Bible · Christianity · church · crime · religion · women

Does the Bible really condone misogyny?

Liberals love to falsely accuse the Bible of being misogynistic, claiming it promotes violence against females and treats them as second class citizens. Unfortunately, congregations today for the most part are avoiding actions to confront domestic abuse that occurs in the church and this doesn’t help dispel those myths. This is why women such as Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz are needed for leadership roles in the church. When I advocate for women in leadership roles, I’m not referring to feminists who think women are superior to men and/or that God should be considered female. I mean women who follow sound doctrine.

domestic violence--used under Creative Commons licenseMrs. Amstutz’s ministry includes “aiding church members who are victims of domestic and/or sexual abuse and helping churches whose members are dealing with those issues.” She has seen many situations where churches avoid the issue because they don’t know how to handle it, where men in leadership roles are abusers, and where people tell the abused to just forgive and move on from the incident. So Amstutz steps in when churches ask for help and aids them in setting up best practices for them to have that can resolve and prevent domestic violence. But people like her may not be reaching a majority of churches who need that kind of help because “like many organizations, the church is set up to protect itself.”

Now, back to what the Bible really says. Throughout the Bible, Jehovah reveals a desire for women to live godly and be protected as they do so, and for men to encourage and protect them as they do that. Both men and women were expected to encourage each other in godly things. Pagan culture was against all of these things. So the Mosaic law set up such principles as giving the death penalty to rapists, equating rape with murder (Deut. 22:25-27). Women, including sinful ones, were also allowed to bring cases before a court (Num. 27:1-2; 1 Kings 3:16-27). If a man had only daughters as his offspring, they inherited his possessions (Num. 27:6-8; 36:1-12). A woman could also pursue a man to be her husband under the law of the kinsman redeemer, as Ruth did.

Then we see in Mal. 2:13-16 that the Lord refused to accept the offerings of men who betrayed their wives, whether the betrayal was adultery, unjustified divorce, or abuse (v. 16). His reason was that stable traditional households made it easier to “seek a godly seed [children]” (Mal. 2:15) and recent studies confirm the morality of this truth. Ephesians 5:25-29 commands husbands to love and cherish their wives like Christ loved the church and like any normal human does for his own body. As Christ sacrificed himself for the church’s benefit, a man should make sacrifices for his wife. Then in Colossians 3:19, husbands are commanded to not be bitter toward their wives. Bitterness is the root, or motive, of domestic violence. 1 Peter 3:7 commands husbands to honor their wives and dwell with them in godly knowledge (which includes the Golden Rule and the two greatest commandments that Jesus was asked about (Mk. 12:28-31)). Disobedience to this hinders the husband’s prayers.

The Bible misogynistic? Not even close to being true. Those who claim such things never really read or understood the whole thing and are just looking for excuses to justify their hatred towards the true and living God. The irony is (or shall I say hypocrisy?), they are also the ones who will ignore the domestic violence of Islam, the misogyny of abortion (which kills many more females than males), and who will crank up the latest secular hip hop artist speaking disrespectfully of women.



3 thoughts on “Does the Bible really condone misogyny?

  1. Good post. The Bible also has good things to say about businesswomen, like in Proverbs 31 where the virtuous woman works in real estate and the textile-fashion industry. Lydia in Acts was also a successful businesswoman.


  2. Hitler did some good deeds too so why not make Mein Kampf sacred?
    He loved his cats ,did not harm animals was a vegeterian and loved humans as long as they were Aryans. So the Christians love fellow christiaNS AND MOSLEMS LOVE FELLOW MOSLEMS. Of course the pagens and Kaffirs be damned.iS THERE A DIFFERENCE. Please enlighten me?
    I would hold the same argument against Islam and MAnusmriti in Hinduism but the difference is that Manusmriti is considered as an obsolete relic, people do noyt preach it daily as God’s word, as the Abrahamic Christians and Moslems do. Any part can be taken out in Hindu philosophy even God and there is still no objection. The Christians for the most part have had anreformation and are beyond this anachronism although they are never in a chorus to admit it as a theoretical problem, and an atavistic hangover.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.