Everyday Eves
What Biblical womanhood looked like
When it comes to Biblical interpretation and emulation, the figure of Eve has been controversial, misunderstood and used for various purposes. The life of the Everyday Eve was very different from those presented in the Biblical narrative. This late fifth–early sixth-century marble and stone mosaic is inscribed in Greek: “And he ate, and they were made naked” (Genesis 3:7). The mosaic fragment, which comes from a church floor in northern Syria, is now in the Cleveland Museum of Art. Photo: Courtesy Scazon/Flickr under CC by 2.0.
People of faith have long wanted to lead Biblically based lives. This naturally flows into an attempt to determine what it means to be an “Everyday Eve.” There are a plethora of interpretations and understandings regarding what Biblical womanhood is and what it looks like. Rachel Held Evans recently spent a whole year trying to live by the rules that governed Biblical womanhood and wrote a book about the experience. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood maintains an active website and attempts to provide definitive definitions of these phrases. However, what one notices even between these two examples is a vastly difference understanding of the phrase Biblical womanhood. Those who wish to gain insight into Biblical womanhood often begin with the Bible and with the character Eve, as she is the first woman, wife and mother.
While most turn to Scripture to find Biblical womanhood, this is not an easy task. As Carol L. Meyers points out in “‘Eves’ of Everyday Ancient Israel” in the November/December 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, women are significantly underrepresented in the Bible, and thus very little of their lives can be gleaned from the material.
Beyond the sheer lack of literary material, the other challenge that people face when trying to gain a Biblical understanding of womanhood is one of hermeneutics, or, simply put, the strategy one uses for interpreting a text. It has become clear that the readers’ presuppositions affect the meanings that they derive from the narratives. For example, through many periods of history, male superiority was an understood norm. Thus interpreters from this period argued that women should be seen as subordinate to men because the first woman was created out of the first man. However, Phyllis Trible famously demonstrated the fallacy inherent in this logic when she pointed out that the first man was made from dirt and thus would be subordinate to mud (see “If the Bible’s So Patriarchal, How Come I love It?” in Bible Review, October 1992).
FREE eBook: Life in the Ancient World.
Craft centers in Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—through the Mediterranean world.
Perhaps even more challenging for the average reader is the translation effect that occurs within the Biblical text. Most often in North America the Bible is being read in translation and the readers do not know Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. This has also come into play when trying to understand how to be an Everyday Eve. In Genesis 2, God says that Eve is to be a “helper” to Adam. In English, “helper” tends to be subsidiary or even subordinate. Yet the Hebrew word—ozr—contains none of that connotation—and in fact, the word is used mostly of God. If one were to assign a subordinate role to Biblical womanhood because of this designation as a “helper,” that person would actually be adding something to the text that is not there and at the same time would be missing the important attribute that is present.
Does this mean that attempting to determine the Biblical approach to something is fruitless? No. It does mean that one needs to have a certain amount of self-awareness and an eye for the details within the text. In addition, there are other avenues of exploration available. We have texts from other ancient cultures that can help round out a reader’s view of the ancient world, and we also have the archaeological record, which is particularly important when trying to better understand daily life in ancient Israel. The women that do appear in the Biblical text are the extraordinary and the exceptional (not always for a good reason), and because of this, they might not provide the best insight into the Everyday Eve.
For more on what daily life would have been like for the average Israelite woman, read the full article “‘Eves’ of Everyday Ancient Israel” by Carol L. Meyers in the November/December 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
BAS Library Members: Read “‘Eves’ of Everyday Ancient Israel” by Carol L. Meyers as it appeared in the November/December 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library member yet? Join the BAS Library today.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on October 20, 2014.
Ellen White, Ph.D. (Hebrew Bible, University of St. Michael’s College), is senior editor at the Biblical Archaeology Society. She has taught at five universities across the U.S. and Canada and spent research leaves in Germany and Romania. She has also been actively involved in digs at various sites in Israel.
Related reading in Bible History Daily:
The Creation of Woman in the Bible
Gender in Archaeology at Abel Beth Maacah
Examining the Lives of Ancient Egyptian Women
Related reading in the BAS Library:
Ingrid D. Rowland, “Etruscan Women—Dignified, Charming, Literate and Free,” Archaeology Odyssey, May/June 2004.
Tal Ilan, “How Women Differed,” Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 1998.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
I think Chris’ first point in referring to the 1Timothy 2 passage needs to be addressed more proficiently than has been done here. I have been studying the biblical gender issue for decades, and pretty much all Bible believing feminists try to dance around that passage. They simply cannot accept Paul’s words at face value because those words appear to our politically correct society to be utterly inappropriate and unfair. One or two of you have mentioned context and that’s an excellent place to start. If one takes the context of the entire Bible, the unmistakable message is that women take a back seat to men, especially in authority roles. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but they are exactly that. Exceptions. By and large, God places women in second place from a role standpoint. Before anyone starts reciting the tired cliché that gender inequality originates from the despised ‘patriarchy’ (in other words, from men), let’s look at a few passages in which God Himself is enforcing, if not outright initiating, these alleged sexist views. All of these verses are direct commands/instructions by God to either Moses or the Israelites…
Exodus 21:7 – If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
Exodus 23:17 – Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord God.
Leviticus 12:2-5 – When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days…Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days…But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks… and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.
This latter Leviticus passage is particularly curious since we know of no physiological reason to distinguish between males and females with regard to length of time of ‘uncleanness’. Its sole purpose it seems is to remind the Israelites that God sees women as lower than men.
In Leviticus 27:1-7 God is determining the valuations of males and females and He assigns the females valuations that are significantly lower than those of the males; in some cases nearly half.
In Numbers 5:11-31 God gives instructions regarding the ‘law of jealousy’ in which a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful. There is no such option given to women.
In Numbers 12 even though it is both Miriam and Aaron who speak against Moses, it is only Miriam who gets punished. Afflicted with leprosy, she is forced to live outside the camp for seven days. Interestingly, in verse 14 God reminds them of what appears to be some protocol where a displeased father can spit in his daughter’s face and she must bear the shame of it for seven days.
In Numbers 27:8 God instructs Moses that a woman may inherit land only if her father does not have a son. The son has first dibs.
In Numbers 30 God has given instructions to Moses about vows. If a woman makes a vow, it must be approved by either her father or husband to be valid.
Next is a passage that is sure to get some blood boiling based on today’s feminist fixation on rape. (Let me be clear that I believe rape is wrong). But it would behoove you to remember that the following passage is God’s direct command…
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 – If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
That’s it. Some money and permanent marriage. No trial. No jail time.
Aside from the numerous commands of God, which not only endorse, but actively promote what would be labeled as unabashed sexism today, there are more than a few anecdotal passages that uphold the same theme. For example:
Ecclesiastes 7:28 – I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.
Isaiah 3:12 portrays being ruled by women as something very negative.
Divorce was an option given to men only.
And I haven’t even touched on the order of creation, including Eve’s stated purpose as ‘helper’. I have also purposely avoided New Testament husband/wife role passages because feminists tend to dismiss these passages as not applicable to single women.
Now granted, Yeshuah elevated the status of women to be equal in terms of spiritual standing, access to God, etc. This, in spite of the ire His actions drew from the male dominated society of that day. But that’s it. He didn’t go any further. If He was trying to endorse today’s feminist ideal of absolute equality, why stop there? Why not include a woman among His twelve? Or better still, a couple of women? Moreover, when a replacement for Judas was being selected, why zero female candidates? Hadn’t He gotten through to His disciples? Hadn’t He broken the glass ceiling? No one can disagree that Yeshuah’s life and teachings were the embodiment of controversy. So are we to seriously believe, as some would have us, that Yeshuah didn’t push the women’s rights envelope because He only felt comfortable upsetting the applecart a little?
