Deuteronomy 24:4

[Maddog]

I know this is an odd place to chime in here but I like the DNA argument. To further state- a mixup in the DNA would cause confusion in SUBSEQUENT generations. Whose lineage are you in? Tangent to that is the idea of God making rules for our benefit as a contrast to what the world does. There is no rule that I know of in secular society that might parallel what God has mandated. So God's rules stand in contrast to the lack of rules in society. I am libertarian in many respects but unrestrained freedom in every forum can be detrimental.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

Perhaps there is already a discussion on this, but I can’t find it. If there is, can someone direct me to it please?
Deuteronomy 24:4
If it is an abomination for a first husband to take his divorced wife back to himself after her latter husband dies, how or why is it acceptable for any other man to marry that woman?
Also, any thoughts on why this would be an abomination for him to take her back?

It's not really that it's "acceptable" in the ultimate sense. Jesus had to give people the news that "whoever marries she who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32) for the very reason that many did not understand that. Keep in mind also that the disciples and Pharisees alike were blindsided/surprised to hear Jesus condemn divorce for almost any reason.

In fact, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 contains a clue in itself: the second marriage DEFILES the woman.

There is a reason why the return to the first husband is a worse offense, however. As we know, adultery is symbolic of idolatry, or adultery against God. The woman marrying another man in adultery is analogous to Israel going from (say) Baal to Molech, which are both adultery, and while the adultery is bad in itself, the reason why the first husband taking the defiled wife back is so much worse is because that would symbolize God joining to his "wife" before Israel repented of their idolatry, which will not, in all history of the universe, EVER happen -- and that's why the offense is much worse. Consider the fact that any other situation of a woman being defiled by adultery would result in death, hence the idea of returning would be a non-issue, and consider the fact that Jesus would later have to tell people that whoever marries she who is divorced commits adultery. Deut 24:1-4 closes the single edge case in which a woman might conceivably survive an act of adultery -- becoming defiled by it -- and return to her first husband. Hence, the loophole and edge case itself is directly addressed, rather than a discussion of this symbolism which (1) Israel already knew and (2) would have been the least likely to apply to this law since they'd likely not realize that a second marriage is adultery like Jesus would later teach.

See Jeremiah chapter 3, where God refers to the idea of a wife rejoining to her first husband after she had a marriage with another. That's the concept: it's an abomination to symbolize God tolerating a "marriage" to His people and an idol without repentance, but as the chapter goes on, we can see the simple pattern of repenting of them first and THEN returning.

 

[OttoM]

See Jeremiah chapter 3, where God refers to the idea of a wife rejoining to her first husband after she had a marriage with another. That's the concept: it's an abomination to symbolize God tolerating a "marriage" to His people and an idol without repentance, but as the chapter goes on, we can see the simple pattern of repenting of them first and THEN returning.

But notice how his wife is reconciled to him after receiving the certificate. Jesus (Yahushua) said he has come for the lost sheep of Israel (they were the ones still divorced). First the husband dies (Christ), therefore, the marriage law is voided, and through Christ's resurrection she can finally return to him. Romans 7:1 explains the mystery - but those that don't understand the history and the law - they twist this part of scripture to mean something else. Which is probably why Paul starts off with - "to those that know the law:"

Romans 7:1-4
1 Now, dear brothers and sisters—you who are familiar with the law—don’t you know that the law applies only while a person is living? 2 For example, when a woman marries, the law binds her to her husband as long as he is alive. But if he dies, the laws of marriage no longer apply to her. 3So while her husband is alive, she would be committing adultery if she married another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law and does not commit adultery when she remarries.

4 So, my dear brothers and sisters, this is the point: You died to the power of the law when you died with Christ. And now you are united with the one who was raised from the dead. As a result, we can produce a harvest of good deeds for God.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

I always understood it to mean that if the divorced wife did not move on to a new husband the man had the option of taking the divorced wife back. Once she had a new husband the previous could never take her back. As others pointed out, this would prevent any "loophole" wife swapping/swinging.

This is a common theory that overlooks the core point of the law, which is that the woman becomes defiled by the second marriage. If a divorce was truly legitimate in God's sight, such that a second marriage after a divorce could be legitimate, then who cares who conspires about wife-swapping? Like if several people "conspire" about swapping cars by selling them to each other with the intent of buying them back again later, what does it matter?

The other thing to consider is that this interpretation allows for a different scheme like a bunch of men all eyeing the same woman and just agreeing among themselves to pass her from man to man via marriage and divorces, just so long as she doesn't go backward in the chain. How would that be a harmless thing to do? Again, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 itself indicates the the second marriage "defiles" the woman anyway, so only going that far has caused that damage as it is.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

But notice how his wife is reconciled to him after receiving the certificate.

Yes it does. God divorced "her" because of her adulteries, a refusal to join until a repentance of adulteries. Likewise, a woman might conceivably repent of a second marriage. Granted, the law doesn't make this out, but in general Moses' law's follow-ups to a sin involves a punishment and/or atonement (a sin offering), not so much "but if someone repents, then . . ." statements.

