I wanted to write something special for my 20,000 hits and have really wanted to write an article about women and the Old Testament (OT). The OT has been very unfairly criticized for being misogynistic and I have heard people say things like how the OT treats women like objects. It does take some time to understand many of these verses. Simple things like realizing that there were no jails and that slavery was a way of enforcing justice like paying off your debts (i.e.Bernie Madoff), really helps elucidate the whole picture. We also should remember that the Torah (the first five books of the BIble) was written about 3,400 years ago and if we compare it to the other cultures at that time, there would be no doubt that the OT is what I call “pro-woman”!
Keep in mind the big picture of how the OT views women before becoming bogged down by the small aspects of civil and ceremonial laws. As Jesus told the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law...” The Bible gives men and women full ontological equality (i.e. equal in their being) in Genesis 1:27, as man and woman, are both made in His image. When they have physical union, they are united as “one flesh”(Genesis 2:24), so that sex is not just a physical act for pleasure, but one that should be used only with his wife, because it makes you one flesh. I think that it is highly significant that God made sex not just some free physical activity because women are not able to be treated as mere sex objects, as sex metaphysical unites man and woman. This was Paul’s concern in 1 Corinthians 6:16 where he says, “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, ‘the two shall become one flesh.’”
Monogamy is also held to an incredibly high standard. Not committing adultery is one of the 10 commandments (the seventh) and in the ninth commandment “thou shall not covet” it explicitly states not to covet your neighbor’s wife. Moses, it seems, to go out of his way to make sure Kings “shall not multiply wives for himself” in Deut. 17:17. The man with the most power, the king of Israel, receives a special prohibition. Before we move on, it is important to note here that if people were perfect there wouldn't need to be laws, but as Jesus says in Matthew 19:8 “... Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way,” thus there are laws to enforce sins such as divorce and polygamy.
Summary: Men and women are ontologically equal and both are created in God’s image. Monogamy is held to the highest standard with adultery making it into the 10 commandments.
______________________
With this view in mind let us tackle some of the some verses in the OT. Some of these cover very “pro-woman” verses and others tackle more controversial verses, in no particular order.
God gives protection for married women
God in His own words said, “Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel” (Micah 2:15-16). However if it were to happen Exodus 21:10 says “If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.” Furthermore, the Bible has Levirate marriages, so that if a woman had no children then the husband’s brother would have to marry her. First, it is important to note that it does not say “his conjugal rights” rather "her." Second, it was important for women to have children so that they in return could help take care of their parents, as one got older, because of the poor economic opportunities for women, especially divorced women, who had a much more difficult time becoming remarried, as marriages were arranged.
So the conjugal rights were a protection for the women in this case. Do not think the men were excited to be able to continue intimate relations - this is a 21st century fallacy. In fact, men did not want to have have sexual relations with these women, so that they did not have to split their wealth. This is one of the reasons why Deut. 25 goes in depth of how the woman may publicly shame men who do not fulfill this role. Also, the story of Onan in Genesis 38 a tells us that he did not want to impregnate his sister-in-law and “wasted his seed on the ground. God saw that action and took his life! This is a system of alimony over 3,000 years ago designed to protect women.
There are even protections for even more vulnerable women, namely, foreign women captured during war. I believe this section is one of the most pro-woman verses in the Bible. Deut 21:10-14:
10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.
I’m sure in other ancient cultures they took women as slaves and concubines and gave them absolutely no rights, but this is not so in Israel. Remember, when we talked about the equality of women and the high standard of monogamy? When they conquered a nation, they could not just do with the women what they wanted. If they wanted to have intimate relations with them then they needed to marry them. The text says they needed to make the beautiful woman that captivated them his wife, not slave. Furthermore, to make sure you really wanted to marry the girl, she had to cut her hair and trim her nails, so that it wasn’t simply external. If you still wanted to make her your wife with how she looked after all that, then you needed to give her one month to mourn given all that has just taken place in her life. If you divorce her you cannot mistreat her and make her your slave or concubine. This is a far cry from objectification.
