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

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
I don't think a woman should ever be anybody's property.

We should own possessions; not people.
I agree, but to be under the protection and benefit of a person one must belong to them in the sense of belonging to a family or community group.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,799.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree, but to be under the protection and benefit of a person one must belong to them in the sense of belonging to a family or community group.

We all need to belong - that's why God put us in families, and the family of the church. Some women, and men, may never be married, but they can still belong somewhere.
But the only one who owns me, as such, is the Lord; the One who made and saved me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anguspure
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Notice that the woman doesn't seem to have much say in this financial transaction.
Genesis 24:39 This verse does imply that the woman had a say in the matter. That Abraham and his servant were aware the woman had the choice to say no.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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?
I thought it meant they will not have sex in heaven. No population explosion, no paternity law suits, no sodomy, no prostitution, no rape, no adultery, no birth defects, no sexually transmitted disease, no orphans, no bastard children, no sex organs, no marriage and no divorce. They may still be friends.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I thought it meant they will not have sex in heaven. No population explosion, no paternity law suits, no sodomy, no prostitution, no rape, no adultery, no birth defects, no sexually transmitted disease, no orphans, no bastard children, no sex organs, no marriage and no divorce. They may still be friends.

But no more special friend than with anyone else in heaven.

Nobody more or less popular than anyone else.
 
Upvote 0

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
That is for this "mortal coil."
I'm not so sure. Adam and Eve where created in this way, before the fall.

Notwithstanding the fact that precious few truly become 1 in the world, it seems to me that those who are truly joined in holy matrimony exemplify what YHWH intended for relationship and Love all along.
 
Upvote 0

Redwingfan9

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
2,629
1,532
Midwest
✟70,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
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?
The woman wasn't property at all. The law of Moses protected widows in this way. There's a reason why the new testament almost always speaks of widows in the same breath as the poor. During this time period women could go from relative security to destitution in a heartbeat. Moses sought to protect women by marrying them to the next brother in line when they didn't have a son that could take care of them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Anguspure
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

lsume

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2017
1,491
696
70
Florida
✟417,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
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?
You seem to have gleaned a great deal from a simple Truth. There is no marrying or giving in marriage in Heaven as I recall. We must be in our spiritual bodies outside of the flesh in order to reside in Heaven. To live for eternity with The GodHead and our Brothers and Sisters in Christ requires our spiritual lives.

As to the notion of woman being treated like property, I believe that has been the case and unfortunately continues to be the case in countries around the world. I do remember that the primary difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees was their belief in an afterlife. God created us in His image. Have you considered how deep that might go? I believe that only God The Father can create a perfect eternity. Consider how unpleasant it might be for our Heavenly Father to know all future events. That is a great sacrifice in my eyes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mcarans
Upvote 0

NeedyFollower

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,024
437
63
N Carolina
✟71,145.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Celibate
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?

As is often the case, Jesus turned a potential trap into a teaching opportunity and expanded to a Kingdom perspective. Jesus first stated that they are mistaken for they neither know ( understand) the scriptures nor the power of God for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like unto the angels . ( There are some that claim that the book of Enoch was still regarded as scripture at this time and alludes to being like unto angels in the resurrection ...I do not know. )
I believe His point was that they were still carnal in their understanding . Jesus also connected this at another time by saying unless you be converted and become as little children , you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven .

We must remember that 2000 years ago , many God fearing children were aware that they were children and relied upon their parents ...showing respect and service even through adulthood. Particularly in poor Jewish areas like Nazareth in the time that Christ Jesus walked . Not as worldly wise as today's children . Humble . Jesus used this to take them into a different perspective .
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcarans
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
"From Mesopotamia to Egypt, women in the ancient world were considered property — valuable property, but property nonetheless. And it’s true of the Bible’s view as well. Yes, there were biblical women who flourished in spite of the patriarchy, women like Ruth, Esther, Lydia and Priscilla. But women in the Bible were normally viewed as second class, if even that.

The Decalogue is a case in point. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male slave, his female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything which belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21). Because the Ten Commandments are so well known, it’s quite easy to miss the assumptions in them about gender. But the marginalization of women is clear. The wife is classified as her husband’s property, and so she’s listed with the slaves and work-animals. There’s also a striking omission in this commandment: never does it say “You shall not covet your neighbor’s husband.” The Ten Commandments were written to men, not women. There’s even more evidence, linguistic in nature. Hebrew has four distinct forms of the word “you” and these are gender and number specific. The form of “you” in every single commandment is masculine singular. The text assumes its readers are men. True, mothers are mentioned in the Decalogue as deserving of honor, but even here the Hebrew grammar assumes a male readership: the Hebrew verb for “honor” is masculine singular (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16). The Ten Commandments embody much that is foundational for modern society, but egalitarian they aren’t."

This is from this article by a widely-published scholar of the ancient Near East, especially the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Bruce Leiter

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love
Jun 16, 2018
782
551
81
West Michigan
Visit site
✟56,865.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
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?
The principle in the passage is not primarily ownership but marriage. Jesus does indeed upend their concept of marriage by saying that, though most people were married then through arranged marriages, we won't be married in the next life. Remember the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21, which is dressed like a bride, since we believers are Jesus' bride.
 
  • 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

PaulCyp1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 4, 2018
1,075
849
78
Massachusetts
✟239,255.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
First of all, a woman is never anyone's "property". If you mean whose wife will she be, no-one's wife, since the marriage vows plainly state "until death do us part", or "as long as we both shall live". A marriage ends at the moment of death of either the wife or the husband, therefore no-one in Heaven is married.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
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?
We will all be Christ's bride.
 
Upvote 0

Blade

Veteran
Supporter
Dec 29, 2002
8,165
3,989
USA
✟629,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We forget that the way it is NOW was not the way it was meant to be. Eve was made from Adam. Eve was his helper. The TWO become ONE. She was never his property.

There are so many rules laws that are not of God but man. God never goes against our will. I can call my wife "MINE and she will do everything I say and never say another word." What will God do? Nothing. Man has put women blow man.. God never did. Is not what a GOD did the best example? He left heaven became what HE made. Are we not to OBEY Him? But we don't. And yet He still dies for a world that hates Him. What is this MAN that He loves so much? Love never thinks of its self 1st. Christ died for us..

For me.. its never what is can my wife do for me... but ALWAYS what am I doing for her. If she does nothing ever again .. I am so blessed!
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
This is from this article by a widely-published scholar of the ancient Near East, especially the Bible.
The title of that article is at best click bait or at worst fake news, "The Marginalization of Women: A Biblical Value We Don’t Like to Talk About"

It's what we do like to talk about. it's one of the major arguments that re-occur in public debates about the validity of the Bible and Christianity.

You can also see the author's bias when he doesn't mention and keep information back from consideration when he refers to the passage about the virtuous women. To quote, "She is wise, benevolent, hard-working, an entrepreneur, and loved by her sons and husband". He fails to mention she can own property with the money she is making within an ancient economy Proverbs 31:16,24. This topic is a two sided coin and he's finding what he wants to see in his research.

There are even more than two sides to this story. Those verses offer intriguing insights about how an ancient economy was functioning in Israel. When we didn't have our modern day pension plans, health care and welfare systems in place and how technology has changed our average life span. He's failing to factor in some crucial information.
 
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
The title of that article is at best click bait or at worst fake news, "The Marginalization of Women: A Biblical Value We Don’t Like to Talk About"

It's what we do like to talk about. it's one of the major arguments that re-occur in public debates about the validity of the Bible and Christianity.

You can also see the author's bias when he doesn't mention and keep information back from consideration when he refers to the passage about the virtuous women. To quote, "She is wise, benevolent, hard-working, an entrepreneur, and loved by her sons and husband". He fails to mention she can own property with the money she is making within an ancient economy Proverbs 31:16,24. This topic is a two sided coin and he's finding what he wants to see in his research.

There are even more than two sides to this story. Those verses offer intriguing insights about how an ancient economy was functioning in Israel. When we didn't have our modern day pension plans, health care and welfare systems in place and how technology has changed our average life span. He's failing to factor in some crucial information.
That doesn't detract from the Bible being aimed at men.
Here's The Decalogue: Are Female Readers Included? - TheTorah.com specifically on the Decalogue that talks about this.

"The Decalogue is extant in two versions: one in Exodus 20, the other in Deuteronomy 5. The numerous minor variations between the two texts do not mask the fact that the two passages are, essentially, the same text. Major differences between the two versions, as seen in the differing motivation supplied for the Sabbath in each version (Exod. 20.8-11; Deut. 5.12-15), are rare; minor differences that make little difference for interpretation are more common.[3]But, despite these smaller and larger differences, the two versions share an important premise: they are addressed to males, and are typified by masculine 2nd person singular “[m.] you” imperatives, whether formulated in the negative or the positive modes.

Am I, a female reader, to view myself as unproblematically included in that form of address? I know that, grammatically speaking, male gendered verbs in Biblical Hebrew include females as well. This is especially true in plural verbs, and loosely so for singular verbs, but this grammatical custom does not feel like a sufficient response to the problem, since the uniform appearance of only male verbs quashes female subjectivity.

Imagine a picture of only men with the caption “people.” If the photographer were to say, “of course, women are people too, but they are being included implicitly,” this would hardly make women viewing the picture feel included. In fact, the lack of female subjectivity in the text is usually matched by the lack’s suppression by lay and scholarly exegesis alike...

Needless to say, there is neither a direct nor an indirect address to females in this entire text. The language, which in Hebrew is much more gendered than in English, tells it all. This is man-to-man stuff. As we saw, ha‘am, “the people” or “community” are cited as receiving the divine communication, and the ‘am is decidedly male. To assume otherwise would be misleading and less than naïve...

But to judge by its language and content, that vision is far from egalitarian with respect to gender and class. It accepts slavery, perpetuates the otherness of social inferiors (including the otherness of the ger, the “sojourner” or “client”), and promotes gender discrimination. Like the entire Bible, it is a reflection of its time and space, no doubt...

We should have the courage to admit that the Bible should and can be updated, not by re-writing it through translation and interpretation, but through looking at it and saying: This is how things were, but this is how we want them to be. We can accomplish these changes by departure—but not at the price of claiming that our beloved version, the cornerstone of our contemporary community, is something else than it actually and originally is. Not all social change, perhaps, can be antedated back to the Sinai myth or similar ones."
 
Upvote 0