-
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.
David and Bathsheba?
- Thread starter Aussies
- Start date
I say thee nay.
"But I say to you, any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
A divorced woman has no husband, but neither is she an available woman.
A woman divorced has no husband but commits adultery when remarrying while the husband who divorced her lives.
"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
Therefore she had no husband, but unless there were five corpses somewhere, she was an adulteress 5 times over, even while herself had no husband.
C
Cap
Guest
I'm sorry but I believe this verse is totally taken out of context in the situation that was going on and to regulate divorced women to a life of loneliness, whether their fault or not is not the mind of God.
We all make mistakes, and forgiveness counts for something. To dismiss divorced women as being marriable is something I DO NOT INTEND TO DO.
I have done it in the past and have been wonderfully blessed by God, and if I am lead by God to do it again, I most surely will.
Your history and your intentions are outside the scope of things I'm willing to discuss.
You say you know the mind of God on this one, but you have versed me no verses. If I've misused scripture, be a good brother and show me how.
You say you know the mind of God on this one, but you have versed me no verses. If I've misused scripture, be a good brother and show me how.
C
Cap
Guest
It's your interpretation I question, and others as well that deem divorced women as bad news. (I expect great backlash from my comment) Context is the key my friend. But like you said my history and intentions are not up for debate. I was just making a statement. And my statement was not really for you but to let others know that there are other views when it comes to the fate of divorced women.
And by the way, my comment in regards to divorced women as being lonely was more in the lines of their relationship to God. If men are the path for women to have a proper headship relationship with God then how can He allow them to be in a place of separation from Him?
If one divorced woman gets out of this that she is still loveable then it's worth it
Last edited by a moderator:
1 Corinthians 7:12-16
But to the rest I say—I, not the Lord—if any brother has a wife who is not a believer, and she agrees to live with him, he must not divorce her.
And if any woman has a husband who is not a believer, and he agrees to live with her, she must not divorce him.
For the unbelieving husband is made holy through the wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
But if the unbeliever separates, let him be separated. The brother or the sister is not bound in such cases, but G-d has called you to shalom.
For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
There is an exception that I believe also supports that Yeshua was also talking about both physical and spiritual adultery in Mathew 5:32 and spiritual adultery, vow breaking, idolatry and apostasy throughout Mathew 5 as he was showing the spirit if the law. I've come to the understanding that a woman is not bound to a man who is an unbelevier or an Apostate if he divorces her. This woman is an Abandoned woman, the widow described in 1 Timothy 5:5.
Matthew 5:32-37
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall carry out your oaths to Adonai.’
But I tell you, do not swear at all—not by heaven, for it is the throne of G-d;
or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.
And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
But let your word ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’—anything more than this is from the evil one.”
But to the rest I say—I, not the Lord—if any brother has a wife who is not a believer, and she agrees to live with him, he must not divorce her.
And if any woman has a husband who is not a believer, and he agrees to live with her, she must not divorce him.
For the unbelieving husband is made holy through the wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
But if the unbeliever separates, let him be separated. The brother or the sister is not bound in such cases, but G-d has called you to shalom.
For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
There is an exception that I believe also supports that Yeshua was also talking about both physical and spiritual adultery in Mathew 5:32 and spiritual adultery, vow breaking, idolatry and apostasy throughout Mathew 5 as he was showing the spirit if the law. I've come to the understanding that a woman is not bound to a man who is an unbelevier or an Apostate if he divorces her. This woman is an Abandoned woman, the widow described in 1 Timothy 5:5.
Matthew 5:32-37
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall carry out your oaths to Adonai.’
But I tell you, do not swear at all—not by heaven, for it is the throne of G-d;
or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.
And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
But let your word ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’—anything more than this is from the evil one.”
1. The main problem is that the words are so plain and they are direct from Jesus:
"whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"
Interpretation:
"whoever" = anyone
"marries" = to get married
"a divorced woman" = a woman who has been divorced
"commits" = performs the act, or does the deed
"adultery" = an act that is morally equivalent of a man sleeping with another man's wife.
I would love to be wrong, but the meaning is so plain it is hard to take any other way and it is the direct words of God (Jesus), so even if you percieve this as contradicting Moses you have to go with this over anything Moses said.
