If Any Passage of Scripture Could Be Arguably Sexist, This Might Be It. Or Perhaps Not.

Laws Concerning Childbirth

Leviticus 12

Leviticus 12:1- 8

¹Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ² “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying:

‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. ³ On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. ⁴ Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. ⁵ But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.

⁶ ‘When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one-year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. ⁷ Then he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female. ⁸ But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

Thoughts on the Passage

My initial thought in reading this passage this time around was that if ever there was a portion of Scripture that the women’s lib movement could call sexist, this was it.

At face value, the passage clearly distinguishes between having a male and a female child. When a male child is born, the woman is ‘unclean’ for seven days and then she remains unwashed for thirty-three days, not allowed to touch any consecrated thing nor enter into a place of worship during that time. Meanwhile, the son will have been circumcised on the eighth day.

If the woman has a female child, she is deemed unclean for twice as long (two weeks) and also remains unwashed for twice as long (sixty-six days).  One assumes the restrictions for that period are the same as for when she has a male child.

When those respective periods are over, the mother is to somehow acquire a one-year old lamb and take it to the priest for burnt offering, as well as a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.  The priest offers these to God and makes atonement for her (I suppose for having a child, or perhaps for being unclean), after which she is or can be cleansed from her blood. 

The passage ends with the provision to double up on the pigeons or doves if the woman cannot afford to purchase a one-year old lamb. Throughout the entire chapter there is no mention of the father or husband. One can easily see the argument that anti-sexists can make.

In the New Testament, in Luke chapter 2, verse 24 we read that Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the end of her period of purification, after having given birth to Jesus, offered a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons for the sacrifice that needed to be made. This was an indication that young Joseph and his wife were not from a wealthy family.

Now let’s see what we can make of this whole passage:

Robert Jamieson writes (regarding the days of the mother being purified), “Though the occasion was of a festive character, yet the sacrifices appointed were not a peace offering, but a burnt offering and sin offering, in order to impress the mind of the parent with recollections of the origin of sin, and that the child inherited a fallen and sinful nature.”

David Guzik has many good thoughts on this passage.  He writes:

“The commanded time of ceremonial impurity should not be regarded as a negative attitude towards birth or childbearing on God's part. God commands childbearing, in that man is commanded to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28), children are regarded as a gift from God (Psalm 127:3), and a woman with many kids is considered blessed (Psalm 128:3).

“The key to understanding this ceremony is to understand the idea of original sin. As wonderful as a new baby is, God wanted it to be remembered that with every birth another sinner was brought into the world, and the woman was here symbolically responsible for bringing a new sinner into the world. Perhaps just as importantly, the time of ceremonial impurity gave the new mother a time of rest and seclusion.” Something that might be welcomed by many.

On the issue of why the purification time requirements were twice as long for a female child, Guzik suggests the following:

“The longer period of ceremonial uncleanness for the birth of a daughter should not be understood as a penalty. Instead, it is linked to the idea stated in the previous verses – that the time of impurity is for the symbolic responsibility of bringing other sinners into the world. When giving birth to a female, a mother brings a sinner into the world who will bring still other sinners into the world.”  I understand how, when many have thrown out the idea of sin altogether today, this would not make a lot of sense.  But I believe, symbolically, what Guzik offers here is a possible explanation of the passage.

Guzik also tells us that some “also suggest the longer period of time in connection with the birth of a girl was because girls are usually smaller at birth, and this would allow more time for the mother's focused care and attention on the child. As well, since sons were more prized, the longer time at home for a mother with a newborn girl would force the family to bond more deeply, over a more extended period of time.” Perhaps.

Matthew Henry on the other hand, offers no reason for the difference in treatment between a male and female child, except for “the will of the Maker” since God created them male and female from the beginning, as equals. I personally like Guzik’s efforts to at least attribute some cause to God’s deliberate distinctions here, even if as humans, we may never know fully what God had in mind. Suffice it for me that there is an explanation.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

While some could use different animals to sacrifice, ALL sinners needed to atone for their sins.

An Offering for the Common People

Leviticus 4:27-35:

This passage describes the process to be followed when an ordinary person (not a priest, not a leader, and not the congregation as whole) has committed a sin unintentionally and it is drawn to his attention. This offering may involve the sacrifice of a goat or a lamb – but both to be of the female gender.

Thoughts on the Passage

Notice the big difference here is that common folk were required to bring female animals. Matthew Henry summarizes by saying a common or private person could bring a female goat or lamb, but a ruler must bring only a goat and it is to be male. All other observances are the same.

Robert Jamieson also reminds that the blood of the sacrificed animal when offered by a common person was only applied to the altar of burnt offering in the court of the Tabernacle, whereas in the atonement of transgressions by the priests or the whole congregation, the process called for a further penitence – the application of the blood on the altar of incense.

We note in this chapter that sin atonement offerings were required by rich and poor, individuals and the congregation, as well as priest and rulers. No matter our status and role in society, we are all required to atone for our sins. The terms of acceptance were basically the same for them all at that time.  They are the same for all of us today.  There are no special passes like one may be available to purchase at Disneyland to avoid the line-ups or to get special seating privileges. Christ welcomes all of us in the same manner – just as we are. He offers us the same benefits from His sacrifice.

So, what can we learn from all these laws about sin offerings? Henry suggests two things:

First, to hate sin, and to guard against it. It is a serious thing that God wants taken care of, or He wouldn’t have prescribed the slaying and mangling of so many innocent and useful creatures to deal with it.

Second, to value Christ, the great and true sin offering, whose blood cleanses us from all sin – something the blood of bulls and goats could not do. And Christ does this for all of us – not just the Jewish people.

Finally, Jamieson reminds us that “none of these sacrifices possessed any intrinsic value sufficient to free the conscience of the sinner from the pollution of guilt, or to obtain his pardon from God; but they gave a formal deliverance from a secular penalty; and they were figurative representations of the full and perfect sin offering which was to be made by Christ.”

As I watch people of various faiths pursue such “formal deliverance” from the penalty their beliefs or their sects or cults or untrue religions impose, my heart breaks as I realize they are only pursuing a momentary relief and missing out on the benefits of true and eternal spiritual freedom through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

On a side note, I have no explanation as to why the common folk were allowed to use a female animal in this offering. The only thing I can think of is that they were more plentiful and/or perhaps, less expensive. If you have other thoughts, please share them with us.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

The Female Slave -- Exodus 21:7-11

“And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.  If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.  He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.  And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.  If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing or conjugal rights.  And if he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”

The behavior suggested in the first phrase in this passage would result in criminal charges today.  Much has changed since the days of the Israelites in the wilderness. We can accept that slavery back then although abhorrent, was legal. What some of us may have more trouble accepting today is that God Himself was suggesting that the treatment of male slaves was to be different than the treatment of female slaves.  Whereas male slaves could go free after serving their masters for six years (see Exodus 21:2), female slaves did not have that benefit.  Why?

I think that rather than question God’s fairness in this situation we would be wise to read the entire passage.  In actual fact, a female slave was getting the better deal.  The whole purpose of God’s instructions for the female whose family was forced to sell her out of poverty, was ultimately that someone would be taking care of her.  The first thing we need to be aware of was that when a ‘maid-servant’ was bought, she was bought not really to be a slave, but rather to be the master’s wife or the wife of one of his sons some day, according to commentator David Guzik.  And if that was not to happen – the master did not marry her, or the sons did not want her -- she was to be redeemed preferably by their own family if they could afford to, but if not, her master could not sell her to a foreigner (or stranger).

Once a master gave the maidservant to his son, then from that point on she was to be treated as a daughter, not a slave. And as I read the next sentence, if the master or his son, once having accepted the maidservant as his wife, were to add more wives to his family (something else practiced in those days, but not condoned by God), then he had to ensure that the maidservant would still get the same allowances for food and clothing, and also have her conjugal rights (that is, the rights, especially to sexual relations, regarded as exercisable in law by each partner in a marriage).  Should these three things not be provided to her, she was free to leave and make her own way in society.  But through all of this, we can hopefully see that God was ensuring that the Hebrew women and daughters, whose own families could not afford to take care of them, would be protected.

_____________________________________________________________________

[Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

________________________________________________________________________

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

They want us to ask a child, "Which gender pronoun do you prefer we use for you?" Coming to California and then to your school.

"Gender liberation" is now the new push for the GLBT agenda. It claims we MUST 'liberate' children from unnecessary 'stereotypes'. God must have made a mistake when He (dare I say) made us male and female.

And while we're at it, let's designate restrooms (in schools?) as "gender neutral". And they're doing it all in the name of . . . wait for it, . . . ah yes, the old, "let's be more tolerant of differences" rationale.

Here are the details of what gave rise to this blog. . .

You won’t believe what’s ‘next’ in radical sex agenda

[Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Wondering what a Catholic School Board Does with Sex Education & Homosexuality?

Recently I wrote a blog about what the Toronto District School Board is telling their teachers they must teach your children and grandchildren about six different genders.  Well, a good friend of mine read my blog and sent me a very different picture of what is going on in the Catholic School systems -- in the same district of Toronto mind you.  But I bet that your district's Catholic schools have a much similar approach.  The stark difference will astound you.   Here, with names and other I.D. taken out, I'm sharing with you what he had to say.   Remember, he's an excellent, knowledgeable (as you'll see from what he adds) and committed Catholic and I'm the Protestant that sends my grandchildren to public schools.   He writes:

"As I mentioned to you, my daughter goes to her constitutionally established, publicly funded, religious education school. The TCDSB website is at: www.tcdsb.org and you can use the search to see what they’ve got.

"Here’s a link to the Board’s Religious Education/Family Life page:
http://www.tcdsb.org/religionfamilylife/. Lots of interesting stuff for you there. The program used in the elementary schools is called “Fully Alive” and one of the early topics is “God created us male and female”. We don’t seem to have the 6 genders which the public board has.

"One of the interesting things is a sex ed curriculum from XYZ high school which is the boys school on ABC avenue just west of DEF avenue. Here’s the link (and you can figure out the school from that):
http://www.tcdsb.org/brebeufscience/biotech/edhumlov.html. (Read especially paragraphs or items 101 and 102.)  Nothing near what the TDSB is advocating.

"Here’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357. (Read especially paragraphs or items 2357-2359.)  Despite what some may say this is the definitive teaching of the Church. You can see the catechism at the Vatican website here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM but it has a crummy search capability.

"I don’t live under the illusion that people identifying themselves as Catholic Christians follow Church teaching fully. We’re supposed to.  We separate ourselves from the Church if we don’t but some people make that choice. They’re called the “cafeteria Catholics” because they pick and choose which parts of Church teaching they’ll follow. I’m sure we have some teachers who would love to have programs reflecting those in the public board but thankfully they don’t carry the day. We discuss family/health/sexuality issues with our children and they've got a wonderfully formed education and conscience in these areas. They know that homosexuals exist, we don’t  know why they’re homosexuals, they’re people created in the image and likeness of God and we are called to love them. They also know that the acts are wrong if only from the point that God created life and only in the union of man and woman can we participate in that creation."

And then he gives me a sincere wish, "Good luck with the grand kids."  I can only say, I'll need more than luck.   No wonder people are doing everything they can to get their kids into the Catholic school system, at least in Ontario.

[Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.