"Sexism In the Bible" Article

[Icthus]

Alright, I've looked over more of your article, and I must say, I think you are at fair at times, and occasionally simply mistaken. As an example, you rightfully note that Lot and the Levite who offer women up to be raped are bad, but God doesn't condone this. Saying that the NT uses Lot as an example of a righteous man doesn't at all mean that his actions are all condoned. After all, David was considered to be the greatest king of Israel, and the Bible certainly doesn't gloss over his mistakes. Abraham is considered faithful, but his actions with his wife are noted rightly as being underhanded. These men aren't lauded for being perfect, and no one claims that they never did anything wrong. It is their faith in God, though they were disobedient at times, that is what is commented about. They were made righteous through their faith, even if they did awful things, and that doesn't mean that these actions are condoned.

When you discuss Ex. 21, 2-6 you completely miss the point. The passage isn't saying that men can be freed but that women can't, because that's absolutely not true. All servants were freed after seven years. What this passage says is that if a man enters the service of a master and marries a woman who is also a servant of that master, then he doesn't automatically get to take her with when he is freed. If, for instance, he serves his master for four years and then has enough money to pay off his debts, he gets to go free early just as the woman would (and she doesn't get charged as much for going free because it was more difficult for a woman to earn money) if she payed for herself. But if the man's wife who is also a servant can't pay or hasn't served her seven years yet, then he can't take her with him until one of those requirements is filled. There is absolutely nothing sexist about it.

When you talk about taking women as captives, I don't see where the sexism really is. I'd imagine being made a captive would be better than being killed (you're free to argue that it was wrong to kill everyone who wasn't a virgin female). Note also that if a man takes a captive woman as a wife, he must give her time before he marries her, and he can't even sell her into slavery and has to respect her as an actual wife. And another thing, anthropologists and historians agree that polygamy was by far the exception in ancient Israel. Only very wealthy men, like King Solomon, took multiple wives, and God doesn't actually condone this, especially considering that Solomon's obsession with woman is treated as a major, if not his greatest, flaw.

You keep making the claim that women were property like cattle, which isn't true. Property was different in the ANE. Freedom was relative. Children were the property of their parents, wives of their husbands, debtors of their creditors, family members of the family elders, servants of masters, masters of their kings, kings of stronger kings, kings of their gods. In Ancient Israel, no one was "free" in the sense that we think of it today. Everyone belonged to someone else, usually several tiers of other people, but nor were they simply "possessions". Property as we define it today cannot own property, and women in Israel could own property. The had protection under the law against being raped, murdered, cheated, abandoned (No, contrary to the exaggerated claims you make, men could not simply sell their wives away for no reason, nor could they divorce them on a whim. The woman's family was obligated to prevent that from happening, and they would take slights of honor VERY seriously. Also, it is simply wrong to say that women couldn't ever divorce their husbands in the time of Jesus. Jesus specifically uses the example of a woman who has divorced her husband in one of his discussions of adultery and divorce, not to mention that to my knowledge, most scholars agree that women in Judaism in the first century AD or CE were worse off than women before and during the United Monarchy. The idea that history shows a gradual climb in women's rights over thousands of years is a myth. There were ups and downs all over the place, and wherever God entered, there was always an up.

Your claim that women had to be virgins at marriage when men didn't is also flawed. First, any family of a virgin would make sure to have proof of it as a manner of honor, so there wasn't any likelihood of an innocent girl being executed. Second, your claim that men could go see prostitutes is mistaken as prostitutes weren't SUPPOSED to exist. Families were not allowed by law to make prostitutes out of their daughters, and in theory (though not in practice) prostitution was supposed to be illegal. Men were supposed to be pure as well. The problem was that the Israelites didn't have a way to test whether or not a man was a virgin outside of his word. The reason ancient societies were so obsessed with purity before marriage is that family units were extraordinarily important as was keeping a family going. No one wanted to run the risk of raising as their own children who were illegitimate, and the best way to prevent that was to keep an eye on women, since a woman always knows that the baby she is giving birth to is hers (Note that families were very protective of women, so there was very little chance of a woman being raped as they were rarely left alone. Note also that marital rape, though not specifically discussed in the OT Law, was generally unlikely as the vast majority of households at the time would have small buildings in which rather large [by our standards] numbers of people slept together [no, there wasn't much privacy]. If a man were to force himself on his wife, he'd have to do it in front of his servants [if he had any], his children [almost certainly] and likely others as well. In a society that was both community and honor based, if a man mistreated his wife, everyone would know it, and since privacy practically didn't exist, they'd almost certainly act on that knowledge.). Note also that every case of a violation of the law would be presided over by a judge. No ANE Law Code was enforced word for word in every case (Jesus said the law was made for man, not the other way around. Attempts to argue that Jesus thought the Law was perfect because he said he wasn't destroying it but fulfilling it won't work because the way he fulfilled it was to create a new Covenant as a new one had been received under Moses. After all, Jesus healed on the Sabbath so he clearly didn't mean for every aspect of the Law to be upheld always).

