Dr Alice C. Linsley
How seriously should readers of the Bible take the Feminist critique?
Feminists point to isolated situations in the Bible to assert patriarchal oppression and the exploitation of women. One of their favorite examples is the story of Dinah whose brothers Levi and Simeon used her rape as an excuse to murder the men of Shechem. They also point to Laban who used a promise of marriage to his daughters to extract 14 years of menial labor from his nephew Jacob. The sexual abuse of the Levite's concubine is another favorite example of feminist interpreters. It initiated a war on the clan of Benjamin (Judg. 19–21). Note that these narratives serve ultimately to justify men plotting violence against men.Other than these examples, there is little evidence in the Bible that Hebrew fathers exploited their daughters for personal gain. Exodus 21:32 states that a father could demand damages for an injury done to a daughter. Deuteronomy 22:19 states that a father was entitled to damages for slander of the good name of his daughter. These laws provided protection to Hebrew daughters.
Feminists also point to the story of Jephthah’s daughter as an example of a father exploiting his daughter. However, a closer look at the details of that narrative suggest that the father and his daughter colluded to prevent her marriage to hostile kinsman.
Hebrew fathers sometimes denied marriage opportunities to their daughters. The accounts of marriage being denied to daughters reveals a great deal about the political, social, and religious concerns of Hebrew rulers. Some Bible scholars believe that Jephthah dedicated his daughter to God’s service to avoid giving her in marriage to the son of one of his brothers.
Jephthah’s father Gilead had two wives. The sons of Gilead’s principal wife drove Jephthah away. "You are not going to get any inheritance in our family," they said, "because you are the son of another woman." (Jdg. 11:2) Jephthah became a sent-away son.
As with other sent-away Hebrew sons, Jephthah became a great warrior. He led his men in a successful battle against the Ammonites. After the battle, he vowed to offer to God “whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me” (Jdg. 11:30). Had he seen a sheep, goat or a cow, he would have sacrificed that creature to God. It is strange, given this was a farming society, that no livestock were in sight upon his return. Instead, as if on cue, his daughter came running to meet him.
The story of Jephthah’s daughter is sometimes cited as an example of child sacrifice, yet the text states only that she was to be dedicated to God. That usually meant that the child would be dedicated to the temple or shrine. Jephthah’s vow helped him avoid giving his daughter in marriage. By dedicating her to God’s service, Jephthah saved face and avoided open refusal of his daughter's hand in marriage.
It is likely that Jephthah’s daughter was privy to the scheme because it is she who insisted that he fulfill his vow to God (Jdg. 11:36). She may have wished to follow the career of her paternal grandmother, a temple woman who after leaving the temple, operated an inn like Rahab. She is inaccurately described as a “prostitute” in Judges 11. The Hebrew word for that appears here is zonah which can refer to an inn keeper. Some inn keepers were formerly temple women. As that is a position passed from mother to daughter, Jephthah’s daughter could opt for a life in the temple instead of marriage to someone she did not wish to marry.
By giving up worldly aspirations, perhaps Jephthah’s daughter hoped to be chosen to bring forth the promised Messiah. It was long believed that the mother of the Messiah would be a temple woman who would conceive by divine overshadowing. Sargon hoped to garner more power by shaping opinion according to this expectation. He claimed that he did not have an earthly father and that his mother conceived him while in the temple at Azu-pir-Anu.
No doubt, Hebrew daughters were both an asset and a challenge to their families. The marriage of high-status daughters brought riches to the bride’s family in the form of dowries. However, some men were more interested in advancing their social position than in forming a good marriage. Hebrew fathers could deny marriage to suitors if the marriage put their families at a political disadvantage or if it jeopardized inheritance (cf. Ruth 4:6). The fact that Hebrew daughters could opt for a life of service to God by being dedicated to the temple or shrine, means that they had more power over their lives than Feminists would have us believe.
One of the stated objectives of Feminists is to achieve equality between the sexes through social activism and legislation. Yet Feminism is premised on an unswerving belief in universal inequality. Would Feminists be content were they to finally achieve universal equality between the sexes? Not likely. To exist, Feminism needs inequality and instances of unfairness to women.
Feminist interpretations of the Bible reveal selective reading, and a mindset that is blind to the authority balance of males and females in the Bible.
The social structure of the biblical Hebrew was neither patriarchal nor egalitarian. It reveals a binary balance of authority between males and females. This balance reflects the binary reasoning of the biblical Hebrew and is evident in many biblical narratives. There were male prophets and female prophets, male rulers and female rulers; inheritance by male heirs and inheritance by female heirs, patrilocal residence, and matrilocal residence; and Hebrew patronymics and Hebrew matronymics. In the Hebrew double unilineal descent pattern, both the patrilineage and the matrilineage are recognized and honored, but in different ways. The Hebrew persons named in Genesis acknowledge both female and male ancestors.
The balance of authority between Hebrew men and women is evident in the New Testament narratives also. When Jesus was presented in the temple His identity as Messiah was attested by the priest Simeon and the prophetess Anna. Men and women are among Jesus’ followers. The women reportedly provided many of the material needs of Jesus and the Disciples. Jesus restored life to Jairus’ daughter (daughter to father) and life to the son of the widow of Nain (son to mother). Jesus’ parables in Luke 15 involve a male seeking a lost sheep and a female seeking a lost coin. Paul commends both men and women to the Gospel ministry. Among them are Apollos, Priscilla, and Phoebe, a leader from the church at Cenchreae, a port city near Corinth. Paul attaches to Phoebe the title of prostatis, meaning a female patron or benefactor.
An unbiased approach to the Scriptures confirms the balance of authority between males and females. It considers the bigger picture and those who hope to understand the Bible must look at the bigger picture.
Related reading: Hebrew Rulers with Two Wives; Sent-Away Sons; Orthodoxy Requires Binary Reasoning; Time to Jettison the Marxist-Feminist Hermeneutic, Is "Male Headship" a Biblical Doctrine?; The Influence of Hebrew Wives; The Myth of Western Patriarchy; Are Feminists Correct About the Church?
NOTE: Binary Reasoning: The reasoning of the biblical Hebrew which informs their worldview, social structure, moral codes, and ethics. They perceived "binary sets" in the order of Creation. The primary sets are Creator-Creature, Life-Death, Male-Female, and Sun-Moon. It is evident from observation and experience that one entity of the binary set is greater in visible ways than its opposite. The Creator is greater than the creature. Life is greater than death. The Sun is greater than the Moon (Gen. 1:16). Males are larger and stronger than females. (See Binary Reasoning Informs Christian Morality and Ethics, Levi-Strauss and Jacques Derrida on Binary Oppositions)
