Misusing Scripture
A friend recently shared an article titled “How the Wives of the Bible Met their Husbands” by Sila Lott. The article is full of harmful advice, stemming from a fundamental misunderstanding of the biblical stories and the cultures from which they originated. Additionally, it relied on proof-texting to assign meanings to the stories that simply do not exist. It is far too common for Christians in America to view the Bible through a modern, Western lens, projecting our own lives and opinions onto the biblical narratives and seeking answers to every question in scripture. This approach is a mistake and has led to devastating consequences throughout history.
Given that the article contains harmful advice, which is unfortunately prevalent in some Christian circles, I want to take the time to investigate some of the claims made by the writer and address both the inaccuracies and the harmful messages she shares.
Dating Apps and Going Out to Meet People
Ms. Lott begins her article with a heavy dose of internalized misogyny, depicting the world as a place where most women are morally loose, attention-seeking harlots, advertising themselves at bars, clubs, or on dating apps, trying to pick up men through what she believes are dishonorable means. She then explains her theory that men are supposed to find women, not the other way around, reinforcing her belief that this alone is the biblical way. She uses Ruth and Esther as examples of women who, in her words, “weren’t distracted, and weren’t advertising themselves (except when told to, i.e., Esther). They were not attention seeking…” So, in her mind, it is acceptable to advertise yourself and seek attention if men command you to do so.
There are several problems with this message. First, Ruth and Naomi, who were living in poverty as widows, were co-conspirators in persuading Boaz to fulfill the role of kinsman-redeemer, so that they could reclaim their property and fortune. Boaz was undoubtedly not the pursuer in this story. Second, the idea that only men should pursue is not presented anywhere in scripture as a command or guideline on “God’s way of living.” Instead, the Bible depicts men as the pursuers because women were considered property, and marriage was a transaction that took place between men. Telling women that going out or using dating apps to meet people is “unbiblical” is both inaccurate and a distortion of scripture that attempts to romanticize eras when women were denied the dignity they deserve as image-bearers of God. This narrative correlates cultural practices with God’s design and sends a harmful message to extroverted women and introverted men that their God-given personalities are somehow flawed.
In reality, the Bible reflects cultural contexts, not divine prescriptions for personality traits or dating etiquette. God’s design isn’t limited to one-size-fits-all relationships, and His love certainly isn’t constrained by outdated social norms.
Dating apps — like any avenue of meeting people — can lead to beautiful, healthy marriages. I know several couples who met online and now share strong, loving relationships built on mutual respect and trust. That said, it is important to acknowledge the risks. Online platforms can be fertile ground for narcissists and predators, offering an easy way for people to craft false personas and manipulate others. But this isn’t a problem unique to dating apps. Deception can happen anywhere — in churches, workplaces, social gatherings, or even seemingly safe community spaces. Predators don’t need technology to prey on vulnerability.
The reality is that dating requires a tremendous amount of wisdom, patience, and discernment. We must learn how to recognize red flags, resist the urge to rush into fast-moving relationships, and give ourselves time to get to know each other. However, these strategies are not a guarantee. Many people who exercise extreme caution in dating still wind up in harmful relationships, and that should never be considered a reflection of their worth or wisdom. If you’re in an abusive marriage, hear this clearly: leave. God does not call you to endure harm for the sake of appearances or tradition. He loves you — your heart, your healing, your wholeness — far more than He loves any earthly institution. Abuse has never been a part of God’s design.
Bad Interpretations of Marriage Stories
The examples Ms. Lott draws from are Ruth and Boaz, Esther and King Ahasuerus, Mary and Joseph, Rebekah and Isaac, Rachel and Jacob, Abigail and David, and Zipporah and Moses. Let’s look at these examples one at a time.
Ruth and Boaz
Ms. Lott seems to believe that Ruth was working for Boaz as a servant and in service to her mother-in-law. She emphasizes oppressive language that Christianity has often used to keep women in “their place” by describing Ruth as selfless, obedient, and a servant. She claims incorrectly that Boaz was attracted to these qualities.
First, Ruth was in no way serving Boaz. Boaz was fulfilling his obligations under Jewish law by instructing his workers to leave some crops behind for those in need. Boaz likely knew that Ruth and Naomi were relatives of his, so he did the right thing by providing extra care for them and allowing Ruth to stay in his fields instead of moving on to other fields. Boaz was a good man. Ruth was a good woman. There is nothing negative in this story.
While Ruth was indeed selflessly caring for her mother-in-law, whom she had come to see as a mother, she also had much to gain through the work she was doing. Ruth and Naomi were poor and hungry, and gathering food from fields like those owned by Boaz was a legal way for them to obtain what they needed to survive. Additionally, once they began to conspire to persuade Boaz to act as their kinsman-redeemer, Ruth had even more to gain. Ruth was not self-centered, but neither was she the doormat that many Christians believe women are called to be.
