Dawn of the Daystar

The Old Testament rises before us like a vast and ancient stage, its scenes lit by flickering torches, its characters stumbling through the smoke of war, exile, fear, and fragile hope. It carries the cries of a people trying to make sense of a world in which kingdoms crush the weak, where the innocent bleed, where God sometimes feels achingly near and at other times impossibly far. Israel told and retold these stories in the dark, not because they had perfect understanding, but because the telling kept them alive. Their laments, their laws, their victories and failures were the only language they had for a God they longed to know but could not fully see. And yet their faith and their sanctification shone most brightly not in the accuracy of their understanding, but in their attempt, their courage to reach, to question, to hope, and to follow God even when the answers remained just beyond their grasp.

The Old Testament offers us true glimpses, yet glimpses refracted by suffering, shaped by trauma, stretched thin by fear. It is humanity reaching upward through the rubble, grasping at God with trembling hands. At times it shows God’s faithfulness with stunning clarity; at other times, it frames Him through the cracked lens of human anguish. Its portrayals are honest, but incomplete. They are shadows cast by a light not yet risen.

But Advent proclaims a turning of the ages.

For the fullness of God’s character did not thunder down Sinai, nor arrive in the storm winds that toppled empires. The perfect revelation, the unshadowed truth of who God is, came not wrapped in power but in flesh. In a feeding trough. Under starlight. In the fragile cry of an infant. In Jesus Christ, God stepped onto the stage Himself, and every distorted outline straightened. Every misconception bowed. Every shadow fled before the dawn.

High above the fragmentary echoes of the Old Testament, the Gospels ring out like a clarion trumpet: Here is God’s heart. Look at Him. This is who God is.

And as Israel preserved its fractured story, so must we preserve our own. Our histories reside within us, beating beneath our ribs, whispering through our scars, and when we finally speak them, they reveal the ways we, too, have misunderstood God, imagined Him through the haze of our wounds, mistaken silence for absence. But the Gospels correct our vision. In Jesus, the true face of God lifts our chin from the dust and speaks light into our darkness.

The Old Testament is the long, trembling search for God,

faith and sanctification displayed in the reaching, not the accuracy.

The Gospels are the moment God steps forward and says,

“Here I Am.”

I Timothy 5:14... and there is no such thing as the word "helpmeet!"

 I learned something interesting today. In 1 Timothy 5:14 about women guiding the house, the Greek word for “guide” is oikodespotein. It is a compound word that means household-master/lord. (You can see that the word “despot” is in there.) That word occurs 10 other times in the NT. 5 times it refers to God and Christ, and 5 times it refers to human masters. It reminds me of the word for "help" in Genesis 2:18 is ezer (ezer frequently denotes a strong rescuer, protector, or vital ally.) The same word is used to name God many times in the Old Testament. (Psalm 33:20, Psalm 70:5, Psalm 115:9–11, Psalm 121:1–2, Psalm 124:8, Psalm 146:5, Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29, Exodus 18:4, Hosea 13:9.) And don't even getting me started on the word "meet!" It is an adjective (Matthew 3:8, 2 Timothy 2:21) and it means corresponding to or equal. 

Help Meet

 The idea that there is a term called a «helpmeet» in the Bible for women, or the inference that it is something subordinate in any way, is ignorant at best. (oppressive and deceptive at worst.) 

