Is the biblical teaching on marriage a good thing for women?

[jce]

Well, if we are going to put a "fine point on it" I would say that we are "beating the drum" to "summon troops to battle" for the Truth, which, if there is a "Most High God" is necessarily a battle for rather than against that God.

Richard, I am all for the Truth. That is why I keep my mind open to things like the age of the earth and the descent of man. I'm also open to alternate interpretation possibilities of the Bible, that is why I will not close the door on it. Because something in Scripture doesn't make scientific sense does not preclude other possibilities. You say you reject the Bible due to passages wherein God orders the execution of humans, and then go even further in such ruthless self confidence by declaring Him barbaric and unfair. On what basis do you convict Him of immorality? What rule of man constrains Him from taking any life which He has already sentenced to death? Is He limited to the means He chooses in execution of the just sentence?

You go even further and portray the Biblical God as a thief when he turns the spoils of war over to the Israelites. On what basis do you make that judgement? The Bible openly declares that the earth and all that it contains is His possession to give to whomsoever He will. Since all of creation is His property, what is your complaint?

It is on points such as the aforementioned that I believe you err, not only from Biblical Truth, but also on legislative grounds. You have at your disposal, nothing more than your internal standard of morality, your limited powers of reason and your finite grasp of knowledge, and to make things worse, you then combine such inadequate tools with a lack of humility and attempt to use them as evidence in a case to convict the Creator of the Universe, seeming to forget that in reality you are the one He has already condemned and sentenced. Based on the Truth, Who is really demonstrating Who has the power in this contest? His condemnation, sentence and appointment for you is far more certain than any scientific hypothesis you hold.

It is easy to tear down fences without giving thought as to why they were erected. Your response to Biblical Christianity is meaningless because you have nothing to offer in its place. You seem critical of others who are reluctant to follow your path of logic and reason, and yet, you yourself are not even sure where it leads. Are you blazing a new trail that generations of men before you have not already trodden? One thing is certain, your quest will end in the same way of the others who came before you, in the grave. And then what? Tell us if you know.

I remain your friend in time.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there my friend,

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your frank speech. It makes these conversations very interesting, fruitful, and valuable.

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that you and I stand on absolutely equal footing when you say "You have at your disposal, nothing more than your internal standard of morality, your limited powers of reason and your finite grasp of knowledge." You are a man just like me. You have a finite grasp of knowledge just like me. You have no demonstrable "power of reason" beyond mine. We are equally human and limited. This is why your charge of arrogance applies equally to you when you use your own fallible judgment to assert that the Bible as speaking truly about God. What if you are wrong and some ignorant or wicked man put falsehoods in the Bible? If you use your limited judgment and attribute those falsehoods to God then you are committing a gross blasphemy. The sword of truth cuts both ways my friend.

Now on to your specific points:

Richard, I am all for the Truth. That is why I keep my mind open to things like the age of the earth and the descent of man. I'm also open to alternate interpretation possibilities of the Bible, that is why I will not close the door on it. Because something in Scripture doesn't make scientific sense does not preclude other possibilities. You say you reject the Bible due to passages wherein God orders the execution of humans, and then go even further in such ruthless self confidence by declaring Him barbaric and unfair. On what basis do you convict Him of immorality? What rule of man constrains Him from taking any life which He has already sentenced to death? Is He limited to the means He chooses in execution of the just sentence?

This is why we can be friends. We have the same goal - truth!

There is no more debate about the age of the earth than there is about its geometry. It is an oblate spheroid about 4.5 billion years old. These facts are based on the consilience of all science - chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, evolution. It is this consilience, this unity of knowledge, that makes it impossible to pick out and reject bits and pieces of science that contradict the Biblical account. Each part of science is inextricably interwoven with all the rest. Truth is unified.

"I'm also open to alternate interpretation possibilities of the Bible." Me too! I know that much of the Bible has been misinterpreted in the most ridiculous ways. Things that are obviously figures of speech are taken as literal, and things that are literal are explained away when they contradict preferred doctrines. That's why the Bible fails as a guide to anyone. It all depends upon our own fallible interpretations and there is no objective test to discern between the true and the false. Folks have nothing to go on but their interpretation of words, words, and more words. And those words were written thousands of years ago by cultures very different than ours and in languages few understand.

"You say you reject the Bible due to passages wherein God orders the execution of humans." I've never had any problem with God commanding the execution of known criminals. My problem is with merciless brutal GENOCIDE commanded by God. The slaughter of men, women, and innocent babies, coupled with the command to preserver 32,000 virgins which were distributed to the soldiers is a moral abomination. And you have never answered why the god of the Israelites "just happens" to emulate the brutal Bronze age tribal war gods common from that time. Is the logical answer simply too obvious for you to touch?

"and then go even further in such ruthless self confidence by declaring Him barbaric and unfair." Your description of me as "ruthless" makes no sense in that sentence. Indeed, it is quite ironic given that it means "having or showing no pity or compassion for others" which is exactly what the God of the Bible commanded his people to be. It doesn't matter if you think God was justified in ordering their destruction, you cannot deny that his actions were "ruthless" by definition.

"On what basis do you convict Him of immorality?" On the basis of the universal moral standards understood by everyone except religious fundamentalists and psychopaths. That's the great irony of the Christian argument that there would be no objective morality without the God of the Bible. It is the Bible that destroys and corrupts the innate moral sense of humanity. The atheist Hector Alvaros had no hesitation to reject Infanticide, Genocide, and Slavery as immoral. His Christian opponent could not agree because God had ordered those things, so they can't be immoral. This is why I say that fundamentalist religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of those who adhere to it.

"What rule of man constrains Him from taking any life which He has already sentenced to death?" The problem is that God did not do the "taking" of the Canaanites lives. If he had done that, I wouldn't be pressing my complaint. Have I ever said the flood was immoral? Nope. It may be, but it's an entirely different case and the answer is not obvious so I don't press it.

You go even further and portray the Biblical God as a thief when he turns the spoils of war over to the Israelites. On what basis do you make that judgement? The Bible openly declares that the earth and all that it contains is His possession to give to whomsoever He will. Since all of creation is His property, what is your complaint?

I did not portray God as a thief. I said that he commanded his people to be murderers and thieves. If you don't think that's what he did, then please explain how invading Canaan, killing everyone and stealing their land and belongings fails to meet the definition of murder and thievery.

It is on points such as the aforementioned that I believe you err, not only from Biblical Truth, but also on legislative grounds. You have at your disposal, nothing more than your internal standard of morality, your limited powers of reason and your finite grasp of knowledge, and to make things worse, you then combine such inadequate tools with a lack of humility and attempt to use them as evidence in a case to convict the Creator of the Universe, seeming to forget that in reality you are the one He has already condemned and sentenced. Based on the Truth, Who is really demonstrating Who has the power in this contest? His condemnation, sentence and appointment for you is far more certain than any scientific hypothesis you hold.

My moral intuitions are not merely "internal." They are based on my humanity which I share with the objects of my moral intuitions.

There is no difference between you and I on this issue. You have nothing to go on different than I, unless you think your unsupportable presuppositions constitute authentic knowledge.

"a lack of humility and attempt to use them as evidence in a case to convict the Creator of the Universe." Two problems: First, who is more arrogant: A man who says that the true God could not commit the moral abominations attributed to him in the Bible, or the man who asserts without proof or reason that the Bible is true no matter what it says? You have set yourself us as an arbitrary judge when you declare that you know that the Bible is the true word of the true God. What gives you that right or that power?

Second, I am not trying to convict the Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, I am defending him from the slander against him in the Bible. Think of me as his lawyer. He's gotten a bad rap.

It is easy to tear down fences without giving thought as to why they were erected. Your response to Biblical Christianity is meaningless because you have nothing to offer in its place. You seem critical of others who are reluctant to follow your path of logic and reason, and yet, you yourself are not even sure where it leads. Are you blazing a new trail that generations of men before you have not already trodden? One thing is certain, your quest will end in the same way of the others who came before you, in the grave. And then what? Tell us if you know.

I remain your friend in time.

John

I've got plenty to "offer in its place." It's called Truth and Reality. Now I know you won't be happy with this because you want answers that Truth and Reality don't offer. There's nothing I can do about that, and it would be irrational for you to reject Truth and Reality merely because they can't give correct answers to replace the false answers you found in the Bible.

