The old testament is sexist

[CHRISTINE77]

Here is a reading from Numbers 5:11-5:29. The woman is definitely being singled out.
11Then the LORD said to Moses, 12"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—15then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.

16"'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband”—21here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath—“may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. 22May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away.”

"'Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23"'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. 28If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29"‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’"

This seems totally unfair!

 

[pigtown]

There is a lot in the OT that no longer applies. I’ve also read that anyone with a skin disorder was called a leper whether they had leprosy, eczema, psoriasis or whatever. Any skin disease made a person unclean. I have psoriasis and am just glad I am living today instead of in those days. Don’t let the OT bother you too much.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Here is a reading from Numbers 5:11-5:29. The woman is definitely being singled out.
11Then the LORD said to Moses, 12"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—15then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.

16"'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband”—21here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath—“may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. 22May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away.”

"'Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23"'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. 28If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29"‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’"

This seems totally unfair!

you seem to jump to conclusions way too fast to think about what is being done. Some stuff doesn’t apply in the same way due to the new covenant. The OT is not sexist by a long shot

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Don’t ya think it’s a unfair to apply 21st. century cultural mores to a culture that hasn’t existed in perhaps 4 - 5 thousand years?

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually, if you look at the passage through a slightly different focus, it’s a bit of silly ‘sympathetic magic’ to shut up ‘litigious’ husbands. The chance of the ‘mix’ doing any harm is very, very unlikely but once it’s over she’s in the right.

 

[Peter29]

The views in the Old Testament being different to the views in the New Testament is hardly breaking news

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The views in the Old Testament being different to the views in the New Testament is hardly breaking news

It’s almost completely opposite, when you think about it.
Jesus healed the lepers, and stood up for the sinners, like adulterers.

 

[Peter29]

It’s almost completely opposite, when you think about it.
Jesus healed the lepers, and stood up for the sinners, like adulterers.

There is goodness in the Old Testament though isn’t there? We are very priveliged to have experienced Christ even in the minimal sense in which we do.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There is goodness in the Old Testament though isn’t there? We are very priveliged to have experienced Christ even in the minimal sense in which we do.

Yes absolutely there is goodness in the Old Testament. But there are a lot of very disturbing and strange things in there too.

The New Testament is much more appealing though. Like the Gospel of John. It speaks right to my heart.

 

[Nita]

Actually, if you look at the passage through a slightly different focus, it’s a bit of silly ‘sympathetic magic’ to shut up ‘litigious’ husbands. The chance of the ‘mix’ doing any harm is very, very unlikely but once it’s over she’s in the right.

Like you, I look at the passage with a different focus than the opening poster. And, I guess, different from you also, since I don’t see it as “silly sympathetic magic”. Especially as it is one of the laws dictated to Moses directly by God (and not one of the laws established by Moses).

I see it as a means God instituted to protect women from being treated unfairly by their husbands – that is, casting them out and leaving them to fend for themselves, a very unpleasant situation for a woman to be in back in those days.

As you note, the mix was no doubt harmless (under ordinary circumstances). The consequences for the guilty are quite unusual – swelling abdomen and a thigh that wastes away . No proof of course, but my thought is that God allowed this to happen if the woman was guilty.
Another possibility could be that the mixture was not harmless, but would actually produce those effects under normal circumstances. If such was the case, then I suspect God intervened on behalf of any innocent women and protected them from the normal consequences.

 

[Nita]

There is a lot in the OT that no longer applies. I’ve also read that anyone with a skin disorder was called a leper whether they had leprosy, eczema, psoriasis or whatever. Any skin disease made a person unclean. I have psoriasis and am just glad I am living today instead of in those days. Don’t let the OT bother you too much.

It was quite as general as that. You might read chapter 13 in Leviticus.

Nita

 

[Mark77]

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, `FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?”
Mt 19:4-5.

Evil exists in all men even today and it has existed since Eve listened to the devil and ate the apple.

Jesus is the only cure!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[Strategery]

Don’t ya think it’s a unfair to apply 21st. century cultural mores to a culture that hasn’t existed in perhaps 4 - 5 thousand years?

Well said.

 

[Kaninchen]

Like you, I look at the passage with a different focus than the opening poster. And, I guess, different from you also, since I don’t see it as “silly sympathetic magic”. Especially as it is one of the laws dictated to Moses directly by God (and not one of the laws established by Moses).

Being (reasonably observant) Jewish, the point I’d make is that, from our perspective, you can’t understand Torah without ‘Oral Torah’ - the prime example would be the way many Christians read ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ as retribution, while Jews read it as recompense having to be appropriate to the offense - a sheep for a tooth, perhaps, a flock for an eye. This particular set of passages are unique - this is magic spell stuff and we don’t do magic spell stuff.

I see it as a means God instituted to protect women from being treated unfairly by their husbands – that is, casting them out and leaving them to fend for themselves, a very unpleasant situation for a woman to be in back in those days.

Indeed, keeping of family and tribal peace is a central theme and God is wise - it’s not about punishing possible naughtiness, it’s about keeping the peace.

As you note, the mix was no doubt harmless (under ordinary circumstances). The consequences for the guilty are quite unusual – swelling abdomen and a thigh that wastes away . No proof of course, but my thought is that God allowed this to happen if the woman was guilty.

I have to say that I doubt that anything other than natural forces applied - this was a good way that a priest could keep the peace and avoid wrangling in the family and between families in the tribe.

Another possibility could be that the mixture was not harmless, but would actually produce those effects under normal circumstances. If such was the case, then I suspect God intervened on behalf of any innocent women and protected them from the normal consequences.

