I began listening to this series with a skeptical mind. It has blown me away and brought me to repentant knees. I'm humbled before God and my perception of marriage is changed forever. What great teachings so deep with no hype or gimmicks. True to God's word.
What a blessing! Although everything said wasn't easy to digest, it was all biblically based and fully supported by scripture. #NothingButTheTruth #PraiseGod! God bless you Pastor Johnston for this series and also the series on the 7 Purposes of Marriage. Both series should be watched by any single and/or courting couple contemplating marriage... this is vital information that can ensure that you enter into marriage with a clear and comprehensive knowledge of this God - ordained institution and prayerfully give you the tools to have a successful, fruitful, and happy marriage.
What if the wife, out of a special relationship with a biological brother of hers who is not on speaking terms with her husband, continues to place the brother in her high esteem while claiming herself fully devoted to her husband in a biblical sense?
@ Carrie Lambert The Bible focuses more on wifely duties and more precisely on the influence a woman has on a man , whether good or bad . Male leadership is to be modeled after God's ( Christ) leadership that is a mixture of authority and love . There is not much to say about it , just that a husband must lead his home with wisdom and that he must make sure that he is followed and obeyed .
If the man thrives off of that leadership role, n uses it for his own power, than he will simply ruin it for both he and his wife. He will sink their beautiful love into the void of the bottomless abyss. His leadership role is only to help "them"; it is never for "him". it is merely a means to steer the "relation"-ship. If he remains guided by God, is fair, honest, just, n kind... the ship will built, fortified, n sailed with integrity. If he 'loves' his wife too, their (relation)-ship, will be a "love-ship". Their own little love-boat😍; n they will be sailing ever so closer to love and to God . Their own private Paradise 😏. Please drive carefully...
Its like a row boat... too much, or too little power on one side will only spin you in circles like a whirlpool. If he takes too much power, for "him"... she will become 'passive', n he ..'aggressive'. Rather instead she is the emotional water, n shd feel and be 'calm', and he assertive. They must both manage, maintain, n co-exist as dignified equals. It is a partner-ship (2).
Many Christians today speak about the traditional biblical marriage, but if truth be known, "traditional" marriage is not a biblical concept. In fact, it would be hard to find a modern-day Christian who would actually abide by a truly biblical marriage in practice, as the biblical understanding of marriage meant male ownership of women who existed solely for sexual pleasure and domestic servitude. Upon marriage, a woman’s property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children. A woman became available for men’s possession soon after she reached puberty, usually 11 to 13 years old; that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3. Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men. The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women’s status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow. A woman's dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, wife, slave, ox or donkey” (Ex. 20:17). Because women are excluded from being the subject of this command, the woman-like a house, slave, ox or donkey-is reduced to an object: just another possession, another piece of property that belonged to the man, and thus should not be coveted by another man. There are many ways in which the Bible cannot be a literal reference point or guidebook to modern-day marriages. Because the biblical understanding of the purpose for marriage has been reproduction, marriage could be dissolved by the man if his wife failed to bear his heirs or refused to have sex with him. Besides reproduction, marriage within a patriarchal order also served political and economic means. Marriages during antiquity mainly focused on codifying economic responsibilities and obligations. Little attention was paid to how the couple felt about each other. Wives were chosen from good families not only to secure the legitimacy of a man’s children, but to strengthen political and economic alliances between families, clans, tribes and kingdoms. To ensure that any offspring were the legitimate heirs, the woman was restricted to just one sex partner, her husband. Biblical marriages were endogamous-that is, they occurred within the same extended family or clan-unlike the modern Western concept of exogamous, where unions occur between outsiders. Men could have as many sexual partners as they could afford. The great patriarchs of the faith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, had multiple wives and/or concubines, and delighted themselves with the occasional prostitute (Gen. 38:15). King Solomon alone was recorded to have had over 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). The book of Leviticus, in giving instructions to men wishing to own a harem, provides only one prohibition, which is not to “own” sisters (Lev. 18:18). The Hebrew Bible is clear that men could have multiple sex partners. Wives ensured legitimate heirs; all other sex partners existed for the pleasures of the flesh. A woman, on the other hand, was limited to just one sex partner who ruled over her-unless, of course, she was a prostitute. Biblical marriage was considered valid only if the bride was a virgin. If she was not, then she needed to be executed (Dt. 22:13-21). Marriages could only take place if the spouses were believers (Ezra 9:12). And if the husband were to die before having children, then his brother was required to marry the widow. If he refused, he had to forfeit one of his sandals, be spit on by the widow, and change his name to “House of the Unshoed” (Dt. 25:5-10). As much as we do not want to admit it, marriage is an evolving institution; a social construct that has been changing for the better since biblical times. Those who claim that the biblical model for marriage is one husband and one wife apparently haven’t read the Bible or examined the well-documented