• 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.

Deuteronomy 24:1 Today | Bill of Divorcement

JudahYAHites

JudahYAHites

Member
Male
I would like to hear biblical reasonings from the brothers on here.

Keeping in mind the majority of people have entered into a marriage union via a government state system with a marriage certificate / license and the government state system is the third person in any divorce proceeding.
In the light of Deuteronomy 24:1 and any other scriptures when is the "bill of divorcement" in this governmental state system?
When divorce applied for?
When divorce application received by other party?
Decree nisi?
Decree absolute?
Or somewhere else in the process?
 
JudahYAHites said:
I would like to hear biblical reasonings from the brothers on here.

Keeping in mind the majority of people have entered into a marriage union via a government state system with a marriage certificate / license and the government state system is the third person in any divorce proceeding.
In the light of Deuteronomy 24:1 and any other scriptures when is the "bill of divorcement" in this governmental state system?
When divorce applied for?
When divorce application received by other party?
Decree nisi?
Decree absolute?
Or somewhere else in the process?
Click to expand...
Perhaps someone could clarify for me please, is a marriage licence a legal contract entered into by the parties? If so, it would be in force until the contract is terminated.
 
From my understanding, if you are standing before someone who says "by the authority vested in me by the State of _____", and you have to go before a Judge or their representative to get it dissolved, it is a legal contract.
Deuteronomy 24 was intended to give the woman protections so she could legally/lawfully find covering and provision from another man. Since we don't live in a theocracy, those protections were written into state law.
If a man enters into a verbal agreement with his women based on Deuteronomy and their church/community affiliation, I would say that is a social contract, but one which, in the eyes of God and the community, would be enforceable, but I'm not sure how legally.
I am interested in others take on this also, because I would like to be married again someday, but not have the state involved.
 
B4DWrath said:
From my understanding, if you are standing before someone who says "by the authority vested in me by the State of _____", and you have to go before a Judge or their representative to get it dissolved, it is a legal contract.
Deuteronomy 24 was intended to give the woman protections so she could legally/lawfully find covering and provision from another man. Since we don't live in a theocracy, those protections were written into state law.
If a man enters into a verbal agreement with his women based on Deuteronomy and their church/community affiliation, I would say that is a social contract, but one which, in the eyes of God and the community, would be enforceable, but I'm not sure how legally.
I am interested in others take on this also, because I would like to be married again someday, but not have the state involved.
Click to expand...
I have one marriage with a government issued licence and one marriage without. Thus far neither wife has wanted a divorce, so I've not been too concerned about the matter. But it's a huge problem among the general population because there is no divorce allowed here. I've encountered numerous couples where one or both are still legally married to someone else. Sad to say, but it's a cesspit of adultery.
 
When the divorce proceedings are over.
They are still married until that happens.
 
frederick said:
But it's a huge problem among the general population because there is no divorce allowed here.
Click to expand...
In that case I would advise a woman to simply get a handwritten release from her husband who no longer wants to be married.
True, it doesn’t solve the civil matter, but I believe that Yah would accept it.
 
JudahYAHites said:
In the light of Deuteronomy 24:1 and any other scriptures when is the "bill of divorcement" in this governmental state system?
Click to expand...
When the at-that-point-Ex-husband witnesses/signs the 'certificate' (sefer of keretutah) and it is 'placed in her hand.'

That so-called (and ever-twisting) 'marriage process' itself is, at best, 'extra-Scriptural.' (They should not allow that 'other master' to have authority in the first place over what YHVH ordains and established.)

BUT, once the false authority is in place and the Scriptural requirement in Deuteronomy 24:1 (AND 3) is met, that the man puts his 'John Hancock' on a document serving as proof that he has abdicated that position has her husband - then "she is free to be another man's". Hopefully a better covering.
 
frederick said:
Currently Philippines.
Click to expand...
That throws a twist to the passport bros going to the Philippines to get traditional women. What if the women are taking advantage of the bros to get here (edit: to the U.S.), to eventually use the divorce weapon? I know, there's sinful motives in all camps.
 
B4DWrath said:
That throws a twist to the passport bros going to the Philippines to get traditional women. What if the women are taking advantage of the bros to get here (edit: to the U.S.), to eventually use the divorce weapon? I know, there's sinful motives in all camps.
Click to expand...
Exactley, as that is not unheard of and not just the USA. There are a few who have the financial means to get an annulment, but most are just separated and have moved on to the next relationship (or two, or three). Getting an annulment is expensive so most don't bother. Something that must be established right from the get-go with any woman from the Philippines is that "single" means "never married". Separated, annulled, even divorced mean the same here as elsewhere but single.... that needs to be carefully scrutinised and defined.
 
Mark C said:
When the at-that-point-Ex-husband witnesses/signs the 'certificate' (sefer of keretutah) and it is 'placed in her hand.'

That so-called (and ever-twisting) 'marriage process' itself is, at best, 'extra-Scriptural.' (They should not allow that 'other master' to have authority in the first place over what YHVH ordains and established.)

BUT, once the false authority is in place and the Scriptural requirement in Deuteronomy 24:1 (AND 3) is met, that the man puts his 'John Hancock' on a document serving as proof that he has abdicated that position has her husband - then "she is free to be another man's". Hopefully a better covering.
Click to expand...
For those exact reasons and more this is my position of understanding.
 
B4DWrath said:
What if the women are taking advantage of the bros to get here (edit: to the U.S.), to eventually use the divorce weapon? I know, there's sinful motives in all camps.
Click to expand...
That is INEVITABLY true in the 'nominal' case in the US, where the entire 'immigration' process (except for invaders...) is contingent on submission to that "other master" and his rules for 'marriage' as a condition of entry.

Sadly, and arguably by design, it makes a man taking any 'non-native-born' wife into "risky business."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top