• 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?

rockfox said:
Unholy relationship? Didn't Paul teach the believer sanctified their spouse? Trapped? Did Peter or Paul council divorce to women who found themselves married to an unbeliever? No, just the opposite.
Click to expand...

I personally think you have done more harm than good in this discussion in regards to women and divorce, along with a few others. But the same has been going on about religious rigidity beyond this discussion for years.

It's one thing to believe certain things are a sin for oneself but it's a whole other thing when one tries to preach it to others. The concern here should be the harm that is being pertrayed to a wider audience then how one individual my be taking something wrong just because that's the way the group functions when they don't have to look you in the eye. Integrity should hold whether one is in a forum setting or in an up close personal one. Someone's character should be the same in either place.

Hope that's not too critical and we can hug like brothers if we meet in person one day, or is that too convoluted?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no "harm being portrayed to a wider audience" by @rockfox's statement. All he is doing is restating very real teachings from the New Testament. Scripture does appear to plainly teach that a woman cannot initiate divorce, there is nothing harmful about holding that opinion. Nor is this opinion causing any harm to others (re-read the last few posts more carefully, that's not the issue). You may disagree with this interpretation, and that's fine, if we all agreed there wouldn't be a discussion. Disagreement is healthy. But to attempt to shut down the other's viewpoint by accusing them of lacking integrity or having a poor character for stating such a viewpoint is a completely inappropriate. Furthermore, if we genuinely believe certain things are sinful then we SHOULD try to teach that to others, to help them avoid sin. Disagreement is good. We just need to be able to disagree without getting offended by it.
 
FollowingHim said:
Scripture does appear to plainly teach that a woman cannot initiate divorce, there is nothing harmful about holding that opinion.
Click to expand...

This is your opinion. I do not agree with it. Scripture plainly teachs otherwise as far as I'm concerned. I have read the statements in this thread and no one is teaching me anything new in this regard. And the opinion you seem to hold, and others, becomes harmful when others who do not hold the same view are silent for fear of reprisal from the group.

If anything else letting the voice you seem to be saying is minor in one statement then major in another, have a prominent say here detracts from the purpose of this website in general. To give families, men and women the opportunity to live in a loving wholesome family structure, when this voice is basically saying that there is a large swath of society that is off limits. If it's off limits to the individual then that should be made clear. But it's not, and your comments placate a view that you seem to secretly believe is true.

The concern here is that there could be women who did all they could to save their marriage but through the actions of an ungodly husband DID use the system to free themselves by divorce. They do this because the current structures in society have allowed neglect in the provisions stated are to be provided to them in the Law. And God has provided a mechanism to help them in today's world, since the church can't do it. And all the views against this is based on a statement that Paul made, which everyone seems to forget that he started his statement with I NOT THE LORD.

I try to stay away from you Samuel, but apparently it's not possible given you seem to heavily voice your opinion on EVERY subject that is brought up here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry I’ve been absent for a couple of days. I’ve been going from can’t see to can’t see trying to get some things wrapped up before heading out to retreats. I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and realize I have a couple of questions to respond to and will do so ASAP.

@BeingHeld Id second what FH said about not taking it personal. From your post, I’d say that it doesn’t apply to you at all.

For those who this might apply to, my advice would be not to let the opinions of a few cloud your view of the others represented here.
 
For those who have adamantly stated that the Mark 10:12 passage denies a woman the ability to initiate divorce with her husband, could you please explain how you get that from

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
 
FollowingHim said:
I found this sentence a bit odd myself also. What do you actually mean? What is a scenario in which a woman could justifiably divorce her husband, using your above interpretation?

A woman can clearly commit biblical adultery against her husband. But can a man commit adultery against his wife?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell so far, a man cannot commit adultery against his wife according to our Americanized definition of adultery (sexual philandering). I’m still looking for confirmation either way.
However, adultery wasn’t defined so tightly under biblical eras. Adultery for a man usually entailed covenant breaking and was typically actionable for multiple reasons beginning with the basic 3 vows (that according to the Babylonian Talmud +\-200 BC was enforced with or without a written ketubah) and could also include additional written conditions that had been broken.

A woman could also be divorced under the label of adultery for non sexual reasons. These would also include issues that would fall under covenant breaking whether it was breaking Torah or understood cultural norms like submission, obedience etc.

Obviously, it was much easier for a man to divorce his wife than the reverse. A man simply had to write it out and throw it close to her. A woman had to bring her case before the Beth din court and they would compell the man to write the ‘get’ if it was an actionable and provable charge.

On the other hand, a woman married to someone that worked in a trade that was disgusting, like a copper smith, tanner or the guy that walked around town picking up dog excrement, could demand a divorce if it became too gross for her. Even if she married him knowing that was his occupation, she merely had to testify that she thought she’d be able to bear it before the wedding but just couldn’t after all and they would enforce her woman initiated divorce and compel the man to issue a ‘get’.

These are the same guys that thought it was ok for a man to divorce his wife because her breasts were too big (understood to be sagging though that may be just a single example given) or because her breasts had a handbreath between them instead of three fingers width (the correct distance apart).

The point is that these courts were drastically skewed in favor of the men and they still recognized that a wife had certain unalienable rights (barring her own sexual infidelity) to at least a very limited sort of equity.

They also stated that it was inconceivable that a single status for both men and women was preferable to even the worst marriage, and yet supported and enforced a woman’s right to demand a divorce in certain very limited instances compared to the men.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
For those who have adamantly stated that the Mark 10:12 passage denies a woman the ability to initiate divorce with her husband, could you please explain how you get that from

And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Click to expand...

Because it says that if a woman put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery. Are you saying that a woman is allowed to leave her husband and stay single? Is that what you're calling a divorce? If so then I agree with you. The argument you're getting is that a divorce in scripture is what let's a previously married woman get remarried. It can only originate with the husband.

All the folderol about courts and cultural practices is interesting but irrelevant. I should also point out that I don't hold anything that happens before salvation to be binding. It no longer exists so it can't be. What I find interesting in these debates is that no one ever talks about trying to resolve a woman's status, going back and asking the previous claim holder to release her, to give her an actual scriptural divorce. It's not like this is a completely unreasonable standard or insurmountable obstacle. And the truth is that many of the former "husbands" were themselves just adulterers with no claim whatsoever.

The real problems come in because A) most of these women would rather cut off their arms then admit that they did something wrong or were not justified in their actions, B) almost all of us would sacrifice almost anything to avoid having our wills and desires thwarted, and C) because approaching this prior claim holder in a spirit of humility and supplication hurts our pride. But I would submit that if we're not willing to do these things in order to take a woman with a clear conscience then we don't really love her all that much.

And the precedent is there; Boaz cleared up Ruth's prior obligations before he took her in. My point is that this isn't an either or proposition. Just because a woman has gotten off track at some point doesn't mean that she's forever barred from love and affection. His yoke is easy and His burden is light if we will just humbly and honestly apply His Laws as they are written. There are very few roadblocks in God's path but you do have to follow the path.
 
Cap said:
Not anymore.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're right. He got promoted to administrator. I amend my statement. He is the(an) administrator. But seriously, FH was just doing his customary job of keeping things from getting in the weeds. The forum flows much better when he's on watch. Although I don't always agree with his individual editorial decisions (in the present thread I perceive a total lack of moral equivalency between some of the positions) he almost always makes the over all tone better. Some of his prolonged absences represent the least constructive periods of the forum. Now I better not get put on post approval for a very long time!
 
ZecAustin said:
Oh, you're right. He got promoted to administrator. I amend my statement. He is the(an) administrator. But seriously, FH was just doing his customary job of keeping things from getting in the weeds. The forum flows much better when he's on watch. Although I don't always agree with his individual editorial decisions (in the present thread I perceive a total lack of moral equivalency between some of the positions) he almost always makes the over all tone better. Some of his prolonged absences represent the least constructive periods of the forum. Now I better not get put on post approval for a very long time!
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. I have mine. We should probably leave it at that.
 
ZecAustin said:
Because it says that if a woman put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery. Are you saying that a woman is allowed to leave her husband and stay single? Is that what you're calling a divorce? If so then I agree with you. The argument you're getting is that a divorce in scripture is what let's a previously married woman get remarried. It can only originate with the husband.

All the folderol about courts and cultural practices is interesting but irrelevant. I should also point out that I don't hold anything that happens before salvation to be binding. It no longer exists so it can't be. What I find interesting in these debates is that no one ever talks about trying to resolve a woman's status, going back and asking the previous claim holder to release her, to give her an actual scriptural divorce. It's not like this is a completely unreasonable standard or insurmountable obstacle. And the truth is that many of the former "husbands" were themselves just adulterers with no claim whatsoever.

The real problems come in because A) most of these women would rather cut off their arms then admit that they did something wrong or were not justified in their actions, B) almost all of us would sacrifice almost anything to avoid having our wills and desires thwarted, and C) because approaching this prior claim holder in a spirit of humility and supplication hurts our pride. But I would submit that if we're not willing to do these things in order to take a woman with a clear conscience then we don't really love her all that much.

And the precedent is there; Boaz cleared up Ruth's prior obligations before he took her in. My point is that this isn't an either or proposition. Just because a woman has gotten off track at some point doesn't mean that she's forever barred from love and affection. His yoke is easy and His burden is light if we will just humbly and honestly apply His Laws as they are written. There are very few roadblocks in God's path but you do have to follow the path.
Click to expand...

There have been many hard statements in this discussion in regards to whether a woman can initiate divorce and whether a divorced woman can get remarried after divorce. The hard statements are what I'm trying to soften in the sense we all make mistakes. If you are saying that there is room for a man to evaluate, before God, a particular situation in which a man is presented when it comes to a relationship with a divorced woman, in either case, I agree with you.

Also, there is room for forgiveness after salvation as well. The New Covenant is based on God's promise in saving us, not the Old Covenant which required man to save himself, which is impossible.
 
To explore this a little and get a better understanding of your postion.

ZecAustin said:
Because it says that if a woman put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery. Are you saying that a woman is allowed to leave her husband and stay single? Is that what you're calling a divorce? If so then I agree with you. The argument you're getting is that a divorce in scripture is what let's a previously married woman get remarried. It can only originate with the husband.

All the folderol about courts and cultural practices is interesting but irrelevant. I should also point out that I don't hold anything that happens before salvation to be binding. It no longer exists so it can't be
Click to expand...

In Mathew its says, divorce is justified if adultery happens. Some say he's speaking to only physical others beleive he's also speaking of spirital. Either way all other reasons are not valid.

We have your opinion on Mark.

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.

Here we see the same thing being said but this time directed at men. Mark, Matthew, and Luke say men who divorce their wives and Mary another comit adultery. My question is would you also say that a man can not initiate a divorce? (Taking in account that you dont beleive anything presalvation is binding which is where the right to divorce came from.)

If a woman must go back and asking the previous claim holder to release her (I must be over looking scripture I've know some that kind of support the idea in spirit but it's taking it out of context and to understand where your coming from I can't do that), to give her an actual scriptural divorce, how can that be done if the divorce isn't justified by adultery. Who then gives the man who unjustly divorced permission to marry?

If anything that happened before salvation is not binding then using the laws to define scripual procedure is invalid. Anything Yeshua said is impossible to hold people accountable for He said because we did not get recieve salvation until he full filled prophecy and redeemed us with His blood.

If anything before salvation is not binding then all we have the words of the Apostles since Yeshuas teachings were presalvation. If your saying that salvation in the sense of he was here preparing us then you still end up with the words of the Son invalidating the words of the father depending on the stance someone is taking. Scripture being invalidated by scripture.

Cap said:
The New Covenant is based on God's promise in saving us, not the Old Covenant which required man to save himself, which is impossible
Click to expand...
Abrahamic covenant require man to submit to G-d, the New covenant still requires the same. One of the issues being discussed albeit indirectly is that choosing to live in an adulterous releastionship is choosing to live in sin and there for not submitting.

Romans 6:1-7

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may abound?
May it never be! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Or do you not know that all of us who were immersed into Messiah Yeshua were immersed into His death?
Therefore we were buried together with Him through immersion into death—in order that just as Messiah was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have become joined together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also will be joined together in His resurrection—
knowing our old man was crucified with Him so that the sinful body might be done away with, so we no longer serve sin.
For he who has died is set free from sin.

Choosing to go back to live in sin is Apostasy. We all slip and sin but there's a difference in committing a sin and not being repentive about it. If your convicted over your sin but still choosing to live sin over making reconciliation then your not repentive. That's why understanding what is righteous according to scripture, G-ds will, and not the way we feel is important.

Salvation is the ultimate expression of His Love but His Love does not negate His Will. He Loves us despite it being impossible for us to walk fully in His Will. Thats where forgiveness comes in. Its not a butcher's blade to chop out the choice cuts of his words for us to devour and scraping the rest but a scalpel to cut away the cancer from man that keeps us seperated from Him.

Luke 16:16-17

The Torah and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since then, the Good News of the kingdom of G-d is being proclaimed, and everyone tries forcing his way in. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single serif of the Torah to fail
 
Last edited:
Kevin said:
To explore this a little and get a better understanding of your postion.



In Mathew its says, divorce is justified if adultery happens. Some say he's speaking to only physical others beleive he's also speaking of spirital. Either way all other reasons are not valid.

We have your opinion on Mark.

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.

Here we see the same thing being said but this time directed at men. My question is would you also say that a man can not initiate a divorce? (Taking in account that you dont beleive anything presalvation is binding)

If a woman must go back and asking the previous claim holder to release her (I must be over looking scripture I've know some that kind of support the idea in spirit but it's taking it out of context and to understand where your coming from I can't do that), to give her an actual scriptural divorce, how can that be done if the divorce isn't justified by adultery. Who then gives the man who unjustly divorced permission to marry?

If anything that happened before salvation is not binding then using the laws to define scripual procedure is invalid. Anything Yeshua said is impossible to hold people accountable for He said because we did not get recieve salvation until he full filled prophecy and redeemed us with His blood.

If anything before salvation is not binding then all we have the words of the Apostles since Yeshuas teachings were presalvation. If your saying that salvation in the sense of he was here preparing us then you still end up with the words of the Son invalidating the words of the father depending on the stance someone is taking. Scripture being invalidated by scripture.


Abrahamic covenant require man to submit to G-d, the New covenant still requires the same. One of the issues being discussed albeit indirectly is that choosing to live in an adulterous releastionship is choosing to live in sin and there for not submitting.

Romans 6:1-7

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may abound?
May it never be! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Or do you not know that all of us who were immersed into Messiah Yeshua were immersed into His death?
Therefore we were buried together with Him through immersion into death—in order that just as Messiah was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have become joined together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also will be joined together in His resurrection—
knowing our old man was crucified with Him so that the sinful body might be done away with, so we no longer serve sin.
For he who has died is set free from sin.

Choosing to go back to live in sin is Apostasy. We all slip and sin but there's a difference in committing a sin and not being repentive about it. If your convicted over your sin but still choosing to live sin over making reconciliation then your not repentive. That's why defining what is justifiable according to scripture, G-ds will, and not the way we feel is important.

Salvation is the ultimate expression of His Love but His Love does not negate His Will. He Loves us despite it being impossible for us to walk fully in His Will. Thats where forgiveness comes in. Its not a butcher's blade to chop out the choice cuts of his words for us to devour and scraping the rest but a scalpel to cut away the cancer from man that keeps us seperated from Him.

Luke 16:16-17

The Torah and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since then, the Good News of the kingdom of G-d is being proclaimed, and everyone tries forcing his way in. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single serif of the Torah to fail
Click to expand...

I understand your statement in regards to my comment about the new and old covenant. And I agree that continuing in sin is not at all honoring to God. I wasn't trying to say that, and probably that whole section of my comment is too involved to be discussed in this thread. But,

The New Covenant

Jerimiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

This is a promise God makes to us, and it has nothing to do with what we are to do. The old covenant was, if you obey my laws I will bless you. Here He says, I will place my laws in you. It's His responsiblity. But I do understand that we have a job to do to love our Creator and do His will. That's what wives do, well good ones anyway.

I will add, how He does this with each individual is His business, so no judgement from me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZecAustin said:
Because it says that if a woman put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery. Are you saying that a woman is allowed to leave her husband and stay single? Is that what you're calling a divorce? If so then I agree with you. The argument you're getting is that a divorce in scripture is what let's a previously married woman get remarried. It can only originate with the husband.
Click to expand...

I’m saying that a woman under the right circumstances was allowed to initiate and receive a divorce. The interesting thing that I found in the BT is that even if she initiated it, and the judges approved it, the man always was the one to issue the ‘get’. He could either do it willingly, or they would sentence him to be publicly beaten until he issued it willingly. :rolleyes:

So yes, I agree that a writing of divorce always would be written by the husband (if that’s what you were referring too) but there were several reasons that the woman could initiate the proceedings. She could of course not write or issue the ‘get’.
 
To take it to the next step, Mark says plainly that just like the woman, a man can not give a divorce and then marry another without it being adultery against the wife. In my view this would be a very equitable position.

Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top