Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post Reply
User avatar
SamMcNear
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:14 am

Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post by SamMcNear » Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:10 am

Treatment of women in the Bible seems to be coming up a lot lately on Facebook and YouTube. They say the Bible is a bad book, don't believe it. Just look how they treat women. Women shouldn't be Christians. The morality of today is better than morality of the Bible. And they use the following statements & verses.
1. Eve blamed for fall of mankind
2 . Exodus 21:7-10; 22:16,17
3. Leviticus 19:20-22; 21:9
4. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 & 28-29; 25:11
5. Matthew 5:32 adultery punished by death.
6. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
7. Ephesians 5:22
8. Numbers 31:17-18

I haven't seen a good response yet to the accusation.

Most Scriptures here are taken out of context but i would like a simple easy to understand (for bible illiterate people) response.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post by TheEditor » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:09 pm

I can't take time right now to address all those issues, but one thing I have pointed out to people in the past, is the OT laws concerning rape. In the OT, if a woman was raped or a rape was attempted in the city, all she needed to do was call for help in order for her accusation against the rapist to be believed. This was to prevent false accusation. However, if she was in the country (where presumably no one could hear her) it was assumed she did cry out, but was unheard, yet she would still be believed. So, in an ancient, misogynistic world, the OT Law allowed for a man to be put to death solely at the testimony of a woman. How does that stack up?

However, I am not of the opinion that all of the Laws of Moses were of necessity God's direction per se. That's a controversial topic. I believe God's ways are higher as indicated by Jesus in the Sermon on the mount. Divorce, for instance, was not of God but of Moses, according to Christ. It may be that the Laws were the best that could be arranged given the climate of that age. Let's face it, Israel never really could divorce itself from idol worship. Imagine how revolutionary Christianity was when it was revealed!

Second, I like to point out that the Gospel of Luke (considered to be the most historically accurate, from outside sources) is largely based upon the testimony of women; the Marys, Martha, etc.

Regards, Brenden
.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post by mattrose » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:44 pm

I think a big part of the problem comes from people viewing the Bible like a resource book instead of like a narrative of progressive revelation. The reason some (especially) Old Testament passages seem 'behind the times' so to speak is because they were written long before our time. God reveals truth progressively to people over time (human parents and teachers do this too). Old Testament laws tend to have granted MORE rights to women than they were used to having in those days. They created progress, but did so without totally ripping off the bandaid that held their cultures together. God is in it for the long haul, it seems.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post by steve » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:55 pm

Treatment of women in the Bible seems to be coming up a lot lately on Facebook and YouTube. They say the Bible is a bad book, don't believe it. Just look how they treat women. Women shouldn't be Christians. The morality of today is better than morality of the Bible. And they use the following statements & verses.
Let's look at the contents of these objectionable biblical policies (as claimed):

1. Eve blamed for fall of mankind—
No scripture is provided for this accusation. None is available. In every case, it is Adam who is consistently faulted for the fall (Rom.5:12; 1 Cor.15:21). Although it is said that Eve “fell into transgression” (1 Tim.2:14), this is a historical statement, and is true of everyone. No special blame is assigned to her here that would not apply equally to any of us who has done the same. She is not said to have had any impact on the fall of the race.

2. Exodus 21:7-10; 22:16,17
In order to establish from these verses that women are singled out for bad treatment, it would be necessary to demonstrate that these verses create a worse situation for women than for men, or than that which existed for women in societies before these laws were given. It looks to me that they are primarily providing protections against the abuses common in society in those days.

Exodus 22:7-10 forbids that a man treat a slave girl/concubine as mere chattel. She is to be given her freedom if her master does not uphold her rights (Slaves with "rights"! An incredibly progressive idea at the time!).

Exodus 22:16-17 prevents a man from making love to a woman and then discarding her as damaged goods. He has to commit himself to her in marriage and elevate her to the privileges of a wife, rather than a mere mistress. Of course, if the marriage was not in the best interests of the girl, her father (the one man most invested and most interested in her well-being and happiness) could prevent its occurrence, and the man who had deflowered her was to be penalized. Where is the abuse of the woman in this?


