SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Is a male of more value than a female?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )

Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2091

 Is a male of more value than a female?

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD, by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be, of the male from twenty years old even to sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it shall be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it shall be from five years old even to twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it shall be from a month old even to five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it shall be from sixty years old and above; if a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. Leviticus 27:1-7

Did the translators of the original Hebrew Scriptures translate these verses wrong? Does anybody think that the male scholars were biased, therefore mistranslated?

It begins with the words, "The LORD spoke to Moses." Does anybody think the scholars added those words and it was merely Moses who spoke and said what followed?

I realize that I have asked more questions than one, so if it be too overwhelming for any just let it pass.

 2016/7/15 19:13Profile

 Re: Is a male of more value than a female?

No mistranslation. Things in the Old Testament Mosaic Law had spiritual application of principles and truth. I have an opinion, but it's a picture that's not one of "value" or worth, but place/position. Similarly to as we are the "bride" of Christ, but the "Bridegroom" of Christ is the preimmenemt value & position of authority/leadership. That's my opinion. But it's not opinion that it's not mistranslated. This is not "translator bias". The opposite is true in the new NIV "Gender Neutral" version where male and female are removed. The "bias" effects of feminism on translation.

 2016/7/15 21:42

Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5675


I think it is purely an estimate of relative strength or potential strength and therefore ability to labor. It's just biology not sexism.


 2016/7/16 0:15Profile


Yes, TMK, it was about biology, and the difficult hard work required during the wilderness period, which was the moving of the Tabernacle and of its service, which was futher limited to the Levites.

God already established the equal worth of male and female children in the offerings to be made after birth. And God later said that He is no respecter of persons - all are equal of worth in His sight.

Concerning the whole question of the Mosaic statutes "They were not perfect, other wise there would have been no need for amendment - for Jesus Christ to say as He did in the Sermon on the Mount, 'Ye know that it was said TO (not by) them of old....But I say unto you' (Bushnell).

"The provision of legistative enactments for the control of human conduct" (B) were for a specific time period, and were not meant for all time (though it is a pity concerning some of them which were much more fair to women than those of today) but to act as a brake at a time when the children of Israel were coming out of slavery and women were even more mistreated as they are during times of trouble and disruption to the normal order of things, like during times of war.

Paul said that 'The law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient' 1Tim 1:9-10

 2016/7/16 3:32

Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7504

 Re: Is a male of more value than a female?

There is no doubt that many males back then considered themselves superior to females. This can be reflected in the prayer, "I thank thee God that thou has not made me a female!"

In the scheme of brute strength, emotion, there is no doubt the male far exceeds the female. The female is made weaker in brute strength but has superior strength in her ability to endure pain. She is made weaker, has little brute strength to protect her body so she can bear children. My father-in-law came from a large family - a dozen children, I think. Among them were 4 boys, the rest were girls. But none of them had more then four children, most only one or two. One of these aunts told me the reason for their childlessness was because they did too hard physical work when growing up thus impairing their childbearing ability.

When one reads of a dad who had no sons but only daughters and who gets the inheritance because there are no males to pass it on to, I find it gratifying when God says give it to the daughters.

God loves females. If one studies the OT law, notes the restrictions laid upon females, it is all to protect the female, the female body. Moderns have discarded these restrictions as being outdated and useless. But I maintain if one were to regard them with respect and take lessons, she would be a whole lot healthier. We are NOT men and we need to honor the purpose God has made us for. Only there will one find satisfaction.

And who cares if one is superior... life is too interesting to worry about that.


Sandra Miller

 2016/7/16 10:21Profile


Oh joy! Now us Christian men know why we can rule over Christian women: we are of more value than them. And now we have a verse for it.

Reminds me of another "religion of peace". Such similarities.

Of course I am speaking about a perverted form of Christianity which we have no business participating in.

Men and women both have strengths the other does not have and they need and compliment one another.

Christian men and women should always emphasize the positive about one another. It is when they start looking at what each other lacks that they form a superiority attitude and then find scriptures to back them up.

There are many patriarchal societies, today. Some that come to mind are:
Saudi Arabia

 2016/7/16 11:00


I never said they were of more value. That's inter posing meaning into what I said that I neither thought nor said. Just as "there is neither male nor female, both are equal in Christ", but it tells us later in multiple places in the epistles that "As Christ is the head of the church, so is the husband head of the wife...", "and so a wife must submit to her husband in all things....and a wife must respect her husband.." I know it says a man must love His wife as Christ did the church and lay down His lie for her" (as He leads just as Christ laid down His life and is the Head. That's not sexism, that's scripture. & please don't make ridiculous allusions to believing those things clearly laid out in scripture as equal to Islam. That's underhanded & wrong. I am not saying (nor ever was/have) that men are of more value than women, but they were in the OT. It's right there plain as day. To deny this is to deny facts/scriptures. So what was the "spiritual point"? I think it pertains to "whom much is given, much will be required" in a way & men have given the responsibility to lead (in a loving, understanding, & patient life-laying down way) & so much will be required with this responsibility. Twist that around if you want to and remind me why I should post less and share what I see in an overarching reason/principle/theme from the Law that pertains to the New Covenant. I could be wrong, but no reason to make the comments and compare it to Isam. Totally unnecessary.

 2016/7/16 14:26


"Now us Christian men know why we can rule over Christian women: we are of more value than them."

Anyone who really thinks that way has no heart prepared to lead as God would have them. Anyone who makes jokes at the whole notion of male headship/leadership servant hood also is in no right Biblical position to lead IMHO.

 2016/7/16 14:28


Interesting thing to me is that to quote an article on Islam saying "men are more valuable than women" when that's actually a Law God instituted clearly in the is OT Text. So, are you implicating the character of God during the OT time period as evil, wrong, & like "Allah"? This whole notion that the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT is so pervasive in people's theology. Or He was in a bad mood in the OT & is in a good one now. It affects so many other hermeneutics where the OT is totally discredited and pitched as "when God was bad" against the NT when "God became nice". There are differences in covenants no doubt, but the same God who sent Jesus to the cross for our sins instituted the Law in the OP, and There is no sin/flaw in him. So bringing up Islam (which shares that OT principle, wrong as that anti-Christ religion is) & making such comments is assigning evil to "the God of the OT who said it first".

 2016/7/16 14:51

Joined: 2005/1/9
Posts: 1134
Germany NRW

 Re: Is a male of more value than a female?

Yes, it is in the bible, but what is your real intention of posting this?

Jesus paid the highest price ever for something completely worthless - sinful men and women.

 2016/7/16 16:24Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy