C
Cap
Guest
What I'm wondering is, if the man had the authority and therefore the responsability, why did God even question the woman?
-
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.
Does a husbands authority wax and wane?
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
What I'm wondering is, if the man had the authority and therefore the responsability, why did God even question the woman?
C
Cap
Guest
OK with me.
So do the women.
Understood still not sure I agree...
That's a highly speculative question and not a valid reason to dismiss this.
Paul is very clear that man is the head of woman (1 Cor 11:3) due to creation (v8,9), not due to the fall.
This is why death came to the world by the first Adam, not Eve, and is then taken away by the last Adam, Christ. So it's foundational to the Gospel itself.
First let me apologize for stating it as a fact, it is something that I read in the past that some Rabbis believe. How that might tie into what Lemuel’s mother told him, I haven’t a clue.
No apology needed. I simply presumed you misremembered given the mention in 31 of a mother and the fact that Proverbs, for the most part, was written by Solomon.
C
Cap
Guest
I understand you point, but verses 11 and 12 brings it all back to creation before the fall.
Oh I thought I was going to be able to sit back and let @Pacman be the voice of reason. But I have to pipe in and remind everyone that this verse only applies to wives who were bought from their fathers as slaves. It has no direct application to regular wives. A husband who doesn't provide for his regular wife may be a bad husband but scripture gives us no indication that he isn't still a husband.
So this is only to protect purchased servants and it would be ok to treat regular wives this way.
Because that is what you are implying.
With the exception of it being ok, that is exactly what I'm saying. A non-provident husband is a BAD husband, but he's still a husband. The conditions for a Godly divorce are laid out for us quite specifically and non-providence is not included unless the wife was a slave purchased from her father without a specific marriage in mind.
I feel a little self conscious talking to you about marriage. Your credentials are impeccable on the topic. But we have to remember what marriage represents; it is a mirror of Christ and the Church. How did Christ treat the Church in the early years and at other intervals since? He's allowed her to be persecuted to the point of starving to death and being eaten by wild animals. Look how Job was treated.
I understand the outrage and disgust for a husband who won't provide for his family, God calls such a one an infidel and not of the true faith. But no where does He list that as grounds for a divorce, i.e. a separation that would allow a woman to remarry.
Actually, you were being nice. The Word says ‘worse than’.
Timothy 5:8 (KJV) says, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
I understand the distinction but providing is still a requirement for the man.
1 Timothy 5:8
[8] But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
First let me state that my marital credentials are not impeccable. I am a divorced man married to previously married women.
My position would have nothing to do with a woman’s right to divorce her husband, but this is where the community would step in and pressure him to release her rather than shrugging their shoulders and ignoring her plight.
I doubt that it happened much. It just seems theoreticaly possible.
First let me state that my marital credentials are not impeccable. I am a divorced man married to previously married women.
My position would have nothing to do with a woman’s right to divorce her husband, but this is where the community would step in and pressure him to release her rather than shrugging their shoulders and ignoring her plight.
I doubt that it happened much. It just seems theoreticaly possible.
I would say that abandoning her would qualify as divorcing her as well. I have seen that happen...
Yes, but it's not some kind of a nullification of the marriage.
Not according to the ones that actually lived this culture.
They discuss in detail that this passage is extending a freeborn wife’s rights to one not as fortunate. As we have discussed before. Not granting a special dispensation that a freeborn wife did not have the rights to. She actually had even more rights than just these three depending on the negotiated clauses in her ketubah.
They discuss in detail that this passage is extending a freeborn wife’s rights to one not as fortunate. As we have discussed before. Not granting a special dispensation that a freeborn wife did not have the rights to. She actually had even more rights than just these three depending on the negotiated clauses in her ketubah.
I don't want to split a thread that was already the result of a split, but doesn't this take us back to @Cap 's original point in the other thread about husbands needing to take their lumps when there is a problem in the marriage and not automatically blaming the wife because she is in rebellion or insurrection? At what point do men need to look at misappropriated or misapplied leadership skills? Is he ultimately responsible, no matter what? I agree that he isn't called to cede his authority (sorry, can't agree with @Cap there) but at what point should he take an extended look in the mirror and begin to ask "how in Hades did my wife begin to go down the road of rebellion?" Always blaming it on radical feminism is a cop out to me.
Last edited:
Thus, sin entered into the world via Adam, not Eve (Romans 5:12).