Commentary on Jewish Marriage

[PeteR]

Thinking on Yeshua the Redeemer and this topic further I suddenly was reminded of how many 'unclean people' he was willing to touch for their sake..... Hmmm. How does this apply to being willing to take on and walk with someone who has a really screwed up past, but wants to live/do/walk right going forward?

 

[Phillip]

Thinking on Yeshua the Redeemer and this topic further I suddenly was reminded of how many 'unclean people' he was willing to touch for their sake..... Hmmm. How does this apply to being willing to take on and walk with someone who has a really screwed up past, but wants to live/do/walk right going forward?

I’d say, instead of take on and walk with, reverse that order. Walk with (help them grow and mature in Christ) the person first, then make the decision to take on or not take on.

 

[PeteR]

I’d say, instead of take on and walk with, reverse that order. Walk with (help them grow and mature in Christ) the person first, then make the decision to take on or not take on.

I hear ya. Didn't have a specific reason for the order. I guess I think of 'walking with' as life together as long as we live.... life is a journey.

But, yes, I see what you are saying.... we definitely have to be on the same page and she has to agree and understand that I'm the head before any permanent steps can be taken.

 

[Cap]

Thinking on Yeshua the Redeemer and this topic further I suddenly was reminded of how many 'unclean people' he was willing to touch for their sake..... Hmmm. How does this apply to being willing to take on and walk with someone who has a really screwed up past, but wants to live/do/walk right going forward?

I agree with this and it says a lot about how biblical love and compassion should augment the commandments given. The one big idea here is that for the Son of God to do his work in our lives, we most choose to follow Him. Same with any woman who wants to be a part of a husbands life, she most be willing to follow.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I'm struggling to understand your point @Verifyveritas76 (or the reason for the smileys!).

The situation you're talking about seems to completely undermine the point you've been making up to now - we have an evil king, Saul, causing a divorce of his non-bondmaid daughter due to lack of provision, followed by a clear rejection of that divorce by the righteous king David. That doesn't clearly prove anything either way about the wife vs bondmaid divorce question, because we don't know Saul's motives, but IF this is a divorce for lack of provision, and Saul's justification were that passage, David's response would show Saul's interpretation was wrong. Which would be the opposite point to what you've been trying to say up until now in the discussion. So I'm a bit confused.

Are you considering Saul's decision in isolation from David's response to it?

My point is that Saul (rightly or wrongly) utilized a cultural norm to give his daughter to another man. The fact that David later (after he became the Grand Pooba) decided he wanted Michal back does nothing to disprove the cultural norm, rather, it examples yet another instance where the king could do as he wished in certain circumstances, like Saul, having your son in law murdered on his wedding night.

OTOH maybe its not a cultural norm and Saul is just doing whatever he wants whenever he wants to, as David later did with Michal. In which case neither of them can be considered righteous actions, rather just life under a monarch. I really don’t think this is the case.

I would have to say that I think that Saul utilized the cultural norm to punish David after his attempted murder failed, and David couldn’t do anything about it until he became king. He wouldn’t have been able to prove his husbandly duties being fulfilled without risking another attempt on his life, and so Sauls actions (in their culture) stood as legitimate.

IMO Davids response does not show that the Sauls actions were countercultural, but rather that David was intending to correct his “abandonment” of Michal. He was trying to do the righteous thing. Once he realized that Michal was loved in her home, he allowed the succeeding marriage to stand.

 

[Cap]

In the end the Bible is a soap opera and everyone in it except one failed at what they were trying to do.

 

[FollowingHim]

IMO Davids response does not show that the Sauls actions were countercultural, but rather that David was intending to correct his “abandonment” of Michal. He was trying to do the righteous thing. Once he realized that Michal was loved in her home, he allowed the succeeding marriage to stand.

What does the bolded sentence mean, and where does it come from in scripture?

 

[rockfox]

And those other means are just as readily available for a single mother as before the divorce

Then the divorce is wholly unnecessary.

s and shows no signs of changing

For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

What does scripture teach for accomplishing that? It wasn't divorce. 1 Peter 3.

and yes if the divorce is not scripturaly justified she is not eligible to remarry. That is exactly what this debate is about. Is she scripturaly justified to divorce him?

No. Because there is no scripture justifying it. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not just no scripture justifying it for good enough reasons but no scripture justifying a wife divorcing for ANY reason at all.

Look, whenever the divorce subject comes up some Christian almost immediately jumps up to say 'what about x'? Do you think it was any different back then? Do you think Paul and Peter were not aware of bad husbands? Back during a time of exposing babies, pagan sex worship and zero protection for women from abuse? There is nothing in the New Testament of excusing a woman's divorce. But there is an example in the New Testament of this modern Christian reaction that no-divorce is untenable:

The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."

The modern Christian seeks to allay those fears, to make exceptions to make marriage more acceptable. That was not Christ's approach, Christ's doctrine on divorce was so extreme His disciples thought it better to not even marry.

Is our teaching on marriage and divorce like Christs? Does it make people think it would be better not to marry?

@Pacman let me speak to you from my heart from a moment. I do not speak as one callous to the suffering of women. I speak as one sensitive to the greater suffering divorce exceptions cause the children of divorce and the women who needlessly divorce because we've made it acceptable and allow these justifications to be repeatedly used in situations that they do not warrant. I do not speak as one callous to the suffering of people in relationships but as one whose walk in Christ has been dominated by suffering who looks hopes in the next life for reward, as one who follows a master who was sent to this earth for the very purpose of suffering, one whose God thinks preparing His best servants entails literal decades of suffering (Joseph, Moses, etc).

There is nothing we go through for the sake of Christ that He has not gone through in greater measure. He can relate. Christ knew these issues would come up but He nonetheless did not provide these divorce exceptions we so desperately want to have. I know that seems wrong at a gut level, that we must set suffering women free from marriage; but I cannot go where scripture does not take me.

I realize most can't accept that; even the 12 couldn't accept it and they had God With Us teaching it to their face.

and yes if the divorce is not scripturaly justified she is not eligible to remarry. That is exactly what this debate is about. Is she scripturaly justified to divorce him?

That's really what this is about for most. It's not about can she escape the harm, there are many ways to accomplish that which do not require her to remarry. This really comes down to justifying her marrying again.

but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband

That is the only answer. Why is there these great need to justify her re-marrying? Why this insistence that she must be allowed to remarry? Is this desire a Biblical mindset? No...

Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am....But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I...he who does not give her in marriage will do better...

It is good they remain single. It is better they remain single. They are commanded to remain single. So why on earth do we repeatedly look to provides excuses for them to remarry?>

It's not a Biblical mindset, but I think you've seen a few of the non-biblical ones that lead people to be so insistent she must be allowed to remarry.

But can a woman who leaves her husband remarry?

A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

 

[Cap]

It is good they remain single. It is better they remain single. They are commanded to remain single. So why on earth do we repeatedly look to provides excuses for them to remarry?>

It's not a Biblical mindset, but I think you've seen a few of the non-biblical ones that lead people to be so insistent she must be allowed to remarry.

No excuses, but you never do explain forgiveness in you hard stance.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Then the divorce is wholly unnecessary.





What does scripture teach for accomplishing that? It wasn't divorce. 1 Peter 3.



No. Because there is no scripture justifying it. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not just no scripture justifying it for good enough reasons but no scripture justifying a wife divorcing for ANY reason at all.

Look, whenever the divorce subject comes up some Christian almost immediately jumps up to say 'what about x'? Do you think it was any different back then? Do you think Paul and Peter were not aware of bad husbands? Back during a time of exposing babies, pagan sex worship and zero protection for women from abuse? There is nothing in the New Testament of excusing a woman's divorce. But there is an example in the New Testament of this modern Christian reaction that no-divorce is untenable:



The modern Christian seeks to allay those fears, to make exceptions to make marriage more acceptable. That was not Christ's approach, Christ's doctrine on divorce was so extreme His disciples thought it better to not even marry.

Is our teaching on marriage and divorce like Christs? Does it make people think it would be better not to marry?

@Pacman let me speak to you from my heart from a moment. I do not speak as one callous to the suffering of women. I speak as one sensitive to the greater suffering divorce exceptions cause the children of divorce and the women who needlessly divorce because we've made it acceptable and allow these justifications to be repeatedly used in situations that they do not warrant. I do not speak as one callous to the suffering of people in relationships but as one whose walk in Christ has been dominated by suffering who looks hopes in the next life for reward, as one who follows a master who was sent to this earth for the very purpose of suffering, one whose God thinks preparing His best servants entails literal decades of suffering (Joseph, Moses, etc).

There is nothing we go through for the sake of Christ that He has not gone through in greater measure. He can relate. Christ knew these issues would come up but He nonetheless did not provide these divorce exceptions we so desperately want to have. I know that seems wrong at a gut level, that we must set suffering women free from marriage; but I cannot go where scripture does not take me.

I realize most can't accept that; even the 12 couldn't accept it and they had God With Us teaching it to their face.



That's really what this is about for most. It's not about can she escape the harm, there are many ways to accomplish that which do not require her to remarry. This really comes down to justifying her marrying again.



That is the only answer. Why is there these great need to justify her re-marrying? Why this insistence that she must be allowed to remarry? Is this desire a Biblical mindset? No...



It is good they remain single. It is better they remain single. They are commanded to remain single. So why on earth do we repeatedly look to provides excuses for them to remarry?>

It's not a Biblical mindset, but I think you've seen a few of the non-biblical ones that lead people to be so insistent she must be allowed to remarry.

But can a woman who leaves her husband remarry?

IMO this is the exact same logic used to justify a “scriptural” dogma against partaking of alcohol. Because someone somewhere will no doubt abuse it, we must put up a hedge around it so high that no true believer can touch the stuff (even in remembrance of Christ’s death) upon pain of excommunication in quite a few circles.

The possible abuse of a statute is a horrible argument against the proper use of a statute and does not justify its restriction when properly applied

 

[Verifyveritas76]

What does the bolded sentence mean, and where does it come from in scripture?

From the dim recesses of my own memory, which was indubitably incorrect.

From 2 Samuel 6. It’s obvious that Michal was returned to David as his wife, and later was separated or put away in his house so that she had no children til her death.

Thank you

 

[Verifyveritas76]

One thing I did find in response to looking at this story of David and Michal a bit closer is in 1 Samuel 19:17, the words used by Michal tells her father Saul that David said shallach (which can be used for divorce) and then a why should I kill you (threat on her life) followed by an abrupt departure.

Obviously David didn’t say those words, but for Saul, he had all the ammunition he needed to declare that David had “shallach’d” Michal, threatened her life and abandoned her. Either of the last two made Michal a free woman and coupled with the shallach, Saul was technically free to remarry her to another.

 

[Nikud]

For the Guess and non participants:

I Just wanted to post some translations to show the error of a opinion presented as truth not based off what scripture says but what seems to be a faulty translation or comformation bias.

Interpretation by Literal meaning should only be done if your reading the original text and in full context

1 Corinthians 7:8-11

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them to remain as I am. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

10 But to the married I command—not I, but the Lord—a wife is not to be separated from her husband 11 (but if she gets separated, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband is not to divorce his wife.


agamoj

Pronounce: ag'-am-os

Strongs Number: G22

Orig: from 1 (as a negative particle) and 1062; unmarried:--unmarried. G1

Use: Adjective

Heb Strong:

1. 
   1) unmarried, unwedded, single

Some translations say celebit which has the same meaning as unmarried. It does not distinguish between divorced, or never married or exclude one or the other. There is no context to say it does or doesn't. Just those who are not married.

Verse 11 is a separated woman not a divorce woman. There is a difference.

Original Word: χωρίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chórizó
Phonetic Spelling: (kho-rid'-zo)
Definition: to separate, divide
Usage: (a) I separate, put apart, (b) mid. or pass: I separate myself, depart, withdraw

Compared to

lusis: a loosing (by divorce)
Original Word: λύσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: lusis
Phonetic Spelling: (loo'-sis)
Definition: a loosing (by divorce)
Usage: dissolution, release; a loosing, divorce.

apostasion: a forsaking, spec. (bill of) divorce
Original Word: ἀποστάσιον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: apostasion
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-tas'-ee-on)
Definition: a forsaking, (bill of) divorce
Usage: repudiation, divorce; met: bill of divorce.

apoluó: to set free, release
Original Word: ἀπολύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: apoluó
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol-oo'-o)
Definition: to set free, release
Usage: I release, let go, send away, divorce, am rid; mid: I depart.

Remember only you can prevent translational errors.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

For the Guess and non participants:

I Just wanted to post some translations to show the error of a opinion presented as truth not based off what scripture says but what seems to be a faulty translation or comformation bias.

Interpretation by Literal meaning should only be done if your reading the original text and in full context

1 Corinthians 7:8-11

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them to remain as I am. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

10 But to the married I command—not I, but the Lord—a wife is not to be separated from her husband 11 (but if she gets separated, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband is not to divorce his wife.


agamoj

Pronounce: ag'-am-os

Strongs Number: G22

Orig: from 1 (as a negative particle) and 1062; unmarried:--unmarried. G1

Use: Adjective

Heb Strong:

1. 
   1) unmarried, unwedded, single

Some translations say celebit which has the same meaning as unmarried. It does not distinguish between divorced, or never married or exclude one or the other. There is no context to say it does or doesn't. Just those who are not married.

Verse 11 is a separated woman not a divorce woman. There is a difference.

Original Word: χωρίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chórizó
Phonetic Spelling: (kho-rid'-zo)
Definition: to separate, divide
Usage: (a) I separate, put apart, (b) mid. or pass: I separate myself, depart, withdraw

Compared to

lusis: a loosing (by divorce)
Original Word: λύσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: lusis
Phonetic Spelling: (loo'-sis)
Definition: a loosing (by divorce)
Usage: dissolution, release; a loosing, divorce.

apostasion: a forsaking, spec. (bill of) divorce
Original Word: ἀποστάσιον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: apostasion
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-tas'-ee-on)
Definition: a forsaking, (bill of) divorce
Usage: repudiation, divorce; met: bill of divorce.

apoluó: to set free, release
Original Word: ἀπολύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: apoluó
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol-oo'-o)
Definition: to set free, release
Usage: I release, let go, send away, divorce, am rid; mid: I depart.

Remember only you can prevent translational errors.

I like your post a lot bro, but I’d appreciate it if you’d move it to your thread on divorce as I’m trying to keep this one to OT

If you do t have the means to do that let me know. Thanks.

 

[Nikud]

I like your post a lot bro, but I’d appreciate it if you’d move it to your thread on divorce as I’m trying to keep this one to OT

Ill keep to the Tanakh if I post on this thread from now on. No prob.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Here's a couple more commentaries I found

Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge

Exodus 21:10
* her food.
Sheairah, "her flesh;" he shall not only afford her a sufficient quantity of food, as before, but of the same quality. She is not to be fed, like a common slave, with a sufficiency of bread, vegetables, milk, etc., but with her customary supply of flesh, and other agreeable articles of food.
1Co 7:1-6

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Thomas Scott

Verses 7-11: A parent might sometimes be induced to sell his daughter in her youth; but this seems not have been allowed, except he was compelled by poverty, and except here was either some engagement, or expectation, that the person who bought her would take her, when of age, as his wife or concubine. If therefore the person who bought her changed his mind, and did not espouse her, or afterwards grew weary of her, he was required to let her “be redeemed” at any time by her friends, at a reasonable price; and if this were not done, he was not allowed to marry her to any other person, or to sell her into another family. Thus the words, rendered “a strange people,” are generally understood, because it is supposed no Hebrew slave could be sold to a Gentile; yet perhaps they mean, that he must not sell her to one of another nation who desired to have her as his concubine, where she would be in danger of forgetting the true religion; and having already deceived her, he must not be permitted to add one injury to another.-If he had betrothed her to his son, he must act towards her as a father to his daughter, not as a master to his slave; and whether he or his son had married her, and then afterwards took another wife, he must either maintain her suitably, and give her some recompense for the injury, or else freely set her at liberty.-It is evident this case was very different from that of a woman sold for theft, or who sold herself because of her poverty; for there is no proof that this might not be the case of a woman as well as of a man (De 15:12). But a daughter sold by her father, in expectation that she should be espoused by her master, or one of his sons, was entitled to peculiar tenderness, and must be dealt with by other rules than slaves of another description.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Then the divorce is wholly unnecessary.





What does scripture teach for accomplishing that? It wasn't divorce. 1 Peter 3.



No. Because there is no scripture justifying it. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not just no scripture justifying it for good enough reasons but no scripture justifying a wife divorcing for ANY reason at all.

Look, whenever the divorce subject comes up some Christian almost immediately jumps up to say 'what about x'? Do you think it was any different back then? Do you think Paul and Peter were not aware of bad husbands? Back during a time of exposing babies, pagan sex worship and zero protection for women from abuse? There is nothing in the New Testament of excusing a woman's divorce. But there is an example in the New Testament of this modern Christian reaction that no-divorce is untenable:



The modern Christian seeks to allay those fears, to make exceptions to make marriage more acceptable. That was not Christ's approach, Christ's doctrine on divorce was so extreme His disciples thought it better to not even marry.

Is our teaching on marriage and divorce like Christs? Does it make people think it would be better not to marry?

@Pacman let me speak to you from my heart from a moment. I do not speak as one callous to the suffering of women. I speak as one sensitive to the greater suffering divorce exceptions cause the children of divorce and the women who needlessly divorce because we've made it acceptable and allow these justifications to be repeatedly used in situations that they do not warrant. I do not speak as one callous to the suffering of people in relationships but as one whose walk in Christ has been dominated by suffering who looks hopes in the next life for reward, as one who follows a master who was sent to this earth for the very purpose of suffering, one whose God thinks preparing His best servants entails literal decades of suffering (Joseph, Moses, etc).

There is nothing we go through for the sake of Christ that He has not gone through in greater measure. He can relate. Christ knew these issues would come up but He nonetheless did not provide these divorce exceptions we so desperately want to have. I know that seems wrong at a gut level, that we must set suffering women free from marriage; but I cannot go where scripture does not take me.

I realize most can't accept that; even the 12 couldn't accept it and they had God With Us teaching it to their face.



That's really what this is about for most. It's not about can she escape the harm, there are many ways to accomplish that which do not require her to remarry. This really comes down to justifying her marrying again.



That is the only answer. Why is there these great need to justify her re-marrying? Why this insistence that she must be allowed to remarry? Is this desire a Biblical mindset? No...



It is good they remain single. It is better they remain single. They are commanded to remain single. So why on earth do we repeatedly look to provides excuses for them to remarry?>

It's not a Biblical mindset, but I think you've seen a few of the non-biblical ones that lead people to be so insistent she must be allowed to remarry.

But can a woman who leaves her husband remarry?

1 Corinthians 7:15 KJV
[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

What are the brother or sister not under bondage to?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

What does scripture teach for accomplishing that? It wasn't divorce. 1 Peter 3.

1 Corinthians 7:15 KJV
[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

What are the brother or sister not under bondage to?

To bring this thread back to an Old Testament focus, the example of Ezra is very pertinent in this conversation. Ezra, who is listed as the lineage of Aaron (7:1), a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, one who sought the Law of the Lord, and who taught Israel statutes and judgements (7:6&10), had the wisdom of God in his hand (7:25).

In Chapter 9, Ezra’s attention is brought to the men of Israel who have married women of the people of the land. Verse 2 calls it a trespass and the succeeding verses describe the story of how all the men of Israel “divorce” themselves from both their wives and the children by these wives in response to repentance to the Law of God. The penalty for not getting rid of these wives and children was that the men would be separated or cut off from the congregation. (10:8). There was literally a mass divorce in the land of Israel, by instruction from Ezra per the Law of God. This was literally the fix for the trespass of the Law in which they had married strange wives.

In Josephus’ record of the same proceedings, Antiquities of the Jews 11.5.1 the pertinent facts are recorded as follows

1. There was now in Babylon a righteous man, and one that enjoyed a great reputation among the multitude; he was the principal priest of the people [in Babylon] . . He was very skilful in the laws of Moses 11.5.3 . . . God esteemed him worthy of the success of his conduct, on account of his goodness and righteousness . . .
2. 11.5.3 . . . . These persons desired him to support the laws, lest God should take up a general anger against them all, and reduce them to a calamitous condition again. Hereupon, he rent his garment immediately, out of grief, and pulled off the hair of his head and beard, and cast himself upon the ground, because this crime had reached the principal men among the people; and considering that if he should enjoin them to cast out their wives, and the children they had by them, 11.5.4 . . .and said that they had sinned in marrying strange wives; and he persuaded him to adjure them all to cast those wives out, and the children born of them and that those should be punished who would not obey the law.
3. Ezra stood up and accused them, and told them that they had sinned in marrying wives that were not of their own nation; but that now they would do a thing both pleasing to God and advantageous to themselves, if they would put those wives away.
4. Accordingly they all cried out that they would do so . . . . And immediately [a couple of months later] cast out their wives and the children that were born of them and in order to appease God they offered sacrifices
5. So when Ezra had reformed this sin about the marriages of the forementioned persons, he reduced that practice to purity, so that it continued in that state for the time to come.

It seems impossible that this action is what Christ was referring to as divorce for a mans hardness of heart. There is just too much in the Scriptural context associating this action with righteousness and repentance.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

From Clarke’s Commentary

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
If a man sell his daughter - This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress - when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.


Exodus 21:8
If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Exodus 21:9
And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
Betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her - He shall give her the same dowry he would give to one of his own daughters. From these laws we learn, that if a man's son married his servant, by his father's consent, the father was obliged to treat her in every respect as a daughter; and if the son married another woman, as it appears he might do, Exodus 21:10, he was obliged to make no abatement in the privileges of the first wife, either in her food, raiment, or duty of marriage. The word ענתה onathah, here, is the same with St. Paul's οφειλομενην ευνοιαν, the marriage debt, and with the ὁμιλιαν of the Septuagint, which signifies the cohabitation of man and wife.


Exodus 21:10
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Exodus 21:11
And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
These three -
1. Her food, שארה sheerah, her flesh, for she must not, like a common slave, be fed merely on vegetables.

2. Her raiment - her private wardrobe, with all occasional necessary additions. And,

3. The marriage debt - a due proportion of the husband's time and company.