Men and women are individuals that differ by nature only in anatomy and physiology. Psychological traits do not logically follow from having a penis or a vagina or any of the secondary physical sex characteristics, and one man's or woman's nonphysical traits will not necessarily reflect those of another. In accordance with these logical truths, which already render all gender stereotypes false and thus the ideological basis for gender-specific obligations that have nothing to do with genitalia, the Bible never actually prescribes gender roles even if it occasionally appears to (compare Ephesians 5:21 with 5:22-28). In contrast with the vast majority of Mosaic Law where it is clear from other passages (like Genesis 1:26-27 and Numbers 5:1-7), immediate context, or logical extension/equivalence that moral obligations are shared by both genders [1] (such as Exodus 20:13, 35:2, Leviticus 11:1-7, 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:9-11, or 22:5), other than the likes of men having to be circumcised (Leviticus 12:1-3), the warfare commands of Deuteronomy 20:10-15 regarding how to deal with people in a nearby city when war breaks out might seem sexist at first.
The pagan residents of the Promised Land were to all be killed (Deuteronomy 20:16-18, see also 7:1-6 and 9:1-6), so these statements did not apply to them. Otherwise, when dealing with nearby enemies, God says in Deuteronomy 20 that attempts to avert even justified bloodshed must be made, and if the inhabitants of the enemy city yield before battle breaks out, all the people are to become laborers. If they refuse, a siege is to be conducted, and after victory, the men are to be killed and the women and children taken captive. There are strictly logical reasons why if the Bible is true, the command to kill the men could only apply in certain cultural contexts on the enemy side, since all gender stereotypes are false by logical necessity and thus there is no such thing as gender proclivities towards specific occupations like that of a soldier, only individual talent/preference or societal conditioning. If the Bible is true, it would have to be consistent with these logical facts. Also, there are textual evidences, both in this very chapter of Deuteronomy as well as other parts of the Bible, that contradict what might seem to be taught about male lives being disposable in warfare (as opposed to outside of warfare where the Torah is more obviously egalitarian).
For instance, if the enemy people give in upon the offer of peace, all the inhabitants are to become laborers no matter their gender; this is what the female and child captives could be used for in the case of a siege victory unless a woman married an Israelite man (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Deuteronomy 20 really contains one of the passages that, if it did teach what complementarians or ideological outsiders who think the Bible is complementarian assume (they assume, and they are also wrong in their conclusion, so there are multiple errors), would blatantly be sexist against men. Of course, that if this is sexist it would be so against men (as with Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and 22:25-27; see [1]) is almost always neglected or denied in my experience, in accordance with political/theological liberals trying to demonize the Bible teaching men are closer to God, either to make its teachings seem erroneous or to argue for Yahweh initially giving intentionally subpar laws in order to gradually improve them--and in accordance with political/theological conservatives thinking that gender roles are rational, righteous, and Biblical. There is only one way the teachings of Deuteronomy 20:10-15 are consistent with the logical necessities already described and with the rest of the Bible's clear moral doctrines of gender egalitarianism.
Yes, if morality exists, its obligations are the same for men and women (Numbers 5:1-7) unless they pertain to actual anatomy, like Biblical circumcision, and this is true whether or not Judeo-Christianity is. If male soldiers were the fighting force of the pagan societies around Israel, then in the absence of peace, they were to be killed not just because they are men, but because they are the soldiers opposing those of God. If Christianity is true, this has to be the case since the aforementioned logical necessity is true independent of it. This would be about addressing how to conquer a city that does not choose peace if it has a particular social structure rather than prescribing that only men can be soldiers or that they must be--which is never taught by the Bible (see also Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32) and is horribly sexist against men as well as women, forcing them into the danger of battle simply because of their genitalia. Likewise, it does not demand any sort of military draft based upon gender.
In how the text says to deal with the captives if the city does choose peace, Deuteronomy 20 is more explicitly egalitarian, and this also contradicts what people who are "Christian" complementarians or critics who reject Christianity because it is supposedly complementarian would suppose the passage teaches. It says that all the inhabitants, which would include adult, able-bodied men and women, can be used as laborers. They are of course not to be killed at that point since they are not combatants (Exodus 20:13), and they are not to be raped (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) or otherwise mistreated. If the captured men or women are abused, they can go free (Exodus 21:26-27), and they are not only to not be unjustly harmed according to the strict, blatant commands of the Torah, but they are also not to be as much as returned if they flee their servitude (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). This application of gender egalitarianism is even according to the direct wording of the text the obvious doctrine that is taught.
Since 1) men and women are equal (Genesis 1:26-27), 2) both genders have the same moral obligations except where literal anatomy is concerned (Numbers 5:1-7, though it would follow from Genesis 1), 3) Deuteronomy 20 says to treat the captives who submit in peace the same regardless of gender, and 4) the Torah never calls for specifically or universally male soldiers, it can only be the case that the differing treatment of inhabitants who do not choose peace is not ultimately about gender. Moreover, adding to God's commands is itself sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 once again). The point is about killing the enemies of God who fight against those representing him, with the socially conditioned gender "roles" of pagan/non-Israelite societies being sheer cultural constructs the Bible never prescribes and yet being what sets up the men of the cities as warriors or military leaders to be killed.
Though the story is not recounted among the Torah's commandments, in 2 Kings 6:8-23, a prophet of Yahweh named Elisha protects the lives of captured and by all appearances male Aramean soldiers. When he brings them to the king of Israel, who asks if they should be killed, Elisha asks rhetorically if the king would kill men he has captured with his own sword and bow, feeds the prisoners, and releases them. Narratives do not establish anything about Biblical morality on their own unless the text directly specified this. For instance, it does not follow from David committing adultery with Bathsheba after likely seeing her naked while she bathed that seeing the nudity of others or displaying one's own is sinful [2]. Elisha still does not dismiss the Aramean lives because of their gender, their Gentile status, or their connection with an opposing army. Also, see 2 Chronicles 28:1-13 for an example of men and women being taken captive by Israelites.
The narrative with Elisha has the context of the Aramean soldiers surrounding an area searching for him, so it is not the same as Elisha's faction gathering outside of an enemy city to either make peace with it or besiege it, but it does nevertheless illustrate two things. First of all, this is closer to the real prescriptions of Biblical ethics in that men are not to be killed or trivialized just because they are male; second, it shows that according to the stories of the Bible, the Israelites did not always behave as fallacy-enslaved complementarian interpreters either for or against the Bible would probably expect based upon Deuteronomy 20. Men are made in the image of God just like women and thus have the same value and rights. Even if it first seems to be sexist in one place or another, the Bible provides enough information, just not necessarily all in the same passage, to refute such an interpretation. A rationalist can discover what it is and is not saying because they do not assume and they alone can know what does and does not follow from a given thing.
[1]. Among many other blog posts detailing why this is a logical necessity if moral obligations exist and why the Bible affirms this, see here:
No comments:
Post a Comment