A doctor revealed to a young blond woman and her boyfriend that she was pregnant. He said, “It can’t be mine!” Then she blurted out, “Gee, I wonder if it’s mine?!”
There is a reason why we run paternity tests and not maternity tests. I read a fascinating book entitled Different by primatologist Frans de Waal[1] who spent his life studying our closest animal relatives, and he points out that chimpanzee mothers tend to be very devoted to their offspring, but chimp fathers not so much, because, after all, a mother knows it is her baby but a male chimp does not know that he is the father. In the Bible there is great concern about a father knowing that he is the true father of his children; I suspect this is why strict laws about adultery were developed, and even an adultery test for women, as we’ll see. Pop quiz: Do you know who was the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel according to the book of Genesis? Here’s a tougher question: Who was the mother(s) of those Twelve Tribes?
A man named Jacob, a grandson of Abraham, ends up fathering the forefathers of the Twelve Tribes and his name is changed to “Israel,” which means “one who struggles with God.” You may know the story: Jacob is getting ready to face his brother Esau whom he cheated out of his birthright, and a mysterious stranger shows up to wrestle with Jacob all night long (Genesis 32:24f). Somehow Jacob recognizes this as a messenger from God, or perhaps God Himself, and he hangs on until he receives a blessing. As part of the blessing Jacob is given the name Israel (and a dislocated hip!). It is a peculiar story, as if a man could hang on in a wrestling match with God Almighty. (Genesis is a must-read book, as it has a number of entertaining stories, not just the sibling rivalry tale of Jacob and Esau but also the story of Jacob’s son that ended up as the first musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice: Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.)
I bring this up because Jacob/Israel, the father, gets the whole nation named after him, but only the serious Bible student will know the names of the women who gave him those twelve sons, and most will only know the names of his two actual wives. Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, who also happen to be his cousins, which itself is kind of interesting because later the Law of Moses will specifically forbid marrying two sisters (Leviticus 18:18). As Leah and Rachel compete to give Jacob sons they go dry, so to speak, so first Rachel “gives” Jacob one of her maids, Bilhah, to impregnate and then Leah follows suit with her maid Zilpah. So, four of the twelve sons come through this form of approved rape of the servant women. I say “rape” because there is no indication that Bilhah and Zilpah had any choice in the matter. Even if they conceded or consented in some way, what choice did they have? Risk being thrown out of the camp to die, like Abraham threw out Hagar and Ishmael? Some will try to argue that the two maids became “wives” of Jacob, so that makes it legit. Please review Genesis 35:22-26: they clearly were not regarded as wives. I do not understand people who try to justify this behavior as some sort of cultural norm. Being part of a culture doesn’t make something right, as any conservative Christian will tell you today if you ask them about abortion or gay marriage. Not that Jacob bears all the guilt in this story: it is Rachel and Leah who “give” their maids to Jacob for sex, so they play the role of human traffickers in this tale. As if any person has the right to “give” a woman to a man for sex. And this is the beginning of the nation of Israel? The good news is that this is just a story; there is no evidence that this is the true origin story of Israel. Modern scholars think that the Twelve Tribes represent a coalescence of various peoples living in Palestine that eventually formed the nation identified as Israel. But Genesis makes for interesting though sordid historical fiction.
Although women play some key roles in Genesis it is mostly about the men: Adam to Noah to Abraham to Isaac to Jacob/Israel to Joseph. Abraham is not held accountable for impregnating his wife’s maid and then throwing her and his own son out of the camp. Similarly instead of Jacob being castigated for marrying two sisters and having sex with their maids he is honored as the namesake of Israel. And the women are often cast in a bad light. It was Eve who first tasted the forbidden fruit. It was Sarah who first gave Hagar to Abraham for sex and then urged him to throw her out. Lot’s daughters get him drunk so they can get pregnant by him. Isaac’s wife Rebekah helps Jacob deceive her doddering blind husband. Leah and Rachel have a duel of the wombs, as if the only thing they care about, or are good for, is having children, and this pushes them to traffic their maids to Jacob for sex. In the Joseph story a woman tries to seduce him and has him thrown into prison. As discussed in a previous post Jacob’s son Judah called for his daughter-in-law Tamar to be burned as an immoral woman because she was unmarried and pregnant, but he suffered no punishment when it was revealed that he was the one who impregnated her while in the guise of a prostitute! These are not the most flattering portrayals of women; you’d almost think all these stories were written by men, men who did not have the highest opinion of women.
