Worthy, p.9
Worthy, page 9
Also, don’t forget that Israel has just come out of Egypt and would soon be surrounded by other violent cultures that didn’t value life but relished the sight of blood. These cultures were quite accustomed to seeing blood in corrupt practices as part of their worship,
Like the other ceremonial regulations, these laws of personal purity regarding genital discharges distinguished Israel from the other nations. Obedience to these laws would particularly work as a deterrent to intermarriage with other peoples who had no desire to subscribe to these sexual dictates . . . these regulations would exclude fertility rites and cultic prostitution (practices characteristic of Israel’s neighbors).2
So the rules about ceremonial uncleanness of women aren’t meant to demean women, their reproductive cycles, or their bodies, but rather to remind us about the sacredness, the uniqueness of all life, women included.
An Unclean Woman Meets Jesus
Now that you have a more positive perspective on this strange law, let’s look to see if we can find Jesus’ ministry superseding it. To begin with, in Mark 7, Jesus did away with rules about ritual uncleanness by declaring that it is only sin that originates in the heart that can defile a person (Mark 7:20). In Mark 5 we meet a nameless woman who had a discharge of blood for twelve years. We don’t know how old she was or if she was married or single. All we know is that she had “suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse” (Mark 5:25–26). This woman had been condemned to a life of shame and censure. Everyone knew she was unclean, everyone avoided her. Blood was sacred and set apart for holy use, but her issue made it common and disgusting.
Have you ever had to spend time in bed, quarantined from friends and family? I know that the few times I’ve had to, the time seemed to drag by interminably. There aren’t a lot of punishments worse than solitary confinement, but that’s what this poor woman’s existence had been like for a dozen years. Let’s think for a moment now about her life: She had tried desperately to get well. She had exhausted whatever resources she had and undoubtedly endured the worst kinds of pain and humiliation at the hands of the ancient medical practitioners.
Aside from whatever physical pain she may have suffered, she deeply longed to think of herself as normal, not someone people turned away from in disgust. Unclean, shameful, destitute, alone. She undoubtedly wondered why God was punishing her like that—or maybe she thought she knew. Because she was ceremonially unclean, she hadn’t felt a touch, a hug, a kiss for twelve years, nor had she been allowed into the temple. She couldn’t enter into worship, even to offer a sacrifice, or to try to get back in good standing with the Lord. She was completely out of options. But then she had heard reports about a rabbi who welcomed unclean women, so she gathered up her courage and, in one extreme act of faith, snuck up behind him. She touched him. And then . . . she was well. She knew her touch should have made him unclean, but she was willing to risk his ire. What would all the holy men (and women) say to her if she were discovered? What censure and shame would be heaped on her because of this audacious act? She was willing to face it all. She was that desperate.
If you want to know what God’s heart toward women who are ceremonially unclean is, here it is: Not only did Jesus not turn her away or censor her for touching him, he did more than heal her body. He made her clean. He forced her to come to him out of the shadow of her shame and admit her scheme and desperate need of him. How did he respond? He called her “Daughter.” Don’t miss the importance of this: She’s the only one he ever referred to in this way. This beautiful term of affection, my dear daughter,3 must have amazed and melted her heart. She was finally healed, but more than that, she was clean, she was welcomed, she was made new. “She came as an outcast of men, Christ called her daughter.”4 She would have settled for his merely being her healer—a better physician than she had ever known. And he would be that for her, but so much more: He wanted her to know his love.
Please notice that this woman went outside the bounds of societal decorum by touching a man, especially in her unclean state. But she didn’t ask for permission. She certainly knew that she was doing something that would have caused revulsion and censure. And yet, by faith she persevered. And she was rewarded for it. It was almost as though she stole her healing and Jesus was not only okay with that, he honored it.
Women, what does this tell us? It tells us that Jesus welcomes audacious faith. It tells us that we can presume upon his love and press into his goodness without fear of his censure. It tells us that he’s comfortable around us—even those of us the world or the church looks at as unworthy or unclean. Women, come to him in faith. You are welcomed.
Brothers, what do you learn from this? You can know that you are welcomed by the Lord too. He isn’t put off by your uncleanness or reputation for failure. Jesus never worried about being made unclean by us because he’s got enough holiness to cleanse us all. So flee to him and encourage the women you know to join hands with you and run to him. Don’t push them away.
Faithless Husbands and the God Who Protects Wives
By the time Moses delivered God’s laws to the Israelites, divorce was already so commonplace that rules had to be made to regulate husbands’ behavior toward their wives and to curb their abuse of power. In order to stop men from glibly divorcing their wives, this law was given:
When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord.
Deuteronomy 24:1–4
This rule was meant to govern and rein in the abuse of power that was commonplace in Israel. Husbands had the power to divorce their wives and they did so regularly. Now, we understand how you might read this and assume that it denigrates women, that it strips them of rights and treats them as chattel. Actually, the opposite is true. Because the structure of that society was weighted so heavily in a man’s favor, with only men being able to initiate a divorce, the Lord gave Moses this rule to protect women. “The certificate of divorce protected the woman’s rights, providing evidence of her freedom and ensuring that her husband could not claim her dowry.”5 In addition, we should remember that the stories and practices we read about in the Bible are not necessarily to be copied but rather a description of the ways things actually were in a broken world.
It is true that this law allowed a husband to divorce his wife for a seemingly insignificant reason, such as finding something “indecent” in her. No one knows what this “indecency” might have been. The Hebrew just means some sort of shame or nakedness. This, of course, is a very low bar that any man might claim, but still, it is not nothing. The purpose of this law was to stop husbands from just sending their wives away willy-nilly, or slandering them by saying they had deserted the family. The husband had to actually give his wife a legal document, a “certificate of divorce,” which would free her to marry someone else. It would also stop him from sending her away and then changing his mind and making her return over and over again. It would stop him from threatening her with desertion or just throwing her out on the street. If he was going to end the marriage, he’d have to write it out for everyone to see. This law was meant to protect women in a patriarchal society bent by sin and the abuse of power, in which they had very few rights. It was meant to give them legal rights in the marriage.
Jesus and Divorce
Knowing what you do about Jesus and his treatment of women, what do you think he thought of this law? Do you suppose he would think it was acceptable to just send one’s wife away, exposing her to shame and destitution, if her husband found her displeasing? When you’re considering this, don’t forget that Jesus knew divorce was something his mother, Mary, would have faced,6 had an angel not intervened.
Jesus said that Moses had been forced to give this law because of the inherent hardness, stubbornness, and obstinance7 of men’s hearts. In other words, rather than this rule giving a carte blanche for men to divorce their wives at will, it was a form of judgment on husbands who were already mistreating their wives by divorcing them: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). In the beginning, Adam would have loved, clung to, and protected his wife. But now that men’s hearts were hardened toward their wives, God had to protect them from those who should have protected them.
That this kind of protection of marriage, and by extension, women, was out of the ordinary is shown by the disciples’ nearly laughable response, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). In other words, they were so accustomed to husbands holding all the power in the marriage relationship that they could not fathom a scenario in which marriage was permanent and they would not be able to jettison any woman they found “displeasing.” If divorce and remarriage (except in certain circumstances) caused one to commit adultery, then their practice of acquiring and discarding wives at will would have to end. In their upside-down patriarchal world that was a shocking thought. Maybe we should stay single, then, they thought.
These rules about divorce were meant to protect and honor women. Neither Moses nor Jesus was encouraging men to misuse, abandon, or divorce their wives. They were stopping men who cavalierly used women up and then jettisoned them. The modern practice of trading in your old wife for a new “trophy wife” shows us that this practice didn’t end in the ancient times. Some husbands are still stubborn, obstinate, and hard-hearted and need to be called to repentance.
Jealous Husbands
Another strange ceremonial law is found in Numbers 5, where instructions are given to a husband who suspects his wife of infidelity but has no proof. In that case, the husband was instructed to bring his wife to the priest along with something called a “grain offering of jealousy.” The wife would then take an oath of innocence before the priest and drink water containing ink from the words of the curse and dirt from the floor of the tabernacle. If she was innocent, nothing would happen to her, but if she was guilty she would suffer. This was kind of like the first lie detector test and, yes, it really does seem strange.
How does this bizarre law prove that God loves and values women? It proves it because, like the certificate of divorce, it forced a man to actually take action and make a statement rather than just privately accuse or badger his wife. It also forced him to bring his suspicions to the Lord, and not merely badmouth her to his friends. And most important, it forced him to leave her judgment in the hands of God. The Lord knew her heart and her actions and also knew the husband’s heart. If the woman was innocent, she could rely on the Lord to be a righteous and gracious judge and protect her honor. And if she was guilty, she could throw herself on God’s mercy and grace. But what wouldn’t happen to her was being left in limbo, under a cloud of suspicion.
Jesus and a Guilty Adulteress
What did Jesus think of women who were accused of adultery? Let’s observe his interaction with one who wasn’t just suspected or accused. In John 8 we read the story of a guilty woman who is brought to Jesus for judgment and execution. How would the Lord respond to the Pharisees’ desire to stone her?8 How would Jesus, the only holy Man who had never committed adultery in either thought or deed, respond? Strangely, he responded by writing in the dirt. What did he write? Perhaps he was writing the Ten Commandments, perhaps he named the accusers’ adulteries—we just don’t know. We do know that once he said, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7), the men read his words and went away. Then,
Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
John 8:9–11
What does Jesus say to women who have either been condemned by their own actions or the accusations of others? Remember, the only One who has the right to condemn anyone for infidelity is the One who promised, “Neither do I condemn you.”
My sisters, Jesus never brings a word of condemnation to you, no matter if others have. You can come to him in humility and need, admit to him your brokenness, and he will never cast you out or shame you.
Let’s notice how the religious elite, the leading men of the day, had twisted this law to fit their chauvinism. They said that it was just women, not women and men, who should be punished: “Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women” (John 8:5). Of course, Jesus knew what the Law actually did say, that both men and women should be punished (Deuteronomy 22:22). These self-righteous Pharisees condemned themselves when they said that the couple was actually “caught in the act,” meaning that they knew who the man was also. But they seemed to have been perfectly content to let the man off while they called for the execution of the woman. How did Jesus respond? “Neither do I condemn you.” He refused to let sinful men condemn a sinful woman. Jesus refused to join in their law-twisting misogyny.
Sadly, this is one of the ways misogyny shows itself in the church today. Not that women are being stoned for adultery, but that women are frequently disciplined in ways that men avoid. Rules about mutual love and submission are regularly twisted to fall primarily on women. For instance, I (Elyse) personally know of numbers of circumstances in which a wife came to elders for help with an abusive husband, only to have the elders end up disciplining her for not being submissive enough. I know of a woman whose husband was addicted to pornography and who was blamed by the elders she went to for help because she wasn’t sexy enough. I know of women whose husbands cheat on their taxes and refuse to let them see the finances and who have been told to just pray for them and seek to win them in quiet submission. I know of other women who are married to closet alcoholics, who insist that they not tell anyone because that would be being disobedient. Who, when they finally did tell the elders, they were told to stay in the relationship and try to make their husband happy, and not make waves.
Suffice it to say that we shouldn’t confuse the way that men applied the Law with God’s purpose in giving the Law, which was to uphold holiness, protect women, men, and the family, and demonstrate God’s character. For instance, if a man knew that he would face execution if he tried to seduce someone else’s wife, he would probably think more carefully about it. If King David knew that he likely would have been stoned for raping Bathsheba, maybe he would not have done so.9 We might also wonder how many men and women have been ruined by a man’s cavalier belief that he is free to do whatever he likes without fear of punishment, while the women who are their prey frequently suffer the shame of unplanned pregnancy, the devastation of abortion, or the burden of caring for a child alone.
Even in the church today, how many men have wounded their wives with their adulterous pornography habits, without much fear of being disciplined? Cases where a man’s adultery with pornography was excused because his wife wasn’t as slim as he wanted or wasn’t as sexually available as he liked are common. Women suffer as they are denigrated by their husband and secondarily by their pastor who should be shepherding them.
Jesus continues to stand against this hateful twisting of God’s good laws meant to protect both women and men.
The Male Priesthood
Let’s take time now to look at one more instance of seeming misogyny in the Law. The Old Testament is clear that it is only sons of a particular family, Levi, who were to serve in the priesthood (Exodus 28; Numbers 3, 18). Although women were called as leaders (Micah 6:4; Judges 4:4), prophetesses (2 Kings 22:14; Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4), and wise counselors (2 Samuel 20:16; 14:2), the priesthood was only bestowed upon the sons of Levi. Only men allowed.
While that seems unfair to women, let’s not forget that God’s choice of a certain family might seem unfair to the majority of men as well. No one who was outside the family of Aaron and Levi would be able to serve as a priest either. Let’s face it: God’s sovereignty in choosing certain people and passing over others doesn’t make sense in our democratic minds. We think that anyone who wants to have a certain vocation should be able to have it. We tell our children, “You can be anything you want to be.” But God’s kingdom isn’t like that. It isn’t a democracy; it’s a theocracy. That means that he has the right to choose those who may serve him as priests. Of course, that didn’t mean that other men and women were barred from loving and serving him or that they couldn’t be part of his family. They just weren’t tasked with the work of the priesthood, which primarily consisted of caring for and transporting objects of worship.
Our Great High Priest
Why were men from a certain family chosen for the priesthood? As we consider this question it is helpful to remember that the point of all the history and Law throughout the Bible is the promised Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Because he said that Moses wrote about him (John 5:38, 46), we can assume that the composition of the priesthood tells us about him, and it does. Jesus is the chosen Son (Luke 9:35). He didn’t seize this calling for himself, rather it was given by his Father sovereignly (John 5:37; Hebrews 7:21).
But here’s where our study gets really interesting. In the same way that we’ve seen Jesus recast the law concerning unclean or immoral women, demonstrating his superiority to the written code, he didn’t just enhance this rule, he completely refashioned it. This decree had restricted the priesthood to the sons of Levi. But Jesus wasn’t a Levite. He was from the tribe of Judah. Certainly, if it were the plan to keep this rule in play, it would have been easy for God to have sent his Son as part of the tribe of Levi, but that wasn’t his plan. And there’s a reason for that: Jesus’ Judaic ancestry is meant to show that the former Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law itself were being set aside because of their “weakness and uselessness” (Hebrews 7:18). All of the rules about priests only coming from a certain family were being superseded. Jesus was a different kind of priest, one who was inaugurating and guaranteeing a “better covenant,” a new and better law (Hebrews 7:22). Jesus came to fulfill all the Law, even the one calling chosen males to service (Matthew 5:17). Jesus is the embodiment of every facet of the better priesthood: He offers himself as the sacrifice, lives a perfect life, bestows cleansing and righteousness on his people, while at the same time interceding with the Father on our behalf. This better covenant is now open to everyone, both women and men, as all believers, male and female, are now members of the “chosen race” the “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9).
