Marriage
Divorce and Remarriage.
Part 1.
Rex Banks.
Creation law.
a. Genesis is a book dealing with origins, describing, among other things,
the beginning of the
material universe, the human race, sin, sacrifice for sin, the nations of the
earth and the plan of redemption. Not surprisingly, the Book of Genesis also recounts
the origin of the human family, and in doing so it reveals an important fact
about the institution of marriage. According to the Divine record, the marriage
bond is not simply a cultural convention or a human custom, but rather it is a
creation of God regulated by Laws which
are grounded upon the very nature of
the original creation.
b. The Bible frequently affirms that certain
teachings of scripture are grounded upon (what we legitimately refer to as)
“creation law.” For example it is because man was created in the image of
God (Gen 1:26) that the murderer forfeits his life for his crime (Gen 9:6) and
it is because of Adam’s priority over
Eve in creation that men rather than women are to exercise leadership in the
public assembly (1 Tim 2:12, 13). Clearly since laws based upon creation are
grounded upon unchanging realities, such laws are eternally relevant, and this
explains Jesus’ response to the Pharisees when they question him about the
legitimacy of divorce (Matt 19:3; Mk 10:2). Jesus explains that (with one
exception) the marriage bond is indissoluble and that God’s plan for marriage has
operated “from the beginning of creation” (Mk 10:6; c.f. Matt 19:4, 8) being grounded
upon the very nature of the creation
event (Matt 19:4, 5; Mk 10:6-8).
Creation law and Genesis 2:18-25.
a. Genesis 1 begins “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and Genesis 2 begins “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed” (c.f. 2:4a).
Significantly
having spoken of “the heavens and the
earth” in these two “book end”
statements, Moses then reverses the order and speaks of “the day that the Lord
made earth and heaven” (2:4b). This reversal is due to the fact that the narrative
now focuses upon earth and the sphere of man.
This new focus
also explains why the Creator is referred to as “Jehovah Elohim” for the first time in 2:4b.
Hitherto He has simply been called “Elohim,” a term which is derived
from a word meaning “to fear” and which “depicts the one true God as the infinitely great and exalted One, who
created the heavens and the earth and who preserves and governs every
creature" (Keil and Delitzsch
[K/D]). “Jehovah” on the other hand is the proper personal name of God which
depicts Him as "the absolute, self-existent One, who manifests Himself to
man, and in particular, enters into distinct covenant engagements for his
redemption" (Thomas Whitelaw Pulpit
Commentary). The addition of God’s personal name here reflects the fact
that the Lord now begins to interact with the crown of His creation.
b. Gen
2:18-25 supplies further details about the creation of Adam and Eve on the
sixth day (Gen
c. Note first of all that prior to the creation
of woman it is God the all wise Creator who explains the incompleteness of the
man when he is “alone”:
“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be
alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him’” (
According to God, the man’s lack
of companionship is “not good.”
It is God (not Adam) who explains man’s need for a suitable helper (lit “a
helper corresponding to him”) who will make man whole, adequate and complete.
Significantly it is only after the creation of woman that God describes His
creation as “very good” (Gen
d. “Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of
the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see
what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that
was its name” (2:19). In
bringing the lower animals to man, God forces him to recognize his own
need for a companion, a spiritual equal, a counterpart. No animal “corresponds” to Adam.
i. The
difference between man and other living creatures is not signified by the fact that man “became
a living soul” (nephesh). Nephesh has a variety of meanings depending on context and can
simply mean “living being” (Brown
–Driver-Briggs) e.g. Gen 1:20.
ii.
The difference between man and other living creatures is signified in the
creation account by the fact that man (male and female) is created in the
“image” of God (1:27). When creating the
animals God said “Let there be…” “Let the waters …” and such like. When creating man the impersonal “Let there be” becomes the personal “Let Us make …” (It is because man is created
in the image of God that he does not simply mate like the animals).
e. God provides for men’s need by creating woman and significantly she is taken from the very flesh and bone of the man. Clearly the Lord was under no constraint in this matter and He could have created Eve in some other way (e.g. from the dust of the ground). He chose this method because it teaches some important lessons about the marriage union.
“So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the
man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with
flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a
woman and brought her to the man” (
Adam delights in Eve as “bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh” (
f. This “one-flesh”
origin of man and woman under girds the marriage bond as Moses explains
in his parenthetical aside (v
24).
