• 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.

Divorce verse by verse

Nikud

Nikud

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Exodus 21:10-11 has been discussed here
It was the first mention of Divorce.

Let's begin with Leviticus 21:13-15

Vayikra 21:13-15
13 And he shall take an isha in her virginity.

14 An almanah, or a gerusha, or chalalah, or a zonah, these shall he not take; but he shall take a betulah of his own people to wife.

15 Neither shall he profane his zera among his people; for I Hashem do set him apart as kodesh.

Leviticus 21:13-15
13 “‘He is marry a woman who is a virgin; 14 he may not marry a widow, divorcee, profaned woman or prostitute; but he must marry a virgin from among his own people 15 and not disqualify his descendants among his people; because I am Adonai, who makes him holy.’”

This is where alot of the teachings about not marrying widows, non virgins, divorced women begin. It's here that Yeshua starts correcting and the Rauch Hakodesh keeps correcting through the epistles. I hope it obvious why we as beleivers dont start here. The reason that this is not an instruction for those in Yeshua. Members of a royal priesthood with Yeshua as our High preist. The He here is speaking of a Levitie. This is an instruction specific for them and them alone. Just like instructions for a woman who gives birth in of Leviticus 12 is not applicable to men. It wasn't an instruction for a man to mikvah after His wife Gave birth.
Are we all in agreement or is there Levites out there who think I'm leading them astray? For real we all see that this here doesnt apply to us, right? No judgement we can talk about it.
 
Last edited:
Kevin said:
Exodus 21:10-11 has been discussed here
It was the first mention of Divorce.

Let's begin with Leviticus 21:13-15

Vayikra 21:13-15
13 And he shall take an isha in her virginity.

14 An almanah, or a gerusha, or chalalah, or a zonah, these shall he not take; but he shall take a betulah of his own people to wife.

15 Neither shall he profane his zera among his people; for I Hashem do set him apart as kodesh.

Leviticus 21:13-15
13 “‘He is marry a woman who is a virgin; 14 he may not marry a widow, divorcee, profaned woman or prostitute; but he must marry a virgin from among his own people 15 and not disqualify his descendants among his people; because I am Adonai, who makes him holy.’”

This is where alot of the teachings about not marrying widows, non virgins, divorced women begin. It's here that Yeshua starts correcting and the Rauch Hakodesh keeps correcting through the epistles. I hope it obvious why we as beleivers dont start here. The reason that this is not an instruction for those in Yeshua. Members of a royal priesthood with Yeshua as our High preist. The He here is speaking of a Levitie. This is an instruction specific for them and them alone. Just like instructions for a woman who gives birth in of Leviticus 12 is not applicable to men. It wasn't an instruction for a man to mikvah after His wife Gage birth.
Are we all in agreement or is their Levites out there who think I'm leading them astray? For real we all see that this here doesnt apply to us, right? No judgement we can talk about it.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
Don’t forget this one. This is actually the first.

Exodus 18:2,3. Then Jethro, Moses father in law, took Zipporah, Moses wife, after he had sent her back,
And her two sons;

7964 shilluwach or shilluach {shil-loo'-akh}; from 7971; (only in plural) a dismissal, i.e. (of a wife) divorce (especially the document); also (of a daughter) dower:--presents, have sent back.

Probably the divorce happened at this point. Exodus 4:24-26
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Don’t forget this one. This is actually the first.

Exodus 18:2,3. Then Jethro, Moses father in law, took Zipporah, Moses wife, after he had sent her back,
And her two sons;

7964 shilluwach or shilluach {shil-loo'-akh}; from 7971; (only in plural) a dismissal, i.e. (of a wife) divorce (especially the document); also (of a daughter) dower:--presents, have sent back.

Probably the divorce happened at this point. Exodus 4:24-26
Click to expand...
I do have a question about this because someone recently tried to use this against plural as if one obscure reference overturns the mountain of Scriptural support.

My question is this: Did Moses actually issue a 'get' as it does appear so, and did Jethro/Yitro/Ruel refuse it in bringing her back?

Scripture is not clear and I find Moses issuing a divorce hard to believe, particularly when Yeshua connects divorce with hardness of heart.
 
Kevin said:
Exodus 21:10-11 has been discussed here
It was the first mention of Divorce.

Let's begin with Leviticus 21:13-15

Vayikra 21:13-15
13 And he shall take an isha in her virginity.

14 An almanah, or a gerusha, or chalalah, or a zonah, these shall he not take; but he shall take a betulah of his own people to wife.

15 Neither shall he profane his zera among his people; for I Hashem do set him apart as kodesh.

Leviticus 21:13-15
13 “‘He is marry a woman who is a virgin; 14 he may not marry a widow, divorcee, profaned woman or prostitute; but he must marry a virgin from among his own people 15 and not disqualify his descendants among his people; because I am Adonai, who makes him holy.’”

This is where alot of the teachings about not marrying widows, non virgins, divorced women begin. It's here that Yeshua starts correcting and the Rauch Hakodesh keeps correcting through the epistles. I hope it obvious why we as beleivers dont start here. The reason that this is not an instruction for those in Yeshua. Members of a royal priesthood with Yeshua as our High preist. The He here is speaking of a Levitie. This is an instruction specific for them and them alone. Just like instructions for a woman who gives birth in of Leviticus 12 is not applicable to men. It wasn't an instruction for a man to mikvah after His wife Gave birth.
Are we all in agreement or is there Levites out there who think I'm leading them astray? For real we all see that this here doesnt apply to us, right? No judgement we can talk about it.
Click to expand...
As I understand those verses, they apply specifically to the High Priest, not all priests. There is a previous verse generic to all priests that says similar, but does not exclude widows.
 
I know this is controversial, but in the Book of Jasher, I believe it was referenced twice in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament, it appears as tho Zipporah and children were probably sent back for safeties sake. Not due to a divorce.

Jasher 79:15 And Aaron lifted up his eyes, and saw Zipporah the wife of Moses and her children, and he said unto Moses, Who are these unto thee? 16 And Moses said unto him, They are my wife and sons, which God gave to me in Midian; and the thing grieved Aaron on account of the woman and her children. 17 And Aaron said to Moses, Send away the woman and her children that they may go to her father's house, and Moses hearkened to the words of Aaron, and did so. 18 And Zipporah returned with her children, and they went to the house of Reuel, and remained there until the time arrived when the Lord had visited his people, andbrought them forth from Egypt from the hand at Pharaoh.
 
Phillip said:
I know this is controversial, but in the Book of Jasher, I believe it was referenced twice in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament, it appears as tho Zipporah and children were probably sent back for safeties sake. Not due to a divorce.

Jasher 79:15 And Aaron lifted up his eyes, and saw Zipporah the wife of Moses and her children, and he said unto Moses, Who are these unto thee? 16 And Moses said unto him, They are my wife and sons, which God gave to me in Midian; and the thing grieved Aaron on account of the woman and her children. 17 And Aaron said to Moses, Send away the woman and her children that they may go to her father's house, and Moses hearkened to the words of Aaron, and did so. 18 And Zipporah returned with her children, and they went to the house of Reuel, and remained there until the time arrived when the Lord had visited his people, andbrought them forth from Egypt from the hand at Pharaoh.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Makes sense.
 
Ancient Paths said:
As I understand those verses, they apply specifically to the High Priest, not all priests. There is a previous verse generic to all priests that says similar, but does not exclude widows.
Click to expand...
You are correct the verses that exclude widows are specifically for the High Preist and other Levites are not given that instruction. Verse 7 is for all Levites and 10-15 for The Levite High Preist.

5Kohanim are not to shave their heads, nor shave off the corners of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. 6 They are to be holy to their God, and not profane the Name of their God, for they present the offerings of Adonai made by fire, the bread of their God. Therefore they are to be holy. 7 They are not to marry women who are defiled as prostitutes, or profane. Neither should they marry women divorced from their husbands, for a kohen is holy to his God. 8 Therefore you are to sanctify him, because he offers the bread of your God. He shall be holy to you, for I, Adonai, who sanctifies you, am holy.

9 “The daughter of any kohen, if she profanes herself by playing the prostitute, profanes her father. She is to be burned with fire.

10 “He who is the kohen gadol among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured and is consecrated to put on the garments, is not to let the hair of his head hang loose or tear his clothes, 11 nor should he go near any dead person, defiling himself, even for his father or his mother. 12 He is not to go out of the Sanctuary or profane the Sanctuary of his God—for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. I am Adonai.

13 “He should take a wife in her virginity.

I would like to reiterate that the instruction in these verses not to marry a divorced woman is given to Levites, Preist and High Preist alike.
 
Maybe I should have stated this at the beining. I am not one who beleives that the laws pertaining to the Levitical Preisthood transfered over to the Melchizedek Presithood. One was made Holy, set apart by obedience through obligation to the word of God and the other is made Holy, set apart in obedience through love to the living word of God by Grace. Also if you choose to uphold the instructions to the Levites as a tradition in your life. This is not meant to dissuade you or condemn you from that. I just mean to point out where it is, as I have come to understand it, wrong to try to hold all beleivers to instructions meant for specific classes especially when it comes to extremely important instructions about as marriage and divorce.

Leviticus 22:12-13
12 If a kohen’s daughter is married to a layman, she is not to eat from the gifts of the holy offerings. 13 But if a kohen’s daughter is a widow or divorced, and has no child and has returned to her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat from her father’s food. But no layman may eat any of it.

I'm going to mention all the things I've come up against when speaking with others I'd appreciate if y'all do the same and show how you made your case with scripture.

This again is specific for a Levitical Preists daughter who is a widow or divorced. It is here that a condition is placed on them. You cant use this verse to put a condition of being childless on all women to be able to return to her fathers house. I know many of us are saying of course, but there's just as many that do use this verse to justify doing so. There are communities where a family is expected to shun a daughter if she is divorced because of a misinterpretation of a non applical instruction. There are those who will say that there's no biblical instruction for a divorced woman to return to her fathers house then. Therefore a divorced woman cannot return to her fathers house. This shows that there is no biblical instruction for her not to, and only in one instance when there's a condition to her doing so. As it's been mentioned here on the forum time and time again here if there's no instruction saying no X cannot happen then it's not forbidden. We see this pointed out when we discuss female homosexuality. There's a no X policy. Yet when for example in Exodus 21 there is no instruction saying that a bonds woman can not say no to a marriage, yet to apply the same X policy and say she can say no, will earn a retort of your adding to the word for saying she can. The X policy can be applied there and here in Leviticus 22:12-13.
I Edited it pleases reread if you liked.
 
Last edited:
Ancient Paths said:
I do have a question about this because someone recently tried to use this against plural as if one obscure reference overturns the mountain of Scriptural support.

My question is this: Did Moses actually issue a 'get' as it does appear so, and did Jethro/Yitro/Ruel refuse it in bringing her back?

Scripture is not clear and I find Moses issuing a divorce hard to believe, particularly when Yeshua connects divorce with hardness of heart.
Click to expand...

Here is a clue to the answer http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/commentary-on-jewish-marriage.14478/page-5#post-174996

I would definitely recommend the book (and have often here) for a condensed look at Jewish marriage and divorce from ancient times thru modern law.

As to if Moses issued a “get” I don’t think there is any record that I have found to that effect, however, from what I have found, that does not necessarily equal that a divorce by mutual consent did not happen. I believe this to be the case. I believe this passage to be the earliest scriptural occurrence of divorce for soft fault, repugnance.

@Phillip I personally don’t have an issue with Jasher and have read it multiple times. Though we don’t know exactly what happened, I can definitely see a possible coordination with the two passages instead of competing narratives.
Such as Zipporah delivers her repugnance statement twice about the circumcision, with Moses not quite willing to send her out, and then his older (perhaps racist?) brother is grieved because Moses has dared to marry a non Levite/Israelite. For Moses this is the last straw and so he shilluach’ed her. I am convinced that this is indeed a divorce because the word is used in only two instances and both involve sending a woman out with her dowry.
  1. A father sending a woman to her marriage, and
  2. A man sending a woman back to her father sans her fault, with her dowry.
That Moses shilluach’d her, instead of garash Lev. 21:7, or kriythuwth/karath Jer 3:8 or shalach’d, tells me that he sent her out sans fault and with her dowry and sons.

Post Sinai re a writing of divorce. (Because Moses’ would have been pre Sinai, perhaps pre “get”)
A man sending a woman out for soft fault would be sending her with a writing of divorce (sans/in lieu of dowry) Deut 24:1-4
A man prosecuting hard fault (sexual adultery) would either put her away sexually, (as in Matthews acct) or take her before the judges. Deut. 22:14-17
A man who did not wish to prosecute hard fault could also send her out with a writing of divorce Jer 3:8 which is the marriage equivalent of saying that she is cut off (or dead) to him. Very similar to the phrase being cut off (karath) from Israel.

Also to note is that the hardness of heart was in response to divorce a woman for every reason, i.e. No fault. Nothing is mentioned about mutual divorce (soft fault) in the passage, and divorce for hard fault is not associated with hardness of heart.

So apparently divorce for mutual reasons is a pre Sinai cultural event as is a fathers right to reject her foolishness in the day he hears of it.
 
As to Karath, being cut off, I find it infinitely interesting that Paul uses this metaphor to describe both physical marriage and our relationship to Christ in Romans 6 & 7


Know ye not, brethren, (for, †I speak to them that know the law,) how,) that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he†liveth??
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then†if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

The interesting twist to this is when you realize that Jewish law provided for divorce by a woman from her husband for adultery if he became an apostate because his status would then be cut off from Israel. Though living, he was dead to Torah, which was the basis of their marriage covenant. Thus he was considered dead to her IF she so chose and she was no longer bound by law (Torah) to a dead man.

This gives deeper meaning to the verse that says if a man provide not for those of his own household he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. An infidel was one who was apistos (apostate)

Paul takes the injuction of Exodus 21 and enlarges it from just the wife to anyone of his own household.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
As to if Moses issued a “get” I don’t think there is any record that I have found to that effect, however, from what I have found, that does not necessarily equal that a divorce by mutual consent did not happen. I believe this to be the case. I believe this passage to be the earliest scriptural occurrence of divorce for soft fault, repugnance.
Click to expand...
I would also like to point out a few things. Biblical Torah (law, prophecy, and History in the first 5 Books of Scripture) was given directly to Moses and he recorded the words of God. His actions were not always indicative of God's intention. He was a man who at times acted according to His own will. We see this shown in scripture and in the fact he is eventually punished with non admittance to the promise land. The soft divorce case made by the actions of Moses, that many tried to justify as biblical because it was a Prophet who did it, versus the Instruction from God about divorce don't line up. Once again we end up with a Tradition of Man nullifying the instructions of God.
 
Right some times cultral norm is created by God like at Sinai giving us instructions others times cultral norm is created by man giving us tradition. As long as Tradition doesn't conflict with instruction, like it does when the soft case for divorce is practiced, it's a valid option.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
As to Karath, being cut off, I find it infinitely interesting that Paul uses this metaphor to describe both physical marriage and our relationship to Christ in Romans 6 & 7


Know ye not, brethren, (for, †I speak to them that know the law,) how,) that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he†liveth??
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then†if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

The interesting twist to this is when you realize that Jewish law provided for divorce by a woman from her husband for adultery if he became an apostate because his status would then be cut off from Israel. Though living, he was dead to Torah, which was the basis of their marriage covenant. Thus he was considered dead to her IF she so chose and she was no longer bound by law (Torah) to a dead man.

This gives deeper meaning to the verse that says if a man provide not for those of his own household he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. An infidel was one who was apistos (apostate)

Paul takes the injuction of Exodus 21 and enlarges it from just the wife to anyone of his own household.
Click to expand...
So this little foray in to all sorts of things not Bible verses directly related to the topic has led us to the conclusion that a believing husband or wife can righteously leave a non-believing husband or wife simply for being labeled as a non-believer? I know, as we all do, that the Bible teaches something completely opposite but I bet if we try real hard we can get the Code of Hammurabi or Jasher or the Talmud to tell us that the Bible is wrong, I mean lacking cultural context.
 
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
1 Corinthians 7:12‭-‬14 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/1co.7.12-14.NASB
 
The point of this thread is to Look at what scripture that is Canon verse by verse to see what God has to say about Divorce. To disscuss how tradition past and present changes the perception. If anyone wants to disscuss the difference between being an unbeliever who does not know God yet denies Him and an apostate who rejects a relationship they had with God and chooses sin we will get to that point. If you think they're one and the same........maybe this thread isnt for you.

ZecAustin said:
?

Now hold on before you go getting all judgey. We haven't looked in to what the pagans have to say about this passage and we know God consulted them before He had Abraham write it. You're acting like the Bible is the only source for truth or something.
Click to expand...

What did Abraham write?
 
Last edited:
Ancient Paths said:
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away
Click to expand...
You make a valid point about an unbelieving spouse who wants to stay married. The instruction is to stay married in that case. There is no instruction to remain married to an unbeliever who does not want to be married and there is scripture to support divorce on that case. Which we can debate about when we get to that part.



On second thought, yall can jump into 2 Corinthians or any other scriprure and forget the verse by verse and trying to discuss it. Since nobody seems to be interested in looking at what scripture says and it seems like everyone just wants to keep arguing their own understanding that supports our own individual dogma like always with out actually discussing scripture. Have at it. I have better ways to use my time.
 
Last edited:
ZecAustin said:
So this little foray in to all sorts of things not Bible verses directly related to the topic has led us to the conclusion that a believing husband or wife can righteously leave a non-believing husband or wife simply for being labeled as a non-believer? I know, as we all do, that the Bible teaches something completely opposite but I bet if we try real hard we can get the Code of Hammurabi or Jasher or the Talmud to tell us that the Bible is wrong, I mean lacking cultural context.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what Bible verses were not directly related to the topic of divorce.

If you have something constructive to say, then say it. If not, butt out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top