We now return to our study of Law.

We should note that it is a some fault God's Law as being

God's Law as contained in formal, legal action that is biased against the woman, here
Deuteronomy. We tum now to required to secure divorce, just as and elsewhere. They note that the
consideration of one of the more such is required for establishing law is framed only in regards to
perplexing laws in Deuteronomy. marriage: "When a man hath the sending out of the wonian, as
It has caused consternation not taken a wife, and married her, and if the man was the only one who
onlY,in regard to its particulars, it come to pass that she find no had the right of divorce. But let
but in regard to its general subject favour in his eyes, because he hath us notice: First, case laws
matter. The law is one regulating found some uncleanness in her: are often cited in reference to one
the very important and touchy then let him write her a bill of particular sex when it is obvious
question of divorce. When we divorcement, and give it in her the laws apply equally to both. In
actually get to the law's hand, and send her out ofhis Deuteronomy 19:11 we read, "But
application later on in the house.. .. And if the latter if any man hate his neighbor, and
message, we will see why Moses husband hate her, and write her a lie in wait for him, and rise up
included it in the section dealing bill of divorcement, and giveth it against him, and smite him
with the eighth commandment: in her hand, and sendeth her out mortally that he die .. .. It is
"Thou shalt not stea1." The word of his house .. ." (Deut. 24:1,3). painfully obvious that the law
"divorce" means "erutting off." It Divorce is a legal action that against murder must prohibit
has to do with the fact of women from murdering,
"cutting off' of a spouse, in as well. Second; often
a moral, spiritual, legal, JB ibnrr.e when the case law is
and even physical sense. framed in terms of the
We must remember that in in (H)n!l- I s 111 afu woman, it is done in order
God's sight and in a certain r to protect the woman as
literal sense, husband and 24:1-5 the one most likely to be
wife become "one flesh" abused in the situation.
h d
Rev. Kenneth L. Gentry,]r. La '11' h
w en unite in marriage. . ter we WI see JUSt ow
Divorce severs or cuts off this law is very pro-
that relationship. But let us see judidally declares the marriage woman. It does not treat her as
how and under what contract to be null and void in its mere property with no legal
circumstances this is done. obligations. It is no small or light rights.
The Legality of Divorce
As previously mentioned,
lifelong marriage is God's holy
ideal and our spiritual duty. Jesus
not only reminds us of this by
reference to Adam and Eve, but by
direct command: "What God has
joined together, let not man put
asunder" (Matt.l9:6). But He
then teaches that divorce is
allowed -- on certain grounds.
Because of sin, God's Law
establishes certain actions that
would not be necessary in a
sinless world. For instance, just
war, capital punishment, divorce,
and so forth. The legislation
before us clearly allows for
divorce. Divorce may be legally
secured under the terms of God's
matter that may be easily gained.
. There is a judicial process. It
involves civil court action. Notice
that there is a certain amount of
paper work necessary. A legal
document must be drawn up -- a
''bill of divorcement." Then there
must be the formal serving of the
papers: twice in the text it not
only mentions the drawing up of
the bill, but also the fact that it
must be given "in her hand."
Commentators suggest that this
repetitiOUS statement was a legal
formula. This is followed by the
actual severing of the ties as the
spouse Is "sent out of the house."
Clearly the basics of legal action
are outlined in God's Law. But
before we move on to other
matters, it should be noted that
18 'F THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon f May, 1997
Limits to Divorce
Perhaps the leading quesrion
regarding divorce for Christian
is whether or not it is allowed in
God's Law. But the second most
fundamental question regards the
grounds upon which it may be
justified. Unquestionably the
Scripture allows for divorce within
limits. But what are those limits?
Much debate among Christians ,
has been generated over this
matter. But I am convinced that a
careful study of Deuteronomy 24
and Matthew 19 will provide the
sure direction that we need.
Thus, we will spend our greatest
time on this perplexing question.
The ancient rabbinic tradition of
the Jewish scholar Hillel tended to
emphasize one phrase in
Deuteronomy 24: 1: "she find no
favor in his eyes." Hillel
interpreted this to allow for
divorce on such grounds as a
wife's ruining a meal, growing
older and less attractive, and so
forth. This is precisely the idea
behind the question presented to
Jesus in Matthew 19:3 "111e
Pharisees also came unto him,
tempting him, and saying unto him,
Is it lawful for a man to put away his
wife for every cause?" As was too
often the case, this error arose by
improperly fOCUsing on one
portion of a passage to the neglect
of another. The total legislation
interprets the "no favor" clause:
"she find no favor in his eyes,
because he hath found some
uncleanness in her." We need to
understand also that Jesus used
the Greek equivalent to this word
"uncleanness" in Matthew 19:9.
Remember that He came not to
"abolish the law, but to fill it up"
(Matt. 5:17). In Matthew 19:9
Jesus substitutes "fornication" for
"uncleanness" when he says, "And
I say unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for
fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and whoso
marrieth her which is put away doth
commit adultery. " Unfortunately,
the Hebrew and Greek terms are
not as narrowly defined as the
English translation "fornication".
Let us consider the word here in.
the Hebrew and then some of its
uses elsewhere. The Hebrew tenn
nanslated "uncleanness" in the
IqV is nanslated "indecency" in
the NASB and "indecent" in the
NIV. Other words that may
translate it are: "repulsive,"
"offensive," and the like. The
dictionary treannent of the tenn
all by itself is not precise and
clear. Several commentators
suggest that it may have been a
legal phrase covering several ideas
that was more clear in ancient
times than it is today. However,
the tenn does refer to something
of a serious nature. It cannot
apply to burning a meal or ,
growing less attractive. Although
the term may in fact include the
idea of "adultery" in its broad
range of applications, it cannot be
limited to it. Such is impossible
in light ofjesus' statement in
Matthew 19:9: "Whosoever shall
put away his wife, except it be for
fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery." Jesus uses
two distinct and unrelated words
to refer to these two sins. The
ideas are related, but the words
are not. How then may we
understand the tenn? One way to
discover its range of meaning is to
see in what circumstances it is
employed elsewhere in the Old
Testament. This will help us to
grasp more fully its full range of
meaning. First, we must
agree that both the Hebrew and
Greek terms include the idea of
immoral conduct of a sexual
nature. These are fundamental to
the leading idea of the tenns.
Thus, illicit sexual contact with
another is included in the terms'
meaning. Thus, adultery,
homosexuality, incest, and rape
are forbidden by this law. Each of
these are not only sex sins, but
criminal sex sins that serve as
adequate grounds for divorce in
God's Law. Second, the term is
translated "vile" in Deuteronomy
25:3 where it speaks of a public,
judicial flogging being given for
one convicted of a crime: "Forty'
stripes he may give him, and not
exceed: lest, ifhe should exceed, and
beat him above these with many
stripes, then thy brother should seem
vile unto thee." It would seem that
the use of the tenn here involves
the idea of "public disgrace and
humiliation". Thus, the
"uncleanness" clause covers both
public disgrace and criminal
conduct. For instance, for a
spouse to be a topless dancer, a
snipper, pornography queen, or
something of that sort would seem
to justify divorce, even though
sexual contact might not occur.
Third, the tenn is translated
"dishonor" and used in a civil
context in Ezra 4: 12-14: "Be it
known unto the king, that the Jews
which came up from thee to use are
come unto Jerusalem, building the
rebellious and the bad city, and have
set up the walls thereof, and joined
the foundations. Be it known now
unto the king, filat, if this elty be
bUilded, and the walls set up again,
then will they not pciy toll, tnbute,
and custom, and so thou shalt
endamage the revenue of the kings.
Now because we have maintenance
from the king's palace, and it was not
meetfor us to see the king's
dishonour, therefore have we sent
and certified the king. " The
historical context of this situation
is this. Israel is under the
dominion of Persia. Jerusalem has
been destroyed, but the Persian
government was allowing the Jews
to rebuild it. But some among the
Persians resisted theil' rebuilding.
