Israel as son of God in Torah.

Abstract

In Exodus 4:22, God declares, "Israel is my first-born son." This image of the individual, Israel, continues through this and the remaining books of Torah. The masculine singular for Israel, the son, occurs repeatedly. No imperative is addressed to Israel other than in the form of the masculine singular. There is no hint in any passage that the reader should think of Israel as feminine. The book of Deuteronomy brings to fullness the theme of Israel as the son of God. The focus on sonship suggests responsibility and growth for the individual, Israel.

**********

The imagery that the Bible uses for the main actors in its drama is a topic that should be of interest to all interpreters of the Bible. If one attempts to understand the intention of the text, one should indeed have respect for the way that the specific text presents its characters. There have been some studies of the gendered imagery for Israel in various passages of the prophets, and those studies concluded that the prophets consistently present Israel as masculine. (Schmitt 1983, 1991, 1996) The present article investigates Torah in order to find out whether the gendered depiction of Israel in Torah agrees with that in the prophets. The analysis here confirms the prophets' masculine, filial depiction of Israel. In fact, Torah surpasses the prophets in the frequency of presenting Israel as son of God.

The portrait of the people that the Bible calls bene yisra'el, "the sons/children of Israel," or more simply in English "the Israelites" or more simply still "Israel," seems rather clear for many Bible-readers, both scholars and non-specialists. Some readers tend to assume that Israel is, very often, personified as a woman. Such readers often point to passages in the books of the prophets where a feminine figure is depicted, one that is often accused of being unfaithful. Moreover, sometimes these readers assert that God's covenant with Israel, as it is presented in the Pentateuch, is in essence marital. The basic gendered relationship between God and Israel is, to those readers, clear: the interrelation of husband and wife. Some readers never test that interpretation. But a close investigation of the text of Torah gives a different conclusion about the portrait of Israel and Israel's relation to God.

Exodus

Exodus certainly is crucial in this discussion of imagery, for Exodus is the book in which the people decisively choose an existence and an identity that will, on the literary level, endure throughout the Hebrew Bible. "Israel" in the opening chapter of the book of Exodus occurs only in the phrase bene yisra'el, the "sons [children] of Israel" (e.g., 1:9). Yet the people are referred to, in the next verses, in the singular in Hebrew. The new king is forced to say, "Let us deal shrewdly toward him (lo) ... Lest he multiply (pen-yirbeh).... If war come to us, he might join, even he (gam hu'), our enemies ..." (my translation). And there are some seven additional singular forms in the next three verses (1:10-12). The phrase bene yisra'el ("children of Israel") occurs twelve times, and ziqne yisra'el ("elders of Israel") occurs twice in these three opening chapters of Exodus. In Exodus 4, when used without a preposition (in English, that is; in Hebrew, without being the second word in a construct chain), "Israel" becomes the name of the people, not just the name of their ancestor. Israel takes on a life of his own.

The gendered depiction of Israel is emphatically expressed in Exodus 4, when the name "Israel" is applied to the people in a very dramatic way. Moses, the future leader of the people, had been given his mission by God to confront Pharaoh. In a special conversation, God tells Moses that Pharaoh will be hard to deal with. Ultimately, Moses will have to tell Pharaoh in a solemn way, "Thus says the LORD, Israel is my son, my first-born (beni bekori yisra'el). Hence I tell you: Let my son go, that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, I warn you, I will kill your son, your first-born" (Exod 4:22b-23; NAB). This scene identifies for the first time the protagonist of Torah, at least the character who undergoes the most change. Israel is declared to be the first-born son of God.

That identification is made in a literarily emphatic way. The term "first-born son" (bekor) is first used of Israel in 4:22 and then is the last word in 4:23 for Pharaoh's son (Blenkinsopp: 151-52). The exact meaning of the word "my first-born son" or of the idea "the son of God" is not explained in this verse. Surely the text does not suggest that the phrase should be taken in any physical or literal way. One can note that the passage moves from the metaphor for Israel to the physical son of Pharaoh (Childs: 102). But it has also been claimed that such would make "this unhelpful contrast between 'metaphorical' and 'literal,' which dissolves the power of the rhetorical point" (Brueggemann: 718). Moreover, it is not clear whether the idea of sonship is secondary to the tradition of plagues that culminate in the death of the first-born sons of the Egyptians (Gowan: 169). And one cannot claim that this sonship is presented only as a contrast and comparison with Egypt. Israel, a people personified as an individual, is described as having an intimacy with God, a filial intimacy with, as one might say, the source of fatherhood.

This idea of personification is usually not discussed in relation to Israel. In fact, one might object to the use of the term "personification" here by saying that Israel appears as singular in the Hebrew text simply because of a feature of the Hebrew language in which it differs from English. Different languages construct and represent reality in different ways. The case may be, the argument might run, that Hebrew can use the singular where most languages, including English, may prefer the plural for a group, and hence there is no real employment of personification. Such an objection to the use of the term "personification" can be quelled initially with the observation on the frequency of its occurrence. This use of the singular happens so often in the Pentateuch that the construction does not seem to be that of a simple, occasional collective. The concept of a grammatical collective is indeed a topic that does occur in discussions of biblical Hebrew. A strong argument, however, against such an understanding in this case is the fact that the standard collective in the grammars of many Semitic languages is feminine, not masculine. Moreover, there are no examples of collectives being apostrophized with the regularity that this personification receives.

A full appreciation of the usage must deal with the persistence of the personification. The different parts of the Pentateuch offer a true and recurrent personification, one that is consistent with itself, and one that the text emphasizes and develops in different ways. If the occurrences of this personification were few in number, one might be able to ignore them. But the multiplicity of occurrences and the persistence of the phenomenon of the masculine singular call for further analysis.

Moreover, it should be pointed out that grammatically Israel is always masculine. The persistence of the masculine singular for Israel is indeed emphasized by the language itself since the forms of the verbs in Hebrew, which indicate the gender of the subject in both the second and the third persons, are always masculine when they refer to Israel. Israel never is referred to in feminine forms (except for the two verbs discussed in the next paragraph), nor are there feminine images for Israel. Throughout the remaining books of Torah, the personification of Israel is presented in all three voices--first, second, and third--with consistency and variety.

Out of the 2507 occurrences of the noun "Israel," there are two isolated times that have a feminine singular verb. Each merits a brief discussion and a note on how the Hebrew Bible's first translation, the Septuagint, handles the passage. The feminine singular verb with Israel in 2 Samuel 24:9 is corrected to masculine singular when it is rewritten in 1 Chronicles 21:5. Here the Chronicler emends what was seen as an error. In the Septuagint, the Greek verb in 2 Samuel 24:9 does not display gender. The other occurrence of a feminine Hebrew verb for Israel is in 1 Samuel 17:21, a verse that is part of the text (17:12-31) that enters into the biblical collection in the fourth century BCE (McCarter: 306) and "is missing entirely from the Codex Vaticanus (LX[X.sup.B]), the most direct witness to the Old Greek in I Samuel" (ibid.). The peculiarity of this feminine singular verb with Israel is made all the more irregular because this verb has two nouns as subject, both Israel and the Philistines. Needless to say, the phenomenon is quite unusual. The narrative does not recur in Chronicles. These two exceptions produce no imagery at all. The feminine verb with Israel and non-Israelites is striking. The masculine personification of Israel, however, continues to control all images.

Exodus 5 refers to Israel in this personification even when individuals are the physical reality. Pharaoh is upset with Moses and Aaron because they attempt "to take the people from his work" (mimma'asaw) (5:4). The singular is used here as if Israel were an individual. Since this text follows immediately the identification of Israel as son, one concludes that it refers to the people in the singular because that text is employing a personification, not a collective. The young male Israel has a job to do for the Egyptians. Pharaoh is not happy that Moses and Aaron intend to take Israel away from his work. The role of the male, even the young male, is to work at the appointed task.

In the instructions for the celebration of the Passover in the homes, the father is told to explain the festival to the son thus: "It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt" (Exod 13:8b, RSV). Regardless of the historical perspective of one's view of this passage, the "I" here seems to be Israel. The father in the land of the Canaanites cannot be one of the people who left Egypt. Or if one is thinking of the presumed time of the writing of the passage (Being Deuteronomistic, it may come from the seventh century), the father could not have been in Egypt. Indeed, the whole passage (Exodus 13:5-16) is addressed to a masculine singular beginning with "And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites...." The text clearly is working with a masculine personification.

The first person singular of chapter 13 appears again in chapter 15. Exodus 15 contains a famous song put on the lips of Moses. The identity of the singer in this song of praise and triumph is not immediately clear. The singer speaks in the first person singular: "I will sing to the Lord for he has triumphed gloriously" (Exod 15:1). The text declares that "Moses and the people of Israel" are the vocalists. But nothing at all in the first two verses is distinctive of Moses; the verses contain quite generic and stock phrases found in other hymns of the Bible. The singer, in this context, might be Israel, personified. (The name "Israel" has appeared alone, without the "people of" or "sons of" put before it in Exodus thus far at 4:22, 11:7, 12:15, 14:30 and 31 [in this last verse, Israel first appears with the verb in the singular, then follows "the people" with two verbs, both in the plural].) Later verses of the song might aid in identifying the singer.

When the singer quotes the words of the enemy in v 9, the enemy is referred to in the masculine singular. With hope, the opponent says, "I will divide the spoil; my desire shall have its fill of him. I will draw the sword; I shall disinherit him" (15:9). The starkness of this imagery has previously been ignored. Here is the depiction of single combat--a battle over the inheritance due to a male individual, presumably a young male. "My desire will be glutted with him.... I will disinherit him" (15:9, my translation).

In this sentence one word deserves particular attention. The word "disinherit" is the way the RSV translates a similar form of this verb, yrsh, at Numbers 14:12 in the scene where God is expressing utter frustration with Israel. "I will strike him with pestilence and disinherit him, and I will make of thee a nation greater than he" (Num 14:12, RSV with only the pronouns changed to match the Hebrew). It is interesting to note that all translations have "them" in this verse. Personification is easily lost in translation. Inheritance is a phenomenon that is generally restricted to sons in the legislation of ancient Israel. The terminology used here may not be technical, but the implication at this point is a filial legacy.

Thus in Exodus 15 Israel has been plotted against by an enemy person, and Israel has won, but only by the help of his divine father. One is tempted to propose that this protection might involve coddling, a treatment that could result in a spoiled child. One commentator says of the song's presentation of God in power is so strong that "Israel is absent altogether." (Dozeman: 158) Attention to the masculine singulars in the song shows that Israel is not only present but is in fact the individual, the son who sings, "I will praise him, my father's God" (Exod 15:2b).

The recital of divine events in the song of Exodus 15 ends with the narrative statement to God that "You will bring him in [tebi'emo] and plant him [wetita'emo] on the mountain which is your heritage, the place which you, Yahweh, have made your dwelling, the sanctuary, Yahweh, prepared by your own hands" (Exod 15:17, NJB with changes in the number of the two object pronouns). In the Hebrew text, nothing could be clearer than that the composer of this hymn is thinking of Israel as a personified singular, a singular male whom God has taken special care of and for whom God seems to be planning great things. In this moment of triumph and joy, the auditors and readers of this song are invited to think, in the same thought, of God and of his son, Israel.

In the next section of the same chapter, Israel leaves the Red Sea and comes to a place that is called Marah. After Israel murmurs about the undrinkability of the water and after God has Moses cast a tree into the water to sweeten it, God addresses Israel in the singular. "If thou wilt diligently harken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon thee which I put upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD that healeth thee" (15:26, KJV). In this passage, God promises, in direct address, not only to protect Israel from enemy troops but also to guard him against the less visible enemies of disease and plague. Even the more subtle of fears of humankind, including the dread of sickness, are factored into this portrait of Israel as a young man, the son of God. The father has the ability to keep sickness and disease away from the young son, and the father pledges to do this for the son if he chooses to obey.

The scene of Moses aloft Mount Sinai (Exodus 20) is one that, for some readers, might represent the very essence of religion--the encounter with the sacred. Moses here is depicted as receiving from God specific regulations that will guide his people during their whole life. It is a solemn occasion, and solemn words are used for this definitive statement of what God expects. The standard translations of the Ten Commandments usually maintain the archaic English distinctive forms of the singular. "Thou shalt ... Thou shalt not ..." Sometimes commentators point out the use of the singular here, and they propose that the singular is used to show that the individual is the one who should fulfill the commandments. Each member of Israel, in this view, is addressed personally. In the Bible as a whole, however, Israel sins both in its members as individuals, and in the personification of the group as a whole. In the prophetic books, the judgments against "Israel," plain and simple, are telling. Two examples are these: Hosea 5:3, "Israel is defiled" [nitma', masculine; not nitme'ah, feminine]; and Hosea 8:14, "Israel has forgotten his maker." In this Exodus narrative, given the preceding personifications, the singular here too should be taken indeed as a personification. Israel, the young lad, is given the major rules by which he is to live and find the fullness of life.

These ten commandments are striking because they are given exclusively in the masculine singular. One finds the singular even in the one commandment that promises a reward "that thou may prolong thy days in the land that the LORD thy God gave thee" (20:12, KJV). The land is hardly promised to one member of Israel in the Bible; it is given to Israel, the personification of the people.

In what is traditionally called "The Covenant Code," Exodus 20:22-23:33, there is variety in forms. The code begins with the law about worship in the plural "Ye shall not make with me gods ..." (20:23). It continues with law about altars for three much longer verses in the singular. "An altar of the earth thou shalt make ..." (20:24). And the next chapter begins in the singular. There follow fifty-four verses before another second person plural occurs again. In summary, there are far more direct commands in the masculine singular than in the masculine plural. Regulations are often given in the impersonal third person, "If a man ..." (e.g., 21:7, 20, 26). But when the second person is used, the number is overwhelmingly singular. E.g., "If thou buy a Hebrew servant ... (21:1). This standard usage is broken only for four commands: "Ye shall not afflict any widow (22:22) ... Ye shall be holy men unto me (22:31)... neither shall ye eat flesh torn ... ye shall cast it ..." (22:31). And the plural occurs three times in reasons for certain stipulations: viz., "Ye know the heart of a stranger" (23:9) and "Ye were strangers" twice (22:21; 23:9). Even with these seven exceptions (which may be evidence of later editing), the Covenant Code clearly knows a masculine personified Israel.

Most striking is the exhortation and promise at the close of the Covenant Code, that is, its last fourteen verses (Exod 23:20-33). God says, "Behold, I send an Angel before thee [lepaneka], to keep thee [lismorka] in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared" (23:20). This exhortation continues for twelve more verses, and it continues in the singular with one brief exception (perhaps due to later editing) that immediately switches back to the singular: "And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee" (23:25).

This passage of exhortation to Israel is addressed to him in the singular at the time when he is leaving the intimacy of Moses's current conversation with God on the top of the mountain. The singular addressee here cannot be Moses, for Moses never does arrive in the place of anticipation, the land of promise. In this text, God is still addressing his son Israel who needs to spend some time in the wilderness because there he might achieve some of the maturity that he must have for his future life.

It may be said in passing that this filial relationship bears not the slightest hint of any marriage. Some forms of later Jewish tradition read this scene of covenant-making at Sinai as a kind of marriage exchange. "The Wedding of God and Israel" is the name of a chapter from a book on the Hebrew Bible (Levenson 1985: chapter 10). From the studies done thus far on this text, it seems clear that one cannot actually find such imagery, because it simply is not there. One might read that imagery into the text, but the marital idea neither is present in the text nor flows from the text. The text, rather, supports the father-son image.

The episode of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 seems to be another defining moment for Israel in this story of Israel's beginnings. Israel had been saved from extinction by oppression and had complained about the inconvenience of being saved, and is now seemingly readjusting the commitments already made. The creation of the molten calf can be taken as symbolic of all the infidelities of the people Israel. In this chapter the masculine singular is again used for Israel at crucial moments. When the calf has been made, the text states, "And they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (32:4b, KJV). The makers of the calf address Israel as an individual. The young male has failed in a test of devotion and commitment. And the divine words "I have seen this people, and behold, he is a stiffnecked people" (v 9) further emphasize this image of a brash and rebellious youth.

It is perhaps noteworthy that this masculine imagery is unnoticed by some of the most capable commentators on the book of Exodus. Commenting on 32:7-14, Childs observes, "There is no ambiguity in Yahweh's judgment: Israel has corrupted herself. The evidence is marshalled in words from her own mouth.... God is now prepared to annihilate her completely" (Childs: 567).

The second occurrence of the personification is in Moses's accusation to Aaron, "What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon him" (32:21), and his response, "Thou knowest the people, that he is set on mischief" (v 22). The image is present in the description of Moses's assessment of the people, a few verses down. "Moses saw that the people were out of control--since Aaron had let him get out of control--so that it was a menace to any who might oppose them" (32:25, Tanakh with a change of the first "them" to "him"). Here the singular, expressed even with the emphatic masculine singular pronoun, hu', appears in all five verses but the last word of the last verse. The unruliness of the people seems most natural for the writer to express in the masculine singular. Perhaps Childs recognizes this when he says that the "movement of the chapter progresses by a series of confrontations between two persons" beginning with "the confrontation of Aaron and the people," shifting to "the conversation between God and Moses," and continuing through various other encounters, which include God and Israel (Childs: 563).

Another scene of intimacy in Exodus deserves close attention. After the incident with the Golden Calf, Moses again communes with God about the future of Israel. God speaks to Moses, but it is surely Israel who is addressed. Both the opening verse of the text and the latter part of the passage indicate that the words are directed to Israel:

   And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, go up hence, thou
   and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land
   of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to
   Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: And
   I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out [grsh;
   again "disenherit" seems appropriate] the Canaanite, the
   Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and
   the Jebusite: unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I
   will not go up in the midst of thee [beqirbeka]; for thou art a
   stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way. And
   when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and
   no man did put on him his ornaments. For the LORD had
   said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a
   stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee
   [beqirbeka] in a moment, and consume thee [wekilitika]:
   therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may
   know what to do unto thee" [Exod 33:1-5, KJV].

