2010 One-Year Chronological Bible Comments

[mwvickers]

Well, I appreciate your "logic" to an extent. But we don't live in Biblical times and expectations  have to be modified. We don't live in tents, bury our dead in caves, wander through the wilderness. Very few people provide their own food past going to the grocery store. We don't confine ourselves during menstruation as taboo, or during the time after giving birth. Like it or not, the world has changed, and so have the expectations. God was addressing the people of the time and then the lives of people changed. The morals of the bible are the same, but the lifestyles are different and therefore,  if we like it or not, so do the roles the sexes play. That isn't going against God. That is just the way it is. My opinion is you can follow the moral messages of the bible and still live in the current times.   If someone feels so strongly about following the roles of the Bible then I don't see how they justify not following all of it.Meaning living the lifestyle of the Bible, impracticle, but so is expecting the old roles in such a different time. Morals are universal across most religions. And can be carried across time. Wardrobes, how food is aquired, how builds and provides shelter (and how) are adaptable over time.  A reader can't be a sometimes literalist. JMO

Red,

Thanks for your kind reply.  As we all know, this is a sensitive subject, and it can get heated.  This forum has almost always been good about avoiding that, and your response is more evidence of that.

Let me explain what I mean by roles, and why I think they don't change.  I apologize in advance for the lengthy response.

One of the primary points of marriage is to reflect the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church.  In Ephesians 5, Paul makes this very clear.  As Christ is the head of the Church, so man is the head of the marriage relationship.  Women are to "submit to [their] husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives submit to their husbands in everything." (5:22-24).

Now, while some things do change with culture (I think head coverings may be an example of this), it does not automatically follow that all things do.  Women have clearly become more equal in their lives in our times (things like voting, work, etc.), and those things should change.  But roles that are ordained by God through Paul do not change.  If we argue that times have changed, and women no longer have to submit to their husbands, for example, then we must assume that the Church's role toward Jesus has also changed, as Paul clearly linked the roles of men and women in marriage to the role of Christ and the Church.  Either they are both eternal, and are meant to be so, or they both must change; but since the one (marriage) is linked to the other (Christ and the Church), it is not possible that only one should change.  

Now, let me go on before I am flogged for using the dreaded "s" word.  

When Paul said wives were to submit to their husbands, he put constraints on the husbands that are guaranteed to protect the wife, and to ensure that the husband will always keep her best interests in mind.  He said, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies." (5:25-28a)

So, while wives are to submit to husbands, husbands are not to "lord it over" their wives.  Rather, they are to love, cherish, protect, guide, and lead their wives in a way that honors them and keeps their best interests in mind.  No Christian would flinch at the idea of submitting to Christ, because we know that no matter what He asks, says, commands, etc., it is only and always for our good; we know He loves us, and we know He has our best interests in mind.  In the same way, husbands are to reflect this in the way they treat their wives.  Colossians 3:29 commands husbands "not [to] be harsh" with their wives, as well.

So, husbands are to "play the role" of Christ to the world, and wives are to "play the role" of the Church to the world.  Again, one cannot change without affecting the other.  

Now, let me be clear about a few things.  

First, this does not mean that all women are to submit to all men.  That is not commanded here at all.  This is specifically referring to husbands and wives.  

Second, women and men may have different roles, but they are equals in personage and morality in the eyes of God.  

What's interesting is that in some cases, men are to submit to women (not even husbands and wives), perhaps, as shown here in 1 Timothy.  Paul says to the younger Timothy, "Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity." (5:1-2)  Well, if we are to honor our fathers and mothers (Exodus 20) and obey our parents in the Lord (Ephesians, I think), then if a man is talking with an older woman, he is to both honor her and heed her advice and exhortation, unless God is leading him otherwise.  Interesting that this masculinist time would encourage a man to do that. I'm sure you would be hard-pressed to find similar exhortation in other ancient writings.  It also encourages the respect of women by men.  It says to Timothy to treat younger women (not children) as "sisters, with absolute purity."  There's much respect encouraged in that that you often won't find in our age of the sexual revolution.  

Third, I want to clarify the issue of literalism and obeying laws.

