Problem: Critics of the Bible have argued that Scripture is chauvinistic toward women. For instance, critical scholar Peter Richardson writes, \u201cThe goal in Paul\u2019s exegesis appears to be, without I hope being unduly harsh, greater conformity with the\u2026 view of subordination of women.\u201d[1] While this might sound harsh, the Bible has very difficult passages toward women. For instance, Peter writes, \u201cWives [should] be submissive to your own husbands\u201d (1 Pet. 3:1). Elsewhere, Paul writes, \u201cThe man is the head of a woman\u201d (1 Cor. 11:3), and he states, \u201cWives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (Eph. 5:22-24). Is this a sexist attitude toward women? Critics argue that this is ancient patriarchy at its worst.<\/p>\n
Religion has never been kind toward women<\/p>\n
Solution: <\/strong>Feminist scholarship considers religion to be misogynistic and patriarchal. Misogyny comes from the Greek roots misein (\u201cto hate\u201d) and gyne (\u201cwoman\u201d). Patriarchy comes from the roots pater (\u201cfather\u201d) and archos (\u201cruler\u201d). Christian authors usually respond to these accusations by claiming that feminists are exaggerating or misconstruing the data. However, that is not our view. Instead, it seems that feminist scholarship does have a good hold on how religion has oppressed women. Consider a number of different religious systems in this regard:<\/p>\n Hinduism: Manu\u2019s Code states, \u201cHim to whom her father may give her, or her brother with the father\u2019s permission, she shall obey as long as she lives. Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid of good qualities, a husband must be constantly worshiped as a god by a faithful wife.\u201d[5] Secular authors Carmody and Carmody write,<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n Between the first Vedas (1500 BCE) and the first codes of law (100 CE), women\u2019s religious role steadily declined. A major reason for this was the lowering of the marriage age from fifteen or sixteen to ten and even five. This both removed the possibility of education (and consequently religious office) and fixed women\u2019s role to being wife and mother. In fact, in later Hinduism being a wife was so important that a widow was prohibited from mentioning any man\u2019s name but that of her deceased husband.[6]<\/p>\n They [women] were subject, successively, to fathers, husbands, and elder sons. As soon as they approached puberty, their fathers hastened to marry them off, and during their wedded lives they were to honor their husbands without reservation\u2026 This held true even if their husbands were deformed, aged, debauched, lived openly with other women, or showed them no affection. To ritualize this attitude of devotion, orthodox Hindu authors counseled wives to adore the big toe of their husband\u2019s right foot, bathing it as they would an idol, and offering incense before it as they would to a great god.[7]<\/p>\n In Hindu society, women were not eligible for moksha; the best that a woman could hope for was to be reborn as a man.[8]<\/p>\n The birth of a girl was not an occasion for joy. Hindus attributed it to bad karma in a previous life and frequently announced the event by saying, \u2018Nothing was born.\u2019[9]<\/p>\n Hindu religious texts frequently imagine a woman as a snake, hell\u2019s entrance, death, a prostitute, or an adulteress. In Manu\u2019s code, slaying a woman was one of the minor offenses.[10] In no way, then, are women considered to be equal to men or even to be free members of the family or caste\u2026 Proper behavior for a woman means an arranged marriage by her father at the proper time, usually soon after puberty (in some localities, child marriage is still a common practice)\u2026 The next proper duty of a woman is to respect, obey, and worship her husband, even if he is unfaithful, virtueless, and devoid of good qualities.[11]<\/p>\n Traditionally, a widow was expected to accompany the corpse of her husband to the funeral pyre and be burned alive by his side (sati) on the assumption that a woman who outlived her husband had caused his death by her evil karma.[12] For many men, the best part of the heavenly Garden was the hur: dark-eyed, buxom virgins. In addition to his earthly wife, each male in heaven could expect to have seventy hur. They would never be sick, menstruating, pregnant (unless he wished), bad-tempered, or jealous. He would be able to deflower a thousand each month and find them all intact when he returned to them. In descriptions of the Judgment scene, one sees the reverse of this fantasy: Women are in charge of men, which is a sure sign of disorder.[13] Confucianism was largely misogynistic. The woman\u2019s role in Confuscianism was to obey and serve her parents, husband, and husband\u2019s parents. She was useless until she produced a male heir, and her premarital chastity and marital fidelity were more important than a man\u2019s.[14]<\/p>\n The Chinese ritual of foot binding was a thousand-year-old horror show in which women were grotesquely crippled from very early childhood\u2026 the hideous three-inch-long \u2018lotus\u2019 hooks\u2013which in reality were odiferous, useless stumps\u2013were the means by which the Chinese patriarchs saw to it that their girls and women would never \u2018run around.\u2019[15] The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled. (Aristotle, Politics, 1254b)<\/p>\n [Woman is] more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive\u2026 more compassionate\u2026 more easily moved to tears\u2026 more jealous, more critical, more apt to scold and to strike\u2026 more prone to despondency and less hopeful\u2026 more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, of more retentive memory\u2026 also more wakeful; more shrinking [and] more difficult to rouse to action. (Aristotle, History of Animals, 608b. 1-14) Yet woman is not capable of friendship: women are still always cats and birds. Or, in the best case, cows.[16]<\/p>\n Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman hath one answer: its name is child bearing\u2026 Man shall be educated for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior. Everything else is folly\u2026 Man\u2019s happiness is: \u2018I will.\u2019 Woman\u2019s happiness: \u2018He will.\u2019 \u2026Thou goest to women? Remember thy whip![17] Clement of Alexandria (AD 250): Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman. (Pedagogues II, 33, 2)<\/p>\n Jerome (4th century): As long as woman is for birth and children, she is as different from man as body is from soul. But when she wishes to serve Christ more than the world, then she will cease to be a woman and will be called Man. (Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, III, 5)<\/p>\n Ambrose (4th century): One who does not believe is a woman and should be designated by the name of that sex, whereas one who believes progresses to perfect manhood, to the measure of adulthood in Christ, with the name of the sex dispensing with the seductiveness of youth and the garrulousness of old age. (Ambrose, The Exposition of the Gospel of St. Luke, lib.X, n.161)<\/p>\n Augustine (AD 4th century): I don\u2019t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate? (De genesi ad litteram, 9, 5-9)<\/p>\n John Chrysostom (5th century): [Women] in no case outstrip the men, but occupied the second rank. (Epistle to the Ephesians, Homily 13)<\/p>\n Leander of Seville (AD 6th century): Nor has she any need to become a slave to her body which by natural law should be subservient to a man. Happy the virgin who takes her body from Eve but not her punishment. (Regula Episcopi, Preface)<\/p>\n As we can see, Christian leaders have been guilty of misogyny just as much as any other religion on Earth. But what does the Bible say about women? When we turn to Scripture, we see that the Bible has a uniquely positive and empowering view of women.<\/p>\n The Bible\u2019s unique view of women Old Testament view: In the OT, the ideal woman \u201copens her mouth in wisdom, and the\u00a0teaching of kindness is on her tongue\u201d (Prov. 31:26). Deborah was appointed as a judge in Israel (Judg. 2:16; Neh. 9:27). Likewise, Abigail was a \u201cwise and prudent woman,\u201d who corrected David from making a huge mistake (1 Sam. 25:33-35). Esther rescued and led the nation of Israel, during turbulent times (Est. 4:14; 8:17). Additionally, Jesus had a following of women (Lk. 23:49). This was scandalous considering his first-century religious milieu. In fact, when Jesus rises from the dead, he first appears to women\u2014not to men (Mt. 28:1-10; Jn. 20:10-18).<\/p>\n New Testament view: In the NT, Priscilla was a Bible teacher, and Paul was close with her in ministry (Rom. 16:3). The fact that she is listed before Aquila (her husband) is significant because this notified seniority in her ministry.[18] In fact, she even teaches Apollos\u2014a gifted Christian preacher\u2014about theology and doctrine (Acts 18:26). Phoebe was a deaconess in the church in Rome (Rom. 16:1). Euodia and Syntyche were esteemed by Paul as two women \u201cwho have shared\u2026 in the cause of the gospel\u201d (Phil. 4:2-3). Junia is mentioned as \u201coutstanding among the apostles\u201d (Rom. 16:7). It is difficult to imagine someone with an apostolic gift not being able to teach in their own church. Lois and Eunice taught Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14-15). Paul gives prescriptions for the role of women in the church, which includes praying and prophesying (1 Cor. 11:5; Acts 2:18; 21:9).