That's all for now though. It's been fun, but I think it's about time I dropped out of this debate for a while. I'm very busy at the moment and I probably shouldn't be devoting so much time to arguing.

[Butterfly]

I notice in your example you equate understanding the plight of women with thinking the Bible is sexist. Does that mean that since I don't think the Christian God, which you often call the "Biblegod", is sexist I must not understand or sympathize with the plight of women? Because I do. I believe that men and women were created as equals and that it is wrong to treat women unfairly. I believe that God, through the ultimate revelation which is Jesus Christ, demonstrates amply that he believes this as well. I believe that the OT law was an imperfect code working within an imperfect context, but the light of God's indiscriminating love shines through it.

Hi Icthus,
If you believe the OT law was an imperfect code, does that mean you think the laws that the Bible says God gave to Moses are flawed?

I think your treatment of ritual purity in your article is unfair. When the Law says that a woman is unclean during her period, for instance, that doesn't mean that she is to be viewed negatively for it. Ceremonial uncleanliness cannot be equivocated with moral deficiency. As part of the article I posted notes, inanimate objects could be unclean. That doesn't mean that they are bad or "dirty". The Israelites certainly didn't think that giving birth to a child, for instance, was a dirty or bad thing. Ritual purity served a number of purposes such as keeping those who had recently handled the dead from coming into close contact with others, restricting the habits of the Israelites to differentiate them from neighboring civilizations, and excusing those in certain situations from participating in regular work or otherwise mandatory rituals.

First off, I never mention general "ritual purity" in my article. What I quoted and spoke of specifically had to do with the length of time a woman and her baby had to through the ritual of purification if she had a female baby versus a male baby. I have researched this extensively and there is absolutely NO difference in giving birth to a male child versus a female child. At that infant stage both male and female babies must equally spend most of their time with the mother for obvious reasons. Secondly, this period of time from birth to 40 days (1 month 10 days) for a male, and birth to 80 days (2 months 20 days) for a female plays no role whatsoever in the mother being able to bond with the her daughter versus her son.

I agree with you that it's horrible that the Bible has often been used to justify sexism, especially since it doesn't. Several passages have been taken to endorse sexism, but God does not ever say "women are worth less than men". On the contrary, there is neither male nor female in Christ. That is a message of radical equality whether or not it has historically been upheld.

I'm afraid you are wrong. The Bible most certainly does say that a male is worth more than a female.

Lev.27:1-7 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
Here is the breakdown by age:

1. 20 - 60 year old male = 50 shekels
2. 20-60 year old female = 30 shekels
3. 5-20 year old male = 20 shekels
4. 5-20 year old female = 10 shekels
5. 1 month -5 year old male =5 shekels of silver
6. 1 month-5 year old female = 3 shekels of silver
7.60 years and above male =15 shekels
8. 60 years and above female = 10 shekels

Remember this verse is found in the same Scriptures that Jesus said not one "Jot", or "Tittle" would be changed from...oops

[Butterfly]

When you discuss Ex. 21, 2-6 you completely miss the point. The passage isn't saying that men can be freed but that women can't, because that's absolutely not true. All servants were freed after seven years. What this passage says is that if a man enters the service of a master and marries a woman who is also a servant of that master, then he doesn't automatically get to take her with when he is freed. If, for instance, he serves his master for four years and then has enough money to pay off his debts, he gets to go free early just as the woman would (and she doesn't get charged as much for going free because it was more difficult for a woman to earn money) if she payed for herself. But if the man's wife who is also a servant can't pay or hasn't served her seven years yet, then he can't take her with him until one of those requirements is filled. There is absolutely nothing sexist about it.

No, all servants/slaves were not freed after seven years, that law only applied to Hebrew servants/slaves. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that a non-Hebrew servant/slave must be freed after seven years, in fact it says in Lev.25:44-45 that foreign slaves can be kept for life and passed down as an inheritance along with the slaves children. Under the laws God gave to Moses all slaves were not treated the same, there was a different standard applied if one was a Hebrew versus a non-Hebrew.

Paying off ones debts had nothing to do with going free. For one a slave did not earn money, he was owned by his master and was only allowed to go free if he was a Hebrew and had served his six years. The only way a slave's wife could go free with him was if he was married when he became a slave, otherwise his wife and children were owned by the master. And this law was ordained by God.

