DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE; RECOVERING THE BIBLICAL VIEW

1
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE RECOVERING THE BIBLICAL
VIEW Slides
The following slides are not intended as a slide
show. They are summary and detail charts of key
points in the books Divorce and Remarriage
Recovering the Biblical View (2nd Edition) and
Divorce and Remarriage Recovering the Biblical
Case by Case (as yet unpublished). The slides are
in the same basic order as the 2nd Edition, but
they are largely stand-alone exhibits.
Occasionally there are a series of slides, but
there are also slides that are alternatives to
each other, with the differences amounting to a
stress on different aspects of the same subject.
Though the slides are intended to summarize the
books, there is new material withinnew ways of
seeing and saying things that have come to me
after publication of them. I trust that these
slides will help the reader better understand my
positions. I am always ready to learn from my
peers. The slides herein are solely constructed
by me. They are word intensive and I know I have
offended every basic rule of audiovisuals. But I
like to see the big picture if possible, and that
often meant a crowded page. Blessings. William F.
Luck, Sr.
2
The Nature Of Marriage
Marriage is a covenant. A covenant involves a
moral bond and a legal bond. The moral bond
could be called the joining by God or becoming
one flesh. The legal bond is called the
marriage. Covenants have termspromises stated to
each by the other. If the terms are not kept,
the moral bond is broken. If the moral bond is
broken the legal bond may be terminated. The
termination of the legal bond is divorce. If the
legal bond is broken, the parties are not
married. Subsequent marriages for either parties
are not adulterous.
These statements are basic and subject to
qualification discussed later.
3
The Purpose of Marriage
Marriage as given because it was not good for
man to be alone. Thus God made a companion for
him who complemented him in his God-give tasks in
the Garden (Gen. 218). By implication he
complements her as well. The recognition of the
mans inadequacy to function well alone is in the
context of Gods appointing of the man to be the
custodian and caretaker for the Garden. By
implication he was inadequate to fulfill Gods
tasks without her. This is indirectly confirmed
by Paul, who acknowledges that, while it is Ideal
for a man to serve God without marriage (so that
he may gross more service for Him), it is still
desirable that marriage take place if that will
net more quality service to God (1 Cor. 71-2,
8-9). Interruption of that physical unity which
threatens service to God and might encourage
sexuality not covered by covenant, are strictly
limited (1 Cor. 73-5). Thus it may be said that
marriage was designed to enable the man and his
wife to fulfill the tasks that God has given
mankind. Their union forms a teama family (Gen.
224) The sexual act is limited to the covenant
of marriage. On the one hand it facilitates the
obedience of the command to be fruitful and
multiply the race (Gen. 128), that is not the
only function of the act (Prov. 518). Sex as
pleasure is a part of the companionship described
in Gen. 218).
4
One-Flesh in the Bible
Genesis 223-24 The man said, "This is now bone
of my bones, and flesh of my flesh She shall be
called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."
For this reason a man shall leave his father and
his mother, and be joined to his wife and they
shall become one flesh. One Flesh is a
physical reuniting of the sundered halves of the
Image into one team, intentionally created by the
man ending a commitment to his birth family and
committing himself to the help he has selected
to assist him in accomplishing Gods tasks in
the world.
Matthew 193-6 Some Pharisees came to Jesus,
testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man
to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And
He answered and said, "Have you not read that He
who created them from the beginning MADE THEM
MALE AND FEMALE, 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'?
"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What
therefore God has joined together, let no man
separate. One flesh is the team that man
chose to create. He gave up his choice to operate
independent of his help when he made that
decision..
1 Corinthians 615-17 Do you not know that your
bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take
away the members of Christ and make them members
of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not
know that the one who joins himself to a
prostitute is one body with her? For He says,
"THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." But the one who
joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Physical uniting creates a working relationship
and an implied commitment to the partner. A
prostitute is an incompatible partner for a
believer, insofar as she has control of the
relationship and that control belongs to God. She
is like the daughter of an unbeliever (Deut.
73). Physical uniting is intended to be related
to leaving and cleaving. In this case that
element is absent, and that makes it a sin.
Ephesians 528-31 So husbands ought also to love
their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves
his own wife loves himself for no one ever hated
his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it,
just as Christ also does the church, because we
are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN
SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE
JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE
FLESH. In taking a wife with whom he
unites physically, a man commits himself to
caring for her as he would his own body,
5
The Relation of Cleave/Unite and Join in the
Bible
Regarding marriage in Genesis 2, cleave speaks
of the intention of the groom to establish the
marriage relationship. Gen. 224 That is why a
man leaves his father and mother and unites with
his wife In Matthew (196), that choice is said
to be validated by the Father of the bride.
Matt. 195 For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother and will be united with
his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
196 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let no
one separate. Cleave/united is not so much an
ontological fact as it is a moral commitmenta
covenanting. When the text says that God joins
them, it is much like the father of the bride
giving the bride into the care of the groom.
Whereas we often minimize the giving of the
bride, as if the father has no further
obligation to his daughter. In Scripture the
father had continuing obligation to oversee the
grooms keeping of his obligations. If the groom
cast doubt upon the purity of the bride, the
father came to her defense (Deut. 22) and if the
groom defaulted on his marriage vows, the father
of the bride would hold the groom accountable. In
Exodus 2111, it would be he who retained the
money in favor of the bride. This would include
the retention of the bride price and a demand for
the return of the dowry. Jesus is informing the
Pharisees that God intends to function as the
protector of the bride regarding the vows of her
husband, which are invalidated by an unjust
divorce. Jesus warns them that the husband should
not break his vows by such separation. It is
hard-hearted and will be judged by God.
6
The Marriage Metaphor and Salvation
Scripture uses marriage as a paradigm for
understanding Salvation and the language of
salvation should be understood by comparison with
the way language is used in marriage.

• Matthew 193-6 Some Pharisees came to Jesus,
  testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man
  to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And
  He answered and said, "Have you not read that He
  who created them from the beginning MADE THEM
  MALE AND FEMALE, 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'?
  "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What
  therefore God has joined together, let no man
  separate.
• What is interesting is that in Genesis, it is
  the man who joins or cleaves. In Matthew, Jesus
  speaks of this human action of commitment as God
  joining them. Which is it? The answer is both.
  What the human determines by his free choice is
  authorized by God and thereby considered Gods
  action.
• In salvation, man is said to be both elected and
  given by God. If we consider marriage as a
  metaphor for this act, the age old controversy
  between unconditional election/irresistible grace
  free will resolves itself.
• When the groom woos a woman and she refuses him,
  he does not speak of her as his chosen one,
  even though he may have hoped she would accept
  him. It is only the one who does accept who is
  called the chosen one. That bride does not speak
  of her choosing husband to be as being her chosen
  one. She merely accepted. But this process does
  not imply that, as chosen, she had no ability to
  reject. Thus John 1516 You did not choose me,
  but I chose you, dos not mean that the disciples
  had no ability to say no, but simply that they
  were called by Christ and accepted.
• When the bride comes to her husband she is
  given by her father to the groom. As in the
  case of Sara and Abram, the potential bride has
  the ability to say no, but if she says yes, her
  father officially gives her to the wooing man,
  thus authorizing her leaving her prior dependency
  and signifying the assumption of a new
  relationship with the groom. So too, in
  salvation, when the text of John (637) says that
  Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to
  me, that does not mean that man has no ability
  to reject Christs invitation, but that like a
  brides father, He has validated the decision of
  the bride to accept the invitation of the Groom,
  His Son.

7
Three Levels of Union
194 He answered, Have you not read that from
the beginning the Creator made them male and
female, 195 and said, For this reason a man
will leave his father and mother and will be
united with his wife, and the two will become
one flesh?196 So they are no longer two, but
one flesh. Therefore what God has joined
together, let no one separate.
The basis of the levels One Creation
Gen. 127 24-25. Human nature is di-sexual and
must be kept in association to experience the
fullness of that nature.
The level of the social/legal One Family
Matt. 118-19. A public commitment which begins
with the vowsengagement in Bible times.
The level of the physical One Flesh
1 Cor. 616. Can exist with a prostitute aside
from the institution of marriage.
The level of the moral One Joining
Deut. 73 Lev. 186-18 Ezra 9-10. Some
marriages are not joined or sanctioned by God.
Only when all three are in place do you have a
true marriage in the eyes of God.
8
Possibilities of Union
Physical Union Illegal or Sanctioned by Law Social Union Sanctioned by Law Moral Union Sanctioned by God Relationship
X X X True Marriage
X Fornication
X X Never existed Invalid Union. E.g., interfaith, incestuous, or homosexual Leviticus 18 Ezra 9-10
X X Broken by treachery Sundered union. E.g., where there has been infidelity but physical relations still exist Matthew 5 19 (by implicationbefore the divorce
X X Engagement in Biblical times when vows were spoken at the outset of the engagement Matthew 119
(X) (X) ImpossibilityJoseph Smith Jrs Celestial Marriage, taught to justify his physical relations with his followers wives
9
The Triple Bond of Sexual-Marriage-Relationships
Moral bond-Joined by God
God recognizes the socially witnessed (minimally
the groom and the father of the bride) pledge of
the partners to give to each other as His
revelation dictates Man provision of food,
clothing and sex (Ex. 2110-11). This also
implies no physical abuse and his presence
Woman sexual monogamy (Lev. 1820 and Deut.
2222-27). This also implies no physical abuse
and her presence. Desertion is an implied
statement that the partner no longer wishes to be
held to their marriage vows. The Scripture does
not recognize common law marriage. This bond is
sundered by a sin against the Covenantal vows. If
none occurs before a divorce, then the divorce
constitutes the sundering (Matt. 196)
Legal bondJoined by SocietyRecognition of vows
by societyInvolves Gods JoiningorNot
involving Gods joiningThis bond is broken by
divorce(Deut. 241)
Where the partners are legitimate in the eyes of
God (see Deut. 73 and Lev. 186-23)
Some cultures recognize homosexual, interfaith
and incestuous covenants
Physical bondJoined by SexCovered by
covenantorNot covered by covenantThis bond is
broken by cessation of the relationship(1 Cor.
612-20)
Legal, but morality dependant on validity of the
partners in Gods eyes
Fornication, relationship must end till covered
by covenant (Ex. 2216)
10
Obligations in Marriage According to Gods
Revealed Law
Husbands Provisions to live Ex. 2110 If he
takes another wife, he must not diminish the
first ones food, her clothing, or her marital
rights. 2111 If he does not provide her with
these three things, then she will go out free,
without paying money. This prohibits passive
abuse. Prohibition of active abuse A Fortiori
reasoning from Ex. 2110-11 If God would
disallows passive abuse, would He permit active
or physical abuse? Also from Ex. 2126 If a man
strikes the eye of his male servant or his female
servant so that he destroys it, he will let the
servant go free as compensation for the eye.
2127 If he knocks out the tooth of his male
servant or his female servant, he will let the
servant go free as compensation for the tooth.
Also, by implication in an age of HIV and STDs,
and affair could be physically threatening. Prese
nce Implied by Gen 224 That is why a man
leaves his father and mother and unites with his
wife, and they become a new family. Intentional
leaving the wife is incompatible with joining to
become one flesh.
Wifes Monogamy Lev. 1820 You must not have
sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow
citizen to become unclean with her. 2010 If a
man commits adultery with his neighbors wife,
both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put
to death. Prohibition of Active Abuse A
fortiori reasoning from Ex. 2126-27. If a
servant can be freed from his contract for
physical abuse would God insist that a husband
remain related to a woman who threatened physical
abuse of her husband as master? Presence
Implied by Gen 224 That is why a man leaves his
father and mother and unites with his wife, and
they become a new family. Intentional leaving the
husband is incompatible with the wifes part in
joining to become one flesh. Presence is
reciprocal when it comes to the joining.
11
The Relationship of Passive to Active Abuse
Ex. 2110 If he takes another wife, he must not
diminish the first ones food, her clothing, or
her marital rights. 2111 If he does not provide
her with these three things, then she will go out
free, without paying money. Also Deut. 241
Active physical abuse
EVEN MORE SO
If it is justifiable to force a divorce on the
grounds of diminished essentials. How much more
is it justifiable if the husband commits
aggressive, physical abuse? Would God protect her
from being neglected but turn a blind Eye to her
being beaten? Would God allow a hard-hearted
husband to divorce his wife so that she could be
provided for by another, but refuse to protect
her from a brute?
Ex. 2126 If a man strikes the eye of his male
servant or his female servant so that he destroys
it, he will let the servant go free as
compensation for the eye. 2127 If he knocks out
the tooth of his male servant or his female
servant, he will let the servant go free as
compensation for the tooth.
If a slave can be freed from a contract if there
is sustained physical abuse, how much more so
would a marriage partner be justified in being
freed from a brutish husband? Does God care more
for slaves than He does for wives?
12
Divorce and Emotional Abuse from an OT Perspective
Ex. 2110 If he takes another wife, he must not
diminish the first ones food, her clothing, or
her marital rights. 2111 If he does not provide
her with these three things, then she will go out
free, without paying money. Also Deut. 241
Extreme Emotional abuse
If it is justifiable to force a divorce on the
grounds of diminished essentials. How much more
is it justifiable if the husband commits
aggressive, emotional abuse? Would God protect
her from being neglected but turn a blind Eye to
his destruction of her personhood? Would God
allow a hard-hearted husband to divorce his wife
simply because he hates her (Deut. 241) but
refuse to allow her to go free from a husband who
is so hard-hearted that he knowingly attempts to
drive her to suicide? If God calls reducing a
woman to a chattel an abomination (Deut. 244)
would He permit the stripping of her personality
by denial of divorce to a man who is so
hard-hearted? Would God be so concerned with her
reputation (Deut. 2213ff) that He would enforce
the mans penalty to the point of requiring his
slavery, but bronze heaven if the man attempted
to reduce her to a slave by his threats and
abusive language? If God reveals His anger
against men who have unjustly divorced their
wives (Mal. 214-16), would He ignore the plight
of the woman who endures calumnies that cannot be
put on this slide for their viciousness? If God
would slay a man (OnanGen.389-10) for failing
to provide his wife a chance at future security
through childbearing (described as not raising up
a child in his dead brothers name), do you think
he would reject a woman seeking freedom from a
husband who was seeking to make her present a
living hell? If the ox was not to be muzzled
while harvesting (Deut. 254), is a wife to be
required to endure the ranting of a psychotic
partner? It is admitted that it is hard to
determine the exact dividing line where endurable
abuse becomes so extreme that it justifies a
wifes freedom from the marriage. But to deny
that such a line exists is to rob marriage of its
God-protected status. (Remember the logical
fallacy of the beard.) Those who reject such a
line have either never looked into the hollow
eyes of the extremely emotionally abused, or have
no heart of compassion. Men and women are not
made for marriage, but marriage is made for them.
God gave marriage to enable the partners to work
together as a team to accomplish necessary
things. When one of the partners acts so as to
reduce their partner to an object that is
incapable of living any kind of a normal life,
that partner has lost their right to a helpmate.
13
Two Ways A Man Defaults On His Marital Vow To
Provide
These are two methods of unjustly diminishing the
provisions which a man must pledge to supply his
wife in marriage. In Exodus a man who refused to
provide in marriage was forced to allow the woman
to go out free without repayment of the bride or
price/dowry. In Deuteronomy a man who put his
wife away for erwat dabar (whatever that meansit
was argued even in the days of Jesus) provided a
writ proving she was no long bound in marriage to
him. Malachi makes it clear that a man who does
so is guilty of a treachery that God hates. Jesus
identifies that treachery as the sin of adultery.
Paul makes the sin of departing (chorizo) a
marriage bond-freeing act in respect to the
deserted/divorced spouse. All of these sins are
the same genus, namely the mans treachery with
regard to his marriage vow to provide for his
wife the basics she needs to love. Note also
that Exodus reveals the root cause of the
majority of unjust actions against the wife
finding another woman who the husband prefers to
his wife. Malachi shows that injustice toward her
(in seeking to displace her with another woman)
can involve the Lawa use of Deuteronomy 241.
diminish her provisions within marriage Exodus
2110-11
???
End her provisions by legally putting
away Malachi 2
???
14
Does Exodus 21 Refer to Divorce as in Mark
1012?
Exodus 2111If he does not provide her with
these three things, then she will go out free,
without paying money.
Mark 1012And if she divorces her husband and
marries another, she commits adultery.
The word divorce is not used in Exodus 2111
and that may be helpful in seeing that what Jesus
condemns in Mark 1012 is not related to what God
required (and allowed) in the Law. Exodus clearly
speaks of the ending of the first marriage on the
basis of (diminishing) neglect by the husband.
The Law required him to set her free. It was, in
effect, a forced divorce. The husband did not
willingly put her away. Neither did the woman
initiate putting him away. The term free is
used here and in verses 2 and 5. In those earlier
verses the use is considered by some to be a
technical one used in other cultures to refer to
a social class of former slaves who were
emancipated and subsequently freedmen. (see I.
Mendelsohn, New Light on the Hupsu, BASOR 139
1955 9-11). This seems a good understanding of
the situation in all instances here. The former
master had no social/legal hold on the former
slave and the husband had no social/legal hold on
the former wife. In the latter case it is the
clear import of the passage. The husband wanted a
continuing obligation of the woman to him
(perhaps so that he might retain the bride
price/dowry), but the Law ended that right. As
the freedman had the right to sell himself into
slavery again, so the former wife had a right to
marry another, though the text does not mention a
remarriage per se. Indeed, since the purpose of
freeing her was so that she would not be hampered
by the diminishing of her husband, it is logical
to assume that she is free to find the support he
denied her. Why else free her? Given Jesus
insistence that He had not come to annul the Law
(Matt. 517), we cannot interpret Mark 1012 as
referring to the forced ending of an abusive
marriage (Ex. 21). And given the direction of the
regulation in Ex. 21, it is not likely that Jesus
is excluding remarriage of a woman freed from an
abusive relationship. Instead, Jesus (in Mark 10)
is most likely condemning a woman who like a
hard-hearted man (Matt. 198), divorces her
guiltless partner in order to free herself for a
new relationship thought to be more desirable.