My point in all this is that in the broad context of the entire Bible, women have a secondary role. And it appears to be not only God-sanctioned, but God-ordered. Like it or not, this thread is undeniable. In fact, this broad context trumps all the little interpretational cartwheels that feminists use in attempting to explain away the otherwise clear passages on male-female roles. These passages are God’s blueprint. The only reason they are even considered objectionable is because they don’t fit today’s political correctness or feminist fantasies. If God ordered it, who are we to disagree – or worse – try to change it? Hence, taking Paul’s words in 1Timothy to mean exactly what they say, is the most plausible approach. I believe this is the point Chris is making.
Some have dismissed the 1Timothy passage as merely Paul’s opinion. Typically they refer to his words, “I do not allow…” This is a very weak argument. When Paul wanted to distinguish between his opinion and God’s command, he certainly knew how to do it in a much more precise fashion. (See 1Corinthians 7:10-12)
Another way feminists try to dismiss the 1Timothy passage is by appealing to culture. This is an odd approach since Paul clearly transcends culture by referring back to creation and the first sin as the basis for this command. And while we’re on the subject of life in the Garden, isn’t it interesting that ‘equality’ was the exact appeal (and sale closer), that Satan used to tempt Eve? Is it possible he knew something about women that feminists have since chosen to ignore? Like their susceptibility to making emotional decisions, for example? Look at his avenue of approach… “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be LIKE GOD, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:5) [Emphasis mine] In other words, God is holding you down and keeping you oppressed… why are you tolerating this? Has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it?
Let me repeat… The very first weapon that Satan used to tempt Eve and destroy the perfect order that God had created, was the notion of equality. Which, by my reckoning, makes Satan the very first feminist. And yet we have women (and some men) today, lining up to fill his shoes and perpetuate the same, destructive lie. Can you spell deceived? Apparently Paul could. He spelled it perfectly in 1Timothy 2:14 – And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
In case you’re interested, the reference to the woman being a suitable helper (‘ezer’ in Hebrew) is rendered in Aramaic as ‘semakh’ which means “support, help.” At the site of Kuntillet Ajrud in the Wilderness of Zin, which served as a way-station for travelers in the early 8th century B.C.E., there was a depiction at the entrance of the fort of what is thought to be an Israelite king, possibly Joash or Jeroboam II. He is seated on a stylized chair and on one of the large pots found there (Pithos A), the form of a woman is etched in clay, playing a stringed instrument and sitting on the same type of chair as the king. Women in Iron Age Israel who functioned in a cultic capacity as musicians had equal status with men (Exodus 15:20-21; Judges 11:34; 1 Samuel 18:6; Jeremiah 31:4).
As Meyers pointed out on page 52 of the current issue of BAR, the translation of Genesis 3:16, where God passes judgement on the woman reads; “I will make great your toil and [many] your pregnancies.” The same word for “toil” is used in verse 17 where God passes judgement on the man. So both man and woman are consigned to hard work, but the woman has an additional burden; childbearing. As I noted in my previous comment, there existed equality between the sexes before the fall. The serpent drove a wedge between the couple and God by first deceiving the woman into thinking that she could be like God without God.
In her article from the October 1992 issue of Bible Review (p.55), Phyllis Trible explains Genesis 3:6 where the man and woman both succumb to temptation in which “the woman contemplates the fruit, finding it good to eat (a physical concern), pleasant to see (an aesthetic dimension) and desirable for wisdom (a sapiential motif). Her vision encompasses the gamut of life. Only then does she eat. By contrast the man WHO WAS WITH HER (a telling phrase deleted by translators going all the way back to Jerome’s Vulgate) simply ate.”
The serpent merely exploits the couple’s differences, with women having the extra burden of bearing children their minds process information and analyse it especially when choosing a mate, whereas men are simply satisfied when merely looking at a woman, without thinking. It’s our nature.
