Does the Bible say sexism is ok?

[AlexanderJ]

The Bible was written in a sociological period and culture where sexism was the norm. Therefore, it communicates within this environment, and doesn't challenge it. Sometimes, it even seems to endorse it.

God is against sexism and default male authority, but to say so 2,000 years ago would have made no sense. No one would have gotten it or understood.

On the contrary, God did say that (that he is against sexism), both in deed and word. Telling husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies was a revolutionary concept in that age. Jesus' association with women, such as the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-43), the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery (John 8:3-11), and his relationships with Mary Magdalene and many other women in the NT, were in polar opposition to the Jewish teachings and ideas of the day.

Yet men are allowed to sell their wives and daughters as property.

If you want to talk about the progression of God's revelation throughout the Scriptures, and how the NT negotiates and negates some ideas in the OT, that could be a great conversation. But, if you're going to talk about the Scriptures as a whole, then, based upon most OT treatment of women, I can come to no other conclusion than that it promotes sexism.

First of all, you said " to say so 2,000 years ago would have made no sense" which led me to the logical conclusion that you were primarily addressing issues in the NT, since most of the books in the NT were written around 2000 years ago. The books of the OT are much older than that.

I'm not going to negate the accuracy of your statement (it may very well be true): "Yet men are allowed to sell their wives and daughters as property..." but I would appreciate if you could provide textual evidence that supports your claim so that I know exactly what you are referring to. On the whole, I can say that my personal experience in studying the OT has been that it is not sexist.

[AlexanderJ]

Please forgive the long length of the following post. I try to avoid writing "books" because they often dilute the importance of the point discussed and are tiresome to read. However, I cannot make "short and sweet" explanations/refutations of the points you have raised due to their level of difficulty.

That is exactly what it means. Especially in such a culture. It is endorsing the patriarchal social and political hierarchy of power by baptizing it. It keeps men in power and women in subjugation.

I fail to see how that when a person is placed in a position of authority that it makes those beneath that person's authority inferior in a negative way. I am beneath the authority of the President of the United States. Does that mean that in some way I am inferior to him as a human being? Of course not! God placed man in authority over the Family. Everyone (not only the wife and daughters, but the sons also) in the Family is under the subjection of the Father, and the human Father is directly under the authority of God. There must be authority and structure in the government of a family or anarchy will ensue.

You may say that since God insists that the man be the head of the family, that he is promoting sexism. This is not correct. God created man, and he knows man's capacity much better than man knows it himself. God determined that it is best for man to be placed in authority, not woman.

Men and women are equal, but have different roles in the same way that I am equal to the President of the United States but we have different roles. If I and the President have a disagreement on whether or not to implement a law, someone will have to be overuled - me. To have it any other way would produce anarchy or a division in the nation. It works the same in the family.

In the previous paragraphs I have been speaking of the family. In the family and in the Church, the man is the head/leader by default. However, the Bible never says that a woman cannot ever be in other aspects of leadership. A mother has leadership over her male and female children, and in certain cases, a woman can lead a country (Read the story of Deborah in Judges 4:1-24).

My point is that the Bible does not teach that women are intrinsically inferior to men, nor does it ignore or refuse to address the problems that can arise from a sexist culture.

Exodus 21:7-11.

Daughters may be sold into slavery and then are considered the property of the master, who may then designate them to be a wife to either himself or his son. She gets no say in this matter. This is common in OT texts.

Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

This is not slavery especially not in the the negative sense that you put it, and nowhere in the text does it state that the young woman "...gets no say in this matter...". It is an ancient Hebrew betrothal and is not slavery. This custom, though it would not be considered proper today, is not morally wrong or sexist. The Hebrew term "sell" does always have the same connotations as the English which usually simply denotes selling one's own property for money. It is a form of betrothal, and the party recieving the young woman had to pay a price according to the custom. She had rights, (quite a few) which becomes quite clear when one reads the entire text. It is a different culture, no doubt, but it is not morally wrong.

Also, men are, according to Leviticus, worth more money than women: Leviticus 27:1-7

Leviticus 27:1 ¶And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 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.

3 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.

4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

5 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.

6 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.

7 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.

Monetary worth is not intrinsic worth - anyone should know that. Besides, we are not talking about selling people, we are talking about vows. Why the men were worth more in monetary value than the woman in regard to vows, I can only guess. My guess is that it is because the men had more money and a greater ability to make money in that culture.

To say that because the men were worth more than the women monetarily dictates that this also applies in the aspect of equality and intrinsic value would be the same as saying that I am intrinsically inferior as a person to Bill Gates because he is worth 66 billion and I am worth 1000 dollars.

And if you say in your heart,

‘Why have these things come upon me?’

it is for the greatness of your iniquity

that your skirts are lifted up,

and your backsides treated violently.

Most who don't deal in the Hebrew would read a sanitized English text, which generally would simply say: "and you are violated".

Technically, being anally raped is being violated, so it is a fair translation, but it lacks the descriptive power of what the Hebrew is actually saying here.

The use of feminizing language to demean a male is textbook "sexism", as it assumes the inferior status of females to males in a patriarchal culture.

On this particular subect, I confess that am woefully ignorant. I would ask one of the Hebrew members of WCF to comment on this, because I do not possess sufficient knowlege of Hebrew euphenisms and their connotations to present a cogent answer.

You spoke of treating the Bible as a whole. On the whole, the Bible supports women in a positive and Godly way. If we interpret the more difficult verses in the light of the many clear verses which deal with the relationship between men and women, the task of reconciling opposing verses or ideas in Scripture becomes much easier.

God is usually quite clear in showing his views on equality between men and women. As I said before "Telling husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies was a revolutionary concept in that age. Jesus' association with women, such as the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-43), the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery (John 8:3-11), and his relationships with Mary Magdalene and many other women in the NT, were in polar opposition to the Jewish teachings and ideas of the day....Another concept which radically opposed the Eastern mindset concerning women was the Pauline teaching of all believers' oneness in Christ"

Edited November 24, 2012 by AlexanderJ