is there really a reason for non-reunion?

[steve]

The Biblical basis for not taking back a wife who sleeps with another is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In my reading of it this only applies to a properly divorced woman, not an adulteress, so this passage doesn't say you can't show mercy and take back an unfaithful wife. However some are applying it to the situation of adultery also (incorrectly in my opinion).

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

clearly the woman has been divorced by two husbands. the question of why would be a separate discussion, but neither divorce appears to be at her instigation.
we can only make assumptions about why she is now an abomination to YHWH, but becoming unacceptable to two separate men is a pretty good indicator that she is not walking humbly before her Lord.

 

[FollowingHim]

Interesting thought Steve. The text does state very clearly that there is a reason for non-reunion, you are really questioning exactly what that reason is rather than the existence of it.

Note that this also applies if the second husband dies, which is not her fault (except in the few cases where she did it, which would be a good reason not to marry her!). This appears to be a more general statement that she cannot return to the first regardless of the reason her second marriage ended.

 

[steve]

The text does state very clearly that there is a reason for non-reunion, you are really questioning exactly what that reason is rather than the existence of it.

sorry that I was unclear, but I was actually focused on support of the idea that there is NO reason for non-reunion UNLESS she has experienced the circumstances specified.

Note that this also applies if the second husband dies,

i had not even noticed that, i guess that a man needs to be truly sure of his decision what he makes such a drastic choice because if she moves on his decision cannot be rescinded. no matter what she later experiences.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Since the latter husbands death also makes a reunion with the first impossible, I think it is clear that it is the returning to a relationship that was terminated that makes it an abomination, not that the woman was undesirable to two husbands.
I have seen a few men that would be near impossible to please. Lets not be too hard on the woman without knowing the situation.
It looks to me like God was stressing the permanence of the decision. Making it easy to reverse a divorce might lend to hasty choices being made.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[steve]

It looks to me like God was stressing the permanence of the decision

i agree, but does it not look as if the woman had the final say? the last word?
the way that i read it is that if she did not remarry, the way remained open for reconciliation. the mans decision was not necessarily permanent.
but if she chose to marry another man, she burned the bridge behind her. her actions would validate his decision and cause it to be made permanent.


i do take back my statement judging her spiritual walk. i was judging by the fact that the first husband divorced her and the second one hated her. i had completely missed the part about the second one dying.
she could have been a perfect wife. the first husband could be an idiot, the second dying in marital bliss!
the idiot behind door number one is still out of the game.

Making it easy to reverse a divorce might lend to hasty choices being made.

as far as i know, (someone please correct me if you see contrary evidence) it was easy to reverse a divorce.
unless she decided to move on. at that point it became impossible.
the man would need to realize that he was playing Russian Roulette with the relationship, and she had control of the bullet.

 

[NetWatchR]

That's all pretty much the way I read it as well. Until the second marriage, there is always the possibility of reconciliation. Once the second marriage occurs, the bridge is burned (I like that imagery, accurate) for both the wife and the first husband. There are no 'reasons' per se for non-reunion, just the scenario which defines when a reunion is no longer possible.

Having said all that: Let's keep in mind this is prior to Grace. Through forgiveness and repentance, reconciliation is always possible. We are no longer bound/condemned by the Law.

Acts 13:38-39
“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

So, the wife had "some uncleanliness in her" and H1 divorced her. Wife married H2, he died/divorced. Somewhere in there, the wife repents of whatever the uncleanliness was. By Grace, I don't see there being an issue with H1 marrying the wife again. Sometimes I think we get caught up in the Law and forget about Grace and Mercy.

 

[steve]

we do not know why it is an abomination, nor why that causes the land to sin.
we cannot just cover everything with mercy and grace and expect YHWH to honor our decisions.

unless the N.T. specifically tells us that an O.T. abomination is no longer one, we need to walk softly.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

I struggled with this passage until I got a bigger picture of Scripture and connected it to Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:13-20.

"after that she is defiled" is the key point of the law: the second marriage defiled her as "he who marries she who is divorced commits adultery" (Matt 5:32). The concept of what happens to a woman who commits adultery is that she becomes "defiled."

The sin and abomination that is committed by the first husband if he takes her back is the same sin as joining with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6:13-20), who is a defiled woman: he sins against his own body with a "defiled" woman. This is also the reason why God built in a biological indicator for women's virginity (Deut 22:13-21).

You can cross-reference the term "porneia" between 1 Cor 6:13-20 and Matthew 19:9's "exception clause," where Jesus indicates that "porneia" is the reason a man can divorce his wife -- it's actually because he MUST divorce his wife as staying married to her is the same as the sin of joining to a prostitute at this point ("porneia" is primarily the word for "prostitution", with "pornes" and "porne" meaning "prostitute" as pretty much all Bible translations agree). That's also why the "exception clause" isn't even necessary to include because "divorcing your wife" isn't even what's actually happening at this point: a man is ridding himself of a defiled woman who quite actually ISN'T really his wife upon becoming defiled.

The reason why the situation of Deut 24:1-4 should be obvious: there is no other scenario in which a woman defiled by adultery wouldn't be dead, so no other situation needs a warning not to return to a defiled "wife" as this isn't even possible under any other situation (a supernatural punishment is described in Numbers that doesn't kill the adulteress, but it ruins her ability to have sexual relations).

So that's why: it's an abomination to rejoin to this wife "after she has been defiled" because joining with a defiled woman in general is an abomination. The scenario is described in such detail because divorce was the last way a defiled wife would even be alive such that it could be possible for a husband to return to her under Israel's law.

What I see from the prophets and Hosea's example is that rejoining IS possible, but the woman must be completely repentant of the relationship. Gomer and Hosea were required not to have sexual relations for "many days" because, in parallel to our relationship to God, we have to walk away from idolatries/adulteries BEFORE we presume to rejoin. Jeremiah 3:1 says the same kind of thing: They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? But the rest of Jeremiah 3 basically says: repent of the adulteries and THEN return.

 

[cnystrom]

You can cross-reference the term "porneia" between 1 Cor 6:13-20 and Matthew 19:9's "exception clause," where Jesus indicates that "porneia" is the reason a man can divorce his wife -- it's actually because he MUST divorce his wife as staying married to her is the same as the sin of joining to a prostitute at this point

I do not see how these verses say that a man "must" divorce his wife. I think you are making an unsupported logical jump here.