Error Taught on DivorceHope website

[ImaginaryDay]

Now you just reversed what he said to you earlier, that he hasn't studied it out.

Let's assume everyone has studied it before. Let's continue to study and see where we get.

My point was that sometimes church culture can lead us to an interpretation as opposed to careful study of culture, context, and reasoning (i.e. original intent as far as we can understand it) of the original authors. We'd rather absorb what we've learned since Sunday school, and apply that as truth than study to find out if we've been wrong. We have to understand that words have different meanings and nuances that sometimes cannot be captured correctly in English. Things like "let no man put asunder" for instance, translated now as "let no one separate" has the connotation of "let no person come between" (i.e. interfere with the union).

But I see that a new study thread has been started. I'll be lurking around...

 

[ValleyGal]

However, there are a couple of ways to take this. In both cases the man was not allowed to divorce the person because that would put them without any support.

and this is why I believe that Joseph, being a righteous man, would likely not have divorced Mary, if indeed they had already been married. But they were not married.

Whether that means any other reason for divorce was fine,

I never said it was fine. I said God made merciful concession for it. It's kind of like currently justifying certain behaviours because "it can't be found in the Bible." We have to go on principle and on God's character to figure it out. Because there are two examples at each extreme, and nothing else is directly addressed, we need to use our common sense and apply what we do know. And I know God to be a God of justice, which also requires mercy.

OT law does describe the necessity for a certificate of divorce. You cited it in Deut 22.

 

[tall73]

and this is why I believe that Joseph, being a righteous man, would likely not have divorced Mary, if indeed they had already been married. But they were not married.



I never said it was fine. I said God made merciful concession for it. It's kind of like currently justifying certain behaviours because "it can't be found in the Bible." We have to go on principle and on God's character to figure it out. Because there are two examples at each extreme, and nothing else is directly addressed, we need to use our common sense and apply what we do know. And I know God to be a God of justice, which also requires mercy.

OT law does describe the necessity for a certificate of divorce. You cited it in Deut 22.

Deut 24 is the text, and again, it does not directly address the topic but addresses a scenario in which the person is dismissed with a certificate from one marriage, goes to another, and that person either divorces the person or dies, and then the person goes back to the original.

In other words, the purpose of the text is not a description of the process of the certificate, but assumes it already in place and deals with a more limited scenario.

 

[ValleyGal]

Deut 24:1
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,

It is their law books...this was their law.

 

[tall73]

Deut 24:1
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,

It is their law books...this was their law.

You will get what I am saying if you read the next several verses. You ended the sentence in the middle, with a comma.

Again, this is in the middle of a more extended case study involving three marriages involving one lady and two men.

It is not the simple statement of a divorce certificate procedure, but an example of a rather unusual situation. Like I mentioned, it referenced the divorce certificate practice as already in place, but that is not its main point.

 

[ValleyGal]

Are you saying that a certificate of divorce was ONLY needed in the ONE situation>??? That is not in keeping with God. No. His expectation is that people actually got divorced with a certificate. You are grasping at straws.

 

[LinkH]

Are you saying that a certificate of divorce was ONLY needed in the ONE situation>??? That is not in keeping with God. No. His expectation is that people actually got divorced with a certificate. You are grasping at straws.

But don't you believe that a man doesn't have to give his wife a certificate of divorce if she commits fornication, based on the way you interpret 'put away' in Matthew 19?

 

[LinkH]

and this is why I believe that Joseph, being a righteous man, would likely not have divorced Mary, if indeed they had already been married. But they were not married.

Apparently, Joseph had already paid the bride price, and a formal divorce would have been required, even though the marriage had not yet been consummated. The angel told Joseph in a dream not to be afraid to take Mary, his wife, to him.

OT law does describe the necessity for a certificate of divorce. You cited it in Deut 22.

And Christ said that Moses, 'because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed divorce, but from he beginning it was not so.'

 

[tall73]

Are you saying that a certificate of divorce was ONLY needed in the ONE situation>??? That is not in keeping with God. No. His expectation is that people actually got divorced with a certificate. You are grasping at straws.

No, that is not at all what I am saying.
Slow down a bit. I am not even making conclusions at this point. I am going to go through the whole other thread at some point, if I get time. I am just noting some things about this text that show why there is such difficulty with the topic of divorce. It was not thoroughly covered in the law to begin with.

I get that you all are decided on the issue one way or the other. I have my leanings as well. But if I am going to be open minded and study it out again, I have to start from the beginning, looking at every detail anew. That is what I am doing.

What I am noting is that several texts mention certificates of divorce. This one does. Texts regarding God divorcing Israel do. But they are references to a practice already in place. They do not spell out a lot about how it works.

This command was to warn against a particular scenario, an occurrence of a married couple splitting, the woman remarrying, then splitting again, then remarrying the original husband. It was regarded as defiling the land.

The purpose of this command then is not primarily to spell out the certificate, because that was already happening. Nor does it list all the parameters for a certificate, or for remarriage, because that was not its purpose. So we are missing a lot of information from the outset about the practice.

The scenario spelled out mentions two different reasons for the certificate here, which I find interesting. One is if some indecency is found. In the second he is just mad at her.

This suggests that divorces were happening for a number of reasons. Whether it endorses the specific reasons is another question, because it is relating a general scenario.

 

[tall73]

Apparently, Joseph had already paid the bride price, and a formal divorce would have been required, even though the marriage had not yet been consummated. The angel told Joseph in a dream not to be afraid to take Mary, his wife, to him.

That is my understanding as well. The betrothal was the official covenant entered into, hence why even then if someone was an adulterer they would be stoned.

What we need to find are more direct, primary source, references to the betrothal process to clarify some things on that.

 

[ValleyGal]

Tall, you're welcome to do what you like, if you want to go through the whole thread. I'm likely not going to respond. This is easter weekend, and I have plans to remember Jesus this weekend, and the great suffering and sacrifice he made for all the sins that led to my divorces. I'm not going to use my weekend debating the divorcehope website. I should never have participated in this thread until everyone here has actually read the site. Then maybe some meaningful discussion could happen; however, I'm simply reiterating what it says. If you're interested in debating the divorcehope website, be my guest....go to the site and take it up with the author. My focus is on worshipping the Lord Jesus this weekend.

 

[tall73]

Tall, you're welcome to do what you like, if you want to go through the whole thread. I'm likely not going to respond. This is easter weekend, and I have plans to remember Jesus this weekend, and the great suffering and sacrifice he made for all the sins that led to my divorces. I'm not going to use my weekend debating the divorcehope website. I should never have participated in this thread until everyone here has actually read the site. Then maybe some meaningful discussion could happen; however, I'm simply reiterating what it says. If you're interested in debating the divorcehope website, be my guest....go to the site and take it up with the author. My focus is on worshipping the Lord Jesus this weekend.

Valleygal,

I never said you had to participate in this thread. I didn't make this thread. I certainly didn't say you had to respond over the Easter Weekend. But some folks, including your husband, were encouraging folks to study it out more. I am trying to do that as sincerely as I can. I don't get why you are speaking to me directly on this as though I am forcing you into this debate? You always have the option to participate or not participate in any discussion. And I have not even ruled out the conclusions you have come to yet, as I am trying to re-review it all.

Nor do I have any interest in the divorcehope website. I am trying to figure out the texts themselves.

In any case, have a blessed Easter.

 

[ValleyGal]

I don't get why you are speaking to me directly on this as though I am forcing you into this debate?

Because you quoted my post, I thought you were responding directly to me and expecting an answer from me. My mistake if that is not the case.

Link, you are grasping at straws. Iirc, the Bible does not discuss whether a bride price had already been paid or whether the covenant had been entered. However, it was not consummated. As for your second comment, we are not "in the beginning," nor should we pretend to be. Sin has entered the world, and that has necessitated divorce.

Happy Easter.

 

[tall73]

Because you quoted my post, I thought you were responding directly to me and expecting an answer from me. My mistake if that is not the case.

Once you are in the thread and posting I would think you are doing so of your own free will.

I earlier addressed my questions to anyone who held the view, and then you quoted that and said you thought I meant you.

Well, I didn't necessarily mean you, I meant anyone who held the view.

I understand you already conversed on some of this on other threads, and may not be interested in this one. That is fine. But if you are going to participate that is your choice. And once you are posting I figure your comments are open for discussion, as with comments by other posters.

I have no issue with you deciding to spend the Easter weekend, or any time for that matter, a different way.

I tend to go in spurts around here myself because I just don't want to deal with it all the time.

 

[tall73]

Apparently, Joseph had already paid the bride price, and a formal divorce would have been required, even though the marriage had not yet been consummated. The angel told Joseph in a dream not to be afraid to take Mary, his wife, to him.
'

Here is what I found so far on the topic.

First of all, it not only calls Mary his wife, it calls him her husband:

Mat 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Two other texts refer to a betrothed woman as the wife of the man:

The betrothed woman was called "wife" in the law, and the penalty for adultery in this case was death:




Deu 22:23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,
Deu 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Deu 22:25 "But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
Deu 22:26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor,


Deu 20:7 And is there any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.'

We know from the Bible that they would pay a bride price. In the case of Jacob for instance, he did not have anything at first and had to work 7 years for each wife. In the case of David Saul demanded Philistine foreskins (hoping David would die). Exodus also spells out that there is a bride price:

Exo 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.
Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

There is no set figure given, again the practice of bride prices and betrothal is not spelled out but assumed, and is ongoing.

As to a divorce being required in ancient times if dissolving a betrothal, all of the secondary Jewish sources I am reading reference this. I also found some primary source material. This for instance is from the Babylonian Talmud:

If a man says: I betrothed my daughter to someone, but I do not know whom, and someone appears and says: I betrothed her, he is believed. If two appear and each says that he betrothed her, both are compelled to give her a writ of divorce, but if they are willing, one gives her a writ of divorce and the other marries her.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin

​

To dissolve the betrothal a divorce was necessary.


As to the story of Joseph and Mary, and his putting her to public shame, he had various options. According to the sources I am seeing you could write the divorce certificate with two witnesses. He could do that with no public scrutiny.

Some note that he could demand that the test under the law be applied, which may be what is referred to in this case as public scrutiny. Since there were no witnesses this would be the procedure:


Num 5:12 "Speak to the people of Israel, If any man's wife goes astray and breaks faith with him,
Num 5:13 if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act,
Num 5:14 and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself,
Num 5:15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
Num 5:16 "And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the LORD.
Num 5:17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.
Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD and unbind the hair of the woman's head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse.
Num 5:19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, 'If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse.
Num 5:20 But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you,
Num 5:21 then' (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) 'the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell.
Num 5:22 May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.' And the woman shall say, 'Amen, Amen.'
Num 5:23 "Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness.
Num 5:24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain.
Num 5:25 And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand and shall wave the grain offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar.
Num 5:26 And the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water.
Num 5:27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people.
Num 5:28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.
Num 5:29 "This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself,
Num 5:30 or when the spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife. Then he shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall carry out for her all this law.


Of course, since she was with child even that would not be necessary as it would not be "undetected". Therefore it may refer more to the earlier text referenced where she could be put to death, though again, how that worked under Rome is a mystery. But given her most unorthodox reason for being pregnant, I suppose he could still do the test?

Given that we know where the child came from it was not really an issue.

 

[LinkH]

Link, you are grasping at straws. Iirc, the Bible does not discuss whether a bride price had already been paid or whether the covenant had been entered. However, it was not consummated[/quote

Your entire approach to the subject appears to be grasping at straws. If what I were doing were grasping at straws, it wouldn't have so much support among Koine Greek speakers of yesteryear and of theologians, Bible scholars, and the vast majority of Christians who studied the Bible throughout history.

Can you find a single commentary that comments on the issue that does not state that an actual divorce would have been required of a man in this situation.

After the bride price was paid, she was his betrothed, which means more than engaged. To dismiss her at this point would have legally required a divorce, even if they hadn't had their party and he hadn't taken her into his home yet. According to their custom, he would have signed a marriage contract and drunk from a cup from her. She was his betrothed at that point-- a wife he'd not taken home yet. Our customs are not the same as theirs. Engaged and betrothed are not the same thing.

As for your second comment, we are not "in the beginning," nor should we pretend to be. Sin has entered the world, and that has necessitated divorce.

Then the question is, "Is Jesus Lord?" Jesus based his command on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19 on the way marriage was at the creation.

Moses regulated something that was bad that was going on in society. Christ called the people to holiness.