Drawing General Observations from Biblical Passages about Women’s Behaviour

 

Much ink had been spilled thus far over how, as narrated in Genesis 3, the fall of Adam and Eve resulted in sin marring God’s creation (which was originally described by Him in Genesis 1:31 as “very good”).  Despite the headstrong efforts by feminists to white-wash Eve’s actions in the vicinity of the “tree [bearing fruit] desirable to make one wise” (Genesis 3:6), what has been authoritatively stated by Paul is “Adam was not deceived but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression” (I Timothy 2:14) — reinforced by the Lord’s ruling that “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception” and coupled with the divine injunction that “your husband shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).  The intentional choice of the generic words “woman” and “husband” (in place of the individual names “Eve” and “Adam” respectively) clearly points to the general purview of both I Timothy 2:14 and Genesis 3:16 with the natural inference being that these two verses cannot regarded as focussing on the first couple.

 

How then have the generations of women fared after the incident of Eve being beguiled by the deceiver?  This question ought to be deliberated at great length prior to any attempt to fathom why Paul had been prompted by the Holy Spirit to adopt the fall of Eve (in conjunction with the ordained order the first couple had been created) as the foundational basis for his instruction to “… not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” (I Timothy 2:12).  Although this particular verse is placed amidst Paul’s observations of women’s behaviour in I Timothy 2:9-11, his overly-strict restriction cannot be mistakenly reckoned as applicable solely to the situation being reviewed at the time for Timothy’s benefit.  In actual fact, there are many biblical accounts recounting the actions of women throughout the ages and these have to be taken into consideration as well (instead of limiting the present discussion to what transpired within the churches founded during the missionary endeavours chronicled in the book of Acts).

 

Recorded only 3 chapters after the oft-debated details of how Eve succumbed to the guile of the deceiver are the grossly wicked acts of the created beings culminating in the world-wide flood being unleashed.  The preamble to God’s judgment here is the seemingly-innocuous verse that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Genesis 6:2).  The blame naturally falls on the sons of God who, as presumed among certain circles, may be the “angels who did not keep their proper domain but left their own abode” (Jude 6).  Whoever these sons of God were when perpetrating this sin en masse, there is no hint in the narration that the daughters of men ever resisted when chosen to be wives and the end result is the appearance of giants in those days because “the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them” (Genesis 6:4).  Likewise, many centuries later, David was guilty on all counts for initiating the illicit liaison with Bathsheba: while there is similarly no indication in the scriptures whether Bathsheba initially fended off David’s amorous advances (after she imprudently accepted the unexpected invitation to join him in the palace at night), both of them are documented in II Samuel 11:4 as having committed adultery which, according to Leviticus 20:10, is punishable by death.

 

For the clearly-objectionable examples considered in the preceding paragraph, the women were the responding parties who did not actually initiate the grievously sinful acts that, as explicitly noted in the Bible, attracted divine attention.  In stark contrast, the Moabite women at Peor “caused the children of Israel … to trespass against the Lord and [consequently] there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord” (Numbers 31:16).  Do scriptures also cast light on other women who in the same vein wielded seductive powers over men?  The wisdom book of Proverbs offers a host of pointers cautioning men not to be smitten by the alluring charms of those whom the King James Bible euphemistically termed as strange women.  Interestingly, Solomon who compiled the majority of Proverbs was himself not immune for “his wives turned away his heart … after other gods” (I Kings 11:3-4) in spite of his own warning for men in general to escape from “the woman whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are fetters” (Ecclesiastes 7:26).  To be highlighted among these seductresses is “Jezebel who calls herself a prophetess” and was singled out by Jesus as having been allowed “to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immoralities and eat things sacrificed to idols” (Revelation 2:20).

