes blinds us to the reality that anti-Christ behaviors can be seen anywhere. And much of the current Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations are blatantly anti-Christian. That is, it contradicts what the Gospels teach about vulnerable people, children, and neighbors.

    Jesus as Refugee and State Violence

    Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”
    Matthew 2:13 (NRSVue).

    This story is familiar and, so, perhaps, we do not feel the weight of the moment. Jesus begins his life fleeing the state’s violent policies. Leaving their home was a survival strategy, and they returned only when it was safe to do so. Jesus lived as a refugee, an immigrant in a different nation, crossing geopolitical borders for a better life.

    Rachel Weeping and Children in Detention

    When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the magi. Then what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
    “A voice was heard in Ramah,
    wailing and loud lamentation,
    Rachel weeping for her children;
    she refused to be consoled, because
    they are no more.” (Matt 2:13-18)

    The murderous policies of Herod, which led to the flight of Jesus and his family, took the lives of small children in Bethlehem. Why God was not able to save all the children, but did save Jesus, is not addressed in the story; theologians have grappled with this for centuries. But the text makes it clear that this is a tragedy.

    The author of Matthew cites Jeremiah 31:15, who is writing during the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. Rachel weeps as her “children” are sent into exile. The Babylonian exile was one of the most consequential events in the Biblical texts and Jewish history. This comparison of the deaths of the young boys at the behest of Herod to the exile carries an emotional resonance that recalls defeat and trauma, but also the hope of justice.

    ICE detained about 2,600 minors who were living in the United States (with varying levels of documentation) in the first 10 months of 2025. Legally, ICE does not detain unaccompanied minors, but this does not mean that the children are not separated from their families in different ways. A high-profile example is the recent detainment of Liam Conejo Ramos, a five-year-old preschooler from Minneapolis, who was detained with his father in a Texas family detention center. He was separated from his mother and showed obvious signs of physical decline while in custody. Adding to the trauma of the familial destabilization, the conditions in many ICE facilities are deplorable – no medical care, lights that never turn off, and no private restrooms.

    Surely, Rachel weeps for these children, too.

    “Let the Children Come to Me”

    He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:14b-16)

    Jesus does not vet these children for origin or status. He instead insists that the kingdom of God belongs to “such as these” and blesses them.

    Research on U.S.‑born children in mixed‑status families shows that immigration enforcement practices generate chronic anxiety and fear, with measurable effects on children’s mental health, development, and sense of safety. For the roughly one in four children in the United States who have an immigrant parent, the looming possibility of separation from one or both parents is not abstract

    ICE threatens our children’s well-being; Jesus blesses them and names them as bearers of the kingdom.

    Good Samaritan Citizenship

    Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came upon him, and when he saw him he was moved with compassion. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, treating them with oil and wine. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. (Luke 10:31-34)

    If we still look for ways to justify detaining children or excusing civilian deaths, we should at least be honest that such actions run against both basic professional ethics and the Gospel’s call to love of neighbor. And they are supported by the full apparatus of the government. When we see these atrocities, we must not be the Priest or the Levite. We must be the Good Samaritan. Not questioning the “why”; instead, meeting the need with care and compassion. It is hard, but we should mourn with Rachel that the children are no more. And we should stand firm in our commitment to our constitution that all people in the United States deserve life, dignity, and the pursuit of happiness. That all are guaranteed due process.

    You cannot claim compassion for families harmed by raids, detention, and family separation while supporting the erosion of the institutions meant to protect them from arbitrary state violence. You cannot claim to love your neighbor while supporting policies that tear families apart or accept the preventable suffering and death that follow.

    In the United States, we the people have tremendous power. We have the right to free speech, to protest peacefully, and to vote. We may not be a Christian nation, but Christians and others who take Jesus’ teaching seriously can advocate for what he names: love, mercy, compassion, and justice.

  • A Reflection in the aftermath of Alex Pretti

    A Reflection in the aftermath of Alex Pretti

    I’m writing an Advent devotional focused on embodiment. This is what I wrote yesterday for one of the devotionals. I selected the passages some time ago, but they really resonated with the events of January 24, 2026.

    Psalm 40:6–8

    Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, “Here I am; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”

    Hebrews 10:5–7

    Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘See, God, I have come to do your will, O God’ (in the scroll of the book it is written of me).”

    Reflection

    I write today carrying the weight of witnessing state violence—most recently the public execution of Alex Pretti by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. I saw the state kill a perceived dissident, a child of God. This within weeks of the state-sanctioned murders of Keith Porter and Renée Good. So I write today with a new heaviness in my heart.

    Today’s passages remind us that God doesn’t require sacrifice, but that we do God’s will. Jesus comes into the world and shows us what doing God’s will looks like. Jesus commands we love in radical ways: care for the poor and vulnerable, love the undesirable, and put our lives on the lines for others. This love is never abstract. It is practiced with hands that feed, voices that speak, backs that bear weight, and feet that refuse to turn away. Jesus’ resistance to Rome’s exploitation of its colonized residents led to his death. The Roman state killed Jesus, a threat to the status quo.

    The state requires sacrifice; God does not.
    The state decides which bodies are disposable.
    God loves the bodies the world discards.

    I may never know how to process the images I saw today, but I truly believe that salvation begins with a body that can be wounded. Advent reminds us that God does not save us from afar. Jesus shows us that God does not finish God’s good work at death. May Keith, Renée, and Alex’s deaths not be in vain, but may they spur us into greater love for our neighbor. And may their memory be a blessing.

    Practice

    Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and name invitations that feel costly or uncomfortable. Sit in that.

    Prayer

    God who sits with us in our suffering, move in our hearts inspiring greater love from our pain. Amen.

  • Commentary on John 1:29-42

    Commentary on John 1:29-42

    This article was first published on Working Preacher. In its original publication, it was tied to a specific lectionary cycle.

    As we journey through ordinary time, our lectionary turns to passages that reveal who Jesus is and lead us into deeper discipleship. The text chosen for this week, John 1:29-42, makes some striking claims about who Jesus is and how his disciples, then and now, can relate to him.

