• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Wives and resentment

rockfox said:
There is something powerful there. A man who adds wives is literally building up his household. Hence the Bible commends wives as wise who embrace polygamy.

That is entirely different than the "no self respecting woman would go along with that" persphective @Daniel DeLuca ran into.

Dare I say also that the Bible sees adding multiple wives as wise and a blessing?
Click to expand...

Thought of something when I read this again. Self respecting may as well be a synonym for selfish; which is also the opposite of wise. So Proverbs 14:1 comes around full circle with that saying.

That should be our retort to 'no self respecting wife'....."you mean selfish". To which they'll respond, "no the man is selfish" to which you can point to the fact a wise woman builds her house, not rebells, and God favors the man who finds a wife (first or second).
 
Mojo said:
But you made the claim. Why should I do the work?
Click to expand...

If you don't care enough to type <ctrl>-f wife neither do I care enough to do it for you.
 
rockfox said:
If you don't care enough to type <ctrl>-f wife neither do I care enough to do it for you.
Click to expand...
If it was that easy to find, you should have done that in the first place. You stated your evidence as fact. Either back it up, or walk it back.
 
Mojo said:
If it was that easy to find, you should have done that in the first place. You stated your evidence as fact. Either back it up, or walk it back.
Click to expand...

It is there. I'm not interested in your games.
 
rockfox said:
It is there. I'm not interested in your games.
Click to expand...
It's only a game because you're making the rules and then picking up the pieces when it doesn't go your way.
 
I think this may be what @rockfox was referring to.

146. If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.

147. If she have not borne him children, then her mistress may sell her for money.
 
Fascinating on several levels.
  1. Despite marrying, the first wife retained possession of the maidservant, authority / ownership did not transfer to the husband.
  2. She could give her maidservant to her husband.
  3. But if she did, she still retained authority, could still sell the maidservant, until she bore children.
  4. At which point it is the husband who is referred to as making decisions about her.
Also, this says he may continue to keep her as a maidservant. Not must. He has the option of making her a wife, but can also keep her as a servant, this law simply states that bearing children did not give her an automatic change in legal status.
 
There was another one that mentioned children born of a maidservant. If the father acknowledged them as his sons, they had full rights in paternal inheritance. (Implying that they had no rights to the other wifes inheritance for her children). If he did not acknowledge them as sons, they and their mother were freed upon his death, but no part of the paternal inheritance
 
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, how does this mirror the Sarah/Hagar situations?

  1. Expulsion is not required.
  2. Seems like She could not be sold (she wasn't)
  3. She could be kept as a servant (she wasn't)
  4. She bore a child so now had some protections.
  5. Abraham acknowledged Ishmael as a son.
It seems to be a conscious choice by Sarah and lamented by Abraham to expel her. Since she bore a son to him, doesn't that change the "ownership" status? There must be more to the story than what we receive in scripture since it doesn't match up with cultural (Hammurabi) norms.

Btw-I did do the research and saw the same things. I just don't see where the expulsion is part of a norm. Did I miss something?
 
And just to make sure that everyone understands that I'm not playing a "game", I will push anyone to provide support for their positions, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their points. To make blanket, general statements without any evidence or support is not something any of us should accept. I can easily accept being wrong, just don't tell me I'm wrong...show me.
 
Mojo said:
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, how does this mirror the Sarah/Hagar situations?

  1. Expulsion is not required.
  2. Seems like She could not be sold (she wasn't)
  3. She could be kept as a servant (she wasn't)
  4. She bore a child so now had some protections.
  5. Abraham acknowledged Ishmael as a son.
It seems to be a conscious choice by Sarah and lamented by Abraham to expel her. Since she bore a son to him, doesn't that change the "ownership" status? There must be more to the story than what we receive in scripture since it doesn't match up with cultural (Hammurabi) norms.

Btw-I did do the research and saw the same things. I just don't see where the expulsion is part of a norm. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
It seems like instead of keeping her as a slave, or making her wait til he died for her and her sons freedom, he just moved the timetable up and gave her freedom.

I’m not sure that it was part of the norm from what I’ve seen. In this case, Abraham gave her freedom and she got to leave with his son, something that does not seem according to cultural norms, but greater than the norm.

Though it has always seemed unfair by our cultural norms, I kinda think that he gave her far more than he had to. It apparently could have been far, far worse for her.
 
@Mojo I told you where to find it and you couldn't be bothered to do a simple search of the text yourself. When you say "back it up, or walk it back." I take that as you playing a game. And in that kind of situation, I'm not inclined to be helpful. You should know by now I don't make unsubstantiated claims. No reason to walk it back, I knew it was there. VV found it, so could have you.

Verifyveritas76 said:
It seems like instead of keeping her as a slave, or making her wait til he died for her and her sons freedom, he just moved the timetable up and gave her freedom.

I’m not sure that it was part of the norm from what I’ve seen. In this case, Abraham gave her freedom and she got to leave with his son, something that does not seem according to cultural norms, but greater than the norm.

Though it has always seemed unfair by our cultural norms, I kinda think that he gave her far more than he had to. It apparently could have been far, far worse for her.
Click to expand...

Sell her vs. give her away. Either way the end result is the same in that she in that she lost her station and was kicked out. That's why I associated the two. Also because of Abraham's giving of gifts to his concubines. These are all things we see in Hammurabi but not in the Old Law. That and Abram was from Mesopotamia.

Now I would not be surprised if there was some variance between Abram's practice and any specific extant Mesopotamian law. In the first place, IIRC he came from a town on the border of the empire where things weren't followed exactly to the letter of the law and then moved outside of it entirely. Also because our knowledge of ancient law is incomplete as is our knowledge of timelines.
 
@rockfox
Your quote was...
Abraham and Sarah came from Mesopotamia where this was a common enough situation to become enshrined in the law. A second wife, previously a slave, was to be demoted back to slave or sent away if she asserted equality or supremacy over the first wife. Thi
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing 'sent away' in the laws presented by @Verifyveritas76. I was asserting that it wasn't as common as you implied. I'm thinking that's why it was also such a pivotal narrative in that it was somewhat harsh and extreme. Perhaps it was necessary to provide the purity of what God was up to, so who are we to feel sentimental?

I enjoy accuracy and attention to detail, especially in scripture. I also expect people to back up their claims and do so transparently, not rely on "I said it, so believe me." tactics.

I did do the research. It wasn't a game. But in doing that research it let me see that your blanket, general statement (that you are prone to employ) that sending Hagar away was "common" was not to be found. It wasn't required either. The law employed the option, if so chosen, to send her back to the ranks of servant. She had protections to not be sold as well. Sending out a woman and her (probably adult) son to fend for themselves outside of the protection of a clan or family seems to far outside of the protection so given in the Mesopotamian code. I never once asserted that your recollection was wrong...I just asked for proof which you could just as easily provided.

Your statement, your obligation to back it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top