General DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

[meryc]

Say you, and you alone. Good grief! It doesn't say "second marriage," EITHER, it just says (as I note, and you ignore) the she cannot return TO THE MAN who gave her his written certificate and sent her away!


This is so hideously, apologetically WRONG that it doesn't even merit a rebuttal.

If you don't know the meaning of words (like divorce, vs 'put away,' - just for starters - and won't read the text as written for comprehension, there is no dialogue.


Fail.

But the text says about her return only after a second marriage, so she can return her husband if she do not get into another marriage (as God made with Israel - didn't you read the entire text I've posted?)

 

[meryc]

@meryc, have you read "Divorce and remarriage, recovering the Biblical view" by William Luck?

Note that I am not saying everything Luck says is correct. I'm saying that if you want to write a book on this, you need to be somewhat familiar with the books that have already been written on the topic. And Luck has covered these issues both in depth, from a background of sound scholarship, and arrived at a more practical, compassionate understanding of this issue that you would do very well to consider.

Also, you might find that the matters you intend to address have already been addressed adequately by others, so you can save your effort and not bother writing another book. "Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh" (Ecc 12:12).

I know this position, and because I desagree I'm writting a different thing! So, if I were defending the same thing, why would I write another one? Avoiding "scholar argumentation" is one of the reasons I'm writting too.

 

[meryc]

If these were equivalent, then these words of Jesus:
"Whoever puts away his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce"
Would be logically equivalent to:
"Whoever gives his wife a banana, let him give his wife a banana".
The two terms would be completely redundant. They MUST mean different things, or we would not be told that if you do one you must then do the other.

Equivalent doesn't mean "same thing". Put away is an equivalent to "certificate of divorce". So, I could say:
"Whoever gives his wife a fruit, let him give his wife a banana". There are differences, but in the context fruit is the equivalent to banana. Without context they are different things.

 

[meryc]

Say you, and you alone. Good grief! It doesn't say "second marriage," EITHER, it just says (as I note, and you ignore) the she cannot return TO THE MAN who gave her his written certificate and sent her away!


This is so hideously, apologetically WRONG that it doesn't even merit a rebuttal.

If you don't know the meaning of words (like divorce, vs 'put away,' - just for starters - and won't read the text as written for comprehension, there is no dialogue.


Fail.

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Dt 24 NIV)

So, the text is clear: after divorce and remarriage a man cannot take back his wife. But the text does not say anything about to get back your wife if she do not get into another marriage. The reasons for the divorce is not the point on this text, because the real problem is, once you write a certificate of divorce, and remarries, you cannot take her back. Look: even if the second husband dies you cannot take her back, proving that the problem is not a divorce certificate.

Afterwards, the "after" is present in the text twice, and points out that the problem is another marriage after the first. This is the same thing that we see in Luke and Mark, for exemple, where we read: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Luke) "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery" (Mark).

If you read my text, you will see in fact that in no one moment I contradicted the biblical text itself.

 

[Mark C]

I know this position, and because I desagree I'm writting a different thing!

That seems to apply to Scripture as Written. The world is already full of such ....hmm...there's no polite term...

Put away is an equivalent to "certificate of divorce"

Sorry, this is simply idiocy.

You quote the text for Deuteronomy 24:1-3 and can't even be bothered to get it right when the glaring contradiction in your thesis is pointed out to you.

Can you do simple math?

"put away" + "certificate of divorce" = "divorce"

IF "certificate of divorce" != zero THEN

"put away" Can NOT POSSIBLY = "divorce"​

And Yahushua said so, but you won't read that for comprehension either.

Enough already. Unless you can acknowledge error, this is a waste of time.


The only reason I respond here is because such EVIL TWISTING of Scripture has already
RUINED TOO MANY WOMEN'S LIVES.

 

[Mark C]

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and...

Here it is:

if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man...

What? Say again? She does WHAT????

Can you not even see that you just CONTRADICTED your own fatally asinine claims?

[Hint: It's highlighted for you!]

 

[FollowingHim]

Equivalent doesn't mean "same thing". Put away is an equivalent to "certificate of divorce". So, I could say:
"Whoever gives his wife a fruit, let him give his wife a banana". There are differences, but in the context fruit is the equivalent to banana. Without context they are different things.