sources describing life in antiquity. The sooner we move away from the myth of the so-called traditional biblical marriage, the better prepared we will be to discuss what constitutes a family in the 21st century. ----- The concept of marriage in which women were relegated to property evolved from the Hebrew Bible by the time we get to the New Testament. The New Testament discouraged marriage, placing it secondary to a life of singleness and celibacy. The celibate was considered holier and closer to God. Paul wrote, “The one given in marriage does well, but the one not given in marriage does better” (1 Co. 7:38). In fact, Jesus declared, “It is better not to marry” (Mt. 19:10). Familial ties were not as important as being a follower of Christ, where the prerequisite for discipleship was to “hate one’s father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Lk. 14:26). To be a true Christian came to be understood as permanent celibacy, for abstinence was an outward expression of an inward freedom from the corruptible flesh. Marriage, according to Paul, was for those overwrought with sexual desires and unable to submit the flesh to the spirit by living a celibate life. “But if they lack self-control,” Paul advised, “let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed” (1 Co. 7:9). According to Paul, “It is better for a man and a woman not to touch, but because of fornication, let each have his own wife and each her own husband” (1 Co. 7:1-2). In fairness, these anti-marriage sentiments were probably due to the belief that Christ’s return was imminent. Why distract oneself with marriage and the worldly concerns a family generates when the end of the world was at hand (1 Co. 7:29-34)? Marriage was for those not “spiritual” enough to control their sexual appetites in order to spread the good news of Christ’s impending return. While the Hebrew Bible saw women as property, the New Testament saw them as incubators. The early shapers of Christian thought believed that the only purpose for a woman’s existence was her ability to procreate. Augustine went so far as to claim that it would have been better if God had placed another man in the garden with Adam instead of a woman (the original Adam and Steve?), because another man would have made a more suitable companion. Because of the need for procreation, God instead created Eve (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IX: 5:9). Only through childbearing could a woman be saved, a disturbing understanding of salvation as reiterated by Paul: “It was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing” (1 Ti 2:14-15). Paul, the promoter of salvation solely through grace and not by works, actually implies that unlike men, women are saved through childbearing: a concept rooted in patriarchy. An underlining assumption found throughout the New Testament is that men are physically and morally superior to women. According to 1 Peter, “husbands must treat their wives with consideration, bestowing honor on her as one who, though she may be the weaker vessel, is truly a co-heir to the grace of life” (3:7). Although equal in grace, the purpose for the woman as the “weaker vessel” is to be ruled by the man. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul insisted that women must cover their heads because the woman is the “glory of man.” “For man ... is the image and glory of God,” he wrote specifically. “But the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. And man was not created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Co. 11:7-9). Because man is closer to the spirit, he is a rational subject ordained to rule. And because woman is closer to the flesh, she is an emotional object ordained to be ruled. Thus, subjecting woman to man becomes the natural manifestation of subjecting passion to reason. Paul made this view obvious when he wrote, “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also are wives to be subject to their husbands in everything” (Ep. 5:24). Just as the body must submit to the spirit, which is superior, and the church must submit to Christ, so too must the wife submit to her husband. Ephesians (along with Colossians 3:18-19) set up the marriage relationship in which husbands are commanded to love their wives, while wives are commanded not to love, but submit to, their husbands. Marriage became an arrangement where the man found a person to satisfy his sexual desires, keep his household clean and organized, cook his meals, and provide him with legitimate heirs. ----- The United Nations General Assembly defines "violence against women" as "any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life." The 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women noted that this violence could be perpetrated by assailants of either gender, family members and even the "State" itself. Critics of marriage argue that marriage encourages abuse, exploitation and subordination of women. Common concerns raised today focus on the health and general well-being of women, who, in parts of the world, have virtually no protection in law or in practice, against domestic violence within marriage. It is also nearly impossible for women there to get out of abusive relationships. Abusive practices are maintained and exacerbated by ideologies of ownership and entitlement in some cultures and the well-being of women is undermined by a powerful symbolic act of subordination. According to Gerstel and Sarkisian, domestic violence, isolation, and housework tend to increase for women who sign marriage contracts. Those with lower income draw even fewer benefits from it. Bad marriages, according to Gerstel and Sarkisian, result in higher levels of stress, suicide, hypertension, cancer, and slower wound healing in women. Critics of marriage also argue that it is an institution which incites violence against women, both through acts perpetrated inside marriage (such as beating and rape inside marriage - which are tolerated in some countries and also legal in some countries) and through acts related to marriage traditions and customs (such as honor killings for refusing arranged marriages; forcing unmarried rape victims to marry their rapist/marriage by abduction; or stoning for sex outside marriage). In some parts of the world, the extreme stigma cast on women who have reached a certain age and are still unmarried often leads these women to suicide. Suicide is also a common response of women caught in abusive marriages with no possibility of leaving those marriages. Women who are faced with the prospect of forced marriage may commit suicide. Violence and trafficking related to payment of dowry and bride price are also problems. Dowry deaths especially occur in South Asia, and acid throwing is also a result of disputes related to dowry conflicts. In various countries, married men have authority over their wives. For instance, Yemeni marriage regulations state that a wife must obey her husband and must not leave home without his permission. In Iraq, husbands have a legal right to punish their wives. The criminal code states that there is no crime if an act is committed while exercising a legal right. Examples of legal rights include: "The punishment of a wife by her husband, the disciplining by parents and teachers of children under their authority within certain limits prescribed by law or by custom". In the Democratic Republic of Congo the Family Code states that the husband is the head of the household; the wife owes her obedience to her husband; a wife has to live with her husband wherever he chooses to live; and wives must have their husbands' authorization to bring a case in court or to initiate other legal proceedings. Critics of marriage also argue that it is an institution which contributes to the maintaining of traditional gender roles, thus preventing women from achieving social equality, and reinforcing the idea that women exist to serve men, which in turn increases the abuse of women. They argue that marriage reinforces the traditional paradigm of male-female interaction: subordination of the woman to the man in exchange of subsistence. According to Sheila Jeffreys "the traditional elements of marriage have not completely disappeared in western societies, even in the case of employed, highly educated and well paid professional women". She argues that even such women remain in abusive marriages out of fear of leaving and out of duty. Even in Western countries, married women "feel they have no choice but to stay and endure and may be 'loving to survive". Sexuality in marriage is also an area of concern. In various places, men have sexual authority over their wives, in law and in practice. The men decide when and where to have sex, and wives have no power to stop unwanted sex. In certain countries marital rape is legal, and even where it is illegal it is infrequently reported or prosecuted. Often, married women also cannot stop unwanted pregnancy, because in various countries modern contraception is not available, and in some countries married women need legal permission from the husband to use contraception (and even in countries where the husband's consent is not legally required in practice it is asked for), and abortion is illegal or restricted, and in some countries married women need the consent of husband for abortion. Therefore marriage leads to a situation which allows not only forced sex, but also forced pregnancy, and in some of these countries pregnancy and childbirth remain dangerous because of lack of adequate medical care.The effects of sexual violence inside marriage are exacerbated by the practice of child marriage; in 2013 an 8-years-old Yemeni girl died from internal bleeding after she was raped by her 40-years-old new husband. Sheila Jeffreys argues that the very institution of marriage is based on the idea that heterosexual sex is the absolute right of the man and the absolute duty of the woman; that men are entitled to demand sex on their terms and to coerce sex, and women are not allowed to ever refuse it. Lack of economic opportunity means that wives have no choice but to "allow sexual access to their bodies in return for subsistence". Violence related to female virginity is another problem. In many parts of the world it is socially expected for the bride to be a virgin; if the husband has sex with his wife after marriage and she does not bleed (it is possible for a woman to not bleed when she has sex for the first time), this can end in extreme violence, including an honor killing. The common view of marital life as "private" and outside the sphere of public intervention allows violence to flourish. Elizabeth Brake writes that "“privacy” protects unequal divisions of domestic labor, domestic violence, and exclusion of health coverage for abortion and contraception." Mary Lyndon Shanley writes that police often "ignore complaints of domestic violence because they do not want to “intrude” on the private realm of the married couple". ----- Some critics also assert that marriage will always remain a symbolic institution signifying the subordination of women to men. Clare Chambers points to the sexist traditions surrounding marriage and weddings. "Symbolically, the white wedding asserts that women’s ultimate dream and purpose is to marry, and remains replete with sexist imagery: the father “giving away” the bride; the white dress symbolising the bride’s virginity (and emphasising the importance of her appearance); the vows to obey the husband; the minister telling the husband “you may now kiss the bride” (rather than the bride herself giving permission, or indeed initiating or at least equally participating in the act of kissing); the reception at which, traditionally, all the speeches are given by men; the wife surrendering her own name and taking her husband’s." The history of marriage in relation to women makes it an institution that some critics argue cannot and should not be accepted in the 21st century; to do so would mean to trivialize the abuses it was responsible for. Some critics argue that it is impossible to dissociate marriage from its past. Clare Chambers argues that:"(...) it is impossible to escape the history of the institution. Its status as a tradition ties its current meaning to its past". Past abuses of marriage are sometimes depicted in documentaries. A documentary in Ireland presented the story of elderly women who described their experiences with repeated acts of rape in marriage and the children born from these rapes, during the time when marital rape was not criminalized, contraception, abortion and divorce were all illegal, and the marriage bar restricting married women's employment outside home was in force. Marital rape in Ireland was made illegal in 1990, and divorce was legalized in 1996. ------ The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater, which means mother. Marriage is essentially the exchange of property from one man to another, the woman being the property in question. Marriage has traditionally been used to up the social status of one partner, the man, since simply living with a lover was not an option. Today, however, people can and do live together before marriage and their social status can be raised by such. It is also important to note that most people do not think of an actual marriage; that is, the relationship between two individuals when "getting married", but rather a show of extravagance to family and friends in an effort to cover up insecurities about the relationship itself. Weddings are used to "lock in" your life partner, making it harder for them to leave. The whole system has been flawed from the beginning, though in earlier times it did insure the furthering of the human race. Marriage just isn't an essential component to society any longer; it is only a ceremonial declaration. ----- In the 1700s women were often married by the time they were 13-15, if a woman was not married by the time she turned 25 it was considered a disgrace. The purpose of marriage was not a romantic one as it is in today's society. Instead, marriage was more of a "tool", if you will, to move up both in society and financially (at least for the woman). Once a woman was married she lost her entire identity. She was considered part of her husband's property. If a woman were to run away she would be considered a thief because she stole the clothes she was wearing and herself. The job of the woman was often tiring (middle and high class women were able to share their responsibilities with servants) consisting of: making clothes, making household goods to be sold, making candles, tending to farm animals, tending to the house, doctoring the family when they fell ill, and raising the children, who were also considered part of her husband's property. ----- Abusive boyfriends and husbands think they have the right to attack a woman. These jerks think that when their girlfriends, fianceés, and wives do things men don't like, they feel like they should be able to attack the women they say they love like it's nothing. Well let me tell you something... you no longer DON'T have the RIGHT to brutalize a woman. "Right" means that you have a freedom that can't be taken away from you or regulated. When these people use "right" as in "absolutely necessary or fully regulated" in regards to attacking women, that just scares me and makes me upset. Loved ones may fight and argue sometimes, but it should NEVER come to the point of viciously attacking them. Men who continually treat women they love like crap or like slaves should be thrown in jail for life sentences. There is a concept of tough love, but that is NOT tough love. That's just being a bully, a male chauvinist and a bigot. No man EVER has any right to attack a woman, not in this century at least. No man ever has a right to treat a woman like a slave or as property, at least not in the 21st century. I'm really concerned, scared, and even disgusted when I see shows like Maury and Steve Wilkos when abusive and controlling boyfriends, fiancés, or husbands basically demoralize these women like they're slaves. I hate that chauvinistic mindset that someone has the right to attack the ones they love, especially to brutal limits. One idiot on The Maury Show said something more along the lines of, "women were brought into this world to service men", another claimed that the Bible has passages that sanction female subordination like Ephesians 5:22, another guy on the show even said something like "the American economy is so screwed up because of women" and "one of the biggest mistakes in American history was the 19th Amendment, because a woman stopped being subservient to her man". Some men feel like attacking women is justified. Your mother brought you into this world; would you attack even your own mother? It's just truly deplorable oftentimes how we can live in the present, but have our minds still stuck in the past. For cultural reasons, some Christian men accept the idea that it's normal for a man to hit his wife and that she is no more than a piece of his property.
Angie2343 according to God and Jesus, marriage is second only to God, Adam was alone, and God created a Helper, her name changed after Eden, also the Holy Spirit was named, a helper, Augustine is not in the Bible so what he says is his opinion only, Paul even said in my opinion.
Many facts mixed in with misinterpreting the meaning. God bless you and may we all find wisdom and truth with God leading the way with the Holy Spirit of Truth.
You have made several invalid points with your endless rant. Christianity doesn't believe in your wife is your property just for sex and children, it believes that the man, who is head of the household, is responsible for taking care of, physically, emotionally, and sexually. And because the woman is commanded to submit to their husbands, they are to honor and obey their husbands decisions. Not to be sex slaves, but it's saying that the wife should respect their husbands as if they would have to obey their master if they were slaves back then ..the woman is not to be the head of household but to be the head of keeping the family together through love and love of the Lord. The husband is the head of taking all of the responsibilities of providing a house, shelter, food, instruction, punishments, finances, and to make sure the children and wife are brought up I n the ways if the Lord
I began listening to this series with a skeptical mind. It has blown me away and brought me to repentant knees. I'm humbled before God and my perception of marriage is changed forever. What great teachings so deep with no hype or gimmicks. True to God's word.
We are so blessed that this has helped you. This is why we do what we do.
Wonderful thruth, it helps me a lot, I finally start to understand this important scripture.
This is a wonderful teaching for modern couple - and people of all ages. Thanks!
Absolutely true sir God bless
:) Blessing to you!
Excellent & practical teaching!
What a blessing! Although everything said wasn't easy to digest, it was all biblically based and fully supported by scripture. #NothingButTheTruth #PraiseGod! God bless you Pastor Johnston for this series and also the series on the 7 Purposes of Marriage. Both series should be watched by any single and/or courting couple contemplating marriage... this is vital information that can ensure that you enter into marriage with a clear and comprehensive knowledge of this God - ordained institution and prayerfully give you the tools to have a successful, fruitful, and happy marriage.
Although I dont agree with some points, this was a blessing! :)
sigh, how far we have fallen
Very good, but in some places you have pushed a point a little too far. I may be miss understanding what you stated.
You did not show the verse of the Bible the part God put jewler on the ear so send that verse because it's not on your video
What if the wife, out of a special relationship with a biological brother of hers who is not on speaking terms with her husband, continues to place the brother in her high esteem while claiming herself fully devoted to her husband in a biblical sense?
How do i do if my husband is an unbeliever now?
@ Nhung Nguyen
You treat him as the head of your household and you submit to him .
1 Peter 3
God bless you .
I understand and am in agreement with the teachings for the woman. However, I find the instructions for husbands to lead very lacking.
@ Carrie Lambert
The Bible focuses more on wifely duties and more precisely on the influence a woman has on a man , whether good or bad .
Male leadership is to be modeled after God's ( Christ) leadership that is a mixture of authority and love .
There is not much to say about it , just that a husband must lead his home with wisdom and that he must make sure that he is followed and obeyed .
If the man thrives off of that leadership role, n uses it for his own power, than he will simply ruin it for both he and his wife. He will sink their beautiful love into the void of the bottomless abyss.
His leadership role is only to help "them"; it is never for "him". it is merely a means to steer the "relation"-ship. If he remains guided by God, is fair, honest, just, n kind... the ship will built, fortified, n sailed with integrity. If he 'loves' his wife too, their
(relation)-ship, will be a "love-ship". Their own little love-boat😍; n they will be sailing ever so closer to love and to God . Their own private Paradise 😏.
Please drive carefully...
Its like a row boat... too much, or too little power on one side will only spin you in circles like a whirlpool. If he takes too much power, for "him"... she will become 'passive', n he ..'aggressive'. Rather instead she is the emotional water, n shd feel and be 'calm', and he assertive.
They must both manage, maintain, n co-exist as dignified equals. It is a partner-ship (2).
Many Christians today speak about the traditional biblical marriage, but if truth be known, "traditional" marriage is not a biblical concept.
In fact, it would be hard to find a modern-day Christian who would actually abide by a truly biblical marriage in practice, as the biblical understanding of marriage meant male ownership of women who existed solely for sexual pleasure and domestic servitude.
Upon marriage, a woman’s property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.
A woman became available for men’s possession soon after she reached puberty, usually 11 to 13 years old; that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.
Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men.
The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women’s status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow.
A woman's dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, wife, slave, ox or donkey” (Ex. 20:17).
Because women are excluded from being the subject of this command, the woman-like a house, slave, ox or donkey-is reduced to an object: just another possession, another piece of property that belonged to the man, and thus should not be coveted by another man.
There are many ways in which the Bible cannot be a literal reference point or guidebook to modern-day marriages.
Because the biblical understanding of the purpose for marriage has been reproduction, marriage could be dissolved by the man if his wife failed to bear his heirs or refused to have sex with him.
Besides reproduction, marriage within a patriarchal order also served political and economic means. Marriages during antiquity mainly focused on codifying economic responsibilities and obligations.
Little attention was paid to how the couple felt about each other. Wives were chosen from good families not only to secure the legitimacy of a man’s children, but to strengthen political and economic alliances between families, clans, tribes and kingdoms. To ensure that any offspring were the legitimate heirs, the woman was restricted to just one sex partner, her husband.
Biblical marriages were endogamous-that is, they occurred within the same extended family or clan-unlike the modern Western concept of exogamous, where unions occur between outsiders.
Men could have as many sexual partners as they could afford.
The great patriarchs of the faith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, had multiple wives and/or concubines, and delighted themselves with the occasional prostitute (Gen. 38:15). King Solomon alone was recorded to have had over 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).
The book of Leviticus, in giving instructions to men wishing to own a harem, provides only one prohibition, which is not to “own” sisters (Lev. 18:18). The Hebrew Bible is clear that men could have multiple sex partners. Wives ensured legitimate heirs; all other sex partners existed for the pleasures of the flesh.
A woman, on the other hand, was limited to just one sex partner who ruled over her-unless, of course, she was a prostitute.
Biblical marriage was considered valid only if the bride was a virgin. If she was not, then she needed to be executed (Dt. 22:13-21).
Marriages could only take place if the spouses were believers (Ezra 9:12). And if the husband were to die before having children, then his brother was required to marry the widow. If he refused, he had to forfeit one of his sandals, be spit on by the widow, and change his name to “House of the Unshoed” (Dt. 25:5-10).
As much as we do not want to admit it, marriage is an evolving institution; a social construct that has been changing for the better since biblical times.
Those who claim that the biblical model for marriage is one husband and one wife apparently haven’t read the Bible or examined the well-documented sources describing life in antiquity.
The sooner we move away from the myth of the so-called traditional biblical marriage, the better prepared we will be to discuss what constitutes a family in the 21st century.
-----
The concept of marriage in which women were relegated to property evolved from the Hebrew Bible by the time we get to the New Testament. The New Testament discouraged marriage, placing it secondary to a life of singleness and celibacy.
The celibate was considered holier and closer to God. Paul wrote, “The one given in marriage does well, but the one not given in marriage does better” (1 Co. 7:38). In fact, Jesus declared, “It is better not to marry” (Mt. 19:10).
Familial ties were not as important as being a follower of Christ, where the prerequisite for discipleship was to “hate one’s father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Lk. 14:26).
To be a true Christian came to be understood as permanent celibacy, for abstinence was an outward expression of an inward freedom from the corruptible flesh. Marriage, according to Paul, was for those overwrought with sexual desires and unable to submit the flesh to the spirit by living a celibate life.
“But if they lack self-control,” Paul advised, “let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed” (1 Co. 7:9). According to Paul, “It is better for a man and a woman not to touch, but because of fornication, let each have his own wife and each her own husband” (1 Co. 7:1-2).
In fairness, these anti-marriage sentiments were probably due to the belief that Christ’s return was imminent. Why distract oneself with marriage and the worldly concerns a family generates when the end of the world was at hand (1 Co. 7:29-34)? Marriage was for those not “spiritual” enough to control their sexual appetites in order to spread the good news of Christ’s impending return.
While the Hebrew Bible saw women as property, the New Testament saw them as incubators. The early shapers of Christian thought believed that the only purpose for a woman’s existence was her ability to procreate.
Augustine went so far as to claim that it would have been better if God had placed another man in the garden with Adam instead of a woman (the original Adam and Steve?), because another man would have made a more suitable companion. Because of the need for procreation, God instead created Eve (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IX: 5:9).
Only through childbearing could a woman be saved, a disturbing understanding of salvation as reiterated by Paul: “It was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing” (1 Ti 2:14-15).
Paul, the promoter of salvation solely through grace and not by works, actually implies that unlike men, women are saved through childbearing: a concept rooted in patriarchy.
An underlining assumption found throughout the New Testament is that men are physically and morally superior to women. According to 1 Peter, “husbands must treat their wives with consideration, bestowing honor on her as one who, though she may be the weaker vessel, is truly a co-heir to the grace of life” (3:7).
Although equal in grace, the purpose for the woman as the “weaker vessel” is to be ruled by the man. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul insisted that women must cover their heads because the woman is the “glory of man.”
“For man ... is the image and glory of God,” he wrote specifically. “But the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. And man was not created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Co. 11:7-9).
Because man is closer to the spirit, he is a rational subject ordained to rule. And because woman is closer to the flesh, she is an emotional object ordained to be ruled. Thus, subjecting woman to man becomes the natural manifestation of subjecting passion to reason.
Paul made this view obvious when he wrote, “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also are wives to be subject to their husbands in everything” (Ep. 5:24). Just as the body must submit to the spirit, which is superior, and the church must submit to Christ, so too must the wife submit to her husband.
Ephesians (along with Colossians 3:18-19) set up the marriage relationship in which husbands are commanded to love their wives, while wives are commanded not to love, but submit to, their husbands. Marriage became an arrangement where the man found a person to satisfy his sexual desires, keep his household clean and organized, cook his meals, and provide him with legitimate heirs.
-----
The United Nations General Assembly defines "violence against women" as "any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life." The 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women noted that this violence could be perpetrated by assailants of either gender, family members and even the "State" itself.
Critics of marriage argue that marriage encourages abuse, exploitation and subordination of women. Common concerns raised today focus on the health and general well-being of women, who, in parts of the world, have virtually no protection in law or in practice, against domestic violence within marriage. It is also nearly impossible for women there to get out of abusive relationships. Abusive practices are maintained and exacerbated by ideologies of ownership and entitlement in some cultures and the well-being of women is undermined by a powerful symbolic act of subordination. According to Gerstel and Sarkisian, domestic violence, isolation, and housework tend to increase for women who sign marriage contracts. Those with lower income draw even fewer benefits from it. Bad marriages, according to Gerstel and Sarkisian, result in higher levels of stress, suicide, hypertension, cancer, and slower wound healing in women.
Critics of marriage also argue that it is an institution which incites violence against women, both through acts perpetrated inside marriage (such as beating and rape inside marriage - which are tolerated in some countries and also legal in some countries) and through acts related to marriage traditions and customs (such as honor killings for refusing arranged marriages; forcing unmarried rape victims to marry their rapist/marriage by abduction; or stoning for sex outside marriage). In some parts of the world, the extreme stigma cast on women who have reached a certain age and are still unmarried often leads these women to suicide. Suicide is also a common response of women caught in abusive marriages with no possibility of leaving those marriages. Women who are faced with the prospect of forced marriage may commit suicide. Violence and trafficking related to payment of dowry and bride price are also problems. Dowry deaths especially occur in South Asia, and acid throwing is also a result of disputes related to dowry conflicts.
In various countries, married men have authority over their wives. For instance, Yemeni marriage regulations state that a wife must obey her husband and must not leave home without his permission. In Iraq, husbands have a legal right to punish their wives. The criminal code states that there is no crime if an act is committed while exercising a legal right. Examples of legal rights include: "The punishment of a wife by her husband, the disciplining by parents and teachers of children under their authority within certain limits prescribed by law or by custom". In the Democratic Republic of Congo the Family Code states that the husband is the head of the household; the wife owes her obedience to her husband; a wife has to live with her husband wherever he chooses to live; and wives must have their husbands' authorization to bring a case in court or to initiate other legal proceedings.
Critics of marriage also argue that it is an institution which contributes to the maintaining of traditional gender roles, thus preventing women from achieving social equality, and reinforcing the idea that women exist to serve men, which in turn increases the abuse of women. They argue that marriage reinforces the traditional paradigm of male-female interaction: subordination of the woman to the man in exchange of subsistence. According to Sheila Jeffreys "the traditional elements of marriage have not completely disappeared in western societies, even in the case of employed, highly educated and well paid professional women". She argues that even such women remain in abusive marriages out of fear of leaving and out of duty. Even in Western countries, married women "feel they have no choice but to stay and endure and may be 'loving to survive".
Sexuality in marriage is also an area of concern. In various places, men have sexual authority over their wives, in law and in practice. The men decide when and where to have sex, and wives have no power to stop unwanted sex. In certain countries marital rape is legal, and even where it is illegal it is infrequently reported or prosecuted. Often, married women also cannot stop unwanted pregnancy, because in various countries modern contraception is not available, and in some countries married women need legal permission from the husband to use contraception (and even in countries where the husband's consent is not legally required in practice it is asked for), and abortion is illegal or restricted, and in some countries married women need the consent of husband for abortion. Therefore marriage leads to a situation which allows not only forced sex, but also forced pregnancy, and in some of these countries pregnancy and childbirth remain dangerous because of lack of adequate medical care.The effects of sexual violence inside marriage are exacerbated by the practice of child marriage; in 2013 an 8-years-old Yemeni girl died from internal bleeding after she was raped by her 40-years-old new husband. Sheila Jeffreys argues that the very institution of marriage is based on the idea that heterosexual sex is the absolute right of the man and the absolute duty of the woman; that men are entitled to demand sex on their terms and to coerce sex, and women are not allowed to ever refuse it. Lack of economic opportunity means that wives have no choice but to "allow sexual access to their bodies in return for subsistence".
Violence related to female virginity is another problem. In many parts of the world it is socially expected for the bride to be a virgin; if the husband has sex with his wife after marriage and she does not bleed (it is possible for a woman to not bleed when she has sex for the first time), this can end in extreme violence, including an honor killing.
The common view of marital life as "private" and outside the sphere of public intervention allows violence to flourish. Elizabeth Brake writes that "“privacy” protects unequal divisions of domestic labor, domestic violence, and exclusion of health coverage for abortion and contraception." Mary Lyndon Shanley writes that police often "ignore complaints of domestic violence because they do not want to “intrude” on the private realm of the married couple".
-----
Some critics also assert that marriage will always remain a symbolic institution signifying the subordination of women to men. Clare Chambers points to the sexist traditions surrounding marriage and weddings.
"Symbolically, the white wedding asserts that women’s ultimate dream and purpose is to marry, and remains replete with sexist imagery: the father “giving away” the bride; the white dress symbolising the bride’s virginity (and emphasising the importance of her appearance); the vows to obey the husband; the minister telling the husband “you may now kiss the bride” (rather than the bride herself giving permission, or indeed initiating or at least equally participating in the act of kissing); the reception at which, traditionally, all the speeches are given by men; the wife surrendering her own name and taking her husband’s."
