wanting to take vows... till marriage is possible

[theophilus]

Theophilus

I do not understand how you conclude that these people in Malachi were separating from their wives without a certificate of divorce.

Your conclusion seems to be based on interpretation of the word shalach, which you said means a separation, but does not mean a divorce, and never meant divorce.

You said:

The Hebrew word "shalach" means "putting away", a separation. However, the King James and a number of newer versions have incorrectly translated shalach as to mean 'divorce'. It never meant divorce and it doesn't mean divorce. The word was most likely translated as "divorce" to fit what was taught in the church.

You thus concluded that these men had separated from their wives, but had not given them a certificate of divorce, and so had not divorced them, but just separated.

You quoted from Deuteronomy 24:1,2:

When a man has taken a wife and married her, and it comes to pass that she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her; then let him write her a bill of divorce and give it in her hand and send (shalach) her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

The above Scripture says that shalach means that the woman was free to go and be another man's wife.  Doesn't that mean therefore that shalach in that culture is the equivalent of divorce in our culture, as close as the differences in culture will allow, otherwise how could the woman be free to go and be another man's wife?

In the Scripture above that you quoted, the Law states that it was a requirement of the Law that for a woman to be shalach she must receive a certificate of divorce.  So therefore how can you and on what basis do you claim that shalach means that these women had not received a certificate of divorce?

Has difference in culture caused you confusion?  In our culture there is often or usually a period of separation, where the couple is known as separated, before an application is made and a piece of paper is received that pronounces the couple as divorced.  Correct me if I am incorrect, but there appears to be no separation period in the Israelite culture, and no requirement for such in the Law.  The woman was given the bill/certificate of divorce and the deed was done.

Also, the Scripture in Malachi does not say that these women had not received a certificate of divorce, and on that basis also there appears to be no foundation on which to claim that a certificate of divorce had not been given.

Look at the detail given in Malachi 2:14-16 of the effects of the divorcing of the covenant wife.  Yet you say that the divorcing of the covenant wife was actually not the problem, and God does not hate such a divorce at all, it is separation without divorce papers that God hates, and you wrested that into being by defining shalach as not having a certificate of divorce when in the very Scripture that you quoted the Law says that a woman must be given a certificate of divorce to be shalach.

However your observation that these women had been unjustifiably (and selfishly) put away seems to be valid.  That was the nature of the treachery, I think, not a lack of a certificate of divorce.

It should also be noted that when a shalach woman lay with a second husband, she became defiled (read on in Deuteronomy 24).

Deuteronomy 22:13-19 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 each detail one of two separate occasions, both occasions where a man had taken a woman's virginity, when the man was not allowed to shalach the woman all his days.

Oatmeal

Dear Oatmeal,

The reason I said that is found in Malachi 2.14: Yet ye say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast DEALT TREACHEROUSLY [by being "partial in the law." Malachi 2.9]; yet she IS [still] thy companion and the wife of thy covenant [because she hasn't done anything wrong].

and

Malachi 2.15: And did he not make one, having in himself abundance of the Spirit? And why one? That he might seek offspring of God. Therefore take heed to your spirit and let no one DEAL TREACHEROUSLY against the wife of his youth.

And since Deuteronomy 24.1-2 Deuteronomy 24:1 (MKJV)

"When a man has taken a wife and married her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some UNCLEANNESS in her, then let him write her a bill of divorce (keriythuwth H3748), and put it in her hand, and send her out (shalach H7971) of his house.
2 And when she has departed from his house, she goes and becomes another man's"

The above verse stipulated the rightful way for a husband to divorce his wife. To do it any other way was to deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. Since God was entreating Israelite males to NOT BE TREACHEROUS (Mal. 2.16) I must conclude that these Israelite husbands were not following God's law regarding divorce. Probably the reason for the husbands wanting to get rid of their wives was other than NUDITY (Deut. 24.1. The base meaning of the Hebrew word translated uncleanness ('ervah) means nudity. In this case the woman has uncovered herself from her headship, her husband.) This is why they couldn't write a divorce document and give it to their wives. All they could safely do was to send them away (Shalach).

For other valid reasons for divorce, we should look at the Code of Hammurabi. This might not be considered kosher by some, but let's not forget the similarities between Jehovah's law and the Code of Hammurabi. I personally believe the former predates the latter, not the other way around, as modern critics of the Bible proclaim. The Code specifies cruelty, slander, waste of family assets, and running up needless debts as being grounds for a man to divorce his wife. This is in addition to any other violation which may have been written into the marriage contract. The wife, too, could divorce her husband for those same offenses, but in addition to them, she could divorce him for lack of support (i.e., food, clothing, and conjugal relations; compare with Exodus 21:10,11).

Continuing...Consider the following verses:

Deuteronomy 22:19 (NKJV)
"and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot put her away (shalach H7971) all his days."

Deuteronomy 22:29 (NKJV)
"then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to put her away (shalach H7971) all his days."

It wouldn't make sense if the scripture read "he shall not be permitted to DIVORCE her ALL HIS DAYS", right? Likewise, it wouldn't make sense for scripture to read "he cannot DIVORCE her ALL HIS DAYS".

"Divorce" and "Put or send away" are not the same thing. Also consider that if a man found that his wife had been unfaithful to him, he did not write her a bill of divorcement, AS SHE AND THE OTHER MAN WERE STONED TO DEATH.

God hates the putting away (without divorce) because it always involves sin (Not keeping His ways/laws is a sin). In one case the sin of the wife for being unfaithful and in the other the sin of the husband for putting his wife away without a just cause or a bill of divorcement. The act of putting away a wife without a bill of divorcement is equivalent to separation only. The man and woman are still married if she was not guilty of adultery.

Take a look at the following verses:

Isaiah 50:1 (MKJV)

"So says Yahweh, "Where is your mother's bill of divorce (keriythuwth H3748), whom I have put away (shalach H7971)? Or to which of My creditors have I sold you? Behold, you were sold for your iniquities, and your mother is put away (shalach H7971) for your sins.""

Jeremiah 3:1 (MKJV)

"They say, If a man put away (shalach H7971) and she goes from him and will be for another man, will he return to her again? Would not that land be greatly defiled? But you play the harlot with many lovers; yet come back to Me, says Yahweh."

Jeremiah 3:8 (NKJV)

"Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away (shalach H7971) and given her a certificate of divorce (keriythuwth H3748); yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also."

In the following verses the Pharisees test the Lord in a matter of Law. Notice how they begin by talking about putting away a wife and then switch to divorce.

(Mat 19:3 NKJV)

"The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluo G630)his wife for just any reason?""
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'
5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Christ correctly answered their question based on the Law. A put away wife without a bill of divorcement was merely separated from her husband. They were still married. Now the Pharisees change the subject to divorce. In verse 8 he answers their question. In verse 9 he teaches more about the "putting away".

(Mat 19:7 KJV)

Mat 19:7  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (apostasion G647), << AND >> to put her away (apoluo G630)?

(Mat 19:8 NKJV)

He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away (apoluo G630)your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

(Mat 19:9 NKJV)

And I say to you, whoever puts away (apoluo G630)his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away (apoluo G630)commits adultery."

As you can see in Matthew 19:8 Christ said that from the beginning it was not so. What was not so? "Divorce for any reason" was not from the beginning because the Law says that a man must find some uncleanness in her, Deuteronomy 24:1. It is permitted to divorce a woman in whom is found an uncleanness. Adultery is a lawful reason for putting away without a writ of divorce.

Definitions (Strong):

Hebrew 1644. garash, gaw-rash'; a prim. root; to drive out from a possession; espec. to expatriate

Hebrew 3748. keriythuwth, ker-ee-thooth'; from H3772; a cutting (of the matrimonial bond), i.e. divorce.

Hebrew 7971. shalach, shaw-lakh'; a prim. root; to send away, for, or out (in a great variety of applications).

Greek 630. apoluo, ap-ol-oo'-o; from G575 and G3089; to free fully, i.e. (lit.) relieve, release, dismiss (reflex. depart), or (fig.) let die, pardon, or (spec.) divorce.

Greek 647. apostasion, ap-os-tas'-ee-on; neut. of a (presumed) adj. from a der. of G868; prop. something separative, i.e. (spec.) divorce.

[Oatmeal]

Please note that the writings in blue are clickable links.

Hi Theophilus

If I have correctly understood the things that you have been saying, you have presented the argument that in a remarriage situation adultery only occurs if you separate from a marriage partner without divorcing that partner and then remarry, but if you divorce your marriage partner no adultery will occur in any subsequent remarriage.

This argument is based on the premise that in regard to a marriage situation the Hebrew word shalach in the Old Testament and the Greek word apoluo in the New Testament do not refer to "divorce", but mean "separation", with "separation" meaning  "non-divorced separation".

Matthew 19:9 (KJV) 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.

The argument says that the word translated as "put away" (apoluo) in the Scripture above, and as mentioned by Jesus in the above Scripture and in other Scriptures Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:15-18 actually means: "separate without divorce".  The argument also says that "fornication" mentioned in the above Scripture (Matthew 19:9) and in Matthew 5:32 is adultery or includes adultery in its definition, even though adultery is referred to as "adultery" in those very Scriptures.

Here is the version of Matthew 5:31-32 presented by you and according to your argument:

...as Jesus stated: "Furthermore it has been said, "Whoever PUTS AWAY [separates from {apoluo}] his wife, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE. But I say to you that whoever PUTS AWAY [separates and remarries without being divorced from] his wife for any reason EXCEPT SEXUAL IMMORALITY causes her to commit adultery: and whoever marries a woman who is PUT AWAY [separated without being divorced {apoluo}] commits adultery" (Matthew 5:31-32).

With the word "put away" apoluo meaning "separate without divorce", and porneia (translated above as "sexual immorality") meaning something that occurs after the wedding ceremony, this means that if your wife has committed adultery (or sexual immorality, definition of which includes adultery), you are allowed to separate from that partner and remarry without divorcing that partner.  That that is a logical result of interpreting "put away" as being "to separate without divorce" is confirmed and accepted by you:

Adultery is a lawful reason for putting away without a writ of divorce.

If sexual immorality/adultery of the wife results in the instant dissolving of the marriage, though perhaps that's not exactly what you are saying, such that a divorce is not required, and remembering that your argument says it is remarriage without divorce that results in adultery, not remarriage after divorce, then why does not the adultery caused by remarriage without divorce result in the instant dissolving of the previous marriage?  For an argument to remain valid, should it not remain logical throughout?

Mark 10:12 states that if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.  How can she be committing adultery if her adultery has instantly dissolved the previous marriage?

Some now say that it is only the guilty partner who is committing adultery, and that the innocent partner is free to remarry.  This is illogical nonsense as the previous marriage must exist for both not just for one, otherwise how could the previous marriage be an existing marriage? - besides the fact that the Scriptures say that the one who puts away his wife (wife = the innocent partner) causes her to commit adultery and the one that marries her commits adultery.

In regard to the meaning of "fornication" (KJV) porneia mentioned in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, how can it have the meaning of sexual sin inclusive of adultery occurring in the period of time after the wedding ceremony and as such be grounds for invalidating the marriage, when in those very Scriptures themselves Jesus gave example of divorce, remarriage and adultery where the adultery does not make the original marriage invalid?  I only mention this again because even after I raised this question in a previous post you went ahead and posted (November 12, 2013) references from three translations that purport that porneia is a sexual sin that occurs at a time after the marriage ceremony, but you ignored or did not notice the relevant and valid question that I asked and you did not supply any explanation as to how your definition of porneia could possibly be true.  I feel that that was somewhat amiss on your behalf.

Have you presented your argument in an attempt to give an OK to divorce and remarriage?

Here are some of your thoughts on divorce:

When a couple no longer has a great relationship, their marriage is no longer great. When they care more about their marriage than their marriage partner, they have misplaced the emphasis of their relationship. Being married does not create a great relationship. But having a great relationship creates a great marriage.

Which is greater in God's eyes, the marriage or the people of the marriage?

If push comes to shove, who do we save, the institution or the people of the institution? And if we face the decision of either saving a marriage or the people of the marriage, which one do we choose? The people no doubt!

Jesus told us to deny ourselves and to take up our cross, and to follow Him.  Does Scripture put the emphasis on the "great", or on the marriage?

The summary so far (of your argument) seems to be that if your wife commits adultery you are allowed to separate without divorcing her and remarry, and if your wife does not commit adultery you are not allowed to separate without divorcing her and remarry because the remarriage would be adultery but you are allowed (if the relationship is not great) to divorce her and remarry in which case the remarriage would not be adultery.

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 (KJV)
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 [shalach] her out of his house.  2  And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

Your argument says that shalach means "separated, but not divorced", even though the woman who was shalach in the above Scripture was allowed to go and be another man's wife, and even though under the Law it was a requirement of the Law that for a woman to be shalach she must first be given a bill/certificate of divorce.

According to e-Sword, shalach is used 848 times in the Old Testament.  Let's not confuse shalach as used in the separation from a marriage situation, with other uses of shalach, such as in Genesis 3:22 (...lest he put forth [shalach] his hand, and take also of the tree of life...).  The instructions for the shalach of a wife are given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and which shalach is preceded by a cepher kriythuwth - a bill/certificate of divorce.

cepher kriythuwth: bill/certificate of divorce - cepher:writing, letter, scroll; kriythuwth: a cutting.

In Deuteronomy 24:1 & 3 the cepher kriythuwth comes before (both in word order and in process) the shalach.

In Western culture separation is followed by divorce, but in the Israelite culture, and under the Law, divorce is followed by separation, and under that criteria therefore a woman who has been shalach is a divorced woman.

Your argument seems to be somewhat largely based on an interpretation of a passage in Malachi, Malachi 2:13-16, concerning which your argument says that because these women are called "thy companion and the wife of thy covenant", and because shalach means separation, these woman have never been divorced, that is, they have never received a bill/certificate of divorce.

And the argument says that it is not divorce that God hates, but separation without a divorce.

Malachi 2:15 NKJV
But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
"Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 

It seems very clear that the problem is the breaking of the marriage covenant, a covenant to which God was a witness.  How would divorce papers or the lack thereof change the effects resulting from the non-fulfillment and breaking of the marriage covenant?  Is the "she is your companion and your wife by covenant" truly a revelation about a lack of a certificate of divorce, or is it an emphasis on the relevance and importance of the covenant?

(The Rotherham says: "was thy consort, and thy covenant wife" and the Brenton says: "was thy partner, and the wife of thy covenant" (they use the past tense).  In the King James the word "is" is in italics, which signifies a word not in the original language but which has been added to assist the reader to understand the interpretation of the translator).

Notice how they [the Pharisees] begin by talking about putting away a wife and then switch to divorce.

Matthew 19:7 KJV
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Mark 10:2-4 KJV
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.  3  And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?  4  And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

In the above two references, the Pharisees mention in one breath the certificate of divorcement and the putting away.  Where therefore is the switching?

In defense of your argument, you say that the conversation in Matthew 19:3-9 goes from non-divorced separation to divorced separation to non-divorced separation.

When the Pharisees mention the putting away is it not in reference to the certificate of divorcement that initiated the putting away, and when the Pharisees mention the certificate of divorcement is it not in reference to the putting away that resulted from the certificate of divorcement?

Reading Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-9 together it can be seen that the words of Jesus in reply to the Pharisees "put away his wife" of Matthew 19:3 and to the Pharisees "write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away" of Mark 10:4 are much the same.  Therefore the "putting away" and the "writing a bill of divorcement, and putting her away" are the same thing, not two different things.  I think an honest reading of the text, and even more so when comparing the account in Mark with the account in Matthew, will show that there is no switching from non-divorced to divorced separation and back to non-divorced separation in the conversation.

Also, as strict followers of the Law, or their interpretation of the Law, it seems unlikely that the Pharisees would neglect the paperwork when divorcing their wives.

At least in some respect, your argument has reduced the words of Jesus to: "Don't forget the paperwork when you are divorcing, fellas."

Also you referred "the beginning" back to the Law, instead of truly back to the beginning.

God gave Israel a certificate of divorce and sent her away for her unfaithfulness! That is God divorced Israel because she had fornicated. Can't we do the same?

To start with, I think Israel was an espoused wife when God divorced her, not an "after the wedding ceremony" wife.  Nevertheless, by "the same", are you referring to the same faithfulness that God displayed to Israel after He divorced her?

In regard to What is Marriage, please refer to: (link) WHAT IS MARRIAGE, written by L. Ray Smith.  Even though I do not agree with statements in the last couple of paragraphs I direct you to the rest of the article in regard to the significance, importance, and relevance of the wedding ceremony and of the marriage covenant.

Oatmeal

[indianabob]

Let's try this approach.

When you as a man find that you are not receiving the loving benefits from your spouse that you had previously been accustomed to and you discuss it with her and she informs you that she no longer wishes to be obligated to as much of those benefits as you would prefer, BUT that she does wish to remain your wife in all other things. what do you do?

Well, you promised, before God and men, in the presence of God's spirit in your heart, to love, honor and cherish her for as long as you both shall live, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, RIGHT.
So you have therefore an obligation toward her before men and before God according to your vow.

The only decision you need to be concerned about is whether you keep your vow toward God!

The sacrifice, the emotional pain you feel, the lack of tender feelings you once received from your wife are of lesser importance. Your love for God and His Christ supersedes all of that.

Your wife has changed, her mental emotional state is not the same; is it intentional, was deception involved, can one be sure? Can you pray to God for her to be restored to full health. Are you willing to wait for God's answer?
Assume that it was a situation where she had her legs amputated and was distraught about her condition and could not think about your needs or desires. Would you separate from her, abandon her, divorce her OR would you rather suffer the loss of her service and find other things with which to occupy yourself and to serve in your family and community.

Perhaps we need to cease thinking of this situation along the lines of those under the law and look forward as those no longer under the law but under grace; those called and elect who were promised suffering of the type our Lord Jesus endured.
James 1:2
James 1:2-8 (New King James Version)

Page Options
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on email
<<
<
=
=
>
>>

James 1:2-8

2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.


Just my view, Bob

[Dave in Tenn]

We have wandered far away from the original question into long-winded 'teaching'.  Let's call it quits on this thread.