Divorce and Remarriage

[Anonymous]

I am not sure what is meant by "cultural christians", but if by it you mean those who believe in contextualizing Scripture within the specific time frames of Biblical History, then count me in as a "cultural christian".

No, not at all. I mean "cultural Christians" as those who allow the current culture they live in to dictate what Scripture says. They tend to interpret Scripture using the eyes of our modern day interpretations of words, rather than how they were understood in their time. For example, when they come across "adultery" in Scripture, they tend to read in the modern dictionary's definition of adultery rather than the original understood concept defined within Scripture.

God's Word was written within a specific context of time, manners, customs, an perspectives. Your approach may accidently be leading to the "anachronistic fallacy", that is, attempting to read the Scriptures from a 21st mindset by ignoring the historical and cultural interpretations of the individual writing a particular passage.

I do not believe we have taken a "proof-text" method of interpretation, unless you can find something specific as an example. In no way are we attempting to read the Scriptures from a 21st century mindset by ignoring historical or cultural interpretations of the passages. I'm wondering precisely what you've read in the articles that gives you this impression, or is it just the conclusions that you are disagreeing with?

The "perpetual adultery" doctrine is caused by approaching Scripture "literalistically", as opposed to "literally". This view is NOT a Biblical view! In my humble opinion, it is misunderstanding of the Greek, Hebrew, History, Cultural, Exegetical Principles, and general hermeneutics! It actually does more damage to the body of Christ then it helps!

Whether "literally" or "literalistically", perpetual adultery is exactly what Jesus claimed occurs in Matt. 5:32, in Matt. 19:9, in Mk. 10:11-12, and in Lk. 16:18. His exact choice of words makes this a Biblical view. The Greek present tense phrasing used of "commits adultery" confirms that each act of sexual union is adulterous. This is no misunderstanding of the Greek language. The Greek text is quite clear that "moicheuo" and "moichao" refer to having sexual intercourse with another man's wife. If a man is having unlawful sexual relations with another man's wife, it certainly IS perpetual adultery so long as he continues lying with that other man's wife. Each subsequent act continues to be just as adulterous as the first. That's what Jesus said. That's what the original Greek says.

As to whether repenting and turning away from adulterous remarriages does more damage to the body than it helps, would we apply the same standard to two homosexual men who are married to one another? Requiring repentance is a fundamental component to forgiveness. Sweeping sin under the carpet is certainly more damaging than calling it what it is. How can we claim to love our neighbor and then allow them to continue in adultery and say nothing that might offend them?

Since David and Bathsheba began their relationship as an affair, do you believe that David should not have married Bathsheba? Or is it justified because David killed Uriah?

David did not marry Bathsheba while Uriah lived. He simply committed adultery with her. If he continued to lie with her while her husband lived, each act of intercourse would have been adulterous. Once Uriah had died, she no longer had a living husband that she was bound to. Therefore, it was no longer unlawful for David to take her as his own wife.

Can an unrepentant adulterer continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual adultery and still be a Christian?

In logic "question framing" is always leads to fallacies. Why? Because it is based upon the "a priori" assumptions. The last question assumes that "divorce" does not disolve a marriage, and that adultery is "perpetual".

We can take the divorce and remarriage out of the equation and still ask the same question. Let's say a man is having an affair with his next-door neighbor's wife. Everyone understands she is still married to her husband but she's simply sleeping with her neighbor. Can an unrepentant adulterer continue to live an intentional lifestyle of perpetual adultery and still be a Christian?

If a woman is divorced, the divorce "dissolves" the previous relationship, whethere she had the right grounds for divorcing or not! This is quite easy to prove from the Bible and Ancient Jewish History!

I've yet to see such proof, and Jesus confirms it results in adultery. He didn't say divorce and remarriage results in murder. He didn't say divorce and remarriage results in theft. He said ADULTERY. If she is committing adultery by lying with another man, then by definition, she still has a husband which her divorce did not free her from. So long as her husband lives, she is an adulteress if she lies with another man. That's exactly why Jesus said divorce and remarriage resulted in adultery. Nothing is dissolved by an unlawful divorce. Any explanation that denies Jesus' own interpretation of divorce and remarriage is wrong.

The assumption is that marrying one who was divorced is automatically adultery. I challenge this assumption! This is a misunderstanding of the Law, Jesus and porneia. Furthermore, there are many reasons for divorce under "porneia" besides what you have written.

I welcome the challenge. But my point was that one cannot remain in continual, unrepentant sin (whatever that sin might be) and still be a true Christian. I'd be happy to discuss whether most divorces and remarriages are adultery, but there's little point if we don't agree regarding the need to repent from sin in the first place. Why prove something is sin if we needn't repent or turn away from it regardless? It seems many self-proclaimed Christians think repentance and forgiveness are unnecessary and we are free to commit all the sins we like without eternal consequence. To be honest, that position has been the most astonishing to me, but it really goes beyond the scope of a series on divorce and remarriage.

I realize I'm not going to win any popularity contests by presenting this information, but the church as a whole has dropped the ball on this subject over the past fifty years and we are called to bring truth to bear against non-truth. In the 1930's, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because every Christian leader in that era knew that most cases of divorce and remarriage was adultery. We've lost our way because we stopped preaching a Gospel message of repentance because nobody wants to offend anyone. As our western culture has embraced divorce and remarriage over the last half-century, the church has followed suit. If this continues unabated, our children will be dealing with the exact same issues with married homosexuals in the church.

Always in His love,
David

 

[DaPastor]

DaPastor wrote:
I am not sure what is meant by "cultural christians", but if by it you mean those who believe in contextualizing Scripture within the specific time frames of Biblical History, then count me in as a "cultural christian".

David Wrote:
No, not at all. I mean "cultural Christians" as those who allow the current culture they live in to dictate what Scripture says. They tend to interpret Scripture using the eyes of our modern day interpretations of words, rather than how they were understood in their time. For example, when they come across "adultery" in Scripture, they tend to read in the modern dictionary's definition of adultery rather than the original understood concept defined within Scripture.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[DaPastor]

DaPastor wrote:
God's Word was written within a specific context of time, manners, customs, an perspectives. Your approach may accidently be leading to the "anachronistic fallacy", that is, attempting to read the Scriptures from a 21st mindset by ignoring the historical and cultural interpretations of the individual writing a particular passage.

