The CBE Scroll

‘If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty placed on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.’ (Deuteronomy 24:5)

This was actually the second instance of Scripture I noticed in my reading of Deuteronomy where allowance was made for the priority of marriage over the duties of a soldier (cf. Deuteronomy 20:7).

But, what strikes me particularly about this verse is the latter half. In a completely patriarchal society, one would expect for the exhortation to be ‘so that his wife can bring him happiness’ – but instead, the opposite is being commanded. Why do you think this is the case?

To me, it reveals that the idea of marriage being created for the enjoyment of both husband and wife is not a new man-made (or ‘woman’-made) idea. I think the tendency in that society was for the men to live like it was all about them (If we read all the stories about the patriarchs/men of the Bible, it would seem that they made all the decisions – wise ones for their families and also not-so-wise-ones to save their own neck or to satisfy their desires and make themselves happy – even to take more than one woman (slave/concubine), even though that wasn’t how God wanted things.), so, in light of that, perhaps God needed to spell it out plainly that it was important to him that the husbands sought after bringing happiness to their own wives.

What do you think?

Several places in the New Testament, had ‘headship’ been God’s intention, it would have been stated and described. Rather, in those places we find no such direct statement and, in fact, other descriptions of marriage indicating full equality.

Two such places are as follow. In 1 Corinthians 7:3-4, when Paul states that the husband’s body belongs to his wife and and wife’s to her husband, no distinction is made between the two parties, in spite of the fact that the word ‘authority’ is used.

The second, 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, concerns itself with the value of staying single in the culture of the time. It talks about a married man being ‘anxious about the affairs of the world and how to please his wife’ (NRSV), and then the same words are used for a married woman wanting to please her husband, therefore being divided in interest rather than single-mindedly serving God. Paul states ‘I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.’

Surely these two sets of verses would have been ideal opportunities to state roles of husbands and wives if that had been Paul’s intention and belief. However, instead of even a hint of hierarchy, there is instead total mutuality and consideration.

Lately there has been here quite a bit of reporting of statements from other blog sites, referring to roles and responsibilities for wives and husbands, women and men. The verses being quoted to support such claims have seemed, at best, verses fraught with interpretation or translation issues, and not as clear as some would have us believe.

Meanwhile, there are countless places within Scripture where our responsibilities towards one another within the body of Christ are encouraged, and there can be no argument against those plain statements. For example, in Galatians 5:13-14 we have the words ‘For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love, become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,”You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”‘ (NRSV)

Jesus himself said ‘In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the law and the prophets’ (Matthew 7:12, NRSV) – in such a simple yet profound statement about our innate equality and responsibility towards others. Also in Scripture, there is a long list of ‘one anothers’ which cover all aspects of relationships within the Christian family, and we would do well to live by them and then discover that there is no need for anyone to be responsible for, or over, any other person. If we all esteem others better than ourselves, we can’t go wrong.

It is interesting that Jesus is not recorded as having said anything which even remotely suggested differing roles for women or men. All people are called to sacrifice, servanthood, submission, and holiness… the list goes on and on. Jesus’ last words were ‘Go therefore and make disciples of nations… and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.’ (Matthew 28:19-20 NRSV) You will notice that there is not a word about the difference between male and female followers or their responsibilities.

How should the first part of Malachi 2:16 be understood?

In the NIV, the first part of the verse reads: ‘”I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself [a] with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty.’ (2:16, emphasis added) The footnote to this verse in the NIV says ‘[a] or his wife.’

In the TNIV, the first part of the verse reads: ‘”I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate it when people clothe themselves with injustice,” says the LORD Almighty.’ There is no footnote reading ‘or his wife.’

If you look at the ESV, it’s translated this way: ‘”For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “covers his garment with violence,” says the LORD of Hosts.’

Somewhere in the past, I heard that ‘garment’ was a Hebrew slang term of the time for ‘wife.’

In the NIV, it appears that the word ‘himself’ could be translated ‘his wife.’ In this version it could be argued that God hates it when a man beats his wife. The TNIV doesn’t allow for this translation at all. It doesn’t even mention men or violence.
The ESV mentions that the man who does not love his wife but divorces her covers his garment with violence. In this case ‘garment’ appears to refer to the man himself. Or, does it really refer to the slang term ‘wife?’ If so, is divorce being compared to a man doing violence to either himself or his wife?

With so many Bible translations to pick from, sometimes it’s hard to know which version most accurately represents the thought being expressed in the original language.

My question is: does this verse indicate that God hates it when a man is violent towards his wife, or that God is comparing divorce to violence, or does it mean something else? And, if it does mean something else, what is it?

This past year I have decided to slowly read through the Gospels and pay special attention to the words that Jesus said and the life that he lived. Although I have been reading the Bible now for many years, I am amazed at the new things I am learning as I read, like, for instance, in the case of the woman who anointed Jesus with the expensive perfume.

From sermons I’ve heard and from what I have read, my recollection of the story goes as follows: A woman of ill-repute came to Jesus and anointed him with expensive perfume, wiping his feet with her tears. Some of the disciples rebuked her, but Jesus said to leave her alone – that what she had done would be remembered for years to come. It always struck me that they didn’t mention her name. How would she be remembered?

Recently, I read in John 12, ‘A dinner was prepared in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, and Lazarus was among those who ate with him. Then Mary took a twelve-ounce jar of expensive perfume made from essence of nard, and she anointed Jesus’ feet with it, wiping his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance.’ (John 12:2-3, NLT) I had to read it twice. What? Mary? I thought she was a woman of ill-repute with no name. Many times I had heard sermons on the assumed reasons why the woman (Mary was never mentioned) might have done this loving act. I had read a few days before that Jesus raised her brother Lazarus from the dead. Putting myself in Mary’s sandals I would have been very grateful if Jesus had just raised my brother from the dead.

I got out my commentaries and concordances and found that in each gospel there is an account of a woman doing a similar act as this. Only in one of the gospels is she mentioned as a woman of ill-repute. The other two gospels describe her as being a ‘woman’ and John names her as Mary. The commentaries and concordances pointed to these accounts as being the same woman. I was floored!

Why is this important to me? First, Jesus said that this woman’s act would be remembered. I had never heard a woman’s name mentioned in connection with this story and she was always talked about as a woman of ill-repute. The gospel of John gives her a name – Mary. Sermons have been centered on why this woman (Mary) would have performed such an act of adoration. The Bible tells us that Jesus allowed Mary to learn at his feet and he raised her brother from the dead. Knowing this makes it easy to see why Mary did such a loving thing as anoint him with expensive perfume and wipe his feet with her hair. Love, gratefulness, adoration. Why has this act of Mary not been remembered accurately?