NT or OT?

[Gxg (G²)]

Is it not also written?

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19:8-12

How do you reconcile that "Noahide law" with what Christ said?

The eunuch dynamic is interesting, especially when considering how many people who are single by choice have often been told that they were violating God's command for being fruitful and multiplying in Genesis 1 and Genesis 9....and that in order to truly obey the Lord, one had to have family/multiply, whereas the Lord Yeshua made clear that not all were even called to be married - similar to what Paul noted in I Corinthians 7 when it came to marriage issues and his noting how he had the gift of celibacy...and wanted all to abstain to go after the Lord.

 

[visionary]

Do you guys know where these "Noahide laws" came from? Was it from the Scriptures or tradition?

out of Talmud study done by Moses Maimonides in around 1200 came the "Noahide Laws" out of self preservation of Judaism from so much persecution and retaining the exclusively Jew position by their interpretation of Acts 15 befitting RCC's usage.

The Talmud also states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a). Any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as one of "the righteous among the gentiles". Maimonides writes that this refers to those who have acquired knowledge of God and act in accordance with the Noachide laws out of obedience to God. According to what scholars consider to be the most accurate texts of the Mishneh Torah,[13] Maimonides goes on to say that anyone who upholds the Noachide laws only because they appear logical is not one of the "righteous among the nations," but rather he is one of the wise among them. The more prolific versions of the Mishneh Torah say of such a person: "..nor is he one of the wise among them."[14]....... Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, started his Noahide Campaign in the 1980s, the number of Gentiles willing to keep the Seven Laws of Noah as described in the Torah increased.... Noahide laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The extent of its power or influence has not been ever enforced although it was made an educational law a few years back. The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation with its passing of both houses. Congress and the President George Bush insinuated that USA was "founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah" and that "these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization" and are "the foundation upon which civilization stands" and that "recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society" and this will justify "preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the U.S. of America and future generations" of its existence. For this purpose, this Law was designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day. I have yet to see much of its influence since then. Other than in some circles [usually religious] which promote it.

Bill Text - 102nd Congress (1991-1992) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[visionary]

Since Noahide laws indicate that beheadment is the right corporal punishment. I decided to see if I can find any laws on the books that would facilitate that.

HB 1274 - Death penalty; guillotine provisions

but that was it.

 

[Lion King]

The eunuch dynamic is interesting, especially when considering how many people who are single by choice have often been told that they were violating God's command for being fruitful and multiplying in Genesis 1 and Genesis 9....and that in order to truly obey the Lord, one had to have family/multiply, whereas the Lord Yeshua made clear that not all were even called to be married - similar to what Paul noted in I Corinthians 7 when it came to marriage issues and his noting how he had the gift of celibacy...and wanted all to abstain to go after the Lord.

Interesting observation.

1. Is the "be fruitful and multiply law" also part of the Torah? Is everyone required to be married according to the Torah?

2. What does the Torah say regarding divorce? Is one allowed to divorce their wife for any or no reason?

 

[mishkan]

1. Is the "be fruitful and multiply law" also part of the Torah? Is everyone required to be married according to the Torah?

The instruction is part of the story-telling material in the Torah. It does not carry the force of law.

2. What does the Torah say regarding divorce? Is one allowed to divorce their wife for any or no reason?

There is no requirement in the Torah for divorce... under any conditions. Devarim/Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (iirc) regulates what was already a common cultural practice. The purpose was to protect the females, not to justify pettiness by males.

 

[Lion King]

out of Talmud study done by Moses Maimonides in around 1200 came the "Noahide Laws" out of self preservation of Judaism from so much persecution and retaining the exclusively Jew position by their interpretation of Acts 15 befitting RCC's usage.



The extent of its power or influence has not been ever enforced although it was made an educational law a few years back. The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation with its passing of both houses. Congress and the President George Bush insinuated that USA was "founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah" and that "these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization" and are "the foundation upon which civilization stands" and that "recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society" and this will justify "preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the U.S. of America and future generations" of its existence. For this purpose, this Law was designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day. I have yet to see much of its influence since then. Other than in some circles [usually religious] which promote it.

Bill Text - 102nd Congress (1991-1992) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Thanks for the info.

However, I'm not too sure that Bush is correct in saying that the US of A was founded upon the Scriptures:

God's Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

[mishkan]

However, I'm not too sure that Bush is correct in saying that the US of A was founded upon the Scriptures:

God's Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

You have to keep in mind that the Founders of the USA were all working within the Christian paradigm. Even non-believers were immersed in a culture that assumed knowledge of the Bible and a Christian interpretation of history.

They defined the word "religion" much more narrowly than we have come to use it. Today, we would have expressed this clause in terms more akin to "Christian denominations". The concern was that there be no state-subsidized Christian denomination, like the Anglican church in England.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting observation.

1. Is the "be fruitful and multiply law" also part of the Torah? Is everyone required to be married according to the Torah?

Culture makes a difference as well, as marriage was expected/highly celebrated within Jewish culture in honor of what the Lord said in the Torah on bearing sons/daughters (and in that era, to not have children was considered a curse more than a blessing since that meant one had no legacy or inheritance). Parents were responsible for choosing appropriate spouses for their children, and the young man and woman were expected to accept their parents’ arrangements (more shared here, here ).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm not too sure that Bush is correct in saying that the US of A was founded upon the Scriptures:

God's Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

A lot of folks from that era noted that having religious principles found in the Bible is not the same as practicing fully what the Bible said or what CHristianity was meant to be about - and that's seen in the sheer amount of times things were discussed in regards to FreeMasonry as well as making room for paganism/Enlightenment Thinking..which was humanist in nature/only acknowledged the Bible as far as it seemed to support moral values all accepted.

George Washington was a freemason and a deist. He wouldn’t take communion with his wife. ...and he was also what's known as a Unitarian ..and due to his Unitarian views, held stances that supported both Christian principles and non-Christian beliefs such as Deism and other things. For reference:

• Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.
• George Washington, David Barton and Unitarianism
• American Revolution: "I Think, Therefore I Am...a Unitarian"

One can also go here and here. John Adams spoke harshly at times about Christianity and religion in general in his private correspondence. He was a Christian Unitarian that believed the church service was good for everyone because it promoted morals and values among the masses. Thomas Jefferson, as a Diest, went so far to deny the divinity of Christ. He even created his own compilation of Jesus’ life from the gospels, which he entitled, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” He removed all evidence of the “supernatural” for a presentation of Jesus as a good moral teacher who is only to be admired, not worshipped. And there are other examples of where things they did/began were FAR from being what the Lord had in mind with Biblical laws.

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind

Eye of the Phoenix: Secrets of the Dollar Bill
Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings I: The New Atlantis
​

There are pictures showing the Founding Fathers as gods..which is not surprising seeing that most of the Founding Fathers, again, were very much into demonic things such as Freemasonry. There was one statue I remember seeing of George Washington IN D.C that had him in the form of a Greek GOD when I was visiting the place back in 2009. Seemed like they were trying to express the regal nature the president seemed to have and take it to another level, just as others have done often..

​

Additionally, the dome of the Capitol features in its occulus an incredibly significant painting that reveals the philosophical, spiritual and political aims of the Founding Fathers.

Right in the very centre of the cast iron dome in the U.S Capitol is a painting of George Washington, ascended to the pantheon of ancient greek deities.

​

​

​

Astonishingly poor theology for 'one nation under God', but evidence of the high esteem George was held in by his 19th century successors. The building was completed (from memory) in the 1820s.


And there are many others besides that. For reference:

• Educate Yourself /Vigiliant Citizen"
• "Mystical Sites - U.S Captitol / Vigiliant Citizen" ( )

It's not hidden. I'm surprised many more don't talk on the ways the Founding Fathers were often deified multiple times and no one said anything on it for centuries. I'd wager that many don't tend to look for it due to assumptions they've already accepted on the Founding Fathers being fully dedicated believers and soldiers for Christ as has often been said by others in the Religious Right and others who had an idea of Christianity in mind which they supported/felt the FOunders did as well ( with the use of Biblical Language/scripture in their speeches being what influences others to see the history of the nation as being Christian in origin ), thus causing confirmation bias and people seeing what they have already been trained to see/zoom in on....even when the other darker aspects of what were present in the nation's founding/consistently growing are out in the open...from the monuments of our capitol to the things presidents swear into before taking office (like Bohemian Grove, if not aware of it - very dark reality )...and a lot of other mess.


