May the wife divorce the husband?

[TryingToLearn]

Many of the Reformed writers I've read answer in the affirmative (e.g. Baxter, it seems most Puritans allowed it), but it strikes me that this is contrary to the Old Testament where only the husband can divorce. Is there really no immutable principle behind why this was so? Did all the Reformed hold the affirmative position? How ought we to think about this?

Thanks!

 

[MChase]

“And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭13‬-‭15‬

 

[rookie]

How crazy, my wife and I have been going through a bit of turbulent times. Her competitions and gym routine are making me the 3rd wheel in my own marriage. I haven't been on the board for I don't know how long, and this is the first post I see.
Her Christian testimony is all but gone, and I'm struggling in my own faith. I wonder if this is a sign.

 

[retroGRAD3]

How crazy, my wife and I have been going through a bit of turbulent times. Her competitions and gym routine are making me the 3rd wheel in my own marriage. I haven't been on the board for I don't know how long, and this is the first post I see.
Her Christian testimony is all but gone, and I'm struggling in my own faith. I wonder if this is a sign.

Might be a good idea to meet with your pastor for some counseling.

 

[rookie]

Might be a good idea to meet with your pastor for some counseling.

I brought this up at church, we're setting a meeting sometime this week or next. I can almost guarantee she won't want to come along, however, I know I need it.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I brought this up at church, we're setting a meeting sometime this week or next. I can almost guarantee she won't want to come along, however, I know I need it.

Sorry to hear you are going through this. I will be praying for you.

 

[rookie]

Sorry to hear you are going through this. I will be praying for you.

It's been a ride, and I have been enabling everything she wants. No boundaries. There are a few other things at play that I can't blame her on. But as you said, I need prayer, and from what a few friends at church have said, my pastor's gift, is counselling people. He's apparently wise beyond his years.

 

[arapahoepark]

Many of the Reformed writers I've read answer in the affirmative (e.g. Baxter, it seems most Puritans allowed it), but it strikes me that this is contrary to the Old Testament where only the husband can divorce. Is there really no immutable principle behind why this was so? Did all the Reformed hold the affirmative position? How ought we to think about this?

Thanks!

From what I gather divorce was pretty egalitarian in the second temple era. I believe Instone-Brewer (who I completely disagree with on the divorce and remarriage question) said half of the discovered divorce certificates were initiated by women.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Many of the Reformed writers I've read answer in the affirmative (e.g. Baxter, it seems most Puritans allowed it), but it strikes me that this is contrary to the Old Testament where only the husband can divorce. Is there really no immutable principle behind why this was so? Did all the Reformed hold the affirmative position? How ought we to think about this?

Thanks!

I'm not slighting the other posts (only to agree: don't stand on your own discretion in the matter of separating/divorce), but I'm focused on answering the OP.

Jesus seems to accept that the woman at the well is divorced, 6X, without bringing into question who may have initiated the act in any case.

Paul's comment discouraging a Christian wife from divorcing her unbelieving husband seems to presuppose a situation where the fact was not unheard of.

I see Trent (above post #8) makes some scholarly appeals, which further call into question any idea that women were "speechless" in such matters in old time.

I'm not persuaded that the OT Mosaic regulation 1) binding in any case after Jesus' brought the Old Covenant to an end; or 2) is somehow presenting "norms" of social order that we are fully competent to suss out from the bare legislation, when in many cases the laws are simply set forth against a typical ancient-era culturally constructed background. Is there some intrinsic order ("general equity") that gives men a natural right to divorce (under certain circumstances) that women lack? What is the argument for that?

Women today do undertake divorce (assuming righteous grounds), though sometimes burdened with certain disadvantages that a legal system often inadequately seeks to mitigate using tools like regular alimony payments from a former husband. My point is: ancient Israelite constitutional provisions have a limited scope, and various unstated assumptions about what is reasonable and possible for the times to which they speak. Moses gave Israel the constitution we find in the Pentateuch, not a complete body of laws and a history of common law application growing out of it.

If the laws of Israel still instruct us, it is as those were in accord with natural law/general equity; and sometimes people and situations do call for various and alternate applications of the principles of justice and fairness.

 

[Beoga]

If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
Exodus 21:10, 11

 

[py3ak]

The same rules apply to men and women. Mark 10:11-12:
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

 

[RamistThomist]

Many of the Reformed writers I've read answer in the affirmative (e.g. Baxter, it seems most Puritans allowed it), but it strikes me that this is contrary to the Old Testament where only the husband can divorce. Is there really no immutable principle behind why this was so? Did all the Reformed hold the affirmative position? How ought we to think about this?

Thanks!

Why are you surprised by this? Your initial premise per the OT seems wrong. And limiting it to where only the husband can divorce seems to go against the light of nature. This actually looks like what a really bad version of Islam would teach.

 

[iainduguid]

Part of the problem may be a misunderstanding of how ancient law codes work. We are used to extensive books of laws that seek to cover every eventuality, where if a sharp lawyer can find a loophole you have to be acquitted. Ancient law codes are much more limited and rely on the wisdom of judges to apply them in various situations. So for example, Exodus 22:1 lays out the consequences for a man ('ish) who steals an ox or a sheep. There is no law that tells you what to do if a woman ('ishah) steals an ox or a sheep, because normally such crimes are far more likely to be committed by men. Yet if such a case arose, the judge would be expected to apply the same justice to the woman. So too with divorce, in those days men would be far more likely to divorce their wives than vice versa (not least because of the economic damage that affected the woman far more than the man), so the laws are framed "If a man..." But that no more rules out in principle a woman divorcing her husband than the laws against stealing rule out the possibility of it being carried out by a woman. And in fact, as noted by Brian above, Exod 21:11 gives one particular example of legitimate grounds for a woman to leave her husband.

 

[De Jager]

Part of the problem may be a misunderstanding of how ancient law codes work. We are used to extensive books of laws that seek to cover every eventuality, where if a sharp lawyer can find a loophole you have to be acquitted. Ancient law codes are much more limited and rely on the wisdom of judges to apply them in various situations. So for example, Exodus 22:1 lays out the consequences for a man ('ish) who steals an ox or a sheep. There is no law that tells you what to do if a woman ('ishah) steals an ox or a sheep, because normally such crimes are far more likely to be committed by men. Yet if such a case arose, the judge would be expected to apply the same justice to the woman. So too with divorce, in those days men would be far more likely to divorce their wives than vice versa (not least because of the economic damage that affected the woman far more than the man), so the laws are framed "If a man..." But that no more rules out in principle a woman divorcing her husband than the laws against stealing rule out the possibility of it being carried out by a woman. And in fact, as noted by Brian above, Exod 21:11 gives one particular example of legitimate grounds for a woman to leave her husband.

That kind of sounds like "good and necessary consequence".

 

[RamistThomist]

Part of the problem may be a misunderstanding of how ancient law codes work. We are used to extensive books of laws that seek to cover every eventuality, where if a sharp lawyer can find a loophole you have to be acquitted. Ancient law codes are much more limited and rely on the wisdom of judges to apply them in various situations. So for example, Exodus 22:1 lays out the consequences for a man ('ish) who steals an ox or a sheep. There is no law that tells you what to do if a woman ('ishah) steals an ox or a sheep, because normally such crimes are far more likely to be committed by men. Yet if such a case arose, the judge would be expected to apply the same justice to the woman. So too with divorce, in those days men would be far more likely to divorce their wives than vice versa (not least because of the economic damage that affected the woman far more than the man), so the laws are framed "If a man..." But that no more rules out in principle a woman divorcing her husband than the laws against stealing rule out the possibility of it being carried out by a woman. And in fact, as noted by Brian above, Exod 21:11 gives one particular example of legitimate grounds for a woman to leave her husband.

Exactly. We have this tendency today to think of all law codes as equivalent to the Congressional Digest or Federal Register.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Part of the problem may be a misunderstanding of how ancient law codes work. We are used to extensive books of laws that seek to cover every eventuality, where if a sharp lawyer can find a loophole you have to be acquitted. Ancient law codes are much more limited and rely on the wisdom of judges to apply them in various situations. So for example, Exodus 22:1 lays out the consequences for a man ('ish) who steals an ox or a sheep. There is no law that tells you what to do if a woman ('ishah) steals an ox or a sheep, because normally such crimes are far more likely to be committed by men. Yet if such a case arose, the judge would be expected to apply the same justice to the woman. So too with divorce, in those days men would be far more likely to divorce their wives than vice versa (not least because of the economic damage that affected the woman far more than the man), so the laws are framed "If a man..." But that no more rules out in principle a woman divorcing her husband than the laws against stealing rule out the possibility of it being carried out by a woman. And in fact, as noted by Brian above, Exod 21:11 gives one particular example of legitimate grounds for a woman to leave her husband.

Dr. Duguid,

Thank you for this! I suppose I was taking it as a settled fact that women could not divorce their husbands in the OT. Just a quick search on the matter brought up https://www.jstor.org/stable/3140621 and https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/D/divorce-in-the-old-testament.html both of which state it quite bluntly. I did want to go down the road you are suggesting, namely, that it was likely allowed though not explicitly mentioned, but it seemed to me there was a scholarly consensus against me.