Divorced: Abandoned, Put Away or Kicked to the Curb

[Verifyveritas76]

Bound or Loosed? This topic seems to be one with many perceptions and perspectives on whether or not a woman is available spouse material. I think it is wise, especially for those considering the possibility of a wife to consider all sides of this equation.

I do not consider myself to be an authority on this subject. At the moment, I am simply trying to wade through thoughts and Scripture to try to find the mind of Christ on the subject as well as any pertinent Hebrew historical context. Any thoughts and positions are welcomed and sought. If your perspective is based on something other than Scripture, please note that in your response. I am primarily interested in Scriptural arguments for or against, but historical context is appreciated as well if noted.

A common position that I've heard is that if a woman has been divorced, for any reason, that she is then ineligible for marriage because Matt. 5:32 states that if you marry her, that you are committing adultery.

However, as I was studying the subject, I came across Deut. 24:1&2 which seems to indicate that this is not necessarily the case.
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

So it seems that at some point in the marriage, the man could decide that there is something unclean about her, and write a bill of divorcement, give it to her and send her out of his house.

Obviously, this entire process is subject to our own interpretation and historical or cultural understanding. How we view or interpret this passage will (for better or worse) guide our actions. It seems to me that this could be interpreted several different ways and it may be that it is applicable in several if not all of the ways.

1). It could be that upon the wedding night, he discovers that she is not a virgin. This seems to be the most straightforward explanation.

• This seems to match closely with Matt. 5 regarding divorce in the instance of fornication.
• The bride price was often determined based upon virginity. In the case of a virgin, 50 shekels of silver became the common standard though it varied depending on the financial capabilities of the husband. In the case of a woman who was not a virgin, it was half price. I have not found any mention of what determined an "acceptable" instance of not being a virgin, whether by widowhood, fornication, or having been seduced and then not allowed to be married to that man was not distinguished so far as I have been able to determine.

2) It could be that some time after consumation, that adultery has occurred and so he is definitively separating from her.

• While it is true that the punishment for adultery is listed as death, there are several instances where the husband chose something less. This is illustrated in Prov. 6:32-35 Where the husband could accept a ransom but will most likely not. Also consider Jacob and Reuben with Bilhah, and David with Absalom and David's concubines.
• It could be that the husband decides not to pursue the death penalty for his wife and simply chooses to remove her from his covering and with the writing of divorcement she would be loosed to marry the other guy or whoever.
• If it is true that the uncleanness is adultery, it seems that he has two choices, the first would be to "put her away" but not out of the household. He is simply refusing to be intimate with her as Jacob and David did yet still providing and protecting her and in all other ways being a husband still. The second would be to permanently remove her from his household. He could do this by kicking her to the curb without the divorce papers so that she would never be free to remarry, or he could release her by giving her the divorce papers so that she could remarry.

3)It could be that there is some type of physical deformity or defect that wouldn't be revealed until she is disrobed. If he was concerned about Temple/Tabernacle Court access, or perhaps that it would be passed on to the next generation, I could see where he would feel defrauded if it were not disclosed in the betrothal negotiations. (Lame, blind, deaf, weak eyes, etc.)
4) It could be that some time after the consummation, the honeymoon wears off and she turns out to be an incorrigible shrew, without any hope of reformation. Or perhaps she has major character flaws and is impossible to live with. Or perhaps her mother has come to visit and the only way to get peace back in the house is to get rid of the daughter and hope the mother follows! JUST KIDDING!!!

• I'm not sure that this would be a realistic reason for issuing papers, but I don't think it can be totally discounted as Proverbs 22:10 speaks of "Casting out" the scorner and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease. The Hebrew word for casting out is the same word that is translated "divorced" in Numbers 30:9 & Lev. 21:14, 22:13 and is used in Gen 21:10 about Hagar. Strongs #1644 garash

5) OR it could be that if she burns dinner its time for her to hit the road! No kidding, this was the interpretation favored by the followers of the Rabbi Shammai around the time of Christ! This is the cultural background for why Christ was asked about divorce for any reason. Obviously, Christ did not affirm this interpretation.


