Hebrew Daughters Sold to be Concubines

[Rose]

In Hebrew society, which was governed by the laws given by their god Yahweh, a father was allowed to sell his daughter to a master be his slave/concubine. According to the law if the daughter that was sold as a slave did not please her master, he was required to let her be redeemed. The master is not allowed to sell her, because he has sexually used her, thus making her undesirable for any other man. If the master has given the woman he bought to his son for a wife, then he is required to treat her as he would a daughter-in-law, lastly if he takes another woman to wife he is still obligated to treat his slave/wife equally. The master must follow these rules or he is required to let his slave/wife go free.



Exo.21:7-11 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.



Yet again the male bias of the Hebrew god Yahweh is blatantly obvious. Fathers were allowed under the laws given by Yahweh to sell their daughters to become the sex slaves of a master; whereas the same was not the case for sons. A male could sell himself into servitude, but was not considered the property of the father as a female was. Of course this was permitted because women were considered to be owned by either their fathers or husbands, under the laws given by the god of the Bible.


Rose

[David M]

In Hebrew society, which was governed by the laws given by their god Yahweh, a father was allowed to sell his daughter to a master be his slave/concubine. According to the law if the daughter that was sold as a slave did not please her master, he was required to let her be redeemed. The master is not allowed to sell her, because he has sexually used her, thus making her undesirable for any other man. If the master has given the woman he bought to his son for a wife, then he is required to treat her as he would a daughter-in-law, lastly if he takes another woman to wife he is still obligated to treat his slave/wife equally. The master must follow these rules or he is required to let his slave/wife go free.



Exo.21:7-11 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.





Yet again the male bias of the Hebrew god Yahweh is blatantly obvious. Fathers were allowed under the laws given by Yahweh to sell their daughters to become the sex slaves of a master; whereas the same was not the case for sons. A male could sell himself into servitude, but was not considered the property of the father as a female was. Of course this was permitted because women were considered to be owned by either their fathers or husbands, under the laws given by the god of the Bible.


Rose

Hello Rose

I wondered how long it would be before you picked up on the word concubine that has been used recently in posts. Another arrow to fire at God.

I am not arguing against male bias that is evident in the Bible. It is not male bias that God is intending against women. God wants to save women the same as men. Who knows, more women might make it to God's kingdom than men and what would you say to that?

From the verse you have quoted, I just want to point out the part which says; he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. Does not this tell you that God knows man has treated the woman deceitfully? This ought not to be the case. This ought to tell you (as it does me) that whatever God has allowed in the trade of women and slaves,, God sets high standards for his people. Human rights to be treated with respect prevail at all times. Women are generally accepted as the weaker sex and maybe that is what makes them vulnerable to men's mistreatment. It is not the way all men treat women and so the men that are exceptions again prove the point I am making. If one man can treat a woman with all the respect you expect, then why do not all men do the same. The blame comes back to individual men and not with God.

The same abuse of women is going on today and even men get abused, Considering we live in a society that does not believe in God or the need to live by God's moral code, it is not surprising and so once again, all the blame rests on the individual; not God. It is sad we have to live through this situation, but God has everything He needs to do under control in order in order to save the righteous and bring them to the kingdom of God. Even if you do not believe in God, do you not see anything good in God saving the righteous? Do you have a grudge against the righteous? Do you not want to be considered by your peers as righteous? What if God still considers you righteous by your perfect behavior towards your peers and gives you a place in His kingdom? Are you then going to spit in His face or say; thank you God for saving me, despite all I said about you. Or are you going to enjoy your time in the kingdom or say; "(I am a celebrity) get me out of here"?

We have been discussing the moral theory of Love and the two great commandments (one in your case) in other threads and these are the principles God's people were and are expected to keep. The fact that God's people did not live up to their high calling cannot be blamed on God. I cannot blame God for my failing to live up to his high standard and I thank Jesus and God for Jesus being able to do so. God expects everyone to be righteous and that will mean living according to God's high standard.

Now if you and I fail, to live to that high standard, it is not God we should blame, but ourselves. How many times could you have not done something you perhaps regret doing? No one made you do anything you did not choose to do. What you are doing now; bashing God, is of your own choosing. You choose your own ultimate fate according to how God will judge you for what you have done.

I will keep chipping away at the mountain having faith that the mountain is not immoveable.

All the best

David

[Rose]

Hello Rose

I wondered how long it would be before you picked up on the word concubine that has been used recently in posts. Another arrow to fire at God.

I am not arguing against male bias that is evident in the Bible. It is not male bias that God is intending against women. God wants to save women the same as men. Who knows, more women might make it to God's kingdom than men and what would you say to that?

From the verse you have quoted, I just want to point out the part which says; he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. Does not this tell you that God knows man has treated the woman deceitfully? This ought not to be the case. This ought to tell you (as it does me) that whatever God has allowed in the trade of women and slaves,, God sets high standards for his people. Human rights to be treated with respect prevail at all times. Women are generally accepted as the weaker sex and maybe that is what makes them vulnerable to men's mistreatment. It is not the way all men treat women and so the men that are exceptions again prove the point I am making. If one man can treat a woman with all the respect you expect, then why do not all men do the same. The blame comes back to individual men and not with God.

Hello David,

Don't you see how ridiculous what you just said sounds? God allows women to be traded as slaves/concubines, but he sets high standards for his people. It is immoral for a father to sell his daughter as a concubine, because women aren't the property of men and for god to give laws to allow for those practices is immoral.

I know all men don't treat women badly. Richard is a shinning example, he is as much or more of a women's rights activist than I am. If the world had more men like Richard, it would be a much better place for women to live. :thumb:


The same abuse of women is going on today and even men get abused, Considering we live in a society that does not believe in God or the need to live by God's moral code, it is not surprising and so once again, all the blame rests on the individual; not God. It is sad we have to live through this situation, but God has everything He needs to do under control in order in order to save the righteous and bring them to the kingdom of God. Even if you do not believe in God, do you not see anything good in God saving the righteous? Do you have a grudge against the righteous? Do you not want to be considered by your peers as righteous? What if God still considers you righteous by your perfect behavior towards your peers and gives you a place in His kingdom? Are you then going to spit in His face or say; thank you God for saving me, despite all I said about you. Or are you going to enjoy your time in the kingdom or say; "(I am a celebrity) get me out of here"?

Well, if the Bible is an example of god's moral code, then I think the world is much better off without it.


We have been discussing the moral theory of Love and the two great commandments (one in your case) in other threads and these are the principles God's people were and are expected to keep. The fact that God's people did not live up to their high calling cannot be blamed on God. I cannot blame God for my failing to live up to his high standard and I thank Jesus and God for Jesus being able to do so. God expects everyone to be righteous and that will mean living according to God's high standard.

Now if you and I fail, to live to that high standard, it is not God we should blame, but ourselves. How many times could you have not done something you perhaps regret doing? No one made you do anything you did not choose to do. What you are doing now; bashing God, is of your own choosing. You choose your own ultimate fate according to how God will judge you for what you have done.

I will keep chipping away at the mountain having faith that the mountain is not immoveable.

All the best

David

If god's high calling is living up to the standards set in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) then I think we best find another standard.


Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In Hebrew society, which was governed by the laws given by their god Yahweh, a father was allowed to sell his daughter to a master be his slave/concubine. According to the law if the daughter that was sold as a slave did not please her master, he was required to let her be redeemed. The master is not allowed to sell her, because he has sexually used her, thus making her undesirable for any other man. If the master has given the woman he bought to his son for a wife, then he is required to treat her as he would a daughter-in-law, lastly if he takes another woman to wife he is still obligated to treat his slave/wife equally. The master must follow these rules or he is required to let his slave/wife go free.

Exo.21:7-11 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Yet again the male bias of the Hebrew god Yahweh is blatantly obvious. Fathers were allowed under the laws given by Yahweh to sell their daughters to become the sex slaves of a master; whereas the same was not the case for sons. A male could sell himself into servitude, but was not considered the property of the father as a female was. Of course this was permitted because women were considered to be owned by either their fathers or husbands, under the laws given by the god of the Bible.

Rose
Hello Rose

I wondered how long it would be before you picked up on the word concubine that has been used recently in posts. Another arrow to fire at God.

If God inspired the Bible, it was he who filled our quivers with arrows. If the Bible did not attribute moral abominations to God we would have nothing to say on the matter. We would have no "arrows" to fire.



I am not arguing against male bias that is evident in the Bible. It is not male bias that God is intending against women. God wants to save women the same as men. Who knows, more women might make it to God's kingdom than men and what would you say to that?

I presume you are referring only to the male bias in the Bible due to human failings. That is not what Rose and I are talking about. We are talking about the male bias that was instituted by Yahweh himself. This was the topic of my article The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?32-The-Inextricable-Sexism-of-the-Bible) which no one has yet refuted.



From the verse you have quoted, I just want to point out the part which says; he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. Does not this tell you that God knows man has treated the woman deceitfully? This ought not to be the case. This ought to tell you (as it does me) that whatever God has allowed in the trade of women and slaves,, God sets high standards for his people. Human rights to be treated with respect prevail at all times. Women are generally accepted as the weaker sex and maybe that is what makes them vulnerable to men's mistreatment. It is not the way all men treat women and so the men that are exceptions again prove the point I am making. If one man can treat a woman with all the respect you expect, then why do not all men do the same. The blame comes back to individual men and not with God.

The possibility of the man dealing "deceitfully" depends upon the fact that the daughter was SOLD to him in the first place. The first sentence of Rose's posts says "Fathers were allowed under the laws given by Yahweh to sell their daughters to become the sex slaves of a master; whereas the same was not the case for sons." This is the point that must be addressed.



The same abuse of women is going on today and even men get abused, Considering we live in a society that does not believe in God or the need to live by God's moral code, it is not surprising and so once again, all the blame rests on the individual; not God.

Your assertion that "all the blame rests on the individual; not God" is not correct. If God set up the sexist laws, then he is to blame.



Are you then going to spit in His face or say; thank you God for saving me, despite all I said about you. Or are you going to enjoy your time in the kingdom or say; "(I am a celebrity) get me out of here"?

We have said nothing about "God" per se. We are talking about what the Bible says about Yahweh.



We have been discussing the moral theory of Love and the two great commandments (one in your case) in other threads and these are the principles God's people were and are expected to keep. The fact that God's people did not live up to their high calling cannot be blamed on God. I cannot blame God for my failing to live up to his high standard and I thank Jesus and God for Jesus being able to do so. God expects everyone to be righteous and that will mean living according to God's high standard.

Again, we are not talking about human failings, but rather about the sexism that Yahweh instituted in his law in the Bible.



Now if you and I fail, to live to that high standard, it is not God we should blame, but ourselves. How many times could you have not done something you perhaps regret doing? No one made you do anything you did not choose to do. What you are doing now; bashing God, is of your own choosing. You choose your own ultimate fate according to how God will judge you for what you have done.

Again, we are not talking about human failings, but rather about the sexism that Yahweh instituted in his law in the Bible.



I will keep chipping away at the mountain having faith that the mountain is not immoveable.

If you want to chip away at the mountain, you would do well to began by locating it. It is not the "mountain" of human failings recorded in the Bible. Those are entirely irrelevant. They would nothing about Yahweh or his law. The "mountain" is the mountain of sexist teachings established by Yahweh in his law in the Bible. That's what you need to target.

All the best

Richard

[David M]

Hello David,

Don't you see how ridiculous what you just said sounds? God allows women to be traded as slaves/concubines, but he sets high standards for his people. It is immoral for a father to sell his daughter as a concubine, because women aren't the property of men and for god to give laws to allow for those practices is immoral.

I know all men don't treat women badly. Richard is a shinning example, he is as much or more of a women's rights activist than I am. If the world had more men like Richard, it would be a much better place for women to live. :thumb:

Well, if the Bible is an example of god's moral code, then I think the world is much better off without it.

If god's high calling is living up to the standards set in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) then I think we best find another standard.

Take care,
Rose

Hello Rose and Richard

This is in response to both your replies.

I know you take issue with the fact that the daughter is sold. This might have been discussed in another thread in which dowries and the like have been mentioned. I think we need to know more about the circumstances of those days. They are not to be compared with modern times, though it would not surprise me, if some remote forest tribe was found to be carrying on similar customs and daughters given to fellow tribesmen in exchange for monetary value.

I am not trying to find excuses for God, God does not need defending. I am trying to put forward explanations that help us to get these events into proper perspective. Imagine starting from the point that you are the daughter and you are living in a sparse society where there is not much choice for jobs and getting a husband You are not in a position to leave the family residence and go off exploring the world to find a husband. What if you, as a daughter, have maternal feelings and want to get married and have children? First of all, as the verse you quoted indicates, you need a job and the jobs in those days would have been as servants; hence the daughter is first exchanged (sold) as a maidservant. Imagine your family could not keep supporting you. You would be expected to get married and lives elsewhere or find employment. How are you personally going to go about doing this as a young daughter in a household?

Wandering off and trying to find employment and a husband would be a very risky situation. Knowing all the evil men that existed and more so in nations that did not have God's laws, I doubt any woman would have got far, before she would be seized and raped. Is is not better, to have control over the situation and provide a means for the daughter (in this case) to go to a family that will treat her decently and with respect? Things might not always turn out for the best, and this is why God made some provision. Provisions are to allow for the non-ideal being adhered to. This does not detract from the high standards God has set for mankind. Whatever bad thing (at face value) we read in the Bible, which we do not like or agree with, does not take away from the standard God has set. You would do well to keep the good things or the Bible in your mind instead of discarding them. It is man who does not come up to the standard set by God and the standard we ought to agree with. For example, Richard's theory of morality is part of God's standard. I would love to come up to the standard of Jesus. I fall short of the standard demonstrated by Jesus. I respect God's standard, which in Jesus (a man) God has proved can be met.

The verse you quoted needs to be expounded to get to the detail. There is often a lot more behind what we first read. I have highlighted other words in the verse to think about.


Exo.21:7-11 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

First of all the daughter is sold (do we know the daughter is not in agreement?) to another household to be a maidservant. In that household she grows up and matures and becomes desirable to men. Also, and most likely, she would like to be married and have children. In that household, the man of the house can either marry her to become his wife, or a son of the master of the household is given the opportunity to marry her. In either case, how do you not know the woman is not given any right to refuse? To meet her maternal instincts and wants to have children, she is probably much more consenting to the situation than you think.

Provision has to be made if the marriage does not work out. The ideal is to stay married for life, but allowance has to be made when two people lose their compatibility. You both know this happens and have experienced it, so why should it be any different in those days? The woman had rights to leave and if so, she also had rights to leave as a free woman and not be sold. If God's provisions were not adhered to and men were so barbaric as not to comply with God's law, then the woman would have been abused and the fault is with men. There is nothing in this text and the provision of the law to suggest that woman are abused and the rights of the woman ignored. "Sell" in this case is not the same as selling a person who is regarded as a "nobody" into slavery. "Sell" in this case can is a legal trade whereby the daughter first gets a job as a maidservant and the poor household, which could not afford to keep her and would not (later on) be able to meet her marriage needs and desire for children, gets financial help. The poor family were helped and the needs of the daughter would be met.

