Considering Divorced Women Unwise?

[RemnantResilience]

You are forgetting they were forbidden to marry certain people. In Ezra there is an example of "putting away" foreign wives. No divorce certificate needed....they were never lawful wives. Also with incest. No divorce needed, the union was pornia.

That is what I see Yeshua talking about. Sending a wife out "putting away" for any cause but pornia leaves her still bound by law to her husband = causes her to commit adultery as well as the one who is with the not yet biblically divorced woman.

If the union is invalid to begin with then divorce and it requirements wouldn't apply either way, you can't void a contract that never was. As for pornia I can't remember any which also didn't carry a death sentence, but thank you I forgot about those.

 

[FollowingHim]

I dont see the two as interchangeable. For a divorce to be valid, sexual immorality had to be commited. That leaves only three legitimate reasons for divorce. Adultery, beastiality or afound out untrue virgin. All carried death sentences.

You are confusing whether something is justified, with whether it has actually occurred. These are entirely different things and one does not affect the other.

For instance, let's take the case of a man who is hung to death, on suspicion of murder. But he was innocent.
- Was his death justified? No.
- IS he dead? Yes.
Equally, you can have a man who justly deserved death and is dead, and a man who justly deserved death and is not dead, and a man who did not justly deserve death and is not dead. Four entirely separate situations which illustrate that there is no relation between whether someone deserves death, and whether they are dead.

Likewise, there is no relation between whether a woman deserves divorce, and whether she is divorced. A woman may deserve divorce but not be divorced, or may not deserve divorce but be divorced anyway. To say that she needs to deserve divorce in order for the divorce to actually take place is as nonsensical as to say that a man needs to deserve death to actually die.

 

[RemnantResilience]

You are confusing whether something is justified, with whether it has actually occurred. These are entirely different things and one does not affect the other.

For instance, let's take the case of a man who is hung to death, on suspicion of murder. But he was innocent.
- Was his death justified? No.
- IS he dead? Yes.
Equally, you can have a man who justly deserved death and is dead, and a man who justly deserved death and is not dead, and a man who did not justly deserve death and is not dead. Four entirely separate situations which illustrate that there is no relation between whether someone deserves death, and whether they are dead.

Likewise, there is no relation between whether a woman deserves divorce, and whether she is divorced. A woman may deserve divorce but not be divorced, or may not deserve divorce but be divorced anyway. To say that she needs to deserve divorce in order for the divorce to actually take place is as nonsensical as to say that a man needs to deserve death to actually die.

What I am saying is a woman is either correctly divorced (sexual immorailty), in which she is free to remarry or in the adultery limbo, because she was put away for a reason other than sexual immorality. She is only free to be married in the first instance, but how wise would it be to marry such a person.

Considering that when vetting someone lying, cheating and pornia are all redflags. I don't think it is ever wise to marry a put away person, because of the chance of adultery. Both forms of "divorce" being unwise to yoke with.

 

[FollowingHim]

What am I saying is a woman is either correctly divorced, in which she is free to remarry or in the adultery limbo, because she was put away for a reason other than sexual immorality.

But you are also saying she cannot be "correctly divorced" unless she deserved it - unless she had committed adultery.

What about the case of a hypothetical woman who marries a bad man unwisely, and is divorced by him soon afterwards for no fault of her own just because he's a jerk. Properly divorced, with paperwork. No children, and let's say this all happened back when she was a foolish teenager and now she's 40, he's remarried and moved to a different country 15 years ago and she hasn't seen him since.

Is she "properly divorced" and free to remarry? Or is she bound to that man despite the divorce he gave her and his complete disinterest in her?

 

[MemeFan]

But you are also saying she cannot be "correctly divorced" unless she deserved it - unless she had committed adultery.

What about the case of a hypothetical woman who marries a bad man unwisely, and is divorced by him soon afterwards for no fault of her own just because he's a jerk. Properly divorced, with paperwork. No children, and let's say this all happened back when she was a foolish teenager and now she's 40, he's remarried and moved to a different country 15 years ago and she hasn't seen him since.

Is she "properly divorced" and free to remarry? Or is she bound to that man despite the divorce he gave her and his complete disinterest in her?

This relationship is for all practical purposes dead.

 

[RemnantResilience]

But you are also saying she cannot be "correctly divorced" unless she deserved it - unless she had committed adultery.

What about the case of a hypothetical woman who marries a bad man unwisely, and is divorced by him soon afterwards for no fault of her own just because he's a jerk. Properly divorced, with paperwork. No children, and let's say this all happened back when she was a foolish teenager and now she's 40, he's remarried and moved to a different country 15 years ago and she hasn't seen him since.

Is she "properly divorced" and free to remarry? Or is she bound to that man despite the divorce he gave her and his complete disinterest in her?

Thats what I am trying to establish, a secular reasoned divorce is not a divorce according to messiah. He stated the only reasons that it was valid. If we refer to Paul in 1 Cor 7. He never states she is free to remarry only that she is free to live in peace.

 

[MemeFan]

What I am saying is a woman is either correctly divorced (sexual immorailty), in which she is free to remarry or in the adultery limbo, because she was put away for a reason other than sexual immorality. She is only free to be married in the first instance, but how wise would it be to marry such a person.

Considering that when vetting someone lying, cheating and pornia are all redflags. I don't think it is ever wise to marry a put away person, because of the chance of adultery. Both forms of "divorce" being unwise to yoke with.

If you ask me, improperly divorced woman is fair game. How it can be her fault for husband's failure to follow proper process? Resulting adultery is ex-husband fault.

 

[Mark C]

I will put out that even after Bathsheba commited adultery with David, she was still considered the wife of Uriah until his death. So the act did not disolve the union.

Sorry, no sale. For a number of reasons.

Uriah did not KNOW. He COULD have 'put her away,' or had her STONED (along with David, although that might have been problematic for an underling.)

And Uriah ended up DEAD, which, yes, "dissolved the union." Note that, later, Solomon, her son by David, WAS allowed to not only sit on the throne, but be in the line of Messiah.

[And Nick, and Samuel, are correct: your phrasing is 'problematic.']

Most scholars note (I would say correctly) that the phrase associated with her, "wife of Uriah," was to point out David's sin, for which he suffered (losing the son, a death) and VERY much made t'shuvah.



The point, relative to this thread, is that a woman guilty of adultery is not necessarily a 'divorcee'. She is an adulteress. Her husband could give her a 'get', if he chose, perhaps in preference to the 'death option.' But it's an act of grace on his (or His) part.

 

[FollowingHim]

Thats what I am trying to establish, a secular reasoned divorce is not a divorce according to messiah. He stated the only reasons that it was valid. If we refer to Paul in 1 Cor 7. He never states she is free to remarry only that she is free to live in peace.

But he also never says she is forbidden to remarry - you are reading that into it without realising.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

This says that if the wife abandons her husband she must remain unmarried or reconcile to him - because she is not divorced, she is still bound to him. This simply affirms that the wife has no authority to just leave.

It also tells the husband not to put away his wife. Now, even if we interpret that as meaning that the husband is not to divorce his wife, what happens to the woman whose husband disobeys this command and divorces her anyway? This does not address the case of what to do after these instructions have been disobeyed - and that is what we are talking about when we are discussing a woman who has been divorced without cause. This is a situation that is not addressed at all in 1 Cor 7.

 

[Bartato]

But you are also saying she cannot be "correctly divorced" unless she deserved it - unless she had committed adultery.

What about the case of a hypothetical woman who marries a bad man unwisely, and is divorced by him soon afterwards for no fault of her own just because he's a jerk. Properly divorced, with paperwork. No children, and let's say this all happened back when she was a foolish teenager and now she's 40, he's remarried and moved to a different country 15 years ago and she hasn't seen him since.

