Frost 1 Women: Quite Literally the Second Sex The sentiments expressed in the Bible have been used

to oppress women for centuries. But is it the words of the Bible, or its interpretation? While some contend that the Bible reduces women to second-class citizenship, others insist that feminist ideals can indeed be found within its pages. In this paper, I will outline some popular arguments for each side. I will begin with an analysis of the creation stories. I will then transition to a discussion of some prominent female figures within the Bible, followed by an explication of the noble wife. I will conclude with my personal opinion that while the Bible does indeed include positive portrayals of and sentiments toward women, taken as a whole it proves to be contradictory and upholds stereotypical gender roles, which have subjugated women for centuries. One of the Biblical stories most argued over is creation. There are in fact two creation stories in the Bible. The first describes the creation of humankind as simultaneous; God creates man and woman at the same time and in Gods image (Genesis, 1, 27). The second describes God creating man, known as Adam, first and woman, known as Eve, second, using one of Adams ribs as starting material (Genesis, 2). Traditionally, the second story is troublesome. The second creation account calls into question womans place in relation to man. God created her second, as an afterthought to man and for his happiness, instead of her own. When God saw that Adam was alone in the Garden of Eden, he tried to make him a helper in the form of bird or animal, but was unsuccessful in finding a suitable partner (Genesis, 2). In the second creation story, this is why God made Eve, to assist Adam and provide him companionship. The concept of woman existing not for herself, but to pleasure,

Frost 2 support, and obey man is a theme reinforced in later Biblical stories. In 1 Corinthians, the subservience of women is upheld by a passage that reads, the head of woman is man (1 Corinthians, 11, 3). The passage explains that this is because man was made in Gods image, while woman was made in mans image (1 Corinthians, 7). The Bible consistently refers back to itself, interpreting its own stories. In the case of creation, 1 Corinthians ignores the first creation story and uses the fact that woman was created after and from man in the second creation story to justify female subjugation. 1 Timothy echoes this sentiment. On top of being forbidden from speaking in church and teaching men, women are explicitly told to be subservient (1 Timothy, 2, 11-13). The justification for these mandates is again the second creation story; that women were created after men. Therefore, it is not simply the potential for negative conclusions to be drawn from the creation stories regarding women that are worrisome, but the conclusions that the Bible itself has already drawn. However, the first creation story is a striking example of how the Bible can be used to support gender equality. In the first creation story, God creates Adam and Eve in the same moment. The simultaneous creation of man and woman, together in Gods image, expresses Gods belief that men and women are created equal. In fact, this is further enforced by the second creation story where men and women lived as equals in the Garden of Eden. Although Eve was created after Adam, she was the only companion deemed suitable for him. All the birds and animals presented to Adam were not sufficient. Eve was the only one he recognized as kin because they were equals. They were made in the same image, the image of God, and because Eve was made from Adams rib, they were made of the same material as well. It was not until humans sinned that a hierarchy developed.

Frost 3 However, God did not create sin. He created the perfect Garden of Eden. We can assume that the society God created first, before sin, was the society He intended to create. Therefore, we can assume that God intended to make an egalitarian society. It was simply by human folly and depravity that we could not maintain that utopian, egalitarian society, but it remains as our ultimate ideal. The story of the first sin is often used to portray women as seductive, weak, depraved, and greedy. Because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge God cursed her with pain during childbirth and vowed that her husband would rule over her (Genesis, 3, 16). It is the latter part of Eves punishment that is repeatedly used as proof of womens destined subservience. Eve brought sin into this world both by eating of the fruit herself and by tempting Adam. Due to this initial sin, all of women are expected to suffer Eves punishment of painful childbirth and subjection to be ruled by men. It is obvious why feminists are wary of this story and argue that it does not merely fail to uphold gender equality, but actually opposes equity, placing women in a subservient role. But unlike many passages of the Bible, which explicitly denote rules or morals degrading to women, this is simply a story open for interpretation. God did not rule that all women would fall subject to their husbands rule; he simply said that Eve would fall subject to her husbands rule. Although Gods other punishments appear to have stuck with womankind: childbirth is painful, and it is traditional to interpret this passage with the assumption that God applied Eves punishment to all women, this is by no means indisputable fact, but merely one interpretation of the story. In fact, other interpretations of this story shed Eve in a positive light: a complex, inquisitive creature, seeking a higher truth and not to be sated by frivolity (Stanton 25). Compared with Adam, Eve is not

Frost 4 portrayed as negatively as one would be led to believe by popular interpretation. Eve was not given Gods warning to abstain from eating the fruit firsthand, so therefore her sin in eating it can be said to be less than Adams. And let us not forget that Adam partook of the fruit too; he was not an innocent bystander. But while Eves choice was an active one, Adam was quite passive, needing only his wife to hand him the apple without so much as another word. Adam turned from Gods direct orders without persuasion. Eve at least needed to hear the logic behind the serpents reasoning. Whether one interprets this passage to be a negative or positive view of female nature, Eve acted with a high degree of independence from her husband. In summary, whether or not the creation stories uphold the ideals of feminism depend upon interpretation. Traditionally, the second creation story has been used to subjugate women because subsequent biblical passages refer back to it as justification for womans subservience to man. Other interpretations exist, however, that do support gender equality. This is often the case with the Bible. Claims are not explicitly stated, but must be deduced through story. The following passages exemplify this. In the book of Esther chapter 1, Queen Vashti refuses her husband, King Xerxes orders to come to him at a party (Ester, 1, 12). The King and all his nobles saw this as such an abomination that it was agreed that it was in the kingdoms best interest to banish Vashti and replace her with a younger, more worthy queen, named Esther. Vashtis display of independence was treated as a crime. The Bibles stance on female independence in this story is clear: women are to be subservient. Vashtis punishment was not dealt solely out of revenge, but fear that after Vashtis insolent behavior toward her husband, other women would follow suit (Esther, 1, 16-20). This passage is therefore not simply a story of

Frost 5 a single husband-wife relationship, but is indicative of an entire social order prevalent at the time, one which the Bible makes no effort to counteract. This is a prime example of why many do not believe that the Bible can be used to support feminist ideals. The story of Ruth is complicated when analyzed in terms of independence. Ruth was a married woman, whom upon the death of her husband turned down the financial security of remarriage. Instead she opted to return with her beloved mother-in-law, Naomi, to the old widows hometown in order to look after her (Ruth, 1). Ruth basically took on the role of provider by gathering grain in Boazs field (Ruth, 2). For a while, Ruth and Naomi were living together; just two women alone, no men to provide for them. Up to this point, the story seems to support female independence. However, following Naomis advice, Ruth effectively asks her dead husbands relative, Boaz to marry her (Ruth, 3). The story ends with Naomis land being sold to Boaz, and Ruth remarrying this much older man so that she may bear a son (Ruth, 4). The latter half of the story effectively strips Ruth of any independence she gained. First, it is important not to ignore the independence of Ruth and Naomi at the beginning of the story simply because the conditions of their independence were removed later. Ruth still turned down an opportunity to remarry because her friendship with her mother-in-law, a fellow woman, was more important than the promise of the protection provided by marriage. Despite being dependent upon the charity of a man, Ruth still showed initiative by going into the fields and physical stamina by working there all day in order to provide for her and her mother-in-law. Finally, Naomi, a woman, owned property. And although by the end of the story this property once again belonged to a man, it was not

Frost 6 taken, but bought. All these qualities shed a very positive light on women, and we can easily interpret the story of Ruth in a manner conducive to upholding the ideals of feminism. However, we can also draw less flattering conclusions about women from the story of Ruth. Although Ruth acted as provider for her and her mother in law, this was only possible due to the charity and good nature of a man, Boaz. Not only was it Boazs fields which provided the grain on which Naomi and Ruth were living, but Boaz also had to tell his workers to drop barley so that Ruth could gather enough. Boaz even gave her an ample amount of roasted grain for her lunch, enough to bring back to Naomi. It is made quite obvious in the story that although Ruth has a semblance of independence, it is all made possible due to the charity of a man. And of course, the independence is fleeting. Ruth soon marries Boaz so that she may bear a son to carry on the family name, and Naomi is stripped of the title of landowner. This merely serves to enforce stereotypical gender roles: womens purpose is to procreate. What is also notable in this passage is the derogatory language. Boaz describes the act of him marrying Ruth as having acquired her and he is referred to as the family redeemer (Ruth, 4, 10 and 14). The term acquired does not portray the husband-wife relationship as one of equals, but instead portrays the wife as the mans property, something to be owned. And the term redeemer insinuates that some form of charity is being bestowed upon Ruth, which again makes marriage seem like a less than egalitarian institution. The final passage I will analyze is Proverbs chapter thirty one. This passage describes the virtues of a good wife and, as was the case in the story of Ruth, we find elements both in and out of alignment with feminism. One of the most notable features of this passage is the fact that women can inspect and buy property (Proverbs, 31, 17),

Frost 7 entrusting women with both independence and responsibility. A virtuous wife also acts as provider for her family by bringing home food (Proverbs, 31, 14). She can even make business deals (Proverbs, 31, 18). And a woman is queen of her castle by overlooking everything in the household (Proverbs, 31, 27), including delineating work for her servants (Proverbs, 31, 15). The aforementioned responsibilities demonstrate that women are allowed and even expected to act with a level of independence separate from their husbands and, more surprisingly perhaps, outside of the home. This passage, therefore, can be interpreted in a very positive light, keeping with feminist ideals, even serving to break away from stereotypical gender roles, which traditionally bind women at home. Unfortunately, this passage also contains elements which reinforce patriarchal society and its customs. For example, verses eleven and twelve explain that it is a wifes duty to please her husband. Of course, one expects that a wife would please her husband in a happy, loving relationship, but considering the Bibles other expressions of womens subservience and unquestioning obedience to men, the passage is cause for concern depending on the interpretation. Another potentially problematic verse is number fifteen, where women are given authority over servants. Although it is nice to see women getting some authority, they are only expressly given authority over servant girls. Therefore, this verse cannot serve to negate other biblical passages such as 1 Timothy, chapter two, verse twelve, which forbids women from holding any authority over men. Finally, verse twenty three describes a good husband as having political power and leadership in the community upholds stereotypical gender roles. Although the passage does not bar woman from such duties, it certainly makes no effort to include her in them. Again, this passage as a whole is a fairly positive view of women and her duties, but nonetheless it still has inklings of a

Frost 8 patriarchal society and traditional gender roles which relegate women to the home, under the ultimate authority of her husband. Although it is possible to interpret certain ambiguous portions of the Bible in a positive light, and although there are some blatantly positive passages in the Bible regarding women, I do not believe that this text can be used safely nor effectively to support the notion of gender equality. There are far too many contradictory passages to formulate a solid argument. In order to build a strong defense, there needs to be agreement. Because the Bible cannot support feminism without contradiction, it is irrational to hold up a few select passages or stories. The problem with using the Bible in order to defend feminism is the hypocrisy. For example, in the book of Galations, chapter three, verse twenty eight it is explicitly stated that there is no male and female for [we] are all one in Christ Jesus. This would seem to be irrefutable proof that the Bible supports equality of the sexes. But look no further than Corinthians to read that the head of every woman is man or to 1 Timothy to read that women are not to have authority over men (1 Corinthians, 11,3), (1 Timothy, 2, 12). Contradictions such as these exist everywhere in the Bible, starting with the two creation stories found within the first two pages of the text. Therefore, it is my opinion that the Bible cannot be used to uphold the ideals of feminism and gender equality because the text does not present a cohesive, unified portrayal of its attitude toward women and their role in society.