So, what is the difference between them which makes this sentence logical?

 

[FollowingHim]

I know this position, and because I desagree I'm writting a different thing! So, if I were defending the same thing, why would I write another one? Avoiding "scholar argumentation" is one of the reasons I'm writting too.

So, your answer is, "I haven't read it but I think I know it all already"?

Look, I'm not saying everyone has to read his book - they don't. But anyone who is seeking to be an author in this area needs familiarity with the major works that have come before which are available to them, and Luck's book is free online so there's no reason not to read it.

 

[frederick]

Hi @meryc, thank you for the opportunity to read your articles. What you have written has caused me to evaluate my understanding of a number of points you raise.

Something I'm interested to get your take on concerns what is written in 1 Cor. 7:12; (NKJV) But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. How I've come to understand this passage is that the writer first introduces this as a matter that has not previously been addressed, i.e. there is nothing previously written about the situation where one member in a marriage relationship becomes a redeemed believer while the other remains an unbeliever. It is the Holy Spirit who has breathed these words out (the same as in all Scripture), however it is a new situation that needs to be clarified - But to the rest I, not the Lord, say. Jesus never spoke on this matter as He taught about divorce. If the husband or wife is a believer, he or she is not to divorce the unbeliever, however if the unbeliever wants to leave, he or she is free to do so. In v:15, the words, But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; this is a command (a present imperative) which brings about a separation/breakup of the marital relationship. As you have noted in your article Jesus often spoke about marriage and divorce, but He never dealt with this particular issue, so Paul deals with it in this epistle. Your thoughts... ? Thanks again. Cheers

 

[meryc]

First: Imperative and "command" are different things. For exemple, the LXX renders the ten Commandments into Future Active Indicative, so, should I conclude that there we do not have commandments? No. They are commandments, as the whole bibles says. Otherwise, in the New Testament Imperative is often use in requests (as in Prayer that Jesus teaches in Mt 6).

Secondly: Paul is really saying one thing that was not said before, but what he is saying is not a commandment, as you can see in 1 Cor 7:6, 25. The entire chapter is divided between God's commandment and Paul's opinion, which is, of course, an inspired opinion. But opinions are not commandments.

You can see better if you read v. 19: circumcision is "nothing", but, it was commanded by Lord. So, Paul is saying that because something is in "imperative mood" does not mean that that thing is a commandment forever. God's commandments must be keep but not all 'orders' are commandments.

What Paul is saying about the unbeliever is that the believer should not try to catch him back, but it is not a sin to try. And, because we are called to peace, he says that the believer should let unbeliever go. The opposite to this is discussion, court disputes and problems inside family - we are, however, called to the peace.

If it is not clear I can explain more and better.​

 

[The Revolting Man]

You can see better if you read v. 19: circumcision is "nothing", but, it was commanded by Lord. So, Paul is saying that because something is in "imperative mood" does not mean that that thing is a commandment forever. God's commandments must be keep but not all 'orders' are commandments.

Uncircumcision is identified as nothing as well. Bush has nothing to do with whether or not it was required. It was about whether or not it was necessary for salvation.

And maybe it’s just the Marine in me but what the hell is a non-imperative command?

 

[frederick]

If it is not clear I can explain more and better.

Your explanation is sufficient for me to grasp how you've got to where you are.

In the verse (v:15), But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; the context indicates let him depart is to be understood as a command because the unbeliever is separating him or her self, which has just been dealt with. The believer is not to create a conflict when the unbeliever separates, that's the point of the command. But God has called us to peace. Cheers

 

[OttoM]

So, as Christ says, a man who marries some woman who was divorced commits adultery... and this is exactly what Dt 24 is saying.​

If a man marries a woman that was simply "put away" then he has committed adultery. Because that woman still belongs to another man. But if that woman has been properly put away according to the Word - which means given a certificate of divorce and sent out of the man's household - she is free to re-marry. It's not SIN. She can find herself a new husband.

