Article on divorce and remarriage

[Joleneakamama]

I know this has been looked at many times, but I was reading this article the other day, and thought he made some good points.
Here it is if anyone is interested in reading, or discussing it.

http://missiontoisrael.org/m-d-remar.php

 

[FollowingHim]

Very interesting perspective, and it does make a lot of sense. I had always previously considered "except for the cause of fornication" to mean "unless the wife has gone and committed fornication and is being divorced for this behaviour". This author flips it around and says it means "unless the woman is not truly a wife, but only a partner in fornication, in which case she can be put away immediately with no need for a certificate of divorce, because she was never truly married to begin with". That flips the whole passage on its head. I'm not sure whether I agree with this perspective yet, I wonder whether the Greek would actually support such an interpretation, but will certainly be pondering it further as it is an interpretation that works very well logically.

 

[Mojo]

Finally, we mostly agree!

Nice article. I didn't read line for line, but about 80%.

Can't argue with much of it.

 

[aineo]

This article is resonating in my spirit, though I haven't studied it out in total yet, and that may take some time. In my studies so far I found another commentary on the issue from Righteous Warriors. I don't know anyone else's opinion on that site, but when I first started exploring the topic of polygyny, it was one from which I felt I learned a lot. Even so, I feel as if there are holes in his argument on this topic. I feel a bit as if the 'certificate of divorce' is being glossed over a bit, and if I am honest, his rebuttal against it is reinforcing the stance taken in the first article to me. Like I've said, I need to study this out much more though.

 

[NetWatchR]

...I found another commentary on the issue from Righteous Warriors. I don't know anyone else's opinion on that site, but...

Firing from the hip here, but their statement in the header already has me concerned.

If you are not completely committed to placing the written Word of Elohim above all other sources of information, it is highly recommended that you NOT continue reading this article.

Basically, their first volley is the enforcement that if you don't agree with their premise, then you're not "enlightened" enough to truly grasp the deeper meaning of God's Word. That already puts me on edge because I've seen/heard/read people use that before and they can really go off the reservation at times. No one... No One! has the right, I believe, to make this statement. BF doesn't do this and people think we're already a little off to begin with. But despite any claims or arguments we make as a group or individually, we don't claim to have The Definitive Understanding.
We (vast majority of us) couch our claims, arguments and beliefs with true understanding that we may very well be wrong. Of course, we don't actually think we are, at the time, but we leave open the possibility that we MAY. Or, that we can improve our understanding a little better. How many times has that phrase been used in this very thread?
"You know, I used to believe X, but over the years Y makes more sense." Or,
"At first I thought it was A only. But now, I see it was actually A and B, both."

EDIT: Trying to get better not using "never" and "always".
EDIT 2: Dropped the AC/DC reference.

 

[aineo]

Basically, their first volley is the enforcement that if you don't agree with their premise, then you're not "enlightened" enough to truly grasp the deeper meaning of God's Word.

I agree with almost everything you've written, NetWatchR, but I sure didn't take this away from the disclaimer. I can see how one might do that now, but I read it much more innocently than you did.

EDIT 2: Dropped the AC/DC reference.

Now I'm curious.

 

[NetWatchR]

Meh. It was vague. The second example was originally something like, 'At first i thought AC was right, then i thought that was wrong and DC was right. Now i understand that both were OK.' Something like that except much more wordy and LAAAAAME!

We now return you to your regulatory scheduled discussion.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

So why then, after Jesus said this, did the disciples say to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”? Is writing a bill of divorcement so difficult as to make one want to never marry?

 

[The Revolting Man]

So why then, after Jesus said this, did the disciples say to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”? Is writing a bill of divorcement so difficult as to make one want to never marry?

They were saying that women are too difficult to live with under those circumstances.

 

[aineo]

So why then, after Jesus said this, did the disciples say to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”? Is writing a bill of divorcement so difficult as to make one want to never marry?

I don't know the answer to this, but I want to propose a theory. If a man were to marry, he paid a bride price. This money, as I understand it, was no inconsequential amount, and the bride could only redeem this money in the event of a divorce or the husband's death. It could be that sending a wife away without providing a certificate of divorce was manipulating the law in order to avoid allowing the wife to redeem the bride price. After being sent away, she would be unable to provide for herself easily outside of prostitution, and she might find another man to provide for her in exchange for relations with her, which is committing adultery. Once this occurred, she was no longer entitled to redeeming the bride price.