Though this did not happen often in Jewish
society in Jesus day, it did happen in the case
of Herodias an Herod Philipwith the view of her
remarriage to Herod Antipas.
15
What does Go Out Free mean?
Ex. 212 If you buy a Hebrew servant,  he is to
serve you for six years, but in the seventh year
he will go out free without paying anything.
  213 If he came in by himself he will go out by
himself if he had a wife when he came in, then
his wife will go out with him. 214 If his master
gave him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters,
the wife and the children will belong to her
master, and he will go out by himself.  215 But
if the servant should declare,  I love my
master, my wife, and my children I will not go
out free, 216 then his master must bring him to
the judges,  and he will bring him to the door or
the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear
with an awl, and he shall serve him
forever. 217 If a man sells his daughter as a
female servant,  she will not go out as the male
servants do. 218 If she does not please her
master, who has designated her for himself, then
he must let her be redeemed.  He has no right to
sell her to a foreign nation, because he has
dealt deceitfully with her. 219 If he designated
her for his son, then he will deal with her
according to the customary rights of
daughters.  2110 If he takes another wife,  he
must not diminish the first ones food,  her
clothing, or her marital rights.  2111 If he
does not provide her with these three things,
then she will go out free, without paying money.
Going out free means no financial obligation, to
continue working for the Master.
Not being able to go out means that they still
belong to the Master
Not choosing to go out free means that he still
belongs to the Master.
To be redeemed means that she has freedom from
relationship to the master (compare to Deut.
2114, where the POW woman, designated for a wife
is allowed to go where she pleases.
The rejected wife goes out free like the male
servant (v. 2). Just as he has a right to
contract with a new master, so does this woman
with a husband/master. (see Gen. 1820 where Sara
calls Abraham her Master. This is also cited in 1
Peter 36 to speak of a womans relationship to
her husband.
To go out free means to cease to have any
remaining obligation of relationship. And for the
woman, that obligation was to remain monogamous
to her husband. Freed from that, she is free to
remarry.
16
The Ethics of People-as-Property in the Old
Testament Law and its Relationship to Divorce
The Statute You shall not steal (Ex. 2015
Deut 519)
Principle God has given individuals the right to
hold propertyrespect it.
The Stipulations People are included in what a
person may own. (Deut. 2315-247)
Principle Though property, people are not to be
treated as chattel property. They must be treated
with due respect.
Stipulation 1) A man may not abuse his wife
(actively or passively in marriage (Ex.
2110-11) 2) if he hates his wife, divorces her
by writ, and allows her to be claimed in marriage
by someone else, she may not return to him.
(Deut. 241-4)
Principle A woman may not be passed between men
and thereby reduced to a chattel.
Application If a man hates his wife (wants to
put her away), she is protected by 1) the
allowance of the divorce, 2) the evidence (by
writ) of freedom to remarry, 3) the permission to
remarry, and 4) the prohibition of being hurt
again by a return to the hard-hearted man who
initially divorced her. (Deut. 241-4)
Interpretation If a man divorces his wife
without her having broken the covenant, he causes
her to be adulterized (actual adultery against
her and stigmatization of her as an adulteress).
(Matthew 532a)
Principle A woman should not be thrown away and
stigmatized as if junk chattel.
17
The Ethics of Sexual Infidelity Breach Penalty
The Statute You shall not Commit Adultery. (Ex.
2015 Deut 519)
The principle Covenants are sacred, promises
should be kept.
The Ordinances Do not have sex with a woman
pledged to another man.
The principle violation of a womans
exclusiveness is breach of covenant.
Specific ordinance You shall not have
intercourse with your neighbor's wife. (Lev.
1820 Deut 2222)
The principle A married womans exclusiveness
must be respected.
Penalty if a womans exclusiveness is not
respected, those who do not respect it (male
and/or female) are to be executed. (Lev. 2010)
Penalty If execution is not an available option,
divorce replaces it. (Ezra 9-10)
18
OT Prohibitions Regarding Marrying Divorced Women
Lev. 2110 The high priest 2114 He must not
marry a widow, a divorced woman, or one profaned
by prostitution he may only take a virgin from
his people as a wife.
Lev. 211 The Lord said to Moses Say to the
priests, 217 They must not take a wife defiled
by prostitution, nor are they to take a wife
divorced from her husband, for the priest is holy
to his God.
Ez. 4415 But the Levitical priests 4422 They
must not marry a widow or a divorcee, but they
may marry a virgin from the house of Israel or a
widow who is a priests widow.
The priests of the Old Order were pictures of
puritythe purity of our High Priest, Jesus. On
of the ways their ceremonial purity was kept
was by marriage restrictions. Prostitutes had
been passed around. Divorcees had been passed
out. Widows had belonged to someone else who had
passed on (in a different sense). The exception
was if a widow had belonged to a priest,
presumably because the priest was himself
considered ceremonially pure. In any case the
issue here is ritual purity, not moral purity.
There was nothing morally impure about a widow,
and presumably nothing impure about a divorced
woman, since she would have been executed had she
been morally impure during her marriage. And,
after her marriage, she could not have been
considered morally impure unless her sexual
experience was uncovenanted, i.e., fornication,
as with the prostitute..
19
Priestly Entitlement and Its Implications for a
Priests Divorced Daughter
Lev. 2212 If a priests daughter marries a lay
person, she may not eat the holy contribution
offerings, 2213 but if a priests daughter is a
widow or divorced, and she has no children so
that she returns to live in her fathers house as
in her youth, she may eat from her fathers food,
but no lay person may eat it.
