Gender Equality and the Bible

[Soldier of the One]

A lot of Christian conservatives base their complementarian and even patriarchal principles on the Bible. They claim that the Bible subjugates women and points towards the 'truly feminine' characteristics that are part of 'Biblical Womanhood'. This post hopes to contribute to debunking the claim. (Of course, this post shall not be exhaustive but feel free to ask questions of clarification and I'll see what I can do).

Note: I've spent a fair bit thinking about this and studying this but of course, I am fallible. Feel free to augment and correct if I am wrong.

Because I am Jewish, I will only focus on Tanakh (the Old Testament). If a Christian FJer wants to jump onto the bandwagon and elucidate stuff from a Christian-egalitarian perspective, that would be great! :)

Let's start with some common assumptions.

- The Bible is patriarchal.

Yes it is. The Bible is a lot of things and 'patriarchal' is one of them. However, the Bible endorses a number of social stratifications of which we would consider some to be abhorrent such as slavery. The Bible illustrates (and at times, supports) a worldview that supports a class system, feudalism, a monarchy, ecstatic prophecy, slavery, a priesthood, patriarchy, tribalism and ethnocentrism.

But the Bible also supports: revolutionary idealism, social equality, gender egalitarianism, universalism, a 'class-less' society based on democratic governance and anti-monarchism.

What I would argue, however, from the first creation of humankind (Gen. 1:27) is that the Bible embraces an ontologically egalitarian view of humankind. Although patriarchy is the norm and Tanakh recounts the narrow, historical experience of the Israelites, the Bible is also capable of 'moving beyond those constraints'. The Bible recognizes the fundamental equality of all human beings (be they male, female, Israelite or non-Israelite) as created in the image of God.

- Does the Bible say that women are 'lesser'?

Essentially, no. Sure, there are some mysogynist texts in the Bible, often used as Prophetic metaphors to describe idolatrous Israel as the wayward wife. But there is *nothing* (as far as I know) in the Biblical text that describes women as being less intelligent, less capable, less astute or less spiritual than men. Biblical patriarchy was more concerned with a social construct. True, women were chattel and property (up to a degree - but also had enfranchised rights, limited though they were) and patriarchy negotiates women as such. But this is more a reflection of a social reality (which also included slavery) than an ontological statement on the (lower) worth of women.

- So there are Biblical heroines?

Absolutely! To paint these with a feminist brush would be a dishonest and anachronistic reading of the Biblical text. Deborah the Prophetess was no more of a 'feminist' than that the Yovel Year (Jubilee) was a 'revolutionary socialist ideal'. Those are modernist concepts that we cannot project backwards onto Scripture. But it would be just as much a dishonest and anachronistic reading to say that the Bible is 'anti-feminist' or 'anti-revolutionary'. You have to view the Bible on its own terms. What one *can* say is that the Biblical narrative features accounts of strong, independent women who were capable of taking action and acting as autonomous agents, even in male roles. There were prophetesses, priestesses (granted, in an idolatrous context that Scripture frowns upon but still), queens, female warriors (Deborah), etc. Those functions were rare and the Bible is a male-dominated text. But I do believe that the authors of the Bible could conceive of women as powerful agents of their own destiny, which we *could* translate as feminist empowerment within a 20th/21st century context.

- How about Eve? Didn't she submit to Adam?

That depends how you read the text. In Genesis One, Adam and Eve were full equals, fully created in the Divine Image. In Genesis Two (the alternative account), Eve was created out of Adam's rib. It is the continuation of this story that also talks about the forbidden fruit and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Religious complementarians/patriocentrists would argue that it was Eve who was punished by being forced to submit to her husband Adam and would also argue that she was created 'in the image of Man' out of Adam's rib, rather than 'in the image of God'.

The Biblical redactors were no fools. They were well aware of 'inconsistencies' in the text so it is likely that they felt that what we see as 'inconsistencies' was part of a larger, seamless narrative. IMHO, Genesis One reflects an ideal while Genesis Two reflects a reality. The reality *IS* that men have to toil, women suffer pain in childbirth and that patriarchy (in the context of Biblical society) subjugated women. But it really does depend how you read the Hebrew. The Hebrew used speaks in the future tense. Hebrew only has three tenses and is very terse and simple. So the same future tense can be translated as both 'her husband shall rule over her' and as 'her husband will rule over her'. The first is prescriptive (and seen as a positive value) and the second is descriptive (and a description of a painful reality after the expulsion and not necessarily a virtue). So it just depends on how you want to read that.

- How about the helpmeet argument?

The KJV translates 'ezer k'negdo' as 'helpmeet' but the word is far more subtle (and egalitarian) than that. First of all 'k'neged' in Hebrew should be translated as 'opposite/beside him'. It's term that denotes symmetry, balance and equality; kind of like 'scales'. And 'ezer' is not helpmeet but a term that denotes something far more powerful. Ezer means help but also shield and is used frequently in the Bible to describe powerful people, protectors and even God!

Hence, I would translate 'ezer k'neged' as 'his strong help besides him'. Man and woman are equal partners, emphasized also by the rib analogy (God could also have created Eve out of Adam's feet or head, denoting superiority or inferiority) which suggests intimacy and partnership. What 'ezer k'neged' does *not* mean is something subservient or servile.

- How about the Proverbs 31 woman?

She's a firebrand entrepreneur, teacher, economist and scholar! Fundamentalists do take this image to town but conveniently only partially. Sure, she's a homemaker... but in the Biblical, agrarian economy, so were men! People lived in extended family clans on homesteads and everyone pitched in. The man was just as much 'weaving' and 'harvesting' and doing whatever it took to run the household. There is no post-industrial dichotomy of woman as stay at home homemaker and the man as the wage-earner who goes out to work. Actually, I'd wager to say that men and women fulfilled very similar economic roles in Biblical times that were *both* home-centered.

Conclusion:

The Biblical cannon is a fragmented and contradictory text - on purpose! The redactors could have smoothed out inconsistencies but that was not their interest. Rather, they wanted to provide a compelling narrative of the religio-historical experience of the Israelites and surrounding cultures as seen through their worldview. The Bible is contradictory because it must be; this keeps the text multi-layered, dynamic and of eternal value. So yes, one can always interpret verses out of context for one's own agenda. Everyone has an agenda - as do I. But I do believe that as problematic as some of the Biblical ethics are, the underlying principles are those of human equality and dignity as Israel wrestles with proclaiming the Oneness of God and the Oneness of Humankind in their world.

I just could go on and on, but I won't! :lol:

I hope some of you found this interesting and useful and look forward to reading your thoughts and comments.

[Edited for riffles]

[maybeizfundie]

I'm a Christian conservative and I agree with you in large part. :)

[Soldier of the One]

Yay! :D

I didn't mean to generalize, maybeizfundie, but I did want to include the 'patriarchal' perspective in my critique. Hope that that's OK with you :)

[maybeizfundie]

Eh, it's FJ. I'd better not be that easily offended. :p

[Soldier of the One]

:lol: True!

From your perspective, I'd be interested to learn what parts of my analysis you didn't agree with.

I am always open to dialogue and learning different and opposing perspectives.

I can never invite all of my friends to my birthday parties. Fights ensue (true story) :lol:

[Stickers]

Does the Bible say that women are 'lesser'?

Essentially, no. Sure, there are some mysogynist texts in the Bible, often used as Prophetic metaphors to describe idolatrous Israel as the wayward wife. But there is *nothing* (as far as I know) in the Biblical text that describes women as being less intelligent, less capable, less astute or less spiritual than men. Biblical patriarchy was more concerned with a social construct. True, women were chattel and property (up to a degree - but also had enfranchised rights, limited though they were) and patriarchy negotiates women as such. But this is more a reflection of a social reality (which also included slavery) than an ontological statement on the (lower) worth of women.

How does seeing women as property not make them lesser? Why would they need to explicitly state women are less ____ when it's already implied by their lack of control over their own lives?

[Jewess]

How does seeing women as property not make them lesser? Why would they need to explicitly state women are less ____ when it's already implied by their lack of control over their own lives?

You have to realize that the Bible was also a product of the time, and in all societies at the time that the bible was written, women were considered property.

[Eponine]

You have to realize that the Bible was also a product of the time, and in all societies at the time that the bible was written, women were considered property.

The Bible was not just written at one time; the versions we have today took many, many hundreds of years to put together. Also no, not all societies during that time viewed women as property. The societies in that area happened to have that view. But yes, the Bible is very much a product of its time and it would be strange to impose modern understandings of gender (or property for that matter) on a historical document from so long ago. This is the reason Bible literalists are so absurd to me: there is so little in common between our modern society and the society (societies) of the Bible that it's ridiculous to think the words can have the same meanings to us, about gender, gender roles, or anything else.

[Stickers]

You have to realize that the Bible was also a product of the time, and in all societies at the time that the bible was written, women were considered property.

Not all, but in the region the bible was written in yes, I know that. I don't see how that gives the bible a pass. In context it presents women as property who are not in control of their own lives, and have few rights, that is presenting them as less then men.

[2xx1xy1JD]

IMO, it's one of the those things about the Bible that only really make sense if you learn something about the surrounding historical context.

Recognizing an existing fact is different than stating that it is the ideal state. The same can be said about the passages on slavery - it was an existing part of the social order, and what different was the fact that the Bible recognized it as a bad thing in Exodus and imposed limits on it elsewhere. Sure, it would feel better to simply read, "Equality for all! Abolish slavery!", but it is what it is, and the anti-slavery message did eventually persuade people.

[Boogalou]

- The Bible is patriarchal.

Yes it is. The Bible is a lot of things and 'patriarchal' is one of them. However, the Bible endorses a number of social stratifications of which we would consider some to be abhorrent such as slavery. The Bible illustrates (and at times, supports) a worldview that supports a class system, feudalism, a monarchy, ecstatic prophecy, slavery, a priesthood, patriarchy, tribalism and ethnocentrism.But the Bible also supports: revolutionary idealism, social equality, gender egalitarianism, universalism, a 'class-less' society based on democratic governance and anti-monarchism.

And this is why I reject the Bible and Christianity in general. While I really resepect your analysis I think that if something requires so much explanation and selective reading for it to jive with my own personal views then it is just not worth it. Basically, you can read the Bible and make it say whatever you want, you may as well just use an encyclopaedia.

Sorry if this sounds mean, it is really not meant to be, it's just how I feel. You obviously feel differently and I respect that you read the Bible to mean good things not that you need a courting ruler.

[Soldier of the One]

A fair question. I think there is a difference between acknowledging that ancient patriarchal societies were, well, patriarchal and between claiming that they ascribed lesser value to women. In my (flawed, undoubtedly) analysis of how the Bible functions as a social document, I'd wager to say that women - just like bondsmen and slaves - were generally not considered ontologically less than men. By that I mean, in their very essence.

Their inferiority was a social contract and a social construct. That doesn't make it OK, but it does make it a far cry from modern-day fundamentalisms who try to argue that women are not only socially inferior (as in having an external social category ascribed to them that has nothing to do with their innermost being) but also morally, psychologically, emotionally inferior.

I am not giving the Bible a 'pass', mind you. It still remains a patriarchal and sexist document - but embedded in a cultural and historical period when other societies held very similar views. And, I'd also argue more philosophically that the Bible, despite assigning women a socially restricted role, could still conceive of women as exceptional leaders, prophets, etc.

The Bible is less gender essentialist that the current fundamentalist movement.

Does that make sense? ;)

[Soldier of the One]

You have to realize that the Bible was also a product of the time, and in all societies at the time that the bible was written, women were considered property.

Pretty much. Some societies were more enlightened than Biblical society and some were less enlightened. I have heard anecdotes that ancient Persia had more gender egalitarianism than Israelite society but that ancient Greece had far less. At least, Biblical women were seen as whole persons, created in the Image of the Divine. Persons under the control of patriarchy, sure... but that situation has not been really challenged in the Western world until the mid-20th century or so :roll:

The challenge for us religious folk who have a theological and emotional investment in the Bible is how to see the document as divinely-inspired and humanly-flawed at the same time. I am ready to struggle with that tension and ask those hard questions. That's also (one of the many reasons) why I am not a fundamentalist.