In summary, the disciples may have been considering how costly a divorce might be vs. a separation and wondering why a man might take on that financial risk.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Ok, that makes a little more sense. Where did you get the information about the bride price and redeeming it? I would like to read about it.

 

[aineo]

Where did you get the information about the bride price and redeeming it?

Please keep in mind that I am only theorizing here. The more I learn, the more I realize I need to learn, and I suspect there is something here that makes total sense. In fact, this might be just that, but I am still exploring it out.

I have heard discussion about the bride price and redeeming it for many years, but it seems part of what I heard was wrong. As I began to find a source yesterday before replying, I went into this thinking the bride price and my understanding of redeeming it had been around as long as time, but it seems that this was only began happening like this a century or so before the time of Christ. Anyhow, here are a couple of links to get you started:

http://www.bible-history.com/links....anners+&+Customs&subcat_name=Marriage+Customs
www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

That is interesting. I am wondering about why, if Jesus was telling them not to deal cruelly with their wives by not divorcing them properly, would He tell them "what God has joined let not man separate"? That still seems to fit better with the traditional translation of that verse. I do see what the author is saying about Jesus being in harmony with the law, so I am trying to make sense of it. Thanks for the links you shared.

 

[FollowingHim]

I don't know the answer to this, but I want to propose a theory. If a man were to marry, he paid a bride price. This money, as I understand it, was no inconsequential amount, and the bride could only redeem this money in the event of a divorce or the husband's death. It could be that sending a wife away without providing a certificate of divorce was manipulating the law in order to avoid allowing the wife to redeem the bride price. After being sent away, she would be unable to provide for herself easily outside of prostitution, and she might find another man to provide for her in exchange for relations with her, which is committing adultery. Once this occurred, she was no longer entitled to redeeming the bride price.

I think you've got the bride price and redeeming a bit mixed up. The concept of "redeeming" appears throughout OT law in relation to land, livestock, and slaves, and these verses help us understand what it is about to apply it to marriage.

Redemption is simply "buying back what once belonged to you".

For instance, if a man sold a house in a city, he had the option of buying it back for a year. This avoided rash decisions that had long-term consequences for the inheritance of children. If he didn't buy it back (redeem it) within a year, it was to remain the property of the buyer forever (Leviticus 25:29-30).
The firstborn of a man's livestock belonged to YHWH. The firstborn of unclean livestock (which could not be sacrificed) could either be redeemed (purchased back from YHWH) by paying the value plus 20% to the temple, or they would be sold and the profit go to the temple (Lev 27:26-27).
If a man was sold as a slave, his family could redeem him by buying him back for the value of his labour until the next year of jubilee, or the original price he was sold for, depending on the situation (Lev 25:47-55).

In all cases, redemption always involves a transfer of money from the original owner / family of the item / person in question, to the current owner. The person being redeemed does not receive any money at all.
When Christ redeems us from our sins, we don't receive any payment. We are slaves to sin, but he pays the penalty for our sins, the price required to redeem us, so we can be set free.

This is also shown by the exceptions.
Slave-women could also be redeemed for money, just as a male slave could be (ie their family could buy them back). However, if they were taken as a wife but various obligations were not fulfilled, they would go free without payment - in other words their family could claim them back without having to pay anything. (Ex 21:7-11).
Any slave, if physically mistreated, was to be released free without payment - again they could return to their family without their family having to buy them back (Ex 21:26-27)

Now, if we bring the concept of redemption into marriage and the bride-price (I'm not convinced it is relevant, just hypothetically), what would it mean for a wife to be "redeemed"?
On marriage, the husband paid a bride-price to the father.
If the father were to redeem the woman, he would pay the bride-price back to the husband, and take his daughter back.

So if divorce involves "redemption", the person profiting financially would be the husband, NOT the wife. A man who dislikes his wife would actually WANT her to be redeemend, so he got back the money he had paid for her. So basically, I think you've got this all backwards, to be honest. It's not a valid argument.

However considering these verses, a completely different line of reasoning does arise. If a slave suffers physical harm (defined), they are to be released free without payment (Ex 21:26-27). If a wife has at least the same, if not greater, rights than a slave, then she too surely has the right to be released free from an abusive husband. I am unsure whether this would involve "putting away" or "divorce", something to ponder further.

