I love this article. I had never realized how radical these passages were, because I wasn't thinking in terms of a culture that assumed men should have unrestricted use of lower-honor women.
Also, about the passage about the wife and husband each having authority over the other's body. Some folks in the church weaponize this against women, interpreting it as "the wife can't deny the husband sexually because her body belongs to him." The NIV, in particular, uses the "belongs to" translation. My Greek dictionary translates εξουσιαζει as "have power or authority," which seems *very* different. I think it makes more sense in the context of the passage if Paul is saying "the wife can't just unilaterally decide she's done with sex forever, because *she has authority* over her husband's sex life as well, and she can't decide that for him."
But I hadn't realized how radical that was given that the culture this was written in assumed that the husband had complete authority to control his wife's sexuality -- but she had no authority at all to control his.
A further interesting thing is how a term beloved in evangelical purity culture (i.e., the man being the "Head of the Household") is a pagan legal description, and which has no basis in Scripture itself (with the closest thing being Paul's comment about the man being the head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church). I think many of these bad readings of Paul stem from a total cluelessness about the cultural context that he was fighting against. So, good work in helping to overturn those notions!
I wrote an essay some time ago (which I won't link, because it's tacky, but which I mention to show that I care about this subject) about how certain Trinitarian analogies can help us understand marriage in a more helpful manner. I have been meaning to return to critiques of purity culture (but haven't had a chance yet). This is a good reminder for me to do so!
A great read, thank you. I love how central the upside down kingdom concept is to scripture and keeps showing up as we study the Word. You have given me some great material to ponder.
Would love to hear them. Especially YHWH's assumption that a woman not making a sound in a city when she's being SA is sufficient evidence of her consent.
I'm sorry to point this out to you Barbara but even Conservative Christian scholars admit that the first case in the town is about rape and not consensual pre-marital sex. So you are misinterpreting that passage. Both passages about inside and outside of a town are about rape.
It is quite clear that the passage is teaching that the woman's silence was consent. Very male Bronze Age thinking but, of course, today we know about the parasympathetic nervous system and how people can completely freeze during a violent trauma and become unable to whisper let alone cry out. You are trying to renegotiate what this passage is clearly saying to make it more palatable to modern views.
Imagine a world where we taught young men this sort of chastity. That's a world worth building! This was fun to read, thank you for adding context to passages that you just start skimming over as time goes on.
I wouldn't have thought to call a double standard 'purity culture', and when people were objecting to purity culture as coming from end-of-last century evangelicalism, I assumed it was generally along progressive 'sex-positivity' grounds as my experience growing up was not one of explicit or implicit double standards. Though, sure, this might not be universal and there might have been places of unspoken exceptions granted along gender lines.
That defense made, I'm happy to join in opposition to double standards.
The title is admittedly a little clickbaity, as I’m focused on Roman purity culture rather than ‘90s-’00s evangelical purity culture.
But there’s a pretty wide spectrum of people who object to evangelical purity culture—many object to a chaste sexual ethic, but others are reacting to very bad teaching that cropped up in some (not all) of these spaces. There are some jaw-dropping passages in some of the books that were popular at the time—I’m thinking especially of the Every Man’s/Woman’s/Young Man’s/Young Woman’s Battle series.
It's complicated because it's possible to assent to a biblical standard of chastity and yet still find the term, at least as taught or modeled culturally, difficult to reckon with or accept without it seeming like a negation, in tension with western cultural norms that have to be rejected from a scriptural standpoint and yet which nonetheless feel more hale in the sense that they feel like eating, rather than simply fasting. That kind of exists amidst the experience of coming up in that turn of the century evangelical culture.
Paul sets the standard straight. Although his comments on immodest women aren’t as readily acceptable even by Christian women.
A comment on double standards: there are many. I would find it more believable if women embraced removing the double standards that favor them as well as the ones that don’t.
I love this article. I had never realized how radical these passages were, because I wasn't thinking in terms of a culture that assumed men should have unrestricted use of lower-honor women.
Also, about the passage about the wife and husband each having authority over the other's body. Some folks in the church weaponize this against women, interpreting it as "the wife can't deny the husband sexually because her body belongs to him." The NIV, in particular, uses the "belongs to" translation. My Greek dictionary translates εξουσιαζει as "have power or authority," which seems *very* different. I think it makes more sense in the context of the passage if Paul is saying "the wife can't just unilaterally decide she's done with sex forever, because *she has authority* over her husband's sex life as well, and she can't decide that for him."