[Soldier of the One]

The Bible was not just written at one time; the versions we have today took many, many hundreds of years to put together. Also no, not all societies during that time viewed women as property. The societies in that area happened to have that view. But yes, the Bible is very much a product of its time and it would be strange to impose modern understandings of gender (or property for that matter) on a historical document from so long ago. This is the reason Bible literalists are so absurd to me: there is so little in common between our modern society and the society (societies) of the Bible that it's ridiculous to think the words can have the same meanings to us, about gender, gender roles, or anything else.

Eponine, you are quite right. I happily accept empirical theories of how the Bible was redacted if they make solid, scientific sense. Sure, the Bible was redacted over many centuries and I hope that I managed to communicate in my OP that the Bible is very much a 'torn' document 'at war' with itself. But that is also why it is so stunningly beautiful (to me). It's not a polished, 'perfect' piece of writing that glosses over human concerns and rubs out human iniquities. The Bible is a grand piece of literature and a lofty moral code - even if it codes for morality in a 'don't do as I do' sort of way! :lol:

As I wrote to another poster: sure, there were varying views on women in surrounding ancient cultures. Some were more 'advanced' and others were more 'backwards'. One of the most mysogynist cultures of antiquity is ancient Greece - which is often celebrated as the cradle of Western civilization! Greek opinions of women makes the Bible look like a manifesto written by Simone de Bouvoir! ;)

I also think Biblical literalism is fruitless. That's why I am suspicious of 'sola scriptura' theologies. Every solid religious tradition views its foundational texts through a prism of interpretation. The Catholic Church does that through Canon Law, we Jews do that with our Talmud, and Islam does that with the Qur'an through the Hadith and Sunna. It is this interpretative tradition that often 'humanizes' our texts, if that makes sense.

Hope this helps :)

[Soldier of the One]

Not all, but in the region the bible was written in yes, I know that. I don't see how that gives the bible a pass. In context it presents women as property who are not in control of their own lives, and have few rights, that is presenting them as less then men.

There is no need to give the Bible a 'pass'. The Bible is an amazing document (with horrific aspects, sure) that has survived for thousands of years. For many of us, it is a relevant and compelling document. The Bible can take its criticism and I think that's totally called for.

Again, I think (in my theory, at least) you *can* argue from context that socially-constructed value (as in 'women are property') can be something different from existential or ontological value (as in 'women have no or inferior souls'). We might disagree over this but we also might take a very different a priori position to what the Bible means to us. If you are an atheist (I am making assumptions, forgive me if they are wrong), then the Bible may mean very little to you. To me, as a religious Jew, it means a lot - warts and all. And so I have a vested interest in re-reading and re-interpreting the Bible in an attempt to harmonize my modern sensibilities with the divine eternality of the text.

I do believe the Bible was divinely-inspired but it was humanly-transmitted and God knows how many mistakes and assumptions and prejudices humans incorporated into the text. The Bible has incredibly beautiful pieces and also some very disturbing pieces.

Is the 'you should read it in context' argument a cop-out? Maybe. But we apply it to so many things in our lives and in cultural history. So why not to the Bible?

Hope this helps :)

[Stickers]

A fair question. I think there is a difference between acknowledging that ancient patriarchal societies were, well, patriarchal and between claiming that they ascribed lesser value to women. In my (flawed, undoubtedly) analysis of how the Bible functions as a social document, I'd wager to say that women - just like bondsmen and slaves - were generally not considered ontologically less than men. By that I mean, in their very essence.

Their inferiority was a social contract and a social construct. That doesn't make it OK, but it does make it a far cry from modern-day fundamentalisms who try to argue that women are not only socially inferior (as in having an external social category ascribed to them that has nothing to do with their innermost being) but also morally, psychologically, emotionally inferior.