The Law of Moses was clearly written by men and for men. It starts right in the famous Ten Commandments. Note the last commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17). See how the wife is lumped in there with the house, servants, ox and donkey and other possessions? Also, the commandments seem to be addressed to men: no prohibition against coveting your neighbor’s husband. Actually the fourth commandment about the Sabbath may contain a slight of women: “…but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.” Notice anyone missing? The wife. After all, some has to tend to the husband’s needs on the Sabbath! I suppose one can argue that the initial “you” could be addressed to the wife also, but in context it sounds like it is addressing the master of the estate, but maybe I am trying too hard to find fault.
Now turn the page to Exodus 21 and you will find a clear example of a sexist law:
–
“If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. (v.7)
–
Two things. First, there is no corresponding law about selling your son as a slave. It seems to imply that a father would of course want to keep his son, but a daughter is expendable if in need of money. Second, the previous verses allow a male slave to go free after six years, but this law exempts women (girls) from this. She is NOT to go free. A bit of a double standard, don’t you think? And this chapter is not done with its sexist slant:
–
He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. (v. 12)
–
He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death. (v. 16)
–
No similar laws are given to protect women. You might respond that “man” is meant to include everyone. Yet in verses 20 and 26 those laws specify both male and female slaves; apparently female slaves deserve protection as a possession of the master of the house, but free women and wives do not merit any special mention. And in verse 28 on the very important subject of ox goring, it specifies “if an ox gores a man or a woman to death…” So it is worth mentioning a woman when an ornery ox is the subject, but not when murder or kidnapping is the issue. Again, maybe I am trying too hard to find fault, but these laws certainly sound as if written by men, for men.
Consider this next law. It is often invoked in discussions about abortion (on either side of the debate) but I want to point out another aspect:
–
If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
Exodus 21:22
–
Two points here. First, it assumes that a pregnant woman has a husband. What about widows? Frankly, what about an unmarried pregnant woman? Second, who determines the fine? The husband, of course, with the approval of the judges, who are almost certainly male in this system. It is as if the woman in this situation has no legal standing. I guess the assumption is that it is the husband who “owns” the baby and the wife, and therefore is entitled to compensation for damages.
Consider this law:
–
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:28, 29
–
So, if a man rapes an unengaged virgin he has to pay the father a fine and marry her. The victim is not compensated, just her father (because she is his possession?). So the woman (girl?) has to marry her rapist? Of course, because he violated her, you see. She’s damaged goods now; who else would marry her? But a small taste of justice: he can’t divorce her, ever! Still, this suggests a devious strategy for getting a wife: find the prettiest virgin in the village, rape her, pay the fine, and you’ve got a fine catch!
Just before this law is another bothersome one: read verses 13 through 21. The gist of it is that if a husband suspects his new bride is not a virgin he can take the matter to the village elders. First, note that the father of the bride speaks thusly: “‘I gave my daughter to this man as a wife…” (v. 16). Again here is that idea that the daughter is the father’s possession and he has authority to give her to a man. But we still perpetuate this idea today, as at a wedding the preacher will often ask, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” and in turn the father of the bride will respond, “I do.” Old traditions die hard. But if the woman cannot provide “proof” of being a virgin she is to be taken out and stoned to death. The “proof” is supposedly a garment or bedsheet showing blood from the bride’s broken hymen. Except that is not at all a reliable test of virginity. Not that the men writing these laws knew or cared about that. Or if they did, perhaps this test was just to scare a bride into making sure that she thoroughly pleased her husband lest he turn her over to be stoned to death! And what is the penalty if the husband makes a false accusation? He gets a monetary fine; there is no threat of death. Who gets that fine? The father, of course, not the bride. Oh, and he can’t divorce her: the authors of these laws must have thought that was quite a severe penalty, to be stuck with the same wife your whole life! Now, what about a new husband who is not a virgin? There is no corresponding law for the man, not surprisingly. Which leads to the next sexist law:
What about later on when the husband suspects his wife of cheating on him? Turn to Numbers 5 verses 11 through 31. There is an elaborate procedure that the priest runs on the suspected wife. The end result is that if she is guilty of adultery “her belly (possibly referring to her womb) will swell up and her thigh (possibly referring to her genitalia) will shrivel, and the woman will become a curse among her people.” This seems to be a psychological ploy to get the woman to confess before this happens to her (there being no scientific basis for the test). And what is the test for a possibly unfaithful husband? You guessed it – there is none. It is all about the men being sure that the wives are faithful to them and bearing only their own children and not somebody else’s. No need for any laws about promiscuous and adulterous men.
What about the all-important sign that a person is a member of God’s special covenant with His people? That would be circumcision, the removal of the male’s foreskin. (See post #14) Women obviously can’t participate with that. But maybe in this case they should be glad to be excluded! Still, it is arguably sexist to have only the men bear the sign of membership in God’s kingdom.
To change gears a bit, there are some positive woman role models in the Old Testament. Deborah was a judge in early Israel, the only woman noted to hold this position (Judges 4). Her story leads to another curious tale of a woman: she tells Barak to fight and defeat Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite army. He insists that she come along, so she agrees, but “the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Apparently because Barak would not go into battle without a woman? Sisera has to flee on foot and ends up in the tent of the woman Jael. She hides him under a rug, then takes a tent peg and hammers it into his head. Thus Sisera suffers the worst fate of all: being killed by a woman! This is again emphasized a bit later in Judges 9 with a fellow named Abimelech. He is a son of the hero Gideon, who had reportedly had 70 sons through many wives and Abimelech was the son of a concubine (sex slave). Abimelech was in battle:
–
But a woman threw an upper millstone on Abimelech’s head, crushing his skull.
Then he called quickly to the young man, his armor bearer, and said to him, “Draw your sword and kill me, so that it will not be said of me, ‘A woman killed him.’” So the young man pierced him through, and he died.
–
His brain is oozing out but his concern is that people don’t think a woman killed him. The ultimate ignominy!
There are a number of strong women depicted among these stories. There are two women who have Bible books named after them: Ruth (see post #13) and Esther. Rebekah was a bit devious but she was able to manipulate her husband in favor of their son Jacob. Similarly Bathsheba, famous for her affair with King David, at the end of his life is able to manipulate him to make sure that her son Solomon becomes king. David’s first wife Michal was said to love him (it never says David loved her), but at one point she was willing to stand up to him when she thought he was making a public spectacle of himself (2nd Samuel 6). David also married a shrewd woman named Abigail who was described as “intelligent and beautiful.” The Queen of Sheba is portrayed as a wealthy and wise ruler in 1st Kings 10.
There are likewise some positive female role models in the New Testament. It is true that Jesus chose only men to be among his twelve closest disciples. That may have been necessary to avoid scandal. Or maybe he was gay. I don’t know. But there were women involved in his ministry.
–
The twelve were with Him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support out of their private means.
Luke 8:1b-3
–
Jesus may not have numbered them among the Twelve but he was willing to accept support from them. (Seems like there’s a term for men who accept money from women. Hmmm…) We tend to glide over this passage, but it suggests that these women had authority over their own money and were not beholden to their husbands in this regard.
There were Martha and Mary who seemed to be significant followers of Jesus; see Luke 10:38f, and they own their own house. They are among the few people that were said to be loved by Jesus (John 11:5). Jesus was said to allow at least one woman to anoint his head and feet with oil and/or perfume (there are several variations of this story in the Gospels so the details are unclear). When the disciples flee after Jesus’ arrest it is said to be the faithful women who are there at the cross with him. Women are said to be the first to look for and meet the resurrected Jesus (more on that in a moment).
There is a famous story of Jesus in which he stands up for a woman who is in a very vulnerable position (John 8:3-11). Some religious leaders bring Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery. Most readers catch this: where is the male adulterer, then? Anyway, Jesus utters his famous statement, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” They all gradually drop their stones and leave. Jesus tells the woman: “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” This certainly sounds like Jesus is standing up for a woman, even one caught in the very act of adultery, and is revealing the hypocrisy of these outwardly religious people. No wonder this story is so popular. (Of course, in the Catholic version of the story a stone comes flying out of the crowd and hits the woman. Jesus turns around and says with a shake of his head, “Mother!”) Except there are two problems with this story. The first is that if the woman was committing adultery then there is either her husband or the man’s wife or both suffering a broken marriage because of her and Jesus offers them no counsel or consolation. The bigger problem is that most scholars recognize that this passage was not originally in the Gospel of John and appears to be a later addition. If you read the story in context you can see that it interrupts the surrounding story and does not seem to fit (for one example, at the end of the story Jesus and the woman are alone but in the very next verse he is back among the people continuing the discussion from chapter 7.) It is possible that the story is derived from an actual event in Jesus’ ministry and was awkwardly placed in John, but there is no way to know. Still, it shows Jesus defending a woman about to be stoned, and that stands in opposition to the male/husband bias we saw in the Law of Moses.
Paul seems to have a liberal attitude towards women. He says things like, “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). He lists various women among his co-workers. Priscilla and her husband Aquila are mentioned a number of times in his letters as well as in Acts (some scholars find it significant that she is usually mentioned first). Paul mentions a number of women in Romans 16, with two of particular note. Phoebe (v.1, 2) seems to be a significant figure in the church (lit.: deaconess). In verse 7 he mentions “Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles.” Junia beng a female name. Although some translations can’t handle this, and change “Junia” to “Junias” and the RSV even inserts the phrase “they are men of note,” so maybe the translators are sexist instead of Paul. Speaking of which, in 1st Corinthians 11 Paul does show a bit of a sexist tendency with comments like, “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman” (v. 3). However, he appears to allow women the right to pray and prophesy (speak on spiritual topics) in the Christian assembly (v.5). However, when you get to 1st Corinthians 14:34 and 35 you get this jarring change of tone:
–
The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
–
Whoa, Paul, you just got through including women in the various functions of the church, including praying and prophesying (and exercising other spiritual gifts); why the sudden change of heart? Some scholars suspect this verse is not actually from Paul, but rather is a later insertion. In some early manuscripts of this book this verse is actually located at other places within this letter, and in one case is in the margin as a note. This has led to speculation that this verse began as a margin note, an attempt to “correct” Paul’s outrageously liberal view of women in church, and to put women in their proper (silent) place. Read that chapter: those two verses seem out of place and it reads more smoothly without them. But, too bad: the damage is done, and there it is in black and white in every Bible.
To make matters worse there are a number of letters included in the New Testament that claim to be written by Paul but scholars are convinced were actually written by later Christians. They differ from Paul’s early letters in vocabulary, writing style and even content, sometimes seemingly countering what Paul said in those earlier letters. One aspect of this is that, like that 1st Corinthians 14 insertion, they seek to put women back in their proper places, after Paul let them loose. Such as:
–
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
1st Timothy 2:9-15
–
This doesn’t exactly say that women should be “pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen,” but it comes pretty darn close. One reason I doubt this was written by Paul is that in his earlier letters of 1st Corinthians and Romans he specifically cites Adam as the one who first sinned; here it is Eve that gets the blame. Either way, you have to admit this passage is about as sexist as one can get. Men are clearly meant to be in control and women are to remain quiet and submissive, and if they do so and bear children they just might be saved. Wow. (No wonder a current political candidate is concerned about childless cat ladies!)
So, that suggests a great irony. In the Gospels we are not told much about the woman known as Mary Magdalene, but they all place her at Jesus’ empty tomb. The Gospel of John specifically cites her as the first person to see the resurrected Jesus, and she goes to tell the disciples about it. Thus she becomes the first person to proclaim the Christian gospel: that Jesus has been raised from the dead. The first Christian and first evangelist in other words. And if it was her vision of a resurrected Jesus that spurred other disciples to have similar visions and begin to spread the news, then would it be fair to call her the founder of Christianity? Now that’s an anti-sexist view, I would say. (Although that may not have been the intent of the gospel authors.)
So, I leave it to you to decide in your own mind if the Bible is a sexist book. Certainly parts of it seem so, but what about the whole on balance? One final thought crosses my mind. In the Old Testament we see many men with multiple wives and concubines: Abraham (Genesis 25:6), Jacob, Esau, Gideon, David and of course, Solomon, who outdid them all: 700 wives and 300 concubines! How come we don’t read any stories of women with multiple husbands and boy toys? Wait. Maybe there is one case. A young woman named Mary of Nazareth was said to have two husbands. But that’s a story for another day…
–
Thinking exercises:
–
1. Is it wrong to be sexist if God designed the world that way? Did He?
2. According to Paul we are new creatures in Christ (2nd Corinthians 5:17), and are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28) and are walking in “newness” of life (Romans 6:4). So why is the author of 1st Timothy regulating women based on what Eve did long ago, before Jesus made us new? Was Paul overestimating what Jesus did for us? Or at least, for women?
3. It has been said that God took Eve from Adam’s side so that she would stand alongside him; not from the head so that she would not rule over him, and not from the feet lest she be trodden upon by him. What do you think of this? How do you think the author of 1st Timothy would respond to it?
4. However you view what the Bible says about women, do you feel free to make your own decisions about the role of women in modern society and their rights? What about their roles and rights in the church? Should there be any difference?
–
[1] Different by primatologist Frans De Waal, W. W. Norton & Company, 2022, is an entertaining read on how studying our fellow primates helps us understand gender and sex issues.