<\/p>\n What does it mean for a husband to lead his wife in marriage? It does not mean that a woman should follow the leadership of any man\u2014just her husband. Paul writes, \u201cWives,\u00a0be subject\u00a0to your own husbands,\u00a0as to the Lord\u201d (Eph. 5:22). The Greek word for \u201cman\u201d is the same for \u201chusband.\u201d (Greek aner; pronounced ah-NARE), and the Greek word for \u201cwoman\u201d is the same for \u201cwife.\u201d (Greek gyne; pronounced goo-NAY). The context determines its use.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n It does not mean patriarchy\u2014but responsibility. Paul writes that husbands should love their wives \u201cjust as Christ also loved the church and\u00a0gave Himself up for her\u201d (Eph. 5:25). Jesus loved the church enough to sacrifice his life for her. Therefore, this is the example against which we should compare servant leadership in marriage. Under this definition, servant leadership is not authoritarian\u2014but sacrificial. In fact, servant love is the antithesis of patriarchy.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n It does not mean cruel or worldly leadership. Elsewhere, Jesus gives a clear definition of leadership: \u201cYou know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.\u00a043\u00a0But it is not this way among you,\u00a0but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;\u00a044\u00a0and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.\u00a045\u00a0For even the Son of Man\u00a0did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His\u00a0life a ransom for many\u201d (Mk. 10:42-45). Here, Jesus redefines what leadership truly means: humility, compassion, and sacrificial love.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n It does not mean unqualified leadership. Notice, Paul writes, \u201cChrist is the head of the man.\u201d In the biblical view of marriage, both spouses submit to God and his Word. The husband could not command or force his wife to do anything that is outside of the bounds of Scripture. In Ephesians, we read that marriage should be presupposed by being \u201csubject to one another in the fear of Christ\u201d (Eph. 5:21).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n For this reason, Christians cannot deny leadership in marriage, because we are operating out of a different definition of what leadership even is. People in our culture assume that leadership refers to power and authority, but under the biblical definition, leadership means sacrificial love and service. Based on this view, the husband is responsible to initiate love, serve, apologize, and be responsible for leading the marriage on grey issues, which aren\u2019t clearly defined in Scripture. When we properly understand the biblical view of leadership in marriage, frankly, we find that this isn\u2019t a privilege for the husband; instead, it is a serious burden and responsibility!<\/p>\n Controversial Passages Genesis 2:18 Are women merely a \u201chelper\u201d for men?<\/p>\n Genesis 3:16 Does this passage sanction men ruling over women?<\/p>\n Romans 16:7 Was there a female apostle (Junia), or was this a contraction for a man\u2019s name (Junias)?<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 Is it wrong for a woman to have her head uncovered while praying?<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 Are women made in God\u2019s image or man\u2019s?<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Are women supposed to keep silent?<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 2:12-15 Paul writes, \u201cI do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.\u201d Are women allowed to teach men or not?<\/p>\n 1 Peter 3:1 Peter writes, \u201cIn the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands\u201d (1 Pet. 3:1).<\/p>\n (1 Pet. 3:3) Does this mean that women should not wear makeup and jewelry?<\/p>\n (1 Pet. 3:6) When did Sarah obey Abraham in the OT?<\/p>\n (1 Pet. 3:7) Does Peter think that women are inferior to men?<\/p>\n Why is God called a Him rather than a Her?<\/p>\n [1] Peter Richardson, \u201cPaul Today: Jews, Slaves, and Women,\u201d Crux 8 (1970): 37. Cited in House, Wayne. \u201cPaul, Women, and Contemporary Evangelical Feminism.\u201d Bibliotheca Sacra\u2014January-March 1979. 41.<\/p>\n [2] Sirach 42:14.<\/p>\n [3] Sota, 10a.<\/p>\n [4] Sota 21b.<\/p>\n [5] Manu 5.151-154.<\/p>\n [6] Emphasis mine. Carmody, Denise Lardner, and John Carmody. Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1984. 87.<\/p>\n [7] Carmody, Denise Lardner, and John Carmody. Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1984. 87.<\/p>\n [8] Carmody, Denise Lardner, and John Carmody. Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1984. 87.<\/p>\n [9] Carmody, Denise Lardner, and John Carmody. Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1984. 87.<\/p>\n [10] Carmody, Denise Lardner, and John Carmody. Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1984. 87.<\/p>\n [11] Nigosian, S.A.\u00a0World Religions: A Historical Approach. Third Edition. Boston: Bedford\/St.Martin\u2019s, 2000. 24.<\/p>\n [12] Nigosian, S.A.\u00a0World Religions: A Historical Approach. Third Edition. Boston: Bedford\/St.Martin\u2019s, 2000. 25.<\/p>\n [13] Carmody, Denise Lardner, and John Carmody. Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1984. 333.<\/p>\n [14] Carmody, Denise Lardner, and John Carmody. Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1984. 161.<\/p>\n [15] Carmody, Denise Lardner, and John Carmody. Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1984. 161.<\/p>\n [16] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. The MacMillan Company. London. 1896. 75.<\/p>\n [17] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. The MacMillan Company. London. 1896. 88-90.<\/p>\n [18] Keener writes, \u201cThat Priscilla\u2019s name is mentioned before her husband\u2019s in Romans 16:3 and twice in Acts is noteworthy, because the husband was nearly always mentioned first unless the wife was of higher social status or neither party had any concern for status.\u201d Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women, & Wives: Marriage and Women\u2019s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.<\/p>\n [19] See McCallum\u2019s article for a blow-by-blow defense of the Kroeger\u2019s work.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.xenos.org\/essays\/role-women-church-new-material-leads-new-view<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Problem: Critics of the Bible have argued that Scripture is chauvinistic toward women. For instance, critical scholar Peter Richardson writes, \u201cThe goal in Paul\u2019s exegesis appears to be, without I hope being unduly harsh, greater conformity with the\u2026 view of subordination of women.\u201d[1] While this might sound harsh, the Bible has very difficult passages towardContinue reading →<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[22,8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bible-errors","category-bible-study","category-bible-teaching","no-thumb"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pathway2truth.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12580","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pathway2truth.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pathway2truth.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pathway2truth.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pathway2truth.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/pathway2truth.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pathway2truth.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pathway2truth.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pathway2truth.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\nSecular comparative religions scholar S.A. Nigosian writes,<\/p>\n
\n3. Islam: The Quran reads: \u201cYour women are a tillage for you; so come unto your tillage as you wish\u201d (Surah 2:223). \u201cMen are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another\u2026 Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God\u2019s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them\u201d (Surah 4:34). Carmody and Carmody note,<\/p>\n
\n4. China: Eastern religion didn\u2019t fare much better. Carmody and Carmody write,<\/p>\n
\n5. Secular Worldview: One might think that secular thinkers would hold to a more egalitarian view. However, historically, this hasn\u2019t been the case. For instance, both Aristotle and Nietzsche claim that women are weaker than men, and men should dominate over them, because of their physical prowess. Aristotle writes,<\/p>\n
\nFriedrich Nietzsche (19th century atheistic philosopher) writes,<\/p>\n
\n6. Unbiblical Christianity: Christian leaders have been guilty of misogyny as well:<\/p>\n
\nThe Bible has a high view of women in both the Old and New Testaments:<\/p>\n
\nThe Bible does teach that husbands should lead their wives in marriage. Many people are cynical toward leadership, because we have seen so many examples of abusive, hypocritical, or egotistical authority. It is safe to say that the word \u201cauthority\u201d is a loaded term\u2014especially when we\u2019ve seen the way patriarchy has walked all over women. However, when we read an ancient text, we need to understand the words based on their terms\u2014not ours. What does Paul mean when he claims that husbands should be leaders to their wives?<\/p>\n\n
\nCritics of the Bible typically point to these passages to critique the Bible\u2019s view of women. We treat each passage below:<\/p>\n