Mark 10:11

[FollowingHim]

I agree with @Mark C. If she has a certificate of divorce, the divorce is legitimate. She is truly divorced and is free to remarry, whatever the circumstances preceding her getting that certificate of divorce.

However, if he was unjustified in divorcing her, then by divorcing her unjustly he was sinning. The divorce is still real, it still happened, and she is still free. But he will answer to God for this sin at the judgment, in the same way that we will answer for any other sin.

Thinking this over further, it has the implication that government divorce papers actually are meaningful. It's easy to say "let's divorce on paper" for various practical hypothetical reasons, but won't consider it a real divorce... How many marriages will actually last that? Not many. Because the divorce on paper did actually mean something. A government divorce is a written divorce agreement, and if the husband's signature is on it it's a real divorce in God's eyes. Now, if the husband's signature is not on it, and it was granted without his involvement as sometimes occurs, it is invalid. But if he signed it, it's real. So much as we may disagree with government involvement in marriage, now that they are involved, be careful what you sign.

 

[Bartato]

Close, @Bartato, but no cigar. Not that what you wrote was wrong, except as noted next, just a bit conflated, and thus confusing to those who don't understand the details:


This is the infamous Matthew 19, "hardness of your hearts," case. (Likewise too often mis-rendered.)

And here's the problem:


No, it is different.

He is the guilty party, for disobedience to Yahushua, and dishonoring his covenant, BUT:


She, as Deuteronomy 24:1-3, and Paul, too, makes clear is NOT at fault.

"She may become another man's [isha/wife]."

She is "not under bondage," SHE HAS A GET (certificate of divorce).

She does NOT 'commit adultery,' she just no longer has a living [first] husband who is arguably a scumbag.

That's a good point Mark. If the man unjustly gives the wife a bill of divorce, she does seem to be free to marry.

The original husband is still a covenant breaker. He has unjustly separated that which God has made one. He has broken faith with the wife of his youth and will be held accountable for it.

 

[Bartato]

I agree with @Mark C. If she has a certificate of divorce, the divorce is legitimate. She is truly divorced and is free to remarry, whatever the circumstances preceding her getting that certificate of divorce.

However, if he was unjustified in divorcing her, then by divorcing her unjustly he was sinning. The divorce is still real, it still happened, and she is still free. But he will answer to God for this sin at the judgment, in the same way that we will answer for any other sin.

Thinking this over further, it has the implication that government divorce papers actually are meaningful. It's easy to say "let's divorce on paper" for various practical hypothetical reasons, but won't consider it a real divorce... How many marriages will actually last that? Not many. Because the divorce on paper did actually mean something. A government divorce is a written divorce agreement, and if the husband's signature is on it it's a real divorce in God's eyes. Now, if the husband's signature is not on it, and it was granted without his involvement as sometimes occurs, it is invalid. But if he signed it, it's real. So much as we may disagree with government involvement in marriage, now that they are involved, be careful what you sign.

Agreed!

As much as I hate to ever admit it, Mark is correct here.

 

[Bartato]

I agree with @Mark C. If she has a certificate of divorce, the divorce is legitimate. She is truly divorced and is free to remarry, whatever the circumstances preceding her getting that certificate of divorce.

However, if he was unjustified in divorcing her, then by divorcing her unjustly he was sinning. The divorce is still real, it still happened, and she is still free. But he will answer to God for this sin at the judgment, in the same way that we will answer for any other sin.

Thinking this over further, it has the implication that government divorce papers actually are meaningful. It's easy to say "let's divorce on paper" for various practical hypothetical reasons, but won't consider it a real divorce... How many marriages will actually last that? Not many. Because the divorce on paper did actually mean something. A government divorce is a written divorce agreement, and if the husband's signature is on it it's a real divorce in God's eyes. Now, if the husband's signature is not on it, and it was granted without his involvement as sometimes occurs, it is invalid. But if he signed it, it's real. So much as we may disagree with government involvement in marriage, now that they are involved, be careful what you sign.

This brings another question to mind.

I work with a woman who has been divorced twice (age 51). She is pleasant, generally well liked by both male and female coworkers, and is still attractive and well put together in spite of being my age.

She was raised Mormon, but now holds to more of a "New Age" worldview.

To the best of my knowledge there was no sexual immorality involved with either of her divorces.

Also, she initiated both divorces.

Her first husband was physically abusive. She left him, divorced him, and they have remained on generally good terms since, sharing a daughter, and now recently a grandchild.

Some years later, she remarried. Things didn't work out for whatever reason (no abuse) and she initiated a no-fault divorce because they weren't compatible.

Perhaps it was the "unhappy wife syndrome".

She legally divorced both these men, and yet remained reasonably friendly with each of them. I assume that the husbands signed the divorce papers, though neither seemed to desire divorce.

Assuming that the husbands signed the divorce paperwork, your view would indicate that she is legitimately divorced, though she sinned at least in the second divorce, and is potentially marriageable.

I know that would likely be unwise for a man to pursue this woman. The two divorces (especially the second) are serious red flags. The New Age worldview is also a disqualification.

I've always considered her to be morally off limits due at least to the second divorce.

The view Mark and FollowingHim are espousing would indicate that she sinned with the no fault divorce, but is still technically available.

What do you think?

 

[Mark C]

I've always considered her to be morally off limits due at least to the second divorce.

The view Mark and FollowingHim are espousing would indicate that she sinned with the no fault divorce, but is still technically available.

What do you think?

If both of those then-husbands signed the written certificate, then she meets the criteria, and may marry again.

But you're right about the cautions.

 

[MemeFan]

This brings another question to mind.

I work with a woman who has been divorced twice (age 51). She is pleasant, generally well liked by both male and female coworkers, and is still attractive and well put together in spite of being my age.

She was raised Mormon, but now holds to more of a "New Age" worldview.

To the best of my knowledge there was no sexual immorality involved with either of her divorces.

Also, she initiated both divorces.

Her first husband was physically abusive. She left him, divorced him, and they have remained on generally good terms since, sharing a daughter, and now recently a grandchild.

Some years later, she remarried. Things didn't work out for whatever reason (no abuse) and she initiated a no-fault divorce because they weren't compatible.

Perhaps it was the "unhappy wife syndrome".

She legally divorced both these men, and yet remained reasonably friendly with each of them. I assume that the husbands signed the divorce papers, though neither seemed to desire divorce.

Assuming that the husbands signed the divorce paperwork, your view would indicate that she is legitimately divorced, though she sinned at least in the second divorce, and is potentially marriageable.

I know that would likely be unwise for a man to pursue this woman. The two divorces (especially the second) are serious red flags. The New Age worldview is also a disqualification.

I've always considered her to be morally off limits due at least to the second divorce.

The view Mark and FollowingHim are espousing would indicate that she sinned with the no fault divorce, but is still technically available.

What do you think?

What you think about dead marriages?

Biblically married, but having none marriage as in your example.

I think she is free.

 

[Bartato]

What you think about dead marriages?

Biblically married, but having none marriage as in your example.

I think she is free.

I don't know what I think. I'm trying to figure it out.

In the case of this woman, I think she ought to try to reconcile with the second husband.

I think Mark is probably correct. She is probably free.

 

[OttoM]

If the man issues a non-sense divorce and gives a certificate - the woman of course can re marry with no adultery from either party. It does not mean the man hasn’t sinned but that’s between YAH and the man. “Vengeance is mine - I will repay.”

On the other side of the equation - let’s say a woman that’s a believer initiates a no fault divorce against another believer. I hold the view point she should stay single or be reconciled back to her husband. These type of women end up divorcing their 2nd husband as well, and it’s very likely she was a fornicator before marrying her first husband. Studies show women that don’t give their virginity to their husband (but slept around before marriage), are far more likely to initiate a no fault divorce.

1 Corinthians 7:10
But for those who are married, I have a command that comes not from me, but from the Lord. A wife must not leave her husband. But if she does leave him, let her remain single or else be reconciled to him.

 

[NBTX11]

I have been of the opinion that the since the Bible says the man must give the woman a bill of divorcement and put it in her hand, that in modern vernacular, he must file for the divorce with the government, if they had a government marriage license. In other words, he filed and is the plaintiff in the divorce. Now I am hearing she can file, and as long as he signed the divorce, they're good and the woman is free. Was my previous thinking in error? I took the fact that since he is the one that writes the divorce biblically, that he must initiate a civil divorce.

 

[FollowingHim]

I have been of the opinion that the since the Bible says the man must give the woman a bill of divorcement and put it in her hand, that in modern vernacular, he must file for the divorce with the government, if they had a government marriage license. In other words, he filed and is the plaintiff in the divorce. Now I am hearing she can file, and as long as he signed the divorce, they're good and the woman is free. Was my previous thinking in error? I took the fact that since he is the one that writes the divorce biblically, that he must initiate a civil divorce.

As far as I can see, what matters is if he signed it. If he agreed to it. Who initiated it is a technicality, which could in some cases just be the first one who got around to sorting it out - maybe both wanted it and she was the one to get around to requesting the papers, while maybe he didn't want it and she did this on her own. The difference between the two is not who initiated, but whether he signed. So that is what matters.

In my opinion, a marriage should be ended in the way it began. If it had a written non-government agreement, it needs a written non-government divorce. If it had a government marriage certificate, it needs a government divorce.

If there was no written agreement at all, then although a written divorce would be preferable, it ain't gonna happen. When considering whether a woman who was in a de-facto marriage is truly divorced and free to remarry, you cannot expect her to produce a written certificate of divorce, nobody does that. What matters is ultimately whether the man believes she still belongs to him, or doesn't want anything to do with her. That should be readily ascertained. Paperwork makes it clearer, but if he doesn't believe in certificates of divorce the question can still be answered.

 

[NBTX11]

When considering whether a woman who was in a de-facto marriage is truly divorced and free to remarry, you cannot expect her to produce a written certificate of divorce, nobody does that.

Well, if they are believers, or became believers after they married and had no marriage certificate or other written documents, and they were in a de-facto marriage, it would be good for the believing husband to issue her a written bill of divorcement. Even if most people don't do that. Write it out by hand and give it to her, if needed.

 

[Children of God]

And this is the reason I keep coming back to this group. You all are so engaged in discussions and are such a blessing to each other. I can't find anywhere else where a group of guys, and gals, though that is more common, can "sit" around and have truly open heart to heart biblical conversations that aren't cut and paste doctrine from 500 years ago. Thank you, seriously thank you for caring enough about everyone on this site. I may not agree with each of you but you're all brethren in Christ. May Yah bless you and your families.

 

[FollowingHim]

Well, if they are believers, or became believers after they married and had no marriage certificate or other written documents, and they were in a de-facto marriage, it would be good for the believing husband to issue her a written bill of divorcement. Even if most people don't do that. Write it out by hand and give it to her, if needed.

Obviously it would be good for him to do that. But we are rarely in the position of advising a man how to correctly divorce his de-facto wife. This question is far more commonly confronted from the other side - a woman who has had a past relationship, which broke up, and a man is trying to work out if she is available for him to marry or still technically in God's eyes married to her former man. In that situation, although you might in some very rare exceptional circumstances manage to persuade her ex to give her a written bill of divorce, in reality it's just not going to happen 99.99% of the time. Hence my thoughts on how to determine whether the woman is divorced or not, and available to marry.

 

[Mark C]

This question is far more commonly confronted from the other side - a woman who has had a past relationship...you might in some very rare exceptional circumstances manage to persuade her ex to give her a written bill of divorce...Hence my thoughts on how to determine whether the woman is divorced or not, and available to marry.

Just bear in mind that a written 'certificate' DOES function as a "second witness." (The woman herself being the first.)

I suggest, one way or another, since it's important, that "everything be confirmed in the mouth of two [or more]" witnesses.

 

[Maddog]

I think it is important to bring up pre-conversion and post-conversion rules. Is an unsaved person bound to the rules of scripture? Can a person unidentified as a Yahweh follower please Him with his sacrifices(whatever that may be). If a person is NOT a follower of our Heavenly Father, is it appropriate to saddle him with Yah's rules? I think not. Is a society made better by instituting the good rules of scripture- codifying those into civil laws, e.g. dont steal, don't murder, honor parents, have a day of rest, don't make idols, don't lie, etc?
The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul, the Testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple. If this is more valuable than gold, why does the modern christian push back against that under the guise of "liberty"?

 

[OttoM]

The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul, the Testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple. If this is more valuable than gold, why does the modern christian push back against that under the guise of "liberty"?

There's certain instructions from the Creator that most people can agree with, because some things are written in our hearts:

Romans 2:14-15
Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

The instructions of the Creator go much deeper than commandments such as "thou shall not steal", however. At this moment in time - at least - not everything is written in our hearts and we're expected to ask the right questions - seek with our hearts - and meditate on that Word/Truth. Just like the righteous servants of the ancient past have done - for example - King David.