Is she "properly divorced" and free to remarry? Or is she bound to that man despite the divorce he gave her and his complete disinterest in her?

That's a similar situation to the woman I mentioned. She was legally (from government perspective) divorced by her husband, but did not deserve it.

It might be "adultery" for her to remarry (she has no intention of remarrying at present), but I believe the moral guilt of that would fall on her ex husband for abandoning her. I believe she and the potential second husband would be guiltless.

 

[Mark C]

...Just because she commited adultery does not make her divorced.

OK. Yes, very much in there to correct.

... I've always had trouble wrapping my head around the idea of divorce in the first place, as adultery was a death sentence, and marriage ends at death.

Yes. And the problem is the horrid mis-interpretation of things like Matthew 5:31-32, and the mis-applied 'exception clause.' Because they don't understand His Word as Written, that Yahushua was explaining.

Again: IFF she is ALREADY an 'adulteress' - the husband can't MAKE her one! But he IS justified in 'putting her away.' No "certificate of divorce" necessary - just GET OUT! Anything more on his part is 'grace.' And, yes, "caught in the act," or Numbers 5 process convicted, - she may well have ended up dead.

I don't see the two as interchangeable. For a divorce to be valid, sexual immorality had to be commited. That leaves only three legitimate reasons for divorce. Adultery, beastiality or afound out untrue virgin. All carried death sentences.

"Divorce" != (is NOT equal to) "put away."

For a divorce to be valid, sexual immorality had to be commited.

No.

(Whether the husband is "justified" - or "should have" - is another issue entirely! He will stand before YHVH, however.) But - if she has a 'get' (sefer keretutah) she "may be another man's" isha or wife.

 

[RemnantResilience]

OK. Yes, very much in there to correct.



Yes. And the problem is the horrid mis-interpretation of things like Matthew 5:31-32, and the mis-applied 'exception clause.' Because they don't understand His Word as Written, that Yahushua was explaining.

Again: IFF she is ALREADY an 'adulteress' - the husband can't MAKE her one! But he IS justified in 'putting her away.' No "certificate of divorce" necessary - just GET OUT! Anything more on his part is 'grace.' And, yes, "caught in the act," or Numbers 5 process convicted, - she may well have ended up dead.


"Divorce" != (is NOT equal to) "put away."




No.

(Whether the husband is "justified" - or "should have" - is another issue entirely! He will stand before YHVH, however.) But - if she has a 'get' (sefer keretutah) she "may be another man's" isha or wife.

Re-read Matthew 19, I see what you are saying now regarding it being about an exception for putting away without a get, not a declaration to the requirements for a get to be valid.

 

[Mark C]

Thats what I am trying to establish, a secular reasoned divorce is not a divorce according to messiah.

Samuel tried to make the point. "Reasoning" is not the issue. Neither is 'justification.' What is CORRECT (process) is.

If she HAS a 'sefer keretutah,' or 'certificate of divorce' - she is able to be another man's wife. Period.


(And - while no man of Yah in all of Scripture ever got a 'marriage license,' nor asked the State for permission to marry - if that piece of state-issued, husband-signed paper is in her hand, she's got the proof.)

PS> And whether a man here should consider TAKING her as such a wife is the main issue. That is very much for him to prayerfully decide. But there is no "lawful" (Scriptural) barrier, if she has the get.

 

[NickF]

I think you're assuming the maximum punishment of death was a universal minimum punishment. That's simply not the case, and likely the cause of some of your confusion. David was not stoned to death for his adultery. God commanded Hosea to marry two women both of which were women of whoredoms. Hard to marry a woman who was a whore if she's dead. So yes, it's lawful to marry a woman even if she was divorced for sexual immorality or adultery.

I'm not saying it's wise to do so but you seem to be stuck in an assumption loop that ignores some basic logic and plain reading of scripture.

