The Sexes Equal at Creation.
From the arguments brought forward by the advocates of woman's
inferiority, it might be inferred that she was designed, from the very
dawn of creation, for man's servant, not for his companion; and, indeed,
it is not only inferred by the great mass of mankind, but broadly
asserted to be the fact by very many who, from their knowledge of the
history of creation, ought to know better.
Those who have striven to establish this doctrine have contrived to
bring the Scriptures to their aid by wresting them to suit their own
particular view of the question, and in this manner have endeavored to
silence any controversy respecting their dogma. The result has been--and
it is the legitimate result of such a pernicious course--that this
wresting of the Scriptures, and its having been allowed for a length of
time to go unchallenged by the Christian world, has produced scores of
infidels, who, not having examined the Word of God critically for
themselves, have accepted as true expositions of the doctrines contained
therein the statements of men, apparently supported by isolated texts,
separated from their contexts; and thus, having been led to believe that
the Scriptures sanctioned, if they did not enforce, manifest injustice,
they have repudiated the whole as unworthy of belief. A deplorable
conclusion, truly! Then, though responsible for this infidelity through
their perversion of Scripture, these same writers, or those of a kindred
spirit, denounce every argument or movement in favor of the equal rights
and privileges of women as evil, and only evil, and necessarily evil,
because among the advocates of measures according these rights there are
found some men and women who are skeptics.
But what say the Scriptures upon the subject? In the history of the
creation, there given, we search in vain for any evidence of the Divine
appointment, at that time, of masculine domination.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them.
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth."[F]
This dominion of the human race over the inferior creation seems to have
been the only dominion instituted at the time of the creation; nor is
there any indication that it was to be confined to the male portion of
the race. As between the human pair, there is not here the slightest
intimation given of the subjection of the one to the other. The Great
Infinite in wisdom, who created "them," and who could not be mistaken in
their capacities, appears to have placed "_them_" on a perfect equality,
committing to them conjointly the dominion over the earth and all that
it contained.
In the second chapter of Genesis we find a brief recapitulation of the
events narrated in the first, the sacred historian entering more fully
into the creation of the woman. God, in his wisdom, saw that Adam was
not sufficient alone to sway the mighty scepter over the vast domain
about to be intrusted to him; therefore he created for him "an
helpmeet," and gave "_them_" a joint authority over the rest of
creation. "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be
alone; I will make him an helpmeet for him.... And the Lord God caused a
deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs,
and closed up the flesh thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had
taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man."[G]
"This implies," says a distinguished commentator upon Holy Writ, "that
the woman was a perfect resemblance of the man, possessing neither
inferiority nor superiority, but being in all things like and equal to
himself."
Thus it was in the beginning. But, in process of time, men, glorying in
the physical strength in which they excelled women, refused to recognize
as its equivalent the peculiar qualities and faculties possessed by
women which were lacking in themselves. And overlooking the importance
of the duties which the mothers of mankind were discharging, they plumed
themselves upon their own prowess, and concluded that women and all else
were made only to minister to their pleasures. Reason and justice were
obliged to succumb to the strong arm, and women were forced into a
subordinate position.
If the Creator, in the arrangements of his plans, designed that women
should be inferior to men in intellect and freedom of action, then, in
regard to one-half of the human family, God worked by the law of
retrogression, producing Eve, an inferior, from Adam, a superior being;
which is clearly contrary to the law of progression, and contrary to the
general plan of his creation; and, if this be true, the laws of
progression and retrogression were to alternate perpetually. Is this
supposition of inferiority in the case of woman consistent with what we
know of God's method of working, as given in the history of the
creation? Let us recapitulate the whole briefly, and see.
1. He created inanimate matter. 2. He brought vegetable life into
existence. 3. The inhabitants of the waters were created. 4. "The cattle
after their kind." Still ascending, God said: "Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness. So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Here,
then, we see that God created man from a portion of inanimate earth; but
that he produced the woman from a perfect portion of the perfect man,
plainly appears from the twenty-first and twenty-second verses of the
second chapter of Genesis, which, though quoted recently, necessarily
come in, in this place. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall
upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the
flesh thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is
now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman,
because she was taken out of man."[H]
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."
Those who declare that the law of Moses makes a distinction in the
matter of release from servitude, between men-servants and
maid-servants, to the disadvantage of the latter, in confirmation of
their assertion quote Exodus xxi, 7; but if they read also, in
connection with it, the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh verses of the
same chapter, a careful consideration of the entire passage will, we
think, clearly show that the reference therein contained is not to the
ordinary maid-servant, but to one whose master had betrothed her to
himself, or to his son. In the case of betrothal to himself, if the girl
failed to please her master, he was not to return her to her former
position of a servant, but to let her be redeemed. He must not sell her,
or otherwise dispose of her services during the unexpired period of her
servitude, because "he had dealt deceitfully with her." In case of
betrothal to his son, as in the other, she was not to be reduced to her
former rank as a menial, but to be treated in every respect as a
daughter. Even when the affection of the man to whom she was betrothed
waned, he was to yield to her all the rights and privileges which
belonged to her as his wife; and, if any of these were withheld, she was
at liberty to go forth a free woman.
The circumstance of Jacob serving Laban fourteen years for Rachel, is by
some deemed a parallel case with the prevailing custom of purchasing
wives among the people of the East; but the cases are not at all
similar. Jacob and Rachel had met at the well where she usually watered
her father's flock. He had introduced himself to the maiden, and won
her regard, before he proposed to her father for her, having spent a
whole month in the house of Laban prior to his doing so. There is no
reason whatever to doubt that he had Rachel's full consent to the
arrangement. It was not Jacob's fault that, through the stratagem of
Laban, he became the husband of Leah. The plurality of wives in this
instance was not so much the choice of Jacob as the fault of the wily,
semi-idolatrous Laban.
Shechem offered dowry to Jacob and his sons if they would consent to his
taking Dinah to wife; but it is evident he did so in order to conciliate
the outraged brothers of the girl whom he had so basely humbled, and
whom he really desired to retain.
It is very clear, from the testimony of sacred history, that women, in
the families of the patriarchs, and in the Hebrew nation generally, for
several generations after the delivery of the Mosaic Law, occupied a
position very much superior to those of the neighboring nations. A
woman taken captive in war, whom a Jew chose to marry, could not be sold
by her husband, should he afterward take a dislike to her so great that
he might put her away. Even though a heathen, she was permitted to go
out free.
Boaz is said to have bought Ruth when he purchased the possession of
Naomi; and this circumstance is referred to by those who would bring the
Bible into contempt, to prove that Ruth was bought according to Jewish
law, as though she were a chattel. The facts, as given in the sacred
narrative, do not, however, warrant any such interpretation.
Elimelech, with his wife and two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, left
Bethlehem-Judah in consequence of a severe famine, and removed to Moab.
At the time of their emigration, they were obliged to leave all their
possessions, not portable, behind them; and were in consequence in
straitened circumstances. While in Moab, both his sons married
Moabitish women; and, in process of time, Elimelech and his sons all
three died, leaving their respective widows destitute. Under these
circumstances, the famine being now over in Judah, Naomi determined to
return thither, and advised her daughters-in-law to return each to the
house of her father. After some persuasion, the widow of Chilion did so;
but Ruth, Mahlon's widow, expressed her determination to cling to the
fortunes of her mother-in-law in the following touching strain:
"Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee;
for whither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge;
thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God; where thou diest will
I die, and there will I be buried."
Naomi, having such proof of her attachment to her, expostulated with her
no further; and, disconsolate and weary, the poor women made their way
to Naomi's old home. During the absence of the family, the parcel of
land which had been possessed by Elimelech had passed into the hands of
strangers. Naomi naturally desired that it might be redeemed, as both
herself and Ruth would be greatly benefited if it were. Boaz, though not
the nearest kinsman, on being made acquainted with the circumstances of
the case by Ruth, generously took up the cause; and the nearest of kin
having relinquished his claim, he redeemed the property with it; and,
with Ruth's own free consent, took her to be his wife. Her individual
concurrence is apparent throughout the whole transaction. No one had any
right to sell at all, or otherwise to dispose of her, except by her own
wish.
