Old Testament and Ethics: Is Old Testament Misogynistic and Demeaning to Women?

Old Testament and Ethics: Is Old Testament Misogynistic and Demeaning to Women?

Many so-called progressive Christians have a problem with the Old Testament in the Bible. Some Christians argue that the Old Testament was written many years ago rendering most of its content irrelevant in this modern world. However, there is a much bigger issue. There are some Christians and even non-Christians who criticize Old Testament as misogynistic and demeaning to women. Misogynistic is derived from the word ‘misogyny’ which refers to hatred for women[1]. In this case, the issue of whether the Old Testament is misogynistic and demeaning to women or not is very tricky and requires skeptical analysis of the scriptures and other related literature. Therefore, this paper will focus on the allegation that Old Testament is misogynistic and demeaning to women

Is Old Testament Misogynistic and Demeaning to Women?

            The idea that the Old Testament is misogynistic and demeaning to women is misguided. Throughout the Bible, we do not find a God who is gender-specific but one who loves all the people. The Ten Commandments is proved God’s love and respect for all people. For instance, in the fifth commandment, God commands children to honor both of their parents[2]. He does not say ‘father’ but ‘parents,’ meaning both the mother and the father. In addition to that, we find God warning against coveting the other man’s wife[3]. Categorically, God states, you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife[4]. By warning other men against desiring another man’s wife, God was protecting the dignity of married women.

Critics of the Old Testament argue that God treats women like property owned by a man. The criticism is based on the payment of dowry to the girl’s father. The term ‘bride-price’ which has been repeatedly used in the current Bible translation sounds as if the daughter is a product for sale or merchandise. However, a deeper and critical look at the Bible in the same Old Testament proves otherwise. A better analysis of the term ‘mohar’ which was used in the first Hebrew Bible translates to ‘marriage gift’ rather than ‘bride-price’. The marriage gift was like a deposit given to the father. For that matter, by giving the gift, the groom showed devotion and commitment rather than pay for the merchandise. Also, paying the mohar was an act of good faith to show the girl’s family that he is not taking their daughter as a sexual object but rather a life partner[5].

The issue of women as prisoners of war or spoils of war is critical to this discussion. In Deuteronomy 20: 13-14, the Bible says, “And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.”[6] In the next chapter, God describes a scenario where a man comes across a beautiful woman in the war and wants to take her home to become his wife. God gives very clear instructions to be followed under such circumstances. All these scriptures are interpreted by most people as an act of misogyny and also demeaning to women[7].

It is important to mention that the law was not meant to be perfect. However, it was meant to represent God in the sinful nature of human beings[8]. It would have been great if we all lived in a perfect world where everyone loved each other and hence lived in peace. There would be no war. However, the reality is different. Even in these Biblical times, there were wars everywhere. Men were directly involved in combat, and that meant they were casualties of war. That means that if your side was defeated, most of the women were left windows with no prospects of marriage. Hence, taking women as spoils of war was aimed at protecting them. In Deuteronomy 20: 1-12, we are told that the Israelite soldiers were not supposed to leave these women to feed themselves. So, by taking them, they ensured that they were fed and protected[9].

Taking the women as prisoners of war can be considered as taking the women as slaves or captives. However, the reality stands out differently. The women captured were allowed to shave and cut their nails, all by themselves. Also, they removed their clothes of captivity by themselves and mourned for their parents for a full month. The period of mourning was important in making the transition into new life. More importantly, if the man were not satisfied by the woman, he could not sell her off as a slave. The woman was to remain in Israel protected from any mistreatment[10].

Raping of female prisoners was allowed by the Eastern cultures surrounding the Israelites. However, the Law of Moses barred the Israelite soldiers from such acts. The Israelites were not allowed to have even sex with a beautiful female captive or even marry her quickly. Therefore, the culture of lust was discouraged among the Israelites even in the face of war.

Sexual morality is also a very controversial issue in the Bible. Some texts in the Book of Deuteronomy have been used to depict the whole Old Testament as demeaning to women. Some laws administered in this book are considered arbitrary and insensitive to women[11]. Deuteronomy 23: 13-21 talks of virginity among women. The scripture describes the process to be followed in case a man took a woman and found a problem with her virginity that was a mark of purity[12]. The scripture talks of displaying the evidence for virginity among the elders. Such an act is humiliating to the woman, even in circumstances when all the allegations are not true. However, before rushing to condemn the law, it is important to evaluate it for the merits and demerits.

