David and Bathsheba?

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

@jacobhaivri , you are making a huge assumption when you assume that the liberal supply from the owner would be enough to match the substantial investment that he has in the woman.

Perhaps, but on the other hand... due to my studies (through University, my majors being Biblical Studies and Biblical Archaeology) into how things actually functioned during that time, it also turns out that some of the wealthiest people of the day were slaves, owning slaves themselves, and even lending to others. This came about a variety of ways, one of them being having access to the trade networks and contacts of their masters, as well as having made use of whatever education they received.

Time would not permit me to explore every possible individual outcome, but I stand by my initial notion that this isn't a morality matter so much as a compensation one.

What man here wouldn't even sell himself into a seven year stint as a slave in order to redeem his wife from slavery. I think any loving husband would go to extraordinary efforts to find a way, no?

Regardless, going back to the original post, I do not see that headship has any right to overthrow Biblical morality or law, because I see those as being outside of the jurisdiction of anyone but God. We see, time and again, from Daniel and his friends, to Joseph, to the Apostles, and even Yeshua Himself: the people followed the law of the land and got along quite well. The only real exception seems to be when those laws countermand the laws and morality put forth by God.

Render unto Caesar... well, God and Caesar sometimes have different ideas of what belongs to Caesar, but what truly belongs to him? Only what has actually been given him by God, not what he seeks to steal for himself, including authority over God's morality and laws.

 

[steve]

What man here wouldn't even sell himself into a seven year stint as a slave in order to redeem his wife from slavery.

Exodus 21:4-5 (KJV) 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

To me, this is proof that life just isn’t as simple as you want to believe. It doesn’t give the option to work for seven more years and walk away with your wife and kids.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Exodus 21:4-5 (KJV) 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

To me, this is proof that life just isn’t as simple as you want to believe. It doesn’t give the option to work for seven more years and walk away with your wife and kids.

That is one option for how to do things, sure. However, are you trying to tell me that you see no precedent in the Biblical world where one free man can redeem a slave from another? These laws do not work in isolation, but in concert with one another, and should be done in the overall spirit of loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves. So, if you think the best way to appropriate them is to imagine the most negative outcomes, I think you are off the track a bit. Halachah could be described as the art of walking these matters out. Thus, if we are to walk them out according to the greatest commandments, we must pursue the most loving way to reconcile the laws of property with the laws of marriage. Can we choose to be harsh in our applications? Sure, but does that fall in line with the purpose of the law? No.

Indeed, reconciling God's laws with the laws of men can be difficult at times, but we should take inspiration from Moses' parents who did not, in fact, break the command to throw the male Hebrew children into the river. Moses went into the river. They just happened to be also interested in the preservation of life so they furnished him with a boat and a guardian.

In short, it would be silly to think that the other Biblical laws do not apply. Can he become a lifelong servant? Sure. However, we also have the record of the price of a female slave. We also have the concept of the Kinsman redeemer. Go on down the list. Above all, we have the laws of loving God and loving our neighbors. On these two hang ALL the Law and the Prophets.

Simple and uncomplicated? No. However, I would suggest that I am not the one trying to simplify a complex matter of law. In no society on the face of the earth do laws operate in a vacuum. They interact with all the other laws and statutes of a given society.

I mentioned seven years. If that was worth, to the master, the value of the girl, why not? If she is his property, what prevents him from selling her, or ever choosing to give her freely? He might accept only the silver valuation of a female slave... or perhaps he would like an extra field for growing his barley. Alternately, he may choose never to sell, hoping to acquire the male forever as well.

On the other hand, let us look at another Scriptural concept: we are not to harvest the corners of our fields, yes? Well, how big is your corner? The last stalk of corn, right where the two edges meet? Or, if the man has a good eye, and not an evil eye, can he choose to make his corners large and provide abundantly for those in need?

If the master is to supply the former slave liberally from what is his property, and he is generous, is there anything which prevents him from giving the woman freely? She is his property, he can do as he wishes.

All I am saying is that there are options, shown by the other laws and principles of Scripture, besides necessarily choosing between wife and freedom. Those options will probably bear much healthier fruit in a society.

 

[rockfox]

No, the contract is not between the man and the father, he is simply her mediator and steward. He is a third party facilitating the union of one entrusted to him.

What is your basis for thinking this?

 

[rockfox]

The marriage for life thing is obviously the goal, no one wants to be divorced going into the covenant, but the term of the covenant is specifically contingent upon the performance or life of both parties.

Then why did the law only list for the man writing a bill of divorcement? Why did Christ only limit the reasons a man could divorce, and not the wife? This view has Paul being more restrictive than Christ; does not make sense unless it was true that the women never had the authority to divorce in the first place.

If she has been unfaithful, he should still fulfill his vows, with the exception of intimacy as that would be unclean?

Where do you get this from scripture? This is exactly what modern American divorce is (she is freed from her vows while he is required to continue to support her) but unlike anything I've seen in scripture.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

Just like to say, vv76, you gave a truck load of info, much of it not well known or even heard of in our western culture, but obviously patiently explained and reviewed. If we could digest all you said and wrap out brains around it, much of the confusion which reigns today around grounds for divorce would just simply go away because there are guidelines/boundaries given that we could bounce various situations off of and know exactly where the line should fall. Thank you.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Then why did the law only list for the man writing a bill of divorcement? Why did Christ only limit the reasons a man could divorce, and not the wife? This view has Paul being more restrictive than Christ; does not make sense unless it was true that the women never had the authority to divorce in the first place.

Prime example of my case in point. Each hypothesis based entirely upon scriptural silence resulting in a theory that is unsupportable within a culture that prided itself upon their adhereance to Jewish culture and Torah.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Where do you get this from scripture? This is exactly what modern American divorce is (she is freed from her vows while he is required to continue to support her) but unlike anything I've seen in scripture.

My example is nothing like the existing conditions of divorce. In Matt. 19, Christ states that what God has joined, man should not part. This was the “from the beginning” part. The husband should not put away once joined, the elders shouldn’t, the authorities shouldn’t, etc. Next, Christ does state a caveat, that if there has been porneia, that he may put her away or divorce her. If there was extra-marital relations, and he was aware of it at or before the time of the vows, then he was accepting her as she was. The Jews to this day consider a wedding to be a personal Yom Kippur. Any sins or indiscretions previous to that date will be left in the past never to be remembered again. This is where we get the idea of as far as the east is from the west. IF he was aware previously, he could never bring it up as a reason for divorce. IF he was unaware of it, then as soon as he became aware of it, he must sever the marriage. IF they had relations after he became aware, then the courts would rule that he accepted her and could not reject her on those grounds.

As I understand it,

• from the beginning, it was intended that a man shelter and cover the ladies entrusted no matter what.
• As the Adown of the home, he was accountable for everything that happened under /within his tent and had to answer to the Judge at some point.
• As such, if there was something going on that he wasn’t willing to answer for, then he was allowed to void the vow, change course etc to guide his family in a safe direction. This included “porneia” and for this cause alone, apparently, it was considered to be a justifiable cause for either the putting away/shalak or a writing of divorce. He could do either, or, if he shalak’ed her, hoping for restoration or whatever, and she continued in her rebellion then he could give her a writing of divorcement or bring her before the assembly on charges of adultery. With the writing of divorcement, he was officially absolving himself from any continued responsibility for her actions, and also leaving her without an advocate which was tantamount to death as a woman’s testimony or witness was not accepted in these cases.
• IF he shalak’ed her, he was voluntarily continuing to support her, and voluntarily allowing her to remain in the family. It was his right to “cut her off” from the family by a writing of divorcement, and if he did so, then there was no continued support. Further, if the writing of divorcement was specifically for sexual adultery, then he was not required to send her out with her dowry as well as not required to provide continuing support. If the writing of divorcement was for any other reason, then the husband must return the full content of the dowry and send her out like her father had - full, but still without continued support. Sadly, by the time of Christ, many men were not following protocol and were kicking the women to the curb for “any” reason (including burning dinner) without a writing of divorcement and without support of any kind including their personal inheritance or dowry they’d entered the relationship with. This resulted in a special type of woman called an agunah or abandoned woman.

The primary scriptural reasons behind these crazy ideas of mine, is the example that I see presented through Christ where He states, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. At some point, there will obviously be those that he says “depart from me”, but those are not ones that He is forsaking, but those who are false swearers, those who claim Christ, but deny his Lordship and headship. Those who try to stand before the Judge on their own merits and without an Advocate.

The other reason for my perspective is specifically Ezekiel 16. I was totally amazed when I studied through it after understanding the 3 vows, to find that God establishes a legal case against his ‘wife’ and her adultery by enunciating how he has found her, covenanted with her, clothed her, protected her, provided food and closeness. All of these were reasons that she could have claimed the right to legitimately separate from a husband and do as she pleased. God makes the case that she has no legitimate reasons or rights to leave the marriage and be with whomever she pleased. He then explains how he restricts his favor and blessings and eventually kicks her out of the tent and allows whoever to take advantage of her without him interfering. The most amazing part of the whole passage is at the end, where God calls her to return to him as his wife. This goes against every natural inclination that I can think of, as well as Torah, and yet God presents an incredible picture of redemption for a totally worthless, unworthy impure person.