Some of those things I honestly was not aware of until I went to D.C for myself...with it being the case that read my Bible that morning on idolatry and what King Josiah did in II Kings 22-23 when loving the Lord and yet having no clue as to the many things surrounding him that were evil...and although I was aware of things like FreeMasonry and other things present, some of the other things I witnessed there really made me feel VERY uncomfortable/perplexed as to how open it was and yet no many caught it.

And when I saw that, it made so much sense as to why people tended in our nation to do the things they did - and still do. Just as men have deified the Founders, that same spirit exists today when it comes to the ways others try to deify presidential figures.

 

[visionary]

Thanks for the info.

However, I'm not too sure that Bush is correct in saying that the US of A was founded upon the Scriptures:

God's Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

As stated Bush declared that the USA was founded upon the Noahide laws.. which is not a normal Christian view of scriptures.... most Christians have no idea what noahide laws are.

 

[mishkan]

marriage was expected/highly celebrated within Jewish culture in honor of what the Lord said in the Torah on bearing sons/daughters (and in that era, to not have children was considered a curse more than a blessing since that meant one had no legacy or inheritance). Parents were responsible for choosing appropriate spouses for their children, and the young man and woman were expected to accept their parents’ arrangements.

True. That's why the mention of women being barren always conveyed a sense of despair, and a need of correction. It wasn't marriage that was so highly touted, as much as the fact that marriage was the vehicle to producing offspring... preferably male.

 

[Lion King]

The instruction is part of the story-telling material in the Torah. It does not carry the force of law.

Understood.

There is no requirement in the Torah for divorce... under any conditions. Devarim/Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (iirc) regulates what was already a common cultural practice. The purpose was to protect the females, not to justify pettiness by males.

How would you interpret Matthew 19:1-9?

 

[Lion King]

As stated Bush declared that the USA was founded upon the Noahide laws.. which is not a normal Christian view of scriptures.... most Christians have no idea what noahide laws are.

I have no idea what Noahide laws are, but I am aware of the laws given to Noah by God (Genesis 9).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

True. That's why the mention of women being barren always conveyed a sense of despair, and a need of correction. It wasn't marriage that was so highly touted, as much as the fact that marriage was the vehicle to producing offspring... preferably male.

Male children do make a world of difference

Of course, babies are babies and it always made a difference to have females if you could find ways of marrying them off into a good tribe/group and keeping the geneological records/influence of the past alive and well. Reminded of how a good friend of mine who's a Messianic Jewish Rabbi noted how often Jewish ladies would ask him if he was single after talking with him since the reason for asking was to find out immediately how to hook him up with other ladies so that he could fulfill the expectation of being married/having kids and populating. The "Fiddler on the Roof" film comes to mind with the Matchmaker song

Fiddler on the roof - Matchmaker ( with subtitles )​

That said, I don't see where marriage wasn't highly touted in Jewish culture in light of how much others often discussed it in that era -as they took Genesis (as the First Book of the Torah) very seriously in seeing God's original intentions for mankind...from the concept of proper stewardship of the land to remembering the lives of Abraham/Issac and Jacob and seeing what the Lord expected of Adam/Eve ( Biblical Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting observation.

1. Is the "be fruitful and multiply law" also part of the Torah? Is everyone required to be married according to the Torah?

When considering the issue, the story of Onan is a very powerful image to consider on the matter. Per Genesis 38, when the time came to ensuring that his brother's wife would have children, he refused to impregnat her...and spilled his sperm on the ground. God considered it severe wickedness, seeing what was at stake when it came to the bloodlines/history and protection of the woman at state - and he had Onan put to death. Say a man is married but dies before he has any children. Who inherits his stuff? To solve this problem, the Bible demands that another brother must marry this sister-in-law, with the firstborn child considered the dead brother’s heir. The Bible does more than simply document a curious Jewish custom; God enforces it with the death penalty (Gen. 38:8–10). There was a theme within scripture when it came to bearing children as being VERY important to the Lord ( Genesis 25:20-22, Genesis 11:29-31 Genesis 29:30-32, Exodus 23:25-27 Deuteronomy 7:13-15 ) - and he noted the same thing later on with the prophets...and pointing out that the Lord wanted GODLY Offspring as the reason behind why marriage was such a big deal for him.

Malachi 2:14-16/ Malachi 2
And this is the second thing you do:
You cover the altar of the Lord with tears,
With weeping and crying;
So He does not regard the offering anymore,
Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.
14 Yet you say, “For what reason?”
Because the Lord has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.

15 But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
16 “For the Lord God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
“Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.”

​

For the amount of people choosing not to have children in the name of career or just wanting to be focused on each other, it goes against the heart of what the Lord commanded when it came to marriage as an institution. Shoot, even the other systems within the OT Law that made room for things like polygamy/marrying multiple wives were all designed with the idea of children/offspring involved. The Law stated that a man could take another wife as long as he still provided for his first wife (Exo.21:10). And for others who had multiple wives:

• Jacob married Leah and Rachel (Gen.29:23-30; 31:17; 32:22) and then he married Leah and Rachel's handmaids, Zilbah and Bilhahand (Genesis 30:1-24; 37:2)
• Judge Gideon had many wives and a concubine (Judges 8:30-31)
• Elkanah married Hannah and Peninnah (1 Sam.1:2)
• David married Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam.25:42-43; 30:18), then later took more wives (2 Sam.5:13) at Jerusalem (1 Chron.14:3)
• In 2 Sam.12:7-8, God gave David these multiple wives as a blessing, just as anointing him as king over Israel, protecting him from Saul, and giving him the house of Israel and Judah were also blessings from Him
• Ashur married Helah and Naarah (1 Chron.4:5)
• Shaharaim married Hushim and Baara (1 Chron.8:8)
• Abijah had 14 wives (2 Chron.13:21)
• Jehoiada the priest had 2 wives (2 Chron.24:3).

God knew that, after entering the promised land, the Israelites would want to imitate the nations around them and be governed by a king. So before the Israelites entered into the promised land, they were given specific instructions about the placing of a king over them (Deut.17:14-19). One of these instructions prohibited such a king from having many wives. Some believe that this instruction prohibited polygamy; however, this instruction was a preventative measure to keep the king from being adversely influenced by his many wives —"Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut.17:17). King Solomon is an example of a man who allowed his wives to influence him into turning from God. See 1.Kgs.11:1-8

With polygamy, there are some Jewish camps that would not have an issue with it...such as the Indian Jews apart of Bene Israel. The Jews there are said to be descendants of the survivors of an ancient shipwreck. An excellent book on the issue is known as "Burnt Bread and Chutney"...and as the author explains in the preface, the Bene Israel “evolved quite uniquely, without many of the holidays, rituals, and rabbinic rulings introduced meanwhile in the general Jewish Diaspora. …They adopted the local language, Marathi, and manners of dress like the sari, along with some of the other Indian customs; they… mostly kept to themselves. They maintained the few ancient Jewish rituals which could be passed on.” At the same time, they absorbed Indian influences in prayer melodies and rituals, fasting, pilgrimages, and caste-like ways....who in some parts are known for still practicing polygamy still as did many of the patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, etc) and David did---thus angering others there. One can go here for more (as well as here). Additionally, one can go here for more on the subject...but that is another story.

 

[mishkan]

How would you interpret Matthew 19:1-9?

I believe I just did.

But to put a little more precision to it...

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:1-2
Now it came to pass, when Yeshua had finished these sayings (about forgiveness and treating others correctly), He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
​

I always like to point out the importance of reading the previous section in order to get the context. The previous vignette (the end of chapter 18) was about treating others fairly. I think that is the underlying theme of this passage, as well.

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for [just] any reason?"
​

I believe the test involved seeing whose side he would join. Yeshua was a populist, gaining his following from the common class. This question was one of the key issues that distinguished the Pharisaic schools of Hillel and Shammai from one another. To force Yeshua to take a side in the debate was probably intended to alienate some of his followers--especially women.

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:4-6
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made [them] at 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 then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
​

I suspect this initial response is understood by most of us. Marriage is a divinely appointed state. We should take a spouse, raise our children, and expect to stay with that individual for the rest of our lives. This is what defines normal social order.

This is a "safe answer". It affirms what everyone agrees with, and causes no offense to anyone. However, that wasn't really what the questioners wanted to hear.

