By Gabrellan Pfann
(Longer Web version)

Let me thank Freda Van Houten for the challenge she presented in last month's issue (February, 2002). I am no biblical scholar but that does not appear to be a prerequisite for Bible discussion. So here goes.

Freda gave us various biblical references to support her inference that it is not woman-friendly. She says of Genesis 3:16, "women cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage." Well here it is and I fail to see where she gets her ideas. You be the judge: "I (God) will greatly multiply your pain in child birth. ... Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you." I see no mention of the cursing of women. The multiplication of pain in childbirth is not a curse so much as a consequence and it implies that even in her original state, there would have been pain in childbirth, but that now it was increased. In actuality, it was the ground that God cursed so that Adam, for his part in the disobedience, would have to bring forth its fruit by the sweat of his brow. There is no mention here of maternity being a sin. Indeed, throughout the Bible, the bearing of children is considered by God and his people as a blessing. Nor do I see in this passage that marriage is a bondage: God uses the analogy of marriage to describe his devotion and covenantial relationship with his people and his church. Some can choose to see this as bondage but certainly God did not use it in that way.

Exodus 21:17 — I believe she intends to use 20: 17 "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." Well, I suppose it could be construed to mean women are equated with livestock but I prefer to see it as an inclusion of women in the list of things not to covet. Yes, in those days women were under the authority of men and cultures outside of the Bible called it ownership but the Old Testament references were in the way of man being the authority as protector and one responsible for their welfare.

Exodus 21:7-11. (paraphrased for sake of brevity) if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as male slaves do. If she displeases him he shall let her family redeem her but he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners because of his unfairness to her. If he designates her for his son he shall treat her as a daughter. If he keeps her but takes to himself another woman he shall not reduce her food or clothing or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these things then she is free to leave without paying him any money.

The culture of those times was dangerous for a woman without the protection of a man and so a female slave was not to be cast out on her own as a man slave could be. Yes, it was common practice to have sex with women slaves but she was not to be abused. He still had certain responsibilities toward her protection and her welfare. A lot of God's dictates involving moral behavior was to see that the woman was protected after the fact; they did not endorse the behavior. In the New Testament when the people asked Jesus why Moses allowed so many divorces, Jesus said it was because of the hardness of men's hearts, but from the beginning God's way was for one man to have one woman. So God has shown a willingness to work with our corruptions even though he does not endorse them.

Exodus 38:8 — Freda says "women may not enter the tabernacle they are forced to support.” The verse says, “(the lavers were) made of bronze ... from the mirrors of the serving women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting." These women were not forced but were selected for this position from willing participants who were among those chaste and worthy. Much better than women forced to serve in Hindu temples who had to serve as temple prostitutes and still are today. It is true that women were excluded from the tabernacle, primarily because the leading of a household carried heavy responsibilities of provision for the family, child training and discipline, managing of financial security, providing help with heavy duties. These were time-consuming, arduous tasks needing God's direction and were under the province of men. Women had heavy responsibilities of their own and were not to be burdened with those of men. They also needed direction from God and a man was to provide this to her so that she did not have to spend hours at the tabernacle. She was not to be deprived of the teaching, but she was to be taught by her husband in the convenience and comfort of her home. In the New Testament Paul not only included women in the congregations but acknowledged women as leaders of the church.

Leviticus 12:1-14 — Freda says, "women who have sons are unclean seven days.” So? 12:4-7 she says, "women who have daughters are unclean 14 days." I suppose she is somehow construing this to mean that daughters dirtier than sons. In reality, unclean did not refer to dirty but rather to ceremonially impure physically for a short time. I do not know why daughters required more "unclean" time than sons but so many other Bible references show that God loves women as he does men even though he has different roles for them that I do not take offense at this even though I do not understand it.

Leviticus 19:20-22 — Freda observes, "if master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged" The verse reads, "Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed, nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.” Then it goes on to tell the man how to make a guilt offering to be forgiven. It does not mention scourging the woman nor if she is to receive any punishment at all. It might be noted that free women involved in immorality could be stoned to death. The slave woman could not. Islamic women had no protection at all regardless of their status. They were all treated as property of men and had to be totally obscured from the public.

Numbers 1:2 — Freda is concerned because polls of people then included only men. This was not a slight of women. This was the custom of the times because men represented the families.

Numbers 31: 16-35 — Freda notes that "virgins listed as war booty." She's right. Sounds very much like early Native American cultures and almost every other early culture in South America and Africa. I am glad Jesus gave us a new model.

Deuteronomy 21: 11-14 — She calls this a manual for rape. It says (paraphrased), "If you take captives and see among them a beautiful woman whom you want to take as your wife, then you shall bring her home and shave her head and trim her nails and allow her a month to mourn her family; then you shall go into her. If you are not pleased with her you shall let her go wherever she wishes but you may not sell her for money or mistreat her for you have humbled her." In those times it was not considered rape to take a woman and make her your wife. Women who were not a part of a family were disgraced and often mistreated. Women who were captives had difficult lives until they became a part of a family so this was a fortunate opportunity for her. Granted that not all men were kind or protective of her but they were certainly admonished by God to be so. We see movies of rapacious men of old representing the barbarians but the Jewish race, because of their Biblical heritage, were known for their civilized society. In today's American culture, many women are seduced by young men and when she is not pleasing to him she is abandoned without the protection of marriage vows or moral values of any kind. I would consider that rape!

