The Biblical World of Gender is a compilation of thirteen essays, many by faculty at Christian educational institutions. After an introduction by the editors, the first section addresses “Surprising Gender Roles in the Ancient World,” followed by “Gender in the Biblical Texts: I. the Good, II. the Bad, and III. the Misunderstood.” Some essays focus on women and their issues, whereas others analyze biblical men. They alternate between Hebrew Bible context and New Testament commentary. In the paragraphs that follow are highlights from each of the book’s chapters, arranged chronologically by where they appear within the Bible.
- A “hatred of women” and a history of stalking, harassment, and domestic violence is a common behavioral denominator among many mass shooters. Many Christians begin their thinking about male–female power dynamics with texts that seem to support male control, ignoring the critiques of male control and violence that are woven through the biblical story, especially at its beginning. Genesis 1–11 foregrounds the links between progressive forms of male dominance and violence, tracing sin from the emergence of male dominance (3:16) to the first murder (4), and from the emergence of polygamy (4) to the woman-acquiring warrior class (6). From these warriors emerges Nimrod (10), an ideal warrior king—an inverted picture of Genesis 1:28, with no female co-ruler. Domestic violence (taking women) gave birth to public violence (warrior-kings). The claim that Nimrod was a mighty hunter was linked clearly to his role as founder (and ruler) of empires, including the all-too-violent Assyrian Empire that celebrated its king’s brutal slaughter of wild animals, women, and babies. This pattern of bravado and violence weaves its way through Genesis and the rest of Scripture.[1]
- Women—midwives, Moses’s mother and sister, Pharaoh’s daughter, and a servant—were the freedom fighters of the Exodus. Each of these women maximized her culturally defined role to flip the tables on injustice. Together they defiantly refused to align themselves with the oppressive policies of the empire.[2]
- In ancient Israel, a person was not viewed as an individual but as part of their kinship group. The monetary value listed in Leviticus 27 does not illustrate the worth of an actual person; rather, it indicates the productivity potential of the person at various stages of life and demonstrates the importance, regardless of gender, of all household members. Women in traditional Israelite society earned respect and status because their labor—using stone grinding tools and baking bread—was time-consuming and essential for survival. Women’s bread-making was sacred in the sense that the first piece of bread dough was offered to God to secure his blessing on the household.[3]
- Sexual misconduct law codes were based on the centrality of marriage in a traditional patrilineal society. Marriage was an alliance between two families and its most important purpose was to provide legitimate heirs for the father’s household. God does not command women to marry their rapists. Deuteronomy 22:13–29 is a legal system that values the well-being of its female citizens, has empowered them with a voice in private or public tribunals, investigates “consent,” and bases its decisions upon civic authority and rational proof. Verses 23–24 refer to a consensual encounter between a man and an engaged virgin. The verb ’inna in the Pi’el does not refer to “rape” or “sexual abuse,” but means “lowered the social status of his neighbor’s wife.” The issue is not force but violation of the other man waiting to make this woman his wife, as well as of both families. Verses 25–27 treat a non-consensual encounter with an unmarried but engaged woman. Similar to other ancient Near Eastern texts, an engaged girl who is seized in the field is not guilty; she is expected to report the crime, and the rapist is executed. Verses 28–29 refer to consensual sex and are meant to protect the young woman from economic and social fallout by requiring the “walk-away Joe” to marry her. The girl’s father retains the right of refusal, and according to the Halakha, the girl shares that right.[4]
- Some women were portrayed as behaving wickedly in the Bible. A pattern of “takes,” “eats,” and “gives to her husband” repeats from the first woman in Gen 3:6 through Sarai and Rebekah. Often, biblical women used their social and political power to accomplish their own agendas, to force other women and men into sex and procreation, or to murder people who were vulnerable. Crucially, the biblical authors portray the same problematic behaviors in the men alongside these women.[5]
- In contrast to Egyptian pharaohs and Roman Caesars, who declared themselves gods and models of perfection, the Old and New Testaments model good but imperfect men who display forgiveness, friendship, and family care. Joseph chose forgiveness toward his brothers, and Jonathan rejected climbing the ladder toward ultimate power for the sake of loyalty and friendship. Paul provided a countercultural example of what made men “good” in his time through his self-emptying friendship. Boaz cared for Naomi and Ruth to his possible detriment. Good men in the Bible challenge cultural assumptions around masculinity in their times and confront cynicism with hope.
- There tends to be gender inequality in how individuals from the Bible are discussed. The same word in Hebrew may be translated in different ways when referring to women or men: for example, “valiant” for men, “virtuous” for women. A “sinful woman” is assumed to be a prostitute, whereas a “sinful man” is not assumed to be a sex worker. The Samaritan woman in the Gospel of John probably had been widowed multiple times. Assuming her to have married and divorced five men is not only unjustifiably misogynistic, but also historically and logically implausible. Mothering and teaching children are heroic activities, crucial to the existence of a next generation to carry on one’s culture and heritage, yet they are less likely to be given the label than soldiers who fight a nation’s enemies.[6] When Jesus referred to the crippled woman as a “daughter of Abraham,” he was alluding to the woman in the deuterocanonical book of Maccabees whose sons were martyred. Although lists of “heroes of the faith” like the one in Hebrews 11 favor men like Barak and omit Deborah and Jael, a close reading of the New Testament reveals many heroic women.
- Jesus’s treatment of women in the Gospels was not particularly countercultural; it reflected a form of Judaism that some people practiced in the first century. Women were members of religious sects like the Pharisees. Various Jewish inscriptions refer to priestesses and speak of woman leaders of synagogues. Women may have recited synagogue blessings or read the Torah in services.[7]
- In Roman times, women were not restricted to private homes, their public voice was not considered immoral, and they were not always judged inferior to men. Aristotle’s world of fourth-century BC Athens was replaced by Roman insistence on social stratification and the necessary display of wealth and social rank. Women, as long as they upheld modesty, chastity, and loyalty to family and to Rome, were empowered to make decisions about family, finances, and religion. Women were patrons of both women and men, who responded by publicly honoring them. Statues of influential women adorned public spaces, with inscriptions praising their donations to the common good.[8]
- Slaves were regarded as property, not as people with human rights. The routine sexual exploitation of slaves, both in real acts occurring in daily life and in images reproduced in cultural texts, reinforced and validated their debased status, acutely distinguishing them from free Roman women (and men). Jesus taught and embodied status inversion, granting humanity to slaves by healing them (Luke 7:1–10) and elevating them as positive examples (Matt. 25:14–30). Paul’s statement that sex should only involve a husband and wife because they each have authority over each other’s body (I Cor. 7:1–7) was a departure from the Roman ethos in which sexual power was seen as completely under the man’s control. He could have sex with his wife, with prostitutes, and with slaves. Even though the apostles were not advocating legal liberation, they were interested in the transformation of how slaves were seen and treated.[9]
- Paul taught all women to veil, whether or not they were slaves, implying that all women were equal (1 Cor. 11:2–16). Women who prayed without head-coverings prayed as if they had shorn heads, a female hairstyle Romans associated with captives or foreigners. A statue of the Roman emperor with his head covered stood in the center of Corinth, representing the world’s pontifex maximus. Roman men wore their hair short, so Paul says that wearing a veil is unnatural for men, implicitly rejecting the veiling practices of the Roman religion and the imperial cult. Paul invokes nature to give the veiling instruction, but ultimately points back to the divine order of equality.[10]
- In the letter with which Paul was seeking to build relationships with Roman church members doing difficult and courageous work for the gospel, some of Paul’s most important contacts were women. The history of interpretation up until the mid-twentieth century as well as all extant New Testament Greek manuscripts attest to the apostleship and female gender of Junia. Although some recent translations change the Greek phrase episemoi en tois apostolois (“outstanding among the apostles”) to “well-known to the apostles,” this runs contrary to the history of interpretation and is not the most natural way of rendering the grammar of the phrase. Scholarly bias is a powerful thing that can ignore clear evidence.[11]
This volume of essays is a thought-provoking read that would enlighten any student unfamiliar with feminist approaches to the Bible and inform someone interested in issues related to biblical equality. For professors or pastors, the book might challenge perspectives they learned in university and seminary. The collection itself demonstrates differences of opinion, so I would encourage the reader to further investigate the various surprising claims that several authors make.
[1] Matthew J. Lynch, “The Roots of Violence: Male Violence Against Women in Genesis,” 61–70.
[2] Carmen Joy Imes, “Freedom Fighters of the Exodus,” 39–45.
[3] Cynthia Shafer-Elliott, “The Material World of Women and Men in Scripture: Gender and the Ancient Israelite Household,” 12–21, and Carol L. Meyers, “The Importance of Bread: Archaeology, the Bible, and Women’s Power in Ancient Israel,” 3–11.
[4] Sandra L. Richter, “Does God Really Command Women to Marry Their Rapists? A Study of Deuteronomic Law,” 95–111.
[5] Dru Johnson, “For All Have Sinned: Learning from Bad Women in the Bible,” 85–94.
[6] James F. McGrath, “Heroic Women of the New Testament,” 46–51.
[7] Jeffery P. Garcia, “What We Can Learn from Women’s Roles in Ancient Synagogues,” 22–29.
[8] Lynn H. Cohick, “The Agency of Women in Ancient Rome,” 30–38.
[9] Nijay K. Gupta, “Did Early Christians Give Dignity and Honor to Female Slaves?” 71–84.
[10] Janelle Peters, “Veiling in Corinth: A Surprising Sign of Equality,” 112–115.
[11] Erin Heim, “Paul and the Women He Greeted,” 116–124.
Related Resources
Book Review: All My Knotted-Up Life
Book Review: A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing
Book Review: Women in the Mission of the Church: Their Opportunities and Obstacles throughout Christian History
Book Review: Women and the Gender of God