Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his servant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.
It says you should not covet thy neighbour's wife, but not thy neighbour's husband. Why? Well I already knew that the Bible was written by straight men. But until this point it hadn't occurred to me that if was written for straight men.
This caused me to understand why God is represented as the man in the parables and people are represented by the sinful women. Take the prophet Hosea in the Old Testament and Gomer his unfaithful wife, or the bride of God in Ezekiel Chapter 16, or Jesus being portrayed as the bridegroom, and the church as the bride. The reader is to empathise with God - how would it feel to be like Hosea, and have an unfaithful wife like Gomer who has lovers? If you wouldn't like it as a man then God equally doesn't like it and you should not bow down to idols.
The problem is that it makes the Bible much less accessible to women because the metaphors are all the wrong way round. In addition, the female is often associated with sinfulness and the male is associated with perfection. Ok.. I can hear my male friends teasing me now.... 'and what is wrong with that..?'
44 comments:
I agree. And yet in church this morning there were 23 women and 1 man (me).
Now that is a conundrum.
In addition, the female is often associated with sinfulness and the male is associated with perfection.
Really? Perhaps you'd like to give some examples.
Yes this is really important and it's funny how attempts to cnage some translations of the Bible to relfect more accurate language have met with such anger from those who are conservative on gender issues (eg not using 'men' or 'man' when it actually translates as 'humans' or 'people').
I think we women tend to do a lot of mental gymnastics when we know a Biblical text well e.g. I read into it that coveting my neighbour's husband is also forbidden although the text doesn't mention that. Coveting someone else's wife also implies women were viewed as the property of the husband. When it comes to 'thou shalt not commit adultery' a wife could only have one husband but a man could have as many wives as he could keep. Yes, like you these things often hit me like a ton of bricks when I'm leading a BCP service.
Wow Lesley.... can open and worms everywhere :) I always use the 'alternative' commandments in the BCP eucharist - (love the Lord thy God and love thy neighbour) and manage in all but one place to use alternatives to unnecessary male emphasis. It hasn't bothered anyone in my congregation so far. Masses of work out there on this stuff - I found myself quoting Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza repeatedly in exegesis. http://www.answers.com/topic/elisabeth-sch-ssler-fiorenza
Goodness.. what a lot of comments :)
Changing Worship, maybe the women are there because they know they are the sinful ones ;)
Peter - these will do as a start: "Take the prophet Hosea in the Old Testament and Gomez his unfaithful wife, or the bride of God in Ezekiel Chapter 16, or Jesus being portrayed as the bridegroom, and the church as the bride."
Hannah, Nancy and Rachel - thank-you. I have no idea what you mean by cans of worms btw ;)
"I think we women tend to do a lot of mental gymnastics when we know a Biblical text well"
I think we all do. Rare is the man who covets anybody's ox.
But I agree, to think that all the male imagery is responsible for people still genuinely believing that women can't be priests!
maybe the women were there because they were prepared to admit they needed help which let's be honest is not a traditional male trait. Asking directions, going to the doctor, admitting we're not as good as we think are things we're only just getting used to. ;)
Genuinely can't see how the "Bride of Christ" imagery is to do with sinfulness. Surely the whole point is that the Bride has been justified by Christ?
Surely the real question is why an inspired text constantly refers to God in male relational terms - Father, Groom etc. What is that about?
Peter
"Surely the whole point is that the Bride has been justified by Christ?"
Yes, but it was the groom who was perfect and the bride who needed to be justified.
As for the Father, Groom terminology - that again is purely cultural.
To express important relationships it would not have done to talk of wives, sisters or aunties.
The inspired text was, after all, still written by men and largely aimed at a male culture.
The astonishing achievement, to my mind, is that God is portrayed as someone in a positive and close relationship with us, not as the top warloard, for example.
Its strange sometimes biblical texts jump out at you - 1 Peter 2-18 dealing with Slaves obeying their masters is one such.
It was the daily reading at an Evangelical Church I went to today. While the Vicar preached on the whole of Chapter 2, he failed to mention this passage.
On the face of it, it appears to condone the status of slavery as valid, but deeper reading of the text says that the word slavery is more directly translated as Servant!
I went and dug that out, but it might have helped us if the Vicar had given a brief explanation of that during his sermon. Or do we avoid the awkward bits in case we get in to deep?
Just asking!
One problem about gender focused language is that it leads us to identify with our own gender even where that is not necessarily appropriate.
I am always fascinated by the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery.
Men are much more likely to identify with Jesus and use the story to preach against the perceived sins of others.
I have rarely met a man who identified with the accused woman.
Yet, the whole point of the story is that Jesus, who is above us all, forgives the sinner - who is all of us.
Wouldn't it be fascinating if the story could be told to different audiences, once with a male judge and a female accused and once with a female judge and a male accused. I'd love to see if and how the identification process and thus the understanding of the story would change.
The reason women will be the majority of a congregation that is male patriarchal is not because of their sinfulness etc. but because of the comfort or acquiescence involved in the familiarity of such an arrangement. In a culture of change all around, this gives a condition of stability and is reinforced by religious ritual.
