No, divorce is never righteous but following God's Laws on divorce is righteous.
-
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.
Commentary on Jewish Marriage
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
Interesting parallel with David and Michal, there just weren’t any children.
The passage in Torah says that the man can send her out with a writing of divorce. @Ancient Paths gave a passage that definitely states that following these commands makes one righteous.
Deuteronomy 24:1,2 definitely gives direction for how and why to divorce a wife.
Isn't that what I said? God hates divorce. It can't be righteous even though He had to do it Himself. But there is a righteous way to do it.
So I decided to check out some "approved" Commentaries. Out of 30 commentaries on Exodus 21:7-11, these are the only ones who would touch it with a 10 foot pole. Color me surprised when most of the ones who would address it had info that could have only come from Mishna or Talmud sources.
Patrick/Lowth/Whitby/Lowman Commentary First printed in 1822
Exodus 21:7-11
7. If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, Besides the two former sorts of persons sold to be servants, there was a third here mentioned, which is thus expounded by the Hebrews; that she was to be a virgin under age; that is, less than twelve years old and a day. For if she was more than that it was not lawful for him to sell her; and when she came to be of age, it put an end to her servitude, as well as the year of jubilee did, or redemption, or the death of her master. Besides, her father might not sell her, unless he were reduced to extreme poverty. If he did without such necessity, he was forced by the court of judgment to redeem her. And she was not to be sold neither, unless there was some hope her master or his son might take her to wife.
She shall not go out as the menservants do. There were other and better conditions for her, than for the servant mentioned Ex 21:3-4, particularly, her master could not marry her to anybody but himself or his son.
8.If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, This shows she was sold to him upon the presumption he would take her for his wife; and there was such a previous agreement about this, that there needed no other espousals; but if, after this, he changed his mind, and did not like her enough to make her his wife; then God ordains as follows.
Then shall he let her be redeemed: She was to serve her master six years, if she was sold for so long; unless she was redeemed (which her master is here required not to refuse) or manumitted; or set free by the year of jubilee; or by the death of her master; or (which was peculiar in this case) the signs of her being ripe for marriage appeared (see Selden in the place before mentioned).
To sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, No man had power to sell a Hebrew servant to one of another nation: and therefore, by a strange people (as the word is here in the Hebrew) must be meant an Israelite of another family, that was not of her kindred, nor had any right of redemption.
Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. Frustrated her hope of marrying her.
9.If he have betrothed her unto his son, Which was expected from him, if he did not think fit to marry her himself, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If the word he relate to the father, the meaning is, he shall give her a portion, as if she were his own daughter. If it relate to the son, the meaning is, he shall treat her like a wife.
10.If he take him another wife; her food, &c. If after the son had married her, he took another wife besides, he was still to perform to this all those things that belong to a wife, viz. give her food, and raiment, and at certain times (which were determined by law in some countries) cohabit with her as her husband. From this place the Hebrew have made a general rule, that these three things are owing to all wives from their husbands, viz. alimony, clothes, and the conjugal duty. For howsoever the Vulgar Latin understands the last word, the Hebrews generally take it for that which St. Paul calls due benevolence, 1Co 7:3 (see Selden, de Uxor. Hebr. Lib. 3. cap. 4). Now what was accounted alimony, and sufficient for clothes, he shows cap. 5., and what belongs to the other, cap. 6. The Hebrew word gonala, which we translate duty of marriage, properly relates to the stated and determined time wherein every thing is to be done; and therefore here signifies the use of marriage, certo tempore et modo, as Bochart hath well expounded it (lib. 2. Canaan, cap. 11). Many indeed will have it derived from a Greek word, from which comes “a habitation;” as if it signified here the cohabitation of a man with his wife. But Aben Ezra rather refers it to “time:” whence gonal signifies the set and appointed time wherein every thing is done. And so the Chaldee uses the word goneta, for the term prescribed to every thing (as the same author observes), that it may be done in due time and manner.
Theodoric Hackspan thinks Moses here speaks of the father; to whom all the precedent and subsequent acts belong, and not to the son.
11. If he does not these three unto her, i. e. Neither marry her to himself, not to his son, nor suffer her to be redeemed.
Then shall she go out free without money. When she came of age, and was ripe for marriage, she was to be set free, and pay nothing for her freedom: nay, on the contrary, he was to give her something, as appears from De 15:12-13,17. What the signs of puberty were, Mr. Selden shows, Lib. De Successionibus, cap. 9.
Patrick/Lowth/Whitby/Lowman Commentary First printed in 1822
Exodus 21:7-11
7. If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, Besides the two former sorts of persons sold to be servants, there was a third here mentioned, which is thus expounded by the Hebrews; that she was to be a virgin under age; that is, less than twelve years old and a day. For if she was more than that it was not lawful for him to sell her; and when she came to be of age, it put an end to her servitude, as well as the year of jubilee did, or redemption, or the death of her master. Besides, her father might not sell her, unless he were reduced to extreme poverty. If he did without such necessity, he was forced by the court of judgment to redeem her. And she was not to be sold neither, unless there was some hope her master or his son might take her to wife.
She shall not go out as the menservants do. There were other and better conditions for her, than for the servant mentioned Ex 21:3-4, particularly, her master could not marry her to anybody but himself or his son.
8.If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, This shows she was sold to him upon the presumption he would take her for his wife; and there was such a previous agreement about this, that there needed no other espousals; but if, after this, he changed his mind, and did not like her enough to make her his wife; then God ordains as follows.
Then shall he let her be redeemed: She was to serve her master six years, if she was sold for so long; unless she was redeemed (which her master is here required not to refuse) or manumitted; or set free by the year of jubilee; or by the death of her master; or (which was peculiar in this case) the signs of her being ripe for marriage appeared (see Selden in the place before mentioned).
To sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, No man had power to sell a Hebrew servant to one of another nation: and therefore, by a strange people (as the word is here in the Hebrew) must be meant an Israelite of another family, that was not of her kindred, nor had any right of redemption.
Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. Frustrated her hope of marrying her.
9.If he have betrothed her unto his son, Which was expected from him, if he did not think fit to marry her himself, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If the word he relate to the father, the meaning is, he shall give her a portion, as if she were his own daughter. If it relate to the son, the meaning is, he shall treat her like a wife.
10.If he take him another wife; her food, &c. If after the son had married her, he took another wife besides, he was still to perform to this all those things that belong to a wife, viz. give her food, and raiment, and at certain times (which were determined by law in some countries) cohabit with her as her husband. From this place the Hebrew have made a general rule, that these three things are owing to all wives from their husbands, viz. alimony, clothes, and the conjugal duty. For howsoever the Vulgar Latin understands the last word, the Hebrews generally take it for that which St. Paul calls due benevolence, 1Co 7:3 (see Selden, de Uxor. Hebr. Lib. 3. cap. 4). Now what was accounted alimony, and sufficient for clothes, he shows cap. 5., and what belongs to the other, cap. 6. The Hebrew word gonala, which we translate duty of marriage, properly relates to the stated and determined time wherein every thing is to be done; and therefore here signifies the use of marriage, certo tempore et modo, as Bochart hath well expounded it (lib. 2. Canaan, cap. 11). Many indeed will have it derived from a Greek word, from which comes “a habitation;” as if it signified here the cohabitation of a man with his wife. But Aben Ezra rather refers it to “time:” whence gonal signifies the set and appointed time wherein every thing is done. And so the Chaldee uses the word goneta, for the term prescribed to every thing (as the same author observes), that it may be done in due time and manner.
Theodoric Hackspan thinks Moses here speaks of the father; to whom all the precedent and subsequent acts belong, and not to the son.
11. If he does not these three unto her, i. e. Neither marry her to himself, not to his son, nor suffer her to be redeemed.
Then shall she go out free without money. When she came of age, and was ripe for marriage, she was to be set free, and pay nothing for her freedom: nay, on the contrary, he was to give her something, as appears from De 15:12-13,17. What the signs of puberty were, Mr. Selden shows, Lib. De Successionibus, cap. 9.
Paganism filtered through mainstream sources is just paganism squared.
That makes no sense. If divorce is unrighteous, How can God do anything that is unrighteous? This is a highly illogical statement.
For the record, God says he hates putting away. Per Jer 3:8 he does this also as a precursor to a writing of divorce.
Matthew Poole's Commentary Mid 1600's
Ver. 7. A man, i.e. a Hebrew, as appears by the opposition of one of a strange nation, Ex 21:8.
For a man to
sell his daughter to be a maid-servant was allowed in case of extreme necessity, because of the hardness of their hearts.
She shall not go out as the men-servants do, but upon better terms, as being one of the weaker and more helpless sex.
Quest. How doth this agree with De 15:17,
Also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise?
Answ. 1. Distinguish persons. She, De 15:17 was sold by herself, and that to mere servitude; this here was sold by her father, not only for service, but in order to her marriage, as the following verses sufficiently imply.
2. Distinguish things. The likeness between men-servants and maid-servants was only in the rites used, in case she consented to perpetual servitude. The difference here is, in case they both were made free, in which case she had some privileges, which here follow.Ver. 8. Who hath betrothed her to himself, for a concubine or secondary wife. Not that masters did always take maid-servants upon these terms, as some conceive; but that some did so, and of them this place speaks. Though here is a differing reading; and as the margin hath lo the pronoun, signifying to him, so the text hath lo the adverb, signifying not; and so the text may be translated thus, so that he doth not betroth her, to wit, to himself, or to his son, as he gave her hopes he intended. Either reading or sense is proper and probable.
Then shall he let her be redeemed, either by herself or friends, or any other person that will redeem her.
Quest. How could he part with her, and sell her, when she was betrothed to him?
Answ. 1. This might be one of those many indulgences given to them for the hardness of their hearts; and there is no doubt God could dispense with his own positive laws.
2. The latter reading avoids this difficulty.
Ver. 9. i.e. Give her a convenient portion, as he doth to his own daughters, Ex 22:16.Ver. 10. Her duty of marriage is called due benevolence, 1Co 7:3. Or, her dwelling, as the word is oft used. So here are the three great conveniences of life, food, and raiment, and habitation, all which he is to provide for her. Or, her cohabitation, or, her time, the convenient and appointed times for conjugal converse with her; for some times were disallowed for it, Le 15:1-33, and when there were plurality of wives, they had their vicissitudes, Ge 30:15,16.
Shall he not diminish, or rather, not withdraw, or deny it, as the word signifies, and as the LXX., Chaldee, Samaritan, Vulgate, and others render it,Ver. 11. And with gifts also by virtue of the law, De 15:14. The sum is this, The master was either,
1. Willing to part with her; and then he was to let her be redeemed by herself, or any of her friends, but not by a heathen, Ex 21:8. Or,
2. Willing to keep her; and then, as he had betrothed her, he was to perform all the duties of a husband to her, although he had another wife besides her, Ex 21:10.
3. If he would keep her, and yet deny those duties to her, then as his fault was aggravated, so was his punishment; for now he cannot sell her, but must let her go freely, as in this verse.
Ver. 7. A man, i.e. a Hebrew, as appears by the opposition of one of a strange nation, Ex 21:8.
For a man to
sell his daughter to be a maid-servant was allowed in case of extreme necessity, because of the hardness of their hearts.
She shall not go out as the men-servants do, but upon better terms, as being one of the weaker and more helpless sex.
Quest. How doth this agree with De 15:17,
Also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise?
Answ. 1. Distinguish persons. She, De 15:17 was sold by herself, and that to mere servitude; this here was sold by her father, not only for service, but in order to her marriage, as the following verses sufficiently imply.
2. Distinguish things. The likeness between men-servants and maid-servants was only in the rites used, in case she consented to perpetual servitude. The difference here is, in case they both were made free, in which case she had some privileges, which here follow.Ver. 8. Who hath betrothed her to himself, for a concubine or secondary wife. Not that masters did always take maid-servants upon these terms, as some conceive; but that some did so, and of them this place speaks. Though here is a differing reading; and as the margin hath lo the pronoun, signifying to him, so the text hath lo the adverb, signifying not; and so the text may be translated thus, so that he doth not betroth her, to wit, to himself, or to his son, as he gave her hopes he intended. Either reading or sense is proper and probable.
Then shall he let her be redeemed, either by herself or friends, or any other person that will redeem her.
Quest. How could he part with her, and sell her, when she was betrothed to him?
Answ. 1. This might be one of those many indulgences given to them for the hardness of their hearts; and there is no doubt God could dispense with his own positive laws.
2. The latter reading avoids this difficulty.
Ver. 9. i.e. Give her a convenient portion, as he doth to his own daughters, Ex 22:16.Ver. 10. Her duty of marriage is called due benevolence, 1Co 7:3. Or, her dwelling, as the word is oft used. So here are the three great conveniences of life, food, and raiment, and habitation, all which he is to provide for her. Or, her cohabitation, or, her time, the convenient and appointed times for conjugal converse with her; for some times were disallowed for it, Le 15:1-33, and when there were plurality of wives, they had their vicissitudes, Ge 30:15,16.
Shall he not diminish, or rather, not withdraw, or deny it, as the word signifies, and as the LXX., Chaldee, Samaritan, Vulgate, and others render it,Ver. 11. And with gifts also by virtue of the law, De 15:14. The sum is this, The master was either,
1. Willing to part with her; and then he was to let her be redeemed by herself, or any of her friends, but not by a heathen, Ex 21:8. Or,
2. Willing to keep her; and then, as he had betrothed her, he was to perform all the duties of a husband to her, although he had another wife besides her, Ex 21:10.
3. If he would keep her, and yet deny those duties to her, then as his fault was aggravated, so was his punishment; for now he cannot sell her, but must let her go freely, as in this verse.
Family Bible Notes
Sell his daughter; under the expectation that the buyer or his son would marry her; and his thus buying her was an engagement to do so, as it was then customary for a man to buy his wife.
Not go out as the men-servants do; that is, in the seventh year, Ex 21:2. She should be better provided for, as specified, Ex 21:8-11Who hath betrothed her; by thus buying her.
Let her be redeemed; cause her to be redeemed.
Unto a strange nation; in the Hebrew, a strange people, which some understand to be a foreign nation. But the more probable meaning is, people who are strangers to him, not being of his family. So "a strange woman" means another man's wife.
He hath dealt deceitfully; in not marrying her himself, or having her married in his family.After the manner of daughters; giving her a dowry, and treating her on her marriage as he should his own daughter.Her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage; those of the wife whom he had bought and married.
The giving of regulations to lessen the evils of an existing practice does not sanction the continuance of that practice, or afford any evidence that it ought not to be abandoned.Go out free; free from all further obligations to him. She might be divorced and married, if she chose, to another man.
Halls Explication of Hard Texts
Likewise, if a man sell his daughter, as yet under age, with intention that she should marry him that buys her, if she be dismissed, it shall be upon better conditions, than an ordinary servant.
If she please not her master, so far as that he betroths her to himself, then shall he suffer another, one of her friends, to redeem her of him; but he shall have no power to sell her to a stranger, seeing he hath deceived her expectation of marrying him.
He shall so deal with her, in giving her to marriage, as if she had been a free woman
But if he do not allow unto her food, raiment, and house-room convenient for her, then shall she go out free, at the time of liberty, or of such his denial, upon judgment, without any repayment of the money for which she was sold.
Adam Clarke's Commentary
Verse 7. If a man sell his daughter] This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress-when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.
Verse 9. Betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her] He shall give her the same dowry he would give to one of his own daughters. From these laws we learn, that if a man's son married his servant, by his father's consent, the father was obliged to treat her in every respect as a daughter; and if the son married another woman, as it appears he might do, Ex 21:10, he was obliged to make no abatement in the privileges of the first wife, either in her food, raiment, or duty of marriage. The word htne onathah, here, is the same with St. Paul's ofeilomenhn eunoian, the marriage debt, and with the omilian of the Septuagint, which signifies the cohabitation of man and wife.
Verse 11. These three] 1. Her food, hrav sheerah, her flesh, for she must not, like a common slave, be fed merely on vegetables. 2. Her raiment-her private wardrobe, with all occasional necessary additions. And, 3. The marriage debt-a due proportion of the husband's time and company.
Sell his daughter; under the expectation that the buyer or his son would marry her; and his thus buying her was an engagement to do so, as it was then customary for a man to buy his wife.
Not go out as the men-servants do; that is, in the seventh year, Ex 21:2. She should be better provided for, as specified, Ex 21:8-11Who hath betrothed her; by thus buying her.
Let her be redeemed; cause her to be redeemed.
Unto a strange nation; in the Hebrew, a strange people, which some understand to be a foreign nation. But the more probable meaning is, people who are strangers to him, not being of his family. So "a strange woman" means another man's wife.
He hath dealt deceitfully; in not marrying her himself, or having her married in his family.After the manner of daughters; giving her a dowry, and treating her on her marriage as he should his own daughter.Her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage; those of the wife whom he had bought and married.
The giving of regulations to lessen the evils of an existing practice does not sanction the continuance of that practice, or afford any evidence that it ought not to be abandoned.Go out free; free from all further obligations to him. She might be divorced and married, if she chose, to another man.
Halls Explication of Hard Texts
Likewise, if a man sell his daughter, as yet under age, with intention that she should marry him that buys her, if she be dismissed, it shall be upon better conditions, than an ordinary servant.
If she please not her master, so far as that he betroths her to himself, then shall he suffer another, one of her friends, to redeem her of him; but he shall have no power to sell her to a stranger, seeing he hath deceived her expectation of marrying him.
He shall so deal with her, in giving her to marriage, as if she had been a free woman
But if he do not allow unto her food, raiment, and house-room convenient for her, then shall she go out free, at the time of liberty, or of such his denial, upon judgment, without any repayment of the money for which she was sold.
Adam Clarke's Commentary
Verse 7. If a man sell his daughter] This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress-when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.
Verse 9. Betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her] He shall give her the same dowry he would give to one of his own daughters. From these laws we learn, that if a man's son married his servant, by his father's consent, the father was obliged to treat her in every respect as a daughter; and if the son married another woman, as it appears he might do, Ex 21:10, he was obliged to make no abatement in the privileges of the first wife, either in her food, raiment, or duty of marriage. The word htne onathah, here, is the same with St. Paul's ofeilomenhn eunoian, the marriage debt, and with the omilian of the Septuagint, which signifies the cohabitation of man and wife.
Verse 11. These three] 1. Her food, hrav sheerah, her flesh, for she must not, like a common slave, be fed merely on vegetables. 2. Her raiment-her private wardrobe, with all occasional necessary additions. And, 3. The marriage debt-a due proportion of the husband's time and company.
1599 Geneva Bible Notes
21:7 And if a man (f) sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
(f) Forced either by poverty, or else with the intent that the master should marry her.
21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall (g) he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
(g) By giving another money to buy her from him.
21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her (h) after the manner of daughters.
(h) That is, he shall give his dowry.
21:10 If he take (i) him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
(i) For his son.
21:11 And if he do not these (k) three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
(k) Neither marry her himself, nor give another money to buy her, nor bestow her on his son.
21:7 And if a man (f) sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
(f) Forced either by poverty, or else with the intent that the master should marry her.
21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall (g) he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
(g) By giving another money to buy her from him.
21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her (h) after the manner of daughters.
(h) That is, he shall give his dowry.
21:10 If he take (i) him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
(i) For his son.
21:11 And if he do not these (k) three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
(k) Neither marry her himself, nor give another money to buy her, nor bestow her on his son.
Not sure if this would help, but my understanding is that righteousness in the NT sense of the word looks different for just who is doing what act
since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
For Joseph, righteousness was putting Mary away quietly although he would have been, more orthodox, in turning her over for punishment for her apparent infidelity.
But for God, it is righteous to mete out strict judgment and vengeance. (echoed again in Rev with the angel in the water)
For a sinful man forgoing his right (duty?) to have his betrothed woman punished is righteous, but for a sinless God all vengeance is righteous. Jesus' requirement for execution of the law upon the guilty (not found in the Torah that I am aware of) is that it only be done by one without sin. It is unfitting (and therefore unrighteous) for the forgiven to do anything short of forgiving.
But divorce in the case of sexual immorality is obviously not something that will be caught by such a catch-all. Jesus permits it, which is terrifying to me in implication. The council at Jerusalem insisted that while they wouldn't lay much of Moses' burden upon gentile converts, they wouldn't budge on sexual immorality. Paul forbids laying with a harlot, because sexual contact makes the members Christ one with a harlot. The principle at play isn't primarily righteousness, but holiness: "Touch no unclean thing".
Which (and I hate to be a waffle about it) says to me that if a man's wife is sexually immoral: He could forgive her and restore her and that would be righteous, or he could divorce her and touch her no more and that would be holy. It could not be unrighteous to divorce in this case, or Jesus who alone is righteous among men would not permit it while denying the stoning of an adulteress. Nor could it be unholy to forgive and restore an adulteress: Whoever we forgive is forgiven, she stands before her husband like we before Christ, cleansed by grace.
I feel like this is running long, but I would suppose that God hates divorce, but it is still righteous for Him to do it, as righteous as it is for him to trouble those who trouble us and punish with everlasting vengeance those who do not obey the gospel. Repugnant, unpleasant things, but righteous nonetheless. I posit that our attitude towards divorce should be as the Father's, we should hate it. We should do everything we can to avoid it. We should put up with many times what anyone else would consider reasonable, but we should not feel like we would be sinning or doing wrong by divorcing a sexually immoral wife.
I have a personal conviction on the matter, but thankfully my resolve hasn't been tested in this and there's no real point to sharing it.
This is a deeper question than just this issue of divorce. How could God put that tree in that garden? I don't have the answer to this question. I don't know why God sent the Flood or killed all of those first borns in Egypt or why He mad the Israelites kill everyone in Jericho. I don't claim to have these answers. I know that God hates divorce. That makes it unrighteous. I know He describes Himself as being divorced. That means there must be a way to do that unrighteous act righteously.