My guess is that women of the time, with systems more hardened than our medicated and anti-bacterial spray way of life, probably just felt a bit sick.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Though Numbers mentions only women, in practice the water of the ordeal of the Lord may have been given to both sexes suspected of sin. For what it’s worth, according to the Protoevangelium of James (chapter 16), the water of the ordeal of the Lord was given to both Joseph and the Virgin Mary to drink to see if either of them had sinned when it was discovered that she was pregnant before she went to live in his house.

 

[pigtown]

It was quite as general as that. You might read chapter 13 in Leviticus.

Nita

I had read it but I went back and read it again. For anyone with a skin disease, this can be very disturbing. I don’t pay too much attention to the OT.

 

[Dtmccameron]

I had read it but I went back and read it again. For anyone with a skin disease, this can be very disturbing. I don’t pay too much attention to the OT.

That’s a shame. Our Lord did.

I think Christianity has left behind the Law too much, seeing that revelation to Peter and many of Jesus’s actions as causing it to be ‘null and void’.

And to the topic, I think this particular trial more humane than perhaps the other practices of the Isrealite’s neighbors. And certainly, in many of the more barbaric nations today, I should think a woman would be happy the have the chance to prove her innocence in so profound a way.

After all, if God, Most High deems the woman faithful, who could doubt it?

 

[pigtown]

The OT also called for blood sacrifice, something our Lord did away with when He gave His life. There is a lot in the OT that is no longer followed.

 

[Crumpy]

I read most of the OT last year, and I took note of that section.

Before we get to whether the OT is sexist or anything like that, do you suppose, just maybe, that the reason for this whole ritual was to keep a woman from sinning?

Do you suppose that God wanted to harm women in this way? In one of the preceding posts, there is a mention that this was actually done at some time, but in the regular OT, do you ever see it recorded that it ever happened?

The whole question of fairness, if that is even the point at any time, may be understood by going back to Genesis, and the account of the Fall of Adam and Eve. There are so many issues that are uncovered by closely looking at that text.

Why did God give Adam any command at all, especially such as one not to eat of a certain tree in the garden? There was a whole other thread about whether this command was fair, etc., whether Adam and Eve understood the command in the first place, etc.? Did they understand what death was, for example?

I’m reading the Jewish commentary on this subject, the commentary on Genesis. What it reveals is the whole issue of free will, making humankind in the image of God. There is no point in giving people free will, giving them the dignity of being made in the image of God, if they are supposed to just run amok and disrespect God all over the place. The point of Genesis, sadly, is probably not to convince you of all this, but to just say that’s the way it is.

Again and again, God makes “covenants” with His chosen people, and it imposes responsibilities on them – us – which we grapple with all the time.

The Jewish understanding of God’s law – at its best – is depicted, for example, in Psalm 119, which is praise and worship and thanksgiving to God for revealing his law (the Torah) to humankind. How wonderful it is that we know what God thinks and that we have an opportunity to live our life and serve Him as He has commanded us.

The Jewish commentary points out all the anthropomorphisms about God in the Bible – places where God is made to seem that He has feelings and emotions like a human being. The purpose of that is to explain God’s “way” to us – to help us understand. So, this passage in scripture which seems so unfair to women, is, in reality, showing us what an insult adultery is to God.

Recall that after the Fall, God cursed not Adam, but the earth. So, mixing the cursed earth with water, is mixing profanity with that which sustains life (water). And, committing the sin is like drinking this pollution.

Some of the Jewish commentary discusses a feature of the Decalogue (Ten Words – the term Ten Commandments is not used in the Bible, actually). One of the commands, not to covet your neighbor’s wife – is given to men, but there is no reciprocal commandment for women. So, women are not given a free ticket in this way. If men alone obeyed their commandment, it wouldn’t be possible for women to commit adultery, and not necessary to tell them to do such and so.

Since about the second century BC, the rabbis were “building a fence” around the Torah. If one didn’t even get close to breaking a commandment, then people would be “righteous” in the eyes of God.

(Jesus did not approve of this “fence” building, because it gave people more burdens than God had intended. And, it shifted the focus from God’s commands to the commands of men.)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Like you, I look at the passage with a different focus than the opening poster. And, I guess, different from you also, since I don’t see it as “silly sympathetic magic”. Especially as it is one of the laws dictated to Moses directly by God (and not one of the laws established by Moses).

I see it as a means God instituted to protect women from being treated unfairly by their husbands – that is, casting them out and leaving them to fend for themselves, a very unpleasant situation for a woman to be in back in those days.

As you note, the mix was no doubt harmless (under ordinary circumstances). The consequences for the guilty are quite unusual – swelling abdomen and a thigh that wastes away . No proof of course, but my thought is that God allowed this to happen if the woman was guilty.
Another possibility could be that the mixture was not harmless, but would actually produce those effects under normal circumstances. If such was the case, then I suspect God intervened on behalf of any innocent women and protected them from the normal consequences.

How is that way of thinking any different from that behind other “trials by ordeal” ? “Floating a witch” came in two forms - among Western Christians, she was guilty if she did not sink, & innocent if she did ; whereas in ancient Mesoptamia she was guilty if she drowned (which is much more humane than the other way of interpreting what happened. What both forms of ordeal by floating share with one another, & with the passage in Numbers 5, is that God or the river-god would give the answer appropriate in the circumstances. The Church in the West condemned judgement by ordeal - surely rightly; & not because it lacked faith in God’s justice either. If one kind of ordeal is unsatisfactory, why should others be any better ?​