Does the Bible say anything about having a woman as President?

[Hank77]

He could sell his daughter (Ex. 21:7).

It depends on ones definition of slavery and was only allowed in situations of family poverty. The intent is that she will be wed to the master or his son. If they refuse her she is allowed to leave.
Sons could also become bond servants. Hebrew servants were given their freedom in the 7th year, just as debts were forgiven in the 7th year.

Exo 21:7 `And when a man selleth his daughter for a handmaid, she doth not go out according to the going out of the men-servants;
Exo 21:8 if evil in the eyes of her lord, so that he hath not betrothed her, then he hath let her be ransomed; to a strange people he hath not power to sell her, in his dealing treacherously with her.
Exo 21:9 `And if to his son he betroth her, according to the right of daughters he doth to her.
Exo 21:10 `If another woman he take for him, her food, her covering, and her habitation, he doth not withdraw;
Exo 21:11 and if these three he do not to her, then she hath gone out for nought, without money.

Verse 10 and 11, holds true for any wife, not just the handmaid. That doesn't sound to me like the husband owns the wife as property.

 

[Belk]

It depends on ones definition of slavery and was only allowed in situations of family poverty. The intent is that she will be wed to the master or his son. If they refuse her she is allowed to leave.
Sons could also become bond servants. Hebrew servants were given their freedom in the 7th year, just as debts were forgiven in the 7th year.

Exo 21:7 `And when a man selleth his daughter for a handmaid, she doth not go out according to the going out of the men-servants;
Exo 21:8 if evil in the eyes of her lord, so that he hath not betrothed her, then he hath let her be ransomed; to a strange people he hath not power to sell her, in his dealing treacherously with her.
Exo 21:9 `And if to his son he betroth her, according to the right of daughters he doth to her.
Exo 21:10 `If another woman he take for him, her food, her covering, and her habitation, he doth not withdraw;
Exo 21:11 and if these three he do not to her, then she hath gone out for nought, without money.

Verse 10 and 11, holds true for any wife, not just the handmaid. That doesn't sound to me like the husband owns the wife as property.

I am unaware of any definition of slavery under which selling another human being would be excluded.

May I ask you a question? Why is the fact that the bible contains slavery an issue? Is it not a historical record and was this not a part of history?

 

[Jack of Spades]

If you go by the Bible, you are supposed to have a king, anointed by a prophet to give him the divine right to rule his subjects. No, you are not supposed to have a constitution, not democracy, not president, not elections.

When this biggest slip has gotten first sorted out, and monarchy has been restored, we can discuss the gender of the monarch.

Or alternatively, you could cease to try to model a political system after 2 000 + year old political systems.

 

[Hank77]

I am unaware of any definition of slavery under which selling another human being would be excluded.

I think there is a difference between this particular type of what others want to call slavery rather than an indentured bond servant, or a father using his daughter as a trade for his financial benefit. That was still going on in Europe and the US, etc. until women began refusing to marry a man that their father chose for them often times for his own financial gain.

Why is the fact that the bible contains slavery an issue? Is it not a historical record and was this not a part of history?

Of coarse there was real slavery as well in the Bible. But that is not the conversation that the other poster and I were having.

 

[Belk]

I think there is a difference between this particular type of what others want to call slavery rather than an indentured bond servant, or a father using his daughter as a trade for his financial benefit. That was still going on in Europe and the US, etc. until women began refusing to marry a man that their father chose for them often times for his own financial gain.

Ah! So more of an arranged marriage type of deal where it is a political and financial alliance? That actually makes a lot more sense.

Of coarse there was real slavery as well in the Bible. But that is not the conversation that the other poster and I were having.

Gotcha.

 

[LoAmmi]

If you go by the Bible, you are supposed to have a king, anointed by a prophet to give him the divine right to rule his subjects. No, you are not supposed to have a constitution, not democracy, not president, not elections.

Don't forget to mention that having a king was the choice of the people after being told it was a bad idea. So, His ideal plan had no king.

 

[Hank77]

Ah! So more of an arranged marriage type of deal where it is a political and financial alliance? That actually makes a lot more sense.

Well not political as far as the Hebrews went. It was purely financial. The father may owe money to the man that he could not pay, owed some other debt, or was living in poverty.
In the history of the US people who could not afford to care for all their children would give them to someone who could, to work on their farm or in their household.

However, when it came to Solomon he married many women outside of the Israelites that increased his power and riches. But that had nothing to do with this type of bondage. He disobeyed God when he did that.

 

[giftofGod2]

My position is that God allowed slavery and dictated laws to govern the practice of slavery because there is a spiritual principle involved in the concept of slavery that would not have historically been examined if slavery had been abolished in the days of the giving of the ten commandments.

God allowed slavery so that the illustration could be made that it is an evil thing that anyone should be a slave of sin, but not so evil, and even righteous, that a man should be a slave of righteousness.

Did you notice, in God's teachings about slavery, that if a man loves his master, he is given the option to serve him for ever?

Which indicates that slavery might only be evil if the master is evil and does not treat the slave with dignity. If the slave is treated with dignity, it is very likely that he will love his master in the end and become a bondslave, choosing to serve is master for ever.

Paul considered himself to be this type of bondservant to Christ.

The illustration would be lost if God had not given the commandments in the way that He did. If He had said, "NO SLAVERY WHATSOEVER," there would be no ilustration of bondservant to Christ, which is important to the doctrines of redemption.

So then, in God's itinerary, doctrines of redemption prevailed over doctrines of legal requirement, since God also has given us all a conscience so that the concept of slavery could be judged by our consciences.

Even with God's teachings about divorce, Jesus said that Moses gave commandment that divorce was permissible because of the hardness of men's hearts. Consider that perhaps God allowed slavery for the hardness of men's hearts, and also so that the doctrine of being a bondservant to Christ would eventually be able to be taught by the Holy Spirit through Paul.