Finally, there is zero mention of Boaz’s attraction to Ruth. That is not the way marriage worked in biblical times. Their marriage was transactional in nature, benefiting Ruth, Boaz, Naomi, and future generations. I suspect that they did come to love one another, but to use this story to make the point that servitude is an attractive quality in women is a mistake that diminishes the inherent value of women, who have much more to offer the world than service.
Esther and King Ahasuerus
As with the other stories, Ms. Lott places a great emphasis on obedience to a father or father figure as the path to being blessed with a husband. This belief is common among fundamentalist complementarian Christians, who believe that women should transition from obeying a father to obeying a husband, never having any agency of their own. In her article, she claims that Esther was obeying Mordecai, but that is not entirely accurate. Mordecai gave Esther advice, and she chose to follow it. Mordecai was not in a position to place demands on Esther or command her to behave in a certain way.
There are other inaccuracies in the way Lott describes Esther’s story. For instance, she claims that King Ahasuerus provided Esther with beauty treatments and special food, when it was actually Hegai, the king’s eunuch, who treated Esther with such kindness. But one of the most disturbing parts of this article (and there are many) is that the author presents Esther’s story as a Godly path to finding a husband (or rather, having a husband find you). The truth is, Esther was a victim of human trafficking who made the best of a terrible situation. She had no choice when she was forced into the king’s harem after a mass enslavement of young women, which the king ordered because he was angry that the previous queen dared to defy him by refusing to be paraded around as an object. Then, God used the abhorrent decisions of men and Esther’s brave actions to save her people from genocide.
The story of Esther is not about how to find a husband. King Ahasuerus was Esther’s oppressor, not her husband and partner in life. Esther is the heroine of her own story because she refused to sit by in submission and allow herself and her people to be abused and murdered. She took the power back, fought a battle where the odds were stacked against her, and won!
Mary and Joseph
I have struggled to fully capture the gravity of Lott’s misuse of Mary’s story as an example of how to be blessed with a husband. Simplistic, sickening, offensive, demeaning, invalidating — none of these words, nor all of them combined, seem sufficient. Like Esther, Mary was the heroine of her own story and the story of her people. God chose Mary to carry His incarnated Son in her body for nine months and to raise Him to adulthood. The Bible does not specify why God chose Mary, stating simply that she found favor with God. What is clear, however, is that God chose Mary because of something He saw in her character, her life, or her devotion to Him. Mary’s favor had absolutely nothing to do with Joseph.
Lott erroneously states that “it is her willing obedience to God and fulfillment of her purpose — to have Jesus, that keeps her blessed by God in marriage.” Mary’s willingness to become the human mother to the incarnated Son of God had nothing to do with her being “blessed” with a marriage. Mary was already betrothed before the angel visited her, and had this event never happened, she would have almost certainly married Joseph as planned and led an uncomplicated life as a respected Jewish woman.
Perhaps the most harmful message in this article is when Lott writes, “The Lord intervened to have His purpose fulfilled, and He always does in a God-filled marriage, if we humbly submit to His will and plan. No matter how the situation may look, we must trust God as Mary did, and that obedience showed her Godly favor and eventual protected marriage to Joseph.” First, I want to mention that Sila Lott divorced an abusive husband 10 years ago, which was the right choice. However, because of her choice, the message delivered in the preceding words is hypocritical. It is also a message that virtually every abused wife is given by their church. We are told that we need to trust God and that if we just pray hard enough for our abusive husbands, they will change, and we will eventually have a blissful marriage. Unfortunately, this is not how God works because people have free will. No one is responsible for changing another human being. If someone is abusive, they must choose to do the work to fix what is behind those behaviors. At the first signs of abuse, the victim should be counseled to leave the relationship. Yes, people can change, but statistically, abusers seldom do. The cycle of abuse keeps people hanging on because love bombing almost always follows the worst incidents, keeping victims clinging to false hope that their partner is changing.
If you want a takeaway from the story of Mary, let it be that God empowered a woman to be a hero in Israel.
Faith Without Shame
When we strip away harmful cultural traditions and distorted views of the Bible, we find a loving God who values justice, lifts the oppressed, and has created each person with inherent value that is not dependent upon their biological sex, race, gender, or other social constructs. Jesus showed us that God is not about control, shame, or spiritual manipulation. The Bible is not a dating manual, and no one should make decisions about their life based on bad interpretations of scripture intended to oppress. Let’s reject these outdated ideas and instead embrace a future where everyone is loved for who they are. May we choose compassion over tradition, healing over harm, and relationships rooted in mutual respect, curiosity, and compassion. There is a better way forward, and it begins with embracing the sacred mosaic of human experience — one that reflects the image of a God who delights in our diversity, complexity, courage, and love.