Whose property is a woman in heaven? (Luke 20:27-38)

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The following comes from Whose property is a woman in heaven? (Luke 20:27-38) : cruciformity:

"This Sunday's sermon at my church was on the question the Sadducees as Jesus about whose wife a woman will be if she is widowed and remarried to 7 brothers consecutively.

"27 Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him 28 and asked him a question, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; 30 then the second 31 and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. 32 Finally the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.”
34 Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. 37 And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.”" (Luke 20:27-38)

My Pastor noted is that the Sadducees are cynical in asking the question as they do not believe in resurrection. They are asking it in order to trip Jesus up and as part of a game of one-upmanship with the Pharisees who do believe in it.

The idea that the woman in the story should marry one brother after another comes from the Laws of Moses. To put it bluntly, she is property and as such must be passed on to the next brother when the previous one dies if no child is produced. Her purpose is simply to be a vessel for procreation, a means by which the first brother's lineage can be continued - if one of the brothers impregnates her, then the resulting child carries the name of the first brother, something highly important in the society of the time.

The Sadducees question envisions that the afterlife will be a continuation of this life, with Mosaic Law still applying so that the woman must be wife to one of the brothers if they are all resurrected. Jesus's description shatters that idea indicating a radically different future after death. My pastor put it that the promise of God pierces the mystery of the afterlife without revealing it. Beware those who claim to have detailed knowledge of what the afterlife is like - we have a promise of something better but few specifics.

In overturning the Law of Moses which would have the woman married after resurrection, Jesus is not just upending this one narrow idea. He is breaking the concept of woman as a belonging, for she is no longer property of her brothers in the afterlife. We can envision a heaven in which humans do not own each other - there is no slavery. All the ways humans use to devalue others will come to an end. Each and every person will be valued not as a commodity but as having been created in God's image."

Do you have any other viewpoints on this interesting passage?
 

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The idea that the woman in the story should marry one brother after another comes from the Laws of Moses. To put it bluntly, she is property and as such must be passed on to the next brother when the previous one dies if no child is produced.
If the brother did not marry the widow, who would have welcomed her in their home and cared for her? The answer in the ancient world is that nobody would have and she would have been left to fend for herself in a predatory and uncaring world.

The law of Moses was not about ownership but about mercy for a person who nobody would cared about in the slightest.

This is why there is such strong emphasis from Paul on caring for Widows and orphans in their distress.

Of course in the modern western world we are all the "property" of the state and so caring familial relationship is irrelevant in this respect. The loss of a partner is financially inconsequential (and in many cases actually beneficial as I have found out recently), so people can mouth off as if they are never dependent on the benevolence of anybody and malign rules in other nations that seek to help in other ways.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
To put it more bluntly, Yahuweh did not create the woman Havah to be property, commodity, devalued, no. His TORAH, His Word, values what Yahuweh values - women are not de-valued. (not by Yahuweh, His Word, Torah, or His people when faithful and obedient) ...
"Chattel" is HOW THE WORLD values people. (it is written). The world/ carnal/ sinful mankind. The merchants of earth consider people chattel, to be bought and sold as commodities. And that's what they do.

Not TORAH, and not the faithful men and women of Yahuweh.
To put it bluntly, she is property and as such must be passed on to the next brother when the previous one dies if no child is produced. Her purpose is simply to be a vessel for procreation, a means by which the first brother's lineage can be continued
=========================================
This is a good warning/ caution. A LOT of ndes have claimed to see heaven, etc.
They have all been exposed as frauds, as far as publicly known.
Beware those who claim to have detailed knowledge of what the afterlife is like
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TORAH, PROPHETS and PSALMS are not overturned. Nowhere (not that I know of) does TORAH, PROPHETS or PSALMS or New Testamet
CLAIM that women would be married after resurrection.
THE false teachers had that idea - it was not Yahuweh's idea.
THAT is what is overthrown by Jesus the Messiah - the false ideas they had. NOT TORAH, PROPHETS or PSALMS.
"woman as a belonging" ==== the TITLE: whose property is a woman in heaven
I don't think is answered in this thread yet. So here's more to the question: whose property, on earth and in heaven, are the Ekklesia? Who do they belong to, here and in heaven? According to TORAH, PROPHETS PSALMS and NEW TESTAMENT ?
In overturning the Law of Moses which would have the woman married after resurrection, Jesus is not just upending this one narrow idea. He is breaking the concept of woman as a belonging, for she is no longer property of her brothers in the afterlife.
(She was not the property of her brothers in the current life, with possibly some exceptions that are written in Scripture for Yahuweh's Plan and Purpose)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Yahuweh's Plan, Purpose and Word, TODAY ON EARTH, we do not have to envision a time in which humans do not own each other. In the body of Christ, as in the Ekklesia in the OT, it is already good and true. In the body of Christ, and in Ekklesia in the OT and the NT,
no one is devalued - Yahuweh in His Plan and Actions showed and gave value to everyone, even in just granting them power to be His sons. (1 John)..
In the body of Christ today, by His Word, when people live according to what the Father in heaven says, anything they once did to devalue another has already come to an end, or is being brought to an end if not realized yet through lack of experience or lack of knowledge/lack of truth.
Christ showed the disciples, as Yahuweh showed Moses and the Israelites, the value of people, the value of life, the value of BEING HIS ALREADY, TODAY! (His Kingdom is now, at hand, today on earth, as Jesus told those He spoke to) .
Yahuweh through Jesus broke down the dividing wall even, the wall between Jews and Gentiles -
now Jews and Gentiles both have been and can be brought to right standing with Yahuweh in Christ Jesus ! THIS IS A MIRACLE (of no small proportion ! - A HUGE MIRACLE ! )

