eriqbenel wrote:A marriage covenant/contract is all about property, and nothing else besides property in its legal essence....
That is completely horrible in essence.
Eriq, I completely understand why you and the rest of our culture of this modern country would think this. Since the Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, etc. we Americans have shifted from the traditional view of bondservanthood and any talk of being property, bondservants, slaves, servants, subjects, etc. is anathema. We have been told that we are 'free', all the while the powers that be actually speedily and craftily went about to enslave us in insidious ways - and couched that enslavement in terms of privilege, franchise, limited liability, freedom, 'civil' RIGHTS, etc. etc.
I have seen in my own state's statute books even just a couple of decades ago, that our Titles which cover "Employment Law" were formerly entitled "Master-Servant Law". That is not politically correct to call your employer your "Master" and you his "Servant", of course, and it had to go and was abrogated by the legislature. In other words, the legislators were 'deities' creating law - adding to and subtracting from the ETERNAL LAW of Yahuah and his Torah. Now, in our state, we have huge debates about whether an officer who neglects his K-9 police dog and leaves it in the car accidentally should be charged with MURDER! As if....it was a human being. When someone suggested that that dog was property of the police department but not a human that could be murdered, the public was outraged! Our sense of categorizing these areas of law has greatly shifted over the years, and the shift is AWAY from Torah.
Canadians know that they are 'subjects' of the Queen. We in American believe that we are 'free', and don't really see our status correctly.
So, while I understand your response to my statement, I would also point out again that human beings are important to YHVH and that He didn't outlaw bondservanthood, but did provide laws to protect and mete out justice in many respects for the bondservant. Bondservanthood was practiced in the early days of our country, and is the method by which Yahuah keeps us responsible for our actions. If I am reckless and set fire to my land and it burns your land and home, I must pay for your damages up to all of my substance/wealth. If that is insufficient to cover the damages, then I must work for you until it is paid off. Then, after paid, I am released again as a Freeman, hence the term, "Common Law Freeman" in our country's history. We also remember the widow who inquired of Elisha for help lest her sons be sold into bondservanthood to pay the family's debts.
After the Civil War, the slaves were set free and the Constitution amended to never again allow this horrible, horrible practice of slavery and personal accountability (I'm not sayin that Americans followed Torah re owning slaves...many of them should have been freed, at least after 50 years. So, our country was actually judged, IMO.) With the abolition of slavery in the technical, individual sense, the govt. and big business began a new form of insidious slavery with insurance (including national 'Social Security'insurance) and increase in limited liability, privilege licenses (which actually take away our inalienable rights), fictitious entities of commerce, and all other forms of Maritime law. Admiralty courts have now replaced most of the Common Law courts in our country, and we don't even realize the type of court we're walking into!
All this said as foundation and background---YES, the wife and the children are the property and 'treasure' of the man. That does not mean that the human "property" does not have IMMENSE VALUE. All the contrary.
From a legal point of view, America has strayed from this legal position of property and even servanthood in recent history, but it doesn't negate the true scriptural view. My view is that your point about the value of the wife and children and my point about the true legal nature of the property are both valid at the same time. Jacob worked SEVEN LONG YEARS for his wife, and then got another. He worked SEVEN MORE LONG YEARS for the woman he loved, and then paid the bride price with that 14 years of labor. He did it because she was immensely valuable and desired and loved---but it was a contract with her father for Rachel. I would contend that a man who would pay a bride price like this would also take care of her as his Queen. That does not negate the fact that the woman was contracted for and paid for with the consideration of his labor. This woman would give him heirs -- she is not a chicken or a goat -- but exquisitely prized 'property'. In many ways, the wife has superior rights and privileges, even if she is technically LEGALLY his property.
In recent years, the trend in court decisions has been to strip men of their parental rights in divorces and then at the same make them pay child support to the state. Some men disgustingly refer to alimony and child support as 'vagina money'--nevertheless, their anger is understandable because they have been hamstrung and their rights stripped. The man also oftentimes has all his marital property taken away in the divorce, or at least half of it. Community Property rights in various states have given women equal status - but this is not the case in Torah. She was to return to her father's house - and if father had died, the firstborn male was to care for the widows, etc., as patriarch of the clan. The firstborn male received the double portion so that he could take on this duty for the family. In Torah marriages, the husband would keep all his property (including children if he wanted them I would imagine.) She would keep anything that was her family's inheritance that husband had helped to administrate, along with any increase on that inheritance, as I understand it.
Torah is superior to our present laws, and will be restored supernaturally by Yahuah who said NOT TO ADD TO THIS BOOK OF THE LAW! OR SUBTRACT.
Please know and remember that I am not advocating that a man abuse his daughter or sell her - in our present society. On the contrary, I'm saying that Fathers should contract with a suitable man who will treat his daughter like a princess and their children as royal heirs - with the BEST of everything that he is able to offer them. That means, his best efforts to provide financially and his best efforts to provide a proper spiritual covering over her.
And, the reason that I posted those links to those radio programs of George Gordon is that he speaks to the subject of why Americans are not prospering. An immigrant can come to this country and prosper and obtain lands and homes using our system whereas Americans just incur debt and other oppression and curse. Immigrants are willing to sacrifice and live with others and wait until they have money in hand and buy something outright rather than incur debt. He said that he believes that anyone can be flat broke and rebuild themselves to be well-off in as little as three years. An immigrant coming here might be at ground zero and able to accomplish this, whereas, a typical American is not at ground zero because they are often very far in the hole in DEBT with a mortgage, car loans, etc. In this view, bankruptcy is an increase in net worth and a new start just to get at ground zero.
Those links to those programs were very good - to show a very obtainable plan to prosper. Even the coming depression and collapse is just a transfer of wealth to those who are blessed and wise to be on the receiving end of it. The wealth of the wicked is laid up for the just...(the man who will pity the poor, also, of course.)
So, it's not unreasonable for men to exercise some diligence to obtain all that they desire, including a worthy bride or brides. I'm just saying that men should wait and just put things in proper order according to Torah and all things are possible. And it will be a blessing to his wife and children and grandchildren when he does this. I cannot understand why this is so appalling to you!