The rape of the Benjamites is sometimes referred to in terms expressive
of the desire to cast opprobium upon the teachings of the Bible.
Unfortunate as was the condition of the Benjamites on this occasion,
they had no more sanction for what they did from the law of Moses, than
had Ahab for destroying the prophets of the Lord. Neither was the order
of the Jewish elders for the massacre of men and elderly women, and the
saving of the four hundred young women to make up the deficiency of
wives still existing in this tribe, in any sense chargeable to the
Divine law.
We might with as much propriety hold the Gospel responsible for the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew, as to hold the law of Moses responsible for
the acts of the Israelites. The Mosaic precepts concerning adultery and
divorce might at first sight appear to give more latitude to men than to
women, and therefore to be partial; but when we accept the
interpretation given by our Lord, the apparent partiality vanishes. The
Savior's testimony on the subject is very explicit. Matthew xix, 3-10,
we read: "The Pharisees also came to him, tempting him, and saying unto
him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And
he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made
them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:
and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but
one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing
of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because
of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but
from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall
put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away
doth commit adultery."
That in this matter of divorce Christ recognized the right of women to
be equal to that of men, is apparent from Mark x, 2-12, the eleventh
and twelfth verses of which we here quote:
"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry
another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away
her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." It is
manifest that the design of God was, that there should be an equal
fidelity on the part of both man and wife.
But, as ages rolled on, the depraved appetites of sinful mankind desired
a different ordering of the affairs of life. In the Jewish Commonwealth,
the rabbis became less and less favorable to the just rights of women,
especially after their people began to intermix more freely with their
idolatrous neighbors; their precepts were assimilated more fully to
those of the heathen; and for doctrines, the commandments of men were
taught instead of the pure law of God.
History proves that woman sometimes took a very prominent part in the
public affairs of the Jewish nation. But, while not attempting to
disprove the statements which are therein recorded, there are many who
make light of any mention of the public labors of these women.
Sometimes, indeed, the talents and usefulness of these women, and of the
earnest women of our own day, are admitted after a fashion; but it is
done in such a way as, in reality, to belittle the sex as much as
possible. They are considered as occupying the same relation to men that
the moon does to the sun, and all that is desired of them is to reflect
a borrowed light. If she be unable to reflect a light when there is none
to borrow, what then? Even in religious matters, she is judged to be
incapable of taking any public part, though she may be ever so well
informed and pious, and those of the opposite sex in her vicinity ever
so deplorably ignorant and wicked. A few distinguished writers will,
however, allow her--as a favor, it may be supposed--to go out in public
to collect money for charitable or Church purposes. What a wonder the
funds so collected are not defiled by passing through "female" fingers!
Some of the religious denominations who gladly accept of the fruit of
women's labor, either in collecting from others or in giving themselves,
would yet not suffer a woman to pray or speak in public, though God has
endowed her with more than ordinary talent. She may not even give advice
as to how the money she has collected or given is to be expended. In the
choir, women may sing of salvation; but it is fearful presumption for
her to speak of it in the body of the Church, or let her voice be heard
there imploring salvation for herself or others. This might defile the
sanctuary or tempt her to "usurp authority over the man." Occasionally
there is to be found a denomination which will allow a woman to pray in
public, or to relate her Christian experience; but even in some of
these the practice does not receive a very large amount of
encouragement, and her right to exhort or teach publicly is seriously
questioned, most frequently denied.
What was Scripture usage? From Exodus xv, 20, we learn that Miriam was a
prophetess, and, in the verse following, it appears that not only she,
but the women of her company, took a prominent part in the celebration
of Israel's triumphant passage of the Red Sea. Not only was Miriam a
prophetess, but a joint leader with Moses and Aaron of that great host
which went up to possess the promised land, as is seen by reference to
Micah vi, 4: "For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and
redeemed thee out of the land of servants, and I sent before thee Moses,
Aaron, and Miriam." Thus did God, in the very beginning of the Jewish
Church and nation, associate a woman with men, giving her an equally
responsible position with her brothers. Moses was the lawgiver, Aaron
the priest, and Miriam the seer. This threefold office was fulfilled in
Christ; and therefore Miriam, as well as Moses and Aaron, was a type of
the Messiah.
If the Almighty had not designed women to occupy prominent positions,
both civilly and ecclesiastically, he certainly would not have qualified
them to fill such places with honor; and history proves that he did both
qualify and employ them. Deborah was both a prophetess and a judge, and
at one time was the chief ruler in Israel, even leading on the hosts of
the living God; for timorous Barak would not go without her. Huldah,
wife of Shallum, a prophetess who flourished in the reign of Josiah, was
consulted by him on matters of vital importance to his kingdom, although
both Jeremiah and Zephaniah were then alive. Josiah evidently considered
her fully equal to either of them, or he would not have consulted her,
or at her dictation set about reforming the abuses which were prevalent
at the time. He could not have set to work more earnestly in this good
cause if Jeremiah had spoken to him. There have been learned men--and
there are those still--who think it exceedingly strange that Josiah
should have condescended to send the messengers to Huldah to inquire of
the Lord, when he might have consulted either Jeremiah or one of the
brother prophets. Is it not equally strange that the Lord should have
answered him by her mouth? or rather should not his having done so,
forever silence such questioning?
Other women have been emphatically the "called," according to "God's
purpose," to combat evil in countries even where women were treated with
greater indignities than in Israel. We do not make any distinction
between prophets and prophetesses. Men and women were alike called to
the prophetic office, as God pleased, and kings and princes
acknowledged their authority. Many women became noted for their active
service rendered to the Jewish Church and nation.
Women have proved themselves to be skillful diplomatists, and to be
possessed of an equal amount of courage and perseverance with men; but
these capabilities have not always been employed aright. There have been
distinguished statesmen who have been frightfully wicked men; and,
unhappily, there have been clever women who have been fully their equals
in wickedness. In nothing is the mental equality of women with men more
clearly indicated than in the manner in which both pursue a career of
sin.
Jezebel appears to have been a stronger-minded person than Ahab, and to
have excelled him in subtlety and wickedness. She was as active as he in
pushing the persecution against the people of God; indeed, more active
and determined than her weak and wicked husband. At the time the life of
Elijah was threatened, she would seem not only to have been the more
determined of the two, but to have exercised greater authority over the
realm. Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel, was no whit behind her mother
in atrocious wickedness. Indeed, where women are brought up in
wickedness, they differ nothing in the depth of their depravity from men
educated in like manner.
The more frequently the Hebrews relapsed into idolatry, the less
inclined were they to allow women their legitimate privileges. The
administrators of the laws constantly curtailed female liberty,
tenaciously exacting from them the service and obedience of slaves. A
woman, even among the Jews, must have had no small amount of both
courage and wisdom, to have surmounted the difficulties which hedged up
the path to fame and honor, and risen to the distinction which some of
them reached. "The rabbins"--not Moses--"taught that a woman should know
nothing but the use of her distaff." Their idea of the education
fitting for a woman was, that she should understand merely how to manage
the work of a house; in other words, know nothing but how to minister to
the appetites or whims of her husband, regarding him as her lord, her
irresponsible master. Rabbi Eliezer said, "Let the words of the law be
burned rather than that they should be delivered to a woman." Why, we
wonder? Because they might, if they read it, learn what privileges it
accorded them, and perhaps claim them--a state of things to be prevented
by any means, no matter how unscrupulous.
Notwithstanding the teachings of the rabbins, however, and dark as was
the day just prior to the coming of the Messiah, we find a woman who was
prophesying in the temple even then. The prediction of Anna the
prophetess is mentioned in the New Testament without a word of censure
on the unwomanliness of her conduct, or her profanation of the temple
by it. Modern writers would perhaps have been wiser, and treated her
with what they considered deserved contempt.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote F: Gen. i, 26, 27, 28.]
[Footnote G: Gen. ii, 18, 20, 21, 22.]
[Footnote H: For the original meaning of the word _woman_ see Dr. Clarke
on Genesis ii, 23.]
[Footnote I: Gen. vi, 6.]
[Footnote J: Clarke on Exodus xxi, 7.]