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

[Rose]

Rose,

To put away their wifes is departing from the orginal principle of Adam and Eve of them two becoming one. This oneness is by the man going and laying with the woman and to place his seed in her. To which is the consummation of this marriage of oneness. Therefore I believe it was written in Malachi that God hates putting away after one has laid seed to the woman.(Malachi 2:16) Were as Malachi seem to have a metaphorical meaning it can also be seen in the Jewish people relationship of husband and wife.

Hi Beck,
As I mentioned in my previous posts this so-called "original principle" of "becoming one flesh" given in Genesis 2 is mentioned nowhere else in the entire Old Testament. Even Genesis 1 only says that God created them male and female and to go forth and multiply with no restrictions. It is impossible to have a marriage of two becoming one flesh when men start having multiple wives, which we see with God's approval throughout the Old Testament.

I can see how Polygamy would be in that time. If a man married (consummated the union by laying seed) with an bethrothed woman and without putting her away he might marry (lay seed) another woman as his second wife, etc. Where he wasn't putting away any of his wifes. This presumably wasn't very common, but only in cases where the man was very wealthy and could support many wifes. As noted the 'oneness' is the laying of seed. The reason why some men took other wives is due to producing a son to carry on the man's name. The problem came up when a man went after another man's wife this is what the commandment of Adultery was forbiding.

Polygamy happened often enough in the patriarchal lineage to show that God had no problem with it. I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that God reprimands someone for having multiple wives. The wisest man on the planet according to Jesus was Solomon and he had 700 wives.

Would you say that Malachi was mistaken? In the case of a young woman that is betrothed unto an husband and is found in adultery then both shall be stoned, so to put away evil from among them. Instead of this type of death penalty to put away the woman that is found unclean is simply by the letter of divorcement put out of the husbands house and allowed to make a union with another man. Jesus is reinstating the first covenant that it is still adultery only unless the young woman which has been betrothed is found upon the consummation unclean 'forincation'. The husband is thus allowed to put her away.

The verse in Malachi is a bit ambiguous, also it was written quite late so it's teachings would not have been known to Abraham, Jacob, Saul, David, or Solomon all of whom had many wives explicitly approved of by God. Saul's wives were even given to David by God, and then taken from David and given to Absalom to be raped by God's command. Obviously when God gives multiple wives from one man to another he must not have a problem with it.

All the best,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Beck,

As I mentioned in my previous posts this so-called "original principle" of "becoming one flesh" given in Genesis 2 is mentioned nowhere else in the entire Old Testament.

This is a really important point. It led to the discovery that the ten chapters of Genesis 2-11 are not referenced in almost any of the other books of the Bible, or even within the book of Genesis itself. This indicates that those ten chapters were inserted into Genesis very late, after all the other books had already been composed. I've written a post about this called Where's Adam? The Mystery of the Missing Mythological Chapters of Genesis. I would be very interested if folks would comment on that thread. This discovery is really mind-blowing because I have studied the Bible for decades but never noticed the omission of references to those chapters of Genesis which Christians take as the very foundation of the Gospel (e.g. Romans 5).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Jesus gave the answer as to why Moses was permitted to write a bill of divorcement.

Hey there David,

Your comment leaped out at me because you seem to be implying that the Torah is not the Word of God, but rather the word of a mere man, Moses. When you say that Moses was "permitted" to write the law allowing divorce, you imply that it was his idea and not the will of God. If this is the case, how do we sort out which parts of the Bible are "God's Word" and which parts are the mere opinions of men that can be rejected?

All the best,

Richard

[Beck]

Hi Beck,
As I mentioned in my previous posts this so-called "original principle" of "becoming one flesh" given in Genesis 2 is mentioned nowhere else in the entire Old Testament. Even Genesis 1 only says that God created them male and female and to go forth and multiply with no restrictions. It is impossible to have a marriage of two becoming one flesh when men start having multiple wives, which we see with God's approval throughout the Old Testament.

Just because a principle is only mention once in any testament should not be negated.

Polygamy happened often enough in the patriarchal lineage to show that God had no problem with it. I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that God reprimands someone for having multiple wives. The wisest man on the planet according to Jesus was Solomon and he had 700 wives.

Again the principle that Jesus was addressing was that of a man putting away his wife and that wouldn't apply to Polygamy. Those that took on another wife was not putting away their first wife. Even in Deu. 21 of the 'law of marriage' has instructings for the man that have two wives. Therefore the becoming one flesh is the consummation of the marriage by the man laying with the woman. In this act they were 'married' joined / one flesh.

So if a man was only betrothed and went in the tent to consumate the betrothal if he then founded out that she wasn't a virgin or what he had been promised he by law (Deu.22:13-21) could put her away. She at the time of her betrothal would have been considered his wife. This is presumably the reason behind Matthew inserted the 'save for fornication exception'.

The verse in Malachi is a bit ambiguous, also it was written quite late so it's teachings would not have been known to Abraham, Jacob, Saul, David, or Solomon all of whom had many wives explicitly approved of by God. Saul's wives were even given to David by God, and then taken from David and given to Absalom to be raped by God's command. Obviously when God gives multiple wives from one man to another he must not have a problem with it.

All the best,
Rose

Just thought you might have over looked Malachi in your assumption. There is not one incident of God frowning upon multiple marriages for men, or of men putting away their wives

[Rose]

Just because a principle is only mention once in any testament should not be negated.

Hi Beck,

I'm not saying that it is negated, only that it is not applicable. The entire context of the Old Testament makes no mention of the principle of two becoming one flesh, so that makes it a mute point.

Again the principle that Jesus was addressing was that of a man putting away his wife and that wouldn't apply to Polygamy. Those that took on another wife was not putting away their first wife. Even in Deu. 21 of the 'law of marriage' has instructings for the man that have two wives. Therefore the becoming one flesh is the consummation of the marriage by the man laying with the woman. In this act they were 'married' joined / one flesh.

So if a man was only betrothed and went in the tent to consumate the betrothal if he then founded out that she wasn't a virgin or what he had been promised he by law (Deu.22:13-21) could put her away. She at the time of her betrothal would have been considered his wife. This is presumably the reason behind Matthew inserted the 'save for fornication exception'.

Jesus was conflating two different ideas, the first was that of the "two flesh becoming one", and the second was "what god has joined together let no man put asunder", neither of which occurs anywhere in the Old Testament except for the two becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24. There is no way a man can be of one flesh with multiple wives, so this concept of monogamy that Jesus was introducing was something that the pharisees would have been unfamiliar with as a biblical teaching. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post concerning divorce, God himself was the one who gave Moses the laws concerning divorce...it wasn't something Moses came up with himself.

Have a good night,
Rose

[Beck]

Hi Beck,

I'm not saying that it is negated, only that it is not applicable. The entire context of the Old Testament makes no mention of the principle of two becoming one flesh, so that makes it a mute point.

Afternoon Rose,

I would like to say that I'm not trying to this to death ,but I'm doing it for my own understanding. I think I have a good understanding of what Jesus was saying, but I'm trying to be open minded to other possibilities. With the 'one flesh' principle of Genesis having no other mention in the OT, but then Jesus makes mention of it. Like I said it rather seem to only indicate the two (husband and wife) consummating the covenant. Therefore a man could have more that one wife so long as he doesn't take another man's wife.

The OT of putting away seem to be what is not good for the woman. She is put out of the house and abondoned without any support from her husband and her family more than likely would not receive her back. This was even true in the first century when Paul addressed Timothy about how the church was to support the widows. Paul said that if the man would not provide for his own [his daughter that has become a widow] that he was worse that an infidel. (1Tim.5:8)

Looking at the response of the Phraisees which asked this question to Jesus they seem to have been aware of the writing of 'male and female becoming one flesh.' [Jesus asked them had they not read!] Jesus had addressed their question of is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause? Jesus not only said that it wasn't lawful for any cause, but that it wasn't lawful at the very first.

If we really look at why the Phraisees came unto Jesus to tempt or test him so that they might accuse him. Well looking at the question and seeing that he was in the area of the Jordan River where Herod Antipas ruled one would think that they had in mind to get Jesus for the same reason John the Baptist was beheaded. For speaking out about the sin of adultery which Antipas was married, therefore, to a woman who had been another man's wife, and whose husband was still living.

So Rose where do we go from here? Are we to say that Jesus had no authority to say this? That he was just being overly righteous? That once a man and woman make a covenant with blood, that covenant can't be broken or can it?

Jesus was conflating two different ideas, the first was that of the "two flesh becoming one", and the second was "what god has joined together let no man put asunder", neither of which occurs anywhere in the Old Testament except for the two becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24. There is no way a man can be of one flesh with multiple wives, so this concept of monogamy that Jesus was introducing was something that the pharisees would have been unfamiliar with as a biblical teaching. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post concerning divorce, God himself was the one who gave Moses the laws concerning divorce...it wasn't something Moses came up with himself.

Have a good night,
Rose

You make a good point here. So I thought of Ephesians where Paul said some what the same even quoting from Genesis 2 as Jesus did, but Paul used it toward Christ and the chruch. Might Jesus be speaking of himself and the chruch as well?

[David M]

Hello Rose
I will keep this reply even shorter and just answer your questions.

I did give examples other than marriage. Why didn't God make laws forbidding slavery, or laws giving women equal human rights?

God did not need to give laws against slavery and human rights because the laws you want are impilicit in the laws relating to treating thy neighbour as thyself or treating thy neighbour as you want to be treated. There is a difference between slaves and servants. So the employing of servants is OK because that is giving work, food and shelter. Slavery is the abuse of another person. There is nothing in the text to say the the 32,000 virgins were to be taken as slaves. Wives were not slaves and taken as wives was not rape as you want it to be. Neither of us is able to interview the women involved to find out the percentage of those who accepted their roles as wives. Of course I accept that some would object, that is normal in any situation, you never get 100% agreement.

So, you don't want to be a prison warden, but you wouldn't mind being the executioner?

I am agreeing with the sentence, it has nothing to do with whether I mind being the executioner of not. If I did not want to be the sole executioner in the way that you are thinking, I would agree to be a joint executioner on the proviso that the method of stoning is used. You will now see the value of stoning from my point of view.

I really don't understand you. On one hand you are adamant about the death penalty for murderers, yet when God told the Israelite's to murder the women and children of Canaan you seem to think that is perfectly fine and the only reason there was a problem is because they didn't kill everyone?

I do not understand you either but I will try and answer. I am accepting of God's judgement on the Canaanites. You do not seem to think the Canaanites were the repbrotes they were and did not deserve to be punished/wiped out. I am not sure what you are meaning or implying by "the only reason". I am saying that God used the Israelites as His instrument of destruction and in so doing God tested the obedience of the Israelites. They failed to obey God's instruction to the letter. That is like a national sin for disobedience. The fact that they did not carry out God's instruction to the letter and lets some live, meant that they became idolatrous that much sooner because of the influence that remained. All the problems presented to God are man-made. Stop blaming God and blame man!!

I never said anything about releasing a convicted murderer, where did you get that idea from?

Releasing convicted murders is a present day fact which is part of our justice system. Some murderers do get life and never released and some do get released. You want murderers locked up so you accept the present-day justice system.

BTW you have have not answered all my questions and I want to know if a murderer escapes prison and subsequenty murders your son; what do you want to happen to that person?

All the best,

David

[David M]

Hello Rose and Beck
I am enjoying your discussion. I just want to respond to two points Rose has made and I will let you continue your discussion

Jesus was conflating two different ideas, the first was that of the "two flesh becoming one", and the second was "what god has joined together let no man put asunder", neither of which occurs anywhere in the Old Testament except for the two becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24. There is no way a man can be of one flesh with multiple wives, so this concept of monogamy that Jesus was introducing was something that the pharisees would have been unfamiliar with as a biblical teaching. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post concerning divorce, God himself was the one who gave Moses the laws concerning divorce...it wasn't something Moses came up with himself.
Rose

The Pharisees had the ancient scriptures which included the Book of Genesis so they would have read the words we have in Genesis 2:24. This contradicts what you say;"the pharisees would have been unfamiliar with as a biblical teaching" This is the principal that was laid down at the beginning and the fact that the kings of Israel (especially) were the ones who had wives and concubines is the exception. In general the principle is; one man and one woman.

As you say,"it wasn't something Moses came up with himself", it was because as Jesus said; Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. It was God who permitted Moses to write the bill of divorcement. This is once again a man-made problem presented to God in which God compromised with His people. I expect you would blame God for compromising on a man-made problem. Had nothing been done, the people could have rebelled and gone ahead and committed adultery without putting away their wives and that would have been a worse situation leading to a downward spiral of depravity in their society. This could have lead to God doing the same to His chosen people as He did to the Canaanites. This could not be, because God already had plans and the promises He had made to Abraham, which is why Israel (Gods chosen race) could never be totally destroyed and lose their identity. That is why Israel is a nation today.

We have a repeating pattern caused by man. It is part of man's lack of self control that leads to depravity. It takes self-control and listening to the guidance of God to lead to a harmonious society which is respectful of one another. So once again, blame man and not God!!

All the best,

David

[David M]

Hello Richard

I nearly missed this question and post and just happened to come by it.

Hey there David,

Originally Posted by David M
Jesus gave the answer as to why Moses was permitted to write a bill of divorcement.

Your comment leaped out at me because you seem to be implying that the Torah is not the Word of God, but rather the word of a mere man, Moses. When you say that Moses was "permitted" to write the law allowing divorce, you imply that it was his idea and not the will of God. If this is the case, how do we sort out which parts of the Bible are "God's Word" and which parts are the mere opinions of men that can be rejected?

All the best,

Richard

I was not meaning to imply anything, certainly not what you think I was implying. Jesus does not mention God; Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so., but this does not mean that Jesus was excluding God. It is my opinion, since I cannot quote an OT text to say otherwise, but I think after the incident of the water from the rock, Moses would not have done anything without consulting (God in prayer) and getting God to sanction such an act. If God had not compromised and let Moses write the bills of divorcement, we can speculate what might have happened next. As I have commented to Rose (before answering your question), the result could have been that the people went ahead and committed adultery without putting away their wives. This would have lead to a downward spiral of ever increasing depravity, which God steered away from. God could not allow the situation to develop that happened to the Canaanites and God could never do to the Israelites what He did to the Canaanites, because of His promises to Abraham, Issac and Jacob. We are dealing with man-made problem by the free will of man to chose to obey or disobey.

We know what God's ideal for man is and I think on this occasion God compromised in order to keep on track. It is not much different to when God allowed the people to have a king selected of their own people and let the people reject Him from leading them. We are witnessing the problems brought about by men being lead by men; they have rejected God. God is allowing this situation to continue. God is in control and steering events by which His believers can see what is happening. Despite all of what took place in the history of the Children of Israel, God brought about the birth of His Son and all that subsequently Jesus did and what happened to him. By seeing how God has steered the nation of Israel and what has happened to them until this day, this is evidence to me that God is in control fulfilling His plan and bringing about His purpose.

I say he was "permitted" in that Moses would have been asked by the people (men). It was not something he did of his own accord, but the people would have seen that it was Moses replying to their request for a bill of divorcement, which would have Moses's seal on it. I do not know how you can think I was implying it was Moses's idea; it was the people that requested it.

All the best,

David

[Rose]

Hello Rose
I will keep this reply even shorter and just answer your questions.

I do appreciate shorter posts.

God did not need to give laws against slavery and human rights because the laws you want are impilicit in the laws relating to treating thy neighbour as thyself or treating thy neighbour as you want to be treated. There is a difference between slaves and servants. So the employing of servants is OK because that is giving work, food and shelter. Slavery is the abuse of another person. There is nothing in the text to say the the 32,000 virgins were to be taken as slaves. Wives were not slaves and taken as wives was not rape as you want it to be. Neither of us is able to interview the women involved to find out the percentage of those who accepted their roles as wives. Of course I accept that some would object, that is normal in any situation, you never get 100% agreement.

Hi David,

Having a choice to work as a servant for pay is far different that being owned as a slave, which is denying that human equal rights...God gave laws on how to treat slaves, so we know he condoned slavery.

We don't need to interview those women to know that no woman given a choice would choose to become the wife of the man who just murdered her family! Come on David get real! God did not give women equal rights under the law, in fact he gave laws that took away a woman's equal rights. Women and slaves were treated as PROPERTY throughout the Old Testament and were never given equal rights.

I am agreeing with the sentence, it has nothing to do with whether I mind being the executioner of not. If I did not want to be the sole executioner in the way that you are thinking, I would agree to be a joint executioner on the proviso that the method of stoning is used. You will now see the value of stoning from my point of view.

I had to read that sentence twice to believe my eyes! You are saying that you would be a joint executioner provided the method of execution was stoning! I'm sure your reasoning is that it might not be your stone that actually kills the person. Do you have any idea how horribly cruel stoning is? Why would you want to inflict excruciating pain on another human? I am shocked at the hardness of your heart.

I do not understand you either but I will try and answer. I am accepting of God's judgement on the Canaanites. You do not seem to think the Canaanites were the repbrotes they were and did not deserve to be punished/wiped out. I am not sure what you are meaning or implying by "the only reason". I am saying that God used the Israelites as His instrument of destruction and in so doing God tested the obedience of the Israelites. They failed to obey God's instruction to the letter. That is like a national sin for disobedience. The fact that they did not carry out God's instruction to the letter and lets some live, meant that they became idolatrous that much sooner because of the influence that remained. All the problems presented to God are man-made. Stop blaming God and blame man!!

Maybe you can answer this one question for me. What is the difference between the Canaanites who offered there children to Molech and the Hebrews who slaughtered the Canaanites babies along with the men, women and children? Those poor Canaanite children didn't stand a chance...those who didn't get killed by their parents, got killed by the Hebrews.

Releasing convicted murders is a present day fact which is part of our justice system. Some murderers do get life and never released and some do get released. You want murderers locked up so you accept the present-day justice system.

BTW you have have not answered all my questions and I want to know if a murderer escapes prison and subsequenty murders your son; what do you want to happen to that person?

All the best,

David

I already said I do not believe in the death penalty, so my mind is not going to be changed if it is my son who happens to be murdered.

Take care,
Rose