Women's Original Equality

My Dear Friend,—In attempting to comply with thy request to give my views on the Province of Woman, I feel that I am venturing on nearly untrodden ground, and that I shall advance arguments in opposition to a corrupt public opinion, and to the perverted interpretation of Holy Writ, which has so universally obtained. But I am in search of truth; and no obstacle shall prevent my prosecuting that search, because I believe the welfare of the world will be materially advanced by every new discovery we make of the designs of Jehovah in the creation of woman. It is impossible that we can answer the purpose of our being, unless we understand that purpose. It is impossible that we should fulfil our duties, unless we comprehend them; or live up to our privileges, unless we know what they are.

My Dear Friend, In trying to share my views on the role of women, as you requested, I feel I am entering almost unexplored territory. My arguments will challenge corrupt public opinion and the widely accepted, distorted interpretation of Scripture. But I am searching for truth, and no obstacle will stop me. I believe the world will benefit greatly from every new discovery we make about Jehovah’s intentions in creating woman. We cannot fulfill the purpose of our existence unless we understand it. We cannot fulfill our duties unless we understand them, or exercise our privileges unless we know what they are.

In examining this important subject, I shall depend solely on the Bible to designate the sphere of woman, because I believe almost every thing that has been written on this subject, has been the result of a misconception of the simple truths revealed in the Scriptures, in consequence of the false translation of many passages of Holy Writ. My mind is entirely delivered from the superstitious reverence which is attached to the English version of the Bible. King James’s translators certainly were not inspired. I therefore claim the original as my standard, believing that to have been inspired, and I also claim to judge for myself what is the meaning of the inspired writers, because I believe it to be the solemn duty of every individual to search the Scriptures for themselves, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and not be governed by the views of any man, or set of men.

In examining this important subject, I will rely solely on the Bible to define woman’s sphere. I believe almost everything written on this subject has resulted from a misunderstanding of the simple truths revealed in Scripture. This misunderstanding is due to the false translation of many Bible passages. I am entirely free from the superstitious reverence attached to the English version of the Bible. King James’s translators were certainly not inspired. I therefore claim the original as my standard, believing it to have been inspired. I also claim the right to judge for myself what the inspired writers meant. I believe it is every individual’s solemn duty to search the Scriptures for themselves, with the help of the Holy Spirit. No one should be governed by the views of any man or group of men.

We must first view woman at the period of her creation. ‘And God said, Let us make man in our own 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.’ In all this sublime description of the creation of man, (which is a generic term including man and woman,) there is not one particle of difference intimated as existing between them. They were both made in the image of God; dominion was given to both over every other creature, but not over each other. Created in perfect equality, they were expected to exercise the vicegerence intrusted to them by their Maker, in harmony and love.

We must first consider woman at the time of her creation. ‘And God said, Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the livestock. Let them rule over all the earth and every creature that crawls on it. So God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them.’ In this sublime description of creation, “man” is a general term that includes both men and women. There is not the slightest suggestion of any difference between them. Both were made in the image of God. Both were given dominion over every other creature, but not over each other. They were created perfectly equal. They were expected to exercise the authority entrusted to them by their Maker in harmony and love.

Let us pass on now to the recapitulation of the creation of man:—‘The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God said, it is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him.’ All creation swarmed with animated beings capable of natural affection, as we know they still are; it was not, therefore, merely to give man a creature susceptible of loving, obeying, and looking up to him, for all that the animals could do and did do. It was to give him a companion, in all respects his equal; one who was like himself a free agent, gifted with intellect and endowed with immortality; not a partaker merely of his animal gratifications, but able to enter into all his feelings as a moral and responsible being. If this had not been the case, how could she have been an help meet for him? I understand this as applying not only to the parties entering into the marriage contract, but to all men and women, because I believe God designed woman to be an help meet for man in every good and perfect work. She was a part of himself, as if Jehovah designed to make the oneness and identity of man and woman perfect and complete; and when the glorious work of their creation was finished, ‘the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.’

Let us turn now to the account of man’s creation: ‘The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and man became a living soul. The Lord God said, it is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable helper for him.’ All creation was full of living beings capable of natural affection, as we know they still are. So God’s purpose was not merely to give man a creature capable of loving, obeying, and looking up to him. All the animals could do those things and did them. God’s purpose was to give man a companion who was in all respects his equal. Like him, she was a free agent, gifted with intellect and endowed with immortality. She could share not only his physical pleasures but also all his feelings as a moral and responsible being. If she could not do these things, how could she have been a suitable helper for him? I understand this to apply not only to those entering marriage but also to all men and women. I believe God intended woman to be a suitable helper for man in every good and perfect work. She was a part of man himself, as if Jehovah intended to make the unity and identity of man and woman perfect and complete. When the glorious work of their creation was finished, ‘the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.’

This blissful condition was not long enjoyed by our first parents. Eve, it would seem from the history, was wandering alone amid the bowers of Paradise, when the serpent met with her. From her reply to Satan, it is evident that the command not to eat ‘of the tree that is in the midst of the garden,’ was given to both, although the term man was used when the prohibition was issued by God. ‘And the woman said unto the serpent, WE may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, YE shall not eat of it, neither shall YE touch it, lest YE die.’ Here the woman was exposed to temptation from a being with whom she was unacquainted. She had been accustomed to associate with her beloved partner, and to hold communion with God and with angels; but of satanic intelligence, she was in all probability entirely ignorant. Through the subtlety of the serpent, she was beguiled. And ‘when she saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat.’