First of all, such a lengthy process of ascertaining the truth of the matter would prevent men from making a false accusation for a matter that has tough penalties. Hence, we can say, since the law is said to be oppressive to women, it at the same time protects them against false accusations[13]. The law also promoted honesty and purity in marriage. In those times and even today, God highly commands us to maintain purity in our marriages. For that matter, maintaining virginity among the Israelites was one way of ensuring honesty and purity in the marriage.

Thirdly and most importantly, the same law did not allow men to divorce their wives. This is a fact is often overlooked. The culture required the man to provide and protect his wife. Therefore, a woman with a husband was considered stable in society. Protection against divorce was a privilege that not many women in other cultures enjoyed[14].

Polygamy is a critical issue in this whole discussion. Many critics of the old Testaments condemn it for endorsing polygamy. Polygamy is seen to diminish the value of women. Therefore, agreeing that Old Testament endorses polygamy is the same as saying it is demeaning to women. A historical and cultural background will help understand the fact that Old Testament does not endorse polygamy.

Exodus 21:7-11 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.  If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people since he has broken faith with her….”[15] A look at the scripture seems to allow the master to practice polygamy. However, it is important to point out that the law at the time was casuistic which is evidence by use of ‘if” clause. Hence, in this scripture, God talks of how he wants to see the affairs. If you continue reading the scripture, the son of the master is mentioned. That is to say, the slave daughter is being taken as the second wife. However, there is a possibility that the master’s wife is dead[16].

The other scripture in the Old Testament that touches on polygamy is Deuteronomy 21:15-17…. “If a man has two wives, the one loved, and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first-fruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.”[17]

Although the critics can use this scripture to conclude that the Old Testament endorses polygamy, it is important to consider few points. First, the scripture does not mention if the two wives are alive. More importantly, the law recognizes the problems that are likely to arise whenever a man has more than one wife. One of the problems is loving one wife more than the other. Hence, God warns us through the scripture of the consequences of being in a polygamous marriage. In the book of Genesis, we are told the story of Jacob and how he married two wives. We see later in the same book the wives competing on who will give him more sons. Also, Leah was unloved while Rachel was the loved one. This is in no way a picture of a beautiful marriage[18].

Conclusion

Conclusively, the idea of the old testament being misogynistic and demeaning to women is untrue and based on a wrong interpretation of scriptures or judging the scriptures based on the modern context instead of the ancient one[19]. God commands children to honor both of their parents. In addition to that, it addresses their needs even in the time of the war. From this discussion, it is also evident that the Old Testament does not in any way support or endorses polygamy as held by the critics.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Bach, Alice. Women in the Hebrew Bible a Reader. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013.

Bohlin, Sue. “Christianity: The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Women.” Bible.org. 2005.      Accessed September 15, 2015. https://bible.org/article/christianity-best-thing-ever- happened-women.

Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2011.

Lefebvre, Matt. “The Relevance of the Old Testament-Is God Misogynistic?” Warranted Belief.   August 20, 2011. Accessed September 15, 2015.             https://warrantedbelief.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/the-relevance-of-the-old-testament-is-

Pinker, Aron. “Qohelet’s Views on Women—Misogyny or Standard Perceptions? An Analysis of Qohelet 7,23–29 and 9,9.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 2012, 157-91.

Summers, Anne. The Misogyny Factor. [America’s ed. Sydney, N.S.W.: NewSouth Pub., 2013.

[1]Summers, Anne. The Misogyny Factor.

[2]Exodus 20:2-17 ESV.

[3] Ibid

[4]Exodus 20:2-17 ESV.

[5]Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2011.

[6]Deuteronomy 20: 13-14

[7] Ibid

[8]Lefebvre, Matt. “The Relevance of the Old Testament-Is God Misogynistic?” Warranted Belief.

[9]Deuteronomy 20: 1-12 ESV.

[10]Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God.

[11]Bach, Alice. Women in the Hebrew Bible a Reader. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013.

[12]Deuteronomy 23: 13-21 ESV.

[13]Bohlin, Sue. “Christianity: The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Women,”

[14]Pinker, Aron. “Qohelet’s Views on Women—Misogyny or Standard Perceptions? An Analysis of Qohelet 7,23–29 and 9,9.”

[15]Exodus 21:7-11 ESV

[16]Lefebvre, Matt. “The Relevance of the Old Testament-Is God Misogynistic?” Warranted Belief.

[17]Deuteronomy 21:15-17 ESV

[18]Lefebvre, Matt. “The Relevance of the Old Testament-Is God Misogynistic?” Warranted Belief.

 

[19]Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.