Further there are no qualifications. He did not say except for this cirrcumstance or that circumstance, etc.
So the only other defence I can see is that the verse is mis-translated and to my knowledge no one is claiming this?
2. Now about your second point, about divorced women being "bad news".
One does not need to hold this position about divorced women to being "bad news" (and I do not) to believe the above. Divorced women may be (and many are) wonderful people. She can even be innocent of wrong doing. For example, I know a friend who very much wanted to stay married, but her husband left her. She was divorced against her will. Nothing she could do about it. Against her will. She did not sin. I still do not believe based on this verse that I can marry her. She is divorced and Jesus said marrying her is adultery. If she came to be for counsel I would recommend that she make every effort to reconcile with her husband. (Believe me I would love to be wong about this. She is beautiful and rich).
The verse says nothing about the man's married status, so whose married status is it considered adultery? Hers, obviosuly. And if it is hers than this "divorce" is apparently not valid. It is as if what God joins together does stays together despite man's efforts. She thinks she has a divorce, and yet she is still attached to her husband in some spiritual sense.
This alines well with what Paul said about a woman with a living husband. She remains committed as long as he is alive. Paul did not say as long as he is alive or unless they are divorced.
So basically a woman gets only one shot at having a husband and she is supposed to make the best of it. Hypergamy (trading up) is not allowed.
Notably hypergamy is not allowed for the husband either. The difference is that he is allowed another wife, but he MUST keep the old one Matthew 19:19.
So if this is true, and I believe it is, then it is truly tragic and unfair for these abandoned women. This is true. That is why God hates divorce. It is a VERY VERY bad thing to do and hurts more people than just you. A man who would do this to a woman is a very bad man. If you take her you are supposed to keep her.
However, this tragedy is not justification for us to solve the problem our own way and to go against the very words of Jesus himself. Perhaps the tragedy, the pain, the unfairness is supposed to help us as a society and as individuals to avoid doing this in the first place?
By the way this comfort level in our culture and even within the church with divorce is a relatively new thing in the scope of Christian history.
Another problem that I have never been able to reconcile, is that even if you do not accept the plain meaning of Jesus' words and you believe that some divorces are available based on the circumstances, then how would that work in a practical way? I mean do you accept her word for it? Every divorcee is going to claim that they were wronged. Or do you have to hire a private eye to verify the story that she was wronged? Do you have to have witnesses? Should you interview the ex-husband?
Or is simply should we understand that every divorcee is available, in which case the words of Jesus would have ... no meaning at all?
It seems to me that the plain meaning of Jesus' words that basically say "Just don't do it" work best in a practical way and would contribute more to a stable society. No-fault divorce has been a sociological disaster.
Or is simply should we understand that every divorcee is available, in which case the words of Jesus would have ... no meaning at all?
It seems to me that the plain meaning of Jesus' words that basically say "Just don't do it" work best in a practical way and would contribute more to a stable society. No-fault divorce has been a sociological disaster.
In fact to someone new to Christian polygamy I often point out the irony of how the church accepts divorce despite the clear and direct words of Jesus and how the church condemns polygamy despite the incredible hoops they need to jump through to make a case. The contrast is stark and is a clear illustration of the influence of culture on perception.
I’m gonna ditto @steves comment for a variety of reasons that due to being on a phone right now and trying to finish out my day I’m gonna wait til I can get a keyboard to explain
C
Cap
Guest
1. Leviticus 20:10 "'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
John 8:9 - 11 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
2. Exodus 31:15 For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death.
Matthew 12:1-8 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.” 3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? 6 “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent." 8 “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
3. Deuteronomy 24:1–4 24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.
Matthew 5:32 32 o But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and who ever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
????
Each time the religious establishment tries to trick the Son of God, He always turns THEIR interpretation of the Law against them. Mathew 5:32 is no different.
The men, particularly the men of the religious establishment at that time where using the Law to divorce women for whatever reason they like. The men were abusing the Law. It appears the Son of God was clarifying the Law. So, at face value Matt 5:32 seems to say that if people get divorced then there is no hope for remarriage, except in the case of 'adultery', which can also be defined as "marital unfaithfulness.". And the last part, "who ever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." is were the idea that ALL divorced women are off limits. Which all this clearly does not follow the Mind of God which is “But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
However, what is really being said here is that if a MAN divorces a woman for some stupid reason, then HE(the man) causes an innocent woman ( and the man she remarries) to become adulterers. So the statement the Son of God is making is that MEN who divorce their wives for reasons other than marital unfaithfulness (beyond what is stated in the Law of Divorce from Moses, Deuteronomy 24), are responsible for the carnage that follows. And the statement "who ever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.", further implies that remarriage according to the Son of God is possible if the grounds for divorce are proper and that He does not hold the mainstream Christian view that all divorced women are off limits. And Deuteronomy 24, implies that women can be divorced because of indecency and still get remarried and it not be considered adultery, with the idea that she can not go back to her previous husband once married to another. The adultery part for women in the context of Matt5:23 comes when men divorce women for stupid reasons.
John 8:9 - 11 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
2. Exodus 31:15 For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death.
Matthew 12:1-8 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.” 3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? 6 “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent." 8 “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
3. Deuteronomy 24:1–4 24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.
Matthew 5:32 32 o But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and who ever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
????
Each time the religious establishment tries to trick the Son of God, He always turns THEIR interpretation of the Law against them. Mathew 5:32 is no different.
The men, particularly the men of the religious establishment at that time where using the Law to divorce women for whatever reason they like. The men were abusing the Law. It appears the Son of God was clarifying the Law. So, at face value Matt 5:32 seems to say that if people get divorced then there is no hope for remarriage, except in the case of 'adultery', which can also be defined as "marital unfaithfulness.". And the last part, "who ever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." is were the idea that ALL divorced women are off limits. Which all this clearly does not follow the Mind of God which is “But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
However, what is really being said here is that if a MAN divorces a woman for some stupid reason, then HE(the man) causes an innocent woman ( and the man she remarries) to become adulterers. So the statement the Son of God is making is that MEN who divorce their wives for reasons other than marital unfaithfulness (beyond what is stated in the Law of Divorce from Moses, Deuteronomy 24), are responsible for the carnage that follows. And the statement "who ever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.", further implies that remarriage according to the Son of God is possible if the grounds for divorce are proper and that He does not hold the mainstream Christian view that all divorced women are off limits. And Deuteronomy 24, implies that women can be divorced because of indecency and still get remarried and it not be considered adultery, with the idea that she can not go back to her previous husband once married to another. The adultery part for women in the context of Matt5:23 comes when men divorce women for stupid reasons.
Last edited by a moderator:
No circumstances huh?
1 Corinthians 7:12-16
But if the unbeliever separates, let him be separated. The brother or the sister is not bound in such cases, but G-d has called you to shalom.
Paul, who taught by discernment given to him by the Holy Spirt (G-d) said these aren't words Yeshua (G-d the Son) directly spoke. So do they get overuled like how you said the words G-d the Father directly spoke to Moses have to be.
If you feel convicted that you shouldn't marry a divorced woman because you dont beleive you can trust a divorced woman to be honest or because of your plain reading says you cant, that is one thing. No one is telling you that you must.
Trying to condem or disqualify others through your convictions because you choose to stand with a plain reading, ignore other parts of scripture and decide what words of G-d trump what other words of G-d is the very definition of legalism and you have to jump the same hoops that you were complaining about the church jumping through to prove polygamy is wrong.
Deuteronomy 17:17
Nor should he multiply wives for himself, so that his heart does not turn aside, nor multiply much silver and gold for himself.
Plain reading Kings should not multiple their wives.
Revelation 1:6
And hath made us kings and priests unto G-d and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Plain reading we are kings
Plain meaning beleif about Polygyny: Since we are Kings were not allowed to have more than one wife.
Luke 16:18
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. And he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.
Plain reading divorced men can't marry.
Here it says nothing about being able to divorce for adultery either.
Plain reading no divorce for any reason you must remain married to an adulterous woman.
Edit: Now I'm not advocating for Divorce, Serial Monogamy or Adulterous Relationships but I am saying according to scripture there are circumstances other than physical adultery that make it so that a man and woman are no longer bound to each other.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m still not able to take the time to flesh this out yet, but the boundaries of the answer must be viewed in light of the context of the original question. Can divorce be done for any cause?
To try to apply a direct response to a limited question to every other possible scenario does an injustice to the text and is not supported by the all scripture standard, nor does the context lend itself to be understood as an exception.
To try to apply a direct response to a limited question to every other possible scenario does an injustice to the text and is not supported by the all scripture standard, nor does the context lend itself to be understood as an exception.
steve is correct in saying that all we have is a translation of a translation of what was said.
When it comes to divorce, going by the diversity of opinion posted so far, its all a bit unclear.
Just for a bit of lateral thinking
Forget about David and Bathsheba and just think about the spirit of what the scriptures say in the matter of divorce.
In the Old testament if a man divorced a women she was then free to remarry, but a women had no right to divorce her husband as she was under his law or headship.
The practice of wives divorcing their husbands was common practice in first century Roman society, indeed from 1 BCE and has continued to this day.
If the standards of God do not change (Mal 3:6 James 1:17) and as the principles of headship still apply "within the marital union" for Christians (the husband is head and the wife is under his headship), then for scripture to be consistent, if a man divorces a woman rightly or wrongly, she is free of his headship as he has divorced her. Matt 19:9 places the adultery at his feet not hers if the divorce is unwarranted. Thus she is not in error or penalized for his lack of faithfulness to her. If however "she" divorces him, then she is still under his headship and then if any other man takes her as his wife, this would be a case of adultery, as her action in divorcing her husband has not merit as he is still her husband as he is the head not her. There is no scriptural justification for a wife to divorce her husband, she can leave but only he can divorce and that divorce, as has been point out in the above posts can be due to a certificate or by neglect of her. Ex 21:11. ICor 7:10-16
From that perspective scripture stays in total harmony within the entire bible.
After all, as steve pointed out, all we have is a translation of a translation of what was said. It is the spirit of what was said that is important and the total harmony of scripture that is the test to apply in any matter, especial in the matter of divorce as peoples lives are affected as its not just an academic debate.
C
Cap
Guest
I think we are all in agreement that a wife cannot divorce a husband yes?
Worldly, yes. Biblically, no.
Fair point. Jesus did agree with her "no husband" wording. That point does throw a reasonable objection about what I was saying.
To flesh out the situation that I imagine she was in, I think she had had 5 husbands, being rightfully divorced or widowed between. The last husband she had left herself, ie divorced. And now she was living with another man. This means that she has had 5 husbands, and no longer has the 5th, because she divorced him. However, as the divorce was invalid, she cannot be married to the man she is now with, and is an adulteress rather than a wife, and he is not her husband. So she has no husband - because she left her rightful husband - and is now with a man who is not her husband.
Now I fully admit that I have come up with that scenario as my best way of understanding the situation. There may be a better explanation for how she can be with a man who is not her husband, feel free to make such a suggestion. But I personally feel the above scenario is the simplest way of reconciling this, and does agree with both her words and the words of Jesus.
I think we're getting off-topic here. I don't see how this relates to whether the headship of a king overrides the headship of a husband.
Back on that note - the other place this headship interpretation was used was in the supposed medieval custom / law of droit du seigneur ("right of the lord"), whereby the local lord or king had the right to take the virginity of each woman before she slept with her husband (featured in the movie Braveheart). This law may or may not have actually existed anywhere, many historians mention it but many others doubt their accuracy, it could be entirely legendary. But if it did occur, that is another clear example of where this thinking can end up, to sit alongside the various examples of cults that have been already mentioned.
I am open to instruction. I would really like to be wrong here.
What would be the correct English translation?
I am finding it difficult to believe that all Jesus is saying here is just to make sure the paperwork is correct.
I believe you are misunderstanding what I wrote (and for that I take full responsibility!).
I meant that Jesus in this passage did not list any qualifications to his statement.
For example, in the Matthew 5:32:
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
The first part Jesus qualifies his statment with the exception clause. The second part he does not. He could have. He did not. That was my point.
Last edited: