Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

[JimB]

Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

(I hope we can discuss this without getting into an argument ).


Here’s the biblical text from 2 Samuel 6:

12And it was told King David, "The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God." So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing. 13And when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal. 14And David danced before the LORD with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. 15So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn.

16As the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, and she despised him in her heart. 17And they brought in the ark of the LORD and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it. And David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. 18And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts 19and distributed among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins to each one. Then all the people departed, each to his house.

20And David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, "How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" 21And David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the LORD—and I will make merry before the LORD. 22I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in your eyes. But by the female servants of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor." 23And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
​

Pentecostal/Charismatics teach that Michal was “struck barren” by the Lord because she was critical of David’s dancing before the young women of Israel. Personally, I would have had something to say to my wife if she had been dancing half-clothed before the young men in our church … but I digress. Because she was critical, I was taught, she had no child to the day of her death.

But I disagree.

What 2 Samuel does is give us an objective look into David’s personal life by showing us the tension between David and his wife. In the story I can hear Michal’s jealousy and irritation at what she felt was David’s flirtatious behavior toward women (after all, David was not the most martially faithful person in the Bible). IMO, she was justified in calling his hand and feeling that David had “uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" David’s past (and future) actions warranted such suspicion.

Also, David’s lack of understanding by justifying his actions (I couldn’t help it; God made me do it) and his insensitivity to his wife’s feelings are not something I mark up to his credit.

Finally, Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death not because God punished her (the text does not say that) but because the tension that existed between her and her husband caused such a breach that they did not cohabit as husband and wife and, therefore, she had no child to the day of her death.

What do you think?

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

 

[imperfectchristian]

My general impression has always been that God stuck her barren because she made fun of (mocked) David while he was worshipping God. She wanted to exercise control over David even in His worship to God by shaming him into compliance.

Not sure how well that fits with the story, but that is the way I have always thought of it.

 

[JimB]

My general impression has always been that God stuck her barren because she made fun of (mocked) David while he was worshipping God. She wanted to exercise control over David even in His worship to God by shaming him into compliance.

Not sure how well that fits with the story, but that is the way I have always thought of it.

Yep, that’s the standard P/C spin on the story. Only the Bible doesn’t condemn Michal (or David for that matter) nor does it say that “God struck Michal barren.” IMO, it is simply an account of the tension that existed in David’s household and tells us that Michal had was childless—perhaps because she and David no longer lived as husband and wife due to the obvious strain that existed between them highlighted in the account.

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

 

[Yekcidmij]

I see a couple of possibilities going on here.

(1) Being barren in the ancient world WAS considered a curse and a mark of shame. It was viewed as God not bestowing any favor on the household. It was forbidden for someone to "curse" the king of Israel

Ex 22:28 “You must not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.

Here, cursing the ruler of the people doesn't mean hurling 4 letter words at them. It means something more like sitting in judgment over the ruler. An example of this occurs earlier in Samuel when one of Saul's sons, Shimei, starts hurling curses as David:

2 Sam 16:5 Then King David reached Bahurim. There a man from Saul’s extended family named Shimei son of Gera came out, yelling curses as he approached. 16:6 He threw stones at David and all of King David’s servants, as well as all the people and the soldiers who were on his right and on his left. 16:7 As he yelled curses, Shimei said, “Leave! Leave! You man of bloodshed, you wicked man! 16:8 The Lord has punished you for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you rule. Now the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. Disaster has overtaken you, for you are a man of bloodshed!” 16:9 Then Abishai son of Zeruiah said to the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and cut off his head!” .............

...........19:18 They crossed at the ford in order to help the king’s household cross and to do whatever he thought appropriate. Now after he had crossed the Jordan, Shimei son of Gera threw himself down before the king. 19:19 He said to the king, “Don’t think badly of me, my lord, and don’t recall the sin of your servant on the day when you, my lord the king, left Jerusalem! Please don’t call it to mind! 19:20 For I, your servant, know that I sinned, and I have come today as the first of all the house of Joseph to come down to meet my lord the king.” 19:21 Abishai son of Zeruiah replied, “For this should not Shimei be put to death? After all, he cursed the Lord’s anointed!”

Shimei should have been put to death because it was forbidden to curse the king. The biblical explanation for this from Exodus 22 is that cursing the king was the equivalent of blasphemy because the only one in a higher position than the king was God Himself. So, to presume to sit in judgment over the king was to take a role for God alone. In 2 Sam 6, we may be meant to see that Michal was doing just that - she was presuming to sit in judgment over the king, or place herself in a higher position than the king, by calling him a vulgar fool and coming down on him for the way he was acting. This would explain the comment about Mical's barrenness by implying that this indeed was a curse on her for her cursing the king.

If this is correct, then she isn't being punished because she is condemning David's worship methods; she is being punished because she is condemning the king.

(2) This is an apologetic for the House of David and explaining why Saul's descendents were not fit for the throne. Notice in this passage that 2 people connected with Saul are both sidelined by God for various reasons. Mical, Saul's daughter, is sidelined through barrenness. Uzzah, Saul's grandson (son of Abinadab) is killed for mishandling the Ark. Notice that throughout the Samuel books, all of Saul's descendents are either eliminated or sidelined. For example, one of Jonathan's sons is killed and the other has crippled legs. The latter son also is seen submitting to David. There is some suspicion that what is going on in Samuel is an apologetic for David. David is often seen as being sad over what happens to Saul's family. David is said to be upset over the death of Uzzah in 2 Sam 6 for example. But is David really so innocent? Perhaps it's that this account is being purposefully written to establish David's innocence precisely because he wasn't so innocent in all of this? Perhaps one of the intents of this book is to sideline Saul's family and establish David's prominence? Perhaps it's really David or David's men men that killed Uzzah and so the account is written to make David appear sorrowful when he was really eliminating his kingly compitetion? In this case, then Mical in 2 Sam 6 is one more of Saul's descendents to be sidelined. She curses David and has no children. Now there will be no descendents of Saul coming from Mical because it's been established that she had no children.

In either case, it has nothing to do with condemning David's worship practices.

 

[lismore]

Pentecostal/Charismatics teach that Michal was “struck barren” by the Lord because she was critical of David’s dancing before the young women of Israel

Do they really?

I thought the one about Jezebel's reincarntion spirit was bad until I heard that

I have to say that your explanation makes more sense. Saying that God struck Michal barren is reading things into the text.

If they were arguing it wouldnt be condusive towards sexual intercourse.

Michael was Saul's daughter too, given to another man by Saul when David ran away, another reason for David to shun her company?

 

[imperfectchristian]

Yep, that’s the standard P/C spin on the story. Only the Bible doesn’t condemn Michal (or David for that matter) nor does it say that “God struck Michal barren.” IMO, it is simply an account of the tension that existed in David’s household and tells us that Michal had was childless—perhaps because she and David no longer lived as husband and wife due to the obvious strain that existed between them highlighted in the account.

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

I had never even considered the validity of that teaching. Interesting.

 

[Tamara224]

What do you thin?

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

I think it's sad. I've always felt sorry for Michal. First, she loved David (1 Samuel 18:20 & 28). But the only reason her father, Saul, gave her to David was "to be a snare to him". Saul thought he could get rid of David by setting him on a deadly challenge (killing 100 Philistines).

It's clear that Michal's father didn't really care about her if he was using her like that.

And it's unclear whether David ever loved Michal. He accepted Saul's challenge - but the way the story reads (1 Sam 18) it's almost more like David wanted to prove how manly he was. Kind of "So Saul doesn't think I can kill 100 Philistines? I'll show him!"

Anyway.

Michal then warns her beloved husband that her father is going to kill him. She helped him escape (1 Sam 19:11-17).

Later, Saul gives Michal to some other dude. So... here's Michal waiting and worrying about David as he's off running for his life from Saul and fighting Philistines. Then her dad says "oh yeah, never mind your marriage to the guy you love, you're going to marry this other guy."

In the meantime, David marries Ahinoam and Abigail.

Polygamy wasn't unheard of back then (especially for kings)... but what must it have felt like to be Michal? Used as a pawn, in love with a man who really doesn't seem to care much about you, given to one man then another, only to learn that the man you love is picking up wives all over the place.

Finally, after Saul died, David demanded that Michal be returned to him. And for political reasons, she was returned. Only, the husband that she had didn't want her to go - he followed her, weeping the whole way. IOW, she was taken from the husband who loved her to be given to a man who didn't. A man she once loved - but most likely, she had resigned herself to being married to Palti by then.

Michal was probably wrong to criticize David. But it was understandable, IMHO. I think most women in her situation would have been incredibly bitter.

 

[LinkH]

What 2 Samuel does is give us an objective look into David’s personal life by showing us the tension between David and his wife. In the story I can hear Michal’s jealousy and irritation at what she felt was David’s flirtatious behavior toward women (after all, David was not the most martially faithful person in the Bible).

God gave David many wives, according to a prophecy he received. David was a polygamous.

Michal, on the other hand, was an adulteress. Perhaps she was forced to do so, but perhaps she did so without putting up much resistance. David had not divorced her. Her father had given her to this other guy after David went on the run, Paltiel, I think it was.

It was a disgrace to a king for someone else to have one of his wives. David got Michal back in his negotiations with one of Israel's generals while trying to consolidate the kingdom.

IMO, she was justified in calling his hand and feeling that David had “[/FONT]uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" David’s past (and future) actions warranted such suspicion.[/SIZE]

There is no evidence David slept with a woman he was not married to before Bathsheba as far as I can tell. David was praising the Lord and Michal misjudged him. She was concerned with being dignified, and did not appreciate David's expression of praise to God.

David was also a warrior who had grown up raising sheep and killing wild animals and spent his adult years camping out, pursuing enemies, and hiding in caves from his father-in-law. Michal had grown up a king's daughter.

I don't know if David did not sleep with Michal after this or if she was barren, but she did not have any children. And David did not have descendants through the daughter of Saul.


Also, David’s lack of understanding by justifying his actions (I couldn’t help it; God made me do it)[/quote]

He did not say that. Apparently, they had different ideas of what was appropriate in expression adoration for the Lord.

and his insensitivity to his wife’s feelings are not something I mark up to his credit.

Perhaps she needed a good rebuking.

 

[LinkH]

David didn't sleep with his concubines (probably wives that had been slaves prior to marriage as opposed to bride-price wives) after Absalom slept with them. Do you think David did not sleep with Michal after she came back from her second illegitimate 'husband'?

There is a difference. A man is not supposed to sleep wit his fathers wife, or his daughter's wife. David may have considered sleeping with these concubines to be not kosher after the incident with Absalom.

 

[Tamara224]

David didn't sleep with his concubines (probably wives that had been slaves prior to marriage as opposed to bride-price wives) after Absalom slept with them. Do you think David did not sleep with Michal after she came back from her second illegitimate 'husband'?

There is a difference. A man is not supposed to sleep wit his fathers wife, or his daughter's wife. David may have considered sleeping with these concubines to be not kosher after the incident with Absalom.

Possible. And the Law did say that if a man divorced his wife and she remarried and then her second husband divorced her that the first man couldn't take her back again. It's not entirely applicable because David never divorced her (and neither did the second guy).

But.... if David was so concerned about that... then why demand her return? Why not let her stay with the husband who loved her? Why demand she come back and then refuse to treat her as his wife?


Also... how sexist is polygamy, anyway? It's okay for David to have multiple wives but it's not okay for Michal to have multiple husbands? Can we say "double standard"?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

Here’s the biblical text from 2 Samuel 6:

12And it was told King David, "The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God." So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing. 13And when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal. 14And David danced before the LORD with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. 15So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn.

16As the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, and she despised him in her heart. 17And they brought in the ark of the LORD and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it. And David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. 18And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts 19and distributed among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins to each one. Then all the people departed, each to his house.

20And David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, "How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" 21And David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the LORD—and I will make merry before the LORD. 22I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in your eyes. But by the female servants of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor." 23And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
​

Pentecostal/Charismatics teach that Michal was “struck barren” by the Lord because she was critical of David’s dancing before the young women of Israel. Personally, I would have had something to say to my wife if she had been dancing half-clothed before the young men in our church … but I digress. Because she was critical, I was taught, she had no child to the day of her death.

But I disagree.

What 2 Samuel does is give us an objective look into David’s personal life by showing us the tension between David and his wife. In the story I can hear Michal’s jealousy and irritation at what she felt was David’s flirtatious behavior toward women (after all, David was not the most martially faithful person in the Bible). IMO, she was justified in calling his hand and feeling that David had “uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!" David’s past (and future) actions warranted such suspicion.

Also, David’s lack of understanding by justifying his actions (I couldn’t help it; God made me do it) and his insensitivity to his wife’s feelings are not something I mark up to his credit.

Finally, Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death not because God punished her (the text does not say that) but because the tension that existed between her and her husband caused such a breach that they did not cohabit as husband and wife and, therefore, she had no child to the day of her death.

What do you thin?

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

I think everything in red is conjecture and not supported by scripture.

I believe the highlighted shows the main problem. She despised him in her heart. That isn't David lack of understanding - that's a heart issue.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Yep, that’s the standard P/C spin on the story. Only the Bible doesn’t condemn Michal (or David for that matter) nor does it say that “God struck Michal barren.” IMO, it is simply an account of the tension that existed in David’s household and tells us that Michal had was childless—perhaps because she and David no longer lived as husband and wife due to the obvious strain that existed between them highlighted in the account.

~Jim

I don't agree with your opinion here but even if you were right, I think whatever happend to Micah and her and Davids relationship as husband and wife is a red herring. The P/C's main message, and one I happend to agree with, is that dancing before the Lord with all your might should not be condemned, forbidden, or even simply frowned upon. Now our western society will frown upon doing so while mostly naked in front of each other, sure, otherwise I think God has given us the freedom to worship him the way we like as long as it is in Spirit and in truth.

The reason why I think P/C's bring up Micah into this is because alot of people have taken it upon themselves to judge others on how some P/C's worship God. They judge them in ways like saying; look at them dance, their just calling attention to themselves, they aren't really worshipping God, their just worshipping themselves, so on and so forth, etc., etc., etc. So whether the judgement on Micah is right or not, the main message is freedom in worship.



By the way Balance, excellent post. RFT

 

[JimB]

I think everything in red is conjecture and not supported by scripture.

I believe the highlighted shows the main problem. She despised him in her heart. That isn't David lack of understanding - that's a heart issue.

That’s also a marital issue, Joe.

And I agree. What you highlighted in red is putely conjecture, but so is the standard P/C interpretation of those verses. I just happen to like my conjecture better than yours.

That’s the point.

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

 

[JimB]

I don't agree with your opinion here but even if you were right, I think whatever happend to Micah and her and Davids relationship as husband and wife is a red herring. The P/C's main message, and one I happend to agree with, is that dancing before the Lord with all your might should not be condemned, forbidden, or even simply frowned upon. Now our western society will frown upon doing so while mostly naked in front of each other, sure, otherwise I think God has given us the freedom to worship him the way we like as long as it is in Spirit and in truth.

The reason why I think P/C's bring up Micah into this is because alot of people have taken it upon themselves to judge others on how some P/C's worship God. They judge them in ways like saying; look at them dance, their just calling attention to themselves, they aren't really worshipping God, their just worshipping themselves, so on and so forth, etc., etc., etc. So whether the judgement on Micah is right or not, the main message is freedom in worship.



By the way Balance, excellent post. RFT

Yep. P/C’s can’t seem to live past what others think of them despite the fact that in a single century the P/C movement has grown to be the largest segment of Protestant Christianity on the earth. More Christians in the world believe in dancing before the Lord than don’t believe in it, so why should we care what mainliner denoms think about it? If they don’t want to dance in their church, I say don’t do it. That’s fine with me.

But what happens in our church is our business, no one else's. I don't need to reinterpret scripture or to eisegetically read into scripture what’s most likely not there just to strengthen a moot point. Why be critical of non-dancers criticism of us--I mean, it's just he same criticism directed in another direction and makes us as guilty of what we imagine was Michal's sin as Michal was herself.

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

 

[JimB]

I think it's sad. I've always felt sorry for Michal. First, she loved David (1 Samuel 18:20 & 28). But the only reason her father, Saul, gave her to David was "to be a snare to him". Saul thought he could get rid of David by setting him on a deadly challenge (killing 100 Philistines).

It's clear that Michal's father didn't really care about her if he was using her like that.

And it's unclear whether David ever loved Michal. He accepted Saul's challenge - but the way the story reads (1 Sam 18) it's almost more like David wanted to prove how manly he was. Kind of "So Saul doesn't think I can kill 100 Philistines? I'll show him!"

Anyway.

Michal then warns her beloved husband that her father is going to kill him. She helped him escape (1 Sam 19:11-17).

Later, Saul gives Michal to some other dude. So... here's Michal waiting and worrying about David as he's off running for his life from Saul and fighting Philistines. Then her dad says "oh yeah, never mind your marriage to the guy you love, you're going to marry this other guy."

In the meantime, David marries Ahinoam and Abigail.

Polygamy wasn't unheard of back then (especially for kings)... but what must it have felt like to be Michal? Used as a pawn, in love with a man who really doesn't seem to care much about you, given to one man then another, only to learn that the man you love is picking up wives all over the place.

Finally, after Saul died, David demanded that Michal be returned to him. And for political reasons, she was returned. Only, the husband that she had didn't want her to go - he followed her, weeping the whole way. IOW, she was taken from the husband who loved her to be given to a man who didn't. A man she once loved - but most likely, she had resigned herself to being married to Palti by then.

Michal was probably wrong to criticize David. But it was understandable, IMHO. I think most women in her situation would have been incredibly bitter.

Great post, T. IMO, also, Michal was an emotionally mistreated, even abused, wife and David appears as the horn-dog of the OT. The wonderful thing about the Bible is that it gives us a picture of its hero’s warts-and-all, not so we can gloss over them (as we tend to do with David) but to show us that “there is none righteous, no not one” in the eyes of God and that, despite our failings, He loves us and wants to restore us.

God bless David. I see myself in him (and his failings) as much or more than any person in scripture.

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

 

[Always in His Presence]

That’s also a marital issue, Joe.

And I agree. What you highlighted in red is putely conjecture, but so is the standard P/C interpretation of those verses. I just happen to like my conjecture better than yours.

That’s the point.

~Jim

Even the smallest thing when, held close enough to the eye, can blot out the sun.​

How do you know what my stance on it is, when I haven't given it?

Or are you automatically assuming what it is?

The reason I don't follow nor agree with your assumption is two fold.

Fist, it's an assumption not based on what the scripture is saying. But what you THINK it might say.

Second, the scripture. (God Breathed) only addresses one persons heart and attitude. And it's not David.

As for my POV as to why she was barren, even you have not asked, I have no clue beyond what is written.

 

[JimB]

How do you know what my stance on it is, when I haven't given it?

Or are you automatically assuming what it is?

The reason I don't follow nor agree with your assumption is two fold.

Fist, it's an assumption not based on what the scripture is saying. But what you THINK it might say.

Second, the scripture. (God Breathed) only addresses one persons heart and attitude. And it's not David.

As for my POV as to why she was barren, even you have not asked, I have no clue beyond what is written.

Aha, the Assumption Policeman speaks.

So, Joe, what do you say? Give me your assumption because the story—i.e., "what is written"—leaves it up to us what lessons we draw from it.

I have given the lessons it has drawn for me.

What’s yours?

~Jim

Some things have to be believed to be seen.​

 

[LinkH]

But.... if David was so concerned about that... then why demand her return? Why not let her stay with the husband who loved her? Why demand she come back and then refuse to treat her as his wife?

I do not know if he refused to sleep with her. There was a law requiring a husband not to deprive a wife of food, clothing, or sex if he had more than one.

Politically, though, it was important that no man be sleeping with the king's wife.

Also... how sexist is polygamy, anyway? It's okay for David to have multiple wives but it's not okay for Michal to have multiple husbands? Can we say "double standard"?

In the Old Testament, a woman sleeping with men who aren't her husband is adultery, a death penalty crime. The Old Testament does not define a married man sleeping around as adultery.

In the New Testament, Christ says a man who divorces his wife and marries another, except it be for fornication, commits adultery. He makes an exception that many take as a provision under which men can divorce their wives. But He doesn't state that women have such an exception to divorce their husbands. He says, "he that marries her that is divorced commits adultery." Paul says of women that the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.

So I agree that the Bible does not treat men and women the same when it comes to sexuality. But men and women are not exactly the same either, biologically. We were created somewhat differently.

 

[Always in His Presence]

As have I.

See, the difference is that i believe if the issue was
Davids dancing, or how he treated his wife, or tension in the home that David caused, God would have addressed those issues, or at the very least mentioned them.

But God did not, the only one God addressed was Davids wife.

And that is as plain as Gods words on the matter.

As for assumption police.

read the siggy. If it describes a theological approach ..... Well.....

 

[Tamara224]

I do not know if he refused to sleep with her. There was a law requiring a husband not to deprive a wife of food, clothing, or sex if he had more than one.

Politically, though, it was important that no man be sleeping with the king's wife.

Exactly. It was purely political. And not the least bit just or compassionate towards Michal. It's obvious that the last thing David had on his mind was "what's best for Michal?"

In the Old Testament, a woman sleeping with men who aren't her husband is adultery, a death penalty crime. The Old Testament does not define a married man sleeping around as adultery.

Actually, the OT defines adultery as a man sleeping with a married woman.

An unmarried woman who slept around was either a prostitute (which had no death penalty, AFAIK) or a 'maid' and the man who slept with her was required to marry her.

So... if a married man slept with another man's wife, then it's adultery and both were supposed to be killed. But if a married man slept with an unmarried girl he had to marry her. Whereas if an unmarried man slept with a married woman it was adultery and both were to die.

So... yeah, it could be considered somewhat sexist in that way. But a married man couldn't sleep with whoever he wanted to without penalty.

In the New Testament, Christ says a man who divorces his wife and marries another, except it be for fornication, commits adultery. He makes an exception that many take as a provision under which men can divorce their wives. But He doesn't state that women have such an exception to divorce their husbands. He says, "he that marries her that is divorced commits adultery."

So I agree that the Bible does not treat men and women the same when it comes to sexuality.

I would argue that it's not really "the Bible" treating them differently... it was the culture. Just like Jesus said that divorce was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts. God allowed some stuff... doesn't mean he mandated it. (I'm not saying you said He did... just want to make that point clear). God hates divorce, period.

But men and women are not exactly the same either, biologically. We were created somewhat differently.

Do you think this justifies the sexism?