The history of marriage in relation to women makes it an institution that some critics argue cannot and should not be accepted in the 21st century; to do so would mean to trivialize the abuses it was responsible for. Some critics argue that it is impossible to dissociate marriage from its past. Clare Chambers argues that:"(...) it is impossible to escape the history of the institution. Its status as a tradition ties its current meaning to its past". Past abuses of marriage are sometimes depicted in documentaries. A documentary in Ireland presented the story of elderly women who described their experiences with repeated acts of rape in marriage and the children born from these rapes, during the time when marital rape was not criminalized, contraception, abortion and divorce were all illegal, and the marriage bar restricting married women's employment outside home was in force. Marital rape in Ireland was made illegal in 1990, and divorce was legalized in 1996.
------
The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater, which means mother.
Marriage is essentially the exchange of property from one man to another, the woman being the property in question. Marriage has traditionally been used to up the social status of one partner, the man, since simply living with a lover was not an option. Today, however, people can and do live together before marriage and their social status can be raised by such. It is also important to note that most people do not think of an actual marriage; that is, the relationship between two individuals when "getting married", but rather a show of extravagance to family and friends in an effort to cover up insecurities about the relationship itself. Weddings are used to "lock in" your life partner, making it harder for them to leave. The whole system has been flawed from the beginning, though in earlier times it did insure the furthering of the human race. Marriage just isn't an essential component to society any longer; it is only a ceremonial declaration.
-----
In the 1700s women were often married by the time they were 13-15, if a woman was not married by the time she turned 25 it was considered a disgrace. The purpose of marriage was not a romantic one as it is in today's society. Instead, marriage was more of a "tool", if you will, to move up both in society and financially (at least for the woman). Once a woman was married she lost her entire identity. She was considered part of her husband's property. If a woman were to run away she would be considered a thief because she stole the clothes she was wearing and herself. The job of the woman was often tiring (middle and high class women were able to share their responsibilities with servants) consisting of: making clothes, making household goods to be sold, making candles, tending to farm animals, tending to the house, doctoring the family when they fell ill, and raising the children, who were also considered part of her husband's property.
-----
Abusive boyfriends and husbands think they have the right to attack a woman. These jerks think that when their girlfriends, fianceés, and wives do things men don't like, they feel like they should be able to attack the women they say they love like it's nothing. Well let me tell you something... you no longer DON'T have the RIGHT to brutalize a woman. "Right" means that you have a freedom that can't be taken away from you or regulated. When these people use "right" as in "absolutely necessary or fully regulated" in regards to attacking women, that just scares me and makes me upset. Loved ones may fight and argue sometimes, but it should NEVER come to the point of viciously attacking them. Men who continually treat women they love like crap or like slaves should be thrown in jail for life sentences. There is a concept of tough love, but that is NOT tough love. That's just being a bully, a male chauvinist and a bigot.
No man EVER has any right to attack a woman, not in this century at least. No man ever has a right to treat a woman like a slave or as property, at least not in the 21st century. I'm really concerned, scared, and even disgusted when I see shows like Maury and Steve Wilkos when abusive and controlling boyfriends, fiancés, or husbands basically demoralize these women like they're slaves. I hate that chauvinistic mindset that someone has the right to attack the ones they love, especially to brutal limits.
One idiot on The Maury Show said something more along the lines of, "women were brought into this world to service men", another claimed that the Bible has passages that sanction female subordination like Ephesians 5:22, another guy on the show even said something like "the American economy is so screwed up because of women" and "one of the biggest mistakes in American history was the 19th Amendment, because a woman stopped being subservient to her man". Some men feel like attacking women is justified. Your mother brought you into this world; would you attack even your own mother? It's just truly deplorable oftentimes how we can live in the present, but have our minds still stuck in the past.
For cultural reasons, some Christian men accept the idea that it's normal for a man to hit his wife and that she is no more than a piece of his property.
Forgive me friend as I will not be able to reply soon to this post, but will take time to read a bit later. Thank you for your time and response.
Angie2343 according to God and Jesus, marriage is second only to God, Adam was alone, and God created a Helper, her name changed after Eden, also the Holy Spirit was named, a helper, Augustine is not in the Bible so what he says is his opinion only, Paul even said in my opinion.
Many facts mixed in with misinterpreting the meaning. God bless you and may we all find wisdom and truth with God leading the way with the Holy Spirit of Truth.
You have made several invalid points with your endless rant. Christianity doesn't believe in your wife is your property just for sex and children, it believes that the man, who is head of the household, is responsible for taking care of, physically, emotionally, and sexually. And because the woman is commanded to submit to their husbands, they are to honor and obey their husbands decisions. Not to be sex slaves, but it's saying that the wife should respect their husbands as if they would have to obey their master if they were slaves back then ..the woman is not to be the head of household but to be the head of keeping the family together through love and love of the Lord. The husband is the head of taking all of the responsibilities of providing a house, shelter, food, instruction, punishments, finances, and to make sure the children and wife are brought up I n the ways if the Lord
@@nbttnetwork any further response to this comment?
Great video, but women these days wanna wear pants 👎