PDA

View Full Version : What does the bible was say about Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage



Beck
06-11-2011, 06:46 PM
I'm Interested in hearing your reviews on this book by John Coblentz and his approach to understanding of "What does the bible say about Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage" Here's an online source. (http://www.anabaptists.org/books/mdr/before.html)

Rose
06-11-2011, 07:28 PM
I'm Interested in hearing your reviews on this book by John Coblentz and his approach to understanding of "What does the bible say about Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage" Here's an online source. (shttp://www.anabaptists.org/books/mdr/before.html)

Hi Beck,

I tried to go to the link you posted, but Firefox was unable to open that window.

Rose

Beck
06-12-2011, 11:04 AM
Hi Beck,

I tried to go to the link you posted, but Firefox was unable to open that window.

Rose

Thanks Rose, I corrected the link.

Rose
06-12-2011, 01:57 PM
I'm Interested in hearing your reviews on this book by John Coblentz and his approach to understanding of "What does the bible say about Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage" Here's an online source. (http://www.anabaptists.org/books/mdr/before.html)

Hi Beck

From a Biblical point of view I think John Coblentz is wrong in his understanding of non-believers being held accountable for their "marriage sins", as he put it. Marriage sins are no different than any other type of sin according to the Bible; if a person is able to right a wrong done to another it is incumbent upon them to do so, but in the case of marriage (in a free society), most often when divorce happens it is a good thing. One would be hard-pressed to find a case of re-marriage where one of the spouses would want to go back to their ex's (though it does happen occasionally by choice).

Making a stupid mistake in marriage because of immaturity (or any other reason) is not a good reason to ruin your life (and possibly your children's) by staying in a bad marriage. I think the Christian teaching on no divorce or remarriage that some hold to is WRONG, and countless lives have been ruined because of it.

Rose

Beck
06-12-2011, 05:15 PM
Hi Beck

From a Biblical point of view I think John Coblentz is wrong in his understanding of non-believers being held accountable for their "marriage sins", as he put it. Marriage sins are no different than any other type of sin according to the Bible; if a person is able to right a wrong done to another it is incumbent upon them to do so, but in the case of marriage (in a free society), most often when divorce happens it is a good thing. One would be hard-pressed to find a case of re-marriage where one of the spouses would want to go back to their ex's (though it does happen occasionally by choice).

Making a stupid mistake in marriage because of immaturity (or any other reason) is not a good reason to ruin your life (and possibly your children's) by staying in a bad marriage. I think the Christian teaching on no divorce or remarriage that some hold to is WRONG, and countless lives have been ruined because of it.

Rose

I have this book some where, but now I can't fine it. Anyway I think over all he makes come good points, but as you mentioned it hard press to call one to be restored to the first mate although that does happen.

I think what is interesting is I would agree with him that God recognizes there sins. If a case be that a unbelieving man married a woman and then divorced her and then married another woman. Which is very common today. If then the man got saved of his sins which would be adultery I'm guessing. Can he remain with this second woman as his wife and remain without sin?

I would agree with you that some Christian teachings on No divorce is wrong, but I'm not sure on the remarriage.

Here's the full content page for the book source content (http://www.anabaptists.org/books/mdr/index.html#contents)

Rose
06-12-2011, 07:32 PM
I have this book some where, but now I can't fine it. Anyway I think over all he makes come good points, but as you mentioned it hard press to call one to be restored to the first mate although that does happen.

I think what is interesting is I would agree with him that God recognizes there sins. If a case be that a unbelieving man married a woman and then divorced her and then married another woman. Which is very common today. If then the man got saved of his sins which would be adultery I'm guessing. Can he remain with this second woman as his wife and remain without sin?

I would agree with you that some Christian teachings on No divorce is wrong, but I'm not sure on the remarriage.

Here's the full content page for the book source content (http://www.anabaptists.org/books/mdr/index.html#contents)

In my mind the only valid definition of adultery is when a married individual has sexual relations with someone other than their spouse.

The Bible cannot be used as a moral guide for adultery, since what was considered adultery for a woman was not considered so for a man. Take the case of Solomon's 300 concubines, those were women he was not married to, yet he had sexual relations with them. Also look at David and Bathsheba...he should have been stoned for his adulterous behavior, yet he was allowed to marry Bathsheba after he had her husband Uriah killed. The only punishment that David received from God was the death of his innocent child.

With cases like that how could anyone use the Bible as a moral guidebook. Scripture runs the whole gamete from allowing men like Solomon to have hundreds of wives, to the Apostle Paul advising believers to remain unmarried.

Rose

CWH
06-12-2011, 07:47 PM
I have this book some where, but now I can't fine it. Anyway I think over all he makes come good points, but as you mentioned it hard press to call one to be restored to the first mate although that does happen.

I think what is interesting is I would agree with him that God recognizes there sins. If a case be that a unbelieving man married a woman and then divorced her and then married another woman. Which is very common today. If then the man got saved of his sins which would be adultery I'm guessing. Can he remain with this second woman as his wife and remain without sin?

I would agree with you that some Christian teachings on No divorce is wrong, but I'm not sure on the remarriage.

Here's the full content page for the book source content (http://www.anabaptists.org/books/mdr/index.html#contents)

I agree that adultery and remarriages are common nowadays and didn't Jesus called this generation the adulterous and sinful generation:

Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

Mark 8:38
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Remarriages except for sexual immorality and looking lustfully at women are also considered as adultery:

Matthew 4:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Luckily, Jesus did not say in verse 30,"And if your penis causes you to stumble, cut it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose your penis than for your whole body to be thrown into hell".:lol: Didymus, the well-trained man, where are you?:lol:.....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose
Didymus,

If you have never been married....how can you be well trained? That only comes from experience...

Rose

Didymus replied:
I have had girlfriends. So much of what I said is from what I learned from them. Other things I learned by being educated by other men.

Many Blessings.

Beck
06-12-2011, 08:21 PM
In my mind the only valid definition of adultery is when a married individual has sexual relations with someone other than their spouse.
I would agree, but dosen't the bible use both adultery and fornication as spiritual rather than always an sexual relationship?



The Bible cannot be used as a moral guide for adultery, since what was considered adultery for a woman was not considered so for a man. Take the case of Solomon's 300 concubines, those were women he was not married to, yet he had sexual relations with them. Also look at David and Bathsheba...he should have been stoned for his adulterous behavior, yet he was allowed to marry Bathsheba after he had her husband Uriah killed. The only punishment that David received from God was the death of his innocent child.

With cases like that how could anyone use the Bible as a moral guidebook. Scripture runs the whole gamete from allowing men like Solomon to have hundreds of wives, to the Apostle Paul advising believers to remain unmarried.

Rose

Is'nt that what Jesus was indicating to the pharisees that whosoever put away his wife commit adultery as well the man that would marry her that is put away?

I understand in the OT that there where many differences, but again isn't that what Jesus stated that at the first it was not so, but becasue of their heart God allowed Moses to give a letter of divorcement.

Looking at Mark 10:11-12 it would seem that both sides whether the man or the woman put away their mate and remarry they commit adultery.

Beck
06-12-2011, 08:35 PM
I agree that adultery and remarriages are common nowadays and didn't Jesus called this generation the adulterous and sinful generation:

Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.' Jesus then left them and went away.


Mark 8:38
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.'

In these terms the use of adultery and adulterous is about their spiritual condition not that they where a generation of sexual perverts.



Remarriages except for sexual immorality and looking lustfully at women are also considered as adultery:

Matthew 4:27 'You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.31 'It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
In true context when looking at a woman it should have read, looking at a 'wife (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1135&t=KJV)' [Strongs=G1135]to lust. How else would one commit adultery?

Rose
06-12-2011, 08:50 PM
I would agree, but dosen't the bible use both adultery and fornication as spiritual rather than always an sexual relationship?
Yes, in the Bible lusting in ones heart after another is also considered adultery.




Is'nt that what Jesus was indicating to the pharisees that whosoever put away his wife commit adultery as well the man that would marry her that is put away?

