Marriage Is An Unconditional Covenant Part 4

Marriage Is An Unconditional Covenant Part 4

Note: You have to read Part 1, 2 and 3 to understand part 4.

The view of "putting away" (apolyos) as unacceptable by God, and divorce with valid grounds (mentioned in Part 3) as legal in God's eyes is flawed in various areas.

In Part 2, I shared that the Christian Jewish Rabbi and many others reasoned that you need BOTH putting away (apolyos) AND a certificate of divorce (apostasion) to issue a legal divorce in God's eyes.

Two passages quoted are as follows:

Deuteronomy 24:1 - When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, AND sends her out of his house. (emphasis added)

Matthew 19:7 - They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, AND to put her away?” (emphasis added)

As you can see, it is believed that you need the word "AND", which means that both things are required.

If the verse only states "putting away" (apolyos), it does not constitute a divorce. For example, in Matthew 19:9 - "...whoever divorces (apolyos) his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Thus, it is argued that Jesus wasn't addressing the issue of divorce because only one element (apolyos) is mentioned.

This is really a flawed interpretation. Why?

Deut 24:1-4 (KJV) - When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, AND send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her FORMER husband, which SENT her AWAY, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; (emphasis added)

Look at verse 4. Clearly, it is referring to the first husband who divorced her (v1). This time, the Bible only mentioned one thing - "sending/putting away", without a certificate of divorce (apostasion). Based on the divorce theory that you need two things in a verse to constitute a legal divorce, the Bible reveals otherwise. Because "putting away" IS THE SAME AS DIVORCE.

Next, we see how flawed the argument in Matthew 19 is.

Matthew 19:7-8 - They say unto him, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of DIVORCEMENT, AND to PUT her AWAY?"

8 He saith unto them, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to PUT AWAY your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

It is argued that Jesus, in v8, only addressed the issue of putting away (apolyos) because the certificate of divorce (apostasion) is not mentioned.

It is ironic to interpret this way without seeing the clear context of this verse. The word "suffered" in Greek is "epitrepo", which means "permit." 

Jesus said, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts PERMITTED you to put away (apolyos) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

If you argue that Jesus was only addressing "putting away" (apolyos), you are also saying that the Mosiac Law permitted "putting away" without a certificate of divorce! 

WRONG! Absolutely contradicting! The Mosaic Law did NOT permit that. It only permitted divorce (Deut 24:1). Therefore, Jesus was addressing the issue of divorce!

Let's look at Mark 10:3-5 - And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses COMMAND you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, AND to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this PRECEPT. (emphasis added)

Clearly, v5 reveals that Jesus was not simply addressing the issue of "putting away". He was addressing the PRECEPT that the Pharisees quoted from Moses in the Torah. The word "precept" in Greek is "entole", which means "commandments of the Mosiac Law." Again, Jesus was addressing the issue of DIVORCE.

Matthew 5:31-32 - It hath been said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement." 32 But I say unto you, "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Every time when Jesus said, "It has been said..." in Sermon on the Mount, He referred to the Law. And when He added, "But I say to you...", He was giving the true intent of God's heart. Compare with Matthew 5:27-28 and you will understand.

Jesus, in verse 32, was revealing the original intent that there should NOT even be a divorce, except for a clause.

Now it is shown from Scriptures that you don't need the two things (apolyos AND apostasion) in a verse to prove that it is talking about divorce. Because "putting away" (apolyos) in the context of marriage REFERS TO DIVORCE.

Malachi 2:16, in the ESV translation, says, "For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her," says the Lord, the God of Israel, "covers his garment with violence," says the Lord of hosts.

Yes. The word "divorce" there is "putting away". But we have already established that "putting away" is the SAME as "divorce". 

In the Hebrew language for Malachi 2:16, it is not so clear that God is the One who hates divorce. The Septuagint (Greek translation of OT) refers to the husband who hates his wife and divorces her. 

Having said that, even if the interpretation is God Himself who hates divorce, there is a valid reason, for the husband has dealt treacherously with his wife (Mal 2:15) in that context. Many of the Jewish men divorced their wives because of their own selfishness and desires, leaving the wives to protect themselves with no providence.

The question, therefore is, if God is not for divorce, why did He divorce Israel?

First of all, Israel broke their covenant (Jeremiah 31:32) with God by committing spiritual adultery (idolatry). See Jeremiah 3:8.

Secondly, God and Israel did not have an unconditional covenant. It was a Mosaic covenant (Exodus 19:5-8; Deut 5:1-26) that is conditional.

Judah committed the same sin as Israel; in fact, she was worse than Israel (Jeremiah 3:9-11). But God never ever divorced Judah. Why? He had a covenant with King David where the Messiah would eventually be born from his lineage. (2 Samuel 7:12-16; 2 Kings 8:19)

While God did divorce Israel, He still recognised the "marriage" (Jeremiah 3:14) and promised to re-marry Israel through the resurrected Christ (Jeremiah 3:14-22; Jeremiah 31:31; Rom 7:2-4), because under the Law, God couldn't take back His divorced wife (Deut 24:4, Jeremiah 3:1).

What an awesome and loving God we have when it was the wife (Israel) who dealt treacherously with the husband (God). He is totally opposite from the Jewish men who dealt treacherously with their wives and divorced them.

In the next part, I will explain on 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19 further. Eventually, we want to find out what God truly sees in a marriage and what kind of exception clause He really has for a divorce. #marriage #covenant