Offerings were restricted to the families of
priests. Since they did not do manual work like
lay people, they depended on the priests portion
of offerings (cf. Lev. 7). If a priests daughter
married outside of the priestly tribe, she was
considered no longer entitled to priestly
portions, as her husband, a lay person, should be
providing for her. This exclusion, however, ended
if the daughter was a childless widow or
divorced. Childless is important, since a widow
with children would be considered to have a lay
family, wherein the children (supposing them to
be of an age that could support her) should
support her. The relevance to our study is that
the divorced daughter is considered no longer
related to the husband who cast her away on the
ground of erwat dabar (as it would be put in
Deut. 241). This fact is incompatible with the
position that, in spite of a divorce, the
marriage (or the one flesh relationship)
continues to exist.
20
The Law of Vows for Divorced Women
Num. 306 And if she marries a husband while
under a vow, or she uttered anything impulsively
by which she has pledged herself, 307 and her
husband hears about it, but remains silent about
her when he hears about it, then her vows will
stand and her obligations which she has pledged
for herself will stand. 308 But if when her
husband hears it he overrules her, then he will
nullify the vow she has taken, and whatever she
uttered impulsively which she has pledged for
herself. And the Lord will release her from it.
309 But every vow of a widow or of a divorced
woman which she has pledged for herself will
remain intact. 309 But every vow of a widow or
of a divorced woman which she has pledged for
herself will remain intact. 3010 If she made the
vow in her husbands house or put herself under
obligation with an oath, 3011 and her husband
heard about it, but remained silent about her,
and did not overrule her, then all her vows will
stand, and every obligation which she pledged for
herself will stand. 3012 But if her husband
clearly nullifies them when he hears them, then
whatever she says by way of vows or obligations
will not stand. Her husband has made them void,
and the Lord will release her from them.
This collection of regulations shows that the
divorced woman is in a different category from
married women. Vows made when she is under the
authority of a husband are treated one way and
those made subsequent to her divorce are treated
another. Divorced women, then, are not under the
authority of their ex and this means that in
Gods eyes, the relationship is over. Once again,
this is incompatible with the position that a
divorce does not end the moral and legal bond of
the marriage covenant.
21
Restrictions on Taking Captive Women as Wives
(Deut. 2110-14)
Ex. 217 If a man sells his daughter as a female
servant,  she will not go out as the male
servants do. 218 If she does not please her
master, who has designated her for himself, then
he must let her be redeemed.  He has no right to
sell her to a foreign nation, because he has
dealt deceitfully with her. 
Deut. 241 If a man marries a woman and she does
not please him because he has found something
offensive in her, then he may draw up a divorce
document, give it to her, and evict her from his
house. 242 When she has left him she may go and
become someone elses wife.
Deut. 2110 When you go out to do battle with
your enemies and the Lord your God allows you to
prevail and you take prisoners, 2111 if you
should see among them an attractive woman whom
you wish to take as a wife, 2112 you may bring
her back to your house. She must shave her head,
 trim her nails, 2113 discard the clothing she
was wearing when captured,  and stay in your
house, lamenting for her father and mother for a
full month. After that you may have sexual
relations with her and become her husband and she
your wife. 2114 If you are not pleased with her,
then you must let her go where she pleases. You
cannot in any case sell her  you must not take
advantage of her, since you have already
humiliated her.
Does the law of the POW woman more closely
resemble Ex. 21 or Deut. 241? The former seems
more likely an annulment, while the latter is
clearly a divorce. It would seem the former is a
closer parallel. In both cases 1) the woman is
not a full wiferemember that foreign women were
not allowed to be full wives (Deut. 7). 2) In
both the prohibition excludes selling. The
differences are 1) the servant girl of Exodus
has a father to whom a bride price was paid. In
the case of the POW woman there is no
protector.2) the first woman was lied to, while
the latter is said to be humbled. While humbled
(anah) can involve sexual relations, it doesnt
always. The word basically means afflicted. The
removal of the woman from her country, the loss
of her parents, and the disfiguring of her body
would seem to constitute humbling acts aside from
the loss of virginity (if relevant).
22
Restrictions on Taking Captive Women as Wives (2)
The regulation goes into detail about the
humiliating disfigurement of the woman prior to
her being able to be taken as a concubine-wife.
These actions seem designed to replace the
obvious inability of the woman to be spoken for
by her father. Her captor has no one to answer
tono bride price to pay. He may simply take as
if by rape. But rape was considered an immoral
act to the Israelites. This law, then functions
as a prohibition of simply taking a woman and
using her as the moment suggests. It slows down
the process in several ways 1) the woman may not
be taken on the spot, but must be brought back
home. 2) She is disfigured, and by this made
less desirable. 3) She is allowed a month to morn
her parentsher hair would not have grown back in
that time. Her captor now has had a chance to
rethink his initial desire. He is then given two
options 1) marry her or 2) let her go free.
This is not a case of a marriage and a quick
divorce, but of a change of mind, as in Exodus
21. Note that as in those earlier regulations,
the man does not want to let the woman go free,
but is required to do so. There is probably a
profit motive. In7-8 he looses the services of
the woman as a simple slave. In the latter he
loses his rights on the bride price. Deut. 21 is
more like Ex. 7-8, This text, like Ex. requires
release and is perhaps then a clarification of
what must happen if there no one to redeem her.
As with Exodus the law precludes the man
profiting from his loss by selling her as a slave
to others..
Deut. 2110 When you go out to do battle with
your enemies and the Lord your God allows you to
prevail and you take prisoners, 2111 if you
should see among them an attractive woman whom
you wish to take as a wife, 2112 you may bring
her back to your house. She must shave her head,
 trim her nails, 2113 discard the clothing she
was wearing when captured,  and stay in your
house, lamenting for her father and mother for a
full month. After that you may have sexual
relations with her and become her husband and she
your wife. 2114 If you are not pleased with her,
then you must let her go where she pleases. You
cannot in any case sell her  you must not take
advantage of her, since you have already
humiliated her.