    Jesus’ identity

    The Gospel has already made clear that Jesus is pre-existent and one with God, in the prologue.  But, it becomes clear, there is more to Jesus’ identity. In thirteen short verses we are told that the Spirit of God descended and remained upon Jesus and we are provided four titles for understanding Jesus’ identity: Lamb of God, Son of God, Rabbi, and Messiah.

    John the Baptist makes the first two declarations of Jesus’ identity. The Gospel tells us that John the Baptist was questioned by the priests and Levites from Jerusalem regarding his identity: Is he the Messiah or Elijah or “the prophet”? John tells them he is not, but instead that he is the one preparing the way for “one who is coming after me” (1:26).  When John sees Jesus the next day, he proclaims that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (1:29) and the Son of God (1:34).

    Lamb of God

    “Lamb of God” evokes the Passover lamb from Exodus 12:1-13. There the Hebrew people living in Egypt are instructed to slaughter a lamb, put some of its blood on their doorposts, and eat the lamb. Those who do this will be spared the final plague of the death of the first born that God brings down on the Egyptian people. To be clear, this is not a sacrificial lamb, at least not in the same way that lambs sacrificed as sin offerings were. 

    Another reference point is Isaiah 53:1-12 in its description of the Suffering Servant who was “like a lamb that is led to slaughter” (53:7) and whose life was made “an offering for sin” (53:10). The gospel seems to be evoking both Exodus and Isaiah in its depiction of Jesus. Thus, Jesus is understood to protect God’s people, mark one as chosen by God, provide sustenance, and provide some sort of atonement for sin. Jesus, then, is an avenue for God’s intervention in the world on behalf of God’s people.

    Son of God 

    John the Baptist witnesses that Jesus is the Son of God because he “saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on [Jesus]” (1:32).  For the evangelist, this is incarnational language. It recalls the closing line of the prologue, “It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” (1:18b). To describe Jesus as the Son of God is to highlight his special relationship with God. 

    While others have also been said to have been sons of God (for example, Israel in Exodus 4:22-23 and Deuteronomy 14:1, among other texts), the prologue adds nuance: The Son of God is God. The evangelist further implies this equality with God at 5:19, 10:30, and 14:7 as well as through Jesus’ various uses of the formulaic statement of divine revelation “I am.” The Gospel seems to be saying, then, that Jesus is not only an agent through whom God is acting in the world, but is literally God acting in the world.

    That these confessions come from John the Baptist is important as the first two followers of Jesus (1:35-37) are initially disciples of John. When John, again, refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God (1:36), the two disciples, one of whom is Andrew the brother of Peter, both begin following Jesus. These disciples call Jesus Rabbi and the Messiah. 

    Rabbi

    Jesus’ first words in the Gospel are a question asked of John’s disciples: “What do you want?” The two disciples (unnamed at this point) reply with a question of their own, “Rabbi, where are you staying?” On the surface this might appear to be a disjointed conversation. Jesus asks a question that could be taken a myriad of ways and the disciples’ response is a question that is, on the surface, not in any way related to Jesus’ question. However, when one understands that Rabbi means teacher (which the evangelist kindly spells out), then it becomes a bit more obvious what the disciples mean; they want to learn from Jesus.  

    Jesus invites them to “come and see,” an invitation that Jesus will make in various ways to many people throughout the Gospel. As a rabbi, a teacher, Jesus does not just speak (although he certainly does plenty of that in John), he invites disciples into participation. 

    Messiah

    The fourth title for Jesus in this passage is Messiah. This revelation by a disciple occurs early in John (compare to Peter in Matthew 16:16, Mark 8:29, and Luke 9:20). Further, it is not Peter who makes the confession, but Andrew, his brother. Andrew tells Peter, “We have found the Messiah” (1:41) which seems to be enough for Peter to come to Jesus. 

    As the evangelist helpfully reminds us, “messiah” is a Hebrew word meaning anointed (by God). In the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition, kings, high priests, and (possibly) some prophets were anointed. Over time, especially during and after the Babylonian captivity, some Jewish folk began anticipating a future messiah that would be an heir to King David and fulfill God’s promises to Israel. The evangelist picks up on these hopes in their depiction of Jesus. 

    An invitation into participation

    What is particularly poignant to me about this passage is that these markers of Jesus’ identity are not used to elevate him above everyone else, making him unapproachable. Instead, Jesus invites his new disciples into participation with him. He invites them to follow him further to discover what they seek to know. The rest of the gospel provides us with deeper insights into Jesus’ identity if only we will “come and see.”

    ICE is Anti-Christ

    What the Gospel stories about refugees, children, and neighbors reveal about current U.S. immigration enforcement Anti-Christ as a Pattern, not a Person I realize this is a bold statement, and that the term “anti-Christ” carries a lot of connotations. But I’m not talking about the evangelical belief…

    A Reflection in the aftermath of Alex Pretti

    I’m writing an Advent devotional focused on embodiment. This is what I wrote yesterday for one of the devotionals. I selected the passages some time ago, but they really resonated with the events of January 24, 2026. Psalm 40:6–8 Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but…

    Commentary on John 1:29-42

    This article was first published on Working Preacher.

    As we journey through ordinary time, our lectionary turns to passages that reveal who Jesus is and lead us into deeper discipleship. The text chosen for this week, John 1:29-42, makes some striking claims about who Jesus is and how…

  • Commentary on Luke 2:[1-7] 8-20

    Commentary on Luke 2:[1-7] 8-20

    This article was first published on Working Preacher.

    The nativity story is so familiar that it is almost rote at this point. We read the story. We sing the story. We watch our littles pretend to be sheep, shepherds, and stars. 

    I find it easy, maybe comforting even, to imagine the nativity events that Luke describes as tranquil: a beaming new mother and father admiring their sleeping infant while stable animals sleep around them. A silent night, indeed. 

    Yet, for those there, this was a world changing event. 

    Beyond being a new mother with a whole new set of responsibilities, Mary had the added burden of knowing her son was called to be an heir to King David (1:32). What could that mean when King Herod is already on the throne and the Emperor reigns supreme? 

    Joseph knew the child wasn’t his own; Luke has no account of an angel explaining the situation to him. How much faith would it require to believe Mary’s account of things? What if people found out he was not Jesus’ father? His decision to raise Jesus as his own was not so simple.

    Perhaps the shepherds expected a messiah1, but did they expect this messiah to enter the scene this way on this night? And why on earth would the birth announcement of a king be made to shepherds on the midnight shift?

    The birth of Jesus, as Luke tells it, has a lot of distinguishing features. There’s the emphasis on Mary and Elizabeth’s experiences over those of Joseph and Zechariah. Jesus is born in a stable and sleeps in an animal’s feeding trough. It is shepherds who first learn of Jesus, not Magi bearing costly gifts. Mary’s spontaneous song identifies the ways that God is working on behalf of the low-status and materially bereft. In fact, most biblical scholars agree that Luke emphasizes Jesus’ humble beginnings and actions on behalf of the poor and oppressed. 

    With all of this emphasis on low-status people and the humble elements of Jesus’ birth, it is easy to overlook the political dimensions Luke incorporates. Consider the angel’s announcement to the shepherds: “Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord” (2:10-11).

    Luke uses language to describe Jesus that imperial propaganda applied to Caesar Augustus:

    “It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: 

    ‘Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good news for the world that came by reason of him,’ which Asia resolved in Smyrna”

    This inscription (emphasis mine), written when Augustus was an adult commemorating his birthday, references the birth of Augustus Caesar as the beginning of a new era in which there will be peace and prosperity. Augustus, himself a god, is said to be a savior sent by Providence whose birth was the beginning of good news. The words for savior (soter) and good news (euangelion) are the same words used in Luke when the angel reports the birth of Jesus to the shepherds. 

    Further, this inscription makes the claim that Augustus was sent to end war. After the announcement to the shepherds, multiple angels appear saying, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors!” (2:14). Not only is the advent of the savior Jesus good news, Luke claims that God is the one who brings peace. These claims are in stark contrast with the claims of Rome and the emperor. 

    In our American context the notion of Jesus as king is a spiritualized metaphor devoid of much of its political emphasis. But in the ancient world, a king held real power for real people. A king’s choices had impacts on food distribution, health, wealth distribution, and more. 

    Augustus claims to have brought peace and to be a great benefactor to all humankind. Yet wealth distribution in the empire was inequitable; while about 3% controlled 90%+ of the empire’s wealth, most people hovered around or below subsistence level.2 The empire taxed its people extensively. Taxes were paid in kind, and a small farm could be taxed as much as 75% of its yield, depending upon how corrupt the individual tax collectors were. The Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was the result of violent subjugation, not radical inclusion. Augustus’ rule often benefited the few at the expense of the many.

    Jesus, heir of David, is a different kind of king altogether. His birth announcement is delivered to shepherds in the middle of the night. Without coercion, his peace will come to those who accept his teaching and follow God. His work will be known not through self-serving monuments and inscriptions, but through relationships. His cohort is made up of poor laborers and women. His work will be among the poor, the outcast, the impaired, and the exploited. He will remember the forgotten and bring them into his community.

    The silent night that I often imagine in my idyllic version of the nativity is too tame for what was unleashed that night in Bethlehem. God broke into the world in a brand new way. A king was born whose rule benefited the broken, brokenhearted, and bereft. This is the good news of a savior indeed. 


    Notes

    1.  A Hebrew word meaning “anointed one;” often used in connection with royal figures.
    2. Friesen, Steven J. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26, no. 3 (March 1, 2004): 323–61.Longenecker, Bruce. “Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the Study of Early Urban Christianity.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (2009): 243–78.

    Commentary on Luke 2:[1-7] 8-20

    This article was first published on Working Preacher. I find it easy, maybe comforting even, to imagine the nativity events that Luke describes as tranquil: a beaming new mother and father admiring their sleeping infant while stable animals sleep around them. A silent night, indeed. 

    Yet, for those there, this was a world changing event.

    Commentary on Matthew 5:1-12

    This article was first published on Working Preacher. Matthew shows Jesus to be an active agent of God’s power among the people and an authoritative teacher, highlighted by what is arguably the most famous of Jesus’ teachings, the Sermon on the Mount. This week’s passage is the overture, if you will, to this sermon.

    Commentary on Matthew 4:12-23

    This article was first published on Working Preacher.

    Matthew’s account of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and the call of his first disciples is a tale of two kingdoms. Matthew 4:12-23 demonstrates the call for allegiance required to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven. This allegiance runs counter to Roman imperial claims to lives, labor,…

  • Commentary on Matthew 5:1-12

    Commentary on Matthew 5:1-12

    This article was first published on Working Preacher.

    When, in Matthew 5:1, Jesus goes up the mountain with his disciples, we get our first glimpse of Jesus as an authoritative teacher. We know that Jesus is a teacher and a healer because the Sermon on the Mount follows a summary statement of Jesus’ activity: “Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and curing every disease and every sickness among the people” (4:23). 

    Matthew shows Jesus to be an active agent of God’s power among the people and an authoritative teacher, highlighted by what is arguably the most famous of Jesus’ teachings, the Sermon on the Mount. This week’s passage is the overture, if you will, to this sermon.

    The beatitudes: preamble to ministry

    The beatitudes, in my mind, serve as sort of a preamble for the way in which Jesus will interpret the law and how he will conduct his ministry. So far in Matthew, Jesus has prepared for his ministry. He has been baptized. He has been tempted by Satan. He has called his first four disciples. He has taught in the synagogues, proclaimed the good news, and cured diseases and sickness. 

    Now, he turns to teaching his disciples (the first time they are called such in the Gospel), presumably only the four that have so far been called—Andrew, Simon Peter, James, and John. The crowds, then, serve as a sort of backdrop to this sermon. They aren’t the direct audience of the sermon, but they are presumably the recipients of the divine favor Jesus says God has in store. 

    It is easy, from our pews in the wealthiest country in the world, to read the beatitudes and overlook the embodiment present in them. Let’s take them each in turn.

    “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” I read the poor in spirit as those who lack, who are materially bereft and therefore worn down by the plight of poverty. They are those whom society has left behind, who break their backs to make ends meet, whose struggle for basic survival crushes their spirits. Jesus says theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven, for there will be no poor in spirit there. God will set things right.

    “Blessed are those who mourn.” Grief comes for all of us, but mortality rates were higher in the ancient world. Parents simply could not expect their children to survive infancy, let alone make it to adulthood. It was not a given. War, food and housing insecurity, and infectious diseases could cut a life short. And yes, it is right to grieve the loss of one’s land. Jesus’ audience was living under imperial occupation. And the audience of the Gospel, encountering this story after Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE, were certainly grieved by the violation of their land and sacred space. The Promised Land was occupied. Yet, to those who mourn, Jesus proclaims a coming comfort.

    “Blessed are the meek.” This is a reference to Psalm 37:11. Here “meek” refers to those who are abused by the wicked who seem only to prosper. God reassures the meek that they will inherit the land/earth. Jesus, likewise, tells the disciples that those who are abused by the wicked will inherit the land/earth—a land currently claimed and exploited by Rome for the benefit of a few. God’s rule will reverse this. 

    “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Righteousness in the Hebrew Bible (for example, Isaiah 51) refers to a total societal restructuring that includes the equitable distribution of resources. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, then, are those that Rome’s unjust distribution keeps at the margins of subsistence. In a reimagined society, all will have enough. And Jesus says that in God’s kingdom, these folks will be filled. 

    “Blessed are the merciful.” Jesus says that those who practice mercy, those who give of their resources and care for the outcast, will receive mercy. Rome was not known for showing mercy. Rome violently expanded its rule and heavily taxed its population to the point of food insecurity. God’s rule is different. In God’s Kingdom all will be welcome and will have plenty.

    “Blessed are the pure in heart.” The pure in heart are those who follow the will of God in their thinking and doing. Jesus will parse out the importance of a person’s “heart” in discipleship later in the sermon (5:27-30). For those that commit to God thoroughly, without hypocrisy, will see God—an “image of intimate, face-to-face encounter with God.”1

    “Blessed are the peacemakers.” I find this one particularly interesting, as Rome claimed to be the bearers of peace, but Rome’s peace only comes through domination. In Matthew, peace is not the absence of conflict; Jesus is well aware that his message will cause division (10:34-36). However, no one is ever coerced or forced into becoming a disciple. Rome subjugated people to their rule through threat and violence; entry into God’s kingdom is voluntary. “Peacemakers enact not the empire’s will but God’s merciful reign, living toward this wholeness and well-being and against any power that hinders or resists it.”2

    For those of us living comfortable lives in the wealthiest nation the world has ever known, how can we embody the beatitudes? How can we pursue justice, righteousness, and peace? How can we embody God’s promises to those that are poor, mourn, and oppressed? When the beatitudes are rooted in embodiment, rather than spiritualized, we can more clearly see the ways we could act to bring God’s kingdom into people’s lives. 

    Finally, Jesus says “blessed are those who are persecuted for justice’s sake … when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.” The life of a disciple of Jesus runs counter to the values of the world. Perhaps we don’t experience persecution in our modern American context in the way that early Jesus followers did—no one is looking to kill us simply because we confess Christ. But do not be deceived. When we live a life for justice for the oppressed and marginalized, when we extend mercy to the outcast, when we live the values outlined in the beatitudes, the rulers of this world will resist us. But we must persevere if we are to be blessed. 


    Notes

    1. Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Orbis Books: Maryknoll, NY (2000), 135.
    2.  Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Orbis Books: Maryknoll, NY (2000), 136.

    Mothers of the Children of Israel (6)

    Rachel’s Long-Awaited Sons The matriarchs hold a special place in the Hebrew canon and society.  They are so much more than “Jacob’s wives” or “the mothers of the Children of Israel.” In this post, we will look at the naming speeches for Rachel’s sons and draw conclusions regarding what they tell us about a family’s…

    Mothers of the Children of Israel (5)

    Mandrakes and Three More Children for Leah The matriarchs hold a special place in the Hebrew canon and society.  They are so much more than “Jacob’s wives” or “the mothers of the Children of Israel.” To this point, we have discussed when Rachel and Leah met Jacob, Leah’s loveless marriage and her first four children,…

    The Mothers of the Children of Israel (4)

    Bilhah and Zilpah: the Enslaved Matriarchs The matriarchs hold a special place in the Hebrew canon and society.  They are so much more than “Jacob’s wives” or “the mothers of the Children of Israel.”  This post introduces Bilhah and Zilpah as mothers for Jacob’s children and examines the ways that their enslaved bodies are used for…

  • Commentary on Matthew 4:12-23

    Commentary on Matthew 4:12-23

    This article was first published on Working Preacher.

    Matthew’s account of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and the call of his first disciples is a tale of two kingdoms. Matthew 4:12-23 demonstrates the call for allegiance required to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven. This allegiance runs counter to Roman imperial claims to lives, labor, and land.

    Galilee of the Gentiles

    Matthew 4:12-13 reports that “Jesus heard that John [the Baptist] had been arrested.” John’s arrest, seemingly the catalyst for Jesus’ ministry, spurs Jesus to move from Nazareth to “Capernaum, by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Napthtali.” 

    Zebulun and Naphtali, of course, were two of the sons of Jacob and therefore tribes of Israel. Zebulun was the youngest son of Leah while Naphtali was the younger son of Bilhah, the woman enslaved to Rachel. Their tribal territorial allotments in the Promised Land, outlined in Joshua 19:10-16 and 32-39, were to the west of the Sea of Galilee and, by Jesus’ time, included the region of Galilee. Thus, Jesus is “God with us” (1:23) in the Promised Land; and yet, that land is currently under Roman (in other words, Gentile) occupation.

    Matthew underscores the occupation of the land by Gentiles by quoting Isaiah 9:1-2: “Land of Zebulun, land of Naphtali, on the road by these, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people who have sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for this who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.”

    In Isaiah’s time, the lands of Naphtali and Zebulun were under the dominion of another imperial power: the Assyrians who conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 733-732 BCE. Isaiah’s prophecy was written in anticipation of a future king whose reign, the prophet hoped, would restore these lands and reunite the nations of Israel and Judah.1 While Isaiah was likely referring to King Hezekiah, the author of Matthew envisions the fulfillment of this prophecy with Jesus. 

    After Jesus moves to Capernaum in “Galilee of the Gentiles,” he begins preaching repentance because the “kingdom of heaven has come near,” a theme fleshed out (quite literally in the person of Jesus) in the rest of the Gospel. For Matthew, there seems to be a connection between this vision of a restored Israel and repentance. 

    Repentance is a prophetic call to return to God and follow God’s law. The pre-exilic prophets, like Isaiah, encouraged repentance. They subscribed to a theological paradigm scholars refer to as the Deutoronomism. This is a perspective that is prominent in the prophets as well as Deuteronomy, Judges, Joshua, 1-2 Samuel, and 1-2 Kings. In this view, obedience to Torah results in blessings by God, while disobedience will result in penalties/punishments. 

    While Deuteronomy through 2 Kings use this theological lens to understand their history, the pre-exilic prophets use this lens to encourage repentance in order to avoid future punishment. Jesus, taking a different approach, encourages repentance because “the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 

    The Kingdom of Heaven has come near

    By “has come near” Jesus could be referring to a temporal shift. That is, God’s rule is near in that it will soon begin so people should prepare themselves. It could also mean that Jesus understood himself to be the embodiment of God’s kingdom, thus the nearness is found in proximity to Jesus. Either way, Jesus’ message is clear: God is acting in the world. 

    The language of “kingdom” sets up God’s rule in direct opposition to Rome’s rule, thus repentance could also be understood as a choosing of allegiances. The very thing that the two sets of brothers are asked to do when Jesus calls them in 4:18-22. 

    When Jesus first sees the brothers Andrew and Simon Peter, they are fishing on the sea of Galilee. He says to them “Follow me, and I will make you fish for people” (4:19). He then sees two more brothers, James and John, in their boat with Zebedee, their father. They are mending their nets. Matthew 4:21 simply says “and he called them.” These brothers also immediately follow Jesus.

    Some have wondered why Simon Peter and Andrew would walk away so quickly. Did they know Jesus beforehand? Were the sons of Zebedee more likely to follow Jesus because they saw the encounter with Simon Peter and Andrew? Were the men somehow disgruntled in their work? Were the sons of Zebedee disgruntled with their father?

    While these are interesting questions, they cannot be answered by the text as we have it. Instead, by thinking about the call to repentance immediately preceding, the story indicates that the brothers chose their allegiance, even if we do not know why they did it so quickly. 

    How is this choosing an allegiance, you ask? As fishermen, Warren Carter notes that these sets of brothers were likely under contract with the Roman Empire. “As brothers, and possibly members of a cooperative with James and John (4:21), they have purchased a lease or contract with Rome’s agents that allows them to fish and obligates them to supply a certain quality of fish.”2 Their actions in following Jesus were a disruption, even if small, to Rome’s economic interests. 

    By choosing Jesus, the brothers choose God’s rule over Rome. They choose to “fish” their land and the people in it for God’s purposes rather than exploiting it for Rome’s gain. They choose to join Jesus’ ministry in the Promised Land rather than to align themselves with the interests of the occupiers. Rome wanted the men to catch fish to advance their imperialist expansion. Jesus wants them to catch people for God’s rule, which as Jesus will demonstrate throughout the rest of the Gospel, is a rule of mercy and justice and plenty.


    Notes

    1.  Ackerman, Susan. Isaiah in The New Interpreter’s Study Bible, 970 n. 9:1-2.
    2. Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Orbis Books: Maryknoll, NY (2000), 121.
  • Mothers of the Children of Israel (6)

    Mothers of the Children of Israel (6)

    Rachel’s Long-Awaited Sons

    The matriarchs hold a special place in the Hebrew canon and society.  They are so much more than “Jacob’s wives” or “the mothers of the Children of Israel.” In this post, we will look at the naming speeches for Rachel’s sons and draw conclusions regarding what they tell us about a family’s complicated dynamic.The naming speeches in this passage come to a triumphant end with the birth of Joseph.  “Then God remembered Rachel, and God heeded her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son, and said, ‘God has taken away my reproach’; and she named him Joseph, saying, ‘May the Lord add to me another son!’”

    Joseph

    The barren Rachel is finally remembered by God and given a child.  As with Leah, God is an active participant.  It is God who opens Rachel’s womb; it is not the work of the mandrakes nor is it a reward for giving Jacob Bilhah (as Leah assumed in the naming of Issachar).  Rachel’s response is to say that God has taken away her reproach.  She may have felt vindicated by God with the birth of Bilhah’s son Dan, but it is only in the birth of Joseph, which means “addition,” that removes her reproach.  She ends by asking the Lord for another son.  She now recognizes that the solution to her infertility lies in the realm of the divine.  God is a God who remembers the afflicted and works for their benefit.

    Ben-oni / /Benjamin

    The final naming comes in Genesis 35:16-21.

    They journeyed from Bethel; and when they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel was in childbirth, and she had hard labor. When she was in her hard labor, the midwife said to her, “Do not be afraid; for now you will have another son.” As her soul was departing (for she died), she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin. So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). And Jacob set up a pillar at her grave; it is the pillar of Rachel’s tomb, which is there to this day. Israel journeyed on, and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder

    In this passage, Rachel names her son, but Jacob inexplicably renames him. Wilda Gafney puts it this way, “The name Rachel chooses for her second son, Ben-oni, ‘son of my sorrow,’ is not honored by Jacob.  He renames the boy Ben-yamin, Benjamin, ‘right-hand son.’”  There is no accompanying birth-speech, except perhaps that of her midwive reassuring her that she is having a boy.  It is a tragic end to a complicated story. 

