Woman: Man's Equal

by Thomas Webster

Prior to the fall, then, it is quite evident that woman was equal to man in every respect. Did Eve, then, because she was first in the transgression, forfeit her right of equality with Adam, who just as flagrantly transgressed the Divine command; or was the penalty inflicted in consequence of her disobedience another matter altogether?

Genesis iii, 16, is usually brought forward to prove that, if woman was not inferior before the fall, she became so absolutely and unconditionally then. A disinterested reader—could such be found—would scarcely so render it. "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Upon the latter clause of this verse, separating it from all connection with the former part of the sentence, with which, however, it is connected in the Sacred Word, is based the dogma of the continued, unchangeable curse of inferiority of all the daughters of Eve, and their obligation to serve and implicitly obey their husbands. And yet if a wife, in obedience to the command of her husband, violates the law, either of God or man, she is the party held responsible. If she is not possessed of sufficient mental capacity to judge for herself in all things, how can she know when she should obey or when disobey? If implicit obedience is her duty, is there any justice, then, in punishing her for obeying the order of him whom she is bound to obey? Those who construe this and other portions of the Word of God to suit themselves, would protest loudly enough against the "manifest injustice" if it were meted out to them. But we know there is no unrighteousness with God. The Bible expressly declares that "God is no respecter of persons," and that "his ways are true and righteous altogether."

If then we examine this text (Gen. iii, 16) candidly, even taking the generally accepted translation, and construe it with the same fairness with which we would construe a sentence the meaning of which was not in dispute, the conclusion arrived at would be very different from what it usually is; and it would be apparent that the words, "And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee," has reference to the subject of generation, of which the entire passage treats. There are, however, some commentators who incline to the opinion that the words "and he shall rule over thee," might with equal propriety be rendered, "He shall have power with thee." We know that at this very time the promise of the Messiah—the seed that was to bruise the serpent's head—was given to the woman. "He," thy husband, "shall have power with thee," would not then be an inappropriate termination to the sentence relating to generation. Raschi, a celebrated Hebrew writer and rabbi, who flourished in the twelfth century, supports this reading, "He shall have power with thee;" but the majority of commentators and the Talmud are against such a rendering. It is to be borne in mind, however, that the Talmud is not the Pentateuch, and that learned and sincerely pious commentators have differed, and do so still, as widely as the poles, upon passages quite as easily understood as the one now under discussion. There is no more proof in this verse that a woman is bound to serve and obey her husband, in the common acceptation of the term, than that a man is obligated to serve and obey his wife, or worship her with his body—whatever that may mean—as he solemnly vows to do in certain marriage services. The endowment with worldly goods and the worship promised, were perhaps put in as an offset to the pledge of service and obedience. Certainly the man's vow to worship his wife is no more inconsistent than is the woman's to obey implicitly; and her obedience, if it is not implicit, is not obedience at all, but is merely acceding to the wishes of her husband when they accord with her own judgment.

Infidels, in seeking to disparage the Word of God, quote this passage and kindred ones, and, accepting the commonly received idea of their meaning, endeavor to subvert the faith of the masses. With those who do not carefully examine the matter for themselves, they often succeed. It has been asserted, too, by those who would wish the teachings of the Koran to take precedence over those of the Bible, that the position accorded to women by the Mosaic law was quite as degrading as that accorded to them by Mohammed; but a careful reading of the Scripture warrants no such conclusion. Many matters are spoken of, both in the law and the prophets, as having been practised and tolerated, and even rules given for their regulation, which were by no means of Divine appointment. This distinction should always be carefully marked in regard to the sacred text; and in addition to this it should be remembered that the Word of God is not responsible for the erroneous opinions of mankind. When the Almighty placed human beings upon the earth, he created one man and one woman, destining them to be the progenitors of the entire race, thereby indicating that monogamy was of Divine appointment. But original purity was soon departed from; lawless passion was allowed to mar the beautiful completeness and concord of the marriage relation as instituted by God; and, in time, many even of those who were nominal worshipers of the true God, fell into polygamy. The true idea and design of marriage, and the rights of woman, with the respect due to her, was lost sight of, and the requirements of the Divine law set at nought. Men became the slaves of their own lusts. God was not in all their thoughts. Iniquity prevailed to such a frightful extent that "it repented the Lord that he had made man upon the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."[^[I]]

At this time of general apostasy, Noah—and, it would seem, he alone—was seen righteous before God. Him, therefore, with his family, the Almighty preserved in the ark, when in his fierce wrath he caused the deluge to sweep away the corrupt inhabitants from the face of the earth they had polluted. Notwithstanding the wide-spread corruption of the times, it does not appear that either Noah or his sons were polygamists. Certainly, if any one of them had been such prior to the building of the ark, he was not permitted to bring his harem into it for protection from the fearful storm. Only "eight persons," we are informed, were preserved alive; namely, Noah and his wife, with his three sons and their wives. Then, at what may be termed the second starting-point of the human race, there was again an equal number of men and women upon the earth; clearly pointing out that the design of the Almighty in this matter was the marriage of one man with one woman. God made no provision for the marriage of either man or woman after the obtaining of a divorce.