Jesus (Yahushua) said he has come for the lost sheep of Israel (they were the ones still divorced). First the husband dies (Christ), therefore, the marriage law is voided, and through Christ's resurrection she can finally return to him. Romans 7:1 explains the mystery - but those that don't understand the history and the law - they twist this part of scripture to mean something else. Which is probably why Paul starts off with - "to those that know the law:"

That's not really the illustration. No one is described as being the bride of Christ in the first place before Jesus bought us.

This is an apples and oranges comparison because on occasion God did indeed rejoin with Israel as her husband as opposed to being divorced to her while she was in, and/or unrepentant of, adultery. Among many examples, Hosea took Gomer back but did not join to her for "many days" as a parallel to how Israel would repent of her adulteries but not fully rejoin to God for a time.

The point is that no, Israel was not always currently divorced from God as your statements imply. Jesus' sacrifice, however, is a universally necessary step in crucifying the guilt of condemnation under the old and powerless law, along with the fleshly sinful nature that cannot be spiritual, into a new law of the spirit.

Romans 7:1
1 Now, dear brothers and sisters—you who are familiar with the law—don’t you know that the law applies only while a person is living? 2For example, when a woman marries, the law binds her to her husband as long as he is alive. But if he dies, the laws of marriage no longer apply to her. 3So while her husband is alive, she would be committing adultery if she married another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law and does not commit adultery when she remarries.

4 So, my dear brothers and sisters, this is the point: You died to the power of the law when you died with Christ. And now you are united with the one who was raised from the dead. As a result, we can produce a harvest of good deeds for God.

The thing that we were previously bound to was the law, as far as a way of relationship to God (that couldn't actually work because of corrupt flesh, the law being "husband" conduit, analogous to the husband himself) and we died to this joining with Christ, the new law that reconciles us to God. This isn't the same concept as the series of divorces and rejoining that we see with God and Israel. The Earthly husband in this analogy is symbolic of our CONDUIT to the husband to God: the law versus Christ, connecting us to God. The husband (the law, our conduit to the marriage) died, and the resurrection afforded us a new one.

What IS more parallel is the sequence of baptisms: water baptism for repentance first (coinciding with fleeing the bad joining) to the INFILLING with the Holy Spirit: out with the bad first, then in with the joining to the true husband. That's a general concept all throughout Scriptures and where the concern of Deut 24:1-4 is parallel: a man must NOT tolerate a joining to an unrepentant "defiled" wife just as God won't join with His bride until the idolatry is removed and washed out. And, again, it's the reason why the sin that Deut 24:1-4 prevents is even worse than adultery, as the sin would symbolize the impossible event of God tolerating a defiled bride.

 

[Joleneakamama]

This is a common theory that overlooks the core point of the law, which is that the woman becomes defiled by the second marriage. If a divorce was truly legitimate in God's sight, such that a second marriage after a divorce could be legitimate, then who cares who conspires about wife-swapping? Like if several people "conspire" about swapping cars by selling them to each other with the intent of buying them back again later, what does it matter?

The other thing to consider is that this interpretation allows for a different scheme like a bunch of men all eyeing the same woman and just agreeing among themselves to pass her from man to man via marriage and divorces, just so long as she doesn't go backward in the chain. How would that be a harmless thing to do? Again, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 itself indicates the the second marriage "defiles" the woman anyway, so only going that far has caused that damage as it is.

You still have to deal with the passage that says she is free to be another man's.

Your hypothetical scenario with men conspiring assumes a woman would be willing to marry the next man in the chain. It also assumes she has no other support base or options.

I also have a sygnificant problem with people taking purity to such a level with women, while accepting something like polygyny as "natural" and looking at "nature" as a confirming aspect to a man's ability to husband more than one woman.

In nature we see all kinds of configurations. Some birds mate for life, many types of animals will have a herd of females that mate with THE dominant male.....but who is dominant can and does change.

The people that want to prohibit remarriage for divorced women just make them twice and forever victims. A man casts them away and they then have no lawful chance for relations or children?
So even though her created purpose is to be a suitable helper for a man, one man deeming her unsuitable means she is junk?

I would like to point out that Tamar was had by TWO of Judah's sons and was told she could be the wife of a third son. She took matters into her hands to conceive a child by her father in law....and was TWICE BLESSED. All of Judah's posterity...including King David and the line legitimizing Yeshua come through those sons....born by that "defiled" woman....and Judah said she was more righteous than he was.

So the other problem I have with taking purity to this level is that Isaiah 4:1 paints a picture of repentant women being "covered" (under a man) ....and says this is GOOD and that the escaped of Israel are blessed when this happens.
It didnt say they made a massive convent or prison for the defiled women and the people were blessed for shunning them.

Of course you are free to hold any position you choose. I just don't see that position exampled in the scriptures or the real world.