Now it only works for some women, usually older and those connected and those who want this form of certainty and reassurance. For many women part of the cultural change it is to be rejected and they will stay away.
I have rarely met a man who identified with the accused woman.
Erika, with respect, if that is the case you really haven't been speaking to enough men. As for the idea that a man would be more likely to use that story to preach against sin, that's just downright misandry.
Let's get back to the question I asked - why is an inspired text couched in what is obviously patriarchal language? What is that about?
UKViewer
One of the great things that begins to dawn on you if you preach regularly is that you don't have to say everything about a passage every time you preach. I imagine my congregations are very thankful for this - some of them already think I preach far too long, anyway and they have NO IDEA how much I usually edit out!
However, this means that one may often leave out the very thing that someone wants/needs to know, and the only way you will find out is if someone comes and speaks to you afterwards.
But I agree that if a preacher is always avoiding the difficult bits there is something wrong, and that the congregation (and the preacher themsleves) are being short-changed.
Peter.
I've had that story used as a brick against me by men who claim to be able to judge me and who happily take the Jesus place more often than I can count.
I thought I had discussed your other point. Patriarchal language is the language that worked at the time.
It would have been no good speaking to people in images that made no sense to them.
God as Mother would have had quite a different impact than God as Father. I dare say even today in most cultures being a Father is something more powerful, stronger and more respected than being a Mother.
The real question is not why they used those words then, but whether we have to be bound by them today.
Erika
I think that if men (well me anyway) identify with a male character in that story, then it is far more likely to be with one of the (male) accusers, the ones who slope away because they know they haven't a leg to stand on.
I don't remember any occasion when I have made the identification with Jesus myself, or heard a male preacher do so. And there have been plenty of occasions when I have been very grateful to be reminded that Jesus treats people (regardless of gender) with grace.
Revsimmy
If you haven't wielded the "sin no more!!" bludgeon against people who you believe to be in the wrong, if you haven't told them that Jesus' forgiveness is conditional and based on them not setting a foot wrong in the future - if you really have slunk away instead and left the presumed transgression to be dealt with by those who you believe are in the wrong and Jesus, then you are truly one of a very rare breed and I admire you immensely
The 10 commandments were written for men -- there is even a debate in some parts of Judaism that they were only written for priests. There is no "woman" in them as women were not really part of the YHWH cult at that time. They had their own worship - read about the "household gods" hidden away in Genesis. or Read Standing Again at Sinai.
Peter O
If the text is couched in obviously patriarchal language in a patriarchal society what about the places where it is not patriarchal?
eg
Mother tenderly gathering her children
The place of Mary at Jesus feet and (another?) Mary at the tomb?
Surely these would have been scandalous at the time?
Peter
"why is an inspired text couched in what is obviously patriarchal language? What is that about?
While I agree with you that the texts are inspired, the question is, what do we mean by that? We don't mean that the texts were dictated by God, per se, and therefore we need to take account of the culture of the human writer of the text and their audience. Like the vast majority of human cultures that have existed on this planet, this was patriarchal, hence the language.
Does this mean that God "Godself" is patriarchal? I don't think so. Humans, male and female, are created in the image of God; we are told that in Christ there is nether male nor female. We read these texts through a number of different lenses to make sense of them for our day. The most important of these lenses is, of course, Jesus himself; and then there is the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth.
I think what the authors were trying to achieve was to actually excuse sin, so that it could be carried out blamelessly by them. So, I'm a good husband and I don't covet my neighbour's wife. But, if she covets me, then hey! Not my fault.
Bible interpretation; it's a bitch (oops! dog?), isn't it.
Erika
If Jesus does not condemn, then it is certainly not my place to do so. I am sorry to hear (though, sadly, not surprised) that "Go sin no more" has been used as a bludgeon against you. But what do you think the purpose and significance of these words are in their context? I don't read them as making the forgiveness "conditional and based on them not setting a foot wrong in the future." I don't see Jesus as being a "one strike (or three strikes) and you're out" kind of person. And I don't think I am, either.
Revsimmy
How I would actually read those words is: "We didn't talk about whether you did what they say you did, but you know as well as I do that you haven't done right. It would be better for you if you could try to live a better life. But we all need to be clear that this is your decision and that only you are responsible for your response. It is really important that you accept that responsibility and don’t just respond to the pressure of others. The others have rightly slunk away. They don’t know enough to judge you, they can’t see your heart. And anyway, judging others puts people in a “superior” frame of mind and lets them forget their own shortcomings. I’m really glad they got the point and just left. So now it’s you and me – let’s see if, together, we can improve your life”.
This is not about someone keeping count of whether you're a good girl or a bad one, judging you accordingly and punishing you for doing wrong. But better because once you know you're on the wrong tack it's psychologically healthier for you to change the way you live.
The real problem I and people like me have is that others presume to know whether our lives are right with God or not. The whole break-up of the Anglican Communion is based on the assumption of some churches that they know other churches are wrong. How often was TEC asked to "repent"?
