Test for an Unfaithful Wife

This passage was hard to digest on many levels, so I did alot of research into my questions. Most of what is written on this passage is done so from an angry feminist stance, for the purpose of pointing out the anti-feminist agenda of the Bible. And if that is your bias, you can find plenty in Scripture to back it up. But the truth is we are not created equal, at least not in terms of our roles, capabilities and and responsibilities. We are to be help-mates for our husbands. A friend sent me the definition of "helpmate" as taken from the Hebrew word, and it is a military term meaning "in the trenches with someone". We are not of lesser importance than men, but we are referred to as the "weaker vessels". I suppose that might be frustrating if that were a man-made ideal, but since it is the way God created men and women, I don't have a problem with it. Now, the way God created it and the way mankind has implemented it, are two different things. But to God, we are not valued or loved any less, and are made in the image of Him just as man is. However, there will be instances in the Bible where God deals with men and women differently, and unapologetically so because he did not create our differences as "bad" things. When He values women in the census as roughly half that of men, it is done so very matter-of-factly because as laborers, women could do half what men could do. That's true. We are smaller with less muscle mass and have naturally less physical ability. We can't argue that. God would not deem it derogatory to point out such differences, as this is the way He created us! Again, this was a culture, and a God, not bound by political correctness.

That being said, it is difficult to swallow the concept that a man could bring up charges against his wife for suspicion of adultery. No proof needed, and no defense was available to her. To our modern sensibilities, this is oppressive and demeaning and just plain unfair. But is this actually evidence that God intended for men to maintain oppressive dominance over their wives? Remember that this was a law written for Old Testament believers, who, as a matter of fact, lived in a patriarchal society. This bitter water process, bizarre though it seems, actually protected the woman from what might be done to her by a jealous husband existing in a society in which women were thought of as property. Furthermore, the consequences did not involve death, as it did in many societies at that time. According to the Code of Hammurabi ( 1720 BC) a woman in the same predicament was forced to throw herself into the Euphrates River. If she drowned, she was guilty and if not, then she was deemed innocent. In light of what else was going on in the world at this time, drinking the bitter water seems enlightened by comparison. This is another example, much like the laws concerning slavery, of God reforming an entrenched way of thinking as opposed to condemning it, with the understanding that this was written for a specific group of people.

Secondly, does it seem fair that women are not afforded the same opportunity to question the fidelity of their husbands? Again, following the logic of the male-dominated society, men had no need for protection against such allegations from their wives, as they had little power to bring harm, physical or otherwise, to their spouses. Now, if either the husband or the wife was indisputably found to be adulterous (caught in the act), the death penalty applied equally for both men and women.

Thirdly, and most troubling for me, is the odd ritual itself. Obviously the process must have been supernatural, because we know that drinking muddy water cannot cause infertility. However, I read that some think a woman's legitimate fear or guilt about an infidelity being discovered brought on psychosomatic instances of infertility. That is certainly possible. Anxiety about infertility would have been extreme, as barrenness was the ultimate shame for a woman of that time. I know from working in the adoption field that many women become pregnant after beginning the adoption process because the pressure and anxiety is removed and they relax. Our own emotional state can have a direct impact on our physical health. But frankly, the Bible is not clear on how this test worked. And for that audience, it did not need to be. People of this era would not have had any problem agreeing with such a litmus test.

Finally, I add this to clarify what was written about numerous times on-line. This was not a ritual aimed at abortion. Drinking the bitter water was meant to induce infertility, which could be characterized by barrenness (inability to get pregnant) or a miscarrying womb (inability to stay pregnant). The end result is the same...infertility. Pro-choice advocates want to use this passage to sanction abortion, but "swollen abdomen" and "thigh that wastes away" are euphemisms for infertility and do not indicate an immediate miscarriage. We have evidence of the value God places on the pre-born human from the law in Exodus 21:22-25. It outlined the penalty for forcing a premature birth in a fight where a pregnant woman is accidentally struck. There was a lengthy explanation of this verse in the blog titled "Israel Accepts the Covenant".

Tomorrow's reading (please be easier...): Numbers 6 and 10