1. It would be first helpful to understand basic English grammar. In the phrase «help meet» it is necessary to understand that help is a noun and meet is an adjective. If I said, «Find me a shoe fitting for this dress (or size foot) we wouldn’t turn that phrase into a compound noun and call it a «shoefitting.» The phrase «help meet» has been turned into another meaning that implies the woman is responsible for «meeting» the man’s needs. (whatever he deems as a need I guess. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I mean, I think it’s helpful when I tell him he’s being ridiculous, but I dont think that’s what they mean.) 
2. Before we define meet, let’s take a look at the word help. Help doesn’t imply «second-in-command.» Both the Hebrew word used here (ezer) as well as the English word «help» is used in reference to God himself all through the Old Testament. (See: Psalm 33:20, Psalm 70:5, Psalm 115:9–11, Psalm 121:1–2, Psalm 124:8, Psalm 146:5, Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29, Exodus 18:4, Hosea 13:9) Unless we are meaning that God himself became subordinate to Israel or individuals, it is inconsistent to say that help in Genesis 2:18 places the woman in a subordinate position.) 
3. The word «meet» in Hebrew is kenegdo. It means, corresponding, opposite (across from or facing), suitable, or equal. The Bible uses «meet» in this way many times. (Exodus 8:26, Deut. 3:18, Judges 5:30, Esther 2:9, Job 34:31, Proverbs 11:24, Jeremiah 27:5, Ezekiel 15:5, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 15:26, Luke 15:32, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 15:9, Phil. 1:7, Col. 1:12, 2 Thess. 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:21, Hebrews 6:7, 2 Peter 1:13.) Even the verb «to meet» implies standing opposite someone, face to face. It is not the modern usage of «meeting someone’s needs.» 
4. The use of the phrase «helpmeet» as a noun completely ignores the purpose that Adam needed a partner in the first place. Genesis 2:18 says, «It is not good that the man should be alone….» It doesn’t say, «It is not good that man should have to darn his own socks or make the sandwiches. He needed a COMPANION, for RELATIONSHIP, not all the chores that he doesn’t get to. Additionally, the statement that Eve was «meet for him» was simply a statement that she was his corresponding equal in that she was HUMAN. (And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.) I think we can all agree that no animal would be meet as a companion for Adam. 
5. Yes, men should be leaders and providers, but so should women. The Bible says in Genesis 1:26-27 that both are created in the image of God. In the same verses and verse 28 he gives BOTH of them dominion and the job to rule.
6. The idea of a male breadwinner and that the phrase «keepers at home» implies that the woman doesnt have a job is a modern invention. We see this in upper class societies, especially the Victorian Era, but that was a privilege not afforded to the masses until a small degree during the Industrial Revolution, but not mainly until the 1920s-1940s. A sole breadwinner with a housekeeper wife is definitely not a biblical idea. Ironically, historically, men were not always the ones providing most of the food for the household. Myth of the Male Breadwinner

"Submit"

 This is a post taken from Liberated Woman's Facebook page-

The Context of Submission

It’s easy to pull “wives submit” out of context and read it as a universal ideal. But in the Greco-Roman world, women were already living under systems that assumed male authority and made independence risky.

Aristotle wrote plainly that “the male is by nature superior, the female inferior; the one rules, the other is ruled” (Politics 1.1254b). This wasn’t about one household. It was presented as the natural order of society.

Xenophon describes marrying a girl “not yet fifteen,” raised to “see as little, hear as little, and ask as little as possible,” and then explains how he trained her (Oeconomicus 7). The expectation was not mutual growth, but formation into obedience.

Demosthenes states the structure without hesitation: “we have courtesans for pleasure… concubines for daily use… and wives to bear legitimate children and guard the household” (Against Neaera 59.122). Wives were defined by function, not partnership.

Gaius confirms the legal reality that adult women were placed under guardianship “on account of their levity of mind” (Institutes 1.144–145). Even in adulthood, women were not considered fully independent legal actors.

Thucydides records the cultural ideal: “the greatest glory of a woman is to be least talked about” (History 2.45). Silence and invisibility were treated as virtue.

Under Augustus, law reinforced male control over the household and placed women’s lives firmly under that structure (Lex Julia, 18 BC). The system did not just assume authority, it gave it legal force in which husbands could order the death of their wives and fathers could order the deaths of their daughters!

P.Oxy. 744 Hilarion to Alis, c. 1 BC, Oxyrhynchus Papyri depicts a father ordering the death of his child if his wife gives birth to a daughter and not a son!

This is the world of Ephesus and Corinth when Paul the Apostle was writing. Women did not have equal legal standing, did not have independent protection, and did not have social freedom to openly resist authority without consequence.

And into that world, the instructions are not one-sided. Wives are told how to navigate a system that already held power over them (Ephesians 5:22–24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1–6).

But husbands are told something far more disruptive to that system.

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).

“Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself” (Ephesians 5:28).

“Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them” (Colossians 3:19).

“Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with honor…” (1 Peter 3:7).

“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband… the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (First Epistle to the Corinthians 7:3–4).

In 1 Peter 3, when Peter refers to the wife as the “weaker vessel,” the Greek phrase is asthenesterō skeuei (ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει). Asthenesterō is a comparative form of asthenēs, meaning vulnerable, often used in contexts of social disadvantage rather than inherent inferiority. Skeuos means vessel, an instrument or container, a common metaphor for a person. In a world where women were legally, socially, and physically more vulnerable, the phrase points to her exposed position within that system, not a declaration of lesser worth. Peter immediately pairs it with “show them honor as co-heirs of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7), directly countering any idea of inferiority.

Those commands for husbands cut directly against the norms described by Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Roman law itself. In a world where men were assumed to rule, entitled to control, and rarely held accountable for how they treated their wives, they are instead commanded to love, to give themselves up, to restrain themselves (not be harsh), to honor, and to treat their wives as their own bodies. That is not a reinforcement of the system, it is a confrontation of it at its core.

“Submit” was spoken into a reality where defiance was not theoretical, it could cost a woman her security, her protection, her social standing, and in some cases her very life. It acknowledges the structure that already existed around her.

But “love, honor, and self-sacrifice” was spoken into a reality where men were not expected to limit their authority, not expected to share power, and certainly not expected to lay themselves down for the good of their wives.

One side speaks to survival of women within that system.

The other demands transformation of it.

Another good resource on the subject-

The Book of Eden: Book 1

Beyond Eden: Book 2

Back to Eden: Book 3

Because of Eden: Book 4

Logical Fallacies in Complementarianism

The Architecture of Inequality: Deconstructing the Logical Fallacies of Complementarianism

To engage in a rigorous defense of egalitarianism, one must move beyond merely trading Bible verses and instead examine the rhetorical architecture used to sustain gender-based hierarchy. Complementarianism—the doctrine that men and women are equal in "worth" but assigned different "roles" that grant men unilateral authority in the home and church—frequently relies on a predictable set of logical fallacies. These fallacies are not merely errors in judgment; they often serve as defensive mechanisms designed to shield the doctrine from the modern requirements of logic, justice, and empirical evidence.

By categorizing these fallacies, we can see how the complementarian position maintains its influence through shifting definitions, emotional appeals, and a carefully managed diversion of focus.

I. Structural and Definitional Fallacies: Protecting the Doctrine

The most sophisticated fallacies used by complementarians are those that manipulate the very definitions of the words being debated. These structural fallacies make it difficult for an egalitarian to pin down a stable argument to critique.

The Motte-and-Bailey Tactic

Perhaps the most pervasive rhetorical maneuver in this debate is the Motte-and-Bailey. In medieval terms, a "motte" was a small, easily defensible stone fort, while the "bailey" was a large, fertile, but hard-to-defend field surrounding it. In modern logic, this translates to alternating between a controversial claim (the Bailey) and a common-sense claim (the Motte).

     The Bailey:*The assertion that men have a divinely ordained right to lead and that women are restricted from exercising authority over men. This is the "high-stakes" claim that critics find discriminatory.

     The Motte: When the Bailey is attacked, the speaker retreats to the Motte: "We just believe men and women have equal dignity and different, beautiful roles."

Because no one (in a modern context) wants to argue against "equal dignity," the critic is neutralized. However, as soon as the critic leaves the room, the complementarian returns to the Bailey to enforce restrictive policies on leadership and domestic submission. The fallacy lies in pretending the Motte and the Bailey are the same thing.

The "No True Scotsman" Defense

When egalitarian critics point to the staggering rates of domestic abuse or spiritual manipulation within hierarchical systems, complementarians often respond with the No True Scotsman fallacy. They claim that "those men aren't *true* biblical complementarians; they are abusers." While it is true that many complementarian leaders condemn abuse, this fallacy allows the doctrine itself to evade accountability. By redefining the position after the fact to exclude any negative outcomes, they ensure the system is never scrutinized for how its power imbalance might actually *incentivize* or *facilitate* such abuse.

Begging the Question (The "Biblical" Modifier)

A common circular argument occurs when complementarians attach the word "biblical" to their specific cultural interpretations. Terms like "Biblical Manhood" or "Biblical Womanhood" are used to automatically claim divine authority. This is a form of Begging the Question, where the conclusion (that their view is the only one the Bible allows) is baked into the very name of the position. It renders the claim unverified and circular: "Our view is true because it is biblical, and it is biblical because it is our view."

Moving the Goalposts

When egalitarians provide scholarly evidence—such as proof that women served as apostles (Junia), deacons (Phoebe), and leaders in the early church—the complementarian response often involves Moving the Goalposts. If the linguistic argument for equality is won, the criteria for "truth" suddenly shifts. They may abandon the historical or Greek debate and insist the hierarchy is a "divine mystery," a matter of "common sense," or an "issue of the heart." By shifting the requirements for proof into an unverifiable realm, they ensure that no amount of evidence can ever "win" the argument.

II. Diversionary and Social Fallacies: Shifting the Focus

These fallacies attempt to discredit the egalitarian position not by addressing its arguments, but by attacking its proponents or shifting the conversation toward unrelated social anxieties.

The Strawman Argument

Rather than engaging with the actual egalitarian argument—which is that authority should be based on spiritual gifting and character rather than biological sex—critics often construct a Strawman. They frame egalitarianism as a "rebellion against God's design" or a desire for "unisex sameness." By pretending egalitarians want to erase all biological or personal distinctions between men and women, they attack a caricature that is much easier to defeat than the actual argument for shared agency and mutual submission.

Ad Hominem (The Tribal Attack)

This shifts the focus from the text to the person’s character or "liberal" leanings. Proponents of equality are often labeled "feminists" (used as a pejorative), "cultural accommodators," or "progressives." This Ad Hominem approach seeks to discredit the argument by attacking the proponent’s perceived tribal loyalty. The implication is that if you believe in equality, you have clearly "surrendered to the culture," which allows the complementarian to ignore the actual biblical or philosophical merits of your claim.

Whataboutism

When confronted with the historical and systemic suppression of women’s voices, a common pivot is: "What about the crisis of masculinity? What about the high rates of male suicide?" This is Whataboutism. While the struggles of men are valid and serious social issues, using them to deflect from a specific discussion on gender inequality is a tactical maneuver to avoid addressing structural power imbalances. It suggests that one cannot care about women's equality without being indifferent to men's pain—a false and distracting premise.

Argumentum ad Populum (The Appeal to Tradition)

This fallacy claims that male leadership must be correct because "the church has practiced it for 2,000 years." This Appeal to Tradition assumes that because a view has been popular or long-standing, it must be true. This ignores the fact that the church has historically reached "consensus" on many things later recognized as errors, including the defense of slavery or the persecution of scientific pioneers. Historical longevity is not a measure of moral or theological correctness.

III. Logical and Emotional Distortions: Masking the Hierarchy

These fallacies rely on flawed analogies or heightened emotions to make the reality of a gendered hierarchy seem more palatable or "natural."

False Equivalence: The "Boss" Analogy

A favorite complementarian argument is: "How is a wife submitting to a husband any different from a woman working for a boss?" This is a massive False Equivalence and a False Analogy.

    The Reality: A workplace relationship is a limited, contractual, and voluntary agreement. It governs specific tasks during specific hours. A woman can fire her boss by quitting; a boss cannot dictate a woman's reproductive choices, her spiritual life, or her intimate boundaries.

     The Fallacy: Comparing a professional contract to a "one flesh" spiritual union ignores the totalizing scope of power in a hierarchical marriage. It also commits a Category Error, treating a covenantal relationship as an economic exchange of labor. If the husband's "role" is truly like a boss, the wife is a "hired hand," which utterly contradicts the claim that they are "equal in worth."

Equivocation on "Equality"

When complementarians claim that "a woman can speak in church, she just can't lead," they are Equivocating. They use the word "equality" to mean spiritual value in the eyes of God, while simultaneously denying women *functional agency* in the community.

     -In any other context, if a group is allowed to speak but legally barred from decision-making, we call that subordination. By using the word "equality" to describe a system of restricted rights, they strip the word of its meaning.

Special Pleading (The Church Exception)

This occurs when someone applies a certain set of criteria to the world but creates an "exception" for their own claim. Complementarians usually agree that women are competent to lead in medicine, law, and politics. However, they argue that the church is a "special" case where competence (the ability to teach or lead) has no bearing on authority. This Special Pleading offers no logical reason for the distinction other than the desire to maintain a specific tradition.

The False Dilemma and the Slippery Slope

The False Dilemma suggests there are only two paths: "strict male headship" or "total social chaos and the destruction of the family." This ignores the millions of successful, healthy marriages and churches that operate on mutual submission.

Closely tied to this is the Slippery Slope: "If we allow women to preach, we will eventually abandon the Bible entirely." This is a fear-based fallacy that assumes a causal link between gender equality and apostasy without ever proving that one leads to the other. It is a rhetorical device used to shut down debate through intimidation.

Argumentum ad Passiones (Appeal to Emotion)

Finally, many complementarian arguments bypass logic entirely by using sentimental, gender-coded language. They speak of "the beauty of a woman’s quiet spirit" or "the protective, provider heart of a man." By painting a nostalgic, emotional picture of the "traditional" home, they appeal to the listener's feelings of safety and identity. This **Appeal to Emotion** makes the power structure feel "beautiful" or "natural," which distracts from the core question: Is it just?

Why Scrutiny Matters

Recognizing these fallacies is not about winning an intellectual game; it is about ensuring that the theological frameworks we live by are built on truth rather than rhetorical sleight-of-hand. When we dismantle the False Equivalence of the "boss" analogy, or expose the Motte-and-Bailey behind "equal but different," we clear the way for a more honest conversation.

Egalitarianism does not ask for the erasure of gender, but for the erasure of arbitrary barriers that prevent half of the human race from exercising their God-given gifts. By identifying these fallacies, egalitarians can steer the conversation back to the central issues of justice, agency, and the radical, equalizing message of the Gospel.

Were All 613 Commandments Given Directly By God?

The first two sections here are chatgpt, edited and adjusted by me, just to establish a framework, followed by my thoughts.  

The belief that only the Ten Commandments were directly inspired by God, while many other Mosaic laws emerged through human leadership and historical circumstance is best described as a Decalogue-centered or differentiated-inspiration view of Mosaic law. At its core, this perspective holds that the Ten Commandments uniquely represent God’s eternal moral will, while the remaining laws of the Torah reflect human attempts—guided but not dictated by God to apply those moral principles within a specific social and cultural context. 

A key biblical foundation for this view lies in the internal distinctions the Bible itself makes within the law. The Ten Commandments stand apart in several ways: they are spoken directly by God to the entire nation, written by God on stone tablets, and presented as universal commands rather than situational case laws. By contrast, many other laws are delivered through Moses, framed conditionally (“if someone does X, then Y”), and expanded gradually as Israel’s society develops. This contrast has led many interpreters to conclude that the Decalogue functions as the moral core or constitutional foundation of Israel’s covenant, while later laws serve as applications rather than independent revelations of equal authority.

The episode involving Jethro in Exodus 18 further supports this perspective. Jethro, Moses’ Midianite father-in-law, advises Moses to establish a hierarchical judicial system with delegated authority. The text explicitly credits this legal structure to Jethro’s wisdom rather than to divine command. Many scholars see this moment as the beginning of Israel’s formal legal administration, suggesting that at least some aspects of Israelite law arose through human counsel and pragmatic governance. For those who hold a Decalogue-centered view, Jethro’s influence demonstrates that God’s moral law could coexist with humanly developed legal systems designed to manage real-world disputes.

Both Jewish and Christian thinkers have expressed ideas that resonate with this approach. Philo of Alexandria treated the Ten Commandments as a comprehensive summary of all law, with later statutes flowing from them. Thomas Aquinas famously argued that the Decalogue reflects natural law accessible to all people, whereas Israel’s civil and ceremonial laws were mediated through human reason for a particular nation. Protestant Reformers similarly distinguished between moral law and ceremonial or civil law.

Modern biblical scholarship reinforces the plausibility of this view by emphasizing the historical development of Israelite law. Scholars such as Albrecht Alt, Gerhard von Rad, and John Van Seters have shown how Israel’s legal traditions resemble other ancient Near Eastern law codes and evolved over time. Within this framework, the Ten Commandments emerge as Israel’s moral nucleus, while other laws reflect historically conditioned applications.

In plain terms, this belief can be described as a Decalogue-centered or differentiated-inspiration understanding of Mosaic law. It maintains that the Ten Commandments are uniquely divine, while other laws arose through human leadership responding to social realities. 

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

***(there is a section here that I have removed and placed at the very end because I don't think every one would be interested. It is an analogy comparing the Decalogue and other 613 laws with the US Constitution and other code laws.)***

My writings- 

Read Matthew 5: 17-19  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So when he says he came to fulfill the law, is it certain that he meant all 613 definitions of how the Ten Commandments should be carried out, or the Ten Commandments themselves? 

Yet instances where Jesus broke the laws:

1. Sabbath laws

a.Healing on the Sabbath

• Mark 3:1–6 – Healing the man with a withered hand

• Luke 13:10–17 – Healing a crippled woman

• John 5:1–18 – Healing at the pool of Bethesda

b. Disciples picking grain on the Sabbath

• Matthew 12:1–8

• Mark 2:23–28

• Luke 6:1–5

2. Declaring foods clean (dietary laws)

OT law: Clean vs. unclean foods (Leviticus 11)

• Mark 7:18–19

“Thus he declared all foods clean.”

3. Touching the ritually unclean

OT law: Contact with lepers, corpses, menstruating women causes uncleanness (Leviticus 13–15; Numbers 19)

Examples:

• Mark 1:40–45 – Touching a leper

• Mark 5:25–34 – Woman with bleeding touches Jesus

• Luke 7:14 – Touching a dead body (widow’s son)

4. Adultery and the Law of Moses

OT law: Adulterers must be stoned (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)

• John 8:3–11 – Woman caught in adultery

5. Divorce

OT law: Divorce permitted (Deuteronomy 24:1–4)

• Matthew 5:31–32

• Matthew 19:3–9

6. Retaliation (“eye for an eye”)

OT law: Lex talionis (Exodus 21:23–25)

• Matthew 5:38–39

“You have heard… but I say to you…”

7. Oaths

OT law: Oaths allowed if fulfilled (Numbers 30:2)

• Matthew 5:33–37

“Do not swear at all…”

Many of the laws were given in order to deal with the reality of the culture at the time, not because they were God’s divine, eternal plan for mankind. 

1) Take for example Deuteronomy 22: 23-27

 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;  Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath *humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.  But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

This passage takes for granted that if she did cry out, someone would come to rescue, but we know humanity, and that is not always the case. 

*Take the next verses (28-30) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath *humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

 The woman isn’t protected because of her human value, the main difference in the two passages is if she “belonged to a man” or not. To think that God would want a woman to marry a rapist is really absurd. The only humane factor in this, is that in a misogynist culture, where no man would marry a woman who had been shamed, this is basically the only way to provide any kind of security for her, although I’d argue that 50 shekels and “she shall not be his wife” would suffice. (Although even having offspring would have been a way to provide her with financial security.) 

Some argue that this is two consenting people having sex together, but the word for "lay hold on" תָּפַשׂ  tapas, when used in reference to one person "laying hold on" another it is always an involuntary action. 

2) The reasoning for why the woman would have to marry her rapist is found in the previous section of verses. 

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If anyone needs an explanation, the "tokens of her virginity" was a cloth used to catch blood after her wedding night. I guess in ancient times a woman could be stoned because they weren't advanced in science enough to know that not all women bleed. Not to mention the humility and trauma this whole scenario would be. But this also doesn't take into account any possibility of her ever been assaulted. If she had been assualted, her options would be to either never marry (and be destitute), marry her rapist, or be stoned after her wedding night. On top of all of this, there is never any mention of the male's virginity. Only the woman is being judged. 

How can you reconcile these beliefs with the character of Jesus? 

*Many modern day theologians speculate that Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery because the man was not also brought. Is the insinuation then that Jesus would have supported stoning them both if the man had been present? 

A good video on this issue: 👇🏻

Rape in the Old Testament

3) Deuteronomy 21:10-14

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Is this God comanding rape for prisoners of war? People who disagree that this passage and Deuteronomy 22 is about rape, would do well to consider that the Hebrew word ענה (ʿanah) is the same word used in Genesis 34:2 for the rape of Dinah. (Deut. 21:14, Deut. 22:24, Deut. 22:29, Judges 19:24, Ezekiel 22:10, Ezekiel 22:11, the same Hebrew word anah (עָנָה) is used in:, Genesis 34:2 (defiled), 2 Samuel 13:14 (forced))

Some have claimed that this passage was actually protecting women from rape. It is incongruent to say, "Women were protected from rape by putting them into different situations where that also had no autonomy or power of consent." Protecting women from rape by restricting who may have sexual access to them is not the same thing as protecting them from non-consensual sex. The passage is clear that the man can send her away because he has humbled and violated her.  

The woman is a captive whose family has been killed or defeated, and the text never describes her consent as a requirement. The man is allowed to take her as a wife because she is a prisoner of war. 

Even if you somehow didnt know that this is rape, it’s still obvious that it’s a violation.

4) Similarly, we see the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 when he was asked about divorce. Jesus responded that it was MOSES’ commandment “because of the hardness of your hearts.” This whole section has been used by pastors to have an excuse for why THEY can divorce their wives, but we see from Jesus’ response, that the purpose was for the protection of women. The Pharisees asked if it was lawful “for any cause” because Jewish men had been divorcing their wives for any cause and leaving them unprovided for. Jewish women could not divorce their husbands; it was one sided. In Roman culture, men could even kill their wives. Jesus’ words were not a list of rules to be used against women for all time, regulating if they could or could not leave their husbands. It was a rebuke to the men who were discarding their wives. 

5) Even though this is a New Testament passage, it is often interpreted similarly, ignoring the historical context. We read in Ephesians 6, Paul giving standards for how servants should function in Roman culture. If they had demanded their freedom, they would have simply been killed. We cannot still think that God was condoning slavery for all time. Paul was establishing mutuality within the culture, telling masters to treat their slaves well, and the slaves to respect their masters. This was unheard of in that time. Mutuality between husband and wife was established in Ephesians 5:21. Fathers were told not to discourage their children. Jesus came to abolish domination, not to establish it.

6) Exodus 21:7 Selling your daughter as a sex slave

7) Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Do we believe that it was God's will for only "punishment" if a man's slave died. But zero punishment if it only took them a few days to heal- the punishment is only the natural consequence of loss of income?

8) Also- Numbers 31-15-18

 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Are we to read the Bible in such a way that suggests that God consented and approved of taking virgin captives of war for themselves? Are we pretending that they must be virgins in order to "work in the fields?"

9) According to this type of interpretation, if we took the book of Hosea and interpreted it very literally, women should be able to cheat several times and their husbands should still take them back.

10) Consider the story of the birth of Jesus. After hearing the news of Mary’s pregnancy, the Bible says that Joseph, being a just man, was going to divorce Mary privately. This implies that he didn’t believe Mary’s story about the virgin birth. If so, the «just» action according to the law wpuld have been for her to be stoned. But we understand that DISOBEYING THE LAW was just.

There are so many similar passages.

We see in the story of Cain and Abel "God's will" was not to execute Cain in the harsh way that Moses' law would have prescribed. 

It is not necessary for us to conclude that every time the Bible says "the law" it is referring to all 613 of them, instead of the Ten Commandments themselves. 

(Exodus 34:28, Exodus 24:12, Deuteronomy 4:13-14)

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Interpretation:

Most people believe in a false dichotomy- that if one can’t believe that every verse is God’s absolute will for man, then they can’t trust the Bible.

The missing point is, God’s reasoning for including it in scripture was not to show individuals or nations rules for proper living, it was to show individuals and nations the history of domination and control that he came to set us free from.  

We have to ask ourselves? What conversation is the author (God) trying to have with us? What is he trying to say?

Most evangelicals are so zeroed in on single words that they cannot tell what the meaning of a passage is, without stuffing it into whatever pet doctrine they want to promote. The Bible is not a rule book. We know this, and regularly apply it, but there are just accepted, preapproved passages where we are allowed to do this. 

Another example is the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac. The point of the story is not that God wants you to sacrifice the thing that you love most. You have to take into context the culture that Abraham was in. Child sacrifice was common, and Abraham would not have been shocked at this request from a deity. But the story is an account of how God revealed to Abraham that he wasn’t like other gods, and instead of him sacrificing that which he held most dear, God would provide himself a lamb. 

We know that the book of Ecclesiastes is not a book that we should read literally as the way God wants us to live out our lives, but we don’t apply the same to the book of Proverbs. Why? Because we haven’t been given permission to. This is handling the word of God deceitfully. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are both ancient examples of modern day prosperity gospel. If you apply the function of x, the output will be y.

To continue with the message of Paul, he was well-educated and often uses literary and rhetoric devices in his writing. He quotes Cato the Elder from 197 BC to the Corinthian church:

“at home our freedom is conquered by female fury, here in the Forum it is bruised and trampled upon, and because we have not contained the individuals, we fear the lot…Indeed, I blushed when, a short while ago, I walked through the midst of a band of women. I should have said, “What kind of behavior is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women’s husbands! Could you not have asked our own husbands the same thing at home? Are you more charming in public with others’ husbands than at home with your own? And yet, it is not fitting even at home for you to concern yourselves with what laws are passed or repealed here.

Our ancestors did not want women to conduct any – not even private – business without a guardian; they wanted them to be under the authority of parents, brothers, or husbands; we (the gods help us!) even now let them snatch at the government and meddle in the Forum and our assemblies. What are they doing now on the streets and crossroads, if they are not persuading the tribunes to vote for repeal?…If they are victorious now, what will they not attempt? As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors…”

Paul responds to this obvious misogyny with a rhetorical question- "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order."

There are so many ways the entire Bible is interpreted to mean the opposite of the true meaning. Take the story of the widow’s mite. “And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:”

This passage is usually preached in a way that indicates that we, like the widow, must cast in everything. But the Jesus was actually warning against the exploitation of people who should be cared for, for the purpose of propping up religious power and political authority. 

