Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics Quotes

“Later on, however, I actually did read an unabridged Bible and researched more verses using online topical Bible resources, only to find out that Stanton might have been right. The Bible definitely left room for the relegation of women’s status in all respects. Women appeared to have been held accountable for every sinful act that’s committed because of a single woman who lived in the Garden of Eden, hence appearing to make them required to be silent in church. Women were supposed to be mothers and wives, which are noble pursuits, but it appeared as if men had a wider range of opportunities: they could be fathers and husbands… along with apostles, pastors, political leaders, polyglots, AND leaders of municipal congregations! The pursuits other than being a father and husband were considered to be noble pursuits for men, but if a woman pursued any of that, even if she had the capabilities and the good intentions, it would be considered blasphemous, at least from what I understood”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“To be able to acknowledge Solomon’s first wife shows that some attention was given to Solomon’s non-polygamous marriage, when he was dedicated to a single wife. Compare “Besides Pharaoh’s daughter, he married women from Edom, Sidon, and from among the Hittites” to “He married women from Edom, Sidon, and from among the Hittites.” The phrase containing besides Pharaoh’s daughter creates a stronger implication that it was proper for Solomon to marry only the daughter than the phrase that listed the women he married, creating a stronger sense of approval towards monogamy.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Later on, however, I actually did read an unabridged Bible and researched more verses using online topical Bible resources, only to find out that Stanton might have been right. The Bible definitely left room for the relegation of women’s status in all respects. Women appeared to have been held accountable for every sinful act that’s committed because of a single woman who lived in the Garden of Eden, hence appearing to make them required to be silent in church. Women were supposed to be mothers and wives, which are noble pursuits, but it appeared as if men had a wider range of opportunities: they could be fathers and husbands… along with apostles, pastors, political leaders, polyglots, AND leaders of municipal congregations! The pursuits other than being a father and husband were considered to be noble pursuits for men, but if a woman pursued any of that, even if she had the capabilities and the good intentions, it would be considered blasphemous, at least from what I understood”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“In fact, in the Bible, the dowry price was used as a sign to show a spouse’s dedication to his wife, not the devaluation of his wife. For example, Jacob paid a dowry price by working for Laban in order to marry Rachel, but he did not do this with any thoughts of exercising property rights over his wife; he was incentivised by his love, as seen in Genesis 29:18: “Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, ‘I’ll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Due to the clarity in which these verses are presented regarding submission, the verses do support wives’ submission. Since these verses are very direct with emphasizing wives’ submission, and this submission is considered “fitting with the Lord,” it is true that God found it to be a biblical value, but, as mentioned in the main claim, husbands’ submission to their wives is also implied to be a biblical value as well.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“In fact, they, by being helpers to humanity, were actually able to guide humanity, not be guided, and they could control and execute decisions, not wait for someone else to control and execute decisions! That same word was used to refer to women; God described women the same way he described himself. Therefore, although wives were commanded to be submissive, wives’ roles as “helpers” elevate them to have control on guidance and decisions, and with guiding her husband/making decisions while “helping” her husband, that would mean that a husband would also have to honor his wife as a “helper” and submit to her guidance under her role as a “helper.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“But women will be sanctified through childbearing, IF they continue to live in love, faith, holiness, and modesty.” The verse states that childbirth can be one method of being sanctified, but sanctification through childbirth is not unconditional: a woman still has to have biblical values such as “love, faith, holiness, and modesty.” Furthermore, in the paragraph that preceded the paragraph containing 1 Timothy 2:15, it states, “Women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good deeds they do.” The verse directly states that women who claim to be devoted to God should judge themselves by their good deeds---not by other factors such as fertility.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Also, in Joel 2:16, it says, “Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the aged, gather the children…” This was a command meant to gather the people in Zion to fast and repent. It would not make sense for the women of the “congregation” to solely be sanctified through childbirth, because women who were still pregnant, had babies that were still developing, or were unmarried would not be able to be “sanctified,” since it is highly improbable for a woman to immediately give birth at the beginning of the assembly. If women had to be sanctified through childbirth, then the entire “congregation” would not be sanctified, as was commanded, because not all women could give birth right when the assembly began.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“In addition, the Bible actually states that people (men and women alike) are to be sanctified through Jesus and the truth of his word. Hebrews 13:12 states, “And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate, to sanctify his people by his own blood.” The phrase “his people” refers to all people that are his, not just the men that are his, and by dying for the people’s sins, they were sanctified, or freed from sin and able to access a path to Christ.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“In the context of this verse, the definition of “sanctification,” according to Oxford Languages, is, “the action of making or declaring something holy” or “the action or process of being freed from sin or purified.” Applying these definitions to hermeneutics, it may be observed that giving birth has nothing to do with being freed from sin or being set apart as holy. In fact, Jeremiah 19:3-5 mentions, “This is what the LORD, the God of HOSTS, the God of Israel says, ‘I am going to bring such disaster to this place (Judah) that the ears of all who hear of it will ring, because they have abandoned me and made this a foreign place… they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built high places to Baal on which they burn their children in fire as offerings to Baal…” As seen in the verse, people burned their children as sacrifices to Baal, a foreign idol. Among that crowd may have been women or husbands who received the consent of their wives to sacrifice their children. In order for those women to have any children to sacrifice to Baal in the first place, they had to undergo the process of childbirth. If one was to say that women would be directly sanctified through childbirth, that would be a misinterpretation, because if sanctification represents the process of being set apart as holy or being freed from sin, then that would mean that those women should have been holy and should have been freed from sin, but instead they were sacrificing to a foreign idol.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Also, in Genesis 2:24, it states, “This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” This verse emphasizes the oneness of two spouses. God’s ideal intention for marriage was for the two spouses to be united into “one,” but if the husband is being united with multiple wives, then that would mean that he would be unable to become “one” with any of the women, since his mind is divided between his multiple wives instead of being fully dedicated and united to a single wife.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“If a man were to marry a second wife, they would not only be committing polygamy, but they would also be committing adultery with the second wife, showing that polygamy, through its relationship with adultery, would be an unpermissable practice.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Although the law does acknowledge the possibility of polygamy in ancient Israel, one should not correlate POSSIBILITY with PERMISSABILITY.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“The verse mentions saving daughters as well as sons before Sodom is destroyed, and those daughters include the daughters Lot was about to offer to the men. Instead of commanding Lot to save himself and leave his daughters to be raped while Sodom was getting destroyed, the angels emphasized the maintenance of the welfare of all members of Lot’s family, including his daughters.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“As seen in this verse, the community of Israel was not passive in this situation, and found the rape to be unacceptable. It may be argued that only the Israelite community intended to resist the rape instead of God himself, but Judges chapter 20 contradicts that claim; in Judges chapter 20, the other 11 tribes of Israel sent a message to the tribe of Benjamin, asking the tribe to turn in the men who committed the rape. When the Bejamites refused to listen to the request [Judges 20:13], God himself desired for the other 11 tribes to fight against Benjamin due to the denial of this request, as seen in Judges 20:23:
“They [the other tribes of Israel] said, ‘Shall we go up again to fight against Benjamin, our fellow Israelites?’ The LORD answered, ‘Go up against them.’” With this, God definitely did not approve Benjamin’s inability to listen to the tribes’ request, which means that he cannot have approved of this rape.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Ephesians 5:33 states, “However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” Human property is defined as a person who is subject to someone else as his/her property, but if a man is to love his wife as he loves himself, then why would he want to subject his wife under himself when he would most likely love himself enough to not want to be considered property? The counter argument above is refutable, because while donkeys and oxen would be subjected under a man as animals and as property, a husband’s duty to love his wife EQUALLY as he loves himself can not make it true that wives are only as important as livestock.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Statistically speaking, saying that the entire population of women is more reckless and gullible than men because a single woman in the Bible was reckless and gullible is invalid. A single data point is not sufficient for determining whether or not women are more likely to be gullible and reckless than men, and Eve only represents ONE DATA POINT that supports the claim! To use Eve's sin to state that women are more gullible and reckless would mean that you are creating a claim derived from only one data point, which is insufficient statistical support.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“In addition, as seen in the verse above, God’s command for Adam to “rule over” Eve was a result of Eve’s sin, not a result of God’s own desires.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Still, there are other factors besides direct social interaction that do make Adam’s guilt on par with his wife’s:
First, Adam didn’t recite the commandments of God the way his wife did before she was fully convinced, nor did he hesitate when he presented the fruit. Genesis 3:6 simply mentioned that he ate it. From this observation, Adam, like his wife, also had the impetuousness to not recite them, let alone listen to God’s commands. Secondly, Genesis 3:6 also mentions that Adam was WITH Eve, who was WITH the snake, meaning that Adam was aware of a sinner (Eve) and a producer of sinners. Eve was directly willing to interact with the snake, but Adam was willing to interact with a sinner and be an eyewitness to the Devil’s temptations, and, even with that, he still was convinced to eat the fruit. In other words, he was both convinced by his human wife and, while being convinced, he had the credulity to condone the production of sin and to also be convinced by the Devil.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Adam was not applying the action of naming to exert and apply authority over the beings he named; he did it for the purpose of finding a helper. When Adam named Eve, therefore, he was not exerting authority over her, since naming had no impact on Adam’s authority over the animals.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“. Adam never actually got his authority over the animals through naming them! Verse 1:26 of Genesis states, “Then God said, ‘Let us make human beings* in our image, to be like ourselves. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on Earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.”

