I will be re-reading this a few times in the coming days. I found my mind pre-occupied with the passages from Malachi so I am confident I didn't get it all in.
So what, in particular, is occupying you about the Malachi passage?
Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mal 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
I think you miss a lot when you start in the middle of a passage. This particular passage starts at Mal 2:10, and castigates the people for taking non-Jewish wives in betrayal of their first (Jewish) wives, referred to as "the wife of his youth." Thus we read in Mal 2:11 "... for Judah has defiled the holy (nation) of the L-rd, which He loved, and taken in marriage the daughter of a foreign G-d."
I am not surprised that Andrew would be confused by the translations you cite. They appear to make little sense as they stand (and using older English doesn't help). Here i how the Artscroll edition of The Twelve renders them:
"You say, "Why [is this]?" It is because the L-rd has testified between you and the wife of your youth whom you have betrayed, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant.
"But did not the unique one do [so], and he had an extraordinary spirit?" And what did the unique one seek? Godly offspring; however, you should guard your spirit, and let it not betray the wife of your youth!
"For he who hates [his wife] should divorce [her]" says The L-rd, G-d of Israel. "He covers injustice with his garment," says the L-rd, Master of legions. "Guard your spirit and do not commit betrayal."
The commentators generally identify "the unique one" as Abraham, who married Hagar, despite already being married to Sarah, and despite Hagar being an idolator, as he was in pursuit of godly offspring. This is the excuse offered by those whom Malachi is condemning for the aforementioned betrayal. But G-d warns against betraying their first wives, and suggests that if they actually hate them so much, they should divorce them.
To my non-Jewish audience, as Russ is aware, Christians and Jews differ as to the proper translation/interpretation of this passage. The standard Christian interpretation and translation of this passage comes much closer to 'God hates divorce."
John Gill discusses the controversy here:
Malachi 2:16
For the Lord the God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away,.... The divorcing of wives; for though this was suffered because of the hardness of their hearts, it was not approved of by the Lord; nor was it from the beginning; and it was disagreeable, and even hateful to him, Mat 19:8 in the margin of some Bibles the words are rendered, "if he hate her, put her away"; and so the Targum,
"but if thou hatest her, put her away;''
to which agree the Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, and Arabic versions; and this sense made mention of in both Talmuds, and is thought to be agreeable to the law in Deu 24:3 though the law there speaks of a fact that might be, and not of what ought to be; wherefore the former sense is best; and this other seems to have been at first calculated to favour the practice of the Jews, who put away their wives through hatred to them. The Jews were very much inclined to divorce their wives upon very trivial occasions; if they did not dress their food well, were not of good behaviour, or not so modest as became the daughters of Israel; if they did not find favour with their husbands; and, especially, if they had entertained a hatred of them: so says R. Judah (k),
"if he hate her, let him put her away:''
but this is by some of them restrained to a second wife; for of the first they say,
"it is not proper to be hasty to put away a first wife; but a second, if he hates her, let him put her away (l)''
and R. Eleazer says (m), whoever divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears for him, referring to the words in Mal 2:13 and divorces of this kind they only reckon lawful among the Israelites, and found it upon this passage; for so they make God to speak after this manner (n),
"in Israel I have granted divorces; among the nations of the world I have not granted divorces. R. Chananiah, in the name of R. Phinehas, observes, that in every other section it is written, "the Lord of hosts"; but here it is written, "the God of Israel", to teach thee that the holy blessed God does not put his name to divorces (or allow them) but in Israel only. R. Chayah Rabba says, the Gentiles have no divorces.''
But some of them have better understanding of these words, and more truly give the sense of them thus, as R. Jochanan does, who interprets them,
"the putting away of the wife is hateful (o);''
it is so to God, and ought not to be done by men but in case of adultery, as our Lord has taught, Mat 5:32 and which was the doctrine of the school of Shammai in Christ's time, who taught,
"that no man should divorce his wife, unless he found in her filthiness;''
i.e. that she was guilty of adultery; though this Maimonides restrains to the first wife, as before: but the house of Hillell, who lived in the same time, was of a different mind, and taught that
"if she burnt his food;''
either over dressed or over salted it, according to Deu 24:1. R. Akiba says, if he found another more beautiful than her, according to Deu 24:1, he might divorce her (p); of the form of a divorce; see Gill on Mat 5:31. Those interpreters among Christians that go this way do not look upon this as an approbation of divorce, on account of hatred; but that so to do is better than to retain them with hatred of them, seeing it was connived at, or than to take other wives with them.
For one covereth violence with his garment, or "on his garment",
saith the Lord of hosts; as he that puts away his wife does her an open injury, which though he may cover, pretending the law, which connives at divorces; yet the violence done to his wife is as manifest as the garment upon his back: though those who think the former words are an instruction to put away wives, when hated, consider this as a reason why they should do so; because, by retaining them, and yet hating them, and taking other wives to them, is doing them a real injury, whatever cover or pretence may be used; because, if dismissed, they might be loved by, and married to, other men. Aben Ezra seems to have hit the sense of these words, when he makes this to be the object of God's hatred, as well as the former; his note is,
"the Lord hateth him that putteth away his wife that is pure, and he hates him that covereth; or God sees his violence which is done in secret.''
Mr. Pocock proposes a conjecture, which is very ingenious and probable, that as the words will bear the construction Aben Ezra gives, that God hates putting away, and hates that one should put violence upon or over his garment; by "garment" he thinks may be meant a man's lawful wife, which is as a garment to him; and by "violence" a second wife, or other wives, taken to the injury, hurt, and vexation of the former; and the covering, or superinducing violence over the garment, is marrying an unlawful wife, over or with, or above his lawful one: and the sense is, that as God hates divorce, so he hates polygamy:
therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously; See Gill on Mal 2:15.
(k) T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 90. 2. (l) Maimon. Hilchot Gerushin, c. 10, 21, 22. (m) T. Bab. Gittin, ib. (n) T. Hieros. Kiddushin, c. 1. fol. 58. 3. (o) T. Bab. Gittin, ut supra. (p) Misn. Gittin, c. 9. sect. 10.
Despite your comment that “I wish to make it clear that I am not claiming only Christians can be married, or that there is some definition of marriage that applies to Christians and some other definition that applies to others," the whole thing comes off as though you are speaking exclusively to Christians. Is that your intent?
As an Orthodox Jew, I view things a bit differently. We can certainly say "created by G-d," as that is part of our religious tradition, but I don't see it as advancing understanding. Who is your target audience?
I would disagree a bit about your definition, BTW. I would say, rather, that marriage his historically an asymmetric institution; it is a covenant between a man and woman, in which she pledges sexual fidelity (yes, of course marriage is about sex) and he pledges support for her and her children.
Christianity appears to have gotten its rejection of polygyny primarily from Rome; the Hebrew Bible explicitly permits it. The Bible does warn about the challenges of multiple wives, including narratives that highlight problems resulting from conflicts among co-wives (see Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Rachel, Hannah and Penninah, for example). The Talmud also highlights issues, and having a single wife is clearly preferred - but not required. In fact, it mentions a case of a man taking multiple wives during a famine, specifically to give them access to food they would not otherwise be able to eat.
I think that you are confusing my views with someone else in a couple of areas. You are quite right that when a man marries more than one wife (a woman marrying more than one man is specifically forbidden) then the man owes sexual fidelity to both of his wives. That is made clear in Scripture. Which, yes, makes it asymmetric... but I don't see where I say otherwise. Indeed my example seemed to fit your claim quite well.
I'm afraid that when you merely say 'the whole thing comes off' you aren't speaking specifically enough for me to react. Given that I specifically say it isn't specifically
Christian, but as we both do live in a Christian milieu, I'm not sure how I can do more.
In my novella, Down Pad, on my substack, the issue of sex is why my detrans male character does not qualify to marry the woman he loves in the Catholic church. Because of the way puberty blockers and surgery was done, he is not just infertile but literally incapable of consummating the marriage.
I read through your post 'Marriage Broker'. Interesting premise. I like the male character, not sure what to make of the female character. Don't get much about her.
You might like (or, then again, you might hate) my Substack novel 'Contract Marriage'; it explores some of the same themes.
I'm looking forward to reading it. I read through all your back and forth on marriage with Andrew. I think we're pretty much in agreement on what marriage, and specifically Christian marriage, means. Even [gasp] the obedience part, depending on how that is understood.