3. Leviticus 19:20-22; 21:9
What are the misogynistic issues here? In the first passage, a man that violates a betrothed concubine is to be flogged and offer a sacrifice. How is this dishonoring to women? Is the complaint raised because the man is flogged and is not put to death?

In the second passage, a priest’s daughter is put to death if she practices immoral behavior. The fact that she is burned is unusual. Is it unjust? Who is to determine that? Any girl wishing to avoid the penalty (like all other people who wish to avoid criminal penalties) can generally avoid the penalty by avoiding the crime. How is this a discrimination against women? Under the Torah, men were also put to death for various crimes. This is not sexual discrimination
.

4. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 & 28-29; 25:11
These laws are not all of the same type. They lay out certain restrictions to women (and men), the violation of which had severe penalties attached:

a) In Deut.22:13-21, an unmarried woman was not permitted to sleep with one man, and then later pass herself off as a virgin wife to a different suitor (the law required her to marry the first man she slept with, and not to defraud her later husband by deception). We don’t have those rules in our society, but who is to say the morality of our society is the more enlightened of the two?

b) Deut.25:11 forbids a woman to grab the genitals of a man not her husband—even in defense of her husband. The cutting off of her hand is a unique instance of this kind of penalty in the Torah—though probably not unusual in the contemporary societies, in general. It was certainly a painful punishment, but, arguably, not more or less so than was the circumcision of all males—at a time in their lives when they had committed no offense at all! A woman, by abstaining from forbidden actions, could avoid getting her hand cut off, but a baby boy had no choice in the matter of his foreskin. How does this favor the rights of men over women? It would seem the reverse.

c) Deut.22:28-29 does not place any punishment on a woman, but on the man who violates her. He must become a lifelong husband and support the woman he misused—something that most rapists would find an intolerable punishment to themselves. It is a life sentence of making restitution to the girl. With our western attitudes, a modern woman would never consent to marry her rapist. If this were also the case in ancient Israel, then the girl's father could refuse to let the marriage to take place (Ex.22:17).


5. Matthew 5:32 adultery punished by death.

First, the penalty of death for adultery is not misogynistic, since the penalty applied equally to both men and women (Lev.20:10).

Second, is it unjust to prescribe the most severe of penalties for such a heinous crime—commonly regarded as the most-cruel and destructive of all non-violent crimes?

Third, the death penalty for adultery is not metioned in this verse. Why is it given in evidence?


6. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
Okay, so Paul, apparently, did not place women in leadership roles over men in the church. What’s the problem here? Is someone arguing that women—or any other demographic group (e.g., people under 18 or over 80, blondes more than six-feet tall, sufferers with Irritable Bowel Syndrome, etc.)—have an innate right to lead the men of the church, of which they must not be deprived? If such groups do not possess such an innate right, then what injustice is perceived in this passage?

7. Ephesians 5:22
In the Bible, women are taught to submit to their husbands. Children are to obey their parents. Men are to submit to authorities over them in government and employment, as well. Would those who find this verse distasteful prefer to see a society where no one had to submit to anybody else, in any situations? How, then, could businesses, schools, governments or households be run? How could laws be enforced? Where is the oppression of women in this teaching?

Three verses later, husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loves His people, even giving the example of His dying for them. Should men, then, complain that God has given them such a severe assignment? By the way, if these instructions were to be followed, would there be any institutional mistreatment of women?

There is certainly an irony in the fact that modern women gladly enter the work force, where they usually are required to submit to supervisors who do not even love them, whereas, they complain that they must submit to their husbands, who, in most cases, are the men who love them and who make the largest sacrifices for them. Go figure!


8. Numbers 31:17-18
In a situation of general slaughter, the sparing of girls to become servants and wives seems a very preferable treatment of them to that which is done to the boys—who were all killed. Sounds more like preferential treatment of women, if anything.

Though the attitudes and values that lie behind these laws may be culturally strange to us, we cannot assume that our sensitivities are always objective, nor justified by anything other than the bare assumption that we are the wisest of all societies.

I await evidence for that proposition.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post by robbyyoung » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:54 pm

Hi Steve,

Thanks for leading the way in responding to the post. Sometimes questions, such as these, are exhausting just by looking at them, taking a large amount of time to respond appropriately with due respect.

God Bless.

User avatar
SamMcNear
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:14 am

Re: Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post by SamMcNear » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:08 am

steve wrote:
Treatment of women in the Bible seems to be coming up a lot lately on Facebook and YouTube. They say the Bible is a bad book, don't believe it. Just look how they treat women. Women shouldn't be Christians. The morality of today is better than morality of the Bible. And they use the following statements & verses.
Let's look at the contents of these objectionable biblical policies (as claimed):

1. Eve blamed for fall of mankind—
No scripture is provided for this accusation. None is available. In every case, it is Adam who is consistently faulted for the fall (Rom.5:12; 1 Cor.15:21). Although it is said that Eve “fell into transgression” (1 Tim.2:14), this is a historical statement, and is true of everyone. No special blame is assigned to her here that would not apply equally to any of us who has done the same. She is not said to have had any impact on the fall of the race.

2 . Exodus 21:7-10; 22:16,17
In order to establish from these verses that women are singled out for bad treatment, it would be necessary to demonstrate that these verses create a worse situation for women than for men, or than existed for women in societies before these laws were given. It looks to me that they are primarily providing protections against the abuses common in society in those days.

Exodus 22:7-10 forbids that a man treat a slave girl/concubine as mere chattel. She is to be given her freedom if her master does not uphold her rights (slaves with "rights"! An incredibly progressive idea at the time!).

Exodus 22:16-17 prevents a man from making love to a woman and then discarding her as damaged goods. He has to commit himself to her in marriage and elevate her to the privileges of a wife, rather than a mere mistress. Of course, if the marriage was not in the best interests of the girl, her father (the one man most invested and most interested in her well-being and happiness) could prevent its occurrence, and the man who had deflowered her was penalized. Where is the abuse of the woman in this?


3. Leviticus 19:20-22; 21:9
What are the issues here? In the first passage, a man that violates a betrothed concubine is to be flogged and offer a sacrifice. How is this dishonoring to women? Is the complaint because the man is not put to death?

In the second passage, a priest’s daughter is put to death if she practices immoral behavior. The fact that she is burned is unusual. Is it unjust? Who is to determine that? Any girl wishing to avoid the penalty (like all other people who do actions for which penalties are prescribed) can avoid the penalty by avoiding the crime. How is this a discrimination against women? Under the law, men were also put to death for various crimes. This is not sexual discrimination
.

4. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 & 28-29; 25:11
These laws are not all of the same type. They lay out certain restrictions to women (and men), the violation of which had severe penalties attached:

a) In Deut.22:13-21, an unmarried woman could not sleep with one man, and then later pass herself off as a virgin wife to a different suitor (the law required her to marry the first man she slept with, and not to defraud her later husband by deception). We don’t have those rules in our society, but who is to say the morality of our society is the more enlightened of the two?

b) Deut.25:11 forbids a woman to grab the genitals of a man not her husband—even in defense of her husband. The cutting off of her hand is a unique case of this kind of penalty in the law—though probably not unusual in the contemporary societies, in general. It was certainly a painful punishment, but, arguably, not more or less so than was the circumcision of all males—at a time in their lives when they had committed no offense at all! A woman could avoid getting her hand cut off, but a baby boy had no choice in the matter of his foreskin. How does this favor the rights of men over women?

c) Deut.22:28-29 does not place any punishment on a woman, but on the man. He must be a lifelong husband and support the woman he misused—something that most rapists would find an intolerable punishment to themselves. It is a life sentence of making restitution to the girl. With our western attitudes, a modern woman would never consent to marry her rapist. If this were the case in Israel, then her father could refuse to let the marriage to take place (Ex.22:17).


5. Matthew 5:32 adultery punished by death.
First, the penalty of death for adultery is not related to any women’s issues, since the penalty applied equally to both men and women (Lev.20:10).

Second, is this unjust to prescribe the most severe of penalties for such a heinous crime—commonly regarded as the most-cruel and destructive of all non-violent crimes?

Third, the death penalty for adultery is not metioned in this verse. Why is it given in evidence?


6. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
Paul, apparently, did not place women in leadership roles over men in the church. What’s the problem here? Is someone arguing that women—or any other demographic group (e.g., people under 18 or over 80, blondes more than six-feet tall, sufferers with Irritable Bowel Syndrome, etc.)—have an innate right to lead the men of the church, of which they are being deprived? If not, what injustice is perceived in this passage?

7. Ephesians 5:22
In the Bible, women are taught to submit to their husbands. Children are to obey their parents. Men are to submit to authorities over them, as well. Would those who find this distasteful prefer to see a society where no one had to submit to anybody else, in any situations? How could businesses, schools, or governments be run? How could laws be enforced? Where is the oppression of women in this teaching?

8. Numbers 31:17-18
In a situation of general slaughter, the sparing of girls to become servants and wives seems a very preferable treatment of them to that which is done to the boys—who were all killed. Sounds more like preferential treatment of women, if anything.

Though the attitudes and values that lie behind these laws are strange to us, we cannot assume that our sensitivities are always objective, nor justified by anything other than the bare assumption that we are the wisest of all societies. I await evidence for that proposition.
Steve Give me a little time to read all the Facebook and youtube arguments again and I will see if I can answer your questions and maybe add responses to simular statements you just made. Image
SamMcNear wrote:Treatment of women in the Bible seems to be coming up a lot lately on Facebook and YouTube. They say the Bible is a bad book, don't believe it. Just look how they treat women. Women shouldn't be Christians. The morality of today is better than morality of the Bible. And they use the following statements & verses.
1. Eve blamed for fall of mankind
2 . Exodus 21:7-10; 22:16,17
3. Leviticus 19:20-22; 21:9
4. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 & 28-29; 25:11
5. Matthew 5:32 adultery punished by death.
6. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
7. Ephesians 5:22
8. Numbers 31:17-18

I haven't seen a good response yet to the accusation.

Most Scriptures here are taken out of context but i would like a simple easy to understand (for bible illiterate people) response.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post by Paidion » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:53 pm

There may be no simple, easy explanations. Some explanations (in order to be explanatory and thorough) need to be complex and comprehensive.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
jeremiah
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Mount Carroll, IL
Contact:

Re: Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post by jeremiah » Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:38 pm

Brenden said:
...the Laws were the best that could be arranged given the climate of that age...
Right on the head man(and in basic agreement with what Matt said too I think), if we don't recognize this I'm fairly certain we'd never make heads or tails of some of the troubling passages listed in the OP.

I think Jesus' teaching and example was indeed a progressive superseding of a very real inequality extant at the time when it came to men and women. Sadly that raising of the bar has not been recognized by many even to this day, and among those who have seen it, are too many which would simply reverse the oppression which has resulted, and would have men to be less than women.

Grace and peace to you all.
Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Treatment of Women in the Bible

Post by Paidion » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:55 pm

Jeremiah wrote:...and among those who have seen it, are too many which would simply reverse the oppression which has resulted, and would have men to be less than women.
Yes, I would say that is true concerning the feminist movement of today. Though they profess to represent all women, they actually represent but a minority.

The vast majority of women today are better represented by the organization "REAL women." This organization does not discriminate against men. Indeed, I myself am a member. The word REAL is an acronym which means Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life.

Here is their website:

http://www.realwomenofcanada.ca/
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”