 |
In that article they mentioned the term 'agunah' or literally translated is 'chained woman'. The man had the power to desert the family, and leave her without the 'get' or divorcement. She was what they term as the chained women to the man, because she was not allowed to remarry at that point.
If she did remarry she was looked upon as adulterous, and her offspring were literally labeled as illegitimate or bastards. What isn't mentioned so much is that men also had this position laid upon them, but the consequences were not as severe.
What you don't see today in the church? Is the proper definition of 'putting away' and 'divorce'. If you 'put away' your wife she was 'chained' to the man. If he gave the woman a 'get' she was no longer chained, and was free to remarry.
Putting away was a big problem, and the 'get' was a form of mercy. You really don't hear to much about that at all. I will be speaking in general terms about 'putting away' and a Jewish 'get'.
There are plenty of ins and outs to this concept, but I want to look at it generally in terms of how it is presented in scripture.
Deuteronomy
An honorable man of society would not 'put away' his wife, but if he was hard hearted enough to do so he would be bound to give her a 'get'. A man that wasn't honorable enough to do so was at times threatened with excommunication which was very serious as you can imagine.
There were times in which a wife would request from the leaders of the temple to approach the man about a 'get'. Women were not allowed to issue 'gets', but religious leaders did approach the husband at times on her behalf. The Law of Moses mentioned three main reasons that women applied for a 'get'. 1) Husband following a disgraceful vocation. 2) cruelty to the wife 3) refusing to provide. The courts would 'compel' the husband to agree to the 'get' by threatening him with excommunication. If that didn't work they would go non Jewish courts to take care of it.
If you look at the times we are speaking about it makes sense. The woman was left in a very vulnerable state, and her options were extremely limited if she was 'put away' without the 'get'. The relatives or the society at the time would be left to care for her, or she was left with little options. To me God is on the side of the 'underdog' if you will. His sense of compassion towards her and the children, and a sense of mercy was given with the 'get'.
I think we realize that there are some people that would leave their spouse out of just plain spite. I'm sure part of the motive to withhold the 'get' was the dowry, among others things she would be entitled to once she received the divorce. If she received no 'get' she was out of luck.
I think some have heard of the 'get' when it came to times of war when you husband would not return, and was presumed dead. I have always heard about receiving a 'get' when the spouse was marked 'insane'.
Malachi
If we move on to Malachi 2 it again mentions 'putting away' or lack of a 'get':
15And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
If you look at the principal of the 'get' refusing one would be dealing treacherously with the wife of your youth. If he didn't hand her the 'get' or divorce papers she was chained to him for life. She was left with little options, and very vunerable in soceity.
If you look at this passage from that viewpoint? If you look at the culture and laws of the day? This passage makes so much more sense.
The husband basically profaned the covenant and the Law of the Lord by abandoning his family, and then came to the temple to worship the Lord. If you are to be seen as an honorable man in the eyes of the Lord you would follow his commandments towards your family. Scripture speaks to those that did not:
11Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
12The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
13And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
God basically tells the men that abandon their families WHY are to questioning my reaction to you in the temple when you come to worship and give me offerings. Why do you think I have refused them? Did you not treat my laws with contempt? He also mentioned the man will be 'cut off' that doeth this.
17Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?
In other words you did evil towards your family, and you want me to delight in your worship of me? You live a life of treachery, and you wish me to ignore that with no judgment?
As the kids would say today, "You ain't all that!"
Matthew
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
If you look at the passages above? It again speaks of 'putting away' without a 'get' by Jewish Law. Without a 'get' if you remarry it is seen as adulterous.
At that time from what I understand if a women was found committing adultery they were put away in certain circumstances, and as we know stoned in other circumstances. The bible speaks of how both parties were to be stoned actually, but when you read about the woman that was brought to Jesus you notice she was brought alone.
I'm sure we have all heard about how there was two schools of thought regarding marriage at this time, putting away, and divorce. One school of thought was very restrictive, and the other was very frivolous.
Matthew 19: 3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
God said we are to keep marriage Holy, and the couple is seen as one flesh. God does not wish man to put that asunder. Now if you look at it from that prospective would God feel it is lawful for a man to 'put away' his wife (no 'get') for every cause?
7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
They basically asked Jesus HOW come Moses said it was OKAY?!
In my eyes he was correcting their arrogance. God allowed the 'get' to protect the wife, because of the treacherous nature of the hard hearted men during that time that would abandon the family. Due to the nature on how they 'put away' their wifes, and left them vulnerable and destitute? Moses commanded that the men give them a writing of divorcement so they were not 'chained' to the man out of his own spite.
From the beginning it was not 'so', because God views marriage as a Holy union of one flesh. The hard hearted men that 'put away' the wifes put it asunder. She was given the 'get' so she was not 'chained' to him for life out cruelness of his actions, and how it left her socially and morally.
To me again God wanted to save the underdog in this circumstance, and the 'get' was a form of mercy. The 'get' was the divorcement papers to place in her hands so she could remarry, and not be left destitute due to hard hearted men.
Without the 'get' or divorce if you remarry another it will be seen as adultery. If you marry someone that was married without the 'get' you are committing adultery as well.
So NO you can't just 'put away' your wife for any reason, and be right in the eyes of the Lord. In the light of the law of Judism 'adultery' isn't the only way OUT of the marriage as it has been taught for centuries in the church. These verses were speaking of 'putting away' your wife without the divorce papers or 'get'. They don't say you can only divorce due to adultery as the church seems to teach.
Romans
If you look again that the times, and the husband 'put away' his wife and she married another? It would be adultery. The 'dominion' of the law was the same for the man. If he 'put away' his wife to marry another he also would be in adultery.
In that light, the 'law of the husband' is not what they seem to think it is. Those who KNOW the law also realize that it has dominion over him as well. People seem to miss that part.
1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Putting away and divorce is NOT the same thing!
When you look at the difference of 'putting away' and divorce? You see the scripture in a different light. I'm ending this by quote part of the article I linked to above:
Leaders need to grasp the Biblical truth that the law kills, but the Spirit brings life. Leaders have been heaping dump trucks of man made doctrines which violate the core relationships of couples and families. We have placed laws over love. Marriages should be based on and grounded in love. We know love is the greatest, yet the church does not take love seriously. We have called love wishy washy and undependable even though the Bible says that love never fails.
The Bible says that the Law failed. Yet the basis of most Christian marriages is law rather than love. Dishing out prefab roles in the name of Christianity is destructive to marriages because every person and every marriage relationship is unique.
We have changed the original enlightened Biblical message of equality in marriage to one of hierarchy and false submission. Thus we have separated two who God intended to be one. God's idea of oneness does not mean the front end and the back end of a jackass. But that's exactly what our recipe calls for. The promotion of hierarchy in marriage also causes us to have high statistics of domestic abuse and it causes many divorces.
If you look at how churches approach divorce in the light of many uglies such as domestic violence, etc? They seem to take the opposite approach compared to the Jewish culture they preach about. You are to be agunah (chained to) a hard hearted spouse that has abandon the spirit and purpose of marriage - the one that put it asunder. The 'get' doesn't exist according to the church, and God's mercy towards those that the 'get' was to protect?
17 You have wearied the LORD with your words.
"How have we wearied him?" you ask.
By saying, "All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them" or "Where is the God of justice?"
I think they have the backwards. The 'get' was for justice. The church label it as selfish and sinful. The agunah is to stay chained. If you look at in the terms of Jewish culture? The church seems to be teaching this incorrectly. Putting away and Divorce were two different concepts, and yet they treat it as one.
Goodness no wonder we are confused! The Agunah or 'chained woman' God was looking to protect with his mercy towards them. We tell the Agunah to celebrate their place of honor and dedication to the chain. We tell them they have no choice - its law! Then they sprinkle it with spiritual pixie dust to make it look better than it is. No wonder they look at love as wishy washy, and not dependable. It wouldn't fit the doctrine otherwise.
If you enjoyed this post and wish to be informed whenever a new post is published, then make sure you subscribe to my regular Email Updates.
Subscribe Now!Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it:
9 comments:
"We tell them they have no choice - its law! Then they sprinkle it with spiritual pixie dust to make it look better than it is. No wonder they look at love as wishy washy, and not dependable. It wouldn't fit the doctrine otherwise"
SOOOOOO true!! I don't get why forcing people to stay married when their is abuse or unhappiness is a good thing. I can't imagine Hashem wants people to be miserable!
I think some people will say that being obedient instead of 'happy' is what God is after. That maybe true in some circumstances. For example, in times of life's stresses, dealing with illness, etc. You don't say I'm not happy anymore so BYE!