Many evangelicals point to the life of David when one of their leaders fall into sin. They say, well David was “a man after God’s own heart” and God still used him. First of all, David is called a man after God's heart when we was quite young, before he even received the annointing. I'm still searching for the evidence that God used David after he became king. (I will point out though that David’s repentance puts modern day leaders to shame.) We can read these books in a literary method, much like the way we read about Henry V and Macbeth. It is 100% true in the way that it portrays how power can bring about corruption. The red line that flows through the entire Old Testament is God’s faithfulness to his people. All passages portray either absolute truth about the character of God, or absolute truth about the possible extent of the consequences of sin. 

I’m about too tired to continue coming up with more examples, but I recently listened to a message on marriage. The speaker postulates that the mother of the prodigal son never intervened or put her two cents in. He literally said that if she would have, the prodigal son would have never repented. The whole point is that women should just shut up. First of all, maybe if she would have intervened, a lot of heartache could have been spared! Secondly, there is NO WAY a person could know that the prodigal son would not have repented if his mother would have objected. We don’t know if the prodigal’s mother objected because the mother is not central to the story. The story is a parable and is told in a similar manner where all unnecessary details are omited. And lastly, tell me that you actually have no idea what the point of the story is without telling me. Smh 

We need to stop describing Jesus by using the Old Testament, and start describing the Old Testament by the character of Jesus. 

My concern is why would anyone read those passages, and not have any red flags raised in their minds? Forgive me, but it has to be either some severe brainwashing and lack of critical thinking, or that the reader already has a bias against underprivileged people. 

It is mind blowing to me that the church elevates these passages to the same level as the teachings of Jesus, but then it is not surprising that we have such an epidemic of abuse and lack of morality in the church.

Dawn of the Daystar.... a reading of the Old Testament

Comparing the Decalogue with the US Constitution- 

A helpful analogy for understanding a Decalogue-centered view of Mosaic law can be found in the structure of the United States Constitution and its relationship to statutory and case law. This comparison works particularly well because both systems distinguish between foundational principles and later legal applications, allowing core authority to coexist with evolving human interpretation and administration.

In this analogy, the U.S. Constitution functions much like the Ten Commandments. The Constitution is foundational, relatively brief, and framed in broad, principled language. It establishes enduring legal and moral boundaries rather than exhaustive procedural rules. Concepts such as freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection are not defined in minute detail but instead set guiding standards for the legal system as a whole. In a similar way, the Ten Commandments articulate core moral prohibitions and obligations—against murder, theft, false testimony, and the like—without specifying every possible scenario in which those principles might apply. Both documents function as a kind of constitutional charter, laying down fundamental values rather than comprehensive case law.

Federal and state statutes, by contrast, closely resemble the detailed case laws found throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Statutes are created by legislatures to apply constitutional principles to specific historical, cultural, and practical circumstances. They address concrete issues such as taxation, environmental regulation, and traffic safety, and they are subject to revision or repeal as society changes. Mosaic laws concerning property restitution, dietary practices, agricultural cycles, and civil penalties function in much the same way, answering practical questions about how core moral commands should operate within a particular ancient society. Just as modern statutes ask what freedom or equality looks like in a given context, Mosaic case laws explore what it means not to steal, harm, or exploit within Israel’s historical setting.

Judges and courts provide another close parallel. In the U.S. system, courts interpret the Constitution and statutes, resolve disputes, and create precedents through human judgment. This role mirrors the elders and judges of Israel, whose establishment is described in Exodus 18 following Jethro’s advice to Moses. That episode highlights the necessity of delegated authority and legal interpretation, reinforcing the idea that not all law functions as direct proclamation from the highest authority. Instead, much of law involves wise human mediation within established boundaries.

One reason this analogy is so compelling is the hierarchy of authority it preserves. In American law, the Constitution overrides statutes; any statute that conflicts with it is invalid. Similarly, proponents of a Decalogue-centered view argue that the Ten Commandments hold greater moral authority than later laws and can be used to critique or contextualize them. The analogy also accounts for change over time: statutes evolve and constitutions may be amended, yet core principles remain relatively stable. In the biblical narrative, Israel’s legal system develops, prophets challenge legal abuses, and later figures such as Jesus emphasize justice, mercy, and faithfulness over rigid legalism.

The comparison is not perfect, as ancient Israel did not separate law, theology, and morality the way modern systems do, and many religious traditions maintain that all Mosaic law is divinely inspired. Still, as a conceptual framework, the Constitution–statute analogy is widely used and offers a clear, accessible way to understand how foundational moral principles can coexist with historically conditioned legal applications.