I cannot paint a "black" picture of these events as you both do; the text does not justify painting a "black" picture.

All the best

David

[Rose]

Hello Rose and Richard

This is in response to both your replies.



The verse you quoted needs to be expounded to get to the detail. There is often a lot more behind what we first read. I have highlighted other words in the verse to think about.


Exo.21:7-11 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

First of all the daughter is sold (do we know the daughter is not in agreement?) to another household to be a maidservant. In that household she grows up and matures and becomes desirable to men. Also, and most likely, she would like to be married and have children. In that household, the man of the house can either marry her to become his wife, or a son of the master of the household is given the opportunity to marry her. In either case, how do you not know the woman is not given any right to refuse? To meet her maternal instincts and wants to have children, she is probably much more consenting to the situation than you think.

Provision has to be made if the marriage does not work out. The ideal is to stay married for life, but allowance has to be made when two people lose their compatibility. You both know this happens and have experienced it, so why should it be any different in those days? The woman had rights to leave and if so, she also had rights to leave as a free woman and not be sold. If God's provisions were not adhered to and men were so barbaric as not to comply with God's law, then the woman would have been abused and the fault is with men. There is nothing in this text and the provision of the law to suggest that woman are abused and the rights of the woman ignored. "Sell" in this case is not the same as selling a person who is regarded as a "nobody" into slavery. "Sell" in this case can is a legal trade whereby the daughter first gets a job as a maidservant and the poor household, which could not afford to keep her and would not (later on) be able to meet her marriage needs and desire for children, gets financial help. The poor family were helped and the needs of the daughter would be met.

I cannot paint a "black" picture of these events as you both do; the text does not justify painting a "black" picture.

All the best

David

Hello David,

The main point that you fail to realize and that all my posts focus on is the MALE BIAS of the Biblegod. It's not whether Hebrew women were treated better than their pagan counterparts, but the fact that sexism is rampant in the Bible, just like it was in other cultures. While the laws recorded in the Bible as given by Yahweh may have afforded women better treatment, they were still considered property and denied equal human rights with men. This means that the god portrayed in the Bible gave laws that treated Hebrew women unequally and unfairly to Hebrew men, which means that there was a bias based solely on gender. Any god who gives laws that deny equal human rights based on gender is biased and therefore UNJUST. It doesn't matter if women are treated better than other cultures, because the charge of bias is proved through the laws and rules applied only to the Hebrews. Hebrew females were considered the property of the males, under the laws of their own god, who had no problem giving laws (like abstinence form pork) that directly went against what the surrounding pagan cultures were doing.

Richard and I have written extensively on sexism (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?32-The-Inextricable-Sexism-of-the-Bible)and male-bias (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/) in the Bible, this is our main thrust and focus. Over, and over again in your posts you try to explain, and justify why the bias and inequality is there, but that in no way diminishes the fact that it still is bias, and inequality based on gender. A just, gender neutral god would have taken the high road with respect to setting a moral example, that could have been used as a hallmark for equality and justice for all times. As it is the Bible cannot be used to show equality for women or the immorality of slavery, because its god not only allowed both, but gave laws to accommodate its continuance...frozen forever within its pages.

Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard and I have written extensively on sexism (http://www.biblewheel.com/content.php?32-The-Inextricable-Sexism-of-the-Bible)and male-bias (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/) in the Bible, this is our main thrust and focus. Over, and over again in your posts you try to explain, and justify why the bias and inequality is there, but that in no way diminishes the fact that it still is bias, and inequality based on gender. A just, gender neutral god would have taken the high road with respect to setting a moral example, that could have been used as a hallmark for equality and justice for all times. As it is the Bible cannot be used to show equality for women or the immorality of slavery, because its god not only allowed both, but gave laws to accommodate its continuance...frozen forever within its pages.

Stated with perfect clarity and precision.

That's my girl! :winking0071: