• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

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

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by mcarans, Nov 11, 2019.

  1. Anguspure

    Anguspure Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ Supporter

    +1,723
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  2. Toro

    Toro Oh, Hello!

    +11,698
    Christian
    Married
    IF a woman is to be property in Heaven... she would certainly belong to whom all things belong to.

    Hebrews 2:10 for example.
     
  3. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +4,684
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  4. Norbert L

    Norbert L Well-Known Member Supporter

    +563
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    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.
     
  5. dqhall

    dqhall Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,591
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  6. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +11,205
    Christian
    Married
    But no more special friend than with anyone else in heaven.

    Nobody more or less popular than anyone else.
     
  7. Anguspure

    Anguspure Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ Supporter

    +1,723
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Single
    So the 2 who become 1 will be separated?
     
  8. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +11,205
    Christian
    Married
    That is for this "mortal coil."
     
  9. Anguspure

    Anguspure Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ Supporter

    +1,723
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  10. Redwingfan9

    Redwingfan9 Well-Known Member

    702
    +401
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    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.
     
  11. Celticroots

    Celticroots Newbie

    910
    +638
    Christian
    Single
    A woman is no one's property, not on this earth nor in Heaven.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  12. lsume

    lsume Our 3 year old grandson who turned 3 today Supporter

    507
    +234
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  13. NeedyFollower

    NeedyFollower Well-Known Member

    +422
    Anabaptist
    Celibate
    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 .
     
  14. mcarans

    mcarans Active Member Supporter

    430
    +157
    Denmark
    Non-Denom
    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.
     
  15. Bruce Leiter

    Bruce Leiter Member

    233
    +172
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  16. PaulCyp1

    PaulCyp1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    715
    +562
    United States
    Catholic
    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.
     
  17. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Searching for Truth

    +3,861
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    We will all be Christ's bride.
     
  18. Blade

    Blade Veteran Supporter

    +1,746
    Christian
    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!
     
  19. Norbert L

    Norbert L Well-Known Member Supporter

    +563
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    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.
     
  20. mcarans

    mcarans Active Member Supporter

    430
    +157
    Denmark
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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."
     
Loading...