THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE GUY WITH GALS
Hey, ladies—and guys, too—here‘s one for you: while the Bible, and by association the Christian faith, is often accused of being patriarchal and sexist, the curious case of the guy with gals spills the beans on all the accusers.
They are just plain wrong and are themselves the ones playing the sexist game. I should know; because I, too, like the fellow in the Bible am a guy with gals.
Hold on…guy with gals?
Lest someone take this the wrong way and think we are running a rumor mill about the pastor‘s harem let me clarify what I mean…?
First, as to "sexism:" as used here sexism labels an array of attitudes and actions by which a supposed male dominated society devalues femaleness. Nowhere, we are told, is this more glaring than in the Bible; and in the Bible, a fundamental biblical institution tells the tale most clearly—in marriage a woman takes her husband‘s name. The idea of Mary Smith becoming Mrs. John Doe comes from the early biblical account of Eve being called "woman for she was taken out of man" (Genesis 2:23). How sexist can you get?
Well, without going too deeply into the theology of matrimony, suffice it to say that when read in the simple context of what is real, the early Genesis account refutes sexism by placing equal value on maleness and femaleness as unique compliments of being human. While fulfilling different roles, man and woman in union comprise the fundamental unit of humanity, not man or woman in isolation. It is the drive to isolate that produces sexism, whether the impetus rises in feminism or patriarchy.
The foregoing cries out for pages of explanation, but I resist; and I dare to because the Bible‘s case against sexism comes out most clearly in interesting ways where least expected; as in the curious case of the guy with gals...
His name was Zelophehad.
If there ever was a guy who could have charged society with sexism, it was this guy. His biblical identity has been entirely consumed by the women around him…talk about reverse discrimination! Anyone who dares charge the Bible with sexism regarding women must adequately explain this curious case. Of course, they must explain other things, too; such as Joseph being called "the husband of Mary," (Matthew 1:16), tantamount to being Mr. Mary! Other examples abound; but here we‘re mostly concerned with Zelophehad‘s curious case.
His name surfaces nine times in Scripture, most of his story being told in a staccato-like rhythm in short passages squeezed between Numbers 26:33 and 27:11; he is mentioned again in Joshua and Chronicles, but always with a common theme, the women around him! Perhaps the Chronicles passage best sums up the potential for hanging a feminist label on those writing about him (from a patriarchal point of view): in a genealogy featuring the exploits of sons of mighty warriors, as almost an aside in (yawn) "oh, yeah" fashion the writer remembers that "[a]nother descendant was named Zelophehad, who had only daughters" (1 Chronicles 7:15).
No getting around it. He was the guy with gals; that was his legacy. No macho exploits tagging along, no sons with sword and shield on great white steeds bearing his posterity into the sunset. In every single place he is mentioned he is the guy who had no sons, only daughters.
He had five; I have three so there is sort of a common bond. More importantly, firsthand I can bet that he had a deeper understanding of the biblical value of femaleness than the average guy.
Now, were the Bible a sexist book it would have to gloss over Zelophehad‘s story, put a spin on it, enhance it with some macho detail from his life. Instead, it tells the story as a matter of course emphasizing the guts, gumption, and wisdom displayed by his daughters upon their father‘s death. To wit, they courageously entered the fray over what would happen to his inheritance. Since by law inheritance passed from father to son and there was no son…?
The gals stepped up to claim what had belonged to their dad. Under purely patriarchal law such a claim would be disallowed. But Israel was not a patriarchy; it was a theocracy in which God’s wisdom, grace, and justice were supposed to prevail; and while patriarchs may be sexist, God is not. So the gals got their dad‘s stuff—his land!
Interestingly, their legal argument that won the day was not that they should be treated like men, the "sameness fallacy" of modern feminism; but rather that the very essence of the male-female union comprising humanness in its most basic unit of completeness demands equal value for both roles because they must (and do) differ. Their essential value lay in their essential difference.
"Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he bore no son?" they demanded to know (Numbers 27:4). He bore daughters; does that make him less valuable than if he had born sons? Importantly, they did not argue, we are the same as sons; but rather, they argued, our daughterliness is of equal value.
In short, that Zelophehad had fathered five daughters was no less meaningful to God and the cosmos than that Jacob 400 years before him had fathered twelve sons. Value resides in the meaningfulness of being a creature bearing God’s image; and this requires that we always remember that "God created man in his own image…male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27).
So the curious case of the guy with gals makes its way into the Bible: it does so not because Zelophehad had only daughters, even if five, a goodly number; but because the daughters knew who they were and asserted their inherent value to God and society. In doing so, they literally changed the practice of civil inheritance law in Israel, and today still upend fallacious charges of sexism against the Bible. From their case forward God‘s seal of approval on equal treatment under the law has been irrevocable even if and when society ignores it.
But also, this seal of approval is based on the value rising out of celebrating the differing roles. There is no greater threat to human value than forgetting, ignoring, or deliberately blurring the differences. Zelophehad‘s daughters clearly understood this, proving beyond all doubt that, son or no son, this guy with gals had been man enough to appreciate women enough that they could appreciate themselves, too!
