Is Divorce A Sin?

[Anonymous]

And what if the man were to have misrepresented himself to the woman?

Would you give us an example of "misrepresentation"? The only example I can think of in Scripture of any form of misrepresentation was regarding Jacob and Leah. In our day and age, we would cry foul and claim the marriage is a fraud, unjust, annulled, etc. but Jacob recognized the fact that he lay with her and they became one flesh. He agreed to take her as his wife and the deed was done. He knew he was obligated to fulfill his end of the covenant, whether he was tricked or not.

David

 

[sixth_heretic]

And what if the man were to have misrepresented himself to the woman?

Jesus said only the man can divorce his wife and only for the cause of fornication. You can not add to it or take away from it. do we live in grace? Yes. Can we take advantage of that Grace? yes. But what we must never do is say that scripture no longer applies to us. To do that takes away from scripture. To do that gets your name taken out of the book of life. To do that gets you a ticket to hell.

 

[Mark C]

For one to divorce another is not always sin - period!

,

I hope, Pastor Randy, that you do not misconstrue my comments, since on most aspects of this topic I think we are in agreement. My concerns center around a couple of very specific distinctions. Unfortunately, most of these are in areas that (much like polygyny, and probably for the same reasons, and by the same author of deception, no doubt) show how the "commandments of God" have been replaced by the traditions of men.

I got a bit behind on a couple of other posts as well somehow; perhaps by addressing a few very specific corrections there, some of this will be made clear.

I'll start by repeating again the VERY IMPORTANT correction to most modern translations of Matthew 19:9, by a modification to SH's copy (see the article linked above for details, and both the Hebrew and Greek references):

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, causeth HER to comit adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away [without that proof of a lawful DIVORCE] doth commit adultery."

Remember that a woman who was "put away" WITHOUT a lawful 'get' or certificate of divorce was NOT ABLE to remarry! This would constitute adultery. (Aside: for this reason was the custom of men giving their wives a get prior to going off to war established. Men who otherwise went "MIA" in battle might leave their unfortunate wives in a horrible state of uncertainty - not widows, yet without covering, support, or ability to lawfully remarry. It shows why the DISTINCTION between lawfully divorced and 'put away' was so important.)

The reason that this comment is so confused is because of the failure to discern the distinction that Yeshua is making, sixth_heretic:

Jesus said that the oldtestament only alowed divorce because of the jews hardness of heart. But Jesus amended that saying you can only put away your wife for the cause of fornication.
Jesus was not confused on this subject. The only time Divorce is lawful is if there is fornication.

IN NO WAY is He changing His Word. He is teaching discernment.

David, for the most part your analysis is sound. On this there is agreement, and the issue is clear:

It seems clear that it is the acting treacherously against the wife of one's youth that is the subject of objection here. God says He hates "shalach" here in Mal. 2:16, yet it is the same word He uses in Jer. 3:8 when He Himself "shalach"'s Israel. The difference is not merely a certificate of cutting off, but rather the treacherous act the husband is committing against her without cause. When the husband SHALACH (sends away) his wife, it is supposed to be a punishment; a necessary consequence of marital unfaithfulness on the part of the wife. Without the required "matter of uncoveredness", the SHALACH (sending away) is unwarranted, UNJUSTIFIED, despite any certificate of KERIYTHUWTH (cutting off from marriage).

But here is what I propose be considered:

It is not "despite" any certificate (get) -- the point is not justification. The certificate of divorce is PROTECTION for the woman!!!! Without it, she CANNOT remarry (and Yeshua made this point well.)

A woman without covering was in a bad place. To have a certificate of divorce allowed her at least an option of remarriage. One who was "put away" WITHOUT that get was being PUNISHED - such as for adultery. Re-read what God, in His mercy, did for His idolatrous wives: A certificate of divorce (Jer. 3 et al) was "unmerited favor" that they DID NOT DESERVE!!!*

To "put her away" WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE (sexual sin) was treachery! (It was often done by treacherous men, with hard hearts, who DID NOT WANT to meet the requirements of Exodus 21 to take another wife. IT WAS CHEAPER and EASIER to just "get rid of" the old model! This, of course, is what has been INSTITUTIONALIZED in modern Amerika via Serial Monogamy Idolatry. :twisted: )

Divorce is not sin. And God didn't change His mind about it, or get it wrong when He did it, or taught us about it. It is difficult to understand what He says about marriage, including polygyny, without understanding the whole "big picture". And the changes in language and culture, almost all inspired by paganism, hard-heartedness, or simple service to the prince of this world, have further obscured the Truth. But His Word is utterly consistent, and He changes not.

Blessings,

Mark

---------------------------
* And this becomes a topic for later discussion, which I have recently given considerable thought and prayerful consideration to:

A divorced wife, who remarried, is NEVER permitted to return to her first husband! This would defile the land. One who gives his wife a get must bear this in mind; he CANNOT take her back, even if her later husband dies or divorces her.

What about God, and His two wives?

The answer that I propose is: There IS no other husband who can lawfully marry them! He alone is worthy. They can, and will, repent and return to Him!

 

[Anonymous]

It is not "despite" any certificate (get) -- the point is not justification. The certificate of divorce is PROTECTION for the woman!!!! Without it, she CANNOT remarry (and Yeshua made this point well.)

I can see how the certificate of divorcement might appear to protect the woman's rights somehow, but the obvious effect of this interpretation is serial fornication by means of paper. A man can marry, enjoy and dismiss as many women as he wants, provided he gives each of them a lawful certificate of divorcement and sends them on their way with the knowledge that he can never have them back again. It turns justified punishment into a permission slip. With this understanding, what prevents the man from committing serial monogyny as our western culture does? After all, if Jesus in Matt. 19 was merely saying that a man must give her a certificate of divorcement and all is good, then He would have been in complete agreement with the Pharisees.

Look at what the text actually says:

Question: "Is it right for a man to put away his wife for every reason?"

Answer: "what Elohim has joined together, let man not separate."

Question: "Why then did Mosheh command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"

Answer: "Because of the hardness of your hearts, Mosheh allowed you to put away your wives"

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

Jesus didn't say "except with a certificate of divorcement", He said "except on the ground of whoring". Jesus didn't bring up the certificate once, only the Pharisees did.

Please understand that I'm not saying that in cases of justified divorcement (ie. whoring on the part of the woman), the man isn't required to give a certificate of divorcement to her. That's not what I'm saying at all. Rather, the certificate ITSELF does not justify the divorcement, only the whoring does. The certificate is the evidence that solidifies that he is, in fact, putting her away for her whoring by his own free will. It is his choice and his choice alone whether to write her off or not. The wife cannot write herself off.

To have a certificate of divorce allowed her at least an option of remarriage. One who was "put away" WITHOUT that get was being PUNISHED - such as for adultery. Re-read what God, in His mercy, did for His idolatrous wives: A certificate of divorce (Jer. 3 et al) was "unmerited favor" that they DID NOT DESERVE!!!*

A divorced wife, who remarried, is NEVER permitted to return to her first husband! This would defile the land. One who gives his wife a get must bear this in mind; he CANNOT take her back, even if her later husband dies or divorces her.

What about God, and His two wives?

The answer that I propose is: There IS no other husband who can lawfully marry them! He alone is worthy. They can, and will, repent and return to Him!

My eschatology is likely quite different from yours, so I see the situation very differently. I see no evidence in Scripture that God ever took either the northern or southern kingdoms back as his wife once he gave them certificates of divorcement (Israel in Jer. 3, Judah in Rev. 5), but I do see where He poured out His "certificate of divorcement" for Judah's increased whoring and adultery, above and beyond Israel's. It certainly is not portrayed as "unmerited favor" but as "justified punishment". Both wives were cut off for their betrayal. God never acts against His own law. If a man is prohibited from taking a woman back after writing her a certificate of divorcement, neither will God. I don't want to derail this divorce discussion, so forgive me if this last bit is making no sense. I'm simply pointing out that there is no need for thinking that God will be taking either back as wives again. The old marriage covenant is over and the new marriage covenant has begun.

David

 

[sweetlissa]

Would you give us an example of "misrepresentation"? The only example I can think of in Scripture of any form of misrepresentation was regarding Jacob and Leah. In our day and age, we would cry foul and claim the marriage is a fraud, unjust, annulled, etc. but Jacob recognized the fact that he lay with her and they became one flesh. He agreed to take her as his wife and the deed was done. He knew he was obligated to fulfill his end of the covenant, whether he was tricked or not.


Say you were giving advice to your sister or your daughter. What if after the marriage she discovered he was guilty of some horrible crime like Rape or something like that. Or that he was secretly married to someone else. (Bigamy not polygyny.) What would you tell your sister or daughter in that circumstance?

 

[Mark C]

A man can marry, enjoy and dismiss as many women as he wants, provided he gives each of them a lawful certificate of divorcement...

This is a mis-characterization of my point. I had hoped that it would be obvious I am NOT arguing for serial, no-fault, or whatever other paganized Amerikan bastardization of marriage may currently be in vogue. The Bible provides clear cases where divorce, according to the process described, is PERMITTED. If it is to be done, it should be done correctly, in accord with the Word. That was the issue here.

My own opinion is (see the imagery and history of the prescription for the jealous husband; it is primarily about RESTORATION of relationship) that even in cases of adultery, there is generally no REQUIREMENT for divorce! I Corinthians 7 teaches the same lesson (and it is currently one that is VERY close to my own heart!):

God's Word is about redemption, and restoration of right relationship. Divorce, while permitted, is not ever to be sought after. But neither is a divorced woman to be considered "damaged goods" - as is all too often the implication.

 

[sixth_heretic]

Say you were giving advice to your sister or your daughter. What if after the marriage she discovered he was guilty of some horrible crime like Rape or something like that. Or that he was secretly married to someone else. (Bigamy not polygyny.) What would you tell your sister or daughter in that circumstance?

Listen. bad situations are bad situation. It is what we do in bad situations that makes us either Godly christains or the fakers.

 

[Mark C]

My eschatology is likely quite different from yours, so I see the situation very differently. I see no evidence in Scripture that God ever took either the northern or southern kingdoms back as his wife once he gave them certificates of divorcement (Israel in Jer. 3, Judah in Rev. 5), but I do see where He poured out His "certificate of divorcement" for Judah's increased whoring and adultery, above and beyond Israel's. It certainly is not portrayed as "unmerited favor" but as "justified punishment". Both wives were cut off for their betrayal. God never acts against His own law. If a man is prohibited from taking a woman back after writing her a certificate of divorcement, neither will God.

Our eschatology does differ. although I have not, nor will I, claim that He has yet taken either of these wives back.

But there is a lot of prophecy that says He WILL. I look forward to the marriage supper of the Lamb, at the future Feast of Tabernacles, myself.

 

[Anonymous]

A man can marry, enjoy and dismiss as many women as he wants, provided he gives each of them a lawful certificate of divorcement...

This is a mis-characterization of my point.

But it is the inevitable conclusion of such a point. Whatever our intentions, however we phrase it, if the man has the right to give a certificate of divorcement to his wife FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN WHORING and to send her away, then we're saying exactly what the Pharisees did. How is this different from the position the Pharisees took?

The Bible provides clear cases where divorce, according to the process described, is PERMITTED. If it is to be done, it should be done correctly, in accord with the Word.

Let me make sure I'm hearing you correctly here. You're saying that it is the PROCESS of divorcement (write certificate, hand over certificate, send her away), rather than the REASON for divorcement, that determined whether a divorce was permitted? Is that essentially how you see it? I'm desperately re-reading Matthew 19 and I can't see how this view can be drawn out of the text. Every way I look at this passage, Jesus specifically shoots down that idea. They bring up certificate. He says no. They ask why not? He brings up whoring as the only valid reason. Maybe I'm just too tired to see what you're seeing here.

My own opinion is...that even in cases of adultery, there is generally no REQUIREMENT for divorce! I Corinthians 7 teaches the same lesson

In this, we are in complete agreement. Divorcement is not a requirement, but I believe Scripture is equally clear that divorcement is a punishment in every case.

David

 

[Anonymous]

Would you give us an example of "misrepresentation"? The only example I can think of in Scripture of any form of misrepresentation was regarding Jacob and Leah. In our day and age, we would cry foul and claim the marriage is a fraud, unjust, annulled, etc. but Jacob recognized the fact that he lay with her and they became one flesh. He agreed to take her as his wife and the deed was done. He knew he was obligated to fulfill his end of the covenant, whether he was tricked or not.

