David and Bathsheba?

[Verifyveritas76]

I think we are all in agreement that a wife cannot divorce a husband yes?

Worldly, yes. Biblically, no.

I’m gonna stick my neck out and say that at this point, I am not in agreement with that statement for multiple reasons. I have been doing quite a bit of study on this topic and have found quite a bit of information available that puts the passages in the Gospel in a much clearer light.

1. The primary evidence for the argument that states that a woman is unable to initiate divorce against her husband consists primarily of an argument from omission. I.e; because there is nothing Biblically saying that she can, this must mean that she’s forbidden.

1. That the Bible never says that she can (not true per Ex 21:11 at minimum for servants/wives)
2. That nowhere does a woman specifically divorce her husband. (I’d beg to differ per Moses and Zipporah)

This argument from omission or silence is the weakest possible argument that can support a position. While it is true that silence at times can indicate a normalcy bias, one must be careful not to manipulate that silence into his or her own normalcy bias. All it takes is one case presenting the opposite perspective and suddenly you don’t even have silence to support the position. A simple example of Hebrew laws showing that their normalcy bias was to force a man to issue a ‘get’ by imprisonment or whipping or other means when the woman had a demonstratable right to the ‘get’ during the pre Christ era, or a verbal acknowledgement that if a woman found her husband to be disgusting, she merely had to repeat the phrase and he was honor bound to issue the ‘get’.

I don’t agree with everything the author presents, but this book has been verrrry enlightening re the Jewish culture on divorce of all kinds from the Bet Din courts, both currently and historically. https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...Abandoned+Wife+in+Jewish+Law+(Whole+Book).pdf


2. The typical marriage was begun with a covenant or a set of vows primarily by the husband which typically included the three conditions also found in Exodus 21:10

1. Food
2. Shelter - physical, personal, and spiritual
3. Cohabitation and marital duties (IMO provision of children as God allows)

These vows or conditions of marriage were essentially terms and conditions of a contract today. Failure to fulfill even one of these terms was considered legitimate grounds for divorce initiated by the woman, and was enforced by the Bet Din courts. While divorces initiated by the wife were uncommon, they were by no means unheard of and were certainly addressed by the elders and courts of their day.

Often the ketubah’s (written covenants) would include language spelling out the exit terms of divorce and were specifically written in a manner that protected the wife and made it legally possible to exit if the terms were breached.

I do agree that divorce is terrible and that God hates it. That is very clear from Scripture. However, Scripture records that God himself initiated divorce and separation for Israel and Judah when they were in violation of their covenants. (Specifically Jer. 3 and Ez 16 among others)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the only justifiable reason for divorce was for adultery. Our view today of adultery has been grossly truncated to include only sexual indiscretions culturally. In the Biblical times however, adultery was any breach of contract between the two parties. These breeches may be any number of things such as the wife engaging in sexual activities outside the marriage bed, failure to submit and obey her husband, or his failure to provide the basic necessities he’d promised the wife as an incentive for her to accept his proposal. Impotence was considered a breach of covenant and justifiable grounds for the wife to demand a ‘get’.

When you approach the passage in Matt. 19, Christ is specifically addressing the very pointed question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” His initial answer was along the lines that when a man and a woman become one before God, that a man should not put asunder or divorce. Simply put that the man should not divorce his wife. After they question him about Moses’ permissiveness, He basically makes the statement that the only justifiable reason that a man should divorce his wife would be for either premarital sex or extramarital sex (porneia addresses both).

IMO, the primary issue behind the misunderstanding in this passage is when we try to understand the Hebrew culture through the lenses of current English/American culture. In the OT & 1 century Biblical era, it was apparently common enough for a man whose wife was defiled either by extramarital consensual sex (standard adultery), or by defilement through war conquests (Absalom and Davids wives/concubines) or even in the case of defilement through non consensual sex (Reuben and Bilhah) to ‘shalak’ her or to put her away and not touch her again. The best example of this is with Mary and Joseph who was unwilling to make a public spectacle/stoning and was intending to “put her away” privily or secretly. Many times this idea of the shalak is translated as divorce but without a writing of divorcement. He was still providing everything for her except intercourse that he was covenantally obligated to do. Her status was that of a wife that was divorced but not free because he was still providing for her. She had no justifiable reason to leave the household and typically would live the rest of her life as a member of the household, just without the physical intimacy and intercourse. For another man to sleep with this woman would be a breach of the still existing covenant thus resulting in adultery.

So when you approach the passage through the lenses of Hebrew culture, ancient as well as 1st century, Christ is addressing the question posed from the perspective that a man should never be separated from his wife (IMO a writing of divorcement which would result in physical separation, not just intimate separation) “what God has joined, let not [any] man put asunder, [not even the husband IMO] but if there is an issue of adultery, the man may justifiably “shalak” her or privily put her away. IF she decides to leave that position and marry another, then it is of course continued adultery by both parties because the husband never intended to release her. A writing of divorcement however meant just the opposite, so she was a free woman with that.

I know this has gone long but just a recap as I understand the passage.

• A man should never separate what God has joined.
• If she has been unfaithful, he should still fulfill his vows, with the exception of intimacy as that would be unclean?
• He may not divorce his wife for “any” reason to take another wife as this is treachery and a breach of covenant on his part = his adultery.
• However, this does not exclude him from taking another wife, he just may not be treacherous to the first wife to add the additional wife.
• If he has put her away (shalak, where he is still protecting/providing etc), she should not seek another to marry, or be woo’ed by another man as this would equal an additional breach of covenant on her part and the other man but not adultery by her husband.

What is not addressed in this passage is whether a woman can demand a ‘get’ or writing of divorce from her husband or what her freedoms are once she has the writing of divorcement. That question is neither asked, nor addressed. That being said, I do not believe that a woman can justifiably divorce her husband for “any” reason other than biblical adultery, not current cultural American adultery.

I understand this is a potentially explosive topic. Once upon a time I believed differently than I do now. The difference is information. There is a lot of secondary information available about this topic that Scripture is largely silent on. It behooves us a men to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgement and equity; to give subtlety to the simple, and to the young man knowledge and discretion. To argue from a basis of Scriptural silence when there is plenty of secondary evidence to the contrary is neither wise, nor just.

Peace, love and all the fuzzy stuff.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Back to David and Bathsheba, In Exodus 21: 1-6 we have the account of the master and the slave, husband and wife. If the male slave did not want to stay in slavery then he forfeited the rights of a husband towards that wife and she along with the children remained the masters. Now if the husband still loved his wife and he wanted her to remain his, but he was unwilling to continue as a slave, was the master now immoral if he took that woman as his own or even if he gave to her to yet another slave? After all the husband did not want to divorce her.
So according to the law and the principle of headship would such a master be classified, by God, as immoral?


What do you think?

I have long been of the opinion that this passage doesn't necessarily speak to morality, but property rights. I see it thus: the female slave represents a considerable financial, and possibly education, investment in the part of the slave owner.

A Hebrew Male who comes into slavery can only be kept for 7 years and, when set free, is to be supplied liberally from the Master's storehouses, no?

Okay, but none of that resolves the investment into the woman. From a property rights perspective, if he just gives the woman to him, it could be a considerable loss if his 7th year release translates immediately to her. Same thing with the children. This may make some slave owners less inclined to even consider allowing their young slave men to marry. Think of it, young men forced into abstinence for up to seven years with no hope? (Sounds like a trouble breeding ground to me)

On the other hand, after seven years the Hebrew Male goes out free. He has been supplied liberally from his master's stores... what is to prevent him from redeeming his wife from his master?

Let him buy her out.

Thus, the property rights of the owner (head) are not simply disregarded.

I think this is more in line with the Spirit of the Law. Otherwise, you have women that will be passed back and forth as temporary pleasure companions to whichever young men happen to fall into slavery at the time. Such would be a breeding ground for disease, physical and spiritual.

 

[steve]

@jacobhaivri , you are making a huge assumption when you assume that the liberal supply from the owner would be enough to match the substantial investment that he has in the woman.

 

[Cap]

I’m gonna stick my neck out and say that at this point, I am not in agreement with that statement for multiple reasons. I have been doing quite a bit of study on this topic and have found quite a bit of information available that puts the passages in the Gospel in a much clearer light.

1. The primary evidence for the argument that states that a woman is unable to initiate divorce against her husband consists primarily of an argument from omission. I.e; because there is nothing Biblically saying that she can, this must mean that she’s forbidden.

1. That the Bible never says that she can (not true per Ex 21:11 at minimum for servants/wives)
2. That nowhere does a woman specifically divorce her husband. (I’d beg to differ per Moses and Zipporah)

This argument from omission or silence is the weakest possible argument that can support a position. While it is true that silence at times can indicate a normalcy bias, one must be careful not to manipulate that silence into his or her own normalcy bias. All it takes is one case presenting the opposite perspective and suddenly you don’t even have silence to support the position. A simple example of Hebrew laws showing that their normalcy bias was to force a man to issue a ‘get’ by imprisonment or whipping or other means when the woman had a demonstratable right to the ‘get’ during the pre Christ era, or a verbal acknowledgement that if a woman found her husband to be disgusting, she merely had to repeat the phrase and he was honor bound to issue the ‘get’.

I don’t agree with everything the author presents, but this book has been verrrry enlightening re the Jewish culture on divorce of all kinds from the Bet Din courts, both currently and historically. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52a75d36e4b06a3e88b21253/t/52af64c0e4b01516437263b2/1387226303999/Broyde+Marriage+Divorce+and+the+Abandoned+Wife+in+Jewish+Law+(Whole+Book).pdf


2. The typical marriage was begun with a covenant or a set of vows primarily by the husband which typically included the three conditions also found in Exodus 21:10

1. Food
2. Shelter - physical, personal, and spiritual
3. Cohabitation and marital duties (IMO provision of children as God allows)

These vows or conditions of marriage were essentially terms and conditions of a contract today. Failure to fulfill even one of these terms was considered legitimate grounds for divorce initiated by the woman, and was enforced by the Bet Din courts. While divorces initiated by the wife were uncommon, they were by no means unheard of and were certainly addressed by the elders and courts of their day.

Often the ketubah’s (written covenants) would include language spelling out the exit terms of divorce and were specifically written in a manner that protected the wife and made it legally possible to exit if the terms were breached.

I do agree that divorce is terrible and that God hates it. That is very clear from Scripture. However, Scripture records that God himself initiated divorce and separation for Israel and Judah when they were in violation of their covenants. (Specifically Jer. 3 and Ez 16 among others)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the only justifiable reason for divorce was for adultery. Our view today of adultery has been grossly truncated to include only sexual indiscretions culturally. In the Biblical times however, adultery was any breach of contract between the two parties. These breeches may be any number of things such as the wife engaging in sexual activities outside the marriage bed, failure to submit and obey her husband, or his failure to provide the basic necessities he’d promised the wife as an incentive for her to accept his proposal. Impotence was considered a breach of covenant and justifiable grounds for the wife to demand a ‘get’.

When you approach the passage in Matt. 19, Christ is specifically addressing the very pointed question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” His initial answer was along the lines that when a man and a woman become one before God, that a man should not put asunder or divorce. Simply put that the man should not divorce his wife. After they question him about Moses’ permissiveness, He basically makes the statement that the only justifiable reason that a man should divorce his wife would be for either premarital sex or extramarital sex (porneia addresses both).

IMO, the primary issue behind the misunderstanding in this passage is when we try to understand the Hebrew culture through the lenses of current English/American culture. In the OT & 1 century Biblical era, it was apparently common enough for a man whose wife was defiled either by extramarital consensual sex (standard adultery), or by defilement through war conquests (Absalom and Davids wives/concubines) or even in the case of defilement through non consensual sex (Reuben and Bilhah) to ‘shalak’ her or to put her away and not touch her again. The best example of this is with Mary and Joseph who was unwilling to make a public spectacle/stoning and was intending to “put her away” privily or secretly. Many times this idea of the shalak is translated as divorce but without a writing of divorcement. He was still providing everything for her except intercourse that he was covenantally obligated to do. Her status was that of a wife that was divorced but not free because he was still providing for her. She had no justifiable reason to leave the household and typically would live the rest of her life as a member of the household, just without the physical intimacy and intercourse. For another man to sleep with this woman would be a breach of the still existing covenant thus resulting in adultery.

So when you approach the passage through the lenses of Hebrew culture, ancient as well as 1st century, Christ is addressing the question posed from the perspective that a man should never be separated from his wife (IMO a writing of divorcement which would result in physical separation, not just intimate separation) “what God has joined, let not [any] man put asunder, [not even the husband IMO] but if there is an issue of adultery, the man may justifiably “shalak” her or privily put her away. IF she decides to leave that position and marry another, then it is of course continued adultery by both parties because the husband never intended to release her. A writing of divorcement however meant just the opposite, so she was a free woman with that.

I know this has gone long but just a recap as I understand the passage.

• A man should never separate what God has joined.
• If she has been unfaithful, he should still fulfill his vows, with the exception of intimacy as that would be unclean?
• He may not divorce his wife for “any” reason to take another wife as this is treachery and a breach of covenant on his part = his adultery.
• However, this does not exclude him from taking another wife, he just may not be treacherous to the first wife to add the additional wife.
• If he has put her away (shalak, where he is still protecting/providing etc), she should not seek another to marry, or be woo’ed by another man as this would equal an additional breach of covenant on her part and the other man but not adultery by her husband.

What is not addressed in this passage is whether a woman can demand a ‘get’ or writing of divorce from her husband or what her freedoms are once she has the writing of divorcement. That question is neither asked, nor addressed. That being said, I do not believe that a woman can justifiably divorce her husband for “any” reason other than biblical adultery, not current cultural American adultery.

I understand this is a potentially explosive topic. Once upon a time I believed differently than I do now. The difference is information. There is a lot of secondary information available about this topic that Scripture is largely silent on. It behooves us a men to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgement and equity; to give subtlety to the simple, and to the young man knowledge and discretion. To argue from a basis of Scriptural silence when there is plenty of secondary evidence to the contrary is neither wise, nor just.

Peace, love and all the fuzzy stuff.

I'm actually going to agree with you and change my comment to a wife can not divorce a Godly husband.

With the position you presented and the fact that who would be the victim in regards to Exodus 21:10 not being honored? The only possible person would be the wife therefore if she didn't have recourse what would be the point.

However, I still believe that it is possible for a divorced woman to have the ability to remarry, given the circumstances are in order biblically. And since life has so many variables each case would have to brought before the Creator to have Him sort it all out. Prayer.

 

[rockfox]

@Verifyveritas76 has a nice narrative, but I don't see how it follows from scripture or how 1 Cor 7 plays into it.

(not true per Ex 21:11 at minimum for servants/wives)

Ex 21:11 is there as a protection to slaves; it does not apply to free wives. As a slave, she had no right to leave should conditions change. A wife on the other hand, could put protections against such eventualities into the marriage contract. So it doesn't apply directly to marriage. However if we argue that a wife can put such protections in a contract under the context of the new covenant, we're left with a weird situation where she apparently can leave for much lighter reasons than a man can.

The primary evidence for the argument that states that a woman is unable to initiate divorce against her husband consists primarily of an argument from omission. I.e; because there is nothing Biblically saying that she can, this must mean that she’s forbidden.

It is sort of base on silence but it's not that weak. God hates divorce, marriage is formed in contract between man and bride's father and that marriage is for life and then establishes certain limited exceptions where a man is allowed to divorce the woman. All this necessarily implies the woman cannot initiate a divorce. She's not even party to the contract! She had no authority to form it, neither could she dissolve it. The contract is permanent with limited exceptions. Your argument could equally apply to the neighbor next door. Nothing Biblicaly says your neighbor can't nullify the contract. But it is clear from the system he has no power to do so; therefor it wasn't necessary to state such. If I contract with a vendor for him to supply me oil, neither the oil nor the barber can cancel the contract. But I can cancel the contract and demand my down payment back if the oil is not fit for purpose or someone steals it out of the vendor's yard before delivery.

 

[steve]

The best example of this is with Mary and Joseph who was unwilling to make a public spectacle/stoning and was intending to “put her away” privily or secretly. Many times this idea of the shalak is translated as divorce but without a writing of divorcement. He was still providing everything for her except intercourse that he was covenantally obligated to do. Her status was that of a wife that was divorced but not free because he was still providing for her. She had no justifiable reason to leave the household and typically would live the rest of her life as a member of the household, just without the physical intimacy and intercourse.

Awesome presentation, the part explaining the “put away privily” was the most beautiful part as it explained things that never made sense to me. (How can it possibly be private when you divorce a wife? Presumably she would be sent home, you cannot keep that private.)

 

[rockfox]

(How can it possibly be private when you divorce a wife?

You don't take stones to the public square is how.

 

[FollowingHim]

@jacobhaivri Well said. The key point is that in this scenario the headship does not trump the rights of the husband, it has nothing to do with marriage, it is a completely separate matter. It is the headship of an employer not a spouse.

In other words, just because his employment contract has finished does not mean hers has not.

The only issue I see with this is that if he says "I love my wife and children" the only way mentioned to retain them is to become a permanent slave. Why couldn't he just keep living with them, but not working for the same master? Or why couldn't he become a hired servant in order to stay in the family? Maybe he could - but why is only one option mentioned?

@jacobhaivri , you are making a huge assumption when you assume that the liberal supply from the owner would be enough to match the substantial investment that he has in the woman.

Agreed. However now that he is free he is able to work for wages and earn enough to buy his wife and children. Or he may persuade family to help him buy them out.

 

[steve]

At the end of the day, we are speculating on what could’ve happened in a society that is alien to us thousands of years ago.

But if anyone wants to discuss Rules For Slavery In The Millennium, let’s start a new thread.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

Deuteronomy 17:18-20

18 “Now when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself a copy of this Torah on a scroll, from what is before the Levitical kohanim. 19 It will remain with him, and he will read in it all the days of his life, in order to learn to fear Adonai his God and keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes. 20 Then his heart will not be exalted above his brothers, and he will not turn from the commandment to the right or to the left—so that he may prolong his days in his kingship, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel.

This is what I think the source of David's sin is.

Here's a Midrash about the subject.