I'd be interested in getting your feedback on Down Pad. It's got some rough language, but no explicit sex or violence. Mainly a detrans man trying to rebuild his life, and a computer geek trying to figure out how to "people." While maintaining rocket systems.
In this case, his stepmom decided he was a girl and after the divorce, transed him. In those cases, I don't believe it is correct to say the child "chose" anything in any sense at all. But yes, he got the blockers and hormones and castrated and once he got out, he undid a bunch. It's not all reversible, if you go too far.
Stepmom. Dad was out of the picture. This was inspired by an actual case where the dad lost custody of his son when he was around 5 or 6. In the real case, she still has custody and has "socially transitioned" him (girl name and clothes) but he's still a minor and I don't know how far it's gone.
So I just had a weird idea. I think it be cool if we could collaborate together on a story. I’d be awesome if we could do it in the contract marriage universe, where I have at least five cultures floating around that we could play with.
I have been writing fanfic in the Fullmetal Alchemist universe and my Roman story that specifically deal with the different kinds of marriage. It's a very important theme to me. I'll take a look at your universe. I may be very interested.
BTW, in the ancient Roman world during the time of Augustus, there were two legal forms of marriage, conubis and concubinatus, and a legal form of registering a relationship called contubernales. Many aspects of the Roman legal system related to marriage and relationships look about as complicated to me as our current world. Not everyone had the privilege of a legally recognized marriage such as we would define it today (or at least did until about 50 years ago.
This is actually exactly what Cloak and Stola is about. Non-officer Roman soldiers were forbidden by Augustus from conubis during their term of service. Which was 15 to 20 years. Cloak and Stola is about trying to form families when you don't have the legal right to marry.
*gasp* you said the word SEX
The horror!
Wonderful as always Von.
I will be re-reading this a few times in the coming days. I found my mind pre-occupied with the passages from Malachi so I am confident I didn't get it all in.
So what, in particular, is occupying you about the Malachi passage?
Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mal 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
I have trouble with words getting jumbled especially regarding verses in the Bible.
I have noticed this happens when I am trying to read closely at something I either only have a vague understanding of or haven't read before.
So far it has stayed jumbled which means I have to come back to it later.
I think you miss a lot when you start in the middle of a passage. This particular passage starts at Mal 2:10, and castigates the people for taking non-Jewish wives in betrayal of their first (Jewish) wives, referred to as "the wife of his youth." Thus we read in Mal 2:11 "... for Judah has defiled the holy (nation) of the L-rd, which He loved, and taken in marriage the daughter of a foreign G-d."
I am not surprised that Andrew would be confused by the translations you cite. They appear to make little sense as they stand (and using older English doesn't help). Here i how the Artscroll edition of The Twelve renders them:
"You say, "Why [is this]?" It is because the L-rd has testified between you and the wife of your youth whom you have betrayed, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant.
"But did not the unique one do [so], and he had an extraordinary spirit?" And what did the unique one seek? Godly offspring; however, you should guard your spirit, and let it not betray the wife of your youth!
"For he who hates [his wife] should divorce [her]" says The L-rd, G-d of Israel. "He covers injustice with his garment," says the L-rd, Master of legions. "Guard your spirit and do not commit betrayal."
The commentators generally identify "the unique one" as Abraham, who married Hagar, despite already being married to Sarah, and despite Hagar being an idolator, as he was in pursuit of godly offspring. This is the excuse offered by those whom Malachi is condemning for the aforementioned betrayal. But G-d warns against betraying their first wives, and suggests that if they actually hate them so much, they should divorce them.
To my non-Jewish audience, as Russ is aware, Christians and Jews differ as to the proper translation/interpretation of this passage. The standard Christian interpretation and translation of this passage comes much closer to 'God hates divorce."