Say you were giving advice to your sister or your daughter. What if after the marriage she discovered he was guilty of some horrible crime like Rape or something like that. Or that he was secretly married to someone else. (Bigamy not polygyny.) What would you tell your sister or daughter in that circumstance?

I don't have a sister, but I have two daughters, and I would tell them the same thing I would tell anyone else. If the husband is guilty of a crime, he should be brought to judgment for his crime. His unjust acts in no way permit her to now commit adultery with another man, unless of course the governmental powers that be decide that his life is forfeit. While he lives, he remains her husband and she cannot be with another man without committing adultery. I don't have to like it, but I do have to acknowledge it. God's Word is simply too clear on this point.

Please understand my heart here. I'm not trying to be legalistic about this point, but I am trying to remain faithful to God's Word on this subject. We cannot make allowances for "extenuating circumstances" without making lawful divorce subjective again. "Well, he beats our kids." "He is a compulsive smoker." "He doesn't like my cooking." "He told my mother off." "He raped the little girl down the street." WOAH! Hang on...NOW we think there's a HUGE difference, but in reality, there is no difference as to whether she has a husband. The only difference is in the enormity of his crime and his punishment. If the punishment warrants the death penalty, then she's free to marry another Believer once he is put to death. If they decide instead to lock him up for 150+ years, she is not free to remarry. This is why it is so critical to raise up our children to understand the importance of oaths and to choose wisely. "So long as you both shall live" should not be treated as an after-thought.

David

 

[Chaplains Rose]

In my limited knowledge about what the Bible says about divorce being a sin , I would say divorce is a sin... But what makes it a worse sin than any other sin that we commit? In God's eyes one sin is as the other,except for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and it's in mans eyes only that we put a" higher value " on some sins and a "lesser value" on others. It's only through the grace of God and the shed blood of Jesus that our sins are forgiven and I was under the impression that includes all of our sins, not just some. I'm not deep into theology and my faith is simple BUT, I know that when I sin I have to suffer the consequences of my sin but they are forgiven. All I have to do is repent and ask for forgiveness.
Chaplains Rose

The below is from the Chaplain, who is for some reason, having trouble posting to the board.

Being the simple, non-seminary trained, always learning, ole country preacher that I am, I have a question or two for those here that seem to be more educated than I. It is my understanding that should a man have "relations" with a married woman then he and said woman are to be stoned for this offense. If that is the case, then is it right for a man or a woman to divorce their spouse if the MAN is the one who is out doing the FORNICATING?? The wife has done nothing wrong, but the MAN has. IMHO, seeing as the MAN is the one in the wrong here, and seeing as the MAN would have been stoned, then a divorce decree would take the place of the stoning as it separates the man and wife and causes the wife to become a "widow" of sorts, though the husband has not been stoned (though he still should be, IMHO). Seeing as I am out here in the Gulf working on just 6 hr of sleep over 3 days, and do not have any of my reference material, I submit this for your discussion.
Chaplain

 

[^_^]

Yes, the man having sexual relations with another man's wife is basically dead, as well as the woman he's laying with. This is not fornication, it's adultery, and it is something Yahweh said needs to be purged from the land.

As far as divorce given for the hardness of hearts, let's be abundantly clear, one cannot initiate divorce while claiming innocence unless it is for a matter of uncleaness (which I understand to mean misrepresentation of chastity or character. ie the woman pretended to be a devout Israelite but she was a closet idol worshipper). The word Yahushua used was porneia, I believe indicating more than simply sexual sin being the exception for divorce.

strongs: porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

thayers: porneia
Thayer Definition:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

 

[Anonymous]

I would say divorce is a sin... But what makes it a worse sin than any other sin that we commit?

In many cases, divorce is a sin, but only because it is unjust. Justified divorce (as defined in Scripture, not what we THINK may be justified) is never a sin, but rather a valid recourse. That being said, there is no difference between committing unjustified divorce or committing theft or committing murder or committing sodomy. Sin is sin and it should be avoided at all costs, but one sin is no better or worse than another. All of us, at various stages of our lives, have committed sins that we have since repented of and been forgiven for. The point here is to maintain the conviction that unlawful divorce is still sin, regardless. We must teach our children and grandchildren the truth. We won't avoid what we don't recognize.

It is my understanding that should a man have "relations" with a married woman then he and said woman are to be stoned for this offense. If that is the case, then is it right for a man or a woman to divorce their spouse if the MAN is the one who is out doing the FORNICATING?? The wife has done nothing wrong, but the MAN has. IMHO, seeing as the MAN is the one in the wrong here, and seeing as the MAN would have been stoned, then a divorce decree would take the place of the stoning as it separates the man and wife and causes the wife to become a "widow" of sorts, though the husband has not been stoned (though he still should be, IMHO).

If the man lays with another man's wife, this particular form of fornication is adultery and they were both to be put to death according to God's law. Seeing as how there is no punishment for adultery these days, that's a valid point. One could make the argument that the husband SHOULD be put to death for his adultery, thereby freeing his wife to remarry. The law was written from the perspective of it being followed in all areas. I know that during the Roman occupation, the Jews were prevented from performing their own executions. Does anyone have any historical evidence, one way or the other, whether the Jews were permitted to stone adulterers and adulteresses in the first century?

David

 

[Mark C]

...[re: mischaracterization]

But it is the inevitable conclusion of such a point.

Not at all, if you read carefully.

Let me make sure I'm hearing you correctly here. You're saying that it is the PROCESS of divorcement (write certificate, hand over certificate, send her away), rather than the REASON for divorcement, that determined whether a divorce was permitted?

Not at all!

...Maybe I'm just too tired to see what you're seeing here.

I have never disputed the obvious exception clause that the Messiah makes. Further, we agree that the existence of an EXCEPTION is not at all the same as a REQUIREMENT. Divorce is PERMITTED under some circumstances, not required. And IF it is to be done at all, it should be done in accord with His requirements.

But do NOT CONFUSE "putting away" with divorce!!!

Yeshua was making more than one correction*, but the primary one has been obscured. Men were getting RID OF ("putting away") their wives for invalid reasons. AND they were doing it wrongly besides. THEY were "causing her" to commit adultery in such cases - by violating God's requirements! Where the wife was ALREADY guilty of sexual sin, there was likewise no REQUIREMENT for a get (certificate of divorce). (But God, in His grace, set an example IMO by doing so anyway, but putting "backsliding Israel" away, and giving her a certificate of divorce. -- Jer. 3:8)

The summary from the article I have posted several times is as clear as I can restate it:

It must be remembered that in Matthew 5 Yeshua 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, [the author also] 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."

All of the words here are very important (and it is worth remembering that Yeshua almost certainly used the Hebrew or Aramaic words, rather than the Greek, in His teaching.) "Putting away" WITHOUT a certificate of divorce is generally NOT permitted - except for sexual sin. I Cor. 7:11 simply says "let not the husband put away his wife". The giving of a certificate of divorce is the proper END of the process of "putting away" for reasons OTHER than sexual sin, so that such a wife is not CAUSED to commit adultery. And to this I add my interpretation of God's example: He gave "backsliding Israel" a certificate of divorce, in SPITE of her idolatry/adultery. "Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith YHVH; I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful...Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings." (Jer 3:12, 22)



---------------------------
* And there is more than one such reference.

 

[sixth_heretic]

But do NOT CONFUSE "putting away" with divorce!!!

Rom.7
[2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
1Cor.7
[39] The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

When a woman sleeps with another man means that she is no longer bound to her first husband but is now bound to another. This is why this is the only reason for DIVORCE. Divorce is just a physical manifestation of putting away.

Matt.5
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

they are the same thing.
So with that understood.

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

I hope that clears that up.

So yes it is a sin to divorce but it is not a sin that is greater then another.

 

[Anonymous]

I have never disputed the obvious exception clause that the Messiah makes. Further, we agree that the existence of an EXCEPTION is not at all the same as a REQUIREMENT. Divorce is PERMITTED under some circumstances, not required. And IF it is to be done at all, it should be done in accord with His requirements.

Absolutely. Giving her a certificate of divorcement and sending her away as punishment for her whoring is not a requirement, it is simply an option.

Men were getting RID OF ("putting away") their wives for invalid reasons. AND they were doing it wrongly besides. THEY were "causing her" to commit adultery in such cases - by violating God's requirements!

So can we then agree that the husband first must have a valid JUSTIFICATION for giving her a certificate of divorcement and sending her away, and that this justification is clearly spelled out in Scripture? Once that condition has been met, then, and ONLY then, can the husband actually write said certificate, hand it to her, and send her away. He is not REQUIRED to, but he most certainly is NOT PERMITTED to, unless the aforementioned justification condition applies. Are we simply saying the same thing in different ways? My primary concern is to prevent a man from unlawfully sending away his wife (with or without any certificate) unless there is first a justification that she deserves such punishment.

It must be remembered that in Matthew 5 Yeshua 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)

I have tremendous problems with the author's apparent understanding of the term "apoluo" as meaning "without a certificate of divorce". That is not at all what the word means, nor does the Greek passage say anything close to what the author implies. Jesus never once brought up the certificate, and "apoluo", with or without a certificate, is still "apoluo". It merely means "sending away". The word carries no connotation of the existence or non-existence of a certificate of divorcement. The logical conclusion of "Yeshua was not condemning divorce, but rather the putting away of a wife without a bill of divorcement" is that WITH a bill of divorcement, Yeshua was not condemning divorce. The focus is changed from the purpose to the mechanics.

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

Now let's insert the author's views into the text, as if this is what Jesus REALLY meant to say:

Matthew 19:9: "And I say to you, whoever puts away his wife without a writing of divorcement, except on the ground of whoring, and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who has been put away without a writing of divorcement commits adultery."

If we honestly take Jesus' plain words to mean this, then how do we explain the very next verse?

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

Why didn't Jesus come back with, "What? Is it too difficult for you to remember to write her a certificate of divorcement before tossing her away? You would let something as small as a writing a certificate keep you from being married? How hard would it be to write this BEFORE you send her away?"

Clearly, the disciples understood that if they put their wives away for any reason, EXCEPT for whoring, they would be unable to marry another without committing adultery. If the issue was as simple as remembering to write that little certificate, there would have been no problems with what Jesus was saying. They understood He was fundamentally changing their ideas of what constituted a valid "putting away" and they were blown away. The clear meaning was the permanence of marriage, not the validity of divorce. The whole passage from verse 3 to 9, is that marriage is not permitted to be disposed of except for the case of whoring. Divorcement is a punishment and must be deserved if it is to be applied.

So here's how I understand the sequence of events. Please correct me if I'm missing something:

1) The woman commits whoring. This is a prerequisite to EVERYTHING that follows and is required for any lawful sending away.

2) The man may or may not decide that she no longer has favor in his eyes and determine to send her away.

3) If the man has decided to send her away for her whoring, he must first write a certificate of divorcement, then hand it to her, then send her out of his house.

4) At this point, both the man and the woman may lawfully remarry without committing adultery.

If this is how you see things, then we are in agreement and we're just debating semantics. If this isn't how you see things, could you please spell out in a similar fashion the sequence of events as you understand them? It might help me see where we're getting mixed up.

With love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

David -

before I repeat too much, I have a question. Have you actually read the article with the link above, entitled "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage"? It is much better to start with an understanding of both the specific quotations, and corrections, of Yeshua's statements, as well as the specific Scriptures to which He was referring. (and that includes the relevant passages from Deuteronomy 24, and Malachi 2).

"Finds some uncleanness in her" or that she has "no favor in his eyes" are both considerably more broad expressions than specific sexual sins - although those things ARE clearly outlined in the Torah. They explain why the question was asked of Yeshua; note that He was not "changing" anything in Scripture, but teaching. But note as well that the PROCESS was also cause for His concern. Men had again adopted "traditions" that amounted to failure to HONOR THEIR COVENANTS with their wives! They were "putting away" women treacherously, and CAUSING THEM to commit adultery by that breach, while trying to avoid their obligations (such as Exodus 21:10). (And sixth_heretic, this AGAIN addresses the error of omission you try to ignore.)

I believe that the rendering of Matthew 5:31-32 in there is the best and most cogent I have seen, and is consistent with the other relevant passages as well. If you are not clear on those distinctions, nothing else will follow (and that includes your #1 assumption).

Blessings,

Mark

 

[Mark C]

Sorry folks, but this is just plain inexcusable:

they ["divorce" and "putting away", as well as both the different Hebrew and Greek words] are the same thing.
So with that understood.

That's not merely logical tripe, but pure intellectual laziness. No Berean would have put up with it.

Don't expect to get away with it either, SH.

 

[Mark C]

This is a very good question, Chaplain - and one that has been asked within my house as well:

It is my understanding that should a man have "relations" with a married woman then he and said woman are to be stoned for this offense. If that is the case, then is it right for a man or a woman to divorce their spouse if the MAN is the one who is out doing [ADULTERY - as properly corrected by ^_^] ?? The wife has done nothing wrong, but the MAN has. IMHO, seeing as the MAN is the one in the wrong here, and seeing as the MAN would have been stoned, then a divorce decree would take the place of the stoning as it separates the man and wife...

It makes very good logical sense that such a man -- were we a Biblically-literate, much less practicing, society -- would no longer be husband to such a newly-widowed wife. However, even the story of the woman allegedly 'caught' in adultery and brought before Yeshua makes it clear that problems arise (where's the man? -- obviously, among others).

I see at least one possible "bottom line". Such a woman, today, whose husband is NOT dead, may be justified in "departing" the marriage (especially given that additional justifications, such as the obvious Exodus 21:10-11, or the "departure of the unbeliever", may exist) --
but MANY GOD-FEARING WOMEN MAY SUFFER DOUBT about the validity of their subsequent marriage in the eyes of God!

Certainly the importance of a "certificate of divorce", signed by the adulterous husband and put into her hand, is of great value in meeting both the lawful and emotional needs of both the woman and a new, God-fearing, husband as well in such a case. But is it enough?

In other words, is a "divorce" in a SECULAR court, as opposed to a "get" before God, valid?


At the risk of opening yet another can o' worms - I'd even add the following "informed speculation":

(yes, and this ties into the whole related discussion of the "Caesar's License Abomination")

In today's largely post-Christian Amerika, that marriage ending in adultery is likely to have been made under Caesar's authority, in front of Caesar's agents, under Caesar's law instead of God's, and dissolved in Caesar's courts, under Caesar's terms.

I have summarized this argument to those under similar circumstances as the following:

IF you first marriage before Caesar was valid, THEN the divorce in Caesar's court, signed by that husband's hand, was equally valid:

- Joshua was told by God to "make no treaty with the inhabitants of the land." Joshua was deceived by the Gibeonites. Even though the common law of man recognizes that fraud vitiates (nullifies) a contract, God held Israel to that contract.

Multiple witnesses (Joshua, Isaiah, and Yeshua, among others) tell us to "choose this day Whom we will serve", and that we cannot serve two masters, or serve both God and Caesar, or God and mammon. Yeshua made this same point by adding that we are to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." ( Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17: Luke 20:25 )

Any marriage licensed by Caesar, is thus made by Caesar, under Caesar's law. A marriage under Caesar is ended in Caesar's court, via Caesar's process, and his remedy. A certificate of divorce, signed by the other party to Caesar's contract - the adulterer - is delivered by Caesar's agent into the abandoned wife's hand. Caesar's process is thus satisfied, and so was God's - BECAUSE GOD ACKNOWLEDGES OUR CHOICE TO RENDER UNTO CAESAR, whether He has advised us to "come out" or not!


And, yes, far better to not participate in that false system. Even so, once one is out - stay out.

Hope that's at least food for thought...


Blessings,
Mark

 

[^_^]

my thoughts on the subject of "Caesar's License Abomination" is that a get signed by a husband whether it's of his own paper or on Caesar's paper is a get nonetheless. If he signed it releasing the woman, whether she forced it in court or not, then it becomes the document proving the dissolution of the marriage. Was it justified before Yahweh? That's not for me to decide, thankfully, but it is a document the woman can have in hand proving that she does not have a husband.

BTW, Yahushua did acknowledge the validity of the marriages of the Samaritan woman, all 5 of them, and he also acknowledged that he knew she was living without covenant with the man she was with. Was this what he wanted? Of course not, but what did he tell her? Did he say she was without hope and mercy in the world? It appears he wanted her to ask of him living water, I say that's what we also should be looking for instead of carrying around all these dead bones.