Things in the Bible do appear complex until God's Spirit clarifies them. Then we find they are actually simple.
I hope you find the book answers your questions. Shalom.
I hope you find the book answers your questions. Shalom.
-
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.
Much of what passes for bible discussion is a clash of hermeneutics, and we're not going to converge on one answer here because we don't all share the same hermeneutic presumptions. That's okay as long as we understand what's going on.
Sometimes it seems like the only thing we all agree on here is the idea that a man can have more than one wife! But for the most part, fortunately, there's more to it than that, or else we wouldn't all stick around.
Re CAP's original question re divorce, I think we're all agreed that the biblical act/fact of divorce is a piece of paper in the nature of a quitclaim deed, where the husband relinquishes his claim so that she may go and be another man's wife. The only real reason for the piece of paper (at least that's given to us in writing (see what I did there?…)) is to free the woman to remarry.
That part gets pretty easily glossed over sometimes, so I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it as much as restore some balance by pointing out the obvious and reminding us that it's still there.
But that's it. The divorce is what happens when the guy writes out his quitclaim and hands it to the woman. Most of the practical complications arise from the interaction between the laws given to Moses and the laws of the secular government in the jurisdiction you live in, and how we work that out is going to be deeply personal.
Sometimes it seems like the only thing we all agree on here is the idea that a man can have more than one wife! But for the most part, fortunately, there's more to it than that, or else we wouldn't all stick around.
Re CAP's original question re divorce, I think we're all agreed that the biblical act/fact of divorce is a piece of paper in the nature of a quitclaim deed, where the husband relinquishes his claim so that she may go and be another man's wife. The only real reason for the piece of paper (at least that's given to us in writing (see what I did there?…)) is to free the woman to remarry.
That part gets pretty easily glossed over sometimes, so I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it as much as restore some balance by pointing out the obvious and reminding us that it's still there.
But that's it. The divorce is what happens when the guy writes out his quitclaim and hands it to the woman. Most of the practical complications arise from the interaction between the laws given to Moses and the laws of the secular government in the jurisdiction you live in, and how we work that out is going to be deeply personal.
Why is Divorce so easy in the Bible?
I'm just going to be flippant and say "Because of the hardness of our hearts". I mean, you can delve deeper and look for the symbology of it all... but to my mind any answers you're going to find aren't going to be any more profound than the answer that came straight from the lips of Jesus. It is made easy because mortal, unregenerate man could not contain or develop the kind of love and patience that it would take to have actual unconditional love for a wife in whom uncleanness is found.
Then comes the question, does only the man have that right? What if, Exodus 21:10
“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” is not honored by the husband. What can the wife do about it?
Noooothing? And as for why he has that right, well if men and women are pictures of Christ and the Church (as I believe we are told that they are in Eph. 5) then He certainly has the right to put away the Church (although He never would), but the Church has no such authority. If the Church believed that Christ is treating them unfairly (as certain saints who doubled as lion chow may have briefly considered), should there be any recourse for them? Of course not. To suffer for Christ is our glory (as certain saints who doubled as lion chow actually testified). Therefore I hold that as far ads the Law goes, the greater Truth behind the entire picture is what gives the picture it's details.
And if she does get a divorce granted, is she forever bound to have to live by the lack the law was established to prevent?
So therefore my answer to this question is to deny the assertion that the primary reason this Law was established was the welfare of individual women (le gasp!). If I want to be consistent, then the reason this Law was established is to assure us that God's Covenant with Israel remains intact even though he has taken on the gentile bride of the Church; or perhaps more closely: That Jesus will provide for Laodicea that which is her portion, even though Smyrna clearly needs it much more. But I might be talking out of school...
If one doesn't take my view of things, then I'll re-address the question
And if she does get a divorce granted, is she forever bound to have to live by the lack the law was established to prevent?
