A Time Limit On Divorce?

[CecilW]

Most of us who have been poring over the Pentateuch for God's rules on marriage are aware that there is a clause that if a woman makes a vow, when her husband hears of it, he has a 24-hour window in which to veto / over-ride / nullify it. After that, it is too late. It stands. Right? If anyone is unaware of this, say so, and I'll hunt up the reference.

Today, in counseling, I heard a man spouting that his wife had stepped out on him during a prolonged period of separation -- she had left him, but came back over a year later. They had resumed their relationship some time ago. Yet, whenever they got in a fight, he would bring this up and claim he had the right to divorce her.

What came spouting out of my big fat mouth, much to my own surprise, was that No he didn't! He was well past the 24-hour window, by any measure.

Had to stop & think about this. Fer sure, I have never heard the rule applied THIS way before, in books or from the pulpit or lectern!

But, I think it is right!

If a married woman has a sexual relationship with another man, she's created a tie with him. If she were a virgin, her papa could either over-ride or confirm it, right? It does logically follow that if she's married, when her husband hears of it, he can confirm it by divorcing her, OR (and this is God's preference in most cases) over-ride it by forgiving her and continuing their marriage.

But what if he continues the marriage, refusing to divorce her, but also refuses to forgive her?

Then, it would seem, he has allowed the entry of and aligned himself with the devil. For Rev 12:10 clearly identifies accusation as an attribute of his, whereas Jesus says, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

No, I'm not saying that we must "forgive and forget". The wise husband would seem likely to try to avoid putting his wife in a future situation where temptation would arise. But that is different than continually throwing it into her face and threatening her with divorce. On THAT score, his window of Scripturally authorized "opportunity" has passed.

Or has it? :?

 

[Paul not the apostle]

IF we are going to try to apply God's Law to this situation, we have to apply it to the ENTIRE situation. In God's law, an adulteress is stoned to death, so this entire argument is simply inapplicable. The woman has not so much made a tie with another man...she has more importantly BROKEN her tie with her husband and according to the Law is an adulteress.

Also...much misunderstood in scripture is the concept of the father overruling the marriage of his daughter when she has been taken by a man without her fathers consent. This is an incorrect assumption based on our english language. The verse does not say that the father has a right to nullify the marriage. The father doesn't have that right because it has gone too far and according to the LAW, the man that had sex with her has to pay the dowry and "he cannot put her away all his days because he has humbled her." which is the law in the previous passages.

The passage says that if the father refuses to "give" her to the man, that man still has to PAY for the woman he took. This is so no man can simply take a woman without permission and think that he can get out of paying the dowry for virgins. The passage is NOT saying that if the father refuses, that the man has to pay him and still does not get the woman he had sex with.

Man has sex with virgin without parental approval. The father knows this and refuses to "give", let the man get out of paying, his daughter to the man. The man now has to still pay the "price" for the woman. And if he can't he is in debt and is treated as a debtor to the man that he owes...according to the law.

Thus Yahweh solves everything, even the desires of passion. The woman thinks about if the man can afford her and it sobers her, the man thinks about being a "slave" to the girls father until he pays the debt.

Think that would help prevent unplanned sex between two emotionally charged people?

 

[Paul not the apostle]

If anyone thinks that I am wrong....

Having seen what was to be done where a man enticed a maid, and took actual possession of her against her father's consent; let us next see what was to be done when a man took a maid, without even the father's knowledge; not by a seduction or enticement, but on a sudden and unexpected interview, by meeting her without any previous intent.

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Now let us consider this passage and the passage from Exodus 22:16,17 which is referenced in the first post in this thread.

Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

In both cases, the father's consent precluded, meaning NOT acquired before the sex act. In both cases, the money that is assessed was to be paid to the father, in both cases his consent not given, and in both cases the father was not defrauded of the dowry. AND in both cases, the woman is the man's wife because he has humbled her and he cannot put her away all his days.

