• 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.

The Widow

Doc

Doc

Member
Real Person
The reason that the Church in general has blackballed those who have gone through a divorce is because they do not categorize them properly. This is done through misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

The Bible says there are “...the unmarried ...the widows ...[and] the married…” (1Corinthians 7:8-10). The “married” are just that: a man and a woman together in a marriage union. The “unmarried” (which is a general term) are those who are not married: those who were never married. “Widows” are those who have been married but now do not have a husband because of death or divorce. IN GOD’S EYES, DIVORCE AND DEATH ARE EQUAL.

Because this ministry to the widow is so greatly neglected and misunderstood by the Church, yet so dearly loved by God, it is best to establish what qualifies a woman as a widow.

As used in the Bible, “widowhood” and “widow”, are both from one Hebrew word, alman, which means “discarded (as a divorced person), forsaken.”

The root meaning of being a “widow” is that you are divorced or forsaken by your husband. The method by which the spouse is left without a husband is immaterial.

In the Bible, when a woman identified herself as a widow, depending for what purpose, she indicated specifically HOW she was widowed.

For instance, in 2 Samuel 14:5, as a woman addresses the king, she said, “I am a WIDOW woman, AND MY HUSBAND IS DEAD”. Being a widow meant more than being without a husband. It meant you had a husband but he either died, he deserted you, or you were divorced. This woman had to be SPECIFIC in identifying how she was widowed to the king. If being a widow did not include being a divorced person as well, it would have been very foolish for her to say, “My husband is dead and my husband is dead.” That’s what it would have sounded like to the king, if “widow” only meant “my husband is dead.”

That woman experienced widowhood because her husband died. In the next situation, these women experienced widowhood WHILE THEIR FORMER HUSBANDS WERE STILL ALIVE.

Again, the king was involved. This time, it was not a widow addressing him, but he was making his concubines into “widows”. “And the king took the ten women, his concubines whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in seclusion and supported them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, LIVING IN WIDOWHOOD” (2Samuel 20:3). These women, being separated from their husband David, became widows while David was STILL ALIVE.

Widowhood has the connotation of the breaking of the “sex union” by death, divorce or desertion. For King David “did not go in to them”. A marriage is more than just living under the same roof together; it’s a loving and physical relationship with our spouse. For “...they are NO LONGER TWO but one flesh” (Matthew. 19:6a).

Blessings

Doc
 
That's a fascinating look at it Doc, I hadn't seen this equivalence of divorcees and widows in scripture before.

I think there's a typo here, you have put divorcees under both "unmarried" and "widows". Most widows from divorce would be "divorced and never remarried" yet...
DocInKorea said:
The “unmarried” (which is a general term) are those who are not married: those who were never married, and those who were divorced and never remarried. “Widows” are those who have been married but now do not have a husband because of death or divorce.
Click to expand...
 
It should be specified that only the person (male or female) who is abandoned by their spouse is considered a "widow."

The person (male or female) who unjustly abandons their spouse "has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Timothy 5:8)
 
On consideration, I'm not sure the original post is actually correct. Widows and divorcees are clearly referred to separately in Hebrew in several key verses, e.g. Leviticus 21:14; 22:13; and Numbers 30:9. The Hebrew for widow is 'almanah (H490), but the Hebrew for divorced woman is garash (H1644).

2 Samuel 20:3, referring to David's concubines, does not use the Hebrew word 'almanah but the related word 'almanuwth (H491), which appears to refer to the state of widowhood rather than actually being a widow. It is entirely reasonable to read this as "living as though they were widows" without implying that being put away from David actually made them widows.

New Teatament Greek does use a single word "chera" (G5503) to refer to widows, and does not appear to have a separate word for divorcees. This word in the Greek appears to refer to a woman who lacks a husband, so may truly refer to both widows and divorcees, which could explain why there are no divorcees mentioned in the New Testament, only widows. I suspect that Doc may have noticed that the Greek had only had a single word, based his reasoning off this, and transferred this logic into the Hebrew without noticing that in Hebrew there are actually two words.

I'm not drawing any firm conclusions on what to take out of this, just pointing readers to a few words to look up and consider for themselves before accepting these conclusions as written.
 
Last edited:
Garash (H1644) appears to be more defined as "cast out", "driven out", or "tossed out" rather than "divorced" according to Bible Hub, which could still be supportive of Doc's post. When referencing a "divorced" women, it appears that the word used shifts to "shalach" (H7971), but I could be wrong since I don't have reliable reference resources. However, if I insert "cast out" into those verses, it actually seems more logical to me, leaving divorced women under the "widow" group. In reference to David in 2 Samuel 20:3, the Geneva bible shows that the concubines "lived in widowhood", not in a state of widowhood.

We think in terms of a women being divorced, not in the sense of a women having a Bill of Divorcement. If we omit the word "divorce" and for a moment only consider that the only reference concerning divorce was likely a bill of divorcement, it becomes clearer. The word divorce did not surface until the mid 19th Century according etymonline.com. But again, I have limited reliable resources. So again, I could be off-base here. Back then, it may have been more common for women to be separated from their husbands without being given a bill of divorcement, which could be a reason why greater emphases was needed to distinguish between a widow (including one who had a bill of divorcement) and a women who had been merely cast out without a bill of divorcement. Just another perspective.
 
Richard said:
The word divorce did not surface until the mid 19th Century according etymonline.com.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Now you are gonna make me look at 400 year old English translations to see how they translated some if the passages that today use 'divorce.'

As a whole, this topic very much interests me because my heart has always been for the women cast aside.
 
:) Well, like I said, my research was limited, so hopefully you can find better sources.


Ancient Paths said:
As a whole, this topic very much interests me because my heart has always been for the women cast aside.
Click to expand...

I do as well. I think as a kid growing up and watching what my mother went through and my more recent experiences has really brought this all to light for me and my heart goes out to them as well.
 
Ancient Paths said:
Interesting. Now you are gonna make me look at 400 year old English translations to see how they translated some if the passages that today use 'divorce.'

As a whole, this topic very much interests me because my heart has always been for the women cast aside.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
I've enjoyed reading the various posts on this thread, especially @ Doc, @Richard, and @FollowingHim. Prior to six years ago I had always had a heart for those ladies and girls, who for whatever reason, found themselves on the fringe of what society considered acceptable--divorced and/or separated, with live-ins but not under a covenanted covering, OR found themselves dealing with life as a single because their hubby had died, or in the men's case, their wife had died. Their age didn't affect how I felt for them. Though prior to 2012 I was in a marriage, I often had to think of myself as "single BUT married" simply because of what was and had happened in the marriage. By God's grace, I was determined to see it through, but that didn't dissuage the feelings of aloneness that accompany singleness plus being complicated by the reality that in fact I wasn't legally single. In 2012 the reality of truly being single became full blown because my husband died . So I post as a widow who has come to terms with singleness, can attest to the covering my Yeshua has faithfully provided, and for the past 2 years have been able to begin looking up, around, dream, and no longer have my head down. As I've come to understand that by design there is Biblical provision for covering, it has encouraged and warmed my heart. It's taken away some of the abandonment and cast off emotions which often accompany singleness.

The Biblical presentation of "what constitutes single--unmarried" is grossly misunderstood by the church and by our culture. IMO even more misunderstood are the struggles surrounding being single--regardless of the cause for being single, whether male or female. In many cases, the choice was not yours to make--your state of singleness was handed to you by The Father. Whether your state of being single was handed to you by Papa, or you made the choice to become single or remain single after leaving your parent's home, does not change the challenges which lie before you on a daily basis.

One of the most appealing and interesting aspects that I've come to understand and respect about plural marriage through Biblical Families forum and interaction with members here is that the men who believe the Biblical truth and embrace it and/or are pursuing living it do so with the upper most desire to provide a covering for a single lady as a 2nd, 3rd, etc. wife to become a functioning part of their existing family. Though the outside world accuses these men of just wanting more sexual opportunities, I do not see that here at BF, nor do I see that being the reason for YHWH's design for this provision of the single woman.

It's interesting that this thread started in June 2012, had only 3 posts that year, then 5 posts in 2015, and was reactivated by @Verifyveritas76 in Jan. 2017 and had 2 more posts that year. Not until Sept. 2018 did @Richard bring the topic back to light. In comparison to other very interesting and worthy threads that are currently multiple pages deep in just a matter of a few days and/or weeks, I think it speaks to the point that this topic is largely misunderstood.

I hope more will pursue this thread with thoughts, shared examples or experiences, and that singles will realize that according to Scripture your spouse doesn't have to die for you to be considered worthy of a covering and in need there of in YHWH's grand design of community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top