The Comparative Value of Men and Women / How should one interpret Leviticus?
One of the problems with discussing an issue like marriage, as I've been doing recently, is the risk of making unfair statements about those one might possibly marry (i.e. women in my case).
Do I think that women are morally corrupt? Well ... yes. Of course, consistency demands that I apply the same argument to men generally and, more particularly, to myself.
Why take a relatively cynical perspective towards marriage from the point of men? There are roughly three reasons that I can think of:
- I am male and thus have a male perspective on things. Some criticisms apply equally to both men and women, and some apply more to one than the other. Women have written about the issue from the female perspective, and I can read (and have read) their thoughts. For example I own a copy of (and have read) the book Where Have All the Good Men Gone?: Why So Many Christian Women Are Remaining Single. The book elaborates upon the results of a survey of single Christian men and women. Here are the six primary complaints presented from women about men:
- Passivity
- Unrealistic expectations - demanding perfection
- There are few single Christian men
- Men are emotionally / spiritually immature and intimidated by successful women
- Unwillingness to commit; Expectation of someone better around the next corner
- Pushing sexual boundaries
- I hear more confusion from women about why men would not want to date them (which may partially explain point #1 on the list above). Oftentimes, the answer seems to be to blame men for everything, as this book (which I've also read) seems to do.
- My idea of equality between men and women includes that of an equal ability to sin, albeit with each restrained by the legal system. Given the current legal system, I think that this means that there are some good reasons for men to be particularly cynical about marriage. For example, whether a children survives from conception to live life beyond the womb is under the current legal system the choice of the mother. A father has no legal recourse if the mother chooses abortion, however morally repugnant he finds that to be. Consider also the case of ending a marriage. Under the current legal system, either party is able to end the marriage without having to show a (legitimate) cause. The mother gets to keep the kids and is pretty much guaranteed an income, whereas a father is generally left with little more than bills to pay (whether or not he's in favour of divorce). It's the only type of contract in Western society wherein the violating party is able to sue for damages - and statistically women are far more likely to initiate a divorce.
So, what prompted a further post on this topic? In this case, it was me reading through the book of Leviticus in prep for a bible study and being left not quite sure how to interpret passages like Leviticus 27:1-7. That particular passage assigns monetary values to categories of individuals mentioned in vows, and in each case the male is given a higher value than the corresponding female.
I've also been trying to out why in Leviticus 4 the sin of a leader requires the sacrifice of a male animal which the sin of a commoner requires the sacrifice of a female animal. In this latter case, if all sacrificed animals were male that might seem a clear pointer to Christ, but that's not the case. Any thoughts / suggestions as to how to interpret these two?
Comments
Scott
Mon, 2008-11-03 12:33
Permalink
Leviticus 27:1-7 is referring
Leviticus 27:1-7 is referring to the dedication of persons to temple service. Since only Levites are permitted to do temple service, non-Levites could donate a monetary equivalent. The values given correspond to the value of work that an actual person would be able to do in temple service. That's why younger people are also "worth less". This passage is dealing with something specific; it's not saying that women or young people are worth less in general.
In Leviticus 4, the type of animal being sacrificed is based on the social and/or economic status of the sinner in the community. A bull was required for the high priest or the entire community because it is the most valuable animal. A leader is also an important public figure, but not as important as the high priest, so a male goat is required. Female goat for ordinary Israelites, doves or pigeons for the poor, etc. The payment is proportional to how much others look at the sinner as an example of how to live.
If you're looking for a text to illustrate equality between men and women, the word translated as "helper" in Genesis 2 is one which means that both parties have equal status.
David
Mon, 2008-11-03 18:31
Permalink
Leviticus 27:1-7 is referring
Leviticus 27:1-7 is referring to the dedication of persons to temple service.
It's not just in the dedication of persons that such valuations apply. To give another example, childbirth also results in ceremonial uncleanness for a number of days that varies based upon the sex of the child. There the mother is ceremonially unclean for twice the length of time if the child is female. (See Lev. 12)
If you're looking for a text to illustrate equality between men and women, the word translated as "helper" in Genesis 2 is one which means that both parties have equal status.
Well, using the word "helper" doesn't seem to directly imply equality - you have to look how, for example (if memory serves correct), how the same word used there is also used elsewhere in OT to describe God in relationship to Israel. From that you can argue that to be a "helper" does not mean that one is of lower worth.
To construct a good argument, it seems that you need to argue that there is a argument for equality. At the same time, a good argument also seems to need to address some of the texts that might appear in an argument for the unequal worth of men and women.
In Leviticus 4, the type of animal being sacrificed is based on the social and/or economic status of the sinner in the community. A bull was required for the high priest or the entire community because it is the most valuable animal. A leader is also an important public figure, but not as important as the high priest, so a male goat is required. Female goat for ordinary Israelites, doves or pigeons for the poor, etc. The payment is proportional to how much others look at the sinner as an example of how to live.
If you look at the effect that it has on how quickly a herd can be replenished... killing off the female goat would seem to have a greater impact on the future of the herd than killing off a male goat.
Scott
Tue, 2008-11-04 10:48
Permalink
It's not just in the
It's not just in the dedication of persons that such valuations apply.
I was responding to a specific example that you gave. As for Leviticus 12, I wouldn't consider that a valuation. I also won't attempt to provide some sort of explanation, because even the experts don't know.
Well, using the word "helper" doesn't seem to directly imply equality
"Helper" is an English word. I specifically said "the word translated as 'helper'" in reference to the original Hebrew. I couldn't remember which book I read about this in so I couldn't explicitly give the word in Hebrew.
To construct a good argument, it seems that you need to argue that there is a argument for equality. At the same time, a good argument also seems to need to address some of the texts that might appear in an argument for the unequal worth of men and women.
I think you need to argue that there is an argument for inequality and address some of the texts that you think might support this. Genesis 1 is quite clear that both man and woman are created in God's image, and both were blessed and given the mandate to fill the earth and subdue it.
Here's some articles for you to read:
If you look at the effect that it has on how quickly a herd can be replenished... killing off the female goat would seem to have a greater impact on the future of the herd than killing off a male goat.
You need one of each to make more goats, and I think you are underestimating the size of the herd.
David
Tue, 2008-11-04 12:07
Permalink
You need one of each to make
You need one of each to make more goats, and I think you are underestimating the size of the herd.
The first part of your sentence is true. However, one male goat and 500 female goats may result in 500 simultaneous pregnancies. Polygamy is historically much more common than polyandry.
I suspect that the Roman Catholics would look fairly closely to this book in their arguments for clerical celibacy - or for celibacy in general. The celibate would seem to be have been ceremonially unclean a smaller fraction of the time than married individuals.
David
Sat, 2008-11-08 13:54
Permalink
Reading through the above
Reading through the above articles, I couldn't find a single reference that attempts to deal with verses in places like Leviticus. Ah well, time for that article I mentioned.
David
Thu, 2008-11-06 18:15
Permalink
In the mail this week
The latest issue of Touchstone with an article entitled "Wise Blood: Reflections on Modern Women & the Levitical Laws of Ritual Purity". Seems quite relevant to the topic at hand, and also helps to solidify Touchstone's position as the oddest and most eclectic magazine that I subscribe too.
I've been too busy to read through Scott's suggested links over the course of the last couple of days, but hopefully will get to them by the weekend.