Commentary on Jewish Marriage

[PeteR]

And, related to all of this, is Isaiah 50!!

The chapter begins with God asking 'where is the certificate of divorce' and 'to whom of My creditors did I sell you?' (Great connection to Ex 21.)

Then amazingly, 'why was there no man when I came? When I called, was there none to answer?'

Then He begins to recount His authority and power and shifts to a focus on the Redeemer.

Cool stuff here as it helps expose the spiritual reasons behind the physical laws. Romans 7 + Isaiah 50 explains Deuteronomy 24.... in order not to defile the land, the bridegroom of Deu 24 had to die and be raised, as Paul expounds in Romans 7 to reveal how God could again pursue the one He has sent out (house of Israel.. but much longer explanation to fully understand). The point is, when God sent wayward Israel away, He fully intended, even in her discipline, to protect and care for her until the time of her redemption by His hand. Because HE can do that, He can do so in righteousness. We can't leaving divorce as a rending apart of what He put together.

As a side note, while I take a firm stance against divorce, I know sometimes life happens. We have many here who are divorced. I do not judge you and also believe that divorced women need love, protection, covering, etc and am not personally averse to providing that if the Father calls. I just know in our marriage, we've been through some incredibly hard stuff, but just never let the 'D' word be spoken or considered an option. God has been and continues to be good.

 

[rockfox]

On a personal note, I cannot see scripture saying a wife would have less protection (not in a violent sense but in a loving sense) than a servant/slave.

I understand that emotional need, I feel it myself. And yet all the same the scriptures no where provide that. I put this in the category of things which we cannot understand yet God did anyway.

If you get nothing else from this conversation consider this: why is divorce considered "protection"? Do divorce papers fill bellies? Is divorce the only way we can help a woman experiencing lack? Or maybe just maybe there are ways to help that don't involve tearing down their house and irrevocably damaging the children?

 

[Pacman]

If you get nothing else from this conversation consider this: why is divorce considered "protection"? Do divorce papers fill bellies? Is divorce the only way we can help a woman experiencing lack?

No but marriage to a different man who will not neglect her basic needs will...

Or maybe just maybe there are ways to help that don't involve tearing down their house and irrevocably damaging the children?

I would say her deadbeat ex has already done that. You are presenting a logical fallacy here...

I am not necessarily saying your incorrect about the question of divorce... but this line of thinking is a weak argument at best...

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I understand that emotional need, I feel it myself. And yet all the same the scriptures no where provide that. I put this in the category of things which we cannot understand yet God did anyway.

If you get nothing else from this conversation consider this: why is divorce considered "protection"? Do divorce papers fill bellies? Is divorce the only way we can help a woman experiencing lack? Or maybe just maybe there are ways to help that don't involve tearing down their house and irrevocably damaging the children?

Is this not a case were we can “fill in the gaps”?

 

[rockfox]

No but marriage to a different man who will not neglect her basic needs will...

But will still harm the children. Me thinks food pantries are less harmful. That's also a pie in the sky solution, there is little guarantee she'll find a different man and so more likely than not she'll be relying on other means to meet the need.

Is this not a case were we can “fill in the gaps”?

I presume you're quoting me there. I'll give an example of what I spoke of: concubines. It is a word not defined in scripture. The only way to understand what they are even talking about is by looking at history to see what they meant by that word. This is little different than using a dictionary (although in this particular case, the usual dictionaries are unhelpful).

The problem here is that by 'filling the gap' to make it apply to wives, we contradict what the scriptures otherwise says about the right of women to divorce.

 

[Pacman]

But will still harm the children.

Again he has already harmed the children... and if she stays that harm is basically guaranteed to continue...

That's also a pie in the sky solution, there is little guarantee she'll find a different man and so more likely than not she'll be relying on other means to meet the need.

And if she stays there is zero chance. And those other means are just as readily available for a single mother as before the divorce... if not more available...

Your using a bad argument dude.

 

[PeteR]

Again he has already harmed the children... and if she stays that harm is basically guaranteed to continue...



And if she stays there is zero chance. And those other means are just as readily available for a single mother as before the divorce... if not more available...

Your using a bad argument dude.

No, this is the bad argument because it is rooted in emotion, not Scripture.

 

[Pacman]

No, this is the bad argument because it is rooted in emotion, not Scripture.

I’m not arguing with the scripture. He isn’t using scripture in this particular argument he is using emotion. I am still unsure where I come down on this one. I am simply pointing out that his argument is weak and it isn’t helping to bolster his point of view...

 

[rockfox]

I’m not arguing with the scripture. He isn’t using scripture in this particular argument he is using emotion. I am still unsure where I come down on this one. I am simply pointing out that his argument is weak and it isn’t helping to bolster his point of view...

In a way I am using emotion here, because I'm countering an emotional argument given by those who won't/can't be convinced by the logic of scripture. I'm banking on the emotional weight of irrecoverable harm to the children outweighs the emotional weight of temporary harm to wives.

Hence my prior statements about two prongs. I do prefer logical arguments, but not everyone can be convinced by them.

Again he has already harmed the children... and if she stays that harm is basically guaranteed to continue...

This presumes that a husband is guaranteed not to repent. That him neglecting a wife necessarily implies he is harming the children. That the financial situation can't be helped and won't change. That there is no way to put outside pressure on the husband. That the husband is always at fault and Christians never misjudge the situation. All are false.

And those other means are just as readily available for a single mother as before the divorce.

Yes, so divorce is not necessary to get them. But divorce will multiply the harm while transgressing God's will and creating great temptation for even more serious sin.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I am on a self imposed moderation of not replying to any posts but I feel like @Pacman has missex something important so I'm not hitting the reply button so I'm technically not replying. I'm just referencing a thought he had that juxtaposed with a completely unrelated and original thought of mine...

So @Pacman has stated that he feels @rockfox is not arguing from scripture when he says a woman is not allowed to remarry after leaving an inprovident man. This is missing the point of the argument which is that scripture does not allow a woman to remarry after leaving a husband of any kind. Jesus lays it out and He makes no exceptions. It's very Biblical to not allow a woman to remarry after leaving a husband no matter what the reason, even an infidel one. Allowing her to would necessitate a paradox in scripture.

 

[rockfox]

You crack me up Zec.

 

[Pacman]

So @Pacman has stated that he feels @rockfox is not arguing from scripture when he says a woman is not allowed to remarry after leaving an inprovident man

No that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying his argument that divorce will not “fill the belly” and will only harm the children is a bad argument... if the situation is bad enough (such as with the woman I know) her husband is doing harm already and has been for several years and shows no signs of changing and is actually getting worse. So in her situation leaving him is less harmful... and yes if the divorce is not scripturaly justified she is not eligible to remarry. That is exactly what this debate is about. Is she scripturaly justified to divorce him? Let’s stick to the scripture and put aside the emotional arguments...

 

[Pacman]

And for the record I actually think the better argument for a woman leaving her deadbeat husband comes from the New Testament not from Exodus. But this thread seems to be exclusively focused on the Exodus passage.

 

[PeteR]

No that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying his argument that divorce will not “fill the belly” and will only harm the children is a bad argument... if the situation is bad enough (such as with the woman I know) her husband is doing harm already and has been for several years and shows no signs of changing and is actually getting worse. So in her situation leaving him is less harmful... and yes if the divorce is not scripturaly justified she is not eligible to remarry. That is exactly what this debate is about. Is she scripturaly justified to divorce him? Let’s stick to the scripture and put aside the emotional arguments...

As I stated before, this is where community, and specifically the elders in the community, step in and bring correction and pressure to bear on the deadbeat husband.

Now, I know that is a pipe dream in modern culture, so her only recourse may be divorce. But, in a proper Biblical community, composed of Biblical families operating from Scripture, divorce is not an option.

 

[The Revolting Man]

There is no scriptural basis anywhere for a woman who has left her husband to remarry. If anyone knows of such please share it because it would radically alter my beliefs.

 

[rockfox]

yes if the divorce is not scripturaly justified she is not eligible to remarry. That is exactly what this debate is about. Is she scripturaly justified to divorce him?

No. And there is nothing in scripture that justifies that. The closest you get is "if it applies to handmaids how much more so wives" and that is pure emotion and using a pseudo-logical construct to insert into scriture that which isn't there.

Let’s stick to the scripture and put aside the emotional arguments.

I would love to. That is my first impulse. But not everyone is capable to sticking to scripture or logic.

And for the record I actually think the better argument for a woman leaving her deadbeat husband comes from the New Testament not from Exodus. But this thread seems to be exclusively focused on the Exodus passage.

Yes a case can be made, but only in the case of abandonment by the husband. Even 'worse than an unbeliever' (as has been brought up) fails in the context of 1 Peter 3.

As I stated before, this is where community, and specifically the elders in the community, step in and bring correction and pressure to bear on the deadbeat husband.

Now, I know that is a pipe dream in modern culture, so her only recourse may be divorce.

Actually I think the opposite is true. The church is all too eager to beat up on men and put pressure on them. The only problem with them here is they shoot straight for DIVORCE! rather than trying other means. They can't even admit in our discussions here that other means are suitable recourses. And who would ask them to anyway? The only way this whole situation comes up is when a wife is looking to excuse her divorce or a man his desire to marry a divorced woman.

 

[Pacman]

There is no scriptural basis anywhere for a woman who has left her husband to remarry. If anyone knows of such please share it because it would radically alter my beliefs.

1 Corinthians 7:15
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases : but God hath called us to peace.

 

[PeteR]

No. And there is nothing in scripture that justifies that. The closest you get is "if it applies to handmaids how much more so wives" and that is pure emotion and using a pseudo-logical construct to insert into scriture that which isn't there.



I would love to. That is my first impulse. But not everyone is capable to sticking to scripture or logic.



Yes a case can be made, but only in the case of abandonment by the husband. Even 'worse than an unbeliever' (as has been brought up) fails in the context of 1 Peter 3.



Actually I think the opposite is true. The church is all too eager to beat up on men and put pressure on them. The only problem with them here is they shoot straight for DIVORCE! rather than trying other means. They can't even admit in our discussions here that other means are suitable recourses. And who would ask them to anyway? The only way this whole situation comes up is when a wife is looking to excuse her divorce or a man his desire to marry a divorced woman.

Exactly. The church doesn't (or, rarely) functions as a Biblical community. Rather, it reflects the culture.

 

[Pacman]

Just to be clear I'm actually playing a bit of devils advocate here... I am not settled on this issue one way or the other...

 

[The Revolting Man]

1 Corinthians 7:15
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases : but God hath called us to peace.

You know what I would say here though. The woman didn't leave in this case and it wouldn't apply to a husband who was a Christian. And I know the answer to that is to declare him an infidel and so be done with him but that is a VERY dangerous road.

I actually have to be gone for a few days so I will get back to this then. Good luck. I hope the good guys win!