Is the bible sexist?

GingerBeer said:

Do you give priority to the LXX (in Greek) over the Masoretic (In Hebrew)?

Click to expand...

Not really, but the use of the LXX is helpful in determining word usage, especially in the NT.

The LXX is certainly older than the masoretic text (by almost 1200 years) and the Masorites were known to have changed certain parts of the text to be less supportive of the NT.

GingerBeer said:

I like your two posts, thanks for writing them.

I think that the word for "teach" may have a wide range of meanings and one is likely to be the word for a master-pupil arrangement. Yet the women are to keep silence in the church and to not exercise authority over any men. Paul may not be sexist in the meaning of that word for us in our times but his comments if read today at face value do appear to be sexist. The passage I am referring to is:

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; 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 she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

​

Click to expand...

Well it was one of those things where the word used was oddly the teach word that more often refers to master-pupil relationships. I wish I was more than bilingual. I struggle enough with spanish.. So the explanation was that Paul was saying men should teach men, women should teach women. I do agree that the writing is oddly fast-paced. But I've seen that before in the Bible.

When you think about it, it's not a huge point that requires big explanation. And if you continue reading, Paul does give some explanation as he continues explaining the good duties a woman has, like with being a nice mother. So he's saying women should understand their role in society, the necessary roles they have and therefore should be taught by women that understand them.

GingerBeer said:

I agree that reading scripture with too literal a frame of mind will give us difficulties. I am not so sure about reading the passages spiritually even though I am well aware that spiritual reading is important for personal prayer and growth in grace. But it is good to read what the passages say and consider their meaning first at face value and then in the context of history and language and most importantly in the context of the believing community that produced and preserved the scriptures and for Christians that means the Christian church.

Click to expand...

So often the instructions are about then and there -- that moment in time -- to fix the immediate most severe problem.

BUT then....later....things change, the next step always comes.

8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus [the slave of Philemon who ran away], who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

Philemon was now to treat his former slave as his own full equal, not just lip service, but truly.

addition: Actually just learned that former slave is not only an equal and then later a Bishop....but also was to become "Saint" Onesimus....

God does not subscribe to modern concepts of "sexism". God is the one who created both genders and knows their weaknesses and strengths. Women and men are different and so thus God treats them different and gives them different tasks and authorities(wow what a revelation).

The liberated slave (liberated because of Christianity) becomes a great aid to the church, as a bishop (perhaps even helping correct further his former master Philemon we might wonder?):

Onesimus - Wikipedia

GingerBeer said:

There are a lot of passages emphasising the role of women as subervient to men. A number of old testament rules about sex and marriage are framed with women as a type of property. Paul expects women to be silent in church and will not permit them to teach or to have authority over a man (in church. obviously a woman slave owner would have authority over all the male slaves that she owned). I can cite passages if you need them. And these things do look sexist. So is the bible's law and message sexist?

Click to expand...

No, it's the way God designed it. Modern feminism tends to try and push the anti man agenda. But as Christians we are to follow the way God designed the man/woman relationship. I do agree that there are some bad interpretations out there though. Woman is to be Man's helper, not his servant, but still the man is the head of the family, and the woman, as Christ is head of the church. This means that the woman gives her input and assists, but the final decision on things rests with the man.

Modern feminists will say this means that it's stating the woman is being downtrodden, and made subservient. This is far from the case, as any man who does not take his takes advice to heart is a fool, but that also doesn't mean she tells him what to do.

GingerBeer said:

I agree. Slavery in the second millennium BC was "the norm" and Moses could not thwart it by giving a commandment that said "Thou shalt have no slaves among you but every man and every women must be free because all are made in the image of the LORD your God. Therefore thou shalt respect thy neighbour and never enslave him not force him into servile labour nor impoverish him." But I would love to have seen such a commandment in the old testament.

Click to expand...

Yes. Israel failed to do the general law, the 10 commandments, not just a few times, but over and over repetitively. So, among those detailed step-by-step style regulations we get things like the Sabbath day of rest to include all slaves also, that slaves could run away and get refuge by law (from God) in other towns, and more. A whole series of detailed incremental laws...gradually building towards to the real spirit of the law -- Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

But to do this proactive full-form golden rule....is still an ideal for even America, which we aren't there yet on. To do it even when it's hard, when someone misbehaves...to have that grace, we need His grace, and help.

It is always important to remember when reading the Bible that just because it records certain behaviors and practices doesn't mean it approves of those behaviors or practices. For example, the Bible records many instances of men having more than one wife... but it never ends well for them. Also Biblical submission is NOT a bad word, the world had twisted its meaning into something that it is not. Biblical submission actually puts much more responsibility of right behavior on the one being submitted TO than the one being submitted.

I dont think the bible is sexist. I believe the bible establishes a Godly order especially in the new testament.

GingerBeer said:

There are a lot of passages emphasising the role of women as subervient to men. A number of old testament rules about sex and marriage are framed with women as a type of property. Paul expects women to be silent in church and will not permit them to teach or to have authority over a man (in church. obviously a woman slave owner would have authority over all the male slaves that she owned). I can cite passages if you need them. And these things do look sexist. So is the bible's law and message sexist?

Click to expand...

No, the Bible is not sexist.

It appears you are working to erode the confidence of others in the authority of divine Scriptures. Are you an anti-Christian bigot, then? Are you a wolf in sheeps' clothing, claiming to be a Christian while calling the Bible evil?

GingerBeer said:

There are a lot of passages emphasising the role of women as subervient to men. A number of old testament rules about sex and marriage are framed with women as a type of property. Paul expects women to be silent in church and will not permit them to teach or to have authority over a man (in church. obviously a woman slave owner would have authority over all the male slaves that she owned). I can cite passages if you need them. And these things do look sexist. So is the bible's law and message sexist?

Click to expand...

Under sex and marriage women are not slaves. Idk how you’re reading it but no where does it say “ the man buys his wife and the two become one” nor suggest that. We compliment. Women are God’s responses for men, and men are demanded to respect God’s response, the woman. Because of the fall, it complicates how we must view each other, but that’s not what the Bible nor God endorses.

GingerBeer said:

I was thinking of this passage, one of the ten commandments,

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.​

Here the wife of your neighbour is listed among his possessions like his house, his servants, and his cattle.

In older commentaries no note is made of the listing of these things and people as property nor any comment given about the morality of owning another human being be that human being wife, male servant, or female servant. Only in recent times with people becoming more aware of the difficulties involved in institutions like slavery and the notion of a wife as a man's property have commentators noted this matter and the difficulty it presents. Of course those who are keen to justify every word of scripture as holy, just, and good and coming directly from the mind (if not the mouth) of the Lord may be inclined to explain away the juxtaposition of wife, servants, cattle, and house.

Click to expand...

You are reading into scripture. The wife is to be protected and lead by her husband. He is the spiritual leader of his house, as Christ is over him, and over the Church. The wife is not property like a house but she does belong to him in that he protects her, guards her, and so on. They are a couple, a union of two, of male and female; they are together one flesh.

I think one thing people don't take into account though is that it's incredibly hard to put ourselves in the shoes of Ancient Jews. They lived as nomads, they focused their attention on scripture very differently since they didn't have the New Testament or some of the later OT writings. It's possible that they understood God better than we think they did. And maybe when they'd read something about beating slaves, they'd truly see it as a worst case scenario thing.

This was their entire scripture, all their deep analysis would go to these things. We can't understand that perspective, and I learn a ton about God from reading the OT, so I think they could see how big God's love is. I mean it's kind of like I can't possibly comment deeply on what it's like to be around physically brutal racism or bigotry. I've never seen it. I can read about it, but that's not enough to fully understand it. Like knowing who are the good guys in that region or time, and who the bad ones are.

We can't think that everybody in a past era had the same flaws. There's always a diversity of opinions. And I think that's a common mistake we make with history. We see a culture that's so different and can't help but paint all its people with the same brush.

If you want to understand what The Bible means in regards to a woman's submission to her Husband and what it means that a woman is to "be silent" then you need to look at your relationship with Jesus Christ if you do indeed have one. The submission of the woman is seen in our very own submission to Yeshua Messiah. It is out of Love and gratitude, not bondage and slavery. It extends naturally from Jesus Love, Grace, Mercy and the embodiemenbof Father that he is. If a Man himself is fully submitted to Jesus, Fully submitted to Yahweh, then our wives will submit to the man in the same way, out of Pure Love and gratitude. The Bible is not sexist, it's a carnal imposition on the Bible that turns it into that.

GingerBeer said:

Feminism isn't really what I wanted to get into with this thread. It is a hot topic for political warriors all over the western world and so far not a lot of light has come from the battles between the sides.

Click to expand...

It wasn't my intent either, but it is germane to the topic of biblical structure of the modern family, the man/woman relationship.