Exo.21;2-4 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

When you talk about taking women as captives, I don't see where the sexism really is. I'd imagine being made a captive would be better than being killed (you're free to argue that it was wrong to kill everyone who wasn't a virgin female). Note also that if a man takes a captive woman as a wife, he must give her time before he marries her, and he can't even sell her into slavery and has to respect her as an actual wife.

Can you begin to imagine what a young captive girl would have experienced? First, she is a witness to her entire family being slaughtered by the Hebrew soldiers who then take her be a wife. Secondly, can you even begin to imagine the horror she must have felt to think that she would have to have sexual relations with a man who just slaughtered her family? And you say "He must give her time before he marries her", what does time have to do with marrying a murderer? Maybe, you could get a clearer picture if you imagined it was your daughter or sister that this was happening to. Any woman I know would much rather be killed than taken captive by men who just murdered her family, wouldn't you? And this law was ordained by God.

You keep making the claim that women were property like cattle, which isn't true. Property was different in the ANE. Freedom was relative. Children were the property of their parents, wives of their husbands, debtors of their creditors, family members of the family elders, servants of masters, masters of their kings, kings of stronger kings, kings of their gods. In Ancient Israel, no one was "free" in the sense that we think of it today.

No matter how property was defined in the ANE, women were still owned by men and classed along with their property like cattle. Here is a good example from Numbers 31 where Moses commanded all the Midianites except 32,000 virgins to be killed, of the virgins who were saved they were to be divided amongst the Hebrews as property, in the same manner as the cattle. And this command was ordained by God.

Numbers 31:30-31 & 35 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the cattle, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD. And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses…..And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

Your claim that women had to be virgins at marriage when men didn't is also flawed. First, any family of a virgin would make sure to have proof of it as a manner of honor, so there wasn't any likelihood of an innocent girl being executed. Second, your claim that men could go see prostitutes is mistaken as prostitutes weren't SUPPOSED to exist. Families were not allowed by law to make prostitutes out of their daughters, and in theory (though not in practice) prostitution was supposed to be illegal. Men were supposed to be pure as well.

My claim is not flawed at all. Men could marry more than one wife, could have concubines, and divorce their wives, so virginity was not a prerequisite for them. I don't know where you got the idea that prostitutes weren't suppose to exist? Remember the story of Judah and Tamar? It was all fine and dandy for Judah to go to a prostitute, but when he found out that it was Tamar he ordered her to be burned...until she exposed him! Once again, these were the laws that God ordained.

That's all for now though. It's been fun, but I think it's about time I dropped out of this debate for a while. I'm very busy at the moment and I probably shouldn't be devoting so much time to arguing.

I'm glad you took the time to discuss my article, I sincerely hope you come back when you get caught up with your duties...

It's been fun,

[Icthus]

I'm afraid you are wrong. The Bible most certainly does say that a male is worth more than a female.

Lev.27:1-7 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
Here is the breakdown by age:

1. 20 - 60 year old male = 50 shekels
2. 20-60 year old female = 30 shekels
3. 5-20 year old male = 20 shekels
4. 5-20 year old female = 10 shekels
5. 1 month -5 year old male =5 shekels of silver
6. 1 month-5 year old female = 3 shekels of silver
7.60 years and above male =15 shekels
8. 60 years and above female = 10 shekels

Remember this verse is found in the same Scriptures that Jesus said not one "Jot", or "Tittle" would be changed from...oops

I think you're misunderstanding this section. What is going on here, is that the laws are being given for valuation of things consecrated to the Lord. In the instance of animals or children, this would be done by the owners/parents. In the case of a man or woman of age, this would be done in the form of a Nazarite vow, a vow by which one who isn't a priest can dedicate him OR herself to the Lord and follow special rules and the like. These values are NOT the worth of the individual as a person. The Israelites did not, for instance think that an adult male under 60 was worth ten male infants. These values are the price that must be payed to redeem something or someone. The fact that there is a higher price for a male does not mean that the male is worth more AS A HUMAN. It refers to economics. As a worker, the average male is worth more than the average female at this time because work means manual labor, and he probably could come up with the price to redeem something much more easily. Hence why old people are worth less by this code as are small children. If you read farther, you'll find that if someone does not have the means for a set value, they shall be valued differently. Values are set partially by the ability of the vow-maker to meet a price. Hence, a woman who would have more difficulty redeeming herself from a vow, wouldn't have to pay as high a price as a man. Similarly, a parent would have it much easier redeeming a child than an adult and the elderly get off easy as well.

It's similar to the way that a female servant didn't have to pay as much for her freedom as a male. It wasn't because women aren't worth as much as humans, it was because it was more difficult for her to come up with the money. If the price had been equal, I'm sure someone would complain that "it's unfair to make a woman pay the same amount for her freedom. It's obviously a way to trap women in servitude and allow men to escape disguised as fairness."

And as I said, Jesus did not change the law, he just made a new covenant. We are no longer bound to the law because we have been justified by faith. It is actually rather difficult to define what Jesus referred to when he said "the Law". If you're like me and will allow that the Law has been adulterated in some sense, I don't see what the problem is.

I don't know why you insist on pressing the issue of the Old Testament Law after Jesus' resurrection. It is neither a new or obscure concept that the OT Law was imperfect. After all, before the Hebrews reached Israel, God wanted to make them "a nation of priests". He was perfectly willing to give them his righteous and perfect laws and let them live in harmony with him if they were ready, but they weren't. The people asked for an intercessor. They couldn't handle it, and so God gave them what they asked for. The same thing happened when the people wanted a king. God was willing to be their king and rule over them, and Samuel correctly noted that in many ways a king would be bad for them, but they insisted so he allowed them to have one. The idea that God is capable of accomplishing his ends through people and societies that are far from perfect or even mildly good in some cases is not a novelty.

I said I was done before, but I'm definitely done now. No more arguing for a while. It's been interesting.

[Icthus]

Argh! We keep responding to quickly. I promised to stop, but by the time I had finished, you had posted again so I feel obliged to comment. On the subject of property, listing women along with cattle doesn't mean that women are like cattle. It is common when discussing battles to give numbers of everything. Just because a history textbook lists the numbers of men captured in a battle side by side with the number of artillery pieces doesn't mean than they are the same manner of thing. Women are never in the Bible denied the ability to have a personal relationship with God just because they are women. The Angel of the Lord appears to women. Women could be prophetesses and judges. A woman had the greatest honor ever given to a human in getting to give birth to Jesus. Women were not property in the same way cattle were as servants were not property in the way cattle were.

As for prostitution, the fact that people went to see them and didn't get in trouble means nothing. People in the Bible are constantly doing things that God doesn't want them to like praying to other gods or cheating each other. Readers at the time would not assume that anything done in the Bible must be legal, and the fact that some people aren't expressly called out on their behavior doesn't mean it's fine. The reader is supposed to know, for instance, that Lot shouldn't have offered his daughters up to raped.

Contrary to what you said, quite a lot of ANE slaves actually earned wages. Even those that didn't often had opportunities to make money, and in Israel, a master was required to provide a servant who had served his time with money upon releasing him.

Personally, I'd rather be captured than killed, but that could just be me. The ANE could be pretty nasty and mass slaughter wasn't all that uncommon (as if it is today). I understand that you think this war stuff is brutal, but what I don't get is why you focus on it as sexism rather than simple barbarity. I mean, the real sexism would come if God ordered people to kill off a society, leave the women, raped them, and then kill them. Taking them as wives (and they had to treat them like wives and couldn't sell them, not to mention they'd protect them from others) is a lot better than that. If they had simply killed them, I'm sure someone would complain about slaughtering off defenseless women, and of course you could argue "why does anyone have to die?" and the answer is that God made Israel sort out a lot of its own problems. The Israelites chose to be a nation like other nations, and God made them live with the consequences. They didn't want to be a nation of priests. They wanted kings and cultic rituals and to worship other gods like the other nations, so he made them struggle for survival in the harsh world they chose to be a part of. I'd also note that God ordering the destruction of a people is different than God saying it's okay to kill people and take their wives whenever you feel like it. God only allowed these things to happen when times were rough, and he promised that someday there would be peace and that the world would be saved through Israel. He appeared on Earth in the form of Jesus Christ and demonstrated love for humanity by creating a new covenant by which we could be forgiven.

In any case, I'm gone for now. Hopefully some of the others will keep the discussion going, Butterfly. Personally, I think things had gotten a bit boring around here before you showed up.

[Butterfly]

I'm afraid you are wrong. The Bible most certainly does say that a male is worth more than a female.

Lev.27:1-7 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
Here is the breakdown by age:

1. 20 - 60 year old male = 50 shekels
2. 20-60 year old female = 30 shekels
3. 5-20 year old male = 20 shekels
4. 5-20 year old female = 10 shekels
5. 1 month -5 year old male =5 shekels of silver
6. 1 month-5 year old female = 3 shekels of silver
7.60 years and above male =15 shekels
8. 60 years and above female = 10 shekels

Remember this verse is found in the same Scriptures that Jesus said not one "Jot", or "Tittle" would be changed from...oops

I think you're misunderstanding this section. What is going on here, is that the laws are being given for valuation of things consecrated to the Lord. In the instance of animals or children, this would be done by the owners/parents. In the case of a man or woman of age, this would be done in the form of a Nazarite vow, a vow by which one who isn't a priest can dedicate him OR herself to the Lord and follow special rules and the like. These values are NOT the worth of the individual as a person. The Israelites did not, for instance think that an adult male under 60 was worth ten male infants. These values are the price that must be payed to redeem something or someone. The fact that there is a higher price for a male does not mean that the male is worth more AS A HUMAN. It refers to economics. As a worker, the average male is worth more than the average female at this time because work means manual labor, and he probably could come up with the price to redeem something much more easily. Hence why old people are worth less by this code as are small children. If you read farther, you'll find that if someone does not have the means for a set value, they shall be valued differently. Values are set partially by the ability of the vow-maker to meet a price. Hence, a woman who would have more difficulty redeeming herself from a vow, wouldn't have to pay as high a price as a man. Similarly, a parent would have it much easier redeeming a child than an adult and the elderly get off easy as well.

It's similar to the way that a female servant didn't have to pay as much for her freedom as a male. It wasn't because women aren't worth as much as humans, it was because it was more difficult for her to come up with the money. If the price had been equal, I'm sure someone would complain that "it's unfair to make a woman pay the same amount for her freedom. It's obviously a way to trap women in servitude and allow men to escape disguised as fairness."

No, I,m afraid I am not misunderstanding what is being said. If the Bible wasn't sexist, the valuation system would have been given as a set price for either male or female of a certain age, but no it is divided up into ages and genders. Females as a class are valued less than males, that was the standard viewpoint in many culture even up to modern times. The main point I was making is that the Bibles value of women is no different than other patriarchal cultures that were male-dominated. Once again, the laws given by the God of the Bible reflect the male mindset of the time period.

And as I said, Jesus did not change the law, he just made a new covenant. We are no longer bound to the law because we have been justified by faith. It is actually rather difficult to define what Jesus referred to when he said "the Law". If you're like me and will allow that the Law has been adulterated in some sense, I don't see what the problem is.

I don't know why you insist on pressing the issue of the Old Testament Law after Jesus' resurrection. It is neither a new or obscure concept that the OT Law was imperfect. After all, before the Hebrews reached Israel, God wanted to make them "a nation of priests". He was perfectly willing to give them his righteous and perfect laws and let them live in harmony with him if they were ready, but they weren't. The people asked for an intercessor. They couldn't handle it, and so God gave them what they asked for. The same thing happened when the people wanted a king. God was willing to be their king and rule over them, and Samuel correctly noted that in many ways a king would be bad for them, but they insisted so he allowed them to have one. The idea that God is capable of accomplishing his ends through people and societies that are far from perfect or even mildly good in some cases is not a novelty.

I said I was done before, but I'm definitely done now. No more arguing for a while. It's been interesting.

That's right, Jesus did not change the laws contained in the OT, consequently those laws still reflect the nature of God as being sexist!

Bye for now...

[RickD]

Here's another good article by Rich:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

[Butterfly]

Here's another good article by Rich:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

Thanks for the link, but I've already read his article and naturally I had a huge problem with his introductory statement of "the Bible does not condone discrimination in any manner". Here is part of an article refuting some of Rich Deem's conclusions about sexism in the Bible.

Sexism saturates the Bible from beginning to end. It is inextricable because it is entwined with the fundamental theological understanding of God himself who is not only male but a Trinity of males consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This male God stands at the head of a hierarchy of male authority that puts women at the bottom:

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

The sexism of the Bible cannot be denied without denying its fundamental theological view of God:

Male Ruler: God
Male Ruler: Christ
Male Ruler: Man
Female Subject: Woman

The Bible begins with sexism. The creation myth blames the woman for all the sin in the world and says God himself placed two curses upon her: 1) the pain of childbirth and 2) male domination:

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

This verse cannot be explained away because its plain meaning is confirmed and applied in the New Testament where it is used as a justification for why women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in Christian churches:

1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Women are not allowed to teach because 1) males have primacy because Adam was created first and 2) women are not reliable teachers because they are easily deceived, like Eve. And it completes the picture of the creation myth when it says "woman will be saved through childbearing." Space prohibits reviewing more of the evidence here.

The sexism of the Bible forms an integrated self-confirming network. It is impossible to retain any intellectual integrity while denying or ignoring these facts. The only way an apologist can deal with them is to not deal with them, and that is exactly the path chosen by Rich Deem. In his article Sexism in the Bible: Is Christianity Sexist? Deem did not deem any of the above verses worthy of mention! Let this fact sink in - Rich Deem's article contains a total of 5,937 words: 2,334 of his own and 3,603 contained in over a hundred quotations from the Bible. Yet he did not cite even one of the verses above! This is the grossest form of rationalization - pretending the elephant doesn't exist even as you spend your days shoveling its [poop]. It is extremely common amongst Christian apologists who try to bury truth with many words designed to misdirect the reader away from the facts. But apparently Deem knew he could not totally ignore the problems so he briefly addressed them without actually quoting the damned evidence. Here is his attempt to deal with the "headship" issue:

Rich Deem: On "headship" - This was probably more of a concession to culture than anything else. In first century Israel, women didn't have many rights or much opportunity for independence, so the husband was a sort of "covering" for her.

This is why Deem did not quote the verse that established male headship (1 Cor. 11:3). The Bible explicitly establishes the male hierarchy of authority on the fundamental theological view that sets God at the top and women at the bottom. This directly contradicts his assertion that it was a "concession to culture." His attempt to justify the silencing of women is even more absurd since it exposes own sexism:

Rich Deem: On "keeping silent in church" - Women are more verbal than men, and when they get together, they tend to move from subject to subject. In the synagogues, the women were segregated from the men. If they had any questions on the worship or the teachings, they would have had to shout them over to the men, or discuss them among themselves, which would have resulted in an inability to maintain order.

Women "tend to move from subject to subject?" Where did he get that idea? And how does it relate to the reasons stated in the text? The Bible says women should be silent and not have authority over men because of the creation myth! Yet he didn't mention it and made up an entirely irrelevant and unsupported ad hoc assertion designed for no purpose but to cover up the facts and so give the illusion of having "explained" the problematic verse. His entire article is filled with similarly blatant and ridiculous rationalizations.

The full article can be found here.

[RickD]

Butterfly, there's so much wrong with that article you posted. Just off the top of my head:

The Bible begins with sexism. The creation myth blames the woman for all the sin in the world and says God himself placed two curses upon her: 1) the pain of childbirth and 2) male domination:

The creation "myth" blames Adam. Romans 5:12:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
So when it's convenient for your argument, you say progeny is traced through man. But when it doesn't fit your argument, you say the bible blames Eve for all sin. Who's not being honest here.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

This is a punishment specific to Eve. Not to all women.

This verse cannot be explained away because its plain meaning is confirmed and applied in the New Testament where it is used as a justification for why women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in Christian churches:

1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Who is "I" that will permit no woman to have authority over men? It's the author of Timothy, not God. This is specific to the culture of the specific church at that time. Any assumption that it means women now can't teach or have authority over men, is reading scripture out of context. Which you won't admit you're doing to make your point. And, I already agreed that people use scripture to justify their own sexist beliefs. Just about anyone can twist scripture to make it fit their preconceived beliefs. The article goes on to say that what Rich Deem says, is used to hide his own sexism? That's absolutely absurd. That author knows Rich Deem?
Butterfly, I have sympathy for whatever man has hurt you. But to misrepresent God because of what hurt mankind causes, is completely dishonest. And then to quote an article that calls Rich Deem sexist, with no proof to back up that claim, is completely unacceptable, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using those tactics.

[RickD]

And now butterfly, it seems we are at this point. Have you read the board guidelines here:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2517?
Specifically this:

This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilised discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

I think you need to decide if this board is for you. We will not tolerate any further attacks against Christian beliefs, as you continue to do with your dishonest interpretations of scripture, molded to fit your preconceived beliefs. And we certainly will not allow this board as a platform for your posting of articles that personally attack the owner of this website. There are plenty of websites that allow you to attack Christianity and Christians at your whim.

[Butterfly]

And now butterfly, it seems we are at this point. Have you read the board guidelines here:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2517?
Specifically this:

This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilised discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

I think you need to decide if this board is for you. We will not tolerate any further attacks against Christian beliefs, as you continue to do with your dishonest interpretations of scripture, molded to fit your preconceived beliefs. And we certainly will not allow this board as a platform for your posting of articles that personally attack the owner of this website. There are plenty of websites that allow you to attack Christianity and Christians at your whim.

Maybe this forum isn't the place for me, since I desire a place where one can freely and of course civilly discuss biblical issues. I didn't realize that articles written by Rich Deem could not be challenge nor criticized. Don't most Christian apologist's encourage people to give them feedback on what they write? I know that is one of the reasons I came to this forum...to be challenged, and so far all my conclusions on the Bible being male biased and sexist still stand, even against Rich Deems defense.

I think your accusation of me being dishonest with biblical interpretation, because of preconceived beliefs is a totally unfair attack and judgment on me. My conclusions are drawn from interpreting the words of the Bible itself, just like you claim to do, we just differ in our conclusions. Also, you start from the biggest preconceived belief there is...that God exists, and inspired the Bible.

[Butterfly]

1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Who is "I" that will permit no woman to have authority over men? It's the author of Timothy, not God. This is specific to the culture of the specific church at that time. Any assumption that it means women now can't teach or have authority over men, is reading scripture out of context. Which you won't admit you're doing to make your point.

My argument for the sexist nature of the Bible, and its male-bias, is to show that the Bible as a whole expresses only the male viewpoint of reality, completely omitting the feminine perspective. Everything is presented as knowledge coming from a male figure head who perfectly reflects the male mindset.

And, I already agreed that people use scripture to justify their own sexist beliefs. Just about anyone can twist scripture to make it fit their preconceived beliefs. The article goes on to say that what Rich Deem says, is used to hide his own sexism? That's absolutely absurd. That author knows Rich Deem?
Butterfly, I have sympathy for whatever man has hurt you. But to misrepresent God because of what hurt mankind causes, is completely dishonest. And then to quote an article that calls Rich Deem sexist, with no proof to back up that claim, is completely unacceptable, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using those tactics.

If you agree that people use Scripture to justify their own sexist beliefs, then why isn't the statement that Rich Deem made in his article sexist? His whole statement about women talking in church is degrading. Women don't move from subject, to subject any more than men do, that's just male propaganda used to justify sexism.

Rich Deem: "On "keeping silent in church" - Women are more verbal than men, and when they get together, they tend to move from subject to subject. In the synagogues, the women were segregated from the men. If they had any questions on the worship or the teachings, they would have had to shout them over to the men, or discuss them among themselves, which would have resulted in an inability to maintain order."

It seems in your attack on me, you are the "pot calling the kettle black".

[FlawedIntellect]

1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Who is "I" that will permit no woman to have authority over men? It's the author of Timothy, not God. This is specific to the culture of the specific church at that time. Any assumption that it means women now can't teach or have authority over men, is reading scripture out of context. Which you won't admit you're doing to make your point.

My argument for the sexist nature of the Bible, and its male-bias, is to show that the Bible as a whole expresses only the male viewpoint of reality, completely omitting the feminine perspective. Everything is presented as knowledge coming from a male figure head who perfectly reflects the male mindset.

And, I already agreed that people use scripture to justify their own sexist beliefs. Just about anyone can twist scripture to make it fit their preconceived beliefs. The article goes on to say that what Rich Deem says, is used to hide his own sexism? That's absolutely absurd. That author knows Rich Deem?
Butterfly, I have sympathy for whatever man has hurt you. But to misrepresent God because of what hurt mankind causes, is completely dishonest. And then to quote an article that calls Rich Deem sexist, with no proof to back up that claim, is completely unacceptable, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using those tactics.

If you agree that people use Scripture to justify their own sexist beliefs, then why isn't the statement that Rich Deem made in his article sexist? His whole statement about women talking in church is degrading. Women don't move from subject, to subject any more than men do, that's just male propaganda used to justify sexism.

Rich Deem: "On "keeping silent in church" - Women are more verbal than men, and when they get together, they tend to move from subject to subject. In the synagogues, the women were segregated from the men. If they had any questions on the worship or the teachings, they would have had to shout them over to the men, or discuss them among themselves, which would have resulted in an inability to maintain order."

It seems in your attack on me, you are the "pot calling the kettle black".

Perhaps you should read some of these: http://christianthinktank.com/femalex.html
You might find them to be quite insightful. If anything, though, it feels more like you want the Bible to be sexist if only because most figures of focus and most of those who wrote the text down were male. So while Rich used some rather sweeping generalizations, I think that the think tank may cover it better. Also, one of the pastors at a church I attended made a different point when it came to relationships and the role of women. On the point of women being silent in church, the pastor basically made it a point to say that for the culture of the time that Paul was preaching, there was no code or set of rules for women. The fact that he actually actively encouraged women to learn, and then specified how to learn (which is by keeping quiet and listening, as you can't learn if you talk over the top of someone teaching.), which is actually a big step for women at the time. As per "headship", it's more of an order to be symbolic of the relationship between God and humanity, and not anything sexist, which is why some churches take this approach to leadership in the church.