“For this cause a man shall leave his father and his
mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”
Note that
it is “for this cause” (i.e. the nature of the creation process) that the man is to leave and
cleave. Although Moses
writes the long after the creation event, he is emphatic that the marriage
relationship is to be explained in terms of God’s work in the beginning. Marriage is the union of two
beings who are created in the image of God, and although the physical aspect is present it is the spiritual union which is of fundamental
significance in the union. Leaving,
cleaving and the one flesh union
speak of the uniqueness and permanency of the physical and spiritual union
which is established in marriage and of the commitment which accompanies this
union. It is important to note that Moses points, not to Sinai, but to creation.
e.
Although creation law with respect to the marriage union has never been
suspended or superseded, the events of Genesis 2 occurred in the pre
fall period. Neither sin nor death was present in the world at creation but “through
one man sin entered into the world and death through sin” (Rom
i. In
the case of death, the surviving partner is free to
remarry (Rom 7:1-3).
ii.
In the case of one particular sin, namely adultery, the “one
flesh” union can be destroyed. This is the focus of the present lesson.
Deviations from the Pattern.
a. It is
important to keep in mind that deviations from God’s marriage pattern in
Genesis 2 have always and everywhere been sinful. Apparent toleration of such deviations does not imply divine condonation.
b. It is also
important to keep in mind that certain Mosaic provisions which place further
restrictions upon marriage do not violate
the pattern set forth at creation. Such provisions as the Levirite marriage (Deut
25:5-10) the law concerning marriage to Canaanites (Deut 7:1 ff) and the
marriage of heiresses (Num 36) were designed to protect God’s people against
idolatry, the loss of tribal land and the extinction of the family name. All of
these provisions were compatible with the creation
law pattern. So too were the consanguinity laws (Lev 18-20) which were only
introduced after sufficient time had elapsed for harmful mutations to pose a
real threat to the offspring of close relatives.
c. We
will now say a word about certain practices which are clear violations of Gen
2:18-25 and which have never been
sanctioned by God.
Homosexuality.
a. The
sin of
b.
Paul uses the words "natural"
(phusis) and "unnatural"
with reference to heterosexual and homosexual relationships respectively (Rom
c. The word phusis (nature) played a very important role in first century thought. Craig S. Keener has:
“Sometimes
writers meant by 'nature' pretty much what we mean by the term today: the created order. They could speak of
nature as the force or order controlling and arranging natural existence in the
cosmos. Nature is said to teach us
the way things really are, often through
our natural endowments or through the nature of the world around us...
Usually
writers used these examples from nature to
advocate a specific kind of moral
behaviour, or simply exhorted living in general in accordance with nature...
Many
gender distinctions were also
considered part of nature, rather than a matter of mere social
convention" (Paul, Women, and
Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul ).
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus who lived 50-130 A.D explained that “nature” distinguished between the sexes by giving beards to the male and a softer voice to the female, concluding
“Wherefore we ought to preserve the signs which God has given; we ought not so far as in us lies, to confuse the sexes which have been distinguished in this fashion.” According to Plutarch (c 50 AD) "Nature too makes clear the fact that mothers should themselves nurse and feed what they have brought into the world, since it is for this purpose that she has provided for every animal which gives birth to young a source of food in its milk" (The Training of Children).
d. This is all relevant to Paul’s argument that homosexuality is contrary to “nature.” Homosexuality
is a violation of the nature of things, a breach of Creation Law.
Polygamy.
a. It is not until the seventh
generation from Adam that a polygamous union is recorded (Gen
b. Some point out that men of faith in the Patriarchal and Mosaic periods practiced polygamy, (e.g. Jacob [Gen 29] David [1 Sam 25:40 ff]) and they insist that God’s failure to expressly condemn theses individuals for polygamy is proof that it was lawful. However:
i. “Scripture does not always pause to state the obvious; for example, even though Israel had been ordered to observe the Feast of tabernacles seven days each year (Lev 23:33-34) yet Nehemiah complains (Neh 8:17) that from Joshua’s day to his own day, well over one thousand years, the festival had never been celebrated – but never a word of censure appears for this neglect during that whole millennium of active revelation from God! Thus, the silence of Scripture must not be counted as acquiescence” (Walter C. Kaiser Toward Old Testament Ethics).
ii. In Deut
c. Some cite Ex 21:7-11 as evidence that polygamy was permissible in the Old Testament:
"(v 7) If a man sells his
daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do (v 8) If she
does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be
redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken
faith with her (v 9). If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the
rights of a daughter (v 10). If he marries another woman, he must not deprive
the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide
her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money”
(NIV).
