-
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.
David and Bathsheba?
- Thread starter Aussies
- Start date
I understand this to be referring to a woman who has left her husband. I am willing to be dissuaded of that but it's what makes sense in comparison to everything else. If I'm right then it fits perfectly with mark 10:12.
You're thinking too big. I was referring to salvation on an individual level, anything an individual does before they experience salvation and redemption has no bearing on that individual after salvation. This is a principle not an imperative but I think it can be strongly supported. A woman who left a husband before she came in to the faith would not be bound by that in my opinion.
You are conflating two very separate issues:
- The opinion that a wife cannot initiate divorce. That is what @rockfox was discussing, it is one of the central themes of this discussion, and is a "reasonable" opinion to hold, because a plain reading of certain scriptures appears to state this. This suggestion has not upset any women in this thread.
- The suggestion that a woman divorced by her husband can never remarry. That is what caused one individual to be upset a few posts ago. That is a minority opinion here, as even @ZecAustin (the most vocal proponent of point 1) has clearly stated that a rightfully divorced woman can remarry.
We choose our friends but don't get to choose our brothers. I don't avoid any of you men, better to interact until we can see past whatever surface irritations may exist and come to appreciate the value that God places in each of us.
I’m saying that a woman under the right circumstances was allowed to initiate and receive a divorce. The interesting thing that I found in the BT is that even if she initiated it, and the judges approved it, the man always was the one to issue the ‘get’. He could either do it willingly, or they would sentence him to be publicly beaten until he issued it willingly.
So yes, I agree that a writing of divorce always would be written by the husband (if that’s what you were referring too) but there were several reasons that the woman could initiate the proceedings. She could of course not write or issue the ‘get’.
So for clarification, on a theoretical level and for the purposes of theological correctness; a woman can never free herself of her one flesh relationship. BUT if a husband relents and grants a woman a divorce it's still valid even if she's the one who wanted it and even if she acted positively to achieve it. I don't disagree with that. The authority flows from the man. Whatever his reasons (I hesitate to say that physical coercion leaves the woman or who new man with a clear conscience) he can't blame his actions on the woman. If he gave her a get then I agree that she is free to remarry.
C
Cap
Guest
Please avoid me and I will avoid you. There is more than surface irritation. I'm asking, please.
Is there anything in the OT scriptures to corroborate this? Or is it simply a Talmudic interpretation?
In Matthew it says a MAN can only divorce if porneia happens. It is silent about women.
I see your point and I'm not arguing against it but could a married woman engage in porneia, acts such as incest, prostitution, acts of immorality sexual relations with out without it being adultery. Another usage of porneia is for idolatry, which is a form of Adultery. The Septuagint use of porneia and drawing the connection to idolatry and adultery in Hosea 4:12-17 is a good example. IMO, The usage of porneia in Mathew is a way to connote both meanings of Adultery. Does spiritual adultery equal apostasy? If so in 1 Corinthians 7:15 it makes sense why the beleiver is not bound to the unbeliever who leaves.
Hosea 4:12-17
My people consult their wooden idol and their divining rod informs them. For a spirit of prostitution leads them astray and they have been a prostitute— out from under their G-d.
They sacrifice on the mountaintops and on the high places they burn incense under oak poplar, and terebinth— for its shade is good. Therefore your daughters are prostitutes and your daughters-in-law commit adultery.
Will I not punish your daughters for prostitution or your daughters-in-law for adultery? For they consort with prostitutes, and they sacrifice with cult prostitutes. A people without understanding will be thrust down.
Though you, Israel, are a prostitute, let Judah not become guilty. But do not come to Gilgal or go up to Beth-aven, and do not swear: ‘As Adonai lives!’
For Israel is stubborn like a stubborn cow. Now Adonai will pasture them like a lamb in the open field.
Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone!
Their liquor has come to an end. They surely have practiced prostitution. Her rulers have deeply loved disgrace.
A wind will wrap her up in its wings. They will be ashamed of their sacrifices.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
I can see were adultery, idolatry, and porneia, both physically and spiritually be grounds for divorce.
Let's say, a wife becomes a workaholic, she stays away from the home for extended hours. Becomes less involved with the family but more involved with work. Maybe she goes to bars after work and hangs out with the men in the office. Maybe there is no actual sex but it's obvious that she finds more attraction to that life than her home life. This I believe involves all three, at least, Spiritually, and therefore grounds for divorce, AFTER, much prayer, counseling if possible, and every other attempt to bring her back to the family.
Deuteronomy 24:1–4 24 is the Law, Mercy and Grace is the higher Law, but in the end, God did divorce Israel, and that had nothing to do with actual physical adultery.
It is not simply a Talmudic interpretation at all. Talmud does support this in clearer language at times, but Scripture absolutely sets the tone and boundaries/definitions for this precept. @Aussies did a pretty good job of bringing this point out earlier in the thread but I think it didn’t quite stick because we weren’t quite here yet.
With all due respect, Mark is silent about the exemption. Thus according to the plain reading of Marks account, a man may divorce but not remarry or it is adultery. Luke’s account corroborates.
I'm confused again. Where does it say a man can't remarry after a divorce? My understanding is that a man can't remarry if he unlawful puts a wife away. That's not the same thing as a divorce.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but to my knowledge the only place that mentions this is in Matthews 2 accounts. Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 specifically say that a man that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
So as I understand these passages, a man who has never initiated divorce is free to add wives, but if he has divorced a wife he cannot marry again.
I'll double check. My memory is often bad and it has been a while since we plowed this particular field.
I also agree with this statement wholeheartedly, but it’s much deeper than this. That’s a topic for another thread but you’re definitely right on with this
Are you saying this is the case, even if he divorces a wife who committed adultery?
I’m saying that if I look closely at the context and content of each passage as a whole and analyze each individually, I find it impossible to ignore this lack of an exception.
Mark 10:11
In the house, the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
Matthew 5:31-32
“It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 19:9
Now I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
I just want to remind everyone there are more scriptures about divorce, remarriage and only when they come together do we have the complete picture that scripture is painting.
@Kevin. Are you trying to say that Matthew gives an exception, but Mark Luke and Paul specifically do not give an exception?
If so, I’m not sure what that means. I don’t think I want to make Mark Luke and Paul say something that they don’t say, just to make it seem like they agree with Matthew. That doesn’t seem right.
BeingHeld--thank you for your openness, transparency, and willingness to speak out. I've already been shot down on at least one other thread because of comments trying to help some of the men on this forum wake up and smell the coffee to the plight, hurt, and abuse by girls and women because their man, men, or other men in the church or circle wouldn't be the man. The last comment to that thread directed at me was, "That's feminist BS." I still haven't responded back because it hurt so much. I'm not a feminist nor would anyone in their right mind see you as one. You did what you had to do to get your kids raised, try to make the marriage work, and you still got the boot. Dear sister--I respect you and salute you for who you are, what you did, and I praise the Lord GOD for blessing you in an abundant way now. As you well know, coming out of the abuse, not knowing if there would ever be anyone that would love you, wondering if you'd have to spend the rest of your life alone is very difficult to deal with. Those who have never known true abuse really have no concept. In fairness, it's hard to fault them if they don't understand because they've never been in it. You'd think they would try to understand or have some sense of compassion because the brokenness in America is literally all around us. No one chooses their parents, and when you've made your first big choice--to marry, most everyone hopes it will be happily for ever. Unfortunately, on the other side of the altar, all too often the hopes and dreams seem to go poof, evaporate, and turn to ashes--some sooner than others. That leaves someone, whether it's the man or the woman (because it happens both ways) with the nasty now and now. Somehow, by God's grace, you find the strength to keep putting one foot in front of the other, you get from one day to the next, you do what you've got to do for the kids, you try to hold the marriage together, you put up with a lot of crud you should never have to, you carry your load and usually a good portion of the load the other one won't carry, and you just keep going.
In your case, he gave you the boot. In other cases the woman just can't take any more and gets out of the abuse. In other cases the struggling one is freed because of a premature death of the one who won't do right. The hurt and heartache goes beyond words! The brokenness can take years to see some real healing. Those who get on their soapboxes of self-righteousness just make it harder for the broken ones. So please know you're loved, first and foremost by Yeshua, then by your new beloved, and by many others who walked a mile in your shoes.
I'm stepping out on a limb because I've never been to a retreat yet, but I'm positive there will be open arms, lots of warm hugs, and some really good friendships made if you'll show the courage you've always had and come. Your message needs to be heard for those coming along behind and for those who haven't quite seen what they're doing to others in the body.
Blessings to you and your beloved.
Wild theory alert:
Because Matthew is written to the Jews and Luke to the Gentiles.
Moses allowed for divorce because of hard hearts, but only Jews knew of this law. Gentile believers learning to organize their lives according to the will of God would do so after Jesus had already sent the holy spirit. They were never under the 'law' and they came in with the ability to have hearts of flesh. No provision for divorce needs to be made.
Consider also that in the parable of the talents (Matt 25) that the worthless servant is stripped of his reward, and then cast into into outer darkness where there is gnashing of teeth. In it's analog in Luke 19, the parable of the minas, the worthless servant is merely stripped of his reward, with no further punishment. This is has two sides. On the one side, it points to the contract with individual Jews just for being circumcised Jews being revocable (Matt 3:9) while the individual who comes to Jesus under His blood is irrevocably His (John 6:37)
On the other hand, if one has received mercy, one must show mercy. (Matt 18) If we are forgiven categorically of all sin, how much more ought we forgive those to whom we must model the love of Christ?
At any rate, it is worth taking note of who each gospel is aimed at reaching. It makes the "End of the age" bits more intelligible, certainly.
Because Matthew is written to the Jews and Luke to the Gentiles.
Moses allowed for divorce because of hard hearts, but only Jews knew of this law. Gentile believers learning to organize their lives according to the will of God would do so after Jesus had already sent the holy spirit. They were never under the 'law' and they came in with the ability to have hearts of flesh. No provision for divorce needs to be made.
Consider also that in the parable of the talents (Matt 25) that the worthless servant is stripped of his reward, and then cast into into outer darkness where there is gnashing of teeth. In it's analog in Luke 19, the parable of the minas, the worthless servant is merely stripped of his reward, with no further punishment. This is has two sides. On the one side, it points to the contract with individual Jews just for being circumcised Jews being revocable (Matt 3:9) while the individual who comes to Jesus under His blood is irrevocably His (John 6:37)
On the other hand, if one has received mercy, one must show mercy. (Matt 18) If we are forgiven categorically of all sin, how much more ought we forgive those to whom we must model the love of Christ?
At any rate, it is worth taking note of who each gospel is aimed at reaching. It makes the "End of the age" bits more intelligible, certainly.