Permalink Submitted by Jon Brown on Sat, 09/24/2022 - 1:45pm
Shalom Joshua! This was part of a Facebook conversation with Bo but it's mostly a response to this article. He invited me to leave it as a response here was well. I'd be glad to discuss further as well.
I appreciate the time invested here and the interesting points made.
Before I respond, let me make my position clear - God hates divorce. Marriage is one of the most important institutions established by God as a picture of our eternal relationship with Him and therefore its sanctity is of extreme importance. However, not everything enacted by humans will be done so ideally or even preferably. For the hardness of men's hearts, certain allowances are made in Scripture.
The allowance of divorce is just that - an allowance for specific cases. It is not an ideal or preferable situation even in the cases where it is allowed.
Here are the issues that I have:
Deut 22:19,29 - The prohibition against divorcing a woman whom the man violated,
a. would be obvious, as she could not be found to have any unexpected "uncleanness [24:1]".
b. is in force "all of his days", (ie. beyond the wedding night), implying that divorce would otherwise be possible beyond the first day and that this restriction only applies in these two instances (false accusation/rape).
Deut 24:1-4
If "uncleanness" necessarily means sexual promiscuity taking place prior to consummation
a. why not say that? Rather, it uses a word translated in virtually every other instance as "nakedness". Literally, "he discovers a naked/indecent thing". In chap 22 the man claims to have found her "not a maiden". Why not use this language?
b. If they mean the same thing, it falls under the guidelines of chap 22, in which case there would be a stoning rather than a divorce.
-- The only alternative is that chapter 24 outlines what to do if the husband is unwilling to bring a formal accusation of sexual impurity - which would be impossible if the only terms for a valid divorce were sexual impurity. After the marriage, you could not send a woman away without an accusation. They would be one in the same.
If "uncleanness" does not mean fornication,
This begs the question, what exactly could be considered "indecent"? Perhaps her speech (interestingly, the same word used for "thing" in the Hebrew), her character, her body (a deformity), or anything that she might have covered up that may be laid bare after marriage.
Yeshua expounds and amplifies the strictness of this verse. Never the less, the Torah does not do so explicitly. Notice also that this is the specific context given for the verse, not a command explicitly limiting the cause of divorce. Rather, it is providing a protection for the woman (ie, so that the woman has official proof of the annulment of the marriage and be free from accusation should she remarry).
One may say that Messiah's ruling means that this is in fact a limitation on divorce - as he won't contradict the Torah.
Truly, a clarification is offered. It is for the hardness of the man's heart that the bill of divorce was required - potentially meaning that a hard hearted man could send away an unwanted woman without an official release from him - thus not only denying his duty to care for her but condemning her to a life of solitude. Hard hearted, indeed. In fact, it is exactly this heated debate taking place during Yeshua's day which appears to have prompted the question presented to him. Can a man divorce a woman for any reason? Ie, what exactly constitutes the "shameful thing"? Could a woman be "put away" without formal divorce? I do not presume to be able to parse the Hebrew better than the scholars of Jesus' day by suggesting that the meaning is more obvious than it seems.
The lack of explicit limitations on divorce are not surprising when compared with the lack of clear distinction regarding what exactly constitutes a marriage. While this open definition of marriage leaves room for the multitude of cultural and personal variety, the Bible seems to assume a set of knowledge and custom as a framework upon which the laws are based. (take for example the lack of a command regarding a head covering, but a mention of one in Numbers 5:18 is an implicit command of sorts that a woman is expected to wear one).
Regardless of what "uncovered thing" it is referring to, there are a few things of note about the passage:
a. It is an "if" passage. When this happens, then this must happen.
b. That which must happen does not limit the situation of a valid divorce, it prescribes what to do in that specific situation.
c. The bill of divorce is a protection for the woman so that she may in fact marry another - this is the only reasonable purpose for such a document.
d. If a divorced woman leaves and is married to another, he becomes her husband.
Becoming another man's wife is only possible if she is no longer married to her first.
There is no indication of there being error in the second marriage.
e. The second husband may divorce her as well. There is no situation where a second husband could find valid cause for divorce if that cause is linked to prior sexual activity - the woman could not have been expected to have been a virgin, even if the premise in this article is correct.
The passage implicitly validates both the second marriage and the 2nd divorce. Restricting her from returning to the first husband also implies that she may marry any other man.
"One flesh", "Let not man separate". "Joined to harlot"... Can a woman not become one flesh with her second husband? Therefore let not man separate by making laws stricter than what God put in place.
It is not permitted for a Levite to marry a divorced woman, indicating that it is permissible for someone from another tribe to marry a divorced woman. I understand that this is not necessarily challenging for your position, but it does seem interesting that Deuteronomy is the only place that mentions the bill of divorce and came well after divorce is mentioned in Leviticus. It is referred to as a potential situation, or an established custom with no legal framework recorded in the Torah.
You are limiting the definition of formication in Yeshua's usages.
If I limit the meaning of "put away" to be separation not meeting both criteria of formication (which can include adultery after marriage) and official paperwork, it changes the implication of the text.
Uncomfortable implications should not dictate our interpretation of Scripture, but they should determine the minimum level of certainty that we have when forcing those implications on others. If marriage is sacred (it is), then we better be 100% certain that our doctrine isn't reeking havoc on valid marriages.
From a logical standpoint,
Are you suggesting that a newly married, probably half drunk man is going to check for the presence of "tokens" in the relative darkness of a bed chamber and know what it should look like? It is my estimation that the presence or lack of blood post consummation is proof regarding her sexual purity.
Shalom Joshua! This was part
Shalom Joshua! This was part of a Facebook conversation with Bo but it's mostly a response to this article. He invited me to leave it as a response here was well. I'd be glad to discuss further as well.
I appreciate the time invested here and the interesting points made.
Before I respond, let me make my position clear - God hates divorce. Marriage is one of the most important institutions established by God as a picture of our eternal relationship with Him and therefore its sanctity is of extreme importance. However, not everything enacted by humans will be done so ideally or even preferably. For the hardness of men's hearts, certain allowances are made in Scripture.
The allowance of divorce is just that - an allowance for specific cases. It is not an ideal or preferable situation even in the cases where it is allowed.
Here are the issues that I have:
Deut 22:19,29 - The prohibition against divorcing a woman whom the man violated,
a. would be obvious, as she could not be found to have any unexpected "uncleanness [24:1]".
b. is in force "all of his days", (ie. beyond the wedding night), implying that divorce would otherwise be possible beyond the first day and that this restriction only applies in these two instances (false accusation/rape).
Deut 24:1-4
If "uncleanness" necessarily means sexual promiscuity taking place prior to consummation
a. why not say that? Rather, it uses a word translated in virtually every other instance as "nakedness". Literally, "he discovers a naked/indecent thing". In chap 22 the man claims to have found her "not a maiden". Why not use this language?
b. If they mean the same thing, it falls under the guidelines of chap 22, in which case there would be a stoning rather than a divorce.
-- The only alternative is that chapter 24 outlines what to do if the husband is unwilling to bring a formal accusation of sexual impurity - which would be impossible if the only terms for a valid divorce were sexual impurity. After the marriage, you could not send a woman away without an accusation. They would be one in the same.
If "uncleanness" does not mean fornication,
This begs the question, what exactly could be considered "indecent"? Perhaps her speech (interestingly, the same word used for "thing" in the Hebrew), her character, her body (a deformity), or anything that she might have covered up that may be laid bare after marriage.
Yeshua expounds and amplifies the strictness of this verse. Never the less, the Torah does not do so explicitly. Notice also that this is the specific context given for the verse, not a command explicitly limiting the cause of divorce. Rather, it is providing a protection for the woman (ie, so that the woman has official proof of the annulment of the marriage and be free from accusation should she remarry).
One may say that Messiah's ruling means that this is in fact a limitation on divorce - as he won't contradict the Torah.
Truly, a clarification is offered. It is for the hardness of the man's heart that the bill of divorce was required - potentially meaning that a hard hearted man could send away an unwanted woman without an official release from him - thus not only denying his duty to care for her but condemning her to a life of solitude. Hard hearted, indeed. In fact, it is exactly this heated debate taking place during Yeshua's day which appears to have prompted the question presented to him. Can a man divorce a woman for any reason? Ie, what exactly constitutes the "shameful thing"? Could a woman be "put away" without formal divorce? I do not presume to be able to parse the Hebrew better than the scholars of Jesus' day by suggesting that the meaning is more obvious than it seems.
The lack of explicit limitations on divorce are not surprising when compared with the lack of clear distinction regarding what exactly constitutes a marriage. While this open definition of marriage leaves room for the multitude of cultural and personal variety, the Bible seems to assume a set of knowledge and custom as a framework upon which the laws are based. (take for example the lack of a command regarding a head covering, but a mention of one in Numbers 5:18 is an implicit command of sorts that a woman is expected to wear one).
Regardless of what "uncovered thing" it is referring to, there are a few things of note about the passage:
a. It is an "if" passage. When this happens, then this must happen.
b. That which must happen does not limit the situation of a valid divorce, it prescribes what to do in that specific situation.
c. The bill of divorce is a protection for the woman so that she may in fact marry another - this is the only reasonable purpose for such a document.
d. If a divorced woman leaves and is married to another, he becomes her husband.
Becoming another man's wife is only possible if she is no longer married to her first.
There is no indication of there being error in the second marriage.
e. The second husband may divorce her as well. There is no situation where a second husband could find valid cause for divorce if that cause is linked to prior sexual activity - the woman could not have been expected to have been a virgin, even if the premise in this article is correct.
The passage implicitly validates both the second marriage and the 2nd divorce. Restricting her from returning to the first husband also implies that she may marry any other man.
"One flesh", "Let not man separate". "Joined to harlot"... Can a woman not become one flesh with her second husband? Therefore let not man separate by making laws stricter than what God put in place.
It is not permitted for a Levite to marry a divorced woman, indicating that it is permissible for someone from another tribe to marry a divorced woman. I understand that this is not necessarily challenging for your position, but it does seem interesting that Deuteronomy is the only place that mentions the bill of divorce and came well after divorce is mentioned in Leviticus. It is referred to as a potential situation, or an established custom with no legal framework recorded in the Torah.
You are limiting the definition of formication in Yeshua's usages.
If I limit the meaning of "put away" to be separation not meeting both criteria of formication (which can include adultery after marriage) and official paperwork, it changes the implication of the text.
Uncomfortable implications should not dictate our interpretation of Scripture, but they should determine the minimum level of certainty that we have when forcing those implications on others. If marriage is sacred (it is), then we better be 100% certain that our doctrine isn't reeking havoc on valid marriages.
From a logical standpoint,
Are you suggesting that a newly married, probably half drunk man is going to check for the presence of "tokens" in the relative darkness of a bed chamber and know what it should look like? It is my estimation that the presence or lack of blood post consummation is proof regarding her sexual purity.