God gives women the ability to inherit land
Numbers 27:6 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 7 “The daughters of Zelophehad are right in their statements. You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father’s brothers, and you shall transfer the inheritance of their father to them.”
Women able to own property. Nuff said.
Some Controversial Verses
1. Lev 12:1-5
‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. 3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.
Critics of the Bible complain here that b/c males have a shorter uncleanliness period, they must be more valuable than females.What is actually happening is that b/c the male have to become circumcised there is a longer wait for the female babies. In the pre-anesthesia days, this was definitely not in favor of males.
2. Deut 22 28
“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."
This is a horrible situation emotionally, spiritually, and physically. When a woman is raped or is divorced,as previously mentioned, it was extremely difficult for them to be married. Without marriage, women were in a dire economic situation. So what to do here in the instance of rape? Remember, there is no welfare or social security. Furthermore, only in recent times has society really married for romantic love. Marriages were arranged. Who in that society would arrange for their child to be married to her? Probably none, so the best thing to do for this unfortunate woman, so that her future is not totally decimated was to make the man who did this horrible thing to her take care of her forever. Note, there is an extra-stipulation here that she cannot be divorced, further reinforcing that she is taken care of by him.
Conclusion:
Anyone with a bias against the Bible can spin anything toward their own point-of-view. Some see OT as being hopelessly misogynistic, but I hope I have helped dispel that notion and show that much has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, or purposefully maligned. Part of the difficulty of understanding all this is having our 21st century mind has to be transported back over 3,000 years ago. As always, if we look a little deeper, we always see the justice, holiness, and love of our great God! May God give us the eyes to see the beauty of His Word.
Psalm 119:18 Open my eyes, that I may behold Wonderful things from Your law.
12 comments:
Please elaborate on:
When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. 3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.
Critics of the Bible complain here that b/c males have a shorter uncleanliness period, they must be more valuable than females. What is actually happening is that b/c the male have to become circumcised there is a longer wait for the female babies. In the pre-anesthesia days, this was definitely not in favor of males.-----------------
Isn't it the MOTHER of the children who goes through the unclean period--not the children? and after birth the mother of the male child has a less unclean time than the Mother of the female child.-- it is twice as long for a mother who bore a female child than the mother that bore a male child.. How does circumcision -or not -have anything to do with the length of the Mother's unclean period of time?
First thank God that females do not have to under circumcision. As you know, females can undergo circumcision, but it is brutal mutilating process without any benefits.
Women never do undergo a ritual process for being born like males under the law and it would make little since for a female baby to bear any restriction for ritualistic uncleanliness (ie not to be able to go to the sanctuary). The payment comes back when ladies are older and give birth in the form of extra days of purification:
1.The male children will always provide it via circumcision
2.The father has already provided via circumcision
3.The only member left to properly pay it would be the mother in the form of doubling the purification time.
I wish to pose your question this (the glass ½ full) way:
Q: Why do women not need to be circumcised or due any ritualistic cleansing when both the baby boy and father have to in the form of circumcision?
[I prefer to pose the question this way because the real issue is why do men need to be circumcised and women not. Remember, adult men did need to become circumcised if they were to follow God in the Old Testament!]
A: Women do undergo ritualistic cleansing at the time of birth, by doubling their purification time if they bear a female child.
I really don't think your post clears up anything. I have been a Christian most of my life (I am 50). I struggle regularly with the verses directed at women. They are brutal and unfair. However, God doesn't have to be fair He is God.
What I really have a problem with is the spin so many do in arguing that it is all really fair. It isn't and there really isn't any way to explain it that makes it so. Again, God doesn't have to be fair. It's insulting when men try to rationalize how it really is fair. I wonder if you would see it that way if you were a woman?
Would men really enjoy hearing lessons that told you to submit to your wife? Would you really enjoy hearing that God never promises she'll be fair but you must submit anyway? Would you enjoy hearing that God is a God of order and so this is the way He wants it? Again, it really wouldn't matter if you like or approved of it because God can do whatever He wants.
