The weird thing in the Judaeo-Christian Bible is that it starts off with the the man leaving his father & mother to cleave or cling to his wife, Gn 2:24., but, from then on, it's the wife, concubine, slave who leaves or is taken from their home to belong to the husband, master, owner. Since Jesus and Paul argue from creation principles, surely creation principles should be echoed in Christian family formation too?
'Heterarchy' is not Latin. I assume others have pointed this out but I can't be bothered to scroll down. Latin for 'other' is 'aliud'. You mean Greek where 'heteros'' is adjectival for 'other' and 'archee' is 'ruler' giving ''rule by others'. Compare ''hierarchy' as 'rule by priesthood' - which, in English, evolved to mean layers of governance and rule of any format since the people in government offices function as gatekeepers to power whether in an atheist dictatorship or a relatively open democracy. It does not mean 'many rule' which would be 'polyarchy'. Now I feel old: I learned Latin from 1963, when I was 8, and Greek from 1968 because I was in the top stream for Latin so we dropped it for a year to try Greek. It was useful for when I became a Christian ten years later as I went out and bought a Greek NT then learned Hebrew. I think you skate over possible motives for Ruth staying with Naomi. Now famine in Judah is ended, she prefers Naomi and what she has understood Judah to be about to life in Moab. Both scripture and archaeology give clues about how Judah might have been preferable to Moab. She wants to get away from Moab. And she wants to go to Judah, possibly in line with Dt 4:6. The story depicts a scenario where Naomi's roots, as exemplified by Boaz and his circle, seem to be the only deeply Mosaic-Joshua-Deuteronomist clan within Judah-Israel when contrasted with what is depicted in Judges.
@ I’m not sure what your point is but please read your Bible carefully. It seems like you’re referring to Matt 19, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about when to DIVORCE, aka “send a wife away”. They want to know when is right to divorce a wife. So Jesus addresses that by saying Moses only allowed them to divorce bc of the hardness of their hearts. So Jesus response is addressing DIVORCE by referencing to Gen 2:24 which only addresses the indissolubility of marriage. He was telling the Pharisees they can’t divorce their wives bc they’re one flesh. Please study 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is very clear about headship and coverings. “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” I Corinthians 11:3 NKJV I think you’re also referring to mark 12:25 which is about marriage in the Law. Jesus is saying in heaven we will not be marrying each other as we will be like angels. Meaning we’ll all be married to HIM, the Bridegroom.
I cannot thank You enough for this video. It is truly wonderful to learn about the context!
Thank you for this video.
The weird thing in the Judaeo-Christian Bible is that it starts off with the the man leaving his father & mother to cleave or cling to his wife, Gn 2:24., but, from then on, it's the wife, concubine, slave who leaves or is taken from their home to belong to the husband, master, owner. Since Jesus and Paul argue from creation principles, surely creation principles should be echoed in Christian family formation too?
'Heterarchy' is not Latin. I assume others have pointed this out but I can't be bothered to scroll down.
Latin for 'other' is 'aliud'. You mean Greek where 'heteros'' is adjectival for 'other' and 'archee' is 'ruler' giving ''rule by others'. Compare ''hierarchy' as 'rule by priesthood' - which, in English, evolved to mean layers of governance and rule of any format since the people in government offices function as gatekeepers to power whether in an atheist dictatorship or a relatively open democracy.
It does not mean 'many rule' which would be 'polyarchy'. Now I feel old: I learned Latin from 1963, when I was 8, and Greek from 1968 because I was in the top stream for Latin so we dropped it for a year to try Greek. It was useful for when I became a Christian ten years later as I went out and bought a Greek NT then learned Hebrew.
I think you skate over possible motives for Ruth staying with Naomi. Now famine in Judah is ended, she prefers Naomi and what she has understood Judah to be about to life in Moab. Both scripture and archaeology give clues about how Judah might have been preferable to Moab. She wants to get away from Moab. And she wants to go to Judah, possibly in line with Dt 4:6. The story depicts a scenario where Naomi's roots, as exemplified by Boaz and his circle, seem to be the only deeply Mosaic-Joshua-Deuteronomist clan within Judah-Israel when contrasted with what is depicted in Judges.
The Bible is a patriarchal book. God, Jesus, man, woman. Both old and New Testament at consistent with this model. It’s the reality of heaven.
So Gn 2: 24 for creation principle in husband-wife relationships. In heaven, male and female don't seem to exist as distinctions
@ I’m not sure what your point is but please read your Bible carefully. It seems like you’re referring to Matt 19, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about when to DIVORCE, aka “send a wife away”. They want to know when is right to divorce a wife. So Jesus addresses that by saying Moses only allowed them to divorce bc of the hardness of their hearts. So Jesus response is addressing DIVORCE by referencing to Gen 2:24 which only addresses the indissolubility of marriage. He was telling the Pharisees they can’t divorce their wives bc they’re one flesh. Please study 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is very clear about headship and coverings. “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
I Corinthians 11:3 NKJV
I think you’re also referring to mark 12:25 which is about marriage in the Law. Jesus is saying in heaven we will not be marrying each other as we will be like angels. Meaning we’ll all be married to HIM, the Bridegroom.