The desire of the father cannot negate the Law. He can simply give the woman or demand the dowry. He has no authority from God to negate what God has decreed.

 

[CecilW]

*grin* Good points, Paul. But that wasn't the passage I was referring to. It was:

When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the Lord will release her because her father has forbidden her.

If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the Lord will release her.

Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.

If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the Lord will release her. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he must bear the consequences of her wrongdoing.”

And it seems to me that it may well apply.

Your argument, Paul, that she should be stoned, is technically correct. That is apparently the verdict of justice.

However, God's EXAMPLE was that He forgave Israel over, and over, and over again, and that Jesus refused to pass a condemning judgment, even though she had been literally taken in adultery.

Seems like we guys should do likewise, and if so, then Numbers 30 applies to our decision. We've nullified her breaking of our covenant, and nullified whatever spiritual tie she has created with her adulterous partner.

We should then refuse to ponder it, or hold it against her, or bring it up again as a continued right for future divorce.

Of course, again following God's example, if it becomes a continuous pattern we may have to take action for the long term instruction of our own children or the safety of our health ...

 

[CecilW]

Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Actually, off the topic of this thread. But ...

It looks to me like it is saying that in this case, he pays the freight anyway, but does NOT get the girl. After all, Poppa can't advertise her to a future husband in such a way as to collect the dowry of virgins. So for him to NOT get paid would be to be defrauded. But it does not say that Poppa cannot refuse to give her to him ...

And if he cannot pay the freight, and is now a slave to Poppa, and still doesn't get the girl? Even more fearful of a situation!

Otherwise, any old guy can grab any young girl, and take her -- all he has to do is pay up. And God is forced to bless it! I don't think so! But that's my opinion & reading of the text.

But let's figure out how to move THIS discussion to a different thread.

 

[steve]

But what if he continues the marriage, refusing to divorce her, but also refuses to forgive her?

despite the good discussion, this is the only problem that I see.
if he is to be like Yeshua he must forgive and let it go, he is past the point of leaving the marriage over it.

it is akin to the "in the day that he heareth" rule in that he must decide which action to take when confronted with it; to forgive her or to split the marriage, but he cannot refuse to forgive her and still keep the marriage.

p.s. can you imagine the situation, back in the days when stoning was carried out, a man saying; "my wife committed adultery 16 years ago and I have now decided to stone her."?

 

[CecilW]

BINGO! Thx, Steve. That's what I was trying to get at in the OP.

 

[golden2seal]

Hello, Cecil, and gang, Your comming up with some good points, but You all missed it somewhat on this one. I think You'll find that once a woman has left her Husband and had sex with another man, her Husband is forbidden to take Her back, same as a divorced woman cannot go back to Her former Husband, even if Her second Husband divorces her. As far as the Stonning goes, The Scriptures plainly says The Man and Woman caught in the Act, gets stoned. The stonning don't apply to just the woman, without the man. Remember at the Well, When the men brought the woman before the Creator, trying to trip Him up. They said they had caught the woman in the very act. What did He do? He wrote in the sand. What did He write in the sand? He wrote," Where's the man", What could the accusers say? Nothing, they had their answer. They could do nothing to the woman for Adultry, without the man being stoned with Her. I'm sure You bible Schollars will remember teose passages.

Me

 

[CecilW]

Hello, Golden2Seal:

Thanks for joining and posting.

Yes, I do remember the points & scenarios you mention. But with apologies, please permit me to explain.

I think You'll find that once a woman has left her Husband and had sex with another man, her Husband is forbidden to take Her back, same as a divorced woman cannot go back to Her former Husband, even if Her second Husband divorces her.

You are certainly welcome to this opinion. But would you please support it with Scripture?

Deut 24:1-4 is specific to the situation where the man HAS divorced her. We're a bit before that, discussing the decision TO divorce her, and the limitations on when it can be brought into play vs. holding it over her head.

Remember that God's example towards Israel (and towards you and I) was a whole lot of forbearance before He finally concluded it was necessary to divorce her. And yes, Israel HAD committed repeated adulteries against Him.

As far as the Stonning goes, The Scriptures plainly says The Man and Woman caught in the Act, gets stoned. The stonning don't apply to just the woman, without the man.

True, as far as this goes.

Remember at the Well, When the men brought the woman before the Creator, trying to trip Him up. They said they had caught the woman in the very act. What did He do? He wrote in the sand.

With apologies, you seem to have gotten two stories mixed up. At the well, Jesus told a Samaritan woman that she'd had 5 husbands, and her current man wasn't even a husband. No condemnation, just a spotlight on this area of her life.

At another time, they brought the woman taken in adultery to trip him up. And yes, He wrote in the sand.

What did He write in the sand?

Dunno. Neither do you. It is not recorded. Anything we say is speculation. Although I agree that the law required both to be stoned.

However, what He SAID was, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Then wrote in the sand. Then looked up to find that the crowd of accusers had stolen away. From the context, it would seem that something He had written had caused each accuser to conclude that he didn't qualify. Perhaps their own sins? Also speculation. But whatever it was, it sent 'em packing!

Jesus, the one man who was sinless & qualified to throw stones, refused to do so, and sent her away with the kind admonition to "Stop doing dat!" May I speculate that He likely also gave her His cloak to cover her naked self with? It woulda been like Him.

You are welcome to conclude what you must, of course. And again I thank you for joining into the discussion. But for myself, learning to be a Christ-like husband, I see no compulsion to either stone or divorce a straying wife.

In Matt 9:13, Jesus tells us to "... go and learn what this means: 'I (YHWH) desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." ... I'm trying. As it relates to divorcing a straying spouse, I suggest that it encourages forgiveness rather than divorce.

But the point of this thread offers the refinement that the decision must be MADE within a short time, not held over the "sinner's" head for a prolonged period, holding them in a terrified limbo.

Interestingly, the passage Jesus quoted comes from Hosea (6:6), the story of the man God instructed to marry a prostitute, then take her back over and over as an illustration of His own dealing with adulterous Israel!

 

[captainjonathan]

I cannot find support for the supposition that we cannot take a woman back after having sex with another man. Didn't Abraham order Sarah to behave in a manner that lead to her having sex with another man? So he took her back and umm...

 

[CecilW]

Not quite, Jonathon. Abraham told her to behave in a way that would have led to her having sex with another man had not God intervened. But God did!

 

[FollowingHim]

Jonathan, check Genesis 20:6 and surrounding verses. The Bible states clearly that Abimalech never slept with Sarah, and in the earlier incident with Pharaoh never states she slept with him either.

The Biblical basis for not taking back a wife who sleeps with another is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In my reading of it this only applies to a properly divorced woman, not an adulteress, so this passage doesn't say you can't show mercy and take back an unfaithful wife. However some are applying it to the situation of adultery also (incorrectly in my opinion).

 

[captainjonathan]

I have read and studied it both ways, including from some scholars from Hebrew Union who helped translate the Dead Sea Scrolls.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 17522.html
I will drop that as it is obviously just another contentious point and pick up the one that should trump it.

Marriage is a representation of our relationship with God. God has routinely taken back his Bride the church after numerous affairs with um.....

and i agree with you followinghim

 

[Paul not the apostle]

I cannot find support for the supposition that we cannot take a woman back after having sex with another man. Didn't Abraham order Sarah to behave in a manner that lead to her having sex with another man? So he took her back and umm...

Where is it in scripture that says she had sex with another man?

 

[captainjonathan]

did you read the post above?

 

[FollowingHim]

The link in the other post cites extrabiblical Jewish writings to suggest Sarai skept with Pharaoh, but gives no Biblical evidence of it. Regardless, the situation is quite different to Deuteronomy 24, which is about divorce, so this is getting off topic. I suggest sticking with Jonathan's suggesrtion last month to drop that line of discussion, it's not going to shed much light on the original question of this thread whichever is correct.