Welcome to our Resources Section

(Shemot 21:1-24:18, Haftara, Jer. 34:8-22; 33:25-26, Brit Chadashah Lk.21:29-38)

(Please take the time to read the portion completely as this "reflection" is designed to be a practical life application of some selected parts of the Torah portion, Haftara and Brit Chadashah and is not an in depth commentary, but rather a way to see ourselves in the text.)

Last week I was confronted with the question "Where is the protection and provision for the daughters and women in the scriptures?" This is a question I have heard voiced many times over the years usually tied to a statement indicating, always in a polite and gentle way, that Elohim is sort of chauvinistic. Well, I have never really understood things from a woman's perspective, being a man, but as we midrashed the problem we discovered it basically stemmed from three points;

1. A woman who has been raped must marry her rapist. (Deut 22:28)
2. A daughter has no say over who she will have to marry. (Num. 30:3)
3. A wife must submit to a slothful or abusive husband. ( lack of contrary instructions)

I have always stood on the principle that YHVH has everything we need to live and prosper, women included. The Torah was given to mankind with the idea that we would desire to obey it as this is how we show our love for the Father. (Deut 28, Jn 14:15) The Torah,unfortunetly, does not govern the actions of non-believers, called goyim in Hebrew, (gentiles,pagans) and as such is not a binding standard for them. They are already judged (Jn 3:18) and so I will direct all my comments to those that are proportedly in Torah and love the Father and the Son. Let's attempt to shed a bit of light on some of our problems.

1. As to the marrage of a rapist-- Rape is really two crimes in one, first a man would trap or kidnap his victim and then he would violate her. The punishment for kidnapping another Isrealite is DEATH.

Exo 21:16 He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

Now those greek-minded, loophole finders will say," It says, kidnaps a man..." and so it does and, if fact, it is the word "eesh" and not "adam" as you might suppose. The fact is that while eesh is overwhelmingly translated as "man" it is translated 175 times as "one"; 127 times as "every"; 25 times as "any"; 8 times as "person" along with others but you get the idea. Obviously common sense dictates we extend this prohibition to all people in Israel.

The verses in Deuteronomy are mearly an escape clause for those that would choose to stay with the person and not have him put to death. Obviosly this would not include a violent act where the female would desire the sentence to be carried out. My example? The story of Amnon, the son of King David, and Tamar.

2Sa 13:12-16 But she answered him, "No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing! "As for me, where could I get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you." However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her. Then Amnon hated her with a very great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, "Get up, go away!" But she said to him, "No, because this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you have done to me!" Yet he would not listen to her.

She was willing to stay with him but he took another path and lost his life for it!

2Sa 13:28-29a Absalom commanded his servants, saying, "See now, when Amnon's heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, 'Strike Amnon,' then put him to death. Do not fear; have not I myself commanded you? Be courageous and be valiant." The servants of Absalom did to Amnon just as Absalom had commanded.

Clearly the Torah principle has played out in this account.

2. As to the daughter not having a say,--A good father would desire to provide for his daughter. If the young lady does not desire to wed such and such suitor then the common sense thing is for the Father to simply say "no." Even if they have had "relations" there is no mandate for marriage.

Exo 22:16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. "If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.

It is not mandatory for a girl to marry if she has been "seduced" or "opened" (the root meaning of the word) so we see here that a father may prevent his daughter from being submitted to a "bad marriage."

If, however, he were only interested in a bride price, ie, receiving money for his offspring, then we have these words which give the girl a few rights, as to not be sold into a terrible situation without any hope of a happy future.

Exo 21:7-9 "If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she is not to go free as the male servants do."If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. "If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.

This may seem a bit harsh but remember the idea was that the fathers would WANT to take good care of their daughters. This provision was for the exception.

3. As to the statement that a woman must simply submit-- I believe that YHVH has provided an answer in this week's parasha;

Exo 21:10-11"If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

I believe this section is the answer to all the questions about abusive or "lazy bum" husbands and those that walk in a way contrary to the Torah. Let's examine these three words, food, clothing and conjugal rights.

Food- Sheer -Strongs #7607 from the root - Sha'ar #7604 to remain or be left over.

Interestingly enough this word is only translated as food 3 times and as flesh (the human body) or relative, kinsman 14 times. The word has a nuance of " being joined" as in the sharing of food joins the couple together. It becomes even more intriguing when we trace it forward into the Brit Chadashah and find the word "Ta'Deonta " translated as "to bind." Let's look at it:

Rom 7:2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.

1Co 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

It also appears in;

Mat 13:29-30 "But he *said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

So we see a spiritual and a physical togetherness in this word. Not surprisingly Hirsch defines this word in Hebrew as "complete." Eating together is a sign of fellowship and friendship and so the reverse of that would indicate a breach.

1Co 5:11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

Clothing- kesuth #3682 from the root kasah #3680 to fill up, cover. This word can be found used as a garment for the body but also as the covering of the cloud over the Tabernacle in the wilderness. The garment that one has is clearly stated as "ones only covering" as in;

Exo 22:26-27 "If you ever take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious.

Simply put, the physical protection of one's person AND the spiritual covering of said person shall not be tampered with. Onward into the Brit Chadashah and we find the word "himatismos" # 2441 meaning "a raiment or to conceal." It is used for the garments of Messiah that they cast lots for (Math. 27:35& Jn. 19:24) also in ;

1Ti 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,

Hirsch defines kasah as "cover, withdrawal from sight." It is easy to see the context of protection for the person as we all agree that clothing is what withdrawals or conceals the parts of our bodies, or our wives bodies, away from sight. We can also say it this way, "part of marriage is to conceal the vulnerable parts of our spouses so that the world does not harm them."

Conjugal Rights- onath # 5772 from the root -anah #6030 to answer, respond. It also has the connotation of testifying to something. I submit that the testimony is in the desire that is between couples. In the Brit Chadashah we find the word "homilia" #3657 (#3658 plural) meaning to be in association or company with.

1Co 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals."

Rev 18:17KJV For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

According to the Thayers it means "to be in company with; to associate with; to stay with; hence to converse with, talk with." It implies a relationship. Hirsch defines it as "respond, make dependent." This is actually in agreement with what Brad Scott presents in his " Male and Female Created He Them" teaching in that the position of the woman was to sit opposite the man and declare forth.

We can readily make the connection between the instructions in Ex. 21:10 and the marital relationship. Once again those loophole finders will say, "It says if he takes another wife and so does not apply to the single wife couple." I think you're just looking for a loophole, so please don't write me with that argument. I propose that any rational thinking person can surmise that if the man must not "diminish" these things if he takes another wife, then he must be giving them to his wife already. These rights of a wife are laid down to give us, as husbands, some insight into how we are to treat our wives in accordance to YHVH's Torah.

Finally I would like to take a quick look at the word diminish- gara #1639 it is a root word meaning " to diminish; restrain or withdrawal." Once again it becomes very interesting in the Brit Chadashah where we find the word "apostereo"-#650 and is found in these verses;

1Co 6:7-8 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.

and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. 1Ti 6:5

Jas 5:4KJV Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of YHVH of sabaoth.

Hirsch defines gara as "diminish value or number." So it is not only in quantity that we can withhold from our spouses it is in quality too. The overwhelming context is to basically break out commitment to our spouse, defraud her in such a way as to cause her damage to her. We are not talking about a short term explainable circumstance like a lot of extra work causing your husband to fall asleep in the chair before bedtime or someone who, like many people today, are unemployed or underemployed. We are talking some serious deficiencies in the marriage and only in that they are grounds for some intervention.

Ok so to wrap it up, I am obviously not saying that these are reasons to always be loosed from your spouse. I am saying that if some of these things sound familiar, you should take a hard look at your relationship and TALK to your spouse about it. If however, he or she doesn't want to see the problem or the problem is more than just a little, you now have Biblical grounds to take the matter to someone who can HELP bring reconciliation.

If no reconsiliation is possible than and only then can she "go out for nothing, without payment of money."

I hope this will clear up some of the confusion of a "mean old chauvinistic God who subjugates women" and put it more in the correct light of a loving Father trying to protect and provide for His kids.

Other commentary on Mishpatim