‘And Sarah Heard It in the Tent Door’ (Genesis 18,10): Uncovering Sarah’s Covenant

Introduction

‘You (men) make the worlds wherein you move…our world – and in its narrow confines, shut in four blank walls… we act our part’. These words were quoted by Gilbert and Gubar ¹ in their book The Madwoman in the Attic as part of the argument that the author holding the phallic pen is the founding father of the patriarchy. His literary authority and exclusive control over cultural and spiritual assets, which established the culture and religion, have created worlds in his own image, and left the women limited in their sphere of creation and becoming – confined and reduced into those whose role is to provide the needs of the patriarchal order.

This argument, regarding the portrayal of the female characters in biblical stories, has been voiced by many female biblical researchers. Trible, ² Fuchs, ³ Bird, ⁴ Exum, ⁵ as well as many others, have repeatedly shown in their studies the prevailing bias regarding the portrayal of the world of women, their roles and place on the stage in relation to those of men in the Bible. The biblical canon has been identified as mostly focusing on the chosen one, the man, and his dialogue with the male God. The biblical stories revolve around God as Father and King of Israel, or the sons of Israel, as His sons. This is how the patriarchal order is presented and established as an objective social, cultural and spiritual symbolical order, backed by a divine order. Narratological research ⁶ pointed out the way in which the biblical author, as the agent of this order, operates the narrative techniques leading and guiding the reader’s perception and shaping a point of view that serves the male hegemony. Creating such a perspective leads to disregard of the female characters, and to the expunction of their subjectivity and authentic stories.

In contrast to the approach that considers the biblical narrator as the ‘agent of the hegemony’, who uses his literary authority to establish a patriarchal rule and order that he values, there is a more conciliatory approach to the biblical narrator and to the editor of the text. This approach is aware of the main objective of the biblical authors – establishing a tremendous revolution – the revolution of the monotheistic faith. Zakovitch ⁷ argues that in order to lead and educate the people, the authors went against prevailing traditions and so the written text distanced itself from ancient traditions that were handed down from generation to generation. This created a mosaic of editing that adapts traditions, so that they would conform to the perception, culture and society of that generation. In this way the written text could be accepted by the people and guide them towards moral and religious elevation. ⁸ Therefore, it is possible that in the patriarchal society, in which the biblical text was formulated and written, an extensive description of women, which places them and their voices in center stage, could not have been accepted in terms of that culture. It may have been perceived in an unusual and daunting way. Or, it could be perceived as encouraging the pursuit of a pagan culture, from which the authors tried to distance both themselves and their readers.

Other approaches, such as those of Ross and Gelman ⁹ explain the gender bias in the biblical text in a different way. According to their orthodox approach, the biblical text is the documentation of a revelation. They argue that the biblical voice as a patriarchal voice, which establishes a male theology, might be due partly to the conscious immaturity of that generation and its inability to accept the word of revelation of a female nature.

In addition, Gelman and Ross argue that the experiential and metaphoric nature of the revelation is gender-dependent. If in a patriarchal order, the role of the author is reserved almost exclusively to men, then naturally, the experience of revelation documented will be of a male nature. According to Ross and Gelman, the experience of revelation as experienced and described by a man is different from the experience of revelation, as experienced and described by a woman. His perspective, the imagery that drives his way of thinking, the way he experiences the world and the male roles that he plays, will all have an effect on his depiction of the experience of revelation, and will be either one-sided or limited to masculine terms. The same applies to the perception of God and divinity. In his documentation, there will clearly be blind spots regarding the female experience of theological events. In addition, it is possible that a discrepancy between the experiences that were lived by women and those lived by men, would lead to censorship and concealment of the female experiences, as these were interpreted as irregular, inconsistent, and therefore, unreliable or illegitimate.

Indeed, as was pointed out in the feminist research of biblical studies, the voices of women appear relatively marginal in relation to the male voice, and the interests of the androcentric and patriarchal order are the ones put in the spotlight, in most cases. However, theories relating to the existence of past traditions such as Noth’s, assume that ancient female traditions have existed within the tradition of ancient Israel. In these traditions, women also were central heroines, the chosen ones, leaders and saviours. These traditions have been erased, reduced, silenced or obscured in patriarchal regimes. ¹⁰ Carol Meyers, who studied the place of women in the Ancient Near East, wrote: ‘biblical texts alone are neither sufficient nor reliable for the reconstruction of gender roles in early Israel. The potential for reaching the Israelite woman lies in the use of extra biblical materials provided by archaeology as well as in the examination of biblical texts; and it also involves the application of social scientific analytical perspectives’. ¹¹

The conclusion is that one should not rely on the marginality expressed in the biblical canonical text. Instead, one should explore cultural and archaeological materials as well as other parallel texts to discover the more significant and dominant place of women in culture and religion.

The question that arises is how to extract stories and traditions censored thousands of years ago. Tribble argues that it is necessary to assemble the pieces and fill in the gaps in order to discover the story buried in the sacred text. Pardes, who focused on the study of antithetic female voices in the biblical stories, argues that this is an archaeological task: ‘The process of such investigation is to dig in different layers of information, time and cultures, shake off the dust that obscures the surviving fossils and collect the pieces of the puzzle into a complete mosaic of the story’. ¹²

Pardes points out that despite concerns that the biblical stories are a well devoid of female sources, she finds herself admiring the unexpected ways in which anti-patriarchal voices were preserved in the canon against all odds. She also writes: ‘Perhaps one day lost uncanonical scrolls will be found in some cave, but in the meantime, it is possible to obtain quite a lot from digging into the canon itself’. ¹³

When the investigation concerns the study of worship, ritual and religious life, and in cases of an ancient theological text, the researcher must dig and listen to cultural symbolic layers, since there is a gap between an overt declaration of a symbolic phenomenon and its concealed meaning. Therefore, it is necessary to decipher the encoding of the symbols and crack the code in order to understand these hidden meanings and the authentic objectives of the rite and ritual. In addition, in his study on the sociology of religious life, Durkheim ¹⁴ argues that it is important to go back to the original meanings of the religious ceremony, through the study of primitive religions. The primitive religions are closer to the original causes and dynamics that led to the creation of the ritual or religious faith, before the various interpretations distorted and changed them.

In light of these arguments it can be assumed that if indeed there are in the canonical text fragments of sounds and pieces of female traditions that faded or were obscured, it will be possible to identify them by examining the ancient and archaic meaning of ceremonial rites and rituals. These meanings may tell a different story from the overt and declared story.

This article will attempt to seek a tradition of a female figure, who, according to her positioning in the canonical text, was probably central and formative in Israel’s tradition – Sarah’s tradition. Sarah is the first matriarch of the Hebrew people and the monotheistic faith. In the same way that Abraham’s name changes from ‘Abram’ to ‘Abraham’, in order to incorporate the name of God (‘h’) into his name, Sarah’s name undergoes a change, too. To the name ‘Sarai’, the letter ‘h’ in Hebrew was added, to signify her proximity to God, as well as her stature and significance.

Changing Abram’s name to Abraham symbolizes his closeness to God, the direct link to Him, and the fact that he was chosen to be the precursor parent of the Hebrew nation and religion. Therefore, changing Sarah’s name reflects her closeness to God just as Abraham, and her choosing by God to establish the faith of the people for generations to come. It indicates Sarah’s central role as a chosen founding mother, exactly like Abraham, in the heritage of Israel.

However, in terms of the depth of the religious initiation process described in the biblical story, Sarah remains marginal and passive ¹⁵ – she is taken, she is led and used in an act of pandering (Gen. 12:10–17 and Gen. 20:1–6) ¹⁶ without the right to voice her opinion. She does not undergo trials of faith like her chosen partner, nor is she a party to a covenant with God. She is presented primarily as a passive receptacle through which the male alliance is formed, through which Abraham’s seed is born.

In contrast with the impression created by the canonical tradition, according to which Abraham is the protagonist of the story and faith, the current research hypothesis is that there was an ancient tradition, in which Sarah was a chosen matriarch, a founder and a herald in the life of faith of the Hebrew nation. I will attempt to establish that Divinity has made a unique covenant with her for generations, as the precursor of the new faith, in parallel to the tradition of Abraham.

According to the research hypothesis, this tradition was censored, erased and concealed in the course of time and events during the patriarchal rule. The male regime aspired to be backed up by a male spiritual order and leadership, which would support and empower its reign.

The article will try to restore this tradition by using an archaeological investigation of the different textual strata and of different cultural symbolic layers. Firstly, I will present research claims regarding Sarah’s central role as a formative leading matriarch. Secondly, I will examine the significance of the tradition of the covenant with Abraham, as the founder of the faith in terms of cultural symbolism, and then try to identify if and where this symbolic significance appears in the text and in Hebrew heritage in a feminine context and, however subtly and implicitly, in the context of Sarah.

Sarah as a Creator and Founder of the Faith of Israel

The Book of Lamentations chapter 1 says: ‘How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people! How is she become as a widow! She that was great (Rabati.\רבתי in the original Hebrew text) among the nations, and princess (Sarati/שרתי in Hebrew) among the provinces, how is she become tributary!’ (Lam. 1:1). ¹⁷ According to Yavin, ¹⁸ the synonymous parallelism between ‘Rabati’ (from the word Abraham in Hebrew) and ‘Sarati’ (from the word Sarah in Hebrew), as well as the addition that was mentioned before of the letter ’ה’ that represents God in Hebrew to both their names demonstrates the equivalence between the characters of Sarah and Abraham. This symmetry illustrates the similarity in the status and importance of both Abraham and Sarah, in the people’s historical memory and heritage. In this experiential memory, Sarah is not secondary to Abraham, but as central as he is in the vision of the belief in one God and the historical covenant with this God. This equal and constitutive status is not reflected in the overt text, in which, as stated, Abraham was chosen to lead the religious vocation and vision of faith, and he is the one who made a covenant of males with God – the rite of circumcision.

A quote from the book of Isaiah chapter 51 illustrates the paradox quite well:

Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you (“Teholelhem” ”תחוללכם“ in the original Hebrew text): for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. (Isa. 51. 1–2).

The prophet indicates the deep spiritual origin of the people by denoting the names of Abraham and Sarah. Abraham is the father. But contrary to the misleading translation in English that refers to Sarah as the one giving birth, the Hebrew text, instead of calling her the mother as expected, actually refers to her as “מחוללת’- ‘Meholelet’, which in Hebrew relates to starting a revolution and bringing about a tremendous change. According to this reference, she is a revolutionary founder – way beyond the patriarchal role of a mother who is a uterine vessel used to multiply the male seed.

But immediately after the subversive ‘slip of the tongue’, ¹⁹ Isaiah restores order to its rightful place, when he points out that God called ‘the only one man’, and not ‘the only one woman’ despite her being a generating force.

This raises the question: if Sarah is a generating mother – the initiator of the revolution of the new faith, why is the sacred covenant not made with her?

If we rely on the arguments presented earlier concerning the gender bias and the need to edit and adapt traditions, so that they can be accepted and have an effect, then it may be possible that, in the patriarchal society, in which the oral tradition of Abraham and Sarah was formulated and put in writing, the depiction of a woman as the founder of faith would clash with the social perception and consciousness of that generation with such force that text editors preferred to obscure and conceal it.

Therefore, in order to uncover what was left behind and buried, it is necessary to search through various biblical textual layers, locate ‘slips of the tongue’ from the repressed cultural past, and scrabble through the ‘dust’ of Mesopotamian mythology – residues of which have sunk one way or another into biblical figures. ²⁰ Thus, it may be possible to identify Sarah’s traits of leadership and high position, far beyond being the wife of Abraham, being present in the tent and in charge of the refreshments for the guests.

The Symbolism of the Name Sarai/Sarah

Sarai’s name may provide hints of her superior status. The Hebrew letters of her name: ש.ר.ה, mean in Hebrew ‘to rule’, ‘to govern’, ‘to have authority’. The name indicates a high social rank.

In Akkadian, ‘Siru’ means esteemed and exalted. Its Sumerian sign is the equivalent of the sign of ‘Elu’ (god), which means a celestial and exalted being. ²¹ Her second name, ’יסכה’ ‘Yiska’ (Gen. 11:29), according to Rashi, implies that she was a ‘princess’ (נסיכה), or in other words, she has princely dignity and is touched by the divine spirit. The biblical expression ‘chiefs of the priests’ (‘Then arose Ezra, and made the chiefs of the priests’, Ezra 10.5), or in Hebrew - ‘Sarei kohanim’ describes people holding senior religious positions, further indicates a superior spiritual and religious status. According to Yavin, ²² Sarah’s name is a theophoric name that attests to a divine element, which, at certain times, may have even represented divinity itself.

Further evidence of Sarah being a constitutive constituent matriarch is the similarity between her name and the name of the people of Israel. According to the canonical narrator, the name ‘Israel’ originates from the name of Jacob, the father of the tribes of Israel, which was changed into ‘Israel’. Yet, Knohl ²³ argues that the homiletic interpretation of Jacob’s name as ‘Israel’ as it appears as a battle against God - ‘Ki Sarita im Elohim’ (Gen. 32.28), is not reliable. Usually in such names, God is the subject and not the predicate. While there is no vocal similarity between ‘Jacob’ and ‘Israel’, the similarity between Sara and Israel is clear. The use of the symbolic letters Sri/h in the scene where Jacob’s name is changed into Israel: ‘for as a prince hast thou power with God’ (Gen. 32.28) – ‘Ki Sarita im Elohim’, may serve as a clue for the matriarchal source of the tribes of Israel. It is possible that Sarah’s being the founding matriarch of the people has led to Jacob’s investiture as ‘Israel’, as a sign of the fulfillment of God’s promise to Sarah that she would become the mother of many nations. This promise is realized with the sons of Jacob.

Mythological Residue

According to Teubal, ²⁴ Sarah was a religious leader and priestess with a spiritual vision and inspiration. Teubal argues that the story of Sarah describes the matriarch struggle to preserve her spiritual priestess tradition.

First of all, one cannot ignore the similarity between the name ‘Sarah’ and Canaanite Asherah, Babylonian Asratum, Phoenician Aseratu and Akkadian Asirtu/ asuratum, ²⁵ as well as the fact that they all represent the ‘Great Mother’ of their religion. According to Miller, ²⁶ the pantheons of the gods intermingled and were influenced by each other. Therefore, it can be assumed that the mythological cultural heroes have undergone a similar process. In the context of Sarah and Asherah, Yavin argues that their characters intertwined and were influenced by each other. She argues that Sarah was engraved in the Mesopotamian folk traditions as the equivalent of the mother-goddesses Asherah/Ishtar/Isis – goddesses of fertility, birth and protection. Her name contains the sounds of the Hebrew word ‘Shor’, i.e. ox or cow, which symbolized in the ancient Near East the Mother Goddess. ²⁷ The image of the divine cow is found in the Sumerian myth of Gilgamesh, and in the Egyptian mythology as the symbol of Isis and Hathor, the Egyptian goddesses that have the sun disk set between the cow horns. The goddesses symbolized by the cow were called the bearers of kings and the mothers of kings. If we bear in mind that Sarah is described in the Bible as follows: ‘I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her’ (Gen. 17:16), then this can be considered as ancient evidence – a remnant that remained of the parallel between Sarah and the Mother goddesses of the Ancient Near East.

Further evidence that Sarah is the equivalent of the mythological goddesses-queens-mothers in the Ancient Near East is Yavin’s finding pertaining to the praise of Sarah’s beauty. She argues that the praise of Sarah by Pharaoh’s advisors in Egypt (‘The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh’ (Gen. 12.15), is the remnant of the festivities in honour of the Egyptian mother-goddess, praising her beauty, courage and wisdom. ²⁸ Her argument is supported by the study of the word ‘hallel’ or ‘praise’ conducted by Botterweck and Ringgren, ²⁹ and her conclusion is that the story corresponds with the festivities of the Egyptian mother-goddesses Nefertiti and Nut, as having rare and striking beauty praised and celebrated all over Egypt.

Yavin argues that the traditions of Abraham and Sarah were parallel traditions that were tied in with the emergence of the Hebrew religion – two narratives and two biographies for two kingdoms. ³⁰ She argues that Sarah’s narrative represents an ancient tribal tradition of the ancient Near East – an ancient tribal myth of matriarchal rule. Sarah was perceived as the first lady of the northern kingdom, a ruler and a founding mother, who attained precedence and primacy in the collective consciousness of the northern tradition. ³¹ Later on, this matriarchal myth has undergone a shift, been toppled from its superior status, and undergone processes of formulation, censorship and transformation, in order to grant the position of supremacy to men. ³²

The Quest for Sarah’s Covenant

If Sarah was indeed a founding mother, a spiritual leader and a messenger of a new faith, the equivalent of Abraham, it is likely that Sarah’s tradition, like Abraham’s, included a founding story of the covenant between God, herself and her people. But this story does not exist in the canonical text.

The quest for Sarah’s covenant is obviously a speculative attempt that is difficult to prove and validate, yet it is possible to point at several types of information that intersect again and again and lead to a possible direction.

As initially claimed, fragments of traditions and textual remnants may be found in various text layers and different cultural traditions. Therefore, by digging and rummaging through these layers, I will try to identify such remnants and join them into a meaningful puzzle that will attest, albeit speculatively, to Sarah’s lost tradition and the covenant made with her.

The Abrahamic Covenant – the ‘Brit’

According to canonical Abrahamic tradition, when God makes the covenant with Abram, He changes his name and confirms his designation as the founder father of The Hebrew people. ‘And will multiply thee exceedingly’ (Gen. 17.2), God promises, and pledges his constant protection and safeguard. The covenant is marked in the flesh – by cutting the male foreskin, and symbolizes the unique connection between God, Abraham and his descendants, as well as their belief in God and abiding by His law – ‘And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee’ (Gen. 17.7). This is a religious ceremony that symbolizes to this day the covenant between Israel and its Creator.

After that, or in parallel, God announces the change in Sarai’s name, namely, divinity announces Sarah’s unique mission and confirms it. Sarah would be the founding mother of the nation and faith, but the parallel part relating to her covenant as a founding leader and the ways in which this covenant is manifested or serves as a symbol for generations is missing. The act of changing the name is described as performed through Abraham, while Sarah is absent from the scene.