That's one "if" too many IMO. There is no provision in the law for a woman to ask for a divorce for any reason. Deut. 4:2 prevents us from making any other law than that which we are given. Deut 24:1 tells us when a man may issue a certificate of divorce and "at her request" is not it. Therefore a woman who believes her husband is acting unlawfully who asks for a divorce is asking him to do something unlawful. Blaming any part of the fallout of that on the law that is being totally disregarded is unworkable. Were I to give legal advice to a Jewess of the congregation whose husband has recently married and decreased the portion of his first wife I would say:
"Tell your husband his fault and see if he will hear you. If he not, then go to thy father and tell him of your situation. Thy father should then bring your case before a judge and plead your case against your husband. The judge who feareth God will see the wickedness done in Israel and make your husband to lie down in his presence to be beaten with a number of stripes according to his guilt. Then your husband shall increase your portion, and all shall be well. Or, your husband will find you displeasing for having him beaten in public and issue you a divorce, in which case you may remarry and all shall be well. Or your husband will be wroth with you and send you away without issuing you a divorce paper, in which case your father may bring your husband before a judge and have him beaten a second time, and on and on until the matter is resolved, and all shall be well. Or your husband will kill you, and the congregation will hear of it and stone him to death, and all shall be well."
I mean none of this pertains to righteousness or a happy home, but whatevs, if we were after that we wouldn't be in the law at all...
I'm just going to be flippant and say "Because of the hardness of our hearts". I mean, you can delve deeper and look for the symbology of it all... but to my mind any answers you're going to find aren't going to be any more profound than the answer that came straight from the lips of Jesus. It is made easy because mortal, unregenerate man could not contain or develop the kind of love and patience that it would take to have actual unconditional love for a wife in whom uncleanness is found.
Then comes the question, does only the man have that right? What if, Exodus 21:10
“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” is not honored by the husband. What can the wife do about it?
Noooothing? And as for why he has that right, well if men and women are pictures of Christ and the Church (as I believe we are told that they are in Eph. 5) then He certainly has the right to put away the Church (although He never would), but the Church has no such authority. If the Church believed that Christ is treating them unfairly (as certain saints who doubled as lion chow may have briefly considered), should there be any recourse for them? Of course not. To suffer for Christ is our glory (as certain saints who doubled as lion chow actually testified). Therefore I hold that as far ads the Law goes, the greater Truth behind the entire picture is what gives the picture it's details.
And if she does get a divorce granted, is she forever bound to have to live by the lack the law was established to prevent?
So therefore my answer to this question is to deny the assertion that the primary reason this Law was established was the welfare of individual women (le gasp!). If I want to be consistent, then the reason this Law was established is to assure us that God's Covenant with Israel remains intact even though he has taken on the gentile bride of the Church; or perhaps more closely: That Jesus will provide for Laodicea that which is her portion, even though Smyrna clearly needs it much more. But I might be talking out of school...
If one doesn't take my view of things, then I'll re-address the question
And if she does get a divorce granted, is she forever bound to have to live by the lack the law was established to prevent?
That's one "if" too many IMO. There is no provision in the law for a woman to ask for a divorce for any reason. Deut. 4:2 prevents us from making any other law than that which we are given. Deut 24:1 tells us when a man may issue a certificate of divorce and "at her request" is not it. Therefore a woman who believes her husband is acting unlawfully who asks for a divorce is asking him to do something unlawful. Blaming any part of the fallout of that on the law that is being totally disregarded is unworkable. Were I to give legal advice to a Jewess of the congregation whose husband has recently married and decreased the portion of his first wife I would say:
"Tell your husband his fault and see if he will hear you. If he not, then go to thy father and tell him of your situation. Thy father should then bring your case before a judge and plead your case against your husband. The judge who feareth God will see the wickedness done in Israel and make your husband to lie down in his presence to be beaten with a number of stripes according to his guilt. Then your husband shall increase your portion, and all shall be well. Or, your husband will find you displeasing for having him beaten in public and issue you a divorce, in which case you may remarry and all shall be well. Or your husband will be wroth with you and send you away without issuing you a divorce paper, in which case your father may bring your husband before a judge and have him beaten a second time, and on and on until the matter is resolved, and all shall be well. Or your husband will kill you, and the congregation will hear of it and stone him to death, and all shall be well."
I mean none of this pertains to righteousness or a happy home, but whatevs, if we were after that we wouldn't be in the law at all...
@Slumberfreeze , by the fourth "...and all shall be well", I was laughing out loud.
HAHA! Fantastic.
Thank you! I'll be here all week! Be sure to tip your waitress!
OMG! I love this post. I'm jumping on the couch and Moriah is looking at me like Oprah looked at Tom Cruise. Fantastico!
LOL I'm so glad!
Slumber's post raises an interesting point that he probably didn't intend.
Maybe the reason "divorce is so easy in the bible" is simply because the actual fact of deciding you don't want your wife anymore, whatever the drama experienced in the runup or the aftermath, can be summarized in one sentence, written down so that it is permanent evidence, not subject to reconsideration on a whim.
The only thing I see in the writ of divorce passage (Dt 24) is a requirement that the man reduce his decision to a writing and give it to the woman, which is her permission to go be remarried (and by giving her the writing, he forecloses the possibility that he would deny it later, or say he was misunderstood, or even change is mind and claim her back having sent her away (before or after she married someone else).
There's nothing in that passage on its own that speaks to the rightness or wrongness of such a decision, and whether the woman would have any right of redress. In fact, the whole issue of "what to do when people don't do what they're supposed to do" is a question for the judges. That would handle whether a man had rightly or wrongly put away his wife, as well as whether the wife had any rights outside of what's written.
<If anyone needs an explanation of the difference in Anglo law between "law" and "equity", let me know.>
I'd be interested in hearing from @IshChayil here. IC, what do the rabbis say about equitable issues in marriage? Surely there has been discussion over the past few thousand years re how to handle abusive situations. Otherwise, Slumber's whole parody there is sort of funny but essentially pointless.
Maybe the reason "divorce is so easy in the bible" is simply because the actual fact of deciding you don't want your wife anymore, whatever the drama experienced in the runup or the aftermath, can be summarized in one sentence, written down so that it is permanent evidence, not subject to reconsideration on a whim.
The only thing I see in the writ of divorce passage (Dt 24) is a requirement that the man reduce his decision to a writing and give it to the woman, which is her permission to go be remarried (and by giving her the writing, he forecloses the possibility that he would deny it later, or say he was misunderstood, or even change is mind and claim her back having sent her away (before or after she married someone else).
There's nothing in that passage on its own that speaks to the rightness or wrongness of such a decision, and whether the woman would have any right of redress. In fact, the whole issue of "what to do when people don't do what they're supposed to do" is a question for the judges. That would handle whether a man had rightly or wrongly put away his wife, as well as whether the wife had any rights outside of what's written.
<If anyone needs an explanation of the difference in Anglo law between "law" and "equity", let me know.>
I'd be interested in hearing from @IshChayil here. IC, what do the rabbis say about equitable issues in marriage? Surely there has been discussion over the past few thousand years re how to handle abusive situations. Otherwise, Slumber's whole parody there is sort of funny but essentially pointless.
IC, I have no Hebrew game, but the AV says "when she is departed out of his house, she may go be another man's wife". I'd be interested in your elaboration on the "she may go" part, if there's anything other than the plain meaning of the English for us to know about.
I'd also be interested in the "let him write" part of "let him write her a bill of divorcement". Anything we need to know?
[Bookmark: In whose eyes? In his eyes, because he has found.]
I'd also be interested in the "let him write" part of "let him write her a bill of divorcement". Anything we need to know?
[Bookmark: In whose eyes? In his eyes, because he has found.]
Until IC comes with something more authoritative, Rabbi Google informs me that in the 12th Century, Maimonides taught that men refusing to issue a get in certain cases should be whipped without mercy until they they write one. (A tradition that has seen modern use)
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-is-it-right-to-beat-a-man-into-giving-divorce-1.5348577
Whereas another 12 century mucky-muck, one Rabbeinu Tam, though it would be better to shun the beMoses out of him until he grants the divorce. (A tradition that has actually been upheld by the Rabbinical Supreme court)
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...shame-husband-into-granting-divorce-1.5408147
Just for fun.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-court-they-were-just-practicing-their-faith/
To anybody who doesn’t care to follow the link, it is about forcibly achieving a “get” from an obstinate husband.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-court-they-were-just-practicing-their-faith/
To anybody who doesn’t care to follow the link, it is about forcibly achieving a “get” from an obstinate husband.
