Is Divorce A Sin?

[Anonymous]

This is the case of John leaving Judy for what's her name who isn't married. While I quite agree with the assumption of polygamy, I would like to highlight (mostly to David) DaPastor's point #3. John would have abandon her, and thus broken the requirements of their marriage. I would submit that after Judy had taken all suggested steps to redeem John (and more as the circumstances permit) she would be blameless and free to remarry. It would not be Judy getting the divorce, but John giving it by default by his lack of provision.

Exodus 21:7-11: "And when a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she does not go out as the male servants do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who has engaged her to himself, then he shall let her be ransomed. He shall have no authority to sell her to a foreign people, because of him deceiving her. And if he has engaged her to his son, he is to do to her as is the right of daughters. If he takes another wife, her food, her covering, and her marriage rights are not to be diminished. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out for naught, without silver."

It is true that the law in Exodus 21 is specifically related to the proper treatment of concubines, but I would think that the rights of the free woman would AT LEAST be equal to the rights of the bondwoman. I am in agreement with you that if any of these three issues (food, clothing or sexual relations) were diminished in the taking of a second wife, the first wife, whether free or slave, would have the right to "go out for naught". The husband who does not continue to provide for his wife upon taking another wife would be in violation of his wife's rights in the marriage and she would be free to leave. Whether she is free to remarry is another issue, however.

What this passage does NOT say is that a free woman would be entitled to leave her husband if he didn't provide for her food, clothing or sexual relations. This passage is only speaking about spousal replacement, which prevents one wife from effectively replacing the other. When he takes another wife, he must continue to provide for his first wife or she is free to leave. If he can not or will not provide for her as his sole wife, this passage cannot be used as justification for anything.

In today's society (and even more so a couple decades ago) John could be especially nasty and refuse to sign papers of divorce for Judy, and that would cause her cascading legal issues until its resolved.

1 Corinthians 7:15-16: "And, if the unbelieving one separates, let him separate himself. A brother or sister has not been enslaved in such matters. But Elohim has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you shall save your wife?"

In the example of our fictional John and Judy, John is acting as an unbeliever (outside of faith) and Judy, as a believer, is allowed to let him leave. "Elohim has called us to peace." The believer should not contest the divorce, whether the husband or the wife. Rather, he or she should let the unbeliever separate in as peaceful a way as possible, not creating unnecessary disturbances.

can you reach an agreement for Judy in this last case? If so are there any practical cases where you disagree? If not are there any other cases you disagree?

I would think Mark and I would agree on the following:

John is a Christian man and marries Judy, a Christian woman. Neither have been married before. A few years into the marriage, John decides he no longer desires Judy, abandons her, and runs off with his secretary Betty, an unmarried woman. In this example, no adultery has taken place, yet John has abandoned his wife and has EFFECTIVELY replaced Judy with Betty. Per Ex. 21 and 1 Cor. 7, we would agree that Judy is permitted to let him go. We would both say she is blameless.

What I believe we still need to hash out in this particular scenario is whether Judy is free to remarry, since John has not given her a certificate of divorcement. In addition, from my point of view, Judy has done nothing to deserve divorcement, so even a certificate signed by the husband would be worthless in this case. In fact, this is the direct cause for the "serial monogyny" effect we see today. Dump one, replace her with a newer model. I believe this was the very issue Yeshua was addressing and debunking in Matt. 5:31-32. John is forcing Judy to commit adultery by his abandonment.

The flip-side of this would be that if Judy were to file for a state-recognized certificate of divorce, I do not see that as being the same thing as permission to remarry. If John were being forced by the state to sign something he did not agree with, it would not be binding either. From what I can see in Scripture, she has to EARN it, and then he has to willingly ENFORCE it. If she didn't deserve the divorce, it didn't happen. If he didn't enforce the divorce, it didn't happen.

People are going to do what people are going to do. In a perfect world, this would be a non-issue, but we have to deal with the hand we are dealt. Knowing what we should do and being able to walk it out aren't always the same thing. But as Mark already pointed out,

There comes a time to recognize that the ONLY recourse for an utterly messed up situation is to be thankful for the blood of our Kinsman-Redeemer.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

I've tried to refer to the format that He uses there repeatedly ("You have heard it said but I tell you...") in the past to make this point

Well, I haven't "heard it said", but I have certainly read what it says. Unless you're claiming the Torah in Ex. 21, Lev. 24 and Deut. 19 has been tampered with, I can read for myself that Yeshua quoted Scripture, not men's traditions or sideways interpretations of Scripture. I specifically quoted those passages to make sure everyone would see that He was quoting Torah, not tradition. I'll reiterate. This is what Torah says:

Exodus 21:23-25: "But if there is injury, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, lash for lash."

Leviticus 24:18-20: "And when a man inflicts a blemish upon his neighbor, as he has done so it is done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he inflicts a blemish upon him, so it is done to him."

Deuteronomy 19:21: "And let your eye not pardon, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

That's quoted Scripture. That's not traditions of men. That's not a misunderstanding of intended spiritual meanings. The same God who commanded carnal Israel to take "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" changed that command to "but I say to you, do not resist the wicked. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

John 5:47: "But if ye believe not his [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe my words?

I believe Moses' writing, and I believe Yeshua's words. The logical conclusion is that if we wouldn't believe Moses, then we wouldn't believe Yeshua either.

The direct contradiction that Yeshua was making was not with His Torah, but with MEN'S TRADITION which had replaced it

So you do recognize the contradiction here. So then I don't understand your comment. I've just conclusively demonstrated that it was NOT "men's traditions" that Yeshua was contradicting, but rather His written Torah. Do you believe the Torah has been tampered with, so that the Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy that we have today is not REALLY God's Word?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

One major goal of the New Covenant was to give man the ability to not only follow the Law externally, but to also follow the Law from the heart, or in other words, not to merely follow the letter of the Law but the spirit of the Law.

Actually, the New Covenant removed the written law for us altogether -- we are ONLY to follow the law of the Spirit from the heart, NOT the spirit of the law (whatever that might mean). They cannot be mixed together. It's not a matter of merely following the letter of the Law. It's not to follow the letter of the Law AT ALL. The letter still brings death. The spirit still brings life. The letter and the spirit are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

To drive home my point further. Jesus was still under the Old Covenant when He taught. The New Covenant did not even begin until the crucifixion. I mention this because if Jesus were teaching contrary to the Law, this would make Him a sinner.

Jesus was only under the Old Covenant until 27AD when He was anointed as Messiah. He certainly is not under either the Old or New Covenants today. He is the author, not a subject. He was a law-giver and a reformer, of which Moses was only a shadow.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

Since we're on the subject of divorce and remarriage and the whole "certificate of divorce" versus "whoring" issue, I thought it might help to look at a parallel passage in Matthew 19.

Matthew 19:3: "And the Pharisees came to Him, trying Him, and saying to Him, "Is it right for a man to put away his wife for every reason?"

Notice the question being asked. This is the subject in view. Notice that the question was NOT whether it was truly necessary for a husband to write a certificate of divorce. They wanted to know whether a man was permitted to put her away for any reason or not.

Matthew 19:4-6: "And He answering, said to them, "Did you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what Elohim has joined together, let man not separate."

Notice that Jesus' response was regarding the permanence of marriage, not the methodology for lawful putting away. They wanted to know if they could put away their wives for any reason, and His response was simply that they were not to be separated, PERIOD.

Matthew 19:7-8: "They said to Him, "Why then did Mosheh command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts, Mosheh allowed you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Notice that Jesus said that Moses "allowed you to put away your wives", not that Moses "allowed you to give your wives certificates of divorce". Again, the whole issue was permission for putting away wives. They already knew (and demonstrated by their precise question) that a certificate of divorce was going to be required. That was not the point. Jesus was saying they should not be separated.

Matthew 19:9: "And I say to you, whoever puts away his wife, except on the ground of whoring, and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery."

The infamous quote that is in dispute. Notice what it says, and what it does NOT say. No mention of a certificate of divorce, because that was not the question being asked about. They just finished saying they knew full well the procedure for putting away. They wanted to know why Moses permitted something that Jesus was now saying was not.

Matthew 19:10: "His taught ones said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is good not to marry."

And here is the deal-breaker. There is really no way to explain away their incredulous response to Jesus' statement. Are we honestly going to say that His disciples were griping about having to be bothered with giving a certificate of divorce, as if this was such a great burden to bear? They told Jesus that in this case, it would be better for a man not to even marry!!! Certainly they understood the implications of not being permitted to put away one's wife without committing adultery. A prerequisite for a simple divorce certificate would not have been seen as such a barrier to marriage, but being unable to get out of it again certainly would be!

This should really put an end to this argument. This is about as clear as it can get. Anyone putting away his wife, except on the ground of whoring, and marrying another, commits adultery. Anyone putting away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. Anyone marrying her who has been put away commits adultery. We can address unique exceptions for specific abuses in other passages, but this passage really can't be disputed. It's clear, it's precise, and it's quoted Scripture.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

What I believe we still need to hash out in this particular scenario is whether Judy is free to remarry, since John has not given her a certificate of divorcement.

The "get" is Judy's written proof that she is able to remarry. Without such, John "causeth her" to commit adultery if she does.

(And it's not about whether she "deserves" divorcement. She might well have not "deserved" to be abandoned either, or to have the covenant violated. If she wishes to be under the covering of another husband, the "get" is proof that she is eligible.)

The flip-side of this would be that if Judy were to file for a state-recognized certificate of divorce, I do not see that as being the same thing as permission to remarry. If John were being forced by the state to sign something he did not agree with, it would not be binding either.

I disagree, David. John and Judy, like it or not, surrendered that authority to Caesar when they asked for his license, and agreed to his kingship in their marriage instead of God's alone. Scriptural examples abound - from those who asked for Saul, to the aforementioned "make no treaty" admonition that Joshua ignored. When John let Caesar rule his house, he agreed to abide by Caesar's rule for dissolution and disposition of that union. (Which reminds me of one of the most common literary devices in art - from Faust to Damn Yankees. Doesn't God give people the choice to make a "deal with the devil"? :? )

I'm going to pass on the 1:59 PM rehash, David. It's well-plowed ground. We agree that things happen because of "the hardness of men's hearts" and that God, in His grace and wisdom, has provided a Remedy for even the most heinous problems. Divorce is something to be avoided, but we will all meet and perhaps counsel or even love those who have been so afflicted.

We may disagree on elements of my conclusion thereafter, however...

Licenses from the prince of this world, children, promiscuity, and the general tendency of a fallen nation to "call evil good, and good evil" -- among MANY other things -- all exacerbate the problem. Men who are abandoned may marry again, provided they understand that they may be called upon to again cover such a wife at some point in the future. Women who have been "put away", and who may ever wish to ask a potential husband to "take away my reproach", should, I contend, if possible have a get (certificate of divorce).


(And note that BOTH of those last two sentences will not be without controversy among so-called 'mainstream' churches. )


Blessings,
Mark

 

[Mark C]

The "law" done away with fallacy could have its own thread, perhaps - although it probably won't be resolved there, either...

First, with regard to the oft-misunderstood "eye for eye" and so on references, there ARE teachings in the "midrash" that are very valuable. This is a good example of one such. The principle is RESTITUTION, with the ever-understood priority to "choose life". For loss of a tooth, the slave is to go out free. When someone commits an act of negligence which costs a neighbor an eye, no one is generally served by striking out the eye of the offender; certainly the victim is not made whole by such. The concept is to MAKE THE VICTIM WHOLE. Since the eye, tooth, or wound, cannot readily be restored, the TEACHING (heart concept, if you will) is justice; the transgressor is to do what is possible to restore those injured. (Even to the point of bondservice if required.) And as the "ox which is known to thrust with its horn" example shows, the secondary issue is to assure that such negligence (or worse) is NOT repeated. Such practical teachings of Torah are STILL applicable today - and would, I contend, be FAR superior to a society based on Satanic principles, which institutionalizes dishonest money, subsidizes theft, punishes the innocent, and bails out the guilty.

Much can, and has, been written about how those who "added burdens" while ignoring the "weightier matters of the law" were rightly rebuked by Yeshua for getting all balled up in precedent and trivia, and ultimately vain tradition, rather than understanding the PRINCIPLES He taught.

(I think that Michael Rood's audio and video teaching on Yeshua's healing of the blind man, where He violated literally EVERY SINGLE oral tradition imaginable concerning His Sabbath day healing, while KEEPING every Written specific, is without peer to illustrate this point.)


But I will make the point as best I can here:

The letter and the spirit are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Au contraire. Yeshua unequivocally showed otherwise. The fatal mistake is to assume that one can EARN SALVATION, or prove righteousness, or justify oneself before God - or any other similar fallacy - ONLY by works, by keeping the 'letter', or by any similar delusion. The process of "entering via the strait gate" and "walking the narrow path", with the goal of having our RedeemerKNOW US is ultimately about His regeneration of our hard, "desparately wicked", hearts - and giving us a new one, upon which His Torah is written.

Once that happens, we WILL be able to walk in obedience to Him (and His teaching and instruction), via the guidance of His Ruach Hakodesh (spirit). No conflict there at all..


Blessings,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

What I believe we still need to hash out in this particular scenario is whether Judy is free to remarry, since John has not given her a certificate of divorcement.

The "get" is Judy's written proof that she is able to remarry. Without such, John "causeth her" to commit adultery if she does.

Sure, the "get" which Judy does not have. John hasn't given it to her. We can debate whether an illegal "get" (one given without the prerequisite whoring) side-steps the adultery, but we should both agree that without the get, John hasn't relinquished his claim on Judy.

The flip-side of this would be that if Judy were to file for a state-recognized certificate of divorce, I do not see that as being the same thing as permission to remarry. If John were being forced by the state to sign something he did not agree with, it would not be binding either.

I disagree, David. John and Judy, like it or not, surrendered that authority to Caesar when they asked for his license, and agreed to his kingship in their marriage instead of God's alone.

Then really, we're right back to no-fault divorce for the vast majority. Any "put-away" woman, with or without a "get", can remarry at will. So Judy, want to marry Phil? Tell John you want a divorce. Won't give it to you? Take it. The state won't mind. And it's all good and legal with God because you have your "get" out of jail free card, certified by Caesar, proving to everyone you're entitled to remarry.

I really don't see any way we can come to an agreement on these matters, especially with the abundance of New Testament passages that flat out prohibit a wife having two husbands. Based on your above statement, I assume you would have no problems with a man marrying another man's wife, just as long as a loophole exists somewhere (abuse, abandonment, state divorce papers)...anything OTHER than the one SINGULAR exception clause our Savior Himself gave us; the only exception which entitles the man to put her away without causing adultery. Judy's freedom from the marriage suddenly becomes freedom to REmarry. I realize that neither of us support getting divorced, but your position ends up supporting permitted adultery, under the guise of a false, illegal remarriage. Frankly, I can't fathom why any New Covenant believer would intentionally take such a position in opposition to Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9. Rom. 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:10-11 and 1 Cor. 7:39, but I can never agree with it. In an attempt to force Jesus to say what Moses has already said, we end up throwing the very commands that He said to obey right out the window.

Please don't mistake my passion for Scripture as anything but that. I have nothing but respect and love for you and I'm simply presenting my position through clear Scriptural evidence. We don't have to agree to be brothers in Messiah (unless you yourself someday decide to take another man's wife, in which case we'd have much more to talk about). Perhaps we should simply acknowledge our differing views on this and allow others to voice their opinions and Scriptures as well. My eventual hope is that we are all able to come to a similar understanding regarding divorce and remarriage. I know I'm still learning and I don't know it all, but there are some things I simply cannot ignore or explain away when they are stated so clearly in Scripture.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

David - I'll start this response with an observation that I think reflects (in part ) our difference in perspective on the divorce issue. You emphasize the Pharisaical divorce for any reason element. I emphasize the 'justice' element - who is at fault, and "what is the Lawful remedy for it?" IOW, it is one thing to try to JUSTIFY "putting away a wife for any reason" and another entirely to say, GIVEN that (by the hardness of men's hearts) evil has been done - what happens next?

(Is Judy now forever "damaged goods", unable to be a wife? Remember that John is an adulterer, and in a Torah-observant culture WOULD HAVE BEEN A WIDOW; end of discussion. Along the same lines, I will note that the same society which once stoned adulterers also had a custom I mentioned long ago in this discussion: a man going to war would give his wife a get BEFORE LEAVING, just in case he was to become Missing In Action - so that she would NEVER be placed in such a horrible position! This showed quite a bit of faith in his Proverbs 31 wife, as well!)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now! More fun with John and Judy:

Re: "The "get" is Judy's written proof that she is able to remarry."

Sure, the "get" which Judy does not have. John hasn't given it to her. We can debate whether an illegal "get" (one given without the prerequisite whoring) side-steps the adultery, but we should both agree that without the get, John hasn't relinquished his claim on Judy.

If Judy has no 'get', Judy may not remarry. Period.

But - two responses, David:

1) You persist in turning the "illegal get" BACKWARDS! There is NO NEED for a get because whoring is the EXCEPTION! A husband is NOT guilty for putting away a wife ALREADY guilty* of such! She ALREADY 'committeth adultery'. Read it carefully again, because I obviously can't help on that misunderstanding at this point.

2) You got the second part right. Without a get, John indeed has NOT relinquished his claim on Judy.

Now, one more try at this part:

...we're right back to no-fault divorce for the vast majority. Any "put-away" woman, with or without a "get", can remarry at will...

Where'd you come up with this? God never said it, and neither did I.

...So Judy, want to marry Phil? Tell John you want a divorce. Won't give it to you? Take it. The state won't mind. And it's all good and legal with God because you have your "get" out of jail free card, certified by Caesar...

ONLY IF YOUR "MARRIAGE" IS MADE BY CAESAR!!!!!!!

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt. 19:6, and Mark 10:9)

How much more clear can I be, David? Who joined John and Judy together -- Caesar or God??? Whose rules did they CONTRACT to abide by - Caesar's or God's? To whom do they submit? Who owns their children!? WHO RULES THEIR HOUSE?

"Render unto Caesar that which is HIS" (Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25; emphasis ADDED) Whose marriage is it? Who gave permission? Who licensed it into existence, and who ORDERED it ENDED!!!!????

When a master gives his slave a wife, who owns the wife and the children? (see Exodus 21)

Who has contractual authority over Judy, David - her "husband", or Caesar? Read the fine print! There's a reason God told Joshua to "make no treaty" with Canaan!

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24; also Luke 16:13)

"Choose this day Whom you will serve." (primarily Joshua 24, of course, but the story is repeated by many witnesses.)

Casear has NO AUTHORITY to issue, or demand, a divorce for a husband or his wife, IF and ONLY IF they NEVER YIELDED THE AUTHORITY TO HIM! There is a REASON I counsel people to avoid Caesar's license, his attached strings, and his "traditions" which usurp God's commandments. God gave us a choice. John made his. Your mileage may vary...


I'm trying to be as clear as possible here, brother David. Whom do we serve? As for me and my house, we will serve YHVH.


Blessings in Him,

Mark





--------------------------
* I conclude that the fact that God gave his idolatrous wife a certificate of divorce was an act of unmerited favor (grace) on His part.

 

[DragonflyPR]

The Biblical divorce in Jesus time meant throwing away a women into the wilderness. Letting her unprotected into the mercy of rapists, and wild animals without food, shelter and protection. Nowadays a woman divorce a man and she usually has atrade, a work and earns money. She is not thrown into the wilderness! Also, by law she is entitled to have of the capital owned by them. In the olden days she owned squat! So time has change and divorce is no longer a death sentence!

I am divorced, and if that is a Sin I do not care because under my circumstances which were quite unique I did the right thing. I hve four kids and I sent all of them to college and only one remains in college. I did what I had to do, period! If God wants to argue about it, then I will argue about short changing me!

Marriage is a serious matter and if the othe part or parts are not willing to follow the rules all hell breaks lose! So it is either the right way or the highway because people is entitled to live in peace, harmony and love. Anyone wants to argue my point?

 

[Anonymous]

(Is Judy now forever "damaged goods", unable to be a wife? Remember that John is an adulterer, and in a Torah-observant culture WOULD HAVE BEEN A WIDOW; end of discussion.

Judy certainly isn't "damaged goods", she is simply a married woman. Is she unable to be a wife? Of course not. She IS a wife, to John. He never released her from her marriage by giving her a get. In addition, in my example, John is not an adulterer since Michelle was an unmarried woman, so there is no issue regarding Judy being any form of widow. John lives, that makes Judy his wife.

If Judy has no 'get', Judy may not remarry. Period.

Agreed.

There is NO NEED for a get because whoring is the EXCEPTION! A husband is NOT guilty for putting away a wife ALREADY guilty* of such! She ALREADY 'committeth adultery'. Read it carefully again, because I obviously can't help on that misunderstanding at this point.

Yes, let's read them again together, because they don't say what you think they say. Whoring is the exception for the ADULTERY, NOT the exception for needing some divorce certificate.

Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery."

Matt. 19:9: "And I say to you, whoever puts away his wife, except on the ground of whoring, and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery."

Both passages clearly state that PUTTING AWAY HIS WIFE makes her commit adultery. They do NOT state that failing to give her a divorce certificate makes her commit adultery. That's not in the text. The exception clause in both passages says that the only exception for committing adultery is whoring. That's the only case where adultery does not occur. Yeshua never even mentioned a certificate of divorce! He said adultery was the end result of putting away, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF WHORING. In fact, these passages can just as easily be written like this:

Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife makes her commit adultery, except on the ground of whoring. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery."

Matt. 19:9: "And I say to you, whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery, except on the ground of whoring. And whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery."

The same words, rearranged to mean the exact same thing both ways. PUT AWAY = ADULTERY...UNLESS WHORING.

I think we both know the word here in Greek is not "moichao/adultery" but "porneia/whoring". If she had committed adultery with another man, the whole divorce question would be moot. She would have her divorce...by stoning. Whoring encompasses any manner of unlawful sexual relations, not just adultery, and any form of whoring permitted the man to put her away without causing adultery. What would be the point of Yeshua saying "putting her away, except for adultery, causes adultery"? Whoring got a wife banished. Adultery got a wife killed.

...So Judy, want to marry Phil? Tell John you want a divorce. Won't give it to you? Take it. The state won't mind. And it's all good and legal with God because you have your "get" out of jail free card, certified by Caesar...

ONLY IF YOUR "MARRIAGE" IS MADE BY CAESAR!!!!!!!

Which, for all practical purposes, is everyone we're ever likely to come into contact with. I mean, how many people in the United States do you suppose actually obtained a marriage license when getting married? It's a safe bet to assume very few exceptions. So that means, for the vast majority of Americans at least, we're back to saying no-fault divorce is permitted. Since the unfortunate couple invited Caesar into their homes, they'll have to throw God's Word out the window because it doesn't apply to them. Sorry, I do not believe it must be one or the other. Getting a state marriage license is not mentioned as a sin in Scripture, but adultery most certainly is. Yeshua said nothing about a marriage certificate. Yeshua said nothing about a divorce certificate. Yeshua said that putting away your wife causes adultery, EXCEPT in cases of whoring.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

Sorry, David. Thought it was more clear; in my last-referenced version of the example, John was an adulterer:

Mark C wrote:John is a Christian man and marries Judy, a Christian woman. Neither have been married before. A few years into the marriage, John decides he no longer desires Judy and has an affair with married non-Christian Michelle. During this time he abuses Judy for a while, and then abandons her to move in with now-separated Michelle. Judy eventually files for and receives a state-recognized certificate of divorce (get) signed by John.

I contend, in summary, that Judy has met the requirements of BOTH what the Bible says about marriage and divorce, and the terms of her flawed State-ordained contract. She is able to remarry.

That summary still applies to the example referenced.

And, yes, in this largely post-Christian, and arguably secular or even pagan, nation, most people honor Satan's (er, Caesar's :twisted: ) model for marriage rather than God's. This should be no surprise. Just wait until you see what they have planned next...

Israel demanded a king "like the other nations"; they got one. God made it clear to Samuel that He knew Who they were rejecting.

...how many people in the United States do you suppose actually obtained a marriage license when getting married? It's a safe bet to assume very few exceptions. So that means, for the vast majority of Americans at least, we're back to saying no-fault divorce is permitted.

Why, if THAT were true, you'd think it would be reflected in our culture! :x

Such "licenses" are now given for "marriages" God calls "abomination", while the CHILDREN of NEIGHBORS accused of the heinous sin of polygyny are stolen without warrant, in clear violation of both Scripture and the Constitution. They "forbid to marry", and call good evil, and evil good.

No, I'm not saying we're back to "no fault divorce" - I 'm instead saying that Amerika's situation is far closer to Ezra or what Phineas did to Cosbi than to God-ordained marriage.

=============================================================================================

As for Matthew 5:32, my final, final attempt will involve simply taking your own explanation and showing how it can be read correctly, IMHO:

[Yeshua] said adultery was the end result of [the innocent wife being] putting away, EXCEPT IN THE CASES [where she is NOT INNOCENT]. In fact, these passages can just as easily be written like this:

Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife makes her commit adultery, except [in cases where she is guilty HERSELF*]. And whoever marries a woman who has been [thus] put away [obviously] commits adultery."

Blessings,

Mark




------------------------------
* Such uncleanness, fornication, whoring -- as has already been pointed out -- must include other things that the Torah already identified, such as witchcraft, idolatry, etc. (Deuteronomy 13), as sins unto death, but only on the testimony of two or three witnesses!

 

[^_^]

Marichu does bring up a valid question that I feel hasn't been adequately covered.
I agree, she was not married, as there was no commitment, at least not on the man's part. I sense there was to some point on Marichu's, but if it's not reciprocated, then it doesn't exist. (that's my perspective anyway)

What constituted marriage in the beginning? I think Jacob's wedding is the first recorded instance of a feast/party of any kind, correct me if I'm wrong. Did Adam and Eve have some sort of ceremony, did Cain, did Seth? How exactly were their marriages defined? Was society's ways and means acceptable to people of the book? Did the people of the book have a higher way of doing things?

If a man and woman 'shack up' and dwell together, does this constitute marriage by default?

I really am enjoying this discussion, but it almost raises more questions to me than it answers.
Seems to me that the 'from the beginning it was not so' means that people should just learn to deal with each other. But the hardeness of heart prevents this. Shame not all are willing to circumcise their hearts and really apply themselves to righteousness.

 

[Anonymous]

Marichu does bring up a valid question that I feel hasn't been adequately covered.
I agree, she was not married, as there was no commitment, at least not on the man's part. I sense there was to some point on Marichu's, but if it's not reciprocated, then it doesn't exist. (that's my perspective anyway)

I concur. A marriage is a covenant agreement, which means it must be agreed to by all parties. No agreement, no covenant.

What constituted marriage in the beginning? I think Jacob's wedding is the first recorded instance of a feast/party of any kind, correct me if I'm wrong. Did Adam and Eve have some sort of ceremony, did Cain, did Seth? How exactly were their marriages defined? Was society's ways and means acceptable to people of the book? Did the people of the book have a higher way of doing things?

If a man and woman 'shack up' and dwell together, does this constitute marriage by default?

The exact procedure for marriage has changed over the centuries, but the commonality is always a man and woman making the agreement to be married, and then coming together as "one flesh", sealing the deal. "Shacking up" doesn't make them married any more than attending church (for show, for social events, for status) makes them believers. In the end, both are decisions to bind themselves to one another in a covenant agreement.

I really am enjoying this discussion, but it almost raises more questions to me than it answers.
Seems to me that the 'from the beginning it was not so' means that people should just learn to deal with each other. But the hardeness of heart prevents this. Shame not all are willing to circumcise their hearts and really apply themselves to righteousness.

Very true. One of the advantages of this medium is the ability to discuss and analyze differing viewpoints among like-minded believers. We may never have all the answers, but it's the journey of searching for God's truth that is most rewarding. Even with differences of opinions, that's the one thing we all have in common -- a love for God and His Word.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Sara]

I realize there are 10 pages of responses, so it's unlikely that mine will be read, but here goes.

Is divorce a sin?

After my drug addict father cheated on my mother, spent their wedding gift cash in less than a year, and then took out about $20k in cash advances, she almost literally kicked him out of the house when I was 3 and my brother was 1. She then divorced him a year later. Was she sinning? - I don't think so.

Even after they divorced, he continued to do drugs (still does 'til this day,) almost never paid child support, and stole my piggy bank when I was 4 years old. I asked him for a ride to college a few years ago, and he asked me for gas money. I think he's the sinner, and she was just trying to protect her children which is not a sin - neither in my book, nor your God's.

Divorce is a sin if two good people don't want to take the time to work things out. It's not a sin if one person is being victimized.

 

[Tlaloc]

I've got to differ with you this time Dragonfly, the Bible clearly shows women owning land as early as the division of land when Israel (ancient) was founded. There is more than enough debate in the Talmund to show that a considerable portion of women owned landed and turned a profit off of it either by farming or operating a small business, and whatever they had before they where married they had after. Exactly how prevalent this was we have no record of, but it was common enough to be considered thoroughly in a very short book of law. Perhaps when the University of Jerusalem publicly released the Dead Sea Scrolls on the internet we'll have more insight, but I'm not holding my breath as to ever knowing.

I tend to think the devaluation of women occurred after that point. Martin Madan's Thelyphthora commented on how European Christian women where treated worse than Islamic (yes, Islamic) or Jewish women, and that was the 1780's.

But, um, I don't think that was the point you meant when you asked if anyone wanted to argue. I don't intend to argue with the rest of it.

JP


Sara,
Yeah, I can empathize with what you're saying.
JP

 

[Anonymous]

As for Matthew 5:32, my final, final attempt will involve simply taking your own explanation and showing how it can be read correctly, IMHO:

[Yeshua] said adultery was the end result of [the innocent wife being] putting away, EXCEPT IN THE CASES [where she is NOT INNOCENT]. In fact, these passages can just as easily be written like this:

Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife makes her commit adultery, except [in cases where she is guilty HERSELF*]. And whoever marries a woman who has been [thus] put away [obviously] commits adultery."

Yeah, I think this is one of those issues that we just can't agree on. I actually prefer your scenario because it provides for compassion and mercy for the wronged spouse, but I just can't get past the actual text of Scripture. To me, interpreting Matt. 5:32 as saying "whoever puts away his wife, except where she is guilty, makes her guilty" essentially makes His statement gibberish. There was a reason He used "adultery" and "whoring" in the same sentence. They are both sins but they mean different things. Whoring was a lesser offense and unless she committed whoring, adultery (the greater offense) would result by putting her away. To me at least, that reads as a warning, not regarding a "get", but AGAINST putting away without a valid God-recognized REASON, which was, incidentally, the question being asked. It also meshes perfectly with all the other NT passages that prohibit putting away. It also aligns with Mark and Luke, who do not even give the exception clause because Matthew was written to a Hebrew audience, whereas Mark and Luke were not.

So rather than debate what permits a husband giving his wife a divorce certificate, let's instead focus on what we do agree on.

Husbands do, in fact, give their wives divorce certificates, whether we think they're permitted or not. So if John and Judy separate, and assuming neither John nor Judy committed a sin worthy of death under the Old Covenant, then unless John gives Judy a "get", we would agree she is unable to remarry. Can we agree on this? Without the certificate, remarriage for the wife is not allowed.

I would question one other thing. When a husband gives his wife a divorce certificate (without the prerequisite whoring, regardless of whether we think adultery occurs or not), does the divorce certificate give her permission to remarry? In other words, in a case where a husband simply wants her gone, if he gives her a certificate of divorce and sends her away (even though we recognize the husband has sinned in his actions), would you say she is then free to remarry since she has the divorce certificate?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Memphis Dwight]

It seems as if Christ was being asked about the ancient equivalent of no fault divorce.

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Researchers have found out that there was a particular type of divorce back then known as an Every Cause divorce. It was the prevailing practice of the day. It was so common, that whenever putting away was mentioned, it was assumed to be an Every Cause divorce.

Today we would say that it is illegal for a 16 year old to drink. We know right off the bat that it is alcoholic beverages of which we speak. But folks two thousand years from now (the world won't exist then,but hypothetically) won't know that without researching our history. They might read that sentence and suppose that it was illegal for a 16 year old to drink milk or water because it appears to be a blanket statement.

The problem of course with an Every Cause divorce is that no presumably no party is to blame in the breakdown.

Christ dispels the notion that no one is to blame and pronounces the men trading the innocent wife with breaking her devotion in a marriage.

 

[Mark C]

Yeah, I think this is one of those issues that we just can't agree on...

[perhaps so]


To me, interpreting Matt. 5:32 as saying "whoever puts away his wife, except where she is guilty, makes her guilty" essentially makes His statement gibberish.

Try it this way, David. (OK, this is my final, final, final... )

Whoever MAKES his wife sin, except where she is already guilty herself, bears the guilt for her sin.

That's what "covering" is about, as Numbers 30 shows.



And perhaps the Numbers 30 reference is key to making clear where our remaining disagreement may lie -- as I move on to your 'where we agree' notes. Please consider this (UN-Politically-correct that it is) as you read what follows.

The essence of Numbers 30 is that God holds us to our vows. BUT, and this is the critical caveat, He provides for the covering of a daughter or a wife by the father and husband! The man in authority may confirm or cast down her vows! (Numbers 30:7-8 et al)

[Aside: For those that find this disconcerting - read Genesis 3:7 VERY carefully! Note that Eve ATE FIRST, but her sin was NOT imputed - her eyes were not opened first - until Adam her husband FAILED to cover her, and ate also! ]

I contend that the same principle applies to marriage, and Yeshua's teaching here confirms that principle. A husband can, and SHOULD, cover his wives. But when he RENOUNCES that authority, and not only "puts her away" and APPEARS to leave her abandoned and without covering, but then CERTIFIES this in writing and puts it in her hand -- the die is cast. Note that if she then remarries - making a vow to ANOTHER for such covering - HE CAN NEVER TAKE HER BACK - and even defiles the land by trying. OTOH, if he puts her away unjustly, and CAUSES her to sin, that sin is imputed RIGHTFULLY to HIM!

So...

Husbands do, in fact, give their wives divorce certificates, whether we think they're permitted or not. So if John and Judy separate, and assuming neither John nor Judy committed a sin worthy of death under the Old Covenant, then unless John gives Judy a "get", we would agree she is unable to remarry. Can we agree on this? Without the certificate, remarriage for the wife is not allowed.

Yes.

When a husband gives his wife a divorce certificate (without the prerequisite whoring, regardless of whether we think adultery occurs or not), does the divorce certificate give her permission to remarry? In other words, in a case where a husband simply wants her gone, if he gives her a certificate of divorce and sends her away (even though we recognize the husband has sinned in his actions), would you say she is then free to remarry since she has the divorce certificate?

Yes.

Think of it this way; just as he bears her guilt, so does he own this responsibility as well.

Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

Try it this way, David. (OK, this is my final, final, final... )

I'm really trying to see if I can make sense of this view, so please forgive my continual questioning. I really do appreciate you taking the extra time on these particulars. I'm not trying to be difficult, but that's how I learn. Any explanation must be reconciled with all Scriptures, and that's what I'm trying to do here. Thank you for your continuing patience.

Whoever MAKES his wife sin, except where she is already guilty herself, bears the guilt for her sin...Think of it this way; just as he bears her guilt, so does he own this responsibility as well.

Okay, so really we’re not too far off from saying the same thing here. We both recognize that unless she was whoring, a husband putting his wife away causes adultery to occur. The only significant difference is that you see the illegally put away wife as being permitted to remarry, presumably without committing adultery. I doubt you are saying she has permission to remarry by committing adultery, so the only remaining option is that she isn't committing adultery in remarrying. So then how do you reconcile this view against the very next line?

"And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery."

How is she free to remarry if anyone who ends up marrying her commits adultery? For adultery to occur, she must still be a married woman. And if so, she would also be committing adultery, which goes back to the first half of that verse. We both agree that the sinning husband causes HER to commit adultery, but if anyone marrying HER commits adultery, what does that make HER? This looks straightforward. We can't just say it doesn't really mean what it says. What am I missing here? How can she not be an adulteress if anyone who ends up marrying her commits adultery? Do you see what I mean?

Matt. 19:9: "And I say to you, whoever puts away his wife, except on the ground of whoring, and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery."

If the husband is already guilty of “bearing her responsibility for committing adultery” by wrongly putting her away, why is it he then commits adultery (again?) when he remarries? And once again, we have a second witness which says that anyone marrying this wrongly put away woman commits adultery.

Luke 16:18: "Everyone putting away his wife and marrying another commits adultery. And everyone marrying her who is put away from her husband commits adultery."

A third witness testifying to the same thing. Contextually, it is clear this is the same put away woman, not two different women with two different backgrounds and two different levels of innocence or guilt. If the new husband is committing adultery with her, then so is she. Do you see why I’m having a hard time with this? I’m not trying to be stubborn. I just can’t see how to reconcile these passages from the way you're interpreting Matt. 5:32. If the new husband commits adultery by marrying HER, what exactly does this make her??

Rom. 7:2-3: "For the married woman has been bound by Torah to the living husband, but if the husband dies, she is released from the Torah concerning her husband. So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. But if her husband dies, she is free from that part of the Torah, so that she is not an adulteress, having become another man's."

1 Cor. 7:39: "A wife is bound by the Torah as long as her husband lives, and if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she desires, only in the Master."

If a husband can put away his wife and thereby release her at will, even if he's wrong for doing so, then why do both of these passages say she's still bound while he lives? They both say that she can remarry ONLY once he dies, not once he gives her a certificate of divorcement. They both explicitly state that while her husband lives, she will be an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. How can an implicit statement, vague at best, be used to define these quite explicit passages? Isn't the explicit supposed to interpret the implicit?

I just can't get past the sheer amount of evidence against your viewpoint. I believe God is a master communicator, and He is very clear in His Word about what He means to say. The most obvious, clear and literal reading of Matt. 5:32 is that "whoever puts her away, except for whoring, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries her commits adultery". It also lines up with all these other NT passages that speak to the same subject. It even lines up with Deut. 24:1, if that makes any difference. Scripture does not contradict Scripture, so without a bunch of mumbo-jumbo smokescreens and sleight-of-hand, how do we clearly and definitely explain these contradictions in His Word?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

What I will do here then is address only the explicitly relevant parts, David, so that there is no confusion.

...We both recognize that [...] a husband putting his wife away causes adultery to occur.

Because the "put away" woman (no GET) is NOT able to remarry, her later adultery is HIS fault. (Any doubts here are removed by Paul; the husband WRONGFULLY put her away, denying her marital needs, causing her to 'burn' -- HE bears the guilt of her adultery.) Yeshua immediately removes any doubt about this by noting the evidently not-too-obvious: the man who lies carnally with such a "put away but divorce-less woman" CANNOT be the husband; he is committing adultery.

Your subsequent question(s) are answered above. But just to make sure that is clear, I'll continue:

The only significant difference is that you see the illegally put away wife as being permitted to remarry, presumably without committing adultery.

No! Don't presume anything. A woman with a get may remarry. A woman WITHOUT a get may NOT. Do not make it more complicated than it is.

This is now redundant, but here goes:

...the only remaining option is that she isn't committing adultery in remarrying. So then how do you reconcile this view against the very next line?

"And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery."

With no get, if she remarries, she is an adulterer. The husband who "makes her" do so is at fault! Whoever marries a woman who has been put away AND THUS HAS NO GET obviously commits adultery.

Again, don't try to make it complex. It is not. What is being explained here is WHO IS AT FAULT! (And in this case it's BOTH men.)

I know that you have tried to focus on the divorce "for ANY reason" element of the discussion, and do not find my response (or what I think Yeshua is saying ) satisfying in that regard -- EVEN though we agree on the conclusion that both He and Paul reach! (Namely, Husbands - simply do NOT divorce you wives! Just don't! EVEN if it might be justified!)

But, of course, there ARE women who have been divorced, and/or put away! So (when Isaiah 4:1 time comes ) how should such situations be viewed?


Woman who left a husband in violation of I Cor. 7:10-11 -- NOT eligible for remarriage. (no get) Her husband awaits her return.

Woman who was PUT AWAY without a get -- NOT eligible for remarriage (no get). Husband BEARS HER GUILT for adultery.

Woman who has a secular divorce, having been in a secular contract licensed by Caesar. -- Eligible for remarriage (has get). Hopefully any new marriage will be via a Covenant before God instead.

Woman who is abandoned by "unbelieving" husband. -- "not under bondage". However, since we cannot KNOW the state of their heart, I still advise such a woman (since she was probably married to the unbeliever in Caesar's presence) to get that man to give her Caesar's certificate. She, and any future believing husband, will sleep better.

Woman "abandoned" by believing husband who is now MIA in a war zone. -- My heart goes out to her. This is why, "by tradition", men often gave their wives a get before going to battle. How long she waits is between her and God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, then, my argument is that a woman with a get is "no longer married", no longer a wife. Whether her husband did so wrongly or not is not HER fault, it is HIS, and he bears the burden, which includes never being able to take her back after she becomes another man's wife. Any OTHER case, and she remains a wife "while her husband yet lives".





Blessings,
Mark



==========================================================================================================

I'm going to put this part separately, David, because I think they both address different issues. As you have (correctly, I generally agree) noted, Luke was addressing a different audience, who didn't understand the Hebrew perspective on marriage and the get. Paul, likewise, was using marriage as an EXAMPLE of a point about Torah, and death. The words, however, are consistent:

1 Cor. 7:39: "A wife is bound by the Torah as long as her husband lives..."

The man who GAVE HER A GET is NO LONGER her husband. Once he puts her away and gives her a get (rightly or wrongly) she is no longer a wife. What Paul says in both Romans and I Cor. 7 is consistent, and makes the point he is making.