Are all divorced women guilty of adultery?

[wanttobe]

Ok in my introduction I clearly stated I am "Biblically challenged" so please be patient with me.

I was looking around on the site and came across the Common Misconceptions About Plural Marraige. In reference to Adultry for Women it clearly states:

"If, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man." Romans7:3

I understand there were exceptions for being married to an unbeliever who does not want to stay with you. However I am confused on the issue of divorce if the women left a man of a faith she does not believe in but he wanted her to stay. Also I wonder if a women leaves a man who is violent towards her and they are divorced does she become an adultress if she remarries? Most men who are violent towards thier wives do not choose for their wives to leave. Does this mean a woman can not enter into a marraige after being divorced with out committing adultery as long as he is alive?

I find it unfathomable that a loving God would want a women to continue to be abused but it seems the scripture is quite clear.

I apologize in advance if this seems silly or irrelevent or if it seems I have muddied the Scriptures. It was not my intent. I just really need to know.

Shandy

 

[Mark C]

Hi Shandy --

Excellent question, and one which is not without controversy. (As a search of the archives will reveal. )

I have an article that I wrote on this topic a while back, and had not yet posted here. Understand that a full study of all the appropriate Scripture would be quite long, but hopefully, it will help answer the question.

Blessings in Him,

Mark


PS> I also did not attempt to answer below the question of "what about Caesar's divorce?" The simple summary is that "What Caesar joins (and 'licenses'), Caesar can destroy - in his courts." All of the principles of Deuteronomy 24 and the rest still apply.


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


Divorce and remarriage


There is a difference between a LAWFUL divorce and an UNLAWFUL one. God has provided a procedure which defines that distinction, in Deuteronomy 24:1, and again in 24:3. Many subsequent examples, teachings, and admonitions clarify what was Written, but much confusion remains, particularly when at least three languages (Hebrew, Greek, and English) and several overlapping, but different, concepts are involved in all of them.

Much has already been written about the translation error at the end of Matthew 5:32 (KJV), where the correct rendering is "whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery."

I will suggest a conclusion which integrates these teachings, and will hopefully clarify any confusion.

There are marriages which "He hath joined", as opposed to those He did not (the story at the end of the Book of Ezra is a primary case in point.) There was no "marriage", no "joining" in His sight, and thus no need for any special procedure to separate that which He did not join.

But other cases are not so clear.

Who is a "believer", for example (as used in I Cor. 7) , and who is not? What if that status appears to change? And what does "under bondage" mean there anyway?

There are many other related points of potential contention. (I myself, for example, point to Yeshua's teachings about "render unto Caesar", and ask "what is Caesar's - if one seeks his permission and blessing for "marriage". Exodus 21:3, "If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself," concerning slaves given wives, teaches the same lesson -- about Who (or who) we serve, and which Master gives a man that wife.)

But I contend that there is a simple way out of this dilemma , which is utterly consistent with Scripture. Please follow carefully:

Numbers chapter 30 outlines explicitly the duties and obligations of a husband and father concerning the issue of vows. I frequently counsel men to read and understand it, because it outlines authority that God gives to husbands. These verses are key:

Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. [13]

...
But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard [them]; then he shall bear her iniquity. [15]



Marriage is more than a contract -- more specifically, a set of EXCHANGED vows between two people, constitute a basis for the Covenant. It is this Covenant by which a wife binds herself to her husband, and in so doing, delegates this authority over her vows to him.

Please consider the implications and other commandments in Scripture carefully. Wives may make rash, or even improper, harmful, and ultimately evil vows. It is the duty of the husband to respond to those as as he is directed by God, in accord with His Word. When he fails, that husband is held accountable - even to the extent of "causing her to commit adultery", as Yeshua showed in Matthew 5:32.

I have tended to think of those types of vows as things that are said in anger, or in haste, like "I'll never [xxxxx] as long as I live!" Cast 'em down, guys, if they are truly ill-advised -- as rash comments almost always are.

But there are other types of vows. Vows to improperly END a marriage, to commit acts of treachery, or unfaithfulness, must be regarded VERY carefully, and in FULL KNOWLEDGE of what God says in Numbers 30! And inaction is no excuse, either! Those which should be voided by the loving husband, but are not, will fester -- because they will "bind her soul" when the day has passed without action otherwise.

God has specified a lawful procedure for "divorce" - for ending a marital union, and sending away a former wife from the house and covering of her then-former husband. The husband must do certain specific things, including giving her a WRITTEN "certificate" ending the marriage, and then send her out of his house.

I will use Paul's frequent metaphor: If a husband must "bear her iniquity" in voiding his wives' oaths - HOW MUCH MORE SO - in voiding their Covenant of marriage? He must do it right, and ONLY for the good reason -- if at all! Not only must he void the vows as has already been described in Numbers 30, but he must do so IN WRITING, and he must confirm even that by ACTION, by "sending her away".

But once he has done so, she is no longer his lawful wife. She is no longer under his protection, his covering, his authority. She is on her own, and her vows will be held against her as well! (Numbers 30:9) And he can never take her back once she is joined to another.

Much confusion has surrounded the teaching of Yeshua (Jesus) on this topic, and the clarifications that Paul made. Not a single word of that teaching is inconsistent with everything ever Written in His Word about marriage! And not a single "jot or tittle" was changed.

People try to claim others are "under bondage", attempt to decide who is a "believer" and who is not, what constitutes "whoring", "fornication", "adultery" - and so on. Some of this is problematic: WHEN did this person "believe", or become an unbeliever? Isn't idolatry really adultery? What actions constitute abandonment, and "justify" a wife leaving, as in Ex. 21:11 - regardless of what Paul said in I Cor. 7? Many of these seem to imply an authority to judge others that Yeshua warns us against.

But the answer is there, and it is consistent, and Yeshua taught it:

Who has the authority of his own house, his own wives -- just as Yeshua is his head? Who "causeth her" to commit adultery if he makes or breaks vows improperly? Who "bears her iniquity" for EVERY vow he voids -- regardless?

Yeshua warns us against both making improper vows, and consistently teaches both the authority and the responsibility of a man over his own house. Paul warns not only that marriage is difficult, and that he would "spare us" the challenges, but then also simply concludes that a husband should not put away a wife at ALL.

Voiding a marriage is serious stuff - clearly best avoided. But, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, any husband who voids that Covenant must do so LAWFULLY, explicitly, and observably -- and he bears any iniquity for his FORMER wife!

There is more than one type of "hard-heartedness" to which Yeshua referred, just as there is more than one type of "putting away". "Unlawful putting away" is that which does not meet all of God's requirements, and satisfy all of the specifc steps in the procedure He outlined. Those who send a wife away unlawfully "cause her" to commit adultery -- just as if they had done so themselves. And we know that even men who followed the procedure correctly, but sent their wives away for "just any reason" (lousy cook, or just last year's model) also bear the burden for that failure, and were rightfully called "hard hearted".

But Yeshua has called us to FORGIVE!!!! We are to forgive EVERY sin done against us, every trespass, EVERY WRONG, if we expect to be forgiven. ( Matthew 6:12, Luke 11:4, I John 1:9, Matthew 18:23-35, and many others ) And that even includes adultery, men. (This is even the teaching of the "dust" potion in both the Torah, and Yeshua's actions during the story about the 'woman caught in adultery'.)

A man whose wife commits adultery against him is justified by the Law in putting her away, and sending her out of his house, his covering, his provision, and letting her be destitute, lonely, and unmarriageable. But a husband who serves Him, and is not "hard hearted", will forgive even a wife guilty of treachery against him! Even if he is unwilling to ever be one flesh with her again, or live with her, he can forgive her and give her a certificate of divorce, so that she is not guilty of "continuing sin", and might eventually find redemption.

Any former wife who has been given a LAWFUL divorce, has been sent out of her former husband's house, out from under his covering, had her vow of marriage voided, and been given a certificate of divorce as a witness of that separation, has no living husband any more. She is free to remarry -- "only in Him".

But in EVERY CASE, the man who sends his wife out of his house, and uses his God-given authority to abrogate the vow that THEY made and consummated, will BEAR HER INIQUITY!

The burden is on the husband. Do not make vows you do not intend to keep. Cover your wives by voiding rash vows they may make ON THE DAY that you hear of them, knowing that you will bear her iniquity for that! And do not divorce, much less "put away" a wife.

The only exception is that of a married woman who abandons her husband (I Cor. 7:10-11) without having been given a divorce, or is an unrepentant adultress.

But if a woman who has been lawfully divorced from her former husband marries a believer, "she does not sin". Any iniquity has been borne by her former husband.

Ultimately, of course, there is a single King, Kinsman-Redeemer, Savior, and Husband who can bear ALL of our sin and iniquity.

 

[Memphis Dwight]

wanttobe,
One of the great challenges in examining biblical issues such as the ones you've raised is the
existence of false presumptions that are difficult to articulate. For instance, many have assumed that when a man marries a woman there becomes this invisible link between the two of them that God places there. And it is assumed that if that man divorces that woman under certain circumstance, that link still exists. This is the result of hundreds of years of imaginary speculation.

While God never gave authorization for a woman to divorce her husband, a man should divorce his wife if he hates her. The reason that he hates her though is key as to which party is guilty of destroying the marriage. If the reason for his hate towards her does not pertain to the things that are expected from a wife in marriage, then the husband cheats this woman. But if he hates her because she will not go along with his plans for the family, then he is justified in divorcing her. She is free to remarry as this is a divorce for fornication but she still bears the guilt and her heart must change if she has any hopes of entering into heaven.