d. Note carefully that these verses relate to
the girl who was sold by her father for the purpose of marriage. If the terms
of this marriage were not fulfilled, the purchaser was regarded as having
breached his contract, and he had to permit the girl to be redeemed. She could
not be sold outside the family. Note too the following points:
i. The best translation of v 8 is
"so that he did not designate her for himself." The idea is that the
purchaser, having found something displeasing in her refuses to take her as his
wife.
ii v10 reads "If he marries another woman..." Another possibility is “if he (the father {Rex]) take him (the son) another (wife)…” Thus either the father or the son takes another wife, either instead of the designated woman or in addition to her at a later date. In such an event the designated woman is not to have her “food” or her “clothing” or her “conjugal rights” reduced. Note the following:
If the meaning is that the man or his son later takes another wife in addition to the designated woman, such legislation does not prove that God condoned this taking of a second wife, just as the words “If a man acts presumptuously towards his neighbour” (v 14) or “If men have a quarrel and one strikes another with a stone” do not mean that God condones these actions. (See below on Deut 24). The Lord is simply ensuring that the legitimate wife is not disadvantaged.
Some (e.g. Walter
Kaiser) argue that textual variations exist in v 8, and they affirm that this
verse should read “If she displeases her master, so that he does not betroth her to himself, he shall not
allow her to be redeemed.” If this is
the case, the meaning of v 10 is not that he has two wives at the same time, one of them being the woman
under discussion, but rather the meaning is that he takes another woman instead of the designated woman in marriage.
Kaiser points out that the word `ownah (“duty of marriage,” [KJV; ASV] “conjugal rights”
[NASB] “marital
rights” [NIV;
RSV; ERV] “marriage rights” {NKJV] “habitation” [YLT] “price
of her chastity” [Rheims-Douay]) occurs only once in the Old
Testament, and he argues that the term likely means simply “oil” or “ointments”
or “the conditions of her abode.”
iv. vv 9,
11. The key idea here is that she is to be treated fairly. The "3
things" of v11 are: v 8 letting her be redeemed; v 9 treating her as a daughter;
v 10 providing for her. If he fails to do these things she cannot be retained
as a chattel or slave, but must be set free without her father having to
restore her purchase price. Again nothing in this passage suggests Divine
condonation of polygamy.
e. Some attempt to find permission for polygamy
in Lev
"Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual
relations with her while your wife is living” (NIV). “Neither shalt thou take a wife to her
sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her
life time” (KJV).
It is reasoned that provided the second wife is not a sister to the first, marriage to a second woman is permissible while the first is living. However:
i.
Gleason L. Archer opines: “The basic
principle underlying monogamy is contained in Leviticus
ii. Even if “sister” is meant here “at the very least it forbids this
special case of polygamy. This does not mean that polygamy in general is
approved--only that its excesses are curbed” (R. Laird Harris
Expositors Bible Commentary). There would be good reason to make special mention
of this special case of polygamy:
“Polygamy is ever likely to produce jealousies and
heart burnings; but it is plain that this phase of the evil would reach its
most extreme and odious expression when the new and rival wife was a sister to
the one already married; when it would practically annul sisterly love, and give rise to such
painful and peculiarly humiliating dissensions as we read of between the
sisters Leah and Rachel. The sense of the passage is so plain, that we are told
that this interpretation ‘stood its ground unchallenged from the third century
B.C. to the middle of the sixteenth century A.D’” (F. Meyrick, Pulpit Commentary).
Lev
f. Does Deut 21:15-17 prove that polygamy was acceptable under the Mosaic Law? We read:
“If
a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons
but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his
property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son
of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife
he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the
firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign
of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him”
Some reason that since Moses legislates on the case of a
man who has two wives, polygamy must have met with divine approval, but this is
faulty logic. Using this reasoning, we would conclude that because Deut
g. Finally 2 Sam 12:7, 8 is sometimes invoked as proof that polygamy was sanctioned by God.
“Then
Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of
Israel, says: `I anointed you king over
Some take
this verse to mean that the Lord encouraged David to take Saul’s wives (plural)
in marriage after the latter’s death at a time when David was already married.
However:
i. Lev
ii. It
was important that these women be given into David’s care, because the possession of the wives or concubines of a former
king could be viewed as a claim to the throne also. We recall that when Absalom
rebelled against his father David and attempted to take the kingdom, he was
advised by Ahitophel: "Lie with
your father's concubines whom he left to take care of the palace” (2 Sam
“In theory, of course, Ahithophel's advice concerning David's concubines
was entirely appropriate, since a king's harem was expected to be passed on to
his successor (cf. 12:8). ‘Possession of the harem was a title to the throne’
(de Vaux, AIs, p. 116)” (Expositors Bible Commentary).
Later, when Bathsheba
requests that Adonijah be permitted to marry the Shunamite woman, (regarded as
one of David’s wives) Solomon replies:
"Why
do you request Abishag the Shunamite for Adonijah? You might as well request
the kingdom for him--after all, he is my older brother--yes, for him and for
Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!"
It is quite wrong to argue that the Lord encouraged David to marry Saul’s wives after the latter’s death and to cite 2 Sam 12:7, 8 as proof that God approved of polygamy. These verses simply teach that Saul’s household was given into David’s care, eliminating any potential threat from a rival claimant to the throne.
Divorce.
As we
will see, with but one exception, divorce is a violation of the divinely
instituted marriage law established at creation, but once again a great deal of
confusion surrounds this subject. Various passages in the Old Testament and the
New Testament which deal with the subject of divorce are hotly debated today,
and because high divorce rates in modern Western societies have impacted upon
many lives, discussions about marriage, divorce and remarriage often arouse
intense emotion. In the following paragraphs we will consider certain passages
from the Old Testament which are pivotal to the divorce debate, and in future
lessons we will discuss the relevant New Testament passages.
Old Testament.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
The most significant
passage in the Old Testament dealing with divorce is Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and unfortunately
the translations of these verses found in various English versions of the Bible
have added to the confusion surrounding the debate on marriage divorce and
remarriage. The problem is that in some English versions, (perhaps influenced
by the Latin Vulgate) Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is so translated that divorce is authorized or sanctioned in a particular situation, whereas the Hebrew text contains
no such teaching. The following translation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 found in the
King James Version illustrates how various versions have contributed to the
problems associated with this verse:
“When
a man hath taken a wife, and married her
and it come to pass that she find no favor 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 (v 1).
And when she is departed out of his house, she
may go and be another man's wife (v 2)
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; (v 3)
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.”
On this rendering, should a man find some “uncleanness” (see below) in his wife, he is given divine permission (or even commanded by God) to “write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” She in turn is given divine permission to remarry. She “may go and be another man's wife.” On this rendering, the passage simply disallows a man to return to the wife should her second husband die or also put her away. Other versions such as the Authorized Version, American Standard Version and the Revised Version convey the same idea. According to the American Standard Version the man of v 1 “ shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” while the woman of v 2 “may go and be another man's wife.” Many Biblical commentators take issue with such renderings, and a number of modern translations recognise that these verses do not authorize divorce or give the divorced woman permission to enter a second marriage.
Many scholars point out that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is an example of casuistic law. In this form of law, a hypothetical situation is described, often with various conditions attached, and then an edict governing this situation is set forth. The hypothetical situation is frequently introduced with the words “if” or “when,” which often translate the Hebrew particle ki, the word translated “When” in Deut 44:1 (KJV). The “if-clause” describing the hypothetical situation is called the protasis, (lat “set out first”) and the main clause, which is often introduced with the word “then,” is called the apodosis (meaning something that is granted after). Consider the following examples:
“If
(protasis) a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband,
and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then (apodosis) ye shall bring them both out unto the
gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the
damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because
he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from
among you” (Deut 22:23, 24
KJV).
If (protasis) a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then (apodosis) the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days (Deut 23:28, 29 KJV).
Clearly in these cases the
protasis simply describes a hypothetical
situation and does not contain divine permission for the actions described. Unfortunately
the translators of some major versions have failed to recognise that the first
three verses of Deut 24 form the protasis of a conditional sentence, setting
forth a hypothetical situation and containing no command whatsoever. The
apodosis does not come until v 4, and this makes all the difference to the
sense. Listen to the following:
“When (protasis)
a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in
his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a
certificate of divorce and puts it in
her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes
and becomes another man’s wife, and
if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce
and puts it in her hand and sends her
out of house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then (apodosis) her former husband who
sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has
been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not
bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance” (NASB).
“If (protasis)
a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds
something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives
it to her and sends her from his house,
and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another
man, and her second husband dislikes her
and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his
house, or if he dies, then (apodosis) her first husband, who
divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.
That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the
land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance” (NIV).
“When (protasis)
a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes
because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of
divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs
out of his house, and if she goes and
becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a
certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house,
or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then (apodosis) her former husband, who sent her away, may not take
her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an
abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the
LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance” (English Standard Version).
"When a man takes a wife and marries
her, if then she finds no favor in
his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill
of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she
departs out of his house, and if she
goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and
writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his
house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his
wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD,
and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the LORD your God gives you
for an inheritance” (RSV).
In
these versions the passage begins with the protasis, there is no “then” in v
1b, and various other conditions are added by means of the conjunction ‘and.” The
man is not commanded or permitted to divorce
his wife, the woman is not permitted
to remarry, and the only command in the entire passage is found in the
prohibition against remarrying the “defiled” woman (v 4). The following
quotations are representative of many good students of scripture who have
commented upon this passage:
“The
law of Deut 24:1-4 is not a law instituting divorce, nor is it prescribing the
bill of divorce … there is no permission given for the woman to form a second
marriage. The divorce, the bill of divorce, and the second marriage are only
parts of the description of the situation which had developed. The legal
enactment is that the first husband cannot take back the woman when these
specified conditions exist….
No
Hebrew law institutes divorce any more than it does polygamy and concubinage” (Jack P. Lewis, Exegesis of Difficult
Biblical Passages).
“It
is now almost universally accepted that the first three verses form the
protasis and that the apodosis only comes in v 4. That is the way the
Septuagint also understands the passage. The importance of this observation is
that this construction does not make divorce mandatory, encourage and advise
men to put away, or even authorize or sanction divorce. Instead it simply
disallows a husband to return to the wife whom he had previously divorced and
married another in the meantime. He cannot, under any circumstances, take her
again as his wife. That is the only regulative statement in this passage” (Walter C. Kaiser, Towards Old Testament Ethics).
“Moses
did not command divorce, but regulated an existing practice, and the form of
the law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is best understood in this sense. The AV and RV
imply a command in the second half of verses 1, but the RSV follows Keil,
Delitzsch, S R Driver and LXX in making the ‘if’ of the protasis extend to the
end of verse 3, so that verse 4 contains the actual legislation” (J. D. Douglas, The New Bible Dictionary).
“In these verses, however, divorce is not established as a right; all
that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is
forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the
second husband had also put her away, or had died. The four verses form a
period, in which Deut 24:1-3 are the clauses of the protasis, which describe
the matter treated about; and Deut 24:4 contains the apodosis, with the law
concerning the point in question. If a man married a wife, and he put her away
with a letter of divorce, because she did not please him any longer, and the
divorced woman married another man, and he either put her away in the same
manner or died, the first husband could not take her as his wife again” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old
Testament).
“If a man put away his wife because she did not any
longer please him, and she became the wife of another man, by whom also she was
put away, or from whom she was severed by his death, the first husband might
not remarry her, for that would be an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and
would bring sin on the land. This is not a law sanctioning or regulating
divorce; that is simply assumed as what might occur, and what is here regulated
is the treatment by the first husband of a woman who has been divorced a second
time” (W. L. Alexander The Pulpit
Commentary).
“The careful reader will notice that the renderings of the King James
Version and the Revised Version (British and American) differ materially. the
King James Version reads in the second part of Deut 24:1 : “then let him
write a bill,” etc., the Revised Version (British and American) has “that he
shall write,” etc., while the Hebrew original has neither “then” nor
“that,” but the simple conjunction “and.” There is certainly no command in the
words of Moses, but, on the other hand, a clear purpose to render the
proceeding more difficult in the case of the husband. Moses' aim was “to
regulate and Thus to mitigate an evil which he could not extirpate.” (International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia).
The purpose of Deut 24:1-4 was not to grant permission to a man to divorce his wife, but to regulate an existing practice (c.f. Lev 21:7-14; 22:13; Num 30:9; Deut 22;19, 29). Perhaps in the absence of such legislation the unwanted wife might suffer even worse consequences. In Matt 19:8 Jesus describes divorce as the fruit of the sin-hardened heart, and in Adam Clarke’s view “Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands.” In similar vein Wesley suggests that in these verses, we have “merely a permission of that practice for prevention of greater mischiefs,” perhaps even the murder of the unwanted wife. John Gill opines that “if this (permission) had not been granted, (the men) would have used their wives that displeased them, in a most cruel, and barbarous manner, if not have murdered them: so that this grant was made, not to indulge their lusts, but to prevent greater evils” (Exposition of the Entire Bible). Anyway the point is that Deut 24:1-4 did not provide divine authorization for the Israelite man to divorce his wife.
Nor do these verses provide divine authorization for
the put away woman to enter into a second marriage. The text does not teach
that the woman “may go and be another man's wife (v 2 KJV)
but rather sets forth the consequences which follow “if after she leaves his house, she becomes the wife
of another man” (v 2 NIV). If she does become the wife of another man “her
first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again,” (v 4) the
reason being that “she has been defiled.”
Remarriage to such a “defiled” woman “would be detestable in the eyes of
the LORD” and would “bring sin upon the land.” Such defilement exists even if
the second husband is now dead (v 3).
The “language (defiled)
suggests adultery (see Lev
Finally we need to
say a word about the term which is variously translated “uncleanness”
(KJV) “indecency” (NASB, ESV) “something indecent” (NIV) “unseemly thing”
(American Standard Version) in Deut 24:1. The Hebrew term is ‘ervath dabhar, (lit “nakedness of a
thing”) and its meaning has been
disputed by both Jewish and Christian commentators. The main Jewish views are
to be found in the Talmud Mishnah Gittin
"The
Although Rabbi Akiba was a little later than Jesus, the view associated with his name was around in the Lord’s Day. The lax views of Hillel and Akiba prevailed in Jewish law. According to the Talmud the husband was to divorce his wife "If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street,” (Git 89a) and Ecclesiasticus 25:25 says:
"A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away."
Of course Deuteronomy 24:1-4 provides no support for such
teaching, and what’s more, ‘ervath dabhar
cannot refer to adultery either
for a variety of reasons. Adultery was
punishable by death, (Lev
It is important to have correct understanding of Deut 24 because it features in various attempts to evade the teaching of Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. Briefly the convoluted argument defended by some is this:
i. Deut 24 superseded creation law for the Jews. Thus a less stringent law replaced the more demanding. Since a Jew living under the Mosaic covenant was permitted to divorce and remarry, a Jew in a second marriage could remain in that relationship after having become a Christian. A relationship which was permitted under the old covenant would continue to be permitted under the new covenant.
ii. Based on the principle that “From everyone who
has been given much, much will be required” (Lk
There are many problems with such a position, and we will
say more about these difficulties later on, but for the moment let us
simply note that a correct understanding of Deut 24 destroys the foundation
upon which this position rests.
Malachi 2:10-16
a. The Lord’s attitude towards divorce is expressed in no
uncertain terms in this passage of scripture. God hates disloyalty, and in
Malachi 2:10-16, He accuses the nation of
i. She has been disloyal to
her national family (v 10). “Have we not all one Father? Did not
one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking
faith with one another?” For example, the priests have “have shown partiality
in matters of the law" (v 9).
ii. She
has been disloyal to her spiritual family (vv 11, 12). The nation had “desecrated the sanctuary the
LORD loves, by marrying the daughter of a foreign god” (v 11). The expression “daughter
of a foreign god” refers to “women worshipping idols: as the worshipper
in Scripture is regarded in the relation of a child to a father (Jer
b.
Disloyalty has brought divine judgment upon the nation, yet the people fail to
understand the connection between the two:
“Another
thing you do: You flood the LORD's altar with tears.
You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or
accepts them with pleasure from your hands.
You ask, ‘Why?’ (Vv 13, 14a).
c. The
Lord explains why the promised blessings are being withheld (NIV):
“It is because the LORD is acting as the
witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith
with her, (Sept “whom thou
hast deserted”; Vulgate “whom thou
hast despised"; NASB “against
whom you have dealt treacherously”) though she is your partner, the
wife of your marriage covenant ( “your wife by covenant” NASB; RSV; NKJV; “the wife of thy covenant” KJV “the
wife of thy covenant” ASV “thy covenant-wife YLT)” (Mal
2:14). Evidently in order to marry
heathen females, the men were divorcing the wives
of their youth. The words "wife of your youth" suggest
that the men were divorcing their aging
wives in favor of younger women.
