Commentary on Jewish Marriage

[Cap]

I sometimes wonder, as screwed up as it is, do the current alimony and child support laws come structured from this. And further since these 'godly' structures are not in place today and men are not doing as they should (according to God) to take charge of their families this is some sort of yoke of bandage to 'help' them get their lives in order.

And for @rockfox I am not at all saying men are to blame for it all and women get a free pass, but more it is response to the ills of society.

 

[rockfox]

I sometimes wonder, as screwed up as it is, do the current alimony and child support laws come structured from this. And further since these 'godly' structures are not in place today

What is 'this' and which structures do you refer to?

 

[Cap]

What is 'this' and which structures do you refer to?

This = information @Verifyveritas76 provide.

Structures = same thing.

Note: I enclosed the word 'godly' because I know they are not scripture but yet they do hold a certain amount of weight in the realm of biblical possibilities.

 

[PeteR]

@Verifyveritas76 lots of good information in there about how the post Babylon Jews understood marriage and how that might apply to the Ex. 21 passage in question. The problem is, are they right in their understanding, or do they obfuscate the passage with rules and parameters nowhere required in Scripture?

The problem Yeshua had with the Pharisees is that they 'made null the commandments of God by (their) traditions.' Beware of pursuing an interpretation that demands caveats above the simple text.

 

[PeteR]

They discuss in detail that this passage is extending a freeborn wife’s rights to one not as fortunate.

While the authors of the Talmud may view this as an extension ofvrights from freeborn to non, I completely disagree. God didn't say, 'Hmmm... freeborn women have X, let's give that to concubines.' Rather He is saying, 'Hebrews are a special people and every one, even the lady that winds up in servitude, has certain rights as a chosen people. Those rights for the males who wind up in servitude are x, y, z and the female protection in this manner with certain garuntees including being able to go free if they are not met.' To be clear, God is declaring the Hebrew slave has intrinsic value in His eyes. It is not about extending anything. It is affirming what is already there.

I agree that the passage is about a Hebrew maidservant. I do not agree that it is restricted to a concubine only. This restriction (absent a written statement within the passage) is based upon an inferred assumption that wives do not have these same rights.

Wives have the same rights to provision and conjugal companionship, however, those rights are not based on this passage. Further, the right to go out if not receiving provision is NOT a wife's. Covenant does not allow her to leave because she is unhappy with her situation. I know of no Scriptural support that allows her to walk out because she is not being provided for.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

To be clear, God is declaring the Hebrew slave has intrinsic value in His eyes. It is not about extending anything. It is affirming what is already there.

Agreed I thought that was what I was saying.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Wives have the same rights to provision and conjugal companionship, however, those rights are not based on this passage. Further, the right to go out if not receiving provision is NOT a wife's. Covenant does not allow her to leave because she is unhappy with her situation. I know of no Scriptural support that allows her to walk out because she is not being provided for.

As to the first part, I am unaware of these passages elsewhere to my knowledge but am certain they must be somewhere. Coordinates would be much appreciated.

As to the second part, (that she may not leave if she’s unprovided for) you may be correct, but if you are from this passage, it seems that it is because the three requirements are all regarding the duty of marriage (which a consummated wife would have, at least initially)

You may be right, but every commentary I have found regarding the rights of a wife begin at Exodus 21:10. Both Jewish and Christians who seem knowledgeable on the subject universally point to this passage for a wife’s rights. I’m open to other reasoned positions, and I’m still looking, but everything that I have found to date indicates otherwise.

 

[Cap]

When these statements are made about the provisions that a husband is suppose to provide for a wife is stated in Exodus 21, and the agreement is understood that there is such a requirement, why it's so hard to except that there most be recourse if these provisions are not meet?

If these provisions are not meet what is a wife suppose to do?

I know the answer is not specified in the word of God but there is a level of common sense we are suppose to us, don't you think?

 

[Nikud]

1 Timothy 5:7-8

7 Insist on these things, so that they might be beyond criticism. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, especially those in his own house, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Previously this quote was mentioned on another thread. It is mentioned after talking about widows and is said to be taken out of context when refering to wives and has been dismissed on that. Then the irrelevant arguement about designer clothes or nice cars is thrown in to draw away from what is actually being said usally pops up in response here as it does when speaking of Exodus 21.

Mark 7:11-13

10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.’11But you say if anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever you might have gained from me is korban (that is, an offering to God),’12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,13making void the word of God with your tradition that you’ve handed down. And you do many such things.”

Once again someone will point out this is about parents in an attempt to dismiss it without out looking at the teaching. It is about making traditions to deny ,since it was brought up about that Yeshua was speaking out against tradition and the details were left out, God's instructions and what is due to others. Which is wrong no matter if it's the Pharisee, Modern Church, or the Traditions created by the interpretation of Memebers of the forum.

Exodus 21:7-11

7 “If a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she is not to go free as the male servants do. 8 If she does not please her master who has selected her for himself, then he is to allow her to be redeemed. He will have no power to sell her to a foreign people, seeing as he has dealt deceitfully toward her. 9 If he betroths her to his son, he must give her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife, he is not to diminish her food, her clothing, or her marriage rights. 11 If he does not provide these three to her, then she is to go free without payment."

Here everyone wants to say, it only applies to concubine because she was bought as a maidservant and became a wife. Lets ignore that all brides were bought. Lets ignore that the instruction was speaking of her in her postion as a wife and not a maidservant.

Another Tradition made to be able to deny responsibilities. This time the responsibilities that come with of being a husband of leadership.

This is where someone reiterates passionately that this verse is about concubines. Then they will use this same scripture that they say only applies to concubines even though it states her status as a wife in an arguement as a justification that a wife who was bought to be a wife in a situation where her husband who is supose to provide for her fails to do so, Has no option than to stay when the wOman bought to be a maidservant turned wife is free to go. Ignore the inevitable women are evil, gold diggers, modern women this, Modern that rant that will follow in an attempt to draw away from the meaning of what's being said.

This is also where the arguement that a maidservant turned wife is not a real wife comes in. Unfortunately unless you are to going off the explanation of codes and laws not biblical or stems from pagan sources, which would be hypocritical since that's the argument present against @Verifyveritas76's use of Oral tradition, it's not a valid argument.

Then there's the concubine is a wife with out a Ketubah arguement so she needs extra protection. Many have danced around this afraid to say Ketubah because it's unbiblical by the accounts of many of the let's create a tradition to deny responsibility and then use Yeshua speaking out against tradition beining used to deny responsibility as a shield against cultral tradition explaining why we may be wrong for creating a tradition to deny responsibility crowd.

There's to much self interpreted Tradition Here to justify denying that those who claim authority are responsible for providing for those under their authority.

I know some of y'all are getting flustered and saying that's not what I'm doing. It might not be your intention but the things being posted point to that conclusion. Look back at the things you posted on other threads when it comes to the subject. I know I look back on what you've said in the pass on the subject and similar subjects and compare them to what your saying in recent post. So do many lurkers and guest. Think of the message you may be unintentionally teaching.

Right now someone is probably saying if theyre offended by scripture it's there fault, this is Iron sharpening Iron, or I'm not a teacher.

First, Scripture never absolves a leader of responsibility to provide and protect those under their authority. In fact it calls them to a place of service (another topic of disagreement here I know) So it's not scripture but the Tradition you have created by your interpretation (which is prevalent on the internet on self styled modern patriarchs MGTOW apologist sites) that offends people. Sadly most of those who are offended, are offended for the wrong reason regurgitating some social justice warrior rhetoric.

