No, you can still be under your father.
-
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.
Isaiah 4:1 Wives or Concubines? Covering, Conjugal Rights, and Reproach
- Thread starter RemnantResilience
- Start date
What if your father is dead. Can a man who isn’t your husband or not your father like a brother or uncle or even someone who is close to you but not related by marriage or blood?
Esther was, for whatever reason, under the covering of her uncle. What is interesting is that she continued to obey him even after being married to the king, which he required (if memory serves correctly).
Wives have trouble obeying their husbands nowadays, the possibility that a woman would obey someone that she isn’t married to isn’t very good, but it could happen if. A person who is more of a counselor/advisor would just be a pretense of a covering.
Time would tell whether it was real or not, but there isn’t much support for it Biblically. Esther being the exception that proves the rule.
The book of Esther is full of interesting and...more interesting...things. For one thing, it is notable for how many different versions of the account were written by various Jewish and gentile scribes. Specifically to your mention, however, conventional (comfortable) assumptions nowadays are that Mordecai was Esther's uncle and raised his neice as his daughter after the death of her father. This is not what the Septuagint and Masoretic texts say. Their witness is that he was her cousin and took her after her father's death to raise her for himself as his wife. Now his and her behavior makes sense.
Edit: Sorry, my memory wasn't right. Masoretic agrees with Septuagint on the relationship as cousins. Septuagint agrees with Rabbinical Jewish tradition on the matter of raising her as his wife. Masoretic has it as his daughter. The many versions have a LOT of significant variations like this. I have to think the Septuagint and Rabbinical tradition have it right in this instance because of how well the rest of the account flows with that concept.
Last edited:
RemnantResilience
Member
In regards to widows and covering, see Tim. 5:3-16 there you can find the age for the list of widows as well as see how other believing women would care for widows as well as the church. I remember there being several accounts of this in practice throughout scripture but can't recall the passages off the top of my head.
Cousin or uncle, fathers death or purchased her as future wife, I have long leaned towards this understanding.
I didn’t want to cloud the issue in the present discussion.
It would definitely further remove her from just being under the mere covering of a relative. At which point we have zero examples of such a thing.
That is also a good point, only the women over 60 were to be under the covering of the church. The rest were instructed to be married, which presumably would have been into an existing family for most of them.
The word “widow” actually meant bereft, as in without a husband anymore. We assume that it means that the husband had died, but I believe that many were without husbands because of being put out for accepting the new Walk, with Yeshua as savior.
Not sounding charge, just putting out the counter narrative for the newbies, but this doesn’t have scriptural support and is largely based on assumptions about “covering” (all coming from a good place) that we have never established as concrete.
RemnantResilience
Member
Had not considered that last part before. Perhaps that is why they are under the care or other women rather than those womens husbands. Considering the other requirements that had to be met to make the list one would think a completed marriage was the expectation for one to be called a widow.
RemnantResilience
Member
That is part of the reason I started this thread. The definition of covering directly affecting the definition of reproach.
None of the other assumptions have any Scriptural support at all.
This “theory” has plenty of Scriptural indications.
As long as that’s explicit. There’s not a command that can made in this instance.
The challenge that was made was to prove me wrong, I never claimed that it was one of the commandments.
So far, nobody has come close.
There’s not a command explicitly contrary to be sure.
RemnantResilience
Member
To look at this from a different perspective, what is the opposite of the state of reproach? If we refer to Tim. 5:3-16, is a widow with children and grandchildren in reproach, because she is husband less? or A widow over 60 who qualifies for the list, not being of the description for the widows who are not to be put on the list? Are the unlisted widows over 60 then in reproach? Was Naomi in reproach when her husband died leaving her without child? Did Boaz redeeming her with a child remove her reproach or was it simply taking her under his wing?
Yes.
I would think so, but they have obviously been given a pass.
If she moved into his house with Naomi, which I would presume, she would have been under his covering.
An added thought, every owned slave or servant, male or female, would seem to have been under the master’s covering.
And when I say under his covering, I am including being under the obligation to worship the deity of his choosing in the manner of his choosing.
34And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
RemnantResilience
Member
I don't remember there being any provisional requirements for the servant, I would assume this is because the position was only a temporary position? Something else to note, the master only has authority over the wife's vow's not the servants. I am curious if all servants lived in the masters house or on the masters land, or if they were allowed their own residences. Servants also were allowed to go free for severe bodily damage. He is responsible for them but to what extent? The only exception I could think of is the doorpost piercing, but even then I would assume the bodily injury clause still applies. He is a steward but I am not sure about a covering. Perhaps that is the meaning behind a man who prays with his head covered? Referring to servants who pray while still bound to a master.
They were owned, that’s the only information needed. If they were fellow Israelites it was temporary, yes. But the master was still totally responsible for them while they were under his ownership.
The rest of your post I couldn’t follow the reasoning.
Chapter and verse, please.
If they owned their own residences, they wouldn’t be servants. The sale of their own selves was the last thing that they owned.
Proof of how much responsibility the owners had.
I’m guessing that would be a wrong assumption.
The rest of your post I couldn’t follow the reasoning.
RemnantResilience
Member
See Numbers 30 for Vows, I am not aware of any other vow or pledge passage pertaining to a servant other than Deuteronomy 15:12-18
I understand the logic here, do you know of any passages for reference?
Yet, disciplining of a servant was allowed. With only un-restorable maiming nullifying the debt towards his master. It was application of justice.
Whys that? The servant pledged to be a servant for life because of the listed conditions. Does this then remove the masters responsibilities towards that servant in regards to justice?
I am saying the master is a steward of that servant, he has limits set upon him in regards to his conduct towards that servant. This makes him a provider but not necessarily a covering. If we use the logic that the master is the covering then anyone providing for another would be that persons covering. It wouldn't just apply to husbands wives, fathers daughters. I can't think of any examples expressing a father is considered his sons covering. Are we then saying that the women taking care of the widows in Timothy are covering the widows? What about the church?
The last bit was just a thought, if we consider the Master his servants covering. I was referencing 1 Cor 11:4.
I cannot honestly think of any decisions that an owned person (servant) could make that their master might have to nullify.
But since no one that I know owns any servants, I don’t think that it is necessary that we parse this to the nth degree in order to come to agreement. Scripture isn’t specific and I don’t see any point in going farther.
As you already brought up, the responsibility for the decisions of wives and daughters rests ultimately and solely upon the man. He is the one who answers to Yah.
This is the crux of being a covering. Simply providing for a person doesn’t cover them, you can help your neighbors all week long, but you are not their covering.
I hope this answers your questions.