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

[PeteR]

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

The word used for 'defiled' is also used for a seminal emmission in the course of normal sexual contact. Lev. 15:18 says,

18‘If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.

A clarifying translation of Deut. 24:3 would read:

...her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has had sexual relations with the second husband; for that is an abomination before the LORD.

This prevents a husband from sharing his wife, effectively adultery.

What the law DOES NOT SAY is that she can't go to any man. It clearly limits her from returning to her first husband. Period.

 

[PeteR]

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

This is an incredibly rude and obtuse statement. You do not know @steve or the members of his family on this board that serve in ministry to battered women. You need to retract and apologize.

 

[LDremoved]

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

I think Steve has enough women in his life already, I doubt he created a safe haven just to prey on the vulnerable.

 

[steve]

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

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

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

But He did not say what you want Him to have said.

 

[steve]

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

To bastardize a statement by my wife, Ali:

If Yah could be so specific as to require men to cut the forskins off of their penises, and to not cut a portion of their hair, He sure could have been specific here also.
But He chose to not say what you believe that He should have said.

Read it in all you want, But. He. Never. Said. It.

 

[steve]

This is an incredibly rude and obtuse statement. You do not know @steve or the members of his family on this board that serve in ministry to battered women. You need to retract and apologize.

I don’t get offended at such childishness.

The apology needs to be to all of the women that he is condemning.

 

[NationBuilder1]

What the law DOES NOT SAY is that she can't go to any man. It clearly limits her from returning to her first husband. Period.

@PeteR, from this, we can conclude that you would interpret this to not be a prohibition for her to go to a third husband; correct?

 

[NationBuilder1]

This is an incredibly rude and obtuse statement. You do not know @steve or the members of his family on this board that serve in ministry to battered women. You need to retract and apologize.

@steve, I apologize because I have no evidence they are as vulnerable as I suspected.

Happy husband hopping, ladies.

 

[PeteR]

@PeteR, from this, we can conclude that you would interpret this to not be a prohibition for her to go to a third husband; correct?

Correct. I'm not 'interpreting', i'm reading the words on the page without adding to them.

My opinion, whether I like it or not, is immaterial. A man can  choose to give her a third shot, but that is his choice. Not mine. Not yours.

Yah gives NO prohibition. If she was tamé to all men then the house of Israel is without hope and Yah violates His own law in taking her back.

 

[NickF]

What a spicy start to a new year!

 

[The Revolting Man]

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

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

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

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

It wasn’t your sarcasm I was talking about.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Finally, a bit of truth.

You are the vilest, pettiest, small mindedest sneering, most insufferable little shit I’ve ever encountered. If you’ve ever known an ounce of truth it was on accident and you instantly drove ten other, far better men than you away from it.

You’ve never met this man. You know nothing about him. Your desperate craving to convince yourself you’re the smartest thing in the room is driving you to malign an accomplished man who has incredible signs of God’s favor in his life. Far more signs of favor than you’ve ever demonstrated.

Soon you’ll storm off, again, in an estrogen soaked snit, again, damning us all, again, and vowing never to return and the forum will be far better off for it. Again.

 

[NationBuilder1]

Correct. I'm not 'interpreting', i'm reading the words on the page without adding to them.

My opinion, whether I like it or not, is immaterial. A man can  choose to give her a third shot, but that is his choice. Not mine. Not yours.

Yah gives NO prohibition. If she was tamé to all men then the house of Israel is without hope and Yah violates His own law in taking her back.

Not interpreting? Sure, that is the goal, @PeteR; I agree.

The simple command on this topic, the "thou shalt not marry a divorced woman" edict you are looking for is in one of the Ten, thou shalt not commit adultery. Yahshua clarified (or perhaps reminded everybody) that adultery includes marrying a divorced woman -- again, plainly stated four times in the gospels. The only way you can side-step this simple command is to claim that it is a misinterpretation, that there is a difference between a woman who has been put away with a certificate of divorce and a woman who has been put away without one. You would claim that Yahshua's words refer to the latter, but this question was not addressed in Scripture or even implied. And in either case, the woman is still put away -- with our without a certificate of divorce, she is still put away.

 

[The Revolting Man]

There is an art to this type of conversation. Challenging without demeaning takes a deft touch. You can make all kinds of accusations, assertions and outright damnations if you’re not striking at the core of someone’s worth. Also, you can’t all gang up on the new guy.

@NationBuilder1 has a few things wrong around an emotional topic. That’s why we’re here.

His two base assumptions are completely correct. One flesh should not be broken and adultery is a terrible sin. If everyone took those lessons seriously then there would be no need for us to understand the nuances of forming subsequent one flesh relationships.

He has the bigger issues right. Take it down a notch. This isn’t a time for rough and tumble. It is a nuanced issue and should be handled as such.

 

[NationBuilder1]

Also, you can’t all gang up on the new guy.

I am cool with it. And, Yah knows, perhaps there will be a mass-outbreak of righteousness.

And what would be even better is if we could have this conversation in person. Just give me the seat near the door.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I am cool with it. And, Yah knows, perhaps there will be a mass-outbreak of righteousness.

And what would be even better is if we could have this conversation in person. Just give me the seat near the door.

I can’t believe how quickly that escalated. I’m supposed to be the high strung hot head.

It is a vitally important issue and one that’s been thoroughly thrashed out over the years but not in a long time. It would actually be useful to revisit it again.

But not like this, not this issue.

 

[NationBuilder1]

If she was tamé to all men then the house of Israel is without hope and Yah violates His own law in taking her back.

@PeteR, Yah compares his relationship to Israel as that of a husband and a wife. He is analogizing, clearly. The concrete principle, marriage, which is between a man and a woman, is regulated by His Law -- the same Law to which He is not subject. For example, he disallows us from punishing children for the crimes of the fathers and vice versa, yet He reserves the right to punish the children for the crimes of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.

And by the logic of your argument, the prohibition of a man from taking back a wife who has been with another man would be null and void, so we can disregard Deuteronomy 24:1-4 altogether. Correct?

 

[PeteR]

the same Law to which He is not subject.

Au contraire. His Law defines Him. It defines righteousness. He cannot break HIS Law.

The reason Messiah had to die, according to Romans 7:1-3, is that HE, being the former husband, is NOT eligible to remarry her. Others would be as the Deut. 24:1-4 passage allows. The ONLY one barred from remarriage is the former husband. Therefore, the restriction of the original covenant had to be removed by one party dying and then being resurrected.

 

[NationBuilder1]

The reason Messiah had to die, according to Romans 7:1-3, is that HE, being the former husband, is NOT eligible to remarry her. Others would be as the Deut. 24:1-4 passage allows. The ONLY one barred from remarriage is the former husband. Therefore, the restriction of the original covenant had to be removed by one party dying and then being resurrected.

@PeteR, I concede this point.

What is your rebuttal for this point?

The simple command on this topic, the "thou shalt not marry a divorced woman" edict you are looking for is in one of the Ten, thou shalt not commit adultery. Yahshua clarified (or perhaps reminded everybody) that adultery includes marrying a divorced woman -- again, plainly stated four times in the gospels. The only way you can side-step this simple command is to claim that it is a misinterpretation, that there is a difference between a woman who has been put away with a certificate of divorce and a woman who has been put away without one. You would claim that Yahshua's words refer to the latter, but this question was not addressed in Scripture or even implied. And in either case, the woman is still put away -- with our without a certificate of divorce, she is still put away.

 

[PeteR]

The simple command on this topic, the "thou shalt not marry a divorced woman" edict you are looking for is in one of the Ten, thou shalt not commit adultery. Yahshua clarified (or perhaps reminded everybody) that adultery includes marrying a divorced woman -- again, plainly stated four times in the gospels. The only way you can side-step this simple command is to claim that it is a misinterpretation, that there is a difference between a woman who has been put away with a certificate of divorce and a woman who has been put away without one. You would claim that Yahshua's words refer to the latter, but this question was not addressed in Scripture or even implied. And in either case, the woman is still put away -- with our without a certificate of divorce, she is still put away.

The answer is self evident. The penalty for adultery is stoning. If what the woman did by marrying the second husband is adultery, then the answer is stoning, yet the Torah says she can be set free with, wait for it.. a certificate of divorce and being sent away. No stoning involved. ..

In fact, barely a chapter earlier in Deut. 22:22 it says,

22¶“If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.

IF the first marriage in Deut. 24:1 is not truly severed, then she is still married when she goes to the second marriage. Then, she and he, according to 22:22, should be killed. Why not? What makes this different? Did God, Moses, or both forget what they'd already written?

Clearly, the original marriage covenant has been severed.

Yeshua and God both have a bone to pick over this issue. But why?

Pay close attention to the elements in Deut. 24 and Jeremiah 3 v Malach 2 and the gospels, particularly Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Something is missing in all of the ones that anger the Most High. What is it?