(Unfortunately, not all churches are like this. The one I used to go to, previously, Cornerstone, was outright blatantly sexist with the message and just really got on my nerves, especially since a lot of the original cultural context was not even brought up in favor of the "women shut up and do what men want you to" speech, in something that's supposed to help marriages. ¬_¬ COMPLETELY counterproductive.)

Additionally, if you're going to accuse Paul of sexism, you might want to take this into consideration: http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html It'll take a while to get through that page, though. This one particularly was something I read some time before the aforementioned sexist message came up in a church. (Cornerstone is basically theater-sized and hasn't really had consistently-depth filled messages that bring any insight into context, while the one I've been to more recently has had more consistently context-focused messages and explained how this was practical, yet is a much smaller church.)

Remember this: Sexism is the result of evil in peoples' hearts, not something encouraged by God in the Bible. Also, take a look at the link, as it did particularly help me to understand the passages that concerned me at first.

[Butterfly]

Perhaps you should read some of these: http://christianthinktank.com/femalex.html
You might find them to be quite insightful. If anything, though, it feels more like you want the Bible to be sexist if only because most figures of focus and most of those who wrote the text down were male. So while Rich used some rather sweeping generalizations, I think that the think tank may cover it better. Also, one of the pastors at a church I attended made a different point when it came to relationships and the role of women. On the point of women being silent in church, the pastor basically made it a point to say that for the culture of the time that Paul was preaching, there was no code or set of rules for women. The fact that he actually actively encouraged women to learn, and then specified how to learn (which is by keeping quiet and listening, as you can't learn if you talk over the top of someone teaching.), which is actually a big step for women at the time. As per "headship", it's more of an order to be symbolic of the relationship between God and humanity, and not anything sexist, which is why some churches take this approach to leadership in the church.

(Unfortunately, not all churches are like this. The one I used to go to, previously, Cornerstone, was outright blatantly sexist with the message and just really got on my nerves, especially since a lot of the original cultural context was not even brought up in favor of the "women shut up and do what men want you to" speech, in something that's supposed to help marriages. ¬_¬ COMPLETELY counterproductive.)

Additionally, if you're going to accuse Paul of sexism, you might want to take this into consideration: http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html It'll take a while to get through that page, though. This one particularly was something I read some time before the aforementioned sexist message came up in a church. (Cornerstone is basically theater-sized and hasn't really had consistently-depth filled messages that bring any insight into context, while the one I've been to more recently has had more consistently context-focused messages and explained how this was practical, yet is a much smaller church.)

Remember this: Sexism is the result of evil in peoples' hearts, not something encouraged by God in the Bible. Also, take a look at the link, as it did particularly help me to understand the passages that concerned me at first.

Hello Flawedintellect,

Thank you for the link, though I am very familiar with most of the arguments concerning sexism and the Bible. I was a Christian for nearly 28 years, and have done a lot of in-depth biblical study over those years. Over most of those years I too rationalized away the blatant sexism of the Bible, because that was the only way I could deal with its conflict in my mind, and still retain my strong sense of the just nature of God.

You mentioned "most" who wrote the text of the Bible were male, in actuality it was ALL of its authors, which brings me to my main point...the male bias of the Bible. There is no way a book can be written from a male perspective, using male hands and minds to write it without it being totally and completely skewed toward the masculine way of thinking. As such all of its laws and rules are going to exhibit a male bent in how they view women, which of course is very obvious when one reads the Bible. That is why people continually are trying to explain away the many passages that are blatantly sexist, because they are so obvious and it goes against our innate sense of fairness.

I totally agree that sexism comes from the hearts of men, but so does the Bible, which fully explains why the Bible is filled with sexism. I appreciate your effort in trying to redeem the Bible from its sexist nature, but I think it is beyond redemption, even though there are many wonderful words of wisdom, written by men, within it pages.

[B. W.]

I totally agree that sexism comes from the hearts of men, but so does the Bible, which fully explains why the Bible is filled with sexism. I appreciate your effort in trying to redeem the Bible from its sexist nature, but I think it is beyond redemption, even though there are many wonderful words of wisdom, written by men, within it pages.

Sexism comes from women as well - it cuts both ways.

Again the OT Law' s purpose was to expose what sin is within a person.

So Butrrerfly, tell me why this is so sexist to you?

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them," Col 3:19, NIV

Next, do men and women reason and think the same? Do you realize that there are really absolute differences between genders or you think by equality there are and should be no differences?

Do you not realize that the Old Covenant you cite as proof text was done away with grown obsolete? Hebrews 8:13

Did you realize there were women Pastors addressed in the NT?

Do you realize how much hate is in your heart?

Do you realize Jesus desires to heal your hurts and wounds and forgive?
-
-
-