Now this bulletin board doesn't have much activity at the moment. But if it were a busy board, you would see a lightning round of animosity towards this post of mine.

 

[DrRay777]

Shandy,

I am not a trained Bible scholar; I rely on revelation directly from God in order to make sense of the scriptures. Having said that what I am about to say is partly a personal revelation, so you are free to reject it. I have been married and divorced twice by doing things my own way before I married my current wife at God's direction. I would not think of divorcing my current wife as long as she stays obedient to God. If she decides to become disobedient to God, then all bets are off because she has become an unbeliever and I am not obligated to stay with her. If, God forbid, we were to divorce under those circumstances, we would both be free. However, assuming that I stayed obedient to God and she did not, then she would be in a bad place and without repentance she would end up in a very hot place. If she repented, then I could take her back as long as she did not marry someone else in the meantime. In the case that you mentioned where a husband is abusive to his wife and she wants to divorce him, I believe that this is fine for her to divorce him, as he would by definition NOT be a Christian, (no matter what he called himself) because a Christian man would love his wife as Christ loves the church. Anything else would make him a non-believer by definition, because he would not be obedient to God's Word, (see Eph. 5:22-33). You see just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not make it so. The Bible says that if someone calls themselves a Christian and does not love their brother, then that person is a liar. All liars will end up in the lake of fire, (see I John 2:4, 4:20 and Revelation 21:8). Jesus said that what God has joined together, man should not separate, (e.g., my current wife and I were joined together by God, see Matthew 19:6). However, God showed me that MOST people on the earth come together in the flesh and are NOT joined together by God. Therefore, there is no blessing from God in most ‘marriages’ of the flesh, even if they swear and vow before God, since most are disobedient and God does not hear their prayers, (see Psalm 66:18 and Isaiah 1:15 and others). Though this is not a rubber stamp for all these people to divorce, it does give freedom for true believers who convert and find themselves in unbearable situations such as the abusive one you mentioned. God hates divorce and anyone who does divorce will suffer, however it is not the unpardonable sin and one can repent and move on. Then God will bless them in future, as long as they remain obedient to Him, (as in my case, see Ecclesiastes 5:6). I lost a lot of stuff and money because I went through divorce, but eventually God has restored me as I have been obedient to Him. I now walk in the power of God and am well cared for through His blessings.

Hope this helps.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[Mark C]

Actually, MD - the only place I would disagree with anything you have written is with respect to the "round of animosity" quip.

So far, there are three responses to your question, Shandy...
and I for one don't find anything wrong, or at variance with Scripture, in any of them.


Blessings,
Mark

 

[Memphis Dwight]

Mark C,
that was a knee jerk response on my part. I have come across so many that are defending an idea because they themselves are immature. It behooves us from time to time to meditate upon the old saying, scripture alone. Some go with another philosophy, anything but scrpipture.

 

[Memphis Dwight]

Looking at the various phrases tossed about like "God joins people" in marriage, I find that some of the connotations are not grounded.

That particular phrase can be found in the chapters of Mt 19 and Mk 10 and it is always within the context of divorcing for frivolous reasons.

Maybe what Christ is saying is that the marriage that is conforming to the divine design is the one that is not to be put asunder.

So then, a marriage that at one point was fitting the pattern may not always be fitting the pattern.

The dynamics of the union that is not to be put asunder is one in which the roles of marriage are not being violated. When breach starts to happen, then that is no longer what God has joined together.

 

[Mark C]

While I again don't disagree with your comments about "what God hath joined together", MD, I'd simply add that while He knows, others may not -- or worse. (And, as I have pointed out from personal experience elsewhere, the 'prince of this world' still comes with intent to kill and destroy.)

In particular, I am inclined to recognize that what He has joined is not necessarily at ALL the same as what Caesar has joined.


Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Memphis Dwight]

Mark,
What is your reason for a different take? Everyone is entitled to their own perspective, but what is the foundation for yours?

And what specifically do you say that the phrase means? I would guess that you would say that there is an invisible metaphysical welding together of the two?

More upon my take:
What, not whom, God has joined together refers back both times to the preceding verses in Mk and Mt -- where the process is illustrated of the man becoming independent of his parents and establishing his own family by taking a wife and making her part of his flesh, in a divinely legal sense.

When a smaller road merges onto a larger interstate, that smaller road ceases to exist and becomes part of the one-way directional flow of traffic of that larger interstate.

Two people coming together are not two smaller roads merging onto a new larger interstate, but rather one smaller road (the woman) merging onto a larger.

This analogy is important because when a man has a wife it is his agenda that the family follows for the marriage to be of the Edenic archetype. If the wife throws off the authority of the husband then she acts as a harlot -- a harlot not being exclusive subject to any one man but rather common property.

A man may be one flesh with a harlot, but God does not expect fault him for divorcing that harlot.

 

[Mark C]

What is your reason for a different take?

Perhaps I wasn't clear, MD, or perhaps I don't understand your question. I'm not sure that my 'take' is 'different' at all...just additional. (I have no issue with the historic understanding of the text. But, for example, I have seen frequent reference to the issue of the husband who commits adultery with the wife of another; on the "testimony of two or three" witnesses, that would have made a women a widow at one time - not so in post-Biblical Amerika. )

And I'm sorry if the reference wasn't obvious, although that teaching is often taken in the context of referring ONLY to money or taxes, when I think Yeshua was teaching a much broader point.

I am referring specifically to the (actually, more than one) teaching associated with the Roman coin (Matt. 22, Mark 12, Luke 20) and the well-known and oft-quoted line to,
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

When combined with the other repeated, and almost equally well-known, admonitions to "choose this day Whom you will serve" (Joshua 24:15) serve God as opposed to Baal, etc, the question is clear:

Do WE belong to God, or to Caesar? Are our marriages ordained by God, or by Caesar?

Combine this understanding with the unequivocal message about slaves, and Who owns a slave's wives and children (Exodus 21; most here know v. 21:10, but may miss what it says in the first 7 verses of the chapter!) -- and we see a pattern. It is also a pattern that is PARTICULARLY poignant in the days when many deceived people object to Caesar wanting to define as 'marriage' that which God calls "abomination" -- but don't understand the problem: REBELLION to God -- because they serve and trust Caesar instead!

Caesar, under the authority of the prince of this world, will define marriage any way the Adversary wishes. We are to "have no fellowship" with those unfruitful works, and ultimately to "come out of" them, before the coming plagues.

Many people are divorced today - having been "married" with Caesar's license, under Caesar's rules, and Caesar's authority. My contention is that Caesar's permission is not only not required for God to join people in marriage, but is not even evidence of it. (And, yes, there is "reproach" associated with rebellion.)

But a women bearing Caesar's Certificate of Divorce from the same (illegitimate) authority that created the "marriage" is certainly divorced, and can be remarried without fear to a God-fearing, believing husband, "only in Him".


Hope that's a bit better.
Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Memphis Dwight]

Well I certainly do agree that there is no authorization in the good Book for the state become a validator of marriage.
Mankind does not need a license from the state to enjoy what God has designed for him.

B y the way, I've been reading some of that Eros Made Sacred. There are a couple of points I take issue with, but for the most part this writing is chock full of great insight.

 

[welltan]

Part of the confusion is because there is a lot of modern easy marriage and easy divorce compared to most any period in history and the understanding of divorce is based on the false understanding of monogamy only. Not loving a woman is not an ending, because God will give you love for your wife if you just seriously ask God for it. Being tired of her, not being attracted to her, and so on are not reasons to get rid of a woman. Adultery is a valid reason, but there is no reason to automatically get rid of her even for adultery, depending on her repentence and how hard your heart is. The basic reason from a monogamous viewpoint to send her away is so that another wife can be found. This of course is entirely unneeded from a plural viewpoint as a second is attainable anyway. I agree that much of the problem is that people are never married in the first place. For a Christian, marriage is that what God has joined together. We can all be very sure that a good percentage of people living together as married, living together, etc. were never joined by God. There is too much emphasis on all these stated vows. As if two people can do some type of vow that vetos the fact that God does not want to join them together. The church and the license are not bigger than God. Just living together for a long time means nothing. God says that what He has joined together let not man part or break up. It seems to me that this infers that what was joined together by something other then God, then man can part or disolve. Do not feel trapped by your historical divorce condition until you find yourself going against something God has done.

 

[DrRay777]

Weltan, I agree with you 1,000%. Is that possible? You are echoing the point that God revealed to me. No offense MD, but the scripture regarding what God has joined together does refer to the previous verses, but more specifically defines them. As Weltan says if God did not join people, they can be separated, no insurmountable problem. He gave good examples of what are some unions that are NOT of God. Mark also made good points, especially with the render unto Caesar thing. I think we are all basically saying the same thing that for TRUE, OBEDIENT Christians who are married at God's direction, there should not even be a consideration of divorce. However, I would say here that truly obedient Christians are a rare commodity.

I leave the following scriptures to support my point and would say that Jesus is not really talking about divorce in this context, but rather that when people love money more than God, they commit adultery against Him...

Luke 16:14-18 -

14Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him. 15And He said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God. 16The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. 17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail. 18Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
(The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

James 4:1-4 -

1Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? 2You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. 3You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. 4Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.(The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[Anonymous]

I am confused on the issue of divorce if the women left a man of a faith she does not believe in but he wanted her to stay. Also I wonder if a women leaves a man who is violent towards her and they are divorced does she become an adultress if she remarries? Most men who are violent towards thier wives do not choose for their wives to leave. Does this mean a woman can not enter into a marraige after being divorced with out committing adultery as long as he is alive?

That is precisely what the verse means. People will try to deflect this in so many ways, come up with all kinds of good rationales why these verses in Scripture don't REALLY mean what they say, but in the end, we will be held accountable to what His Word actually says, not what pop-theology wants us to believe.

Matt. 5:31-32: "And it has been said, 'Whoever puts away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorcement.' But I say to you that whoever puts away (apoluo) his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away (apoluo) commits adultery."

Matt. 19:9-10: "And I say to you, whoever puts away (apoluo) his wife, except on the ground of whoring, and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who has been put away (apoluo) commits adultery. His taught ones said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is good not to marry."

Mark 10:11-12: "And He said to them, "Whoever puts away (apoluo) his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman puts away (apoluo) her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

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

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

1 Cor. 7:10-13: "And to the married I command, not I, but the Master: A wife should not separate (chorizo) from a husband. But if she is indeed separated (chorizo), let her remain unmarried or be restored to favour with her husband, and let a husband not send away (aphiemi) a wife. And to the rest I say, not the Master: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she thinks well to live with him, let him not send her away (aphiemi). And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he thinks well to live with her, let her not send him away (aphiemi) him."

I have studied this subject in Scripture for many years before I was finally willing to accept what clear Scripture teaches on the subject of marital separation and remarriage. There's no getting around the fact that Scripture demonstrates remarriage, in most instances, to be adulterous. The exceptions are few and far between, yet if you look at the body at large, you find everyone thinks the exception is the rule and everyone is free to remarry at will, despite the fact that Scripture condemns this as clear and plain adultery. Smokescreens will not cloud the conclusions for an earnest Believer who is seeking the truth.

As for whatever those marriages which "He hath joined" might mean to someone, it's clear that the only marriages in Scripture that God did NOT join together are those which are specifically forbidden unions in His law. There is no ambiguity as to whether two people are married or not, unless we're looking for a loophole. If you married your sister, or your mother, or the same sex, or your Doberman Pinscher, then you're not married no matter what anyone tells you. Specifically, with regards to the example in Ezra, the people were previously and specifically forbidden in His law NOT to intermarry with those nations, making them invalid. Again, the exception, not the rule. The New Covenant correlation we have is for believers not to intermarry with unbelievers. 1 Cor. 7 explains in detail what is and is not permitted.

If you're seriously interested in this subject and don't mind a non-PC take on, what up until a hundred years ago, was a very well understood concept of adulterous remarriage, feel free to read our series on Divorce and Remarriage at http://www.righteouswarriors.com.

God's Word provides the absolute truth. Whether we will accept it is another thing.

In His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

Do note that every single passage (Matt. 5:32; 19:9-10; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:19; etc.) - properly translated -- uses the words "put away". A lawfully divorced woman no longer has a living husband, or covering.

There is a proper procedure for divorce (Deut. 24:1, repeated explicitly in Deut. 24:3). It should not be done lightly, nor should a wife ever abandon her husband and then commit adultery. But when a man gives a written certificate of divorce, and then puts away (sends away) his then former wife - she is free to remarry, "only in Him". If there is fault to be borne in such a situation - it is the former husband who is responsible (Numbers 30:15).

Study for yourself, Shandy, as Paul advised based on the example of the Bereans, to "see if these things" are true. There is already plenty of "reproach" in the world. As the time for the fulfillment of Isaiah 4:1 draws near, it will become increasingly obvious that the Spirit of Jezebel was never willing to be under the covering of any husband, or of Christ. But there is no sin for which His blood is not a suitable sacrifice.


Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

Do note that every single passage (Matt. 5:32; 19:9-10; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:19; etc.) - properly translated -- uses the words "put away". A lawfully divorced woman no longer has a living husband, or covering.

Do also note that there is no such thing as "divorced" anywhere in Scripture. That is simply a modern term that only refers to what Scripture calls putting away ("shalach" in the Old Testament Hebrew and "apoluo" in the New Testament Greek). They both mean the exact same thing in relation to marital separation.

Shandy, don't let anyone try to trick you into thinking that "separation" and "a certificate of separation" are two different FORMS of separation. They are not. One is the actual act of marital separation, the other is a piece of paper that signifies the fact of his judgment against her. The word "divorced", as we use the term, only exists in Scripture as either "shalach" (OT Hebrew) or "apoluo" (NT Greek). Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or lying.

There is a proper procedure for divorce (Deut. 24:1, repeated explicitly in Deut. 24:3).

Actually, there is a proper procedure for putting away (shalach) in Deut. 24:1 and repeated explicitly in Deut. 24:3.