Jeffrey John didn't get his bishopric not because he was gay yet celibate, but because his teaching showed that he hadn't "repented" for his earlier transgression and was therefore still sinning.
This is the outworking of “sin no more”, which Jesus only said this once! And of people claiming the position of Jesus and forgetting that they are bystanders.
In addition, the female is often associated with sinfulness and the male is associated with perfection.
Well, to a point. On the other hand, in Paul's exposition of the Genesis story in Romans, it is Adam who gets the blame for the sin, not Eve.
As for the 'go and sin no more' language being used as a club against people - Erika, I'm genuinely astonished. I've preached on that passage many times and heard others preach on it, too, and I've never heard anything remotely like what you describe. What I have heard is something like the old adage 'God loves us so much that he accepts us just as we are, but he loves us too much to leave us there'. In other words, forgiveness is not license for me to continue in an unchanged life. Surely Jesus and all the writers of the NT would agree with that?
I think that is because Adam is a man and therefore responsible and the boss, but Eve is always painted as the temptress.. then there is Pauls take:
A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
I have seen people like Erika rebuked in this way. Even in the comments on this blog, I believe.
Tim,
it is because of people like you and Revsimmy and Leslie that church remains possible.
I think that is because Adam is a man and therefore responsible and the boss, but Eve is always painted as the temptress.
Lesley, might it not rather be because Paul is working with 'first man/second man' imagery, which only works if he uses Adam and not Eve?
And while you are correct in pointing out that Paul sees the woman as more easily deceived, I don't think he portrays her anywhere as 'the temptress', so I think that in terms of the biblical text to say that she is 'always portrayed as a temptress' is a slight exaggeration.
Thanks Erika!
Oh bother Lent is coming and I am going to have to read all those commandments.
You're absolutely right, and you're allowed to covet your neighbour's civil partner as well.
Some interesting comments and thoughts here, thought provoking for me.
I am wondering about the revisions of biblical texts to make them gender friendly and how I have heard God described as 'She'.
I have no problem with this, but if it comes to translations of actual language used, how true is it to the scripture and story being told?
I ask the question as Scripture in particular the New Testament is often described as 'God Breathed or Inspired'. Where does this leave us when trying to interpret scripture for todays situation?
It says you should not covet thy neighbour's wife, but not thy neighbour's husband.
You get a break like that and you're still complaining. Typical woman!
It says you should not covet thy neighbour's wife, but not thy neighbour's husband.
By implication of the male target, and by omission it's also then condoning the homosexual coveting of your male neighbour.
I take it back. Bible interpretation is fun.
The NT Greek is slightly more inclusive than traditional English - it had "anthropos" for generic person and "aner" for man specifically. They're both "masculine" in grammatical gender, but it's the point where English just didn't use "person/people" but tended to translate anthropos as man that we lost some nuances. (I don't know about the Hebrew as I have only just scratched the surface of learning that.)
I also see Jesus's then shocking tendency to use the occasional woman in his parables as God - e.g. the woman who searched for a lost coin - as well as to refer to himself as weeping or as like a hen with chicks, as early pointers to what was to come, with the Spirit leading us into further truth centuries later.
There's also the odd "coincidence" that lots of Paul's statements about gender ended up next to statements about slaves being dutiful - intriguing, no?
Hmm so when Isaiah says Rejoice with Jerusalem that you may drink deeply from her consoling breast.. for thus says our God as a mother comforts her children so I will comfort you. Does this mean Isaiah had a problem with women? Or that he was one? Engendering the interpretation of scripture says more about us than those who wrote it. A little less imposition on the text please and a little more exposition..
Only one of the Isaiahs was a woman.
It says you should not covet thy neighbour's wife, but not thy neighbour's husband.
Because the neighbor IS the husband.
...but the commandment assumes one might covet your neighbor's servant, female OR male. Coveting is a function of the Power-Full over the Power-Less (naturally, which is why the commandment has to tell you NOT to do it). A woman (in BCE Palestine) is never going to be more powerful than her male neighbor...but she might "covet" her neighbor's slave, of either gender (as might the male reader the commandment is aimed at).
For an example of what the commandment is saying NOT to do, see the Roman Lady at the gladiator's school in Spartacus (the movie. The current TV series is beyond my basic-cable means!): [re Woody Strode's character] slobbering, "Ooh, bring forth the beautiful black one!" That's coveting. ;-)
I get the point, but its effectiveness is certainly impaired by the reference to Hosea's wife as "Gomez" instead of "Gomer" which it is in Hebrew and every English version that I have consulted (cf. Hos 1:3 - "So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son."). Is this a Freudian slip on the part of someone who doesn't care for Latinos???
Hosea and Gomez were the first same sex couple to be legally married. Unfortunately, it didn't work out and they got divorced. Gomez, who was bisexual, then met and married Morticia and they lived unhappily ever after.
LOL - oops, thanks - duly corrected!
Post a Comment