Divorced: Abandoned, Put Away or Kicked to the Curb

[Quartus]

Mark I liked what you wrote above about Numbers 30 and the woman’s vow, and I do have a genuine question that perhaps you can help me with. To ask it I have to explain a little of my thinking that may help with another discussion.

“Laws” – God’s laws - existed before Moses. Abraham kept them (Gen 26:5).

So then, despite the time shift, perhaps we could use Isaac and Rebekah to run through Num 30 and if so I can give you my question from Gen 24? My question concerns the law of the father, that is how the damsel was under the authority of the father, and then this authority was transferred in some way and at some time so that she was then under the law of the husband.

So we have Rebekah’s father and family’s acceptance and especially Rebekah herself being consulted and consenting to the process by this transfer of authority would take place (Gen 24:50-58)

But we also need Isaac's acceptance, so far only his father had made the offer by his servant (as agent).
Gen 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

For the principles set out in Num 30 to bind Isaac, there would have had to have been an exchange of vows on Rebekah's arrival (hearing), and Isaac would have to be her husband, so already married? or maybe just betrothed? and Rebekah would have had to repeat her vow before v67

BUT
Isaac could not revoke Rebekah's vow to become his wife if he was not ALREADY her husband.
If he was already married, it was too late to revoke her vow to be his wife.

I would genuinely be interested in a resolution to this from the Old Testament.

However, even though I may still have a question about the mechanics of the Old Testament law, I can still see that Christ was entirely in line with the man’s responsibility as Moses stated, bearing his wife’s guilt (if she should fall into adultery where before there was none) as he had placed a stumblingblock before his wife bringing about the circumstance through his own misconduct.

 

[Mark C]

Mark I liked what you wrote above about Numbers 30 and the woman’s vow, and I do have a genuine question that perhaps you can help me with...

“Laws” – God’s laws - existed before Moses. Abraham kept them (Gen 26:5).

Agreed. So did Noah (he clearly knew which animals were clean), and so did Judah (several concepts, including "Levirate marriage").

So then, despite the time shift, perhaps we could use Isaac and Rebekah to run through Num 30 and if so I can give you my question from Gen 24? My question concerns the law of the father, that is how the damsel was under the authority of the father, and then this authority was transferred in some way and at some time so that she was then under the law of the husband.

So we have Rebekah’s father and family’s acceptance and especially Rebekah herself being consulted and consenting to the process by this transfer of authority would take place (Gen 24:50-58)

But we also need Isaac's acceptance...

Not sure that's as clear, at least explicitly. Yitzak/Isaac went willingly with his father at the "Akidah" (binding); he also clearly knew what 'the servant' had been sent to do. Acceptance is at least implied, if for no other reason than his demonstrated obedience to his father.

So I'm not sure the rest of this is big a hurdle as it might seem:

For the principles set out in Num 30 to bind Isaac, there would have had to have been an exchange of vows on Rebekah's arrival (hearing), and Isaac would have to be her husband, so already married? or maybe just betrothed? and Rebekah would have had to repeat her vow before v67

BUT
Isaac could not revoke Rebekah's vow to become his wife if he was not ALREADY her husband.
If he was already married, it was too late to revoke her vow to be his wife...

The real concept the story illustrates is what today is legally called "agency", 'representation,' or "Power of Attorney". In Hebraic thought, it is the quintessential example of what it means to "come in the Name of". 'The servant', who is pointedly NEVER named in that story (but is arguably, elsewhere, Eliezer) in every respect "comes in the name of" his master, Abraham, and does precisely what he was bound by oath to do. Which means this (since Abraham gave permission to his son to take a wife):

Rivkah was Yitzak's isha (she was his woman, call it 'betrothed' if you like) as soon as she (figuratively) "got on the camel" to leave. (Offer by 'the servant', with witnesses of his authority to act on behalf of the one in whose name he came, and acceptance by Rivkah, confirmed by her 'covering' and 'surrogate' father, Laban, and confirmed again by her ACTION.)

This is THE story in Scripture of contract, offer, acceptance, and the actions that confirm the Covenant of marriage. (Abraham's purchase of land for burial of Sarah, before witnesses, for silver, and the first written 'deed' in history is the other that forms a 'precedent' for other contract.)

Following offer and acceptance, you quoted THE descriptor for 'what makes a marriage'

Gen 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

I think the order there - took her into the tent, TOOK her, she BECAME his wife, and then he loved her... is spectacularly significant.


I wrote an article years back entitled "Who Gives this Woman?" that describes the concept of "transfer of authority" over vows from father to husband, following the approval of the 'father-in-law'.

Again, I'd suggest any ambiguity is removed by understanding that Laban's authority over Rivkah transferred to her new covering when she "got on the camel," and left her [father's] home. And, once more, note that Yitzak honored the commitment that he had SUBMITTED to, first, and came to love her thereafter. That's pretty wonderful.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

There are several threads within this thread and I am going to jump back to the question of support/abandonment for a qualification.

If a woman physically leaves a man that she has legitimately married (in YHWH's eyes) over disagreement with how he is operating in his role as husband (no accusation of specific sin), can she claim abandonment due to the fact that he curtailed his financial support after she moved out?

No! She can only claim abandonment if he either (1)kicked her out, (2) starved her out, or (3) refused cohabitation without cause. Or in our culture, abandons her.
If she leaves, she leaves the provision. The provision is intended under his covering. If she voluntarily removes herself from his covering, she is on her own. He is responsible for everyone under his covering

 

[The Revolting Man]

There are several threads within this thread and I am going to jump back to the question of support/abandonment for a qualification.

If a woman physically leaves a man that she has legitimately married (in YHWH's eyes) over disagreement with how he is operating in his role as husband (no accusation of specific sin), can she claim abandonment due to the fact that he curtailed his financial support after she moved out?

No. Only a wife who was bought has this option. A regularly acquired wife has no guarantees. Christ gives us none. Reference the list of things Paul endured for Christ or what the early church was called on to do for Christ.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@Quartus, I agree with MarkC on this one, death is just one of several qualifications for a woman to remarry. Paul is only dealing with one of the situations that could be present, not stating that death is the only way she is freed. Omission does not necessarily = exclusion.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

No. Only a wife who was bought has this option. A regularly acquired wife has no guarantees. Christ gives us none. Reference the list of things Paul endured for Christ or what the early church was called on to do for Christ.

True, but those trials etc were not evidence of abandonment. They were never forsaken, Christ provided all of their needs, and He enabled them to be fruitful even in the midst of hard times. All of these fulfill the marriage requirements. Also, we are bought with a price, so we may not serve another master unless He fails to do these things. (Which He is incapable of). If He has not failed in his duty, we may not leave without reimbursing His cost, a spotless perfect sinless Lamb. I think we're stuck with a great Adonai!

 

[The Revolting Man]

True, but those trials etc were not evidence of abandonment. They were never forsaken, Christ provided all of their needs, and He enabled them to be fruitful even in the midst of hard times. All of these fulfill the marriage requirements. Also, we are bought with a price, so we may not serve another master unless He fails to do these things. (Which He is incapable of). If He has not failed in his duty, we may not leave without reimbursing His cost, a spotless perfect sinless Lamb. I think we're stuck with a great Adonai!

Paul talks about nakedness, hunger, thirsting, torture and all manner of danger. Christ could of stopped any of those things at any time. He didn't. Which then means that similar circumstances in a woman's life would not necessarily be evidence of abandonment.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

True! Because they weren't coming from Him! It's true that they were experiencing those things because they claimed relationship with Him, but not because He was doing it himself. He could have stopped it, but then you'd have people "accepting" Christ strictly because of the bed of roses thus a false swearer or Covenanter. I think He allows this to prove us or allow us to prove that we are His, and to increase our faith and love and patience. One who would "fall away" or leave because the going got tough was not really His to start with.

Which then means that similar circumstances in a woman's life would not necessarily be evidence of abandonment.

It depends on whether or not its being used as punishment from the husband or is it that life is just tough in spite of all he does. These are all things that may not be used as punishment by covenant.

So as long as the circumstances are not the result of his deliberate actions, yes. The family is hungry or thirsty or naked because the man is too lazy to provide, or applying physical "correction" outside of Biblical boundaries, willfully negligent in protecting the family from danger, all of these fall under gross mismanagement and could be argued as abandonment.