Interesting observation Paul. If it is actually confirmed to be the fort of an Israelite king, (which I’m guessing it hasn’t), the etching still points to an exception rather than a rule. Feminists, and most special interest groups for that matter, always want to turn exceptions into rules. I’m sure you would agree that it still does not outweigh the evidence in my post. And something else I neglected to mention was that in stark contrast to the lower status God seems to have bestowed on women, there is a complete absence of the reverse.
@Paul 24-I think it is equally plausible that the ‘contemplation’ Trible refers to could be the mental process that Eve used to justify (deceive herself into) getting what she really wanted. In this case equality. That process occurs routinely in our society and can even include lying. While the man may have been with her when she finally ate, it does not then follow that this occurred in the presence of the serpent. Nothing is said about why he ate or even the circumstances that put the fruit in front of him. For all we know, she could have secretly picked the fruit and brought it to him. Therefore, we could easily speculate that he ate to please his wife. In fact, we are told later that God chastised him for ‘listening to his wife’.
I would have to disagree with your last statement Paul. In my opinion, childbearing is irrelevant at this point because she had not born any children. Contending that she thought differently because of her role as a mother is speculative since she was not yet a mother. There are significant hormonal and mental changes that take place during the actual pregnancy.
It appears to be true that many men become brain dead when looking at a woman they find attractive. However, anecdotally (in my experience), in a stressful situation such as a conflict, I have found the reverse of what you are asserting. Women generally tend to act first and think later. In other words, in a pinch, they often find it impossible to weigh the consequences before acting and instead, act or speak on pure emotion. At least that’s what I and many others have observed. I have found quite the opposite to be true of most men. It would certainly seem that the apostle Paul as well as God Himself, see the same thing.
I have no interest in getting into this endless exercise of competing hermeneutics over whether God considers women inferior to men, but simply toss in a few more bones for you all to scrum over.
Paul several times steps out of his role as apostle into that of “Just me, myself, Paul”: he tells us that this is just his opinion, not God’s. Its how he feels, what he thinks is good practice, etc. That first Timothy passage seems clearly that sort of advice. Its all spoken in the “I”, not “God” mode.
When God chose the Hebrew people, he simply took them as they were then, and began to lead them, to teach them. He did not give them a whole new culture, or way of life, but took what they were. And they were part and parcel of the culture and social mores and practices of their time and the mega culture of their geographical part of the world. In that place and context, men ruled, women were devalued and thought as less important, etc. Polygamy was essentially universal (even though earlier He proposed monogamy was the better model for family. So did Paul in the New Testament times. And remember how Moses allowed for the practices and preferences he faced, but did not prefer, i.e. polygamy and divorce, etc.
If we consider Jesus as God, then we see Jesus was quite the egalitarian. Some of his best friends, supporters and financiers, and church leaders, and many were named disciples and led house churches (Lydia) and, it is argued, some were apostles (Junias, and at least 6 others).
Even in the strong biases of OT times, there were women judges (Deborah was likely not the only one, though perhaps the best, many scholars believe)., and prophetesses, and oracles, and powerful queens and regents, and Barak, of course, would not even go to war without Deborah.
But whatever, we are not living in the OT times, but the times of Jesus being Lord. The New Testament. And as Paul says in Gal 3:28, we are all one in Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. Not a lot of room for any hermeneutic to bend that.
@Russell 26 – Russell, I would like to engage what you’ve written but rather than ‘tossing in a few more [new] bones’, you’re simply scrumming over old ones. You’ve said nothing that I haven’t already addressed. I am disappointed that instead of answering some of my questions about Jesus’ disciple selection process, you’ve chosen to reiterate that we are not living in the OT but the NT… as if that is some sort of magical phrase that ultimately lays to rest all evidence in the OT and subsequently, all arguments against feminism. If I had a nickel for every time someone resorted to that worn out line…
Didn’t Jesus’ disciple selection take place in the NT? Didn’t Paul’s letter to Timothy take place in the NT? Here’s a new bone from the NT: Why does Paul in Titus 1:5-9, indicate that only men can be elders?
Since you’ve already indicated ‘you have no interest’ in addressing tough questions like these, may I ask you a few simple ones about what you’ve written:
1. Why do YOU think God gave the commands concerning women the way He did, knowing that His view of women would be passed down to countless generations? I would especially like to hear your opinion on Lev. 12:2-5.
2. Given the context of the Bible, why do you regard the Timothy passage to be “clearly” Paul giving his opinion, especially when he does not specify it as such? And even more especially in light of the precise words he uses in 1Cor. 7:10-12 where he does specify it.
3. If Paul was only giving his opinion, then…
a) as chief apostle, why did he even hold that opinion?
b) why should we disregard it?
4. If your answer to ‘b’ is ‘because things have changed’, what if the only reason things have changed is because of our having disregarded it in the first place? (This is a ‘chicken or the egg’ question)
5. If Paul wrote both 1Timothy and Gal 3:28, why do these passages appear contradictory? Hint: Could it be that Gal. 3:28 has a more precise meaning than the broad one you are assigning it?
J:
I’m sorry if those few “bones” I tossed into the pack of wolves scrumming the commentary here were old or pretty chewed over already. I confess I haven’t the energy or commitment to the many quarrels going on here. When I first came (returned) to the Lord and the Scripture from my life in the sciences, I vigorously enjoined these kinds of debates (they were on the “Bulletin Boards”, then, as the lighter & more agile blogging and commentary software didn’t exist then). It wore me out. I realized there was never any listening, only stubborn ideological warfare: “YOU change, cuz I’M right”. Maybe you are. I’m convinced God doesn’t care. Belief and faith are all He wants. As for “CORRECT Theology”, I think He knows we are so inadequate to know it, that we are all for some huge lessons in humility and corrections to our own “truths”, that He will, if He’s as kind and loving as I think He is, His laughter will be deafening.
Paul, in Titus, is a bit like an elder senior pastor in a denomination (Baptist? Lutheran? – I’ve attended those two) advising younger pastors what HE thinks will work best. As in the Timothy passage, he is saying “I”; “This is how I do, or would do. it” “This is MY preference (recall he advised against marriage and never had that much to do with women, if you could forgo the sex or help-mate needs of other men)”. There are times when, if you pay attention, Paul implicates, or even expressly tells us, “This is just me talking here, not God!” That is answering #2.
I don’t know that he is “Senior Apostle” He never claims to be, only that he’s as good as the rest, and seemed to regard Peter as more “senior”. And he was certainly free, and zealous” to maintain his independence and right to his own ideas, lifestyle, and authority. Sometimes, he lost good friendships, or caused some stress in the church over that. Maybe (as re point b, his Pharisaic training and history explains it, somewhat.
Things HAVE changed. Jesus’ life and the red type defines a whole new era, and the way that we who accept His Lordship, should think and move. The old covenant is gone. The old ways are gone. Jesus was a revolution. As for the people of the circumcision, who want to live by the old covenant … well, that’s between them and God (who, I rest assured, still loves them and will deal justly with them at the judgment day, too)
As for #5, I think the passages differ because one is about Paul’s preferences, and the other about Jesus’ preferences (or dictums). I can show you pastors who run churches like Paul likes, and others in a way more like Galatians. They will all be judged not by the lifestyle they are comfortable with, but the faith in the Son they have. So its whatever makes YOU happy, and pleases God (Red Letter Version), not Paul.
Be blessed and live comfortably in your own hermeneutic, don’t worry about mine. OK?
As I looked over what I posted, and saw all the typos and words (A “hunt & peck” writer – one finger typist) I omitted, and wish this place allowed editing one’s post, I realized that my greatest omission was this:
You wonder why Paul might even contradict himself, aside from the more personal moments when he tells us what HE thinks, rather than what God has taught or told or instructed him to think, its because Paul is not God. He is but a man, a man on a mission: to spread the Gospel, and build a faithful Church. He is still imbedded in the culture of his origins and that carried on through the last millennium or two, and the beliefs and values and ways of life that led to the Crucifixion! He must assemble a church with people who still live within the culture of the past. He shares some of that. And must lead to conversion and into building a sustaining church out of people that culture. That’s why he has ideas and ways that are not so different, or wholly revolutionized into Jesus’ own perspective and wishes.
He knows that Jesus insists there are no slave nor free, no male nor female … etc. But he also knows that this is a tough new way of thinking for most of the new converts, a set of values that might be huge stumbling stones to those who might otherwise come to the Lord. A bit like the old values about clean/not clean food, associating with gentiles, women being just as valued and capable as men, as only Jesus (who created all) knows. So he gives his own personal suggestions about how to put a church together, and accommodate the ideas and prejudices of the new followers and believers. He even instructs us to not stir up resistance or doubt by eating or drinking things God says are OK, but your host or guest or convert might have an issue with, and fall away and into hell, because of it.
Russell:
At no point have I told you to ‘change because I’m right’. I was under the impression that we were having a dialogue here. And although I have not criticized your approach to the Bible (hermeneutic), as you have implied I have, it does appear to me to be a ‘buffet’ style approach (take what you like and disregard the rest). You are not alone. Many people today approach the Bible that way. (For example, Terri in comment #2 whom I address below). Thus, in your approach, Russell, we differ substantially. When Paul tells Timothy in his second letter, that ‘ALL Scripture is God-breathed’ (2Tim. 3:16), I don’t see that we have the luxury or convenience of picking and choosing what suits our fancy or preconceptions or culture. Especially when it comes to passages that are instructive in nature as opposed to narrative. On the other hand, maybe you think those words in 2Timothy about Scripture were merely Paul’s opinion as well.
Nevertheless, you have not answered my questions completely. Allow me to clarify.
1. In 1Cor. 7:10-12 Paul comes right out and states that he is offering his opinion (“But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord… But to the rest I say, not the Lord…”). He does not do that in 1Timothy 2. Why do you then presume he is offering his opinion there?
2. What is your take on Lev. 12:2-5? Please don’t skip over this.
3. If Jesus’ ‘preferences’ trump Paul’s, what is your take on the fact that Jesus chose only men to be part of His twelve?
4. When Paul wrote Gal. 3:28, if he meant that there was no difference between men and women EVEN IN ROLES, why did he not practice that when it came to instructions about church leadership and procedure? The word hypocrisy comes to mind. But that’s only if what you’re saying is true. When you assert that the apostle Paul contradicted himself as you did, you’re much braver than I. Ditto if you accuse him of hypocrisy.
5. Why isn’t Gal. 3:28 just another one of Paul’s opinions?
@Terri #2 – Terri, you stated: “…we have zero verses commanding men (or even advising them) to take HEADship, authority or any type of position over their wives… Amazing how we’ve built a whole theology of marital HEADship around zero direct commands to husbands to be over their wives in any way.” [Emphasis mine]
Seriously… zero? I think you you may have missed a couple:
1Cor. 11:3 – But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the HEAD of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [Emphasis mine]
Eph. 5:23 – For the husband is the HEAD of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. [Emphasis mine]
Also, I’d like to point out that there is significance in the chronological order that commands are lad out to husbands and wives in Eph. 5. If we go back to the Garden when God was doling out rebuke to the three culprits, it is notable that He started at the bottom and moved up the chain of command; serpent first, then Eve, and finally Adam. So when Paul, through the Holy Spirit, instructs wives to submit to their husbands, he addresses her first. And when you think about it, it makes sense. If wives submitted to their husbands in ‘everything’ the way it says, would there be any need for husbands to enforce their headship? They could then be free to focus on things like ‘love, sacrifice and understanding’.
Unfortunately, feminism has thrown a major monkey wrench into that algorithm. In today’s TV shows, radio spots, news and ads, one can’t help but notice the overwhelming message–men are to be disrespected, especially by women. Thinking back to the Garden, I wonder who came up with THAT idea. So, submitting to your husband has pretty much gone the way of the dinosaur. Of course, this struggle for control is part of the curse. But that’s another subject.