Mary Schieferstein

From Isaac to Jesus, numerous key Biblical figures have interesting birth stories. Through miraculous events fortunes are reversed, adverse situations such as barrenness are overcome, mothers bear sons, and those sons go on to play essential roles as the story unfolds. The moments when Biblical narratives slow down to recount the details of specific births are especially significant. It is also notable that, in an ancient culture in which men tended to have more education and influence, much attention is given to the mothers of these children. Such stories are especially concentrated in the book of Genesis, as we read of the mothers of the Israelites, many of whom are also ancestresses of Christ. Through God’s sovereign intervention in their lives, they bear children who are links in the historical chain of the fulfillment of His promises. This paper will argue that these childbearing narratives are an integral part of salvation history, as God preserves the lines of seed and covenant through these mothers. The crucial role that they play can be seen by examining three redemptive-historical themes—promise, preparation, and peripety—as they occur in the stories of five ancestresses of Christ in Genesis—Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Tamar.

We live in a culture far removed from that of the ancient Near East (ANE), yet all too often we approach the Old Testament with our own preconceptions, expecting it to speak to us on our terms. By comparing other ANE creation myths with Genesis, we can observe the uniqueness of its monogenistic account, the goodness of its portrayal of biological sex, the importance it places on marriage and procreation, and the royal role it bestows upon humanity, all of which can deepen our understanding of what it means to be created male and female.

First Timothy 2:13–3:1a is one of the most highly debated passages in the New Testament. Numerous interpretations exist, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. As Paul is clearly referencing creation, many recognize a link to Genesis 2–3, though there is less agreement as to how this affects interpretation. Close comparison indicates that Paul’s choice of words, and possibly his flow of thought, can be helpfully viewed through the interpretive lens of Genesis 2–4.