T

he topic of divorce and remarriage seems to come up more and more frequently during Bible study discussions, and it's become a hot topic with the current Daystar Christian Network debacle. In late 2021, the founder of Daystar, Marcus Lamb, died from complications attributed to COVID. Less than two months later, Dr. Doug Weiss filed for divorce from his wife, Lisa, and, shortly afterwards, began dating the widowed Joni Lamb. Only a few years before, Dr. Weiss, a psychologist, marriage counselor, sexual addiction expert and frequent guest on Daystar, described his marriage to Lisa as blissful, and that after 30 years, he still had "butterflies." The reason for his divorce from Lisa, to this point, has been kept secret. Had she been unfaithful? Based on recordings obtained from Joni's son, Jonathan Lamb, Dr. Weiss cited neglect and abuse as reasons for the divorce, adding that he was "untouched" and "unloved." In a YouTube interview, Suzy Lamb testified that Joni confided to her that Lisa Weiss was begging Doug to get back together with her. If this is true, then it's very sad that a blissful marriage of 30 years could take such a drastic turn; however, it's not a Scripturally-approved reason for divorcing a spouse. Nevertheless, Dr. Weiss and Joni announced their engagement in March 2023, and they were married in June 2023. The question that's begging for an answer is, "Did Dr. Weiss violate Scripture when he divorced his wife and married another woman?"

     While these high-profile divorces get all the attention, I know divorces among believers are way more common than they used to be. According to Longworth Law Firm, P.C.'s blog "Christian Divorce Rates," divorces among believers have been steadily increasing to the point that they're nearly as common as divorces among unbelievers. They write:

Overall, the divorce rate among Christians is just as high if not higher than the overall divorce rate in society.

     The author adds:

It is often assumed that Christian marriages are resilient and unlikely to end in divorce, yet recent studies have revealed that the percentage of Christian marriages that end in divorce is surprisingly high. According to data from the Center for Disease Control, approximately twenty-five percent of Christians divorced in 2016 alone. This statistic reflects a five percent increase over previous years and suggests that Christian divorce rates are continuing to rise.[1]

     It's possible the growing concern about divorce among believers can be attributed to the fact that it was once assumed divorcing couples were unbelievers. Such is no longer the case. Granted, I was raised in a conservative, rural environment, near a small town; divorces were rare, but even so, I knew those that did occur were not between members of our church. It is indeed alarming whenever we learn of fellow believers getting divorced, so it really shouldn't be surprising that the topic arises more and more frequently. What is even more alarming is the fact that, in many of these cases, the divorce was Scripturally valid, which in turn means adultery was involved. What's even more alarming than that is the fact that we've heard of such divorces among those who profess Torah obedience. I can almost understand how and why Christians divorce; when you believe the commandments were "done away," the seventh commandment is no longer taken very seriously, even though it is firmly addressed in the New Testament. But what's up with those who teach the commandments are just as valid today as they were when they were given to all Israel? Why are those couples divorcing?

     I had never, until now, chosen to write about marriage because (a) it's never been an issue in my personal life (thankfully), and (b)  I don't really feel I'm qualified to do so. Oh, I could argue that 46 years of marriage qualifies me, and maybe it does, but I can only base my reasoning and conclusion on Scripture and personal experience. Since I have never divorced, some would say I cannot relate to the heartache divorced couples have experienced. I cannot argue with such an argument, and for that I'm actually thankful.

     I find it interesting that in ancient times, many marriages were arranged marriages. Even today, such is the practice among many cultures. My understanding is that the divorce rate in India, where arranged marriages are common, is currently at 1%, as compared to the United States' 3.2%. So living with just any member of the opposite sex can result in a lasting relationship if the two are determined to make it work. Regardless of the circumstances of any marriage, the question is, "If you're divorced, can you remarry?"

     Years ago, I read an excellent article composed by a Messianic believer named Daniel Botkin, who compared two books, one authored by a man who believes it's a sin to remarry after a divorce, regardless of whether you're an innocent partner, and the other book was written by a man who believes remarrying under such circumstances is permitted. Botkin concluded that the second author had it right. In other words, if your spouse divorces you, even though you did nothing wrong, you are free to remarry. Of course, this is actually what the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:10-17.[2]

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Master): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Master): If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him go. The believing brother or sister is not bound in such cases. The Almighty has called you to live in peace.
16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
17 Regardless, each one should lead the life that the Master has assigned to him and to which the Almighty has called him. This is what I prescribe in all the assemblies[3].

     Insofar as addressing the question as to whether or not Dr. Doug Weiss violated Scripture when he divorced his wife and married another woman, the key verses in the above passage are verses 11-12. If we can assume that Dr. Weiss' wife became an unbeliever (which I strongly doubt), so long as she was willing to live with him, the Apostle Paul would have counseled him to not divorce her. Since his wife allegedly begged him to get back together, this is a clue that she was willing to live with him. If Dr. Weiss chose to disregard Paul's counsel, and he therefore left his wife, then he essentially assumed the role of unbeliever. Thus, based on the information currently available, it appears the only unbeliever in the Daystar marriage debacle may be Dr. Doug Weiss.

   Since, from all appearances, Dr. Doug Weiss is the real "unbeliever," then according to verse 15, his wife was no longer bound, which means she is free to marry. Just to reinforce, in verse 15 the Apostle Paul makes it plain that if an unbeliever breaks up a marriage, the believer is not bound in such cases. The bond has been broken, not by the believer, but by the unbeliever, leaving the believer free to remarry.

     Since I have effectively labeled Dr. Weiss an "unbeliever," I think it would be helpful to define "unbeliever." The woman I married is a believer who agrees with nearly everything I believe because we studied Scripture together, sometimes in not-so-pleasant discussions. In summary, we have learned from each other and we're at peace with those things on which we disagree. There are some factors that, in my opinion, would blur the line between "believer" and "unbeliever." Certainly, if I were to reach the conclusion that there is no creator and that all life forms evolved from a primordial soup, I would no longer be a believer because such a belief would require that I reject all of Scripture. On the other hand, if I were to one day conclude that the law was "done away," and I were to so exhibit such a belief by literally "bringing home the bacon" (among other unclean things), there is no question this would cause intolerable strife in our household. While it would certainly be noble and gracious of June to put up with such a husband, such a lifestyle change would cast a major pall on our marriage. Some would classify me as an unbeliever, citing such verses as Deuteronomy 5:32, 6:24-25, 7:6, 10:12-13, 11:26-28, etc., etc. And I would agree with this latter view because, ultimately, everyone believes something, which, loosely-speaking, makes everyone "believers." Thus, when Paul mentions the word "unbeliever," I understand "faith chasm," i.e., a drastic difference of faith that brings chaos and strife into a marriage.

     If I were to become an unbeliever, I am persuaded that Yahweh would expect June to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience, but I don't think she would tolerate me conducting financial transactions on the Sabbath, frying up pork sausage for breakfast, etc. And I think Yahweh would be on her side! Unless I agree to compromise, something would have to give, which means one of us would need to move to a new home. And this would be grounds for a divorce. It would be my responsibility to file for divorce, especially since I'm the one whose lifestyle and beliefs changed. With me, the unbeliever, out of the picture, June would no longer be bound, leaving her free to marry someone else. I therefore agree with Bible commentators who state the Apostle Paul releases such spouses from such a burdensome marriage. For example, here's what Marvin Vincent, over a century ago, wrote in his Word Studies in the New Testament:

15. Is not under bondage (ού δεδούλωται). A strong word, indicating that Christianity has not made marriage a state of slavery to believers. Compare δέδεται is bound, ver. 39, a milder word. The meaning clearly is that wilful desertion on the part of the unbelieving husband or wife sets the other party free. Such cases are not comprehended in Christ's words.[4]

     I try to read and apply Scriptural teachings at face value, and from my vantage point, the clear meaning of Paul's words is that if one has a spouse who departs from the faith, the believer, as a last resort, can be set free from such a marriage. I say "last resort" because it should be presumed that both parties entered into the marriage covenant with the resolve to make it work "till death do us part." Once the unexpected state of unbelief enters into the picture, every effort should be made to respect each other's belief system because, as Paul stated, "The Almighty has called you to live in peace." If the unbeliever is no longer pleased to dwell amicably with his or her believing spouse, I am persuaded our merciful Heavenly Father would not expect the faithful spouse to endure the heart-wrenching burden thus introduced into the marriage–a burden that would be endured "till death do they part." Moreover, by being "set free," I am persuaded Yahweh, through His abundant mercy, sets that spouse free to marry a believer.

     So that is how I interpret 1 Corinthians 7:15. I am glad Marvin Vincent agrees, but he's not the only qualified Bible scholar to share this view. Here are a few additional scholarly works that share my understanding: Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, and Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Holy Bible.

     A fair question is, "Why do other scholars disagree?" Well, I found that many scholarly commentaries don't even "go there," as if to remove themselves from the controversy. From what I can discern, those scholars who maintain the "freed" believer is not free to remarry believe as they do because of what Yeshua had to say on this topic in one particular setting. For example, here's what we read in Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Corinthians:

Remark.—Since desertion (χορίζεται) appears here as an admissible ground for divorce, this has been thought to conflict with Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, and various explanations have been attempted (see Wolf in loc). But the seeming contradiction vanishes, if we consider ver. 12, according to which Jesus had given no judgment upon mixed marriages; Matt. v. 32, therefore, can only bind the believing consort, in so far that he may not be the one who leaves. If, however, he is left by the non-believing partner, then, as this case does not fall under the utterance of Christ, the marriage may be looked upon as practically dissolved, and the believing partner is not bound. But to apply, as is often done, the permissive χορίζέσθω, also to such marriages as are Christian on both sides—the χορίζόμενος, that is to say, being an unchristianly-minded Christian (Harless)—is exegetically inadmissible, seeing that the λοιποί who are here spoken of (see ver. 12) constitute the specific category of mixed marriages, in which, therefore, the one partner in each case falls to be reckoned among τούς έξω. So also pref. to 4th ed. p. vii.f.—Our text gives no express information upon the point, whether Paul would allow the Christian partner in such a union to marry again. For what ού δεδούλωται negatives is not the constraint “ut caelebs maneat” (Grotius, al), but the necessity for the marriage being continued. It may be inferred, however, that as in Paul’s view mixed marriages did not come under Christ’s prohibition of divorce, so neither would he have applied the prohibition of remarriage in Matthew 5:32 to the case of such unions. Olshausen is wrong in holding a second marriage in such cases unlawful, on the ground of its being, according to Matthew, l.c., a μοιχεία. Christ Himself took no account of mixed marriages. Nor would ver. 11, which does not refer to marriages of that kind, be at variance with the remarriage of the believing partner (in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. l.c.[5]

     I supplied the above lengthy commentary in the interest of preserving context; however, the gist of Meyer's commentary is such that the reason Yeshua didn't endorse remarriage for the victim of adultery is because He was addressing marriages of believers, i.e., not "mixed marriages." I am not inclined to agree because if I were to choose to commit adultery, in the eyes of the Almighty I would at that moment cease to be a believer, thus automatically making my marriage a "mixed marriage." I will address my understanding of Yeshua's lecture on marriage shortly.

     Before I proceed, I think it's important to hone in on what Torah has to say about divorce and remarriage. Here's what we read in Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

1 If a man marries a woman, but she becomes displeasing to him because he finds some indecency in her, he may write her a certificate of divorce, hand it to her, and send her away from his house.
2 If, after leaving his house, she goes and becomes another man’s wife,
3 and the second man hates her, writes her a certificate of divorce, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house, or if he dies,
4 then the husband who divorced her first may not remarry her after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination to Yahweh. You must not bring sin upon the land that Yahweh your Elohim is giving you as an inheritance.