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:7
They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
​

Now, they put out the hook. This is the "trick question". Why is it a trick? Because it ignores the original intention of the passage. The rabbis were trying to discover a meaning the Devarim text was never meant to address.

Devarim/Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Premise:
"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

This is the condition that sets the premise for what follows. It is not a commandment, but a recognition of what was already happening. Moshe never commanded divorce... ever.
​

Scenario 1:
[if]"when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's [wife], the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts [it] in her hand, and sends her out of his house
​

Scenario 2:
"or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife
​

Resolution:
"[then] her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that [is] an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you [as] an inheritance.
​

So, we see that the source text involved has nothing to do with conditions for divorce. The rabbis had imposed a topic upon the text--a topic that had nothing to do with the original intent.

Moshe only said, "If you're going to divorce the woman, you are going to do it properly, and there are no "take-backs".

Once you've sent the woman away, there is no room for changing your mind. This serves several obvious purposes, if you think about it. It makes the choice more difficult, since you can't ever reverse a divorce. I believe this is the reaction we see in verse 10.

It also prevents cluttering of the paternity lines. Identifying the heir to the family inheritance was a cardinal value in Moshe's day.

There are probably some other values protected by this regulation, as well, but I have limited time to dwell on this.

Finally, we come to Yeshua's response to the follow-up question. Honestly, he gave them more leeway than I would have permitted. I would have told them they were twisting the text in order to create an invalid question. But he addressed the topic, anyway...

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:8,9
He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
​

Point #1

Moshe never commanded divorce. He permitted divorce because he recognized it could never be prevented. Some people just find marriage unbearable, or make it unbearable for others. But, that was not the original plan. Hashem's intention for the human race was life-long monogamous marriage.

One such unbearable condition that justified divorce was the existence of adultery. Once the marriage was already adulterated, the divorce decree (known as a "get") served merely as a formal recognition of the existing real situation.

After divorce, remarriage is perfectly fine. But if a man divorces his wife for some silliness, then he is committing adultery with his second wife.

What still remains an open question is whether we should take this assertion as a legal ruling (halakha) or merely a moral commentary.​

Point #2

Take-backs are prohibited, just as Moshe mandated. Once the man had divorced his wife for serious cause, like adultery, he was done with her. There was no remarriage permitted if her second marriage failed, or if her second husband died.
​

This second conclusion is usually the idea that is most misunderstood, and misapplied. Because no one ever bothers to study the Torah instruction that underlies the discussion, many think this is talking about a prohibition against remarriage, in general. But that isn't what is meant at all. It is the misunderstanding of the passage that makes it controversial, when there is no need for controversy.

The original question was, "Can I divorce my wife for any cause at all, like burning my breakfast?"

The answer is, "You can divorce her for adultery, but any lesser cause would be frivolous and harmful. And if you're going to put your spouse away, then you are done, you've made your choice."

 

[yedida]

I believe I just did.

But to put a little more precision to it...

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:1-2
Now it came to pass, when Yeshua had finished these sayings (about forgiveness and treating others correctly), He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
​

I always like to point out the importance of reading the previous section in order to get the context. The previous vignette (the end of chapter 18) was about treating others fairly. I think that is the underlying theme of this passage, as well.

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for [just] any reason?"
​

I believe the test involved seeing whose side he would join. Yeshua was a populist, gaining his following from the common class. This question was one of the key issues that distinguished the Pharisaic schools of Hillel and Shammai from one another. To force Yeshua to take a side in the debate was probably intended to alienate some of his followers--especially women.

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:4-6
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made [them] at 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 then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
​

I suspect this initial response is understood by most of us. Marriage is a divinely appointed state. We should take a spouse, raise our children, and expect to stay with that individual for the rest of our lives. This is what defines normal social order.

This is a "safe answer". It affirms what everyone agrees with, and causes no offense to anyone. However, that wasn't really what the questioners wanted to hear.

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:7
They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
​

Now, they put out the hook. This is the "trick question". Why is it a trick? Because it ignores the original intention of the passage. The rabbis were trying to discover a meaning the Devarim text was never meant to address.

Devarim/Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Premise:
"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

This is the condition that sets the premise for what follows. It is not a commandment, but a recognition of what was already happening. Moshe never commanded divorce... ever.
​

Scenario 1:
[if]"when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's [wife], the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts [it] in her hand, and sends her out of his house
​

Scenario 2:
"or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife
​

Resolution:
"[then] her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that [is] an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you [as] an inheritance.
​

So, we see that the source text involved has nothing to do with conditions for divorce. The rabbis had imposed a topic upon the text--a topic that had nothing to do with the original intent.

Moshe only said, "If you're going to divorce the woman, you are going to do it properly, and there are no "take-backs".

Once you've sent the woman away, there is no room for changing your mind. This serves several obvious purposes, if you think about it. It makes the choice more difficult, since you can't ever reverse a divorce. I believe this is the reaction we see in verse 10.

It also prevents cluttering of the paternity lines. Identifying the heir to the family inheritance was a cardinal value in Moshe's day.

There are probably some other values protected by this regulation, as well, but I have limited time to dwell on this.

Finally, we come to Yeshua's response to the follow-up question. Honestly, he gave them more leeway than I would have permitted. I would have told them they were twisting the text in order to create an invalid question. But he addressed the topic, anyway...

Mattityahu/Matthew 19:8,9
He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
​

Point #1

Moshe never commanded divorce. He permitted divorce because he recognized it could never be prevented. Some people just find marriage unbearable, or make it unbearable for others. But, that was not the original plan. Hashem's intention for the human race was life-long monogamous marriage.

One such unbearable condition that justified divorce was the existence of adultery. Once the marriage was already adulterated, the divorce decree (known as a "get") served merely as a formal recognition of the existing real situation.

After divorce, remarriage is perfectly fine. But if a man divorces his wife for some silliness, then he is committing adultery with his second wife.

What still remains an open question is whether we should take this assertion as a legal ruling (halakha) or merely a moral commentary.
​

Point #2

Take-backs are prohibited, just as Moshe mandated. Once the man had divorced his wife for serious cause, like adultery, he was done with her. There was no remarriage permitted if her second marriage failed, or if her second husband died.
​

This second conclusion is usually the idea that is most misunderstood, and misapplied. Because no one ever bothers to study the Torah instruction that underlies the discussion, many think this is talking about a prohibition against remarriage, in general. But that isn't what is meant at all. It is the misunderstanding of the passage that makes it controversial, when there is no need for controversy.

The original question was, "Can I divorce my wife for any cause at all, like burning my breakfast?"

The answer is, "You can divorce her for adultery, but any lesser cause would be frivolous and harmful. And if you're going to put your spouse away, then you are done, you've made your choice."

Very good answer. But I go a question. What if, after said divorce, 5-6 years down the road, the two, after maturing, meet up and fall in love and want to give it another try. She never remarried. He never remarried. (And we don't even know if she actually committed the adultery - and even if she did, he wasn't commanded to divorce her, he only had "permission" to do so if he wished). Is this remarriage not permitted?

 

[mishkan]

Very good answer. But I go a question. What if, after said divorce, 5-6 years down the road, the two, after maturing, meet up and fall in love and want to give it another try. She never remarried. He never remarried. (And we don't even know if she actually committed the adultery - and even if she did, he wasn't commanded to divorce her, he only had "permission" to do so if he wished). Is this remarriage not permitted?

You just have to make things difficult, don't you.

Looking at the Devarim passage, I'd say what you describe does not fit within the scenario. The purpose of the commandment was to prevent "bed-hopping" from one man to another. If there was never a remarriage, then the first marriage never was really terminated, technically.

So, I guess I'd conclude that would be within the guidelines.

Why? Is that you? Or a relative?

 

[Lion King]

Thank you Mishkan for the detailed response. Just to be clear, are you saying the law of Moses permitted divorce only for adultery?

 

[mishkan]

Thank you Mishkan for the detailed response. Just to be clear, are you saying the law of Moses permitted divorce only for adultery?

The Torah permitted divorce. Period. There is no clarification of what constitutes "uncleanness" in the Torah.

When the questioners brought the issue to Yeshua, they asked it in terms of "any cause". One of the popular schools of the day literally taught that burning a meal constituted justification to divorce your wife.

In his response, he used the example of adultery as a valid justification. That is, something serious--not frivolous rationalizations. But I do not think that was meant to be the sole do-or-die criterion, as many take it to be.