 

Obviously, godly women who seek to embrace the model prescribed in Proverbs 31 will never ever fall under the categories dwelt on in the preceding two paragraphs.  Nobody should even hint of any possibility that a woman like this may “teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immoralities” as described by Jesus when alluding to Jezebel.  Nevertheless, also included in Jesus’ accusation is Jezebel being additionally permitted “to teach and seduce My servants to … eat things sacrificed to idols”.  Are there scriptural examples of godly women having been accorded the liberty to veer men (whether husbands, sons or others) from their intended courses of action?  Eve will justifiably be at the top of the list; after all, the only reason identified in the Old Testament for Adam’s fall in the Garden of Eden is that “you have heeded the voice of your wife” (Genesis 3:17).  The next two in this list, if chronologically compiled, have to be Sarai and Rebekah where the former, an overly-naive wife, foolishly resorted to giving Abram her maid for the customarily-accepted alternate practice of siring an heir (instead of waiting upon the Lord to provide the son recently promised by Him) while the latter, an overly-protective mother, rashly conspired with her favourite son to usurp the first-born blessings intended for Esau (despite having already been assured in Genesis 25:23 “the older shall serve the younger”); the ensuing problems engendered at the time by their injudicious counsel still reverberate throughout the unremitting periods of hostilities faced by present-day Israel.  Another candidate for addition to such a list is Leah who in desperation sought her husband’s sexual favours by proposing a barter with Rachel (whom Jacob decidedly favoured from the very outset); in this instance of indecorous rivalry between the two wives, Genesis 30:17 records for posterity’s benefit that “God listened to Leah and she [thereafter] bore Jacob a fifth son.”  A generation later, the rape of their younger sister who foolhardily “went out to see the daughters of the land” (Genesis 34:1) triggered the fury of Simeon and Levi who, in unrepentant defiance of Jacob’s non-aggression posture, launched a devious murder-via-deceit scheme against the Shechemite men; divine protection was necessitated by these two brothers’ post-rape haste for vengeance and so “the terror of God came upon the cities around them [viz Jacob’s family] and they [viz the neighbouring natives] did not pursue the sons of Jacob” (Genesis 35:5).

 

Another intriguing feature portrayed in the Bible is the way women are able to wear down men via persistence so as to attain what they sought to gain — as illustrated in Jesus’ parable of the unjust “judge who did not fear God nor regard men” but yet eventually relented to help “this woman [who] troubles me … lest by her continual coming she weary me” (Luke 18:2-5).  Even Samson, the Nazarite strongman whom God ordained as judge to take on the Philistines, found himself succumbing to Delilah’s persistence after “she pestered him daily with her words and pressed him so that his soul was vexed to death …” (Judges 16:16).  Although not explicitly stated, Solomon must in all probability have been a victim too of his wives’ persistence over the long haul because I Kings 11:4 specifically draws attention to his old age as the turning point for departing from God’s way.  In the domestic context where the woman plays the role of wife and/or mother at home, persistent prodding invariably assumes the form of contentious nagging which can drive family members up the wall as the following observations jotted down by Solomon readily attest to:

●     “… the contentions of a wife are a continual dripping” (Proverbs 19:13)

●     “better to dwell in a corner of a house-top than in a house shared with a contentious woman” (Proverbs 21:9)

●     “better to dwell in the wilderness than with a contentious and angry woman” (Proverbs 21:19)

●     “… whoever restrains a contentious woman restrains the wind and grasps oil with his right hand” (Proverbs 27:16).

Such is the soft power that the majority of women are seemingly capable of wielding to wear the menfolk down — via neither the unrefuted soundness of logic nor the powerful eloquence of rhetoric but simply via the sheer force of persistence.

 

Equally important are the following telling narratives which without a doubt have to be mulled over prior to the conclusion of the present discussion:

●     In response to his wife’s mocking question of “Do you still hold fast to your integrity?”, Job merely quipped that “you speak as one of the foolish women speaks” (Job 2:9-10)

●     Jesus had to correct Martha who “was distracted with much serving and approached Him [to complain], ‘Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me’ [instead of just sitting to hear Your word]” (Luke 10:40)

●     “When the 10 heard it, they were greatly displeased with the 2 brothers” (Matthew 20:24) because their mother requested for Jesus to “grant that my 2 sons may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom” (Matthew 20:21)

●     Corinthian women had apparently been chatting so much among themselves in church as to warrant Paul’s admonition for “your women [to] keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak” (I Corinthians 14:34)

●     For Paul to “implore Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord” (Philippians 4:2) must imply that the friction between these female servants of the faith remained unresolved for far too long

●     Paul had to mentor Timothy on how to address the problems caused by the younger widows who “… learn to be idle, wandering from house to house, and not only idle but also gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not” (I Timothy 5:13).