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 — Freda says it right, "A woman must marry her rapist." Not only must he marry her but he must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and he cannot divorce her. In the verse above, if a man finds an engaged girl in the field and forces her to lie with him and she cries out but there is no one to save her, the man will be killed but not the girl. But if a virgin is forced to lie with a man in the city they shall both be killed because the girl did not cry out. It is assumed that the cry of a damsel in distress in those days of chilvalry, would be rescued. Again these are ordinances intended to protect women, not to condone the behavior.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 — as Freda notes, "if a woman touches a foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off." This is a goofy one that I cannot defend. I can only speculate that it didn't happen often.

Judges 19:22-29 — This is a story of a truly horrible mistreatment of a man's concubine by what the Bible describes as a "bunch of hoodlums" in a backward city of the land before they had a king. It tells of how the rest of the sons of Israel thought it a horrible deed, "disgraceful and lewd" and how they meted out punishment against it. The Bible tells of life as it happened, it does not gloss over reality but in no way did God condone this act.

I Kings 11:1-4 — It's certainly true that Solomon had all these wives and concubines but the title of this chapter is, "Solomon turns away from God" and God warned him not to take them.

Proverbs 7:9-27 — Freda notes "evil women seduce men, send them to hell." Duh! This is not a condemnation of women, just those who practice cunning immorality and seduction.

Isaiah 3: 16-17 — Freda notes "God scourges, rapes haughty women." The passage reads, "Because the daughters of Zion are proud and with heads held high and seductive eyes … therefore the Lord will afflict the scalp of them with scabs..." I see no mention of rape here. These women were afflicted because of their haughtiness and seductive ways. Women of virtue have always been extolled by God.

Luke 2:22 — Freda notes "Mary was unclean after birth of Jesus." This subject has been treated above.

I Corinthians 11 :3-15 — Freda notes "Man is head of woman: only man in God's image."

Freda has indeed found a knotty scripture which is puzzling to most of us. No explanation will appease feminists, but it is not intended to demean women so much as to identify their God given role. (Oh boy, I'm surely in trouble now) If we use the analogy of children and parents, we could say that children were made in such a way as to be subject to their parents, not to demean them but to help them to have their special needs met. In a similar way men and women were given different roles, not to be demeaning but to assure their co-relationship in such a way so as to prevent competition and to have their special needs met. God did create woman to be a helpmate for man and so she was indeed created with a different physiology as well as a different mental and emotional setup.

This was not to make one "higher" than another but the differences were to attract them to one another and make them interdependent. Not many Bible commentaries have a very good handle on why Adam is considered the light and Eve the reflection of the light, but in other places they are considered equal. In Corinthians, Paul declares that in the Lord, neither is to be independent of the other in matrimony but they are to be interdependent. Also, men are admonished in their relationships to love their wives as Jesus loved the church and gave his life for her. Galatians 3:28 tells us that among those who are Christians, in God's eyes there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, neither slave nor free for we are all one in Christ Jesus. God's intention in giving man the headship was to avoid adversity and to give the stronger the responsibility for protection and provision. However, part of this headship is to see that the talents and gifts of the woman are developed. And of course single men and women are as treasured by God as those who are married.

I Corinthians 14:34-35 — Freda is correct. Paul asked that women remain silent. Opening the church to women was a new thing and many of them had questions and arguments about things that had already been settled by the men who had years of instruction under their belts. Thus the ruling was to keep order and prevent time-wasting disruption. Freda claims that they were to learn only from their husbands which was not true. They were learning in the congregations the same as the men and they could learn from any source they chose, but they were not to disrupt the meetings. The things that puzzled them they were to ask their husbands for the sake of brevity. But they were not limited only to their husbands. Nonetheless, in the early church women prayed and prophesied along with the men. And, as women gained the same spiritual knowledge as men, they gradually became spokesmen in the church as witnessed today.

I Timothy 2: 11-14 — Yes, this does say that Paul did not allow women to teach or have authority over a man but to remain quiet. As noted above, she did have areas where she could speak and pray, but not teach men. In another place women are admonished to teach children and younger women, just as older men are to teach younger men. Again, this is to avoid adversarial and competitive relationships leading to conflict between the sexes. God tried to set it up so that these conflicts would be avoided but mankind insists on having it his way instead of God's. The last part of that verse does not say that Eve was sinful and Adam blameless; it says that Eve was deceived but Adam was not, which makes his part in the sin even more culpable because he committed the sin without being deceived. God did not hold him blameless but gave him his consequence just as he did Eve.

Well, there you have it from the general evangelical point of view. Freda has some pretty harsh things to say about Bible believers but most of them are not true. Of course when one makes a blanket statement such as, "People (read Christians, otherwise she would be talking about herself) are not only afraid to read anything that disagrees with their beliefs, they also don't want others to read, learn or know any more than they do," it's bound to hit some and exclude others. By and large, Christians are willing and eager to engage in discussion but most unbelievers are not willing or eager to hear them out. They categorize Christians as narrow, bigoted, unscientific (even though the founders of the scientific method were all believers), "ignorant loudmouths" as Freda put it, and the list goes on. For my part, I admire many unbelievers but am sad that they are so hostile to the truth. But they are in God's hands, not mine, and I feel no need to argue with them, only to defend the word of God when they publicly misconstrue it. May God bless Freda.

Gabrellen Pfan
Flagstaff