I am not giving the Bible a 'pass', mind you. It still remains a patriarchal and sexist document - but embedded in a cultural and historical period when other societies held very similar views. And, I'd also argue more philosophically that the Bible, despite assigning women a socially restricted role, could still conceive of women as exceptional leaders, prophets, etc.

The Bible is less gender essentialist that the current fundamentalist movement.

Does that make sense? ;)

In relation to today's fundamentalist and how they view women, yes it dose make sense when you put it that way. I can see the argument for how women's souls (and others who were treated as property) weren't presented as being worth less then men's.

[Soldier of the One]

Hi Boogalou,

No worries - doesn't sound mean at all. You are free to reject the Bible and Christianity as you wish and I have no particular judgment, opinions or hang-ups about that. (I really don't care whether someone believes in God or not. It's not my theology to judge someone for that!)

I do acknowledge the mental gymnastics we sometimes have to perform in order to read certain aspects of the Bible. It's the tension that modern/progressive religious people like myself have to navigate but we do it willingly and lovingly. To you, the Bible has no meaning and I get that. But to me it does and I am willing to 'jive' it if you will.

Every modern person of faith has to come to terms with that, I think. Firstly, I think most of the Bible doesn't need to be 'jived'. There is a lot in the Bible that I can just accept as stunningly beautiful and morally uplifting. But there are also passages and ideas that are problematic. We take the good with the bad, I guess, because to us, the Bible symbolizes more than its constituent parts. It's a religious roadmap, it's history, culture, community, faith, wrestling with the Divine, intellectual challenge, moral guidance... even when we are in conflict with it. To me, the Bible and its place in Judaism is so central to my life. It is how I pattern my life and how I meet the Creator of the Universe. It's my covenant.

Of course, to an atheist, this means very little. But we love the text and we build an interpretative relationship with it. I guess it's like being in love.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Boogalou]

Hi Boogalou,

No worries - doesn't sound mean at all. You are free to reject the Bible and Christianity as you wish and I have no particular judgment, opinions or hang-ups about that. (I really don't care whether someone believes in God or not. It's not my theology to judge someone for that!)

I do acknowledge the mental gymnastics we sometimes have to perform in order to read certain aspects of the Bible. It's the tension that modern/progressive religious people like myself have to navigate but we do it willingly and lovingly. To you, the Bible has no meaning and I get that. But to me it does and I am willing to 'jive' it if you will.

Every modern person of faith has to come to terms with that, I think. Firstly, I think most of the Bible doesn't need to be 'jived'. There is a lot in the Bible that I can just accept as stunningly beautiful and morally uplifting. But there are also passages and ideas that are problematic. We take the good with the bad, I guess, because to us, the Bible symbolizes more than its constituent parts. It's a religious roadmap, it's history, culture, community, faith, wrestling with the Divine, intellectual challenge, moral guidance... even when we are in conflict with it. To me, the Bible and its place in Judaism is so central to my life. It is how I pattern my life and how I meet the Creator of the Universe. It's my covenant.

Of course, to an atheist, this means very little. But we love the text and we build an interpretative relationship with it. I guess it's like being in love.

Thanks for your thoughts!

I like that. I also really appreciate your comments, especially the part about being in love. That just makes a lot of sense actually, it put a smile on my face.

We are just different people, I guess. I kind of think that people just have different brains and there are some people who are really going to "click" with religion (for lack of a better term) and some people who are not. I would be the second and there are times when I wish I weren't, but also times where I'm glad I am. Sorry to derail your thread though. I still think your thoughts are interesting. I will ask though, what do you think about Hagar? (I did sort of a project on her in highschool and I have always had a soft spot for her)

[Soldier of the One]

I like that. I also really appreciate your comments, especially the part about being in love. That just makes a lot of sense actually, it put a smile on my face.

We are just different people, I guess. I kind of think that people just have different brains and there are some people who are really going to "click" with religion (for lack of a better term) and some people who are not. I would be the second and there are times when I wish I weren't, but also times where I'm glad I am. Sorry to derail your thread though. I still think your thoughts are interesting. I will ask though, what do you think about Hagar? (I did sort of a project on her in highschool and I have always had a soft spot for her)

You're very welcome and thank you for your kind words :)

Yes, and this. I also totally believe that some people are 'wired' to be religious and others are not. One of the most futile undertakings, IMHO, is atheists and theists arguing over the existence of God! You can't prove it either way and it's probably better like that.