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

There is only ONE form of marital separation in this entire passage, and it is called "shalach". The certificate of divorcement is not a new (or second) form of marital separation.

"shalach" is a verb, an action. It is translated as "putting away" as refers to the act of separation.

"ciphrah keriythuwth" is a noun, an object. It is translated as "certificate of divorcement" and refers to the piece of paper.

But when a man gives a written certificate of divorce, and then puts away (sends away) his then former wife - she is free to remarry, "only in Him".

Matt. 5:31-32: "And it has been said, 'Whoever puts away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorcement.' But I say to you that whoever puts away (apoluo) his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away (apoluo) commits adultery."

If there is fault to be borne in such a situation - it is the former husband who is responsible (Numbers 30:15).

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

But there is no sin for which His blood is not a suitable sacrifice.

Failure to repent and turn away qualifies. One can repent or one can perish. The choice is always their own.

Matt. 4:17: "From that time Yahushua began to proclaim and to say, "Repent, for the reign of the heavens has drawn near."

Luke 13:5b: "But unless you repent you shall all perish in the same way."

Acts 17:30: "Truly, then, having overlooked these times of ignorance, Elohim now commands all men everywhere to repent,"

Rom. 2:4-6: "Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, and tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the kindness of Elohim leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of Elohim, who "shall render to each one according to his works"

2 Pet. 3:9: "Yahweh is not slow in regard to the promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward us, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

1 Cor. 6:9-11: "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the reign of Elohim? Do not be deceived. Neither those who whore, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor greedy of gain, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers shall inherit the reign of Elohim. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were set-apart, but you were declared right in the Name of the Master Yahushua and by the Spirit of our Elohim."

Gal. 5:19-21: "And the works of the flesh are well-known, which are these: adultery, whoring, uncleanness, indecency, idolatry, drug sorcery, hatred, quarrels, jealousies, fits of rage, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, murders, drunkenness, wild parties, and the like - of which I forewarn you, even as I also said before, that those who practice such things as these shall not inherit the reign of Elohim."

James 4:4: "Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with Elohim? Whoever therefore intends to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of Elohim."

Always in His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

For the [married] woman which has a husband has been bound by Torah to the living husband..."

The Greek word [Strong's g5220 -- transliterated hypandros] which means 'subject to a man' or 'who has a husband' would obviously no longer apply to a woman who has been given a get and put away by that former husband.

God makes such distinctions for a reason, which careful reading of His Word makes clear.

Shandy, you asked a good question which deserved a proper response. My comments were therefore directed at you, and not to David. Responses to his errors have been voluminous, but simply do not bear further obviously pointless repetition. If you would like to read that discussion, please check this thread in the BF archives:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=371&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p3246

Obviously, I disagree with his wresting of Scripture, and the attempt to claim that Deuteronomy 24:1 does not specifically say exactly what it does. Note that the procedure is not given a specific name, regardless of what English words can be applied. But God specifies TWICE (v 1 and v 3) that a man who wants to void his marriage vows is to WRITE her a "bill of divorcement" AND give it into her hand AND send her out of his house. The word "AND" there means that the proper procedure consists of EACH of those parts. He made the proper procedure clear for a reason.

A careful reading of Matthew 5:32 will show that our Savior understood why He used that conjunction - although it is true that bad translations and sloppy use of words have caused confusion for centuries. Our goal here is to edify, not confuse.

But I cannot say it more clearly than God already has, or explain it more succinctly than our Savior did. A woman who has been so separated from her FORMER husband "may go and be another man's" wife. If it were not True, He would not have said it.

I am happy to answer your questions, or provide follow-up, even via private message if necessary - so please feel free to ask anything you would like. But I will not be dragged into another pointless repetition of arguments with David. My apologies.


Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

I disagree with his wresting of Scripture, and the attempt to claim that Deuteronomy 24:1 does not specifically say exactly what it does. Note that the procedure is not given a specific name, regardless of what English words can be applied.

No wresting of Scripture is needed. The procedure IS given a specific name: SHALACH. It's mentioned three times, right there in Deut. 24.

Shandy, perhaps a specific example might demonstrate where the truth in Scripture lies.

Scenario: Alex and Barbara have been married for several years, when Alex decides he wants a divorce. Alex writes her a certificate of divorcement, puts it in her hand himself, then sends her out of his home. Some time later, Barbara meets Carl and they decide to get married.

Under Mark's view (which aligns with the majority of modern Christianity), Barbara no longer has a husband, therefore she is no longer a wife. As such, she is free to marry another husband.

Under my view (which aligns with historical Christianity), Barbara still has a husband and she is still a wife. As such, for her to remarry would constitute adultery for both Barbara and Carl.

Let's see which view is actually supported by Scripture, and why.

First, what does the Old Testament say?

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

Here we have a procedure that details two marital separations. The only difference between the separation in verse 1 and the separation in verse 3 is that the first husband finds a matter of uncoveredness in her, whereas the second husband simply hates her. Other that that, both separations are identical in form.

Now honestly, according to what Deut. 24 says, has this wife been SHALACH or hasn't she been SHALACH? This isn't word games, this is reasoning. Either she has, or she has not, been SHALACH. According to this passage, the wife has actually been SHALACH twice, once in verse 1 and again in verse 3.

Now, what does the New Testament say?

Matt. 5:31-32: "And it has been said, 'Whoever APOLUO his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorcement.' But I say to you that whoever APOLUO his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been APOLUO commits adultery."

Read these two verses carefully. The Pharisees had been saying that if a man were to APOLUO his wife, he should give her a certificate of divorcement. Sound familiar? Yet Jesus countered that nonsense by saying that any man who APOLUO his wife makes her commit adultery (leaving aside the matter of whoring for now). He didn't say "except if he gives her a certificate of divorcement". He plainly said if he APOLUO his wife - PERIOD! Also note that any man who marries a woman who has been APOLUO also commits adultery, which would make no sense at all unless she still has a husband.

Now, did Alex APOLUO his wife Barbara, or didn't he? He even gave her a certificate of divorce, right? Yet he still APOLUO her.

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

Notice the question being asked. Not whether it's right for a man to APOLUO his wife with every PROCEDURE, but rather, whether it's right for a man to APOLUO his wife for every REASON. The question was whether it was lawful to put her away for any REASON, not how it might be accomplished. The Hillelite Pharisees and the Shammaite Pharisees were debating the LAWFUL REASON for putting away a wife. Nobody was suggesting that the certificate wasn't a necessary part of that procedure.

The Hillelite Pharisees allowed divorcement for "any matter" - literally for any fault in the wife that displeased the husband. The Shammaite Pharisees allowed divorcement only for sexual immorality of the wife, whatever that might mean. Both the Hillelite and Shammaite Pharisees agreed that a certificate of divorcement was necessary. That was NEVER the issue. The point is that the disagreement, and the question asked of Jesus, was what lawful REASON was there for a man to lawfully APOLUO his wife?

Then Jesus tells them they should not APOLUO their wives at all...

Matt. 19:7-9: "They said to Him, "Why then did Mosheh command to give a certificate of divorcement, and to APOLUO her?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts, Mosheh allowed you to APOLUO your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever APOLUO his wife, except on the ground of whoring, and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who has been APOLUO commits adultery." His taught ones said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is good not to marry."

His words here are simply too clear to refute. Aside from the whoring issue, whoever APOLUO his wife and marries another commits adultery. Whoever marries a woman who has been APOLUO commits adultery. Even the disciples understood what a radical concept this was, compared to how they understood Deut. 24. "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is good not to marry." How does their incredulous response make any sense if Jesus was simply saying what they knew all along?

Is there anything in the OT Scriptures that even remotely suggests that a man marrying an APOLUO woman commits adultery with her? Is there anything in the NT Scriptures that suggests that a certificate of divorcement overrides Jesus' clear words that remarriage is what causes this adultery to occur?

"whoever puts away his wife...makes her commit adultery" (Matthew 5:32)

"whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32)

"whoever puts away his wife...and marries another, commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9)

"whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9)

"whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her" (Mark 10:11)

"if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:12)

"everyone putting away his wife and marrying another commits adultery" (Luke 16:18)

"everyone marrying her who is put away from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18)

I can't see any reason why Believers would have such a hard time accepting this fact, unless it requires something of them. Perhaps we have friends or family that are in adulterous relations. Perhaps some of us have married a woman who already has a living husband. But our personal circumstances should not dictate how we read God's Word. It does no good to try to use Deut. 24 to undermine everything that Jesus and Paul said regarding putting away and remarriage. The Pharisees tried the same arguments and failed miserably. Attempting to force Deut. 24 to be interpreted in such a perverse way as to throw out clear NT statements is what I would call TRUE "wresting of Scripture".

Shandy, we can only give you the verses to check the Word for yourself. In your heart, you came to the same conclusions from reading NT Scripture. You must decide for yourself what you will ultimately believe.

In His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

djanakes wrote: Mark C: "I disagree with his wresting of Scripture, and the attempt to claim that Deuteronomy 24:1 does not specifically say exactly what it does. Note that the procedure is not given a specific name, regardless of what English words can be applied."

No wresting of Scripture is needed. The procedure IS given a specific name: SHALACH. It's mentioned three times, right there in Deut. 24.

Then "the Truth is not in you", David. Clearly no name is given for the procedure, but to make the utterly asinine claim that some PART of something is identical to some larger thing shows an ignorance of logic, and amounts to calling God a liar -- for reasons that are obvious to anyone capable of reading with even minimal comprehension. And He put it there TWICE, fer cryin' out loud! With verse two in between!

You are without excuse.

I re-read Yeshua's denunciation of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-33) before posting this. Sometimes the word "Hypocrite!" is appropriate; particularly when it is His Word that is being shamelessly "added to", in order to bind burdens on people that He did not!

Under Mark's view...

You do not KNOW my view, David - and you have NOT YET accurately portrayed it, or responded to the issues raised - either here, or in previous similar threads. And I have called you out on this before!!!! Your self-serving claim to know what my "view" is at least consistent with how you treat Scripture: you ignore the parts that don't fit your agenda.

I can't see any reason why Believers would have such a hard time accepting this fact...

Because we can READ it for OURSELVES!

When one ignores context, history, and the entirety of Scripture -- including claims that inconvenient parts are "done away with" while others inexplicably are not -- the result is what our Savior rightfully called hypocrisy - or worse.


Yeshua can be trusted to honor His own Word -- even when He said specifically that He came NOT to do away with His own "teaching and understanding"! Believe Him when He said that "not one yod or tiddle" would pass from His 'law' until "heaven and earth" passed! Those who claim to believe that the "Law of Moses" is somehow done away deny the very NATURE of our Savior!!!!! He said "let God be True" and every man a liar for a reason!

"If you don't believe [Moses'] writings, neither will you believe My Words!" -- (John 5:47)

To the forum at large: I apologize if these words seem too personal. (And see the next post.) But those who deny what our Savior clearly said ABOUT HIMSELF are not speaking His Truth! He does not deny His own Word. And those who will not read what "is Written" do not speak for me, either. (Acts 13:10) Such deception is simply not tolerable.

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it [is] not hidden from thee, neither [is] it far off.

It [is] not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Neither [is] it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

But the word [is] very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing...

Therefore choose life,

Mark

 

[Mark C]

"Forbidding to marry"

To the other readers of the thread:

Some of you will understand my frustration with attempts to twist Scripture - others may not. So I will insert here a word of explanation.

Teachers are held to a higher standard throughout the Bible. Immediately after our Savior confirmed that He did NOT come to do away with His own 'teaching and instruction' (or law - even though that word does not really capture the flavor or intent of the word torah) in Matthew 5:17-18, he went on to caution would-be teachers not even to break the "least" of His commandments and presume to "teach others to do so". His scathing dressing-down of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:13-33 was very much related to their claim to be able to "add to" His commandments, in spite of specific and repeated warnings such as Deut. 12:32.

One of the bedrock principles of proper exegesis of Scripture is that God uses specific words for a reason. There is nothing extranneous in there, nothing trivial. Even His use of apparent redundancy is deliberate, and meaningful.

Satan twists Scripture by changing the meaning of words, and "adding to" things that God said. Note that the very first lie in all of the Bible is based upon EXACTLY that sort of "wresting":

"Hath God not said...?"

And what was Eve's response? Inadvertently or not, she ADDED TO the simple commandment of God, and gave the serpent the opportunity he needed:
Do not eat of it, NOR TOUCH IT...

If "putting away" and giving a wife a "certificate" of divorce were IDENTICALLY THE SAME THING, God would not have made a distinction! And He would not have seen fit to repeat the lawful procedure, virtually word for word, TWICE!

Furthermore, the history of our Savior's teaching on the topic shows that some men of the time were simply SENDING THEM AWAY, without cause, without covering, and without giving them a "certificate of divorce" either! This was shameful - because it left such women without support, and without options! But the 'deadbeat' scumbags who otherwise could not AFFORD to take a second wife, or hard-heartedly simply wanted to be RID of the first, were doing exactly that. And today is often no different!

Is it any surprise that our King and Savior - who didn't CHANGE even the smallest part of His Word - would object to such a twisting of something as important as the marriage Covenant, and clarify EXACTLY what "was Written"?

And what was included in that which Paul called "doctrines of demons" in I Timothy 4:1-3?

Yes, I get angry when people try to say that "putting away" and "putting away plus a certificate of divorce", allowing remarriage" are identical. I get angry when people try to ascribe sins to our Savior that would have made Him a liar, guilty of the same hypocrisy as the scribes and Pharisees, and therefore NOT Who He said He was. Were that the case, He "would have told us" so. To fail to correct such a failure is to give Satan a stronghold in our lives which he knows all too well how to exploit.

Perhaps Adam did not do a good enough job of teaching Eve the single commandment of God. Teachers are held to a higher standard. And so are husbands.

We must be very careful about "adding to" His commandments. And that includes "forbidding to marry", when He explicitly said otherwise!


Baruch haba b'shem Adonai,

Mark