The Family Name
An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, but she who shames him is like rottenness in his bones. Proverbs 12:4 NASB
Rottenness– Why does the Bible seem to focus on the potential damage to the husband’s reputation? Why are there no comparable verses about the harm inflicted on women? For example, the infamous passage in Numbers about a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:11-22). Ruth Preston provides some important insight into the intention behind this unusual ritual (CLICK HERE). But the question remains: Why does the Bible seem to take the male prerogative? Yes, there are some important passages about the value of women (e.g., Proverbs 31, 1 Peter 3 and, of course, Genesis 2), but for the most part, the sexual code of Scripture seems to put the male in the dominant position. This verse in Proverbs is typical. An excellent wife (actually ‘e’shĕt hayil—woman of valor) brings honor to a husband but if she shames him (bôš—public humility and loss of reputation), then it is rottenness (rāqāb—internal decay) in his constitution. Where is the verse that says, “If a husband shames his wife, it is like a collapse of her insides”?
While the answer to the Numbers 5 ritual might be found in the critical importance of inheritance, it seems to me that the reason there is so little emphasis on the potential damage to a woman’s psyche is because of the assumption of the biblical role of women.
What I mean is this: If not spitting on the sidewalk is an assumed part of proper behavior, then no regulation is needed to enforce it. The only reason for regulations and ethical instructions is the lack of usual moral behavior. In the Bible, the assumed value and role of women is established in the Genesis 2 account. Yeshua actually refers to this account in his answer to the question about divorce. It is the standard. Therefore, it does not need to be reinforced with additional ethical instructions. In other words, the inherent value of the wife is de rigueur for the Israelite culture. The only instructions needed are for exceptional circumstances.
If this is the proper approach, then we realize that the reason the focus of sexual ethics in Scripture seems to be on men is because men are the usual violators of the cultural norm. Of course, in ancient Semitic cultures, the legitimacy of offspring was crucial, but most of the material about sexual impropriety in Israelite history is about male malfeasance. In fact, some significant male characters in the history of God’s people are particularly prone to sexual misconduct, e.g., Jacob, Judah, Lot, Shem, David and Solomon. While there are proverbial warnings against sexual promiscuity, there aren’t any stories that focus on female sexual misconduct, with the possible exception of Lot’s daughters.
What lesson can we draw from this? Perhaps we need to read between the lines when it comes to claiming that the Bible’s view of women is misogynistic. Perhaps the unwritten code is exactly the opposite.
Topical Index: women, adultery, rottenness, rāqāb, Proverbs 12:4
Wow! Common sense and reason. How refreshing!!
Wow indeed. Two of my strongest weak suits. Thanks Skip.
After a long stretch of topics and comments beyond my expertise, this piece today was simple and sensible. Much appreciated! I once asked a teacher friend what group of human beings in his opinion had seen the most persecution throughout history. He did not hesitate in his answer. Women, he said.
And the Jewish people!
My husband is the most easy-going guy on planet earth, fazed by so little that offends him. But the one thing that ?s him up is if I disrespect him—particularly in public. I’m older and wiser—and God has refined me, thank the good Lord—where I am keenly aware NOT to do this anymore—because I agree with this verse. It does deeply affect the soul of a man to be disrespected.
Although I don’t disagree with you, I’ve always felt the reason is it’s how God created men—with an inherent need for respect by the woman whom he loves.
Just my thoughts from my personal experience.
Respect is a two way street. You can respect your husband until he disrespects you. And vice-versa. Therein lies the problem.
What to do when this happens?
(The following is my own experience ONLY, and does not represent anything else.)
Good question, Marsha, as it pertains to whether or not we are going to be a part of another’s sin or its solution. This is not as simple as you might think. It is not as simple as an eye for an eye, say, but neither is it as simple as cutting yourself off from someone who is sinning, either (dialectically opposing reactions – notice REACTIONS – that still result in the same outcome: i.e. the sinner just keeps on sinning). These are flesh ‘self protections’, by the way.
Respect for others is a natural outgrowth for self respect. Therefore, the only way to respond in kind (disrespect back, say) is if we are agreeing with the lack of respect toward ourselves, first. This can spawn both of the above (flesh) ‘solutions, by the way. Either the woman will agree with her husband’s disrespect of her (in which case she has to already be disrespecting herself), or she will turn around and diss him back (which she cannot do unless she is already dissing herself first). Classic dialectic: seeming ‘opposites’ are really two halves of the same coin.
How does a woman keep her self respect while at the same time not agree with the disrespect of others; notably her husband: her other half? If it is her husband (because he is part of her flesh), there is no essential separation between her self respect and her respect of him, and vice versa. The world, just like the children, also views both partners of the marriage as a single, functional unit. This is why we must protect the family’s (self) respect even if the other partner is (hopefully temporarily) dropping that ball. But, still, how can a woman do that when her man is trashing her up one side and down another, PARTICULARLY in front of the children (who see them as one unit, remember) and especially if the man is not particularly subject to God’s claims on him?