It's a trade-off, really. Believing in God brings both solace and strictures. There's something very liberating and comforting and encouraging and edifying about faith. But it is also constraining and sometimes suffocating.

Likewise, being an atheist brings both loneliness and freedom. There's something equally liberating and uplifting and challenging about being an atheist. But I can imagine it can also be hard.

So, like I said: a trade-off. I know that for my 'relationship with God', I make sacrifices. And atheism also requires sacrifices. And that's OK. If both positions can understand each other better and have a little more tolerance... well, the world would be a happier place :)

As for Hagar. Her name means 'The Stranger' in Hebrew, so it's a very clever and deliberate pun in the Biblical text. I have a lot of sympathy for Hagar and for the archetype she represents. Sarah treats her very badly and Avraham is a 'douchebag' for allowing his wife to do that. Hagar represents the ultimate outcast who we should have great compassion for. She is the mirror that we need to face.

[Jewess]

After Sarah died, Hagar and Abraham remarried. Hagar's name was changed to Keturah and she ended up having 10 more sons with Abraham. So he obviously didn't have a problem with her.

[Soldier of the One]

After Sarah died, Hagar and Abraham remarried. Hagar's name was changed to Keturah and she ended up having 10 more sons with Abraham. So he obviously didn't have a problem with her.

That may be true but it's a Midrash (rabbinic interpretation) and not obvious from the P'shat (direct meaning) of the Biblical text. Just wanted to put that out there for people not familiar with what Midrash is and how it functions as an interpretative device for the Biblical text :)

[Jewess]

That may be true but it's a Midrash (rabbinic interpretation) and not obvious from the P'shat (direct meaning) of the Biblical text. Just wanted to put that out there for people not familiar with what Midrash is and how it functions as an interpretative device for the Biblical text :)

You're right. Bible said he married keturah and had 10 kids with her. Rashi- the universal torah commentator says keturah=hagar.

[Eponine]

You're right. Bible said he married keturah and had 10 kids with her. Rashi- the universal torah commentator says keturah=hagar.

I was always curious as to how this interpretation came about. How did he figure out or decide that Keturah and Hagar were the same person? I don't really know anything about it so I'm not asking to be snarky, just wondering.

[Prek teach]

This is a very interesting topic. I was doing a little bit of reading on feminism and the Catholic church and I ran into a short article by Christopher Kaczor called "Does the Catholic Church Hate Women?" There's some interesting points about the social views back in the beginning of Christianity and how those views are actually damaging to women and the need for the views to be changed. The article is a quick read.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... ap0384.htm

[maybeizfundie]

From your perspective, I'd be interested to learn what parts of my analysis you didn't agree with.

I had skimmed your post on the first reading. On the second reading, I'm not sure it's even disagreement as much as different perspective.

Being Christian, I start with the NT, and look at the OT through that lense. I do believe it is God's Word. But I also am fairly sure that every word in it is not a command, nor a commendation. A lot of it is descriptive of the history of the Israelites. And I believe many o the commands were purposeful (did I just use that word!) for a particular time and place and culture and reason. Worth consideration and discussion but not binding for Christians. Looking at the NT, some of it again is describing what happened. Some of it is command, some of it uses various literary devices the full and clear interpretation of which is up for graps (Revelation, for instance), but in terms of salvation and relationship with God, Jesus demonstrated, and Paul stated flat out, that there is no gender or ethnic or class distinction that gives a particular group a step up with the Savior. In the temporal world, differences exist and whether that is good is circumstantial. But as far as faith and salvation go, it is definitely egalitarian. And regardless of the terms used, *if* families are living in the way prescribed in the NT and individuals are living as Jesus taught and the epistles flesh out, they can call it whatever they want but their relationship will function in a way that is essentially egalitarian.