 

[FollowingHim]

There are examples of adultery in scripture, but not a single example I can think of of someone actually getting stoned to death for it - Tamar comes close, but still isn't actually stoned.
When Joseph thinks Mary has committed adultery, he decides to put her away quietly. That is probably the actual, merciful thing that most husbands would actually have done.

 

[RemnantResilience]

I think you're assuming the maximum punishment of death was a universal minimum punishment. That's simply not the case, and likely the cause of some of your confusion. David was not stoned to death for his adultery. God commanded Hosea to marry two women both of which were women of whoredoms. Hard to marry a woman who was a whore if she's dead. So yes, it's lawful to marry a woman even if she was divorced for sexual immorality or adultery.

I'm not saying it's wise to do so but you seem to be stuck in an assumption loop that ignores some basic logic and plain reading of scripture.

Well we know the death penalty couldn't be applied without a min of 2 witness testimony. My confusion was how Matthew 19 applied, which Mark helped clarify. I understood it as a prerequisite to valid divorce, not an exception to requirement of a get.

 

[katykat]

I will preface my response with saying that I have a dog in this particular fight. I am divorced. My first husband divorced me. Obviously, there’s a lot to the story. Both of us called ourselves Christians, but I would say our respective faiths were in their infancy, to put it mildly. Me in particular, coming from an atheist worldview and living my teens and 20s in the manner that the world prescribed, certainly had a lot of emotional damage coming into the faith and marriage l. I was not submissive and generally not a good wife to my first husband. That is not to say he did not play his part in the downfall of the marriage, but I am not here to speak about that. That is between him and the most high. I see so much on these threads about the wickedness of the modern woman. I do not disagree. I certainly exhibited so many of those traits and it deeply saddens me; I weep in regret. That being said, let’s not underestimate the power of true repentance. I am so grateful that my master saw something in me and gave me the covering and direction that led me to repentance and redemption. I am not naïve, and I agree that my story is probably the exception and marrying a divorced woman is certainly risky. I have a son who be looking for a wife at some point and of course I want him to marry a virgin, who is righteous. Nonetheless, I also want to give any divorced women who have no covering hope.

 

[FollowingHim]

@RemnantResilience, it's very easy to instinctually take a legalistic approach to this issue. However, in the real world, if we correctly call all women who have a man "married" regardless of whether they have legal paperwork, and if the relationship fails we understand her to be "divorced", then a very large proportion of the women in the world are technically divorced. If remarriage after divorce is completely forbidden, then half the women in the West are forbidden from marrying. Legalism is simply not practical in this matter.

 

[steve]

Legalism is simply not practical in this matter.

Yes, I highly doubt that the seven women who propose to one man in Isaiah are virgins without a history.

 

[theleastofthese]

I will preface my response with saying that I have a dog in this particular fight. I am divorced. My first husband divorced me. Obviously, there’s a lot to the story. Both of us called ourselves Christians, but I would say our respective faiths were in their infancy, to put it mildly. Me in particular, coming from an atheist worldview and living my teens and 20s in the manner that the world prescribed, certainly had a lot of emotional damage coming into the faith and marriage l. I was not submissive and generally not a good wife to my first husband. That is not to say he did not play his part in the downfall of the marriage, but I am not here to speak about that. That is between him and the most high. I see so much on these threads about the wickedness of the modern woman. I do not disagree. I certainly exhibited so many of those traits and it deeply saddens me; I weep in regret. That being said, let’s not underestimate the power of true repentance. I am so grateful that my master saw something in me and gave me the covering and direction that led me to repentance and redemption. I am not naïve, and I agree that my story is probably the exception and marrying a divorced woman is certainly risky. I have a son who be looking for a wife at some point and of course I want him to marry a virgin, who is righteous. Nonetheless, I also want to give any divorced women who have no covering hope.

Thank you for saying that