23
Restrictions on Taking Captive Women as Wives (3)
Deut. 2110 When you go out to do battle with
your enemies and the Lord your God allows you to
prevail and you take prisoners, 2111 if you
should see among them an attractive woman whom
you wish to take as a wife, 2112 you may bring
her back to your house. She must shave her head,
 trim her nails, 2113 discard the clothing she
was wearing when captured,  and stay in your
house, lamenting for her father and mother for a
full month. After that you may have sexual
relations with her and become her husband and she
your wife.  2114 If you are not pleased with
her, then you must let her go where she
pleases. You cannot in any case sell her  you
must not take advantage of her, since you have
already humiliated her.
Individual Israelites would not have had the
right to take and sell captives. His getting her
is dependent on the profession that he will take
her as a wife.
He is not permitted to make her his wife on the
spot, but must bring her back, her beauty is
required to be marred (temporarily) so as to cool
his ardor, and she is given a month to mourn her
lost parents.
Two options exist at that time. In the first
instance the man decides to go through with the
marriage. In the second he does not. (See Ex.
217-8).
If he takes option two, he may not profit from
reneging on his change of intent as stated to his
superiors.. He may not profit by keeping her as
his slave, or from selling her to someone else.
24
The Relation Of Treachery (???-bagad ) To
Adultery (???-na'aph ) And Putting Away
(???-shalach) In The Old Testament
???
Sexualthe womans sin
Adultery speaks to the offense regarding the
covenant with a marriage partner Treachery speaks
to the personal betrayal against the partner
MARITAL TREACHERY
???
Putting awaythe mans sin
???
The answer is yes. Malachi 214-16 the putting
away of a wife without the cause of adultery is
called treachery, and it is the kind of divorce
which God says He hates. On this basis we must
understand Jesus teaching in Matthew 5 and 19 as
teaching that the treachery of unjust divorce is
adultery without consideration of a potential
remarriage by either party.
25
Does (Deception About) Premarital Impurity
Justify Divorce
The key passage is Deuteronomy 2213-21.
Deut. 2213 Suppose a man marries a woman, has
sexual relations with her,  and then rejects
her, 2214 accusing her of impropriety and
defaming her reputation by saying, I married
this woman but when I had sexual relations with
her I discovered she was not a virgin!  2215 Th
en the father and mother of the young woman must
produce the evidence of virginity for the elders
of the city at the gate. 2216 The young womans
father must say to the elders, I gave my
daughter to this man and he has
rejected her. 2217 Moreover, he has raised
accusations of impropriety by saying, I
discovered your daughter was not a virgin, but
this is the evidence of my daughters virginity!
The cloth must then be spread out before the
citys elders. 2218 The elders of that city must
then seize the man and punish him. 2219 They
will fine him one hundred shekels of silver and
give them to the young womans father, for the
man who made the accusation ruined the
reputation of an Israelite virgin. She will then
become his wife and he may never divorce her as
long as he lives. 2220 But if the accusation is
true and the young woman was not a
virgin, 2221 the men of her city must bring the
young woman to the door of her fathers house and
stone her to death, for she has done a
disgraceful thing in Israel by behaving like a
prostitute while living in her fathers house. In
this way you will purge evil from among you.
Verses 13-14 set the context. Verses 15-19 deal
with an unjust charge, while 20-21 deals with a
just charge.
26
Does (Deception About) Premarital Impurity
Justify Divorce? (Contd)
The key passage is Deuteronomy 2213-21. Here is
the contextual structure
13-21   Regulations related to a
bride       13-19   False accusation of a pure
bride       20-21   Truthful accusation against
an impure bride             22-24   Regulations
related to consensual sex with a pledged
woman                   22        adultery with a
married woman                   23-24   adultery
with an engaged woman             25-29   Regulati
ons related to rape of a woman                   2
5-27   rape of an engaged woman                   
28-29   rape of a virgin 30      Regulation
related to incest between son and stepmother
A parallelism exists between verses 13-21
and verse 30. Though dealing with quite different
cases, the offense stated in both cases is one
against the father. This is significant, because
were the offense against the husband in the first
instance, then it might be argued that the
impurity had to be committed during the betrothal
period. Remember that impurity during that time
amounted to adultery, since the vows in ancient
times were fixed at the outset of the engagement
period, not as in our times at a wedding
ceremony. Why this is important is because
if it were not limited by the engagement period,
then perhaps all pre-marital impurity would be
included. Two possible exceptions might be
suggested. Both are an issue here. 1) where
virginity wasnt an issue, and 2) where the woman
was not living in her fathers house, but was an
independent adult. In Israel most unmarried women
remained in the confines of their nuclear or
extended families.
27
Does (Deception About) Premarital Impurity
Justify Divorce? (Contd)
The occasion is a charge of premarital impurity.
It is not claimed that it happened during the
engagement period.
Deut. 2213 Suppose a man marries a woman, has
sexual relations with her,  and then rejects
her, 2214 accusing her of impropriety and
defaming her reputation by saying, I married
this woman but when I had sexual relations with
her I discovered she was not a virgin!  2215 Th
en the father and mother of the young woman must
produce the evidence of virginity for the elders
of the city at the gate. 2216 The young womans
father must say to the elders, I gave my
daughter to this man and he has
rejected her. 2217 Moreover, he has raised
accusations of impropriety by saying, I
discovered your daughter was not a virgin, but
this is the evidence of my daughters virginity!
The cloth must then be spread out before the
citys elders. 2218 The elders of that city must
then seize the man and punish him. 2219 They
will fine him one hundred shekels of silver and
give them to the young womans father, for the
man who made the accusation ruined the
reputation of an Israelite virgin. She will then
become his wife and he may never divorce her as
long as he lives. 2220 But if the accusation is
true and the young woman was not a
virgin, 2221 the men of her city must bring the
young woman to the door of her fathers house and
stone her to death, for she has done a
disgraceful thing in Israel by behaving like a
prostitute while living in her fathers house. In
this way you will purge evil from among you.
The stated basis of judgment is an offense
against the girls father by the girl.
