• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

What constitutes the marriage bed?

What Mark is hitting upon is relevant. It would seem as if the greatest amount of oppression comes from the misguided religionists.

In fact, I think all of the dope laws that have resulted in exploding prison populations can be traced back to the misguided religionists of the 1800s.


Baptist bettys that were getting their granny panties all in a wad because their husbands were out playing cards and drinking whiskey in the saloons. Those women got their pastors up and went down their and burnt them saloons to the ground and shamed those hussey women inside and this is where the hyper moralistic Hillary Clinton type of government-knows-best mentality really results from.

Feminism sprang from way back when the jews began to think that the woman was spiritually superior to the man because the man was made from DIRT but the woman was not.
 
The primary emphasis, a sort of first things first in marriage, is on the woman, obeying the husband, him being her Lord (Peter says Sara does not call Abram "Lord" by accident, but for a reason) and her being his help. For the husband's part, he is commanded to love his wife. I always found the latter interesting, since it implies, with little room to do otherwise, that love CAN BE commanded. At least of men.

That means when you don't "feel" like you "love your wife anymore" you're just flat wrong. For a while I despaired of "loving" my wife, thinking it was a feeling. When I realized it was an action commanded of me, I started having that "lost that loving feeling," feeling, less and less. Now I can't remember when I last "felt" that way. It was certainly a long time ago.

Marriage as outlined in scripture is a covenant and/or contract. That agreement is defined BY GOD and is not subject to amendment. In it a man is to love his wife, a woman is to obey her husband. It is not to be destroyed in the lifetime of either party, but if it is, it should only be destroyed for sexual infidelity on the part of the woman. To divorce a wife because we can, when she is not unfaithful is a sin. To sin the sin of adultery on the part of the woman is a sin punishable with divorce (which is merciful considering the Biblical alternative).

Marriages ideally are arranged by parents, at least, the first time. After a first marriage, a wife or husband becomes something of a free agent (an exception would be levirate marriage).

A marriage not arranged by parties with the power to contract is not a marriage. It may be a husband/wife arrangement, and completely moral, but it is not a marriage.

Marriages with unbelievers are over the instant the unbeliever deserts the believer, indeed it is questionable that they were marriages at all, since all marriage involves God. There is the business about Herod being upbraided for having his brother's wife in Mark, so it's a pretty big discussion.
 
I think that the fornication mentioned in the MDR passages is either broader than what we could refer to as sexual infidelity. Or, what Christ meant was that if a man were to use the popular divorce procedure of that day, then it should only be in the situation where the wife was clearly known to be involved with another.

In other words, the process of divorce had been reduced down to a type where the husband was no longer actually seeing some particular transgression(s) on his wife's part. So there was a popular divorce procedure that did not specify any particular fault of the wife. If this was used, and it was used in a case where a man knows his wife is pregnant by another man, then he need not find any fault on her because her transgression bears witness all by itself. This is all in line with the gist of Mal 2:16 where the man is told to take precaution so that he does not wrong and innocent wife.
 
It seems clear to me that the power to divorce resided in a man as essential and absolute ruler in his home. The use of the tool of divorce was directed to be for "impurity" which Christ clearly states to be adultery/fornication. Since Christ does use terminology to recognize that divorce does occur, even when it shouldn't, I think we have to also recognize that a man CAN divorce when he OUGHT NOT.

To me, Divorce always involves sin. Either the man sins to divorce a woman who ought not be divorced, or the woman sinned and can be divorced as a result. I keep throwing in the fact that the alternative was death by stoning, so this makes divorce merciful by comparison. Scripture calls Joseph, earthly father to Christ, and husband to Mary, a "JUST MAN" for seeking a quiet divorce of Mary. This throws a whole new light on divorce as it ought to be used.

God intends it as a merciful punishment that a man can use with regard to a wife that has strayed. Nevertheless, as Lord he has that power in all things. Using a punishment for a sin that was not committed is a sin itself. One could argue that Christ's claim that a man commits adultery against his wife, when she has not sinned, is the old Biblical "Eye for an Eye" admonition applied to those who falsely accuse. Namely that what was intended by the false accuser husband (the making of his wife out to be an adulteress) is instead visited on him, since she is in fact, innocent.
 
It seems clear to me that the power to divorce resided in a man as essential and absolute ruler in his home. The use of the tool of divorce was directed to be for "impurity" which Christ clearly states to be adultery/fornication. Since Christ does use terminology to recognize that divorce does occur, even when it shouldn't, I think we have to also recognize that a man CAN divorce when he OUGHT NOT.
Click to expand...

But what constitutes impurity? Forgive me for using the NIV just this once. I usually only use the KJV or earlier versions.
But here is how the NIV reads of 1 Peter 3:1-2:
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,
when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

Here the NIV renders submissiveness as purity... so by extrapolation, insubordination would be impurity. The KJV renders her submissive as CHASTE.

Another passage is Judges 19:2 where a man's concubine is unfaithful to him not by sleeping with another man but by running away from him:
And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

Then there is the example of the Israelites murmuring against the Lord and it is called whoredoms. Numbers 14. Once again, nonsexual infidelity.
 
I think Christ makes it clear that the "impurity" of the divorce law, is sexual sin. You and I seem to be agreeing that the Concubine of Judges may not have committed any sexual sin, but instead rebelled against her husband and left him.
 
Well when Christ spoke on divorce, he was originally asked about divorce for every cause and whether it was lawful. Matt 19:3.

In one acct, he throws it back to the pharisees with this question:
What did Moses command you?

By doing this, he may have been trying to get them to quote the entirety of the law of divorcement, Deut 24:1. If they would have done so, they would have seen that the wife being divorced must not only have lost favour in her husband's eye but it would have to have been for some uncleanness that he had found in her (behavior). Now the word "found" here seems to imply that this is something that the law abiding man would have gone about proving carefully so as not to wrong an innocent wife. It could not just some fickleness on his part. After all, the Lord urges the man to be careful in Mal 2:16. Before we look at that passage, lets note that in the earlier versions before the KJV, it read, If he hates her put her away.. Then the last part of that passage has a word of caution issued to the man. He is to take precaution so that he does not deal treacherously.

Even the KJV bibles with margin notes gives the alternate translation of "if he hates her put her away."

Here is the Geneva Bible:
If thou hatest her, put her away, sayeth the Lorde God of Israel, yet he couereth the iniurie vnder his garment, saieth the Lord of hosts: therefore keepe your selues in your spirite, and transgresse not.

And the Bishop's Bible:
If thou hatest her, put her away, saith the lorde God of Israel: yet he couereth the iniurie vnder his garment, saith the Lorde of hoastes, and be ye kept in your spirite, and transgresse not.

And the familiar KJV
For the Lord the God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away: for one couereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts, therfore take heed to your spirit, that ye deale not treacherously.

Now the reason that Joseph may have chose to put away Mary privily is that (assuming she was pregnant by another man) he new he was not dealing treacherously with her as her supposed guilt was as her pregnancy was obvious. He was said to be just, that meaning righteous and knowing the law. Which meant that in this type of situation there was no need to find or prove some other uncleanness in her.

When Christ continued his conversation, he alluded to the reason that the species of man was made male and female. And while he didn't say so outright, a discerning jew would have known that the sexual differences were for the purpose of procreating. But procreation was not all there was in marriage. A family can only prosper when the wife is giving her husband due respect. And also that the husband provides guidance for his wife.

If a wife was rebellious and working against her husband in the endeavor that God had put them to do, that is being fruitful, multiplying and having dominion over the other creatures, then this was going against the original intention of creation. But from the beginning it was not so, meaning it was not the intended purpose of the creating of the woman to cause hard heartedness in her man by being insubordinate.

Notice how the Pharisees are apt to always give a paraphrase of Deut 24:1? They never quote the line about finding uncleanness.

Bottom line: I think that two basic types of divorce were being used. One was the type where the Law of Divorcement commanded by Moses was followed carefully. The other was a more flimsy type which amounted to a "no contest" or what we might call a no fault divorce. This would definitely be wrong to use unless a woman was guilty of simple fornication. If she was not guilty of simple fornication, then the man was guilty of breaking his obligation to her. On the other hand, if she was guilty of being disobedient, and the man had found it to be so, meaning, he had a couple of witnesses to an ongoing situation, and this man used the Lawful divorce type, then he was not breaking wedlock at all.

Look at the negative condition of 1 Cor 7:12
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
The requirement here rests upon the man's wife being willing to live with him. If she is not, then he is free to divorce her. Now one might say that this only pertains to a marriage between a believing man and an unbelieving wife. But I have much to say on that and will later when time permits.

Lastly, with all of this in mind, the condemnations of the MDR passages have to do with the one divorcing in order to marry another. This interpretation is accomplished by careful examination of the greek word transliterated KAI. William Luck has a good bit to say on this and what it signifies.
 
I still contend that because a man is allowed to divorce his wife if she is unfaithful, he is not required to do so. Look at all the times the nations of Israel and Judah turned from the Lord, yet He always provided them a way back. And our own salvation is by grace alone. Aren't we supposed to show the same grace to our wives if they repent.

Dave
 
The Jewish nation was put to death in AD 70 by the Roman army.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. It was dispersed and the temple was burned as foretold by Daniel and by Christ Himself. In 1948 it was regathered from all the lands - also as foretold by Daniel. If you do the math, and remember the Jewish calendar is different than the Gregorian one we use, the day that Israel became a nation again matches exactly the prophesy. If you consider the diaspora being put to death, then they have been resurrected. The Hebrew people still have a part to play in prophesy as well. Do not make the error in thinking that the Christian Church replaces Israel in prophesy, the Church is the Bride of Christ, but the Jews remain God's chosen people.


Dave
 
Memphis Dwight wrote:Well when Christ spoke on divorce, he was originally asked about divorce for every cause and whether it was lawful. Matt 19:3.

In one acct, he throws it back to the pharisees with this question:
What did Moses command you?

By doing this, he may have been trying to get them to quote the entirety of the law of divorcement, Deut 24:1. If they would have done so, they would have seen that the wife being divorced must not only have lost favour in her husband's eye but it would have to have been for some uncleanness that he had found in her (behavior). Now the word "found" here seems to imply that this is something that the law abiding man would have gone about proving carefully so as not to wrong an innocent wife. It could not just some fickleness on his part. After all, the Lord urges the man to be careful in Mal 2:16. Before we look at that passage, lets note that in the earlier versions before the KJV, it read, If he hates her put her away.. Then the last part of that passage has a word of caution issued to the man. He is to take precaution so that he does not deal treacherously.
Click to expand...



So, if a husband has a wife, who is physically aggressive to the point where he comes close to retaliation to put her back in her 'place'. (Pls forgive the terminology, I do not mean it in a derogatory way.) Pretty much tearing him down instead of raising him up. And is tempted to use violence against her, he 'of course' has every right to divorce her. But, is she still his wife in God's eyes?... of course in biblical times, might she have been put to death for striking her husband multiple times?

Sica_Belle
 
I have a problem with the usage of the term "Biblical Times". Are we not yet living in "Biblical Times"? Christ and the prophets referred to these times and accounts of these times are found in the Holy Bible. So exactly what are "Biblical Times'? Anyway... I don't believe that Christ wants us to put anyone to death for striking us. "Divorce", "divorcement", and "put away" do not always mean the same things. That which is counted "legal" is not always that which is counted "lawful" in the sight of GOD — especially today, where "same sex marriage" is increasingly becoming the norm in many nations and upheld and protected by "the law". What "constitutes" the marriage bed is something I tackled once on Face book and it was not warmly received. Rather than making any declaration here, on this thread, I would invite the reader to consider what the ACT of marriage is, what the INSTITUTION or STATE of marriage is, and what it means to "marry"; for I am of the pursuasion that not all marriage is honourable and this does not appear to be a very popular postion in these last days.
 
:oops: I do apologize, I was thinking about The time that Jesus lived or before when the laws were made.
Does God still consider her to be his Wife?
 
:D Apology accepted. I often made the same error in judgment until the BOSS corrected my thinking. All times and seasons belong to Him. As I understand it, Christ the Messiah, was born in the fullness of times under the law and many today erroneously presume that New Testament times did not include the Old Covenant but this is not what the Holy Bible teaches. Many erroneously assume that men were not filled with the Holy Spirit during the Old Covenant either.The "New Covenant" did not begin until afterwhich the Son of man ascended unto the Father Whose Spirit was poured out on "all flesh". The establishment of the New Covenant by the Lamb of GOD is covered in the Book of Acts. The Gospels were declared in Old Testament times, under the law. I try to bear in mind what is lost is lost. People without Christ are lost. So no matter how many times they marry, give in marriage, divorce, separate, etc. they are still lost. In the Body of Christ there is no divorcement. In a divorcement, someone is simply not in the Body of Christ. Some people are wrongfully divorced and some of these are found in the Body of Christ. Although this may sound like a contradiction of terms, it isn't. GOD does not recognize wrongful divorcements. The only divorcement GOD will ever recognize is a lawful divorcement and this is why Christ set forth an exception regarding the lawful putting away of a spouse. No one knows the law better than GOD.

A lawful divorcement must satisfy the terms and conditions that GOD established in the Book of Deuteronomy. JESUS the MESSIAH did not abolish GOD's moral law. The "uncleanness" mentioned here constitutes what Christ called "fornication": "except it be for fornication" a man cannot lawfully put away his wife. Now a violent wife is not grounds for divorcement, but she's pushing it and it will likely not be long before she gives the husband a lawful reason to dismiss her. The husband is better off moving out of his house and letting his wife dig her own grave than to draw up a writ of divorcement and put it in her hand simply because she beats him. He could even sell the house after he moves out and refuse to let her live with him until she repents and gets saved. Nonetheless, she is still his wife and the LOST are still LOST. I do not know of a Christian woman who would beat on her husband. That does not sound like the Spirit of Christ to me. IF this seems unfair, I would draw the reader's attention to 1 Corinthians, Chapter Seven, verses 10 and 11: And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: [meaning she is still his wife eventhough they are "unmarried"] and let not the husband put away his wife.

My view concerning a violent wife who beats her husband is that the husband who departs is not PUTTING AWAY his wife, but rather, he is being PUT AWAY. She is driving him off with her fists!!! My view is the same concerning a wife-beating husband. The scriptures teach that men of GOD are not to be strikers! A man (or a woman) cannot dwell in the Body of Christ and be a striker at the same time. The Holy Spirit will not abide it. Continuing in the First Book of Corinthians, Chapter Seven, the scripture reads, "12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." Evidently, spiritual cleanness and uncleanness still exist today. Paul stated this under grace. This was the Apostle's advice and I think he knew the LORD; but this is a matter of suffering a spouse until which time they are saved. The LORD knows it doesn't always work this way and the Apostle did too: "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." (verse 15). This is extremely important to remember: GOD CALLED US TO PEACE - Not violence. So if the filthy, violent striker with a heart full of fornication, being UNBELIEVING, departs: A BROTHER or a SISTER is not under bondage in such cases. Now I firmly believe this to be the truth and it is for this reason, among others, that I declare that there is no divorcement in the BODY of CHRIST. Divorcement should not be the custom among churches of GOD. Yet, divorce rates today, soar the highest among churches, even surpassing those "marriages" made in secularism.

I hope this helps

GOD bless you and your house
 
I do believe you are right. Not only did she strive against him in every aspect she could, but she could not bear to be separated from her family. She returned to her Mother and Father a short time after they moved so he could better provide for her. She was unable to separate from her parents, did not accept her Husband as her new protector and refused to cling to him as commanded. That makes her to not be a true Christian? Or lost maybe.
I do apologize, I ask a lot of questions and delight in learning.
I will pray for both of them to be in accordance with God's Will and for better understanding of his Word.
 
Even strong women arn't normally as strong as an averedge man, can't he neutralize any threat she poses without injuring her? I don't mean to be offensive but I do wonder how such a situation could occur. It's possible to neutralize the threat of someone much stronger than you with some training, and people who attack in anger are usually not organized about it, it shouldn't be much of a matter to catch the hand that tries to strike and bind her until she calms down without any kind of retaliatory strike.

I had just tended to see an abusive wife's weapons as emotional rather than physical.
 
What constitutes the marriage bed?

I was just wondering if we were still on this topic././.

;)

Blessings,
 
:oops: I do apologize, It was not my intention to high-jack this thread.
 
Memphis Dwight said:
The ushering in of the New Testament was a change from the old religious system to the one
we are currently under. That which pertained to religious activity (animal sacrifices, etc) changed. But marriage did not.

The marriage bed came before the law of Moses and the marriage bed is here long after it.

First let us see what the writer of Hebrews says of the marriage bed:

Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Heb 13:4

Alright so we see a line being drawn. On one side is the marriage bed and on the other is whoremongering (fornication) & adultery.

Concubinage: Which side of the line is it on? Is it on the side of the line which is said to be honorable? Or the other side, which is not? A couple of connected passages should clear this up.

Gen 35:22
And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard [it]. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:

Reuben went in to his father's concubine. Was the concubine something that amounted to fornication or adultery? Or was it the marriage bed that is honorable in all?

One more verse ought to clear that up. 1 Chronicles 5:1

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he [was] thefirstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, hisbirthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and thegenealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.


The NIV reads like this:

The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (he was the firstborn, but when he defiled his father's marriage bed,his rights as firstborn were given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel;so he could not be listed in the genealogical record in accordance withhis birthright


So if I go about teaching that having a concubine is fornication, not only am I lying, I am, in effect, a forbidder of marriage. And that makes me a teacher of the doctrine of devils. 1 Tim 4:1-3

Hope you enjoy,
Dwight
Click to expand...
Interesting things come up if you google "pilagesh," or "pilegesh." There is at least one pro-poly rabbi with a website. Things are happening out there.
 
good post dwight

what especially struck me was that although the definition of adultery is to defile the womans marriage bed, he was punished for defiling his fathers marriage bed. things that make ya go "hmmmmmmmmm". possibly some more depth to be explored here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top