     I think it's important to review the Torah commandment pertaining to divorce and remarriage because the Torah is Yahweh's "bottom line." We should always interpret the New Testament in the light of Torah, never the reverse. According to Torah, if a man divorces his wife because of some unspecified indecency, she is free to marry another man. It's that simple. Please don't get me wrong, it really shouldn't be that simple because we should certainly enter into a marriage covenant with all sincerity and integrity. I have no idea what "indecent" or "unclean" (KJV) thing might be found in the offending spouse, but I would expect it to be a glaring, inexcusable flaw that cannot be reconciled. In such a case, Torah permits divorce, and it permits remarriage on the part of both parties, with the caveat that the two original partners may never remarry.

     And now, let's examine what Yeshua had to say about divorce and remarriage. The passage most commonly cited is Matthew 5:31-32:

31 It has also been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

     Yeshua's commentary on divorce and remarriage, on the surface, is certainly a contradiction of the instructions found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. On the one hand (per Torah), the divorcee is permitted to remarry. On the other hand (per Yeshua), the divorced wife becomes an adulteress, assuming she remarries, and the man she marries automatically becomes an adulterer. If this is true–that both the woman and her new mate are adulterers–then according to Torah, they must both be put to death (Lev 20:10, Deut 22:22).

     In spite of the apparent contradiction, I maintain that we should refer to Torah for the final arbiter, and here's why:

     Yeshua, in His lectures, often took matters to the extreme. For example, in Matthew 5:29, He said, “If your right eye offends you, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” I'm not sure how one's right eye might "offend" them, but since all sin comes from the heart, I'm pretty sure Yeshua was counseling us that if we become aware that we've been sinning, we need to go "all hands on deck" to get back on the course laid out by Torah. Yeshua also admonished us to cut off our right hand if it's a cause of offense, because it would be better to make it to the Kingdom with one hand than to have our whole body cast into Gehenna. I am unaware of any believers who have taken those instructions literally; rather, Yeshua is alerting those who have ears to hear that we are to take sin very, very seriously. How, ironic, then, that nominal Christianity teaches Yeshua "did away" with the law.

     Of course, in this same chapter of Matthew, Yeshua also took the seventh commandment to its extreme limit. Here's what He said:

27 You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

     As an adult male, I have to wonder if any man has managed to avoid committing adultery in his heart. I still remember the political fallout when then-Presidential candidate Jimmy Carter, in an interview with Playboy magazine, stated, "I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times." That comment nearly cost him the 1976 election. But he gave an honest answer to an unfair question, revealing, if nothing else, his integrity. In addition to George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington and "Honest Abe" Lincoln, we should include "Honest Jimmy" as well. I doubt that many men can honestly say they have never looked at a woman to lust after her. I hope Jimmy Carter makes it to the Kingdom; if he doesn't, I doubt his "lust" shortcoming will be what keeps him out. The fact that he maintained a faithful marriage to his wife, Rosalynn, is a testament of loving obedience to the seventh commandment, as well as his fortitude to successfully fight and overcome our human, fleshly tendencies. Knowing that our daily struggle is against powers of this world’s darkness and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph 6:12), we need to take the advice Yahweh gave Cain in Genesis 4:7 very seriously:

7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

     Each of us needs to pause and reflect on our humanity and the sinful desires that tempt us to rebel against what we know is right. Once we confront those desires, we can then master them. None of us is immune.

     Yeshua's message, then, should be understood as how seriously and determinedly we need to fight the urge to sin. If we can control and master our thought processes, we can prevent the sinful act from occurring. This is not a game; it's a battle against spiritual forces of evil.

     So when Yeshua, in this same chapter of Matthew, explained that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, was He, once again, going to the "extreme" to make a point about how seriously we should take our marriage vows? I believe He was. I would like to give an example of what I mean.

     We were once acquainted with a husband and wife team who would visit various schools here in Texas to give a presentation about teen relationships, specifically how important it is to be chaste when dating. They once gave their presentation to our local assembly, and it was very insightful. They started out with two clear glasses half-filled with water, the one glass representing the female and the other representing the male. The husband would pour the contents of his glass into his wife's glass, then she would pour the contents of her glass into his. We were all wondering, "Okay, what's the point of all this?" They continued the mutual pouring, and the husband finally pointed to his wife's glass and asked us, "Can anyone tell me what the difference is between my glass and hers?"

     Well, this seemed a bit silly, as both glasses still contained an equal amount of clear water, so we all sat there trying to figure out what point he was trying to make. Since no one had an answer, he stated, "If you can't tell any difference, you're on the right track. Both of these glasses contain pure, unadulterated water. They're completely interchangeable, I could take her glass and she could take mine and there would be no difference."

     Then he produced a third glass. This third glass contained a black liquid; I think it was cold coffee. He replaced his glass of water with the glass of coffee, and asked us, "Can anyone tell the difference between these two glasses now?" Of course, it was obvious–his wife's glass was still half full of clear water, so we were looking at a glass of clear, unadulterated water and another glass of dark coffee. Then he leaned over and poured some of his coffee into his wife's glass. The pure water instantly turned cloudy. Then she poured some of her contents into his glass. His coffee turned lighter, giving him watered-down coffee. We were starting to get his point. The pure, unadulterated water that both husband and wife initially shared changed when another substance was brought into the mix, and his original dark coffee was likewise changed for the lighter.

     He then eloquently explained the analogy between the beverages and human relationships. When one man and one woman become one in a marriage relationship, this is a pure relationship the way Yahweh intended. One man and one woman. Unadulterated. That's the ideal picture. But when a third party is introduced, the beverages became adulterated. And even the dark beverage became adulterated when it turned lighter. In the same way, when there's a change of marriage partners, the once-pure status automatically changes to "adulterated." That's right–adultery.

     Adulterated relationships are not what Yahweh has in mind for His children. Yet, mankind, under the power of spiritual deception, finds a way to subvert Yahweh's perfect plan for marriage. Moses addressed this human shortcoming in Deuteronomy chapter 24. Maybe there's a reason for why the woman's "indecency" isn't specified. It could be any of several shortcomings. It's a shame it happens, but if and when it happens, divorcing and remarrying is not a sin, even though the end result is an unquestionable "adulteration," just like mixing the pure water with coffee. The analogy worked for the husband and wife team's audience. We should all strive to be in pure relationships; nevertheless, when things don't work out due to a major issue, such as an unspecified "indecency" or adultery, divorce and remarriage is a Scripturally-sanctioned option.

     If the "Sexual Purity" presentation's analogy is as legitimate as I believe it is, adulteration creeps in whenever there's a change in marriage partners. It's an adulteration, even though the seventh commandment may not have been literally violated. I remember the time when I worked at a staffing agency and a very nice young woman walked in looking for a job. Since the staffing specialists were busy interviewing other prospective employees, I was directed to interview her. She turned out to be a fantastic employee at one of our high-end clients. During our initial visit, she shared the heart-rending story of her marriage. She, like us, is a Sabbathkeeper, but she is a member of the Worldwide Church of God. In the course of meeting with her local church, she met a nice young man. The two fell in love and were soon married. Shortly after their honeymoon, or maybe during the honeymoon, her husband revealed that he had no intention of keeping the Sabbath or following any of her church's teachings. He only wanted her because he was attracted to her. This revelation devastated her, but because she was strongly convicted that divorce is not an option, she felt both deceived and trapped in the marriage. Of course, my visit with this woman was in a professional business setting; I could only tell her how sorry I was that she was in such a situation as that, while at the same time hoping the marriage would nonetheless work out, and praying that her righteous example would turn her husband's heart around. Nevertheless, the fact that she was deceived into marrying an unbeliever, in my opinion, gave her the legitimate option to invoke Deuteronomy 24. I realize the circumstances of her marriage make divorce and remarriage a controversial option, so I respect those who believe she made her bed and now has to lie in it.

     In the latter 90's, June and I were on a weekly radio program called "Roots of Yeshua," discussing why we are persuaded that we should call on the name Yahweh. A listener named Ron Cherry reached out to us and eventually visited our home. Ron was a kind, sincere man, dedicated to serving the Almighty. He, too, was once in Worldwide Church of God, and sometime in the 1970's, that church taught that the time of Jacob's trouble was imminent and the Almighty was going to take them to a place of safety, which he said was Petra, a place located in southwest Jordan. It was during this time that Ron met and fell in love with a woman. They were soon married, but when Worldwide Church of God's prophecy didn't come to pass, his wife informed him that she had never really loved him, and the only reason she married him was so she could accompany him to the place of safety. Once it became obvious the prophecy was a sham, she no longer felt the need to continue with the marriage, so she divorced him. Ron later met another woman, but he determined to keep their relationship platonic because he felt it would be a sin for him to remarry. In the course of our discussion, both June and I could discern that Ron secretly wished he could marry her–it's one of those things that you can just read in a person. We let Ron know that, in our humble estimation, he was Scripturally free to marry the woman; however, he remained steadfast in his conviction.

     By the time we made Ron's acquaintance, he was getting up in years. We stayed in touch, but he didn't get out much and never requested that we visit him in his home, so our communication dwindled. A few years later, we were saddened when a relative notified us that Ron had passed away. I think we were even more saddened that Ron couldn't spend his final years with the woman he would have loved to marry, but chose not to, because of how he understood Yeshua's words in Matthew chapter five.

     Many folks regard Yeshua's brief discourse on marriage in Matthew 19 to be a repetition of what He said in Matthew 5. But there's a significant difference that needs to be addressed. Here's the text:

8 Yeshua replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

     The above commentary agrees with the Torah command found in Deuteronomy 24. The only Scriptural reason for divorcing a wife is "some indecency," and sexual immorality is indeed indecent. Please notice that, conversely, if a man divorces his wife BECAUSE OF sexual immorality and marries another woman, he does not commit adultery! And Yeshua doesn't even mention whether or not the woman he marries commits adultery. It should be clear from context that both the man and woman are innocent of any charge of adultery. Finally, it's worth noting that Yeshua did not repeat His "And he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" comment from chapter five.

     When I put all this information together, I am persuaded that Yeshua spoke in hyperbole in Matthew chapter five, essentially "magnifying" the law, taking the commandments to their furthest extreme, not because He expects us to cut off our hands or pluck out our eyes, but to make a point about how seriously we should regard Yahweh's commandments. In chapter 19, He toned it down to accommodate the reality of our frail human condition. I notice that the only instance in which He sanctions divorcing a spouse is sexual immorality. Otherwise, if our spouse suddenly turns to unbelief, we should still do our best to live with him or her, in hopes of restoring their faith, as well as the marriage. If, in spite of our best efforts, the unbelieving spouse chooses to initiate the divorce or otherwise depart, the marriage bond is dissolved and the believing spouse is free to remarry, as per the Apostle Paul.

Historical Understanding

     I try to always balance my understanding of any controversy with historical understanding. I have found that post-New Testament authors seem to, of one accord, express understanding that marrying a divorced individual is adultery. I find myself at odds with post-New Testament authors on the relevance of Torah observance, and I find myself at odds with them on this one as well. First-century Jewish philosopher Philo, whose convictions I generally agree with, seems a bit too harsh with his interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Here's what he wrote:

Another commandment is that if a woman after parting from her husband for any cause whatever marries another and then again becomes a widow, whether this second husband is alive or dead, she must not return to her first husband but ally herself with any other rather than him, because she has broken with the rules that bound her in the past and cast them into oblivion when she chose new love-ties in preference to the old. And if a man is willing to contract himself with such a woman, he must be saddled with a character for degeneracy and loss of manhood. He has eliminated from his soul the hatred of evil, that emotion by which our life is so well served and the affairs of houses and cities are conducted as they should be, and has lightly taken upon him the stamp of two heinous crimes, adultery and pandering. For such subsequent reconciliations are proofs of both. The proper punishment for him is death and for the woman also.[6]

     I have read both the English translation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 from both the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint, and in neither translation do I find condemnation for either the man or the woman who was put away by her first husband. I could certainly understand a certain stigma in marrying a woman who was divorced for "some indecency" by her first husband, but the death penalty? Even the man who translated Philo's work, in a footnote, expressed disagreement. Here's what F. H. Colson wrote:

Deut. xxiv. 4, where such an act is described as an abomination before the Lord, and defiling (lxx) the land. Though no penalty is mentioned, Philo, perhaps not unreasonably, interprets these strong phrases as describing an act deserving the death penalty, but is hard put to justify it. Apparently he understands the text as meaning that the remarriage shews that there was no real reason for the divorce. The woman is therefore ‘‘defiled’’ and an adulteress, and he [is] not only a ‘‘pander,” but an adulterer, either because he has connived at her adultery or perhaps because to marry an adulteress is in itself adultery.[7]

     I can agree with Philo in that it seems natural to wonder why a single man would choose to marry a woman who has already been divorced due to "some indecency," so I can understand the stigma; however, I do not understand how one can interpret Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in such a way that such a marriage is worthy of the death penalty, especially since no judgments appear in those verses. The only act that would be abhorrent to Yahweh would be if the woman remarry her original husband. In this instance, I am persuaded that Philo misinterpreted the passage.

    First-century Jewish historian Josephus would also agree that Philo misinterpreted Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Notice what he wrote in Book IV of his work Antiquities of the Jews:

He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men,) let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do: but if she be misused by him also, or if, when he is dead, her first husband would marry her again, it shall not be lawful for her to return to him.[8]

     Josephus makes it clear that ancient Jewish understanding was that a divorced woman was at liberty to marry another husband, assuming the first husband is the one who initiated the divorce.

     Elsewhere, Josephus offers the following commentary about a woman who divorced a man. For some background information, the following event took place around the year 27-25 bce. King Herod the Great gave his sister Salome in marriage to an associate named Costobarus. When it was discovered that Costobarus had not been loyal to Herod, Salome divorced him. Josephus describes the divorce as follows:

10. But some time afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is lawful for an husband to do so; but a wife, if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away. However, Salome chose to follow not the law of her country, but the law of her authority; and so renounced her wedlock: and told her brother Herod, that she left her husband out of her good will to him: because she perceived that he, with Antipater, and Lysimachus, and Dositheus, were raising a sedition against him.[9]

     Here Josephus describes how, according to ancient Jewish understanding of Torah, only a man could put his spouse away. But more importantly, Josephus shows that it was considered lawful for a woman to remarry, but only if her former husband put her away. Josephus could have written, "but a wife, if she departs from her husband, cannot be married to another, period." Instead, he added the clause, "unless her former husband put her away." In other words, if a woman's former husband divorces her, she is then free to marry someone else.

 

Conclusion

      I wish there were no such thing as divorce, and my heart goes out to those who went into a marriage full of love and exuberance, only for it to ultimately fail. That is not what Yahweh intended. This is definitely not my favorite topic, but since it does come up from time to time, I can only issue this brief conclusion: If you know anything about my beliefs, you know I fervently believe Yeshua did not come to do away with the law (Matt 5:17-19). His fulfilling the law did not mean it came to an end; it meant He lived the law as it was meant to be lived. And He taught His followers to follow Him, as in follow His example of loving obedience. The plain wording of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is that a woman who has been "put away" is free to marry someone else, but she is never to return to her original husband. This is how I understand that law, and that is how Josephus understood it. So did Philo—only he, for some strange reason, felt that both the woman and her husband were nevertheless worthy of death. If I were to believe that Yeshua truly taught that a woman who remarries after having been "put away" is an adulterer worthy of death, then I must likewise believe He "did away" with the law in Deuteronomy 24, replacing it with His own harsher version. No, with all due respect to those who disagree, I am persuaded that He spoke in hyperbole in Matthew chapter 5, magnifying the law to emphasize its importance. Those who take His instructions literally need to literally pluck out their eyes when they see anything that tempts them to sin, and cut off their hands if they think about stealing anything. I would say that, on the day of judgment, there will be many who will wish they had plucked out their eyes and cut off their hands, as such acts might have resulted in a more favorable judgment.

     There are a few additional items that I believe should be considered. First, I am persuaded the Almighty created us to be social creatures. He does not want us to be lonely. Ideally, we all find like-minded mates with whom we live joyful lives. However, such is not always the case because He also created us to have free will, and sometimes "free will" causes us to veer off course to the detriment of a marriage. Our Heavenly Father is not a "too bad, so sad" Heavenly Father. If you are a victim of a marriage that went wrong, whether it be an unfaithful spouse or a spouse who departs because he or she considers your beliefs too "weird," I understand Scripture to support your remarrying, this time to a faithful partner who shares your beliefs.

     Second, the definition of "unbeliever" should not be limited to someone who does not believe in a Creator. At the same time, we need to be cautious about giving it a liberal definition. An abuser is not a believer, and I personally do not believe a spouse should be expected to tolerate abuse. Moreover, I am persuaded that if such an unbeliever is determined to dwell with a believing spouse, the believing spouse needs to be the one who departs, and once the divorce is finalized, the situation should be treated as though it was the unbeliever who departed (because that's what he or she should have done). A believing spouse, in this situation, should be considered "unbound," and free to marry someone else. I understand there will be those who stretch the meaning of "unbeliever" to its most extreme definition, i.e., "He never helps with housework," "She's a horrible cook," etc. I will leave such definitions between the believing spouse and Yahweh.

     Finally, we should all know that we worship a loving Heavenly Father who is abounding in mercy, lovingkindness, and is longsuffering. If He can forgive a repentant King David for such a horrible crime as murder, He can forgive you if you committed adultery. He knows your heart. If you have repented and have committed to a new life of faithful obedience, you, too, should be given a clean slate. If we repent of any sin, that means we absolutely hate what we did wrong and are committed to not doing it again. Yahweh forgives the repentant sinner, just like He did King David. He did not tell David, "Thy sin is forgiven; however, thou mayest not henceforth father children." Instead, David fathered four additional children with Bathsheba. The only place where Yahweh or Yeshua may be interpreted as indicating that a divorced spouse commits adultery if he or she remarries is in the same passage where Yeshua also tells us to pluck out our right eye if it causes us to sin. I have yet to hear of any believers who are opposed to remarriage after divorce plucking out an eye or cutting off one of their hands. I have to wonder, "Are they all truly THAT righteous?"

     So yes, I am persuaded that even if you are the guilty one in a failed marriage, but have truly repented, Yahweh gives you a clean slate to start over with a new like-minded mate. That's the power of forgiveness. Clean slate. How much more so if you are the victim of a failed marriage? Is there a limit to Yahweh's mercy? The only limit I'm aware of is when our hearts are so hardened that we cheapen the meaning of "repentance" by repeating the same offense over and over. If committing adultery becomes who you are to the point that repentance literally means nothing, then maybe the time has come to literally apply Matthew 19:12.
.

 

---

[1] Longworth Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX, "Christian Divorce Rates," https://www.myhoustondivorce.lawyer/christian-divorce/rates/

[2] Unless indicated otherwise, all Bible quotes are taken from the Berean Standard Version. In these quotes, I take the liberty of restoring the name of the Father (Yahweh) and the name of His Son (Yeshua); similarly, I replace "God" with "the Almighty."

[3] Berean Standard Version has "churches."

[4] Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. III, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians," by Marvin R. Vincent, D.D., Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY, 1905, p. 219.

[5] Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Corinthians, by Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, TH.D., Translated from the fifth edition of the German by Rev. D. Douglas Bannerman, M.A., Funk & Wagnalls, Publishers, New York, 1884, pp. 161-162.

[6] Philo, The Special Laws, III (30-31), Vol. VII, translated by F. H. Colson, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998, pp. 493-494.

[7] Ibid, p. 493.

[8] The Works of Flavius Josephus, Vol. II, “Antiquities of the Jews,” Book IV, viii, § 23, translated by William Whiston, A. M., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992, p. 273.

[9] The Works of Flavius Josephus, Vol. III, “Antiquities of the Jews,” Book XV, vii, § 10, translated by William Whiston, A. M., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992, pp. 386-387.