From The Skeptical Review, 1995:
by Farrell Till
by Farrell Till
When I was an active Christian minister and missionary, I noticed that
women were generally more zealous church workers than men. As I learned
more and more about the Bible, I began to wonder why. In my younger
days,
I had often heard preachers cite the elevated status of women as one of
the wonderful achievements of the Judeo-Christian religions, but this
was not what I was seeing in my own private Bible studies. I was
finding
instead a shockingly disdainful attitude toward women in a book that
had
been presumably written by divinely inspired men.
Time would fail me if I tried to cite every biblical example of
contemptuous attitudes toward women, so I will have to limit myself to
just a few. King David's affair with Bathsheba while her husband Uriah
was
away on military duty produced an embarrassing pregnancy. David first
tried to conceal his indiscretion by bringing Uriah home on furlough
apparently so that he would sleep with Bathsheba and later think that
the
child was his. When Uriah's loyalty to his unit proved so strong that
he
refused to indulge in the pleasures of a conjugal visit, David sent him
back to the front with a letter ordering the commander of his unit to
put
Uriah in "the forefront of the hottest battle" and then withdraw so
that
he would be killed. The order was executed, and when word of Uriah's
death reached David, he took Bathsheba and added her to his harem ( 2 Samuel 11).
If there is such a thing as contemptuous conduct, then David's
actions in
this matter certainly qualify. One would think that if this deed called
for divine wrath, David would have been the rightful target of it. But
the Bible tells us that God chose to punish David only by inflicting
pain
and death on the members of his family, beginning with his wives.
Nathan
the prophet, sent to reprimand David for his sin, delivered this
message
from God: "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto
thy
neighbor, and he will lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun" (2 Samuel 12:11). One could imagine that this would not have been a
pleasant thing for David to witness and would have in that sense
constituted "punishment," but we must look past that to the fact of
what
God was threatening to do. David had sinned grievously, but God was
going
to punish him by having some unnamed "neighbor" rape his wives "before
all
Israel and before the sun" (v 12).
According to the story, David repented and so his wives were
spared the indignity of public rape, but that is beside the point. The
fact that David's god would even threaten such a thing raises serious
doubts about the Bible's claim to be the verbally inspired word of an
omnibeneficent deity. Certainly, this story in no way reflects the
"elevated status" that preachers say the Bible has brought to women. If
it does, I have to admit that I can't see it.
Women today often complain that our society has relegated them
to
second-class citizenship. I agree and would even say that perhaps
third-class citizenship would more accurately describe the condition of
women in modern America. Why then do they, as a group, have such high
respect for the Bible? Modern news coverage has made us aware of the
shocking treatment accorded women in the Mideastern Islamic societies
that
now occupy what was once the ancient biblical lands, but this attitude
toward women was frequently reflected in the Bible and is merely a
social custom that has survived biblical times. Women in western
societies
fare somewhat better, but they do so despite the influence of the Bible
on
our culture, not because of it, for if our laws were based on strict
adherence to biblical precepts to the degree that Moslem nations base
their laws on Koranic precepts, women in our society would fare no
better
than their Islamic sisters.
Just consider these examples of biblical attitudes toward
women. A woman
was considered impure for seven days during her menstrual period, and
anything she touched was also considered unclean (Lev. 15:19-24). After a woman had given birth, she was considered
impure for 40 days if her child was male, and 80 days if her child was
female (Lev. 12:1-5). The fact that her period of uncleanness was twice as
long for giving birth to a female hardly suggests an "elevated" opinion
of
women in the biblical society of "God's chosen people." If a woman was
taken captive in battle, any Israelite male who found her appealing was
entitled to take her to be his "wife" (Dt. 21:10-14), but nothing was said in this passage about securing the
woman's consent. If a jealous husband suspected his wife of adultery,
he
had the right to make her submit to a trial by ordeal to prove her
innocence. The ceremony was too elaborate to summarize here, but part
of
it required her to drink a concoction called the "water of bitterness"
that was derived by mixing holy water with dirt swept up from the
tabernacle (temple) floor. If her body did not swell and her thighs rot
after the water of bitterness had entered the woman's bowels, she was
declared innocent. In this event, however, the accusing husband was
declared "free from iniquity." This trial by ordeal is described in Numbers 5:11-31 and should be read by all who believe that the Bible has
accorded women an elevated status. One wonders how many wrongly accused
wives among "God's chosen people" suffered great pain and even death
from
having had to submit to this trial by ordeal. I must also note before
leaving this point that the Bible required no comparable trial for
husbands suspected of adultery.
The attitude toward women reflected in this trial by ordeal
pervaded
Israelite culture. The prophet Zechariah, looking for a symbol of
wickedness in one of his prophecies, selected a woman to be that symbol
(Zech. 5:5-8). In the book of Ecclesiastes, the celebrated wisdom of
Solomon expressed this exalted opinion of women: "This is what I have
found, reasoning things out one by one, after searching long without
success: I have found one man in a thousand worthy to be called
upright,
but I have not found one woman among them all" (7:27-28).
We could hardly expect a better opinion than this from a
man who had no more respect for women than to take 1,000 of them to be
his
wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:3), but one would expect an omniscient, omnibeneficent God
to have this man indicate a slightly better attitude toward women at
least
while he was being divinely inspired to record God's eternal truth.
Since
he didn't, are we to assume that God's eternal truth is that women are
to
be considered evil?
The New Testament era brought no improvement in "divine"
opinion of women.
Needing a symbol of apostate evil, the Holy Spirit presumably inspired
the
writer of Revelation to make that symbol a "whore" (17:1-5).
The Apostle Paul, perhaps the most chauvinistic of all New
Testament writers, ordered women to "keep silence in the churches" and
to
"ask their own husbands at home" if they wanted to know anything, "for
it
is shameful for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Cor. 14:34-35). He said to the young preacher Timothy, "I permit
not
a woman to teach... but to be in quietness" (1 Tim 2:12). He ordered wives to be in strict subjection to their
husbands ( Eph 5:22 ; Col 3:18 ; Titus 2:5), as did also the Apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:1). One must assume that this injunction would apply even to
a
woman of high intelligence who may have made the mistake of marrying a
fool. After all, who are we to dispute God's eternal truth?
A friend and associate of mine at the college from which I
recently
retired once told me that she had quit attending church. When I asked
why, she said that she had been upset by some things the minister of
her
church had said in a recent sermon. After she had explained what the
minister had said about the woman's place in the family and church, I
obtained a Bible and showed her that the man had said nothing except
what
the Bible teaches. Her reaction was first surprise and then a frank
assertion that she didn't care what the Bible said; she still didn't
like
it. I have to wonder how many women there are like her who attend
church
faithfully and work zealously on its behalf without ever realizing that
their faith is based on a book that is very uncomplimentary to women.
No comments:
Post a Comment