I understand in the OT that there where many differences, but again isn't that what Jesus stated that at the first it was not so, but becasue of their heart God allowed Moses to give a letter of divorcement.

Looking at Mark 10:11-12 it would seem that both sides whether the man or the woman put away their mate and remarry they commit adultery.

Like I said, the Bible has both extremes when it comes to marriage. On one hand the Old is totally permissive when it comes to men divorcing their wives whenever they want and how many wives they can have, though it was never the case for women...whereas in the New the idea of celibacy is promoted.

Seems to me people need to use their own judgment on matters of divorce and remarriage.

Rose

CWH
06-12-2011, 08:58 PM
[QUOTE=Beck;32451]In these terms the use of adultery and adulterous is about their spiritual condition not that they where a generation of sexual perverts.
Beck, we should look at both sides literal and spiritual. To look at it only spiritually contradicts your statement on why God allowed Moses to give a letter of divorcement:


I understand in the OT that there where many differences, but again isn't that what Jesus stated that at the first it was not so, but becasue of their heart God allowed Moses to give a letter of divorcement.



In true context when looking at a woman it should have read, looking at a 'wife (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1135&t=KJV)' [Strongs=G1135]to lust. How else would one commit adultery?

The passage should be read as looking at a (married) woman with sex in his mind has already committed adultery in his heart. On the man's point of view, it will not matter to a man with sex in his mind if the woman is married, engaged or single. And how would a man knows if the woman he is looking at lustfully is married, engaged or single?

Many Blessings.

Beck
06-13-2011, 06:03 AM
Yes, in the Bible lusting in ones heart after another is also considered adultery.


Like I said, the Bible has both extremes when it comes to marriage. On one hand the Old is totally permissive when it comes to men divorcing their wives whenever they want and how many wives they can have, though it was never the case for women...whereas in the New the idea of celibacy is promoted.

Seems to me people need to use their own judgment on matters of divorce and remarriage.

Rose

I understand what you're saying, but would that give a reason to negate what the bible says about marriage? My thought would be yes the old was totally permissive, but again wasn't the old a school master for the new? So yes when reading there would be two spectrums.

Taking the beatitudes Jesus spoke of 'Ye have heard it said', but then goes on to say 'I say unto you'. I would think Jesus is saying that the old is passing away and the new covenant is this, which is a matter of the heart. No more shall a man put away his wife for another....Now there alot more that could be said, but I stop there, but I would hope you can see my point.

As my point in the new covenant era both the man or the woman commit adultery by putting away there mate and marring another. So I don't see it one sided any more.

Beck
06-13-2011, 06:23 AM
Beck, we should look at both sides literal and spiritual. To look at it only spiritually contradicts your statement on why God allowed Moses to give a letter of divorcement:

CWH, that's what I was trying to point out in how you used thoses terms, so yes I agree. It seem you used thoses terms as literal sexual adultery, but reading the context is appears it's an spiritual adultery that Jesus refered to the pharisees.
Jesus wasn't speaking about marriage in those cases, but was addressing in Matthew 19 concerning marriage and putting away.


The passage should be read as looking at a (married) woman with sex in his mind has already committed adultery in his heart. On the man's point of view, it will not matter to a man with sex in his mind if the woman is married, engaged or single. And how would a man knows if the woman he is looking at lustfully is married, engaged or single?

Many Blessings.

Jesus was telling the multitudes 'Ye have heard it said' Thou shalt not commit adultery. Sex outside of marriage.This is the context.

If this be the case for a single man when looking upon a single woman this wouldn't be what Jesus was addressing. But more toward the single man and/or married looking at another man's wife to lust in his heart. In saying this man don't need to lay with the married woman to commit adultery for he has areally in his heart. For what is in the heart of man defile the man. Jesus used the word adultery rather than fornication refering back to the commandment.

Rose
06-13-2011, 08:09 AM
CWH, that's what I was trying to point out in how you used thoses terms, so yes I agree. It seem you used thoses terms as literal sexual adultery, but reading the context is appears it's an spiritual adultery that Jesus refered to the pharisees.
Jesus wasn't speaking about marriage in those cases, but was addressing in Matthew 19 concerning marriage and putting away.


Jesus was telling the multitudes 'Ye have heard it said' Thou shalt not commit adultery. Sex outside of marriage.This is the context.

If this be the case for a single man when looking upon a single woman this wouldn't be what Jesus was addressing. But more toward the single man and/or married looking at another man's wife to lust in his heart. In saying this man don't need to lay with the married woman to commit adultery for he has areally in his heart. For what is in the heart of man defile the man. Jesus used the word adultery rather than fornication refering back to the commandment.

Jesus took the whole of the law and applied it to the thoughts and intents of ones heart, which is basically taking the commandment of thou shalt not covet and applying it to everything. Also we are told not to hate our enemies, or those that curse us, but rather to bless them.

What I see happening in the 1st century is that Judaism had gotten so crushed under the bondage of the law that when Jesus came his teachings radically changed the whole concept of law-keeping to one of "loving others as yourself", and then applied it in an extreme manner to try and bring balance back to Judaism. Remember, Jesus first came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and from there the message was spread to the world.

Balance is crucial in any system for there to be growth, and the Jewish sacrificial system had degraded to the point were it was on the verge of becoming extinct. What saved the concept of the one god Yahweh, is the few who followed the path of Jesus, thus swinging the pendulum to the positive side and bringing balance back, allowing growth.

My whole premise for the Bible NOT being the word of God, maintains that because of the imbalance of the Bible toward the male it cannot be a representation of a god given system. A true system giving by "God" would not lay a foundation that is totally skewed toward the male...a true "God" by his very nature MUST be neutral, which is clearly not what we see in the Bible.

Rose

TheForgiven
06-14-2011, 11:59 AM
Jesus took the whole of the law and applied it to the thoughts and intents of ones heart, which is basically taking the commandment of thou shalt not covet and applying it to everything. Also we are told not to hate our enemies, or those that curse us, but rather to bless them.

What I see happening in the 1st century is that Judaism had gotten so crushed under the bondage of the law that when Jesus came his teachings radically changed the whole concept of law-keeping to one of "loving others as yourself", and then applied it in an extreme manner to try and bring balance back to Judaism. Remember, Jesus first came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and from there the message was spread to the world.

Balance is crucial in any system for there to be growth, and the Jewish sacrificial system had degraded to the point were it was on the verge of becoming extinct. What saved the concept of the one god Yahweh, is the few who followed the path of Jesus, thus swinging the pendulum to the positive side and bringing balance back, allowing growth.

My whole premise for the Bible NOT being the word of God, maintains that because of the imbalance of the Bible toward the male it cannot be a representation of a god given system. A true system giving by "God" would not lay a foundation that is totally skewed toward the male...a true "God" by his very nature MUST be neutral, which is clearly not what we see in the Bible.
Rose

My sweat sister Rose. I wouldn't say that the Bible is skewed towards the male. I think men merely misunderstand, or misinterpret the males role in the Bible. It is the weak minded male who assumes that when Paul states, "For the man is the head of the house hold", this doesn't mean he is the sole authority, as though he were to be treated like a king. It merely means that he is the responsible one; the one who thinks in place for the family pertaining to worshiping God. But does this mean his wife and children are beneath him? Of course not. They are all one body. The wife is joined with her husband, and the husband joined with her wife. By human instincts, the male feels compelled to adore his wife, and look upon her as the weaker partner, always in need of his protection. And trust me; men want that feeling; men want to know that their wives adore them as well, and depend on them for support and protection. A man who loves his wife will swim through shark infested waters to ensure the safety and care of his wife and children. After all, even though he may represent the head of the body, the chest, leg, arm, feet are no less important. Without the feet, man cannot walk; without the hand, man cannot feel; without the chest, man would have no heart. And so you see, when a man and woman are together, they form one body, and she is just as important as the man. I've always said that it's not 50/50, but 100/100, when it comes to husband and wife.

Now with regards to the Church, I understand that women were not given high roles when it comes to leading the flock. But that depends on how you look at it. Who did God pick to birth His Son? Joseph? :lol: Nope, because man would have ran off like a chicken being chased by a pack of wolves. :lol:
God chose a woman to give birth to His Son, and to me, that is one of the highest roles any human could ever hold with God. Moses was led by God, Solomon blessed by God, and the children of Israel became known as God's chosen people. But none of those things, in my opinion, could even come close to the role that a single woman played in bringing salvation to mankind; giving birth to Son begotten of God. How beautiful it must have been to be called the mother of God, or how magestic it must have been for the singers to say, "blessed is the fruit of they womb...." She raised, nursed, and cared for the Son of Man. I mean, you can't beat Mary's role in the Bible, except of course Jesus Himself. And so women are just as important as men.

Now when it comes ot the Church, Paul says it's because woman was deceived first, and then man, that women were not permitted to speak. But this was in reference to talking in tongues. I used to joke around about this, to show the gullible man in action from day one, when he said, "She made me do it!" :lol: But that's just the ignorance and forwardness of man for ya.

Rest assured sister Rose that you are just as important as Henry; you both make up one body, and are a team.

Finally, what does the Bible say about marriage, divorce, and re-marriage? Well, let me first say that I'm guilt of this sin. My first marriage ended in divorce from adultery. But you want to know the real reason why my wife committed adultery? Because I was once a male shovenist pig who, like many other ignorant males, usurped the male authoritative figure as king, "DO WHAT I SAY". So I don't blame her for leaving me into the arms of another man. The two are still together, but he too was married to another Church member. So all four of us (his ex-wife, and my ex-wife) are all guilty of adultery. I remarried in 1999 to someone else I met and we've been together since. Yet I know that I'm guilty of adultery because my ex-wife is still alive. According to scripture, couples who separate because of adultery are not free to marry until the other dies, or else remain separated, with the glimmer of hope of a reunion. That rarely happens though.


Hope I didn't bore you guys to death. :lol:

God bless.

Joe

Beck
06-15-2011, 01:09 PM
Jesus took the whole of the law and applied it to the thoughts and intents of ones heart, which is basically taking the commandment of thou shalt not covet and applying it to everything. Also we are told not to hate our enemies, or those that curse us, but rather to bless them.

What I see happening in the 1st century is that Judaism had gotten so crushed under the bondage of the law that when Jesus came his teachings radically changed the whole concept of law-keeping to one of "loving others as yourself", and then applied it in an extreme manner to try and bring balance back to Judaism. Remember, Jesus first came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and from there the message was spread to the world.

Balance is crucial in any system for there to be growth, and the Jewish sacrificial system had degraded to the point were it was on the verge of becoming extinct. What saved the concept of the one god Yahweh, is the few who followed the path of Jesus, thus swinging the pendulum to the positive side and bringing balance back, allowing growth.

Rose, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. The whole purpose of the Messiah Jesus was to bring light unto a darken world. The laws where given to show men their faults. How else would they known?

That's the school master that starts out on the ground level and develops the knowlegde of good and evil, but dosen't do anything to help reach or fullfill it's purpose. That's the reason the Messiah must take up his cross of death, so the Comforter would come unto man. Through the Spirit of God the man then could walk by the Spirit and not Flesh. So in any case I see this as a matter of growth for the law unto the Spirit of the law.

This I beleive is what Jesus was indicating to the Pharisees that at first it wasn't so that a man could put away his wife, but only becasue of their harden hearts that Moses suffered them to put away their wifes. By God given the Holy Spirit and through the the commandment of love there would be in their hearts love for their wifes. Then when Jesus said, I say unto you, that whosoever then puts away his wife and marries another commit adultery...As I understand it the only exception would be that the man found his betrothed wife unclean as on the day of consummation of the marriage. Here this man was then allowed to put her way: Case and point being Joseph and Mary.



My whole premise for the Bible NOT being the word of God, maintains that because of the imbalance of the Bible toward the male it cannot be a representation of a god given system. A true system giving by "God" would not lay a foundation that is totally skewed toward the male...a true "God" by his very nature MUST be neutral, which is clearly not what we see in the Bible.

Rose

It would seem all throughout the stores/books of the laws and prophets they come to reveal the Messiah promised to the people of Israel. Within the gospels and acts of the apostles it would seem to be again revealing the fullfillment of the promised Messiah. So in that sense I can see the workings of God even within the Biblewheel itself is proof that God had a hand it writting and placing it together.

I would also think that the God that is represented isn't protrayed as being Neutral at all. So why would anyone want a God that is neutral? So I don't see how you Rose can evaluate the whole bible by male and female and then say it can't be from God! I agree man wrote history, poems and prophesy., but even with that God, how every you describe God, had a hand in placing it all together. I guess he should have used the Edit button. :lol:

Rose
06-15-2011, 04:43 PM
I would also think that the God that is represented isn't portrayed as being Neutral at all. So why would anyone want a God that is neutral? So I don't see how you Rose can evaluate the whole bible by male and female and then say it can't be from God! I agree man wrote history, poems and prophesy., but even with that God, how every you describe God, had a hand in placing it all together. I guess he should have used the Edit button. :lol:

Hi Beck,

A true creator god would be gender-neutral and balanced...meaning neither male or female. My premise is that because the god of the Bible is not gender-neutral and portrayed as a masculine warrior god, with a bias towards the male and against the female, it strongly appears that Yahweh was created in the minds of men and fashioned after themselves.

All the Best,
Rose

Beck
06-16-2011, 08:52 PM
Hi Beck,

A true creator god would be gender-neutral and balanced...meaning neither male or female. My premise is that because the god of the Bible is not gender-neutral and portrayed as a masculine warrior god, with a bias towards the male and against the female, it strongly appears that Yahweh was created in the minds of men and fashioned after themselves.

All the Best,
Rose

I'm not sure I follow you line of reasoning from Mark 10:11-12 It seem to be neutral or even on both sides, the man put away his wife or the woman put away her husband both would be consider adultery. So at lease in this context God show's no bias.

Rose
06-16-2011, 09:57 PM
I'm not sure I follow you line of reasoning from Mark 10:11-12 It seem to be neutral or even on both sides, the man put away his wife or the woman put away her husband both would be consider adultery. So at lease in this context God show's no bias.

One must go back to the law of Moses from which Jesus was drawing. In the Law of Moses, stated in the Bible to be given from God, the man was allowed to divorce his wife if she lost favor in his eyes, that same privilege was not given to a woman.
Deut. 24:1-2 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

The Old Testament is the context from which we must begin to understand the nature of the "God" of the Bible, and from that context we see that "God" does indeed have a bias toward the male. This "God" of the Old Testament is the same God that Jesus calls his father which is definitely not a gender-neutral god.

Yahweh in the Old Testament is presented as a masculine, dominator god who holds a double standard when it comes to women...what is allowed for men is not allowed for women. In fact women were considered the property of the man, by the standard set forth by Yahweh. These are issues that must be dealt with in order to come to any real understanding of who the God of the Bible really is.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
06-16-2011, 10:48 PM
I'm not sure I follow you line of reasoning from Mark 10:11-12 It seem to be neutral or even on both sides, the man put away his wife or the woman put away her husband both would be consider adultery. So at lease in this context God show's no bias.
That's fascinating ... I was under the impression that the Bible never said a woman could divorce her husband. I thought only men could divorce their wives. I'm gonna look into this more.

:signthankspin:

Beck
06-17-2011, 08:51 AM
One must go back to the law of Moses from which Jesus was drawing. In the Law of Moses, stated in the Bible to be given from God, the man was allowed to divorce his wife if she lost favor in his eyes, that same privilege was not given to a woman.
Deut. 24:1-2 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

The Old Testament is the context from which we must begin to understand the nature of the "God" of the Bible, and from that context we see that "God" does indeed have a bias toward the male. This "God" of the Old Testament is the same God that Jesus calls his father which is definitely not a gender-neutral god.

Yahweh in the Old Testament is presented as a masculine, dominator god who holds a double standard when it comes to women...what is allowed for men is not allowed for women. In fact women were considered the property of the man, by the standard set forth by Yahweh. These are issues that must be dealt with in order to come to any real understanding of who the God of the Bible really is.

Rose

As I believe the Old Testament Laws were one spectrum that Jesus said that what God joined together was made one. Then no one can pull them apart because they are of one flesh. This was the case at the first according to Jesus. What Jesus and the New Testament shines light on is the Love, Marriage of male and female as becoming one flesh. The question was asked to Jesus why then the laws of Moses which allowed [suffered] a letter of divorcement? Jesus indicated that it was their hearts. Showing the lack of the Spirit of God to follow the law of marriage.

Therefore through the Spirit of God with the coming of the New Testament it creates this new heart that no longer wants to put away his wife, but to honor her and cherish her as part of is own body. So what you see as a double standard was only allowed by God becasue of the hearts of man, but in time God would give the Holy Spirit to dwell in their hearts and from this new creation love is the center. That love is to show through in how man deals with man and woman. I believe Paul in Ephesians gave an clear picture of this the relationship between Christ and the church an picture of an relationship of husband and wife. Also 1 John speaks about this new commandment, but not an new one, but an old one and that is love.

So really the Old Testament of the Laws is only a school master to the New Testament where we no longer have those laws written down on stones, but rather now have them written down on our hearts. That's much different than what Jesus told the Pharisees about their hearts that wanted to put their wife's away and take up another. So I would hope you can see the growth or progression of the heart's of man by the Spirit of the New Covenant.

Beck
06-17-2011, 09:06 AM
That's fascinating ... I was under the impression that the Bible never said a woman could divorce her husband. I thought only men could divorce their wives. I'm gonna look into this more.

:signthankspin:

I took that everyone understood that point. The book of Mark seem to be pointed toward an audience of Gentiles or at lease Hellenistic churches. In so when we read where the woman is said to put away her husband that is was also adultery.

As for Matthew's account his books seem to follow Mark's in many ways but pointed to an audience of Jews. In so much with in this topic Matthew refers to an exception [save only] for fornication. Which the Jewish audience would readly known from Deu.22:13-21 and there after Moses given the letter of divorcement [putting away] Deu.241-4.

throwback
06-17-2011, 09:30 AM
Those of us who believe the Bible to be true need to first make sure we know and understand its message and once we have done that, we need to be honest with the world about what the books teach. As it pertains to the man/woman relationship with one another, the books of the Bible both old and newer do seem to indicate that the bridegroom and husband are in a sense the owners of the bride and wife respectively. In the household, according to scripture there is a hierarchy. You have the husband/father followed by the wife/mother, then there are the children below those parties.

Nowhere that I am aware of are women given the permission to put away their husbands for any reason as apparently according to the marriage agreement though the marriage is a partnership, the husband in a real sense is the "possessor" of the wife in a way that she is not of him.

So in summation the scriptures seem to indicate that women are to be viewed as the property of their husband or fiance' in much the same light as children are considered the property of their parents. (So those who would compare the biblical value of women to livestock please hush). Husbands have authority over their wives and have the responsibility to take care of the needs of their wifes and in addition to that are called to be understanding of their wives recognizing that she is different from him.

Rose
06-17-2011, 10:03 AM
Those of us who believe the Bible to be true need to first make sure we know and understand its message and once we have done that, we need to be honest with the world about what the books teach. As it pertains to the man/woman relationship with one another, the books of the Bible both old and newer do seem to indicate that the bridegroom and husband are in a sense the owners of the bride and wife respectively. In the household, according to scripture there is a hierarchy. You have the husband/father followed by the wife/mother, then there are the children below those parties.

Nowhere that I am aware of are women given the permission to put away their husbands for any reason as apparently according to the marriage agreement though the marriage is a partnership, the husband in a real sense is the "possessor" of the wife in a way that she is not of him.

So in summation the scriptures seem to indicate that women are to be viewed as the property of their husband or fiance' in much the same light as children are considered the property of their parents. (So those who would compare the biblical value of women to livestock please hush). Husbands have authority over their wives and have the responsibility to take care of the needs of their wifes and in addition to that are called to be understanding of their wives recognizing that she is different from him.

You are absolutely right, that is exactly what the Bible teaches! Now, maybe you can understand why I do not believe the Bible is the word of God. With such an obvious male bias, there is no way a creator who is supposedly responsible for the existence of the universe - which includes the male/female balance of all life - could be the masculine, warrior god, Yahweh portrayed in the Bible.

A book that is so full of inequality, and imbalance skewed towards the male could only come from the minds of men!

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
06-17-2011, 10:30 AM
Those of us who believe the Bible to be true need to first make sure we know and understand its message and once we have done that, we need to be honest with the world about what the books teach. As it pertains to the man/woman relationship with one another, the books of the Bible both old and newer do seem to indicate that the bridegroom and husband are in a sense the owners of the bride and wife respectively. In the household, according to scripture there is a hierarchy. You have the husband/father followed by the wife/mother, then there are the children below those parties.

Nowhere that I am aware of are women given the permission to put away their husbands for any reason as apparently according to the marriage agreement though the marriage is a partnership, the husband in a real sense is the "possessor" of the wife in a way that she is not of him.

So in summation the scriptures seem to indicate that women are to be viewed as the property of their husband or fiance' in much the same light as children are considered the property of their parents. (So those who would compare the biblical value of women to livestock please hush). Husbands have authority over their wives and have the responsibility to take care of the needs of their wifes and in addition to that are called to be understanding of their wives recognizing that she is different from him.
Excellent! I love honesty. I get quite disgusted when folks try to "defend" the Bible by denying what it plainly states. :thumb:

But as for your request that we who see the biblical value of women as similar to that of livestock should "hush" - I cannot yet remain silent on this point. There seems to be plenty of evidence that suggests a strong overlap of the concepts of "women" and "property." Perhaps I am wrong and you will correct me. Consider the Tenth Commandment:

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house [property], thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife [not property?], nor his manservant [property], nor his maidservant [property], nor his ox [property], nor his ass [property], nor any thing that is thy neighbour's [property].
EVERY ITEM listed in the Tenth Commandment is the "property" of the male "neighbor." This commandment doesn't even apply to women because they don't have "wives."

Likewise, consider this law which stipulates a father must be financially compensated for his "lost property" if a man rapes his daughter:

Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 "then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
But what about the woman who was forcibly "SEIZED" (raped)? How is it that she is sentenced to a life of servitude to her rapist? This law does not treat her like a human being at all. The fact that the woman is treated as property is confirmed by the fact that the penalty of rape depends upon who owns the woman!

Deut 22:23 A man who rapes a betrothed virgin would be killed.
Deut 22:28 A man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin would be fined fifty shekels.

The implications are perfectly clear. The penalty is based on who OWNS the woman! [Note: Some folks have argued that this was not a rape, but rather a seduction resulting in consensual sex. We discussed this in the thread called Are some laws of the Bible immoral? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=27099#post27099).]

Another case when women were classed along with cattle is seen when the 32,000 young virgins were listed along with all the other war "booty" (an unfortunate pun in this case):

Numbers 31:31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 32 The booty remaining from the plunder, which the men of war had taken, was six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, 33 seventy-two thousand cattle, 34 sixty-one thousand donkeys, 35 and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of women who had not known a man intimately. 36 And the half, the portion for those who had gone out to war, was in number three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep; 37 and the LORD's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and seventy-five. 38 The cattle were thirty-six thousand, of which the LORD's tribute was seventy-two. 39 The donkeys were thirty thousand five hundred, of which the LORD's tribute was sixty-one.
So there it is - the women are listed right along with the sheep, cattle, and donkeys.

It's not for no reason that the Jewish men would pray every morning "I think thee O Lord that you have not made me a Gentile, a slave, or a woman."

Beck
06-18-2011, 07:14 AM
:lol: Some how all threads here of late lead to Male domination over Female. By the way Richard your post was excellent.:thumb: