Re: [TruthTalk] Marriage, divorce, remarriage, continued

[Terry Clifton]

I do not know, therefore I ask. It  would seem to me that a bride back then was more of a purchase. Terry Slade Henson wrote: Do you think marriages back then were not covenants? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, 12 July, 2004 08:22 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Marriage, divorce, remarriage, continued Slade Henson wrote: I have a bit of a differing opinion than most... perhaps. For me, the key is in the word "covenant." When a man beats his wife or emotionally damages her, he has broken the covenant he has made with her and she is free to leave. If the woman does likewise or is not sexually loyal to him, she has broken the covenant as well. I think it's unfair for a person to be stuck with an abusive spouse without being free to receive relief and perhaps a bit of happiness from someone who can treat them with the respect and love they deserve.   -- slade Interesting thought Slade.  Make perfect sense for the way marriages are normally performed, making vows to one another.  How 'bout way back there though, when wives were given or earned as was the case with Rachel and Leah?  Have you learned anything in your studies that would help us see the picture there? Terry