Divorcement

[Deut. 24:1] 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.
[She find no favour in his eyes - It appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very widespread amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Matt. 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.]
[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;
[Positive Law # 579 it was a command of the L-rd for a man who divorced his wife to do so in accordance with the Torah by giving her a bill of written divorce. This is called a get and is described in great detail in ancient and modern Jewish writings in the section tractate known as Gittin. This must be done in the presence of two witnesses. In ancient times only the man could divorce the woman. In such cases the woman could go before the Bet Din and the judges would force the man to give her a divorce in cases where she was deserving of the divorce. Around the third century C.E. women were given the right to originate the divorce.
Although there are several biblical reasons for divorce, few people investigate them. The simplest rule is that a divorce is only biblical when the circumstances of living with an individual cause one to break any of the 613 commands while living together. The most obvious of these would include such sins as incest or continued physical abuse by one partner, where a divorce would obviously be the better choice.]
[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 L-RD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the L-RD thy G-d giveth thee for an inheritance.
[Negative Law # 580 it was forbidden for a man to remarry an ex-wife, it she had remarried and was divorced or widowed. The penalty for this was lashes. The woman who divorced and remarried in ancient times, because their customs were different, was considered defiled as far as her former husband was concerned, but not toward her new husband. The word defiled as used here refers to that which was in that day illegal.]
[Matt. 5:3] 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?
[The definition of the term sin (transgressions) is the breaking of one of the 613 Laws of G-d (1 Jn. 3:4). This text was not a general statement on divorce and should accurately be used to teach on the subject, from the school of Hallel and Shammai. Hallel believed in any reason was the Shammai said only if unclean. But they argued what was unclean – just because they weren’t pretty enough. Y’Shua is giving them a balance between the two. Although divorce was not G-d’s best, it was not a sin either. The popular reference in Malachi 2:16 – is not a general statement concerning divorce, but speaking out against a pacific type of divorce.
G-d hates divorce is not in the original, and does not line up with any other text. In the original it said “if he hates her, than put her away). Like Jeremiah 3:8. Deuteronomy 24 – was written for two reasons:
(1.)The woman’s security from not being taken care of, and being killed.
(2.)The license to remarry: In the first century if the husband was taken captive and the wife had no way of support she could remarry. Then if he escapes and comes home, she was obligated to go back to the first husband even if she had kids with the second. Not all husbands were good to another man’s children. The only reason then to divorce was to remarry. The reason the people in Ezra 10 were commanded to divorce was because the women were causing the men to transgress several other of the 613 Laws. During the time of Henry the 8th, he keep killing his wife’s off, out of this the church of Episcopal evolved out of the controversy about divorce allowing him to divorce and remarry one to give him an heir to the throne.]
[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
[Why – for breaking any of the 613 Laws constantly. The people were killing their mates in the first century to remarry pagan women. Even Solomon built temples to his heathen wives. The laws of the land said to say verbally “divorce divorce divorce” to put the wife away, then if she remarried she was put to death but not the new husband. Y’Shua was making it safe and secure for the woman by putting it in writing. To divorce and remarry the same man was forbidden in abusive situation.]
[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.
[Putting away and divorce are different Hebrew and Greek words:
1. Apollo = putting away (sent away).
2. Greek, apostasion = divorce (written document).
Kerithuth –Hebrew, divorce found four times: Deut. 24:1, 3; Isa. 51:1; Jer. 3:8 and Mat. 5:32.
Apoluotasis = putting away by law. According to the laws of the pagan world in the O.T. and the Greco-Roman world of the N.T. one could divorce another by simply putting away the wife leaving with her the Dailey. The difference in G-d’s Law is that it requires a margin of error giving a legal document so she’d be taken care of and remarries.
This verse should read = “whosoever shall marry her that is put away commits adultery.” The Jewish phrase that Y’Shua used = except for the cause of fornication goes back to the Law in Deut. 22:13-19. Perfecting the virgin who was wrongfully accused, she had to be a virgin. The sheets of the first night of marriage were called the token of her virginity (Deut. 22:13-19). She was to fold them up and keep them as evidence of her virginity. According to the Scriptures divorce is not a sin, but it is not the will of G-d (Deut. 24:1-2; Mark 10:2).
A woman could get a divorce for: a man not meeting her sexual needs by refusing, impotent, sexual disease, a tanner (collecting dog manure) Acts 10:32 unfaithful, and cruel to her.]
[19:9] 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.
[The idea was fornication was only biblical reason for divorce came from a lack of understanding of the Jewish Law found in Deut. 24:1-3. A man that was paying for a virgin would take the sheets to the judges to prove she was not a virgin. If she was a virgin it was the custom of the wife to give her mother the sheets for safekeeping, incase she was ever excused.]
[Mk. 10:11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
[It is adultery against the wife he puts away, a wrong to her, and a breach of his contract with her.
Y’Shua was asked to give a ruling on a point of Law that was debated in the Jewish schools. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4 there is a Law which says in effect, ‘When a man divorces his wife because he has found ‘some indecency’ in her, and she is then married to someone else who divorcers her in his turn, her former husband may not take her back to be his wife again.’ This Law, forbidding a man who has divorced his wife to marry her again after she has lived with a second husband, does not lay down the procedure for divorce; it assumes this procedure as already in being.
The interpreters of the Law around the time of our L-rd, who were concerned not only with deciding what it meant but with applying it to contemporary life were asking: might be indicated by this ‘indecency’ or unseemliness which justified a man in divorcing his wife?
There were two main schools of thought: one that interpreted it stringently, another that interpreted it more broadly. The former school, which followed the direction of Shammai, a leading rabbi who lived a generation or so before Y’Shua, said that a man was authorized to divorce his wife if he married her on the understanding that she was a virgin and then discovered that she was not. There was, in fact, an enactment covering this eventuality in the Law of Deut. 22:13-21, and the consequences could be very serious for the bride if the evidence was interpreted to mean that she had had illicit sexual relations before marriage. This, then, was one school’s understanding of ‘some indecency.’
The other school, following he lead of Shammai’s contemporary Hillel, held that ‘some indecency’ might include more or less anything, which her husband found offensive. She could cease to ‘find favour in his eyes’ for a variety of reasons – if she served up badly cooked food, for example, or even because he found her less beautiful than some other women. It should be emphasized that the rabbis who gave these ‘liberal’ interpretations were not moved by a desire to make divorce easy: they were concerned to state what they believed to be the meaning of a particular scripture.
It was against this background that Y’Shua was invited to say what He thought. In Matthew’s 19:3, account of the incident, they asked Him, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause? If His answer was ‘Yes,’ they would want to know for what cause or causes, in His judgment, divorce was permissible. He gave them His answer and then, in private, expanded it for the benefit of His disciples who had heard it.
He bypassed the traditional interpretation of the rabbinical schools and appealed to the scriptures, ‘What did Moses command you?’ (Deut. 24:1-4) Because of the hardness of your heart that Moses allowed divorce. As with the Sabbath Law so with the marriage Law, He went back to first principles. ‘From the beginning of creation G-d made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. What therefore G-d has joined together, let not man put asunder in 10:2-9. Nan is not given any authority to modify that ordinance.
Y’Shua reminds them of the biblical account of the institution of marriage. The marriage Law must conform with the purpose for which marriage was instituted by G-d. It was instituted to create a new unity of two persons, and no provision was made for the dissolving of that unity. Y’Shua does not idealize marriage. He does not say that every marriage is made in heaven; He says that marriage itself is made in heaven that is instituted by G-d. To the question, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife the answer is No; not for any cause.
There is a feature of Y’Shua’s answer to the Pharisees, which could easily be overlooked. The stringent interpretation of the school of Shammai and the liberal interpretation of the school of Hillel were both given from the husband’s point of view. In the stringent interpretation it was the bride’s virginity that had to be above suspicion; the bridegroom’s chastity before marriage did not enter into the picture. As for the liberal interpretation, it was liberal in the husband’s interest, in that it permitted him to divorce his wife for a variety of reasons; so far as the wife’s interest was concerned, it was most illiberal, for she had little opportunity of redress if her husband decided to divorce her within the meaning of the Law as liberally interpreted. What was true of these interpretations was true of the original legislation, which they undertook to expound: it was because of the hardness of men’s hearts that divorce was conceded. The Law was unequally balanced to the disadvantage of women, and Y’Shua’s ruling, with its appeal to the Creator’s intention, had the effect of redressing the unequal balance. It is not surprising that women regularly recognized in Y’Shua one who was their friend and champion.]
[12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she
committeth adultery.
[Matthew 19:1-12 and Luke 9:51. Elope from him, leave him by consent; to marry another, she commits adultery.
This is a situation not contemplated in the OT Law, which made no provision for a wife to divorce her husband and marry another man. It has therefore been thought that this second statement is a corollary added to Y’Shua’s original ruling when Messianic had made its way into the Gentile World. In a number of Gentile law-codes it was possible for a wife to initiate divorce proceedings, as it was not under Jewish Law. But at the time when Y’Shua spoke there was a recent cause cerebra in His own country, to which He could well have referred.
Less than ten years before, Herodias, a granddaughter of Herod the Great, who had been married to her uncle Herod Philip and lived with him in Rome, fell in love with another uncle, Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, when he paid a visit to Rome. In order to marry Antipas she divorced her first husband. She did so under Roman law, since she was a Roman citizen. For a women to marry her uncle was not a breach of Jewish Law, as it was commonly interpreted at that time, but it was certainly a breach of Jewish Law for her to marry her husband’s brother. Herod Antipas imprisoned John the Baptist for insisting that it was unlawful for him to be married to his brother’s wife. Y’Shua named no names, but any reference at that time, either in Galilee or in Perea, to a woman divorcing her husband and marrying someone else was bound to make hearers think of Herodias. If the suggestion that she was living in adultery came to her ears, Y’Shua would incur her mortal resentment as surely as John the Baptist had done.
In Matthew’s 19:9 version of this interchange, Y’Shua’s ruling is amplified by the addition of a few words: ‘except for unchastely’. The same exception appears in another occurrence of His ruling in this Gospel, in the Sermon on the Mount, also appears in Luke 16:18.]