Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘156’

( see also In those days, it was NOT expected that a wife would follow her husband)

56. Dr. A. C. Dixon, in an article in the London Christian (Nov. 16, 1911) says: “Turn to this civilization which God Himself founded, and you will hear Him say: ‘A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.’ Woman is given the pre-eminence. It is not the woman leaving the father and the mother, and cleaving unto her husband; but it is the man leaving his mother and father, and cleaving unto his wife.” At one point we disagree with Dr. Dixon. Civilization founded on this marriage law of God did not make the wife her husband’s superior; but it prevented her becoming his subordinate. ….

63. We have got so far away from God’s law, that today, in British law, the mother is not a parent. …. The English Church is severe against divorce. Yet, read the Lord’s ruling as to divorce, in Matthew 19, and we discover that the conclusion, “Therefore what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” rests upon the premises, “A man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall become [R. V.] one flesh.” The Church will never effectually enforce the conclusion of that statute, while it defies the premises upon which it rests.

156… We have pointed out some of the social wrongs growing out of this violation of God’s marriage law.

157. Christ said: “What God hath joined, let not man put asunder.” Now we inquire, “What did God join, when He gave that marriage law which Christ repeats? First and foremost, he joined a man to his wife’s kindred, by the words, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife.” In the second place, God joined the husband to his wife, as indicated by the words,—“and they shall become one flesh.” The R.V.is correct here, in translating, “shall become,” instead of “shall be.” Both the Hebrew of the O. T., and the Greek of the N. T. say “become,” not “be.”

( see also In those days, it was NOT expected that a wife would follow her husband)

Read Full Post »