Since the guilty girl is executed, there is no
reason for the Law to speak of divorce. However,
once capital punishment was abandoned, divorce
would have become the substitute (cf. Joseph in
re Mary in Matthew 1). It is the logical
disciplinary action given the contrasting penalty
of no divorce if the charge were not true. It
is undoubtedly true that the deceived husband
would not have been required to remain with
her. In this instance there is no moral way the
man could have known of a deception regarding
virginity until the consummation of the marriage.
It would seem than, that her deception would be a
grounds for divorce. We might call this an
annulment in our times. The fact that she may not
have been living in her fathers house would not
seem to be an exception, insofar as the primary
occasion was her virginity, rather than her the
offense against her father. Undetermined is
whether or not it would make a difference if she
were known not to be a virgin (e.g., a divorcee
or widow) and yet deceived the man about
subsequent relations prior to theirs.
28
Did the Mosaic Law Ever Prohibit Divorce?Yes
Deut. 2217 Moreover, he has raised accusations
of impropriety by saying, I discovered your
daughter was not a virgin, but this is the
evidence of my daughters virginity! The cloth
must then be spread out before the citys
elders. 2218 The elders of that city must then
seize the man and punish him. 2219 They will
fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give
them to the young womans father, for the man who
made the accusation ruined the reputation of an
Israelite virgin. She will then become his wife
and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.
This is character assignation.
Deut. 2228 Suppose a man comes across a virgin
who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her
and they are discovered. 2229 The man who has
raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of
silver and she must become his wife because he
has violated her he may never divorce her as
long as he lives. This is a case of rape.
Why?
The regulations stated here relate to
difficulties a woman faced in ancient society.
There was, then, a greater interest in women
being pure virgins when they were married. In the
first case the wrongful accusation of the husband
would still lead to the stigmatization of the
woman. He violated her reputation. In the second
case the action of the man violates her personal
puritycosts her her virginity. Such women might
have had a hard time contracting a new marriage
under the circumstances. In both cases a hefty
fine is assessed against the man. If a months
wage is to a shekel, then the first husband
must pay 100 months wages, while the second 50.
Few men could bear that financial burden without
having to sell themselves into slavery. There
would also be a stigma attached to him as a man
who attacked the reputation of an innocent woman.
The prohibition of divorce protects the woman
from summary abandonment. She might still be
freed if he abuses her (as with Ex. 2110-11),
but he cannot initiate the legal action. It is to
be remembered also that in ancient Israel, people
knew each other so we are not talking about
stranger or serial rapists in the second case.
These laws had a deterrent effect
29
The Overall Context Of Deuteronomy
241-4Stipulations Related to You Shall Not
Steal
2315-16 A runaway foreign slave must not be
returned as if property 2317 A Hebrew child
must not be a cult prostitute passed back and
forth as if chattel property 2318 Tainted
chattel property must not be promised to
God 2319-20 Loans at interest must not be taken
from Hebrews else they be reduced to chattel
property, but may be taken from foreigners who
are presumed to be able to afford the
risk 2321-23 Property need not be promised to
God, but if it is, it must not be
withheld 2324-25 Ownership of chattel property
does not eliminate the responsibility to use it
for the neighbors welfare, but required charity
does not justify theft. 241-4 Wives who are
divorced on grounds of ceremonial impurity may
not be taken back after legally belonging to
another husband she is not a chattel to be
passed back and forth 245 Citizens who are
bridegrooms may not be conscripted for the first
year. He is not a chattel. 246 Critical
chattel property may not be taken as collateral
for a loan 247 It is a capital offense to reduce
a person to a chattel by stealing and selling him
30
The Prior Context Of Deuteronomy
241-4Stipulations Related to the Eighth
Commandment
2315 You must not return an escaped slave to his
master when he has run away to you. 2316 Indeed,
he may live among you in any place he chooses, in
whichever of your villages he prefers you must
not oppress him. 2317 There must never be a
sacred prostitute among the young women of Israel
nor a sacred male prostitute among the young men
of Israel. 2318 You must never bring the pay of
a female prostitute or the wage of a male
prostitute into the temple of the Lord your God
in fulfillment of any vow, for both of these are
abhorrent to the Lord your God. 2319 You must
not charge interest on a loan to your fellow
Israelite, whether on money, food, or anything
else that has been loaned with interest. 2320
You may lend with interest to a foreigner, but
not to your fellow Israelite if you keep this
command the Lord your God will bless you in all
you undertake in the land you are about to enter
to possess. 2321 When you make a vow to the
Lord your God you must not delay in fulfilling
it, for otherwise he will surely hold you
accountable as a sinner. 2322 If you refrain
from making a vow, it will not be sinful. 2323
Whatever you vow, you must be careful to do what
you have promised, such as what you have vowed to
the Lord your God as a freewill offering. 2324
When you enter the vineyard of your neighbor you
may eat as many grapes as you please, but you
must not take away any in a container. 2325 When
you go into the ripe grain fields of your
neighbor you may pluck off the kernels with your
hand, but you must not use a sickle on your
neighbors ripe grain.
Runaway slaves, because they have been reduced to
a chattel, are not to be passed back to their
owners. That would be to extend the abusive.
Children are not to be passed back and forth
(consecrated) for sexual services, esp. in re
pagan worship
God doesnt want the tainted property of someone
who has been passed back and forth..
The rich must not charge interest to a poor
Hebrew, that would extend their poverty. It can
be charged a foreigner, whom it is presumed is
not poor but investing.
Vows to give ones property to God need not be
made, but when made must not be withheld, or God
will hold the person responsible as a sinner.
A man must not withhold his property from a needy
neighbor. And the neighbor must not take an undue
amount of the property of another. That might
reduce him to poverty.
31
The Latter Context Of Deuteronomy
241-4Stipulations Related to the Eighth
Commandment
241 If a man marries a woman and she does not
please him because he has found something
offensive in her, then he may draw up a divorce
document, give it to her, and evict her from his
house. 242 When she has left him she may go and
become someone elses wife. 243 If the second
husband rejects her and then divorces her, gives
her the papers, and evicts her from his house, or
if the second husband who married her dies, 244
her first husband who divorced her is not
permitted to remarry her after she has become
ritually impure, for that is offensive to the
Lord. You must not bring guilt on the land which
the Lord your God is giving you as an
inheritance. 245 When a man is newly married, he
need not go into the army nor be obligated in any
way he must be free to stay at home for a full
year and bring joy to the wife he has
married. 246 One must not take either lower or
upper millstones as security on a loan, for that
is like taking a life itself as security. 247 If
a man is found kidnapping a person from among his
fellow Israelites, and regards him as mere
property and sells him, that kidnapper must die.
In this way you will purge evil from among you.
If a man chooses to send away his freely chosen
wifewithhold from her crucial chattel with which
her life is sustainedfor some ceremonial
offense (which might reduce her to poverty), .
he must attest to her freedom from him with a
certificate of divorce. This allows for her to be
provided for by another. This is abusive
treatment. If her husband despises her enough to
permit her to be legally chosen and used by
another man, she becomes off limits to her
first husband. If he were to take her back (but
not before her second marriage) it would be the
same as reducing her to the level of a piece of
chattel property, passed forth and back between
men. It extends her abuse. This would anger God.
The text does not identify what kind of a sinner
the man is who mistreats his wife these ways.
That will be done by Malachi (2) and Jesus
(Gospels).
The army has a right to a citizens service, but
must not take the bridegroom out of his home
during the first year, when he should be enabling
his wife to become pregnant with a child through
which she would inherit his property, were he to
die in battle.
A man has a right to collateral for his loan, but
must not be abusive by taking the mans basis for
sustaining himself.
A citizen should not be stolen from his
environment as if he were a mere piece of
property, to be bought and sold at will. Such is
a capital crime.
32
The Meaning Of Deuteronomy 241-4
Deut. 241 If a man marries a woman and she does
not please him because he has found something
offensive in her, then he may draw up a divorce
document, give it to her, and evict her from his
house. 242 When she has left him she may go and
become someone elses wife. 243 If the second
husband rejects her and then divorces her, gives
her the papers, and evicts her from his house, or
if the second husband who married her dies, 244
her first husband who divorced her is not
permitted to remarry her after she has become
ritually impure, for that is offensive to the
Lord. You must not bring guilt on the land which
the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
There are several phrases here that have given
rise to interpretive problems.

1. The major problem is caused by the Hebrew (erwat
   dabar), translated here as something offensive
   in her. In Jesus day the liberal rabbinic
   school of Hillel interpreted this as meaning
   virtually anything the husband wanted it to mean,
   while the conservative school of Shammai thought
   it meant something very near to adultery. Actual
   adultery isnt the meaning, because that was
   punished by execution, and this woman is allowed
   to remarry.
2. The second major problem is in interpreting the
   phrase she has become ritually impure (NET).
   Other translations make that after that she is
   defiled (NASB) or has defiled herself.
3. The rabbis believed that this regulation gave the
   man the right to end his marriagethat erwat
   dabar stood for some legitimate ground for ending
   the marriage

33
The Meaning of Deuteronomy 241-4
(Contd)Problems s 1 3
Regarding problem 1, it has been noted that this
word pair (erwat dabar) is found only once
elsewhere in the OT.in the immediately preceding
section.
Deut. 2314 For the Lord your God walks about in
the middle of your camp to deliver you and defeat
your enemies for you. Therefore your camp should
be holy, so that he does not see anything
indecent among you and turn away from you.
The referent to this warning are two regulations
which relate to personal hygienemale nocturnal
emissions and unsanitary toilet conditions in the
camp. Given that, it seems best to assume what
her husband finds offensive about her relates to
hygiene, perhaps something related to her
menstrual cycle which would have rendered her
ceremonial impure and have made any man who
touched her impure as well until the evening. But
what man would be so hard-hearted as to divorce
his wife for such a reason? That seems to be
exactly the understanding of Jesus, when he said
Matt. 198 Jesus said to them, Moses permitted
you to divorce your wives because of your hard
hearts
We may assume then that Hillels school was
probably close to the meaning of the offense
term, but not at all with the interpretation of
Hillel or Shammai that the man was morally
upright if he took advantage of this permissions
ground (erwat dabar) so long as he give his wife
a writ. This answers issue 3. But, why does God
permit this?
34
THE MEANING OF ERWAT DABAR IN DEUTERONOMY
241 Part One The Normal Meaning Of The Words
The words individually erwat
 ???????from ?????
Literally nudity, especially of the
pudendaFiguratively disgrace blemish,
nakedness, shame uncleanness
To be (cause or make) bare, hence to empty, pour
out, demolish, leave destitute, discover, empty,
make naked, pour (out), raise, spread self,
uncover.
Prior use Gen.922-23 Nakedness of Noah
429 Nakedness of the land before the
spies Ex.2026 Exposure (accidental) of the
priest on steps of the altar 2842
Clothing to cover nakedness Lev.
186ff Nakedness of near kin (incest)
2011 Nakedness of near kin (incest) Deut.
2848 Exposure of the body due to poverty
35
THE MEANING OF ERWAT DABAR IN DEUTERONOMY
241 Part One The Normal Meaning Of The Words
The words individually dabar
 ?????? from ??????
Speech, word, thing
To speak
Prior use This word is extremely common, used
about 1400 times in the Hebrew text. For a
sample, I offer the closest uses Deut.
2319 Defining property any thing that is
lent Deut. 245 Speaking of a newly married
mans obligation any thing
36
THE MEANING OF ERWAT DABAR IN DEUTERONOMY
241 Part One The Normal Meaning Of The Words
The words combined erwat dabar
???????  ??????
The naked or exposed thing
Prior use This word set is extremely rare, being
used only once before, i.e., Deut.
2314 Therefore your camp should be holy, so
that he does not see anything indecent among you
and turn away from you. But what was the
referent (therefore)?
37
THE MEANING OF ERWAT DABAR IN DEUTERONOMY
241 Part One The Normal Meaning Of The Words
The referents to the words erwat dabar in Deut.
23
Deut. 239 When you go out as an army against
your enemies, guard yourselves