-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
biblically speaking
- Thread starter ginger2
- Start date
Oh, I think I have a concrete example. If a man wants to marry his wife's sister.
He requires the wife to give her blessing since the spirit of the command is not to turn sisters into rivals having the wife's blessing I think would alleviate the whole rival factor and make it permissible (I think).
He requires the wife to give her blessing since the spirit of the command is not to turn sisters into rivals having the wife's blessing I think would alleviate the whole rival factor and make it permissible (I think).
Proverbs 31 shows us a wife that is quite savvy in the business world and takes good care of her family. (My belief is that Proverbs 31 was done by many, not just one wife, but that would take me off subject) When the fall took place in the garden, Adam had the choice to say, “No, put the apple down.” But, he didn’t assert his God given authority as head of household. Given that women can be quite sharp and are a huge asset to men and that men are head of household, and are ultimately responsible for his family, I believe open discussions allow a husband to see things from different angles, different perspectives. Henry Ford hired men of varying abilities to advise him from many different angles. We all know the empire he built. When open discussion takes place, it allows for better decision making, seeing things from all sides. If all are in agreement, then continuity in the family continues. If no arrangement can be agreed upon, then as head of household, a decision will be made.
I love IshChayil’s example and advice. Using a little wisdom never hurts.
Phil
Not that I can think of. But vows are important to God so That’s why I made the decision to wait for her blessing. Most modern marriages include vows something to the effect of “ keep thee only unto her” and I think that is something we shoud take seriously.
Seems like both Abraham and Jacob waited for their wives assent before ‘husbanding’ their handmaids. This could be because the handmaids belonged to the wives not the husband so may have limited application
I question weather or not either one of them had any interest in those handmaids. It appears from both stories it was the wife’s idea... even if it wasn’t those stories only tell us they did wait not that they had to...
But, we also see other examples.... David doesn't appear to have asked for permission or input. The High Priest brought Joash two, it sounds like at one time.. Moses and the Cushite clearly upset some family... the key isn't the wife, it is the Father.
That being said, for harmony's sake, wisdom says the wife or wives should be in the loop, but that is nowhere a requirement..
My point was that though the men waited, the reason probably had more to do with the fact that the handmaids did not belong to him, they were the property of the wives. In these specific cases, the permissions of the owners were necessary
Eh, the wives belonged to the husband so whatever the wives had was his anyway.
Something that was definitely not true in regards to Jewish culture. It could be, but only at her discretion, specifically in regards to her dowry. Hagar wasn’t part of a dowry, but both of the other two handmaids were.
The same was true in regards to property or money given as a dowry, or property or goods bought with money from a dowry. He was entitled to the proceeds from her handiwork or crafts under certain conditions and the usufruct from the property, but never the principle. It was hers to do with as she pleased by right and law. The best example of this is the Prov. 31 woman.
I see proverbs 31 woman as doing all of that on behalf of and with authority delegated from her husband. Her ownership of those maids was with his permission and possibly even paid for by him.
In each of the following cases I have always been under the impression that the husband wasn’t seeking out the handmaids as wives, but took them when pressured by their wives.
Genesis 16:1 (WEB) Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children. She had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 2 Sarai said to Abram," See now, Yahweh has restrained me from bearing. Please go in to my handmaid. It may be that I will obtain children by her." Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
Genesis 30:1 (WEB) When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister. She said to Jacob, "Give me children, or else I will die." 2 Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in God's place, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?" 3 She said, "Behold, my maid Bilhah. Go in to her, that she may bear on my knees, and I also may obtain children by her."
Genesis 30:9 (WEB) When Leah saw that she had finished bearing, she took Zilpah, her handmaid, and gave her to Jacob as a wife.
To the point of the thread, I am aware of no verse in the Bible that gives the first or any subsequent wife the authority to veto a wife subsequent to them. When the marriage is permissible biblically, I think the decision is entirely the man’s to make, not his wife’s. That said, I think it is wise to approach bringing on a second (or more) wives with the blessing of the current wife/wives. This is probably much more true in today’s culture where plural marriage is not generally socially acceptable in first-world countries.
I get what youre saying and know where and why youre coming from there. However there’s really no indication in the Proverbs 31 passage to say who owned them or even if they were owned. They may have been the daughters of the family in which case they were freeborn and under their fathers rule and covering but thats different than being owned as a bond servant/handmaid.
I’d challenge you to consider why you think that they would belong to him or that he would have automatically been the one to purchase them if they were a bond servant. I’d submit that this perspective is the result of a cultural bias that is based upon what someone has assumed about Hebrew culture then.
In the case of both Leah and Rachels handmaids, they were given to them by Laban as part of their inheritance / dowry. In cases like these, the servants belonged to their mistress and were under her authority/permission. I realize that this flies in the face of unlimited husbandly authority, but study it out. This is just the tip of the iceberg of misconceptions that we very ignorantly assume about the ancient Hebrew culture and family structure because of our own cultural bias and ignorance or the cultural bias and ignorance of someone we have listened to.
Before you take that personally, I include myself in that and am currently a recovering assumer
I agree that the passage does not give enough information to conclude that they were owned as in slaves and it's very possible they were freeborn and therfore under the authority of their father. But I think it's an assumption that it would be common for a woman to be out from the authority of a man. It seems to me from most of scripture including the law that they were under a husband or father or other close male relative most of the time.
Of course being free born comes with more rights than a slave would have but women in general did not have equal rights such as they have now in western culture.
I have learned not to take things personally. No problem.
Of course being free born comes with more rights than a slave would have but women in general did not have equal rights such as they have now in western culture.
Before you take that personally, I include myself in that and am currently a recovering assumer
I have learned not to take things personally. No problem.
This does not mean they weren't also under the authority of the man of the household. I view it more as they allowed / deligated the authority to the wives and not that the wives had any "rights" to that authority.
Think about it. If the wife was under his authority how does it make any sense that the maids would not be?
If they were freeborn then they would only be "employees" and therefore only under limited authority from the wife or the husband. If they were bondmaids and purchased by the woman then they would also be under the authority of the husband because he owned his wife. If they were purchased by the husband and given to his wife then the same thing would apply. I don't see how it fits any other way.
You may be conflating cultural norms with biblical principles. And Proverbs 31 is silent on the proceeds of all of Ruby's labor.