I always find it interesting that those who try to say God isn't misogynistic point out how bad women had it prior to Christianity. Just because it isn't as bad as it was doesn't mean it is now good. That is a little like telling someone who was use to eating 1X a week see how good you have it now you get to eat 3X a week. This coming from the person who eats daily.
Telling someone because they were unlucky enough to be born a women that they must always submit to the male husband just because they are a woman is unfair and there is no way around it. I doubt many would argue that the husband is always wiser, more knowledgeable, mature or even wise, he is simply born with the correct genitalia. Husband is the head because God wants him to be. He need meet no requirement other than to have the correct genitalia. Again, I'll say it again. God is God so He doesn't have to be fair. But please stop trying to spin it as fair because it isn't. It is very unpleasant and very unfair to be told because of your sex you must always give into whatever the other wants whether selfish or not is blatantly unfair.
You are correct anonymous if that were the case for biblical submission that would be hard to bear. One thing I would like to point out is that when God paints the perfect picture of marriage in Ephesians 5 with the roles of Christ and the church given to the husband and wife, respectively. You have took the 18-21st century definition of submission and applied it to the Bible. No where does the Bible say that wives must submit no matter what, just as Peter did not submit to the authorities in Acts when they violated the law of God, neither do wives need to submit to there husband.
In fact, the assumption in the verse is this Eph 5 "25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself." If the husband is doing that then yes the wife is to be subject (NASB translation) to her husband. By the way, Jesus submits before the Father, how unfair! No, rather the Father perfectly leads Christ. The real difficulty of submission is b/c husbands are sinful and do not treat and lead their wives like Jesus does. Again, if the husband is sinful, the wife does not, and biblically, will not and should not want to submit. Do not take the idealized picture and make that the judgement of functional reality.
PS I didn't even talk about those verses in this blog post!
"Jesus submits before the Father, how unfair!" Not a good comparison. Yes, Jesus submits to a perfectly loving sinless Father. Husbands are not God, and are definitely far from sinless. I realize that you did not talk about the marriage verses in your post, but it all falls under the same category to me. Men always try to tell women how it really isn't unfair and how much God loves them. Why not just be straight forward about it. God doesn't have to love equally. It is His prerogative to love men more, and He obviously does. It just irritates me to hear men try to paint it in a better light than it is.
Picture yourself as a woman. Would you enjoy hearing these verses? Would you enjoy hearing verses that say a woman must be silent? Would you like being told you can no longer teach a class because a 9 year old boy became a Christian and you as an adult woman cannot usurp his authority? Would you enjoy being told you must submit(obey) to your spouse? Would you like being told your spouse always gets the final say (gets their way)?
I realize that a woman does not have to submit(obey) to sinful acts. But God does not give her an out if her husband is cruel, controlling, manipulative, etc. But again it is God's prerogative to treat women however He chooses. He is God and can do whatever He wants. I just wish religious leaders would tell it like it is, instead of trying to candy coat it.
@ Anonymous
Great questions anonymous, but I think you are confusing two things - 1) The ideal vision of marriage vs 2) The practical application of it.
First, God never states He love men more. This is an interpretation from 21st century people. In the 1st century, Christians were accused of feminism given the great treatment they were receiving compared to the Greek culture in the 1st century. Something to think about...
Remember, marriage in its ideal form is a picture of Christ and the Church. It is like if Bobby Flay were in your kitchen or if you Michael Jordan wanted to play basketball with you, wouldn't you just, out of respect for who they are, listen and follow them in the kitchen and basketball court? Likewise, Jesus is so awesome b/c he cares so deeply about the church, as Ephesians 5 says, loves as His own body, sacrifices His life for her, looks out for her own interests, and protects her that the church follows and respects Him in reverence b/c they know that He will lead and treat the church perfectly.