David and Bathsheba

It is impossible to reconcile the simple reading of the text with Torah law. According to Torah, an adulteress is forbidden to marry a man with whom she committed adultery, even after divorce or the death of her husband.

Any descendant from such a union would be a mamzer, i.e., illegitimate, and would thus be disqualified both from reigning as king and from marrying into the general community of permitted Jewish women. Because David remained married to Bathsheba after the incident without reprimand, and because their son, Solomon, was allowed to rule and perpetuate the messianic line, we have no choice but to conclude that David, whatever his sin may have been concerning Bathsheba, did not commit adultery.

A number of details concerning Bathsheba are not addressed by scripture. Early in his reign, David had decreed that every soldier must give his wife a get, a divorce document, stipulating that if he did not return after the war the woman would be considered divorced retroactively to the giving of the get. David instituted this practice to protect every soldier’s wife from the unfortunate status of agunah, a woman prohibited from marrying because her husband is missing in action but not confirmed to be dead.

Consequently, when Uriah, a soldier in David’s army, did not return home from the war, the get he had given to his wife, Bathsheba, rendered her technically divorced from before the time of David’s first involvement with her.

Furthermore, Uriah and Bathsheba had never consummated their marriage, indicating some severe dysfunction in their relationship.

Although this would not by any means justify adultery, it does suggest a motive—other than Uriah’s stated reason of empathy for his fellow soldiers—for Uriah’s refusal to comply with David’s order to return home to his wife.

When Uriah was called before David, he made reference to his general as “my master, Joab” (2 Samuel 11:11). Although this form of address would have been proper in the presence of his commanding officer, referring to anyone other than the king as masterin the presence of the king himself constituted an act of rebellion punishable by death.

Uriah also disobeyed David’s order to return home to his wife.8 On two separate counts, therefore, Uriah placed himself in the category of mored b’malchus, a rebel against the king. As such, Uriah forfeited his life immediately since the extralegal powers of the monarch include the authority to invoke the death penalty upon rebels without the due process of law.

Undeniably, the law gave David the right to bring Uriah before the Sanhedrin and demand his execution. Nevertheless, David worried (for good reason) that the people would question the integrity of a king who ordered a man’s death and immediately married his widow, and David sought to avoid the public appearance of conspiracy and impropriety when he married Bathsheba.

Therefore, rather than demanding Uriah’s execution from the Sanhedrin, David instructed his general, Joab, to arrange Uriah’s death in battle.

It is clear, therefore, that David was neither an adulterer nor a murderer. Indeed, when the prophet Nathan presented David with the parable of the rich man who stole the poor man’s sheep, he alluded to theft but to neither murder nor adultery.

Had David been truly guilty of murdering Uriah, what possible explanation could there have been for the prophet to employ a parable that implied theft but not murder?

What was David’s crime? Some say David erred by arranging Uriah’s death himself and circumventing the formal process of indictment and sentencing. Although David had the authority to invoke the death penalty, he should have gone to the Sanhedrin and confirmed that Uriah’s actions constituted an act of rebellion before executing justice.

According to this, it was David’s desire to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing that, ironically, resulted in his real transgression.

So why does scripture leave David’s innocence so concealed and elusive? Let us recall that the stories recounted in the Bible often magnify the sins of great people so that later generations can appreciate the severity of their transgressions. For a spiritual giant such as David, his indiscretions with Bathsheba and Uriah were indeed comparable to adultery and murder. However, to believe that David actually committed either adultery or murder is to miss both the greatness of David and the real lessons of the biblical record.

Despite his failure, when confronted by the prophet with his sin David immediately accepted responsibility for his actions with the words, “Chotosi LaShem—I have sinned against G-d” (2 Samuel 12:13). Although innocent of adultery and murder—sins against man—David had nevertheless sinned against G-d when he failed to uphold the divine will by manipulating the intent behind the law.

For his transgression, David endured the most severe punishments: the death of his first son from Bathsheba, and the rebellions of his sons Absalom and Adonijah. But because of his spontaneous and unqualified repentance, David retained his distinction as founder the messianic line. It was he who prepared Israel for its crowning glory, the building of the Temple.

Moreover, David becomes an eternal symbol of the power of repentance. Through sincere repentance, David demonstrates for all future generations that anyone, no matter how grave his sins, can find redemption if he truly regrets his misdeeds and commits himself with all his heart and all his soul to correct them.

Edit: Theres another thread where this is explored thoroughly.

This is a lot of new info on the subject I've never heard nor considered. So thanks, Kevin.
The one question which has always tugged at my desire for truth is David's comment in his prayer, "Against thee, and thee only, have I sinned." (referring to God, of course) My first initial and for a very long time thoughts were: first of all from Bathsheba's perspective--Really, you scum bag--1. you killed my husband, 2. because of you our baby is dead, 3. you required that I come to you as King and give myself to you knowing my husband was at war, fighting where you should have been also, btw 4. you were stalking me while I was bathing on the top of my own home which should have been my privacy 5. apparently you have NO care or thoughts on the grief I'm dealing with because of your decision making--2 deaths of loved ones and widowhood!

Then as I pondered Scripture, line upon line, trusting that there is no error and if it seems to have error, I'm wrong and just don't have a complete understanding yet, I couldn't get away from the fact that David "was a man after God's own heart" and he DID pay four fold just like Nathan said he would, David DID quickly repent and our God is a very long suffereing God, and the fact that Nathan never referenced murder nor the morality issues. So I've stepped back from the accusatory stance and kept my radar tuned for more info. On top of the fact that David, over the years has become one of my heros of the Bible alongside of Joseph.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

(How can it possibly be private when you divorce a wife? Presumably she would be sent home, you cannot keep that private.)

Right. It would be impossible to simply send her home without an explanation to the family. Often times we approach the mentions in scripture where it states that they must be put to death as the only possible means of punishment for something like extramarital sex for the wife (adultery) or daughter in their society. In reality, things like this weren’t always so simple, or at least there are enough instances given that shows a different (perhaps optional) side of things.

IMO, I believe that it all came down to the headship and authority of the husband. Josephus states that Jewish law makes the victim the judge of what equals justice. The assembly and courts could only determine guilt or innocence and place limits on severity such as an eye for an eye etc. In a case of classic adultery by the wife, the victim (husband) determined the sentence. If it was serial adultery or perhaps a case of public humiliation or whatever, then yes, he might demand that she be stoned or burnt or whatever. But it was his choice. She was his. In several of the cases mentioned, the husband simply chose to “put her away” from him in his own house. In the case of Davids wives that had been publicly defiled, I believe that he publicly put them away, but in his own house. IF it had been a private matter, he may have simply privily put them away in his own house and it wouldn’t have been anyone else’s business. IMO this is why a childless woman was so ostracized in their culture. A woman that isn’t having kids must be out of favor with her hubby, i.e. she must be defiled so he’s not having anything to do with her. She might as well have a scarlet A stuck to her forehead.

Another option seems to be that the offending male could offer gifts or money as restitution as is shown in Prov. 6:32-35. The examples of Abraham and Abimelech, king of Gerar, and Isaac with Abimelech seem to illustrate this principle as well even though probably there was no interaction between the king and the women. The results however ended up making Abraham and Isaac very wealthy men.

As best I can tell, the privily putting away is something that the husband could do IF he so chose, and no one else had any say in the matter. It didnt typically involve the woman leaving his ‘tent’, and according to the example God shows in Ez. 16, the underlying hope seems to be the reconciliation and restoration of the woman with her husband to full status and intimacy.

BTW, for those who havent caught it yet, this model is also translated as the English word divorce, but the difference between the two is that without the divorce papers she was considered to be in a reconciliation process, thus still bound to him, and she was still welcome in the home as opposed to booted to the curb.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

My boy Uriah was guilty of being a patriot.

If David would not drink water that his men shed blood for, how much less should his servant enjoy his own wife when his men were busy shedding their blood.
Uriah wasn't neglecting his wife by going to war, David was neglecting his duty by NOT going to war.

That is the way I've always seen this.
I also meant to ask Kevin on a point he made that said "Uriah had never consummated his marriage with Bathsheba." I can't imagine from where this info comes! I certainly canot find it alluded to anywhere in Scripture. Please help on this.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

If the command to kill all Hittite was obeyed the whole scenario wouldn't have happened because Uriah the Hittite would not have been married to Bathseba.

Hmmm-now there's a thought!

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I also meant to ask Kevin on a point he made that said "Uriah had never consummated his marriage with Bathsheba." I can't imagine from where this info comes! I certainly canot find it alluded to anywhere in Scripture. Please help on this.

Looks like that's in the Zohar, the kabbalah text. I don't believe it, but the penalty for sleeping with someone else's betrothed woman is still death, so I doubt it matters a whole bunch.

 

[andrew]

the fact that Nathan never referenced murder nor the morality issues

How is this not mentioning murder or morality?...

Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Ex 21:11 is there as a protection to slaves; it does not apply to free wives. As a slave, she had no right to leave should conditions change. A wife on the other hand, could put protections against such eventualities into the marriage contract. So it doesn't apply directly to marriage. However if we argue that a wife can put such protections in a contract under the context of the new covenant, we're left with a weird situation where she apparently can leave for much lighter reasons than a man can.

I would say that it specifically applies directly to marriage.

The protections for the slave listed, simply makes certain that she (ketubah-less) has the same protections as a ketubah’ed wife. Though they aren’t enumerated in Scripture, there are plenty of secondary sources to support the 3 basic vows for a ketubahed wife. The 3 vows were considered the basic foundation of a marital union. There could be additional terms and conditions stipulated in the ketubah, but these three were culturally considered a wife’s due with or without a ketubah. Moses was just making sure that the slaves didnt get a raw deal just because of their circumstances, not creating a special interest class of wives with more rights than a covenanted wife.

This is another instance of basing belief on/from a foundation of scriptural silence. It’s not enumerated in Scripture for a covenanted wife because culturally it was unnecessary. Everyone then knew a covenanted wife was entitled to these basics.

A believing man can never justifiably leave, so yes a woman can leave for much lighter reasons than a man can. If she leaves and is irreconcilable, she has placed herself outside her husbands covering and he may choose not to be accountable for her actions before God.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

How is this not mentioning murder or morality?...

You're right--I didn't reread the passage so had forgotten Nathan's exact words--sorry!

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It is sort of base on silence but it's not that weak. God hates divorce, marriage is formed in contract between man and bride's father and that marriage is for life and then establishes certain limited exceptions where a man is allowed to divorce the woman. All this necessarily implies the woman cannot initiate a divorce. She's not even party to the contract!

1) Yes, God hates divorce

2) No, the contract is not between the man and the father, he is simply her mediator and steward. He is a third party facilitating the union of one entrusted to him.

3) The marriage for life thing is obviously the goal, no one wants to be divorced going into the covenant, but the term of the covenant is specifically contingent upon the performance or life of both parties.

4) The idea that the man can and the woman cant is another instance of arguing from scriptural silence contrary to cultural norms of the culture.

5) So the implication becomes a cultural assumption based upon a scriptural silence.

6) Yes, she is one of only two parties to this particular contract. Her and her husband to be. See #2

 

[The Revolting Man]

I’m gonna stick my neck out and say that at this point, I am not in agreement with that statement for multiple reasons. I have been doing quite a bit of study on this topic and have found quite a bit of information available that puts the passages in the Gospel in a much clearer light.

1. The primary evidence for the argument that states that a woman is unable to initiate divorce against her husband consists primarily of an argument from omission. I.e; because there is nothing Biblically saying that she can, this must mean that she’s forbidden.

1. That the Bible never says that she can (not true per Ex 21:11 at minimum for servants/wives)
2. That nowhere does a woman specifically divorce her husband. (I’d beg to differ per Moses and Zipporah)

This argument from omission or silence is the weakest possible argument that can support a position. While it is true that silence at times can indicate a normalcy bias, one must be careful not to manipulate that silence into his or her own normalcy bias. All it takes is one case presenting the opposite perspective and suddenly you don’t even have silence to support the position. A simple example of Hebrew laws showing that their normalcy bias was to force a man to issue a ‘get’ by imprisonment or whipping or other means when the woman had a demonstratable right to the ‘get’ during the pre Christ era, or a verbal acknowledgement that if a woman found her husband to be disgusting, she merely had to repeat the phrase and he was honor bound to issue the ‘get’.

I don’t agree with everything the author presents, but this book has been verrrry enlightening re the Jewish culture on divorce of all kinds from the Bet Din courts, both currently and historically. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52a75d36e4b06a3e88b21253/t/52af64c0e4b01516437263b2/1387226303999/Broyde+Marriage+Divorce+and+the+Abandoned+Wife+in+Jewish+Law+(Whole+Book).pdf


2. The typical marriage was begun with a covenant or a set of vows primarily by the husband which typically included the three conditions also found in Exodus 21:10

1. Food
2. Shelter - physical, personal, and spiritual
3. Cohabitation and marital duties (IMO provision of children as God allows)

These vows or conditions of marriage were essentially terms and conditions of a contract today. Failure to fulfill even one of these terms was considered legitimate grounds for divorce initiated by the woman, and was enforced by the Bet Din courts. While divorces initiated by the wife were uncommon, they were by no means unheard of and were certainly addressed by the elders and courts of their day.

Often the ketubah’s (written covenants) would include language spelling out the exit terms of divorce and were specifically written in a manner that protected the wife and made it legally possible to exit if the terms were breached.

I do agree that divorce is terrible and that God hates it. That is very clear from Scripture. However, Scripture records that God himself initiated divorce and separation for Israel and Judah when they were in violation of their covenants. (Specifically Jer. 3 and Ez 16 among others)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the only justifiable reason for divorce was for adultery. Our view today of adultery has been grossly truncated to include only sexual indiscretions culturally. In the Biblical times however, adultery was any breach of contract between the two parties. These breeches may be any number of things such as the wife engaging in sexual activities outside the marriage bed, failure to submit and obey her husband, or his failure to provide the basic necessities he’d promised the wife as an incentive for her to accept his proposal. Impotence was considered a breach of covenant and justifiable grounds for the wife to demand a ‘get’.

When you approach the passage in Matt. 19, Christ is specifically addressing the very pointed question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” His initial answer was along the lines that when a man and a woman become one before God, that a man should not put asunder or divorce. Simply put that the man should not divorce his wife. After they question him about Moses’ permissiveness, He basically makes the statement that the only justifiable reason that a man should divorce his wife would be for either premarital sex or extramarital sex (porneia addresses both).

IMO, the primary issue behind the misunderstanding in this passage is when we try to understand the Hebrew culture through the lenses of current English/American culture. In the OT & 1 century Biblical era, it was apparently common enough for a man whose wife was defiled either by extramarital consensual sex (standard adultery), or by defilement through war conquests (Absalom and Davids wives/concubines) or even in the case of defilement through non consensual sex (Reuben and Bilhah) to ‘shalak’ her or to put her away and not touch her again. The best example of this is with Mary and Joseph who was unwilling to make a public spectacle/stoning and was intending to “put her away” privily or secretly. Many times this idea of the shalak is translated as divorce but without a writing of divorcement. He was still providing everything for her except intercourse that he was covenantally obligated to do. Her status was that of a wife that was divorced but not free because he was still providing for her. She had no justifiable reason to leave the household and typically would live the rest of her life as a member of the household, just without the physical intimacy and intercourse. For another man to sleep with this woman would be a breach of the still existing covenant thus resulting in adultery.

So when you approach the passage through the lenses of Hebrew culture, ancient as well as 1st century, Christ is addressing the question posed from the perspective that a man should never be separated from his wife (IMO a writing of divorcement which would result in physical separation, not just intimate separation) “what God has joined, let not [any] man put asunder, [not even the husband IMO] but if there is an issue of adultery, the man may justifiably “shalak” her or privily put her away. IF she decides to leave that position and marry another, then it is of course continued adultery by both parties because the husband never intended to release her. A writing of divorcement however meant just the opposite, so she was a free woman with that.

I know this has gone long but just a recap as I understand the passage.

• A man should never separate what God has joined.
• If she has been unfaithful, he should still fulfill his vows, with the exception of intimacy as that would be unclean?
• He may not divorce his wife for “any” reason to take another wife as this is treachery and a breach of covenant on his part = his adultery.
• However, this does not exclude him from taking another wife, he just may not be treacherous to the first wife to add the additional wife.
• If he has put her away (shalak, where he is still protecting/providing etc), she should not seek another to marry, or be woo’ed by another man as this would equal an additional breach of covenant on her part and the other man but not adultery by her husband.

What is not addressed in this passage is whether a woman can demand a ‘get’ or writing of divorce from her husband or what her freedoms are once she has the writing of divorcement. That question is neither asked, nor addressed. That being said, I do not believe that a woman can justifiably divorce her husband for “any” reason other than biblical adultery, not current cultural American adultery.

I understand this is a potentially explosive topic. Once upon a time I believed differently than I do now. The difference is information. There is a lot of secondary information available about this topic that Scripture is largely silent on. It behooves us a men to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgement and equity; to give subtlety to the simple, and to the young man knowledge and discretion. To argue from a basis of Scriptural silence when there is plenty of secondary evidence to the contrary is neither wise, nor just.

Peace, love and all the fuzzy stuff.

Whaaaaa?!?!?! Mark 10:12? Am I missing something? If a woman divorces her husband she must remain single until he dies or unless they reconcile. No caveats, addendums or provisos. If she asked her husband for a divorce and he gave it to her then it would be him divorcing her. Did I misunderstand your point?

 

[JustAGuy]

I just wanted to make a quick note that I appreciate the different view you are bringing to this @Aussies (same goes for everyone else) Whether I agree or not I cannot say, I have not had time to ponder it in enough detail. I just wanted to say that different views are good, thanks for posting, don't be discouraged by the fact that others express other viewpoints.

I have nothing useful to contribute tonight but can see that this discussion has the potential to become argumentative for little reason, so thought I'd just jump in, wave a flag saying "Peace", and then go to bed...

Totally agreed @Aussies and @FollowingHim! No way I can read all that and keep up but don’t be afraid of disagreement. Have faith to keep at it. The God who loves all of us will help us find the way, individually and together.