Here is a link to one view on the subject
https://www.righteouswarriors.com/controversial/index.html
And Samuels response
http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/posts/136763/
Here is another link about what constitutes divorce
http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/posts/123476/

So after going through quite a few posts in the forum, I have come to these conclusions

1. I may not marry a woman who has been put away if she does not have a writing of divorce initiated by her previous husband.
2. A woman who has a writing of divorce is free to covenant or not as she sees fit
3. A writing of divorcement is an eternal cutting off by the husband once she has been with another man following the papers. This is the "kicking to the curb".
4. A man may "put away" a wife for the purpose of reconciliation. Any man who comes between them prior to divorce papers by the husband commits adultery.

I'm still unclear on the issue of abandonment by the husband. Exodus 21 seems to indicate that abandonment by the husband, evidenced by failing or refusing to provide food, covering and marital duties = freedom for the woman without there being a writing of divorcement.
1 Cor 7:15 seems to associate the unbeliever departing as freedom for the one remaining. The word translated as unbelieving is the Greek word 'apistos' which also means infidel and is the same word used in 1 Tim 5:8 in the context of not providing for his own, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an 'apistos', infidel.

It seems to me that abandonment is grounds for freedom without papers although I am entirely open to being proven wrong on this topic.

 

[Aussies]

Nicely expressed. this is a subject that we have found extremely interesting and have pondered it for many hours and considered many scriptural references in our consideration of it.
Firstly I believe that the subject needs to come back to its context in time. By the 1st century B C E in roman society both the husband and the wife could divorce the other party for any reason at all, thus the practice of serial monogamy was widely practiced by both the male and the female at the time.

We also need to understand that those who have translated and recorded scripture since the first century, have done so with a pure heart but even so such translators are governed by their personal understanding of any given religious concept. As an example ( this may be a little contentious but,) If we consider John 1:1, If the translator believes in the trinity then the translation will reflect that, if however the translator does not believe in the trinity, again their translation will reflect that, the difference being just one letter but the understanding is altered dramatically. Now both deserve the dignity due them for their work and should be seen as being truthful in their translation, However, like it or not they are both guided by their understanding of doctrine and thus their translation will always reflect that. So to when it comes to the understanding of texts such as Matthew 5; 31-32 and Matthew 19;9. The churches have convinced people, since the end of the first century C E, that only monogamy is acceptable and thus any translator with that understanding will reflect that in their translation of scripture. Thus to go back and refer to things like "Strongs" or indeed any other source to attempt to understand the depth of the meaning of a word, has the same potential issue as the understanding given by just one translator will reflect their understanding of the matter, as each has stood on the shoulders of their predecessors and their understanding of a word or concept is thus tempered by that same history.

If however we just consider the scriptures and rather than just look at one translation we give consideration to as many translations as possible we then gain a much better understanding of the potential possibilities regarding the correct understanding of any word. As each translator will have honestly translated any given word in harmony with their personal understanding of correct doctrine and each has also given an accurate translation within the bounds of what the word can legitimately mean. As an example, If we consider the term "fornication" or "adultery" we will more than likely come up with the concept of sexual misconduct. Now it is true that sexual misconduct is definitely a matter of fornication or adultery but it can also mean "unfaithfulness". Armed with that understanding the application of texts such as Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19;9 can be seen in a much clearer context.

When it comes to the marrying of a divorced woman, the scriptures make it clearly understood that a woman divorced or rejected (put out) by her husband was free to remarry thus as scripture cannot contradict itself this same standard must continue right through the entire bible. Now consider that under roman law a woman could divorce her husband thus sharing equal authority in the marriage, yet according to scripture she had no such right, then if a man was to marry a woman who divorced her husband, it would be a matter of adultery as she was still bound to her first husband as he had not divorced her, thus their was no scriptural grounds for the divorce. this is confirmed at Mark 10:12.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I was trying to think of a scene or story in Scripture where a woman was abandoned or whatever where she wasn't widowed or chased off. At this point I'm drawing a blank unless it would be Tamar but she managed to resolve that issue with Judah.

 

[FollowingHim]

I may not marry a woman who has been put away if she does not have a writing of divorce initiated by her previous husband.

This does appear to be what scripture is saying if you just read it strictly. However, when you consider the implications, this becomes more difficult to see working in practice. When a woman is married with a state marriage, ie with paperwork, and then receives a legal written divorce, she has a writing of divorcement. But what about the woman who has begun a relationship that we would consider to be marriage, but done so completely informally with no paperwork, and then her husband/partner sends her away? He signed no papers to form the union, he will not give her any papers to dissolve it either (for arguments sake let's assume the husband/partner was a non-Christian who can see no need to give her a "writing of divorcement"). Is she always bound to this man, despite the man himself making it very clear that she is sent away? Is this consistent with God's love and mercy?

In practice, a written agreement will be severed with another written document. And a verbal agreement will be severed verbally.

Because of the practical implications, I have come to see the requirement for a writing of divorce as binding on the husband, but not necessarily the wife. In other words, a man divorcing a wife is to give her a writing of divorcement. But if he fails to do so, that does not necessarily invalidate the divorce, it just means the man has failed to carry out all the details required. He may be in error, but she may still be free.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is pretty simple when you distill down all the references. A woman who has left a husband is not eligible. Generally, a woman who has been put away by a husband is eligible. If the previous husband divorces her unlawfully the sin falls back on him. I don't know how this applies to adulteresses as that would have been a moot point.

 

[Desertfamily]

Bound or Loosed? This topic seems to be one with many perceptions and perspectives on whether or not a woman is available spouse material. I think it is wise, especially for those considering the possibility of a wife to consider all sides of this equation.

I do not consider myself to be an authority on this subject. At the moment, I am simply trying to wade through thoughts and Scripture to try to find the mind of Christ on the subject as well as any pertinent Hebrew historical context. Any thoughts and positions are welcomed and sought. If your perspective is based on something other than Scripture, please note that in your response. I am primarily interested in Scriptural arguments for or against, but historical context is appreciated as well if noted.

A common position that I've heard is that if a woman has been divorced, for any reason, that she is then ineligible for marriage because Matt. 5:32 states that if you marry her, that you are committing adultery.

However, as I was studying the subject, I came across Deut. 24:1&2 which seems to indicate that this is not necessarily the case.
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

So it seems that at some point in the marriage, the man could decide that there is something unclean about her, and write a bill of divorcement, give it to her and send her out of his house.

Obviously, this entire process is subject to our own interpretation and historical or cultural understanding. How we view or interpret this passage will (for better or worse) guide our actions. It seems to me that this could be interpreted several different ways and it may be that it is applicable in several if not all of the ways.

1). It could be that upon the wedding night, he discovers that she is not a virgin. This seems to be the most straightforward explanation.

• This seems to match closely with Matt. 5 regarding divorce in the instance of fornication.
• The bride price was often determined based upon virginity. In the case of a virgin, 50 shekels of silver became the common standard though it varied depending on the financial capabilities of the husband. In the case of a woman who was not a virgin, it was half price. I have not found any mention of what determined an "acceptable" instance of not being a virgin, whether by widowhood, fornication, or having been seduced and then not allowed to be married to that man was not distinguished so far as I have been able to determine.

2) It could be that some time after consumation, that adultery has occurred and so he is definitively separating from her.

• While it is true that the punishment for adultery is listed as death, there are several instances where the husband chose something less. This is illustrated in Prov. 6:32-35 Where the husband could accept a ransom but will most likely not. Also consider Jacob and Reuben with Bilhah, and David with Absalom and David's concubines.
• It could be that the husband decides not to pursue the death penalty for his wife and simply chooses to remove her from his covering and with the writing of divorcement she would be loosed to marry the other guy or whoever.
• If it is true that the uncleanness is adultery, it seems that he has two choices, the first would be to "put her away" but not out of the household. He is simply refusing to be intimate with her as Jacob and David did yet still providing and protecting her and in all other ways being a husband still. The second would be to permanently remove her from his household. He could do this by kicking her to the curb without the divorce papers so that she would never be free to remarry, or he could release her by giving her the divorce papers so that she could remarry.

3)It could be that there is some type of physical deformity or defect that wouldn't be revealed until she is disrobed. If he was concerned about Temple/Tabernacle Court access, or perhaps that it would be passed on to the next generation, I could see where he would feel defrauded if it were not disclosed in the betrothal negotiations. (Lame, blind, deaf, weak eyes, etc.)
4) It could be that some time after the consummation, the honeymoon wears off and she turns out to be an incorrigible shrew, without any hope of reformation. Or perhaps she has major character flaws and is impossible to live with. Or perhaps her mother has come to visit and the only way to get peace back in the house is to get rid of the daughter and hope the mother follows! JUST KIDDING!!!

• I'm not sure that this would be a realistic reason for issuing papers, but I don't think it can be totally discounted as Proverbs 22:10 speaks of "Casting out" the scorner and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease. The Hebrew word for casting out is the same word that is translated "divorced" in Numbers 30:9 & Lev. 21:14, 22:13 and is used in Gen 21:10 about Hagar. Strongs #1644 garash

5) OR it could be that if she burns dinner its time for her to hit the road! No kidding, this was the interpretation favored by the followers of the Rabbi Shammai around the time of Christ! This is the cultural background for why Christ was asked about divorce for any reason. Obviously, Christ did not affirm this interpretation.


Here is a link to one view on the subject
https://www.righteouswarriors.com/controversial/index.html
And Samuels response
http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/posts/136763/
Here is another link about what constitutes divorce
http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/posts/123476/

So after going through quite a few posts in the forum, I have come to these conclusions

1. I may not marry a woman who has been put away if she does not have a writing of divorce initiated by her previous husband.
2. A woman who has a writing of divorce is free to covenant or not as she sees fit
3. A writing of divorcement is an eternal cutting off by the husband once she has been with another man following the papers. This is the "kicking to the curb".
4. A man may "put away" a wife for the purpose of reconciliation. Any man who comes between them prior to divorce papers by the husband commits adultery.

I'm still unclear on the issue of abandonment by the husband. Exodus 21 seems to indicate that abandonment by the husband, evidenced by failing or refusing to provide food, covering and marital duties = freedom for the woman without there being a writing of divorcement.
1 Cor 7:15 seems to associate the unbeliever departing as freedom for the one remaining. The word translated as unbelieving is the Greek word 'apistos' which also means infidel and is the same word used in 1 Tim 5:8 in the context of not providing for his own, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an 'apistos', infidel.

It seems to me that abandonment is grounds for freedom without papers although I am entirely open to being proven wrong on this topic.

Love reading this article you wrote. Lost a friend over a disagreement about divorce. HE and I had a difference in opinion of how a man can divorce.

 

[Quartus]

Paul seems to offer a very clear and simple starting point.

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

So the sister married to another man as described in Deut 24:2-3 is described by Moses as "defiled" in v4, by Christ as having committed adultery by subsequent marriage (Matt 5:32), and by Paul as we have already seen as an adulteress.

Christ tried to stop the Pharisees from reading Deut 24:1 as a command (Matt 19:7-8) and I think we have to let Moses Paul and Christ stop us from reading Deut 24:2-3 as a permission.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

In practice, a written agreement will be severed with another written document. And a verbal agreement will be severed verbally.

I like the way you put this, Samuel. Well said.

I'm currently trying to understand the issue of abandonment. During the time of Christ, from what I have read, some of the men would "put away" their wife for petty reasons so that they could afford a new one. However, this putting away was more abandonment than divorce. They would essentially cut off support, fellowship and protection without giving her divorce papers because to issue divorce papers meant that he could no longer utilize her dowry and had to send her out with it. She would become destitute and often would have to return to her fathers house just to survive. She could petition to the elders or judges for redress, but that would often drag on with no end in sight.

It gives new light to the words of Christ when he says that he will never leave us nor forsake us. Also when Christ states that (him) one that cometh to him, he will in no wise cast out.

He will never leave us! He will never forsake us! He will never cast us out! He will supply all our needs according to his riches in Christ Jesus! He is the Door! He is the GOOD Shepherd! If we will draw nigh, he will do the same! His yoke is easy and His burden is light! He loves us even when we are unlovely! He is constantly interceding to the Father for us! He is the one who can make us fruitful and multiplied!

He has set a very high standard for husbands. I wonder how many of those things we as husbands are failing miserably to provide for our spouses.

This is pretty simple when you distill down all the references. A woman who has left a husband is not eligible.

I'm not certain about this. Exodus 21 indicates that a woman who has not been provided for is allowed to go out free without having to repay the bride price or the indenture price. It doesnt really specify or restrict what she is free to do. I'm still looking to find other references one way or the other.

 

[Quartus]

While I think it starts easy, it seems to get harder very easily as well! To be honest I think there are several other aspects which need careful consideration. I have never gone with the idea of angels with filing cabinets, Rom 7 is simpler than that. The concept of marriage being a type of Christ and the Bride would be a massive subject that would have relevance. The concept of believers and unbelievers would take time to develop. There are passages that I would need to listen to explanations on what the Hebrew did and did not say. I would love to see more of these subjects and others explored as separate topics so that they could be given the attention they deserve and hopefully there will be opportunity to do that.

But regarding freedom to do what, part of the PM argument is that the rules for sisters over marriage are not the same as the rules for brothers, and if that is the case for marriage, why not for remarriage? If the sister can only have one husband, how can she suddenly have two? To my mind, Rom 7 says she cannot. That to me is the big problem with the thinking that is applied to monogamy, marriage and divorce, equating what is said about brothers with what is said about sisters.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@Quartus I think in Romans, Paul is dealing with the issue of the wife being married to another without being released or abandoned/forsaken by the first husband as both are caveats under the law he was quoting from as the passage in 1 Cor indicates that if there is abandonment she is free or no longer bound. If she is no longer bound, adultery cannot be charged as adultery is at its simplest definition covenant breaking. No covenant, no adultery.

The defilement mentioned in Deut. 24 is typically used (regarding sex) to indicate intercourse like when Dinah Jacobs daughter was defiled. It does not necessarily mean that the woman is defiled or cannot be touched by anyone. The passage only restricts her previous husband because he used the excuse of her "uncleanness" to put her away initially.

The passage in Matthew where Christ is explaining about the hardness of their hearts is aimed at correcting a loophole that the men had been justifying as I posted above though apparently since the days of Moses.

I think it is also very important to recognize that the English idea of putting away is seen in Scripture in two very different conditions. The first level of putting away involves only fellowship and intimacy. Provision and protection are still provided. The second and final level is what we would know as divorce papers. There's no coming back from this one unless the woman has been chaste. This being said, God is prophecied as taking back the adulterous woman that he has divorced. I'm not sure if this is advisable for us or is simply to showcase His glory.

 

[Aussies]

I'm not certain about this. Exodus 21 indicates that a woman who has not been provided for is allowed to go out free without having to repay the bride price or the indenture price. It doesnt really specify or restrict what she is free to do. I'm still looking to find other references one way or the other.