It might have been supposed that so fearful a display of the wrath of God would have made a lasting impression upon the descendants of Noah; but as is the case with perverse mankind now, so it was then; the lessons of the past were lost upon them. No very great period of time elapses till we find the posterity of this good man, Noah, impiously and daringly conceiving the idea of measuring strength with the Almighty by attempting to build a tower so high that it could not possibly be overflowed should a subsequent deluge occur. The dispersion of mankind, and the consequent division into tribes, or races, was the result of such presumption. The desperately wicked heart of man began to devise new mischiefs, and revive old ones. Monogamy, the great conservator of moral purity, was disregarded, and one corruption viler than another followed in rapid succession. Before the calling of Abraham, mankind, as a whole, appear to have lapsed, if not into absolute heathenism, at least into something very near it. The knowledge and worship of the true God seems to have been retained only in isolated families, and even there to have been but partially observed, being marred and dishonored by human inventions and substitutions.

That Abraham might be delivered from the pernicious example of his neighbors, and that his mind might be prepared for the reception of the grand manifestations of the Divine character which God designed to impart to him, he was commanded to break off all association with them; and, the more completely to effect this, he was desired to leave his kindred and his country, and become a stranger in a strange land. Yet somewhat of the contamination of early association seems to have clung both to him and Sarah, as is evidenced in the matter of Hagar. In something very like doubt of God's power to fulfill his own promise, Abraham yielded to Sarah's suggestion, and thus was partially drawn into the evil current, though he does not appear to have been a willful polygamist. It is asserted by Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the Jerusalem Targum, and other learned authorities, that Hagar and Keturah are the same person; but if this be a mistake, there is still no evidence that Abraham took Keturah till after the death of Sarah. Polygamists, both in the Jewish nation and elsewhere, have not failed to plead Abraham's example in defense of their conduct. Early association had somewhat obscured his moral perceptions of right and wrong. Had he waited for the Divine command before carrying out Sarah's suggestion, no incident in his life would have given countenance to the demoralizing practice. Isaac was a monogamist, though Jacob, through the artifice of Laban, became a polygamist. That Laban's family were tinctured with idolatry is unquestionable; and with idolatry came many other vices. When Jacob with his household took his departure from Laban, Rachel stole certain images which were her father's, the character of which was unmistakably indicated by Laban when he demanded, "Wherefore have ye stolen my gods?" Yet such was the general apostasy of the times, that this family was so much in advance of any other, that it was to it that Abraham was obliged to send, a generation previous, for a suitable wife for the amiable and meditative Isaac. What wonder then that many practices prevailed among the descendants of Jacob that were not in accordance with either the will or the word of God!

Though plurality of wives was customary both before and after the giving of the Law, it was by no means ordained by it. A man had no more right, in carrying out the designs of the Almighty, to have two or more wives living at the same time, than a woman had to have two or more husbands living at the same time. Wherever the Bible speaks of the duty of husbands to wives, or of wives to husbands, the singular form is invariably used, as husband and wife. For instance, when God brought the woman he had made to Adam, he (Adam) says: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife"—not wives—"and they shall be one flesh." And again, "They twain shall be one flesh." What God has directly commanded, and what he merely suffers men to do without imposing insuperable restraints upon them, are two very different things.

It is asserted that the Mosaic Law makes a very great and decidedly partial distinction between men-servants and maid-servants, greatly to the disadvantage of the latter, particularly in their release from servitude. These same texts—some of them, at least—have been quoted in defense of African slavery. The term, selling a Jewish servant, in the Scripture, is simply the same as binding out a child under English law. A Jewish father could only "sell," or in other words bind out, his daughter for six years, and that before she was of a suitable age to be married.[^[J]] At the expiration of six years her apprenticeship ceased, and the maid-servant was free, unless she voluntarily perpetuated her own servitude.

There were two classes of servants among the Jews. The first, those who were taken from among themselves; the second, those obtained of the strange nations by which they were surrounded, or who were taken captive in battle. This second class of servants were called bondmen and bondwomen. The former class were denominated servants. The practice authorized by law, regarding those who were the lineal descendants of Abraham, placed men and women in the very same relation to the master, who was bound to reward them alike when the period of service should terminate. This is evident from Deuteronomy xv, 12-17: "And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. ... And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear into the door, and he shall be thy servant forever. And also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise."