But the
maximum penalty was obviously not always sought. And if Joseph of
Mt.1:19 is a true indication, a divorce could even be a "righteous man's" choice.
I largely agree with this post, but I also think it is important not to conflate the case of Joseph and Mary with what what is discussed by Christ and the Apostles regarding divorce. Joseph and Mary were betrothed (
Mt.1.18;
Luke 1.27) not married (see
Mt.1.20 "fear not to take Mary as thy wife.).
Though the practice of betrothal/endowment is mostly foreign to our present Western culture, it is very clearly delineated from marriage in Scripture (see Exodus 21-22 and Deuteronomy 20 and 22). Joseph considering quietly ending the betrothal may have been a gracious act, but this is different than writing a bill of divorcement which is never mentioned in relation to betrothal (as reflected in the WCF - see below). The Law very clearly distinguishes between
adultery ("If a man be found lying with a woman married to a man, then they shall die..."
Deut.22.22),
unfaithfulness during betrothal ("If a maid be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the town and lie with her, then shall ye bring them both out unto the gates of the same city, and shall stone them with stones to death..."
Deut.22.23-24), and
fornication ("If a man find a maid that is not betrothed, and take her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her, shall give unto the maid’s father fifty shekels of silver: and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her: he can not put her away all his life."
Deut.22.28-29, see also
Ex.22.16-17). A betrothal was taken as seriously as marriage, but it was still separate.
In the case of Mary and Joseph, Joseph could not prove who the other man was so there could be no trial. He did have the right to accuse her, but if he could not prove the charge, he would risk his own life - see
Deut.22.13-21. Accusing Mary of unfaithfulness during their betrothal, even if unproven, would have permanently damaged her reputation for the rest of her life, but it also would have exposed Joseph to the danger of making an unprovable accusation. I think we often overlook Joseph's predicament. He was indeed a righteous (and wise) man.
While I am not a total reconstructionist, I think there is much to be gained from examining the expounding of the moral law in the legal code given to Israel, especially with regard to the 4th Commandment and matters such as divorce and remarriage. For starters, I believe this would help us understand why our forefathers in the faith left us such delineated statements (notice that they recognize the possibility of adultery
before marriage) as found in WCF 24.5: "Adultery or fornication, committed
after a contract, being detected
before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery
after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to
sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead."