Commentary on Jewish Marriage

[The Revolting Man]

I feel like I'm in some kind of weird, psychadelic time loop. Did the last two weeks not happen? Are we still looking to the Talmud to "fill in the blank"? Are we now accepting blatant pagans' civic laws as scripture? Does anyone have any doubts about why I got so angry? Do you see where this leads?

And for clarification's sake, of course husbands have an obligation to provide for their family. No one disputes that. What is disputed is whether or not his failure to do so gives the wife freedom to leave and remarry. No one has changed my mind yet.

 

[PeteR]

I feel like I'm in some kind of weird, psychadelic time loop. Did the last two weeks not happen? Are we still looking to the Talmud to "fill in the blank"? Are we now accepting blatant pagans' civic laws as scripture? Does anyone have any doubts about why I got so angry? Do you see where this leads?

And for clarification's sake, of course husbands have an obligation to provide for their family. No one disputes that. What is disputed is whether or not his failure to do so gives the wife freedom to leave and remarry. No one has changed my mind yet.

@ZecAustin I completely agree.

 

[steve]

I feel like I'm in some kind of weird, psychadelic time loop. Did the last two weeks not happen? Are we still looking to the Talmud to "fill in the blank"? Are we now accepting blatant pagans' civic laws as scripture? Does anyone have any doubts about why I got so angry? Do you see where this leads?

And for clarification's sake, of course husbands have an obligation to provide for their family. No one disputes that. What is disputed is whether or not his failure to do so gives the wife freedom to leave and remarry. No one has changed my mind yet.

Wait.......
Psychedelic?
Somebody’s been shorting me.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I do hear what you are saying @Ancient Paths, but that applies to even Biblical studies thru the lenses of 21st century Christianity with all of its -isms. Including fundamentalism and HebrewRoots-isms and not to leave out the not-enough-knowledge-isms and Patriarch-ism
Obviously neither Talmud or Hammurabi is perfect, especially as it relates to treatment of Gentiles etc. Yet I find its interesting that in the Talmudic era some 2400 years after the CofH, that the equal protections existed within the two cultures that bookended the Old Testament Culture and the latter is eerily similar to the Code of Hammurabi.

If it is true that Old Testament Scripture binds a woman to a man even if he is a covenant breaker and worse than an apostate, then you are faced with the fact that a pagan culture 700 years before the Law given by God is more righteous and just than the Jewish Culture you think existed.

I find it irreconcilable that both imperfect cultures would seem more just and even handed towards the treatment and care of women than the perspective espoused by some here that claim strict Biblical sources. I cant help but think that this perspective is the result of one small step at a time filtering Scripture through a Western Cultural “Patriarchal” lens that couldn’t be further from the truth or righteousness or the type of men that God intended to take care of his daughters.

To put it more (hopefully) succinctly. Pagan imperfect Hammurabi protected the women from worthless husbands, later Jewish Sages (who didnt like Christ) protected women from worthless husbands, and you expect me to believe that an infinitely perfect God cant do better than that? Or that that isn’t the intent of Exodus 21:10?

This is why the man in 1 Tim 5:8 who doesnt provide for his own household is worse than an infidel, because apparently even pagans and infidels, having no Divinely Inspired Law, understand the law and keep it, while those claiming the strictest most accurate understanding of the letter of the law are actually transgressing the law.

 

[PeteR]

First, I believe the Torah preexisted the CofH and the relationship is the reverse of what liberal theologians and historians think. CofH is based on Torah, not the other way around. I'll go so far as to say the Torah was given in the Garden and preexisted Creation. I can prove from Scripture.

Second, just because I do not understand everything in Scripture does nit mean God is somehow less just than a human code. Is it possible, just possible, that indeed God believes that divorce is an abomination and therefore doesn't create a 'no fault' or 'soft fault' loophole in His Law as an escape clause? Is it possible that maybe we can learn to walk by the Spirit and grow through even 'repugnancy?' ( And who the heck determines what 'repugnancy' is? Really?)

@Verifyveritas76 do you not see how very slippery the slope is you stand on? You are not trying to understand how the CofH and Talmud err in their obvious open door policy, rather, you consistently judge the Word by changing codes of men. @ZecAustin warned some time ago that you were approaching this backwards and I have to concur.

Brother, there is nothing wrong with trying to understand context through contemporary documents, but when you begin to think the manmade versions more just than Divine Law..... I'm concerned.

 

[Mage]

If it is true that Old Testament Scripture binds a woman to a man even if he is a covenant breaker and worse than an apostate, then you are faced with the fact that a pagan culture 700 years before the Law given by God is more righteous and just than the Jewish Culture you think existed.

I find it irreconcilable that both imperfect cultures would seem more just and even handed towards the treatment and care of women than the perspective espoused by some here that claim strict Biblical sources.

I think your argument doesn't read as you intended. It seems to come across that you are starting with the concept that a woman leaving a husband that doesn't provide is righteous therefore God must allow it rather than God allows it therefore it is righteous.

I agree that God does allow a woman to leave a husband that is starving her or refuses to provide any of the basic necessities she needs to sustain life.

I also agree that it is very easy to wrongfully let "basic necessities" expand out to whatever she desires and is therefore used unjustly by women in our first world country.

You may want to clarify your above post. So that it comes across more as you intended.

 

[rockfox]

All interesting, but as @rockfox points out, clearly demonstrates a Talmud affected by the cultures around and, changing standards based on rabbinic attempts to alter or even the playing field. As I've clearly stated, and supported by what @Verifyveritas76 posted, be very wary of any interpretation of Scripture filtered through the Talmudic lens. You nor the framers may intend confusion or falsehood, but it is bound to happen, one small step at a time until you find yourself well off the path of Scripture.

I agree. But you can also see that the OT itself was influenced by the culture and laws of its day. Learning about those has helped me understand the OT a lot. No sense reinventing the wheel when the culture already practices laws that are just.

But I wouldn't use those or the Talmud or the CofH to contradict or add to the Old Law.

the latter is eerily similar to the Code of Hammurabi

I would say this is much like how modern US law is eerily similar to old English common law. Because there is a connection. The Talmud was likely greatly influenced by Mesopotamian law (during captivity or the various invasions). I suspect there is a bit of a common legal tradition going down through the different dynasties in Mesopotamia. So the CofH has many likenesses in later Assyrian or Babylonian law.

Even stronger, Abram was a Mesopotamian and seems to have acted according to their law. They were Semitic peoples, cousins if you will to the Hebrews. So it is no surprise their laws are similar.

If it is true that Old Testament Scripture binds a woman to a man even if he is a covenant breaker and worse than an apostate, then you are faced with the fact that a pagan culture 700 years before the Law given by God is more righteous and just than the Jewish Culture you think existed.

Are they not one? Can a man break covenant with his own body? The CofH doesn't have a law to the effect of "he doesn't feed her enough". [edit: it does for neglect, see below] Rather covenant breaking for them abandonment. And that's not really much different than 1 Cor 7, "let him go you are not bound to him".

Pagan imperfect Hammurabi protected the women from worthless husband

It did, but not the way we'd apply that statement today. Women today use that as a catchall to justify abandoning their marriage. A women then who made such an accusation had to prove it to the court and failing to do so faced trial by water. If she succeeded, she left with her dowry. If only today we could limit ahead of time the monetary risk of divorce.

Most such accusations today, if made under the CofH would result in her being made a slave or tossed in the river.

First, I believe the Torah preexisted the CofH and the relationship is the reverse of what liberal theologians and historians think. CofH is based on Torah, not the other way around. I'll go so far as to say the Torah was given in the Garden and preexisted Creation. I can prove from Scripture.

Second, just because I do not understand everything in Scripture does nit mean God is somehow less just than a human code. Is it possible, just possible, that indeed God believes that divorce is an abomination and therefore doesn't create a 'no fault' or 'soft fault' loophole in His Law as an escape clause? Is it possible that maybe we can learn to walk by the Spirit and grow through even 'repugnancy?' ( And who the heck determines what 'repugnancy' is? Really?)

@Verifyveritas76 do you not see how very slippery the slope is you stand on? You are not trying to understand how the CofH and Talmud err in their obvious open door policy, rather, you consistently judge the Word by changing codes of men. @ZecAustin warned some time ago that you were approaching this backwards and I have to concur.

Brother, there is nothing wrong with trying to understand context through contemporary documents, but when you begin to think the manmade versions more just than Divine Law..... I'm concerned.

I disagree with he preexisted Torah part but the rest of that is bang on. Over and over again I see Christians throw out things in scripture that make them uncomfortable, because of the cares of the world, which they lack the eyes to see why God wrote it.

 

[rockfox]

If it is true that Old Testament Scripture binds a woman to a man even if he is a covenant breaker and worse than an apostate, then you are faced with the fact that a pagan culture 700 years before the Law given by God is more righteous and just than the Jewish Culture you think existed.

This is the most fundamentally telling part of this whole discussion. You see requiring a woman to stay in a marriage where he neglects her as unjust.

But there is a massive problem here. Do divorce papers fill empty bellies? Are the children better off without a father? Are bare cupboards a symptom of not spending enough on divorce lawyers? Is life easier when there are two households to support? Will she have to work any less for food as a single mom? Are children better off with only one parent? Is divorce the only solution to a lack of food?

No, it's not! In the US if a family lacks sufficient food the USDA will buy food for them. Christians also will give food out of their own pocketbook. There are foodbanks and cheap second hand shops in every community. I have seen in my life and in scripture repeatedly that God will not let His servants starve.

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

This idea of divorce for neglect leads to far greater harm and injustice than it seeks to releave. Divorce is not the only option. Why should we compound injustice and tear asunder that which God said not to when there are other options?

We shouldn't. There is no reason to. I don't know why VV is so doggedly advancing this position.

While VV's logic sounds good, the problem is it falls flat on its face in that it requires you to hold that the law is incomplete, that to act justly we must add to the law what is not there, that God left something out. But when presented with the emotional trial of a 'suffering' women few will stick to cold logic. That is understandable, but it doesn't make it right.

I can understand why people would think a neglected wife can go free. It makes emotional sense and one can make a case for it. But that case doesn't hold up to scrutiny. And it does vastly more harm than good.

I've never seen a divorce for true neglect and neglect doesn't show up in the main reasons why people divorce. But over and over and over I've seen this idea used to falsely justify divorce. The idea that any control on her
out of control spending is neglect, that if she can't spend money on those designer jeans when the budget is tight he's 'not providing', or if he doesn't give her an upper middle class lifestyle he's not providing'. And its all patently absurd. None of it is really about neglect. In practice neglect means whatever they want it to mean when seeking to justify divorce.

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content

 

[Cap]

So we should create a hedge around the Talmud, or other extra writings in the same regards, to protect ourselves?

Just because some people get into weird time loops about certain things in their path to find God, doesn't mean it's wrong for someone else to entertain a large picture to see if there is something there for them. There is only one Savior, I say let Him do His job.

No one really takes into consideration, when it comes to divorce, God's idea of peace in a relationship between it's members. Forcing people to stay together that are not meant to be together only leads people further away from that peace.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I think your argument doesn't read as you intended. It seems to come across that you are starting with the concept that a woman leaving a husband that doesn't provide is righteous therefore God must allow it rather than God allows it therefore it is righteous.

I agree that God does allow a woman to leave a husband that is starving her or refuses to provide any of the basic necessities she needs to sustain life.

I also agree that it is very easy to wrongfully let "basic necessities" expand out to whatever she desires and is therefore used unjustly by women in our first world country.

You may want to clarify your above post. So that it comes across more as you intended.

That is a great clarification of what I was trying to say. Thank you. I agree entirely with your post.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

If it is true that Old Testament Scripture binds a woman to a man even if he is a covenant breaker and worse than an apostate, then you are faced with the fact that a pagan culture 700 years before the Law given by God is more righteous and just than the Jewish Culture you think existed.

Obviously a pagan culture cannot be more righteous than God, ergo it cannot be true that the Old Testament binds a woman to a man even if he is a covenant breaker and worse than an apostate.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The idea that any control on her
out of control spending is neglect, that if she can't spend money on those designer jeans when the budget is tight he's 'not providing', or if he doesn't give her an upper middle class lifestyle he's not providing'. And its all patently absurd. None of it is really about neglect. In practice neglect means whatever they want it to mean when seeking to justify divorce.

Hyperbole does nothing but muddy the waters. Exodus 21:10 is not hyperbole, it is a very narrowly defined principle. Someone who abuses the principle is hardly evidence against its validity.

I also found it interesting that the Code of Hammurabi that this same principle is clearly defined

133. If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his house, but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house: because this wife did not keep her court, and went to another house, she shall be judicially condemned and thrown into the water.
134. If any one be captured in war and there is not sustenance in his house, if then his wife go to another house this woman shall be held blameless.
135. If a man be taken prisoner in war and there be no sustenance in his house and his wife go to another house and bear children; and if later her husband return and come to his home: then this wife shall return to her husband, but the children follow their father.
136. If any one leave his house, run away, and then his wife go to another house, if then he return, and wishes to take his wife back: because he fled from his home and ran away, the wife of this runaway shall not return to her husband.



Obviously, a woman who doesnt wanna leave her husbands house for this reason will plant a garden or sumpin.

 

[PeteR]

Obviously a pagan culture cannot be more righteous than God, ergo it cannot be true that the Old Testament binds a woman to a man even if he is a covenant breaker and worse than an apostate.

False. You have to assume divorce is righteous in certain circumstances. Show that to me in Scripture.

I don't disagree that sometimes circumstances really suck, but your argument is emotionally based with a starting premise based onvthe 'rightness' of the pagan response.

Honestly, I think the missing piece in alk this is community involvement, especially the elders, in coraling and straightening out an abusive or calloused husband. I don't see 'no fault' or 'soft fault' divorce. I don't even really see 'hard fault,' though I can see the man being stoned or in some other way 'removed.' Our problem is we don't understand how serious it was to be cut off from the community.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I don't disagree that sometimes circumstances really suck, but your argument is emotionally based with a starting premise based onvthe 'rightness' of the pagan response.

I’m just gonna say that your (and @ZecAustin) assumptions of the starting point of my premise is bullsh*t and I don’t appreciate it. Just because I utilize a secondary source to confirm or disprove an interpretation of a primary source does not support your conclusions.

BTW, don’t think you’re doing anything different. You’re just using Deep South fundamentalism culture to confirm or disprove an interpretation of a primary source.

I grew up in that mess and though some of it is good, the arrogant gross ignorance of anything first century or before is beyond repulsive to me.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

False. You have to assume divorce is righteous in certain circumstances. Show that to me in Scripture.

I’m not sure I could prove that marriage mono or poly is righteous in scripture.

It’s more of an if you do it, here’s how you’re supposed to do it.

If you change the requirements to honorable then I could probably prove both. Righteous I think is an unprovable straw man either way

 

[PeteR]

I’m not sure I could prove that marriage mono or poly is righteous in scripture.

Obedience to the Levirate law would be an example of marriage being righteous, whether as mono or poly.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

While VV's logic sounds good, the problem is it falls flat on its face in that it requires you to hold that the law is incomplete, that to act justly we must add to the law what is not there, that God left something out. But when presented with the emotional trial of a 'suffering' women few will stick to cold logic. That is understandable, but it doesn't make it right.

This would be a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my position. My position is not that the law is incomplete, rather that from the same passage there are two interpretations, both competing and both utilizing a different basis to understand from.

Obedience to the Levirate law would be an example of marriage being righteous, whether as mono or poly.

Chapter and verse and does it say righteous?

EDIT
I just looked and there is no mention of righteousness associated with it. IF anything it would be closer to honorable, but both would have to be read into it. It is more of a if you do it, here’s how.

 

[PeteR]

O

This would be a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my position. My position is not that the law is incomplete, rather that from the same passage there are two interpretations, both competing and both utilizing a different basis to understand from.


Chapter and verse and does it say righteous?

EDIT
I just looked and there is no mention of righteousness associated with it. IF anything it would be closer to honorable, but both would have to be read into it. It is more of a if you do it, here’s how.

Obedience is righteousness.. 'it will be righteousness to you if you obey all the words of this Torah.'

Edit: paraphrase as I remembered Deu 6:25

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So just to clarify, this passage is part of Torah, right?

Deuteronomy 24:1,2. When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

Looks like divorce is righteous per your standards. Not just divorce, but divorce and remarriage

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Also of course Exodus 21:10 but the crazy part is that God seems to have done this also.

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Psalms 19:9. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Divorce is unrighteous? Something’s not adding up.