    An Epitaph for Rachel

    Lament and blessing characterize the portrayal of Rachel in the Scriptures: a pawn of her father, in conflict with her sister, loved by a man she does not say she loves, ashamed of her infertility, and finally a mother granted fertility by God, dead before seeing her children grown and married, her deathbed wishes disregarded.1

    Wilda Gafney

               

    A Summary of Sibling Rivalry

    Leah and Rachel are sisters who are locked in a competition with one another.  The thing the women didn’t seem to realize is that they are fighting for different things. 

    Leah is seeking the favor of Jacob.  She desires for him to love her, and this desire comes through in the way she names her children.  Her first and last children are both announced with the hope that Jacob will become attached to her, will love her, will favor her.  Any jealousy she may feel towards Rachel has nothing to do with their social status, but with their status in the home. 

    Rachel, on the other hand desires children.  She desires a status in society comparable to the status she holds with Jacob.  She is favored, and even her barrenness cannot persuade Jacob to reject her.  A child, specifically a son, is the one thing she wants and the one thing she cannot have.  Despite all her attempts to manipulate her situation and become a mother, she remains barren while Leah mothers seven children until finally God opens her woman allowing her to conceive. 

    And yet, it is that very gift of children that will kill her; the giving of life takes her life. A darkly ironic moment in a very complex story.

    The Sisters Beyond Their Children

    The conflict inherent in the nature of the Leah-Jacob-Rachel love triangle seems almost difficult to overcome.  However, reader, do not give up hope!  ‘

    Later we see Leah and Rachel working together for the sake of Jacob in Genesis 31:1-16.  Jacob describes to Leah and Rachel the work he has done for Laban, how the Lord has given all of Laban’s flock over to Jacob, and how Laban has looked less favorably upon Jacob because of this. 

    He then tells them that God has told him to return to his birth land.  Leah and Rachel agree that they too are perceived as foreigners in their father’s home and have lost their inheritance.  It is better for them to remain with Jacob and do as the Lord has commanded Jacob. 

    In this scene, there is no rivalry, no in fighting.  For their own sakes, and for the sake of their children, they join Jacob to flee from Laban.  Perhaps, despite all odds, there is hope that peace can happen in the midst of conflict. But that is a discussion for another day.


    1. Wilda C. Gafney, Womanist Midrash: A Reintroduction to the Women of the Torah and the Throne (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 2017), 61-62.


    Other posts in this series

    Leah and Rachel Meet Jacob

    Leah’s Loveless Marriage

    Leah’s First Four Sons

    Bilhah and Zilpah: The Enslaved Matriarchs

    Mandrakes and Three More Children for Leah

  • Mothers of the Children of Israel (5)

    Mothers of the Children of Israel (5)

    Mandrakes and Three More Children for Leah

    An Exchange of Mandrakes

    Genesis 30:14-15 is the first to have a dialogue between Leah and Rachel.

    “In the days of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, ‘Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.’ But she said to her, ‘Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband? Would you take away my son’s mandrakes also?’ Rachel said, ‘Then he may lie with you tonight for your son’s mandrakes.’” 

    In many ancient cultures, mandrakes were considered an aphrodisiac.  This would explain Rachel’s desire for the “love-apples,” as they were sometimes called.  After Reuben, Leah’s eldest, came in from the field with mandrakes, he delivered them to his mother.  This brief scene sets the reader up for the first dialogue between Leah and Rachel, and the first time Leah even acknowledges Rachel in the text. 

    Rachel requested that Leah give her some of Reuben’s mandrakes.  Rachel approached Leah in a polite fashion; she even said please.  Leah, however, was not so pleasant.  She sharply replied, “Is it a small matter for you to take my husband?  And would you take my sons mandrakes also?” (30:15). Jeansonne notes, “This statement indicates that as the second but more beloved wife, Rachel has usurped Leah’s position of privilege as first wife and firstborn.  It also indicates that at some point in the marriage Rachel has obtained sexual monopoly of Jacob.”1

                Rachel responded by using Jacob as a bargaining tool.  She offers to exchange one night with Jacob for Reuben’s mandrakes.  And Leah agreed.  Rachel’s response indicates three things. 

    1. Rachel had more control over Jacob’s sexual activity than Leah, and perhaps even Jacob. 
    2. Leah did not have the same type of access to her husband as Rachel. 
    3. Rachel is in control of the entire situation.  She knew what to offer in order to get what she wanted. 

    Rachel wanted children, and the mandrakes could be a means to that end.  Leah wanted Jacob, and the giving up of the mandrakes was the means to that end.

    Leah’s Hired Husband

    The interesting twist in the story comes in 30:16. 

    “When Jacob came in from the field in the evening, then Leah went out to meet him and said, ‘You must come in to me tonight, for I have surely hired you with my son’s mandrakes.’” 

    Jacob is passive and objectified.  In the same way that the sisters were objectified by Laban in 29:21-25 on the wedding night, so Jacob is powerless.  He is completely silent and simply does as he is told.  The next verse explains just how productive that one night was: “…she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son.”

    Issachar

    This fifth child, Issachar, is born.  The speech, “God has given me my hire because I gave my maid to my husband” is a direct response to Leah’s the giving of Zilpah to Jacob, and the “hiring” of Jacob for the night. 

    Leah seems to be gloating.  She acknowledges the favor of God in her pregnancy because she gave her maid to Jacob, but Rachel also gave her maid to Jacob and is yet without children.

    Zebulun

    Leah’s one night with Jacob clearly does not stop there.  After the birth of Issachar, we are told that Leah conceived again.  The text says she bears Jacob a sixth son: “God has endowed me with a good gift; now my husband will dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons.”  

    It is interesting that, after giving Zilpah to Jacob as a wife and naming her children for her in a way that suggests adoption, her naming speech mentions only her six sons. 

    The naming of Zebulun is also reminiscent of the namings of Reuben and Levi.  In all three she hopes that the child will cause her husband to cling to her in a way that he hasn’t yet.  After all three, the reader is left assuming that Jacob has not changed. 

    Dinah

    As a sort of encore performance, Leah delivers a baby girl.  Dinah has no naming speech.  Her birth announcement is sort of an afterthought. 

    An Epitaph for Leah

    From this point on in Genesis, Leah virtually disappears, with her death being reported at 49:31.  She is absent from the narrative recounting the rape of her daughter Dinah and Rachel’s death scene, though Jacob requests to be buried with Leah, not Rachel, in 49:29-33.  Gafney writes:

    Leah the loveless matriarch is a heartbreaking character…There is no happy ending for Leah; she is not fulfilled as a person or as a woman in motherhood. She is not the last woman to go to her grave longing for the love of a man who does not love her but is willing to sleep with her. Pious women readers/hearers may not choose to be Leah, but I suspect Leah’s story canonized her lovelessness as well as her fruitfulness because it rang true to human experience. Leah offers a cautionary tale to women looking for fulfillment in someone else’s love: you cannot make someone love you.[2]


    1. Sharon Pace Jeansonne. The Women of Genesis: From Sarah to Potiphar’s Wife, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 77.

    2. Wilda C. Gafney, Womanist Midrash: A Reintroduction to the Women of the Torah and the Throne (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 2017), 66-67.



    Other posts in this series

    Leah and Rachel Meet Jacob

    Leah’s Loveless Marriage

    Leah’s First Four Sons

    Bilhah and Zilpah: The Enslaved Matriarchs

    Rachel’s Long-Awaited Sons

  • The Mothers of the Children of Israel (4)

    The Mothers of the Children of Israel (4)

    Bilhah and Zilpah: the Enslaved Matriarchs

    The matriarchs hold a special place in the Hebrew canon and society.  They are so much more than “Jacob’s wives” or “the mothers of the Children of Israel.”  This post introduces Bilhah and Zilpah as mothers for Jacob’s children and examines the ways that their enslaved bodies are used for procreation at the will of their mistresses, Rachel and Leah.

    Who are Bilhah and Zilpah?

    The readers are first introduced to Bilhah and Zilpah at Genesis 29:24 and 29.  Laban gives Bilhah to Rachel as her slave, and Zilpah to Leah.  They are not mentioned again until they are given to Jacob as wives in 30:4 and 9.  Each time we meet the women, they are passive characters with no voice of their own being gifted and re-gifted at will.  

    Most translations soften the language to refer to these women as maid-servants.  But, I wholeheartedly agree with Wil Gafney that that language is misleading at best.  She writes,

    I choose the translation ‘slave’ rather than ‘servant’ … to emphasize that these persons were bought and sold, used for sex, impregnated, and completely subjugated to the power of those called their mistresses and masters. ‘Servitude’ suggests employment, which is not the case for slaves in the biblical corpus.1

    Bilhah and Zilpah are mothers of two sons each. Bilhah is given to Jacob by Rachel after Rachel realizes that she cannot conceive. Zilpah is given by Leah after she realizes that she has stopped bearing children. 

    Though Bilhah and Zilpah are commonly understood to be concubines of Jacob, the text calls them wives.  The word is ishah and is always translated as wife when describing Rachel and Leah.  The word for concubine is pilagesh and it does not appear in this section of the text.

    Bilhah and Zilpah should be understood as having the same rights as Leah and Rachel since the same word describes all four women in their relationship to Jacob.  If it is Jacob’s emotional availability to these women that determines whether they were concubines or wives, then Leah is as much a concubine for Jacob as either of these women since Jacob’s preference lies with Rachel. 

    Unlike Leah’s pregnancies, the active participation of God is absent.  There is no divine intervention on Bilhah or Zilpah’s behalf.  Bilhah, by Rachel’s orchestration, conceives first.  The text is clear that all four of Bilhah and Zilpah’s children are born to Jacob, not to Rachel or Leah. Still, Leah and Rachel name these four sons also.

    Infertility Threatens Rachel’s Security

    Genesis 30:1 says, “Now when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she became jealous of her sister…”   After watching her sister give Jacob son after son, Rachel finally confronts Jacob, demanding children, lest she die.  

    It is darkly ironic that she views her barrenness as deadly, when she ultimately dies giving birth to Benjamin in 35:16-18, a harrowing reminder of the fragility of life and the dangers of childbirth in the ancient world and, even today.

    Jacob becomes angry with Rachel and asks her, quite sharply, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?”  Jacob denies any responsibility for the situation and shifts the focus to God.  

    In Rachel’s day and age, it would have been understood as being the woman’s fault if no children were born into a marriage, and, since Jacob has already impregnated Leah four times by this point, there is no textual evidence to suggest that Jacob is sterile.  Still, It is quite significant that he does not assume Rachel to be at fault for infertility, believing instead that the power to produce children belongs solely to God. 

    Bilhah: Rachel’s Womb-Slave

    Rachel, however, cannot be content with Jacob’s understanding of God as in control of Rachel’s fertility.  As with Sarah in Genesis 16:2, Rachel suggests using Bilhah, her slave woman (or womb-slave, as Wil Gafney aptly describes her), as a surrogate mother. Gafney reminds us, “Bilhah is first Laban’s slave and then Rachel’s; the only service she performs in the text is reproductive.”1 In Genesis 30:3 she tells Jacob, “Go in to her [Bilhah] that she may bear on my knees, that through her I too may have children.”  

    And like Abraham, Jacob agrees. 

    It is uncertain what “bear on my knees” means.  Some believe it is a figurative expression meaning “I will raise her children,” suggesting some sort of ancient ritual indicating the adoption of the child.  Some view this as Rachel’s fertility wish, and I find this more compelling.  

    It is uncertain what “bear on my knees” means.  Some believe it is a figurative expression meaning “I will raise her children,” suggesting some sort of ancient ritual indicating the adoption of the child.  Some view this as Rachel’s fertility wish, and I find this more compelling.  Jeffrey Tigay describes “Birth on the knees” as more likely reflecting:

    the position taken in antiquity by a woman during childbirth, straddling the knees of an attendant (another woman or at times her own husband) upon whose knees the emerging child was received…Perhaps Rachel attended Bilhah herself in order to cure, in a sympathetic-magical way, her own infertility…2

    Whatever, it’s precise meaning, it is clear that Rachel is attempting to solve her personal and marital problem by use of her slave’s body.