Tips and tricks (those lucky women who can just ride it out and, in conjunction with their husband bring their marriage back around to their covenant before God can probably just ignore these pitiful bandaids): remember that the basis for dealing with all sinners is the same: detachment with love. The sin in sinners ‘needs’ unholy attachment in the places where the sinner cannot figure out how to relate. If the sin is manifesting and the sinner (identity) is ‘hiding’, then the first half of the rule is DO NOT ENGAGE: the real person isn’t present anyway, and you will just reinforce the sin (which is what it wants). That is the detachment part. At the same time. because your partner is (hopefully temporarily) absent, you have to represent him (or her). That is the love (inclusion) part, which is the second half of the rule. Ignore (don’t feed) the disrespect, and defend the person who is hiding: represent their best interests, speak about them to those who are witnessing this debacle lovingly, and defend the person against the sin, which is to say, accept them in love: respect them AS IF you wanted to trust them, and, chances then appear that weren’t there before, for them to make a SAFE decision to agree to the respect and drop the diss on the ground where it belongs. Sometimes, they can even do that. At the least, because you did not feed the sin, it starves in rather short order and gives up. At least for that time.
This is, understandably, an art. If the relationships in your life call for this degree of specialization, I suggest that you might consider investing the time in getting your master’s degree at a reputable university (um, twelve-step group) that specializes in this major.
One must bear in mind the cultural norms of the time—even the difference between the “OT” and what was instituted by Jesus, Paul (following Yeshua, of course), and others in the 1st century. No more ‘easy’ divorce by the husband appealing to an overly broad sense of “indecent” in Deut 24:1. And Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well was unusual for two reasons: (1) He conversed one-on-one with a woman, a cultural taboo (the Greek word for “woman” is used more than necessary—by not substituting a pronoun but by continuing to use the noun form for “woman”—during this pericope to stress this fact); (2) she was a Samaritan, and, of course, the Samaritans being of mixed heritage were seen as ‘less-than’. In other words, Jesus broadened rights for women and non-Jews.
In short, in “OT” times women had fewer rights. Yet in both the “OT” and 1st century women were considered property—first of their fathers, then subsequently transferred from fathers to husbands. This has changed in the somewhat recent past, of course, here in the West.
The Ruth Preston link points to a modern day issue many are not aware of. If a man today is a victim of cuckoldry, in which he unknowingly signs a birth certificate of a child he didn’t biologically father he is still financially liable, even if he only finds this out after the fact. A wife in this instance can even divorce her husband/victim (or the husband can divorce his wife), yet she can and will be awarded child support, assuming she gets custody—which the mother receives in the overwhelming majority of cases due to family court bias against fathers, in large part fueled by financial incentives (see Section D of Title IV of the Social Security Act: ssa dot gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0400.htm). In short, family courts are incentivized against shared custody in favor of full custody to the individual making less money due to federal incentives. This typically means the men foot the bill, though this is happening to women increasingly, as women are outpacing men in earnings at the workplace.
Going a bit beyond this post for the moment, today women not only have equal rights in a man-woman relationship but more-than-equal rights in some areas. Setting aside any ethical considerations for the sake of this discussion, a pregnant woman (unmarried or married) calls all the shots with respect to abortion or life for the unborn. Should she decide to carry it to term, she can place the father on the hook for child support for 18+ years. Or she could carry to term and drop the baby off at a hospital or firehouse for a period up to one year (depending on the state), with no further financial responsibility. She may not even have to inform the father she had decided to give the baby away. Comparatively, should the father of the baby-yet-to-be want an abortion so that he can avoid financial (and other) responsibility, that’s too bad. This is even if she gets pregnant through trickery of some sort (and I’ve read about all kinds of incidences, including harvesting sperm from discarded condoms, etc.). And if the father of the baby-to-be wants the baby, and is willing to shoulder all responsibility (financial and otherwise), but the ‘mother’ wants to abort, he has absolutely no say in the matter.
We have such a problem talking about sex in our modern world. I have never heard a sermon about sex in a church. And I didn’t hear about sex as a young teenager within my family. One has to wonder if our inability to acknowledge our sexuality is the major factor for all this. I feel sorry for the children. We had a young man doing some work on our house and he told us he had four children and all had different mom’s. He was proud!
I LIKE this article…sounds familiar…
There is actually a LOT about sexual promiscuity and God’s marriage Laws in the Scriptures. A thorough study will reveal what most modern people do not want to admit to or embrace. Here is just a sampling…
http://brians_annex_ii.tripod.com/brianshouse/marriage.html