As shown with the verse above, naming, which includes the naming of the animals and later on the naming of Eve, was not what gave Adam his authority over the animals. God alone gave human beings the authority to “reign over” the animals. Naming did nothing. This exemplifies that naming, indeed, had a negligible impact on a being’s level of authority. God was the only being who created the dichotomy between animals and humanity, in which the former, through God, not through naming, is of a comparatively lower status than the latter”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Looking back at the fact that Eve was created as Adam’s helper, it can be seen that it signifies that the wife was never meant to be subservient to her husband. She was made to be an astute (not gullible/compliant) being who has rights to use her opinions and experience to not only be guided by her husband, but to also guide her husband.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“with the semantics from general context, it can be seen that “helper” is not synonymous to “slave.” If a person were to state that he/she “helped” a friend with his/her homework, would that mean that the helper is insignificant? Of course not. When a person helps another person with homework, he/she is actually the one who consolidates the understanding of the person who receives their help, which does oppose the claim that “helpers” are inferiors. In fact, in Psalms 54:4 and John 14:26, God and the Holy Spirit are referred to as “helpers,” which was the same word Eve was referred to:
“See, God is my helper. The Lord is the one who keeps my soul alive.” (Psalms 54:4)
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:26)”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“The verse does not say, “HE becomes one flesh.” The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib emphasizes the unitement of both genders in marriage, which shows that neither gender completes a subordinate role in marriage---both are equals.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Eve was created from Adam’s rib, bringing some people to believe that women were intended to be dependent and secondary beings. However, we still have to acknowledge that if Eve had been created with the same dust, she still would not be an equal being. Think about the cheetah and the cougar--- they are both wildcats, but they’re still taxonomized as two different organisms, or are divided organisms. Eve and Adam could have been created from the same type of dust, but the dust each one would be made from would still be different piles of dust. Like the cougar and the cheetah, men and women would not have gained equality with each other due to the fact that they were separately created from those different piles of dust! Observe what God did: instead of creating Adam and Eve from separate piles of dust, he created them with the same flesh.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Eve could have been created from the flesh of an animal, possibly making her an anthropoid organism, but not a human that receives human rights and authority over all animals. God, instead, created her by extracting material from a human, who was already determined to rule over all creatures (Genesis 1:26) to create Eve. The rights of the human being, which was to rule over all creatures and have an affinity with God, was given to Eve due to the way she was created. Since Adam already had an affinity to God, Eve was given that same affinity after God provided her with the flesh of Adam, who was God’s image.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“In Genesis 2:21 and Genesis 2:7, both human beings’ existence ensued from God’s existence, thus showing that, like the male human being, Eve was just as dependent on God as was Adam.”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics

“Of course, each belief must have its biblical support, and it must strengthen the faith of others to be valid, but if we are supposed to not cause one another to stumble, then why are we CONDEMNING each other for different but legitimate Christian beliefs? I hope conservatives don’t condemn/limit feminists and feminists do not condemn/limit conservatives!”
― Lucy Carter, Feminism and Biblical Hermeneutics