Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
His Word ... a prophetic perspective

Home

Divorce-husband and wife marriage covenant broken by adultery

Divorce and Remarriage-marriage covenant breakers redefined

        This article is my attempt to bring light to the biblical divorce and remarriage issue. This subject is not a simple one. There are many peripheral, but pertinent issues that I have not discussed. My purpose is to show from scripture as much as is possible the biblical facts surrounding this issue. I have had to incorporate some brief explanations of the cultural and legal factors in existence at the time of the biblical happenings. If you disagree with what I’ve written here, I suggest that you do your own research into the subject, study your Bible and spend time in prayer. This course of action is to be preferred to simply stating some doctrinal belief that has been taught to you and closing your mind to biblical truth.

        Divorce during Old Testament times was a common practice. It’s mentioned in Leviticus 21:7,14; 22:13, Numbers 30:9 and Deuteronomy 22:29.
        In Hebrew divorces the dowry was an important financial instrument because of its significance in the marriage.
        The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says this about a dowry:
        “In all Hebrew marriages, the dowry held an important place. The dowry sealed the betrothal. It took several forms. The bridegroom presented gifts to the bride. There was the mohar, “dowry” as distinguished from mattan, “gifts to the members of the family” (compare Genesis 24:22,53; Genesis 34:12). The price paid to the father or brothers of the bride was probably a survival of the early custom of purchasing wives (Genesis 34:12; Exodus 22:17; 1 Samuel 18:25; compare Ruth 4:10; Hosea 3:2). There was frequently much negotiation and bargaining as to size of dowry (Genesis 34:12). The dowry would generally be according to the wealth and standing of the bride (compare 1 Samuel 18:23). It might consist of money, jewelry or other valuable effects; sometimes, of service rendered, as in the case of Jacob (Genesis 29:18); deeds of valor might be accepted in place of dowry (Joshua 15:16; 1 Samuel 18:25; Judges 1:12). Occasionally a bride received a dowry from her father; sometimes in the shape of land (Judges 1:15), and of cities (1 Kings 9:16). In later Jewish history a written marriage contract definitely arranged for the nature and size of the dowry.”
        Technically, a dowry came from the bride’s father to the couple being married. However a bride-price was paid by the man to the father of his intended bride.
        This dowry, or bride-price was a significant factor in a marriage in Hebrew history. This asset was the property of the wife. As such, it provided financial security to her in the event the marriage didn’t work out. It was also a deterrent to the husband, because he would have invested this asset into the marriage as a matter of mutual benefit and if he divorced his wife, he would have to then return the dowry/bride-price to his wife. The exception to this was if she was guilty of breaking the marriage covenant, usually because of sexual infidelity. The right to divorce was exclusively the husband’s privilege. This gradually changed over a period of time, however, it was hardly an equitable situation for women.
        For all practical purposes a woman was practically forced to marry someone. Either that, or spend the rest of her life in her father’s house. The use of the dowry and/or bride-price put some limitations upon whimsical decisions by the husband to end the marriage.
        There are important considerations involved in marriages in the Old Testament. We read in Exodus:

        Exodus 21:7-11:
        7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
        8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
        9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
        10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
        11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
        This portion of scripture deals with a slave who becomes a wife. Verse 10 is important because it clearly defines that she is to have adequate and satisfactory food, raiment and her duty of marriage. Later rabbis throughout the history of Israel realized that if is true for a slave wife then it surely must apply to a free wife. In addition they determined that it should apply to the husband also. That this is so, is demonstrated by God Himself in His dealings with Israel.
        On the basis of this logic, they made it a standard requirement for not only the wife, but also the husband, to be responsible in providing food, clothing and sexual relations to each other.
        It was agreed that the man would provide the food and clothing to his wife and that she would do her share by cooking and preparing the food and also making the clothing from the materials that her husband gave her. Each partner in a marriage was legally bound by the terms of the marriage covenant, or contract. Failure on the part of either husband or wife to provide food, clothing and sexual relationships to the other was understood to be grounds for divorce.
        In Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 the Ten Commandments tell us that we are not to commit adultery. Leviticus tells us that adultery is a death penalty sin.
        Leviticus 20:10:
        10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
        Food and clothing were relegated to the category of material support, while sexual relations and sexual faithfulness within the marriage were classified as emotional support, i.e., love.
        Divorce was a relatively simple matter for a Hebrew husband. All he had to do was to tell his spouse that she was no longer his wife and then put her away. This was a legal practice they had learned from the surrounding nations and appeared to be accepted by all.
        Besides being inequitable it added injury to insult for the wife because if the wife subsequently remarried and raised another family there was nothing to prevent her first husband coming back into her life years later and reclaiming her as his wife.
        To bring some measure of relief to the situation new legislation pertaining to this issue was announced by Moses acting as intercessor for God. In Deuteronomy we read:
        Deuteronomy 24:1-4:
        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.
        2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
        3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
        4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
        Excerpts from the Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on Deuteronomy 24:1-4:
        “1-4. When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes—It appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt [LANE]. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Mt 19:8). But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of that second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her.”
        By adding these requirements this allowed a “cooling off” period for the irate husband who had decided to put away his wife. It also assured the wife she had legal confirmation that she was now divorced from her husband.
        From studying marriage and divorce documents that date back many centuries, scholars have been able to determine that the divorce certificate required also had a simple statement that read something like “You are now free to marry another man.” This is a requirement that has been incorporated into divorce certificates issued under rabbinic law for many centuries.
        This divorce certificate established that a woman was now divorced and was free to marry another man. This eliminated the first husband coming back into her life at some later date and reclaiming her as his wife. It also eliminated a monetarily motivated reason to marry the same woman twice. If the wife had been found to be guilty of a matter of indecency, then she would have forfeited the dowry she had brought into the marriage. Her husband would keep it. Suppose that she subsequently remarried and brought another dowry into that second marriage, and that marriage also failed, due to no fault of her own, or her husband died, then she would now be single again and with her dowry. If the first husband were financially motivated, then he could have remarried her and now he would have two dowries from the same woman. This possibility was eliminated by the requirements stated in the scripture quoted.
        Confirmation of these three items of food, clothing, love/sex of Exodus 21:10, and also marital fidelity can be seen by how God Himself recognized these necessities for a happy and wholesome marriage. Both Ezekiel and Hosea mention the food and clothing given to Israel and how she squandered them on her lovers rather than contribute effort to the marriage between her and God.
        For those who think the allegory is carried too far as there is no sexual relationships involved in God’s relationship with Israel I would ask, “What does sexual intercourse represent in marriage between husband and wife?” Remember we are classifying these four requirements of food, clothing, conjugal rights and marital fidelity into two broad categories: material support and emotional support. The first requirement for a sexual relationship is for each party to be in each others presence, with hearts full of love towards each other and a desire to please and promote the welfare of the other person. If you don’t understand that then I recommend you read Song of Solomon.
        Ezekiel 16:10-19:
        10 I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.
        11 I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.
        12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
        13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.
        14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.
        15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.
        16 And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so.
        17 Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them,
        18 And tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them: and thou hast set mine oil and mine incense before them.
        19 My meat also which I gave thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey, wherewith I fed thee, thou hast even set it before them for a sweet savour: and thus it was, saith the Lord GOD.
        Jeremiah 3:6-8:
        6 The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
        7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
        8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
        Ezekiel 6:9:
        9 And they that escape of you shall remember me among the nations whither they shall be carried captives, because I am broken with their whorish heart, which hath departed from me, and with their eyes, which go a whoring after their idols: and they shall lothe themselves for the evils which they have committed in all their abominations.
        Hosea 2:2:
        2 Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;
        Hosea 2:5-9:
        5 For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink.
        6 Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths.
        7 And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.
        8 For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal.
        9 Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness.
        We see in these texts how Israel broke the provisions of the marriage covenant of Exodus 21:10, i.e. “... food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage ...” Also clear is her adultery.
        The food God provided Israel she sacrificed to idols (Ezekiel 16:19), the cloth God provided for Israel was used to clothe her idol lovers, (Ezekiel 16:10-18), and the love God gave Israel, she did not return to God, but rather lavished it on her idols (Jeremiah 3:6-8; Ezekiel 6:9; Hosea 2:2). Israel also gave the silver and gold that God gave her, in addition to food, to Baal (Hosea 2:8).
        These texts underscore the reality and practicality of the marriage covenant based upon provision and utilization of food, clothing, marital sex relations and marital fidelity.
        The various documents pertaining to marriage and divorce that have been discovered from biblical times illustrate the working practicality of these principals as pertains to both marriage partners.
        We have seen how God Himself utilized these same provisions as a legal basis for which He divorced Israel. These were standing requirements that were recognized by all, whether they were formally stated or simply silently acknowledged.
        What happened to the punishment of stoning for adultery? It should be obvious that it would not have been practical for God to have stoned Israel to death. Apparently God utilized an alternative punishment in the case of Israel, i.e., that of divorce. Having set the precedent probably because God knew there would come a time when stoning to death would not be within the legal authority of Israel. In fact, this is what happened to Israel while under Roman rule. The death penalty could be imposed only by the Romans.
        When the woman caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus, this was another attempt to get Jesus to do or say something that would be against Roman or Jewish law. In fact, everybody knew that they had absolutely no authority to stone the woman to death under Roman law. Jesus, in His wisdom, caused the people present there to reach for a higher standard of conduct, i.e., elimination of sin in their own lives.
        The Bible describes Joseph as a “just man” when Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant and he determined to “put her away.”
        It was into this societal understanding of biblical grounds for divorce that Jesus came onto the scene.
        Matthew 5:31-32:
        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.
        The phrase “shall put away” is apoluo in the Greek. It means to loose from, to let go free. “A writing of divorcement” is apostasion and in the New Testament is used of a writing or bill of divorcement.
        In verse 32 the phrase “her that is divorced” is also apoluo and should have been translated as such.
        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on Matthew 5:31,32:
        “31. It hath been said—This shortened form was perhaps intentional, to mark a transition from the commandments of the Decalogue to a civil enactment on the subject of divorce, quoted from De 24:1. The law of divorce—according to its strictness or laxity—has so intimate a bearing upon purity in the married life, that nothing could be more natural than to pass from the seventh commandment to the loose views on that subject then current.
        “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement—a legal check upon reckless and tyrannical separation. The one legitimate ground of divorce allowed by the enactment just quoted was “some uncleanness”—in other words, conjugal infidelity. But while one school of interpreters (that of SHAMMAI) explained this quite correctly, as prohibiting divorce in every case save that of adultery, another school (that of HILLEL) stretched the expression so far as to include everything in the wife offensive or disagreeable to the husband—a view of the law too well fitted to minister to caprice and depraved inclination not to find extensive favor. And, indeed, to this day the Jews allow divorces on the most frivolous pretexts. It was to meet this that our Lord uttered what follows:
        “32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery—that is, drives her into it in case she marries again.
        “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced—for anything short of conjugal infidelity.
        “committeth adultery—for if the commandment is broken by the one party, it must be by the other also. But see on Mt 19:4-9. Whether the innocent party, after a just divorce, may lawfully marry again, is not treated of here. The Church of Rome says, No; but the Greek and Protestant Churches allow it.”
        In the texts in Mark and Luke, the statement regarding fornication is not mentioned. This is unfortunate, however, the hearers of Jesus’s day were familiar with the running debate of the two different rabbinical parties. Not only were they familiar with it, they also took advantage of the Hillelite reasoning to get a divorce for “any matter.” While the Shammaites and Hillelites disagreed they did recognize the validity of divorces under either provisions.
        Because of this whimsical “any matter” reasoning, divorce was widespread at that time.
        Mark 10:11-12:
        11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
        12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
        Luke 16:18:
        18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
        In these texts “put away,” and “putteth away” are all correctly translated from the Greek apoluo.
        The text in Matthew 19 gives us greater clarity as to the totality of the meanings of the verses pertaining to divorce just quoted. We have here the discussion where Jesus addressed this issue with the rabbis of His day.
        Matthew 19:3-9:
        3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
        4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
        5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
        6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
        7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
        8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
        9 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.
        In this text the phrases “put away,” or “put her away” is correctly translated from apoluo. In verse 7 the word apostasion is correctly translated as “writing of divorcement.”
        Some commentators have attempted to make a distinction between the phrase “put away” and “bill of divorcement.” The explanation is that to “put away” means without a bill of divorcement, but that “bill of divorcement” always means a legal divorce (with “putting away”).
        However, in verse 7 of Matthew 19 the use of apostasion for “writing of divorcement” and of apoluo for “put her away” bring us our needed perspective from the answer of Jesus in verse 8. When Jesus replied “... Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives ...” it should be understood that He has incorporated the meaning of the phraseology of verse 7 into His reply. So He replied to them using their own language but not specifically repeating the term “writing of divorcement” (which is also specifically mentioned by Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1) but summarizing the intent by saying only “put her away.” It should be understood that He meant “suffered you to” [“give her a writing of divorcement and to”] “put away your wives.”
        Jesus was speaking to Pharisaical rabbis and they would understand the phrase “put her away” as being tacitly preceded by “give her a writing of divorcement” without specifically stating that. To attempt to separate these phrases for technical purposes is not valid.
        The rabbis were trying to “tempt” Jesus, i.e., to snare Jesus in His Own words so as to accuse Him of wrongdoing. Note that this discussion was initiated by the Pharisees and was obviously restricted to the subject of the intent of the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. They were, in effect, attempting to get Jesus to agree either with the Shammaites or the Hillelites as to whether the meaning of “some uncleanness” in Deuteronomy meant “any matter of uncleanness,” or “any matter, and uncleanness.” At issue was the interpretation of the meaning of “any matter” which includes practically any personal whim on the part of the husband.
        Deuteronomy 24:1-4
        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.
        2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
        3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
        4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
        Jesus, however, interpreted the controversial meaning of the term “some uncleanness” of Deuteronomy 24:1 as being porneia, i.e., fornication.
        Excerpted from Vine’s Expository Dictionary:
        “Fornication, Fornicator 1. porneia, is used (a) of “illicit sexual intercourse,” in (John 8:41; Acts 15:20,29; 21:25; 1 Cor. 5:1; 6:13,18; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thes. 4:3; Rev. 2:21; 9:21); in the plural in (1 Cor. 7:2); in (Matt. 5:32) and (19:9) it stands for, or includes, adultery; it is distinguished from it in (15:19) and (Mark 7:21); (b) metaphorically, of “the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines of, and professed adherence to, the Christian faith,” (Rev. 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2); some suggest this as the sense in (2:21).”
        Comment from the Net Bible, on Deuteronomy 24:1 and the phrase “some uncleanness:”
        “Heb “nakedness of a thing.” The Hebrew phrase ... refers here to some gross sexual impropriety (see note on “indecent” in Deut 23:14). Though the term usually has to do only with indecent exposure of the genitals, it can also include such behavior as adultery (cf. Lev 18:6-18; 20:11, 17, 20-21; Ezek 22:10; 23:29; Hos 2:10). Jesus, citing this text, clearly had adultery in mind by the use in the narrative of the Greek term porneia as the only justification for divorce (Matt 5:31-32; 19:7-9).”
        Comment from the Net Bible, on Deuteronomy 23:14 (referenced above):
        “Heb “nakedness of a thing.” The expression ... refers specifically to sexual organs and, by extension, to any function associated with them. There are some aspects of human life that are so personal and private that they ought not be publicly paraded. Cultically speaking, even God is offended by such impropriety (cf. Gen 9:22-23; Lev 18:6-12, 16-19; 20:11, 17-21). See B. Seevers, NIDOTTE 3:528-30.”
        The meaning of the term “some uncleanness” is still debated in Jewish legal circles. However, for the Christian today the original meaning is not important. What is important is that Jesus interpreted the meaning of the term “some uncleanness” of Deuteronomy 24:1 as being porneia, i.e., fornication.
        Technically the term porneia can be applied to several different types of illicit sexual relations. It could include homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), which could be expanded from its original usage to include lesbianism. It would also include incest (Leviticus 20:11,12), adultery (Leviticus 20:10) and bestiality (Leviticus 20:16). These activities place them within the broad category of “illicit sexual intercourse.”
        To be clear, any sexual activities and/or relationships by a man with a woman who is not his wife, or by a woman with a man who is not her husband is fornication or adultery. That’s just common sense, isn’t it? Add to this the biblically technical classifications of homosexuality (including lesbianism), incest and bestiality. Jesus Himself also said that if you look upon a woman to lust after her you have committed adultery. To attempt to invent a fine line which you may approach without quite touching it is simply an invention of humans to attempt to excuse their violations of what Jesus taught. Selah ...
        The discussion as recorded in the Bible was initiated by the Pharisees and restricted to the discussion of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The rabbis were attempting to trap Jesus into saying something that could be used against Him. The answer they got did not confirm either of the contending rabbis opinions or interpretation of the controversial phrase.
        Instead Jesus reminded them of God’s original plan for a husband and a wife, and stated positively that a man could not divorce his wife on a whim of “any matter” within the context of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The only recognized valid divorce certificate, which would put the husband’s wife away, had to be for the cause of porneia.
        The issue has been settled for us in this matter regarding Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
        However, Jesus did not mention, nor was it part of the discussion of, the other provisions that were valid biblical grounds for divorce. Grounds for divorce that had in fact, been utilized by God Himself in divorcing Himself from Israel.
        Jesus simply clarified a technical point of confusion and related it back to a previously stated reason for dissolution of a marriage, i.e., adultery, marital unfaithfulness.
        To attempt to pull this singular teaching from the total context of reasons for biblical divorce has caused untold pain and suffering through the centuries.
        Leaping ahead in time to the writing of 1 Corinthians by Paul, the apostle, we find the Greek and Roman societies had liberalized their divorce law to allowing either partner in a marriage to divorce the other at will. This was the original “no fault” divorce system which now predominates in the United States.
        Of course, the divorce rate accelerated rapidly because of this and later Roman law found it necessary to restrict the grounds for divorce to fault grounds. However, at the time of Paul’s letter to the ekklesia at Corinth, the “no fault” Greek/Roman system was still in effect.
        To divorce a marriage partner all that was necessary was for the initiator to state that the marriage was now ended and then to separate. There was no paper work involved as it was a valid and legal oral statement. Both husband and wife were then free to remarry. This divorce by separation was one of the problems that Paul had to deal with in writing to the Corinthians as it was the equivalent of the Hillelite rabbis “any matter” divorce by the husband.
        If the husband owned the home, he would tell his wife the marriage was over and she would leave. If the wife initiated the divorce then she would also leave unless she owned the home in which case the husband would have to leave.
        [As a matter of interest, “no fault” divorce first became law in California in 1969 under then Governor Ronald Reagan. By 1985 it was adopted by all the states in some form.
        [As a result the divorce rate doubled from 1970 to 1980 and statistics indicate that over one half of all marriages end in divorce. The average duration of a marriage in America is seven years.
        [There are some states attempting to change this law so that voluntary pre-marital counseling is mandatory, that disagreements that threaten the marriage be resolved through counseling and that divorce be granted only on fault grounds, or after a legal separation of over two years.]
        As we saw from the texts discussed, Jesus dealt with one particular technical interpretation of the Jewish law regarding divorce.
        Paul, the apostle, however, had to deal with the problem of marriage, divorce and remarriage from the Jewish legal standpoint and also from the Roman and Greek civil laws of his time.
        At this particular point of time, Paul had to deal with Jewish converts to Christianity and also with gentile converts to Christianity which involved two different legal procedures for obtaining a divorce.
        He answered issues brought up to him in his letter to the Corinthians that we know today as the book of 1 Corinthians. Please note that where Paul used the expressions “depart” and/or “put away” that this had an entirely different meaning to those who lived in the first century.
        Those who read Paul’s letters at Corinth understood the Roman and Greek laws. Some of them understood the Jewish laws. Paul’s usage of the words “depart” and “put away” in 1 Corinthians were understood by the readers to mean “divorce.” They understood “divorce by separation” as being a legally recognized divorce under the Roman and Greek laws at that time which left them free to remarry someone else.
        There are some who believe marriage can only be ended by death. They base their position upon the verse in Romans 7:2. However, any clear reading of the passage in Romans demonstrates the relationship of believers to the law and to Christ. Verse 4 tells us that we have died to the law, through Christ, so that we might belong to Him. There is no divorce involved in this example.
        Romans 7:1-4:
        1 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?
        2 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.
        3 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.
        4 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.
        A variation of the same statement in 1 Corinthians also has nothing to do with divorce. Paul is pointing out the situation of a wife whose husband dies, which makes her a widow. He states that she is then free to marry “... whom she will, only in the Lord.” Paul is pointing out that the widow is not under the Old Testament law of levirate marriage as discussed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Again, this verse does not pertain to divorce.
        1 Corinthians 7:39-40:
        39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
        40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
        Paul wrote to the Corinthians in an obvious response to things asked of him by the people there. We know only one side of the conversation—that which Paul wrote. However, if we are to understand what Paul wrote, we must place ourselves in the same position as those who originally read or heard Paul’s letter. To ignore the historical, social and legal factors predominant in the first century will lead us down the same road of misunderstanding that has already been traveled by those who either ignorantly or deliberately choose to do just that.
        1 Corinthians 7:1-9:
        1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
        2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
        3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
        4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
        5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
        6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
        7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
        8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
        9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
        This is not a teaching initiated by Paul. He writes this in response to a statement or a question he received, “... the things whereof ye wrote unto me ...”
        In answering the issue raised, Paul in verses 3 through 5 reaffirms the principle of mutual sexual intercourse within marriage as being a mandatory requirement as stated in Exodus 21:10.
        1 Corinthians 7:10:
        10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
        “Depart” is chorizo in the Greek. It means to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away. Variously translated in the KJV as: depart, put asunder, separate.
        This statement by Paul is referring to the statement by Jesus in Matthew where the phrase “put asunder” is the same word, chorizo:
        Matthew 19:6:
        6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
        Paul also appeals to a higher law that God instituted from the beginning concerning marriage and is, in fact, repeating what Jesus said and reminding his listeners of it.
        If you will mentally substitute the word “divorce” for the word “depart” and also for the phrase “put away” in this section of scripture, then you will be reading the text with the same understanding as that of the first century readers who read it at Corinth. Also remember that those so divorced were legally free to remarry another person.
        1 Corinthians 7:11:
        11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
        If she depart, i.e., divorces her husband, let her remain unmarried. Otherwise, if she simply departed, as if it were some type of legal separation, then Paul would not say “... let her remain unmarried ...” would he?
        Paul is saying that she has divorced her husband by “divorce by separation” and that she should continue to remain unmarried, or she should be reconciled to her husband. This probably fit the case with more than one person who was resident there in Corinth who read/heard Paul’s letter.
        The first century believers understood that. They also understood that another option was to legally remarry someone else. However, Paul was urging them not to remarry, but instead to seek reconciliation with their (former) husband.
        The phrase “put away” here is aphiemi meaning to send forth, in various applications variously translated in the KJV as: cry, forgive, forsake, lay aside, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, put (send) away, remit, suffer, yield up. As stated, read it as meaning “divorce.”
        Paul now changes the subject to the case of those believers who are married to an unbeliever. Yes, of course, we know today, that we should not do such a thing. However, it was an accomplished fact in the lives of some of those who lived in Corinth in the first century.
        1 Corinthians 7:12:
        12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
        “Put her away” is also the Greek word aphiemi. Again, read it as “divorce.”
        1 Corinthians 7:13:
        13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
        “Leave” is aphiemi. Read: “divorce.”
        1 Corinthians 7:14,15:
        14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
        15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
        “Depart” is choreo to be in (give) space, i.e. (intransitively) to pass, enter, or (transitively) to hold, admit (literally or figuratively).Variously translated in the KJV as: come, contain, go, have place, (can, be room to) receive. Read it as “divorce.”
        1 Corinthians 7:16,17:
        16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
        17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
        Paul urged those married to unbelievers to not divorce their spouse and gave his reasons why. However, if the unbelieving spouse divorced them with the “divorce by separation” no fault divorce system of those days, then there was the possibility that they could not locate them in order to effect reconciliation. In addition to which the unbeliever obviously didn’t place the importance upon marriage that the believer does. That’s why Paul said “... A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.” The believing spouse is not under bondage, i.e., they are no longer bound by a marriage contract, or covenant, because the unbelieving spouse has used “divorce by separation” and has then disappeared, or is not inclined to effect a biblical reconciliation.
        As a matter of practicality the believing spouse must then simply recognize the divorce and that they are no longer bound by the terms of the marriage covenant and that they should understand that God has called us to peace. It’s their choice whether to exercise their legal right to marry another.
        “Peace” is the Greek word eirene. It describes harmonious relationships, with friendliness, freedom from molestation, order, and a sense of rest and contentment. It corresponds to the Hebrew word shalom which primarily signifies wholeness. This must have been a tremendously comforting statement by Paul for those who had been divorced by their unbelieving spouses on the whim of “divorce by separation.”
        Paul, like Jesus, used Godly commandments and his own Godly wisdom and judgment to rectify a terribly unjust situation relative to men divorcing their wives.
        Note that in verses 32 through 35 Paul alludes to the material support, i.e., food and clothing discussed in Exodus 21:10. The husband “... careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.” In the same way “... she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”
        1 Corinthians 7:32-35:
        32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
        33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
        34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
        35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
        In Paul’s analogy of husbands loving their wives, as Christ also loved the church, in Ephesians 5, we find these same provisions of food, clothing and love referred to in verses 28 and 29. Verse 28 tells husbands to love their wives as their own bodies. In verse 29 the word “nourisheth’ is ektrepho meaning to rear up to maturity, i.e. (genitive case) to cherish or train. It’s primarily used of children. From this we can see that this nourishment would incorporate food.
        “Cherisheth,” is thalpo, probably akin to thallo (to warm); to brood, i.e. (figuratively) to foster.
        Vine’s Expository Dictionary says that thalpo primarily means ““to heat, to soften by heat”; then, “to keep warm,” as of birds covering their young with their feathers, (Deut. 22:6), Sept.; metaphorically, “to cherish with tender love, to foster with tender care,” in (Eph. 5:29) of Christ and the church; in (1 Thes. 2:7) of the care of the saints at Thessalonica by the apostle and his associates, as of a nurse for her children.”
        Keeping warm would certainly involve clothing.
        So we see that the phrases “love their wives” and “nourisheth and cherisheth” involves love, food and clothing, which is another reference back to Exodus 21:10.
        Ephesians 5:21-33:
        21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
        22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
        23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
        24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
        25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
        26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
        27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
        28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
        29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
        30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
        31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
        32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
        33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
        In Malachi we read:
        Malachi 2:16:
        16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
        Jamieson, Fausett and Brown Commentary on Malachi 2:16:
        “16. putting away—that is, divorce.
        “for one covereth violence with . . . garment—MAURER translates, “And (Jehovah hateth him who) covereth his garment (that is, his wife, in Arabic idiom; compare Ge 20:16, ‘He is to thee a covering of thy eyes’; the husband was so to the wife, and the wife to the husband; also De 22:30; Ru 3:9; Eze 16:8) with injury.” The Hebrew favors “garment,” being accusative of the thing covered. Compare with English Version, Ps 73:6, “violence covereth them as a garment.” Their “violence” is the putting away of their wives; the “garment” with which they try to cover it is the plea of Moses’ permission (De 24:1; compare Mt 19:6-9).”
        Comment from the Net Bible, on Malachi 2:16:
        “The verb sane appears to be a third person form, “he hates,” which makes little sense in the context, unless one emends the following word to a third person verb as well. Then one might translate, “he [who] hates [his wife] [and] divorces her is guilty of violence.” A similar translation is advocated by Martin A. Shields, “Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2,10-16,” ZAW 111 (1999): 81-85. However, it is possible that the first person pronoun ..., “I,” has accidentally dropped from the text .... If one restores the pronoun, the form sane can be taken as a participle and the text translated, “for I hate.”
        “Though “I hate divorce” may (and should) be understood as a comprehensive biblical principle, the immediate context suggests that the divorce in view is that of one Jewish person by another in order to undertake subsequent marriages. The injunction here by no means contradicts Ezra’s commands to the Jews to divorce their heathen wives (Ezra 9-10).
        “Heb “him who covers his garment with violence.” Here “garment” is a metaphor for appearance and “violence” a metonymy of effect for cause. God views divorce as an act of violence against the victim.”
        From these comments it appears that the intent of the verse is to state that he who hates his wife and divorces her is guilty of an act of violence against her. In the broader sense it’s clear that God hates those who are covenant breakers.
        In summation, it should be clear that marriage is a covenant, it can be broken by either party, and God hates covenant breakers.
        Israel broke the covenant with God and God guiltlessly divorced Israel. There is debate as to whether or not God divorced Judah. From the scriptural evidence, most probably not, although Judah was guilty of worse covenant breaking than Israel. The reason advanced by some is that God would not divorce Judah because His Son, Jesus Christ, came from the tribe of Judah, and God did not want the possibility of a cloud of illegitimacy to be cast upon Jesus.
        It’s also clear that at some future time God will remarry Israel/Judah and will consider her to be a virgin at that time. The reason for this is that the original unfaithful constituents of Israel/Judah are now historical. The new Israel/Judah will be comprised of those who were of the original faithful constituents and those subsequent to that who have also been faithful to the marriage covenant. This speaks of the overcoming remnant bride of Christ throughout the centuries.
        We should realize from the scriptural point of view that the person who breaks a marriage covenant is the true guilty party, which is not necessarily the person who initiates the divorce proceedings.
        When Jesus engaged in dialog with the Pharisees regarding the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1, the “any matter” divorce of the Hillelites was prevalent and divorce was totally out of control.
        Paul, the apostle did the same thing in his discouragement of “divorce by separation” which prevailed in the Greek Roman culture of his time.
        Both the “any matter” divorce and the “divorce by separation” allowed a husband to divorce his wife on any whim at all. Jesus corrected the understanding of the Pharisees within the Jewish context of the law, and Paul corrected a societal and cultural problem within the Roman Greek legal system.
        Neither Jesus nor Paul found it necessary to go into detail concerning what was already understood by their hearers.
        Jesus and Paul both got the whole matter of marriage, divorce and remarriage focused back upon God’s original purposes for a husband and wife, and did not have to bring up the provisions of Exodus 21:10 because they were tacitly understood by all to be valid reasons for divorcing a spouse because they were covenant breakers. It was also understood by the hearers that upon such a divorce they were free to remarry someone else.
        If the terms of a marriage covenant, or contract, of provisions for food, clothing, sexual relationships and marital fidelity are broken by the other spouse, then all attempts at reconciliation are to be made. However, prolonged and repeated breaking of the marriage covenant is cause to divorce an errant spouse. God found Himself in such a position with Israel and divorced her. It’s clear from scripture that He continues to pursue her within the boundary of His Own will as stated in the Bible.
        The misunderstanding by the institutional church system of the true love, life and liberty of God and His Son, Jesus Christ, has caused a tremendous amount of pain and suffering and trauma throughout the centuries as many of His people have suffered through lifetimes of lack of material support and lack of emotional support from their spouses despite all efforts to bring justice into the situation.
        The question must be asked of those in the institutional church system who teach adultery as the only valid reason for divorce—Who is the real covenant breaker?
        Related articles:
•“God Created Man ... Male And Female Created He Them” God created man ... male and female created he them. Man and woman are sexual and a husband and wife are to enjoy sex and intercourse in marriage.
•“Women Keep Silence, or Don't Lose Your Head, Please!” God says women and men are equal in the Lord, but the spiritual headship principle of a husband is the biblical basis for family authority in the home and ekklesia for husband and wife. Just as God and Christ are equal, but God is the head of Christ:
   1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
   This is better interpreted as “the head of the wife is the husband.” This article discusses biblical types and antitypes, examples and clear scriptural instructions for scriptural spiritual headship of a husband, why Paul the apostle insisted upon it, and the dangers of irresponsibility by the husbands of the ekklesia.
   This spiritual headship must follow the biblical pattern of sacrifice for equality, surrender for uniting and servanthood for anointing. Paul reprimands Corinthian husbands in their ekklesias for their lack of understanding and practice of the male spiritual headship principle. This has historically been misunderstood and those verses pertaining to husbands and wives have been incorrectly interpreted as Paul admonishing the wives of their assemblies. This article attempts to demonstrate how the priorities of the biblical spiritual headship principle affect every area of the kingdom of God and His Christ.
•“Homosexual community, gay marriage, sexual and family values” The homosexual community, gay marriage, and their sexual and family values are different in societal values from heterosexual couples in society and their lifestyle relationships.
Home