Every Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!
Sarah the Matriarch as Equal to Abraham
I’ve been reading through Richard Davidson’s tome, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, a huge study of, well, sexuality in the Old Testament. One portion focuses on the narratives in the Pentateuch and the women discussed therein. Sarah, Abraham’s wife, is shown to be the equal of Abraham, argues Davidson:
Details of Sarah’s life in the Genesis narratives reveal the high valuation of this matriarch, as she and her husband are portrayed as equal partners… given their social context, Sarah and Abraham are amazingly equal… (226, 227)
Davidson’s argument lists a number of reasons to believe this is the case. Here I will quote just a couple:
Sarah is regarded as just as critical to the divine covenant as Abraham himself… ([Genesis] 17:18-19; 21:12)… Sarah’s name is changed from Sarai, just as Abraham’s is from Abram… (17:16)… (227)
These are among the total of 10 main reasons Davidson cites to demonstrate that Sarah was “no wallflower.” The high valuation of women in the Old Testament is something Davidson demonstrates, in my opinion.
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Sunday Quote– If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)
Source
Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007).
SDG.
J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith 
Dear J.W., Thank you for your reply. Having endured reading John Piper, amongst so many others, and his unsettling comments on the relations between men and women, it is so refreshing and encouraging to remember that there are many serious scholars who do not subscribe to this view. At present I am reading Kevin Giles’ works on the Trinity which take issue with George Knight 111 and Grudem particularly, especially as they link their heretical (?) view of the eternal subordination of the Son with the subordination of women. Needless to say, I do think their views border on Arianism…. I was disappointed in William lane Craig, one of my heroes otherwise, at least as far as Molinism goes, who seems to adopt the same views as Piper et al, although probably not for the same reasons. I have always said Sarah was chosen too, as Abraham obviously had many other sons by different women, probably before Isaac was born, judging from the number, but the child of the promise was to be Sarahs’. Thanks again for your reply and for the fine work you do on your blog. For the sake of the King, Grainne McDonald
Posted by Grainne McDonald | October 11, 2015, 7:04 AMReblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Posted by Vincent S Artale Jr | October 11, 2015, 12:42 PM