Is Divorce A Sin?

[Mark C]

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.

Very good point, ^_^.

But if I read your ending right, (re: dead bones) I think I disagree a bit. Unlike the debate about Yeshua's possible marriage, the question of whether someone we know or love is eligible for marriage is potentially a VERY important point -- for those who seek to walk in obedience.

 

[^_^]

no, the discussion here I don't see as dead bones, but the baggage that people bring with them from the religious backgrounds they come from is. I've dealt with it too many times today, and I'm tired of my own...
So yeah, that was a comment more of frustration with baggage than anything to do with the topic. :?

 

[Anonymous]

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).

I did read the article and no correction of Yeshua's words are needed, but I must confess that I see several problems with some of the points contained within, most notably:

It is doubtful that Christians who do not differentiate between divorce and putting away understand what their interpretation implies.

I understand that the author sees a difference between "divorce" and "putting away". What I see are two words in Hebrew: keriythuwth and shalach. The first means "cutting off from marriage". The second means "sending away". There is no Hebrew word that means "divorce", although I understand that he is referring to "keriythuwth" when he says divorce in reference to the Old Testament.

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

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

"shalach" is what God did to Israel in Jer. 3:8: "...I had put her away (shalach) and given her a certificate of divorce (keriythuwth)..."

"shalach" is what God said He hates in Mal. 2:16: "For I hate divorce (shalach)..."

I recognize our English Bibles tend to use the same English word, "divorce" to represent two different Hebrew words, namely, "keriythuwth" in Deut. 24:1 where it usually is translated as "let him give her a certificate of divorcement" and "shalach" in Mal. 2:16 where it is usually translated as "For I hate divorce". This translation is unfortunate and I believe this is the confusion that the author is intending to correct, but we must be clear regarding this particular point...

In Mal. 2:16, God says he hates the very thing that He Himself had to do to Israel in Jer. 3:8. Although the word "keriythuwth" exists in Jer. 3:8 as well, we need to be clear that "shalach" is present in both passages. God hates "shalach" and nevertheless, He "shalach" Israel.

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 stipulates three elements that comprise a lawful divorce: 1) the husband must write out a certificate of divorce, 2) he must deliver the certificate to his wife, and 3) he must put her out of his house and send her away. All three elements are required for a divorce to be recognized by Yahweh as lawful.

And therein lies the problem. I would include the first and most significant of all elements. Deut. 24:1: "...if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her..."

Without this required element, there can be no lawful divorce. PERIOD. This point seems to be lost on the author and is where I have a major problem with his interpretation. Lawful "no more marriage"-ness requires FOUR elements, not merely three.

1. The husband finds a matter of uncoveredness in her and she loses favour in his eyes as a result.
2. He must write out a certificate of divorcement.
3. He must hand the certificate of divorcement to her himself.
4. He must send her out of his house.

The author seems to be primarily concerned with the technicalities of the divorcement procedure, and while that is all well and good, I'm more concerned with the justification of the procedure in the first place.

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

Jesus brings up the common process of putting away by means of certificate and shoots it down. The certificate alone wasn't enough. But *I* say to you, putting away except for whoring causes adultery. He doesn't even bother with the certificate, because it's beside the point. The certificate wasn't the issue; whoring was. The certificate issue was what they were already familiar with, the whoring issue was a revelation. They had been abusing Deut. 24:1 to mean any old thing, even burning the dinner, as justification for divorce. Jesus corrected their misunderstanding in Matt. 5:32. Even with a certificate, anyone putting away his wife except for whoring causes adultery. Plain and simple. Jesus was calling them on the carpet for their treacherous dealing with their wives, and tells them point blank that outside the matter of uncoveredness or whoring, adultery is the result.

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).

I've carefully read that section several times but his assumptions do not come from the text itself. He is having to insert words and whole sentences into the actual statements of Jesus to add to their meaning, in order to get them to fit with his preconceived ideas. That is not exegesis but eisegesis. I would ask him these two questions:

#1. What Greek word is used to describe "divorcing" a woman by means of a certificate of divorcement?

#2. What Greek word is used to describe "divorcing" a woman without a certificate of divorcement?

If he's honest, he will admit it's the same Greek word. There is no need to twist Matt. 5:32 around to try to force Jesus into saying "without a certificate of divorcement", especially as He just brought up that accepted understanding in Matt. 5:31. I believe God is a master communicator and He knows how to say what He means to. Now, I'm not saying that a certificate of divorcement is not required for a valid separation, but rather, it is the last step of the process. A certificate of divorcement in no way invalidates the remainder of His statement. If the wife has no matter of uncoveredness or whoring, then no number of certificates and no sending her away will change the fact that they remain married. The prerequisite condition has not been met, and without it, the divorce is not lawful. That's the only point I was trying to make. If I've stepped on anyone's toes, I pray they will forgive me.

David

P.S. Rereading the article again, I see that my concerns were well-founded...

in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, divorce is not limited to only cases of unchastity or fornication, nor is this exception clause – as interpreted by modern Christianity – found in the law. Deuteronomy 24:1-2 permits a man to divorce his wife for no other reason than that she no longer has favor in his eyes

And this is precisely where that line of reasoning inevitably leads. Taking the "if she finds no favor in his eyes" while ignoring the "because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her", the author concludes that Deut. 24, in his own words, "permits a man to divorce his wife for no other reason than that she no longer has favor in his eyes". Therefore, according to his view, Jesus could not have meant what He said in Matt. 5:31-32 and Matt. 19:9 because he would be in conflict with the idea that Deut. 24:1 permits a man to "divorce" his wife for any reason.

Instead of being at odds with the law of Yahweh, Yeshua expounded upon and confirmed that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the standard for divorce and remarriage, except in cases of fornication, which only require the putting away of an unlawful partner. This interpretation of the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 is the only interpretation that harmonizes with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and does not put Yeshua in conflict with Yahweh.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the author's conclusion that a man may lawfully dismiss his wife for any reason, provided he perform the certificate ritual perfectly. This understanding make a joke of Jesus' clear words. Why did He say anything at all if His words "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery" mean the exact opposite of what He said. The author changes the "except for the matter of whoring" into "except for the matter of a certificate of divorcement". For an alternate understanding of Deut. 24:1 that aligns perfectly with Jesus' words and does not put them into conflict, while also maintaining the correct understanding of "uncoveredness" ('ervah), I refer you to http://www.righteouswarriors.com/contro ... icle6.html.

 

[Mark C]

Here we part company, David, although not so much on textual specifics as on intent.

(I will here insert an apology, and an aside. I have had this article on hand, via both the net link and a local copy, for several years. When I saw a couple of your quotes, I was surprised that I could not find them in my copy. I see now that the author has "updated" the piece. Conclusions remained unchanged, but I can see a slight change in emphasis.)

This question is important to many of us because we are flawed; we made mistakes in the past, but have now been cleansed, redeemed, and shown a "more excellent way". Divorce in the past is not at all the same as choices we WILL make in the future. I will try to make this distinction more clear shortly.

You are (perhaps overly, IMHO) "concerned with the justification of the procedure" more than the author of that article, in any event. My own take, as I have tried to explain before, is that DIVORCE -- the whole enchilada -- may be permitted more broadly than most people think. So I will "personalize the question", for clarity, and set it in the broader context of Scripture:

Divorce may be permitted, for many reasons. But that DOES NOT MEAN I SHOULD DO IT.

Did I make a Covenant with my wife, or not? What does He tell me about honoring my Covenant? Can I trust my King and Redeemer to honor His Word - even if I fail? Can I forgive - as I AM REQUIRED TO DO? How do I best "choose life" and give Him honor?

I can see why the disciples might have wondered that it is better not to marry. But I made a Covenant. Yes, perhaps God has given an "out". But I pray that our hearts are not hardened. And I will do my best to love and cover my wives, and my house, so long as we live, by God's blessing.

 

[Anonymous]

You are (perhaps overly, IMHO) "concerned with the justification of the procedure" more than the author of that article, in any event. My own take, as I have tried to explain before, is that DIVORCE -- the whole enchilada -- may be permitted more broadly than most people think. So I will "personalize the question", for clarity, and set it in the broader context of Scripture:

Divorce may be permitted, for many reasons. But that DOES NOT MEAN I SHOULD DO IT.

I certainly agree that I am more concerned about justification for divorcement proceedings that the author of that article appears to be. On the contrary, he doesn't seem to be concerned about needing a justification of any kind. The primary reason for my concern is summed up with his conclusion that, in his own words, "Deuteronomy 24:1-2 permits a man to divorce his wife for no other reason than that she no longer has favor in his eyes". He then tries to force Jesus' clear words to align with his understanding of Deut. 24. I shudder to think what he would make of Jesus' words if he didn't have Deut. 24 to align Him up against.

The view he promotes says that a man may divorce his wife for essentially any reason at all, provided she no longer has favor in his eyes. All he need do is write her a certificate of divorcement and send her on her way. That is not what Deut. 24:1 says ("if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her"), that's not what Matt. 5:32 says ("except for the matter of whoring"), that's not what Matt. 19:9 says ("except on the ground of whoring"), that's not what Mark 10:11-12 says, that's not what Luke 16:18 says...in fact there is no passage anywhere in Scripture that says anything like what he's promoting. His opinion is without Scriptural foundation, and this is why I am taking such a firm stand against it. Unjustified divorcement doesn't suddenly become justified with a piece of paper. If the required condition (uncoveredness/whoring) does not apply, she cannot be punished with divorcement for something she did not commit.

Let me be perfectly clear here. Scripture provides for only ONE reason for divorce, not many reasons. If many reasons for divorce are given in Scripture, it should be easy to present the text that clearly specifies these conditions. But all three passages he gives regarding divorce and remarriage (Deut. 24:1, Matt. 5:31-32, Matt. 19:9), whether read together or separately, say the same thing: except for the matter of uncoveredness or whoring.

If divorce is permitted for basically any reason at all, then on what basis would you say "that does not mean I should do it"? Why shouldn't you, if it's not a sinful activity and clearly permitted? If a man is entitled to divorce on a whim, why shouldn't he exercise that ability as it suits him? Just because you might not choose to exercise your rights does not mean that we could condemn or correct another man for choosing to send his wife away whenever he pleases, just as long as he writes the certificate of divorcement before sending her away. Is this really the understanding you get when reading the plain texts of those Scriptures?

The idea that a man can divorce his wife without cause does not come from an exegesis of the text, rather, he is forcing his views into the text. I'm not presently divorced, nor do I plan to get divorced, so it's all the same to me. If we cannot agree on this point, then we can agree to disagree in love. I'm not looking to bust our skulls trying to force the point. We each answer only to the Master. You have to be honest with yourself, your own reading of the Scripture text, and your understanding of God's stated intentions, both for marriage and for divorce. We've both seen the same passages in Scripture and the rest is up to us. Please don't mistake my disagreement as any kind of animosity towards you personally. My wife will tell you that I get very passionate about Scripture and love a good debate that brings forth hidden truths from God's Word.

At the very least, I think we can safely agree that lawful divorce is not a sin, although unlawful divorce certainly would be.

David

 

[sixth_heretic]

David you ROCK dude.
I just thought you should know.
Even though you probably already did already know how much you Rock.
Seeing as though you are you, and you would know that you Rock better then anyone else would.
I just thought it might be good for you to hear how much you Rock it from an unbiased source.
Seeing as though you are probably very biased since it is you we are disscussing.
I mean If I were you I would be biased too since then I would so totally ROCK.

 

[Mark C]

David, I am neither trying to "defend" the author, nor argue "divorce for any reason". I am beginning to think you do not understand the "fallacy of the negative". (Such as a construction like "because all things are lawful for me, I can do anything I like, including "sin more that grace might abound". :shock: )

This at least is a correct summary - and is the crux of the issue:

At the very least, I think we can safely agree that lawful divorce is not a sin, although unlawful divorce certainly would be.

But you still don't understand the exclusions, or why the definitions matter. A man is ALLOWED to "put away" a woman for "whoring" WITHOUT GIVING HER A GET!!! A get is PERMISSION to remarry.

Perhaps a specific example is all that will register.

So now read I Corinthians 7:10-15!

A woman leaves a marriage. She should not (v. 10). But she violates her Covenant anyway. She is COMMANDED to "remain unmarried". Why? She has no certificate of divorce! She is still married, whether she likes it or not! If she now commits ADULTERY, that sin is on her own head, NOT HER HUSBAND'S, because HE did not "put her away" WITHOUT the get!

"Let NOT the husband put away" his wife. (v 11) And if he should not "put her away" - since that is a PREREQUISITE to lawful divorce - he can hardly give her a lawful get!

Think through all of the ramifications!!! If you DO NOT UNDERSTAND exactly what Yeshua was teaching in Matthew 5 - the PIECES WILL NOT FIT!

- Can the husband take another wife? There is no prohibition, although the modern Caesar-created church has obfuscated this all over the place. Suppose he does. If his first (presumably and hopefully "believing") wife RETURNS, he now has TWO WIVES. Without a correct understanding of ALL* that is implied by these teachings, all Caesar's Church has here is a MESS, and a bunch of inconsistent doctrine!

- Can the wife remarry? Not so far as God is concerned, but the "prince of this world" is a liar, and the truth is not in him. What happens if she commits adultery, with or without State licensing for that "whoring"? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT - and one that is NOT addressed without an understanding of how ALL of God's Word is consistent!

• - Had the husband put HER away, and given her a get, she could remarry. "If her latter husband die" or otherwise divorce her, the husband whom she abandoned CAN NEVER TAKE HER BACK (Deut. 24:3-4). There is no reconciliation.
  
• - But if the husband whom she abandoned understands the WHOLE teaching and instruction of God, and is obedient, options remain - in spite of the actions of the unfaithful wife. The husband CAN, and should, cover her in prayer. He can, and should, understand his options and obligations under Numbers 30. He can, and should, be reconciled to her and take her back into his house when she repents. EVEN if she commits "whoring", lawful options remain:
  - he can, at that point, "put her away" if he chooses, with all that such implies.
  - or he can STILL forgive her, and take her back, in spite of her uncleanness, if he chooses. And God can cleanse and heal that house.
  
• - Other considerations exist - for unbelievers, for unlawful unions (incest, forbidden marriages such as in the Book of Ezra, etc). But ALL of these are consistent with God's Word, and Yeshua's UTTERLY CONSISTENT teaching thereof, but only if they are read as the unified whole that they are.

God's plan for marriage is not about making monogamy an idol, or confusing the differences between "putting away" and divorce, or "adding to"and "subtracting from" His ordinances via the traditions of men - whether it's licenses, or "forbidding to marry" where He does not.


Blessings,

Mark


-----------------------------
* This, BTW, is the Brit Hadasha, or New Testament, counterpart to the Law of the Levirate. It is the second example in the Bible of how polygyny may be REQUIRED of a husband. It may be another hint of the eventual fulfillment of Isaiah 4:1 as well.

 

[Anonymous]

This at least is a correct summary - and is the crux of the issue:

At the very least, I think we can safely agree that lawful divorce is not a sin, although unlawful divorce certainly would be.

Exactly. The only real problem I see that we disagree on is what specific conditions constitute a "lawful" vs. "unlawful" divorce. According to your understanding of divorce, so long as the husband gives his wife a certificate of divorcement, is there really any such thing as an UNLAWFUL divorce for him?

A man is ALLOWED to "put away" a woman for "whoring" WITHOUT GIVING HER A GET!!! A get is PERMISSION to remarry.

Where in Scripture does it state that a man is allowed to put away his wife for whoring without giving her a bill of divorcement? Show me the explicit text.

So now read I Corinthians 7:10-15!

A woman leaves a marriage. She should not (v. 10). But she violates her Covenant anyway. She is COMMANDED to "remain unmarried". Why? She has no certificate of divorce!

Supposition. 1 Cor. 7:10-13 says nothing about any certificate of divorce one way or the other. It only speaks of separating and sending away. I could just as easily say that they remain married because she committed no sin (whoring) worthy of divorcement. After all, 1 Cor. 7:11 says a husband is not to send away a wife, not that he isn't to send her away without a certificate.

"Let NOT the husband put away" his wife. (v 11) And if he should not "put her away" - since that is a PREREQUISITE to lawful divorce - he can hardly give her a lawful get!

Precisely. You're making my point. He can hardly give her a lawful get without a lawful cause. There is no mention of the exception clause and without such a condition, he cannot give her a lawful get or put her away. Matthew alone mentions the exception clause (in Matt. 5:31-32 and Matt. 19:9), whereas Mark and Luke and Paul do not, because the issue was a foreign one to the gentiles. Only the Jews would have had any understanding of Jewish culture, a bill of divorcement, virginity fraud, and any number of related topics.

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

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

Whatever else we might say that Deut. 24 implies, these two passages are clear enough by themselves. The explicit always interprets the implicit. I don't know how you read it, but these passages are explicit to me.

There is no mention of a certificate of divorce and none is needed to clarify the point. Regardless whether someone believes that every NT Scripture must first adapt to accommodate Deut. 24 or not, these words are very clear. I refuse to require that every NT passage on divorce be altered and rephrased to squeeze through the lens of Deut. 24 (and most certainly not through a faulty interpretation of Deut. 24), especially as I believe the exception clause in Matt. 5 and Matt. 19 is saying the same thing as the exception clause in Deut. 24.

Let me see if I can better explain where I see the problem. The author in that article reads Deut. 24, discounts whatever "because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her" means (or at the very least he treats it as if it said "for any reason"), then he proceeds to read Mt. 5, Mt. 19, Mk. 10 and Lk. 16 through the lens of his misunderstanding. However, exegesis DOES NOT CARE what another verse may or may not say. It only cares what THIS ONE PARTICULAR VERSE that is being examined says. Afterwards, we can look at the whole of Scripture to get a complete picture, but we must not read God's Word with a predetermined mind as to what it MUST say. In this article, it seems the author is trying to force every NT passage on divorce, remarriage and adultery into lining up with his misunderstanding of Deut. 24, by forcibly adding to Yeshua's words in order to make them mesh better with Deut. 24. There is no need to twist these passages around to change their intended meaning. We can trust that God penned precisely what He intended to communicate.

Had the husband put HER away, and given her a get, she could remarry. "If her latter husband die" or otherwise divorce her, the husband whom she abandoned CAN NEVER TAKE HER BACK (Deut. 24:3-4). There is no reconciliation.

Well, no disagreement here. Once the bill of divorcement is given, the man may never take the woman back again.

Even if I haven't succeeded in making my points very clear, I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. We don't have to see eye-to-eye on this subject right now, as long as we both remain humble enough to keep learning from God's Word. Perhaps additional facts will present themselves as we continue our studies.

In Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

Where in Scripture does it state that a man is allowed to put away his wife for whoring without giving her a bill of divorcement? Show me the explicit text.

Sigh...

Been there, done that. It's Matthew 5:32, again.

After all, 1 Cor. 7:11 says a husband is not to send away a wife, not that he isn't to send her away without a certificate.

Logic still applies. As I said, and you eventually note, since "putting away" is a PREREQUISITE to divorce, a prohibition on the former is obviously a prohibition on the combination. I'm not "making your point" - I'm (for the last time) making a distinction that you are blind to. Are you just being dense, or argumentative?

Iron sharpens iron, and it is good to be teachable, and learn from discussions about His Word.

But, quite frankly, I'm starting to get more than a little disgusted with this continuing perjury that I am arguing FOR 'putting away', much less divorce, for JUST ANY REASON. "God forbid!" Nothing could be further from the truth; I have consistently said that such dissolution is to be avoided EVEN when permitted, and I'm not about to believe that any good-faith reading of my comments could be so twisted. Were you not aware that this debate (IIRC, between the followers of Gamaliel and Hillel, re: Deut 24) was at the root of the debate that Yeshua was in part addressing?

As has been correctly observed here before, the wife of a DEAD adulterer would be properly called a "widow", and does not NEED a certificate of divorce to remarry! The "hardness of men's (and women's!) hearts was already obvious by the time of Yeshua's ministry, as was the "adding to" and "subtracting from" His commandments!

These problems today EXIST largely because of ignorance, and because our "culture" has explicitly and deliberately "made the commandments of God of null effect" by their traditions. (Matt. 15:6, Mark 7:13, et al)

Only the Jews would have had any understanding of Jewish culture, a bill of divorcement, virginity fraud, and any number of related topics.

(So why bother to study for yourself at all? :roll: )

There is that Jewish carpenter, Who taught His own Torah with "Authority". He knew EXACTLY what He was talking about, whether later "unlearned and untaught" people chose to "wrest the Scripture to their own destruction" or not!

Well, no disagreement here. Once the bill of divorcement is given, the man may never take the woman back again.

NOT TRUE! There's an "if" clause in Deut. 24:3 which should not be ignored!

We can trust that God penned precisely what He intended to communicate.

And He "changes NOT".

But He expected us to READ, and even STUDY, His Word -- not just parrot what we "have heard it said".

 

[Anonymous]

Where in Scripture does it state that a man is allowed to put away his wife for whoring without giving her a bill of divorcement? Show me the explicit text.

Sigh...

Been there, done that. It's Matthew 5:32, again.

It must just be me then. I'm just not seeing any explicit mention of a bill of divorcement anywhere in Matthew 5:32.

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

Where do you see any mention of the man being allowed to put away his wife? Where do you see any mention of a certificate of divorce? All I see in this passage is:

1) Whoever puts away his wife makes her commit adultery, except for the matter of whoring.
2) Whoever marries a put away woman commits adultery.

Seems pretty clear to me. These are explicit concepts and do not lend themselves to saying that a man may lawfully put away his wife so long as he gives her any certificate. If you had never read any other passage in Scripture, would you still draw this conclusion? If not, you are reading into the text what it does not say. That's why I asked for the EXPLICIT text, because I happen to know it does not exist anywhere in Scripture. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I will not settle for eisegesis when what I require is exegesis. That's not being honest with what the text actually SAYS.

It's not our job to force Yeshua' words to fit into a preconceived idea of what Deut. 24 may or may not say (especially when there are such differing opinions as to what is being said in Deut. 24).

After all, 1 Cor. 7:11 says a husband is not to send away a wife, not that he isn't to send her away without a certificate.

Logic still applies. As I said, and you eventually note, since "putting away" is a PREREQUISITE to divorce, a prohibition on the former is obviously a prohibition on the combination. I'm not "making your point" - I'm (for the last time) making a distinction that you are blind to. Are you just being dense, or argumentative?

I must be dense then, because I have no desire to argue. I understand logic, but faulty logic won't make this passage say what it does not. Again, there is no mention here of a certificate of divorce, and no indication that any certificate is even relevant to the command. Either it says a thing or it does not say a thing. Nothing can be demonstrated regarding a certificate of divorce by what the text does NOT say.

Were you not aware that this debate (IIRC, between the followers of Gamaliel and Hillel, re: Deut 24) was at the root of the debate that Yeshua was in part addressing?

Yes I was, actually. According to the Mishnah, Shammai and his followers argued that a man may not divorce his wife unless he finds "a matter of uncoveredness" in her, per Deuteronomy 24:1. The party of Hillel, on the other hand, insisted that the words "matter" and "uncoveredness" be treated separately in order to allow a divorce for either something "uncovered" or for any "matter". In fact, they allowed a man to divorce his wife for almost any reason, even if she was a poor cook or if someone else was prettier. This debate is actually recorded in the Mishnah:

"Beth Shammai (the Party of Shammai) say a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, "Because he hath found some unseemly thing in her." Beth Hillel (the Party of Hillel) say even if she has merely spoilt his food, since it says, "Because he hath found some unseemly thing in her." (Mishnah Gittin 90a)

Hillel and his followers made great allowances for divorce, while Shammai and his followers said that divorce was limited to some sort of sexual immorality. When the Pharisees brought the issue up to Yeshua, He settled the interpretation of Deut. 24:1 once and for all. He sided AGAINST the party of Hillel.

Matt. 5:31-32: "And it has been said, 'Whoever puts away his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' BUT I SAY TO YOU that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery."

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."

Yeshua knew the common practice of putting away wives simply by giving them a certificate of divorce, and He addressed that issue head-on. I see no conflict at all between Yeshua's words and Deut. 24:1. They are both saying the same thing. We simply disagree on what that "same thing" is. Without solid, explicit evidence to the contrary, I'm going to stick with Yeshua's clear statements in Matthew, Mark and Luke. I choose to understand Deut. 24 in light of all the NT passages on marriage and divorce, rather than the other way around. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. It just means that I can't see what you see when I apply the rules of exegesis to the NT passages.

Well, no disagreement here. Once the bill of divorcement is given, the man may never take the woman back again.

NOT TRUE! There's an "if" clause in Deut. 24:3 which should not be ignored!

At the risk of appearing even more daft, I'm afraid my translations do not have the word "if" anywhere in Deut. 24:3. I do see it in Deut. 24:2 regarding "if she left his house", however. Is this the actual passage you meant or am I missing something here? Here's what I see:

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 KERIYTHUWTH, 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 KERIYTHUWTH, 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."

The only "if" I can see that is relevant is in Deut. 24:2 where she becomes another man's wife. If she lay with another man, she is defiled and cannot be taken back by her original husband. I believe we are both in agreement here. I should have said, "Once the bill of divorcement is given AND SHE REMARRIES, then the man may never take the woman back again". If that's what you were getting at, then I stand corrected.

In Him,
David

 

[Chaplain]

David, Mark and all,
This has been a great discussion and I have learned some things that I had not thought about. But may I suggest something, may we hault any more discussion on this topic for some time until ALL has had chance to review the various post. It seems to me that the discussion has gotten a bit heated and I for one do not wish to see ANY Brothers or Sisters hurt by this discussion or hold any bad feelings toward another.

 

[Anonymous]

No problem at all...I know this is a particularly sensitive subject for many of us, because even if we haven't had to go through a divorce in our lives, chances are near 100% that our friends, children or parents have. I have nothing but love for brother Mark and I believe he knows that I value his opinion even when I don't agree with it. There are so few of us that we can communicate with that know the truth of Biblical marriage that I welcome any discussion with like-minded Believers that increases my knowledge of Scripture. I've been wrong before about many things I thought I knew (adultery, eschatology, patriarchy, multiple wives, etc.) so I'm always willing to reexamine the text with opposing views to challenge my preconceived ideas. That's one of the things that separate many of us here from the rest of churchianity.

In Messiah,
David

 

[Mark C]

Thanks, Chaplain, and I agree.

I had already indicated that my last response would be my last response; part of my own frustration was that I felt that things were becoming repetitive. I apologize for any appearance of a lack of charity on my part, as well.

This is also a matter of vital personal interest and prayer, of course, as I have indicated elsewhere. I am not about to either put away OR divorce my wife Bernadette, but I do continue to covet the prayers and support of those here for reconciliation.


In His love,

Mark

 

[Memphis Dwight]

This is an excellent piece showing a different point of view re the Law Of Divorcement.

 

[Tlaloc]

I do not wish to contradict the Chaplin so if my request will re-ignite a debate please ignore it.

It seems that both parties on top of having well articulated points on a tense issue, are very close to agreement in most points concerning divorce (Compared to the world). I wonder if it is possible to say concisely where you disagree.

It appears to me that Mark is talking about protecting woman's rights in the event of a divorce (except in the case of adultery, where her rights are forfeit) and says that divorce may correctly happen for other reasons, though it is never in any way desirable.

It appears to me that David is saying that divorce, except in the case of the aforementioned exception, is always sinful or always results in sin.

Is this the core of what you are agreeing to disagree about?

Thank you.

 

[Mark C]

It appears to me that Mark is talking about protecting woman's rights in the event of a divorce (except in the case of adultery, where her rights are forfeit) and says that divorce may correctly happen for other reasons, though it is never in any way desirable.

So far as it goes, Tlaloc, I think that is reasonable. I also believe that the distinction between "putting away" and completed divorce is important. Where I think there is some additional difference between David's perspective and mine has to do with whether anything having to do with marriage has been "done away with" by our Savior's teaching.




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

I left a bit of space there, because there is one other point that might be relevant here, albeit not explicitly as much a part of the discussion above, and certainly more subject to interpretation. What has "God joined together", as opposed to Caesar? I have increasingly become convinced that acceptance of the State's license subjects a marriage to a jurisdiction inferior to God's, and thus man's standards for 'divorce'. Similarly, just as He required Joshua to honor an ill-advised treaty with the Gibeonites, so does He allow those who choose the world's authority instead of His to be subject to Caesar, to their vows before Caesar - and to Caesar's courts.

We're seeing what happens when Caesar defines marriage for those who serve him.

 

[Anonymous]

It appears to me that Mark is talking about protecting woman's rights in the event of a divorce (except in the case of adultery, where her rights are forfeit) and says that divorce may correctly happen for other reasons, though it is never in any way desirable.

It appears to me that David is saying that divorce, except in the case of the aforementioned exception, is always sinful or always results in sin.

That's more or less accurate. You are correct in that we are more aligned in our thinking regarding marriage and divorce than not. I think the only real disagreement we had was regarding the lawful justification for a man to "keriythuwth" his wife. If something is not lawfully justified in the eyes of Yahweh, it is invalid. As I understand the justification detailed in Scripture, if any married woman lays with another man while her husband lives, she is an adulteress. She is not married to two husbands. The second marriage does not exist in His eyes.

Perhaps an real-world example would make things clearer. Steve is a Christian man and marries Sally, a Christian woman. Neither have been married before. A few years into the marriage, Sally decides to commit adultery with another man named Fred (whether by sneaking off behind Steve's back, or by filing for state-recognized divorce, and marrying Fred according to the state).

I think both Mark and I would be in agreement that Sally, despite being a Christian, has committed adultery and that she is in no way "divorced" from Steve nor "married" to Fred. According to the state, she could be divorced and remarried. According to Scripture, she is an adulteress against her husband Steve. (Mark, if I'm misrepresenting your position here, please correct me.)

Now, let's look at a similar example but with slightly different overtones. John is a Christian man and marries Judy, a Christian woman. Neither have been married before. A few years into the marriage, John decides he no longer desires Judy (for any reason other than "uncoveredness" or "whoring") and writes her a certificate of divorcement and sends her out of his house. He also files for state-recognized divorce for liability or legal reasons. Judy later decides to marry Gary.

In this second case, I think Mark and I would be in disagreement regarding her ability to remarry according to God. In my view, her husband John is in error because he had no valid grounds to send her away according to Scripture. Divorcement is a punishment against the woman and she did not meet the necessary Scriptural criteria to deserve such punishment. Therefore, the marriage stands. By sending her away outside of the only grounds given in Scripture, he forces her to commit adultery against him when she lays with another man. He is guilty of causing her adultery.

One last example. Ken is a Christian man and marries Kelly, a Christian woman. Neither have been married before. A few years into the marriage, Ken becomes physically and verbally abusive to Kelly. She decides to leave him and files for state-recognized divorce. Kelly later decides to get married to Jeff.

Although the scenario has changed, the matter of the original marriage covenant has not. The wife has no Scriptural authority to terminate her own marriage, regardless what the state or the church says. She is married to Ken. Regardless how Ken abuses his authority, he is still in authority. He will have to answer to God for his behavior, but two wrongs do not make a right. She cannot lie with Jeff without becoming an adulteress in the process.

I understand this is not popular because it goes against our feelings of fairness and justice, but perhaps our daughters would be more selective about who they marry if they understood the permanence of the marriage covenant. Since the penalty for adultery was death, it was a simple matter for her, either (1) death by an abusive husband and remaining sinless in the matter, or (2) death by stoning for committing adultery against her husband, sadistic jerk though he was. It's crummy and it's horrible but that's the way it is. The choices we make in the worst of situations are usually more telling than the choices we make when everything is going peachy.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

I also believe that the distinction between "putting away" and completed divorce is important. Where I think there is some additional difference between David's perspective and mine has to do with whether anything having to do with marriage has been "done away with" by our Savior's teaching.

Mark,

Could you give me an example of a situation where a believing husband could have a "completed divorce" in the eyes of God without his believing wife having committed "uncoveredness" or "whoring"? Perhaps that would help me better understand your view. I'm not above admitting I'm wrong here, but I need to see it clearly spelled out in Scripture.

Also, I certainly do not think any element of marriage has been "done away with" in the New Covenant at all, if that's what you meant. You know I don't believe that any part of the Mosaic law exists today, but marriage is still marriage just as adultery is still adultery. The definitions according to God have not changed (try as society might). We certainly do not stone adulterers and adulteresses today, but that doesn't change what Scripture says they are.

I hope you can make it to the Dallas event next month. I'd love to discuss some of these views in person and just to get to meet and fellowship. Peace.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

I don't see too much to take issue with in the examples, David. However, I will take a slight twist on these --

John is a Christian man and marries Judy, a Christian woman. Neither have been married before. A few years into the marriage, John decides he no longer desires Judy (for any reason other than "uncoveredness" or "whoring") and writes her a certificate of divorcement and sends her out of his house. He also files for state-recognized divorce for liability or legal reasons. Judy later decides to marry Gary.

In this second case, I think Mark and I would be in disagreement regarding her ability to remarry according to God...

One last example. Ken is a Christian man and marries Kelly, a Christian woman. Neither have been married before. A few years into the marriage, Ken becomes physically and verbally abusive to Kelly. She decides to leave him and files for state-recognized divorce. Kelly later decides to get married to Jeff.

Let me try a combined variant:

John is a Christian man and marries Judy, a Christian woman. Neither have been married before. A few years into the marriage, John decides he no longer desires Judy and has an affair with married non-Christian Michelle. During this time he abuses Judy for a while, and then abandons her to move in with now-separated Michelle. Judy eventually files for and receives a state-recognized certificate of divorce (get) signed by John.

David and I are probably both in agreement that, whether Yeshua changed His Torah or not, the post-Amerikan State has pretty much "done away with" much of Biblical law under its jurisdiction. At one time, Judy might have been "freed" from John by the fact that both adulterers would have been stoned; her widowhood is now moot.

I would argue the current, "post-Law" situation this way: Judy and John "married" under Caesar's authority, with Caesar's license (permission), and under Caesar's "law". Just as Joshua was told to "make no treaty with the inhabitants of the land", but was deceptively tricked into doing so by the Gibeonites, so did J&J consummate a 'marriage' before the prince of this world.

God's ordinances were violated or ignored at many points of the process. But note that in both Joshua's case, and, I contend, in Judy's, He expects us to DO as we committed, under the terms of that agreement, whether ill-advised or not. King David, and later kings, were bound by the treaty Joshua signed. So is John, and Judy.

Having gotten the State's license, via the State's process, she ended the contract in the State's court, on the State's terms.

Under God's terms, Judy would be a widow. But Judy WAS "put away", and does have a "get" signed by John in her hand.

I contend, in summary, that Judy has met the requirements of BOTH what the Bible says about marriage and divorce, and the terms of her flawed State-ordained contract. She is able to remarry.

There are LOTS of other potential examples of abuse, abandonment, lack of provision (Exodus 21) and similar hypothetical scenarios which could be problematic, and might not be readily conformed to the SPIRIT of I Cor. 7 -- where a wife is "not to depart" and her husband is "not to put her away" regardless. But I outline this one because it is one I have seen with some frequency in the 'real world', and which is at variance with much of the "no divorce ever" teaching of some so-called fundamentalist churches. (Nor do I confuse your issues with this one, David; it is more like an illustration of the OPPOSITE polar extreme.)

Soooooo...
looks like time to 'tie the ribbons' on this part - I see a new post has arrived while I was typing...

 

[Mark C]

The wife has no Scriptural authority to terminate her own marriage, regardless what the state or the church says.

Agreed. My example above is predicated on her taking actions IN RESPONSE to those which would have once resulted in the death of her former husband, and which in addition constitute violation of an inferior contract.

Mark,
Could you give me an example of a situation where a believing husband could have a "completed divorce" in the eyes of God without his believing wife having committed "uncoveredness" or "whoring"? Perhaps that would help me better understand your view. I'm not above admitting I'm wrong here, but I need to see it clearly spelled out in Scripture.

Part of the reason this is difficult, David, is that "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (I Cor. 10:23; I Cor. 6 is similar.) Thus, while I can identify a scenario where a man might be PERMITTED to either put away a wife, or put away and divorce her, I would personally find such a situation abhorrent under any but the most inconceivable of circumstances, and would seek to do as I Cor. 7:11 commands categorically. So I could not advise anyone to do otherwise, even if it were permitted.

As I started this paragraph, I could see how examples or conditions might readily become quite lengthy. So I will try to keep it brief. And they all DO hinge on what "without his believing wife having committed "uncoveredness"" means.

I think that -- whether one translates the conditions as "whoring" or "idolatry/adultery" or "rebellion" -- a common thread permeates the discussion. What constitutes a "believer", as opposed to an "unbeliever"? The men of Ezra, after all, were simply not even "married" in the eyes of God. If one is "not under bondage in such cases", we are evidently to judge by 'fruit'.

In my example above, it might be argued that John, regardless of his profession of faith, has demonstrated by his fruit something to the contrary. While I will not try to judge his faith, I have contended that the law, the contract, and the circumstances make such unnecessary in order for Judy to be able to remarry -- even though John yet lives.

The corollary example is found in multiple witnesses in Scripture as well. Look at all of Deuteronomy 13 as well as Exodus 22:18 for the same extreme case:

"If thy brother...or thy son...or the wife of thy bosom... which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known...
...thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death,...And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die..."

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Idolatry and rebellion against God, to which witchcraft is likened, are such "uncleanness", David, although they are not explicitly sexual sins. They are "sins unto death", and certainly not the kind of things any of us could imagine a "believer" ever doing. But, I believe that were such fruit to be consistently demonstrated, they could well constitute grounds for a husband to put away a woman in such rebellion, may God forbid, likewise while all still live.

So, while there ARE conditions which might permit such action, I also believe that the advice to Timothy is preferable:

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all, apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
And they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (II Tim. 2:24-26)

Numbers 30 gives the husband the right to cast down vows of a wife. Rebellion in marriage is a very difficult topic, but a husband's prayerful covering is preferable to his putting away. It still ultimately boils down to "choose life, that you and your descendants might live."

Blessings in Him,

Mark



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


PS> I'd love to meet you, and of course many others as well, at the upcoming retreat. My family situation currently makes that difficult, although not yet impossible, so continued prayers are appreciated.