David wrote:
I do not believe we have taken a "proof-text" method of interpretation, unless you can find something specific as an example. In no way are we attempting to read the Scriptures from a 21st century mindset by ignoring historical or cultural interpretations of the passages. I'm wondering precisely what you've read in the articles that gives you this impression, or is it just the conclusions that you are disagreeing with?

From my understanding of Covenantal Marriage and what constitutes breaking of that Covenant, the view that is being advocated ignores the facts, not understanding Covenantal Relationships. For example, Perpetual Adultery (PA) advocates (which seems to be where you have landed), believe that once a person commits adultery, that person is still in a Covenantal Marriage. However, the truth of the matter is simply this: Sexual immorality, especially adultery, breaks the marriage covenant. Therefore, the other party in the marriage can seek a legal dissolution of the marriage without committing a sin; adultery had already broken the bond. If they remarry, they do not commit adultery, because adultery was already committed. And once committed, the marriage covenant was broken (i.e., it cannot be broken again). Adultery is therefore a one-time sin. One might persist in sexual immorality, after cheating on a spouse, but this would not technically be adultery.

Some advocate that if adultery has been committed and the innocent party chooses to not seek divorce, then the husband and wife should undertake new vows as part of their reconciliation before having sexual intercourse again.)

So, now lets take it a step further. People who become divorced without a Biblically justifible reason, and get married, only commit adultery once with their new spouse - but only once! This is clear based on the sense of adultery as covenant-breaking (covenants no longer being in effect once broken), not to mention that there is no indication of "perpetual adultery" anywhere in scripture. I know for a fact that this is the ancient Jewish view on this topic as well. Unfortunately, I dont have my library with me at the moment, so I will have to present those facts later. All they do is confirm the Biblical view that was held by the Ancient Hebrews (we have the records), and if Jesus was going against those views, the Jews of his day would have picked up on it like everything else.

 

[DaPastor]

DaPastor wrote:
The "perpetual adultery" doctrine is caused by approaching Scripture "literalistically", as opposed to "literally". This view is NOT a Biblical view! In my humble opinion, it is misunderstanding of the Greek, Hebrew, History, Cultural, Exegetical Principles, and general hermeneutics! It actually does more damage to the body of Christ then it helps!

David Wrote:
Whether "literally" or "literalistically", perpetual adultery is exactly what Jesus claimed occurs in Matt. 5:32, in Matt. 19:9, in Mk. 10:11-12, and in Lk. 16:18. His exact choice of words makes this a Biblical view. The Greek present tense phrasing used of "commits adultery" confirms that each act of sexual union is adulterous. This is no misunderstanding of the Greek language. The Greek text is quite clear that "moicheuo" and "moichao" refer to having sexual intercourse with another man's wife. If a man is having unlawful sexual relations with another man's wife, it certainly IS perpetual adultery so long as he continues lying with that other man's wife. Each subsequent act continues to be just as adulterous as the first. That's what Jesus said. That's what the original Greek says.

Jesus was merely fine tuning what was already a standard practice for centuries. The Jewish marriage documents prove this to be the case. Since you mentioned the Greek here, let us examine it ad naseum (sorry folks):

Does the verb tense here finalize the conclusion of the interpretation. Absolutely not! You see, in the majority text the present infinitive (moichasthai) “to commit adultery” is used in Matthew 5. It is interesting that other texts use the aorist infinitive (moicheuthenai), which already weakens the conclusion being held. The same texts read that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (moichatai), present middle/passive indicative. The middle/passive form can literally be translated “cause oneself to commit adultery” or “be an adulterer”.
Matthew 19:9 twice uses the present middle/passive indicative (moichatai) “to be an adulterer”.
Mark 10:11-12 twice uses the present middle/passive indicative (moichatai) “to be an adulterer”.
Luke 16:18 twice uses the present active indicative (moicheuei) “commits adultery”.
Romans 7:3 uses nouns for the word “adulteress”. The main verb that modifies this is a future active indicative (chrematisei) “she will be called”. The other modifying verb form is the present active infinitive (einai) “to be”.

Here are some insights from "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" by Dana and Mantey; "Grammar of the Greek New Testament" by Robertson; and "A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" by Blass, DeBrunner, and Funk:

The three fundamental tenses in Greek are: present, representing continuous action; perfect, representing completed action; and aorist, representing undefined action. The basic meaning of aorist (aoristos) is “undefined” or “without limits”. Continuous action is primarily represented by the present tense and this is primarily with reference to present time. Continuous action in the past is represented by the imperfect, and continuous action in the future is represented by the future tense (Dana and Mantey, p. 178; Robertson, p. 824).

The fundamental meaning of the present tense is that of progress. It is at its root a linear tense. Although this is the main significance of the present tense it is not the only meaning. When the indicative mood is used with present tense the element of time is more relevant. In dealing with the present tense one must consider not only the fundamental force of the tense, but also the meaning of the verb root, and the significance of the context (Dana and Mantey, p. 181).

The present tense may be used to express an action simply (punctiliar),a process (durative or linear), or a state (perfective or perfect) (Robertson, p. 865, 869). Although the present tense may be used in an aoristic sense the present tense more frequently denotes durative or linear action (Robertson, p. 879).

The present tense may be further broken down into “regular” and “special” meanings (Dana and Mantey, p. 182). The most basic (regular) meaning of the present tense is that of the progressive present. This is nearest the root idea of the tense. It shows action as a durative progress or state of persistence. The point of view can be descriptive, retroactive, or used to denote the continuation of existing results. The present tense can also be seen as customary. This is used to denote that which habitually occurs, or may be reasonably expected to occur. The temporal element is remote since the act is assumed to be true in the past or future, as well as the present (Dana and Mantey, p 184). The regular use of the present tense can also be iterative, that which occurs repeatedly at successive intervals (Dana and Mantey, p. 185; Blass, Debruner, and Funk, p. 166).

Special uses of the present tense include: Aoristic, Futuristic, Historical, Tendential, and Static. It is improbable that the present tense used by Jesus, “commits adultery (moichatai)”, should be considered Futuristic, Historical, Tendential, or Static therefore these will not be dealt with at this time. General truths may be expressed by the aoristic present. Much of the time the aoristic present is used where a punctiliar act takes place at the moment of speaking (Blass, Debruner, and Funk, p. 167).

One sub-group of the aoristic present is the gnomic present. The difference between the gnomic aorist and the gnomic present is that the present may be durative (Robertson, p. 836).

There is a present Greek tense and an aorist Greek tense. They are separate forms and tenses. This being said it must be noted that the present tense can be translated like an aorist in certain contexts. The basic idea of the aorist is it is “undefined” or “unlimited”. It is punctiliar (momentary), not linear. It represents the action as occurring or having occurred without reference to time. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk claim that the action is conceived as a point with either the beginning or the end emphasized, or the action may be conceived as a whole irrespective of its duration (p. 166). The aorist tense is neither past, nor present, nor future with reference to time. It relates to “kind” of action (aktionsarten) rather than “time” of action. It is not, as commonly, but erroneously defined, a “once for all” event.

Jesus boldly proclaimed that remarriage after such a divorce constitutes adultery. Eight times the gospels use the present tense (Majority Text) to state that those who remarry after divorce “commit adultery”. Romans 7:3 further uses the future indicative once and a present infinitive once. It is claimed that if the present tense in the gospels is understood as durative or progressive then the remarried person is committing continual or repeated acts of adultery. It is then claimed that if the present tense is to be understood as aoristic or gnomic then the divorcee does not continue to commit adultery after a subsequent remarriage. It is not that simple even if the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) is aoristic or gnomic, the effects of adultery may still apply to those who continue in a sexual relationship.

Grammar and syntax regulate the formation and usage of words in a sentence. The grammatical rules are derived from analyzing the various uses of a word in context. They are determined by how the word is used. The grammatical usage is governed internally by the text itself. There are no external sources that state how the word “commits adultery” (moichatai) should be understood. The understanding of the word comes from how the word is used in context. Even if every other use of the present tense in Matthew’s Gospel was aoristic that does not mean that “commits adultery” (moichatai) in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 should be taken that way. The converse is also true. The present may predominantly be a progressive or durative tense but this does not necessarily mean that Jesus uses it this way when He states “commits adultery” (moichatai).

It is possible that “commits adultery” (moichatai) should be taken in an aoristic or gnomic sense. It is also possible that the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) should be taken as durative or progressive. There is certainly nothing that would prohibit it from being understood as durative or progressive. It is the word interpreted in context that determines the type of present tense used not some external definition applied to the text. The question is this, "What view best fits in with the historical and cultural understanding of the time of Christ?"

If the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) is to be taken as progressive or durative it would mean that the remarried person continually commits adultery each and every time they have sexual relations after the remarriage. The opposite is not necessarily true if the present tense is to be taken as aoristic or gnomic. The aoristic (punctiliar) present sets forth the event as now occurring (Dana and Mantey, p. 184). Just because it is now occurring does not mean that there are no residual effects in the future. Dana and Mantey list Acts 9:34 as an example of the aoristic present: “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals (hiatai) you”. In this example the healing is stated as presently occurring but there will be lasting effects for a period of time in the future. The present may combine both aoristic action with continuous or durative results (Robertson, p. 865).

The gnomic present is actually a sub-group under the aoristic (punctiliar) present (Robertson, p. 866). The gnomic present expresses general truth but this does not mean there are no continuing consequences. The gnomic present is timeless in reality, meaning that it is true of all time (Robertson, p. 836, 864). It is sometimes called the proverbial present because this use of the present occurs in proverbial statements or general maxims about that which occurs at all times. Robertson lists First Corinthians 15:42 as an example of a gnomic present: “The body it is sown (speiretai) in corruption, it is raised (egeiretai) in incorruption”. Certainly these two gnomic presents have lasting implications in the future.

Another possible option for the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) is the iterative present. The iterative present represents an action that is repeated each time. When applied to “commits adultery (moichatai) it would mean that each time a remarried couple had sexual relations they would be committing a further act of adultery.

In Romans 7:3 the future active indicative “she will be called” (chrematisei) is used with reference to the description, adulteress, applied to the woman who remarries. The future almost always carries with it an element of time (Robertson, p. 876; Dana and Mantey, p. 191). Instead of mainly representing progress, as do the present and the prefect tenses, the general perspective is aoristic or punctiliar. The context will sometimes require the future tense to be interpreted as progressive but most of the time this is not the case. Romans 7:3 is most likely an example of a gnomic future which means that it is an act that is true of all time (Robertson, p.876).

Romans 7:3 also uses the present infinitive “to be” (einai). Technically infinitives are verbal nouns and not just a mood (Dana and Mantey, p.208). They are substantival in nature and can occupy the ground of both a verb and a noun. Paul uses the infinitive as a substantive to show that if the woman’s husband dies she is not an adulteress if she remarries. The implication when taken in context with the first part of Romans 7:3 is that she is an adulteress if she marries another man while her first husband is still alive.

The present tense statement of Jesus “commits adultery” is most likely gnomic in meaning. This being said there is no conclusive evidence as to whether the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai)” should be taken as linear (durative or progressive) or punctiliar (aoristic or gnomic). If it is linear then continual adultery would be implied; since this is a primary meaning of the tense this may be what Jesus was speaking of. If the present tense is punctiliar this in no way means the remarriage is not continuous adultery. The aoristic present expresses an action (aktionsarten) as taking place. It is basically timeless. Every act of adultery including sexual relations after remarriage takes place at a specific point in time. Classifying the present indicative as aoristic or gnomic does not rule out the existence of future effects or continuing results from the act of adultery.

The point is very simple. The present tense is not conclusive in these texts. To make it conclusive ignores Greek texts outside of the Majority, the Ancient Marriage and divorce documents of the Hebrews, and the overall tenor of Scripture.

(note: I didnt have the time to write all of this, but gleaned it from "lifehouse.org". It should be understood, however, this is a long standing view I have held from extensive research done on this subject 20 years ago.)

 

[DaPastor]

David,

I have much, much more to say, but as usual, my time is owned by someone else right now. However, I will try my best to keep engaging with you on this topic.

 

[Anonymous]

However, the truth of the matter is simply this: Sexual immorality, especially adultery, breaks the marriage covenant. Therefore...

This statement is at odds with established Scripture.

(1) Michal committed adultery with Palti, yet this adultery did not break her marriage covenant with David. It VIOLATED the covenant, but it did not END the covenant. The new vows of marriage that Michal took with Palti when they were married did not release her from prior marriage vow with David. Even though she was defiled by another man, even though she committed adultery, she was still David's lawful wife.

(2) Jesus' own words confirms divorce and remarriage results in "committing adultery", which confirms the divorce and the subsequent adulterous remarriage did not END her marriage covenant. How can a put away woman still commit adultery, and how can the man that marries her still commit adultery (present tense), unless she remains married to her lawful husband despite the adultery?

(3) Paul confirms Jesus' words in Romans 7:3. Adulteress is a label. This is perpetual, not a one-time event that occurs at the moment of first intercourse. Paul is describing a lifestyle of adulterous remarriage. If a divorce doesn't dissolve a marriage covenant, and adultery doesn't dissolve a marriage covenant, what does Scripture say DOES dissolve a marriage covenant?

Rom. 7:2: "if the husband dies, she is released"

Rom. 7:3: "if her husband dies, she is free"

1 Cor. 7:39: "if her husband dies, she is free"

Scripture says her husband's DEATH frees her from her marriage bond. Not a piece of paper. Not a retracting of oaths. Not a marital separation. Not taking new marriage vows. DEATH. Is that being too legalistic and literal?

Romans 7 says that a woman who marries again while her husband is still alive will be an adulteress. Does she stop being an adulteress after the first sexual encounter with this other man? After the fifth encounter? When does Scripture say she is freed to be with another man?

Rom 7:3: "while her husband lives, she shall BE CALLED an adulteress if she becomes another man's"

Paul clearly states that by becoming another man's, she will be called an adulteress so long as HER HUSBAND IS ALIVE. Once again, since she still has a living husband, every act of sexual intercourse between her and her second husband continues to be an act of adultery, while her husband lives.

In His love,
David

 

[Anonymous]

It is possible that “commits adultery” (moichatai) should be taken in an aoristic or gnomic sense. It is also possible that the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) should be taken as durative or progressive. There is certainly nothing that would prohibit it from being understood as durative or progressive.

If the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) is to be taken as progressive or durative it would mean that the remarried person continually commits adultery each and every time they have sexual relations after the remarriage. The opposite is not necessarily true if the present tense is to be taken as aoristic or gnomic.

Another possible option for the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai) is the iterative present. The iterative present represents an action that is repeated each time. When applied to “commits adultery (moichatai) it would mean that each time a remarried couple had sexual relations they would be committing a further act of adultery.

The present tense statement of Jesus “commits adultery” is most likely gnomic in meaning. This being said there is no conclusive evidence as to whether the present tense “commits adultery” (moichatai)” should be taken as linear (durative or progressive) or punctiliar (aoristic or gnomic). If it is linear then continual adultery would be implied; since this is a primary meaning of the tense this may be what Jesus was speaking of. If the present tense is punctiliar this in no way means the remarriage is not continuous adultery. The aoristic present expresses an action (aktionsarten) as taking place. It is basically timeless. Every act of adultery including sexual relations after remarriage takes place at a specific point in time. Classifying the present indicative as aoristic or gnomic does not rule out the existence of future effects or continuing results from the act of adultery.

Any way we slice it, either:

(1) every act of intercourse after remarriage is adultery (progressive or durative)
-or-
(2) each time a remarried couple had sexual relations they would be committing a further act of adultery (iterative present)
-or-
(3) this in no way means the remarriage is not continuous adultery (aoristic or gnomic)

So either my point has been made or nothing discredits my point, depending on what one wants to believe was HIS POINT. Certainly nothing turns Jesus' words into saying remarriage is NOT continuous adultery. The exact phrasing in the Majority text DOES make His "present tense" point conclusively, however.

In His love,
David

 

[DrRay777]

Hi Guys,

Dare I weigh in here? Though I have not read the treatise in question, in the past I had my own concerns with these scriptures and the divorce/remarriage issue in my life. Therefore, several years ago I went to God and inquired about these things. I have not seen in any of the posts here that I read where anyone has done that. Thus, what I say is personal revelation as God showed me, so you can believe it or not. It broke the heavy yoke that I was carrying, having been married and divorced twice before marrying my current wife, (and our marriage is truly blessed of God). For those of you out there who think that sexual intercourse constitutes marriage, you may as well stop reading right now.

Here is what God showed me...

Jesus said that what God has joined together, man should not separate. What He showed me about why He made this stipulation when speaking about divorce and remarriage is that most marriages are NOT of God. Very few people on the planet even ask God who they should marry, therefore when they do ‘marry’ it is usually the devil/the flesh and not God who brings them together, since they follow human wisdom, (James 3:13-18). Most people today have sex outside marriage even before they take a vow ‘before God’. Therefore, the whole ‘marriage’ is perverted even before it happens and thus will NOT be blessed. That is first and foremost and why Jesus put the statement in the scripture. It is also why Paul spoke to the Corinthian church, (who obviously had the same issues) about believers and unbelievers NOT having to stay married if the unbeliever wanted to leave, (sexual immorality issues aside). Paul understood this principle by the Spirit of God.

God hates divorce, but it is NOT the unpardonable sin. I suffered tremendous loss as a result of my stupidity, (Ecclesiastes 5:6), but I have since repented and been fully restored and then some. People do all kinds of stupid things that are outside of God’s will and then change their minds later. Sometimes even God’s people do ignorant things in the flesh, as in the case of David and Bathsheba. Even if Uriah had not died, he would have had the right to release Bathsheba from the marriage, as she had committed adultery. I believe being the type of man that Uriah was, even if he had not died that he would have given his wife to King David and walked away. When people do stupid things, (even taking vows to confirm them) and they change their minds later, some repent and some just live under condemnation. The former is of God and obviously better. Other than the unpardonable sin, we CAN repent and be forgiven for our stupidity and that is the end of it. People do NOT have to go and put away spouses who were previously married or had sex outside of marriage. That is NOT what the Word says or means. If there is an act of sexual immorality, (even if it is merely looking at another person other than one’s spouse with lust in the heart) then the marriage contract is technically broken according to the Bible - PERIOD, end of story. Therefore, let the one who has no sin throw the first stone at me.

What I perceive to be happening here is an ongoing argument concerning the Word of God, without interpretation by the Spirit of God. In this situation I believe that ALL parties are in error, since there is human wisdom in action here. Human wisdom does NOT come from God. Reading the Word of God without the understanding that comes from the Holy Spirit does indeed bring death, but knowing the Word by the Spirit of God brings life and freedom, (not freedom to sin, but freedom from sin). If a woman is married to an unbeliever and she divorces him, (he is spiritually dead guys) and he approves of the divorce by signing the papers or shows as much by letting her go, or he leaves her or commits adultery, (even by lusting after another woman - and I dare you to find even any Christians who have not done that) then she is FREE to remarry. Likewise for a man the same applies. People like my wife and I, (whom God DID tell us to marry and we are both believers and moving in the same direction toward God) should NOT divorce for any reason except sexual immorality. If I look at someone in the wrong way, then like any error that I commit, I repent quickly and ask God to help me NOT to do that again. If I do it again, then I repeat the same process until that thing is out of my mind and heart and by the grace of God I stop it. I do not pluck my eyes out just because Jesus said it would be better if I do that. No, I rather get a spiritual eye transplant from God by obeying the Spirit of that scripture, since I walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh. If one party in a marriage between believers whom God has brought together turns away from God, then ALL BETS ARE OFF. They become unbelievers and the spouse is NOT bound to stay yoked with that person, since they have become spiritually dead. If someone divorces and then gets saved or returns to Christ from a ‘backslidden’ state after divorcing an unbeliever, then they do NOT have to go back to their unbelieving former spouse. Unbelievers are the walking dead.

I think I have covered most of the cases. If you disagree with me, then go to my Dad and take it up with Him. We are called to live in peace with one another. God’s Word brings freedom, not bondage. Don’t be like the Galatians and try to perfect what God started in the Spirit by operating in the flesh. I would encourage everyone involved in this debate to repent, make up and pray for the Holy Spirit to lead us all to the true Spiritual meaning of these things. Sorry in advance if I offended anyone here.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[Anonymous]

It broke the heavy yoke that I was carrying, having been married and divorced twice before marrying my current wife, (and our marriage is truly blessed of God).

Hi Dr. Ray,

I just had a quick question (you may have already covered this elsewhere, but I have been absent for a few months and haven't kept up on the varied discussions). If you don't mind my asking, in your two previous marriages, did your wives leave you/divorce you, or did you put either of them away of your own free will? I only ask because I recall you mentioning previously how God had led you and your third wife to be married. I'm just trying to align your testimony against what Scripture says about divorce and remarriage, and I realize that as a man, you are entitled to more than one concurrent wife. Thanks for taking the time to answer. Stay blessed!

Love in Him,
David

 

[DaPastor]

Hi David,

DaPastor wrote:
However, the truth of the matter is simply this: Sexual immorality, especially adultery, breaks the marriage covenant. Therefore...
This statement is at odds with established Scripture.

David Said:
(1) Michal committed adultery with Palti, yet this adultery did not break her marriage covenant with David. It VIOLATED the covenant, but it did not END the covenant. The new vows of marriage that Michal took with Palti when they were married did not release her from prior marriage vow with David. Even though she was defiled by another man, even though she committed adultery, she was still David's lawful wife.

Actually, David, this is anecdotal, and does not prove anything one way or another. However, the fact that Michal never went back to David supports, at least anecdotally, that David's Marriage with Michal was dissolved.

 

[Anonymous]

David Said:
(1) Michal committed adultery with Palti, yet this adultery did not break her marriage covenant with David. It VIOLATED the covenant, but it did not END the covenant. The new vows of marriage that Michal took with Palti when they were married did not release her from prior marriage vow with David. Even though she was defiled by another man, even though she committed adultery, she was still David's lawful wife.

Actually, David, this is anecdotal, and does not prove anything one way or another. However, the fact that Michal never went back to David supports, at least anecdotally, that David's Marriage with Michal was dissolved.

Michal most certainly DID return to David, precisely because she was his lawful wife.

2 Sam. 3:13-16: "And Dawid said, "Good, I make a covenant with you. Only one matter I am asking of you: you do not see my face unless you first bring Mikal, daughter of Sha'ul, when you come to see my face." Dawid then sent messengers to Ishbosheth son of Sha'ul, saying, "Give me my wife Mikal, to whom I became engaged for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines." And Ishbosheth sent and took her from her husband, from Palti'el son of Layish. But her husband went with her to Bahurim, going on and weeping behind her. And Abner said to him, "Go, turn back!" And he turned back."

This was actually addressed in our series on Divorce and Remarriage. You might want to actually read through the entire thing before you so quickly dismiss the conclusions presented. David demands the return of his wife, despite the fact that she had been illegitimately remarried. The Scripture I quoted above says that Michal was still David's wife and she was restored to her lawful husband, even though she had been remarried. This was a simple matter of her having two husbands simultaneously - the very definition of adultery. Her second husband had NO rights to her, despite his great love for her, and Abner had to tell him to turn away from her.

In His love,
David

 

[DaPastor]

Hello David,

I said:
Actually, David, this is anecdotal, and does not prove anything one way or another. However, the fact that Michal never went back to David supports, at least anecdotally, that David's Marriage with Michal was dissolved.

You said:

Michal most certainly DID return to David, precisely because she was his lawful wife.

2 Sam. 3:13-16: "And Dawid said, "Good, I make a covenant with you. Only one matter I am asking of you: you do not see my face unless you first bring Mikal, daughter of Sha'ul, when you come to see my face." Dawid then sent messengers to Ishbosheth son of Sha'ul, saying, "Give me my wife Mikal, to whom I became engaged for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines." And Ishbosheth sent and took her from her husband, from Palti'el son of Layish. But her husband went with her to Bahurim, going on and weeping behind her. And Abner said to him, "Go, turn back!" And he turned back."

She did not return, she was forced to return, and that is a big difference! She was forced to return because David wanted her back, contrary to Deuteronomy 24, which implies that he forced her back because he felt something was stolen from him, not because he felt he was lawfully married at this point. Unless one concede that David didn't know about Deuteronomy 24. The fact that the Bible - God Himself says - that Paltiel is Michal's husband speaks volumes to this issue. This phrase is not used lightly by God!

This was actually addressed in our series on Divorce and Remarriage. You might want to actually read through the entire thing before you so quickly dismiss the conclusions presented. David demands the return of his wife, despite the fact that she had been illegitimately remarried. The Scripture I quoted above says that Michal was still David's wife and she was restored to her lawful husband, even though she had been remarried. This was a simple matter of her having two husbands simultaneously - the very definition of adultery. Her second husband had NO rights to her, despite his great love for her, and Abner had to tell him to turn away from her.

My conclusion is still the same. This is nothing more than andecdotal, and doesn't ultimately prove anything - even if you are correct. However, the fact is, that she violated her covenant agreement, making it void, by marrying another man. Now, although she may have began this marriage by an act of adultery, God's Word says that she was Paltiel's husband - period! David wanted her back and had the power to get her, so he did, contrary to the Law!

 

[Anonymous]

She did not return, she was forced to return, and that is a big difference! She was forced to return because David wanted her back, contrary to Deuteronomy 24, which implies that he forced her back because he felt something was stolen from him, not because he felt he was lawfully married at this point. Unless one concede that David didn't know about Deuteronomy 24. The fact that the Bible - God Himself says - that Paltiel is Michal's husband speaks volumes to this issue. This phrase is not used lightly by God!

My conclusion is still the same. This is nothing more than andecdotal, and doesn't ultimately prove anything - even if you are correct. However, the fact is, that she violated her covenant agreement, making it void, by marrying another man. Now, although she may have began this marriage by an act of adultery, God's Word says that she was Paltiel's husband - period! David wanted her back and had the power to get her, so he did, contrary to the Law!

I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but you must realize that David was NOT acting against Deut. 24 by insisting his wife be returned to him. Are we to think he understood his own marriage to her dissolved and her lawful husband now Palti? That's not what David said at all. He explicitly said, "Give me my wife"! He knew full well who she BELONGED to. Is our only choice that David either violated Deut. 24 or Ex. 20:14? Of course not! He neither took back a lawfully put away wife who had been with another man, NOR did he commit adultery with Michal.

Deut. 24:1-4: "When a man takes a wife and shall marry her, then it shall be, if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her, and he shall write her a CIPHRAH KERIYTHUWTH, and put it in her hand, and SHALACH her out of his house, and if she left his house and went and became another man's wife, and the latter husband shall hate her and write her a CIPHRAH KERIYTHUWTH, and put it in her hand, and SHALACH her out of his house, or when the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who SHALACH her is not allowed to take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that would be an abomination before Yahweh. And do not bring sin on the land which Yahweh your Elohim is giving you as an inheritance."

David never "shalach" Michal. He never found a matter of uncoveredness in her. He never wrote her the resulting certificate of divorcement. He never put it in her hand. He never sent her out of his house. NONE of the necessary criteria listed in Deut. 24 for lawful divorcement was present. Instead, his lawful wife was taken from him without his permission. He did not authorize her to leave and she remains his property. He had every right to have her returned to him.

There is no reason to believe that the fact she committed adultery against David by laying with Palti somehow terminated her marriage covenant with David, at least not by reading the text of what happened. I see no reason in this text to think adultery ends a marriage covenant, unless you're already predisposed to this thinking for other reasons. If anything, your "divorce by adultery" theory is actually contradicted by the evidence in this passage. If she somehow ENDED their marriage, David would have been in error by calling her his wife and insisting on her committing adultery AGAIN by returning to him. Yet Scripture says David did right by God except for the matter of Uriah's wife (which actually WAS a case of adultery).

I stand by my original statement, which is confirmed by this passage. Adultery does NOT dissolve a marriage covenant, and it never did. The SINGULAR lawful condition for putting away one's wife is listed in Deut. 24 and Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9, and NONE of them say adultery ends marriage. That's unbiblical nonsense that has been taught in the church to justify divorce and remarriage, but God's Word remains true.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

I would agree, Randy, with your contention that the story of David and Michal is anecdotal - certainly to the extent that there is much which is NOT stated in Scripture. Whether David ever consummated a marital union with Michal after her return to him is, so far as I am aware, conjecture. I have seen extra-biblical midrash to the effect that he never lay with her again, but do not accept that as authoritative.

But neither do I concur, in this specific case, with the assertion that King David was acting improperly in any way, or that his marriage could be dissolved absent his consent. His wife Michal was clearly TAKEN from him, and David neither put her away, nor gave her a get to complete a lawful divorce, of course.

I suppose the implication that -- if he was worried about being accused of adultery -- he should have had Paltiel killed is obvious (albeit that undeniable logical conclusion has been consistently ignored).


Blessings,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

But neither do I concur, in this specific case, with the assertion that King David was acting improperly in any way, or that his marriage could be dissolved absent his consent. His wife Michal was clearly TAKEN from him, and David neither put her away, nor gave her a get to complete a lawful divorce, of course.

Mark,

I believe that you and I both agree that a marriage cannot be lawfully dissolved without the consent of the husband. She may violate it, but only he can terminate it. That is evident in Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments. In this regards, we only differ in what precisely makes the separation lawful. For what it's worth, I too believe the man needs to give her a certificate of divorcement himself and send her out of his house. I just do not believe that's the only requirement for a lawful separation.

In any event, as Michal had two husbands (one lawful, one unlawful) at the same time, David could not be committing adultery with Michal by taking her back. He had every right to insist that his lawful wife be returned to him because he never released her. Only once her relations ended with Palti was she free from the adultery. Can we agree on this much?

Always in His love,
David

P.S. I'm assuming your comment about killing the other husband is facetious.

 

[DrRay777]

David,

As to your question about what happened in my situation; what I did was pure stupidity. I was the prodigal son and was just coming back to God when I married my first wife. I was essentially defrauded by her. God tried to stop me from marrying her, but I would not listen. Back then I did not know how to really hear from God. She had been married twice before and her second husband had committed suicide. She told me that she never married her first husband, but in fact after we were married I found out that she was indeed married to him and cheated on him with her second husband. She pretended to want the same things that I wanted until after we were married. She really only married me because I am a doctor. After we got married, she was like living with Jekyll and Hyde. I did not know from one day to the next who she was.

Long story short - since she had sowed the seed of adultery, then I committed adultery against her. I cheated on her and divorced her. I married the woman I cheated on her with. Guess what. She pretended as well. I repented and was moving closer to God and she pretended to do the same. However one fine day about 5 years later she committed adultery and moved out to go live with the cable repairman whom she did not eve know. After she left I found out details from her former husband about how messed up she really was. After she left, I was done. Then God said to me that He had someone for me. I told Him that it was okay and that I did not need anyone. I finally knew what Paul meant that it was better not to be married. However, God had other plans. He said again that He had someone for me. So I asked Him who it was. He told me it was Melissa. At that time I did not even know her last name. She was very young and lived in South Africa. We had only met a couple of times. Again, long story short. - God told me not to touch it until He told me. I saw her on a trip I took to South Africa for only a few minutes. I had asked to confirm His word to me regarding her with a hug. I got the hug and then did not hear from her until after my divorce from my second wife went through. Exactly 8 days after my second divorce was final, I spoke to Melissa by phone. We were married 2 months later without ever going out on a date. We will celebrate our 6th anniversary in 2 months. I now know why God had me marry her. She is one of the most steadfast women of God that I have ever met. Though she is young in years in the flesh, she is very mature in the Spirit. Don’t get me wrong, we have had our issues, but I would never think of divorcing her unless she turns away from God. God joined us together and I respect that. I would not think of ‘putting her away’ for any reason other than if she became an unbeliever and walked away from her eternity with God.

Sorry if what happened to me does not line up with what you believe, but it follows the ways of God. I came out of my fleshly ways by the grace of our Lord and savior. I am NOT committing adultery in God’s eyes.

Hope this answers your questions.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[Anonymous]

God tried to stop me from marrying her, but I would not listen. Back then I did not know how to really hear from God.

She told me that she never married her first husband, but in fact after we were married I found out that she was indeed married to him and cheated on him with her second husband.

I married the woman I cheated on her with.

After she left I found out details from her former husband about how messed up she really was.

Dr. Ray,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your marital background in detail for me. Obviously, whether your testimony lines up with what I believe Scripture says on the matter of divorce and remarriage is irrelevant, but in this particular case, what you are saying actually does line up with God's Word on divorce and remarriage as I understand it. You were completely free to remarry. Allow me to explain what I believe REALLY occurred.

Regarding your first wife, she was still married to her first husband and therefore was not yours to have. I'm certain this is why God was trying to stop you from marrying her. The fruit of her two adulterous remarriages is obvious. When you divorced her, you were putting her (and the adulterous remarriage) away, though you could not have known it at the time.

Regarding your second wife, she was also still married to her previous husband and again was not yours to have. You simply went from one adulterous marriage to the next. When she left on her own, the adultery with her came to an end.

Regarding your third wife Melissa, she was the only wife that you were actually permitted, seeing as she was never married before (and virgin, if I recall correctly). You never unlawfully put away a wife that you were actually permitted to have. You simply ended two illegitimate marriages, just as if you had married your sisters. Therefore, I have no reason to suspect that God did not actually call Melissa out for you. Melissa was the only woman you were permitted to take as a wife.

You put away both adulterous remarriages you were previously involved in, you repented and were forgiven, and God has given you the wife you were meant to have. Sure, you committed sexual sins in the past, but you are not presently committing any sexual sin. You are not polygynous in any sense, as the other two women were never rightfully yours. You are still free to marry another woman in the future should you wish it. Your own example is unusual but your testimony lines up perfectly with what God's Word actually says, so I have no reason to doubt you.

My only advice, for what it's worth. You mentioned that you wouldn't think of putting Melissa away for any reason other than if she fell away from the faith. Please reconsider your position. 1 Cor. 7 specifically addresses this situation and you would be forbidden to put her away, even as an unbeliever. If you did act treacherously against her, you would be forbidden to marry again. I believe God did set her apart for you and therefore, this hypothetical situation will never occur regardless. Stay blessed, brother!

Always in His love,
David

 

[Edward the Elder]

Okay, this is my last post for the day. I wish I had more time to contribute but I've been bouncing around through a few things here and I must say that I have been struck through, cut through, and vexed to the heart over what I have just read throughout this thread. Gentlemen, there is far too much assumption and presumption going on here. Pardon me for calling myself an elder when I'm not quite 50 yet. Perhaps I'm still a little wet behind the ears but I feel that I ought to say a little something on the behalf of virtue and decency, honour and dignity. Please forgive me for jumping in with both feet at once but the dialoge is rather astonishing and quite overwhelming for a whelp like me to even fathom! Let me just begin by stating that I've only known about forty women (give or take a few depending on your definition of the word) carnally in my life time. I know that isn't many, and I know that some reading this could confess to four-fold as many as I, but I'm not saying that I didn't learn from my mistakes or my own fair share of hard knocks. More often than not we get what we deserve and it's just as well. How else are we going to learn? That said:

Hebrews 10

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.


Why do you gnash on one another so? Who here is innocent? Let his works prove him and we will know him by his fruit. I am astonished, yea, I am amazed! What do we do with our lives from this day forward seeing that our pasts remain behind us? Is there nothing that cannot be forgiven or washed away by the Blood of the Lamb? And once that we have tasted of that heavenly GIFT, do we continue then in sin? GOD FORBID! Now what we continue in lies before us but our pasts must be what they are! LORD HAVE MERCY! But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. Have ye not read in the Volume of the Book where it is written, And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ??? And what saith the LORD but, to GO AND SIN NO MORE! For shame I read the words of brothers straining at gnats, swallowing camels, and picking motes and beams out of each the other's eyes! HOW is it that any can say divorcement and putting away are the same thing in the word of the LORD? Check the Greek and you will discover that they are surely not the same. Moses gave this specific precept for the HARDNESS of HEART! Too many brothers were putting away their wives WITHOUT the law of DEUTERONOMY 24:3 and heartless to absolve them of their uncleanness! This is treachery and wickedness! Admittedly, I have never divorced in my life time if divorcement, as stated biblically, is by writ of letter; yet I can vouchsafe this much that putting away was rarely my habit and I have put none away afterwhich I tasted the truth upon my lips! Since the day I tasted the power of GOD I have put away no wife and never divorced. In all of 27 years I have only known two women and both of them are my wives according to the letter of the law and both have born me children. If either one asked me for a BIBLICAL divorcement I would grant it in the knowledge that their heart was already UNCLEAN.

HAVE YE RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YE BELIEVED???

I learned my lesson, men. I behaved myself thereafter. It grieves me to think that men of GOD would even consider touching another man's wife and only this can be called ADULTERY. FRIENDS, BROTHERS... The words "ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE" mean what they say. Another man's wife does not translate to another man's whore, strumpet, floozie, trollop, harlot, etc. SO it is vital to determine in such cases that she was or is literally ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE before pointing the finger! ROMANS SEVEN makes it clear that the LAW OF THE HUSBANDMAN resides in HIS power and HE ALONE has the authority to free his wife from HIS LAW. Divorcement was given for the HARDNESS OF HEART! BUT AFTERWHICH a man has come to the knowledge of the truth he must GO and SIN no MORE! Laugh at my naivity if you wish, but I know that my LORD has absolved me from past sin and I know that when a virgin marry she hath not sinned! Honour your wives and be merciful. Never confuse divorcement for the putting away of a spouse! Putting away a spouse is inclusive of divorcement but it is the divorcement that concludes a spiritual death for someone. Call it mercy killing... call it what you want... GOD hates the putting away without a divorcement. Someone in that situation does not KNOW GOD. Pray for them and be merciful peradventure your Father in heaven shall do likewise for your own sakes.

May GOD bless you in the knowledge of FULL BIBLE TRUTH

Edward

 

[Anonymous]

"Demonic twisting of scriptures" ????
Mark, disagree if you must but Calling David or his article "Demonic", is a bit much ! I don't think David is saying that sin can't be forgiven. God can certainly forgive anything BUT a person needs to appropriate that forgiveness. In order for that to happen they must first repent of their sin. Authentic repentence, by definition must actually include some "REPENTENCE" !!!! That means making a complete 180 and NOT continuing in any deliberate, habitual sin. I don't know why this is being criticised ? This is basic "Christianity 101".
Fairlight

 

[Anonymous]

HOW is it that any can say divorcement and putting away are the same thing in the word of the LORD? Check the Greek and you will discover that they are surely not the same.

Never confuse divorcement for the putting away of a spouse! Putting away a spouse is inclusive of divorcement but it is the divorcement that concludes a spiritual death for someone. Call it mercy killing... call it what you want... GOD hates the putting away without a divorcement.

Brother Edward,

I'm sorry, but someone has pulled the wool over your eyes. There is no distinction anywhere in Scripture between "divorce" and "putting away". These are modern concepts that do not exist as separate entities anywhere in Scripture. The confusion comes from trying to use our modern concepts, which DO mean two different things to US, to apply to the same Hebrew or Greek word. If you stick with the original Hebrew or Greek words you are speaking of (rather than using modern English terminology), you will suddenly realize there IS NO DISTINCTION. There is "marital separation" and that's it.

In the Hebrew, the primary word that represents marital separation is "shalach". In the Greek, the primary word that represents marital separation is "apoluo". Whenever the Hebrew word "shalach" is translated into Greek, it is always "apoluo".

You can say shalach/apoluo means "divorce" or you can say shalach/apoluo means "putting away", but if you say it means both, then by definition you are saying that divorce is equal to putting away. These words do not change their meaning from one moment to the next.

Deut. 24:1-4: "When a man takes a wife and shall marry her, then it shall be, if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her, and he shall write her a CIPHRAH KERIYTHUWTH, and put it in her hand, and SHALACH her out of his house, and if she left his house and went and became another man's wife, and the latter husband shall hate her and write her a CIPHRAH KERIYTHUWTH, and put it in her hand, and SHALACH her out of his house, or when the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who SHALACH her is not allowed to take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that would be an abomination before Yahweh. And do not bring sin on the land which Yahweh your Elohim is giving you as an inheritance."

Is. 50:1: "Thus says Yahweh, "Where is the CIPHRAH KERIYTHUWTH of your mother, whom I have SHALACH? Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Look, you were sold for your crookednesses, and your mother was SHALACH for your transgressions."

Jer. 3:8: "And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisra'el had committed adultery, I had SHALACH her and given her a CIPHRAH KERIYTHUWTH; yet her treacherous sister Yehudah did not fear, but went and committed whoring too."

Mal. 2:14-16: "And you say, "Why?" Because Yahweh has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have acted treacherously, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant. And did He not make one? And He had the remnant of the Spirit? And what is the one alone? He seeks a seed of Elohim. So you shall guard your spirit, and let none act treacherously against the wife of his youth. "For I hate SHALACH," said Yahweh Elohim of Yisra'el, "and the one who covers his garment with cruelty," said Yahweh of hosts. So you shall guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously."

In the above passages, the Hebrew word "shalach" is usually translated as "put away" in most translations, which is marital separation of the man putting his wife away from himself. We can translate it into English as anything you like, so long as we are consistent. I just prefer looking at the actual Hebrew words so there's no confusion as to what we are speaking of.

I have also bolded the Hebrew term "ciphrah keriythuwth" (certificate of divorcement) and listed all four places it is ever used in the Old Testament. I did this deliberately, since the writing of divorcement is often used to try to artificially create two forms of "shalach" where none exists in the text. By putting it all out in front, using the actual Hebrew words, we can clearly see what is being said, and nobody can claim it says anything different.

According to Deut. 24, a man was to write his wife a "ciphrah keriythuwth" and then "shalach" her out of his house. One is a noun, the other a verb. "ciphrah keriythuwth" is an object, "shalch" is an action. The two always go hand in hand. One without the other is in violation of Deut. 24 and is therefore an invalid separation. Giving her the object without following through with the action is an invalid separation. Performing the action without first giving her the object is an invalid separation. If any of the criteria of Deut. 24 is missing, it is an invalid separation.

A man can only "shalach" the wife. He can never "ciphrah keriythuwth" the wife. That's utter nonsense. She is "shalach", never "ciphrah keriythuwth". In Malachi 2, the text says that God hates "shalach" (the action). It doesn't say he hates "shalach" without first giving her a "ciphrah keriythuwth". It simply says he hates "shalach", which is all inclusive. It stands on it's own without any twisting.

In His love,
David