    Bilhah’s first son is Dan.  Rachel appears to claim him as her own in her speech, accrediting God with vindicating her by saying: “God has judged me and has also heard my voice and given me a son” (30:6; emphasis mine). 

     Bilhah’s second son is Naphtali.  It is in this naming speech that Rachel claims victory over Leah saying: “With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister, and have prevailed” (30:8).  It seems likely that Rachel understood that she and her sister were “wrestling” for Jacob’s favor, with childbearing being the mechanism for obtaining that favor. Yet the text does not make that clear.

    The text also does not reveal if Leah is aware of Rachel’s feelings of animosity at this point.  Nor does it explain how Rachel won in this fight with her sister.  If it is through children, then Leah is still in the lead, so to speak, and her children are biologically her own!  The speech concerning the birth of Naphtali raises many questions that don’t have answers apparent in the text.  

    Rachel’s first naming speeches, whatever new questions they may raise, indicate that her status with God and with her sister is, at least in her own estimation, in proper order: God has judged her and granted her a son; Leah is defeated. 

    Zilpah: Leah’s Womb-Slave

    Zilpah is the next to become pregnant.  There is no reason for Leah to give Zilpah as a wife to Jacob other than that she has seen she has stopped bearing.  It is unclear whether she wishes Zilpah to have children for Jacob or for herself.  She does, however, name Zilpah’s children.  

    The first she names Gad, meaning fortune, exclaiming, “How fortunate!” (30:11).  When Asher (meaning “happy”) is born, Leah says “Happy am I forwomen will call me happy” (30:13).  

    In contrast to Rachel, Leah’s speeches are free from jealousy and strife, yet both women’s speeches acknowledge a sense of contentment and satisfaction, however short-lived it may be.

    In the next post, we’ll examine the first reported conversation between Leah and Rachel as well as discuss the birth of two more sons and one daughter to Leah.



    1. Wilda C. Gafney, Womanist Midrash: A Reintroduction to the Women of the Torah and the Throne (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 2017), 58.
    2. Wilda C. Gafney, Womanist Midrash: A Reintroduction to the Women of the Torah and the Throne (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 2017), 57
    3. Jeffrey Tigay, “Adoption,” in Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972).


    Other posts in this series

    Leah and Rachel Meet Jacob

    Leah’s Loveless Marriage

    Leah’s First Four Sons

    Mandrakes and Three More Children for Leah

    Rachel’s Long-Awaited Sons

  • The Mothers of the Children of Israel (3)

    The Mothers of the Children of Israel (3)

    Leah’s First Four Sons

    The matriarchs hold a special place in the Hebrew canon and society.  They are so much more than “Jacob’s wives” or “the mothers of the Children of Israel.”  This post looks at the naming of Leah’s first four sons.

    Reuben

    Reuben is Leah’s and Jacob’s first-born. Genesis reports that Leah said “Because the Lord has looked on my affliction; surely now my husband will love me” (29:32). His name literally means “see, a son.”

    Her speech here is two-fold.  She first acknowledges the favor that God has shown her.  God has indeed seen her affliction and allowed her to bring forth a son.  She then concludes that since she has given Jacob his firstborn son, “surely now my husband will love me.”  The narrator quickly moves on to the conception and birth of Leah’s next son, which, though not explicitly stating it, assumes the procreative role of Jacob.

    By Colijn de Coter - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30507871

    Simeon

    Leah’s naming of her and Jacob’s second son indicates that the birth of Reuben did not solve her problem as she thought it would: “Because the Lord has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also” (29:33). Leah believes that God has heard that she is unloved, and has therefore given her Simeon also. 

    She does not mention Jacob in this speech, but he may be understood as the one that hates her (but, always remember, the text does not clarify that so we’re filling in the gaps).  Perhaps she views Simeon as a means of making up for the fact that she is hated, or as a means (as she hoped with Reuben) of gaining Jacob’s love.  The text is ambiguous at best. 

    Regardless of the way Leah interpreted the birth of Simeon, it was not enough to satisfy her longing for her husband, as is evident with the birth of her third child.

    Levi

    For the first time, Leah recognizes Jacob as a father, saying,  “Now this time my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons” (29:34). She does not mention God in this speech, and it is the only one of her naming speeches for her biological children that she does not. 

    Levi’s name is connected with the word yillaweh, which literally means “he will be joined.” His name is almost a prayer, perhaps a talisman, that Jacob will love her.  Leah is still not satisfied with her lot. 

    She has three children – and boys at that! – giving her a place in her society, but she does not have her husband’s love.

    By Василий Осипов (Игнатьев) и другие - http://kotlovka.ru/pgalery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=2&pos=4679, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9385540
    By Horace Vernet - artrenewal.org, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=104078394

    Judah

    With the birth of her fourth child, Leah’s attitude seems to shift.  Her first three sons encouraged her hope that Jacob would love her, but there is no mention of her relationship with Jacob in this speech.  Leah simply says, “This time I will praise the Lord.”

    Judah’s name has an “association with the term ‘odeh, literally ‘I will praise.”1  There is no clear reason why her perspective changes with the birth of Judah.  Perhaps she recognized that, despite being rejected by her husband, she was favored by God.  Or she may have, only momentarily, felt as though Jacob’s attitude toward her had changed.  Or she may have been grateful simply for having another son.  Whatever her reasoning, Leah is resolved, if not content, to praise God. 

    Rachel, however, is another story altogether. Rachel’s maneuvers to have children are discussed in the next post of this series

     


    1. Joan Ross-Burstall,  “Leah and Rachel: A Tale of Two Sisters.”  Word and World Vol. 14 Number 2 (1994), 170.


    Other posts in this series

    Leah and Rachel Meet Jacob

    Leah’s Loveless Marriage

    Bilhah and Zilpah: The Enslaved Matriarchs

    Mandrakes and Three More Children for Leah

    Rachel’s Long-Awaited Sons