 

[aineo]

So if divorce involves "redemption", the person profiting financially would be the husband, NOT the wife. A man who dislikes his wife would actually WANT her to be redeemend, so he got back the money he had paid for her. So basically, I think you've got this all backwards, to be honest. It's not a valid argumentt.

I should have used a different word than redeem, though I am still not sure it doesn't fit according to tradition at the time of Christ according to www.myjewishlearning.com. I cannot attest that what I read there is accurate, so I am only assuming their data is good. But the link listed above states the following:

A Divorce Penalty

The mohar institution was entirely transformed during late-biblical and post-biblical times. From a bridal price it finally became a lien to be paid by the husband in case of divorce, or by his heirs in case of his death.

The change in the mohar institution was a direct result of changes in the material conditions of life. In the simple conditions of early biblical days, all sons and daughters married young. No one stayed single.

The situation changes, however, in conditions reflected in the wisdom book of Ben-Sira, written not long before the uprising of the Maccabees. Apparently bachelorship, common among Jews in talmudic times, had its beginnings in pre-Maccabean days. Economic conditions were such that men hesitated to shoulder the responsibility of matrimony. It was not unusual for women to support the men they married.

Under these conditions there was no place for the old mohar institution. Fathers no longer expected any material gain from their daughters’ marriages. On the contrary, fathers often gave rich dowries to daughters as an inducement to marriageable men.

Yet the mohar institution did not pass out of existence. It was reformed intermittently in the course of this period, adapting itself to new circumstances. The first stage in this process was to make the bride’s father a mere trustee of the mohar. The money was then inherited ultimately either by the husband or by his children. This reform availed little, so the husband himself was made the trustee of the money, which was employed to buy household articles.

The last step in the reform of the mohar institution was made by Simeon ben Shatach, head of the Pharisees, who were the ruling party in the state during the reign of the Maccabean queen, Salome Alexandra (76-67 B.C.E.). He declared that the mohar, which was ordinarily 200 silver dinars for a girl, and 100 for a widow, should merely be written in the ketubah, the marriage deed, as a lien of the wife on the estate of her husband, to be paid to her only if he divorced her, or at his death!

This reform served two humane purposes. It made marriage easier, and divorce more difficult. A man did not need 200 dinars in cash in order to marry a girl, but he needed this amount if he wanted to divorce her. The ketubah thus protected the woman from being arbitrarily divorced by her husband."

As I read this, at the time of Jesus, or at least less than a century before Jesus, the mohar (bride price) had evolved into a lien that could be paid to the wife upon divorce or death.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Too complex. Take it literally. The disciples were merely pointing out what Paul affirmed later, marriage done God's way is a weighty responsibility and comes with as many obligations as it does benefits.

They were being told that they were tied to a woman for life, no matter what. Even if she committed adultery it showed hardness of heart on the man's part to divorce her. This is a hard standard and speaks as much to God's love towards us as it does to anything.

God said that He hates divorce. This passage is a reflection of that.

 

[FollowingHim]

Aineo, thankyou for that very interesting info. I see where you are coming from now. It's not about redemption, that word was confusing, that's all. Basically it had become Jewish custom to add to the marriage contract a fine to be paid to the wife in the event of divorce. That is an interesting extra-biblical tradition that would certainly have discouraged divorce. But I don't think it is what is being referred to here, as we have no reference to money in this passage. It's additional, applying to couples who have agreed to this condition at the time of marriage but not to all.

 

[sun]

I would like to know if polygamy was made legal in a country in the Western World, she their be a limit on the number of wives that a man can have like in Islam? In Iran the limit is 4. What does the bible say on the number of wives a man can have? Should their be a limit?

 

[The Revolting Man]

David had at least 7 whose names we know and God offered him more so if there should be a limit it would be higher than that.

The question strikes more at an existential issue for this forum though, most of us reject any government involvement in marriage at all so allowing them to add polygyny to the list of things they license and control would be anathema to many of us.

 

[FollowingHim2]

The bible doesn't give a limit. The highest number was 1000 that we know of, should that be the limit?
Setting limits isn't wise, because then it becomes a number to get to. Honestly, some men should only have one wife, some two, some more. It shouldn't be about numbers, but about what resources you have, and how much of a man you are. It's very individual. Blanket rules are stupid.