Neither Sex Has a Corner on Sin: The Complicit Women of Isaiah 3-4, Current Events, and Women Attached to Power

Sometimes, when I read a lot of what’s out there, I get the impression that some people think men have a corner on sin, or at least that men are better at sin than women. So many news stories detail men who commit horrible acts and, often, the women who call them out. Men are the bad guys and women the good. Yep, men may be inferior in many ways (so it goes), such as in their ability to rein in their passions, control their anger, or help around the house. But when it comes to sin, well, men win, hands down.

This, of course, is nonsense. 

True, accounts of men behaving badly, either in society at large or in the church, surface daily. And true, a lot of damage has been done through the centuries by people who used the Bible to prove the opposite – that it is women who are the evil ones, who are to blame for all the world’s woes. In our current cultural climate it is strange to recognize that, throughout most of history, women were considered morally weaker and more sinful than men. 

That shifted with the industrial revolution, which placed middle-class men in the unfortunate position of being “forced” to prioritize profit over Christian virtues. In the midst of this increasing social godlessness – and perhaps as a reaction to it – the “cult of true womanhood” arose, idealizing women as unique agents of purity and morality.^[1] (At least middle- and upper-class women. I don’t know that anyone idealized poor, working women.)

A woman’s greater piety would provide a virtuous home life for men beleaguered by the moral compromise demanded in a market economy. Though women were considered generally inferior and less capable, in moral excellence they were believed to excel.^[2]

Now, in some quarters, the belief in women’s superiority has advanced to the nth degree, encompassing every aspect of the human personality. Men are seen as basically worthless while women are viewed as morally, behaviorally, intellectually, and relationally superior. However, the truth is that neither sex is better than the other, neither’s particular gifts are more valuable, and neither has a corner on sin.

And it is infinitely harmful to suggest that they do.

This whole idea that men are worse (or better) sinners than women has been running through my mind because recently I learned of a case of clergy abuse where a high-ranking woman pastor (allegedly) covered things up. Perhaps due to her close connection to the perpetrator, she decided not to inform the board.

Whether she had additional reasons, such as a desire to maintain her own position and power, I do not know, although there are indications that may have been the case. Now, she has been accused of wielding power inappropriately and harmfully herself. That is, some are claiming she is guilty of spiritual abuse as well.

Although I was very saddened to learn of this situation, the fact that women are capable of perpetrating abuse – especially from positions of power – should not surprise us.

We have known this all along.

Amanda Benckhuysen, in her fascinating book The Gospel According to Eve, traces the trajectory of numerous women who produced influential interpretations of Genesis 1-3, beginning in the fourth century and continuing through the twentieth.

The reasons they wrote varied from defending the inherent worth of women, to campaigning for women’s education, to arguing for women’s greater involvement in the outside world. While some of them asserted the moral superiority of the female sex, others acknowledged the sinful propensity of all human beings.

One of those is Elizabeth Tonna (1790-1846), who used Scripture to advocate for better treatment of poor women and girls (some as young as two years old) forced to work up to seventeen-hour days in factories. Despite her advocacy for women, Tonna saw no contradiction in acknowledging that men and women have an:

…equal share of inbred corruption, an equal incapacity to deliver ourselves from its bondage, an equal need of redemption wrought out by our Almighty Deliverer.^[3]

Men are corrupt; women are corrupt. Men cannot save themselves; women cannot save themselves. As Paul declared:

There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. (Rom. 3:10-11)

This, in fact, is what Scripture reveals from beginning to end. Unflinchingly immodest, the Bible leaves no space for the elevation of one sex over the other. Within its pages, women perpetrate horrific evil (think Jezebel), participate willingly (Sapphira), or are simply complicit. On this last, Isaiah’s condemnation of the society women of Jerusalem is a case in point. 

The Lord says,
    “The women of Zion are haughty,
walking along with outstretched necks,
    flirting with their eyes,
strutting along with swaying hips,
    with ornaments jingling on their ankles.
Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion;
    the Lord will make their scalps bald.”

In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces,the earrings and bracelets and veils, the headdresses and anklets and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, the signet rings and nose rings, the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses and mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls. (Is. 3:16-23)

At first glance these wealthy women appear merely vain and superficial, having nothing better to do than spend money (on themselves), prance about, flirt, and do all they can to enhance their beauty. One commentator counts twenty-one items of clothing and accessories here.^[4] That’s right, twenty-one. Seriously, that represents way more effort than I would be willing to invest even on my best, let’s-get-all-gussied-up-going-out-day. 

So maybe these gals were just an ancient version of a modern phenomenon, those stay-at-home-girlfriends (SAHGs for short) who spend their days working on the perfect body, trying the latest cosmetics, and yes, perchance even doing the laundry for their main man. 

However, in context the wrongdoings of our Jerusalem cohort take on a different tenor. Just a few verses earlier Yahweh declares that he has entered into judgment against the leaders of the land, the very men these women depend upon for their lavish lifestyles.

It is you who have ruined my vineyard;
    the plunder from the poor is in your houses.
What do you mean by crushing my people
    and grinding the faces of the poor? (Is. 3:14-15)

In other words, the women’s finery (and leisure) came at the expense of the working poor who were being exploited in a system envisioned and run by their fathers, husbands, and sons.^[5] The poor had been “plundered” to prop up the self-indulgent ways of the rich. 

One question that comes to mind is whether these women had any say in what was happening, in how their society was set up, in how they lived their own lives. Today it is very popular to excuse women behaving badly, arguing that they have no choice. But what about theses Jerusalem dolls? Did they have any options?

To some extent, they didn’t. According to eminent Old Testament scholar John Goldingay, in this sort of patriarchal society a primary purpose of upper crust women is to sit around and look good. Such women “had nothing to do but relax with a basket of grapes and dates and risk dying of boredom.”^[6] Multiple cultural forces pressed them toward vanity and idleness, encouraging them to waste their power and position on self-indulgent pursuits.

Interestingly, a similar situation ensued in the United States in Elizabeth Tonna’s day, during the heyday of the cult of true womanhood. Although middle- and upper-class women were understood to be the unique protectors of true morality, their lives possessed very little purpose. As abolitionist Sarah Grimké observed in 1838, instead of encouraging women to shine the light of Christ, men had: 

. . . adorned the creature whom God gave him as a companion, with baubles and gewgaws, turned her attention to personal attractions, offered incense to her vanity, and made her . . . a plaything to please his eye and amuse his hours of leisure.^[7]

Even in Christian nations, where the value of a woman as a follower of Christ ought to be upheld, Grimké concluded that women were:

. . . valued primarily for their good looks and charms.^[8]

No doubt the ancient Jerusalem women faced similar societal pressure to present a certain persona, to spend their days in idleness, to compete for the honor of being the next Miss Jerusalem. 

However, the Lord doesn’t excuse their vanity, granting them a pass because they had no other choice.^[9] Instead he holds the wealthy women of Zion accountable for the part they played in the horrors of a system that furnished them with all their “baubles and gewgaws.” 

It was the plunder of the poor (3:14) that filled their homes, that provided them with their great houses and fine mansions (5:9), their houses of merriment and city of revelry (32:14). Their disgustingly “ostentatious displays” of wealth were “purchased one way or another with the skin off the back of an oppressed peasantry.”^[10]

These fine and finery-clad women colluded with the oppressive system their fathers and husbands and sons promulgated.^[11] No, they didn’t establish it in the first place. But yes, they were guilty – guilty of glorying in the benefits reaped from a woefully unjust society. We know this because the Lord himself assumes their complicity, including them in his denunciation of the ruling class: “In their complacent security, these women were blind to the human need around them.”^[12]

Elizabeth Tonna saw much the same scenario playing out in her nineteenth-century world. Working women – including tots scarcely weaned – provided all that wretched finery for women with bulging purses. In contrast to Grimké, who placed the blame for women’s vanity squarely upon men, Tonna took the bold step of claiming that women had a choice. That is, middle-class women who laced themselves with the baubles and bangles and benefits of the downtrodden were complicit. 

As Benckhuysen notes, Tonna believed that:

Every time middle class women purchase materials for their daily attire . . . they implicate themselves in the immoral and inhumane treatment of their fellow sex. For this, Tonna reflects, will God not hold them accountable? Their very participation in the economic system makes them complicit in this evil.^[13]

Women who participated in the system that decimated the health and family lives of those who had no other option, according to Tonna, were not the paragons of virtue a Victorian society made them out to be. Women could not claim the moral high ground any more than men, pass the buck of blame to the opposite sex, or assume innocence, if they did so while enjoying the benefits of the exploitation of the vulnerable.

Sometimes this is how women err, sneaking in through the back door, passively accepting the status quo, covering up the sin of others, remaining silently complicit, suppressing the courage needed to step beyond. Other times we barge right in through the front door, attacking with words and deeds, rising up in pride and defensiveness, twisting the truth and blaming the victim, causing as much direct and personal and irreparable harm as the next guy.

Why do we do it?

For the same reasons as men: to hold onto the benefits we receive or the power of our position. To protect ourselves or someone we love. To assuage our pride, our false self, that fiction we so desperately want to believe is real.

So, guess what? 

Neither men nor women have a corner on sin.

---

Photo by Lance Reis on Unsplash

^[1] Sometimes called the “cult of domesticity.” On the belief in woman’s moral superiority during this time note Amanda W. Benckhuysen, The Gospel According to Eve: A History of Women’s Interpretation (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019), 173, who states that by the early nineteenth century “virtue and moral fortitude was, by this time, considered the strength of women.” See also Beth Allison Barr’s discussion of the “cult of domesticity” in The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2021), 165-66; and Rachel Green Miller, Beyond Authority and Submission: Women and Men in Marriage, Church, and Society (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2019), 68-71.

^[2] Miller, 69, writes that “women were still considered mentally and emotionally inferior to men, but now they were considered more moral.”

^[3] Elizabeth Tonna, The Wrongs of Women (1843-44), 3, in Benckhuysen, 196.

^[4] J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah (Augsburg: Fortress Press, 2015), 61.

^[5] John Goldingay, Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 276.

^[6] Ibid., 277.

^[7] Sarah Grimké, “Letters on the Equality of the Sexes,” 17, in Benckhuysen, 182.

^[8] “Letters,” 47, in Benckhuysen, 183.

^[9] Which, in some way, it appears that he does in Hosea 4:14.

^[10] Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 201.

^[11] John Goldingay, Isaiah for Everyone (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015), 21.

^[12] Roberts, 60.

^[13] Benckhuysen, 197.