Meat Polygynous culture is already here -- a perverse one.

[NationBuilder1]

The answer is self evident. The penalty for adultery is stoning. If what the woman did by marrying the second husband is adultery, then the answer is stoning, yet the Torah says she can be set free with, wait for it.. a certificate of divorce and being sent away. No stoning involved. ..

In fact, barely a chapter earlier in Deut. 22:22 it says,

22¶“If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.

IF the first marriage in Deut. 24:1 is not truly severed, then she is still married when she goes to the second marriage. Then, she and he, according to 22:22, should be killed. Why not? What makes this different? Did God, Moses, or both forget what they'd already written?

Clearly, the original marriage covenant has been severed.

Yeshua and God both have a bone to pick over this issue. But why?

Pay close attention to the elements in Deut. 24 and Jeremiah 3 v Malach 2 and the gospels, particularly Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Something is missing in all of the ones that anger the Most High. What is it?

I disagree with your conclusion, @PeteR.

You are failing to acknowledge that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 gives no permission for her to be remarried but merely explains he cannot take her back if she does.

You are also not dealing with Yahshua's plain words on this topic.

We will simply have to carry on in disagreement.

One thing is certain. I would not marry a divorced woman, and I would encourage all the men I know to consider them ineligible for marriage.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Au contraire. His Law defines Him. It defines righteousness. He cannot break HIS Law.

The reason Messiah had to die, according to Romans 7:1-3, is that HE, being the former husband, is NOT eligible to remarry her. Others would be as the Deut. 24:1-4 passage allows. The ONLY one barred from remarriage is the former husband. Therefore, the restriction of the original covenant had to be removed by one party dying and then being resurrected.

There is another explanation. Believers die to self and become new creatures in Messiah.

Along with the prophesies about calling His servants by a new name there is a passage that says he will slay them,..... and call His servants by a new name.

 

[LDremoved]

I disagree with your conclusion, @PeteR.

You are failing to acknowledge that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 gives no permission for her to be remarried but merely explains he cannot take her back if she does.

You are also not dealing with Yahshua's plain words on this topic.

We will simply have to carry on in disagreement.

One thing is certain. I would not marry a divorced woman, and I would encourage all the men I know to consider them ineligible for marriage.

Curious- if a husband was the one to initiate the divorce, what is a woman to do at that point?

 

[frederick]

One thing is certain. I would not marry a divorced woman, and I would encourage all the men I know to consider them ineligible for marriage.

You determining not to marry a divorced woman is your right, and no one should argue you cannot make such a determination for yourself. And most here would agree the current culture of serial monogamy with the resulting adultery is also sinful.

However, when an unbeliever leaves a believer let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases (1 Cor. 7:15). It's not appropriate you shackle others with your personal convictions when God doesn't place such constraints on abandoned believers. Look through the Bible and see; God doesn't punish the innocent.

 

[PeteR]

You are failing to acknowledge that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 gives no permission for her to be remarried but merely explains he cannot take her back if she does.

If remarrying constitutes adultery, as you claim, then Moses profoundly misunderstood what he was supposed to write in that passage or Yah/Yeshua couldn't remember the correct punishment. Now, you have to untangle His inconsistency.

 

[Mark C]

The only way you can side-step this simple command is to claim that it is a misinterpretation, that there is a difference between a woman who has been put away with a certificate of divorce and a woman who has been put away without one... [Aside: DUH!] ...And in either case, the woman is still put away -- with our [sic] without a certificate of divorce, she is still put away.

Logic obviously isn't a concern here. Let's try substitution, and see if any clarification of what should already be crystalline ensues:

The only way you can side-step this simple command is to claim that it is a misinterpretation, that there is a difference between a slave who has been put away with a certificate of emancipation* and a slave who has been put away without one. ...And in either case, the slave is still out there runnin' around -- with or without a certificate of emancipation, she is still a slave.

Ask either an 'aguna' in ancient Israel or an escaped slave in 1840 Alabama if they'd like to have "their papers, please." See if they see any difference.

This is NOT hard.

---------------------------------------


* Yes, it's called manumission generally, but I wouldn't expect those who don't know the difference between only 'putting away' and a fully completed process which includes the proof of that completion ['divorce'] to understand.

 

[Joleneakamama]

If remarrying constitutes adultery, as you claim, then Moses profoundly misunderstood what he was supposed to write in that passage or Yah/Yeshua couldn't remember the correct punishment. Now, you have to untangle His inconsistency.

What about the woman at the well too? Yeshua didn't tell her "You had one husband and have commited adultery with five men since," Yeshua said (in the English translation) "You have had five husbands and the man you have now is not your husband."

 

[ABlessedMan]

@NickF - The Hebrew word "halak" is a common word for "walking" or "going." When the verb is in its "perfect" tense with the appropriate vowel changes and suffix it indicates the number and gender and may be translated with simple past or past perfect. "She went or she has gone." However, here is the problem, if you affix a waw (usually translated "and") to the beginning of the word the meaning may reverse and function as a future tense. In some cases the waw may be marked with a vowel, but frequently it is not. So the sad news is that in the context of Deut 24:2 there is no way to actually tell if it is past tense or future. This unique feature of Hebrew is frequently called a "waw-consecutive." (Unironically, it also happens when a waw is attached to the imperfect (future tense) . . .thereby making it past (sometimes called a preterite)). The translation is typically determined by context (as mentioned by MarkC).
As to methodology, a thank you @The Revolting Man . There is still a great deal I'm working through with Torah and some strings hit pretty close to home. I appreciate understanding and courtesy as I try to work out areas where I may be unintentionally ignorant or disobedient.
My only contributions to the theological end of the conversation have to do with Hosea, son of Beeri and the woman caught in adultery (John 8). I think we can all agree that marrying Gomer was a bad idea from a human standpoint. I can only imagine how difficult the command was to obey in the first place and how gut wrenching and humiliating it was throughout. Yet, Hosea obeyed and provided a painful and poignant living analog of our unfaithfulness to the LORD and His tenderness and sacrifice on our behalf. Likewise, the example of the woman caught in adultery . . . is less about dogma and doctrine than about the nature of the LORD himself. . . I honestly don't know what that adds to the conversation as it has gone on so far . . . those were merely the passages that came to mind as I read the string. He is both LORD and Judge, and for that I am grateful. I like to think that most people on BF wouldn't lightly disobey the LORD and that is a comfort.

 

[PeteR]

Logic obviously isn't a concern here. Let's try substitution, and see if any clarification of what should already be crystalline ensues:

The only way you can side-step this simple command is to claim that it is a misinterpretation, that there is a difference between a slave who has been put away with a certificate of emancipation* and a slave who has been put away without one. ...And in either case, the slave is still out there runnin' around -- with or without a certificate of emancipation, she is still a slave.

Ask either an 'aguna' in ancient Israel or an escaped slave in 1840 Alabama if they'd like to have "their papers, please." See if they see any difference.

This is NOT hard.

---------------------------------------


* Yes, it's called manumission generally, but I wouldn't expect those who don't know the difference between only 'putting away' and a fully completed process which includes the proof of that completion ['divorce'] to understand.

Excellent explanation. I'll have to remember that.

It occurs to me that the certificate of divorce protects the ensuing husband from inadvertently committing divorce. Otherwise, no certificate, she could falsely claim she's been sent away and really put a man between a rock and a hard place.. I.e., this is important enough that a simple verbal is not enough. There must be written evidence of the severance.

 

[James Pease]

1. "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh"
(Gen 2:24). Yahshua elaborated, “So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what Elohim has joined together, let man not separate”
(Mat 19:6).

Hey brother been away from the forum for a few day but wanted to add 2 cents.

If sex= one flesh and one flesh= marriage, how does the woman not get stoned for becoming one flesh with two men in Deuteronomy 24? If the man has to die to break a one flesh bond, then Moses should've commanded the woman and the man to be stoned. Can a woman become another's while still married? Is that possible?

I learn best by creating a "real" life scenario and seeing how I can apply my understanding. I understand others much better by seeing how they will treat applying the law in real life.

Scenario 1: A probable scenario would be like this. A married woman has sex with another man thus commiting adultery. Do you say that she is now the adulterer's woman? Do you tell her to stay with the adulterer? Or tell her to go back and receive whatever penalty the owner of the woman would impress upon her. (Up to stoning by the law)

Scenario 2: A scenario similar. A married woman was given a certificate and sent away. She has sex with another man. Does she become one flesh with the new "husband"? Do you send her back to the first owner/ husband to receive the penalty of adultery?


If you don't send her back in scenario 2 here are a few questions I have:

What is the purpose of the certificate of divorce?
Does the first man still own her?
Does the second man own her?
Is the first man one flesh with her still?
Is the second man one flesh with her now?
Should all 3 parties be stoned based on Yeshua's teachings in Matthew, Mark, and Luke?
If you found someone in this scenario do you tell the woman to separate from her 2nd man, or tell the 2nd man to divorce her? Is it a valid marriage?

I confidently believe you would send the woman in scenario 1 back to her rightful owner.

Look forward to hearing your response.

 

[steve]

During OT times it was acceptable to send a rebellious wife back to her mother for retraining. The purpose being that she would receive instruction and then return with her mind right.
This would be an example of sending her away, but she is still his wife.
This was abused by men sending their wives away with no intention of taking them back, but without a writ of divorcement. Adultery would be the result of her becoming another man’s wife at that point.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Excellent explanation. I'll have to remember that.

It occurs to me that the certificate of divorce protects the ensuing husband from inadvertently committing divorce. Otherwise, no certificate, she could falsely claim she's been sent away and really put a man between a rock and a hard place.. I.e., this is important enough that a simple verbal is not enough. There must be written evidence of the severance.

It seems most of the laws around what we call marriage were about clarity and respect. Adultery would usually indicate a lack of respect. But it is very important to let your yes be yes, and your no be no, in the context of intimate relationships. I find the story interesting when Abraham lied to the king. That Sarah never spoke up, even though she was taken into his household and lived there for likely MONTHS! How long does it take for them to realize all the wombs were shut? I find it less interesting that Isaac also lied, and find I sympathize with the one lied to there, who asked for honesty and didn't get it.

He is both LORD and Judge, and for that I am grateful. I like to think that most people on BF wouldn't lightly disobey the LORD and that is a comfort.

It took a while for us to piece together details and then evaluate the nature of my sisterwife's past relationship. The word may be black and white, but figuring out how to apply it is complex. My husband had no desire to do wrong, and only wanted another if it was within YHWH's will.

I learn best by creating a "real" life scenario and seeing how I can apply my understanding. I understand others much better by seeing how they will treat applying the law in real life.

Excellent practice! I don't have to just imagine, I can remember a real situation in my family. A dear aunt of mine made a mistake and left her husband, and went and joined a fundy lds poly group/family when I was about 7. Her two children lived with us for 6 weeks so their dad could continue working. Her parents and the rest of the family all felt this was wrong (I use the mild word felt because I was 7 and they didn't really discuss it with us then. I just knew they were all on his side) after six weeks she came back to her husband. Because he did NOT divorce her, he was able to take her back. He did NOT have to let the disrespectful delusional man who stole his wife ruin her life and his family. She was repentant, he forgave her. She was deceived ....(wrong about what was right) and was never again unfaithful. She learned a big lesson about the protective nature of headship and submission. That was about 42 years ago. They spent those years together, ended up with nine children and are enjoying their grandchildren ...and now greatgrandchildren, together.
I was taught that in such cases stoning was a potential consequence, but that it took two witnesses and it was the injured party who had to throw the first stone. Forgiveness was a choice that could be made.
I think Ezekiel chapter 18 is very relevant to knowing YHWH's heart. He prefers mercy to sacrifice, repentance and life over death.....even as these verses show, with adultery.

 

[PeteR]

Indeed, stoning is the maximum penalty. Lesser penalties and forgiveness can be agreed to by the injured party. Such is the way the Messiah often deals with us.

 

[steve]

Part of me feels that the reason that it is verboten to take back a woman whom you have divorced and another man has divorced is to help a woman to realize that she cannot bounce back to the safety of her first husband if it doesn’t work out with #2.
If she was causing the problem that earned her a divorce in the first place, she could repent and, probably, be welcomed back into the fam. But if she remarried instead, she needed to know that she had absolutely burned that bridge and could never return.
It’s a hard truth in a culture that teaches forgiveness, but it’s essential to the preservation of the cultures morals.

Now that I have put this down in black and white, I’m pretty much convinced that this is the case.
We truly don’t need to understand Yah’s laws, we are only responsible for obedience. But it did grate on me that the law seemed unforgiving to a woman who made that level of mistake.

 

[Mark C]

It occurs to me that the certificate of divorce protects the ensuing husband from inadvertently committing divorce. Otherwise, no certificate, she could falsely claim she's been sent away and really put a man between a rock and a hard place.. I.e., this is important enough that a simple verbal is not enough. There must be written evidence of the severance.

Good point. The sefer keretutah protects the subsequent husband from being accused of adultery as well. (Except, as we have seen, by the 'unlearned and untaught.' )

But I have also observed for years (note: I don't claim this is YHVH's REASON for it, but that it is CONSISTENT with His Word...)
....that the sefer keretutah performs the function of the second witness.

(That might be clear from the above substitution example as well, but...)

A woman who has been PUT AWAY according to the Scripture-specified process AND is thus eligible for remarriage, but is observably no longer a virgin, has not only her only witness that she is available to be another man's isha, but ALSO the written witness of her now FORMER* husband.

As always, His Word is consistent, and provides protection for the woman as well.



--------------------------
* Note: This, too, is consistent with BOTH Romans 7:2 and 1 Co. 7:39 properly rendered. No woman is bound to her EX-husband, whether he lives or not.

 

[MemeFan]

What when improperly divorced women lies about her status before her marriage?

I don't consider him guilty if he couldn't know better.

 

[steve]

What when improperly divorced women lies about her status before her marriage?

I don't consider him guilty if he couldn't know better.

He would have some responsibility to be absolutely sure.
Ignorance is no justification.

 

[MemeFan]

He would have some responsibility to be absolutely sure.

What if he can't be? What if ex refuses to speak or can't be found. By the way, how much men will speak to suitors for his ex?

 

[steve]

What if he can't be? What if ex refuses to speak or can't be found. By the way, how much men will speak to suitors for his ex?

A bill of divorcement is a written document.
If she cannot produce it, it may be best to proceed as if it doesn’t exist.
There will be cases in which the ex does what Yeshua spoke of, but that is a horse of a different color.

 

[Maddog]

I would like to take a tangent tack on this topic of going back to Hubby #1 when #2 doesnt work out. Can we generally assume that those not calling themselves Yahweh followers had no such law and any relationship or marriage was legit? Secondly(and more to my real question), what is or could be the societal ramification of genetic strings i.e. woman with children from #1, then #2, then more from #1?
I like to understand the "why's" behind God rules. I will still obey our Father but it is nice to know the reasons.