Why is Divorce so easy in the Bible?

[IshChayil]

Great advise. Do you have examples of what they have that they would voluntarily give?

I see the categories more generalized as: time with hubby, food and things.

I was proud of my Chavah (1st wife) when she gave up something she really liked which was her right to have to Eshet-chayil. She had wanted it, but didn't open it and instead asked if I thought Eshet-Chayil would enjoy it. I had wanted to give it to Eshety-Chayil directly but the command we are discussing stayed my hand since I knew I would have given it to Chavah if she were my only wife.

When it's Eshet-Chayil's turn to make shabbat dinner, she often asks me what I think Chavah wants. That kind of stuff.

I like the reverse example in the torah where Leah "buys" Jacob from Rachael for a night with "mandrakes".
This isn't really how it should go but I love how she informs Jacob he's been bought for the night and he's just like "OK" doesn't protest since the ladies worked it out.

 

[The Revolting Man]

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.

Oh Ish, this is just awful. I've never questioned your scholarship before but what about Christ's actions in this story was unjust? He didn't free her. Her accusers, who would have had to throw the first stones anyway, simply dropped the case. It would have been unjust if Christ had wanted to push the issue would it not? And now you have a fallible, false Bible to boot? This story reinforces the Law which Christ was adhering to strictly. You can do better than this.

 

[andrew]

Hey, @IshChayil! Don't forget my questions!

Your comments about the ketubah have me thinking…. As the church and state stepped in and took over marriage, it lost its character as an enforceable agreement between parties. The church took over the idealistic part, the fairy tale promises with no real teeth, and the state allowed people to make big vague promises to each other with no specified remedies. This left a huge whole in the fabric of society, and the patch has been this godawful no-fault divorce regime that takes away a man's children and income without cause (other than "if mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy").

Another plug for the summer conference first week of August goes here, along with my commitment that we will have things to talk about on the legal front. As families working outside the framework of the state, we need to look at what we can and can't do to protect both the men and the women in our families.

Now what about those questions?…

 

[Cap]

Hey, @IshChayil! Don't forget my questions!

Your comments about the ketubah have me thinking…. As the church and state stepped in and took over marriage, it lost its character as an enforceable agreement between parties. The church took over the idealistic part, the fairy tale promises with no real teeth, and the state allowed people to make big vague promises to each other with no specified remedies. This left a huge whole in the fabric of society, and the patch has been this godawful no-fault divorce regime that takes away a man's children and income without cause (other than "if mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy").

Another plug for the summer conference first week of August goes here, along with my commitment that we will have things to talk about on the legal front. As families working outside the framework of the state, we need to look at what we can and can't do to protect both the men and the women in our families.

Now what about those questions?…

Thank you for posting this. I suppose my original post was not very clear but my main attempt was too try and understand biblical divorce in today's world and applying it to God's Word. Your post sorta cleared that up.

 

[andrew]

Going further: Like a lot of things, if men want to be in charge we have to take responsibility. If individual men and women were more thoughtful before the wedding and reduced their expectations to writing, much less attention would be given to "here's our dreamy fantasy of how great this is gonna be" and more would be given to "but here's what we're going to do if it doesn't work out, which will be broken out into different remedies depending on why it's not working out".

If I remember right, Catherine Zeta-Jones had a "cheating clause" in her pre-nup that guaranteed some serious bank if Michael Douglas ever, well, cheated on her. That may have been just a rumor, but that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Not that I believe that would be good or biblical, but if Michael agreed to it, then that's his problem.

Back to my point: When we are not more thoughtful up front, we make fairy tale promises and assume that divorce is for other people. In the past, this has worked more to the benefit of the man, and in more fundamentalist patriarchal circles, it's completely one-sided. (Let's just stipulate that there's a long-running, heated debate over what's biblical and what that has to do with it. I'm just thinking out loud here about the legal side of this for a second.)

So while the bible has some things to say about marriage and divorce, there was also a whole regime of private contracts and courts to enforce them operating alongside the handful of OT verses* from which we derive most of our understanding of the marriage relationship and how it begins and ends. And when men are not taking care of their wives, and fathers aren't standing up for their daughters, and men of the tribe aren't looking out for God's daughters, it shouldn't shock or offend us if the women appeal to the secular authorities and the secular authorities take up the role. Just sayin….

————

* I'm not ignoring the fact that there are also NT verses. In this context, though, I'm looking at the foundation in the OT. I submit that we need to understand how the whole system worked together in the OT, then we can look at what Jesus and Paul were talking about in the NT and how it all works together.

 

[IshChayil]

Oh Ish, this is just awful. I've never questioned your scholarship before but what about Christ's actions in this story was unjust?
He didn't free her. Her accusers, who would have had to throw the first stones anyway, simply dropped the case. It would have been unjust if Christ had wanted to push the issue would it not? And now you have a fallible, false Bible to boot? This story reinforces the Law which Christ was adhering to strictly. You can do better than this.

Hey Zec, question on brother I may be off my game
Here's my thinking on this. Ok let me counter, He DID free her according to the story "neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more...don't tell your husband what happened or he'll kill you (sorry I had to add that)".
Regarding your 2nd contention: "And now you have a fallible, false Bible to boot?"
So maybe I didn't explain it well, I am NOT someone who embraces bible emendations lightly.
Any modern bible translation will either not have this story in it, or will have a footnote making sure the reader knows "hey, this probably wasn't originally here just so you know, but since it's TRADITION already we're gonna leave it in."
I am an absolute believer in the autographia, the scriptures in the original languages as originally penned. I'm also a lover, though a novice still learning, in the area of textual criticism of the bible. This is men and women who love the bible and deeply desire to have it as precise as possible. Just so you know where I'm coming from.
If you pick up a NA28 critical Greek text, or a UBS5, they'll both tell you what I'm telling you. It's unlikely based on the manuscript evidence we have, that this story really happened.
I hope you see where I'm coming from here, I am NOT saying the bible is fallible; I AM saying it's a known fact that there are variances in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts; this is a known. I love the original languages and I'm not trying to take anyone's favorite translation from them. If you love this story then keep loving it. I would simply treat it as a midrash.
I love Jewish midrashim, extrabiblical stories which shed light or teach ethics but are generally regarded as just that...extra-biblical.

By the way, I cede the point that Yeshua may not have stoned her if such a situation occurred.

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.

Interesting take on that. Yes, in Jewish tradition it's called a "gett" (YIddish word the Hebrew slips my mind right now).
The gett she shows to her future husband and the rabbi officiating marriage as evidence she is marrigable also for consideration of how much money to write in her next ketubah.
Also, the husband can not give her the "gett" without paying her the amount specified in her Ketubah! he can take a loan or something but he must pay her, even today, this kind of alimony fee. If she was a virgin when they married it's double!
The reason for divorce is also indicated so if she is barren for example it will be very difficult to find another suitor in places where monogamy is enforced.

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).

Yes this is a case where tradition illuminates. In order for a "gett" to be issued, a beit-din "literally: house of judgement" a court of 3 judges, must agree to the divorce.
If it's a wrongful divorce the gett will not be given and the husband can not put her out. In Israel today this legal system is still employed; even though there is a secular government, divorce and marriage is handled by the rabbinical judicial system.

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.

exactly. Only the sequence is that she doesn't get the "gett" until the judges agree. Interestingly enough this is also the tradition for soldiers in King David's day. They would give their wives a gett before going to war in case their bodies weren't found so the wife wouldn't be trapped unable to marry. When they returned they would remarry.
There's an interesting Jewish opinion about David and Bathsheba that technically it wasn't adultery because she was "divorced" but it was a wink wink situation so everyone understood it was still a clear violation.

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.

Yes, wives may file for divorce in abuse cases.
They can file for abuse if hubby isn't sleeping with them enough, and a myriad of other reasons. The gemara teaches that the rabbinical courts used to torture guys if they refused to divorce a wife who wanted a divorce for valid reasons. Now they don't 'have that power of course.

Your comments about the ketubah have me thinking…. As the church and state stepped in and took over marriage, it lost its character as an enforceable agreement between parties. The church took over the idealistic part, the fairy tale promises with no real teeth, and the state allowed people to make big vague promises to each other with no specified remedies. This left a huge whole in the fabric of society, and the patch has been this godawful no-fault divorce regime that takes away a man's children and income without cause (other than "if mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy").

True!
Sorry I had missed your questions, because you abbreviated my handle I didn't get the alerts and I'm bouncing all over the place tonight. oh somewhere you had asked about the "yatsia" going out of the wife. This is considered a judicial process and is expanded heavily on in talmud tractate "ketuboth"

 

[IshChayil]

... we derive most of our understanding of the marriage relationship and how it begins and ends. And when men are not taking care of their wives, and fathers aren't standing up for their daughters, and men of the tribe aren't looking out for God's daughters, it shouldn't shock or offend us if the women appeal to the secular authorities and the secular authorities take up the role. Just sayin….

In the religious Jewish world, someone who goes to a secular court is labeled a "rasha", a "wicked person".
This applies to any legal activity; a suit for someone who didn't repay something, etc. If the person goes to a secular court specifically because they are certain they will win more damages in the secular court, the person is guaranteed a place in Gehenim (for a time).
Keeping in mind there are Jewish judges any where there are Jewish communities.
In Israel almost any legal matter between individuals can be opted to be handled in the religious court instead.

 

[andrew]

Ah, I need to get better at tagging. Thanks for those answers!!

 

[IshChayil]

Oh Ish, this is just awful. I've never questioned your scholarship before but what about Christ's actions in this story was unjust? He didn't free her. Her accusers, who would have had to throw the first stones anyway, simply dropped the case. It would have been unjust if Christ had wanted to push the issue would it not? And now you have a fallible, false Bible to boot? This story reinforces the Law which Christ was adhering to strictly. You can do better than this.

Hey Zec, I imagine you may not be the only one surprised by this so I took some photos of the Greek from my "Biblia Sacra" Text Critical edition of the bible.
First photo explains what the [[ and ]] signs mean in the critical apparatus. The next 2 pics show John 7:53-8:11 you'll see the apparatus marks them as "clearly not originally part of the scripture".



Here is the critical comment from the NET bible.
tc This entire section, 7:53–8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best MSS and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53–8:11: 66, 75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53–8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the MSS that include 7:53–8:11 are D lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, f1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, f13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53.
Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

Sorry if the photos are kind of big.
Hope this helps so you know it's not me making stuff up.

 

[andrew]

If we want to keep going down this trail, we'll have to split it off (which is okay, just sayin).

Just a quick two cents: The authority of God's Word is not the same as the validity of any particular translation of scripture, and textual criticism is not a devil's trick, it's a real thing.

If Donald Trump, the reigning executive authority in this country, tried to establish political control over the church, then established a panel of picked seminarians and church leaders to create a "21st Century Authorized Version" of the bible for him, we'd have something approximating the "17th Century Authorized Version", that we now refer to colloquially as the "King James" bible because that's who "authorized" it. The choices those translators made about translation and interpretation (and inclusion or not) of the original texts are just that: choices, made by educated churchmen at the behest of the secular authority. Where we get the idea that those choices are infallible is a matter for discovery through the study of church history, very similar to what happens when we first come to understand what the bible says about marriage and then try to figure out when and why western culture took a different path.

I'm speaking as a gratefully recovering "AV only" guy, who as in so many cases had to explore that understanding from the inside before being led out of it.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

If we want to keep going down this trail, we'll have to split it off (which is okay, just sayin).

Might be in order...

On the topic of textual criticism, may I submit the works of the (obviously) severely autistic Ivan Panin, who spent his life unearthing the underlying mathematical principles of scripture, most notably the heptadic structure; by which scripture verifies itself to be of unquestionable supernatural design by having copious overlapping layers of unique qualities (mostly revolving around the number 7) that would be impossible to duplicate for any mere human, let alone a conspiracy of humans. This discovery of his led to his conversion, and he dedicated his life to researching it. It is a useful tool to use when determining what is and is not a later addition because additions made by men do not (and can not) be so artfully precise in their placement and mathematics.

An introduction into these principles is found here:
http://www.bibleetnombres.online.fr/panin.pdf
on the first 12 pages of this NT.

I note that the story of the woman caught in adultery is included, as it is mathematically verified to fit the patterns of scripture.

 

[FollowingHim]

@IshChayil, thanks for outlining the Rabbinical judicial side of all this. It is very easy to look at Torah and think that the wife has little recourse in the event of abuse or neglect. We must always remember that there were always judges from the very earliest days of delivery of Torah, and the entire system is designed to function under the administration of judges, who would hear any dispute and work out the best way to fit that into Torah. Having said that, we obviously can't assume that every detail of the "case law" that Rabbinical Judaism has built on top of Torah in order to deal with such issues is necessarily as God would have intended it, all this side of it is the opinion of man (e.g precisely what things need the consent of the judges, how many judges give consent etc). But given that they have been dealing with such matters for many centuries under Torah their case law will have been built through seeing a very wide variety of real-world situations and is certainly a very valuable guide, even if it errs in some places it will be closer to God's intent than anything we figure out in our minds just reading the text in isolation.

So, there are always judges. All marriage law only works under judges. If judges under the Biblical system are forbidden, judges under a different system will arise, which is why we have secular courts dealing with such matters. We cannot assume that we can shift to a Biblical model and function in our own community without judges. We need judges, because some cases are difficult to work out. Scripture instructs us that we should have judges selected from within the Church, just as the Jews select judges from within their ranks. But if the law forbids us to actually enforce Biblical marriage laws, we are going to face difficulties trying to function under them when inevitable complexities arise.

We are citizens of a Kingdom, trying to live under the laws of that Kingdom - while living behind the borders of a different Kingdom with its own set of laws that it considers to be supreme.

 

[FollowingHim]

@IshChayil, regarding textual criticism - you'll be well aware there are two basic positions regarding which Greek texts are correct - the "minority text" and "majority text" views. Basically, the "minority text" view is that a handful of manuscripts that appear to be older than the others are considered the most valid simply due to their age. The "majority text" view is that the weight of evidence from the majority of manuscripts determines validity, and when this handful of older manuscripts are inspected they are sometimes found to come from cultic offshoots of the church and to have been historically rejected as inaccurate, which is why most scribes didn't copy from them but from the texts that they knew to be accurate.

To state that the passage about the woman caught in adultery is not valid is to assume that the minority text position is correct. This is a very large assertion with theological implications that are much broader than just this passage.

This is a topic for another thread if you want to pursue it further, but I thought I'd put this comment here so that other readers would be aware that this issue wasn't cut and dried. Also, for the benefit of such readers, the majority-text position is NOT a KJV-only view (although the KJV is based on something close to the majority text), it has nothing to do with English translations but is simply about the Greek.

 

[FollowingHim]

@CAP, I get where you're coming from with your question about whether I have been through divorce. But I'd like you to consider this a bit more broadly. A divorcee has the experience of the emotional and practical issues of divorce. However someone that has never divorced has the experience of managing to hold his marriage together through difficulties and avoiding divorce. He does not lack experience, rather he has a different set of experiences.

Furthermore, our past experience can bias what scriptural interpretation we instinctively view as most likely correct. We are naturally drawn emotionally towards scriptural interpretations that justify ourselves, and repelled from interpretations that may suggest sin in our own lives. This is why so many feminists are militantly "pro-choice" - many of them have had abortions and therefore cannot deal with the possibility that they might have ordered the death of their own children, so are emotionally drawn to the perspective that does not condemn them personally. In the same way, a divorcee will have a natural tendency to read scripture on divorce through the lens of their personal experience, and this may cause them to assume scriptural arguments that limit divorce must be incorrect, and then find and automatically accept the arguments that support this predetermined position.

You asked this question because, from my responses, you correctly guessed that I have not been divorced. But by the time you asked that question, I had already correctly worked out that either you have been divorced, or a woman you have married or intend to marry is a divorcee, based purely on your responses to Zec and myself.

Do not reject my perspective through not having been through divorce. Rather, please ponder that by putting together the perspectives of both those who have been through divorce, and those who have avoided divorce, you may be able to come to a more well-rounded understanding. Both have an important perspective, and must temper the views they are first drawn to by reference to the other's perspective.

 

[Cap]

@CAP, I get where you're coming from with your question about whether I have been through divorce. But I'd like you to consider this a bit more broadly. A divorcee has the experience of the emotional and practical issues of divorce. However someone that has never divorced has the experience of managing to hold his marriage together through difficulties and avoiding divorce. He does not lack experience, rather he has a different set of experiences.

Furthermore, our past experience can bias what scriptural interpretation we instinctively view as most likely correct. We are naturally drawn emotionally towards scriptural interpretations that justify ourselves, and repelled from interpretations that may suggest sin in our own lives. This is why so many feminists are militantly "pro-choice" - many of them have had abortions and therefore cannot deal with the possibility that they might have ordered the death of their own children, so are emotionally drawn to the perspective that does not condemn them personally. In the same way, a divorcee will have a natural tendency to read scripture on divorce through the lens of their personal experience, and this may cause them to assume scriptural arguments that limit divorce must be incorrect, and then find and automatically accept the arguments that support this predetermined position.

You asked this question because, from my responses, you correctly guessed that I have not been divorced. But by the time you asked that question, I had already correctly worked out that either you have been divorced, or a woman you have married or intend to marry is a divorcee, based purely on your responses to Zec and myself.

Do not reject my perspective through not having been through divorce. Rather, please ponder that by putting together the perspectives of both those who have been through divorce, and those who have avoided divorce, you may be able to come to a more well-rounded understanding. Both have an important perspective, and must temper the views they are first drawn to by reference to the other's perspective.

I assume you do not have experience in mental health therapy, and even if you do I ask you to refrain from any analysis in my regard. I don't know if this is possible, but since this is my thread, I would request that you no longer post in reference anything I say here. I would actually like to hear what other people have to say.

 

[rockfox]

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 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.

I take a different approach. The passage specifically mentions not reducing the raiment of a slave-wife. It did not mention wife in general and arguably would have if that what was meant. One logic says as you do. But a more fitting explanation is simply that the wife comes to marriage with a ketubah to provide such protections. But a slave has no such protection contract nor could she leave under its terms, being a slave. And so the law was made to head off a potentially unjust situation.

My problem with your interpretation isn't the alimony thing. Rather it leads to a common problem among many who they think that if you can't give your wife an upper middle class life you are sinning. Thats not what this passage is about. None of us are promised a good life, just that our base needs will be met. To the contrary, scripture and tradition leads saints to give away a lot of wealth.

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.

We don't even need to go there and open that can of worms to dismiss the common misuse of that story. Jesus was not a witness to the act so could not condemn her. The point of the story isn't about law and grace but about how they were trying to entrap Jesus to have cause to arrest him. The various attempts to yield this story to contradict the law are an abuse of scripture.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I assume you do not have experience in mental health therapy, and even if you do I ask you to refrain from any analysis in my regard. I don't know if this is possible, but since this is my thread, I would request that you no longer post in reference anything I say here. I would actually like to hear what other people have to say.

@CAP the best way for you not to see someone else’s comments is to select the ignore button.

The general rule of thumb here is to allow graceful dissenting dialogue to continue. Emphasis on the Grace.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

FWIW. I’ve found this book to be a big help in understanding the Jewish cultural normalcy bias regarding marriage, divorce and the woman without a gett.

https://books.google.com/books/abou...tYC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

 

[Cap]

I would also like to add that I have read just the first chapter of the book "Divorce and marriage: Recovering the biblical view" by Luck, that is located in the main section of this forum and that chapter alone that's about marriage has give a great deal of information in regards to divorce and remarriage. I intend to tread the whole book but just wanted to put that out there for those looking for a practical look at how God may see divorce that would apply to our day. I am hopeful about the rest of the book.

 

[Mojo]

I would also like to add that I have read just the first chapter of the book "Divorce and marriage: Recovering the biblical view" by Luck, that is located in the main section of this forum and that chapter alone that's about marriage has give a great deal of information in regards to divorce and remarriage. I intend to tread the whole book but just wanted to put that out there for those looking for a practical look at how God may see divorce that would apply to our day. I am hopeful about the rest of the book.

Good book. I don't agree with 100% of it (forgot which parts) but it was the single most important work to give me the scriptural confidence of polygyny.