GRR... I am annoyed at two of our more public voices

[Mark C]

PS> Being a "literalist" is fine, and generally optimal. But that sometimes includes understanding a 'broader context,' and especially, "connecting-the-dots" to other Scripture.

For example, Isaiah 4:1.

Here are women that specifically reference those requirements, sans the obvious, and appear to be asking only for an even more minimal level of 'covering' ("let me be called by your name.")

In my opinion, of of the points seems to be that they are "chastened," thus, not even asking for the minimum.

 

[steve]

It's a fallacy called an "argument from silence."

The ASSUMPTION is that it "only" applies to concubines. But Scripture does not actually say that.

It is made IN THE CONTEXT of bondservants.

But an equally-valid assumption is that it applies to all wives. And to deny that is to deny one of the primary rhetorical mechanisms that Shaul/Paul of Tarsus makes over and over, often called "the heavy and the light." I.e., "If THIS is so, THEN how much MORE this?" [Addendum: It is, in fact, a well-known, even 'standard' Hebrew thought-pattern, seen throughout Scripture.]

In other words, the at-least-as-reasonable 'assumption' is that if some minimum requirement exists, even for women that are bondservants, then "how much more so," for wives who choose the marriage voluntarily?

Indeed, that is why the "three minimum conditions" specified in Exodus 21:10 (food, raiment, duties of marriage) have been considered "standard elements" of a traditional marriage contract (ketubah) for millenia.

Yes, it doesn’t make much sense that there would be a higher requirement for the purchased wives than for the wife of your youth.

 

[steve]

In my opinion, of of the points seems to be that they are "chastened," thus, not even asking for the minimum.

I believe that they are chastened, realizing that they have been wrong, but I don’t believe that is why they ask for less than what is required.
I believe that these women choose a man who has proven himself with a large family and whose budget is probably stretched. They have already been self-supporting and want to come under his authority without putting a strain on the existing family.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It's a fallacy called an "argument from silence."

The ASSUMPTION is that it "only" applies to concubines. But Scripture does not actually say that.

It is made IN THE CONTEXT of bondservants.

But an equally-valid assumption is that it applies to all wives. And to deny that is to deny one of the primary rhetorical mechanisms that Shaul/Paul of Tarsus makes over and over, often called "the heavy and the light." I.e., "If THIS is so, THEN how much MORE this?" [Addendum: It is, in fact, a well-known, even 'standard' Hebrew thought-pattern, seen throughout Scripture.]

In other words, the at-least-as-reasonable 'assumption' is that if some minimum requirement exists, even for women that are bondservants, then "how much more so," for wives who choose the marriage voluntarily?

Indeed, that is why the "three minimum conditions" specified in Exodus 21:10 (food, raiment, duties of marriage) have been considered "standard elements" of a traditional marriage contract (ketubah) for millenia.

Adding to again? Or still rather. It doesn’t say that.

 

[Mark C]

You said nothing.

 

[MeganC]

It's a fallacy called an "argument from silence."

The ASSUMPTION is that it "only" applies to concubines. But Scripture does not actually say that.

It is made IN THE CONTEXT of bondservants.

But an equally-valid assumption is that it applies to all wives. And to deny that is to deny one of the primary rhetorical mechanisms that Shaul/Paul of Tarsus makes over and over, often called "the heavy and the light." I.e., "If THIS is so, THEN how much MORE this?" [Addendum: It is, in fact, a well-known, even 'standard' Hebrew thought-pattern, seen throughout Scripture.]

In other words, the at-least-as-reasonable 'assumption' is that if some minimum requirement exists, even for women that are bondservants, then "how much more so," for wives who choose the marriage voluntarily?

Indeed, that is why the "three minimum conditions" specified in Exodus 21:10 (food, raiment, duties of marriage) have been considered "standard elements" of a traditional marriage contract (ketubah) for millenia.

Genesis 16 has Hagar the slave girl given to Abraham as a second wife (Gen 16:3) yet in Gen 16:6 Abraham makes clear that Hagar is still a slave despite having been taken to Abraham's bed as a wife.

Hagar was not made equal to Sarah and furthermore she wasn't even given her relative freedom. She was a sex slave. Not even a concubine.

Yet she was also clearly described as a wife.

Just something the discussion made me think about.

 

[frederick]

Genesis 16 has Hagar the slave girl given to Abraham as a second wife (Gen 16:3) yet in Gen 16:6 Abraham makes clear that Hagar is still a slave despite having been taken to Abraham's bed as a wife.

Hagar was not made equal to Sarah and furthermore she wasn't even given her relative freedom. She was a sex slave. Not even a concubine.

Yet she was also clearly described as a wife.

Just something the discussion made me think about.

Good observation.
I have also made the point in the past that Rachel and Leah's maids were still referred to as maids after they were given to Jacob. And yes, they were given to him for the same purpose as Hagar was given to Abraham.