Hosea 2:16 is clearly tied to verse 17. The thrust of the meaning is that he will remove the name of Baal from the mouth of his people.
This has literally nothing to do with the words Master or Husband.
This has to do with his people no longer calling on Baal.
_______________________________________________________________________
In defining the terms, you state,
"When studying church history, it is clear that Western marriage law too often absorbed Roman property categories, confusing covenant with contract."
This seems as if you are wanting to elevate covenant above contracts. I don't see it.
Where in the bible is there ever a "contract"? All of them are listed as covenants. Not simply marital. All contracts.
Gen 21:32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.
Gen 26:28 And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee;
Gen 26:29 That thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace: thou art now the blessed of the LORD.
Gen 26:28 And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee;
Gen 26:29 That thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace: thou art now the blessed of the LORD.
_______________________________________________________________________
III. Scriptural Framework of Covenant Belonging
If ownership belongs to YHWH alone and stewardship defines human authority, the next step is to see how Scripture applies this framework within marriage.
...
Even Messiah’s authority is stewarded under the Father (John 5:30), and no human headship can claim greater independence.[v]
This statement above makes a statement that ownership belongs to the Most High alone and that only stewardship flows out of that.
You even make the claim that Yeshua is only granted stewardship and not ownership.
FINE. Then are you are saying that husbands have the SAME level of stewardship that Christ has over his brides? Because that level of "Stewardship" looks identical to ownership. Could it be stripped away? Sure. But while it exists, that "stewardship" has all the trappings and authority of ownership.
This is a difference without a distinction.
______________________________________________________________________
Matt. 5:31–32 in
NO way restricts a mans ability to divorce a woman strictly on the basis of sexual immorality. That is a terrible understanding that fails to understand the whole thrust of the conversations Yeshua had about putting away.
Mat 5:31 It(
G1161) hath been said,
G4483 Whosoever
G3739 G302 shall put away
G630 his
G848 wife,
G1135 let him give
G1325 her
G846 a writing of divorcement:
G647
Mat 5:32 But
G1161 I
G1473 say
G3004 unto you,
G5213 That
G3754 whosoever
G3739 G302 shall put away
G630 his
G848 wife,
G1135 saving for
G3924 the cause
G3056 of fornication,
G4202 causeth
G4160 her
G846 to commit adultery:
G3429 and
G2532 whosoever
G3739 G1437 shall marry
G1060 her that is divorced
G630 committeth adultery.
G3429
This is one of the translations that people derive their poor understanding from. But I use this KJV because it includes the Strongs numbers so that we can decipher it properly.
Note that
G630 is "putting away". Putting away is not the same as giving a writ of divorcement. Putting away is what you would do AFTER you give a writ of divorcement. It is the literal, "driving off" or "sending away" of the other person.
With that understanding, look at how it says that whosoever (
G630 puts away) his wife causes her to commit adultery. UNLESS, she is already fornicating. If she is already fornicating, you cannot cause her to "become" a fornicator.
Then at the end of the verse it says that whosoever marries the (
G630 put away) woman, commits adultery. WHY? Because a woman that is simply driven off, or put away, is NOT divorced. She is still married. If she had been given a writ of divorcement, then she would not be married and would free to marry another.
Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him
write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and
send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house,
she may go and be another man's wife.
____________________________________________________________________________
Then you make the statement,
"A husband’s headship carries responsibility for his household but never sovereignty over his wife."
What are you even trying to say here? Are you equating sovereignty to authority? Put simply, are you implying that a wife is free to make her own life choices without the consent of her husband? And then without the authority over her he is still somehow responsible for her life choices?
That defies logic and is not modeled by Christ and his brides.
___________________________________________________________________________
You state: "
Such texts elevate the wife as a conduit of divine blessing, not an object of domination."
This, NOW THIS I agree wholeheartedly with. The reason I fully believe this statement is that it is modeled by Yeshua and how he treats his brides.
I argue for the same authority and reverence that Yeshua is deserving of WHILE offering the same love, provision, protection, leadership, correction, long suffering and affection towards my wives.
But, it is NOT domination to have authority over just as Messiah has authority over his brides.
__________________________________________________________________________
Then this statement:
"While some critics argue that any hierarchical order constitutes structural subordination, the Biblical model differs: authority is derivative, bounded, and exercised in sacrificial stewardship, not in sovereign domination."
I am not sure why so many teachers want to ignore that Christ did not die for his bride until LONG after he had repeatedly punished her and put her away over and over.
He warned his brides that he would kick them out of his "house/land" if they began to commit adultery against him.
They did not listen and so he did exactly that. He sent them away over and over again. With great punishment! When they would begin to remember to obey him, he would let them back into the land.
His sending them away did not cause them to commit adultery, they were already engaging in it.
It was ONLY after he divorced one of his brides that his desire to reunite with her caused him to have to go to drastic measures to break the marital tie that they had. The only legal way to break that tie was for him to die. In his Glory, he couldn't die so he put it off and put on mortality.
Then dies so that she could legally be able to reunite with him.
Yes, that was sacrificial love but it does not absolve her of the requirement to obey him.
He even equates loving him with obedience to him.
Deu_11:22 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him;
Joh_14:21 He that hath my
commandments,
and keepeth them,
he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
1Jn_5:3 For
this is the love of God,
that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
2Jn_1:6
And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
___________________________________________________________________________
Then this...
It would be prudent to note that Calvin disregarded passages that clearly state YHWH's own covenant with two women, daughters of the same mother. (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:6–10; Ezek. 23:1–5; Jer. 31:31–34; 33:24). Albeit metaphorical, it would be theologically incoherent to suggest that YHWH employed a sinful relationship as the medium for His own covenantal Self-disclosure.
Nowhere in scripture does it EVER indicate that this is a metaphorical marriage. That is a man made doctrine.
He plainly states that he was a husband unto them.
Jer 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD;
for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,
although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
And not only that, we are WAITING for the new marriage covenant supper of the lamb that is still to come!
Behold, the bridegroom cometh!
Mat 25:6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
We area waiting!!!
____________________________________________________________________________
Then this statement,
"A second parallel arises in trust law. A trustee is granted authority for the benefit of others, yet this authority is fiduciary: he may not convert trust property into personal possession. Likewise, the husband functions as a covenantal trustee. His authority is real, but fiduciary—bounded, accountable to Messiah, with wife and children as beneficiaries."
You imply without evidence that we are to our wives as trustees. I am sure this plays well with the feminists movement but that is not biblically rooted.
2Sa_12:8
And I gave thee thy master's house, and
thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
This does not imply a trustee position. He was being scourged for taking another man's wife into his bed and was being told, that if you did not have enough of your own wives, I would have given you MORE wives.
So, you state that it is a trustee position but, there is no evidence for it.
_________________________________________________________________________
Then you state,
VII. Responding to the Accusation
The charge of misogyny often carries with it an unspoken demand: that one recant covenantal language and embrace egalitarian formulations. Yet to do so would be to betray not merely conviction but theological truth.
I fully agree with your assessment here. To recant covenantal language would be to embrace egalitarianism in betrayal of the truth of Yah's word.
_____________________________________________________________________
Just prior to your conclusions, there is a lot to agree with.
____________________________________________________________________
Then in your footnotes, there are (fake) gems like this!
"Kindly note that divorce, according to Torah, is only permitted in the case of adultery. There are minor exceptions, which will not be discussed in this article."
Stated in the footnotes where opinions to not belong. Given without reference in the place where references are intended to be given.
Wrong on it face but no doubt reflects your opinion...
________________________________________________________________
Abraham, I realize that I have spoke very strongly against many of the statements that you have made in your article.
This in no way is meant to be a personal attack against you or your devotion to the truth. I am simply trying to "sharpen the iron".
I pray that you will take this write-up as an opportunity to revisit some of the positions you hold.
Shalom...
Read the full article here:
Belonging and Stewardship: Reassessing Covenant Headship in Biblical Marriage
