Does the divorce of the foreign women in Ezra 9-10 show that civil government has authority to dissolve marriages or preside over "divorce trials"?/nl

⮜ Beantwoorde vragen

Snel antwoord: Nee. De bijbelse wet geeft de burgerlijke overheid nergens de bevoegdheid om huwelijksovereenkomsten te ontbinden of om te eisen dat echtgenoten toestemming krijgen van de burgerlijke overheid voor de scheiding. De echtscheiding van de buitenlandse vrouwen in Ezra 9-10 toont niets dat lijkt op een van de bovenstaande gevallen.

De handelingen in Ezra 9-10 zijn een verhaal dat duidelijk het Bijbelse recht als achtergrond heeft (met name Deut. 7:1-3). De "echtscheidingen" moeten worden begrepen tegen dit wettelijke kader, dat enigszins afwijkt van onze moderne vooroordelen.

Dit kan sommige mensen verbazen, maar volgens de Bijbelse wet waren mannen niet verplicht om toestemming te krijgen van de burgerlijke overheid om hun vrouwen te scheiden (Deut. 24:1). Christopher Wright legt uit:

Een man hoefde niet 'naar de rechtbank' te gaan om een scheiding te krijgen. De wetten die wel verwijzen naar de echtscheiding hebben betrekking op omstandigheden waarin de echtscheiding verboden is of op het regelen van relaties nadat de echtscheiding al heeft plaatsgevonden. In beide gevallen lijkt de bescherming van de vrouw het belangrijkste punt van de wet te zijn. ... Wat [Deut. 24:1-4] wel vereist is, is dat een man die van zijn vrouw scheidt, haar een 'wetsvoorstel tot echtscheiding' moet geven. Dit zou voor de bescherming van de vrouw zijn geweest. Het was documentair bewijs dat ze was gescheiden, dus noch zij, noch enige toekomstige echtgenoot kon worden beschuldigd van overspel als ze weer trouwde.

According to Peter Craigie:

If the man decided to divorce the woman, he was to write out a bill of divorce and formally serve it on the woman. She was then sent away from the man's house, but possession of the bill of divorce gave her a certain protection under law from any further action by the man.

Biblical law does not require a husband to prove publicly, before a judge, the crime of adultery or fornication on the part of a wife, before issuing a "writ of divorcement." This "writ" has no legal power over a marriage covenant. The marriage covenant would have to already be broken by fornication on the part of the wife. The "writ of divorcement" is simply an official declaration by the husband (not by the civil government) that he has "put away" his wife, an assertion that the marriage covenant has already been broken, and that he did not attempt to re-establish it. This legal writ protects the wife from a future accusation by her former husband, in case he got jealous or angry when she got remarried. Under Biblical law, a judge would only be sought out (by a wife, presumably) if the former husband refused to give her the writ, as required by Biblical law.

Nowadays, the civil government has become so involved in the marriage and divorce process, that Christians no longer question whether the state has the power to "license" marriage, or "grant" divorce. This is a thoroughly modern phenomenon, and it is anachronistic to read our modern marriage ideas back into Biblical law.

The action by Ezra described in Ezra 9-10 dealt with Israelites who had returned after the Babylonian captivity, and had married foreign wives, presumably in violation of the law in Deuteronomy 7. Notice the clear parallel between these two parts of scripture:

1 When YHWH your God brings you into the land where you go to possess it, and casts out many nations before you—the Hittite, the Girgashite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite—seven nations greater and mightier than you; 2 and when YHWH your God delivers them up before you, and you strike them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy to them. 3 You shall not make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son. 4 For that would turn away your sons from following me, that they may serve other gods. So YHWH’s anger would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. Deuteronomy 7:1-4WEB

1 Now when these things were done, the princes came near to me, saying, “The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, following their abominations, even those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy offspring have mixed themselves with the peoples of the lands. Yes, the hand of the princes and rulers has been chief in this trespass.” 3 When I heard this thing, I tore my garment and my robe, and pulled the hair out of my head and of my beard, and sat down confounded. Ezra 9:1-3WEB

These marriages were clearly illegal by the standards of Biblical law. Some people note that Ezra 9:1 mentions "Egyptians", "Ammonites," and "Moabites", people groups that were not in the Deut. 7:1 list. But this does not change the illegal nature of the marriages, because the point of the original law was to prevent God's people from "following the abominations" (Ezra 9:1: e.g. idolatry, incest, etc) of the Canaanite peoples (see Deut. 7:4, Lev. 18:26-30). There were probably many Egyptians, Ammonites, and Moabites who had intermarried with the Canaanite peoples and would therefore endanger anyone who tried to form a covenant with them. All such joining of covenant members with idolaters was illegal. This was Ezra's concern.

Some commentators read "divorce trials" into Ezra 10:14. For example, Philip Kayser claims: "Ezra tried each case of improper marriage on its own merit." This is a false claim, which anyone can tell, simply by reading the text of Ezra 10:

3 Now therefore let’s make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and those who are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God. Let it be done according to the law. Ezra 10:3WEB ... 7 They made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together to Jerusalem; 8 and that whoever didn’t come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his possessions should be forfeited, and he himself separated from the assembly of the captivity. Ezra 10:7-8WEB ... 14 Now let our princes be appointed for all the assembly, and let all those who are in our cities who have married foreign women come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city and its judges, until the fierce wrath of our God is turned from us, until this matter is resolved.” Ezra 10:14WEBEzra 10:3,7-8,14

Er was geen echtscheiding "proces" hier, zoals Kayser beweert. Deze "huwelijken" waren prima facie illegale volgens de Bijbelse wet. Er was geen (wettelijk) huwelijksconvenant gebroken. Er was zelfs geen (wettelijk) huwelijksconvenant gesloten. De juridische term om dit te beschrijven is "void ab initio" (ongeldig vanaf het begin).

Dit was gewoon een geval van veel prominente Israëlische mannen die ontucht pleegden met buitenlandse vrouwen (alsof ze prostituees waren geweest). Deze presentatie van elke man voor de leiders van de gemeenschap was een openbare "verklaring van afstand doen" (echtscheiding), vereist "volgens de raad van mijn Heer" (Ezra 9:3). Noch de mannen, noch de gemeenschapsleiders hadden enige keuze of discretie in deze zaak. Het maakte deel uit van hun openbare daad van berouw voor een zonde (het aangaan van een onwettig huwelijk) die een oordeel over de gemeenschap zou kunnen hebben gebracht. Niemand die deelnam aan dit proces beweerde dat deze huwelijken ooit legaal waren. Een dergelijke claim zou de waarheid van het Bijbelse recht (Deut. 7:1-3) hebben ontkend en hun berouw hebben tenietgedaan.