In recent issues of Christis, there has erupted a rigorous debate surrounding the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Such a debate could easily spiral into abstraction, generalisation and ideological posturing if it is not rooted in the application of our theories about the Bible. I am no theologian, but I wish to contribute to the debate with two amateur studies on the representation and role of women in the Bible, and to make an appeal for both integrity and intelligence in a truly Christian attitude to Scripture. Particularly in the case of women in Scripture, it is essential to strike a balance between these two approaches. It is tempting, in the intellectual environment we have been trained in, to treat the Word of God with the same culturally blinkered, cynical criticism that we would apply to any work of literature. An axe-grinding feminist might distort the message of the Bible to support her post-modern conception of femininity, or reject Scripture and God altogether, since it seems opposed to her very sense of justice. Equally, if we approach the Bible superficially, and underestimate the role of historical context we run the risk of deriving a similarly distorted understanding of the spirit of the text. A strict literalist might read the words of a personal letter in the same way as they would read a textbook, and use them to justify the very spiritual ‘straitjacketing’ of women that Christ sought to eliminate. That same literalist would presumably not take to lopping their limbs off if they caused them to sin. We are not able to fully establish what the Bible does mean, until we can explain what it did mean. And so I believe that, if as Christians we accept that the Bible is inspired by God but was written by and for human beings, we must faithfully employ both humility and hard work in our interpretations thereof.

In 1990 Daphne Hampson presented the controversial thesis that “feminism represents the death-knell of Christianity as a viable option” in her Theology and Feminism. The repudiation of a world religion as influential and widespread as Christianity is an extravagant claim for any movement to make, and the natural Christian response is one of affront. However, the feminist ideology, associated as it is with extremely valuable and humane principles of equality, justice and freedom, is a system of thought which must be taken extremely seriously by Christians. Its challenge is a weighty one, and the propositions set forth by Hampson are to be confronted intelligently and gracefully if they are to be tackled at all. She has rightly questioned the spiritual depth of those who respond to her challenge with defensive agitation and collective outrage, and those who are mature in their faith must be careful not to react aggressively because they feel threatened or insecure.

My purpose is not to refute Hampson’s arguments systematically — that would demand more reading than my whirlwind social life permits and more sophistication than my intellect or experience permits. However, she represents a growing body of intellectuals who have rejected Christianity because of the apparently chauvinistic message of the Bible. My heartfelt desire is to put forward an alternative to both extremes in the debate — to those who accept the male precedence so appalling to feminists; and to those who throw out the baby of Christian truth with the bathwater of distorted interpretations. I would hold that although the Bible establishes distinctive roles for and characteristics of men and women, it also affirms the equal worth of women and offers protection and opportunities for women in an inhospitable ancient society. Men are certainly in no way spiritually superior to women in the Bible: before God, there is “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). I hope to demonstrate this by tackling really quite difficult passages in Scripture, and to start as I mean to go on, the first of these studies will deal with Genesis, and more precisely, women and Creation.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27 NIV

It is a problem for literalists that there are two creation accounts in Genesis, in chapters 1 and 2. This short verse occurs in the first account, and indicates a manifestly egalitarian dynamic in the creation of men and women they are, unambiguously, both created in the image of God. ‘Man’ is patently used to refer to humankind, though the use of the pronoun ‘him’ is less easy to account for. God is described from the outset in masculine terms, and throughout the Bible, ‘he’ substitutes for ‘God’. This creates enormous problems for feminists, who balk to see a male persona invested with absolute divinity. Hampson, rather flippantly, turns the creation story on its head and sees God as a human construction who was “clearly not made in her (woman’s) image”. But to turn Hampson on her head (if that’s not too distracting an image) and approach the subject from a position which assumes the existence and sovereignty of God, the Genesis account indicates that femininity was just as much a product, reflection and purpose of God as was masculinity. The numerous descriptions of God in feminine terms throughout the Bible affirm this (see Exodus 19:4; Deuteronomy 32:18; Isaiah 26:3f, 49:15, 63:9, 66:13; Hosea 11; Matt 23:37; Luke 13:34ff). It is plausible to conjecture that the use of masculine imagery and substitution to refer to a God whose characteristics are both male and female, can be paralleled with the French use of the word ils to denote the presence of both men and women.

The second creation account is more detailed, and fraught with problems. The creation of woman is described thus, from Genesis 2:20b—24.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The first question that arises from this passage surrounds the concept of woman being man’s “helper”. From a superficial reading, it seems that the woman is created to be man’s helper after several experiments with other creatures including livestock and birds of the air (see vv18—20), placing her on a par with dumb beasts. This, clearly, will not do. To imagine that women were not part of God’s perfect, original plan and were a sort of afterthought, the consequence of some early errors of judgement, would involve some extraordinary theology. Woman was created in a distinctive and unique act, which set her far apart from ordinary animals, and which suggested a physical unity and equality with Adam. The meaning of the word ‘helper’ confirms this. Rather than referring to a subservient, passive attendant; the word describes an equal partner; an indispensable half of a whole. When it is used elsewhere in the Old Testament, it usually refers to God’s benign intervention on behalf of Israel. That puts a rather different slant on an apparently pejorative expression.

As for the rib business, Matthew Henry put it rather nicely when he commented on God’s choice of a rib out of which to create Eve: “Not made out of his head to top him, not out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” This is almost certainly taking the meaning of the ‘rib’ to its sentimental limit, but it is a good illustration of the biblical relationship between man and woman. Similarly, the poetry of verse 23 which emphasises the bond of flesh does not point to the priority of males, but to the ideal synthesis of a man and his wife, reinforced in verse 24. Here, the man is required to set all else aside for the sake of his wife; to leave behind his own family in an inseparable union which will render mutual advantage and delight. The tender self-sacrifice demanded of the physically stronger, instinctively domineering male partner is a theme which recurs in the New Testament.

Genesis 3 deals with the Fall. Briefly summarized, the familiar story describes the temptation of both Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The crafty and articulate serpent, usually considered symbolic of Satan, deceives Eve and convinces her to eat forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve in turn offered the fruit to her husband and he also ate. Both were then subject to the wrath and judgement of God. This is a difficult story for a feminist to stomach: it seems at first sight that the earlier deception of Eve makes her more culpable, more susceptible to evil. However, does this follow? Adam was persuaded by Eve, who was in turn persuaded by the serpent — the chronology does not seem to make an awful lot of difference. Adam himself later blames his wife (v12), but God’s wrath falls on both individuals with equal force.

It is possible to interpret the weakness of the protagonists of the Fall as the product of a breakdown in communications. There was no consultation or deliberation: Eve acted wilfully and Adam acted negligently. It may be that the greater weight of responsibility that rested on man thereafter was a consequence of this original passivity, but there is nothing to confirm my speculation. A brief overview thus reveals that both man and woman were guilty and that both were condemned. The result of the Fall was the dislocation and alienation of mankind from God, from heaven, from within itself. God’s message to Eve that: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16) was not a prescription, it was a prediction of a new inequality of relationships. Separation from God would inevitably eventuate in confusion and injustice, since God’s order was perfect. Only in the restoration of humanity through Christ would the potential for perfection in gender relationships be released.

Sarah Trethewey