Is Divorce A Sin?

[Anonymous]

...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.

Right, but where do you see that in the text? Why do you add a distinction between a "get-carrying" put-away woman and a "non-get-carrying" put away woman, when the original text says nothing of the sort? All "put away" women are called "apostasion" in the original Greek, regardless whether they have a certificate of divorcement or not. You're putting words into Yeshua's mouth. If He meant to draw a distinction here, He would have said so.

Here's what I think you see when you read these passages on divorce and remarriage:

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

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

Rom. 7:2-3: "For the [non-get-carrying] 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. 7:10-11: "And to the married I command, not I, but the Master: A [non-get-carrying] wife should not separate from a husband. But if she is indeed separated, let her remain unmarried or be restored to favour with her husband, and let a husband not send away a [non-get-carrying] wife."

1 Cor. 7:39: "A [non-get-carrying] 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."

Mark 10:11-12: "And He said to them, "Whoever puts away his [non-get-carrying] wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a [non-get-carrying] woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

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

You're forced to having to add words to the text to make it say what you assume it must mean. That's not exegesis, that's eisegesis. You've already made up your interpretation and now you're forcing that interpretation into your reading, but it can't be honestly derived from a plain sense reading of the actual words.

Using your logic, if there is a second, hidden exemption for a get-carrying wife in Matt. 5:32, then it must also apply to each and every other passage that also doesn't speak about a get-carrying wife (man, that's just sounds all kinds of confusing). So a "get-carrying" wife is exempt from every NT passage speaking of a "put away" woman. Based on your hypothesis that a "put away woman" really means a "non-get-carrying put away woman", that means that a "get-carrying" woman doesn't commit adultery (unless she's committed whoring as well, at which point all bets are off). The husband doesn't force her to commit adultery either, so he's clear too. Whoever marries her doesn't commit adultery either. Just one little certificate of divorce and NOBODY ends up commiting adultery. What's more, a husband putting away his "get-carrying" wife doesn't commit adultery when he marries another woman. When the divorce-certificate-train comes in, EVERYBODY RIDES!

Husbands: if you're going to put her away (since the only admonition NOT to put her away is speaking about non-get-carrying wives), just give her a certificate and everyone's good. If you replace wives, be sure to give her a certificate, not just for her, but also for yourself.

Wives: Be sure to file for state divorce if he doesn't give it to you otherwise, since that protects everyone involved. You can't complain that you've been dumped and replaced, since he did give you a certificate and is well within his rights to do so.

Is this really how you read these verses? That instead of condemning separation, Yeshua was merely enforcing proper procedure? Couldn't He simply have said, "Give her a certificate of divorcement or everyone commits adultery"? I certainly think that would have been clearer, IF we assume that was His intent.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but nowhere in Scripture is there any reference to a "divorced" woman. Once she has been married, a woman is either married, put-away (apostasion), widowed, or dead. How can you assume put-away must refer to a non-get-carrying woman, when there is no such distinction in Scripture? A woman with a get was apostasion. A woman without a get was apostasion. You are creating a distinction where none exists in the text, and I believe it is this false distinction, more than anything else, that is creating this need for a special exemption for a "get-carrying" apostasion.

I'm sorry if this was long-winded, but this position is making less and less sense, at least to me.

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.

My presumption is based on what the text says and what the text does not say. Where do you see any text anywhere that says a woman with a get may remarry? It's certainly nowhere in the New Testament, so where are you seeing this??? It simply says apostasion may not remarry. It is your own presumption that a "get-carrying" apostasion is somehow exempt from every NT passage regarding divorce and remarriage.

...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.

But again, you're having to add "with no get" as a qualifier. Where does this verse mention that a woman with a get doesn't commit adultery, but a woman without a get does? How do you make that distinction without any supporting text?

Love in Him,
David

P.S. I thought I'd never understand where you were coming from. But this is some of the best dialogue yet because we're finally getting to the crux of the interpretation problem.

 

[Mark C]

Right, but where do you see that in the text?
...If He meant to draw a distinction here, He would have said so.

When He spoke it in the Greek, no doubt.

David, please READ this:

I've posted this link before, but I'm not going to keep retreading the same ground. I'm sick of being accused of "eisegesis" when the "actual words" have been rehashed again and again, and ARE CONSISTENT!!!

Your BS examples like this are just plain asinine:

A [non-get-carrying] wife should not separate from a husband.

Yes, I'm frustrated.

I'm going to POST the article here, because I suspect you haven't bothered to follow the link. EVERY single issue you raise above has been addressed carefully, correctly, and repeatedly there before, and here as well.

Please read this carefully, my brother, before making the same accusations again.

Blessings in Him,

Mark


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

Article - "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage" by Ted R. Weiland · Missionary · http://www.missiontoisrael.org

Marriage & Fidelity

"Then Yahweh God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.' ...So Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And Yahweh God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And the man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh....' For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:18-242)

That, of course, is what is known as the story of Adam and Eve. A love story, and I am quite confident that the half of it was not told. How thrilled Adam must have been when he first gazed upon Eve. And oh, how he must have loved her, having been alone, without anyone for some unknown period of time. How thankful he must have been that God's plan for him included marriage, a wife and children. It has been the same for untold numbers of men and women ever since.

In verse 18 of Genesis 2, we are told that God did not consider it good for man to be alone. Consider also the inspired wisdom of Solomon on this same subject:

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from Yahweh." (Proverbs 18:22)

According to these passages marriage is a good thing. It was from the beginning ordained and blessed by God. God used it as a model for His own special relationship with His people Israel. He was married to them, and them to Him. It was also at a marriage ceremony that Yahshua commenced to unveil his divinity by performing His first miracle. All of this demonstrates that the sacrament of marriage was and is held in high esteem by Yahweh. It should be safe to say that the act of marriage is even loved by Yahweh.

With this being true, would it not also be safe to say that the opposite is just as true as well, that is, that God hates divorce? "Of course," many Christians would declare, "after all, that is exactly what Malachi was inspired to write!"

"For I hate divorce, says Yahweh, the God of Israel." (Malachi 2:16)

Is that not correct? No, it is not! Please do not misunderstand me. I did not say that God does not hate divorce. I strongly suspect that He does in most cases. What I did say was, that this is not what Malachi was inspired to write.

Hopefully, I now have your attention so that you will stay with me through the rest of this treatise. I will explain my reason for writing what I just did concerning Malachi 2:16. However, first let me assure you, the reader, that I am not promoting divorce amongst God's people in these articles.

The Tragedy of Divorce

Divorce is tragic and has lasting effects on generations to come, at least when children are involved. In most instances it leaves deep, often permanent scars on one or both divorcees, sometimes even resulting in suicide and/or murder. Yet even with that, probably the most grievous aspect about divorce is the impact that it has on the children. One study conducted on the effects of divorce on children, after studying 131 children under thirteen years of age whose parents were divorced, reported that the "…most pervasive fact to emerge from the study was the enormity of the grief all the children studied felt over their parents' divorce. They were sad beyond measure." After reading this, one can not help but think of Yahshua's words as recorded by Matthew:

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!" (Matthew 18:6-7)

A six year old that I was personally acquainted with was helping his mother make cookies. He was using a cookie cutter and after producing a heart-shaped piece of dough he declared, "Our family has a lot of this!" He then tore the heart shaped piece of dough in half and said, "This is what happens to hearts when people are divorced!" It would seem that he spoke more truth than his young mind could even comprehend. Or, possibly he understood it better than the hardened and callused minds of most adults.

As harmful as it is on the immediate children of divorcees, let us not forget that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations (Deuteronomy 5:9-10). In other words, in many cases it becomes a perpetual cycle unless one generation finally breaks the cycle.

What about the grandparents? Seldom are they considered, yet they are victims of divorce as well. When couples divorce they not only divorce themselves, but in many cases they also divorce the grandparents from their grandchildren. Often one of the divorcees remarries and moves away with the children. In some cases, the genetic grandparents on one side are told that their grandchildren now have new grandparents and that it would be best if they did not confuse matters and are then asked to stay out of the lives of their grandchildren. The grandchildren lose, and one of the most important influences in their lives is sacrificed on the altar of divorce. Divorce is almost always a losing proposition for everyone involved, except of course, for the divorce lawyers who promote divorce for their own financial gain.

Every couple before deciding to be wed should understand that "Getting married is like buying a phonograph record. You buy it for what is on one side, but you have to take the flip side as well. Divorce is like getting the hole in the middle."

The answer to divorce, simply put, is marriage! Yahweh's design is for man to "cleave to his wife." Far too many people look upon marriage as being an event, when in actuality the wedding is the event; marriage is a lifetime accomplishment. Nevertheless, does all of this mean that God does not permit divorce under any circumstances?

Scriptural Divorce

Yahshua declared that it had been God's design from the beginning that husbands and wives should remain together (Matthew 19:4-8). Does this then mean that God hates divorce? Does the Bible say that He does? No, it does not. However, as was stated previously, I strongly suspect that God does hate divorce since, almost without exception, divorce brings grief, heartache and havoc upon everyone it comes in contact with. Yet, on the other hand, Yahweh did provide for divorce:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house.... (Deuteronomy 24:1)

According to God's Law divorce was an option, but, for what reasons was it allowed? This may shock a lot of evangelical Christians, nevertheless we are told that a husband may divorce his wife if she "finds no favor in his eyes" and if he finds "some indecency in her." Yet, when we come to the New Covenant era, many modern preachers and commentators insist that Yahshua changed the law on divorce. Whereas Moses wrote that a man can divorce his wife for any just cause, in the gospels Yahshua appears to limit divorce to only cases of adultery. At least that is what many are led to believe from reading most modern commentaries, as well as from reading several New Testament passages in some of the newer translations.

Although many Christians have taken this position on divorce, I doubt whether they really understand what doing so implies. If their theology is correct, then Yahshua would have been a sinner, or at the very least promoting sin. In order for Yahshua to have been our perfect sinless sacrifice He had to fully keep and accurately teach the Old Covenant Law. The Apostle John declared, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4). Thus, had Yahshua broken or changed the law, He would have been guilty of sin and thus could not have been our Savior.

Even if Yahshua had changed God's moral law under the New Covenant dispensation, as some Christians claim, His dissertations on divorce in the Gospels were given during the Old Covenant dispensation. Additionally, Yahshua Himself declared, "…Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18).

Whatever the law on divorce was in Deuteronomy 24, not the smallest letter or stroke of it was changed by Yahshua. Therefore, we can safely conclude that something is wrong with the theology usually advanced regarding divorce.

The erroneous interpretation of Yahshua's instructions can be traced to two modern mistakes. This error is first made because most of today's preachers and commentators believe that Yahweh's Old Covenant laws have been abolished and replaced, thus they seldom consult them. Secondly, mistaken conclusions on this subject are derived from translation errors in most modern English versions of the Bible.

Divorce & Remarriage

My purpose in the remainder of this treatise is to clear up the mistaken notions held by many Christians regarding divorce and remarriage. Let us begin by going back to Yahweh's law concerning divorce. In Deuteronomy 24 we find that the divorce process can be broken down into three parts: (1) The husband must write out a certificate of divorce, (2) he must deliver it himself to his wife, and (3) he must then send her away. It takes all three integral parts in order for the divorce to be lawful, and to be recognized by God. A husband was not allowed to simply send his wife out into the streets. He was to formally divorce her through the aforesaid process. She was to be given a certificate of divorce, that is, a breaking of the lawful contract of marriage with a lawful contract of divorce. In other words, she was to be provided with proof that she was a lawfully divorced woman.

This is more serious than probably it first appears. Without this lawful document, and if a woman was to "remarry" or attach herself to another man, she and the one whom she "remarried" would have been considered adulterers, and that was a stoning offense!

In this light, the writ of divorcement was intended to be a letter of protection for the woman, more than a letter of permission for the man.

"Divorce" & "Put Away"

In addition, the two terms "divorce" and "sends her out" (also translated as "put away" and "send away") should also be considered. It is extremely important to understand that nowhere in the Scriptures are these two terms used interchangeably. The Hebrew word for "divorce" in Deuteronomy 24:1 is found in only two other locations: Isaiah 50:1, describing Yahweh's future divorce of the House of Judah, and Jeremiah 3:8, regarding Yahweh's previous divorce of the House of Israel.

Deuteronomy 24, Isaiah 50 and Jeremiah 3 are the only three instances where the Hebrew word for "divorce" can be found in the Old Testament. That is right; this is not the word used in Malachi 2:16 as would be expected if God were saying that He hated divorce in that passage.

The Hebrew word translated "divorce" is a very specific term, and in all three instances it is used in conjunction with the term "bill," "writ," or "certificate." On the other hand the Hebrew word translated "sent out" or "put away" is a very common term and is used nearly a thousand times in the Old Testament.

Malachi 2

There is no interchangeability between these two Hebrew words. One could not be divorced without being put away. However, one could be put away without being divorced. It is this latter condition that was addressed by the Prophet Malachi:

...you cover the altar of Yahweh with tears ... because He [Yahweh] no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because Yahweh has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. (Malachi 2:13-14)

Note that the women spoken of in this situation were still considered as being wives by covenant or contract with their husbands, that is, they had never been lawfully divorced.

...Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce, says Yahweh, the God of Israel.... (Malachi 2:15-16 -- New American Standard Bible)

Is that how God intended this verse to be translated? No it is not. Had He intended this, He would have inspired Malachi to use the same Hebrew word translated as "divorce" in the twenty-fourth chapter of Deuteronomy. Instead, He inspired Malachi to use the same Hebrew word translated as "sends her out" or "put away" in Deuteronomy 24.

The King James Version translated Malachi 2:16 correctly:

For Yahweh, the God of Israel saith that He hateth [the] putting away....

In other words, the treachery committed by these men was not in divorcing their wives, but rather in that they were putting their wives away without a certificate of divorce. In their vindictiveness, they were putting their wives in a horrible no win predicament. If the wives had "remarried" or had attached themselves to another man, they would have been subject to stoning for adultery since without a certificate of divorce they were still lawfully married to their first husband. If they would not commit adultery then these women were left to fend for themselves which was nearly impossible under the conditions of that time.

Consequently, one can perceive the treachery in what these men were doing, and consequently understand why God would hate it. You can also visualize the hardness of some men's hearts and then understand why Yahweh would provide for divorce (Mark 10:2-5). On the other hand, if divorce itself is treachery then even God promoted it by allowing for it and even making provisions for it in Deuteronomy 24. Additionally, God would be guilty of treachery Himself since He divorced His wife, Israel.

New Testament Divorce & Remarriage

As can be seen, much has been misunderstood about this subject, resulting in much injury and unnecessary guilt being laid upon the backs of divorcees. This has occurred because much of modern Christendom has rejected Yahweh's perfect law and because of the mistranslation of some key words pertaining to this subject.

The same has happened with the New Testament Scriptures. God is not the author of confusion, thus He cannot be blamed for the turmoil over this subject. Rather, man is to be blamed for it. The devastation of divorce is undeniable, however under certain conditions both divorce and remarriage were permitted according to God's Law as provided to us in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Taking then what we have already learned from the Old Testament let us now see if we can not make sense of Yahshua's statements in the New Testament on this important subject.

The two Hebrew words translated "divorce" and "sent out" or "put away" in Deuteronomy 24 mean two different things and are not interchangeable. The same is true with the corresponding New Testament Greek words. The Greek word for "put away" is apoluo, whereas the Greek word for "divorce" is apostasion. With this knowledge, let us examine Yahshua's instructions on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5:

And it was said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal"; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:32-32 NASV)

Have the translators of the New American Standard Version conveyed accurately God's will on this matter? Hardly! Contrast the New American Standard Version's rendition of this passage with the King James Version's rendition:

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement [apostasion]....

Yahshua was simply quoting Deuteronomy 24:1 which declares that it is not permissible for someone to put away his wife without giving her a certificate of divorce. Verse 32 in the King James Version continues:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [apoluo] committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32-33 KJV)

The King James Version is nearly flawless. Had the King James translators rendered the last apoluo as "put away" it would have been perfect. If God had wanted this last phrase to have read "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery," He would have inspired Matthew to have used the word apostasion. Instead it should have been rendered, "whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery."

If, in verses 32 and 33, Yahshua had said what the New American Standard and King James' translators wrote, Yahshua would have been guilty of heresy for having changed God's Law. Earlier in Matthew 5, Yahshua Himself declared:

Think not that I [Yahshua] am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.... (Matthew 5:17-19)

Are we to believe that Yahshua is "least in the kingdom of heaven"? We have no choice but to admit that He is if the translators of the New American Standard and King James versions are correct.

The first phrase of verse 32 in the New American Standard reads: "...everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery...." In God's law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) divorce is not limited to just cases of unchastity. If the New American Standard is correct then Yahshua is at variance with Yahweh's morality as communicated to us in His laws.

In the latter part of verse 32, both the New American Standard and King James translators have Yahshua declaring that "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Yet God's law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) allowed for a properly divorced woman to remarry. On the other hand, when verse 32 is translated correctly we find that Yahshua is in perfect harmony with the Law as one would expect Him to be. He was simply saying that any man who only puts away his wife, that is, without a writ of divorcement (a lawful breaking of the marriage contract with a lawful divorce contract) causes his wife to commit adultery if she "remarries." And the one who "marries" a woman only put away but not lawfully divorced commits adultery as well since by contract she would still be the wife of another man.

The Exception Clause

With the foregoing understood, someone is sure to inquire, "What about the exception clause in Matthew 5:32?" The New American Standard Bible renders it:

"…except for the cause of unchastity…."

The King James Version renders it much better:

"…saving for the cause of fornication…."

The word "fornication" is translated from the Greek word porneia. What constitutes porneia or fornication? Rather than speculating let us allow the Bible to answer that question for us. Following is a list of acts described by the Greek word "porneia":

* Incest -- 1 Corinthians 5:1
* Harlotry or Prostitution -- 1 Corinthians 6:13-18, 10:8
* Forbidden Lineage and/or Interracial Relationships -- Hebrews 12:15-16 3
* Homosexuality -- Jude 7

Those four acts of immorality are all identified in the New Testament as being cases of porneia or fornication. Although not specifically identified as such in the New Testament there are other immoral acts that should also be viewed as fornication:

* Bestiality -- Leviticus 20:15-16
* Remarrying a Divorced Wife a Second Time After She Married Again and was Divorced from Her Second Husband -- Deuteronomy 24:1-4
* Marrying an Unlawfully Divorced Woman -- Matthew 5:32

The foregoing acts should all be identified as fornication because porneia is simply unlawful sexual relationships. So what do these acts have to do with what Yahshua declared in Matthew 5:31-32?

Yahshua in Concert with Yahweh's Laws

It must be remembered that in Matthew 5 Yahshua was not condemning divorce, but rather the putting away of a wife without a bill of divorcement. Following is Matthew 5:31-32 as it should have been translated, including what can now be understood as being acts of fornication:

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement [apostasion]: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife [without a writing of divorcement], saving for the cause of fornication [incest, prostitution, forbidden lineage and/or interracial relationships, homosexuality, etc.], causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is put away [apoluo, without a writing of divorcement] committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)

In other words, a man is not permitted to put away his mate without a certificate of divorce unless it is an incestuous relationship, or one with a prostitute, or a forbidden lineage or interracial relationship, or one with someone of the same sex, or one with an animal, or one with a wife previously divorced and divorced a second time, or one with a woman unlawfully divorced.

Note, I identified these as relationships not marriages since in God's eyes none of these relationships constitute a lawful marriage. That is why a man could put away these partners without having to provide them with a certificate of divorce. In these cases, a bill of divorcement was not required since (from God's perspective) there was no lawful marriage contract that required annulment with a divorce certificate. These kinds of relationships only required repentance and the putting away of the unlawful partner.

In Ezra 10:1-9 God provided us with a Biblical example of such a separation. Nowhere in this passage is a certificate of divorce required for the Israelites to "separate [put away] ... their strange wives." The following passage from the book of Ezra provides us with the reason why a writ of divorcement was unnecessary:

...The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands ... even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands.... (Ezra 9:1-2)

All of the nations cited in that passage with whom the Israelites had intermingled were descended either from Canaanites, Moabites or Ammonites; all of which were lineages that Yahweh had forbid Israel to intermarry. Thus they were unlawful unions, and therefore acts of fornication. Hence, in that particular instance, they were not required to present them with a certificate of divorce. They were only required to repent of their sins and put away their foreign wives.

This is the correct interpretation of the exception clause. It validates God's Law and Yahshua's confirmation of the same. Anything else puts Yahshua in conflict with the Law and morality of Yahweh. Instead of being at variance with God's Law, Yahshua was simply expounding upon the same. In so doing, He confirmed that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was the standard for divorce and remarriage except in cases of fornication.

Clarity

It is to be hoped that this thesis has cleared up what has been mistranslated and misinterpreted by many in modern Christendom. Hopefully this study will aid in removing unnecessary guilt from those who have been lawfully divorced and who have remarried. God's Law does not promote divorce, but it does permit it.

Once again, I am not promoting divorce either, but simply wanting to put it in its proper Scriptural perspective. I am also hoping to relieve the pseudo guilt that some have carried on their shoulders for far too long. Divorce should always be the last resort, the solution only when all else fails and reconciliation is absolutely impossible. Divorce is seldom, if ever, a positive good but usually just the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, in light of God's Law and Yahshua's validation of the same, divorce and remarriage can no longer be entirely denounced.

 

[Anonymous]

Right, but where do you see that in the text?
...If He meant to draw a distinction here, He would have said so.

When He spoke it in the Greek, no doubt.

Does that mean something? Are you saying the Greek text is flawed and unreliable? All we can discuss is what the text actually says, not what we'd like it to have said.

I've posted this link before, but I'm not going to keep retreading the same ground. I'm sick of being accused of "eisegesis" when the "actual words" have been rehashed again and again, and ARE CONSISTENT!!!

I don't believe I was accusing you of anything. I was merely pointing out that reading something into the text that isn't actually there is called eisegesis. If you think the passage says something I do not, then we can address the specific words we're having trouble with.

Your BS examples like this are just plain asinine:

A [non-get-carrying] wife should not separate from a husband.

Yes, I'm frustrated.

I'm sorry if this is frustrating you. I was hoping we could calmly discuss this to work on a resolution. I was simply using your understanding of "put away" uniformly across all related Scriptures. My point was to demonstrate that this position doesn't hold water, unless we constantly change the definition of "put away", depending on what view we want it to support in each individual verse. I believe my example is sound, based on the same logic being applied equally to all related "put away" passages. If you believe I am in error, could you explain why, using Scripture if possible? Either "put away" means something or it doesn't mean something. We can't have it both ways.

I'm going to POST the article here, because I suspect you haven't bothered to follow the link. EVERY single issue you raise above has been addressed carefully, correctly, and repeatedly there before, and here as well.

I assure you, I have read this particular article, multiple times. I have already refuted much of his commentary. Many of his interpretations are flawed, and his conclusions based on those interpretations are verifiably false. Allow me to specify a few of the problems I have with his article. I will quote the relevant sections for reference.

1. “Whereas Moses wrote that a man can divorce his wife for any just cause, in the gospels Yahshua appears to limit divorce to only cases of adultery...Although many Christians have taken this position on divorce, I doubt whether they really understand what doing so implies. If their theology is correct, then Yahshua would have been a sinner, or at the very least promoting sin. In order for Yahshua to have been our perfect sinless sacrifice He had to fully keep and accurately teach the Old Covenant Law.”

His position is that Yahshua was unable to make any changes to the law, which I already know to be false, based on numerous NT passages that clearly show the Old Covenant has ended, and with it, the Old Covenant law. Regardless whether we believe it possible that He had the authority to change the law, I can demonstrate many places in the NT where He did, in fact, change the law. Therefore, the author’s conclusion that He would have to be a sinner in order to be a reformer or a law-giver is in error. Any arguments that depend on this point would therefore be void as far as I’m concerned. Fortunately, this fallacy alone is not where I really have a problem.

2. “Even if Yahshua had changed God's moral law under the New Covenant dispensation, as some Christians claim, His dissertations on divorce in the Gospels were given during the Old Covenant dispensation. Additionally, Yahshua Himself declared, "…Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18).”

His dissertations also occurred after 27AD, after He was anointed as Messiah. Prior to that point, He was under the Mosaic law as a man. And as you already know my position regarding Matt. 5:18, there’s no need to rehash that here. He came, He saw, He fulfilled.

3. “Thus, had Yahshua broken or changed the law, He would have been guilty of sin and thus could not have been our Savior.”

That is flawed covenant theology, which is almost as bad, if not worse, than dispensationalism. The fact is He DID change the law, whether we like it or not. What He did not change is morality, but we’ll save that argument for another day.

4. “In Deuteronomy 24 we find that the divorce process can be broken down into three parts: (1) The husband must write out a certificate of divorce, (2) he must deliver it himself to his wife, and (3) he must then send her away. It takes all three integral parts in order for the divorce to be lawful, and to be recognized by God.”

As I’ve previously pointed out, Deut. 24:1 actually hinges on FOUR parts, not three, and it is the first of FOUR parts that the author has chosen to ignore: “if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her”. He ignores this initial condition, yet everything that follows in this verse assumes this starting point. Without the prerequisite matter of discovering uncoveredness, the rest of the statement is meaningless.

5. “In addition, the two terms "divorce" and "sends her out" (also translated as "put away" and "send away") should also be considered. It is extremely important to understand that nowhere in the Scriptures are these two terms used interchangeably. The Hebrew word for "divorce" in Deuteronomy 24:1 is found in only two other locations: Isaiah 50:1, describing Yahweh's future divorce of the House of Judah, and Jeremiah 3:8, regarding Yahweh's previous divorce of the House of Israel.”

Correct, not interchangeably, though interdependently. However, as I’ve pointed out previously, there are really only two Hebrew words we need to be concerned with:

keriythuwth (Strong's #3748): cutting off from marriage (from the root karath, Strong's #3772, meaning to cut off, to behead, to destroy, to permit to perish)

shalach (Strong's #7971): putting away, sending away

Deuteronomy 24:1: “...and he shall write her a certificate (5612) of divorce (3748)...”

Isaiah 50:1: “...Where is the certificate (5612) of your mother’s divorce (3748), whom I have put away?...”

The actual order of these words in Hebrew is "certificate (5612) divorce (3748) mother (517)". It is literally, “Where is the certificate of divorce of your mother”.

Jeremiah 3:8: “...I had put her away and given her a certificate (5612) of divorce (3748)...”

Now, after having read this article several times, I believe I understand why there is no much confusion between you and I over this relatively simple subject. I’m going to blow a hole in this whole argument right here and now. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DIVORCE ANYWHERE IN HEBREW! A person cannot be “divorce”, only a certificate can be “divorce”. A wife is “put away”, a certificate is “divorce”. Every single time the word “keriythuwth” is found in Scripture, it is preceded by “ciphrah”, or certificate. Without exception, the phrase is always “divorce certificate”. It is a certificate of cutting off from marriage. A wife is not a "cutting off from marriage". Nowhere in Hebrew is “keriythuwth” anything at all like the concept of “being divorced”. It is not a state of being, it is an action. In fact, the correct term in Hebrew for our concept of “being divorced” would actually be “put away” (shalach). Whenever any woman in the OT was in the state that we would think of as being divorced, the term used is always "shalach", never "keriythuwth". The latter is only used when describing and defining a particular certificate or scroll, never a person.

So, either a woman is “put away” (shalach) or she is not “put away” (shalach), but she most certainly cannot be a divorce certificate. This is either a deliberate misconception on the part of the author, or he has not bothered to study the matter well enough. Either way, this is the heart of his flawed premise that "shalach" means "put away without a certificate of divorce" and it falls flat when examined. Shalach simply means put away (what we would call "cut off") and applies exactly the same whether a certificate of divorcement has been given or not. Every single passage of Hebrew Scripture that uses either term demonstrates this fact conclusively. This is beyond debate.

6. “There is no interchangeability between these two Hebrew words. One could not be divorced without being put away. However, one could be put away without being divorced. It is this latter condition that was addressed by the Prophet Malachi:”

That is incorrect. A person cannot be a certificate of cutting off from marriage. Nowhere in Scripture is anyone ever referred to in such a ridiculous manner. A separated wife, with or without a certificate of divorcement, is always called the same thing in the Old Testament: SHALACH (PUT AWAY). I publicly challenge anyone to find a single reference in Scripture that uses the term “keriythuwth” as referring to a person.

The proper way of making this statement is that a wife could be put away, with or without having been given a certificate of divorcement. She could not have been given a certificate of divorcement without being put away. However, she could be put away without having been given a certificate of divorcement. The way the author words his statement implies two forms of being cut off (what I would call divorce), but Scripture says no such thing. I will not say the author is deliberately being deceitful, but he certainly did not check his facts.

7. “...Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce, says Yahweh, the God of Israel....Is that how God intended this verse to be translated? No it is not. Had He intended this, He would have inspired Malachi to use the same Hebrew word translated as "divorce" in the twenty-fourth chapter of Deuteronomy. Instead, He inspired Malachi to use the same Hebrew word translated as "sends her out" or "put away" in Deuteronomy 24.”

This is really nothing but double-talk. That would have God saying he hates certificates of divorcement! I would ask the author, what term in Hebrew would mean “a divorced person”? “Ciphrah keriythuwth” (certificate of divorcement; always used in context of a certificate) or “shalach” (put away)? It is utterly ridiculous to speak of a person being a “keriythuwth” as implied in this article.

The fact of the matter is that the exact word (shalach) that God said he hates in Malachi 2:16 is the same Hebrew word that He Himself used in Jeremiah 3:8 where it says: “...I had put her away (shalach) and given her a certificate (ciphrah) of divorce (keriythuwth)...”

God hates putting away, yet He put away Israel and wrote her a certificate of divorcement.

I have many other issues with the article, but these are the ones directly related to the confusion that seems to be coming up again and again. Please let me know if any of what I'm explaining is unclear or you feel I'm in error somewhere. I am more than willing to take it apart down to the letters if need be. However, if this whole line of conversation is only causing you frustration, I suggest we take a break and let everyone have a chance to settle. I'm not trying to stress you, but I feel it important to refute error with truth to avoid leading others astray. I'm presently working on a series of articles that will address these issues and more, so perhaps you'd like to read through them afterwards.

Either way, please be blessed and understand we're all working toward the same goals here. If I'm wrong, I want to be shown where I am wrong so I can correct my thinking. If I'm right, I want to be able to share the truth with others who will benefit from it. Let's remain in the love of God towards each other and strive to come to the answers together. I'm certain that is God's Will in this as well. Peace!

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

I have never doubted that we obviously disagree at a basic level right here, David:

His position is that Yahshua was unable to make any changes to the law, which I already know to be false, based on numerous NT passages that clearly show the Old Covenant has ended, and with it, the Old Covenant law.

...The fact is He DID change the law, whether we like it or not.

If Yeshua changed His Torah, He was a liar, and the Truth was not in Him, and He COULD NOT be the Messiah.

THAT is where we disagree. He came not, and DID not, change "one yod or tiddle". And He, of course, said the same thing yet again when He noted that if we don't believe what Moses wrote of Him that we wouldn't believe His Words either.

This, of course, we have already been over. Each of us claims to believe Messiah, but whereas you seem to accept a version that may be capricious, I know that He "changes not". The show-stopper is there, David, and not with Hebrew parts of speech.

I am not a preterist, nor do I even REMOTELY accept a savior that is inconsistent. There is a level of harmony in the Word, and in Him, an utter integrity that marks the Scripture as His handiwork. It is also inconsistent with dispensationalism, or with self-destructing Covenants - since He not only changes not, but is a Covenant-keeper*.

As for the "hole", it's smaller than you imagine. One does not have to BE a certificate, in order to HAVE one. How ELSE can the potential husband of a non-virgin KNOW that such a woman is eligible for marriage? In the same manner, it is easy for me to understand that God hates the 'putting away', no less so than the reasons for having to do so - which He makes clear. It is not His will that any should perish, either - but He is just as well as merciful.

Re: Greek. Yeshua spoke Aramaic, or Hebrew. Whatever He said about marriage was TRANSLATED into the Greek, probably well after Matthew wrote it down. I'm not going to get nearly as up tight about the Greek when I KNOW His teachings used different words! (Although it is illustrative that they are also consistent, as has been discussed.)

I am not angry, David, although it is clear that we have now come full circle (again :? ). Nor do I have any doubt that we have similar goals, and a similar desire for understanding. It does seem, though, that our starting assumptions are so different that certain disconnects, such as with respect to the premises above, cannot result in consistent conclusions.**

It may be that we have found as much agreement on the minor points as we are likely to, because whether the meaning of the words are consistent is arguably less significant than whether the meaning of the Author is. I accept that it is OUR hearts that must be reborn, as well as that it was NEVER only a set of rules that truly mattered. But it IS about obedience to Him, and what He taught - and still teaches. It is we who must be changed.


Love in Him,

Mark



---------------------------
* And, of course, there is nothing at all inconsistent with a RENEWED Covenant, or even a "better" Covenant, augmenting another that He still honors!

** I will answer one such in a subsequent post. Whether it falls into that camp or not I will let you judge.

 

[Mark C]

As I’ve previously pointed out, Deut. 24:1 actually hinges on FOUR parts, not three, and it is the first of FOUR parts that the author has chosen to ignore: “if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her”. He ignores this initial condition, yet everything that follows in this verse assumes this starting point. Without the prerequisite matter of discovering uncoveredness, the rest of the statement is meaningless.

I don't see this as being as disingenuous as you seem to imply, David; it may simply be a "given".

After all, IF she HAS found favor in his eyes, why would anyone want to put her away? It didn't bother me, nor do I find cause for argument there. Without this condition, in other words, there's no point in having the rest of the discussion.

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


Having said all that... ( :END of Defense_of_Author :lol: )

You do indirectly bring up an interesting point here, and one that -- again -- illustrates our different perspectives* on this whole "divorce/putting away" issue:

It dawns on me that I evidently naturally tend to assume that a man would have to have some REASON for WANTING to put away a wife. Without that 'uncleanness', he is behaving irrationally - at least so far as I can imagine.

And yet there ARE other reasons. Maybe he's just plain lazy, or is one of those who will NEVER be satisfied with any relationship. Maybe he sees the one he wants to replace her with, and doesn't want to work hard enough to support this one too. I have no doubt that our Savior understands such motivation better than I.

But the bottom line is that such a person is perfectly capable, I presume, of MAKING UP "any ole uncleanness" in order to JUSTIFY what he wants to do. (Hence your concern.)

For me, at least, this little observation does help to shed a bit of additional light on what "hard-heartedness" can mean. It's a condition that defies objective assessment. For a man, it evidently included finding ANY fault in a wife as suitable justification for "putting away". And for a woman of today, perhaps, it would probably similarly include using ANY "failure of covering" as justification for "departing from" a husband.

Thankfully, since His Word is true and consistent, there is comfort for husbands and wives regardless. A husband who DOES honor his Covenant and does NOT put away, much less divorce, his wife, can cover her anyway. And a wife who comes to repentance can know likewise that she IS still under covering.







--------------------------
* David's focus on the "a priori" divorce for just any reason issue as opposed to my
"a posteriori" CAN a woman remarry? focus.

 

[Anonymous]

If Yeshua changed His Torah, He was a liar, and the Truth was not in Him, and He COULD NOT be the Messiah.

It's okay if we can't agree on this point. I used to think as you do now and it took a lot of studying for me to see otherwise. But regardless whether he changed the law or not, if we just disregard the entire Greek NT for the moment, my point has still been demonstrated using nothing but Hebrew OT Scripture.

I mentioned "keriythuwth" and "shalach", both Hebrew words found only in the OT, so whatever the Greek says or doesn't say has no bearing on my conclusion based on the original HEBREW text. I showed how a woman could be "shalach" but never "keriythuwth". All women separated from their husbands are called "shalach" in the OT, never "keriythuwth". This was true regardless whether they had a "ciphrah keriythuwth" or not. Women with a "ciphrah keriythuwth" were called "shalach". Women without a "ciphrah keriythuwth" were called "shalach". None of this understanding depends on whether Yeshua was a law-giver or not, or whether we can trust the Greek NT Scriptures.

One does not have to BE a certificate, in order to HAVE one. How ELSE can the potential husband of a non-virgin KNOW that such a woman is eligible for marriage?

I could ask the same of a man wanting to marry a repentant whore. Where is her "ciphrah keriythuwth"?

My point was simply to refute the author's apparent position that "shalach" refers only to a woman without a "ciphrah keriythuwth". Now that we see that "shalach" actually refers to any cut off woman, with or without a certificate, we can read Scripture without those particular rose-colored glasses tainting our vision. That's all I was trying to show.

In any event, all of this boils down to that we don't agree whether a put away woman is permitted to remarry. But we do both seem to agree that a put away woman WITHOUT a certificate of divorcement cannot remarry, at least not without committing adultery.

So rather than debate that which we cannot agree on, let me instead get your take on a separate but related issue. Let's take a woman who has left her husband and committed adultery with another man. I assume you would agree that she is ineligible for remarriage, correct? (If not, give me an example of ANY woman that would be ineligible for remarriage.)

Now, supposing this "ineligible for remarriage" woman goes ahead and gets married to another man, obviously committing adultery in the process. A few years go by and she comes to repentance and surrenders her life to Yeshua. What is she to do regarding her existing marital situation? Does she return to her ex-husband, assuming he will have her? Does she remain with her existing husband? Does she leave both and remain unmarried? Comments?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

I could ask the same of a man wanting to marry a repentant whore. Where is her "ciphrah keriythuwth"?

Interesting point. Two things come to mind. First, YHVH asked the question (like with Adam ) already KNOWING the answer. Also, Hosea did such a thing, having been so commanded.

Subject to further consideration, I would conclude that a man in such a situation is capable of voluntarily OVERLOOKING such uncleanness. (Similarly, the same thing is true for a woman who may have been the victim of incest or rape, or perhaps today who simply came to 'faith' after earlier transgression. In any case, we can be thankful for a God of forgiveness, and husbands who can do likewise.)

My point was simply to refute the author's apparent position that "shalach" refers only to a woman without a "ciphrah keriythuwth". Now that we see that "shalach" actually refers to any cut off woman, with or without a certificate, we can read Scripture without those particular rose-colored glasses tainting our vision. That's all I was trying to show.

No problem there, although I thought we were already in agreement on this point. Again, perhaps that is what God was illustrating for us by asking the question. We would agree that it is a question which a man wishing to marry a divorcee should ask.

I would, as you now know, go further and add that such a certificate* constitutes necessary and sufficient proof of ability to remarry.


Blessings,

Mark


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

* Subject to SOME obvious caveats, of course.

 

[Mark C]

And I wasn't trying to dodge this one, just separating the discussion.

So rather than debate that which we cannot agree on, let me instead get your take on a separate but related issue. Let's take a woman who has left her husband and committed adultery with another man. I assume you would agree that she is ineligible for remarriage, correct? (If not, give me an example of ANY woman that would be ineligible for remarriage.)

So far, agreed. Presume, for now -- and for purposes of completeness -- that her husband is alive, and not guilty of prior adultery (or other sin unto death, etc) as well.

I would add (again, no doubt) that this is the case wherein not only is she not able to remarry, but the husband is ABLE to shalach her WITHOUT a get! (Even if we also agree that he should not. But - DID he send her away, or did she leave?)

Now, supposing this "ineligible for remarriage" woman goes ahead and gets married to another man, obviously committing adultery in the process. A few years go by and she comes to repentance and surrenders her life to Yeshua. What is she to do regarding her existing marital situation? Does she return to her ex-husband, assuming he will have her? Does she remain with her existing husband? Does she leave both and remain unmarried? Comments?

In all of my listing of preliminary presumptions above, I (as did you, I note) glossed over the question of whether one or both of these people are "believers" - and what that might mean. Evidently, from the text, the woman was NOT. I submit that the only remaining major question was whether or not the husband WAS, and thus whether he continues to 'cover' her - and, as you indicate, will have her.

"God has called us to peace." I won't try to solve this woman's problems without first suggesting that she, as a believer, go to Him in prayer, and repentance. As we already no doubt agree, FORGIVENESS is key to our own condition as well.

Is the 'old' husband - believer or not - willing to give her a get at this point? (As you know, I'm not impressed with Caesar's licenses OR definitions of marriage. Answering this question goes at least a long ways toward answering the question of what form of marriage existed anyway. Remember that God did NOT require the men Ezra wrote about to provide a get for their strange "wives" - evidently because, agreement or not, He did not recognize it as 'marriage'.)

What is the status of the new "husband"? Is HE now a believer? What form of covenant (or not) is in place? Is she now, or was she EVER, under covering?

If you're asking me the question, "Can a marriage born in sin EVER be cleansed and healed by the blood of Yeshua?", then I would have to answer as Scripture does - that those deserving of death can be cleansed and forgiven, and that ALL things are possible through Him.

So, the paperwork is helpful in answering a few of the up-front questions, David. But the big question remains, "what has HE joined together?"

How that for a start?



Blessings,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

Let's take a woman who has left her husband and committed adultery with another man.

I would add (again, no doubt) that this is the case wherein not only is she not able to remarry, but the husband is ABLE to shalach her WITHOUT a get!

I'm not entirely sure what that would mean, since she's already separated herself from him when she remarried. He can't exactly dispatch that which he does not have. But in any event, we'll assume that neither the husband nor the wife were believers, unless you're going to say that only Christians are truly married. We'll also assume the new husband is not a believer either, and that her first husband refuses to give her any kind of "get", since obviously he never wanted her to leave in the first place.

So, I think your question says it all. What exactly HAS He joined together??

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

...your question says it all. What exactly HAS He joined together??

We have a witness to the effect that a 'brother or sister is not under bondage' in such cases - but this example is not a precise match for that situation either!

We have disgusting evidence which shows that Caesar has NO respect for what God HAS joined together - from theft of children to "domestic violence" laws which separate families based on nothing more than a phone call.

We also have, on the other hand, that example from Ezra, where God seemed to indicate that some 'marriages' are NOT something He has joined together. I have indicated that I am not convinced that 'civil licenses' from a pagan State are any more a covenant than is this week's latest teenage serial "hook-up" or a one-night stand in a Vegas 'marriage' parlor. In contrast, I have suggested instead that such contracts be dissolved under the rules specified in their creation, since God expects us to honor even bad vows, "to our own hurt". At the very least, a 'divorced' woman wanting to remarry who HAS a get is no worse off than one who does NOT.

Has the presumably born-again adulterer now truly repented of her sin, been washed clean by the shed blood of Messiah, and now - arguably for the first time, at least as a new creation in Him - entered into a Covenant with this man? CAN HE even enter into such a Covenant, and cover her? Perhaps, as Paul suggests, that unbeliever can be sanctified by her. In any case, that is not a decision I have the authority to make for her.

Finally, we can continue this process ad infinitum - and, as that happens, we approach something sadly even closer to the "real world". So I fall back again on the comment I made some time ago here:

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.



Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

We also have, on the other hand, that example from Ezra, where God seemed to indicate that some 'marriages' are NOT something He has joined together.

Agreed. Not all that glitters is gold. God's Word specifically identifies marriages that are invalid, regardless whether the individuals within the "marriage" or the society at large believes otherwise.

Regarding your Ezra example, even though you and I already know this, I thought it might be helpful for others to take a close look at precisely what made their marriages invalid, according to Scripture:

Exodus 34:11-16: "Guard what I command you today. See, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Kena'anite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hiwwite and the Yebusite. Guard yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But break down their altars, and smash their pillars, and cut down their Asherim - for you do not bow yourselves to another mighty one, for Yahweh, whose Name is jealous, is a jealous El - lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they whore after their mighty ones, and slaughter to their mighty ones, and one of them invites you and you eat of his slaughterings, and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters whore after their mighty ones, and make your sons whore after their mighty ones."

Deuteronomy 7:1-4: "When Yahweh your Elohim brings you into the land which you go to possess, He shall also clear away many nations before you: the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Kena'anites and the Perizzites and the Hiwwites and the Yebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you. And when Yahweh your Elohim gives them over to you, you shall smite them and put them under the ban, completely. Make no covenant with them, and show them no favour. And do not intermarry with them - you do not give your daughter to his son, and you do not take his daughter for your son, for he turns your sons away from following Me, to serve other mighty ones. Then the displeasure of Yahweh shall burn against you and promptly destroy you."

The Mosaic law specifically warned Israel against intermarriage with the other nations, because they would be drawn into idolatry away from Yahweh. This prohibition didn't make allowances for what to do if they married anyway. It simply said they were not to do this.

Ezra 9:1-2: "And when these matters had been done, the leaders came to me, saying, "The people of Yisra’el and the priests and the Lewites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, as to their abominations, those of the Kena'anites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Yebusites, the Ammonites, the Mo’abites, the Mitsrites, and the Amorites, for they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the set-apart seed is intermingled with the peoples of those lands. And the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass."

Ezra 9:10-14: "And now, O our Elohim, what do we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commands, which You have commanded by Your servants the prophets, saying, ‘The land which you are going in to possess is a land unclean through the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, by their abominations with which they have filled it, from one end to another, by their uncleanness. And now, do not give your daughters as wives for their sons, nor take their daughters to your sons. And do not seek their peace or wealth ever, so that you are strong, and shall eat the good of the land, and leave it as an inheritance to your children forever.’ And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, since You our Elohim have held back the rod upon our crookednesses, and have given us such deliverance as this, should we turn back, to break Your commands, and join in marriage with the people of these abominations? Would You not be enraged with us until You had consumed us, so that there would be no remnant or survivor?"

Ezra 10:2-3: "And Shekanyah son of Yehi’el, one of the sons of Olam, spoke up and said to Ezra, "We have trespassed against our Elohim, and have taken foreign women from the peoples of the land. And now there is expectancy in Yisra’el concerning this. Now then, let us make a covenant with our Elohim to put away all these wives and those who have been born to them, according to the counsel of Yahweh and of those who tremble at the command of our Elohim. And let it be done according to the Torah."

Ezra 10:10-12: "And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You, you have trespassed and have taken foreign women, adding to the guilt of Yisra’el. And now, make confession to Yahweh Elohim of your fathers, and do His desire, and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the foreign women.” And all the assembly answered and said with a loud voice, “Right! It is upon us to do according to your word."

Nehemiah 13:23-27: "In those days I also saw Yehudim who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, Mo’ab. And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and could not speak the language of Yehudah, but spoke according to the language of one or the other people. Then I contended with them and cursed them, and smote some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by Elohim, saying, "You do not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves. Did not Shelomoh sovereign of Yisra’el sin because of them? Among the many nations there was no sovereign like him, who was beloved of his Elohim, and Elohim made him sovereign over all Yisra’el. Even him foreign women caused to sin. Should we then hear of your doing all this great evil, trespassing against our Elohim by marrying foreign wives?"

Israel's intermarriage with foreign wives were forbidden, in the same way that certain close kin marriages or same-sex type "marriages" were forbidden. They were not recognized by God because they were specifically and clearly condemned in His Word. These were the "marriages" that He did not join together. Marriage is between any man and any woman - unless directly prohibited by Scripture. In order to be restored to God's favor, they were required to repent of their sin and turn away from those illegal, unrecognized relationships back to Him. Those marriages which God did not join together are those which he prohibits in His Word, and any relationship which God clearly spells out as forbidden (adultery, sodomy, incest, intermarriage, beastiality, etc.) must be turned away from.

Love in Him,
David

 

[^_^]

I think y'all are trying to get cement coated answers, and there just isn't one. We are to judge righteous judgement, and when I say that, it's not using judgement in a condemnational way, it's in making the 'right call'

It was never a sin to marry a prostitute or non virgin except for the high priest. But if a woman misrepresented herself, THEN the matter of uncleaness clause kicks in. Matters of idolatry and rebellion also fall into this category and are grounds for putting away. Evidently it's up to the husband to decide at what point his woman has crossed the line. Yahweh was quite patient with Israel and Judah, but he did divorce them, yet he still took their children back years later.

These are all painful issues to discuss, because it's not black and white like we humans would like it to be.
Relationships are always difficult

 

[Doc]

Hey all,

As the one who initially started this thread months ago, I think it might be a good idea at this point to lock out further discussion. Obviously there is a great diversity of belief regarding this topic, and no 'cut-and-dried' answers. Thank goodness that we serve a God of Grace! Being a parent, I understand that having kids can be a messy business sometimes....imagine how difficult it is for Heavenly Father to deal with all the messes we make! :lol:

I appreciate all of the comments and discussion. I think from this point if we want to look at particulars regarding divorce, they probably deserve examination under their own threads.

Blessings Y'all!

Doc Burkhart