John Gill discusses the controversy here:
Malachi 2:16
For the Lord the God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away,.... The divorcing of wives; for though this was suffered because of the hardness of their hearts, it was not approved of by the Lord; nor was it from the beginning; and it was disagreeable, and even hateful to him, Mat 19:8 in the margin of some Bibles the words are rendered, "if he hate her, put her away"; and so the Targum,
"but if thou hatest her, put her away;''
to which agree the Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, and Arabic versions; and this sense made mention of in both Talmuds, and is thought to be agreeable to the law in Deu 24:3 though the law there speaks of a fact that might be, and not of what ought to be; wherefore the former sense is best; and this other seems to have been at first calculated to favour the practice of the Jews, who put away their wives through hatred to them. The Jews were very much inclined to divorce their wives upon very trivial occasions; if they did not dress their food well, were not of good behaviour, or not so modest as became the daughters of Israel; if they did not find favour with their husbands; and, especially, if they had entertained a hatred of them: so says R. Judah (k),
"if he hate her, let him put her away:''
but this is by some of them restrained to a second wife; for of the first they say,
"it is not proper to be hasty to put away a first wife; but a second, if he hates her, let him put her away (l)''
and R. Eleazer says (m), whoever divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears for him, referring to the words in Mal 2:13 and divorces of this kind they only reckon lawful among the Israelites, and found it upon this passage; for so they make God to speak after this manner (n),
"in Israel I have granted divorces; among the nations of the world I have not granted divorces. R. Chananiah, in the name of R. Phinehas, observes, that in every other section it is written, "the Lord of hosts"; but here it is written, "the God of Israel", to teach thee that the holy blessed God does not put his name to divorces (or allow them) but in Israel only. R. Chayah Rabba says, the Gentiles have no divorces.''
But some of them have better understanding of these words, and more truly give the sense of them thus, as R. Jochanan does, who interprets them,
"the putting away of the wife is hateful (o);''
it is so to God, and ought not to be done by men but in case of adultery, as our Lord has taught, Mat 5:32 and which was the doctrine of the school of Shammai in Christ's time, who taught,
"that no man should divorce his wife, unless he found in her filthiness;''
i.e. that she was guilty of adultery; though this Maimonides restrains to the first wife, as before: but the house of Hillell, who lived in the same time, was of a different mind, and taught that
"if she burnt his food;''
either over dressed or over salted it, according to Deu 24:1. R. Akiba says, if he found another more beautiful than her, according to Deu 24:1, he might divorce her (p); of the form of a divorce; see Gill on Mat 5:31. Those interpreters among Christians that go this way do not look upon this as an approbation of divorce, on account of hatred; but that so to do is better than to retain them with hatred of them, seeing it was connived at, or than to take other wives with them.
For one covereth violence with his garment, or "on his garment",
saith the Lord of hosts; as he that puts away his wife does her an open injury, which though he may cover, pretending the law, which connives at divorces; yet the violence done to his wife is as manifest as the garment upon his back: though those who think the former words are an instruction to put away wives, when hated, consider this as a reason why they should do so; because, by retaining them, and yet hating them, and taking other wives to them, is doing them a real injury, whatever cover or pretence may be used; because, if dismissed, they might be loved by, and married to, other men. Aben Ezra seems to have hit the sense of these words, when he makes this to be the object of God's hatred, as well as the former; his note is,
"the Lord hateth him that putteth away his wife that is pure, and he hates him that covereth; or God sees his violence which is done in secret.''
Mr. Pocock proposes a conjecture, which is very ingenious and probable, that as the words will bear the construction Aben Ezra gives, that God hates putting away, and hates that one should put violence upon or over his garment; by "garment" he thinks may be meant a man's lawful wife, which is as a garment to him; and by "violence" a second wife, or other wives, taken to the injury, hurt, and vexation of the former; and the covering, or superinducing violence over the garment, is marrying an unlawful wife, over or with, or above his lawful one: and the sense is, that as God hates divorce, so he hates polygamy:
therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously; See Gill on Mal 2:15.
(k) T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 90. 2. (l) Maimon. Hilchot Gerushin, c. 10, 21, 22. (m) T. Bab. Gittin, ib. (n) T. Hieros. Kiddushin, c. 1. fol. 58. 3. (o) T. Bab. Gittin, ut supra. (p) Misn. Gittin, c. 9. sect. 10.
Despite your comment that “I wish to make it clear that I am not claiming only Christians can be married, or that there is some definition of marriage that applies to Christians and some other definition that applies to others," the whole thing comes off as though you are speaking exclusively to Christians. Is that your intent?
As an Orthodox Jew, I view things a bit differently. We can certainly say "created by G-d," as that is part of our religious tradition, but I don't see it as advancing understanding. Who is your target audience?