There is no doubt there are people that just stick around for happiness, but when abuse is present its more about escaping the danger. People of faith that don't wish to 'deal' the dynamics of abuse? They use the word 'happy' against them, and ignore the human realm of 'surviving'. Its a play on words instead of reality. You ever notice that?
No. I don't think God is pleased at all with the game of words. He doesn't wish them to live a life of misery due to another's sinful nature. He sees this as survival more than happiness because he is capable of seeing past the words they used. I think people can as well, but at times play their doctrine game anyway.
God sees it all, and people pretend its not there. People spin the truth, but God does not. lol he is the 'no spin zone'! That just popped into my head...lolol! I like that! He is no spin zone of doctrine!
The problem is you have created a straw man. You and all those who seem set on convincing everyone that teaching male dominance and the evil of divorce and locking women in abuse are creating fear of something that is quite uncommon.
A meta analysis is all it takes. Ask yourself, over the past 50 years has the church more/less followed the culture...clearly yes, in degrees.
Therefore as the culture has "feminized" lacking better word, so has the church, and more equality, egalitarian or simply omitting gender order teaching in fear of offense, not speaking clearly on divorce for fear of offence, the church is today fer LESS as you represent here than it was 50 years ago.
Yet, the destruction of the family has exponentially increased. Therefore blaming that old teaching for it is painfully contradictory. The more we go the way you recommend, the worse it gets, this applies across the board, secular and in church
Oh, its not the God wants people to be miserable, but that logic is badly flawed when applied to divorce.
There is not ONE Biblical precedent that trumpets doing something, breaking a covenant, and in many cases producing victims by hurting others (kids, a spouse who wants to stay married) in order for YOU to be happy...thats so counter to the gospel I am amazed people say that.
I hear it from women all the time as a friend decides to divorce they encourage the divorce using these terms, "God wants you happy"
Do folks really believe that in this case?
I think God wants people to be happy too, so, getting up and feeding and changing a baby at 2AM....that cannot be what God has.....stop that....working and providing...nah, He cant want that, its hard and Im unhappy about it....so stop....we could really make a mess if we go for the "God wants me happy" belief set.
But, contrary to the claims here, that is the teaching in todays church, a dose of pop psychology and dilute gospel
Agunah is a straw man?
In Jewish culture it is still present to this day. It has survived since biblical times, and there are organizations that help the process become complete even today. Google it if you don't believe me!
Its human nature - not just gender - to realize that 'dominance' as you put it can indeed have an evil ring to it. Check history! There are patterns of dominance going bad all through out time. Marriage is hardly immune, and making it out as a 'gender' issue? That's silly no offense.
Stating the church doesn't place the whole truth out there regarding 'putting away' and 'divorce' is fact. Google: "The Gallery of Husbands" that was ran in Yiddish newspapers around the turn of century. They posted names, pictures, etc of husbands that abandon the families 'put away', and refused the 'get' so that the wife could not be remarried within the Jewish culture. Do you feel only the wife's were effected by that? Hardly!
The bible is based in Jewish culture, and these concepts are still being used today. So stating I'm blaming an old teaching doesn't make any sense. I stated the way it has been presented in the church is inaccurate. If you feel the 'truth' is going to make things worse? God must have some purpose in that. Truth is what he stands for after all.
There have been loads of men, women and children effected by the abuse dealt out by their families. The prison system for example is stock full of such individuals. Abuse is a society ill, and people that tend to make it more gender focused are naive at best. Stating that is not common? Those poor folks need to open their eyes a bit wider. We see examples of it all the time, and the victims are wide reaching. Effects are seen all over society.
I'm sorry but stating abuse is 'uncommon'? Evil has been around since the Garden of Eden.
Anonymous has some fallacies in what he says. Firstly, you cannot "lock women into abuse". Women who are not abused cannot be locked into abuse. Even abused women do not want to leave their marriage. Those who leave because they are unhappy have enough preaching to ensure that they know they are not doing the right thing. But those who need to leave because of the lack of safety rarely, if never, hear the message that they can do so, because God does not tolerate evil and staying in an abusive marriage is allowing idolatory (bowing down to the wishes of a demi-god)and evil (mistreatment of the family). Divorce in these cases don't hurt the kids - it saves them. It does hurt the one who doesn't want to leave, but abusers rarely want to leave, and their wishes cannot be prioritized over the protection of the other family members.
Why have more and more left their marriages? Well, I know that in my own extended family, domestic violence is endemic. None of them are divorced, although one did run away in fear (her husband sold off her child to slavery to punish her for it). The fact that the divorce rate was very low was not anything to celebrate. Maybe in the past, people stayed and look at the consequence - children growing up with violence and generations affected. My siblings and I still suffer severely from the effects of our upbringing, although my parents are not divorced. I will not make the same mistake with my children, and my older children are thankful to me for that. My younger ones won't understand till they are older, and in particular if other ignorant adults try to imply that they are better off with both parents.
To compare divorcing for abuse to being unhappy because of the rigors of parenting is to severely minimize the experience of abuse. Hardship doesn't cause long-lasting psychological and emotional damage. If I were that averse to trials and inconveniences I would not have left my husband. It is definitely easier keeping the peace, denying the abuse, and pretending everything is OK to finding my own way, living as his ex, harassed and stalked, worrying about future employment, caring for a large number of kids and having your reputation ruined by a manipulative abuser who is not recognized as one in the church.
Anonymous - I will be praying for you and your family.
'To compare divorcing for abuse to being unhappy because of the rigors of parenting is to severely minimize the experience of abuse. Hardship doesn't cause long-lasting psychological and emotional damage.'
So true! I find society at large at times is very good at finding diversions in their speeches more than dealing with the facts when it comes to domestic violence. It shows me at least they are scared to deal with it head on.
NOW if we could find an approach that doesn't make everyone defensive? WELL we might be on to something. They are to busy saying it doesn't happen to often, or fight about who is the worse victim or who is more victimized. All the while - those victims wait. The families of abuse are damned if they do or damned if they don't. Blamed if they stay or if they go. The 'rational' world never sees the bottleneck there.
Thank you for your prayers, Hannah.
"All the while - those victims wait." That is precisely what happened. My unchurched family members were putting me down for my insanity at staying, my Christian counsel was not to contemplate leaving or at least not permanently. My secular womens advocate was the most helpful - respectful yet empowering. In the end I got out because I was getting burnt in the boiling pot and all the debating in the world was not helping. I thought, "Carry on debating, but if you don't mind, I'll climb out - it's beyond my pain barrier."
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" - the unfortunate story of our lives. But the blessing in disguise is that it makes us exceptionally strong women, possessing a resolute inner strength that beggars belief. Somehow, we do the impossible and amidst the pressure from the church, the intimidation of our abusers and the doubts in our own heads, we manage to struggle and break free. Not surprising, given that God is ever-ready to help the oppressed.
"If I were that averse to trials and inconveniences I would not have left my husband. It is definitely easier keeping the peace, denying the abuse, and pretending everything is OK to finding my own way, living as his ex, harassed and stalked, worrying about future employment,..."
Amen! and AMEN! And worrying about continued employment and lower $ per hour, how to make ends meet, the effect of the abuse on the children, the effect of the abuse on my health and theirs, the gigantic load of responsibility that I feel I will have to carry and not be able to rest from for years and years, the "wicked woman" tarring the church dumps onto abused wives who leave. I believe most women do not leave until they think they absolutely MUST.
Anonymous #3 said: "Ask yourself, over the past 50 years has the church more/less followed the culture...clearly yes, in degrees.
Therefore as the culture has "feminized" lacking better word, so has the church, and more equality, egalitarian or simply omitting gender order teaching in fear of offense, not speaking clearly on divorce for fear of offence, the church is today fer LESS as you represent here than it was 50 years ago."
That is the wrong question. If the church has followed culture so closely, why are the divorce rates among conservative Christians higher than among atheists and non-conservative Christians? With all the wife submit and husband authority that is preached & pressured, and the stay married until he kills you ideology, and the blame the wife for her husbands sins, the better question is: Since these are the one thing that make Christian marriages different from other marriages, is it possible that these are CAUSING the high divorce rate among Christians?
Anonymous 3, I'd like to ask you what is marriage to you? Is it staying together, or is it fulfulling your vows to love and cherish? If the wife keeps her vows, but the husband acts like he has an exception clause excusing him from loving and cherishing, doesn't that make the marriage vows a sham? The next question is Was it God who joined a loving spouse with a fraud, or was it a con artist who did so?
Also, the culture has not feminized. Women are considered more manish today, more competent and assertive. The culture has grown less gender-polorized in behavior. Men are beginning to behave less as muscle he-men, except for abusers, that is, but that is a far cry from making them feminine. Unless, you are advocating that men get even more domineering because women are more competent and assertive.
Post a Comment