Is Divorce A Sin?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

That's a very interesting scenario. I see the sequence of events somewhat different, but the outcome would be similar in many respects. In your example, John has committed adultery with Michelle. John is an adulterer and Michelle is an adulteress. Judy is innocent in this example.

As I see it, John is required to take his wife Judy back and to stop committing adultery with Michelle. If Judy cannot convince him of this on her own, she is to take one or two other believers with her to convince him of his sin. If John will not listen to them, she is to bring the matter to the elders of their congregation (you did say they were believers). If John will still not listen even to the congregation, he is to be dismissed as an infidel and she free per Exodus 21:11 (wife abandonment and replacement) and 1 Cor. 7:15-16. Since John, as an ACTING unbeliever, is choosing to unlawfully separate himself from Judy, she is certainly free to let him go.

I don’t necessarily see this as giving her permission to remarry though, given all the other NT verses (Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39) that explicitly state the opposite. When in doubt, the explicit in Scripture should always interpret the implicit. However, she certainly is free to remain unmarried, through no fault of her own.

But you have brought up a very interesting point. In your example, John committed adultery with another man's wife. Adultery under the Mosaic law warranted the death penalty and John’s life would have been forfeit for his role in the adultery, thereby indirectly freeing Judy to remarry in that case. But if we change Michelle’s marital status from married to unmarried, we have a completely different outcome even though the situation is basically identical, at least from Judy's perspective. If Michelle was an unmarried woman (ie. a mistress/affair scenario), then there is no Mosaic death penalty for John and therefore no possible way for Judy to remarry in such a case. It’s just as unfair for Judy in both cases. She's still been abused, she’s still abandoned, she’s still unmarried, her husband is still off with another woman, and she’s still unable to remarry while John lives. Certainly we wouldn’t say she’s entitled to remarry in cases where the man committed no adultery which would be worthy of death under the Mosaic law, would we?

Personally, I’m all in favor of hanging John up by his short and curlies for his mistreatment of his wife, but the issue here is whether Judy has any Scriptural permission to remarry. Is Judy's ability to remarry solely determined by the marital status of the woman John sleeps with? So if Michelle is an unmarried woman, do we change our verdict regarding Judy's marital status?

In Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

Here's where I focus, David, to answer your questions*:

But if we change Michelle’s marital status from married to unmarried, we have a completely different outcome even though the situation is basically identical, at least from Judy's perspective.

Not at all.

In the latter case, Judy is the first wife, and her believing husband has taken a second. In the former case, if John yet lives, and continues to act in rebellion to God, he is marked by his fruit as an "unbeliever", she is not under bondage in such a case, she has a get, and the state-licensed contract has even been dissolved in the state-blessed process by its creator.


Where I think we disagree on such scenarios, David, is on the issue of God's provision, healing, and blessing. Are not "all things" possible through Him, including provision of a loving covering for Judy? If she could be forgiven and washed clean from sins including adultery, here is a case where I argue that she is not under bondage and has provision through Him.

Finally, and this is perhaps a digression, but at least illustrates my thought processes here. I look at the situation with many people younger than ourselves, whose sexual history is nothing short of a promiscuous mess. I recognize that we no doubt disagree on the issue of prophecy yet-to-be-fulfilled, but I can't help but think of Isaiah 4:1 in the context of a time when God is able to demonstrate how the "reproach" of many such people may be "taken away".


Blessings in Him,

Mark

----------------------------------
* And, BTW, I don't disagree with your comments about bringing others to convince, reprove, correct John of his sin. One should do all that is directed, or even possible, in such difficult situations.

 

[Anonymous]

In the latter case, Judy is the first wife, and her believing husband has taken a second.

What would be the real-world application here? Judy is married to John, and John decides to run off with his secretary Michelle, an unmarried woman. You and I may understand that he's effectively taken another wife, but in the process, he's abandoned Judy. Does abandonment or putting away unlawfully grant the wife permission to remarry, especially where her husband has not committed a "death penalty" sin? What if he just abandons her without another woman being involved? Removing the state from the equation for the moment (let's assume they didn't bother with state recognition, or back up the clock a few hundred years before marriage licenses existed), if he is unwilling to return to Judy, is she then entitled to remarry?

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."

It seems clear that John will be forcing Judy to commit adultery in this situation. The other man who ends up MARRYING the woman will be committing adultery as well. The only way this statement can make any sense at all is if the woman already has a husband. The first husband MAKES her (and anyone she lays with) commit adultery by his unlawful action. She doesn't get a free pass to adulterate simply because her husband first sinned by abandoning her.

Where I think we disagree on such scenarios, David, is on the issue of God's provision, healing, and blessing. Are not "all things" possible through Him, including provision of a loving covering for Judy? If she could be forgiven and washed clean from sins including adultery, here is a case where I argue that she is not under bondage and has provision through Him.

While I certainly agree in principle, we must be careful not to confuse "provision" with endorsing sin. Would we use the same reasoning if these were two guys in a state-recognized homosexual marriage, who later come to know Jesus? Would we say it's okay to continue in sinful sodomy because God has provided a loving covering? Forgiveness requires repentance and repentance requires moving away from sinful actions which are known to be wrong.

If Judy married another man while John was still alive (and John committed no sin worthy of death under Mosaic law), then Judy committed adultery. What happens when John gets right with God and repents of his former actions? His repentant heart desires his wife Judy back, except now she is living in a perpetual state of adultery, under the guise of God's provision for a loving covering. Do we tell her to remain in adultery with her second husband or return to her first husband? Is her second marriage not really adultery anymore if she's been forgiven?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

Yes,what is the answer?is she forgiven so stays in the "second marriage?" What about someone like who was mentioned before who was not a christian and was in all kinds of promiscuity. In my case I was "living with" someone and his mother :x for 5 years.He happenedto become the father of my children. H never actually made a commitment to me, refused to,actually,that is why i left. I was just living there almost as the nanny of my own kids! So was I "married" to him??? Some would say yes because I was intimate with him. Some would say no because we never madea commitment although I acted as his wife (always cringed at the thought and he never reffered to me in that way). I was the one who left so what should I do?repent of leaving and go back to him and his new idiot girlfriend with her baby from another dad in daycare or stay perpetually single? (The latter is looking really good lately ) Well any input from all of you bible scholars wishing to actually apply the discussion to real life situation here we go...

 

[Anonymous]

What about someone like who was mentioned before who was not a christian and was in all kinds of promiscuity. In my case I was "living with" someone and his mother :x for 5 years.He happenedto become the father of my children. H never actually made a commitment to me, refused to,actually,that is why i left. I was just living there almost as the nanny of my own kids! So was I "married" to him???

Marichu,

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your own situation is actually cut and dried. You were never married and have no husband.

John 4:16-18: "Yahushua said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Yahushua said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true."

Merely becoming "one flesh" with someone, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, does not make you married, unless you first agree that it does. Marriage is a covenant agreement that must be accepted by both parties. What you have described is simply whoring, not marriage. Before marriage licenses came about, it used to be understood that becoming "one flesh" with a woman meant you were taking her as your wife, but unless that agreement is acknowledged and accepted by both parties beforehand, there is no marriage in God’s eyes, only sexual fornication.

You are under no obligations to this man, regardless if he has fathered children with you. You are no longer that person that made those mistakes. Even if you hadn't come to salvation through Messiah's sacrifice, you would have been free to marry regardless. Our hypothetical scenario was involving a believing, married individual acting against the faith and against their marriage covenant. I hope this makes more sense.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

This is a fine summary, David - well worth the effort that it took to get here:

(I added in some emphasis as well.)

What would be the real-world application here? Judy is married to John, and John decides to run off with his secretary Michelle, an unmarried woman. You and I may understand that he's effectively taken another wife, but in the process, he's abandoned Judy. Does abandonment or putting away unlawfully grant the wife permission to remarry, especially where her husband has not committed a "death penalty" sin? What if he just abandons her without another woman being involved? Removing the state from the equation for the moment (let's assume they didn't bother with state recognition, or back up the clock a few hundred years* before marriage licenses existed), if he is unwilling to return to Judy, is she then entitled to remarry?

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."

It seems clear that John will be forcing Judy to commit adultery in this situation... [Judy] doesn't get a free pass to adulterate simply because her husband first sinned by abandoning her.

Judy, as a believer, certainly would be concerned about NOT sinning by engaging in adultery. It is the certificate of divorce which makes that clear.

The answer to the bolded questions is NO. But I contend that a careful reading of Matthew 5:31-32 as you quoted is consistent with the fact that she IS ALLOWED to remarry if John gives her a certificate of divorce!

Judy is NOT guilty of 'whoring', so the exception clause does not apply. When John, having abandoned her, DOES give her a certificate of divorce, she is 'not under bondage', and is able to remarry.





------------------------
* In most cases, FAR less. "Intermarriage" or miscegenation licenses became generalized in many cases during the New Deal era.

 

[Mark C]

A few more items from the above, then:

(I don't think we have any disagreement that the State's definition of something God calls "abomination" doesn't make it right. But we DO have a very specific obligation with regard to oaths and contracts! Yeshua repeated the warnings as well!)

What happens when John gets right with God and repents...[and] desires his wife Judy back?

I contend that this is the issue where the warnings of Deuteronomy 24 come into play!

John claimed to be a "believer"! His actions said otherwise. But when he "put her away", sent her out, and put a certificate of divorce in her hand, she was allowed to marry a second husband. He is thereafter forbidden to ever take her back.

We are ostensibly permitted to give a wife a certificate of divorce, as I have tried to explain above, David. For these very reasons, as well as the obvious strictures of I Corinthians 7 - I will not argue that ANY believing husband SHOULD ever do so!

 

[Mark C]

And Marichu, for my part I do not have much disagreement with David's commentary to you. If anything, my own acquired disdain for the marriage license would incline me to say similarly that if "merely becoming 'one flesh' with someone does not make you married", the same MAY be true of Caesar's permission. Certainly the Massifornia gay license is a case in point, although the obvious caveats about honoring our oaths - even BAD or unlawful ones - bears repeating. The fact of children, and our understanding how of our Father and our King cares for them, is something which gives me pause at least as much as any state-approved permission slip.

My counsel would be to take such concerns to God in prayer, and ask Him whether there ARE any vows, whether spoken aloud or not, or even only within your own heart, from which you should be released and forgiven. As might be obvious by now, and no offense is intended, I can see no harm in receiving a 'get' from the father of your children, if it might even conceivably be of any comfort to you whatsoever in the future.

The related caution that I add would be to note that even if "there is no marriage in God’s eyes, only sexual fornication" that I have come to believe that activities DO result in what can be called "soul ties" between people, for good or ill. If and when you do desire to come under the covering of a future husband, and enter into a truly blessed one flesh relationship with him, all such impediments should be prayerfully broken. Bear in mind that, in accord with Numbers chapter 30, that such a future husband will have the authority to cast down all such vows "on the day that he hears them". This can be a wonderful blessing.



Love in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

Judy, as a believer, certainly would be concerned about NOT sinning by engaging in adultery. It is the certificate of divorce which makes that clear...I contend that a careful reading of Matthew 5:31-32 as you quoted is consistent with the fact that she IS ALLOWED to remarry if John gives her a certificate of divorce!

Please understand I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just don't see how you're drawing that conclusion from the actual words contained in Matt. 5:31-32. If we say that John giving a certificate of divorcement to Judy gives her permission to remarry, then what is the point of Yeshua's words here? I mean, wasn't it always understood that a certificate of divorcement was to give the wife the right to remarry?

Matt. 5:31-32: "And it has been said, 'Whoever puts away his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' And I agree."

That isn't what the passage says, but that's what we would have to reduce it to. So long as John gives Judy a certificate of divorce, then any issue regarding any whoring or adultery on her part is completely immaterial. The certificate of divorcement gives everyone a free pass regardless. If Yeshua was simply reaffirming what they had already understood, why say anything at all? Permit me to break His words down into three distinct statements:

Statement #1: It has been said, 'Whoever puts away his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'

Statement #2: I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery.

Statement #3: Whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.

If Judy is entitled to remarry merely with a certificate of divorcement (statement #1), then there is no need to discuss whoring or adultery (statements #2 and #3). Everyone already knew that if she remarried without a certificate of divorce, she would be committing adultery, as would the man she remarries. This was already understood and nothing new. Please tell me if this is how you are understanding the meaning of this passage:

"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, and except for giving her a certificate of divorce, makes her commit adultery. And whoever MARRIES a woman who has been put away, and except for giving her a certificate of divorce, commits adultery."

Is that how you understand His meaning here? What if He hadn't bothered to even quote statement #1 first? Would you still derive the same conclusion, based on the actual text?

"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."

I read this passage in the same context as all the others He gave in Matt. 5. Throughout His sermon, He continually altered, appended to, or outright changed the existing Torah as written.

Matt. 5:21-22a: “You heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,’ and whoever murders shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that whoever is wroth with his brother without a cause shall be liable to judgment.”

Matt. 5:27-28: “You heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone looking at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Matt. 5:33-34a: “Again, you heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to Yahweh.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all”

Matt. 5:38-39: “You heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the wicked. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”

Matt. 5:43-44: “You heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those insulting you and persecuting you”

Matthew 5:31-32 simply does not justify this "remarriage by certificate" position, given the context of what is actually being said here. The plain reading of the words, in the context presented, is against the possibility of her being remarried without committing adultery, irrespective of any certificate of divorcement. The context is not the certificate or lack thereof, the context is the putting away resulting in adultery. The only exception for adultery given by Yeshua is whoring, not certification.

Love in Him,
David

 

[DaPastor]

I thought I might chime in (I don't have much time so I am reluctant to share, but here it goes):

1. I do not think what Jesus said was meant to be a blanket statement on divorce and remarriage. I believe that he was bringing clarity to one Law. This Law did not even cover adultery originally. Adultery required death! Jesus was not attempting to change the entire Law:

2. The following is a small list of "divorce by default" under the Law - because the death penalty was required!

- Adultery: Deut. 22:20-25; Lev. 20:10
- Rape: Deut. 22:25, 26
- Incest: Lev. 20:11, 12, 14, 17
- Homosexuality or sodomy: Lev. 20:13 (18:22)
- Beastiality: Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15; Num 35:16-21
- Premeditated murder: Ex. 21:12, 14; Num. 35:16-21
- Smiting father or mother: Ex. 21:15
- Frauding Partner and many other laws could be included...

Here is my point however: Divorce by death made remarriage possible, and freed the innocent partner from bondage to a guilty person.

3. Divorce for breach of marital law, i.e., failure to provide food, raiment, and the due sexual relations is another kind of divorce:

- Captive Women: Deut. 21:10-14
- Hebrew "slave" or better, bonded girls: Ex. 21:1-10
etc...

4. Divorce implied, enforced by authorities, as with Nehemiah, in cases on consanguinity and mixed marriages:

- Mixed Marriages Banned: Deut. 7:1-3; cf. Ex. 34:12-16; Num. 25:6-8; Neh. 9:2; 13:23-27; cf. Mal. 2:14
- Consanguinity forbidden: Deut. 22:30; 27:20-23; Lev. 18:6, 18; 20:11,12,14,17,20,21

There is much more I could say... My basic thesis is that I see a clear continuity between the Covenants and I don't see Jesus merely eliminating this continuity.

 

[Mark C]

Uh oh. And here I thought we were doing so well...

I'll try to keep this as straight-forward as possible, David, in order to avoid rehash:

If we say that John giving a certificate of divorcement to Judy gives her permission to remarry, then what is the point of Yeshua's words here? I mean, wasn't it always understood that a certificate of divorcement was to give the wife the right to remarry?
...So long as John gives Judy a certificate of divorce, then any issue regarding any whoring or adultery on her part is completely immaterial. The certificate of divorcement gives everyone a free pass regardless.

No, no, no. You've GOT to understand that Yeshua was teaching us about His Torah, and OUR "desperately wicked hearts"!

We have looked at multiple examples here, of adulterous husbands (always, of course, requiring a married woman), adulterous wives, and INNOCENT wives (example Judy). Matthew 5 is a question asked about MEN who "put away" their wives for any ole reason. They OFTEN put them away WITHOUT a certificate of divorce! This was selfish*, and it was wrong -- it put such women in that society in a HORRIBLE position, without support, without covering, and WITHOUT RECOURSE! It was RIGHTFULLY condemned by our Savior (and He did so without changing His Torah; it was teaching, with Authority). The EXCEPTION clause is often read BACKWARDS; a wife guilty of 'whoring' MAY be put away, and is not entitled to a get. It is not an excuse.

This first part is for the PROTECTION of the wife from a wicked husband who would simply "put her away" and get himself another.

Likewise, the get, or divorce certificate, for the woman who did NOT sin (Judy) is ALSO protection for her!

In other words, the latter parts of the teaching are ALSO for protection of the innocent. The wicked husband is warned that if he sins by putting her away unlawfully, HE WILL BEAR HER SIN -- "he causeth her to commit adultery"!

Divorce is not to be desired. I am not advocating for it, and of course neither was He. But our hearts have not in most cases changed, and our society is at least as much of a whoring-infested mess as the culture Yeshua came into two millenia past.

[At the risk of digression, I'll try this related example.
Look carefully at the commands of Paul in I Cor. 7:10-11. It is one of the VERY few places in Scripture which seem to be 'self-contradictory' for lack of a better word...a concession to hard-heartedness, maybe, or perhaps Paul just understood wives and marriage? It says clearly, DON'T DO THIS..."but if and" when you do (!) here are the consequences! It's the corollary of the same teaching, David! Under the right circumstances, the wronged wife can have a certificate of divorce and be able to remarry. But if she just up and LEAVES, she must bear the consequences! It's ALL about His plan for reconciliation, for right relationship, and even for remedy when wickedness appears to prevail. ]


The best single summary of this teaching that I can give is to look at His Words in Matthew 5:31-32 the way a loving Savior who knew how hard our hearts were might. He was admonishing, teaching, and showing (as Paul did in other texts) that He had made provision for a wronged spouse within His perfect 'Law'.



-------------------------
* Selfish because it seemed to give them license to trade her in for a newer model, and avoid financial burden - much like today's serial monogamy.

 

[Anonymous]

Matthew 5 is a question asked about MEN who "put away" their wives for any ole reason. They OFTEN put them away WITHOUT a certificate of divorce! This was selfish*, and it was wrong -- it put such women in that society in a HORRIBLE position, without support, without covering, and WITHOUT RECOURSE! It was RIGHTFULLY condemned by our Savior (and He did so without changing His Torah; it was teaching, with Authority)...Likewise, the get, or divorce certificate, for the woman who did NOT sin (Judy) is ALSO protection for her!...Under the right circumstances, the wronged wife can have a certificate of divorce and be able to remarry.

I understand what you're saying, but that isn't what Matthew 5 says. If the entire reasoning behind this passage is simply to provide protection for the wrongly put away wife, exactly what protection does it give her when the husband refuses to give her a certificate of divorcement? I mean, you're assuming the man would want to prevent her adultery by giving her a certificate of divorcement. But if the man is putting her away selfishly, why would he give her a certificate at all? And without said certificate, how does this passage give her any more protections than before? He puts her away without a certificate and she still cannot remarry without committing adultery. In addition, the man she attempts to marry commits adultery with her. Frankly, I don't see her gaining any protection from anything based on Yeshua's words in Matt. 5. She still cannot marry in such a case, so even if the man was deliberately being selfish, she's still locked into her marriage, and her choice to commit adultery or stay unmarried remains the same.

I hope this is making sense. The passage can't be meant as protection for the wrongly-divorced wife because it offers her none. In addition, the plain sense meaning of the words in Matt, 5:31-32 show that whoring, not a certificate, was the only exception to her committing adultery. I agree with Pastor Randy that He was bringing clarity to one law only, specifically Deut. 24:1. The whoring of Matt. 5:32 and the uncoveredness of Deut. 24:1 is the exact same thing. That passage in Deuteronomy was never meant as a permission slip to allow divorce for any reason at all, and THIS is the issue He was addressing, not simply remembering to give her that certificate of divorcement.

If we can't agree on this point, then we can agree to disagree. But there is a danger with this line of thinking, from my point of view, and that danger is indirectly accepting sin as permissible. Let me explain why. A man wanting to marry an unlawfully divorced (ie. improper grounds, not missing certificate) woman need only see a state divorce certificate to justify his adultery with her. For example, a believing woman, who has done nothing to deserve a divorce, is put away from her husband who gives her a certificate of divorce and a pat on the head. This woman, wrongly believing she is free to remarry, now goes and marries another man. She has just committed adultery and so has the man she has remarried. She is not entitled to a divorcement because her husband was not entitled to divorce her, hence she is still married. Suddenly Yeshua's words about ADULTERY make complete sense! She's still married! Simply writing a certificate of divorcement changes absolutely nothing. Abundant scriptures make it clear that if she remarries, she commits adultery along with the man she marries. Read Matt. 5:31-32 again and really ask yourself what He was addressing.

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."

I just can't get around the plain sense reading of this text. Maybe you're right and it's just me. I have no agenda and would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong here, but this is sounding exactly like the argument the Pharisees presented to Yeshua in Matt. 19 and He gave them the same answer there.

Matt. 19:7-9: "They said to Him, "Why then did Mosheh command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts, Mosheh allowed you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 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."

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

I only have a minute, so this will of necessity be brief for now --

If the entire reasoning behind this passage is simply to provide protection for the wrongly put away wife, exactly what protection does it give her when the husband refuses to give her a certificate of divorcement? I mean, you're assuming the man would want to prevent her adultery by giving her a certificate of divorcement. But if the man is putting her away selfishly, why would he give her a certificate at all?

The man who has wrongly put away a wife, and knows that he "causeth her" to commit adultery may well WANT to avoid that evil. (The same logic applies as "if one wants to be rid of someone, why not commit murder?" Note that the penalty for both is death.)

The passage can't be meant as protection for the wrongly-divorced wife because it offers her none.

True, it is for the wrongly put away woman.

As for the example, we may well have to agree to disagree. There is so much wanton divorce (and associated serial monogamy) in our culture that I suspect the "hardness of our hearts" has resulted in a situation that is no less evil when viewed from the opposite perspective...

in other words, how many presumably-properly-divorced couples, now presumably remarried, and who realize they are in an untenable situation, might leave marriages that they should perhaps stay in? (The analogy of a Catholic Church which [I say WRONGLY] demanded so many men leave polygynous marriages comes to mind.) Do not forget that the command forbidding a man who DID send his wife away, give her a certificate of divorce, and watch her remarry is no less forbidden to take her back by clear meaning as well.


There comes a time to recognize that the ONLY recourse for an utterly messed up situation is to be thankful for the blood of our Kinsman-Redeemer.

Later...

 

[Mark C]

Oops, I do have to point this out:

That passage in Deuteronomy was never meant as a permission slip to allow divorce for any reason at all, and THIS is the issue He was addressing, not simply remembering to give her that certificate of divorcement.

I do have to keep repeating this ---

I AM NOT advocating for divorce!!!! Don't do it! Just as a woman is "not to leave her husband" (but is told what happens when she is disobedient!) so are men told very plainly that we are NOT to put away our wives*, much less divorce them!



Blessings,

Mark



---------------------------
* But you may have to prayerfully evaluate whether to eventually cover a divorcee when "seven women" someday come, offer to provide their OWN financial support, and ask you to "take away their reproach"... :lol:

 

[Tlaloc]

I would like to thank both of you for you're diligent and insightful debate, and you're good demeanour throughout it.

While I believe the matter of the get is an important one, I would like to draw some of you're attention back to the last practical example you both had to discuss.

This is the case of John leaving Judy for what's her name who isn't married. While I quite agree with the assumption of polygamy, I would like to highlight (mostly to David) DaPastor's point #3. John would have abandon her, and thus broken the requirements of their marriage. I would submit that after Judy had taken all suggested steps to redeem John (and more as the circumstances permit) she would be blameless and free to remarry. It would not be Judy getting the divorce, but John giving it by default by his lack of provision.

But, to my understanding (Though I respect the Talmund I am new to it and have read only one Mishnah {Nashim} and very little Genma) this is where the get comes in in the first place. In today's society (and even more so a couple decades ago) John could be especially nasty and refuse to sign papers of divorce for Judy, and that would cause her cascading legal issues until its resolved. In the same (even more severe way) way the get protects the woman from unjust blame as an adulteress (among other protections), and in the same way a man who was very callous (hard in the heart) could neglect to give her one and just tell her to get lost.

Now, please don't mistake the above for me having certainty on this issue, I very much appreciate both of the major players here laying out their best. Divorce is not one of the topics I have throughout considered before and I find this thread to be extremely useful in understanding it in a Biblical context.

That said, can you reach an agreement for Judy in this last case? If so are there any practical cases where you disagree? If not are there any other cases you disagree? If this is the only practical disagreement then I would like to comment that this case is extremely complected in any age at any time, and the level at which each of you (and myself and probably many others here) are like minded is incredible. Ernest minds will think for themselves, but come to the same truth, because there is only one truth.

Thanks again.




-----------------------
P.S. Mark, I think the topic of 'Ceaser's Marridge) is a good one, I've started a thread on it and put my experience in on it, I hope you will opine. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=218

 

[DaPastor]

Hello David:

You said:

I read this passage in the same context as all the others He gave in Matt. 5. Throughout His sermon, He continually altered, appended to, or outright changed the existing Torah as written.

Matt. 5:21-22a: “You heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,’ and whoever murders shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that whoever is wroth with his brother without a cause shall be liable to judgment.”

Matt. 5:27-28: “You heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone looking at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Matt. 5:33-34a: “Again, you heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to Yahweh.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all”

Matt. 5:38-39: “You heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the wicked. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”

Matt. 5:43-44: “You heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those insulting you and persecuting you”

In my opinion, herein lies much confusion today. The Sermon on the Mount is not an altered position on the Law, nor is it a change of the Law. Jesus was pointing out how badly the Jews of His day misunderstood the Law. The Law was not only a requirement to govern man's actions, but it was also intended to be applied to man's heart. One major goal of the New Covenant was to give man the ability to not only follow the Law externally, but to also follow the Law from the heart, or in other words, not to merely follow the letter of the Law but the spirit of the Law.

To drive home my point further. Jesus was still under the Old Covenant when He taught. The New Covenant did not even begin until the crucifixion. I mention this because if Jesus were teaching contrary to the Law, this would make Him a sinner.

 

[Anonymous]

The Sermon on the Mount is not an altered position on the Law, nor is it a change of the Law. Jesus was pointing out how badly the Jews of His day misunderstood the Law. The Law was not only a requirement to govern man's actions, but it was also intended to be applied to man's heart. One major goal of the New Covenant was to give man the ability to not only follow the Law externally, but to also follow the Law from the heart, or in other words, not to merely follow the letter of the Law but the spirit of the Law.

We may want to split this discussion off the divorce issue, because this, even more than eschatology, is likely to detract from the original topic. Very quickly though…

Exodus 21:23-25: “But if there is injury, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, lash for lash.”

Leviticus 24:18-20: “And when a man inflicts a blemish upon his neighbor, as he has done so it is done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he inflicts a blemish upon him, so it is done to him.”

Deuteronomy 19:21: “And let your eye not pardon, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

Matthew 5:38-39: “You heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you, do not resist the wicked. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”

Do not resist the wicked? Try to find that anywhere in the old covenant law of Moses. This is a direct contradiction, not a spiritual reinterpretation of what the law REALLY meant to say. There is no way to read Yeshua’s words as simply restoring the “spiritual intent” of the law. There is no spirit to “hate your enemy” or “eye for an eye”. The letter stands in opposition to the spirit. This is a direct contrast between the old carnal law God gave Moses and the new spiritual law He was giving through Messiah.

“You shall not murder” has been changed to “Do not be angry with your brother.”
“Do not commit adultery” has been changed to “Don’t look on a woman to lust after her.”
“Write her a certificate of divorcement” has been changed to “except for whoring.”
“Perform your oath” has been changed to “swear not at all.”
“An eye for an eye” has been changed to “Do not resist the wicked, but turn the other cheek.”
“Love your neighbor but hate your enemy” has been changed to “Love your enemy.”

Four of these six teachings that the greatest law-giver commanded stand in direct opposition to the written law of Moses and the other two, which were part of the Ten Commandments, have been changed beyond recognition. Yeshua was not echoing or interpreting Moses here. The old is done away with now that the new has come. What agreement does “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” have with “but I say to you, do not resist the wicked, turn the other cheek”?

Love in Him,
David

P.S. As I think about this, I now see why Mark and I have such different views regarding Matt. 5:31-32. If everything Yeshua said must be read so as to conform to the pre-existing old covenant law of Moses, with no alterations, additions or changes permitted, then His words "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery" must be forcibly interpreted through the eyes of Moses. The ultimate law-giver would be reduced to a mere Mosaic spokesperson, unable to actually give any laws not previously given. Moses the prophet, recycled. At best, the New Covenant is an addendum to the Old Covenant. At worst, it is nothing but the same covenant.

Another way of saying this: Where there is an apparent contradiction between Moses and Yeshua, I would interpret Moses through Yeshua's words, whereas some would interpret Yeshua through Moses' words. Others would say there is no possibility of contradiction and that we're all still bound to the Mosaic law regardless.

 

[Anonymous]

There comes a time to recognize that the ONLY recourse for an utterly messed up situation is to be thankful for the blood of our Kinsman-Redeemer.

Just as a woman is "not to leave her husband" (but is told what happens when she is disobedient!) so are men told very plainly that we are NOT to put away our wives*, much less divorce them!

We are most certainly in 100% agreement here! Amen and Amen!

Do not forget that the command forbidding a man who DID send his wife away, give her a certificate of divorce, and watch her remarry is no less forbidden to take her back by clear meaning as well.

Agreed. A man who himself sent his wife away with a certificate of divorce is not permitted to take her back once she is "one flesh" with another man. My only issue was whether the certificate of divorce was lawful and just, which would determine whether she could then remarry or must remain unmarried while her husband lives.

I believe I can better understand your position, but correct me if I'm wrong. You're NOT saying that men CAN put away their wives for any reason (with or without a certificate of divorce), but rather, that men DO in fact put away their wives for any reason, despite the fact they are not permitted to do so without cause. Am I getting warm?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

In my opinion, herein lies much confusion today. The Sermon on the Mount is not an altered position on the Law, nor is it a change of the Law. Jesus was pointing out how badly the Jews of His day misunderstood the Law. The Law was not only a requirement to govern man's actions, but it was also intended to be applied to man's heart.

Excellent summary, Pastor Randy. I've tried to refer to the format that He uses there repeatedly ("You have heard it said but I tell you...") in the past to make this point, but this makes the point well.

And to David - perhaps another thread would be valuable on this, too.

But I'll do a quick summary this way, starting with John 5:47:

"But if ye believe not his [Moses'] writings, how shall ye believe my words?

The direct contradiction that Yeshua was making was not with His Torah, but with MEN'S TRADITION which had replaced it (the so-called "Oral Torah" in most cases). And I note again that "the Church" has continued doing the same thing ever since.

Blessings,

Mark

 

[Mark C]

I believe I can better understand your position, but correct me if I'm wrong. You're NOT saying that men CAN** put away their wives for any reason (with or without a certificate of divorce), but rather, that men DO in fact put away their wives for any reason, despite the fact they are not permitted to do so without cause. Am I getting warm?

Much better, David. (** And I might add "CAN or SHOULD"... )