Nothing. That's my point. Why do we care what cultural influence Hammurabi had on Abraham? He didn't write any portion of the Bible. Hammurabi is a pointless distraction. However that is not what this thread is about so let's not hizec it.
-
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.
Divorce verse by verse
- Thread starter Nikud
- Start date
I must be losing my mind. That's the only thing that would explain it. Unless the Talmud, the Code of Hammuabi and some random modern research paper on the history of Jewish thought on divorce are all in the Bible. That would explain it too, of course that would mean I had lost my mind already then. Or maybe nobody referenced those things and I just imagined it. That would explain it too, of course that sounes suspiciously like losing my mind as well. That's it. I must have lost my mind.
Numbers 30:6-12
6 “Suppose she should marry, after her vow or a rash promise of her lips by which she obligated herself. 7 Now if her husband hears about it but says nothing to her on the day he hears about it, her vows will stand and her pledges by which she has obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband should hear about it and on the day he hears it he forbids it, he thereby nullifies her vow and her rash promise by which her lips have obligated her, and Adonai will forgive her.
9 “Any vow or obligation of a widow or a divorced woman will be binding on her. 10 If in her husband’s house she vowed or obligated herself by pledge under oath, 11 and her husband should hear it and say nothing to her, not forbidding her, all her vows and every pledge by which she has obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband should nullify them on the day when he hears of them, nothing from her lips, whether vow or pledge, will stand. Her husband has nullified them and Adonai will forgive her.
This is where alot of the woman are forbidden to seek divorce tradition comes into play. Right or Wrong, these verses are not a conformation of that belief. Notice that this is speaking of a husbands right to void a vow, and the fact that widows or women who are already divorced have nobody covering them to void a vow. Its not about whether she can ask for a divorce. Its about a man being able to void a vow made by a women he is covering so she wouldn't be a vow breaker before Adonai. This shouldn't be a point of reference for the marriage isn't a covenant camp. Since they believe sex not covenant/agreement/vow makes a marriage. For the marriage is a covenant or sex + covenant = marriage camps, this isn't speaking of covenant vows. Its speaking of vows made after a covenant. These verses are in support of Headship authority but have nothing to do about divorce.
6 “Suppose she should marry, after her vow or a rash promise of her lips by which she obligated herself. 7 Now if her husband hears about it but says nothing to her on the day he hears about it, her vows will stand and her pledges by which she has obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband should hear about it and on the day he hears it he forbids it, he thereby nullifies her vow and her rash promise by which her lips have obligated her, and Adonai will forgive her.
9 “Any vow or obligation of a widow or a divorced woman will be binding on her. 10 If in her husband’s house she vowed or obligated herself by pledge under oath, 11 and her husband should hear it and say nothing to her, not forbidding her, all her vows and every pledge by which she has obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband should nullify them on the day when he hears of them, nothing from her lips, whether vow or pledge, will stand. Her husband has nullified them and Adonai will forgive her.
This is where alot of the woman are forbidden to seek divorce tradition comes into play. Right or Wrong, these verses are not a conformation of that belief. Notice that this is speaking of a husbands right to void a vow, and the fact that widows or women who are already divorced have nobody covering them to void a vow. Its not about whether she can ask for a divorce. Its about a man being able to void a vow made by a women he is covering so she wouldn't be a vow breaker before Adonai. This shouldn't be a point of reference for the marriage isn't a covenant camp. Since they believe sex not covenant/agreement/vow makes a marriage. For the marriage is a covenant or sex + covenant = marriage camps, this isn't speaking of covenant vows. Its speaking of vows made after a covenant. These verses are in support of Headship authority but have nothing to do about divorce.
Thats a nice straw man you've erected there.
Explain. The scripture.
I've never used that verse in explaining why women can't divorce. Nor have I ever seen anyone else us it to do so. I agree with you, it hasn't anything to do with it. But this verse isn't where we get the idea from. So it's a complete non-argument.
It's about what scripture says and what has been used to make arguements even though it wasn't you. This is a disscusion that I'm sure you've had with others and I'm sure you've come across arguments I've never encountered.
Edit: This is an old school puritan teaching that has found its way into many denominations that still hold that divorce is a bad thing. It's a beleif that is usally spoken of but the origins or verses where it comes from are not remembered or explained. It's just a wrong approach to it.
Edit: I probably should have made it clear it's part of the bread and butter of those who just skim for scriptures to justify their beleifs instead of studying the topic out. Hence the reason, at lease in my experience, it's used alot by members of corporate churches.
Last edited:
@Patricia C, that’s one thing about this group. We don’t have standardized beliefs other than what is posted on the introductory page. We are not monolithic thinkers.
It is easy to get the feeling that we believe what the more vocal are saying, but we don’t. Many of us don’t even voice an opinion on the endless discussions.
We are all individuals and it doesn’t matter what even the majority thinks.
Please don’t react to whom ever has a different opinion than what you hold, it isn’t productive. Let the debaters debate and seek those with whom you have common ground.
Just my opinion, for what it’s worth.
It is easy to get the feeling that we believe what the more vocal are saying, but we don’t. Many of us don’t even voice an opinion on the endless discussions.
We are all individuals and it doesn’t matter what even the majority thinks.
Please don’t react to whom ever has a different opinion than what you hold, it isn’t productive. Let the debaters debate and seek those with whom you have common ground.
Just my opinion, for what it’s worth.
Hi Patricia. No, not correct. A man commits adultery if he is involved with a woman married to another man (cf. Lev. 20:10). Think David and Bathsheba here. Both are guilty unless the man raped the woman. Shalom
The discussion here is not that divorce is not biblical but what is biblical divorce according to scripture. What does scripture say about divorce verse by verse. How traditions can change our perception of what scripture says. That's the topic of this thread.
I would appreciate that comments and questions be on topic and directed towards the verses. This is subject is always a powder keg and when it goes sideways basically impossible to get it back to a profitable direction.
I mentioned that certain laws apply only to Levites. Yes. That's not to say all instructions about Divorce only apply to Levites.
I would appreciate that comments and questions be on topic and directed towards the verses. This is subject is always a powder keg and when it goes sideways basically impossible to get it back to a profitable direction.
Hey Kev, I deleted my post to keep your thread on topic
Ya see, I've never been in a denomination that was hardline against divorce. I struggle to even name one that is that way. A few held it out as 'bad' but excused it at every turn.
I don't know why others come against divorce, only my own reasons. I came to oppose it from reading scripture.
Maybe you should visit some in Texas. Also not ever church of a denomination holds all their dogma to the for front. Some hold certain tenet's above others depending on factors such as the congregation, the location, teaching style of the local leadership and/or all of the above or any other. One thing I've learn is you can "know" the beliefs of a denomination but that doesn't mean you know the beliefs of a congregation. Sometimes a teaching of a denomination may fade away in one area while in another area they take a hard line.
Deuteronomy 22:13-19
13 “Suppose a man takes a wife and goes to her and then dislikes her, 14 accuses her of shameful (evil deeds) things and gives her a bad reputation by saying, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I didn’t find her virginity.’ 15 Then the father of the young woman is to take her and her mother is to bring out the signs of the young woman’s virginity to the city elders at the gate. 16 The young lady’s father is to tell the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as a wife, but he hates her. 17 Indeed, he has accused her of shameful things, saying, “I didn’t find your daughter’s virginity.” Yet these are the signs of my daughter’s virginity.’ They are to spread the wedding cloth before the elders of the city. 18 The elders of that city are to take the man and punish him. 19 Then they are to fine him 100 pieces of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name on a virgin of Israel. Then she is to be his wife—he may not send her away all his days"
So if Torah allowed divorce for any reason, why make a law where her father could dispute it. I think this is going to be unpopular but I don't believe the example was the acusation he made of her not being a virgin but that she lied about being a Virgin and defrauded him by him paying the brideprice for a virgin. Which I know lieing is a sin, and theft is a sin but the justification for stoning a woman for not being a virgin is found in the punishment for what I see is the lieing and defraudment. So her not being a virgin is not grounds for divorce.
Last edited:
Because there is a punishment for that case in the very next two verses. Because" you shall purge the evil from among you".
It wasn't grounds for divorce, but capital punishment.. I realize there are differing opinions on why this situation is so punished, but that is besides the point. This wasn't about getting a man out of a marriage founded on fraud, but about "you shall purge the evil from among you".
Some men point to this and say she wasn't a virgin so I have the right to divorce if she's not a virgin. If you've never come across it personally ,ok. I find it odd that you've never had discussions about divorce without anyone of these reasons coming up. Read some of the oldest post here on the forum and you will.
The example was a man using a lie to accuse his wife of lieing and fraud to have her killed so he wouldn't be married to her anymore, divorce by execution. If Torah allowed soft reasons for divorce then why the need to go to the extreme? Even if you believe not being a virgin when marrying was grounds for stoning. Why go to the extreme to make a false claim if you could legally divorce for any reason under Torah?
On the side
Not being a Virgin when getting married is grounds for capital punishment? Torah has examples of women losing there virginity and not being stoned, and there is no the ones who lost their Virginity are not allowed to marry verse?
In the verse you alluded to before you pointed out "you shall purge the evil from among you" it referd to her playing the whore in her fathers house as the reason. The word Zanah which can be translated as whore has more than one meaning. Unfaithful to God carries the most weight. Being unfaithful to God in her fathers house (shaming him by lieing and defrauding a man, being an unruly child and we know that that carries a death penalty). So yeah its purging the evil from amongst Israel.
Last edited:
Has anyone here claimed that a man can divorce his wife for any reason?
Ya I disagree with that, especially in the case you know going in (which 99.9999% do know). Although I think an argument could be made that this would fall under Christ's exception given that pornea is broader than adultery. I'd have to look closer.
I don't think the Deut 22 case is one of divorce by execution; as you point out, that would be unnecessary. I think it is more a motive of retribution and slander, "accuses her of shameful (evil deeds) things and gives her a bad reputation by saying". Or maybe to get your dowry back, which you might not in case of divorce.
Nice try by no. The context of Zanah here is "I didn’t find her virginity.". I realize that in our day and age of few Christians marrying as virgins the idea that God would punish a woman who was not a virgin at marriage is objectionable. But that is what the text says. Our ways are not His ways. Look at what is happening to marriage and children in our day and age and you'll see the wisdom in God's law.
Not sure any member has claimed this, however some of the cited ancient sources do, hence one of the unreliabilities as a righteous foundation.
I have been accused here on the forum of supporting or tyinging to justify divorcee for any reason even "Hurt feelings" when I talked about spirutal adultery (apostasy) as a valid reason for divorce. Others here have straight out said Torah or Moses (meaning Torah) allowed divorce for any reason at all. I'm setting the record straight.