However, if she does re-marry another man - and if that 2nd husband properly divorces her (certificate of divorce), then she can not return back to her 1st husband. She can, however, go ahead and find another husband (3rd).

 

[Joshua]

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE (P1)​

Now, it is essential for us to understand that marriage is a contract, and not a sexual relationship. Already in Genesis 2, we have proof of this when it is said about marriage that a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, that is, she is his wife before the consummation of the union. Genesis 2 is also relevant in showing the type of contract that exists in marriage: when a man and a woman enter into this contract, they are united as long as there is life in their flesh, and therefore, the marriage contract ends when the husband dies (Romans 7:3; 1 Corinthians 7:39) – it is the end of the contractual bond, after all, the contract lasts as long as there is flesh, and if one of the two dies, then there is no more contract because the flesh no longer has life; it is quite simple: the contract states that the flesh is the temporal bond that limits the marriage.

Similarly, it is important to emphasize that God's Law is fundamental in this matter, for what it says about marriage is naturally a rule. If it does not prohibit, it is allowed, if it prohibits, it is not allowed. Thus, when the law stipulates a form for marriage, it must be accepted, resulting in a breach if this line is crossed. Naturally, some things that biblical law allows offend Western sensibilities, dating back to the time of Augustine, although this is not our focus now.

Here, however, we will not dwell on the evangelical issues raised against what we will say, as we will focus on what the biblical text says: Genesis 2, Deuteronomy 24, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, and Paul. All of this will be addressed here, albeit briefly.

OLD TESTAMENT (OT)

Marriage in Genesis – The Involiable Contract

We have already strongly demonstrated the contractual nature of marriage; however, it remains to note the detail that we saved for this text: in Genesis 2, it is said that man and woman become one flesh (v. 24). This needs to be understood, first, as a mystery (Ephesians 5:31, 32) and, second, as something definitive. The text in Genesis does not say: one flesh until something happens. It simply states that the union exists as long as the flesh exists (without flesh, there is no way to be one flesh, obviously).

You might say, "But in Genesis 2 there was no sin, so the contract is treated ideally there; with adultery and fornication, we should understand that divorce and remarriage by the innocent party are permissible." However, in Genesis 2, there is also no "father and mother" (neither did Adam have parents nor did they have children themselves), yet both are mentioned in the text. It is obvious that the purpose of the text is to establish the rule for any place and time in the world, maintaining the exceptionality of Adam's case only in the fact that there was no sin, but not in God having changed what He established for the marriage contract (Jesus will refer to this by saying, "it was not so from the beginning," showing that this is the order, not the ideal).

Note: Jews in their theological disputes claim that 'one flesh' means the children, but this is absurd. The text is pointing to a mystery, for we do not know what "one flesh" really is (if one flesh is "the children," then the mystery is over), no text explains this; in the same way that being one spirit with the Lord is likewise a mystery (1 Corinthians 6:17). Furthermore, the Jews knew that Genesis 2 establishes an inviolable contract, with the legal permission for divorce being an explanation due to the existence of sin and, therefore (they believed), undoing this mystery of one flesh (would the children die in the divorce?). Moreover, this explains why there is no marriage in heaven, since flesh and blood do not enter heaven (1 Corinthians 15:50), preventing a new contract.

Note that in Genesis 2 the commandment is very clear: "and they shall become one flesh": this is the commandment, seeking to cease being one flesh results in sin, therefore, showing that there was never, even in creation, any possibility for divorce and remarriage, since ceasing to be one flesh is breaking the commandment if I circumvent it to become one flesh with another woman (or man).


Deuteronomy 24 – The Proof that the Contract is invioable

"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter man also comes to hate her, writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man who took her as his wife dies, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. You shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 24:1–4)

We don't know why men, when reading this text, stop at the first verse, which mentions the reasons for divorce, and ignore the rest. Now, the text is clearly stating that a divorced woman cannot remarry because, upon remarriage, she becomes defiled, and as Leviticus shows, defilement (in the context of marriage) is adultery (Lv 18:20; Lv 20:10). But let's go step by step.

First, we have the possible reasons. Now, the problem is clear: the man saw some indecency ("nakedness" or "blemish") in the woman, and therefore gives her a certificate of divorce. Here, it is not mentioned, for example, that the man could have mercy on the woman, because the law wants to express the hardness of the people's hearts. For this reason, this order is not given conditionally, which led the Pharisees to understand that it was a mandatory command to give the certificate of divorce. Foolishness. If they truly knew God's law, they would know that this order exists only to prove the fact that the people (the men) had hard hearts. This law does not aim to show that the woman is indecent, but rather that the man could (and should) surpass the expectation and not give the certificate of divorce. The concern is that the man does not cause the woman to become defiled or, in other words, commit adultery.

For what reason, then, does the law not say: if you find sin in her? More interestingly, Moses (if that were the objective) could have used the Hebrew term "zanah," which means prostitution or some dishonorable sexual relationship (Dt 22:20, 21). See, the law would not contradict itself. Two chapters earlier, it was stated that if a woman hides that she is no longer a virgin, she is liable to death (not divorce). And the man, if he imputes any sin to a woman he married, and it turns out to be false, cannot divorce her (Dt 22:16-19) – note that if he suspected sin, there was also another route: Nm 5 (The Law of Jealousy). Thus, Deuteronomy 24 is not talking about sin, since in the case of sin, the woman would be put to death, therefore, the concern of Dt 24:1 is mercy. The focal point is not the reason for divorce, but rather that the man is not being encouraged to practice it because, by doing so, he makes his wife adulterous – if she remarries. Therefore, the man who divorces his wife makes her commit adultery (Lk 16:18b).

Clearly, the law is not legislating on zanah, not even in the case of the divorced woman. Now, a divorced woman who lies with a man does not marry him, so she commits adultery, but she does not have a contractual bond, so if she has lain with another man after the divorce, she can still return to the first (and this is what happens with Israel in Jeremiah 3, we will see below). It is only a second marriage that makes her indefinitely adulterous, locking her into the impossibility of returning to the first husband, making him adulterous if she returns to him (because whoever marries a divorced woman…). If sex were equal to marriage, a man could never lie with the wife who betrayed him again, because she would be married to the other man forever! This would nullify any chance of forgiveness.

In summary, the reason for divorce can be anything a man considers shameful; however, neither the woman (nor he) can enter into a new marriage. Likewise, he could not enter into a new marriage without first reconciling with his wife.

Secondly, the text is so clear that it requires no further explanation: the role of divorce has no real value in nullifying the fact that they are still one flesh. It is a formality that, to some extent, protects another man from taking that woman as his wife. Thus, divorce does not annul the contractual vow; it merely separates the parties, who will remain married.

Thirdly, the text only deals with the woman because the Scriptures show that the woman is the one bound to the husband (Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). This is because no husband is bound to any woman in the singular, but the woman is bound to the husband (in the singular). Therefore, there is no better way to illustrate divorce than through the woman, to prove not only that the man has the authority for divorce but also that she is the one in the role of being bound to one man. We will discuss this in detail in the next chapter.

I don't know what magic is supposed to allow, as many theologians claim, the "innocent party to remarry." For what reason would either party be free to remarry? Think about it: if marriage makes two people one flesh, how can the guilty party continue to be one flesh with the other person, but that person is no longer one flesh with the guilty party? It simply doesn't make sense, since the marriage contract makes both one flesh, therefore, either the contract is completely undone or it is not possible to undo it.

Now, having said that, is it a sin to give divorce? Not at all! The law does not legislate sin, nor does it regulate it. Otherwise, God would sin by giving a certificate of divorce to Israel! (Jeremiah 3). The problem is that, having given the certificate of divorce, I doubt that any man or woman would want to remain alone for the rest of their life... that's where the sin would lie.

Note: Abraham did not divorce Hagar, so he could take Keturah as his wife. Check Genesis 21:8-14 and 25:1 (by this time, Sarah had already died). Similarly, King Xerxes (Ahasuerus), upon marrying Esther, did not give a certificate of divorce to Vashti, thus preventing Esther from committing adultery by marrying him (Esther 1:10-12, 19 - note: as in the case of Abraham, there is no mention of divorce, despite the physical distance [no, being physically separated is not divorce; otherwise, a long journey would make husband and wife divorced {ironically, the Romans allowed remarriage if the man stayed away from home for a long time, even under Christian rule. There was a lack of biblical knowledge}]).

Closing this chapter (as it is very important), the conclusion is simple: giving a certificate of divorce to my wife makes her adulterous unless she already is before (in which case it will not be my certificate that makes her adulterous, but herself).

Jeremiah 3 - A Proof of Deuteronomy 24

If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her again? Would not that land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers—would you now return to me?" declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 3:1)

What do we have here? Well, the explanation of Deuteronomy 24! As we argued in the text about the Marriage Contract, the marriage between man and woman is, in a certain way, a shadow of God's marriage with His people. What applies to one applies to the other. Therefore, God could not marry His people again if it were possible for this people to marry another god. Just as we saw in Deuteronomy 24 regarding the woman.

And after she had done all this, I thought that she would return to me, but she did not return. Her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. Because of all this, because she committed adultery, I divorced the unfaithful Israel and gave her a certificate of divorce, yet her sister Judah, the unfaithful one, did not fear; she too went and prostituted herself. Because of the noise of her prostitution she defiled the land, she committed adultery with stones and trees. (Jeremiah 3:7-9)

Indeed, God Himself gave a certificate of divorce to Israel, but since she did not marry another deity, God still says to her:

Go, then, and proclaim these words toward the north and say: Return, O faithless Israel, declares the Lord; I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the Lord; I will not be angry forever. (Jeremiah 3:12)

Now, we have the final proof of the role of the certificate of divorce: it came to signify the mercy of the husband! And in this particular case, God showed that the "loophole" in the law allowed Him to take back Israel! When we read Scripture with Scripture, everything becomes clear. God would not contradict His law; He would not confuse what it permitted. Now, if the law does not forbid it, it is not sin; therefore, God can take back the wife who has prostituted herself, and He could not do so if she had remarried.

"Return, O faithless children," declares the Lord; "for I am your husband; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion." (Jeremiah 3:14)

Ezekiel 23 – The Death of Israel

Ezekiel 23 is a lengthy text, so we'll only mention its central points. In Ezekiel, God doesn't give a divorce decree; instead, He pronounces a death sentence. Israel did more than worship idols; they engaged in idolatry through sexual acts (yes, actual sex, using it as a form of worship) and by sacrificing their children to the idols. To ensure a greater penalty upon Israel, God, this time, doesn't cry out for mercy but foresees the destruction of the people.

This demonstrates how the final destruction of Israel would make God the husband solely of Israel (the true one). Just like in the story of Abraham, where God sent away the children of the slave woman (cf. Galatians 4) to remain only with His wife, the New Jerusalem, who gives Him children of promise.

Malachi 2 – Serial Marriage with Divorce: Infidelity

Judah has been unfaithful, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god. May the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob any descendant of the man who does this, who brings an offering to the Lord of hosts! And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” (Malachi 2:11-16)

This is our last text from the Old Testament on the subject. In it, we have the treatment of something unusual. By this time, Israel was no longer a wealthy nation, which made it difficult for a man, for example, to support two wives. What happened then: to avoid the fixed expense of supporting two wives, the man divorced the woman he married when he was young ("wife of your youth") and married another (who, besides everything, worshipped another deity). Here is the importance of seeing the noun in the feminine. In Jeremiah, Israel and Judah were two women who related to "men," that is, gods. Now Israel is divided into individuals, each of whom marries women (thus, the problem is not primarily that they worshipped other gods, but that something was wrong in the marriage).

When God shows that he hates divorce, he is not hating what he himself allowed merely for allowing it, but because both parties who practice it begin to sin (as we have already said). Now, men were not prohibited from marrying more than one woman, they never were (Dt 21:15 - God doesn't care about this Greek philosophy and Roman law sensitive to the fact that he allowed a man to have more than one wife), but divorcing one to marry another is disloyalty and, in the context of marriage, disloyalty is adultery. Do not be unfaithful, as infidelity is the breaking of the covenant, and every breach of the covenant results in death, because it is sin.

Note: if you haven't noticed, no text (neither in the Old Testament nor the New Testament) allows divorce initiated by the woman. This is for a simple reason: just as Israel asking for divorce from God would be a sin, it is also a sin for a woman to initiate divorce against her husband. Perhaps you may say, "What about cases of abuse? What do you do?" When the Scriptures were written, there was also "abuse," and yet the treatment of the text does not revolve around this problem. But just as a man is not free for remarriage after divorcing a woman, even if she becomes a prostitute, so too a woman is not simply free to give a certificate of divorce as she pleases.

FIRST CONCLUSION

We have seen that since Genesis, the main texts about marriage accept with tranquility not only the enduring validity of the contract but also show that divorce does not annul it; on the contrary, divorce is a superficial rupture that does not break the nature of becoming one flesh. The reason for divorce is irrelevant.

Moreover, if the New Testament offers a different interpretation, relaxing this (or increasing the rigidity), it would clearly contradict the biblical Law, which would be absurd because God does not invalidate His commandments! How does God deal with it? It is quite simple: if Jesus came with any novelty, Christ cannot say that He only speaks what the Father has spoken (John 14:10) if He says something different from what the Father has spoken!​

I like most of this, keep in mind this verse

Matthew 19:9 (KJV)
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

some advice, don’t question Jesus, He is God. And he allows divorced men to marry more women if the reason was fornication. Case closed.

 

[Joshua]

If a man marries a woman that was simply "put away" then he has committed adultery. Because that woman still belongs to another man. But if that woman has been properly put away according to the Word - which means given a certificate of divorce and sent out of the man's household - she is free to re-marry. It's not SIN. She can find herself a new husband.

However, if she does re-marry another man - and if that 2nd husband properly divorces her (certificate of divorce), then she can not return back to her 1st husband. She can, however, go ahead and find another husband (3rd).

No scripture? I don’t see how you can argue for a one flesh union to ever be broken before death.

 

[frederick]

No scripture? I don’t see how you can argue for a one flesh union to ever be broken before death.

According to 1 Cor. 6:16, when a man is joined to a harlot, he is one flesh with her. Such unions are frequently broken.

Deut. 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

 

[Joshua]

According to 1 Cor. 6:16, when a man is joined to a harlot, he is one flesh with her. Such unions are frequently broken.

Deut. 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

If this divorcement is a full cancellation of vows, what does this verse mean to you?

Matthew 19:9 B (KJV)
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

 

[Mark C]

If this divorcement is a full cancellation of vows, what does this verse mean to you?

Matthew 19:9 B (KJV)
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Simple: If she is merely 'put away' - because she STILL HAS A LIVING HUSBAND - the one who lies with her commits adultery.

 

[OttoM]

No scripture? I don’t see how you can argue for a one flesh union to ever be broken before death.

Of course it can be broken. You just have to follow the righteous procedure:

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 NLT
Suppose a man marries a woman but she does not please him. Having discovered something wrong with her, he writes a document of divorce, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house. 2 When she leaves his house, she is free to marry another man.

The Father in Heaven gave Israel the certificate:

Isaiah 50:1 NKJV
Thus says the LORD: “Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce, Whom I have put away? Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you? For your iniquities you have sold yourselves, And for your transgressions your mother has been put away.

Sending away your wife (mis translated to divorce in the Gospel of Matthew) - without the certificate - is “NOT” the right procedure. This is what the passages in Matthew are mostly referring to - they’ve just been terribly mis-translated. That same Greek word they render in the English to “divorce” is used elsewhere when Yahshua “sends away” the crowds. If you have sex with a woman that has just been sent away (without the certificate) - you’ve committed adultery - if she still has a living husband. Without the certificate - she’s married to her husband.

And remember - if Yahshua changed the perfect law (psalm 19:7) - by adding or taking away from it - he would had sinned - and thereby - not meet the requirements to be the Messiah.

 

[Joshua]

Simple: If she is merely 'put away' - because she STILL HAS A LIVING HUSBAND - the one who lies with her commits adultery.

Forgive me if someone has an answer to this

Matthew 19:7 (KJV) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Doesn’t this suggest divorce = putting away?