Ok, so I'd still like to hear from IC, but what we have so far looks like the Hebrews understood the difference between law and equity. From Deuteronomy, it is clear that the husband alone decides whether his wife has found his favor or not. However, the elders or rabbis had ways of getting a husband to come around….
When law enforcement raided the area, they found the men with "rope, surgical blades, a screwdriver, plastic bags, and items used to ceremonially record the get." Some of the men were wearing masks and bandannas over their faces. One wore a garbage bag over this clothes, another a Metallica T-shirt.
It's not just an issue of writing on paper. This is why the "ketubah" marriage contract in biblical tradition is important. This specifies what the wife is entitled to in the case of a divorce initiated by the man. Since a big part of marriage was/is economic support, this is one wrong that was "righted" in the Ketubah.
This is also why virgins receive more in their ketubah than non-virgins. You can't get virginity back so the chances of finding a high caliber mate went down dramatically if the virginity was gone so virgins get more in their ketubot. It's not just a piece of paper as you indicate; this position is ignorant of the traditions (I don't mean that insultingly).
If you read on, the torah answers your question. It indicates that if the husband is negligent in these requirements the first (and by extension others in line before a new one is added)
then the 1st/previous wife is allowed to go out. So she doesn't require his permission to leave. This sort of dispute would be handled traditionally by a beit din (court of 3 judges) to determine if the woman's claims are true (reduction in marital relations, clothing, food, etc.) So she has recourse, she can leave.
Granted the example given in the verse you mentioned is for a slave girl who was sold into marriage so she goes out with nothing (her ketubah was prepaid so to speak), but we can extend this to women who were wives who were not slaves via kol v'chomer principle (light and heavy ... as Paul says "if such and such is true then how much more so such and such".
This is hashed out elsewhere in the forums and there was general agreement that if a slave elevated to wife had such rights then a normal wife certainly did too.
The answer that plenty of guys won't like is that if he divorces his wife, he's gotta pay alimony unless she betrayed the covenant and of course Yeshua makes this much more stringent (discussed elsewhere on this site, how difficult divorce actually is now biblicaly).
This seems like an inappropriate public question to ask here. If you want to ask Sam in private such a thing please us Private Messaging.
If someone is or is not divorced does not affect the biblical interpretation anyway so I don't see how such information can help your quest for understanding of the application of the text.
Just in case folks don't know this, as beautiful as the "woman caught in adultery" story is, this story is marked as "unreliable" in the critical apparatus of the Greek text.
It simply did not exist in the oldest manuscripts.
Seems to me some hypergrace monk wanted a clear cut "the law is dead" story so he drafted an impossible scenario of Yeshua behaving unjustly.
I think it is quite clear Yeshua would *not* have let the adulteress go free... this is not justice to her husband.
The story is contrived in my opinion and without it we have a much better balance of Torah vs. Grace presented in the gospels.
It's a beautiful story, but I think that's all it is... a story.
Before we agree "Grace trumps Law" let's remember the "esheyt chayil" woman of valor in Proverbs, it says concerning her "torat chesed al leshonaH"
the LAW of GRACE is on her lips... the battle between Torah Law and Grace is often imagined.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
The worst marriage counselors are ones who have never been married. My original question is based on trying to find practicality in today's world. I have been divorced, and believe others who have been would benefit from views held by others with the same experience.
In any event, I look forward to reviewing the information you have provided. I do see valuable information in regards to the Word and your interpretation.
Gotcha.
The verse you quote is very interesting though and I owe the modicum of forward progress in my own plural marriage to this command.
The verse reveals that we are NOT to treat our wives equally as muslims teach but that the order in which they are married is to guarantee them time, things, etc. which can not be reduced when we add others. I think for the younger guys who are as of yet unmarried who wish to have a plural marriage; they would do well to consider this verse and "hold something back" from their future first wives so that they will not have to break this commandment in the future when they add a second, third, etc.
The ideal model IMHO is when the earlier wives out of love for their sister wives voluntarily give up some of what they have (time, things, etc) for the newer wife/wives.
The point is that it is THEIRS to give.
Great advise. Do you have examples of what they have that they would voluntarily give?