10-1-5. Women And The Law Of Moses
Having established some general principles concerning Bible teaching about women, we will now survey Biblical history to analyze the place of women in it. In doing so, we must bear in mind the most popular excuse for refusing to accept the New Testament teaching concerning the silence of women in the Church: that the Bible’s attitude towards women is influenced by the surrounding culture at the time the books were written. Our survey will highlight the way in which the Bible emphasizes the place and spiritual status of women, in sharp distinction to the male-dominated attitudes of the surrounding cultures. We will also demonstrate how Bible teaching is not influenced at all by the surrounding world. Truth is truth, and the principles will not change with time. It should be noted that even in Genesis there are ‘incidental’ historical examples of the attitude of believing men to women being different from that of the surrounding culture. Thus Abraham personally got the meal ready for his unexpected visitors, rather than leaving it all to the wife (Gen.18).
Under the Law of Moses, both male and female could offer sacrifices (Lev.5:4; 6:3,6; 12:5-8). This showed the woman’s direct personal responsibility to God; if she sinned, she had to offer for herself. She could not trust in her husband to do this for her. This was in sharp contrast to surrounding cultures; in them, religious sacrifice was largely male-oriented, often involving some display of male prowess in the slaughtering of the animal. That women were allowed to directly offer sacrifices to the God of Israel without their husbands’ presence or approval was something radically different from surrounding concepts of a woman’s place in religion. Indeed, women did not have a public place in local religious rituals. Contrast this with the women being able to take the vow of the Nazarite (Num.6:2) and offer sacrifices. Other examples of the Law’s radically different perspective on women in comparison to the surrounding world are as follows:
-The Mosaic Law did not contain clauses which evidently oppressed women. Yet other broadly contemporary legal codes did, e.g. the laws of Hamurrabi, and the local Arab traditions which form the basis for present Islamic law, with its evident repression of women.
- Female captives were to be given a very high level of moral and ethical protection. Immediate intercourse with them was forbidden, and only after an elaborate, lengthy procedure could they be married (Dt.21:10-14). This is in sharp contrast to the surrounding practice of treating captured women as legitimate sexual booty. The mother and courtiers of Sisera, a local Canaanite King, rubbed their hands with glee at the thought of the fun their victorious boys (as they thought) would be having if they had defeated the Israelites: “...to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours...of needlework”- i.e. an exceptionally well dressed young woman (Jud.5:30).
- The point has been made that women were usually punished for their husband’s sin in most law codes contemporary with the Law of Moses. But there is nothing of this kind in God’’ Law- indeed, there is the hint of the opposite. This point is expanded upon in Wang Lih Na, ‘Women victimized by ancient criminal law’, Women Of China, April 1988 Vol. 4.
- The Hebrews were to “honour father and mother”. Local customs emphasized honour to the father, whilst if anything the mother was supposed to honour her son once he was adult. But under the Mosaic Law, disobedience to the mother was as bad as that to the father (Dt.21:18-21). Equal reverence for both parents was a great theme of the Law: Ex.20:12; 21:15,17; Lev.19:3; Dt. 5:16. The book of Proverbs is largely a commentary on the Mosaic Law, and this is full of references to the importance of this: Prov. 1:8; 6:20; 20:20; 23:22; 28:24; 30:11,17.
- Israel were warned that even in the case of a female sacrifice, it was not to be offered blemished (Lev. 3:1), as if foreseeing a male tendency to think that the female sacrifices would be acceptable if they were blemished. The female element in sacrifice of itself bespoke the acceptability of female devotion as well as male.
- The marriage tie could only be broken by a “bill of divorcement”, and then only for highly specific reasons, associated with sexual impurity. This is in stark contrast to the local customs of the husband being able to dissolve a marriage at will, without any legal process or reason. This was the case even in the relatively civilized Greek empire, where little thought was normally given to the wife after her childbearing years were over (8). If this was the case then, how much worse would it have been among the Canaanite tribes and Sinaitic nomads who comprised the world contemporary to the giving and practice of the Mosaic law. Therefore the Law’s commands concerning divorce were radical; they did not reflect in any way the attitudes of the surrounding world.
- “All the people”, male and female, rich or poor, slave or affluent materialist, High Priest or mentally retarded cripple were all in covenant relationship with God (Ex.19:11). Thus women as well as men had to travel to the tabernacle to keep the feasts (Dt.12:12,18; 16:11,14). The Bible emphasizes how these commands were kept in practice; hence Jud.21:9-23 shows how it was well known that women would be present at the feasts, and 1 Sam.1 and 2:19 describe Hannah and Peninnah going up to keep the feasts each year. Local religions did not have this feature. The covenant was between their god and the leaders of the nations. “That which distinguishes the God of Israel from the gods of the (surrounding) nations is, among other traits, his condescension to the humble; he deigns to establish his covenant with the children, the women and the slaves” (9). Thus “Judaism...guarantees women a standing before God which they did not have in any heathen religious relationship” (10).
A Male Priesthood
However, the priests were strictly male. “The sons of Levi...receive the office of the priesthood” (Heb.7:5). So often we read the phrase “The priests, the sons of Aaron”. There was a strict death penalty for any others who tried to be priests (Num.18:7); and this included women who aspired to the priesthood. Num.12 records the punishment of Miriam with leprosy for even starting to question the authority of the (male) leadership of Moses. The maleness of the priesthood was because they represented God, who was male. Their acceptance of the sacrifices represented His acceptance of them. We must make the point that the Levitical priests / teachers were typical of the eldership / teachers in the Christian church. It cannot be true that the maleness of the priesthood only reflected the surrounding cultural position of women, because we have seen that the attitude of the Law to women was markedly different from that of the contemporary world. If the maleness of the priesthood was not culturally determined, it surely follows that the maleness of the teachers in the Christian church is not culturally determined either. The Old Testament priests were teachers of God’s word (Dt.24:8; 2 Kings 17:27; 2 Chron.15:3; Neh.8:9; Mic.3:11), and were intended to publicly exhort the people (Dt.20:2,3). For non-cultural reasons (because the Law had an attitude to women different from that of the surrounding world) women were not allowed to be priest / teachers. Therefore the New Testament prohibition of women teaching in the church is not culturally determined. It is continuing a consistent attitude revealed by the Spirit of God concerning this.
Notes
(8) See E.Guhl and W.Koner, The Life of the Greeks and Romans (Chapman and Hall), p.186
(9) H.Leclercq, “Femme”, Dictionaire d’Archeologie Chretienne et de Liturgie p.301
(10) Charles Ryrie, The Role of Women in the Church (Moody Press)
