Look at the word 'apuolo' - closest thing to "putting away," but NOT 'divorce.'
-
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.
General DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
- Thread starter meryc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- divorce marriage remarriage
Hopefully that's not a terminal condition...
I don’t think you could make any reasonable case for a better English version, it would be nice if we all knew Hebrew and Greek. I’m interested in studying in the future.Hopefully that's not a terminal condition...
I did see some of that those threads in my reading of this site so far. I appreciate the hard work you guys are putting into study. Would you then say the second husband who divorced the wife because he hates her would be in the wrong? Also you’re saying the reason for divorce should be if someone recognizes this girl as family and therefore incest?'ervah' H6172 often rendered "nakedness" in KJV. First use Genesis 9:22, when Ham saw whatever it was in his father, Noach.
עֶרְוָה
Then it was Joseph/Yosef accusing his brothers of coming to "spy out the nakedness" of his land.
It's in Leviticus 18 (forbidden relations) where we see the list most may recognize, and the context that is more familiar. But - it's a bit "bigger" than just looking at a naked body.
Thus, it is the husband who "knows it when he sees it" in a potential or current wife, but WILL stand before YHVH (IMHO) for his judgment.
OK - all of this follows directly from what you've already seen. Just follow the logic, in spite of what we've "heard it said."
Does a woman who MAY be a wife candidate, but is not a virgin, have a "sefer keretutah," or "certificate of divorce"?
If she DOES - she "has no living husband," and has TWO WITNESSES (!) to prove it: Her own, and her (now EX-) husband.
If she does NOT, the "safe bet" is that she "still has a living husband," and sleeping with her is adultery.
(Vows, Numbers 30 - wow, but that's a Whole 'Nuther Thread...
I put up a thread a while back about "advice for the wedding night" that addressed that...
I can, and have.
The 1599 Geneva Bible is an obvious example, and the facsimile I have (published by a friend, who wrote the forward, and described many of the key differences) makes the point at length.
Likewise, any number of English renderings that preserve 'the Name' Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, rather than hiding it via artifices like "the LORD." The ISV, and Besora come to mind.
Finally, I don't mind KJV (and variants) if they are part of an interlinear with the Hebrew, particularly where the print style makes line-by-line comparison easier. THAT, IMHO, is the best way to learn not only the language, but find the 'twistings'. (I use "Mechon-Mamre" - which allows formatting per your choice.)
Great. But start with the Hebrew; He did.
What version do you use on the daily?
I was going to mention the Geneva bible but @Mark C beat me to it! However, you could do a lot worse than sticking with the KJV, much as there are many details of it that can be critiqued every translation has details that can be critiqued, and the list of critiques to throw at the KJV is simply shorter than most other translations. So it's a good default. And there are so many bible study tools available for it following centuries of use that it's an excellent starting point for studying the Hebrew and Greek also - Strongs is keyed to the KJV. The Geneva's better but less available. Just keep doing what you're doing.
Regarding 'ervah, it means nakedness, and according to the concordance specifically of the pubic region. So it means the husband must have found some sort of sexual "uncleaness" with his wife to divorce her. In other words, she has to have done something to deserve it. That can be interpreted somewhat broadly since it's rather vague, but only broadly within the context of sexual stuff. She can't be divorced for burning the toast. She can obviously be divorced for adultery. She can also be divorced for lesser sexual faults: doing a stripshow at her work christmas party, persistent refusal to have sex with her husband, use your imagination. But it's still a narrow set of reasons.
And even in most of these cases it would be more consistent with Jesus' teachings to forgive her and not divorce her, at least if she was repentant.
Regarding 'ervah, it means nakedness, and according to the concordance specifically of the pubic region. So it means the husband must have found some sort of sexual "uncleaness" with his wife to divorce her. In other words, she has to have done something to deserve it. That can be interpreted somewhat broadly since it's rather vague, but only broadly within the context of sexual stuff. She can't be divorced for burning the toast. She can obviously be divorced for adultery. She can also be divorced for lesser sexual faults: doing a stripshow at her work christmas party, persistent refusal to have sex with her husband, use your imagination. But it's still a narrow set of reasons.
And even in most of these cases it would be more consistent with Jesus' teachings to forgive her and not divorce her, at least if she was repentant.
So it’s not saying that you can put your wife away for committing adultery or fornication on you? And in your opinion what are possible causes for righteous divorce, or is that always wrong? And do you think a wife can ever divorce a husband or put him away lawfully
Would you consider a temporary putting away as a discipline, and what forms of discipline do you consider biblical if the wife lives in unrepentant sin, also would you consider her watching porn as uncleanness? What is your opinion on porn in general and at what point is fornication occurring if watching an unmarried woman, or adultery occurring if watching a married woman? I hope you can be patient to answer my questions and curiosity as I have only very recently joined the forum. If you’d like to refer me to any threads that cover all these sorts of topics, I want to read them!
Samuel is correct about the KJV being "ubiquitous". (When I did a lot of Unix work, I just HATED the default editor, called "vi" - but ended up learning to use it by default: it was on every system. When I had to help someone else, and they didn't have "MFE" (My Favorite Editor, whatever it was) we all had to default to the LCD...
)KJV, like it or not, is the English Lowest Common Denominator. But we can go from there...
I use that Mechon-Mamre, and have a customized interlinear, Book by Book, because I like how I can see the Hebrew (print copy) line-by-line. But I default to using KJV (or NKJV, since I'm not big on Ye Olde English) for on-line searches (mostly). (BTW - Blue Letter Bible is my favorite there, for the same reason I used the vi editor - it's ubiquitous. And works well.)
Bottom line for me: I don't rely on ANY single "English translation." They all have errors, and "your mileage WILL vary." So, I often search a common (KJV) phrase, then study from the original Hebrew. And - at risk of re-hash - I will always note that Yahushus said He wasn't gonna change "one yod or tiddle" - Hebrew terms! - from His original Word. Which means He spoke and taught as He Wrote it, and that is the source I trust. If the Greek, or the English, somewhere down the line, varies - we go back to the Rock.
Very risky, it is putting her in a position that makes adultery more likely. I'm not saying there is never a case for it but I can't think of a good one at present.
A wise manager / boss knows what is appropriate in individual circumstances. Same for a husband.
Whether I would consider it unclean is irrelevant. The question is whether her husband does. He's her head, and what is unclean for her is defined by his perception.
It's a stupid idea, don't do it. What technical sin it involves could be debated at length, but doesn't change the advice not to do it.
On the other hand, our society deals with this poorly, by blaming a man for being dirty and evil rather than considering the reasons WHY he is looking at porn. A man who is unsatisfied sexually by his wife, but loves her and values his marriage, may seek out that satisfaction in ways that he feels are least risky to the marriage and woman he loves. What his body wants is sex with another woman, but what he redirects this to instead is porn, which is less harmful than if he started having affairs. In this case, porn is a symptom of the fact that he actually loves his wife. When discovered, she is likely to react as if it is a betrayal, when in fact it is quite the opposite. She'll be told he's filthy and she needs to stay away from him until he can fix his dirty habit, while in reality the solution is for her to satisfy him so he does not seek porn in the first place.
The solution for a porn-watching husband is for his wife to turn up naked and take over.
Actually, all his wives should turn up naked, ambush him before he gets to turn on the porn and give him a thrill that would make the porn look like a church picnic.
I like my solution better than yours.
So do I - but I doubt many men with multiple wives do porn. This is more a problem for monogamous men who are drawn instinctually to polygamy but are trying to repress it, so turn to wife + porn instead of wife + wife. If it is a monogamous man with this problem, the solution lies with his own wife, at least initially. In some cases there will be the opportunity for polygamy to help with the problem also, but the first response already lies at home.Actually, all his wives should turn up naked, ambush him before he gets to turn on the porn and give him a thrill that would make the porn look like a church picnic.
I like my solution better than yours.
I understand and agree with the general avoiding porn, I would like to see a thread debating it though, or a resource?
Agreed. I do ask you a question,Samuel is correct about the KJV being "ubiquitous". (When I did a lot of Unix work, I just HATED the default editor, called "vi" - but ended up learning to use it by default: it was on every system. When I had to help someone else, and they didn't have "MFE" (My Favorite Editor, whatever it was) we all had to default to the LCD...
KJV, like it or not, is the English Lowest Common Denominator. But we can go from there...
I use that Mechon-Mamre, and have a customized interlinear, Book by Book, because I like how I can see the Hebrew (print copy) line-by-line. But I default to using KJV (or NKJV, since I'm not big on Ye Olde English) for on-line searches (mostly). (BTW - Blue Letter Bible is my favorite there, for the same reason I used the vi editor - it's ubiquitous. And works well.)
Bottom line for me: I don't rely on ANY single "English translation." They all have errors, and "your mileage WILL vary." So, I often search a common (KJV) phrase, then study from the original Hebrew. And - at risk of re-hash - I will always note that Yahushus said He wasn't gonna change "one yod or tiddle" - Hebrew terms! - from His original Word. Which means He spoke and taught as He Wrote it, and that is the source I trust. If the Greek, or the English, somewhere down the line, varies - we go back to the Rock.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (KJV) 10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.
Why doesn’t Paul make the exception Jesus gave to put away wives committing fornication? Or would you give another view?
There's a "search" button on the top right of the page. If you use it to search for threads with a title containing "porn", you get these results. I haven't read them for years so I am not at all vouching for the content, but you will find these three discussions interesting.
Search results for query: porn
www.biblicalfamilies.org
If the wife committed fornication - she (and the man she had sex with) both committed a deadly sin (adultery). That is the punishment for a wife that sleeps with another man. However, the man can send her out of his house (with or without the certificate). He bears zero guilt in either case.
Something that is sexual in nature - but not adultery - is something that could be grounds for the certificate.
For other issues you can carry your execution stake (cross). Show patience as our Master was patient with us while we were still walking in lawlessness/darkness. Continue to be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Do as the Word commands and wash her clean with the Word. Pray for her. In the end - it's the Heavenly Father that changes hearts, and opens eyes.
Giving a certificate is a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly. I think it’s profitable for your wives to know that you have the authority - according to the Word - to issue a certificate. Just like we know that our Master - Yahushua - also has the authority to cast us out of his Kingdom as well.
Proverbs 19:14 NLT
Fathers can give their sons an inheritance of houses and wealth, but only the LORD can give an understanding wife.
Last edited:
He is simply repeating what the Instruction already says. And, in the process, affirming other direct implications:
- the wife does not have authority to "put away" (and thus, not 'divorce', either!) her husband.
- She is not to leave (abandon) the marriage.
- Still, rebellion exists. Shaul/Paul acknowledges that.
- So, IF she leaves anyway - she STILL HAS A LIVING HUSBAND. She must not thus commit adultery.
- The husband (as we have discussed) MAY (for some* presumed 'unclean-ness') put away his wife, but should not.
What follows, logically, since he is not bound to having only one anyway: he may take another wife, particularly in her absence.
Thus follows what I consider on of three potential polygyny 'mandates' in Scripture. What if she returns?
Matthew 5:31-32 is not an "exception" for adultery in the sense generally taught by the twisters. It MUST BE UNDERSTOOD in the context of what He just said, as was DEMONSTRATING:
He was not changing "one yod or tiddle" of His Written Word.
So, if she committed adultery - she is already an adulterer, and (were he inclined, see Numbers 5 et al) deserving of death. He COULD 'put her away' without so much as the clothes on her back. Anything else is 'grace' on his part.
And Shaul does not always need to repeat things His Master already taught. Often what his letters accomplish is "midrash" (a Hebrew term describing discussion or elaboration, as a method of teaching).
----------------------------
* Note: I chose not to use 'nakedness' in this context, given confusion in English. Shouldn't it be OK for her to get naked for her husband? This thus must mean something a bit different...
Actually, all his wives should turn up naked, ambush him before he gets to turn on the porn and give him a thrill that would make the porn look like a church picnic.
I like my solution better than yours.
Actually husband and wife can create porn video and only show video to his other wife(s).
I don't see where private porn collection is forbidden. Argument can only be made that public porn is forbidden.