"You seem critical of others who are reluctant to follow your path of logic and reason, and yet, you yourself are not even sure where it leads." Of course I don't know where it leads. No one has that knowledge. Are you suggesting that I must know everything to have an opinion about anything?

"Are you blazing a new trail that generations of men before you have not already trodden?" That's an ironic question coming from someone who does nothing but follow in the footsteps of others.

"One thing is certain, your quest will end in the same way of the others who came before you, in the grave. And then what? Tell us if you know." I'm glad you stated the truth. Your path will end in the grave exactly like that of every other person who has ever lived. What comes after that is anyone's guess. If there were any certain knowledge that could be verified, we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?

Great chatting my friend. And again, I really appreciate your frank speech. It really clears the air and makes for very fruitful discourse.

Richard

[jce]

Hey there my friend,

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your frank speech. It makes these conversations very interesting, fruitful, and valuable.

Great chatting my friend. And again, I really appreciate your frank speech. It really clears the air and makes for very fruitful discourse.

Richard

Hello Richard

Thanks for the kind words. We all have a certain level of sensitivity built into us and there are times after writing a post and publishing it, I second guess myself, not in content, but in tone. I too like being frank and to the point, and at the same time do not want to be little another or sound uncaring and rude. Unfortunately, some of my posts have had that appearance, and there have been a couple recently that were rude by intent and I am not referring to you or Rose. You both demonstrate much restraint and civility and that is to your credit.

I enjoy the free spirited debates and I do believe they are extremely significant to the point that it has challenged me to examine much more closely the things which I presume to be true. If it were not for the witness of the Holy Spirit in my life, it would be easier to receive your critiques of Scripture, but because He has revealed Himself to me in such a supernatural way, I can never go back. He has won my trust and friendship forever.

Well, I took quite a bit of time away from my desk work today to play in the forum, so it will be necessary to back off a bit, but I thought it good to say these few words for now, to both you and Rose.

May our friendship progress to... Brother and Sister in Christ I hope (if it is not already a reality)!!!!

John

[David M]

Good morning Rose

Hi David,

Is it that you hold to the OT "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" punishment system?

Just to be clear on this point, the words in quotes are words spoken by Jesus. Was he teaching an Old Testament principle? I am doing a Berean thing (Acts 17:11) and checking this out. Can you please give me some example of Old Testament teaching to support this. It is important we understand these things correctly. I know that if someone was accidentally killed, the relatives of the dead person could seek the life of the one who had caused the death, but seeking the exact same revenge for every deed done, I am not sure that the quoted words are the principle of the OT. Jesus was quoting but on this occasion he did not say; "it is written", so I am just checking.

All the best,

David

[Rose]

Good morning Rose



Just to be clear on this point, the words in quotes are words spoken by Jesus. Was he teaching an Old Testament principle? I am doing a Berean thing (Acts 17:11) and checking this out. Can you please give me some example of Old Testament teaching to support this. It is important we understand these things correctly. I know that if someone was accidentally killed, the relatives of the dead person could seek the life of the one who had caused the death, but seeking the exact same revenge for every deed done, I am not sure that the quoted words are the principle of the OT. Jesus was quoting but on this occasion he did not say; "it is written", so I am just checking.

All the best,

David

Hi David,

When Jesus spoke the words "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" he began with "you have heard it said" which comes from the Old Testament.

Matt.5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Exo.21:23-24 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Lev..24:19-20 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Deut. 19:19-21 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Rose

[Beck]

Many Christians hold the teachings of Jesus to be of the highest value in promoting human rights and equality. I also fell into that category when I was a Christian, but upon closer scrutiny I now see that many of the teachings of Jesus have led to needless suffering. For example, the teaching of Jesus which says anyone who divorces and remarries is guilty of adultery, has caused untold suffering especially for women. Not only does it keep a woman locked into an abusive marriage, but if she is divorced (which under Jewish law men could do at will) she can never remarry

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Hey Rose,

I can only agree that the New Covenant commandments of Jesus seem to bring even more suffering on the woman. So then I would like to at least examine this topic even more. One thing that I would like to bring up is that we might look at how it was first written in the account by Mark.

Mark 10:11:12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery

This by Mark seem to be placing both man and woman on even grounds when one or the other puts away their mate and thus marry another it is adultery.
We might also notice that Mark in his usage of 'woman' is that she is married (bethorthed) as a wife. Where woman is Strong's G1135 - gynē which is used as wife. I say this in regard to Matthew 5:28 of someone looking to lust after a woman. I would be my opinion that woman is meant as a woman in bethroth or as a wife of another man.

The Old Testament law was bad enough considering a man could divorce his wife at will, but at least she could remarry if her husband divorced her. Under the New Testament law proclaimed by Jesus, if a woman is divorced by her husband she is locked into remaining single for the rest of her life, or until her husband dies if she does not want to be accused of adultery. Even though this teaching also applies to men, it is much more harmful to women because according to the Bible women are to be in subjection to men, who in turn deny women equal opportunities to support themselves. Also, since men are deemed by god to rule over women, they can take away her children leaving the woman completely alone. So, in many ways the New Testament teaching on marriage has elevated the hardships women have to endure instead of decreasing them.


Rose

I would take that in Jesus instructions to those Phraisees he was reaffirming the Old Coveanant that when a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife they become one. How then can a man divorce himself? Thus Jesus said that Moses allowed you to put away your wifes, but it wasn't so at the beginning. For it was your harden hearts that Moses allowed you put away your wifes.

So the bottom line is that Jesus called them hypocrites and said that it was infact adultery to simply put away their wifes and to take another wife. To 'put away' isn't the same thing as divorce for the woman would just be put out of the house without any support of any kind. Jesus has indicated that the Pharisees that even this 'letter of divorcement' can't brake the bonds of marriage for it is still adultery to both the man or the woman that marry another.


So to make the parallel of them 'putting away' their wifes to our generation today where one can divorce should not be seen as the same. Now concerning how Paul taught he said that if a christain woman choose to depart (to leave) let her depart, yet remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband and let her husband put her away.

So there's no getting around it if either man or woman divorce and remarry they are considered by the New Covenant as Adulterers.

[Rose]

Hey Rose,

I can only agree that the New Covenant commandments of Jesus seem to bring even more suffering on the woman. So then I would like to at least examine this topic even more. One thing that I would like to bring up is that we might look at how it was first written in the account by Mark.

Mark 10:11:12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery

This by Mark seem to be placing both man and woman on even grounds when one or the other puts away their mate and thus marry another it is adultery.
We might also notice that Mark in his usage of 'woman' is that she is married (bethorthed) as a wife. Where woman is Strong's G1135 - gynē which is used as wife. I say this in regard to Matthew 5:28 of someone looking to lust after a woman. I would be my opinion that woman is meant as a woman in bethroth or as a wife of another man.

Hi Beck,

I agree, in the New Testament men and women are put on even grounds as far committing adultery after being divorced. What makes the suffering greater on the woman's part is the fact that women had a much harder time of supporting themselves because of all the restrictions placed on her by men. So, if a woman was divorced and couldn't remarry she was at the mercy of her family if she had one to help her out.

I would take that in Jesus instructions to those Phraisees he was reaffirming the Old Coveanant that when a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife they become one. How then can a man divorce himself? Thus Jesus said that Moses allowed you to put away your wifes, but it wasn't so at the beginning. For it was your harden hearts that Moses allowed you put away your wifes.

So the bottom line is that Jesus called them hypocrites and said that it was infact adultery to simply put away their wifes and to take another wife. To 'put away' isn't the same thing as divorce for the woman would just be put out of the house without any support of any kind. Jesus has indicated that the Pharisees that even this 'letter of divorcement' can't brake the bonds of marriage for it is still adultery to both the man or the woman that marry another.


So to make the parallel of them 'putting away' their wifes to our generation today where one can divorce should not be seen as the same. Now concerning how Paul taught he said that if a christain woman choose to depart (to leave) let her depart, yet remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband and let her husband put her away.

So there's no getting around it if either man or woman divorce and remarry they are considered by the New Covenant as Adulterers.

Not only could men divorce their wives at will under the Old Covenant, but they could also marry as many women as they wished. So how could a man ever truly be one with his wife if he had many? Polygamy was allowed from the very beginning, even Abraham was allowed to take Hagar, and that was long before Moses came on the scene. So, it wasn't just Moses who allowed men to put away their wives. Something to think about.

All the best,
Rose

[CWH]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

Hi David,

I'll look into changing the settings of the Google ads. They are currently set to the default which allows Google to present unique ads to each user according to their estimation of the most relevant ads according to that user's internet activity. For example, we had a plumbing problem last month, and so I searched Google for a local plumber. I then saw ads for plumbers on my forum for days. And it wasn't just on my forum. Any other site that shows Google ads displayed the same plumber ads. And it happened again yesterday when I searched for a new host for my website. The same ads for webhosts followed me everywhere I went on the web. This should be pretty sobering - Google tracks all our activity and presents ads accordingly.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you have been searching for singles. I don't search for singles but ads for them show up occasionally when I surf. And Google often presents me with very irrelevant ads for things like computer games which I never search for. I think this is because everyone in my house - including two teenage boys and any of their friends who come to visit - share the same IP so Google gets confused and presents ads to all of us depending on what searches have been done and what sites have been visited on our shared IP. And there is a certain degree of randomness I'm sure.

Yes, the internet tracks all our activities. Even the Government do that. Soon it will be a scary world in which nothing is secret or private.

As for temptation - I remember well when I was trying to be a good single Christian man. I "made a covenant with my eyes" not to "look upon a woman" (Job 31:1) It was of course impossible. I had to walk around staring at the sidewalk! It turned me into a very awkward individual. I would have to physically close my eyes to avoid the act of "looking." But I tried very hard. Blinded myself in a sense. But it didn't really help anything. It was just an effort to be "holy" according to external standards and rules. I don't have a problem with lusting after other women, but neither do I feel a need to blind myself to their sensual beauty. I think the whole hang up around sex taught in Christianity is the real source of the problem. Like what Paul said:[INDENT]Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

This shows that it is impossible not to sin in a sinful world, "For all have sin and fall short of the glory of God".

The law in the Bible is like the Prohibition of Marijuana. It creates criminals where there were none. And look at the damage it does. Prohibition creates criminal gangs and changes society in a huge way setting the police against the ordinary citizens. And it causes profound conflicts within individuals who would just be doing what they want and not hurting anyone if not for the arbitrary law.

Can you please get rid of your Hippie mentality. It's old fashion, it's DEAD. Do you want to live in a world in which everyone is hallucinated with drugs? The legalization of Marijuana will cause more problems in society. A good example was the social harm done to the Chinese who were enticed to smoke opium introduced by the British during the 19th century. It makes people lazy with the addiction and leads to several wars known as the Opium Wars.

So the gist of all this is that though I've seen ads on the internet featuring sexy women, they don't cause any conflict in my soul at all because I am free from the law.

Are you sure? Seeing a pretty young naked woman enticing you on a bed and not feel tempted?
No one is free from the law. You either love God or mammon. "Love God with all your heart, soul and might and love your neighbor as yourself", that is the law.

May God not lead us into temptations but deliver us from evil.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, the internet tracks all our activities. Even the Government do that. Soon it will be a scary world in which nothing is secret or private.

Are you using "soon" in the Biblical sense of "2000 years"? If so, we've got nothing to worry about!

I think your religion causes you to worry too much. Folks were all worried 50 years ago that the US government was going to be taken over by the antichrist and that the American social security cards would become the "mark of the beast." I'm glad I didn't waste those precious years of my life in vain worry about things that never happened.

It also shows how self-centered American Christians can be. They made the USA the center of their whole end-time panic party.

This shows that it is impossible not to sin in a sinful world, "For all have sin and fall short of the glory of God".

Actually, it shows how religious dogmas make healthy normal people feel bad for simply being human. Now that I'm free from the dogma of sin, I don't experience any of the internal conflicts caused by false doctrines of "sin" being imposed upon me. And that's how I should have felt when I was a Christian if Christianity were true, because Christianity is supposed to set you free from the law. But judging by what you and other Christians write, I would have to say that you are still in bondage to the law of sin.

The law in the Bible is like the Prohibition of Marijuana. It creates criminals where there were none. And look at the damage it does. Prohibition creates criminal gangs and changes society in a huge way setting the police against the ordinary citizens. And it causes profound conflicts within individuals who would just be doing what they want and not hurting anyone if not for the arbitrary law.

Can you please get rid of your Hippie mentality. It's old fashion, it's DEAD. Do you want to live in a world in which everyone is hallucinated with drugs? The legalization of Marijuana will cause more problems in society. A good example was the social harm done to the Chinese who were enticed to smoke opium introduced by the British during the 19th century. It makes people lazy with the addiction and leads to several wars known as the Opium Wars.

You are confused. Opium is entirely different than Marijuana. It is addictive, marijuana is not. What's it like in China? Do many folks smoke pot?

Your implication that everyone who smokes pot is "hallucinating" is false and it shows that you know nothing of which you speak.

And why didn't you address any of the points I made? The prohibition of marijuana is not good for society. It makes criminals out of otherwise good citizens. It costs LOTS of money to chase down the "criminals" and prosecute them and put them in prison. And we lose money again because we have removed a productive tax-paying citizen from the work force. It's utterly absurd. We should have learned our lesson with the prohibition of alcohol. Would you support that? We tried it in the USA and discovered that it helped create organized crime. Is that what you want? Do you not understand that marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as alcohol? You should inform yourself on these issues.

And what's wrong with a "hippie mentality"? I think it's pretty cool. A lot more interesting than sitting around moaning and groaning about all the evil in the world and praying for God to forgive me for being human.

So the gist of all this is that though I've seen ads on the internet featuring sexy women, they don't cause any conflict in my soul at all because I am free from the law.

Are you sure? Seeing a pretty young naked woman enticing you on a bed and not feel tempted?
No one is free from the law. You either love God or mammon. "Love God with all your heart, soul and might and love your neighbor as yourself", that is the law.

May God not lead us into temptations but deliver us from evil.

There is no sin in temptation. Christ was tempted, but did not sin.

Your assertion that no one is free from the law is confused because you are using "law" in two different senses. When I said I am free from the law, I was talking about the law that convicts of sin, not the law of love. I never will be, nor want to be, free from that law.

All the best,

Richard

[Beck]

Hi Beck,

I agree, in the New Testament men and women are put on even grounds as far committing adultery after being divorced. What makes the suffering greater on the woman's part is the fact that women had a much harder time of supporting themselves because of all the restrictions placed on her by men. So, if a woman was divorced and couldn't remarry she was at the mercy of her family if she had one to help her out.

I for one don't like to use 'divorce' as relating to the OT and NT, but rather like the usage of to put away. I think there's a great deal of differences among these two. To put away is to force the woman out of the house and that goes without any support. I would only think that the man would say that she was unworthy and casted her out and therefore placed a bad name upon her. This of course lead to any reason to put away their wifes. In the OT before the writting of the letter given by Moses a man put away their wife for any reason and that woman was marked and at times even her family wouldn't support her. Therefore the letter was an attempt to help the woman not to be left unsupported and allowed her to marry another for that support.

But as we can see this goes against the principle at the beginning that of a man and woman become one.

Not only could men divorce their wives at will under the Old Covenant, but they could also marry as many women as they wished. So how could a man ever truly be one with his wife if he had many? Polygamy was allowed from the very beginning, even Abraham was allowed to take Hagar, and that was long before Moses came on the scene. So, it wasn't just Moses who allowed men to put away their wives. Something to think about.

All the best,
Rose

Polygamy is much different that to put away one's wife. The question that Jesus dealt with was 'Were it lawful to put away one's wife?'. Jesus addressed the Pharisees that it was'nt lawful at the beginning to just put away your wife. And if whosoever put away his wife and marry another commit adultery. Why because the marriage of man and woman as one can't be broken by man. Therefore the man if put away his wife and then went go and married another was committing adultery. Likewise the woman that has been put away commit adultery if marry another.

Now today if the widow is left unsupported and remains unmarried the church is instructed to give support. As far as I know the bible gives no instruction to the 'divorce' woman. Today if an divorce happens the woman is supported.