Marriage and the God of life

a reply to: DISRAELI

Fully understood......

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: DISRAELI
I wouldn't want anyone to think though that we don't have our problems or issues. Like all couples we do. I have learned over the years to heed my wife in certain matters and have been blessed because of it.

I don't oppress her in any way. She knows her Bible and knows what it says about her place and she respects Gods word in that.

I think what some are so ignorant about women speaking in church is the historical context of Paul's writing to Corinth on that issue. At that time women were interrupting asking questions which led to the proclamation of God's words being hindered. The instruction in context is for them to ask their husbands at home if they have any questions over what was brought forth by the man of God speaking that day.

And the instruction to Timothy for a woman not to teach over men in a church is as Paul noted, Eve was the one who was deceived of the devil. Tells us that they can be easily swayed in tuff issues and go against God's word and lead others to do the same. I don't really think that has changed much since then seeing women are still women.

Again the glory for our marriage goes to God as he is the one who guided and led to our union.

Thank you for providing evidence of your misogynist character .

a reply to: DISRAELI

He was fearful of the possible idolatrous influence of foreign wives.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that the fears were based on factual evidence of activity, but rather, a prejudicial fear based upon delusional expectation. Their expectation was that their return would be the ushering in of a grand and glorious something or other. They didn't see it happening and figured they must be under the wrath of their god still, so they went looking for a sinner to blame (which is also a recurring theme throughout the OT).

there is a good case that Ezra made the wrong call there. People do that from time to time. Jephthah did, in different circumstances.

Which is also the case with Iphigenia. The question of oaths and the validity of oaths in times of war. Agamemnon could have simply delayed the launching of the ships. Jephthah could have taken on himself, the consequences of breaking his vow. In the Ezra story, the leaders and people are making a fresh vow to the god. Maybe that was their mistake. Maybe that's why Jesus said not to make vows. Nothing much good can come of it. To break a vow, a person faces the consequences. To make someone else pay the consequence of your vow strikes me as what people call "pure evil".

originally posted by: pthena
There is nothing in the text to suggest that the fears were based on factual evidence of activity, but rather, a prejudicial fear based upon delusional expectation.

Their fear would have been based on their understanding of what happened in the past.
The fall of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel was attributed to idolatry, and part of the explanation was that the people failed to separate themselves from the Canaanites and therefore kept absorbing their religious customs.
If Deuteronomy was produced at the end of the kingdom period, the "separation" instructions in Deuteronomy ch7 must be a retrospective command based on that analysis; "This is what they should have done".
So Ezra and his people believe they are learning from the mistakes made by their ancestors.

Jephthah's mistake was making a self-contradictory vow, or turning it into one by taking it in an over-literal way.
He could not legitimately vow to sacrifice what God would not accept as a sacrifice.
If he had made his vow in the form "the first sacrificable thing I meet", or if he had understood that as the meaning of what he said, the problem would not have arisen.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The fall of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel was attributed to idolatry, and part of the explanation was that the people failed to separate themselves from the Canaanites and therefore kept absorbing their religious customs.

I wasn't particularly claiming that the ink was still wet on the Deuteronomy scroll. I am aware of the Josiah reforms. The text does say that they were making a fresh vow based upon superstitious reading of Deuteronomy, linked with unreasonable expectations of what their return would result in.

Perhaps I'm assuming that Ezra also had available the Jeremiah works which indicated submission to Neo-Babylonian Empire rather than rebellion could have prevented the fall. Perhaps I'm assuming they also had the Job scroll which indicates misfortune is not the consequence of sin or innocence.

In the face of ambiguity is judgment made.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I think most people don't realize is that Israel was to be guided by Laws, Commandments, Precepts and
Statues, they were to reflect and emulate God's Ways, and they were to consider the Testimonies and the Judgements, all of which were to be found in the book of his word's.

Today we are to do the same. But rather than do that people look to see what they consider evil acts of God and his people and then reject God because of what they see.

The word of God is still to be used for Guidance, Reflection and Consideration.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Indeed. There can't be any conflict between what happened in Ezra and the injunction about "those whom God joined together", except on the assumption that the God who "joined together" is real.
If he is real, then they're also obliged to take his other concerns seriously.
(If he is not real, then Ezra has not offended him)

a reply to: DISRAELI

If I'm reading this correctly, then you are pitting the Monolatrist Yahweh against the Monotheist Yahweh.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ezra served the Monotheist Yahweh, and Deuteronomy was the work of Monolatrists. So huh, quite the conundrum I'd say.

I found a clip from Fiddler on the Roof. Tradition, agreements, pledges, on the one hand, on the other hand.

a reply to: pthena
No, I'm assuming it's the same God all the way through, whatever the subtle differences in the way he's being understood.
That would be the case if they were communicating with a real God.
Different members of your family will understand you in different ways and relate to you in different ways; that doesn't stop you from being the same person.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I'm assuming it's the same God all the way through, whatever the subtle differences in the way he's being understood.

Ok. Subtle differences. The book says Jerusalem was destroyed because of idolatry and such. Then perhaps Ezra should have been executed as a false prophet for suggesting Jerusalem be rebuilt rather than left as a memorial ruin.

Deuteronomy 13: 12 If you shall hear tell concerning one of your cities, which Yahweh your God gives you to dwell there, saying, 13 Certain base fellows are gone out from the midst of you, and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” which you have not known; 14 then you shall inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is done in the midst of you, 15 you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and its livestock, with the edge of the sword. 16 You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its street, and shall burn with fire the city, and all its spoil every whit, to Yahweh your God: and it shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again.

During the days of David, much of his military was made up of Hittites and probably even a few Amorites. The prophets such as Nathan didn't seem to get into any sort of fit over the Hittites intermarrying with the Israelites.

Example: Uriah the Hittite, named as one of David's 30 mighty men. He had a wife Bathsheba (Hebrew: בַּת שֶׁ֫בַע‎‎, Baṯ-šeḇa‘, "daughter of the oath") which as a Hittite name would have been a theophoric name meaning "Daughter of Ishara(Hittite goddess of binding oaths)". David gets her pregnant, ensures Uriah the mighty man of David gets killed. He marries the Daughter of Ishara, and her first-born son must die, for the sin of David.

David sins later by having a census taken of his army against the better judgment of Joab, most likely having to do with just how many of the fighting men are Hittites. For three days the visible manifestation of the Hittite god of plaque kills 70,000. David builds an altar at the spot where the Hittite god of plague tarries, and that's the spot for future temple.

Whether one says Hittite god responsible or angel of Yahweh, 70,000 died for the sin of one. Where in the Law is it a capital offence to count troops?

a reply to: pthena

The prophets such as Nathan didn't seem to get into any sort of fit over the Hittites intermarrying with the Israelites.

Yes, I suggested in an earlier post that the Deuteronomy instruction was retrospective (i.e. later than Nathan), in the light of the later history of the kingdom, so this is just making a point that I've already agreed with.

My "subtle differences" remark was about the one suggested in your previous post. Once their God is being recognised as the Creator, I still think the difference between "the gods of other nations are his subordinates" and "the gods of other nations don't exist" is trivial.

Your response has gone off on a different tangent, since your other points have nothing to do with the subject in hand.
So you are now trying to turn this thread into a "let's talk about every detail in the Bible" direction, and my standard policy is that I don't let myself get drawn into things like that.
I started this thread on the subject of marriage, with particular reference to the Biblical God presented as the God of life, and I'm willing to continue talking about marriage.