No, you can still be under your father.Do you have to be married to be “covered” ??
No, you can still be under your father.Do you have to be married to be “covered” ??
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?No, you can still be under your father.
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).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?
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.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).
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.What about older widows? Should they remarry. Generally older women wouldn’t be having children? So should they at a certain age be required to remarry??
Cousin or uncle, fathers death or purchased her as future wife, I have long leaned towards this understanding.Their witness is that he was her cousin and took her after her father's death to raise her for himself as his wife.
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.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 thought there were also several accounts of this in the OT but cannot remember where.
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.No, you can still be under your father.
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.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.
That is part of the reason I started this thread. The definition of covering directly affecting the definition of reproach.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.
None of the other assumptions have any Scriptural support at all.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.
As long as that’s explicit. There’s not a command that can made in this instance.None of the other assumptions have any Scriptural support at all.
This “theory” has plenty of Scriptural indications.
The challenge that was made was to prove me wrong, I never claimed that it was one of the commandments.As long as that’s explicit. There’s not a command that can made in this instance.
There’s not a command explicitly contrary to be sure.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.
Yes.is a widow with children and grandchildren in reproach, because she is husband less?
I would think so, but they have obviously been given a pass.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?
If she moved into his house with Naomi, which I would presume, she would have been under his covering.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?
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.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.
Chapter and verse, please.Something else to note, the master only has authority over the wife's vow's not the servants.
If they owned their own residences, they wouldn’t be servants. The sale of their own selves was the last thing that they owned.I am curious if all servants lived in the masters house or on the masters land, or if they were allowed their own residences.
Proof of how much responsibility the owners had.Servants also were allowed to go free for severe bodily damage.
I’m guessing that would be a wrong assumption.The only exception I could think of is the doorpost piercing, but even then I would assume the bodily injury clause still applies.
See Numbers 30 for Vows, I am not aware of any other vow or pledge passage pertaining to a servant other than Deuteronomy 15:12-18They 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.
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.
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 rest of your post I couldn’t follow the reasoning.
I cannot honestly think of any decisions that an owned person (servant) could make that their master might have to nullify.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.