Amen!
-
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.
Meat Concerning New Recruits - The Past Sins
- Thread starter crsivils
- Start date
I believing supporting contemporaneous rabbinical writings indicate that Joseph only approach them over the possibility of breaking the betrothal after Mary reported to him that she'd received an angelic visitor. According to these writings, Joseph's justification for wanting to break it off was that he thought she had lost her mind. A later visitation to him turned him around.
It has always seemed to me that it is much more likely that people would consider a pair married if they were living together, having sex but hadn't created a covenant than they would consider a pair married if they created a covenant but then never consummated the relationship.
No, I think the average person would actually consider a couple on the afternoon of their wedding (post-ceremony, pre-consummation) very much married, but would not call a cohabitating couple married. But that's because the average person doesn't think about this as deeply as @Keith Martin, their views being driven by culture not scripture, so are most likely wrong!
You make a good point, Samuel, but in my experience when people my kids went to school with showed up together time after time to attend their kids' programs, people almost universally consider these pairs to be married -- even though, given that I knew most of them personally, most of them had never bothered to pony up for the marriage license experience.
Much less common is for people to claim marriage or a 'covenant' but never consummate the relationship -- but when people learn that the childless couple has a sexless relationship, the universal reaction is, at best, what the hell is the point in creating a commitment or getting a license? Why not just be roommates? Or, perhaps better yet, aren't they really just roommates?
According to the State, the latter type of couple is 'married,' but according to Scripture they would not be considered connected by anything other than some kind of weird friendship. We read about some betrothals in the Bible, but in real-life practice among non-upper-crust Judaism, betrothals and even weddings were quite rare. For secretive couples, it was not entirely unusual for TTWCM to be recognized only after a baby bump was in sight.
Much less common is for people to claim marriage or a 'covenant' but never consummate the relationship -- but when people learn that the childless couple has a sexless relationship, the universal reaction is, at best, what the hell is the point in creating a commitment or getting a license? Why not just be roommates? Or, perhaps better yet, aren't they really just roommates?
According to the State, the latter type of couple is 'married,' but according to Scripture they would not be considered connected by anything other than some kind of weird friendship. We read about some betrothals in the Bible, but in real-life practice among non-upper-crust Judaism, betrothals and even weddings were quite rare. For secretive couples, it was not entirely unusual for TTWCM to be recognized only after a baby bump was in sight.
It was obvious then she was owned by male.
Heard than in some cultures marriage was only probatory until baby arrives.
And it says this WHERE?
Sounds like Abimelech and Pharoah and everyone else who believed "she is my sister," was in the clear.
What was all that cursing about then?
The Almighty State deems people to be "under their jurisdiction" if either will admit to having sex.
Check out the anti-contsitutional, and anti-Scriptural "domestic violence" statutes that masquerade as "law" in most states that have adopted the Woke Globall UCC Standards for what happens if someone they deem "married for tyranny purposes" makes the deadly mistake of dialing 911.
SOMEONE IS going to JAIL. There will be automatic 'retraining orders.' Children will be taken. Families, whether they call themselves that or not, will be destroyed. Someone will face felony charges, and face tens of thousands of dollars in Lawfare costs.
Obvious exceptions: REAL felons, multiple offenders, Leftist Perverts, and of course illegal invaders. They don't care about going to jail, or having to pay lawyers, or face charges from Soros' Minions.
PS> And in most of those very same states, they will also try to come and steal your arms. (Red Flag 'laws' only make it worse,) But the BidenFuhrer wants to do that universally.
Last edited:
I'm looking forward to the results of such research!
What is the practical purpose of divorce then @Mark C, if not that "she may go and be another man's wife"? (Deut 24:2)
I have NEVER argued anything else than precisely what it says - that, GIVEN the Written process is completed, and she HAS that 'sefer keretutah', "she may go and be another man's."
But to repeat the obvious, and unanswered:
It says that WHERE?????
As far as I can see, what I said there is exactly in agreement with Deuteronomy 24:2. Deuteronomy tells us that if a man wishes to divorce a woman, he must give her a written letter of divorce, which gives her the clear evidence she needs to demonstrate that she is free to go and be another man's wife. In other words, to show the second man that by taking her, he is not stealing another man's woman. Therefore the purpose of the paperwork was to assure the second man that, by taking her, he was not stealing another man's woman. As no other man considers her their woman, she is available, and if there was any doubt she's got the papers to prove it.
So I've told you where it says it. Now please explain what issue you have with that statement, what you think I've got wrong. I might well have got it wrong, I don't claim to be infallible, please enlighten me if that is the case.
So I've told you where it says it. Now please explain what issue you have with that statement, what you think I've got wrong. I might well have got it wrong, I don't claim to be infallible, please enlighten me if that is the case.
Samuel, actually I can see how one could come to the conclusion you have from reading Deut. 24:1-4. This is the passage Hillel put his predominant focus on when promoting the notion that a man needed to provide no justification for divorcing/putting away a woman. So I'd declare your interpretation that the purpose was to provide legal assurances to future owners. Elsewhere the understanding of the purpose of divorce is to protect both parties, but Deut. 24:1-4 by itself certainly creates the impression that it's only a matter of watching out for the legal interests of new male owners.
Exactly, and this is helpful in clarifying my thoughts here. I'm not saying that this means a woman can be divorced for any reason - that's a separate matter. Jesus clearly gives us limitations on when divorce is permissible. And those limitations provide protection for the woman, because divorce is fundamentally negative for the woman (it removes her from the provision & protection of a man), so limiting divorce protects the woman. Now, when I say that, I'm not talking about cases of men abusing their wives, where leaving him actually protects her from him - I'm talking about non-abusive situations.
In such a case the divorce itself does not provide protection for the woman, quite the opposite - it removes her from a man's protection. The divorce instead provides protection for the second husband - "legal assurance to the future owner" as you put it.
So the purpose of divorce is to protect men - protect the first husband from having his wife stolen if he doesn't want to let her go (no evidence of divorce = theft), and protect the second husband from being accused of stealing her if the first does want to let her go (evidence of divorce = no theft). But the purpose of restrictions on divorce is to protect women.
I have taught it for years almost EXACTLY that way.
Essentially that the sefer keretutah constitutes the 'second witness' (she is the first) that such a woman "has no living husband," and my become another man's.
(NOTE: I do not presume to know His mind, and claim that I know the purpose of why He Wrote what He did. Just that what I see is consistent with that logic.)
However, even that is NOT what you originally wrote, and I quoted twice:
This, broken down for clarity:
OK - hopefully you see why I don't claim to know His purpose, unless He says so directly...
But I believe you can now see that this statement is not even remotely the same, nor logically correct:
Wrong, for so many reasons. But not what you clarified above, thanks, and on THAT part we agree.
(E.g., even IF there is "no other man" who "considers her his woman" - how do you know? Suppose he's even got a "license" from Big Brother, but just doesn't care, or "consider her his woman" any more? And so on.)
My issue, and concern, is this: (And to the point of the thread.)
The burden of proof, and of guilt, is on the MAN who claims to take responsibility for her, and to cover her!
And, among other things, she could be lying. (I've seen that. I doubt many here probably have as well.)
The point of a written witness to the fact that she "no longer has a living husband," should be clear. (And as I write that, I realize that in a land where "lawlessness abounds," and false witness, fraud, bribery, perjury, and forgery now qualify for high office, even a written witness is no longer foolproof.)
Maybe this is clear by now, but just in case:
More importantly, I contend, is to avoid exactly what Pharaoh and Abimelech were warned about.
And here we're back to disagreeing, Samuel.
"Putting away" a woman is "fundamentally negative" for the woman (it removes her from the provision & protection of a man).
That is where I will correct the word.
Right or wrong, men put women away. THAT is what Yahushua so condemned, and warned them about (you will 'cause her to commit adultery' -- and be held guilty for it.)
Giving her that 'second witness' that she now no longer has a husband (and turning "shalach" into a proper, verifiable 'divorce') is what protects the woman. IF she deserves it!
And the next man should want to know.
Here the problem is that English terminology and "tradition' conflicts with Scripture.
"Putting away" a woman is "fundamentally negative" for the woman (it removes her from the provision & protection of a man).
That is where I will correct the word.
Right or wrong, men put women away. THAT is what Yahushua so condemned, and warned them about (you will 'cause her to commit adultery' -- and be held guilty for it.)
Giving her that 'second witness' that she now no longer has a husband (and turning "shalach" into a proper, verifiable 'divorce') is what protects the woman. IF she deserves it!
And the next man should want to know.
@Mark C, am I correct that your major problem is with my statement that it matters whether there is another man who "considers her his woman", rather than saying it matters whether "she has a husband"? I appreciate that my wording of "considers her his woman" is somewhat vague, but that is deliberate.
What is your opinion of the position of a woman who had a man we would consider her husband, but who never called himself that, who has sent her away and no longer wants anything to do with her, but who would not even consider giving her a written document to that effect? Can she be free, or is she bound to him until he gives her the paperwork?
This is why I have used the somewhat vague phrase "considers her his woman". It is to account for such real-world situations as that. The world isn't full of goody-two-shoes churchgoers who have documented their relationships cleanly with marriages and divorces.
I have no problem with this:
What is your opinion of the position of a woman who had a man we would consider her husband, but who never called himself that, who has sent her away and no longer wants anything to do with her, but who would not even consider giving her a written document to that effect? Can she be free, or is she bound to him until he gives her the paperwork?
This is why I have used the somewhat vague phrase "considers her his woman". It is to account for such real-world situations as that. The world isn't full of goody-two-shoes churchgoers who have documented their relationships cleanly with marriages and divorces.
I have no problem with this:
And in the case of doubt, to satisfy that burden of proof the second man can easily telephone the first and simply ask if this woman is his wife.
Lol, please. This is nothing. It’s not even getting warmed up yet!