“…When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; male and female He created them.”[1]

Some liberal feminists believe that women were simply property in Ancient Israel, with men in complete control of female sexuality and fertility.  They argue that since the place of women in modern Judaism and Christianity is largely determined by the traditions’ heavy emphasis on the Hebrew Bible narratives, which are “patriarchal and androcentric,”[2] then those traditions cannot possibly offer women the opportunity for personal fulfillment.

It is true that the Bible “generated a cultural legacy…”[3] Cohen said:  “Western attitudes toward marriage, sexuality, technology, and even the mysteries of communion with the divine have regularly drawn on [portions of the Hebrew Bible] and its interpretation.”[4]  Even after thousands of years, Jews and Christians continue to turn to the Bible for inspiration about how to live in the modern world.  Blenkinsopp noted: “Judaism and Christianity are traditionalist in the Weberian sense that their institutions, mores, and leadership are legitimized by appeal to the past.”[5]  The Bible has “succeeded in capturing the hearts, minds and loyalties of so many diverse peoples, totally removed racially geographically, and culturally, from its Israelite source.”[6]  For both Jews and Christians alike, it is “more than a work of literature—it is a system of lore…”[7] with relevance unabated by the passage of time.  It is certain that both Judaism and Christianity use the Bible to define the roles and status of women and some definitions have not empowered the female gender.[8]  However, before we repudiate the Hebrew Bible for supposed prejudice, we should ask ourselves whether the Bible really takes such a dim view of women or the interpretations of the critics have been tainted by an incomplete examination of both the text and the culture that generated it.

We shall begin our discussion by examining the first three chapters of Genesis which “has for centuries been a pivotal text for defining the nature of maleness and femaleness.”[9]  Jews and Christians have long considered “Adam and Eve, the archetypal man and woman, in whom each of us is represented.”[10]  The portrayal of Eve especially in these chapters “has played an important part in theological discussion and debate over gender roles in society throughout the postbiblical period.”[11]  Meyers noted:  “Portrayed as the first woman, Eve in fact symbolizes all women.”[12]  One important Genesis text states:

“The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.”[13]

The expression helper (Hebrew: >eµzer keánegdoÆ ) “has often been seen to indicate the subordination of Eve to Adam and hence generally of women to men in societal and family life.”[14]  Some even go further than subordination and proclaim that women are of a “secondary nature.”[15]  Niditch said:  “The Rabbis in a misogynistic tongue-in-cheek suggest that if a wife is good she is an ezer, ‘a help,’ if not, she is negdo, ‘against him’!”[16] 

Meyers noted:  “Liberal feminists and conservative traditionalists share a perception that the Bible portrays women as secondary or inferior to men in fundamental ways.”[17]  If “God’s very word”[18] actually tells us that women are inferior and undeserving of protection or basic human rights, then the ill treatment to which they have been subjected is justified.  Such interpretations and conclusions give liberal feminists ammunition to support their anti-Bible stance.

            However, “for centuries we have looked at Eve through the distorted lenses of patriarchal, Judeo-Christian tradition.”[19]   The supposed secondary nature of women is “not actually part of the Hebrew narrative of Genesis…”[20]    The Anchor Bible Dictionary notes:

“… the word >eµzer, '‘helper,’ does not imply subordination. It can be used to refer to a superior person or even to God, e.g., Ps 146:5. The phrase >eµzer keánegdoÆ is best understood as meaning ‘a companion corresponding to him.’”[21]

The phrase “corresponding to him” strongly implies equality.  This view of the equality of men and women is also found in an earlier narrative in Genesis where man and woman are both equally created in the image of God:

“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”[22]

Yet, some people have rejected this implication of equality because the next chapter describes woman as created from a sub-component of man:

“So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and  closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.’”[23]

The Anchor Bible Dictionary notes:  “The fact that Eve is created second from one of the man’s ribs and that she is tempted and submits first have also been used to argue for either the superiority of men over women or of women over men.”[24]  On the other hand, other people have not interpreted the text to mean inequality.  Instead, they view the text as an intimate portrayal of equality:

“Woman was made from the rib of man.  / She was not made from his head, to top him.  / Nor from his feet to be stepped upon.  / She was made— / From his side, to be equal with him; / From beneath his arm, to be protected by him; / Near his heart, to be loved by him!”[25]

While some view the word rib as an expression of “the ultimate in proximity, intimacy, and identity,”[26] others such as Niditch viewed Rabbinic commentary on the rib verses as misogynistic, as explained earlier.  However, Rabbi Doron in commenting on Rashi says:

“The sages meant by this homiletical interpretation to express the idea of woman’s equality to man.  For woman to be man’s helper, the man must deserve this privilege, because she is not an inferior being, merely to be used by man.  She, being equal to man, is capable of rising up against him—should he not deserve her help!”[27]

Certainly, the Talmudic Rabbis understood that Adam without Eve “is not a complete man...”[28]  In addition, the idea of male and female equality in the rib story is further advanced by certain Midrash:

“When the Holy One, blessed He, created Adam, He created him and hermaphrodite [bi-sexual], for it is said, Male and female created He them and called their name Adam (Gen. v, 2)…When the Lord created Adam He created him double-faced, then He split him and made him of two backs, one back on this side and one back on the other side.  To this it is objected: But it is written, And He took one of his ribs, etc. (Gen. II, 21) [Mi-zalothaw means] one of his sides, replied he, as you read, And for the second side (zela) of the tabernacle, etc. (Ex. XXVI, 20)”[29]

This passage suggests that the male and female were created together as a joint being named Adam.  Then, in order to allow Adam—the male and female—to procreate, the Lord caused them to sleep during which time he split them into separate beings.  There is no hint of superiority of one side over the other.  While some have viewed the creation story of Adam and Eve as a form of patriarchal repression of women, others have viewed it is an expression of perfect partnership and equality.

Leaving the Genesis creation story and reviewing other Biblical texts, we find other verses that have also been used to portray women as inferior to men.  One example is the law regarding the rape of unmarried women in Deuteronomy:

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”[30]

At first, it may appear that rape was regarded as an inconsequential crime for which only a small fine was levied.[31]  However, in the story of Dinah,[32] we have an interesting interpretation of how this law might have been implemented.  While the offender and his family suggest that he marry the violated Dinah consistent with the law, her brothers kill the offender and all the males of his city.  Certainly, their revenge is well “beyond any normal legal limits.”[33]  It also suggests that crimes against women were not simply dismissed as inconsequential, at least to the woman’s family. 

Another example is the law regarding the seduction of unmarried women which has been interpreted by some as prima facie evidence that women were considered property:

“And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.  If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”[34]

Falk noted:  “The payment of bride-price has been compared with the Babylonian tirhatum and the Arab mahr, and the practice has been described as marriage-by-purchase.”[35]  However, several important points need to be made.  First, while some people have said the object of this law “was to compensate the father…,”[36] thus implying that he was being compensated for damaged property, the purpose was also to hold the offending male responsible for his actions.  He is required to pay regardless of whether he receives the woman as his wife.  If he does not have the required money, then he was undoubtedly compelled into service.[37]  Thus, one of the main emphases of the law is really towards discouraging men from making illicit advances, thus protecting the integrity of the community. 

Also, while the payment is made to the woman’s father, it must be remembered that she had a claim on a share of his property as her inheritance.  If a father did not properly give his daughter her proper share of the family estate, then he was violating the community custom.  For example, Laban’s daughters complain bitterly about being deprived of their inheritance:

“Are we not counted of him strangers? for he hath sold us, and hath quite devoured also our money.”[38]

It is their money he has wasted, not his own.  Therefore, it is possible that a portion of the offender’s payment went to the woman in question and was really compensation to her as well as to her family.  It has been suggested that the mohar, or bride-price, was sometimes included in the woman’s expected inheritance from her father.[39]  She brought this inheritance into her marriage and it remained with her if the marriage was dissolved.[40]  For example, Rabbi Yose the Galilean was unable to divorce his bad wife due to the size of her dowry.[41]  When the man paid the dowry of virgins according to the law, he was in effect compensating the woman.  He paid the money to her father, but she received it back as part of her inheritance.  Steinberg noted:

“The passage of material goods from the family of the groom to the family of the bride should not lead one to think of women as ‘property’ exchanged between men.  When these gifts are analyzed from a cross-cultural perspective, one can see that they serve as a means of maintaining status differentiation—that is, they link a man and a woman from comparable economic backgrounds.  Moreover, honor accrues to the bride’s family when they find a groom for her who will keep her in the style to which she has become accustomed.”[42]

Yet it cannot be denied that women had inferior standing to men in the law and the cult.  The law focuses almost exclusively on men with power and women are simply portrayed in relation to men.  In the cult, women’s service “seems to have been confined largely to maintenance and support roles…”[43]  However, this patriarchal focus does not mean that Israelite women had second-class status.  It is important to realize that “women are an essential part of any social system.”[44] The ancient Israelite social system “cannot be defined by legal concepts only, since religious, moral, and other social norms played an important role.”[45]  While a woman may have had inferior status in law[46], the other aspects of society protected her.  In fact, it is likely that women had significant influence on the society of ancient Israel through their roles in the family, especially reproduction and the raising of children.

            The idea that the Hebrew Bible teaches that women are inferior to men or secondary in God’s eyes is a misinterpretation of both the text and its surrounding culture.  If later Jewish and Christian communities downgraded the place of women, it was a recasting of  the role of women “by the beliefs and the needs of the nascent Jewish and Christian communities in the Roman world.”[47]  It is not an inherent part of the text when understood in its cultural context.  We must remember that the Bible is an incomplete portrayal of Israelite life and “details are omitted that we must fill in with the imagination—or perhaps leave unfilled.”[48]  Christians and Jews have taken a variety of approaches to filling in these details, often to the detriment of Eve and our understanding of the role of women in ancient Israel.