But I hadn't realized how radical that was given that the culture this was written in assumed that the husband had complete authority to control his wife's sexuality -- but she had no authority at all to control his.
Here’s my post “Saying no to sex with one’s spouse”.
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2016/07/01/saying-no-to-sex-with-ones-spouse/
I’m a Christian activist against domestic abuse.
Sharing two of my posts about sexual ethics in Scripture. (Hope you don’t mind, Catherine!)
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2016/07/01/saying-no-to-sex-with-ones-spouse/
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2012/11/09/she-did-not-cry-out-while-being-raped-so-is-she-guilty/
And here is my FAQ page for sexual abuse:
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/faq/what-about-sexual-abuse-in-marriage/
A further interesting thing is how a term beloved in evangelical purity culture (i.e., the man being the "Head of the Household") is a pagan legal description, and which has no basis in Scripture itself (with the closest thing being Paul's comment about the man being the head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church). I think many of these bad readings of Paul stem from a total cluelessness about the cultural context that he was fighting against. So, good work in helping to overturn those notions!
I wrote an essay some time ago (which I won't link, because it's tacky, but which I mention to show that I care about this subject) about how certain Trinitarian analogies can help us understand marriage in a more helpful manner. I have been meaning to return to critiques of purity culture (but haven't had a chance yet). This is a good reminder for me to do so!
Great article! I always enjoy your breakdowns on the "historical backstory" of the New Testament.
A great read, thank you. I love how central the upside down kingdom concept is to scripture and keeps showing up as we study the Word. You have given me some great material to ponder.
How about some of the juicy stuff in Deuteronomy 22? I’d like to hear your take on those verses.
Oh, I have THOUGHTS.
Would love to hear them. Especially YHWH's assumption that a woman not making a sound in a city when she's being SA is sufficient evidence of her consent.
She did not cry out while being raped … so is she guilty?
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2012/11/09/she-did-not-cry-out-while-being-raped-so-is-she-guilty/
I'm sorry to point this out to you Barbara but even Conservative Christian scholars admit that the first case in the town is about rape and not consensual pre-marital sex. So you are misinterpreting that passage. Both passages about inside and outside of a town are about rape.
It is quite clear that the passage is teaching that the woman's silence was consent. Very male Bronze Age thinking but, of course, today we know about the parasympathetic nervous system and how people can completely freeze during a violent trauma and become unable to whisper let alone cry out. You are trying to renegotiate what this passage is clearly saying to make it more palatable to modern views.
https://substack.com/@michaeleriksson2/p-201358873
Imagine a world where we taught young men this sort of chastity. That's a world worth building! This was fun to read, thank you for adding context to passages that you just start skimming over as time goes on.
Wonderful article! Thank you for putting Paul's instructions into such clear context.
I wouldn't have thought to call a double standard 'purity culture', and when people were objecting to purity culture as coming from end-of-last century evangelicalism, I assumed it was generally along progressive 'sex-positivity' grounds as my experience growing up was not one of explicit or implicit double standards. Though, sure, this might not be universal and there might have been places of unspoken exceptions granted along gender lines.
That defense made, I'm happy to join in opposition to double standards.
The title is admittedly a little clickbaity, as I’m focused on Roman purity culture rather than ‘90s-’00s evangelical purity culture.
But there’s a pretty wide spectrum of people who object to evangelical purity culture—many object to a chaste sexual ethic, but others are reacting to very bad teaching that cropped up in some (not all) of these spaces. There are some jaw-dropping passages in some of the books that were popular at the time—I’m thinking especially of the Every Man’s/Woman’s/Young Man’s/Young Woman’s Battle series.
It's complicated because it's possible to assent to a biblical standard of chastity and yet still find the term, at least as taught or modeled culturally, difficult to reckon with or accept without it seeming like a negation, in tension with western cultural norms that have to be rejected from a scriptural standpoint and yet which nonetheless feel more hale in the sense that they feel like eating, rather than simply fasting. That kind of exists amidst the experience of coming up in that turn of the century evangelical culture.
Paul sets the standard straight. Although his comments on immodest women aren’t as readily acceptable even by Christian women.
A comment on double standards: there are many. I would find it more believable if women embraced removing the double standards that favor them as well as the ones that don’t.
All right, I’ll bite. Pray tell what Paul says about immodest women?
Well, Paul says a number things about women conducting themselves modestly and with submission to men.
“women should learn in quietness, must not hold authority over or teach men in church settings.”