I would disagree a bit about your definition, BTW. I would say, rather, that marriage his historically an asymmetric institution; it is a covenant between a man and woman, in which she pledges sexual fidelity (yes, of course marriage is about sex) and he pledges support for her and her children.
Christianity appears to have gotten its rejection of polygyny primarily from Rome; the Hebrew Bible explicitly permits it. The Bible does warn about the challenges of multiple wives, including narratives that highlight problems resulting from conflicts among co-wives (see Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Rachel, Hannah and Penninah, for example). The Talmud also highlights issues, and having a single wife is clearly preferred - but not required. In fact, it mentions a case of a man taking multiple wives during a famine, specifically to give them access to food they would not otherwise be able to eat.
I think that you are confusing my views with someone else in a couple of areas. You are quite right that when a man marries more than one wife (a woman marrying more than one man is specifically forbidden) then the man owes sexual fidelity to both of his wives. That is made clear in Scripture. Which, yes, makes it asymmetric... but I don't see where I say otherwise. Indeed my example seemed to fit your claim quite well.
I'm afraid that when you merely say 'the whole thing comes off' you aren't speaking specifically enough for me to react. Given that I specifically say it isn't specifically
Christian, but as we both do live in a Christian milieu, I'm not sure how I can do more.
In my novella, Down Pad, on my substack, the issue of sex is why my detrans male character does not qualify to marry the woman he loves in the Catholic church. Because of the way puberty blockers and surgery was done, he is not just infertile but literally incapable of consummating the marriage.
How do you handle the situation?
I read through your post 'Marriage Broker'. Interesting premise. I like the male character, not sure what to make of the female character. Don't get much about her.
You might like (or, then again, you might hate) my Substack novel 'Contract Marriage'; it explores some of the same themes.
I'm looking forward to reading it. I read through all your back and forth on marriage with Andrew. I think we're pretty much in agreement on what marriage, and specifically Christian marriage, means. Even [gasp] the obedience part, depending on how that is understood.
I'd be interested in getting your feedback on Down Pad. It's got some rough language, but no explicit sex or violence. Mainly a detrans man trying to rebuild his life, and a computer geek trying to figure out how to "people." While maintaining rocket systems.
So, by 'detrans man' you mean a man who decided to become a women, was castrated etc, and then decided to switch back?
In this case, his stepmom decided he was a girl and after the divorce, transed him. In those cases, I don't believe it is correct to say the child "chose" anything in any sense at all. But yes, he got the blockers and hormones and castrated and once he got out, he undid a bunch. It's not all reversible, if you go too far.
How old was he? When his father did that to him?
Sorry, stepmom
Stepmom. Dad was out of the picture. This was inspired by an actual case where the dad lost custody of his son when he was around 5 or 6. In the real case, she still has custody and has "socially transitioned" him (girl name and clothes) but he's still a minor and I don't know how far it's gone.
Jeffrey young, texas?
Yup. I think that's it. Got me researching and trying to figure out how the kid comes back from that.
It's incredibly ironic that I literally minutes ago posted a youtube with the father. Incredible interview, incredibly hard to listen to.
Link? I bet. I've been reading and listening to stories. It can tear you up inside.
https://substack.com/@vonwriting/note/c-41243707?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=6csnm
Maybe you and I could do a letter exchange sometime :)
Sure! (Sorry if this is double posted.)
So I just had a weird idea. I think it be cool if we could collaborate together on a story. I’d be awesome if we could do it in the contract marriage universe, where I have at least five cultures floating around that we could play with.
I have been writing fanfic in the Fullmetal Alchemist universe and my Roman story that specifically deal with the different kinds of marriage. It's a very important theme to me. I'll take a look at your universe. I may be very interested.
BTW, in the ancient Roman world during the time of Augustus, there were two legal forms of marriage, conubis and concubinatus, and a legal form of registering a relationship called contubernales. Many aspects of the Roman legal system related to marriage and relationships look about as complicated to me as our current world. Not everyone had the privilege of a legally recognized marriage such as we would define it today (or at least did until about 50 years ago.
This is actually exactly what Cloak and Stola is about. Non-officer Roman soldiers were forbidden by Augustus from conubis during their term of service. Which was 15 to 20 years. Cloak and Stola is about trying to form families when you don't have the legal right to marry.
Sure!
Okay, I already read through this up to 5b. Looks like you've got a few more I haven't read.