They feared the Jews would be
Criminally disobedient to their
laws. They feared the Jews would
"dishonor" the king by their
criminal activities. The word
"dishonor" is the same word
translated "uncleanness" in
Deuteronomy 24:1. The word
then covers acts of criminal
conduct. Thus, it would seem
that divorce is tolerated in God's
Law when a spouse engages in
criminal activity. If you are
married to an armed robber, a
May, 1997 t- THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t- 19
drug addict, or a child abuser, you
are not obligated by your marriage
vows to conp,nue in that marriage.
God protects you from the
lawless. His Law provides that if
your spouse has committed
"uncleanness" you may sue for
divorce. And that term is used in
cases of Criminal behavior. The
Christian is not obligated to
remain in a marital relationship
with a rebel, a criminal, a
dangerous convict. Now the Law
does not demand that you get a
divorce, but it does morally justify
a diVQrcein such situations . .
LessonS from
. We must be careful to
notice that, as yet, we have
not come to the main point
of the divorce legislation
here. And. that is in verses 2-
4: "And when she is departed
out of his house, she may go
and be another man's wife.
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; Her former husband,
which sent her away, may not take
her againto be his wife, after that
she is difiled; for that is abomination
before the LORD: and thou shalt not
cause the land to sin, which the
LORD thy God giveth thee for an
inheritance . The legislation here is
clear, even if We might be.
surprised at it: When a couple is
divorced, if one of them marries
someone else, God does not allow
the one who remarried another to
again remarry their first spouse
later. God says that such is an
"abomination" to Him; it is
detestable and defiles the land.
This law is mentioned again in
Jeremiah 3:1. The word "defile" is
used of adultery in Leviticus
18:20 and Numbers 5:13-14.
Apparently, in God's sight, to
'divorce a person, marry another
person, divorce them, and return
to the first marriage partner is
equivalent to adultery. It is a
defiling, as adultery is a defiling.
It is forbidden by God. But we
might wonder why God forbids
such by His Law. There are a
variety of reasons for this law. It
is a very practical law that protects
marriage, as we shall see. It
should be noted that the context
protects marriage. This may be
seen in two ways. On the one
hand, the next law protects the
newlywed: "When a man hath
taken a new wife, he shall not go out
to war, neither shall he be charged
with any business: but he shall be
free at home one year, and shall
cheerup his wife which he hath
taken" (Deut. 24: 5). On the other
hand, this law occurs in
exposition of the eighth
commandment, "Thou shalt not
steal." We have shown that Moses
begins explaining and applying
this commandment at
Deuteronomy 23:15. Here the
command forbids, in essence,
"wife-stealing." But how does it
protect marriage? First, this law
protects the wife (as the weaker
vessel) by deterring ''wife-
rotating. In ancient near eastern
culture, men could easily divorce
and remarry. Frequently, they
would tire of a wife for awhile,
marry another, then return to the
first wife. If a man is prone to
20 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon May, 1997
view divorce as an easy method of
getting his way, then thislaw
would forewarn him that to leave
his wife to marry another would
preclude his returning to his first
wife. The first wife, thus, was
protected from such flippant legal
actions. It kept the wife from
being treated like property.
Second, this son oflaw would
cause men to move more
cautiously in seelting a divorce. It
slowed down the process and
warned of a future cut off from his
first love. Did he really want to
do that? Was her action really
that criminal? Third, the second
spouse is protected when a
legitimate marriage is
established with them. The.
husband or wife would be
forbidden by law from
leaving him or her to return
to their first love. It
.prevented aluring:back of
the first spouse by law.
Thus, the second marriage was
given more stability . .
Conclusion .
In God's Law, marriage is held
as one of the highest priorities of
men and women. Thlis, we have .
these case laws (here and
elsewhere) which are designed to
protect it. There must be serious
reasons for gaining a divorce.
Legal process must be gone
through. There are impediments
thrown in the way of spouse
swapping. But at the time
there are just ways of getting out
of a wicked relationship where the
Spouse is unfaithful, wicked, or
criminal. God's Law is designed
to bring us riot only holiness
before God, but peace and
harmony and joy. Q