 

Given Paul’s directive to “give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (I Timothy 5:13), the prime instigator lurking behind these biblical narratives had indubitably to be Satan.  This is particularly evident when Paul subsequently drew Timothy’s attention to “… those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away with various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (II Timothy 3:6)  What is significant here is Paul’s identification of women as the clear-cut target of the false teachers (much like the serpent’s victim of choice being Eve rather than Adam in the Garden of Eden).  No wonder God’s ruling against Eve contains the injunction that “your husband shall rule over you.”  Have men with wives indeed been doing so ever since the fall of the first couple?  As for the example of the men living in Judah during Isaiah’s time, the answer regrettably is “women rule[d] over them” with the divine prognosis then being “those who lead you cause you to err and destroy the way of your paths” (Isaiah 3:12).  Perhaps answers such as what Isaiah furnished are pertinent to Paul’s restriction (mentioned earlier in the present discussion) that “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man”.  As already pointed out by Genesis 3:1, “the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field …”  Should not this caution regarding Satan’s cunning and guile be extended to the false teachers (as well as to those who are supposed to be under their husbands’ rule but yet seek to teach or/and have authority over the menfolk)?  In any event, all who aspire to teach (be they male or female) need to heed James’ explicit warning: “let not many of you become teachers, knowing we shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1).

 

Before the present discussion can be drawn to a conclusion, there is the need to finally address an important issue that is now timely to raise.  The appreciation gained in the preceding paragraph of the injunction that “your husband shall rule over you” (which God added to His ruling against the woman after what must have been an indisputably fair evaluation of the circumstances prior to Eve reaching for the forbidden fruit and Adam joining her thereafter in the eating process) paves the way for the Mosaic law concerning vows to be properly understood.  According to Numbers 30:2 which is an express commandment of the Lord, “a man [who] makes a vow to the Lord … shall not break his word [and] shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth”.  On the other hand, there is a special provision for a married woman “bound by her vows or by a rash utterance from her lips” (Numbers 30:6): “if her husband overrules her on the day that he hears it [viz vow or rash utterance], he shall make void … what she uttered with her lips by which she bound herself and the Lord will release her” (Numbers 30:8).  There is likewise an exception for a woman in her youth while in her father’s house: “if her father overrules her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will release her” (Numbers 30:5).  These verses provide the appropriate platform for a conclusion of the points hitherto deliberated: in view of God having seen fit to release the woman (but not any man) from vows and rash utterances overruled by her husband (or her father if she is in her youth while in his house), Paul’s unambiguous instruction to “not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” should not be summarily dismissed by detractors as being only applicable to certain situations.

 

As an after-note, it has to be reiterated that the present discussion dwells on overall observations in general rather than character studies in depth.  Without any pretension to be either an academic thesis or a full-length book, this blog article is in no position to embrace the all-inclusive ambit for extending coverage to many of the other female characters like Ruth and Esther in the Old Testament or Mary and Elizabeth in the New Testament.

 

 

Postlude:

The acknowledgement found in Galatians 3:28 that all God’s children are equal in His sight — whether Jew or Greek, whether slave or free, whether male or female — is actually traceable to the Old Testament where Deuteronomy 10:17 speaks of “the great God … Who shows no favouritism”; in fact, Peter referred to this very Mosaic verse in Acts 10:34 long before the two epistles containing variations of the equal-before-God theme were even drafted by Paul for the Galatian and Colossian churches.  Consequently, Galatians 3:28 must not be misused by women striving for gender parity on every possible front.  The inferences drawn earlier from the Old Testament passages remain valid regardless of what have been assiduously argued by committed feminists and liberal activists who, by the way, ought to familiarise themselves with the third chapter of Colossians because 11 verses after Paul’s well-known declaration of “there is neither … slave nor free” (Colossians 3:11) comes the exhortation for bond-servants to “obey your masters in all things according to the flesh, not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing God” (Colossians 3:22); of relevance too is the seemingly inconsequential observation that the church leaders in the book of Acts did not initiate campaigns for the Christian slaves worshipping in their congregations to be set free.