The problem is that there is a conflict with the wisdom of the world, and the wisdom of the Most High. It's a spiritual battle. Modern Christianity pushes back against the Wisdom from the Most High, because of the love of the world. I like what the apostle James wrote:

James 4:4
You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

There’s plenty of things in Scripture that is no longer politically correct. And because those leading the flock aren’t teaching with un-ashamed truth - much of the church isn’t Holy and Set Apart according to the Word. The Ekklesia is not supposed to be walking according to the ways of the world - according to the prince of the power of the air. There’s been a massive acceleration of the fall of society since the internet. It’s why we see curses and not blessings in the land. Today’s modern Christianity bases some of their righteousness according to the prince of the power of the air, and not according to the one that died on the cross for their sins. If the church represents the wife - how would any husband feel like if their own wife is obeying and following another man versus her own husband?

 

[Maddog]

My point is that most Christians cant name the ten commandments yet they speak of LIBERTY. I can do nine but for some reason i struggle to get all ten. These are the same ones who who SAY they love Gods Word. How can you love something when you dont know it? The all encompassing aspect of Gods word is amazing but you have to meditate on it. Tie EVERY nuance of sin back to His Word.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I searched the forums and didn't find a discussion on this topic though there has to be. It's interesting that here it puts the act of adultery on the man for taking another wife, after divorcing his previous wife. I can't find this stated anywhere else in the Bible so please help explain...

I would like to weigh in on this as I seem to have a slightly nuanced understanding from what has been shared.

A husband is a covering for his wife. When she is under his covering, her sins are covered by him. Just as Eve sinned first in the garden, God says that it was by Adam that sin entered into the world. A way to understand this is to imagine that sin bubbles up to the covering above it. If it is dealt with at that level, then it is not seen from above that point. But, all sin must be dealt with. If the one covering the sin, sins themselves, then their sin must bubble up to the one covering that person.
So, in reality the covering goes from the top down,
God eternal ->
Yeshua his son ->
Men/Husbands ->
Wives ->
Children

This is important to understand as a man who tells his wife to leave the house and refuses to give her a divorce or support, is causing his obedient wife to sin. The sin of adultery then bubbles up to her covering, her actual husband who refused to divorce her. HE then bears the burden of that sin. She left in obedience so the sin is not hers, it is his.

Thus, the scripture that states that he becomes an adulterer by sending her away and her committing the act that he compelled her into.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I agree with @Mark C. If she has a certificate of divorce, the divorce is legitimate. She is truly divorced and is free to remarry, whatever the circumstances preceding her getting that certificate of divorce.

However, if he was unjustified in divorcing her, then by divorcing her unjustly he was sinning. The divorce is still real, it still happened, and she is still free. But he will answer to God for this sin at the judgment, in the same way that we will answer for any other sin.

Thinking this over further, it has the implication that government divorce papers actually are meaningful. It's easy to say "let's divorce on paper" for various practical hypothetical reasons, but won't consider it a real divorce... How many marriages will actually last that? Not many. Because the divorce on paper did actually mean something. A government divorce is a written divorce agreement, and if the husband's signature is on it it's a real divorce in God's eyes. Now, if the husband's signature is not on it, and it was granted without his involvement as sometimes occurs, it is invalid. But if he signed it, it's real. So much as we may disagree with government involvement in marriage, now that they are involved, be careful what you sign.

I agree that a man using a state divorce cert is indeed truly divorcing his wife. If they are attempting to walk away from the state issued marriage license, they can use the state issued divorce to do so.

Then, they can marry under their understanding of the laws of God and it be equally binding.

The only prohibition on a woman remarrying a man she divorced is if she left and married another.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

As far as I can see, what matters is if he signed it. If he agreed to it. Who initiated it is a technicality, which could in some cases just be the first one who got around to sorting it out - maybe both wanted it and she was the one to get around to requesting the papers, while maybe he didn't want it and she did this on her own. The difference between the two is not who initiated, but whether he signed. So that is what matters.

In my opinion, a marriage should be ended in the way it began. If it had a written non-government agreement, it needs a written non-government divorce. If it had a government marriage certificate, it needs a government divorce.

If there was no written agreement at all, then although a written divorce would be preferable, it ain't gonna happen. When considering whether a woman who was in a de-facto marriage is truly divorced and free to remarry, you cannot expect her to produce a written certificate of divorce, nobody does that. What matters is ultimately whether the man believes she still belongs to him, or doesn't want anything to do with her. That should be readily ascertained. Paperwork makes it clearer, but if he doesn't believe in certificates of divorce the question can still be answered.

I fully agree with the idea that a man who "signs" the divorce cert initiated by his wife is fully giving a legal divorce in the eyes of God.

The bible never says that it is a sin for a wife to "ask" for a divorce. Now, she may ask verbally or on paper. Either way, if he signs a divorce cert, she is legally free to go and marry another man and it NOT be adultery.