I am being very lazy and negligent in not looking this up myself but I'm at work on a break, isn't there a verse that says if a man puts his woman away unlawfully and she goes on to remarry that the sin falls back on the first husband?
-
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.
Divorced: Abandoned, Put Away or Kicked to the Curb
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
- Status
Been there, done that... 
Numbers 30, vows: "He bears her guilt" for breaking the vow (marriage, as described in Deut. 24:1, 3) anyway.
Matthew 5:32, correctly translated: (There are a LOT of REALLY bad ones out there, including the KJV.)
A woman who is ALREADY an adulteress can be "sent away" (shalach). What the verse says, correctly rendered, is utterly consistent. In THAT case, she's already an adulteress, and giving her a 'get' (sefer keritutah, as in Isaiah 50) is an act of mercy. But if he merely "puts her away" and does NOT give her a get, what does the man who does that to his wife expect? What was she to do?
He "causes her" to commit adultery. And again he bears her guilt.
(And the midrash from Paul in I Cor. 7 -- esp. v 10-11 - explains this nicely. The woman is "not to depart" from her husband. But if she does [no sefer keritutah] she must remain unmarried. Otherwise, she commits adultery.)
Bottom line: Men are supposed to take responsibility.
Here's one of several articles on my own site:
Marriage, Divorce, Vows, Authority
Numbers 30, vows: "He bears her guilt" for breaking the vow (marriage, as described in Deut. 24:1, 3) anyway.
Matthew 5:32, correctly translated: (There are a LOT of REALLY bad ones out there, including the KJV.)
A woman who is ALREADY an adulteress can be "sent away" (shalach). What the verse says, correctly rendered, is utterly consistent. In THAT case, she's already an adulteress, and giving her a 'get' (sefer keritutah, as in Isaiah 50) is an act of mercy. But if he merely "puts her away" and does NOT give her a get, what does the man who does that to his wife expect? What was she to do?
He "causes her" to commit adultery. And again he bears her guilt.
(And the midrash from Paul in I Cor. 7 -- esp. v 10-11 - explains this nicely. The woman is "not to depart" from her husband. But if she does [no sefer keritutah] she must remain unmarried. Otherwise, she commits adultery.)
Bottom line: Men are supposed to take responsibility.
Here's one of several articles on my own site:
Marriage, Divorce, Vows, Authority
Last edited:
I tend to agree with you Andrew on the bad cases issue. Some of this question goes back to what makes a marriage. Not wanting to debate it in this thread please, but I tend to fall under the marriage can be by consummation, but I would have to have a witnessed covenant before consummation.
I tend to agree with Samuel that written requires written and oral requires oral. Too many guys seducing and booting.
Ladies, hold out for the witnesses. When or if he tries to give the boot, it will be a lot harder for him to justify it unless it's warranted.
I tend to agree with Samuel that written requires written and oral requires oral. Too many guys seducing and booting.
Ladies, hold out for the witnesses. When or if he tries to give the boot, it will be a lot harder for him to justify it unless it's warranted.
I would ask if she was ever bound or just seduced?
The woman who is put away without a get is still eligible for support just not intimacy. No support equals abandonment. Abandonment equals broken covenant on his part.
Yeah, that's the crux of it. My concern is that if we allow the guy to flip-flop but hold the girl to her vow, that's rewarding injustice and punishing naiveté. But depending on how you parse the "what constitutes a valid marriage?" and "what constitutes a valid divorce?" questions....
That gets you back to "what constitutes a marriage"?
Seduced or not, if you view sex=marriage, does it matter?
...which equals freedom on her part?
No, it wouldn't, if sex is all that matters. I don't view it that way.
My concern here is the grey area. I'm aware of a few guys who have had enough short-term second "wives" to raise an eyebrow. I know of a coupla others who have used a "you're not really my wife" tactic maliciously as a control thing. If the guy said originally she was coming in as a wife, then says she's not a wife, he might have been lying to her, or he might have been lying to himself, or he wasn't really "lying" to anyone as much as he was of such weak character that he just can't handle the situation and bails (blaming the woman, of course). Some of those situations present as a case where the woman is 'put away but not divorced', and ineligible for remarriage. Some present as a kind of Samuel-esque "oral marriage commitment, oral divorce" situation. But for some of these it's that the man is denying his original intent and repudiating the marriage. I don't want to let him get away with that, but I don't want to punish the woman for it while he's off scot free. Make sense?
Perfect sense to me, but I'm not someone who automatically views sex=marriage. If she was duped, then she was entangled in something under false pretenses.
For my Torah experts, aren't there prerequisites in laws about contracts/covenants needing to be "in the sunshine"?
Isn't it kind of like having weights and measure being equal and not shortchanged?
I would follow "spirit" of the law for these young ladies duped into the false marriage regardless of fluids exchanged. It's tantamount to rape if you ask me.
Seems like it from Exodus 21:10&11. If he doesn't fulfill his part of the covenant she's free to go out.
If on the other hand, he has simply put her away or they have come apart for a season, for cause, and he's continued provision and protection, she should not be seeking another but should be seeking restoration.
There's another situation that deserves mention with this topic as it relates to the witnesses. As part of the wedding ceremony the bride would be "caught away" and lifted up on the way to his fathers house. When they arrived at the house, the wedding party would all be given wedding garments to wear for the next seven days but they were only given at the front door. The bride and groom would be crowned and then they'd retire to the inner chamber for the next seven days. The friend of the groom would stand watch at the door and upon consummation the bloody linens would be handed out to him and then given to the father of the bride as proof of virginity. (Two witnesses). If the groom ever attempted to divorce her without cause after that, by saying she wasn't pure at consummation, (or if he attempted to try her for adultery and it proved not to be true) the father would present those linens to the elders and he would then be forbidden to ever divorce her for any cause. After the seven days were over, the bride would be presented on the eighth day and unveiled to the guests.
The moral of the story is to have witnesses to your covenant. Though not foolproof, it does give a greater level of security and accountability for all parties.
Last edited:
Is the “1 Cor” ref 7:12-15? ~If so, this is to “the rest”, and every one of those verses specifically involves unbelievers, but excludes those already mentioned vv1-11 husbands, wives, the unmarried, widows and the married, so I consider vv 1-11 refer to believers and understand vv10-11 apply to sisters who had been married after becoming sisters, either by subsequently contracting marriage or consenting to continue (ratifying) a marriage prior to baptism.
With regard to the rest then, if the unbelieving husband objects to the sister accepting Christ (at the time she comes to the truth) and will not live peaceably, then that marriage can be considered void, and the new sister comes (scripturally) single not divorced (and if single NEVER lives with her unbelieving husband after baptism and so has departed from him prior to baptism), and can therefore marry without considerations of divorce and remarriage being relevant (after the state has finished tidying up anything the state has not previously finished tidying up). But none of that affects my position on Romans 7:2-3.
Regarding Romans 7:2-3, I am really struggling see how these verses are at all useful in the context of Paul’s wider argument (Rom 6-8) if it only needs a piece of paper to completely negate his point. These are just two verses in the middle of a section that exceeds two chapters, starting in ch 6:1 (if not before) and continuing to 8:13 (if not after). Within that section, (excluding our two verses in the middle), “dead” occurs 14 times and “death” also occurs another 14 times. 8:13 contains a final reference to “die”.
We know from Luke 20 etc that when Christ argued no one could answer him a word. Why then should the same Spirit through the inspired apostle completely negate a carefully laid argument with over 29 references to mortality and important lessons drawn from them, by introducing a spurious reference to a married woman if Paul’s whole argument can be negated by a single piece of paper?
Taking Romans chapters 6-8 as a whole then, was it necessary for Christ to die, or not? The temptation, calling Peter “satan”, the great drops of blood in the garden, the twelve legions of angels on standby but not called, not to mention the suffering of scourging and the crucifixion - many valid examples are ignored and instead the argument is devalued by an unnecessary reference to the a divorced woman… UNLESS… there are in fact no exceptions and only the death of the first husband could free her to marry, and therefore 7:2-3 illustrates precisely that marriage divorce and remarriage which is natural has an exact spiritual counterpart with what Paul is expounding: the natural man must actually first be put to death by symbolic immersion in baptism (v1) before (v4) the spiritual symbolic resurrection (coming out of the water of baptism) gives freedom for the new spiritual man to enter marriage with Christ.
So I’m sorry, but I still think the law is simply that a woman married as a believer cannot remarry unless the first husband is actually dead and buried, and the piece of paper cannot be more than the evidence in writing of the state of a woman who is still bound by that same law.
You way overcomplicated that brother.
Well agreed, but 1Cor7 was part of the question addressed to me...
The real point at issue is whether anyone can read Rom chapters 6-8 and then tell me that 7:2-3 is in the right place if acceptable remarriage of a believing woman does not actually require the death and burial of the woman's husband?
The real point at issue is whether anyone can read Rom chapters 6-8 and then tell me that 7:2-3 is in the right place if acceptable remarriage of a believing woman does not actually require the death and burial of the woman's husband?
Last edited:
So the piece of paper (writing of divorcement) that in the codified Law (Deut.24) gave the woman her freedom to leave and marry, is in this passage just evidence that she isn't free? Or the passage in Ex.21 dealing with abandonment stating that she is free to leave without cost?
As I understand it, the writing of divorcement makes her "dead to the law of the covenant" in the same manner that the death of her husband would in Rom.7:4. You cant separate the conversation in Romans 7 from the caveats written in the Law because this portion is specifically written to those who know the Law, thus Paul is using an example of a woman who has not been freed from her husband by a writing of divorcement, but has perhaps been put away for purposes of reconciliation (or not) and she has left that protected & provided state and slept with another or is now cohabiting with another and is guilty of breaking covenant.
It would be great (for us men) to have this position that no matter what we do, our wives would never be able to justifiably leave us, or if they left us, that they must then remain celibate or be in danger of hell fire. With Christ, this is a valid picture, but only because he is the perfect husband. Who could bring charges against Him of abandonment or lack of provision or protection or intimacy or guidance? Can we say the same of ourselves? If not, how unjust is it to bind a woman to someone not like Christ? How pathetic to generate this condition wherein they are never allowed to leave and be fruitful, rather than creating the best garden possible and the best conditions possible so that they may be fruitful in your garden rather than another's.
I submit that a woman who is husbanded as Christ does, will be so satisfied with her status and position and relationship, that you could give her the keys to the door and instead of using those keys to leave, she will become the porter of John 10 that opens and guards the door for the Good Shepherd. She will also be able to withstand the outer pressures, temptations, and trials, as well as the tests, and trials that her good shepherd introduces to her for growth and maturity.
Show me a husband like Christ, and I'll be the first to say that if she leaves, she is not free to remarry. But first, show me the husband.
I read Deut 24 as a series of "ifs": if v1 and if v2 and if v3 then v4 her first husband shall not take her again to be his wife. Yes it contains the mechanics of the divorce but the writing of divorcement is not what Paul refers to in Rom 7:2-3. He refers to the death of the first husband which is precisely what he needs to refer to in order to substantiate his wider argument.
Therefore I think that Rom 7:2-3 is Paul's commentary on Deut 24:1, and he is saying the death of the first husband is actually required, not the writing of divorcement in order for the woman to be free to remarry.
Yes of course, what man of us can live up to the example of Christ? The eye-witness disciples thought it better not to try (Matt 19:10). But if we are not responsible to our wives, we will be responsible to our Head at the judgment, and so the disciples got it exactly right. We are not to put away our wives or else we ourselves may be deserve to be sent away at the judgment Mat_7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.
Therefore I think that Rom 7:2-3 is Paul's commentary on Deut 24:1, and he is saying the death of the first husband is actually required, not the writing of divorcement in order for the woman to be free to remarry.
Yes of course, what man of us can live up to the example of Christ? The eye-witness disciples thought it better not to try (Matt 19:10). But if we are not responsible to our wives, we will be responsible to our Head at the judgment, and so the disciples got it exactly right. We are not to put away our wives or else we ourselves may be deserve to be sent away at the judgment Mat_7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.
Both letters must be understood as 'midrash' -- Paul's (excellent) exposition of the consequences of the commandments, primarily, when it comes to "putting away" and whether or NOT it amounts to "divorce," that of Deuteronomy 24:1, repeated almost word-for-word, to make the point about the process, in verse 3.
A woman who does NOT have a 'sefer keritutath' (certificate of divorce) or witness from her FORMER living husband, and whose husband is not "dead and buried", simply HAS a "living husband." Ergo, she "is not to depart," and if she sleeps with another man, it's adultery.
(Aside: Paul's midrash there is interesting, and virtually unique in Scripture. Virtually NOWHERE else does YHVH say, "don't do this, but IF..." unless He is talking about consequences, like death. And yet Shaul says, "the isha is NOT to depart! But IF she does..."
...as if he understood what we have all seen. She IS, however, clearly still NOT 'free to remarry'. She HAS a living husband.)
Exodus 21:10, of course, is a somewhat special case. It deals with a woman who is a maidservant, and 'not free'. The point of the verse is that she is to be TREATED with the respect that YHVH requires, and if not (not given those three "necessary conditions" -- she does NOT owe the 'qesef' (silver) that put her in such debt to begin with. The general "Hebraic understanding" of the 'light and the heavy' thus becomes the minimum necessary conditions for ANY marriage:
If THIS for a 'concubine' -- the HOW MUCH MORE SO for a wife who is a voluntary Covenant partner?
But the larger point remains Numbers 30 as well, and authority over vows. Remember this, in the equally "general case":
"He bears her guilt."
Oh - and I guess this overlapped:
Sorry, but I VERY much disagree. That claim requires Paul to be "a liar, and the truth is not in him." He is re-writing the Torah, "adding to," and "subtracting from," as well. Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is very clear, and he certainly knew better.
Death is one condition which qualifies.
Sorry, but I VERY much disagree. That claim requires Paul to be "a liar, and the truth is not in him." He is re-writing the Torah, "adding to," and "subtracting from," as well. Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is very clear, and he certainly knew better.
Death is one condition which qualifies.
Yes yes yes yes yes! If we make every word of Scripture important, every caveat, every definition, exception and addendum, and make it all reconcile; almost every question becomes easily answerable. It's when we decide that the details don't matter that we start getting in trouble.
There are several threads within this thread and I am going to jump back to the question of support/abandonment for a qualification.
If a woman physically leaves a man that she has legitimately married (in YHWH's eyes) over disagreement with how he is operating in his role as husband (no accusation of specific sin), can she claim abandonment due to the fact that he curtailed his financial support after she moved out?
- Status