If the scene did not involve the renaming Sarah and adding God’s name to hers, one could accept the conjecture that Sarah was not spiritually equal or essential for the establishment of the covenant. However, the act of changing her name signifies her equal position to Abraham’s in establishing the alliance of faith between Israel and God. Zakovitch’s assumption ³³ – which relates to the author’s intervention in the chronological order of events, according to which the events described in chapter 18 actually preceded those from chapter 17 – strengthens this argument. According to Zakovitch, the fact that the angels asked Abraham: ‘Where is Sarah thy wife?’ (Gen. 18.9), may imply that the news of the birth of the son was given first to Sarah. In this chapter, the announcement is: ‘and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son’ (Gen. 18.9). This means that she is the addressee, she is the one called upon, she receives the message, she laughs first, and therefore the son is named after her name. Zakovitch argues that the centrality of the woman in the matter of ensuring the continuity of the sons of Israel probably did not please the editor, and therefore he changed the order of the events. Thus, the canon has preserved a version according to which Abraham is the one receiving the tidings and the covenant. Zakovitch recognized the double promise related to Abraham’s name in Hebrew ‘and thou shalt be a father of many nations’, and ‘for a father of many nations have I made thee’ (Gen. 17.4, 6), as resulting from a change in a later version following a previous, more ancient version, related to Sarah’s name. The blessing and promise were borrowed from Sarah’s blessing by a later author who wished to grant Abraham the same blessing as received by Sarah.

So, while the version of Abraham’s covenant with God and with future generations was etched in the text and heritage, the version of the covenant with the Great Mother, which was probably an even more ancient version, was eliminated from the canonical text. The question arising is whether it has left any remnants, bits of information, that may lead to its re-discovery.

Although there is no explicit description of Sarah’s covenant, nor reference to an action that expresses the feminine entry into a covenant with God, one sentence may be an ancient relic that remained in the text and implies the symbol of the lost covenant: ‘And Sarah heard it in the tent door’ (Gen. 18, 10).

To explain how the phrase ‘And Sarah heard it in the tent door’ may be such an indication, one should bear in mind that the rite of circumcision is a very ancient ritual, that in order to understand its origins, it is necessary, as suggested by Durkheim, ³⁴ to go back to the ancient cultural sources, and to listen to the symbolic meanings that lie under the layers of text and time.

The Cultural Symbolism of the Circumcision

In the ancient world, the vagina and uterus not only represented maternal protection, and reproductive power, but have also been linked to the matrix of life. Pregnancy was perceived as an ancient mystical state of pre-creation. ³⁵ In archaeological remains that include paintings of the goddesses, they are portrayed as being pregnant, breastfeeding and holding a child. Studies of the ancient matriarchal culture maintain that the uterus was perceived as touching the celestial and divine inspiration and connected to cosmic forces. Spiritual initiation rituals were performed in sacred caves or among thick vegetation that symbolized the womb. The transformative entrances and exits from those caves symbolized the vagina as a transformative gateway. They symbolize abundance, fertility and the totality of all possibilities.

Anthropological studies, such those of Knight, ³⁶ Bettelheim, ³⁷ Devereux, ³⁸ Buckley and Gottlieb ³⁹ and Eliade, ⁴⁰ who studied initiation rites and rituals of tribal cultures, have identified a recurring reference to the functions of pregnancy, childbirth and menstruation as a source of an ancient female-maternal power in the ritual, ceremonial and religious experience of ancient tribes and civilizations. Menstruation was perceived as a time in which the woman has a connection to cosmic-divine forces.

Bettelheim explains that the menstrual blood was linked to female powers of fertility and childbearing. While there was still no understanding of how the male is connected to fertilization and birth, men knew that a woman could not give birth until she got her menstruation. Therefore the menstrual blood was linked to the birth-giving abilities, and the procreative powers and continuation of the male’s lineage. The future of the male was therefore, in the hands of the female’s blood, while he is powerless and unable to control this blood. This led to a jealousy and rage against the feminine powers of the blood and childbearing.

