Does The Bible Oppress Women? Part II: Cultural Constructs and Relevance in the Status Quo
In a recent article I examined the issue of the place of women in The Bible. In this article, I aim to examine this issue a bit further in consideration of another common argument both feminists and denominationalists commonly make. Once again, these arguments from the feminist perspective are attempts at discrediting Biblical authority altogether, whereas the denominationalist perspective attempts to justify religious practices.
Disclaimer: You may want to have a Bible handy as to better examine my arguments.
Another argument feminists and those of the denominational world will make is that the roles of women as given in The Bible, including the New Testament, are archaic and outdated in the assignment of gender roles. They claim is that the commands in The New Testament regarding gender roles, mainly those of women, hold no weight in today’s world because women are viewed differently than they were during Biblical times. As an attempt at evidencing these arguments, the groups will take passages such as Ephesians 5:22-33; I Timothy 2:8-15; and I Peter 3:1-7 and claim that though these passages were just and righteous during the time that they were written, they are now obsolete due to the increased opportunities and freedoms women have within society today. There are two major problems with this assertion.
The first is that this claim is a serious over-generalization. The argument assumes that since increased opportunities for women are available in the United States and some of the other industrialized nations of the world, that all other nations, the world over, offer the same opportunities to women. This is not the case, for there are still governmental and political systems in existence today that do not allow women the right to vote, own land, etc (see Brunei, The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Zambia, Kenya, and many more ). So, the argument that Biblical commands are obsolete due to cultural paradigm shifts is flawed in its generalization, for some countries and systems in existence today are still operating under laws and practices that the United States stopped supporting almost 100 years ago (i.e. National Women’s suffrage in the U.S. was not allowed until 1920). Now, I’m not stating that women’s rights in these regards should not be fought for, my point is simply that the argument that feminism and denominationalism support, claims that these opportunities are equal, the world over today, thus erasing the relevance of Biblical commands concerning primary gender responsibilities. The claim also assumes that the world has progressed past the point of relevant application in these matters concerning The Bible. This is not the case, just as King Solomon tells us: “That which has been is was will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun.”(Ecc. 1:9)
The second problem with this argument is that thousands of years and multitudes of examples in history must be ignored for the argument to be true. If opportunities for women to operate in positions of power or authority didn’t exist in former times, then how can the following examples be explained?
Nefertiti: (a woman) 1370-1330 B.C. was pharaoh of Egypt before the rise of Pharaoh Tutankhamun, or “King Tut” as he’s known more commonly
Sappho: 615-570 B.C. was one of the most influential poets and spokespersons of Greece. (Ironically, some consider her to be the first feminist)
Cleopatra: 69-30 B.C. held various positions of power in the Egyptian government and eventually became Pharaoh, notably the last Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt. Also note the proximity in the dates between her reign and the coming of Christ.
The Queen of Sheba: 900 B.C. approximately (cf. 2 Chron 9:1-12; I Kings 10:1-13; also called “Queen of the South”: Mt. 12:42; Luke. 11:31). Was a ruler engaged in trade with King Solomon. Secular history states that she probably ruled what is present-day Ethiopia, and this kingdom was traditionally headed by a woman ruler.
Deborah: see Judges 4-5, became the judge of Israel. This is particularly interesting because here we see an example of a woman ruling God’s chosen people, which directly debunks the claims supported by feminism and denominationalism.
Robert Graves also comments in his notes on The Greek Myths, traditionally Greek societies were matriarchal, or ruled by women. The purposes men served were for breeding and hard physical labor. Many of these societies would nominate what was called a “Sacred King,” and at the end of the solar year, this man would be sacrificed ritualistically in order to ensure fertility for the future generations. In many cases, this “Sacred King” was required to fulfill the sexual needs of many women, and in many of these acts, The “Sacred King” was an unwilling participant.
As the above examples have provided, history throughout the ages has allowed women to obtain positions of power and authority above men, therefore nullifying the argument that times have changed and more opportunities are available for women now than there have been historically. As we can see, this assertion supported by feminists and denominations alike can only work if both the status quo and history are ignored. Therefore, The Bible is just as relevant today as it was in the days of its initial release, and in the days before the written Word was available.(Why would we be discussing it if it wasn’t?) I Pet 1:23 provides the best rebuttal to any argument made by these groups: “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.”, which, if The Bible is indeed the inspired word of God, the previous passage requires that every command has its relevant application in every era.
