Phyllis Bird has written an article for the Anchor Bible Dictionary ¹ that explores how women are portrayed in the Old Testament. She reminds the reader of the distinctively male perspective that is so characteristic of the bible in general and particularly of the Old Testament. The view of women presented in the Old Testament is shaped by the male authors and conforms to the male dominated values of patriarchal society. Nonetheless, women played important roles in society and had areas of great influence. Sometimes their influence and power were not presented directly and must be inferred by how they were portrayed. Bird’s article helps the reader to be aware of these issues and to look for clues that are hinted at, particularly in the more negative types of characterizations. It is precisely at these points that the potential for female power is likely to be suppressed. This short review highlights some of the key issues that stood out to me as I read Bird’s article.

Women in the Old Testament are generally portrayed as nameless second-class people without a voice in a world ruled by men. Since Scripture comes to us from the hands of men, women never have the opportunity to tell their side of the story. Their words, even considering how seldom direct female dialog appears, is never directly from their lips or writings. This is not surprising since the authors of Scripture are males formed out of a male dominated society guided by male values. Women and their stories become the objects that accomplish the purposes of the male authors. This hardly portrays women fairly or fully. The authors were selective in their purposes and the portrayal of women suffered doubly in that not only do we have a uniquely male perspective, but also what is provided is done in such a way as to further the agendas of the authors.

Modern methods of anthropological study, literary, rhetorical, and structural criticisms all help to read between the lines of Scripture, and reveal the multifaceted and important roles women played in the history of Israel. Women were restricted and dominated in many arenas, as they have been throughout all known history and cultures, yet they had significant roles, exercised authority in their given areas of responsibility, and had a hand in shaping society and ultimately the history of Israel.

Women, with few exceptions, were denied the opportunity to lead men.² This precluded positions of institutional responsibility and leadership. On the contrary, men were expected to exercise authority over women. Legal rights of women were generally secondary and inferior to those of men. Married women were considered to be the property of their husbands.³

Women were given unique roles and responsibilities that only women could fulfill. They found both fulfillment and restriction in these roles.⁴ Such roles were most often played out in the realm of the family unit. A woman was uniquely suited to be a wife and mother, and the fundamental evidence of successful motherhood, having many children, was a means to personal fulfillment. It was also an opportunity to shape a new generation as the role of the mother included the teaching of the children. Failure at this primary role put a woman at great risk. Without children to provide care in later life, the loss of a husband due to death or divorce left a woman without property or means of support. She would be in a very desperate state indeed!

Failure in the role of mother or wife also was treated as a disgrace and viewed as divine punishment.⁵ A woman having lost her family was an outcast of society. She could very easily be viewed as a threat to normal society values and might even be forced to resort to prostitution to survive.⁶ Therefore, women were under great pressure to produce for the good of the family, in providing care, nourishment, material needs such as clothing, and especially children.

Purity was a fundamental religious and social concept in ancient Israel. Foreign women threatened the religious and social fabric and were generally portrayed as dangerous, symbolically representing immorality and embodied evil.⁷ Bird notes that the degree of fear expressed towards foreign women reveal the latent power to influence society they actually possessed.⁸ With few exceptions, foreign women were therefore generally marginalized in Scripture to protect the dominant male values.⁹

There is much more to be learned from Bird’s article. She presents a well-balanced view that brings out more positive characterizations than this review might suggest. This review has highlighted Bird’s observations of the negative portrayal of women in the Old Testament, as it is clear that women do not speak with their own voice and are generally demeaned as a result. Those in power retain the privilege of writing history and this is true of Scripture as well. I am reminded of Leviticus chapter twenty-seven where the monetary value of men and women is spelled out. If a male of age between twenty and sixty years was worth fifty shekels, a woman was worth thirty (Lev 27:3-4). We see here the evidence of sinful human nature at work that claims higher valuation for the self than for the other. We must remember this tendency to present women as lesser second-class citizens lest we succumb to a devalued view of women that would shape our expectations and beliefs in a dishonoring way. We do well to bear in mind that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).