Meat Polygynous culture is already here -- a perverse one.

[NickF]

The abiding principle, which was emphasized by Yahshua Messiah, the two shall become one flesh, is timeless. Yah put them together male and female together -- literally -- both by means of the sex act and by means of microchimerism, and no man can separate them. Wish as you might, you cannot remove the husband's genetic information from the woman's body. Once she becomes that man's, only death ends to covenant of marriage.

I suggest leaving out the microchimerism argument. It doesn't add anything scripturally to the argument and is easily shot down with Levirate marriage and the marriage of most of David's wives. Simply being the wife of another man in the past does not prohibit the marriage scripturally.

So the microchimerism argument is busted and ought to be abandoned. You can use it as a "good reason" but it's not a good reason according to scripture and actually stands against scriptural permissions.

We need to be arguing with scripture and reason alone.

 

[steve]

Looks like we have some men on here with an eye for other men's wives. Now is the time for repentance

You have the responsibly to live by your misunderstandings, but you have no right to judge others by them.

 

[steve]

Does this word mean "she may go" or "she has gone"?

If her husband has divorced her, does it matter if it is past or future tense?
The point appears to be that if she goes to be another’s wife, she is (edit) *not* allowed to come back to her first husband.

 

[NickF]

If her husband has divorced her, does it matter if it is past or future tense?
The point appears to be that if she goes to be another’s wife, she is allowed to come back to her first husband.

The verse (4) specifically says if she goes to be another's wife, she is not permitted to return to the first.
We have two courses before us from my perspective:

1. Verse 2 in the KJV seems to indicate she is permitted to become another man's wife only after she has been formally divorced with a written divorce and has departed from the first husband's house. This means no matter what the genesis 2 intent was at the beginning, she is now permitted to marry another after a formal divorcement.

2. However if the word halak indicates instead "she has gone" then the meaning is quite different and is exactly what NB1 has stated. This would make the whole passage (verses 1-5) instructions to a man on what to do about marriage. The portion in verses 2-4 would be instruction on how to not be an abomination before Jehovah God. This would be if you put a woman out and divorced her, you were not permitted to reconcile her back to yourself if she had gone out to become another man's wife. If she remained unmarried, it would then be lawful to reconcile her back to yourself.

At least that's what it seems like to me with a cursory reading. I'm open to being corrected whatever direction is true but I need some good solid reasoning and scripture to make up my mind one way or the other.

 

[steve]

However if the word halak indicates instead "she has gone" then the meaning is quite different

I am missing the distinction here.
Explain it to me as if I am slow, because in this case I evidently am.

 

[NickF]

Take note of the bold portions. These are the translation of the hebrew word listed below that I believe the doctrine hinges upon.

(*edit* From the YLT - links to the blue letter bible interlinear I'm using)
Deu 24:1
'When a man doth take a wife, and hath married her, and it hath been, if she doth not find grace in his eyes (for he hath found in her nakedness of anything), and he hath written for her a writing of divorce, and given it into her hand, and sent her out of his house,
Deu 24:2
and she hath gone out of his house, and hath gone and been another man's,
Deu 24:3
and the latter man hath hated her, and written for her a writing of divorce, and given it into her hand, and sent her out of his house, or when the latter man dieth, who hath taken her to himself for a wife:
Deu 24:4
'Her former husband who sent her away is not able to turn back to take her to be to him for a wife, after that she hath become defiled; for an abomination it is before Jehovah, and thou dost not cause the land to sin which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee -- an inheritance.
The above is the YLT of the passage in question.

Now the KJV
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.
Deu 24:2
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deu 24:3
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;
Deu 24:4
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.

It seems the key issue comes down to the phrase "She may go" in the KJV and the phrase "and hath gone" in the YLT. Perhaps someone more versed in grammar and hebrew can shed some light on this because it's a lynchpin issue here. This one word halak.

she may go
PHRASE
h1980
וְהָלְכָה הָלַךְ hālaḵ

Inflected:	וְ/הָלְכָה
Root:	הָלַךְ
Strong's:	H1980
English:	she may go
Language:	Hebrew
Code:	H C / Vqq3fs

Word:	הָלְכָה
Speech:	Verb
Stem:	Qal
Type:	Sequential Perfect (weqatal)
Person:	Third Person
Gender:	Feminine
Number:	Singular
Long:	Hebrew Verb: Qal Sequential Perfect (weqatal) 3rd Person Feminine Singular

Does this word mean "she may go" or "she has gone"?

IF that word means "she may go" then she is absolutely permitted to go and marry again without being defiled or abomination before Yah. The only proscription here is upon the first husband, where he is prevented from taking her back to be his wife again. This scenario would end the debate on whether or not a previously married and divorced woman was permitted to marry again. Or that a man (other than the first husband) was permitted to marry a divorced woman.

IF that word means "she has gone" then it's describing what a wife has done in this description and it's not proscriptive but descriptive. All the proscription is unto the man. All description is showing what HE is proscribed from doing, namely taking her back after she's been divorced and remarried. This scenario would lend creedence to the case that marriage is permanent and not nullified by man, that a man "divorcing" a wife is sending her out, and she is not at liberty to have sexual relations with any other man as long as her husband lives.

The issue I have with all of this is that it doesn't seem to jive with other instances of scripture. Namely how is Yah to divorce Israel for going whoring against Him, then create a new covenant with her and bring her back into marriage? If divorcing a woman and remarrying her is not acceptable, then what's going on?

 

[Mark C]

Even if the divorce is justified, marriage to her is off-limits, adultery. Divorce does not end a marriage...

This is a truly damnable doctrine.

(There isn't even a Hebrew word in Scripture for it, fer cryin' out loud. The verb is "shalach", which means to "put away" or "send out" - and it's just one STEP in the process!!!!!)

And I can't TELL you how many women I have heard from personally over the years who have been terrorized by the Scriptural ignorance, many to the point of rejecting Him. Trouble is, it wasn't His doctrine to begin with.

It angers me to have people try to put words in His mouth that He didn't say! (At least, if they repent, some might be able to be called "least in the kingdom.")

On a lighter debunking note:

I can't help but think Isaiah 4:1 is gonna be an issue.

Maybe those seven (odds are at least SOME will be 'divorced'...) can get an 'annulment' from His Popeliness, to claim that it jes never happened...

 

[Mark C]

IF that word means "she may go" then she is absolutely permitted to go and marry again without being defiled or abomination before Yah. The only proscription here is upon the first husband, where he is prevented from taking her back to be his wife again. This scenario would end the debate on whether or not a previously married and divorced woman was permitted to marry again. Or that a man (other than the first husband) was permitted to marry a divorced woman.

Logically obvious. The other 'post-descriptive' alleged case simply won't fit all the possibilities.

And that is consistent with what the One Who Wrote it teaches (if we get words like 'divorce' even remotely UN-twisted.) Again, if He changed His Word, He would be a liar. And that's as nasty of a heresy as "forbidding to marry" and condemning ex-wives who MET His conditions and are trying to walk in obedience to terminal reproach. Shame on such.

There is too much other evidence to argue inconsistent idiocy. If Yahushua's teaching SEEMS inconsistent with a bad translation, or deliberate distortion - don't blame HIM.




PS> As to the Other Question (YHVH Who says, "Return to Me...") -- that's another, arguably far more interesting discussion...
(My first pass would note that, when it comes to "other Husbands," as opposed to whoring paramours, there is None beside Him.)

 

[Maddog]

And I am accused of poor scholarship.

Perhaps it would help to understand how different Bible translations deal with the Hebrew text. You can see that translators take interpretive liberties as well, which is why we must read it in the Hebrew.

• KJV Deuteronomy 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
• NAS Deuteronomy 24:2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,
• NLT Deuteronomy 24:2 When she leaves his house, she is free to marry another man.
• TNK Deuteronomy 24:2 she leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man;
• NIV Deuteronomy 24:2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man,
• NKJ Deuteronomy 24:2 "when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife,

The question here is in the translations such as the KJV, which reads “she may go and be another man's”, a statement that, to some, implies permission for a woman to remarry, but read it again. The text does not imply permission at all but simply be states how a husband is to handle the situation if she does enjoin herself to another man.

To reach a correct conclusion, we must fully contextualize all of Scriptures, and understand Yahshua’s teaching in Matthew 19:4-5, as he said “’Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,’” And said, “’For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’” He quotes the Torah, specifically Genesis 2:24, and in so doing, underscores that marriage is an institution established by Yah – an institution that cannot be broken by man even with a bill of divorce.

Looks like we have some men on here with an eye for other men's wives. Now is the time for repentance.

That is quite the ugly accusation. You dont get to know what i think unless i tell you. Your arrogance is profound.

 

[frederick]

But if it bothers you that much, let me rephrase. "If the unbeliever wants to leave, let him." The principle applies to both genders.

Then why didn't you say that? Why present an erroneous bias?

 

[The Revolting Man]

And I am accused of poor scholarship.

Perhaps it would help to understand how different Bible translations deal with the Hebrew text. You can see that translators take interpretive liberties as well, which is why we must read it in the Hebrew.

• KJV Deuteronomy 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
• NAS Deuteronomy 24:2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,
• NLT Deuteronomy 24:2 When she leaves his house, she is free to marry another man.
• TNK Deuteronomy 24:2 she leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man;
• NIV Deuteronomy 24:2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man,
• NKJ Deuteronomy 24:2 "when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife,

The question here is in the translations such as the KJV, which reads “she may go and be another man's”, a statement that, to some, implies permission for a woman to remarry, but read it again. The text does not imply permission at all but simply be states how a husband is to handle the situation if she does enjoin herself to another man.

To reach a correct conclusion, we must fully contextualize all of Scriptures, and understand Yahshua’s teaching in Matthew 19:4-5, as he said “’Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,’” And said, “’For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’” He quotes the Torah, specifically Genesis 2:24, and in so doing, underscores that marriage is an institution established by Yah – an institution that cannot be broken by man even with a bill of divorce.

Looks like we have some men on here with an eye for other men's wives. Now is the time for repentance.

I hate the way you were responded to. That sneering condescension was infuriating to hear. I’m sure it was even worse to receive.

What was left out to make room for all of that snide sarcasm is that divorce is a poor blanket term for all of the ways a one flesh relationship can be broken and the how an new may or may not be formed.

Just as a brief survey; a woman who initiates a separation c an never go to another man (which you seemed to allude to) but a woman who is given a certificate of divorce by her husband can go to another man. Likewise a woman who is unwilling to separated from an unbeliever can go to another man without restrictions. A woman who is thrown out by a believing man without a certificate is in a grey area but if she does go to another man the resultant adultery falls on the man who threw her out.

These are New Testament principles. So this topic is more complex than simply a man shouldn’t marry a divorced woman.

What you are completely correct about is that one flesh relationships shouldn’t be broken once they’re formed. But there are nuances to what happens if they are.

 

[LDremoved]

I hate the way you were responded to. That sneering condescension was infuriating to hear. I’m sure it was even worse to receive.

What was left out to make room for all of that snide sarcasm is that divorce is a poor blanket term for all of the ways a one flesh relationship can be broken and the how an new may or may not be formed.

Just as a brief survey; a woman who initiates a separation c an never go to another man (which you seemed to allude to) but a woman who is given a certificate of divorce by her husband can go to another man. Likewise a woman who is unwilling to separated from an unbeliever can go to another man without restrictions. A woman who is thrown out by a believing man without a certificate is in a grey area but if she does go to another man the resultant adultery falls on the man who threw her out.

These are New Testament principles. So this topic is more complex than simply a man shouldn’t marry a divorced woman.

What you are completely correct about is that one flesh relationships shouldn’t be broken once they’re formed. But there are nuances to what happens if they are.

Glad you said this because i've really enjoyed the topic.

 

[PeteR]

While Deuteronomy 24 seems to allow the woman to be able to be remarried, and this is what I believe, I would say that if a man should NOT marry a legally divorced woman, then I would expect a prohibition in the Torah.

Adultery is VERY serious, yet Torah  never prohibits marrying a divorced woman. Rather, minimally, the Torah offers no comment on a woman that is divorced (two step) and is joined to another man. The ONLY restriction Torah places is on the first husband taking her back.

Woulda been a whole lot easier for Yah just to say 'Don't marry a divorced woman. It is adultery.'

 

[steve]

The conclusion that marriage to a divorced woman is adultery, as Yahshua taught, is the only conclusion that fits the data provided by the entire testimony of Scriptures.

Having gone back through this discussion, and thanx to @NickF for the explanation of the Deu. 24:2, I’m seeing where you are coming from.
Basically you have extrapolated a law, from your understanding of context, where none exists.
You have one verse in the entire OT to hang your law, but the one word that you are using isn’t even definitive. It is used either way. It is only your assumptions about context that force your conclusion.
Deuteronomy 19:15 (KJV)
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16 (KJV)
But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV)
This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
This law of yours has no other witness in the OT. Something this important would have to have better corroboration than what you have provided.
Your law is not expressly stated in the entirety of the OT. It simply doesn’t exist. The Jews can be extremely legalistic, can you find any of them that agree with your law?

Your interpretation of what Yeshua taught isn’t proof that there was such a law.

 

[steve]

I am unapologetic about my sarcasm in responding to this damnable heresy.
It condemns women, who have been lawfully (in Yah’s eyes) divorced by their husbands, to a life by themselves. A life opposite of what they were created to be.
Alternatively, it condemns them in some cases to return to abuse.

Our home is an unofficial shelter for women in need. A situation that we are presently dealing with is a woman who may not make it out of the hospital alive.
This supposed *law* condemns her to return to her husband who is presently incarcerated for what he did to her.

Mark 10:2-5 (KJV) 2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Yeshua here affirmed that a man could release a wife, but your law indicates that he cannot.
Yes, the rest of the passage goes into Yah’s intention that they remain one flesh, but that doesn’t mean that actual divorce cannot happen.

 

[NationBuilder1]

Woulda been a whole lot easier for Yah just to say 'Don't marry a divorced woman. It is adultery.'

In essence, Yah did say this -- in at least two ways.

1. "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh"
(Gen 2:24). Yahshua elaborated, “So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what Elohim has joined together, let man not separate”
(Mat 19:6).

2. "Her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled" (Deut 24:4). What defiled her? Notice that it was not the returning to her first husband that defiled her. Notice that it was joining herself to a second man that defiled her. Now, I ask you, men, if you truly loved the woman, why would you want to defile her? If you feel sorry for her because she is struggling to make her way after a divorce, then give her a job, but do not defile her.

 

[NationBuilder1]

Our home is an unofficial shelter for women in need.

Nice. Well, then, you will not have to go far to find a vulnerable woman to defile.

 

[NationBuilder1]

Your arrogance is profound.

Yes, and so, sadly, is my hypocrisy.

 

[Mark C]

What defiled her? Notice that it was not the returning to her first husband that defiled her. Notice that it was joining herself to a second man that defiled her.

The Creator of the Universe is sure LUCKY to have someone like you (forget the pope...) to tell us what He Meant, and Why.



And all so that you can condemn women to a hell-on-earth of your own devising for their mistake, as if there is NO Salvation for them!

I see preachers telling people it's just FINE - if you're hungry, take that Mark of the Beast. Others change "times and seasons," or tell the gullible that Yah didn't really know what was "food," and what was not. Or which days are His moedim.

Some of that just might be worse than attempting to destroy any hope of their finding the covering of a decent, YHVH-obedient man in their life. Maybe. Because there are such things as knock-off effects.

That Yahushua that you twist warned in Matthew 5:17-19 that He wouldn't change so much as "one yod or tiddle" of His own Word (and heaven and earth still exist!) and against doing EXACTLY what you are trying to get the "unlearned and untaught" to believe, perhaps to their own destruction. (Look at how wonderful that mandated celibacy has worked for other institutions which rewrite His Word.)

"Least in the kingdom" is a warning. Even for ignoring the LEAST of His instruction, and "teaching others to do so," too. Arguably for those who repent from such.

I will SUGGEST that such are the reasons Shaul/Paul used a term translated as "doctrines of demons."

 

[Mark C]

Yes, and so, sadly, is my hypocrisy.

Finally, a bit of truth.

But Steve's point about Matthew 10:2-5 must not be ignored. After all, it was Yahushua Who asked the question, "WHY?" - and then answered it.

If the woman was just condemned either to spinsterhood as an adulteress, or death outright, why all the provision for her? The 'second witness' of the man's written 'sefer keretutah'? The oh-so-obtuse statement that she "man become another man's [isha]"? -- as if that was why Moshe wrote that PROCESS out so that, KNOWING the 'hardness of men's hearts,' and that there WOULD be those who put their wives out, there might be some provision for them other than your proscription?

If it was only "ADULTERY ==> so die that way," or else - why all the fuss?

Anyone who can claim to read God's mind and know the WHY should easily be able to read what He says when He comes right out and TELLS us why.

And, finally, to answer the obvious before we are besieged with more twisting:

From the beginning it was not so. And, no doubt about it, men (and women, the word is inclusive) certainly can have hard hearts. They break Covenant. They dishonor His Name, His Sabbaths, His instruction. They "teach others to do so."

They even put their hand on a Bible and lie. Even though Deuteronomy 30 clearly says not to. (Or is that not equally clear?)

Why is it so hard to believe - given ALL the provision He makes for women* - that He didn't provide for the women who suffer from that hard-heartedness?

After all, He knew mankind would commit adultery/idolatry too - and reject Him for fake 'gods'. And He made provision even for that. Thankfully.

You miss the whole point.

And THAT, I contend, is a large part of why BOTH of His 'whoring wives' are still in exile - put away - today.


---------------------------
* The aforementioned Deut. 30, and covering of vows made in error; the 'war bride' of Deut. 21, and so many more, ESPECIALLY this provision for remarriage.