I am not advocating picking and choosing Old Testament laws or New Testament rules to follow.  I am, however, using the Bible to explain itself.  Some things are cultural, but not all things are.  And I don't think that only clearly labeled moral rules are the things that are consistent throughout time.  

Some laws from the Old Testament were clearly done away with.  Some were not, and they were repeated in the New Testament.  Other rules and commands are given in the New Testament that are absent from the Old Testament.  The laws regarding menstruation and confining oneself after birth, for example, were laws given directly to Israel as a means of separation.  But roles of husbands and wives were not.  

Finally, when we talk about "roles of the sexes" changing, we have to decide what we mean by that.  I think in marriage, the roles are clearly meant to be trans-cultural and throughout the ages, as I argued above.

What other roles do we mean?  

Are we referring to whether or not women should work?  The Bible is largely silent on this, though culture at the time would say men primarily worked (though not always).  Yes, the Bible lauds the woman who is primarily a wife and mother as having a very high calling, but I don't consider that a "rule" necessarily.  We don't necessarily think that's the case (that women should consider it a good thing to stay at home as a wife and mother), as we have shifted the burden, for example, of education children to the state and away from the family, so we have changed our views.  Interestingly, there is a growing number of Christians who are beginning to re-think this and consider that perhaps the state is not best-suited to educate children, and many women are choosing to stay at home more.  Is it a rule everyone must follow?  No.  But there is some wisdom in what the Bible says, I think.  My wife, for example, works, but she wishes she could stay at home with our daughter.  We are trying to get finances in order to attempt it.  

Back on the topic, however, the Bible is largely silent on women working, and, if so, what work.  I think you'll find that most Christians acknolwedge this, and therefore don't have any issues with women working. 

What about the role in society?  I think women and men are growing more equal all the time.  Both can vote.  Both can work.  Both can own things in their name (not largely heard of in older times).  Both can be witnesses in court with equal testimony (ancient courts regarded women's testimony as mostly worthless), etc.  Are there still male cheauvenists?  Sure.  But I find it funny that extreme feminism is just an opposite reaction that reaches the other direction.  Both feminists (extreme) and masculinists (extreme) still have to figure out how to really see the other as equal, rather than bolstering their side by downplaying the other.  

I guess my point is that women and men are quite equal, even though in Bible times that was not the case.  I am not advocating some return to any Victorian type of society that would say, for example, that women cannot even voice their opinion on an issue. (Why do you think so many women became authors in the Victorian era?  It was the only way they could get their point across.  This was from a feminist Victorian Literature teacher.)  But there are certain roles (especially in marriage) that are laid out.

I hope that the above helps a little.  

[onanothernote]

Martin, that is a great explanation of submitting to your husband, though many just see the "submit to your husband" part and don't see anything that comes before nor after.  In my statement about everyone having self control, I should have included in the parentheses men too.  I left the too part off.  In those days, sociologically speaking, women were considered the temptresses of sex, so the blame was typically put upon them commonly speaking, not Christianity speaking.  This is still true in many parts of the world that still practice the older ways of thinking and are slower to evolve sociologically.  Therefore,x society at the time depicted the role of women in Biblical days, not just the Bible but in the world of the Bible.  The fact is when compared in a literary aspect, women are not mentioned and spoke of as much as men because of the role they played in the society at the time.  Much of it does come down to the society at the time and the roles that society depicts upon each gender.  This changes over time just as it will continue to do so.  It isn't about God passing them over because of their sex, but the role society (the people) assigned to them.  This is a social issue that drove men to be more prominent in the Biblical society, in leadership roles, in the community, and in the world in general at the time.  Society depicted this, not God, there is a difference.  I should have made that point clearer in my earlier statement.  God assigned women to bring forth life, not man.  God gave women a very important task for a very important reason, that which I'm not sure we will fully understand and can only speculate upon.  God did create man and woman equally, yet with their own individual purposes.  Society is the one that broke God's purposes for men and women.  Things don't come down to one gender not being held responsible for their choices because of gender.  If this was so, Eve would have gotten a reprieve, but that was not, and still isn't, the case.  This is where the historical, sociological, and anthropological aspects of the Biblical times comes into context.  Learning as much about the people of the time and the societies that existed have a direct impact upon the way people behaved and the decisions they made.  This still  happens today.  Our world does affect how, what, and why we do what we do.  This is why studying all aspects of the Biblical times and the Bible makes for a complete picture.  I'm not down playing the Bible, but seeking to understand the people of the Bible and the times and places they lived in.  I want to understand their houses, their daily habits and survival, their clothing (especially why it was against Moses' law to wear clothing made of two fibers), understand the health system, and just everything of the time.  This makes for a complete picture for me. I can understand why wine was drunk instead of water, because of finding a clean water source, which is still the case in many countries today. Things like this is what I'm seeking to understand, not just what I'm told is true or to accept as the truth.

[mwvickers]

Very well stated, onanothernote.

I agree completely. 

The best explanation I've heard about not wearing clothing made of two fibers is that it was to be a sign to the Israelites.  They were to be pure, not intermingled with societies against God.  To remind them of this, the Israelites were to wear clothing that was not made of two types of material (that is, weren't intermingled). 

Hope that helps.

Martin

[onanothernote]

Yes Martin that help...pure people, pure fabric, purity makes sense, but it is a small thing when I read it, so when applied to modern people, I can think of them not wearing clothing made of more than one fiber given all of the synthetics added to cotton to make it stretch like undies and socks.  This law I have always thought would be hard to obey by today.  I imagine that it could be and there are people that do.  I think the Amish do as they wear cotton and have a very strict dress code.  I have done research into them, on a small scale, and talk with people that left the order.  There is a great deal to be discovered there.  Thanks for the response about the clothes.  I'm sure there will be much to discuss when we get to Leviticus.

[onanothernote]

I'm behind...too much housework, work work, and too much stuff going on to even get some sleep.  Is anyone else behind?

[Sendie]

I was, but I caught up yesterday.  My fault is I think I over burdened myself as I'm trying to read 3 daily Bibles and also the Halley's Bible Handbook.  I'm not complaining, just saying...

[onanothernote]

I managed to get caught up and a bit ahead tonight when I sat down from cleaning and organizing my sewing room.  I will make a grand attempt to do my readings nightly, though showering and bed are a must some nights.

[Suzanne]

I am only reading the Chronological Study Bible and am up to Exodus Chapter 39. I am now in the thick of the rather dry material. One of the nice things about the other daily Bible readings is you get the dry material in smaller portions every day. Now I am reading the descriptions of how things are made and soon I'll be reading all the laws. So I am doing a concerted push to get through all this dry material. The side articles in the Chronological Bible are interesting and the Halley's Handbook articles are great.

One of the scriptures that made me go Hmmmm? was in Exodus 32:23-33. This occurred after the Israelites sinned by making that golden calf while Moses was up on the mountain. To give the issue some context, I'll quote Exodus 32:30-33:

Exodus 32:30-33 (New King James Version)

30 Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” 31 Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, “Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! 32 Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.”
33 And the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.

What made me go Hmmmmm? is where Moses offers to be blotted out of the book . And God replies that whoever has sinned against him, He will blot him out of His book.

Just how did the Israelites understand this? When they spoke of being blotted out of the book, did they think of going to Hell and being burned for all eternity? In Genesis Adam was told if he ate of the forbidden fruit, on that day he would die. There was no mention of Hellfire for all eternity there. Up to this point in the Bible (Exodus chapter 32) there is no mention of Hellfire for all eternity.

[mwvickers]

I am only reading the Chronological Study Bible and am up to Exodus Chapter 39. I am now in the thick of the rather dry material. One of the nice things about the other daily Bible readings is you get the dry material in smaller portions every day. Now I am reading the descriptions of how things are made and soon I'll be reading all the laws. So I am doing a concerted push to get through all this dry material. The side articles in the Chronological Bible are interesting and the Halley's Handbook articles are great.

One of the scriptures that made me go Hmmmm? was in Exodus 32:23-33. This occurred after the Israelites sinned by making that golden calf while Moses was up on the mountain. To give the issue some context, I'll quote Exodus 32:30-33:

Exodus 32:30-33 (New King James Version)

30 Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” 31 Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, “Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! 32 Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.”
33 And the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.

What made me go Hmmmmm? is where Moses offers to be blotted out of the book . And God replies that whoever has sinned against him, He will blot him out of His book.

Just how did the Israelites understand this? When they spoke of being blotted out of the book, did they think of going to Hell and being burned for all eternity? In Genesis Adam was told if he ate of the forbidden fruit, on that day he would die. There was no mention of Hellfire for all eternity there. Up to this point in the Bible (Exodus chapter 32) there is no mention of Hellfire for all eternity.

That is indeed an interesting question.  According to the Apologetics Study Bible note, it may be referring in a metaphorical way to an account book.  If so, God's book would remind the Israelites that God keeps an account of all things people do, good and bad.  In other words, people are accountable to God. 

It is possible that having one's name erased could refer more to losing any rewards (or in this case, losing access to God's inheritance in the promised land), but I'm not sure we can say with certainty.  Whatever it was, we know it wasn't good. 

I'm not sure that they would have thought in terms of hell at this point, but they may have.  The fact is, we don't know all that the Israelites believed and knew at this point.  It is true that the subject of hell has not been directly mentioned in our Bibles yet, but even though it wasn't a focus at this point, we don't know for sure whether they had been taught anything about it. 

Let's keep in mind, for example, that in one of the later historical books (1 Chronicles 21:1), Satan is said to have incited David to take a census of his men.  What's interesting about this is that the name Satan just kind of appears, yet there is no indication in the Bible that they had been taught about him before that.  But the fact that Satan appears shows that clearly someone knew something about Satan, though we don't know exactly what.  Perhaps this issue could show that the Israelites knew something about what we know as the "book of life," though we don't know to what extent, or how clearly.  In honesty though, we can't say for sure.

I guess what I'm trying to encourage is a reminder that absence of evidence is not necessarily the same as evidence of absence. 

I hope that helps a little.

Martin

[Suzanne]

I'm not sure that they would have thought in terms of hell at this point, but they may have.  The fact is, we don't know all that the Israelites believed and knew at this point.  It is true that the subject of hell has not been directly mentioned in our Bibles yet, but even though it wasn't a focus at this point, we don't know for sure whether they had been taught anything about it. 

Let's keep in mind, for example, that in one of the later historical books (1 Chronicles 21:1), Satan is said to have incited David to take a census of his men.  What's interesting about this is that the name Satan just kind of appears, yet there is no indication in the Bible that they had been taught about him before that.  But the fact that Satan appears shows that clearly someone knew something about Satan, though we don't know exactly what.  Perhaps this issue could show that the Israelites knew something about what we know as the "book of life," though we don't know to what extent, or how clearly.  In honesty though, we can't say for sure.

Moses was aware of Satan. In the book of Job, chapter 1, Satan is referred to. Moses wrote that book.

The issue of hellfire not being mentioned in Eden has always disturbed me. It just doesn't seem fair if Adam & Eve weren't told that not only were they going to die, they also were going to be tortured horribly for all eternity. If they had been told about going to Hell & being tortured, wouldn't you think Moses would have mentioned that in the Genesis account?

Right now I am in the thick of all the descriptions of how everything was made, e.g., the ark of the covenant, the altar, etc. One thing that impresses me is what an excellent secretary Moses was. He was so thorough in recording every little detail. Not only was he a great leader, he was an excellent secretary.

[marianneg]

The issue of hellfire not being mentioned in Eden has always disturbed me. It just doesn't seem fair if Adam & Eve weren't told that not only were they going to die, they also were going to be tortured horribly for all eternity. If they had been told about going to Hell & being tortured, wouldn't you think Moses would have mentioned that in the Genesis account?

This is totally MHO, but I tend to think that in some ways we now place too much emphasis on the horribleness of Hell.  Not that we shouldn't remember at all times that that's one of two possible destinations for everyone, but I think Genesis had it right.  The true tragedy is separation from God.  We can't be completely separated from Him in this world, because it is His creation and shouts His praises.  That's what death is without Christ, and that's exactly what Adam and Eve suffered.  That's also what Hell is.  IMO, it's not really about pain or torture or suffering.  All of that is a side effect from being ripped completely away from our Creator.  That's what makes it completely and totally just - it is not something that God does to us, but something that we choose every time we choose to turn our back on Him and every time we refuse to turn back.

[onanothernote]

Wonderful thoughts ya'll.  I first pictured the whole ordeal being something like Santa Clause.  You know how Santa Clause keeps a record of our names and then marks them as naughty and nice.  God has a similar book, the book of life, and Moses was asking to be stricken from it, blotted away like a spill in the good book.  I know this seems an odd comparison, but it is how I envisioned it of sorts.  To be blotted out is never a good thing, as tough he was asking to be erased from the Bible and book of life.  This would just be as horrible as hell.  I do find that the appearance of hell should have been before it is.  I think hell is an important issue/concept for us.  I realize that the people were not given God's law yet, to break it and go to hell, but still they should have a concept of the reward of heaven and the punishment of hell.  This issue may not have been as important as the laws, nor grasping the laws before one can concieve the idea of life after death in heaven or hell, but death as the great punishment of the time.  Most of the consequences of the law are based on the eye for an eye philosophy.  Death being the worst punishment for those who break the most sever laws.  I will be getting into Leviticus earlier than planned as I finished reading the description of everything on Saturday evening.  There is quite alot of details to read and often repeats, as many things repeat in the Bible.  Thus far I am building quite a list of names of people in the Bible and practice in my poor handwriting, a commonality of those with a learning disability.  I hope ya'll are faring much better with your journey through the Bible.  I did find the description of the fabrics to be quite specific and lovely as I sew and quilt.  I just love fabric, even the discription of ancient fabrics.  I did keep drifting back into the Raiders of the Lost Arc for the mental picture of the Arc.  Somethings are better for me to understand if they come in the form of a picture.  I'm not good with cubits since I don't have a concept of how they translate into American Standard or even metric.  This I would like more information about cubits in modern day measurements.  That is all for tonight's readings.  Best wishes to all!

[mwvickers]

Moses was aware of Satan. In the book of Job, chapter 1, Satan is referred to. Moses wrote that book.

I was not aware that Moses wrote Job.  I'll have to reconsider that, I suppose.  Even so, what's interesting is how little we actually learn about Satan from the OT.  Yet they seem to have had a firm grasp in their own minds of who he was.  Perhaps they had a firm grasp of Hell without mentioning it a lot or until later. 

The issue of hellfire not being mentioned in Eden has always disturbed me. It just doesn't seem fair if Adam & Eve weren't told that not only were they going to die, they also were going to be tortured horribly for all eternity. If they had been told about going to Hell & being tortured, wouldn't you think Moses would have mentioned that in the Genesis account?

Again, it's hard to say what Moses would and wouldn't have mentioned.  Are you aware that Paul doesn't once directly mention the virgin birth.  Actually, neither do Mark and John.  Should we say they were unaware of it?  Or should we maybe just assume that they didn't see a reason for mentioning it at the time. 

Is it possible that eternity was not the focus at this point in the history Moses wrote?  After all, he isn't writing a theological treatise.  Moses wrote history.  He was talking about the formation of the Jews as the chosen people of God.  Perhaps Adam and Eve were warned about Hell, and it just wasn't mentioned.  I think it's fair to say that a lot happened we aren't told about in Scripture.  We know nothing of Jesus from birth to 2 years old until he is 12, and then we don't hear anything again until he's an adult.  Why was nothing mentioned?  Perhaps it just wasn't deemed relevant at the time.  I don't think we can say for sure.

Let's also be careful about how we think of hell.  The idea is torment, not torture.  There is a little difference.  There also seem to be different degrees of punishment for different people.  We must always, always be careful to avoid accusing God of being unfair.  God is just, God is love, God is holy, and God is never under accusation. 

I don't know Hebrew, but perhaps "die" in Hebrew (as in, "in the day you eat of it, you will die") carried some spiritual, eternal significance we aren't aware of. 

Again, the fact is, we just don't know what Adam and Eve were taught by God.  Is Hell mentioned?  No.  Should it have been?  Apparently Moses didn't think so.  Does that automatically mean that Adam and Eve, and even Moses, didn't know about Hell?  No.  Not at all.

As a matter of fact, if we believe Moses was inspired in what he wrote, then he wrote exactly what God wanted us to know, nothing more, nothing less.

Right now I am in the thick of all the descriptions of how everything was made, e.g., the ark of the covenant, the altar, etc. One thing that impresses me is what an excellent secretary Moses was. He was so thorough in recording every little detail. Not only was he a great leader, he was an excellent secretary.

Indeed he was.   

[mwvickers]

This is totally MHO, but I tend to think that in some ways we now place too much emphasis on the horribleness of Hell.  Not that we shouldn't remember at all times that that's one of two possible destinations for everyone, but I think Genesis had it right.  The true tragedy is separation from God.  We can't be completely separated from Him in this world, because it is His creation and shouts His praises.  That's what death is without Christ, and that's exactly what Adam and Eve suffered.  That's also what Hell is.  IMO, it's not really about pain or torture or suffering.  All of that is a side effect from being ripped completely away from our Creator.  That's what makes it completely and totally just - it is not something that God does to us, but something that we choose every time we choose to turn our back on Him and every time we refuse to turn back.

Well said! 

[Suzanne]

How is everyone doing on the chronological Bible? I am reading The Chronological Study Bible, NKJV, and am thoroughly enjoying it. Last night I read a little blurb in there about olive oil never going bad & was used for lamps. I never knew that!!!

But I must say that this particular Bible is requiring a bit more discipline on my part to keep up to date. Some assignments are three or four days long and your goal is to have finished the particular reading by that date. To be safe, I stay a bit ahead. Then I don't become neurotic! (I am neurotic enough!) 

[Sendie]

I'm a day behind in the study Bible, but I'm up to date on the Grace for the Moment one.  I've had a busy week with work and family problems but I'm getting caught up today.  I've enjoyed finally reading the Bible and I found my DTB one moved from where I keep it, so either my son or his girlfriend was also reading it last night!

[onanothernote]

I too am a bit behind, but not by much.  I've been keeping my nephew and he is teething, so I have spent a great deal of time holding him, walking him, and soothing him.  Boy is teething a difficult thing when you can do nothing to sooth them.  I hope to catch up and get ahead over the weekend!

[Lynn]

I am a bit behind also. I am off this weekend and will try to catch up and maybe get a bit ahead. I am also doing a daily devotional called Ablaze. It has been put together by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The goal is to reach 100 million people with the Good News of Jesus Christ by the 500th anniversary of the reformation in 2017.

Lynn L

[onanothernote]

In Leviticus I found the requirement of days unclean after childbirth to be odd.  If the woman gave birth to a male is was unclean for much less time than if she had a female.  Why is this so different.  She spent twice the required time unclean for a female than a male.  Please help me understand this seemingly prejudice requirement.  Thanks!!

[mwvickers]

In Leviticus I found the requirement of days unclean after childbirth to be odd.  If the woman gave birth to a male is was unclean for much less time than if she had a female.  Why is this so different.  She spent twice the required time unclean for a female than a male.  Please help me understand this seemingly prejudice requirement.  Thanks!!

onanothernote,

I will offer what help I can find.  Many of my books are packed away right now, so I'm a little more limited in what I can find.  I hope this will be accurate, however.

Let me preface by saying that the NIV Archaeological Study Bible note says that it is unclear what the reason is; some study Bibles have notes suggesting possibilities, but we don't seem to have any certainties on this one.  

According to the HCSB Apologetics Study Bible notes for Leviticus 12:1-5:

"Some have suggested that the longer waiting period of uncleanness upon the birth of a daughter reflects an Israelite view of the inferiority of women. Alternatively, the longer period of impurity after the birth of a daughter may reflect apprehension and anticipation about the infant daughter's ability to eventually become a mother in her own right. Ancient Near Eastern polytheism, related to the cycles of nature, placed great emphasis on fertility; the Israelite regulations governing a new mother may represent a reaction to this emphasis. It was the discharge of blood following birth that rendered a new mother unclean for one or two weeks, similar to the time of uncleanness for a woman during her menstrual period."

The same Bible adds the following for Lev. 12:4-5:

"A longer period of defilement should not be construed as an indication of inferior social worth. For example, a human corpse defiles more than a dead pig. The sacrifices a mother was to offer were the same for either a girl or a boy, indicating that both genders were considered equal before God."

In addition to the above, the KJV New Defender's Study Bible states for 12:5:

"The purification period after the birth of a son was 40 days, but 80 days in the case of a daughter. The reason for the difference is not given, but possibly had to do with two considerations. It was the woman who had originally been deceived, with the resultant pronouncement of travail in childbirth (Ge 3:16), with the additional purification period symbolic of the future travail the daughter must also anticipate. The second factor could be that the rite of circumcision, applicable only to the male child, symbolized the more direct entrance into covenant relation with God."

I'm not sure I agree completely with the notes from the New Defender's Study Bible, but they are worth consideration.  

It seems that the author is saying that there are two possibilities:

1) The longer period of purification after the birth of a daughter was a reminder of the travail women were to go through, and almost served as a "pre-mourning" or "reminder ahead of time" of what the daughter herself would go through in the future (childbirth).  

2) Though the purification after the birth of a male child is shorter, the male child must also go through additional rites, such as circumcision, that the female child obviously does not.  

The same author in the same Bible adds the following to 12:5:

"Another possible reason for these seemingly rigorous laws of purifying for a new mother is that the pagan nations around them are said to have had similar though much more severe regulations required of their own women. The Hebrew regulations were much gentler in comparison but were retained in this milder form in order to keep from offending these Gentile neighbors unnecessarily. At least this explanation was offered by medieval Jewish theologians."

This site has a note on the issue that is interesting: http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0312.htm

"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."

and:

"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 new born girl would force the family to bond more deeply, over a more extended period of time with the new born girl."

The last note, if true, actually shows that God did it for the sake of the daughter, to care for her particularly and help her when surrounding cultures wouldn't have done so.  

Note 10 for verse 5 here is interesting, too: http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Lev&chapter=12#n8

Again, these are all merely possibilities.  

I would like to point out, however, that if you compare Judaism and Christianity to the other cultures around at the time, the treatment of females was much, much better in Judaism and Christianity.  I don't think God can ever be considered prejudice in anything he requires (at least if the Bible is God's word), though we may not see clearly the reason for some things He said.  I know you weren't looking to consider God prejudice, so please don't take the last statement that way. 

I hope this helps some.

Martin

[onanothernote]

I do understand better.  I do think it had to do with the prevailing thoughts of the society at the time, and possibly the link with original sin.  I realize the sacrificial offering was the same for both genders but still shows a difference in how the genders were treated by the societies at the time.  Then Jesus came along and forgave everyone, treating everyone as equal, even the leapers that were not just unclean previously but sent out of the city.  Though this too makes sense to quartine the sick, but coarse treatment of these people was not called for and many did suffor.  Thank God for Jesus leveling the field for all of God's people!!  Unconditional love and forgiveness is a grand and wonderful gift.

[Anju No. 469]

Verrry interesting - thanks Martin 

[Concrete Queen]

Ok, so I'm going through the rather disgusting "infectious skin diseases" part of Leviticus.  Does anyone know what diseases they're talking about?  I get the "spreading = bad" part, but what's the deal with the white hair?  Is that a sign of leprosy?  Maybe I just don't get it because I'm fair-skinned and all the hair on my body is white. 

Also, I couldn't help but thinking that if people in the Middle Ages had just followed the Biblical laws for dead animals, the Black Death probably could have been avoided.

[onanothernote]

I can't helpbut think they are talking about the part of skin moles and boils that have hair coming out of themthat is discolored or white/gray.  In those days they had to be careful, which is why people that were suspected of having anykind of disease where quartined for so long before they were determined to be clean or unclean.  I shall have to look into this once I'm better.  I too am unclean.  I've been spending the  the better part of this past week recovering from strep and a head cold.  The strep went away easily, while the head cold has been slow to move out, even with that awesome Mucinex.  My mucus relatives have super staying powers.  I haven't been sick in about two years, so I'm past due.