This send-off for Israel as he is considering his future relation to God certainly is a sharp warning, that this father and Lord will take no untoward behavior from this truculent, possibly already spoiled, son. This father needs distance from his own son, lest his anger and his demands for perfection destroy the object of his affection. Exodus 33 underscores the filial relation between God and Israel.

Before leaving the book of Exodus, one should note the predominance of the second person masculine singular in chapter 34. In 34:10, God begins to speak with Moses but again continues with Israel as the obvious addressee.

   Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold,
   I drive out [grsh] before thee the Amorite, the Canaanite,
   and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the
   Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant
   with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest; lest it
   be for a snare in the midst of thee" [34:11-12, KJV].

Moses cannot be the addressee in this speech because he does not need nations cast out, for he will never enter the land.

These verses are part of the so-called Ritual Decalogue (34:11-26). The regulations are all given in the singular, with the interruption of a unique verse on the destruction of religious sites, v 13, which occurs in the plural. But then the passage continues with the idea of the male individual who will enter the land and live in a special relation with God. "For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice a year" (34:24, KJV).

The book of Exodus has initiated and underscored in many different ways the image of Israel as a masculine individual, the son of God. The call of Israel, the covenant with Israel, the failures of and the promises to Israel all bear the marks of a father-son relationship. The book of Exodus is a major witness to Israel's sonship.

Leviticus

The book of Leviticus, with its ritual interests, might seem to he an unlikely place to look for gendered imagery that the rest of the Bible uses. The book, however, does offer material for assessment and comment in this regard. Within Leviticus, there is great variation between the singular and the plural in address in the second person. This alternation is startling in those verses where the masculine singular and the masculine plural appear beside one another. For some observers, this phenomenon of both singular and plural forms occurring side by side could suggest that there has been a combination of sources. More important is the continual return to the singular. This phenomenon demands some analysis of the passages where the singular is noteworthy.

These passages can be grouped by topic or interest. First there is a group where the topic is offerings, whether cereal offerings (Lev 2:4-8, 13-15) or flour offering (6:21). Also, in 22:23, the mention of a free-will offering appears in the singular, "that thou mayest offer for a freewill offering," which interrupts a passage in the plural. And in 24:5-7, the instructions for the showbread and frankincense are given in the singular, addressing Israel.

The commentator on Leviticus points out that the number of the verbal forms in the book do vary, as sometimes does the gender. Regarding the Hebrew of Leviticus 2:4, Milgrom (184) explains the third person feminine singular with a reference to the subject in v 1, "soul/person," but he simply states that this proposal leaves all the "second-person verbs and nouns (vv 5, 6, 7, 8) unexplained" (Milgrom: 184). He does not tell the reader who does not know Hebrew that the second person verbs are masculine singular. Regarding 2:11 and 12, he says that the plural verbs refer to the priests (188), but he does not point out that with v 13 the singular returns. The masculine singular is simply not seen by Milgrom as an important element. But masculine singular is the form that addresses directly the personified Israel.

The singular address also occurs in passages that deal with defilement and impurity. "And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place" (6:27, KJV). Chapter 13 includes treatment of cloth with an "eruptive affection" (13:47, Tanakh). Verses 55, 57, and 58 give directions in the second person masculine singular, with the implication that Israel himself is being addressed. This presupposed background seems the case even more clearly in 21:8, when qualifications for the priesthood have been given: "Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God; he shall be holy unto thee: for I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy" (KJV). This verse is one of the verses in which appears a mixture of singular and plural. This variation, regardless of its origin, shows that Israel in the final form of the text was perceived both as individuals within a group (a people; masculine gender) and also as a personified, singular personage (masculine gender). The personification occurs here, where the holiness of the people is at stake. The priests of Israel must be holy to his God and to himself.

A final group of passages where Israel occurs in the second person masculine singular employs the word 'erek, which often is translated in English as "equivalent value" or "equivalent" or "evaluation." The person who receives these instructions about substitutions in vows is addressed as a masculine singular. All the times when Torah says "by an estimation/equivalent" (especially the twenty-four times in Leviticus 27), the only possessive suffix that occurs is the second person masculine singular. Who else is this but Israel himself, the people/person who will read that text? Israel, the son of God, is expected to behave in a particular way and to worship in a particular way. The man "Israel" had better have the fight information to understand how he is to carry out instructions.

Leviticus, in all its different parts and topics and regulations, has the clear idea that Israel can be addressed in the masculine singular. Commands that God gives are given to the personified Israel. Israel is given a way of life before he can enter the land as son of God.

Numbers

The book of Numbers begins with various matters concerning the preparations for the continued journey in the wilderness (Num 1:1-10:10). Then Israel leaves the sacred mountain to go toward the land of promise (Num 10:11-36:13). In chapters 1-10, the second person singular appears regularly, but in these chapters this form usually refers to Moses or Aaron.

There is one passage within Numbers 1-10 that requires special attention. It is the prayer that is traditionally called the Priestly Blessing, a prayer that later on has been often used both in the Jewish tradition and in the Christian tradition. The prayer is introduced in a simple way.

   And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron
   and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the
   children of Israel, saying unto them, the LORD bless thee,
   and keep thee: the LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be
   gracious unto thee: the LORD lift up his countenance upon thee,
   and give thee peace, and they shall put my name upon the children
   of Israel; and I will bless them [Num 6:22-27, KJV].

The use of the singular in this solemn blessing for the people continues the established imagery of Israel as singular. Regarding the literary usage here one scholar says simply, "The priest expresses the wish or request that God grant blessings to a second-person addressee, 'you,' which is a way of identifying the Israelite people collectively" (Levine: 227). But the reason why such a statement is possible is precisely that the people remain personified as an individual. Despite the application of this prayer in the later traditions to individual Jews and Christians, the recipient of the blessing in the text itself and in the textual transmission is a super-individual, the personified masculine Israel. One notes that this blessing of a personified young child appears in the early chapters of the book of Numbers.

In the chapter that precedes Chapter 6 and its blessing, there is a passage about a woman that has recently been interpreted as referring to Israel. The passage deals with the Sotah, the woman who is suspected of infidelity. Elaborate rituals are required to discover whether the woman is guilty. Mary Douglas has proposed that the woman symbolically is Israel; she entitles one of the chapters in her book on Numbers "Israel, The Mystic Bride." Douglas argues (161) that Numbers possesses an "impressive poetic structure," which "leads into the deepest level of meanings." The case of the woman suspected of adultery within this poetic background and allusions must "refer, not to 'women,' but to 'a woman,' Israel" (ibid.). The woman Israel is tested, but God is ready to take her back.

Part of Douglas's presentation of Israel as feminine invokes what "the prophet had told Israel" in Isaiah 54:5: "Thy maker is thy husband" (161). A telling aspect of such an argument is the fact that the entire Chapter 54 of Isaiah is addressed to Jerusalem/Zion. Douglas sometimes does not follow biblical convention regarding cities and peoples. Thus, in her discussion of the laws about the vows of women in Numbers 30, which she sees as dealing with Israel rather than Israelite women, she refers to "the vows of Israel or the vows of Samaria, her sister" (171). Never is Israel the sister of Samaria; only the cities of Jerusalem and Sodom are designated as sisters of the city, Samaria (Ezekiel 16 and 23). Moreover, none of the scholars that Douglas tries to build on seems to agree with her own proposal. She admits that the rabbis of the Mishnah did not follow the path she creates (163). Her explanation for the rabbinic discussion of the accused woman in Numbers 5 is: "The rabbis were not so interested in the theme of Israel, the mystic bride, as in the provisions for holding a wayward wife to account" (163). Douglas's proposal that Israel is occasionally a woman in Numbers fails.

After the departure from Sinai (Num 10:11), the first major episode of the people after reentering the wilderness is recorded in a passage that follows the standard form of the murmuring scene (Num 11:1-30). Here one finds the background for the image of Israel as the young son of God. The people crave food and complain to Moses both about the lack of food and about God. Moses then addresses God and refers to the origin of this people in very human ways, averring that he had nothing to do with the origin of the people.

   And Moses said unto the LORD, Wherefore hast thou afflicted
   thy servant? And wherefore have I not found favour in
   thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon
   me? Have I conceived all this people? Have I begotten him,
   that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry him in thy bosom, as
   a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land
   which thou swarest unto their fathers? [Num 11:11-12, my
   modification of KJV].

The picture is clear: A child had been conceived and brought into the world, and this child has acted in the way a child acts. Moses complains to God as a baby-sitter might complain to the father of a difficult child, here a son.

One should point out that for this passage even the KJV weakens the imagery present in the Hebrew by translating the Hebrew singular with the plural in English. The KJV has "begotten them" and "carry them" for the Hebrew which is "begotten him" and "carry him." The NRSV accurately corrects part of the gendered imagery by replacing "begotten him" with "given birth to." Indeed, ninety per cent of the qal occurrences of yalad in the MT, as this one in Numbers 11, should be rendered "give birth to," the female activity, rather than the male "beget." The REB makes the idea more explicit: "Am I their mother?... like a nurse with a baby." The NAB has "gave them birth" and then "like a foster father carrying an infant." Tanakh opts for "bear them" and "as a nurse carries an infant."

One leaves this scene with the nagging idea that Moses insists on the divine paternity (or maternity--a point which may be irrelevant to the idea argued here, but certainly of interest nonetheless)--that Moses is insisting on the divine paternity for the son Israel. Numbers 11, thus, is another case in which one has to decide whether the singular is a collective (which could be translated as a plural) or a personification (that evaporates when the plural is used as the translation). Personification fits with the other passages discussed: here Moses refers to the conception, birthing, nursing, and care of God's son Israel.

In 14:13, Moses is again reasoning with God. He says, "Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness" (Num 14:15-16, KJV). Here the text employs both the singular ("one man") and the plural ("them"). The variation between singular and plural that elsewhere may be due to editing might here have a further implication, namely, that the Israel as "the son of God" could not die but that Israelites individually (in the plural) would die. The singular and plural here function to express different nuances.

In Numbers 20, an alien people is presumed to know the biblical imagery for Israel. Moses readies his own envoys, "And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us" (Num 20:14, KJV). And the response is in the same imagery: "And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword.... And he said, Thou shalt not go through" (Num 20:18, 20a, KJV). Here is a picture of familial strife: brother against brother. This scene is a classic case of sibling rivalry; in this passage the struggle regards claims over turf. This son of God, perhaps luckily, does not try to bring his father into this hassle.

Later in chapter 21, Israel speaks to another foreign party in the first person. The dialogue is between two male individuals. "And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amonites saying, Let me pass through thy land" (Num 21:21-22a, KJV). Here Israel speaks and is quoted directly. For some theorists, personification is most clearly present when the figure speaks. The rest of the chapter continues the encounter and has various masculine singular verbs with the subject "Israel." "Israel smote ... Israel took ... Israel dwelt" (vv 24, 25, 31). Thus chapter 21 of Numbers emphasizes the masculinity of the person Israel.

The story of Balaam is contained in Numbers 22-24. The story begins with Balak, king of the Moabites, entreating Balaam to "curse me this people for he is too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite him, and that I may drive him out of the land" (Num 22:6, KJV). Then Balaam quotes these words in the singular to God (v 11) and God responds to Balaam also in the singular, "Thou shalt not curse the people for he is blessed" (v 12b). The RSV renders the first oracle of Balaam in a way that conveys both the gender and number of the Hebrew; "From the top of the mountains I see him, from the hills I behold him" (23:9, RSV; while NIV and REB have "them").

In the second oracle, however, both RSV and KJV change singular to plural: "The Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is within him. God brought him out of Egypt; he has, as it were, the strength of a wild ox" (23:21b-22, my translation). This passage receives different translations. The KJV uses the singular for the first occasion, and then switches to the plural. The RSV uses the plural in all four places. More recently the NRSV and the NEB follow the KJV. The NAB and the NJB have the singular consistently in the four places.

In second verse down, the situation continues. "Behold a people! As a lioness he rises up and as a lion he lifts himself; he does not lie down till he devours the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain" (23:24, my translation). The KJV renders the verse in the masculine singular. The RSV uses "it." The neuter is appropriated by the NRSV and the NAB, while the REB and the NJB have the masculine singular.

It is noteworthy that in this comparison in 23:24, the people is compared to both genders of the animal, while the masculine singular identity remains unchanged. This feature perhaps comes out well in the NIV. "The people rise like a lioness; they rouse themselves like a lion that does not rest till he devours his prey and drinks the blood of his victims."

In the third oracle, even the RSV translates the masculine singular throughout. Early in the oracle, the second person is employed. "How fair are your tents, O Jacob, your encampments, O Israel" (24:5). By the end of the oracle the person shifts to third before returning to the second person. "He couched, he lay down like a lion, and like a lioness; who will rouse him up? Blessed be every one who blesses you [sg.] and cursed be every one who curses you [sg.]" (24:9, RSV).

The fourth and final oracle is treated with care by the translators of both the KJV and the RSV (as well as NRSV, REB, NAB, and NJB): "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh" (24:17). The Israel of the future is one seen as masculine singular (and is so recognized by many translations). Thus, whatever their provenance, the Balaam oracles clearly present Israel as a masculine singular, singularly blessed by God, as a son deserves, with all the privileges and responsibilities.

Perhaps here one can make an interruption in this tracing of many passages that show the gendered identity of Israel, the son of God. There might be an objection to the masculine imagery for Israel, an objection that could be made on the basis of some translations. Numbers 25 presents a particular verb that, in the minds and arguments of some scholars, supposedly shows the femininity of Israel in the biblical perspective. The verb is zanah, which is often rendered "to play the harlot." (It has sometimes been translated "to go a-whoring.") The verb occurs in this passage (25:1) once.

For this issue another comparison of translations illustrates the challenge of the verb. RSV, "the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab." NRSV, "the people began to have sexual relations with the women of Moab." REB, "the men began to have intercourse with Moabite women." NAB, "The people degraded themselves by having illicit relations with the Moabite women." NJB, "The people gave themselves over to prostitution with Moabite women." JB, "The people gave themselves over to debauchery with the daughters of Moab." Douay-Rheims, "The people committed fornication with the daughters of Moab." NIV, "The men began to indulge in sexual immorality with the Moabite women." (The heading in the NIV reads "Moab seduces Israel.")

The form of the verb here is the infinitive form (liznot) of the verb zanah, which, of course, does not have the gendered feature that is unavoidable in the finite forms of the verb. Whatever the connotations the author intended, surely that author had no feminine image for Israel in mind. (One can also mention a recent dissertation on the root zanah. Riegner concludes that the verb as used by the biblical writers refers to illicit religious practices, not to sexual activity. Any actual metaphor of prostitution would be ineffective, since prostitution was neither punished nor censured in the Bible.) The main verb of the sentence in 25:1 (hll, "begin") suggests that the author does not invoke feminine imagery. The main verb is masculine singular. The author, indeed, uses no image that supports an interpretation that Israel is thought of as a woman.

One can point out that if the author were really thinking of Israel as a woman, the wife of God, surely the most moving and appropriate language would be the vocabulary of adultery and marital infidelity. The verb for committing adultery, na'af, used in the Ten Commandments, does not appear in this passage. The root occurs thirty times in the MT. It is used of Israel in the negative commandment both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy. Regarding the occurrences in Jeremiah 3:8, 9, careful analysis shows that "Israel" is not the subject of the feminine form of the root. The subject is rather the noun meshubah (with Israel being inserted by way of identification, according to Schmitt, 1996). The verb zanah is never used of Israel in a feminine form. Israel simply never appears as feminine.

Before we leave Numbers, we should consider a passage that is reminiscent of some legal passages in Leviticus. The regulations regarding the daily offering of a morning and evening lamb in Numbers 28:4-8 are directed in the Hebrew text to a masculine singular. In addition, an isolated "thou" appears in Numbers 28:21 in the midst of plural forms, almost as if by way of reminder that Israel is being addressed as personified.

Thus, the analysis of Numbers reveals the recurring phenomenon that Israel is in the presentation in Torah is personified as a masculine individual. In Numbers this image of Israel as a masculine individual includes the idea that he is the one who, though chosen and favored, still needs the instruction due a child.

Deuteronomy

Certain parts of the book of Deuteronomy, along with Exodus 4, proclaim with remarkable explicitness the Bible's view of Israel as the son of God. Twice this parental comparison is made with great clarity: "And in the wilderness, where thou hast seen how the LORD thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went, until ye came into this place" (Deut 1:31, KJV) and "Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee" (Deut 8:5, KJV). These two passages make explicit the image that hovers and enriches the whole of Torah, Israel as the Son of God.

In Deuteronomy, God addresses Israel directly (through Moses) frequently. Many times this address is in the singular, while other times the address is in the plural. This "change in number" (Numeruswechsel in German) has become one of the standard questions pursued by modern studies on the book of Deuteronomy. This kind of change occurs, as shown above, as early as the covenant code of Exodus. Passages in Leviticus and Numbers, as also seen above, vary the numbers as well. This phenomenon happens far more frequently in Deuteronomy. The addressee is sometimes singular and sometimes plural, sometimes even within the same verse. Of course, the addressee is always masculine, whether singular or plural. But even before a discussion of that phenomenon, one should quote, perhaps, a most memorable occurrence of the singular. The important Shema opens with a revealing word. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone." This line is another defining moment, one that both the Jewish liturgical tradition and modern twentieth-century critical scholarship have focused on. Israel is addressed in the imperative as a man, perhaps a young man who needs this religious instruction, shema' yisra'el adonai elohenu adonai 'ehad.

Scholars have proposed various reasons to explain this variation in number. One very common proposal is that there are different layers from sequential editing and reediting. Others have thought of the rhetorical effect caused by changing the number. A comparison is sometimes made with different treaties of the ancient Near East. McConville argues that the use of the singular indicates that Israel as a whole was being addressed, not this or that group of Israelites that scholars have proposed as the addressees. Rarely, he maintains, is the singular is used to focus on a particular kind of individual. The purpose here, however, is simply to emphasize the recurrent use of the singular as evidence of the conception of Israel as an individual, as a young man, the son of God.

The dominance of the masculine singular is clear from an investigation of the imperatives in Deuteronomy. The computer biblical tool Bible Windows 5.5 lists thirty occurrences of verbs in the masculine plural imperative in the book of Deuteronomy, but lists eighty-one occurrences of masculine singular imperatives (almost two and a half times more singular than plural). There are no feminine imperatives, whether singular or plural, in Deuteronomy. Thus, throughout the book, the masculine singular depiction of Israel predominates. Whenever there is the command "Hear, O Israel," the verb is always in the singular (Deut 5:1, 6:4, 9:1, 20:3, 27:9). It is the image of a masculine singular by which, early on in the biblical narrative, Israel is identified as the son of his father.

With these statistics in mind, one is surprised that some scholars propose that Israel is imagined in the Pentateuch, and perhaps especially in Deuteronomy, as the wife of Yahweh. The argument seems to have rested mostly on the interpretation of a title for God. Yahweh is presented as "a jealous God." The name or title El Qanna ("Jealous God") occurs three times in Deuteronomy and twice in Exodus (Deut 4:24, Deut 5:9 = Exod 20:5, Deut 6:15, and Exod 34:14).

Moshe Weinfeld has persistently argued that the use of the title El Qanna in Deuteronomy is related to the covenant. The covenant relationship is based on the political, vassal treaties of the Ancient Near East. Weinfeld argues that just as these political documents demand exclusive fidelity of the vassal toward the suzerain, so too is exclusive fidelity demanded of Israel toward its God. And, he says, the idea of exclusive fidelity bears with it the marital image--Israel becomes the wife of God. The idea, though developed by the prophets, nevertheless "may have been latent already in the covenant tradition of the Pentateuch" (1972: 82n, echoed in 1991:296).

Tikva Frymer-Kensky also sees that Deuteronomy presents a jealous husband. "The term 'jealousy' (qin'ah) is specialized language and cannot be used loosely." This word from the realm of married life, not used in the political treaties, suggests that the "the authors (and their hearers) were familiar with the marital metaphor of Israel as the wife of God, which the prophet Hosea uses extensively and powerfully and which is picked up by Jeremiah and Ezekiel" (Frymer-Kinsky: 53).

This verb qana' does indeed occur of God in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 32:16 and 21 jealousy is an emotion found in the depiction of God. "They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods" (RSV). And five verses later, God says, "They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god" (RSV). But against this particular interpretation--namely, that jealousy is connected inherently with marriage--there are some conceptual and literary obstacles. Whenever this verb occurs in the Bible with God as its grammatical subject, the verb never has Israel as the object. The objects that God is jealous for are "his name" (Ezek 39:25) and "his land" (Joel 2:18), and if there is sexual connotation involved at all, God is indeed jealous for "Jerusalem" (Zech 1:14), as God is jealous for "Zion" (Zech 8:2, bis). One can also point out that Tanakh translates qana in 32:16 and 21 as "incensed." To claim that the name "El Qanna" and the jealousy of God in Deuteronomy suggest a marital relationship is not just to mix metaphors but to ask for suspension of the belief which has been built up for one hundred and three chapters of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.

In all three parts of Deuteronomy, one finds this ever-hovering second masculine singular. The dominance of the singular over the plural occurs already in chapter one: "Behold, the LORD thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess it, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged" (Deut 1:21, KJV). The singular occurs also in the beginning of the laws: "Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest: But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee" (Deut 12:13-14, KJV). And again in the concluding hortatory words: "And Moses and the priests and the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Take heed, and hearken, O Israel; this day thou art become the people of the LORD thy God." (Deut 27:9, KJV). It is thus noteworthy that all major sections of the book of Deuteronomy contain passages where Israel is clearly addressed or thought of in the masculine singular.

Paging through Deuteronomy one cannot help but notice that the second person to whom the entire chapter 26 is addressed is masculine singular. In chapter 28, the first fifty-five verses are in the singular, an address to the male individual that is truly striking. When Israel is presented with the choice between life and death (30:19), the command "Choose Life!" (albeit not expressed in a Hebrew imperative at this point) is addressed to a masculine individual. When Moses announces that Joshua will be Moses's successor, Moses addresses the people in the masculine singular (31:3).

Important too for the theme of Israel as the son of God in the Pentateuch are the poems in Deuteronomy 32 and 33. Moses's song, after its introduction, begins abruptly with a verb in the singular, which is usually translated in the plural, "They have dealt corruptly with him, they are no longer his children" (32:5a, RSV). But the number of the verb in the MT reads "He has dealt corruptly with him, they are no longer his children." (The verse is problematic. Rashbam [twelveth century] renders it "Israel has brought destruction upon himself and not [upon others]; His children [are therefore responsible]" Cohen, 1160). This verse gives a nice interplay between Israel the son and Israelites the children. One earlier passage in Deuteronomy already contained that idea--Israel being the son, and the Israelites the sons. "You are the sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead" (14:1, RSV).

The next line in Moses's Song takes up the image: "Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought ["created" in most current translations] thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" (Deut 32:6, KJV). Fatherhood is explicit here. The narrative proper in the Song begins in v 10 (and here all translations follow the singular of the Hebrew), "He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him" (Deut 32:10-12, KJV--In this passage, REB renders the pronoun as "his people" while NAB has simply "them").

The text continues in the singular for three more verses (vv 13-15). "He set him ... fed him ... nursed him." Jeshurun is even addressed directly in the second part of the first half of v 15 in the MT (and in some modern translations). There is a shift to plural for two verses, and the singular returns in v 18, "Of the Rock that begat [bore, NRSV] thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And when the LORD saw, he abhorred, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters" (Deut 32:18-19, KJV).

The interchange between singular and plural within the same verse is repeated one more time (although not followed by any translation): "And I will heap evil upon him; I will use up all my arrows upon them" (32:23, my translation). This Song in Deuteronomy 32, regardless of its provenance, sings of the unfaithful son of God and the fidelity of that father God.

In Deuteronomy 33, there are textual problems, but the Hebrew text clearly reads, "The Lord came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon him" (33:2a--RSV has "us" and notes that the Hebrew has "them" even though the MT reads "him"). (Cross also has "us": 101). The long poem that follows refers to the individual tribes and not to Israel as a whole until the end. The closing has the singular very dearly, "Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places" (Deut 33:29, KJV).

Ideas on the Importance of the Son Imagery

Israel to the world is male, not female. The gender of the child seems to mean that Israel is to be part of the dominant side of the society and the politics of his time. Israel is to be a brother among his brother nations. Israel, conversely, is not the daughter who ordinarily does not inherit, does not participate in the religious and political action of the people, and indeed cannot aspire to the priesthood to offer the sacrifice required by Yahweh. Nor is Israel "wife," a role that according to Genesis 1 implies that the woman was created equally with her spouse in the image of their common God. Israel is to learn as a son.

Besides being male before the world, Israel is male before God. Some interpreters have proposed that before God all humanity is female, and most especially Israel. The problem with this idea here is that it does not hold true for Torah. Never is there a suggestion in Torah that the reader should think of Israel as feminine. The son imagery begins in Exodus, is endorsed in Leviticus and Numbers, and grows to a fullness and roundedness in Deuteronomy. God's son grows through Torah.

Torah does not give the story of the model son. Israel, by the end of Deuteronomy 32, has to be judged and declared corrupt (v 5), thick (v 15), scoffing (v 15), provoking (v 21), and perverse (v 20). Israel is like a paradigmatic spoiled son. Yet these judgments are passing and, indeed, Deuteronomic. These thoughts are similar to those that many parents might occasionally have regarding their own children. In the end, Israel remains the chosen son of God.

Thus, some of the masculine traits of this picture of Israel in Torah are his immaturity and ill-behavior. Some interpreters of the Torah of Israel have seen that the text expects him to misbehave, and that he indeed shows a tendency not to respond to well-meant admonitions. But with the proper instruction, encouragement, protection (both from bullies and from diseases), and with the proper fostering of self-worth (even if only partially successful), the son can grow into a responsible adult, capable of making mature judgments and trustworthy choices. Israel is expected to live, to choose, to behave himself well. With the father's blessing, this son has a future.

Jay Wilcoxen has pointed out that this son becomes Bar Mitzva. The encounter with God at Sinai is the moment when this son chooses responsibility. This new status is clear from the fact that all the murmuring episodes before the arrival at Sinai pass without punishment for the murmuring. But after Sinai, not a murmuring scene escapes without severe punishment for Israel.

Perhaps a major aspect of this male imagery is that in ancient Israel it was the son who is the offspring that receives education and training for encounter with the outside world. The Israelite son is, indeed, geared for the outside world. The daughter is, more often, the one who is more likely to be at home and who learns to perform the domestic tasks. The son is out in the world, on the other hand, making his way and accomplishing the tasks that the world has given him or that he has chosen.

The depiction of Israel as son of God is clear. The image invites the reader to see the developing portrait and the growing personality of this child.

Works Cited

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1992. THE PENTATEUCH: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Brueggemann, Walter. 1994. THE BOOK OF EXODUS, The New Interpreter's Bible 1. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Childs, Brevard. 1974. THE BOOK OF EXODUS. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Cohen, A. 1947. THE SONCINNO CHUMASH. London, UK: Soncino Press

Cross, Frank Moore. 1973. CANAANITE MYTH AND ISRAELITE EPIC: ESSAYS IN THE HISTORY OF THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Douglas, Mary. 1993. IN THE WILDERNESS: THE DOCTRINE OF DEFILEMENT IN THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 158. Sheffield Academic Press. [Paperback ed. with new preface, Oxford, 2001].

Dozeman, Thomas. 1996. GOD AT WAR: POWER IN THE EXODUS TRADITION. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. 1992. Deuteronomy in THE WOMEN'S BIBLE COMMENTARY. Louisville, KY." Westminster/John Knox Press.

Gowan, Donald. 1994. THEOLOGY IN EXODUS: BIBLICAL THEOLOGY IN THE FORM OF A COMMENTARY. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Levenson, Jon D. 1985. SINAI AND ZION: AN ENTRY INTO THE JEWISH BIBLE. A Seabury book. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press.

Levine, Baruch A. 1993. NUMBERS 1-20. Anchor Bible 4. New York, NY: Doubleday.

McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. J980. I SAMUEL. Anchor Bible 8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

McConville, J. G. 2002. Singular Address in the Deuteronomic Law and the Politics of Legal Administration. JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 97 [25.3]: 19-36.

Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. LEVITICUS 1-16. Anchor Bible 3. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Riegner, Irene Erna. 2001. THE VANISHING HEBREW HARLOT: A DIACHRONIC AND SYNCHRONIC STUDY OF THE ROOT ZNH. Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University.

Schmitt, John J. 1996. Gender Correctness and Biblical Metaphors: The Case of God's Relation to Israel. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN 26:96-106. 1991. The Virgin of Israel: Referent and Use of the Phrase in Amos and Jeremiah. CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 53: 365-87.

1983. The Gender of Ancient Israel, JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 26:115-25.

Weinfeld, Moshe. 1972. DEUTERONOMY AND THE DEUTERONOMIC SCHOOL. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Wilcoxen, Jay A. 1968. Some Anthropocentric Aspects of Israel's Sacred History. JOURNAL OF RELIGION 48: 333-50.

John J. Schmitt, Ph.D. (University of Chicago) is Associate Professor in the Department of Theology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (e-mail: [e-mail]). While his specialty is Ancient Israel, he has a research interest in the Abrahamic faiths that flow from that tradition. His commentaries on 2 Esdras and Baruch appear in EERDMANS COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE (Eerdmans, 2003), and his article Gender Correctness and Biblical Metaphors: The Case of God's Relation to Israel is in BTB 26 (1996) 96-106. He continues to investigate biblical passages where gendered imagery occurs.