Our first parents did not enjoy this blissful state for long. The account suggests that Eve was wandering alone among the shaded gardens of Paradise when the serpent met her. Her reply to Satan makes it clear that the command not to eat “from the tree in the middle of the garden” was given to both of them. This was so even though God used the word man when he gave the command. “And the woman said to the serpent, WE may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. But God has said of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, YOU shall not eat it or touch it, or YOU will die.” Here, the woman faced temptation from a being she did not know. She was accustomed to spending time with her beloved partner and communicating with God and angels. But she was in all probability entirely unaware of satanic intelligence. The serpent deceived her through its cunning. And “when she saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some of its fruit and ate it.”

We next find Adam involved in the same sin, not through the instrumentality of a supernatural agent, but through that of his equal, a being whom he must have known was liable to transgress the divine command, because he must have felt that he was himself a free agent, and that he was restrained from disobedience only by the exercise of faith and love towards his Creator. Had Adam tenderly reproved his wife, and endeavored to lead her to repentance instead of sharing in her guilt, I should be much more ready to accord to man that superiority which he claims; but as the facts stand disclosed by the sacred historian, it appears to me that to say the least, there was as much weakness exhibited by Adam as by Eve. They both fell from innocence, and consequently from happiness, but not from equality.

Next, we find Adam involved in the same sin. He was led into it not by a supernatural being, but by his equal. Adam must have known that Eve was capable of disobeying God’s command. He must have felt that he himself was free to choose. Only his own faith and love for his Creator kept him from disobedience. If Adam had gently corrected his wife and tried to lead her to repentance instead of sharing her guilt, I would be much more willing to grant men the superiority they claim. But the biblical account shows that Adam was, to say the least, at least as weak as Eve. Both fell from innocence and, as a result, from happiness, but not from equality.

Let us next examine the conduct of this fallen pair, when Jehovah interrogated them respecting their fault. They both frankly confessed their guilt. ‘The man said, the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat. And the woman said, the serpent beguiled me and I did eat.’ And the Lord God said unto the woman, ‘Thou wilt be subject unto thy husband, and he will rule over thee.’ That this did not allude to the subjection of woman to man is manifest, because the same mode of expression is used in speaking to Cain of Abel. The truth is that the curse, as it is termed, which was pronounced by Jehovah upon woman, is a simple prophecy. The Hebrew, like the French language, uses the same word to express shall and will. Our translators having been accustomed to exercise lordship over their wives, and seeing only through the medium of a perverted judgment, very naturally, though I think not very learnedly or very kindly, translated it shall instead of will, and thus converted a prediction to Eve into a command to Adam; for observe, it is addressed to the woman and not to the man. The consequence of the fall was an immediate struggle for dominion, and Jehovah foretold which would gain the ascendency; but as he created them in his image, as that image manifestly was not lost by the fall, because it is urged in Gen. 9: 6, as an argument why the life of man should not be taken by his fellow man, there is no reason to suppose that sin produced any distinction between them as moral, intellectual and responsible beings. Man might just as well have endeavored by hard labor to fulfil the prophecy, thorns and thistles will the earth bring forth to thee, as to pretend to accomplish the other, ‘he will rule over thee,’ by asserting dominion over his wife.

Let us next examine how this fallen pair behaved when Jehovah questioned them about their wrongdoing. They both frankly confessed their guilt. ‘The man said, the woman you gave to be with me gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it. And the woman said, the serpent deceived me, and I ate it.’ And the Lord God said to the woman, ‘You will be subject to your husband, and he will rule over you.’ Clearly, this did not refer to the subjection of woman to man. The same kind of expression is used when God speaks to Cain about Abel. The truth is that the so-called curse Jehovah pronounced upon woman is simply a prophecy. Hebrew, like French, uses the same word to express shall and will. Our translators were accustomed to ruling over their wives, and they saw only through the lens of distorted judgment. So, quite naturally, they translated it shall instead of will. I think they did so with neither much learning nor much kindness. In this way, they turned a prediction to Eve into a command to Adam. Notice that the words are addressed to the woman, not the man. The fall immediately led to a struggle for dominion, and Jehovah foretold which of them would gain the upper hand. But he created them in his image, and that image was clearly not lost in the fall. In Gen. 9: 6, it is given as a reason why one human being should not take another’s life. So there is no reason to suppose that sin made any distinction between them as moral, intellectual, and responsible beings. Man might just as well have tried, through hard labor, to fulfill the prophecy that the earth would bring forth thorns and thistles for him. Yet he claims to fulfill the other prophecy, ‘he will rule over you,’ by asserting dominion over his wife.

Here then I plant myself. God created us equal;—he created us free agents;—he is our Lawgiver, our King and our Judge, and to him alone is woman bound to be in subjection, and to him alone is she accountable for the use of those talents with which her Heavenly Father has entrusted her. One is her Master even Christ.

This is where I stand. God created us equal. He created us free to choose. He is our Lawgiver, our King, and our Judge. A woman is bound to obey him alone. She is accountable to him alone for how she uses the talents her Heavenly Father has entrusted to her. She has one Master, Christ.

Thine for the oppressed in the bonds of womanhood,

Yours for the oppressed, in the bonds of sisterhood,