There's so many variables to this, but basically a failure to perform his duties as covenanted, intentional or otherwise, = breach of covenant.

 

[Quartus]

re Gen 24, marriage of Isaac & Rebekah

The real concept the story illustrates is what today is legally called "agency", 'representation,' or "Power of Attorney". In Hebraic thought, it is the quintessential example of what it means to "come in the Name of".

Agency – ooh excellent. Hugely underrated by the Jews in the NT and Christendom at large :

Mat 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
Mat 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

That’s Christ’s view on agency.

 

[Quartus]

re Isaac's acceptance of Rebekah's vow in accordance with Num 30

Not sure that's as clear, at least explicitly.

Mark I think I agree with this too!

There is an immutable law that does not change throughout all ages and existed
1) in the days of the Patriarchs,
2) the days of Moses (when Israel started to be a national entity on the way to and in the promised land),
3) in our day since the crucifixion (when Israel was on the way to ceasing to be a national entity and was ejected from the land)
4) the future age after Christ has returned

Despite the underlying immutable law remaining unchanged, I believe some changes in the precise details of these four ages are revealed to us, and if so, I think we can agree that we have to be very careful when considering the extent of those changes – priesthood being the obvious scriptural example (Heb 7-8).

Although I agree with the caution in taking the Torah back to Patriarchal times (as you have been careful not to impose all the detail of Num 30 on Gen 24), I think we parted company on the detail between the law for the nation (Moses), and the law for an individual (Christ). That is not to say that the immutable law changed (our day is fundamentally equivalent to Moses), but whether some particular detail did. I do not think the precise extent of those changes are easy and quick to resolve and often need recourse to the great themes of scripture in order to complete.

So relevant to our discussion about remarriage, we soon find ourselves talking about death. But where is death introduced? Genesis, of course. Where does death end? Revelation, of course. We are also discussing the difference between male and female, a second Genesis-Revelation theme. In the fulness of time, it would be great to have your input on how some of those themes (and others) that are relevant should be applied to how we should think about these subjects.

 

[Quartus]

@Quartus, I agree with MarkC on this one, death is just one of several qualifications for a woman to remarry. Paul is only dealing with one of the situations that could be present, not stating that death is the only way she is freed. Omission does not necessarily = exclusion.

Well I can agree that omission does not necessarily = exclusion but my point is not omission but the introduction (unnecessarily) of an alternative to what is manifestly required namely death of the old man (Rom 6:6 pun intended)

I agree that’s obviously the majority view here, but my view is that
if the FOR (Rom 7: 2) and the THEREFORE/WHEREFORE (v4) connect (v2-3) to the rest of the argument, and
if vv2-3 introduce uncertainty that death of the old man (Rom 6:6) is necessary,
then it raises questions about death being necessary about the rest of the argument:
First – did Christ not have to die then? (Rom 6:3-5) Even with his knowledge of the scriptures, in the days of his flesh, Jesus found no way to avoid death. Paul seems to agree (1Cor 15:13-14).
Second – is it not necessary for us to mortify the old man, our flesh (Rom 6:6, 8:13)?

So I am sorry, and for personal reasons I can assure you that I will try very hard to appreciate all that is said to the contrary, but nevertheless it will take a little longer to convince me that Rom 7:2-3 is in the right place if the majority view expressed here is correct.

 

[The Revolting Man]

True! Because they weren't coming from Him! It's true that they were experiencing those things because they claimed relationship with Him, but not because He was doing it himself. He could have stopped it, but then you'd have people "accepting" Christ strictly because of the bed of roses thus a false swearer or Covenanter. I think He allows this to prove us or allow us to prove that we are His, and to increase our faith and love and patience. One who would "fall away" or leave because the going got tough was not really His to start with.




It depends on whether or not its being used as punishment from the husband or is it that life is just tough in spite of all he does. These are all things that may not be used as punishment by covenant.

So as long as the circumstances are not the result of his deliberate actions, yes. The family is hungry or thirsty or naked because the man is too lazy to provide, or applying physical "correction" outside of Biblical boundaries, willfully negligent in protecting the family from danger, all of these fall under gross mismanagement and could be argued as abandonment.

There's so many variables to this, but basically a failure to perform his duties as covenanted, intentional or otherwise, = breach of covenant.

What covenant? No one has ever shown me this covenant. There's no where in scripture where this exception is made. Having a bad husband doesn't effect the wife's options at all. This is something we've made up because we want to look like strong men who protect women. That's called white knighting and it's not okay. Are you actually saying that God hates a woman working to provide for herself more than He hates divorce? That's ludicrous. It certainly flies in the face of Proverbs 31.

If a Christian wife leaves a Christian husband she's to remain celibate. End of story.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

No one has ever shown me this covenant.

The covenant between Christ and the church? Could you please elaborate on the covenant or lack of covenant you are referring to?

Having a bad husband doesn't effect the wife's options at all.

In some measure, I will agree with you. Such as a man that tries his hardest and does the best he can to provide for his family, he should never be left because of a lack of material possessions. A man who does the best he can to protect and be a hedge against the evil influences around them, perhaps imperfectly, should never be left. A man who due to circumstances beyond his control, such as health, cannot provide conjugal intimacy should never be left. A man or woman in serious health conditions should always be provided for and never left even if it means that finances are tight or nonexistent or the man is no longer able to provide for the family even though he would if he could. A man who is difficult to live with is certainly no reason for the woman to leave. With all of these situations, she is the one who covenanted to be his wife. She said I do. However, her covenant is contingent in all the cases I'm aware of, upon certain promises from the husband to be. In any covenant or contract, if the contingencys are not fulfilled, the responding clauses or agreements are of no force or authority.

All of these instances are not what I'm referring to in the post #48. I am referring to a deliberate breach of covenant listed in Exodus 21:8-11. A lot has been made about the origination of this wife who came into the relationship as an indentured servant. However, several things ought to be noticed in the passage about this woman:

• She was indentured specifically through a betrothal process where money was exchanged even if a Ketubah was presumably not issued.
• The intent or end goal of the indenture was so that she would be a wife.
• If the master didnt want her for a wife, but intended her for another, he still had to treat her as if she was another's betrothed.
• At the point that the relationship was consummated, she was no longer considered an indentured servant, but a wife who could then expect all three marriage covenant conditions to be fulfilled just like a Ketubah'ed wife.
• Once she became a wife, the particulars of how she came to be a wife were irrelevant as well as her lack of a formal document or Ketubah. She is a wife. Perhaps not the wife of his youth, but not some second class female or servant in the household.
• As such, if he takes another, her needs may not be diminished. The needs of a wife are here defined as food, rainment or clothing and cohabitation/conjugal visits. These definitions of covenant requirements set an incredibly low bar. The Hebrew word here for covering is only used 8 times in the OT. 7 times as clothing and 1 (the first time) as a spiritual covering. That only leaves food and cohabitation. Housing is not even included in the list of things a husband has to provide. The cohabitation or conjugal clause could be restructured based upon adultery, but the food and rainment could not be without being a breach of covenant on the husband's part.
• If the husband was not pleased with her, he could allow her to be redeemed, presumably by a member of her family, but could not reduce his obligation to provide for her.
• If he did fail to provide these for this wife, regardless of how she came to be his wife, she could leave without being redeemed and no stipulations are placed on her actions after. (At least in this passage)

In so many ways, this is witnessed in 1 Tim 6:8 where Paul exhorts, having food and rainment, let us therewith be content. The cohabitation clause is fulfilled by Christ dwelling inside us and declaring that He will never leave us nor forsake (abandon) us. Another reference to the covenant is where Christ declares, My God shall supply all your need according to His riches in Christ Jesus.

If a Christian wife leaves a Christian husband she's to remain celibate. End of story.

Agreed. No quarrel on this one. However change this scenario around. What if a "Christian" husband leaves the wife?

Please define Christian for me. If you are referring to one who is like Christ and is a follower, I will agree wholeheartedly with you. A Christ like husband will never abandon his wife, divorce his wife, or kick her to the curb, though he may enact his authority for conjugal separation for a time.
My only issue with this statement is that we have assemblies that are full of men who claim Christ, but by their fruits are simply false swearers and not Christian at all. They have simply claimed to be something they are apparently not. How do you judge righteously in this case? Do you afford them the rights of a follower of Christ, or do you consider them to be worse than the unbeliever of 1 Cor 7:15 who has no rights once he has departed or abandoned his family? In the latter case, Paul states that this believing woman is not under bondage.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Are you actually saying that God hates a woman working to provide for herself more than He hates divorce?

Um. . . No. I'm ok with a woman working and being a Prov. 31 woman whether or not she has a husband. I'm pretty sure God is ok with it too.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Then there is no level of non -support that frees a woman from her husband.

And the covenant I am referring to is the mythical marriage covenant I keep hearing about all these horrible husbands violating. Where is it in scripture? The only thing I see in scripture is that two guys strike a bargain, they throw a big party, get drunk and one of them has sex and shows everyone the trophy. The covenant is suspiciously absent from this process.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

And the covenant I am referring to is the mythical marriage covenant I keep hearing about all these horrible husbands violating. Where is it in scripture? The only thing I see in scripture is that two guys strike a bargain, they throw a big party, get drunk and one of them has sex and shows everyone the trophy. The covenant is suspiciously absent from this process.

I think I see what you are getting at. Good question. I'll see what I can do on it. Much of what I know of it is based on Hebrew custom. I can see support for the custom in Scripture but I'll have to compile the references for you. It's not something I've done yet.

Then there is no level of non -support that frees a woman from her husband.

I'm not following you on this one. The ability of a woman to work or generate income doesnt free the man from his responsibility to provide, protect and procreate. It simply makes her an asset to the family.

The instances that I can see that biblically free her from her husband are his abandonment, his failure to provide the marital needs, or his writing of divorcement.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

An interesting article on ketubah's. Note the reference to the type of relationship the marriage was considered at the end of the article
http://www.ketubah.com/templates/template28_article.cfm?article=36

Another interesting read on the ketubah
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9290-ketubah

Here's an interesting link defining 3 ways a man can "acquire" a wife
http://steinsaltz.org/learning.php?pg=daf_yomi&articleId=1160#

A long read but the most interesting so far. Lots of historical documentation on ketubot and shetar kiddushin
https://books.google.com/books?id=z...ved=0ahUKEwiTrPedsrLVAhVI64MKHSw-ARMQ6AEIIDAB

Long story short, the passage in Exodus 21 is primarily referred to (from at least 420BC)as defining a marriage according to Moses and the law of Israel and is documented as being used as legal jargon in the betrothal and writ.
The earliest form of a shetar kiddushin (conditions of marriage) is between Jacob and Laban and was witnessed by God and witnessed by a pillar and a heap of rocks at the border where they parted ways.

Also interesting is the mention of the story of Tobit, which the author claims to be in the Shalmanezer era, approximately 727 BC. Our most recent crop of academia have determined for various reasons that it could not have been written before about 200 BC. Interestingly enough, in Tobit, a description is made of fleeing Israel before the destruction happens. I really never thought much about this until I was perusing the last link and came across mention of it again. As many of you know, I have recommended the Book of Gad commentary available on Amazon by Ken Johnson. This book has a provenanced history back to the era of Shalmanezer and is very similar to the events described in Tobit. Could the academia be wrong? If they are, Tobit would replace a record in the Dead Sea Scrolls from at least 420's BC for being the oldest recorded written marriage covenant or document by another 300 years.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What does the Bible say? Does the Bible say that a woman is freed from her husband because of abandonment or non-support? I haven't seen it anywhere.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Um . . . Exodus 21. Pretty clear. Also pretty interesting that all of the later commentary or midrash, (200 BC on) refer back to this passage in one form or another for the basis of marital obligation per Torah

 

[Verifyveritas76]

If you get a chance, I would highly recommend those links. There's a huge amount of information in them from the three ways to acquire a wife, to the conditions under which a woman may file divorce, to the expectations and obligations of both parties, to understanding that the property of the wife never belonged to the husband and the conditions by which he may use said property. All kinds of information by men who really have no peer today on the culture due to the era in which they were writing.

Still gonna do some indepth study on the Biblical side of things, just haven't gotten to it yet.