Second, if you want to say thid is Iron sharpening Iron then you should pick up a little knowledge from a blacksmith. Since I'm here and a blacksmith I'll share what I know. Pure Iron is unsharpenable. It's only when carbon is added.
Carbon is wonderful in iron, and it's what makes iron have such a vast range of properties and uses. If there is not enough carbon, and relatively "pure" iron is actually soft and yielding. Easily worked, but not very strong or resistant. Too much carbon, and the resulting alloy is brittle and unworkable, but very hard. There may be an attempt of iron sharpening Iron here, but here on this thread and about this subject, there's not enough carbon in most of the teaching here and to much in some of the rest.

Third, If you lead a family your a teacher because that's your duty to them. If that's where you set the limits of being a teacher, then you shouldn't speak with authority and try to teach others here. We all make mistakes. When we do and were teaching we need to correct them. That's what a man does. Tops off to @Verifyveritas76. Part of his mistake was due to me communicating poorly. Also, When teaching scripture is the filter. When an interpretation is in conflict with scripture outright or by interpretation then it's not benificial. When an Interpretation is in conflict with the nature of God then it's not benificial.

Tradition is only bad when it's raised to the level of scripture and/or used to condemn someone or justify nullifying the instructions of God.

 

[Pacman]

Lets ignore that the instruction was speaking of her in her postion as a wife

This is my question. Does it actually do that in the original text? Because it appears to me that the word “wife” was added in the English (presumably for clarity) ...

 

[Nikud]

There is no biblical word for wife. It is woman so replace the scriptural translation for wife with woman. A woman who is bought with a bride price for the purpose of providing a family and being one mans woman is still the same as a woman bought to be a maidservant who ends up becoming one man's woman and providing him with a family. She is still his woman. Same responsiblity.

EDIT: The difference is a cultural one based of Tradition where one has a Ketubah with certain rights and one doesn't and God was just corrected man's tradition and gave that one the rights that are basic in all Ketubah.


7 “If a man sells his daughter (original status) to be a maidservant (altered status), she is not to go free as the male servants do. 8 If she does not please her master who has selected her for himself (made her his woman, new status), then he is to allow her to be redeemed. He will have no power to sell her to a foreign people, seeing as he has dealt deceitfully toward her. 9 If he betroths her to his son, he must give her the rights of a daughter (alternative status). 10 If he takes another woman (makes no distinction how this woman became his woman but if he had selected her for himself the maidservant is his woman aswell), he is not to diminish her food, her clothing, or her marriage rights. 11 If he does not provide these three to her, then she is to go free without payment."

 

[Pacman]

There is no biblical word for wife. It is woman so replace the scriptural translation for wife with woman. A woman who is bought with a bride price for the purpose of providing a family and being one mans woman is still the same as a woman bought to be a maidservant who ends up becoming one man's woman and providing him with a family. She is still his woman. Same responsiblity.

Understood and agreed. So the question still stands. This passage is specifically speaking of a bondmaid. Is it appropriate to extend the rights of divorce to a free woman? No one here is questioning the requirement for a man to provide for his women. The question is about her recourse when he fails to do so...

To be clear I’m genuinely asking. This is not something I am taking lightly. I’m not necessarily favoring either “side” of this disagreement

 

[Phillip]

There is no biblical word for wife. It is woman so replace the scriptural translation for wife with woman. A woman who is bought with a bride price for the purpose of providing a family and being one mans woman is still the same as a woman bought to be a maidservant who ends up becoming one man's woman and providing him with a family. She is still his woman. Same responsiblity.

I am not a scholar in the Hebrew language and if I were to study it, I’d have to start from the very beginning. But I read or heard recently, that the Hebrew language had a limited amount of nouns and the same nouns were used for many different descriptions. That being said, is there any problem with using additional nouns for better clarifications? I have no problem with what you said.

 

[Nikud]

No one here is questioning the requirement for a man to provide for his women. The question is about her recourse when he fails to do so...

That was brought up because of previous statements made only similar post that say the opposite for the benifit of readers.

7 “If a man sells his daughter (original status) to be a maidservant (altered status), she is not to go free as the male servants do. 8 If she does not please her master who has selected her for himself (made her his woman, new status), then he is to allow her to be redeemed. He will have no power to sell her to a foreign people, seeing as he has dealt deceitfully toward her. 9 If he betroths her to his son, he must give her the rights of a daughter (alternative status). 10 If he takes another woman (makes no distinction how this woman became his woman but if he had selected her for himself the maidservant is his woman aswell), he is not to diminish her food, her clothing, or her marriage rights. 11 If he does not provide these three to her, then she is to go free without payment."

Is it appropriate to extend the rights of divorce to a free woman?

This will offend someone.
Culturally a woman's father would have a Ketubah written up for her, basicly a prenuptial agreement. A woman's husband and father would have worked out stipulations before a man paid a bride's price for her. He bought her. So a free woman is not an accurate term. If you want to look at it in free as not a bondservant first you must also look at there is a third woman not mentioned, the non ethnic Hebrew slave woman. The question then becomes, Is it appropriate to extend the rights of divorce to a woman who was not a bond servant first and the non ethnic hebrew slave woman taken as a man's woman? Thats where the arguement That God was offering the weak and defenseless extra protection falls apart.

There is the assumption that all woman bondservents end up in comprising situations (which testifies to the motives and desires of those who assume that) or are chosen to be the woman of the master or son. Culturally It was probably the hope that of a man with little wealth, connections, or the status to attract a wealthy match for his daughter, which would ensure an easier life in his old age, but it wasnt always the case. They would be free after their term of service. It's the fact that her father sold her into a situation where if chosen as a man's woman there would be no Ketubah since she wasn't under her fathers authority at the time. Isn't that God offering the weak and defenseless extra protection? No that's was God being a good father and ensuring she would have the same rights a daughter of a man who looked to his daughters interest instead of his own. God was offering the weak and defenseless extra protection would be God making this rule for the female outsider who became a slave. I pretty sure we know why so I'll not stray to far off topic. So is it appropriate to extend the rights of divorce to a free woman? Id say yes because there were no "free woman". This is not a commentary on whether a woman had the right to say no to the marriage. In Jewish culture both types could say no if they wanted but would be pressured to say yes if the situation was favorable to their families, but when the price was paid their was no illusion of further choice. The bride's price woman and the bond servant women where in the same boat and if they didn't have a Ketubah. Not all families were in a postion to make a Ketubah. So the beleif that a woman who was bought in one style and becomes wife with out a Ketubah would have more rights per God than a woman bought in another manner for the purpose of becoming a mans wife who doesnt have a Ketubah do sent make sense to me. Both are Gods people his daughters. I'm just reminded of scripture telling us not to play favorites.

 

[Nikud]

I am not a scholar in the Hebrew language and if I were to study it, I’d have to start from the very beginning. But I read or heard recently, that the Hebrew language had a limited amount of nouns and the same nouns were used for many different descriptions. That being said, is there any problem with using additional nouns for better clarifications? I have no problem with what you said.

There are bonuses and drawbacks. One of the drawbacks is sometimes the nouns can have to broad or narrow of interpretation. As long as the cultural meaning of a statement is there and it do sent change the word of God, using different nouns for clarification is ok. We just need to be careful. Reason why I say cultral meanings remain is because if I say I have an emotion risking from the pit of my gut, in modern times it's usally signifies fear, in Ancient Roman-Grecco culture it was anger, in Anceint Jewish Culture it was and is today compasion. So adding nouns for clarification isn't always a good idea, but it can be useful.

 

[The Revolting Man]

s. I’m open to other reasoned positions, and I’m still looking,

With all due respect and with zero "snark", this has not been my experience.

 

[The Revolting Man]

When these statements are made about the provisions that a husband is suppose to provide for a wife is stated in Exodus 21, and the agreement is understood that there is such a requirement, why it's so hard to except that there most be recourse if these provisions are not meet?

If these provisions are not meet what is a wife suppose to do?

I know the answer is not specified in the word of God but there is a level of common sense we are suppose to us, don't you think?

Again, this passage isn't aimed at wives. It's aimed at young women who may or may not be wives.

 

[Pacman]

Again, this passage isn't aimed at wives. It's aimed at young women who may or may not be wives.

Not so sure about that.

Vs8 her master, who hath betrothed her to himself,

Betrothed makes her a wife doesn’t it? Genuine question not arguing...

 

[The Revolting Man]

1 Timothy 5:7-8

7 Insist on these things, so that they might be beyond criticism. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, especially those in his own house, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Previously this quote was mentioned on another thread. It is mentioned after talking about widows and is said to be taken out of context when refering to wives and has been dismissed on that. Then the irrelevant arguement about designer clothes or nice cars is thrown in to draw away from what is actually being said usally pops up in response here as it does when speaking of Exodus 21.

Mark 7:11-13

10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.’11But you say if anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever you might have gained from me is korban (that is, an offering to God),’12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,13making void the word of God with your tradition that you’ve handed down. And you do many such things.”

Once again someone will point out this is about parents in an attempt to dismiss it without out looking at the teaching. It is about making traditions to deny ,since it was brought up about that Yeshua was speaking out against tradition and the details were left out, God's instructions and what is due to others. Which is wrong no matter if it's the Pharisee, Modern Church, or the Traditions created by the interpretation of Memebers of the forum.

Exodus 21:7-11

7 “If a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she is not to go free as the male servants do. 8 If she does not please her master who has selected her for himself, then he is to allow her to be redeemed. He will have no power to sell her to a foreign people, seeing as he has dealt deceitfully toward her. 9 If he betroths her to his son, he must give her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife, he is not to diminish her food, her clothing, or her marriage rights. 11 If he does not provide these three to her, then she is to go free without payment."

Here everyone wants to say, it only applies to concubine because she was bought as a maidservant and became a wife. Lets ignore that all brides were bought. Lets ignore that the instruction was speaking of her in her postion as a wife and not a maidservant.

Another Tradition made to be able to deny responsibilities. This time the responsibilities that come with of being a husband of leadership.

This is where someone reiterates passionately that this verse is about concubines. Then they will use this same scripture that they say only applies to concubines even though it states her status as a wife in an arguement as a justification that a wife who was bought to be a wife in a situation where her husband who is supose to provide for her fails to do so, Has no option than to stay when the wOman bought to be a maidservant turned wife is free to go. Ignore the inevitable women are evil, gold diggers, modern women this, Modern that rant that will follow in an attempt to draw away from the meaning of what's being said.

This is also where the arguement that a maidservant turned wife is not a real wife comes in. Unfortunately unless you are to going off the explanation of codes and laws not biblical or stems from pagan sources, which would be hypocritical since that's the argument present against @Verifyveritas76's use of Oral tradition, it's not a valid argument.

Then there's the concubine is a wife with out a Ketubah arguement so she needs extra protection. Many have danced around this afraid to say Ketubah because it's unbiblical by the accounts of many of the let's create a tradition to deny responsibility and then use Yeshua speaking out against tradition beining used to deny responsibility as a shield against cultral tradition explaining why we may be wrong for creating a tradition to deny responsibility crowd.

There's to much self interpreted Tradition Here to justify denying that those who claim authority are responsible for providing for those under their authority.

I know some of y'all are getting flustered and saying that's not what I'm doing. It might not be your intention but the things being posted point to that conclusion. Look back at the things you posted on other threads when it comes to the subject. I know I look back on what you've said in the pass on the subject and similar subjects and compare them to what your saying in recent post. So do many lurkers and guest. Think of the message you may be unintentionally teaching.

Right now someone is probably saying if theyre offended by scripture it's there fault, this is Iron sharpening Iron, or I'm not a teacher.

First, Scripture never absolves a leader of responsibility to provide and protect those under their authority. In fact it calls them to a place of service (another topic of disagreement here I know) So it's not scripture but the Tradition you have created by your interpretation (which is prevalent on the internet on self styled modern patriarchs MGTOW apologist sites) that offends people. Sadly most of those who are offended, are offended for the wrong reason regurgitating some social justice warrior rhetoric.

Second, if you want to say thid is Iron sharpening Iron then you should pick up a little knowledge from a blacksmith. Since I'm here and a blacksmith I'll share what I know. Pure Iron is unsharpenable. It's only when carbon is added.
Carbon is wonderful in iron, and it's what makes iron have such a vast range of properties and uses. If there is not enough carbon, and relatively "pure" iron is actually soft and yielding. Easily worked, but not very strong or resistant. Too much carbon, and the resulting alloy is brittle and unworkable, but very hard. There may be an attempt of iron sharpening Iron here, but here on this thread and about this subject, there's not enough carbon in most of the teaching here and to much in some of the rest.

Third, If you lead a family your a teacher because that's your duty to them. If that's where you set the limits of being a teacher, then you shouldn't speak with authority and try to teach others here. We all make mistakes. When we do and were teaching we need to correct them. That's what a man does. Tops off to @Verifyveritas76. Part of his mistake was due to me communicating poorly. Also, When teaching scripture is the filter. When an interpretation is in conflict with scripture outright or by interpretation then it's not benificial. When an Interpretation is in conflict with the nature of God then it's not benificial.

Tradition is only bad when it's raised to the level of scripture and/or used to condemn someone or justify nullifying the instructions of God.

You're switching in a position that no one is making. No one, and I mean no one, in this conversation is disputing that a husband should provide for his family and that one who doesn't is, as the Bible says, worse than an infidel and not of the true faith. As the hardliner on divorce and submission let me make this clear. Men are required by God in His Word to provide for his family (although that can look very different than we always imagine it). But the contention here is that a man's failure to be a good husband has no bearing on a woman's call to be a good wife and that Exodus 21 does contradict that.

This whole Exodus 21 thing is a bit of a distraction. The Laws for Divorce are clearly laid out by Christ Himself and He does not include the loophole being discussed here. Exodus 21 is interesting and says jaw dropping things (to our modern, western minds) about God's views on men and women but it does not alter the rules for remarriage in any way.
I HAD TO HEAVILY EDIT THIS POST BECAUSE I WAS ASTOUNDINGLY WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING. IF YOU SAW THE ORIGINAL YOU'RE NOT CRAZY. I WAS TEMPORARILY THOUGH.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You're switching in a position that no one is making. No one, and I mean no one, in this conversation is disputing that a husband should provide for his family and that one who doesn't is, as the Bible says, worse than an infidel and not of the true faith. As the hardliner on divorce and submission let me make this clear. Men are required by God in His Word to provide for his family (although that can look very different than we always imagine it). But the contention here is that a man's failure to be a good husband has no bearing on a woman's call to be a good wife and that Exodus 21 does contradict that.

This whole Exodus 21 thing is a bit of a distraction. The Laws for Divorce are clearly laid out by Christ Himself and He does not include the loophole being discussed here. Exodus 21 is interesting and says jaw dropping things (to our modern, western minds) about God's views on men and women but it does not alter the rules for remarriage in any way. I still think that possibly this verse only applies to women a man HASN'T slept with and the minute he took her to wife this verse wouldn't apply anymore. That's actually what I'm leaning towards. There might not be a marriage at all.

Not so sure about that.

Vs8 her master, who hath betrothed her to himself,

Betrothed makes her a wife doesn’t it? Genuine question not arguing...

You are completely correct (although I would look farthing in the passage to prove it than the betrothal) and I have edited my lunacy so others won't know my shame.