Elsewhere the wise man speaks of the woman who “leaves the companion of her
youth” (Prov
d. In
this matter it is God Himself who is “acting as the witness between you and the
wife of your youth.” Their marriages had been made before God (Gen
e. The
men are accused of treachery in this
matter. The relevant word (bâgad)
means “to cover
(with a garment); figuratively to act covertly; by implication to
pillage: - deal deceitfully (treacherously, unfaithfully), offend,
transgress (-or), (depart), treacherous (dealer, -ly,
man), unfaithful (-ly, man) …” (Strong). Israelite men who are guilty in this matter are sinning
against God and against the women whom they have dismissed.
f. In divorcing “the wife of (his) youth” the man is acting treacherously towards “the wife of (his) marriage covenant, (NIV) or his “wife by covenant” (NASB; RSV; NKJV). KJV and ASV have “the wife of thy covenant.” The word “covenant” (berîyth) means:
“1) covenant, alliance, pledge” and can refer to an alliance “1a) between men” or “1b) between God and man” (Brown-Driver-Briggs).
The precise meaning of the expression “wife by covenant” is much debated.
“If the marriage was a berīth
'Elōhīm
(a covenant of God), as described in Prov
In similar vein Kaiser has:
“Malachi 2:14 insists that the Lord was a witness at the wedding between
the same ‘wife of your youth’ who has now been left in tears at the altar of
God while her husband shares his affection with others.”
Likely this is the idea here. Geneva
Bible Translation Notes has “She that was united to you by a solemn covenant,
and by the invocation of God's name.” Like many others Clarke understands “covenant of her God” (Prov 2:17) to mean “the
matrimonial contract, which is a covenant made in the presence of God between
the contracting parties, in which they bind themselves to be faithful to each
other.” The faithless husbands of Malachi 2:14 are covenant violators.
g. Verse 15a is difficult as the various translations show. For example: KJV has: “And did not he make one? Yet
had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed.” NIV has “Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh
and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.” NASB has: “But not one has done so who
has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a
godly offspring?” ASV has: “And did he not
make one, although he had the residue of the Spirit? And
wherefore one? He sought a godly seed.” RSV has: “Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit
of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. NRS has: “Did not one God
make her? Both flesh and spirit are his. And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring.”
h. A host of interpretations are offered which cautions against
dogmatism. The NIV in effect says that God made the male and female one, in
context suggesting that His plan is for
monogamous unions. The NASB
rendering (“But not one has
done so who has a remnant of the Spirit”) conveys the idea that “Not
any one has done so (i.e. divorced his wife) who has a remnant of
the spirit (ruach)” (W. J.
Deane, Pulpit Commentary). If this is a good translation the idea is that “No
one acts as you have done who has in him any of that Divine life which God at
first breathed into man; in other words, no man of conscience and virtue has
ever thus divorced his wife” (ibid).
i. Certainly the point of v 15a seems to be
that God intended
for marriage to be monogamous, and that He did so because He was seeking a
“godly offspring.” Many find a reference to the Messiah here. Clarke thinks that this “may refer to the Messiah” adding that “ God would
have the whole human race to spring from one pair, that Christ, springing from
the same family, might in his sufferings taste death for every man.” Others
think that this is a reference to “a noble excellent seed; a legitimate
offspring, born in true and lawful wedlock” (Gill). Anyway in light of all this the men are warned “So guard yourself in your spirit,
and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.”
j. Verse 16 sums up: “I hate divorce,’ says the LORD God of
k. Predictably some have
attempted to circumvent the Lord’s teaching in this verse. They insist that in Deuteronomy 24, Moses is authorizing divorce under certain
circumstances, and that what God “hates” in Mal 2:16 is the abandonment of the wife by certain individuals who are failing to
observe the correct procedure for divorce. They argue that when Moses
speaks of the “certificate of divorce”
or “bill of divorcement”” he uses the
term kerîythûth, whereas in
Mal
l. However quite apart from the fact that Deut 24 contains
no authority for divorce, (see above) this sharp distinction between these two
Hebrew terms is unwarranted. This is abundantly clear from the fact that in
Deut 24:1-4, the word shâlach is used
three times to speak of the sending away
of the woman who has been issued the certificate of divorce (vv 1, 3, 4). Again,
speaking as
Conclusion The
Lord’s words in Mal 2:16 (“I hate divorce”) reflect His abhorrence for a
practice which sets aside the “one flesh” law given at creation, (Gen 2:18 ff)
and we will see that the teaching of Jesus and Paul on this subject
is perfectly consistent with this verdict.