Am I right in considering this text, that the woman involved was a slave 21:7, thus she was sold into slavery, so the money exchanged or the debt that she was sold into slavery over was not a bride price, thus the funds or the payment of the existing debt were to the benefit of woman's father's (or the one who sold her into slavery) benefit, thus when she was not cared for and not taken as a concubine then she was free to go out, free without repaying the price to the master that he had payed to take her as a slave. There was no bride price in this instance, only the debt owed the master, a debt that he now forfeited due to his not caring for her as commanded. Even as a master the man had obligations to the slave girl and if he would not pay them, he forfeited the right to claim her as his own. She entered the house with a debt and left with no debt unlike a male slave who would have to have the debt repayed before being able to leave.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Am I right in considering this text, that the woman involved was a slave 21:7, thus she was sold into slavery, so the money exchanged or the debt that she was sold into slavery over was not a bride price, thus the funds or the payment of the existing debt were to the benefit of woman's father's (or the one who sold her into slavery) benefit, thus when she was not cared for and not taken as a concubine then she was free to go out, free without repaying the price to the master that he had payed to take her as a slave. There was no bride price in this instance, only the debt owed the master, a debt that he now forfeited due to his not caring for her as commanded. Even as a master the man had obligations to the slave girl and if he would not pay them, he forfeited the right to claim her as his own. She entered the house with a debt and left with no debt unlike a male slave who would have to have the debt repayed before being able to leave.

She might have come in as an indentured servant, but as soon as he converted that into a wife she was then entitled to all the benefits pertaining to a wife. Though he had paid for her, as he would a wife, though perhaps not as much as he would have for a wife, if he elevated her to that position, and then didnt perform his side of the covenant, she was free without having to repay the original indenture or bride price.

Here's a good link to another thread addressing this passage
http://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/posts/145028/
Here's a well done video explaining this passage extremely well.
https://www.alephbeta.org/course/lecture/mishpatim-female-servitude-wait-what

 

[steve]

"I think it is also very important to recognize that the English idea of putting away is seen in Scripture in two very different conditions. The first level of putting away involves only fellowship and intimacy. Provision and protection are still provided."
Yes
Yes
Yes

 

[Quartus]

He has set a very high standard for husbands. I wonder how many of those things we as husbands are failing miserably to provide for our spouses.

I entirely agree with this. When Christ had finished expounding marriage
Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

But one of the disciples also said
Joh 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

If husband and wife (believers) type Christ and the believers, and the husband sends away his wife, to whom shall she go without being called an adulteress? therefore if she is caused to become an adulteress because of the husband's action, that cause of adultery is attached to the husband (against her i.e. against the divorced wife Mark 10:11, not with her, i.e. with the new wife, unless that would be adulterous because she herself could not marry).
However if the wife he divorced was already an adulteress, the cause of her adultery is not presumed to be his fault. Nevertheless he should try to restore his wife and of course PM never closes the door on that one if the husband acts wisely (David and Michal).

The problem husbands who divorce wives have is that with what judgment we judge we shall be judged.
If the type holds, a husband sending his wife away (either with or without the paperwork) is the equivalent of Christ rejecting him at the judgment - hardly a good starting point. David seems to provide an excellent example of how to handle it - and he never gave his permission, so the "divorce" was totally invalid, and he could take her back because she was still David's wife.
Gal_3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

 

[Quartus]

I think it is also very important to recognize that the English idea of putting away is seen in Scripture in two very different conditions. The first level of putting away involves only fellowship and intimacy. Provision and protection are still provided. The second and final level is what we would know as divorce papers. There's no coming back from this one unless the woman has been chaste. This being said, God is prophecied as taking back the adulterous woman that he has divorced. I'm not sure if this is advisable for us or is simply to showcase His glory

As this seems to be the only easy one, I'll start here! Individuals in the original nations were rejected permanently but the (literal) nation(s) will be grafted back in but be comprised of new individuals. Come to think of it, the nation "died" in AD70 Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. and was resurrected Ezek 37. I can't see anyone coming up with a convincing explanation that they were only doing the same thing!

 

[The Revolting Man]

She might have come in as an indentured servant, but as soon as he converted that into a wife she was then entitled to all the benefits pertaining to a wife. Though he had paid for her, as he would a wife, though perhaps not as much as he would have for a wife, if he elevated her to that position, and then didnt perform his side of the covenant, she was free without having to repay the original indenture or bride price.

Here's a good link to another thread addressing this passage
http://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/posts/145028/
Here's a well done video explaining this passage extremely well.
https://www.alephbeta.org/course/lecture/mishpatim-female-servitude-wait-what

I would worry about okaying a potentially adulterous union based on this. You're assuming this Law can be enlarged out to apply to regularly acquired wives, but the text does seem narrowly focused. I would want to see this backed up somewhere else.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@ZecAustin i agree. I believe the answer will be found in the abandonment/forsaking side of things. The problem is the lack of definitive scripture and cultural norms. If only we could time travel for about a week and interview Moses or Joshua. That would be a great interview for your channel! And clear up so much.

 

[andrew]

I'm currently trying to understand the issue of abandonment. During the time of Christ, from what I have read, some of the men would "put away" their wife for petty reasons so that they could afford a new one. However, this putting away was more abandonment than divorce. They would essentially cut off support, fellowship and protection without giving her divorce papers because to issue divorce papers meant that he could no longer utilize her dowry and had to send her out with it. She would become destitute and often would have to return to her fathers house just to survive. She could petition to the elders or judges for redress, but that would often drag on with no end in sight.

Bookmarking this as pertinent to my line of thought in the Authority, Submission, and Chain of Command thread....

 

[Mark C]

This actually fits better here -- after the split...

A woman for instance may have had a past relationship that was terminated by her drunken partner shouting "get out of the house b*tch" and throwing her out the door. She doesn't return, and a few years later wants to remarry. Does an angry expletive-ridden statement issued under the influence of alcohol (so possibly not carefully considered) constitute a legitimate divorce initiated by the husband, or does it not? Don't try to answer the question...

Well, there is an answer anyway, for the general case:

Deuteronomy 24:1, repeated in v 3, requires a written "sefer keritutah" (the word is only used 3 times in the TNKH) or 'writing of divorcement'. Without such, there is only a 'shalach', putting away. (And Yahushua, in Matthew 5:32 et al, makes it clear -- if the translators don't blow it -- that a woman WITHOUT the entire process still has a husband. "He causeth HER" to commit adultery is correct.

But the larger point is that the process that English speakers call "divorce" is NOT complete without the written evidence. (And, while the Almighty State is NOT an element of any Biblical marriage, it seems to me like the state's paperwork DOES at least meet that requirement. Not that they don't still have strings attached...)

Please consider the "elephant in the room" issue, which is why I answered a rhetorical question:

The Bible is clear that "everything" should be confirmed in the mouth of two (or more) witnesses. "How much more so," then, something that leads to Covenant? A woman who is not a virgin should have two witnesses for a potential husband/covering that she is able to be another man's wife. The written sefer keritutah is not only a second witness (to her) that she no longer "has a living husband" but also demonstrates (Numbers 30:15) that "he bears her guilt" for the prior broken vows.

 

[andrew]

Mark, thanks for double-posting this over here. It's a good discussion to have, but I was hoping to get the other thread back on track, and this is a good way to do both.

Quick comment in re Samuel's thoughts: Something that happens all the time is a second wife won't even get a "get out of here you whatever", she'll get something more like "well, it's not like we were ever really even married". Oral, not written. Just wanted to reinforce that this is real-life stuff, and not an academic discussion. When a guy brings a woman into his home under what then turn out to be (or get reinterpreted as) false pretenses, now what? If the guy is revealed to be a player and a manipulator who will never give a writing because it would contradict his justification for casually getting rid of the second, is the woman bound? (Looking forward to hearing more from VV76 on the issue of abandonment....)

A lot of these questions fall under the "bad cases make bad law" rule. Whatever makes sense scripturally re this common situation, it suggests that BF should be teaching that women should not settle for a casual, no-witnesses type marriage if they are going to become a plural wife. Food for thought....