I see your argument here, I think I’ll have to agree now. why do you think that a few verses later in deut 24 it says that the first man can not take her back if she gets divorced by the second? Out of curiousity.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
General DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
- Thread starter meryc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- divorce marriage remarriage
I know Jesus didn’t change the law, what’s your opinion of
Matthew 19:9 A (KJV)
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:
Does the law explain this expectation for requiring fornication for the wife to be put away? I haven’t heard many of these explanations yet
It is vital to establish what God meant by what He said, and not what a passage means to you or me. The first question to ask is, "What did God say?" In the verse you quote in English there is a distinction drawn by our Lord with the use of two different Greek words. These Greek words have two distinct meanings. Unfortunately, this difference is missed in the English translation. To "put away" is not the same as "divorce", as has been already pointed out by some above.
Adultery occurs when a man has a sexual relationship with a woman who is the wife of another man. If she has been set free by her man, she is free to marry another man (see Deut. 24:2) - without either party committing adultery. Shalom
Thank you for your information, when I say what do you think, I don’t mean your arbitrary opinion. I mean what you think God said. I would appreciate if you’d read my other questions too and see if you can provide comment. God bless
He has His reasons. We are to obey - whether we know the reason or we don’t. But for my opinion - I think Jeremiah 3 has some answer:
Jeremiah 3 NLT
“If a man divorces a woman and she goes and marries someone else, he will not take her back again, for that would surely corrupt the land. But you have prostituted yourself with many lovers, so why are you trying to come back to me?” says the Lord. 2 “Look at the shrines on every hilltop. Is there any place you have not been defiled by your adultery with other gods?
This is referring to the Northern Kingdom of Israel - that did violence to His Torah - and behaved like the other nations instead of being Set Apart and Holy to YAHUAH.
If a wife has already fornicated with another man - she (and the man she fornicated with) have already committed a crime punishable with the death penalty. Obviously, the husband would be furious with her if he found out. And in such cases - he would not be guilty of simply kicking her - in anger - out of his house without any certificate. She’s already committed adultery on her own doing. He’s not responsible if he sends her away, and she goes out and continues in lawlessness.
But the Torah is clear - a man can issue a certificate of divorce for reasons other than fornication.
Last edited:
My opinion is that the man is to be logical and deliberate about something as serious as his wife. He is to let his yes be yes and his no be no. Human nature for some includes husband sanctioned adultery. They call it swinging, but by prohibiting a man from taking back a wife after he divorced her....and she moved on to a new partner, YHWH made it impossible for a man to "lawfully" partner swap.
The Greek word translated fornication there is pornia and would include men who's "women" were from nations they were forbidden to intermarry with, and it would also cover other forbidden unions like incest or marrying a wife's mother or daughter (death penalty there for all)
In such cases the union was NOT MARRIAGE.... it was SIN. So in the case of a union that was PORNIA no certificate of divorce was required....just PUT HER AWAY (stop sinning) see the example in the book of Ezra.
Excellent observation.
Actually it suggests the exact opposite. Note the word "and" that I have bolded. This shows clearly that a writing of divorcement is different from putting away - it talks about doing one and also the other. You can't do one thing "and" the same thing. You can only do one thing "and" another thing.
Maybe it will sink in.
Okay, what are all the reasons a man can divorce?
i agree, just still combing through these nuances
Which verses specifically have the mis-translation? And would that include this passage? Also is it mis translated in every English version or just some
Matthew 5:31-32 (KJV) 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
There's no list. "Because he finds some 'unseemly-ness' [Hebrew: ervah - it's an interesting word - look at the prior/subsequent uses] in her."
BUT:
Can != should. [is NOT equal to, or the same as]
In general, he bears HER guilt, and he will stand before YHVH to answer for the choice.
And Yahushua says it was 'allowed,' but, again, that does not mean he SHOULD. (Warnings abound; Shaul/Paul says essentially, it may be OK, but not 'profitable,' appropriate...etc.)
And read Matthew 5:31-32 carefully (meaning - KJV got it WRONG!!!) The so-called "exception clause," is the OPPOSITE: If she has ALREADY committed adultery, she is (duh) already an adulterer. You can't MAKE her one ['causeth her'] by 'putting her away.' In such a case, she is not even owed the courtesy/privilege of a 'certificate of divorce,' making her eligible for remarriage. (See Isaiah 50, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23 - YHVH was nothing if not patient and forgiving.)
Note - again - and this is vital: The POINT Yahushua is making, over and over in that entire chapter 5 sequence, is "you have HEARD it said" - WRONGLY!!!! - but "I tell you" what it really says (i.e., What I Wrote!) He didn't change so much as "one yod or tiddle".
This is only hard because it has been lied about for so long, so extensively.
Last edited:
Lots...
In many, if not even most. And they make different errors, sometimes getting part right. (example: some say "he causes her," others don't even get that right, and say something instead like "HE COMMITS".)
Part of the problem, however, is context. They (those teaching) ASSUME He was changing His own Word, or "raising the bar," or whatever other BS you've probably heard, rather than what He just said: Teaching what you have HEARD it said, and which was WRONG.
Last edited:
That Pile of You-know-what, for example, is one of the verses I point out FIRST to those who are "KJV-only" and claim it is "without error." There's a WHOPPER!
It's self-contradictory, easy to show someone, and even obvious just looking at a concordance.
2 questions, from your study of the word ervah, what does it include? Secondly, how is a man able to marry a woman who has been put away, if she is still bound to that husband? Without his permission? Or would it just be void on the day he hears it
It’s not as such as the Greek. (See also 1 Timothy 3 “husband of one wife”), but stands alone compared to the other English versions by far. Which is why I am “KJV only” and still use the interlinear often, as I do not know fluent Greek or Hebrew!
'ervah' H6172 often rendered "nakedness" in KJV. First use Genesis 9:22, when Ham saw whatever it was in his father, Noach.
עֶרְוָה
Then it was Joseph/Yosef accusing his brothers of coming to "spy out the nakedness" of his land.It's in Leviticus 18 (forbidden relations) where we see the list most may recognize, and the context that is more familiar. But - it's a bit "bigger" than just looking at a naked body.
Thus, it is the husband who "knows it when he sees it" in a potential or current wife, but WILL stand before YHVH (IMHO) for his judgment.
OK - all of this follows directly from what you've already seen. Just follow the logic, in spite of what we've "heard it said."
Does a woman who MAY be a wife candidate, but is not a virgin, have a "sefer keretutah," or "certificate of divorce"?
If she DOES - she "has no living husband," and has TWO WITNESSES (!) to prove it: Her own, and her (now EX-) husband.
If she does NOT, the "safe bet" is that she "still has a living husband," and sleeping with her is adultery.
(Vows, Numbers 30 - wow, but that's a Whole 'Nuther Thread...
)I put up a thread a while back about "advice for the wedding night" that addressed that...