We can envision a heaven in which humans do not own each other - there is no slavery. All the ways humans use to devalue others will come to an end. Each and every person will be valued not as a commodity but as having been created in God's image."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The fact women and children were property was just the way society functioned at the time. This should not be so surprising or shocking since slavery was normal and accepted at the time.

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Exodus 20:17
 
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nothing in the scripture indicates that the woman in questions in the Saducee's questioning is anybody's property. No more than that a widow's oldest brother-in-law was her property. No more than Mary and Joseph were each other's property because they were betrothed.

That was not how women were viewed in the Jewish culture. The provision that the eldest brother-in-law of a widow without children was obligated to take her as his wife ... and raise up children in the name of the deceased brother is a cultural protective measure. It helped to ensure that women had provision and protection within the culture ... and that a man's geneology would be preserved ... even if he didn't have children.

Another view of this practice can be found in Genesis 38, where Judah's son Er was slain by God for his wickedness before producing any heirs. Er's widow, Tamar, was them married to Onan, Er's younger brother ... to generate and raise up an heir to his dead brother's name. But Onan refused to impregnate Tamar, and so he also was slain by God.

It was then Tamar's right to be wed to Shelah, Judah's youngest son, ... but Judah resisted this ... fearing that the deaths that were visited upon his older two sons ... would also be visited upon Shelah.

Tamar eventually resorted to fooling Judah, himself, into impregnating her and she bore the twins Perez and Zerah.

Perez was a forefather of David, who became king in Israel.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nothing in the scripture indicates that the woman in questions in the Saducee's questioning is anybody's property. No more than that a widow's oldest brother-in-law was her property. No more than Mary and Joseph were each other's property because they were betrothed.

That was not how women were viewed in the Jewish culture. The provision that the eldest brother-in-law of a widow without children was obligated to take her as his wife ... and raise up children in the name of the deceased brother is a cultural protective measure. It helped to ensure that women had provision and protection within the culture ... and that a man's geneology would be preserved ... even if he didn't have children.

Another view of this practice can be found in Genesis 38, where Judah's son Er was slain by God for his wickedness before producing any heirs. Er's widow, Tamar, was them married to Onan, Er's younger brother ... to generate and raise up an heir to his dead brother's name. But Onan refused to impregnate Tamar, and so he also was slain by God.

It was then Tamar's right to be wed to Shelah, Judah's youngest son, ... but Judah resisted this ... fearing that the deaths that were visited upon his older two sons ... would also be visited upon Shelah.

Tamar eventually resorted to fooling Judah, himself, into impregnating her and she bore the twins Perez and Zerah.

Perez was a forefather of David, who became king in Israel.
The main purpose as I mentioned was preservation of the man's lineage. The woman would be financially supported, but only in so much as she became the property of the next brother for the purpose of producing an heir.
 
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The main purpose as I mentioned was preservation of the man's lineage. The woman would be financially supported, but only in so much as she became the property of the next brother for the purpose of producing an heir.
The concept of a woman as the property of her husband is not found in the scripture's portrayal of Israelite women. Every Israelite was compelled to act within the expectations of Israelite society, including the men ... and the women.

Which is why women feature so prominently in scriptural narratives ... Eve, Sarah, Rebecca. Leah, Rachel, Deborah, Huldah, Ruth, Naomi, Esther, Athalia, Bathsheba, etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The main purpose as I mentioned was preservation of the man's lineage. The woman would be financially supported, but only in so much as she became the property of the next brother for the purpose of producing an heir.

Don't twist scripture to fit your own archaic views.

You can see the law playing out very well in Naomi's and Ruth's favour. Does Ruth look at the prospect in horror? No. She and by extension Noami were guaranteed to be protected, with a home and food. No one forced them back to where Boaz lived, they set out purposely to take advantage of the law by making sure Boaz knew exactly who they were. Yes, she had to give him heirs, but this was the culture, she grew up expecting this. They didn't have a social welfare office and supermarket coupons, nor would most have married for love, it was what it was.
If women were mere property Deborah would never have been a judge and God would not have said Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. Ephesians:5-2
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
If the brother did not marry the widow, who would have welcomed her in their home and cared for her? The answer in the ancient world is that nobody would have and she would have been left to fend for herself in a predatory and uncaring world.

And prostitution was frequently the only way available to put food on the table for herself and her children. Not just the ancient world either.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Don't twist scripture to fit your own archaic views.

You can see the law playing out very well in Naomi's and Ruth's favour. Does Ruth look at the prospect in horror? No. She and by extension Noami were guaranteed to be protected, with a home and food. No one forced them back to where Boaz lived, they set out purposely to take advantage of the law by making sure Boaz knew exactly who they were. Yes, she had to give him heirs, but this was the culture, she grew up expecting this. They didn't have a social welfare office and supermarket coupons, nor would most have married for love, it was what it was.
If women were mere property Deborah would never have been a judge and God would not have said Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. Ephesians:5-2
To be clear I am not suggesting that women should be regarded as property and the OP makes that clear. I'm just saying that this is how the society functioned at the time and that there is Biblical support for the woman as property idea eg. this (which I quoted earlier in the thread):
"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Exodus 20:17
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To be clear I am not suggesting that women should be regarded as property and the OP makes that clear. I'm just saying that this is how the society functioned at the time and that there is Biblical support for the woman as property idea eg. this (which I quoted earlier in the thread):
"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Exodus 20:17
Well Paul says that husband and wife belong to each other ...
 
Upvote 0

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well Paul says that husband and wife belong to each other ...
You'd have to ask a scholar if the Greek translated as belong is the same as the Hebrew translated as belong - if the connotation is the same.
I can only go by a plain reading:
"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." house - property, male slave - property, female slave - property, ox - property, donkey - property. Wife listed in the middle of all these examples of property is a very strong indication of the status of the wife in that culture.

There's also this:
"16 When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins." Exodus 22:16-17

Notice that the woman doesn't seem to have much say in this financial transaction.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,573
7,772
63
Martinez
✟893,850.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
34 Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
The "property" issue is moot. The message Jesus Christ of Nazareth was conveying concerned relationships we have with each other here on earth and if the same relationships will transfer after the resurrection. IMO He states that it does not. He goes on to explain that we will be "like angels". Here is a parallel verse in Matthew:

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching. Matthew 22 29-33

Then Christ goes back to the real issue at hand, the resurrection assuring them they are mistaken and that God is the God of the living and not the dead, forever.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To be clear I am not suggesting that women should be regarded as property and the OP makes that clear. I'm just saying that this is how the society functioned at the time and that there is Biblical support for the woman as property idea eg. this (which I quoted earlier in the thread):
"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Exodus 20:17

"Do not covert your neighbours wife" -to- "Your wife is property" is a big jump, with a cartwheel.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The idea that the woman in the story should marry one brother after another comes from the Laws of Moses. To put it bluntly, she is property and as such must be passed on to the next brother when the previous one dies if no child is produced. Her purpose is simply to be a vessel for procreation,

You missed it entirely.

God made that rule as a form of social security for widows. It's not like those 7 brothers were in the middle of a "drought of women" and so must all marry one woman and hope that the other brother dies.

You are missing the point altogether.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You missed it entirely.

God made that rule as a form of social security for widows. It's not like those 7 brothers were in the middle of a "drought of women" and so must all marry one woman and hope that the other brother dies.

You are missing the point altogether.

Apart from the fact, there weren't 7 brothers and it was a hypothetical question that they made up.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
"Do not covert your neighbours wife" -to- "Your wife is property" is a big jump, with a cartwheel.

Exodus 20;17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

This passage is actually quite definitive. In the Hebrew literary tradition when you see a list it is always in order from most valued down to the least. So a wife is valued less than a house but more than slaves or an ox or a donkey. The final line "nor anything that is thy neighbor's" is definitive that a wife is a 'belonging'.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mcarans
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,767
7,912
NW England
✟1,041,268.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  • Agree
Reactions: mcarans
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And prostitution was frequently the only way available to put food on the table for herself and her children. Not just the ancient world either.
Have been in the midst of this in a wee town on the east coast of India. Not to mention the true nature of much of the prostitution in the far East.
 
Upvote 0