 

[steve]

@jacobhaivri, maybe.
I’m out.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

What is your basis for thinking this?

Among other things, the written contract was the exclusive property of the wife and she was fully vested with the ability to hold him to the terms with or without her father present.

Also, the earliest examples available list both the husband and wife as the covenanters, and the father is only listed (if at all) as a point of reference for lineage.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sung to the tune of the William Tell Overture; "Mark 10:12, Mark 10:12, Mark 10;12, and Mark 10:12. Mark the Mark of Mark 10:12, MMMMMMMMMMM-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk Markety Mark not Wahlburger 10:12."

I'm being facetious of course but it still begs the question, "Mark 10:12, Mark to the 10 and Mark to the 12. Mark 10:12 not Mark 12:10. Mark 10 Mark 12 Mark 10:12. Whuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt about Mark 10:12?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Among other things, the written contract was the exclusive property of the wife and she was fully vested with the ability to hold him to the terms with or without her father present.

Also, the earliest examples available list both the husband and wife as the covenanters, and the father is only listed (if at all) as a point of reference for lineage.

Ah yes, the contract. We should all caps that from now on, THE CONTRACT. I'm starting to feel like the ugly girl at the dance. Everyone knows about THE CONTRACT but me. Where oh where may I too learn about THE CONTRACT? Do I have to pay a fee? Is there an initiation? A secret conclave? Will there be paddling? THE CONTRACT is the best kept secret in all of scripture. It must be dangerous, advanced, high level stuff because God buried it deep, deep (like it might come up in the Mueller probe maybe) in the most arcane and secretive of passages.

I promise though if someone will please just show me where it is in scripture I absolutely pinky swear to not reveal it to anyone else since it is obviously such an important and closely guarded secret. Maybe I have to advance to another level, like a Mason or something. If I get to the 34th degree will I learn what the Bible has to say about THE CONTRACT or will I only find out that are further secret levels that I have to navigate to find out where in the hell THE CONTRACT is in scripture?

And also, "Mark 10:12, Mark 10:12, Mark 10:12, and Mark 10:12. Verse 12, Chapter 10 of the Book of Mark. Mark 10:12, Mark 10;12, how does any of that square with Mark 10;12?"

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Sung to the tune of the William Tell Overture; "Mark 10:12, Mark 10:12, Mark 10;12, and Mark 10:12. Mark the Mark of Mark 10:12, MMMMMMMMMMM-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk Markety Mark not Wahlburger 10:12."

I'm being facetious of course but it still begs the question, "Mark 10:12, Mark to the 10 and Mark to the 12. Mark 10:12 not Mark 12:10. Mark 10 Mark 12 Mark 10:12. Whuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt about Mark 10:12?

Sorry Zec, been working all day and havent had time yet to address your Overture Be patient, its coming. Something to think about til I respond, Are you of the understanding that the Mark account is a separate conversation than the Matthew account?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Ah yes, the contract. We should all caps that from now on, THE CONTRACT. I'm starting to feel like the ugly girl at the dance. Everyone knows about THE CONTRACT but me. Where oh where may I too learn about THE CONTRACT? Do I have to pay a fee? Is there an initiation? A secret conclave? Will there be paddling? THE CONTRACT is the best kept secret in all of scripture. It must be dangerous, advanced, high level stuff because God buried it deep, deep (like it might come up in the Mueller probe maybe) in the most arcane and secretive of passages.

I promise though if someone will please just show me where it is in scripture I absolutely pinky swear to not reveal it to anyone else since it is obviously such an important and closely guarded secret. Maybe I have to advance to another level, like a Mason or something. If I get to the 34th degree will I learn what the Bible has to say about THE CONTRACT or will I only find out that are further secret levels that I have to navigate to find out where in the hell THE CONTRACT is in scripture?

And also, "Mark 10:12, Mark 10:12, Mark 10:12, and Mark 10:12. Verse 12, Chapter 10 of the Book of Mark. Mark 10:12, Mark 10;12, how does any of that square with Mark 10;12?"

Of course I can show it to you in Scripture. However, like many other nuggets in scripture it is read past often by those who have eyes to see, but don’t, and only recognized as a nugget once they are familiar enough with the subject matter to be able to tell the difference between iron pyrite and the real stuff.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sorry Zec, been working all day and havent had time yet to address your Overture Be patient, its coming. Something to think about til I respond, Are you of the understanding that the Mark account is a separate conversation than the Matthew account?

Does it matter? It says if she leaves her husband she can't remarry. The conversation pretty much end right there. Or it could continue into Mathew, Luke and John. They'd all agree with Mark though. If she leaves her husband she's to remain single. There is no mechanism for a woman to leave her husband, or to exercise authority over him with THE CONTRACT. I think THE CONTRACT's song might be Beethoven's Fifth, "There's no THE CONTRACT, no THE CONTRACT. There's no THE CONTRACT no THE CONTRACT. No The CONTRACT no THE CONTRACT. No THE CONTRACT, no THE CONTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCT!"

 

[The Revolting Man]

Of course I can show it to you in Scripture. However, like many other nuggets in scripture it is read past often by those who have eyes to see, but don’t, and only recognized as a nugget once they are familiar enough with the subject matter to be able to tell the difference between iron pyrite and the real stuff.

OOOOOHHHHH Contract Nuggets! Do they come with dipping sauces? It doesn't matter, I don't eat sauces. Well I can't wait to hear about the Contract Nuggets. Since they're scriptural maybe I can get them at Chik-Fil-A. That's probably why I didn't know where they were. We don't have a Chik-Fil-A. I usually settle for Wendy's. I would prefer Chik-Fil-A though. They have great lemonade and I bet Contract Nuggets will wash down just great with a little bit of acidic sugar. Beethoven's Fifth won't work anymore for THE CONTRACT though. We'll have to come up with something light and nuggety for them now. Maybe The Barber of Seville or something from Gilbert and Sullivan, "The CONTRACT, THE CONTRACT; its a light and nugget-ty tidbit!"

 

[Nikud]

The one question which has always tugged at my desire for truth is David's comment in his prayer, "Against thee, and thee only, have I sinned.

My beleif/opinion stems from that is sin as an act of offence against G-d by despising His persons and biblical law.

Augustine of Hippo says that sin is "a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of G-d."

Our actions may be against another person but the sin is against G-d.

Looks like that's in the Zohar, the kabbalah text. I don't believe it, but the penalty for sleeping with someone else's betrothed woman is still death, so I doubt it matters a whole bunch.

That is the way I've always seen this.
I also meant to ask Kevin on a point he made that said "Uriah had never consummated his marriage with Bathsheba." I can't imagine from where this info comes! I certainly canot find it alluded to anywhere in Scripture. Please help on this.

It's in the Zohar, Talmud, and even in a few tragic love poems written within that century and a few centuries later. I beleive it is the poems the story originates from and found its way into the Talmud, then later the Zohar.

So I see the historical accuracy as the same as any other none Canon source possibly true, possibly not. If it contradicted scripture I would label it as a great peice of fiction.

 

[FollowingHim]

Where oh where may I too learn about THE CONTRACT? Do I have to pay a fee? Is there an initiation?

The first step in the initiation ceremony is to drink so much that you try to sing the Bible but can't remember the verses so just sing one reference over and over. I can't say what's next as I've never got that far - but you're well on the way!

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Does it matter

Absolutely. Where’s your other witnesses to that.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

As far as the “contract” goes, you’ll probably have more success if you look for it under the word covenant or testament. Both of which are a contract (hard to believe I know, but try), both of them can be verbal but are typically written, and all three of them are performance based and justifiably terminated by the injured party upon failure to perform.

The best example is the Torah. A specific covenant, initially verbal but recorded by a mediator, stipulating certain terms and promises and penalties between two parties, and severable upon the failure of either party to perform.

A more current model is the New Testament/Covenant (although the whole of Scripture could be utilized). Initially verbal but recorded by witnesses, stipulates certain terms and promises and penalties between the two parties, (Christ and his bride) and is justifiably severable upon the failure of either party to perform.

Just for the record, IF Christ doesnt fill his end of the deal, I don’t have to be bound to a god that doesnt fulfill his promises. I can justifiably leave and search for one who will. I’m really not too worried about that. On the other hand, If He holds up His end of the covenant, I have nothing to worry about and will never leave because I’m married to the best “husband” ever. And then . . . I’ll be out’ a here! (But with him)

P.S.
The interesting thing about all this is that our written covenant, just like a ketubah, is specifically owned by the bride, contains all the terms and conditions of the contract, and should be thoroughly read and understood by those within the covenant. Funny thing is, the Bridegroom didnt physically write any of it.