The Narrow Path Ministries

Leviticus 12

v2 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days.

v5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks.

We all know there are OT laws and incidents which clash with our modern sentiments, and this is probably one of them. Ok it may only be a ceremonial law, but...


If I go on a Google hunt to explain this verse so as to get God out of the “dock” on the sexism charge, I land only on ridicule and contempt. But one person hinted at something which got me wondering: maybe the original curse on Man is hard wired into these laws and hence the apparent inequality we see here. Eve was cursed to be subservient to Adam. What think ye?

Hmm -- I've never noticed that before. But, I think it may be a bit synchronistic to assume sexism from something like that. Your theory seems reasonable to me, but equality seems to me largely an American principle, not a biblical one. It's conjecture, of course, but It may well be that the differences and "weaknesses" of the woman that give rise to such different ceremonial treatment is the same that caused the woman to listen to the serpent, and not a result therefrom. But, it does seem odd to be reflected in a cleanliness rule (at least to my modern ears). God also didn't seem to have a real problem with slavery (of the sort at the time, anyway). These things do sound like the sort of thing atheists point to as critiquing the authenticity of God's Word.

Maybe she could only be unclean for 7 days for a male child because on the 8th day her son had to be circumcised, and she likely wanted to attend this event (maybe?)

TK

TK wrote:Maybe she could only be unclean for 7 days for a male child because on the 8th day her son had to be circumcised, and she likely wanted to attend this event (maybe?)

TK

Interesting -- this is why it's so hard for us -- we've lost so much of the cultural reference, we have to tread lightly on theological positions like this.

Is this "assumption of sexism" supported by Paul's words quoted below?

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Hi Paidion,

Yes, it sure looks sexist. Unless - Eve really is to blame more than Adam I suppose. Then Paul`s just saying it how it is. I know a lot of woman for whom this stance would be a red rag to a bull, though, in or out of the church.
And it does go on to say that women will be saved by bearing children. So all Catholic nuns are unsaved then? Mother Teresa too? Hmmm...

Yes, it sure looks sexist. Unless - Eve really is to blame more than Adam I suppose. Then Paul`s just saying it how it is.

But isn't Paul doing more than just "saying it how it is"?

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Is he not also extrapolating "how it is" to ALL women, using the Eve example as a basis for not permitting a woman to teach—or exercise authority over a man—and to remain quiet?

I had heard that ladies pregnant with girls might experience slightly more sickness, or fatigue, or something like that, I don’t know. It may be a difference in something medical, it seems God had medical / social reasons behind laws that were also of primary religious / spiritual significance. It may be like TK’s point, social or religious. There is a lot of detail we don’t have concerning many of the laws, jumping to a conclusion that this is anti-women is immature. The Law set out harsh guidelines for ‘everyone’, but there was nothing really harsh or laborious about keeping the law it usually meant refraining from doing something.
Women may agree that the positive side of the menstral Law, was that a woman was relieved from having to go to the Temple, or social activities while she was menstruating. Nor have to have sex with her husband, as ‘generally’ women would rather wait till the menstruation stopped, and were glad to have a good reason to keep their husbands at a distance.

Sounds to me like it was written by someone who was compassionate towards the woman.

JR, whatever merits your post may have, it does not seem to explain why a woman was "unclean" for TWO weeks if she bore a female child, as opposed to only ONE week, if she bore a male. Being "slightly more sick" (if indeed that is the case) is insufficient.

Hey Paidion-

Do you reject out of hand the possibility that the unclean period for a male child was 7 days so mom could attend the "circumcision party" on the 8th day?

In other words, a shorter period is prescribed for male children out of practical concerns.