Bible references

Key NT Scriptures

• 1 Corinthians 7:3-4
• 1 Corinthians 7:10-15
  Click to retrieve 1 Corinthians 7:10-15
• 1 Corinthians 7:39
• Hebrews 13:4
• Luke 16:18
• Luke 18:20
• Mark 10:2-4
• Mark 10:6-12
  Click to retrieve Mark 10:6-12
• Matthew 5:27-28
• Matthew 5:31-32
• Matthew 19:3-9
  Click to retrieve Matthew 19:3-9
• Romans 7:1-3
• 1 Timothy 5:8

Key OT Scriptures

• Deuteronomy 21:10-14
  Jewish Commentary
• Deuteronomy 22:13-19
  Click to retrieve Deuteronomy 22:13-19
  Jewish Commentary
• Deuteronomy 22:22
  Jewish Commentary
• Deuteronomy 22:28-29
  Jewish Commentary
• Deuteronomy 24:1-4
  Jewish Commentary
• Exodus 20:13-14
  Jewish Commentary
• Exodus 21:7-11
  Jewish Commentary
• Genesis 1:28
  Jewish Commentary
• Jeremiah 11:10-11
  Jewish Commentary
• Jeremiah 31:30-31
  Jewish Commentary
• Leviticus 18:20
  Jewish Commentary
• Malachi 2:13-16
  Jewish Commentary

Bible verses copyright: PUBLIC DOMAIN except in the United Kingdom, where a Crown Copyright applies to printing the KJV. See http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/who-we-are/queens-printers-patent

Commentary

Rabbi Michael Rudolph

The biblical covenant of marriage consists of one man and one woman joined together to become "one flesh." On one level, "one flesh" is a mystical concept that is difficult to understand but, on a practical level, it defines marriage as being a covenant of exclusive intimacy between lifelong partners, most of whom will produce offspring. We do not profess to know why God allowed men to have multiple wives during the Mosaic and pre-Mosaic periods, but it seems not to have been God's best for us from the beginning ( Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:31 ), and it is clearly not his will for us today, as Scripture applies it to elders in 1 Timothy 3:2a & 12 and Titus 1:6a . According to Malachi 2:13-16 , God hates divorce. He instructed the Israelites to not abandon their marriage covenants through "breaking faith" - a reference to sexual infidelity in marriage. Although sexual infidelity (e.g. adultery) is the only ground for a believer to divorce another believer, it is not the only way to violate one's covenant of marriage; any abandonment or desertion is a violation but, except for the abandonment of adultery, the violation does not release the innocent spouse to seek a decree of divorce from his or her believing spouse. Abandonment most often means physically leaving, but there are other ways to abandon a spouse. Committing adultery is one such abandonment, but so is physical abuse, emotional abuse, child abuse, refusing to engage in sexual intimacy, refusing to provide financial support, exposing one's family to unnecessary danger, etc. Wrongful as these are, they are not - except for adultery - grounds for a believer to seek a divorce from another believer. Before going further, let us define some terms that are used here. "Violating" one's covenant of marriage means doing something that is contrary to the terms of the covenant, but no violation in itself automatically ends a covenant of marriage. A violation may be of the kind that allows the innocent party to take steps to end the covenant by pursuing a decree of "divorce" (adultery), but the innocent party may choose to overlook or forgive even the most serious transgression and continue in the marriage as before. No violation provides grounds for the guilty party to "create facts of the ground" in order to initiate ending the covenant. The biblical law of divorce may be (and usually is) different from the secular law of nation states. Indeed, the very meaning of the word "divorce" is subject to a number of interpretations and, rather than discuss each of them, we have set forth our view, and invite the reader to reach his or her own conclusions. There is no single Hebrew or Greek noun in the biblical texts for "divorce" as there is in English. The underlying Hebrew noun for "divorce" is " sefer k'riytut ", and the equivalent Greek noun is " biblion apostasion ", - both meaning "decree of divorce", "bill of divorcement", or " get ". The Hebrew and Greek nouns respectively translated "divorce" do not have the same meaning as does the English noun. In English, when one speaks of "a divorce", one is referring to a legal action that terminates a marriage. In the Bible, however, the above Hebrew and Greek words that are typically translated "divorce" do not terminate anything - rather, they formally document that which has occurred, which is that one or both of the spouses have abandoned their marriage covenant through un-covenantal conduct, and the innocent spouse has declared the marriage ended. So for example, a get (a Jewish decree of divorce) is legal confirmation that a marriage has ended, but it does not itself end the covenant. The covenant is dissolved the way it was made - through the words of the parties - in this case, by the innocent party. A consequence of this is, therefore, even if an innocent spouse obtains a get , if it has been obtained for a biblically unauthorized reason, the get is void ab initio , the marriage remains intact, and any party that marries or remarries in reliance on the invalid get commits adultery. Whenever a verse of Scripture says that a divorced (and remarried) party is an adulterer or has committed adultery by virtue of a remarriage, such a thing is logically possible only if he or she is still married to the original spose at the time that the remarriage occurred. Matthew 5:31-32 , Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:18 are examples of this; they state: It was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a get.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, makes her an adulteress; and that anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery. 1 ( Matthew 5:31-32 ) Now what I say to you is that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery! ( Matthew 19:9 ) Every man who divorces his wife and marries [in order to marry] another woman commits adultery, and a man who marries a woman divorced by her husband commits adultery. ( Luke 16:18 ) Matthew 5:31-32 seems to be making an adulteress out of an innocent wife. Although she has not committed adultery, she somehow becomes an adulteress by virtue of her husband having divorced her on an invalid ground. How can that be so? The explanation for this can be deduced from what we have previously said about a decree of divorce - that it does not break a marriage covenant in and of itself. Also, whereas the above Scriptures appear to infer that only husbands can initiate divorce, later Scriptures such as Mark 10:11-12 infer that a wife may do so as well. Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 , as commonly translated, appear to be saying that anyone who divorces and re-marries commits adultery. This can only be true if the divorce is invalid so, in what circumstance might the divorce referred to be invalid? I am of the opinion that the Scriptures are speaking of divorces that are obtained for the explicit purpose of marrying another, and so they might rightly read: Every man who divorces his wife [in order to marry] another woman commits adultery, and a man who marries a woman divorced by her husband commits adultery (Luke 16:18). and He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife [in order to marry] another woman commits adultery against his wife; and if a wife divorces her husband [in order to marry] another man, she too commits adultery' (Mark 10:11-12). As indicated previously, a get does not, in and of itself, break the marriage covenant. Therefore, if Spouse A procures a get against Spouse B on a ground that is not biblically authorized, their marriage covenant remains intact despite the invalid get . If either spouse (let's say Spouse B) then marries another (and presumably has sexual relations with that other) in reliance on the invalid get , he or she and the new spouse (Spouse C) are momentarily in adultery, and their attempt at marriage is ineffective because the unauthorized get did not end the first marriage. The cohabitation of Spouse B and C therefore comprises adultery and/or fornication, and a new ground is thus created for A to seek a divorce against B - this time on a biblically valid ground. If and when that is done, the impediment to the marriage between B and C is removed, and their marriage becomes legitimized automatically. The lesson in all of this is (1) do not seek to divorce in the first place, and (2) if you find yourself with a court-ordered decree of divorce regardless of who procured it or what court it is from, do not remarry unless the decree was obtained on biblically allowed grounds. A heavy burden is placed on an innocent marriage partner who has an improper decree of divorce forced on him or her by a spouse that does not remarry or commit adultery in some other way. Under these circumstances, any get that is obtained does not end the marriage, and the innocent party, although abandoned and in possession of a get is not, at the moment, released to obtain his or her own get and remarry. There is, however, a biblical remedy for this; it is for the innocent spouse to lodge a complaint against the abandoning spouse pursuant to Matthew 18:15-17 which states: Moreover, if your brother [in this case sister in Messiah] commits a sin against you, go and show him his fault - but privately, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother. If he doesn't listen, take one or two others with you so that every accusation can be supported by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to hear them, tell the congregation; and if he refuses to listen even to the congregation, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax-collector [i.e. an unbeliever]. If the complaining spouse follows the aforesaid sequence of steps and, in the midst of it (or after its completion) the abandoning spouse (who has not remarried) repents, remarries his spouse and returns to his spouse to fulfill the marriage covenant by mutual consent, then all is well. If, however, he or she does not repent and a bet din 2 rules that he or she should be treated as an unbeliever pursuant to Matthew 18:17 , then 1 Corinthians 7:15 can be invoked by the innocent spouse, which said Scripture states: But if the unbelieving spouse separates himself, let him be separated. In circumstances like these, the brother or sister is not enslaved - God has called you to a life of peace. This Scripture enables the innocent spouse to petition for a a writ of divorce in a public court and, if obtained, the marriage is declared to be over, and both parties are officially released to remarry. It might seem unfair that the party who is in the wrong is equally free to remarry but that is, nevertheless, the case. Although the Scriptures seem to make adultery the only ground for which a believer can sue his or her believing spouse for a get , the adjudication of other sins of abandonment using the Matthew 18 process can, nevertheless, result in a get being granted provided the offending spouse is found by a bet din to be unrepentant and is ordered to be treated as an unbeliever ( verse 17 ). In such a case, 1 Corinthians 7:15 may be invoked against the unbelieving spouse that has been adjudicated to be unrepentant: But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage [the bond of matrimony has been broken] in such cases. But God has called us to peace. The unbelieving spouse's continued lack of repentance justifies the conclusion that the unbeliever has departed. We would be remiss were we not to remind the reader that 2 Corinthians 6:14 warns against a believer covenanting with an unbeliever: Do not yoke yourselves together in a team with unbelievers. For how can righteousness and lawlessness be partners? What fellowship does light have with darkness? What harmony can there be between the Messiah and B'liya'al? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement can there be between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God - as God said, "I will house myself in them ... and I will walk among you. I will be their God, and they will be my people. The reason is obvious in that believers and unbelievers (by definition) walk according to different beliefs and values. They will eventually pull in against each other causing conflict, or the believer will compromise his or her values in order to keep the peace. 1. " anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery " refers to a divorcee whose marriage remains valid. 2. A bet din is a Jewish ecclesiastical court whose judges generally consist of elders, and where rules of due process apply. There are Christian counterparts of such a court in Roman Catholicism and certain other Christian denominations, and the important thing to keep in mind is that their rulings are often at odds with those of secular courts because, even when both courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter (e.g. divorce) and the litigating parties, they are bound by different laws. Some hold the position that, anyone that wishes to seek a decree of divorce against his or her spouse, must do so twice (once in each kind of court) in order to fulfill both biblical and secular requirements (see 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 ). That is the Orthodox Jewish view. My view is that if one first obtains a get from a bet din , one must follow it up with a secular divorce in order to be free to remarry in our society. However, if one obtains a secular divorce on a biblical ground (e.g. adultery), because the ground produces the same result in both courts, it is my opinion that one does not need to repeat the process in a bet din ; the secular court's decree of divorce will suffice.

Classical commentators

Maimonides' and HaChinuch's mitzvot , RP222 and C579, respectively, state that a divorce can only be acquired through the issuance of a writ ( get ), and Meir did not write a corresponding mitzvah on the subject. All three commentators wrote mitzvot acknowledging that Scripture prohibits a man from remarrying his divorced wife if she has remarried in the interim, and all three prohibit a man from divorcing his wife if he subjected her to false accusations that besmirched her character, or acquired his wife after stealing her virginity. They also state that a divorce can only be acquired through the issuance of a writ ( get ). They did not discuss or write mitzvot about the marriage covenant per se. Addendum by Daniel C. Juster Two Evangelical scholars, William Luck (formally a professor at Moody Bible Institute) and David Instone-Brewer, have sought to broaden the biblical grounds for divorce through books each has written. Luck's treatment of divorce expands the meaning of abandoning marriage (re: 1 Corinthians 7 ) to the idea of the spouse - especially the man - not fulfilling the biblical requirements for basic covenant. Instone-Brewer references Luck's work and expands on it with his vast Talmudic knowledge. Luck's basic idea is that Yeshua's exception clause is basically a rejection of the "any-cause" divorce idea, and a reaffirmation of the primary reason for divorce, which is marital unfaithfulness. Instone-Brewer, on the other hand, seeks to show, through much "Second Temple Judaism" scholarship, that unfaithfulness does not only mean adultery, but should be interpreted in terms of four requirements for marriage which first apply to the husband but, by extension, also partially apply to the wife. According to the texts of the Torah , the husband is to bring faithfulness to the marriage to not commit adultery (fornicate with another), to give the wife her conjugal rights, to provide sustenance (food and shelter), and lastly to not physically abuse her. Just as a slave goes free who is beaten to the extent of bodily injury, so is physical abuse of a spouse grounds for divorce. Failure to provide any of these four "requirements of marriage" amounts to basic unfaithfulness. Strangely, after making a strong case for the fourfold meaning of unfaithfulness and grounding it in first century Judaism and more, Brewer misses a central point of Dr. Rudolph's scholarship in this Mitzvah , which is the requirement that a get (writ of divorce) must be issued by a legitimate court of elders that has the authority over the subject matter and the parties. The depth of Instone-Brewer's Jewish scholarship is very good, so it is astonishing that he misses this, and can see believers acting in accordance with their individual consciences in determining when the lines of fidelity have been sufficiently crossed, so as to allow them a secular divorce. Rather, the biblical teaching is that no such divorce (with the allowance of remarriage) can be validated without a written get . Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 provide for this authority to be vested in the leadership of Yeshua's Kehillah . Regarding the fourfold meaning of unfaithfulness and its connection to 1 Corinthians 7 , my evaluation of Instone-Brewer is that he makes a convincing case, but that it is not fully proven. While I am loathe to open up greater grounds for divorce in our era of easy divorces and remarriages, I think courts of elders should study evidence that is presented by a complainant seeking to divorce, and decide whether to issue a get based upon what they conclude are biblical grounds. Also, the more equal way to judge divorce cases, is to consider that either the husband or the wife can breach the marriage covenant.

Copyright © Michael Rudolph and Daniel C. Juster, The Law of Messiah, Torah from a New Covenant Perspective, Volume 1 & 2

Source and License

Based on The Law of Messiah - Torah from a New Covenant Perspective by Michael Rudolph and Daniel C. Juster.

Volume 1 & 2 | Volume 3

License: CC BY-ND 4.0 (Attribution required, NoDerivatives). CC BY-ND 4.0

Disclaimer: the original content is authored by Rabbi Michael Rudolph and Rabbi Daniel Juster; additional notes or implementation details on this website are not part of their original work and do not represent their views.

Record source: The Law of Messiah - Torah from a New Covenant Perspective - Volume 1 & 2

Copyright note: Copyright © Michael Rudolph and Daniel C. Juster, The Law of Messiah, Torah from a New Covenant Perspective, Volume 1 & 2