Sorry I don't follow. How can there be a righteous way to do something unrighteous?
Is that true though? Is that what makes something unrighteous?
No this is a different principle. This is working out the practical realities of a husband who is presumed dead or who abandons the wife. 1 Cor 7 covers this.
Could you state for me, or link to your post outlining, your interpretation? Just from the scriptures, I don't care about the Talmud or any of that, just from the plain reading of the scriptures.
I say that because as I looked back to verify your position before replying I couldn't find it clearly stated. So many posts and in pieced together threads its getting confusing. I don't wish to misunderstand or misrepresent you.
It might be I wasn't reacting to your position but to the common one which is something on the order of: "it was written to maidservants, how much more so should it apply to wives". That's kind of what I had in mind. I view as adding to the scriptures, for it was plainly written to maidservants not wives. The passage as literally written only applies to maidservants. I don't care how many commentaries want to make it apply to wives, that is not what the passage says. If God wanted this standard to apply to wives in the law He'd have just written that but He didn't.
Ok found this. Here you say the passage literally is about maidservants not wives. As I said above, to make it apply to wives is adding to the scriptures. You call it interpretation but you're not arguing that this passage was actually talking to wives and not just maidservants. Instead, you're finding logic to claim it must also apply to wives too. But the scriptures no where give women these rights. You want to make it seem like women have these right saying "Is there anywhere that says that wives do not have these same rights" but it is very clear from the scriptures that only men could divorce. As Christ verifies, men were able to divorce because Moses allowed it; but Moses did not allow women this right anywhere.
So this is prong 1 of my objection, on the cold logic of it all.
[after writing all that and reviewing some things I may disagree with myself, but I need to think on it before elaborating and want to hear your position more clearly defined]
That's not hyperbole. It is a recognition of the practical realities of how this plays out in real life. It's not just that someone somewhere might misuse this, but that they almost all will. The vast majority of uses of this principle will be wrong.
So the net effect of this teaching negative, not positive. More people will be harmed than helped by it. That provides explanation as to why God did not grant wives the authority to leave over neglect in the scriptures and why we shouldn't be so quick to excuse it.
The reason I bring that up is to counter the emotional weight behind what you're saying. The real reason people accept these sorts of arguments is an emotional desire to not harm women, not logical evaluation of the scriptures. I'm pointing out that the greater harm is done by embracing this. While some harm may be avoided, more is created.
But most important of all you have not dealt at all with my main point: divorce doesn't fill bellies. We needn't destroy marriages to deal with these situations and doing so creates greater collateral damage in the harm done to the children than might be helped by fixing neglect via divorce (which again, divorce doesn't actually do).
This is prong 2 of my objection to your position, on the emotion of it all.
Okay, I'll buy that, but can only see hard fault, based on the example you gave wherein Yah extended grace over and over and over.. But, He also had a plan to win her back.... and, even in her discipline, He was 'a little sanctuary in the wilderness.'
The traditions of the sages and of the Mesapotamians allowing 'any fault' is an abominable understanding.
Excellent example, nicely put, of the difference in righteousness v. man's traditions.
Slightly OT: When put this way, I can't help but think that an important element is how the one doing the putting (Joseph) desires to be seen in the community. Is he looking to expose her shame, or make himself a visible spectacle of '(self) righteousness,' or, is he quietly handling the matter for HER own good inspite of his list dowry and broken heart? The point is, Joseph puts a number of selfish motives aside.
Hey, hey, hey. Wait a minute. Back the truck up....
Where is there a command to divorce here? There is no command. And no justification. This commandment is what NOT to do if you do get a divorce... don't remarry her after she has been married to another. No command to divorce, rather instruction on how not to screw up further after already screwing up...
Notice, v4... 'since she has been defiled...' (NASB) When was she defiled? When she slept with the second husband, therefore, God must have viewed her as still having been married to the first.
He seems gracious enough to allow her another husband, but she may not return to the first 'because she has been defiled.
So, @ZecAustin 's point is good. The act of divorce is not righteous, however there are rules to limit the damage and thereby act righteously in the midst of a bad situation.
Is it implied concerning wives? It’s a really good debate, but since a daughter of Israel was very important and taken care of in scripture, I would think ‘err on the side of caution’ would be a consideration here. On a personal note, I cannot see scripture saying a wife would have less protection (not in a violent sense but in a loving sense) than a servant/slave.