Shoud this scripture be considered "Patriarchal?"

[Tigger45]

IMO God's word is patriarchal as a whole but I see the term 'leader' over 'dictator' as a better way its being used. I also don't think God's word was meant to be cherry picked but read as a whole to determine its best comprehensive teachings.

 

[Dave-W]

are you saying the Rabbinic court was held by people who confessed Jesus to be the Lord of all and our Savior, or were they ones who did not believe and obey Jesus?

Rabbinic. traditional Jews. Probably most knew nothing of Jesus.

 

[Dave-W]

And did a wife go to law because of libido or because of a lust problem?

Lust problem? That was not a concept in that society.

 

[Dave-W]

In the same manner as a husband sexually abuses a wife.

Not an answer. And I suspect not true.

Men are physically larger and stronger than women and can physically force them to have sex. It is called "rape." Look it up.

Women have neither the strength or the equipment to do that to men.

 

[archer75]

Not an answer. And I suspect not true.

Men are physically larger and stronger than women and can physically force them to have sex. It is called "rape." Look it up.

Women have neither the strength or the equipment to do that to men.

Although emotional manipulation to force sex still can and does happen.

 

[FireDragon76]

Is it a biblical excuse for a man to be sexually abused by his wife? Unless one only reads the bolded phrases and disregards the rest, the passage seems to require exactly the same thing from both husband and wife.

But that's just the problem, in a patriarchal culture, requiring the exact same thing from husband and wife might not actually be just as it does not account for power imbalances in a relationship.

I think what Paul says here generally is good, but applied legalistically, it could be problematic.

 

[NBB]

I'm not well informed maybe, but if 'patriarchal' means that men are natural leaders i don't see what is wrong with that, but abuse is not being 'patriarchal' is being a bad person.

Also, scripture also says to love your wife as Jesus loved the church, in that context this scripture should be applied, of course nobody says rape is ok!!

 

[NBB]

The term 'patriarchal' is loved by feminists it seems.
You have the meme: i said hello to a feminist... the rape court case is the next week...

 

[Paidiske]

Dave, it's quite possible for a woman to have sex with a man without the man's consent. We even have such cases in Scripture; generally involving alcohol.

 

[bekkilyn]

Not an answer. And I suspect not true.

Men are physically larger and stronger than women and can physically force them to have sex. It is called "rape." Look it up.

Women have neither the strength or the equipment to do that to men.

Ah Dave, you are naive!

On average, men are physically stronger, but there are plenty of women who are bigger and stronger than many men, so those women could very well physically overpower those men. Also, there are "objects" women could use to violate a man in the same way as another man.

There is also alcohol as Paidiske mentioned, and that "rape drug" that gets slipped into drinks, and also weapons such as handguns. I'm sure there are other creative ways.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Not an answer. And I suspect not true.

Men are physically larger and stronger than women and can physically force them to have sex. It is called "rape." Look it up.

Women have neither the strength or the equipment to do that to men.

Speaking of not true. Just because something is generally true does not mean it is universally true. There certainly are wives that are stronger than their husbands and can physically dominate them. Of course, physical domination is not the sole way to sexually abuse a person. Mental and emotional abuse are generally the preferred tools of the female of the human species.

 

[Dave-W]

Speaking of not true. Just because something is generally true does not mean it is universally true. There certainly are wives that are stronger than their husbands and can physically dominate them. Of course, physical domination is not the sole way to sexually abuse a person. Mental and emotional abuse are generally the preferred tools of the female of the human species.

Is mental or emotional "abuse" inherently sexual? I would say no.

I do not want to make the definition overly broad.

Also, there are "objects" women could use to violate a man in the same way as another man.

I differ from the legal definition. I do not see those violations as necessarily sexual.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Is mental or emotional "abuse" inherently sexual? I would say no.

I do not want to make the definition overly broad.

Why the quotation marks on abuse ? Do you question whether mental and emotional abuse are real things? All types of physical abuse are not inherently sexual either. So why not just assume I am speaking of mental and emotional sexual abuse which, like physical sexual abuse, are not about sex but about power and establishing the power of the abuser over the abused. The passages in the Bible that are being examined tells both spouses to give of themselves completely to each other. Requiring them to treat the other spouse as they would be treated or to love the other spouse as they would be loved. They do not say take from the other what one wants but give to the other what the other wants. Nowhere can any reasonable person conclude the Bible to be condoning rape in those words about giving to each other. I cannot fathom how one can consider that asking the same giving to the other from both spouses to be an invitation to rape and to be some sort of patriarchal dominancy. Asking the same of both seems as egalitarian was one can get. If an unreasonable person wants to pretend that the Bible says something that it does not say in order to claim some illegitimate power over their spouse by sexually abusing the person that they are biblically required to treat as him/herself , that is not the Bible's fault but the abuser's fault and their purposeful twisting of the bible's teaching to claim some rationalized stamp of approval from God only adds more perfidy to their sin.

 

[Dave-W]

Why the quotation marks on abuse ? Do you question whether mental and emotional abuse are real things?

No. I know they can be real abuse.

But I am also of the opinion that a lot of what gets labeled "abuse" (especially mental and emotional) is not.

 

[Dave-W]

If an unreasonable person wants to pretend that the Bible says something that it does not say in order to claim some illegitimate power over their spouse by sexually abusing the person that they are biblically required to treat as him/herself , that is not the Bible's fault but the abuser's fault and their purposeful twisting of the bible's teaching to claim some rationalized stamp of approval from God only adds more perfidy to their sin.

And there is the crux of the matter.

I agree that the taken as a whole, it is entirely egalitarian. But when one or the other claims exclusive "authority" over the other person to get them to do their will, it becomes patriarchal and abusive in my opinion.

What would you think of a wife who wants to avoid sex (apparently unheard of in first century Judea) taking authority over her husband's body to command him to lose his libido;based on these verses?

 

[grasping the after wind]

No. I know they can be real abuse.

But I am also of the opinion that a lot of what gets labeled "abuse" (especially mental and emotional) is not.

The concepts are indeed subjective but it seems to me that I have no way of determining whether someone other than myself actually experiences being mentally or emotionally abused by something I would not have considered abuse had it happened to me.

 

[Dave-W]

The concepts are indeed subjective but it seems to me that I have no way of determining whether someone other than myself actually experiences being mentally or emotionally abused by something I would not have considered abuse had it happened to me.

Is that due to a lack of an objective standard of what is or is not abusive, regardless on how someone feels about it?

 

[grasping the after wind]

And there is the crux of the matter.

I agree that the taken as a whole, it is entirely egalitarian. But when one or the other claims exclusive "authority" over the other person to get them to do their will, it becomes patriarchal and abusive in my opinion.

What would you think of a wife who wants to avoid sex (apparently unheard of in first century Judea) taking authority over her husband's body to command him to lose his libido;based on these verses?

Someone that is abusive and matriarchal. I think we agree on the premise that using the verses illegitimately to excuse abuse is wrong. I just do not see the only misrepresentation of those verses to be ones that only lead to patriarchal abuse. Your last example here only reinforces my stance.

 

[Dave-W]

Someone that is abusive and matriarchal.

Is that even a thing?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Is that due to a lack of an objective standard of what is or is not abusive, regardless on how someone feels about it?

Could be. I actually think the standard of behavior laid out in the passage is one that is attempting to avoid an abusive relationship. If each spouse is sincerely thinking first of the needs of the other it is not possible for either to be abusive.