Bettelheim’s hypothesis is reinforced in light of anthropological evidence and findings, according to which male initiation rituals contain expressions and imagery taken from the female-maternal corporeal world. Bettelheim, who reports rituals that included circumcision and different types of penile cuts, ⁴¹ has identified that these were intended to cause the penis to bleed as an imitation of the female menstrual bleeding. He describes how different types of incisions gave the penis the appearance of a vagina, and the man being cut was called either ‘the one with the vagina’, or his genitalia were called ‘penis womb’. The blood flowing from the cut was called ‘woman’ or ‘milk’. ⁴²

Bettelheim argues that apart from the symbol of blood, the ritual of circumcision also expresses the imitation of childbirth. The penis is reborn, the same as the boy is reborn into the male brotherhood, while cutting off his mother from this brotherhood. Evidence of this meaning of the ritual of circumcision can be found in Eliade’s research, in which he quotes a statement made in the context of cutting of the penis: ‘After the ceremony and the symbolic detachment from the bleeding maternal uterus, the circumcised is called ‘being born anew’. ⁴³

The ancient origin of cutting the foreskin, is therefore a ritual that symbolically transforms the penis into a ‘vagina’ and bleeding uterus. Going back to the tradition of Abraham in the biblical text, this symbol may be compatible in terms of imagery and symbols to the divine covenant promise to ‘fertilize’ Abraham and his sons after him (Gen. 17.20). If God is the fertilizer, the believer should succumb and become an organ for ‘spiritual penetration’, namely, be prepared and intended to be fertilized by God, and bear the word of faith in his life and the lives of the people.

A description of such male fertilization appears, according to Friedman, ⁴⁴ in the traditional interpretations of the Creation, as a process in which God makes an inner temple for his creative thoughts, wraps himself in them and creates through this temple according to His needs and desires. In other words, God creates a male womb. Friedman argues that this interpretation corresponds to the Hellenic myth that influenced the Jewish writings – the process of spiritual birth is created between the father, who is always in existence and the son, who always comes into existence.

In other words, the covenant with Abraham and his seed is a sign of Abraham’s willingness to be like a ‘vagina’ – an ‘organ’ that devotes itself to the fertilization of the life of faith within it. The promise of the covenant is the promise of being ‘penetrated by faith’, ⁴⁵ and to conceive, like a womb, the people of faith and its seed forever and ever. Each circumcision – each foreskin that is cut creating a penis like a bleeding vagina – is the symbol of the son of Israel’s commitment to give himself to and commit to the penetration of the Word of God into his body, his mind, spirit and soul, and to conceive a life of belief in the one God.

Linguistic evidence that supports this meaning can be found in the Hebrew term used to describe the covenant of removing the foreskin of the penis – ‘Brit Milah’ ’ברית מילה’. In Hebrew, a word synonymous with ‘Milah’ מילה is ’תיבה’ – a box or a case. A box/case/basket is one of the oldest symbols of female vagina and uterus. For example, the basket in which the baby Moses was placed on the Nile is an imitation of the maternal womb, just as Noah’s Ark is an imitation or substitute of the mother’s womb, which preserves life within the chaotic waters.

The covenant, in the ancient symbolic meaning that is presented here, as implying that God’s relations with His people resemble marital intimate relations, may evoke aversion. Yet, one should bear in mind that the use of images of husband-wife relations is quite prevalent in the words of the biblical prophets. According to Coogan ⁴⁶ when the prophets Hosea and Ezekiel (Ezek. 15; Hos. 2) describe God, they speak of him as a husband, while his wife, Israel, commits adultery. Those descriptions are the response to the element of the divine couple in popular religions. Coogan ⁴⁷ also argues that the image of marriage that is used by the prophets, especially the way in which the character of Wisdom is described in Proverbs 8, is a manifestation of the concept of the divine couple. Ringgren ⁴⁸ also argues that the expression that Hosea uses in Hebrew ‘Ladaat’לדעת (to know) or ‘nor knowledge of God in the land’ (Hos. 4.1), is an expression that conveys in this context intimate relations.

These insights into the symbolic meaning of the covenant with Abraham raise a question regarding the act symbolizing female commitment to the covenant with God. Since Sarah and the daughters of Israel each naturally possess a vagina and uterus, therefore it is necessary for there to be a different active manifestation that will symbolize and convey their willingness to open up and dedicate themselves to the word of God and give birth to the vision of faith. How then did Sarah and the daughters of Israel symbolize their willingness to sign the covenant of divine commitment? How can the ancient and powerful uterine–vaginal symbol be symbolized in Sarah’s life and existence and convey that she is God-fearing?

It is likely that if Sarah was so significant and formative in the ancient tradition, then this female symbol or at least its remnants would constitute a part of the symbols of the Hebrew tradition, even if they are not necessarily identified with Sarah.

In order to solve this ‘mystery’ it is necessary to dig and search in further textual layers, especially those that are characterized by feminine elements that may be associated with Sarah, even if only implicitly.

The Female Covenant as the Voice of Wisdom

The book, which according to scholars is perceived as representing a female theology in the most evident and clear way in the Bible, is the book of Proverbs. The celebrated and praised spiritual being in the centre of this book is female in Hebrew – the wisdom – ‘Hochma’חוכמה . In addition, according to Patai ⁴⁹ Wisdom is a female spiritual being that is mentioned in the books of Job and Proverbs as God’s spouse. Murphy ⁵⁰ refers to the description of Wisdom in Proverbs 31.30 as a woman, known as a woman of valour, who embodies the awe of God and faith in their female form. Brenner ⁵¹ describes the female character in the book of Proverbs – ‘Lady Wisdom’, and Camp ⁵² claims: ‘In Proverbs we are met first by a strong exalted almost deified female figure in personified wisdom’. Schwartmann ⁵³ indicates that Philo described wisdom as a mother that nurses and nourishes all, namely, a great archaic mother. She points out that Philo identified Wisdom with a feminine figure not only in the context of Proverbs but also in the context of Sarah. The same applies to biblical interpreters, who applied to Sarah the verses in chapter 31 in Proverbs praising the woman of valour. ⁵⁴

In addition, the Hebrew letters ש.ר.ה are, as previously stated, very meaningful in the Ancient Near East world. As I have argued, they signify a divine feminine figure equivalent to the male God, El/u, in Semitic languages. In Hebrew they suggest an elevated and exalted position. The name of the people of Israel contains these letters with the addition of the word ‘El’ (God), which further indicates the vast symbolism hidden in the code of the letters SRI/H’ש.ר.י/ה’ . When looking for this code name in the Bible, it is possible to identify that the Book of Proverbs – the Book of Wisdom, tends to use this code name quite a lot.

The word ‘Ishru’ in Hebrew that contains these letters appears in chapters 4.14 and 9.6. The phrases ‘Sarim Yasoru’ in Hebrew (princes rule) appears in chapter 8.16. The phrase: ‘She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her’ - עֵץ-חַיִּים הִיא, לַמַּחֲזִיקִים connects in Hebrew the mythological code S.R.I or ש.ר.י to divine wisdom (Prov. 3.18). These are just some of the places where there is an intense presence of the letters S.R.I/H in this text.

In light of these intersecting lines pointing to the link between Sarah and the image of Wisdom, it can be assumed that the words of Wisdom and the characteristics of faith and the protection that it signifies in the book of Proverbs are of a female nature, and maybe even been ascribed in ancient traditions to Sarah, the first founding and heralding matriarch.

If we listen to the words of Wisdom in chapter 8 verses 32–34 (a verse filled with the code name S.R.I/H), we will discover a possible clue regarding the way in which the feminine covenant is symbolized: ‘Now therefore, ye children, hearken unto me; for happy are they that keep my ways… Happy is the man that hearkeneth to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors (mezuzotay)’ (Prov. 8.32, 34). Wisdom guides and instructs the followers to observe the commandment of the doorposts, or as they are called in Hebrew – ‘Mezuzah’.

The origin of the commandment of the ‘Mezuzah’ is found in the book of Deuteronomy chapters 6 and 11, and the commandment was tied to the memory of the exodus from Egypt, when the doors of the Israelites were marked with blood before the plague of the firstborn. Yet, is it possible to show a link between marking the doors and the feminine archaic element?

The story of Abraham and Sarah is closely tied to the story of enslavement in Egypt and the exodus. The story of the descent to Egypt and the salvation is found at the centre of the ‘Covenant Of The Pieces’ in Gen. 15. This Covenant was manifested in God’s decree that Abraham should take several animals and birds and divide them. During the revelation that follows, a flaming torch passed between these pieces. God announced to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land of Knaan, yet they would first be enslaved in a foreign land.

In addition, Van Dijk-Hemmes ⁵⁵ finds parallels between Sarah and the people in Egypt, and so, when God saves Sarah from being enslaved by Pharaoh, it is parallel to His salvation of the people of Israel from the hands of Pharaoh.

As previously stated, before the plague of the firstborn, the Israelites were ordered to mark the doors of their homes with blood. Pardes ⁵⁶ notes that marking the doors with blood symbolizes the birth of the people, as a baby being born from the bleeding openings of the mother. A support to Pardes’ argument can be found in the Semitic and Akkadian name to the female genitalia as the pubic gate or pubic door – bāb ūri or bābum. ⁵⁷

Feminine corporeality is extremely dominant in the story of salvation from Egypt: the gaping river banks like the gaping cervix before childbirth, the water bursting like amniotic fluid, 40 years in the desert like 40 weeks of pregnancy and so on… Continuing the analogy we can say that the doorways are in fact the gateway of the vagina – an ancient and powerful symbol of female body opening wide and bleeding at the time of giving birth to a new being, born into the world.

Marking the doorposts with blood therefore represented the alliance of divine protection over Israel – Sarah’s people. The mark ensures that God will protect Israel’s firstborn, Sarah’s child, from dying on that dreadful night of the plague of the firstborn.

And so, when it is written: ‘And Sarah heard it in the tent door’, this may record a remnant from Sarah’s covenant, which is the counterpart of the later version of Abraham’s circumcision – the tradition of marking the doors with doorposts. The Mezuza is therefore, a vaginal marking in the same way that the circumcision is actually an ancient male vaginal marking. In both cases, the two covenants represent readiness, willingness, dedication and commitment to open up for the penetration of the complete faith into male believer /female believer – the entry of the divine presence and the providence and protection for generations.

Supporting evidence to the conclusion regarding the mezuzah as signifying a female covenant, can be found in the word ‘Shadday’ that is written on the mezuzah, according to Israel’s tradition. First, it should be noted that the writing of the words ‘Sarai’-שרי and ‘Shaddai/y’- שדי is almost identical in Hebrew, and in the case of ancient inscriptions, the slight difference is even more vague. ⁵⁸ Secondly, ‘Shadday’ means in Hebrew woman’s breasts. The divine image that emerges in this name is a female image of a loving and nurturing mother.

Lutszky’s research ⁵⁹ reinforces this hypothesis. She argues that God’s name ‘Shadday’ is a female epithet of the God of the mothers, ascribed to the spouse of divinity. Later editors could not agree with this feminine description, and so, in order to eliminate it, they made a syncretic move and combined the name of the male God with the female ‘Shadday’ – into the name of the one God – El Shadday. ⁶⁰

Conclusion

The research hypothesis was that Sarah was the equivalent of Abraham as the founder of faith and nation, and therefore, she was also party to a constitutive covenant that was probably concealed and omitted from the canonical version. The study sought to reconstruct Sarah’s covenant by collecting textual relics from different time-culture layers. By understanding the origin of the ritual of circumcision, various clues scattered and woven into the biblical text were discovered, revealing the Mezuzah as symbolizing the ancient female-maternal covenant with God.

This finding may suggest that the tradition of affixing the mezuzah originates from Sarah’s female covenant with God, a covenant equivalent to the male circumcision covenant.

Going back to the argument previously mentioned, which maintains that the tradition of writing the name ‘Shadday’ on the mezuzah strengthens the argument according to which the mezuzah originates from a female covenant, it can be assumed that this is also one of the main reasons as to why Sarah’s tradition was obscured. If we rely on the arguments made by Ross and Gelman, ⁶¹ which were presented earlier, discussing how the experience of revelation is gender-dependent, then Sarah’s tradition may reflect and express a female experience of revelation, and therefore she might draw contours, features and characteristics of a female divinity. Ross wrote: ‘If the Torah was written from a woman’s perspective, then she would celebrate different perceptions of the divine – the Torah could present an image of God giving birth to the world rather than the traditional creation ex nihilo. It would underscore the importance of a direct presence in the experience of motherhood, the daily home life, and the biological sensations unique to women. ⁶²

In light of the above, it is apparent that the symbol of Sarah’s covenant is a symbol that expresses the female experience of revelation – the mezuzah in the doorways represents divinity as a maternal womb that protects, shelters and envelops. The name ‘Shadday’ represents a perception of a feminine divinity, a Mother-God that breastfeeds and nourishes. Sarah’s tradition, therefore, represented a different Israeli monotheism – a matriarchal theology of a female nature.

Such female theology would have changed the role of masculinity, and of men in the social order, because theology provides political power. Going back to the arguments presented at the beginning of this article, such theology would then pose a threat to patriarchal regimes and society. It would have created hesitation and lack of acceptance of the messages of the new religion and faith. Based on Ross’ arguments regarding the continuous revelation, ⁶³ it is possible that human consciousness was not ready to accept a female monotheistic religion, and so, the word of revelation was accepted and documented as it was. On the other hand, Ross argues that the feminist orientation can express the maturity to understand, accept and encounter a more egalitarian face of the revelation.

Findings such as those of the current study may contribute to a more egalitarian growth of the Jewish tradition, in places where the voice of female traditions was blocked and omitted, or where the religious heritage of Israel was robbed of its feminine core. ‘Growing Judaism requires the materials of tradition to create a credible theology’, ⁶⁴ Adler wrote in her classic book Engendering Judaism. Reconstruction of feminine traditions within the biblical text provides a reliable foundation for such growth, since it demonstrates that feminine spiritual dominance and female theology are not a ‘foreign’ nor a forced element in the faith of Israel and its religion. It shows that they are part of the founding, generating the most authentic voices, and therefore, the task of bringing them to centre stage, just as the discovery and recovery of Sarah’s tradition, is vital, significant and essential.