David and Bathsheba?

[Nikud]

I think @andrew made a very good point in another thread. In a court case you'll have witnesses that testify to something to the best of their recollection. Each one sharing what they know. When you combine them you get a better understanding of what happened. Or at least that was my take away.

In Mark and Luke divorce and remarriage meant adultery. In Matthew there is and exception porneia. Whether one beleives it's only sexual imorality or both sexual imorality and spiritual adultery the exemption is there.

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.

I see apostasy as a form of spiritual adultery. There is little difference between an Apostate and an unbeliever, the reason the exemption extends to the beleiver divorced/abandoned by the unbeliever in 1 Corinthians.

 

[Cap]

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.

@rejoicinghandmaid, please know that there ARE men here that do understand and appreciate Godly women who suffer from the world's coldness. I purposely believe that we, men, need to take responsibility for providing a place for Godly women to have a place when things fall down, at least to offer comfort if nothing else. Not all women are evil, some, a lot of them, are blessings from God.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I think @andrew made a very good point in another thread. In a court case you'll have witnesses that testify to something to the best of their recollection. Each one sharing what they know. When you combine them you get a better understanding of what happened. Or at least that was my take away.

In Mark and Luke divorce and remarriage meant adultery. In Matthew there is and exception porneia. Whether one beleives it's only sexual imorality or both sexual imorality and spiritual adultery the exemption is there.
I see apostasy as a form of spiritual adultery. There is little difference between an Apostate and an unbeliever, the reason the exemption extends to the beleiver divorced/abandoned by the unbeliever in 1 Corinthians.

I'm pretty sure that when we dig into this there will be a clear and simple harmony.

 

[rockfox]

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.

Honestly, I don't know Kevin. I know it at least means adultery, but not only that. My main point is to watch assumptions. Moderns assume when it says 'man' it means both sexes, because we have perspective that assumes equality of the sexes and anything less is offensive to us. But the OT definitely did not have equality of the sexes. And the modern church assumes this means adultery, but that's not the word used means. Usually it would be translated sexual immorality; and that is a lot broader.

Well, they assume it means adultery when talking about divorcing a woman (some even go stricter: repeated, proven, smoking gun adultery from which she won't repent). When its a woman seeking to divorce, it means as little as noticing a hot girl just walked by.

In Mark and Luke divorce and remarriage meant adultery. In Matthew there is and exception porneia. Whether one believes it's only sexual immorality or both sexual immorality and spiritual adultery the exemption is there.

It was polygamy that made these verses make sense to me. First, in realizing that the scriptures, when talking to men or women about marriage, are talking to men or women specifically; you can apply statements to the one to the one to the other blindly. And second, if it was ok for a man to take a second wife, while having a first, how is it suddenly not ok for him to marry again after divorcing the first? That makes no sense. If he has two already and divorces one of them, is he now committing adultery with the remaining? The last key was realizing Christ was talking to a people who'd been influenced by Greek marital practices and were engaging in serial monogamy (divorcing your first wife to marry another); rather than just taking a second while still supporting the first.

 

[rockfox]

I'm pretty sure that when we dig into this there will be a clear and simple harmony.

Here are the passages in question:

Set 1: Pharisee challenge
Mark 10:1-12
Mat: 19:1-12

Set 2: General Teaching
Mat: 5:31-32
Luke 16:18

Set 3: Paul
1 Cor 7

Set 1 is obviously the same instance.

Set 2 may be quoting the same speech or may be quoting different instances. I'm not sure I'd have to read closer. There are three different factors at play here:

1. Gospel's written to different audiences may emphasize different things.
2. Different witnesses will record the same teaching, but may leave out this or that.
3. Jesus had a message and he would have repeated that many many times as he saw different audiences in different towns. Anyone who does tours or gone on a speaking circuit will understand what I mean. You can see this same effect if you think about an author you like and go watch a bunch of different interviews of them. Same message, different retelling, but often uses the exact same phrases on different dates with different interviewers.

Set 3 should be reconcilable with set 1&2; but is written from the perspective of working this out in a practical setting.

 

[IshChayil]

...
...If in doubt, it is far better to assume something is sin, than to assume it is not sin - better to avoid something you didn't need to avoid, than do something that turns out later to have been sinful. ...

Loved the post Sam,
I just wanted to point out that this wisdom you shared is the heart of Rabbinical thinking putting a hedge around G-d's teaching ... just in case.
Then when we break the hedge, well thank G-d it was just the hedge and not an actual sin!

 

[IshChayil]

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’.

You read my mind VV!

This is one of the things the leftists in Israel use as propaganda against the religious folks.
The religious courts have power over marriage and divorce in Israel (for Jews, even if they are athiests) but the secular government has stripped them of much of the power they had in ancient times. So a woman who goes to a beit din to try to get a divorce is actually just trying to convince a 3-panel of judges that they should exert force on her husband to make him initiate the divorce. Well since they can't beat people any more, and they have very limited powers now since they share power with the secular authority, it's quite hard to exert enough force on the man to make him if he is determined. One tool they had in the past in addition to beatings were "bans" where he man would be barred from business transactions with other Jews. These were to be tried first before beatings.

There's an Israei movie about an actual case, it's called Gett for anyone interested. It's in Hebrew but there are subtitles available.
A Jewish woman tries for 20 some odd years to convince her husband to divorce her. He doesn't have relations with her, he's a crazy person. The movie's aim in large is to shine a light on the religious establishment (and the honor of the leftist utopia) but it highlights the modern problems of a weak religious court. Even when judges start to see her side they have no real power these days to compel the husband.
It's not a happy movie but it's interesting to see how her secular attorney interacts with the religious court.
You can understand why the talmud @Verifyveritas76 referenced allows judges to beat the man to get the gett (pun intended

 

[Cap]

Loved the post Sam,
I just wanted to point out that this wisdom you shared is the heart of Rabbinical thinking putting a hedge around G-d's teaching ... just in case.
Then when we break the hedge, well thank G-d it was just the hedge and not an actual sin!

Putting 'hedges around things' is better defined as traditions of men and something the Son of God came to remove.

 

[steve]

@IshChayil have you ever heard about the Jewish Mafia? Out of the N.Y. area, I believe.
I saw a tv special years ago.
If a husband abandons a woman without a gett and leaves town, there is no pressure that the community can bring to bear.
So these guys hunt him down and kidnap him.
“How many bones do we have to break before you are willing to sign the gett.”
They haven’t failed, but it can be expensive.

 

[IshChayil]

Putting 'hedges around things' is better defined as traditions of men and something the Son of God came to remove.

After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them,
“Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
ESV (Acts 28:17)

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
ESV (2 Thes. 2:14–15

20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law
ESV (Acts 21:20–24)

You may want to rethink that...

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil have you ever heard about the Jewish Mafia? Out of the N.Y. area, I believe.
I saw a tv special years ago.
If a husband abandons a woman without a gett and leaves town, there is no pressure that the community can bring to bear.
So these guys hunt him down and kidnap him.
“How many bones do we have to break before you are willing to sign the gett.”
They haven’t failed, but it can be expensive.

Ha, yeah I have heard about the Jewish mafia but I didn't know they were a strong arm for batei din! That's hilarious

 

[Nikud]

Putting 'hedges around things' is better defined as traditions of men and something the Son of God came to remove.

He came to redeem us. He taught, not to teach the traditions of man as the word of G-d. Not to abandoning the word of G-d for tradition. All churches have traditions that aren't commanded in scripture. All families have traditions that are not commanded in scripture. It's when theses tradition conflict the word of G-d are used to make void the word of G-d or when their elevated to the word of G-d that then there is a problem.

Mark 7:6-8

And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written,‘This people honors Me with their lips but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. ’Having left behind the commandment of G-d, you hold on to the tradition of men.”

Matthew 15:1-9

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of G-d for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,’ and, Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to G-d,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have you have made void the word of G-d. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

“‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Matthew 23:16-22

“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘Whoever swears by the Temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the Temple, he is obligated.’ O fools and blind ones! Which is greater, the gold or the Temple that made the gold holy? And you say, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ O blind ones! Which is greater, the offering or the altar that makes the offering holy? Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and everything on it. And whoever swears by the Temple, swears both by the Temple and by Him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of G-d and by Him who sits on it.

 

[IshChayil]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about the case of abandonment.
So say a husband can't hack it, he's stressed to his eyeballs, so he jets. Nobody knows where he is for whatever amount of time. He's supposedly a believer. Let's make it more interesting.
They live in a 3rd world country and she needs a husband to support her family (not 1st world where basically everyone is rich). Feel free to modify the hypothetical

Now a touchier situation. What about MIA?

 

[Cap]

After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them,
“Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
ESV (Acts 28:17)

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
ESV (2 Thes. 2:14–15

20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law
ESV (Acts 21:20–24)

You may want to rethink that...

No, the versus you quote are in reference to Paul, a Pharisee, who was caught between two worlds. I believe the versus you quote are being taken out of context.

 

[FollowingHim]

Regarding "hedges" around things, a better way of putting it is "guidelines" or "advice". And this is simply how we train our children - with sensible rules that are easy to understand and broad enough to cover most technicalities.

For instance we teach our kids "don't have sex outside marriage", because it's really easy to get your head around and avoids virtually all sexual sin. It's a simplified rule. It's not directly stated in scripture, but it is a summary of many different scriptural principles, and is excellent advice. When that advice is followed for generations, it becomes tradition. And in this case it's a GOOD tradition.

Whether we put that tradition ahead of the word of God comes down to how we react when someone BREAKS the tradition. If one of our sons has premarital sex, breaking the tradition / guideline / advice, what will we do?

1. Tell them "you evil sinful child, stop doing that, you're never allowed to see that person again"?
2. Tell them "now you need to marry that woman"?

If 1, we're elevating our tradition of man over the teachings of God. If 2, we're clearly seeing the word of God as superior to our tradition, the tradition stays in its rightful subservient position as good advice, but not law.

My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about the case of abandonment.
So say a husband can't hack it, he's stressed to his eyeballs, so he jets. Nobody knows where he is for whatever amount of time. He's supposedly a believer. Let's make it more interesting.
They live in a 3rd world country and she needs a husband to support her family (not 1st world where basically everyone is rich). Feel free to modify the hypothetical

Now a touchier situation. What about MIA?

Could we do that in a different thread please. I feel like we’re finally making progress with this one.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@IshChayil have you ever heard about the Jewish Mafia? Out of the N.Y. area, I believe.
I saw a tv special years ago.
If a husband abandons a woman without a gett and leaves town, there is no pressure that the community can bring to bear.
So these guys hunt him down and kidnap him.
“How many bones do we have to break before you are willing to sign the gett.”
They haven’t failed, but it can be expensive.

In the book I referenced and recommended earlier in the thread, the US state dept. issued warnings to Jewish men traveling to Israel. Apparently if the woman couldn’t get him to issue a get stateside, she could petition the courts over there and they’d incarcerate him until he issued the get. She didnt even have to be in country. IF memory serves me correct, this was after a US Beth din issued a ruling that he should issue one.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Here are the passages in question:

Set 1: Pharisee challenge
Mark 10:1-12
Mat: 19:1-12

Set 2: General Teaching
Mat: 5:31-32
Luke 16:18

Set 3: Paul
1 Cor 7

Set 1 is obviously the same instance.

Set 2 may be quoting the same speech or may be quoting different instances. I'm not sure I'd have to read closer. There are three different factors at play here:

1. Gospel's written to different audiences may emphasize different things.
2. Different witnesses will record the same teaching, but may leave out this or that.
3. Jesus had a message and he would have repeated that many many times as he saw different audiences in different towns. Anyone who does tours or gone on a speaking circuit will understand what I mean. You can see this same effect if you think about an author you like and go watch a bunch of different interviews of them. Same message, different retelling, but often uses the exact same phrases on different dates with different interviewers.

Set 3 should be reconcilable with set 1&2; but is written from the perspective of working this out in a practical setting.

This looks like progress

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about the case of abandonment.
So say a husband can't hack it, he's stressed to his eyeballs, so he jets. Nobody knows where he is for whatever amount of time. He's supposedly a believer. Let's make it more interesting.
They live in a 3rd world country and she needs a husband to support her family (not 1st world where basically everyone is rich). Feel free to modify the hypothetical

Now a touchier situation. What about MIA?

I believe a man who refuses to divorce or live with a woman is then personally responsible for her adultery if she remarries. Again, this is from memory and as much as I hate the excuse,"I don't have the time to look this up right now," I really don't have the time to look this up right now.

 

[Nikud]

My main point is to watch assumptions. Moderns assume when it says 'man' it means both sexes, because we have perspective that assumes equality of the sexes and anything less is offensive to us

There is times in Torah where an instruction is given to man that applies to both sexes. The modern view ,as I see it, is not seeing that an instruction given to man applies to both and claiming egalitarianism but to then ignore the ones that apply to women and claim patriarchy is wrong. Some times an instruction is for both sometimes it for one. I would say I'm unaware of a prohibition for a man that it would ok for a woman to do. I may be wrong. For example, Since the prohibition was given to men not to engage in homosexuality does it then not apply to women?

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, and they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them.

Romans 1:26-27

For this reason G-d gave them up to shameful passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for what is against nature. Likewise the men abandoned natural relations with women and were burning with passion toward one another—men committing shameful acts with other men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I hear and appreciate your warnings about assumptions, sometimes we look at scripture through shaded lens that block out some of its color.

Well, they assume it means adultery when talking about divorcing a woman (some even go stricter: repeated, proven, smoking gun adultery from which she won't repent). When its a woman seeking to divorce, it means as little as noticing a hot girl just walked

Hey brother, this isn't about them ,who ever they are, piss on them for teaching that. This is about us here on the forum trying to better our understanding. My understanding is if you look with lust at a woman it's adultery (spiritual) if she's married. In the case of noticing a hot woman walking by it doesn't mater if she not married and theirs a difference between noticing and appreciating beauty and lusting after it.

I think I was being unclear. Porneia means sexual imorality. It also means Idolatry. Idolatry is a form of spiritual Adultery. I believe that sexual imorality is what's being talked about but also that it's impossible ,as far as I know, for a married woman to engage in sexual imorality without it being adultery. I also believe that spiritual Adultery is also given as a reason for divorce. G-ds divorce of Israel over spiritual Adultery and eventual reconciliation,

Jeremiah 3: 8-13

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord.

And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.

Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy G-d, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the Lord.