Now this is a vision of perfect marriage! My marriage and your marriage is NOT like this, but it is the model to strive for and because your husband is not like Christ, it is hard to respect and follow (i.e. submit). This is why biblical submission is hard b/c your husband has difficulty leaving up to Christ's example, but does that mean you should not strive for the Chruch's example?
With that said, let me clear up somethings. If your husband is not acting Christ like and sinning, you do not need to submit to Him and obey Him. Remember David, Nabal, and Abigail? If Abigail followed her husband's lead they would have all died. Peter defied the government, and yes if your husband asks you to sin, then yes you do not have to submit/obey/follow use whatever word you want.
The authority over a man (i.e. adult male) does not mean any male. A\ 9 year old boy can surely be under your authority. In fact this "authority" you are talking about is limited to the church and submission limited only to marriage.
Ephesians 5:22 says we should be "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." You know that this means that a man, that is not your husband, should submit to you and your needs. If we met, I should be actively seeking out your needs over mine (Christianity 101 right?). Likewise, you should do the same for me, should you not do it for your husband?
To put it another way, isn't it generally well known and accepted that we are to love our enemies, die for each other, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. It is just so hard to do it to our spouses for whatever reason, right? I think it is because we are selfish and want them to treat us that way and have expectations.
Also, if your husband is cruel the Bible does say this:
1 Co 7:11 "but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband"
You can leave, but does not mean you forsake your (permanent) marriage vow, in hopes your husband would return to Christ. Does it surprise you that the Bible asks of us to give up ourselves and take up our cross? This includes in marriage ( trust me I am guilty of failing here too....)
These certainly are hard topics and I pray that you continually wrestle with them.
Found your post interesting.
I've been in discernment about misogyny for a bit now. Starting to see how advocating may not be a bad thing, if done in a way which promotes self reflection and is respectful. We know God's ways and thoughts are not the same as ours, so who are we to say someone else is wrong, when in truth they may be receiving just as much revelation from an opposite perspective as the one fighting the cause?
My question is this, how valid is the Jamieson-Fausset interpretation viewed in overall Christianity?
The second question, is after reading through the link below, how is this not misogynistic?
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/judges/judges-19.html
jstep166
I will answer you later (a little busy right now). Just letting you know that I see your comment and have published it. Thank you for taking time out to comment on my blog.
I appreciate it, Predestined. What I find most disturbing about Judges 19, is how the man who housed the Levite treated the daughter and concubine. Offering them to the gathered crowd to save the men. Then during the up rise, the concubine was thrown out to them and raped to death. When found on the doorstep, the Levite told her to, "Get up," because it was time to go. Then cut her into 12 pieces to send throughout the tribes. Crass humor, in saying I guess she got her justice served out of the divorce during that time. Was stunned to learn during that time women were stoned for wanting to divorce.
Jstep166,
Remember, in the Bible, their are stories of incredible evil for our warning. They are not there to say we are allowed to do it. King David committed adultery and killed Bathsheba's husband that doesn't mean we can or should do that in fact, the story says to do the opposite!
Judges is about "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (from Judges 17:6). When people follow their own rules, things go very bad. How bad you ask, well like things in chapter 19.
As far as the story in Judges 19 goes, the commentary you mention (it is a legit commentary from my knowledge) states it well "no method could have been imagined more certain of rousing universal horror and indignation." This is a story of what happens when people who were strong in faith several generations ago under Joshua, do what is good in their own eyes and turn away from God. This crazy, misogynistic story to say the least, is an example of what happens WITHOUT God! I hope you are not thinking this is something we should do or serve as a good example.
Also, I would be careful to get second hand knowledge of OT laws. The stoning verse, is NOT about wanting divorce. You were probably told that, but that's not what the Bible actually says. In Leviticus 20:10 "“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
This is about adultery and as you can see both man AND woman are stoned.
Hopefully, I was clear :
We are not to do anything from that story! It is an example of what not to do.
Thank you, Predestined. May the spirit of Yhwh's authority continue to bless you in discernment and peace as ordained by him. Take care. Respectfully yours, Jenn
Post a Comment