 

[OttoM]

Yes it does. God divorced "her" because of her adulteries, a refusal to join until a repentance of adulteries. Likewise, a woman might conceivably repent of a second marriage. Granted, the law doesn't make this out, but in general Moses' law's follow-ups to a sin involves a punishment and/or atonement (a sin offering), not so much "but if someone repents, then . . ." statements.


That's not really the illustration. No one is described as being the bride of Christ in the first place before Jesus bought us.

This is an apples and oranges comparison because on occasion God did indeed rejoin with Israel as her husband as opposed to being divorced to her while she was in, and/or unrepentant of, adultery. Among many examples, Hosea took Gomer back but did not join to her for "many days" as a parallel to how Israel would repent of her adulteries but not fully rejoin to God for a time.

The point is that no, Israel was not always currently divorced from God as your statements imply. Jesus' sacrifice, however, is a universally necessary step in crucifying the guilt of condemnation under the old and powerless law, along with the fleshly sinful nature that cannot be spiritual, into a new law of the spirit.


The thing that we were previously bound to was the law, as far as a way of relationship to God (that couldn't actually work because of corrupt flesh, the law being "husband" conduit, analogous to the husband himself) and we died to this joining with Christ, the new law that reconciles us to God. This isn't the same concept as the series of divorces and rejoining that we see with God and Israel. The Earthly husband in this analogy is symbolic of our CONDUIT to the husband to God: the law versus Christ, connecting us to God. The husband (the law, our conduit to the marriage) died, and the resurrection afforded us a new one.

What IS more parallel is the sequence of baptisms: water baptism for repentance first (coinciding with fleeing the bad joining) to the INFILLING with the Holy Spirit: out with the bad first, then in with the joining to the true husband. That's a general concept all throughout Scriptures and where the concern of Deut 24:1-4 is parallel: a man must NOT tolerate a joining to an unrepentant "defiled" wife just as God won't join with His bride until the idolatry is removed and washed out. And, again, it's the reason why the sin that Deut 24:1-4 prevents is even worse than adultery, as the sin would symbolize the impossible event of God tolerating a defiled bride.

YAHUAH (God) had two wives. Israel (Northern Kingdom/Ephraim), and Judah (the Jews). From the scripture - he only gave the Northern Kingdom of Israel a certificate of divorce. He only sent away his wife - Judah (the Jews) - for her adulteries and wickedness - but he did not give her a certificate. Which is why she was allowed to return back to the land in Jerusalem in repentance.

After YAHUAH (God) sent Israel (Northern Kingdom) out of the land, and gave her a certificate of divorce - it would be an "ABOMINATION' if he took her back. You're adding to the scripture by saying - "well if she repents." That is not true. If she goes to be with another god/husband - he can not take her back.

Hosea never gave his own wife a certificate of divorce. His situation is a parallel to the situation with Judah. Judah committed adulteries and fornications - but she wasn't given a certificate - she was sent to Babylon - and after some time - came back in repentance.

This is not the case with Israel (northern kingdom). That wife was given a certificate. She is still in exile throughout the nations. The 10 lost tribes. Through the Risen Messiah - there is reconciliation.

There is a un-fulfilled greater 2nd Exodus - lead by the New Joshua (Yahushua/Ieous/Jesus) - this time - the people will be gathered from all the nations of the earth, and the new covenant will be the law written in your heart; so no one has to teach neighbor; but everyone will already know:

Deut 30:1 NLT
In the future, when you experience all these blessings and curses I have listed for you, and when you are living among the nations to which the LORD your God has exiled you, take to heart all these instructions. 2 If at that time you and your children return to the LORD your God, and if you obey with all your heart and all your soul all the commands I have given you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes. He will have mercy on you and gather you back from all the nations where he has scattered you. 4 Even though you are banished to the ends of the earth, the LORD your God will gather you from there and bring you back again. 5 The LORD your God will return you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will possess that land again. Then he will make you even more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors!

6“The LORD your God will change your heart and the hearts of all your descendants, so that you will love him with all your heart and soul and so you may live! 7 The LORD your God will inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate and persecute you. 8 Then you will again obey the LORD and keep all his commands that I am giving you today.

 

[Joleneakamama]

This is a common theory that overlooks the core point of the law, which is that the woman becomes defiled by the second marriage.

This is assuming a "core point" that actually contradicts what the passage says. The man is being held to his choice to divorce. I see that as the core point because the scripture is clear that she is free to remarry.

If a divorce was truly legitimate in God's sight, such that a second marriage after a divorce could be legitimate, then who cares who conspires about wife-swapping?

YHWH divorced the ten tribes. Their descendants later came into the new covenant.
Like I already pointed out, conspirators can not just swap because women still have a will. That kind of thing (conspiring to swap) may have been what Yeshua was addressing when he said that separating from a wife to marry another caused adultery.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

This is assuming a "core point" that actually contradicts what the passage says. The man is being held to his choice to divorce. I see that as the core point because the scripture is clear that she is free to remarry.

When the woman remarries, she becomes "defiled" by the second husband according to this law. And as far as being "free to remarry," how are you accounting for Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:32?

The concern is a mandate for the man to avoid her -- "after she has been defiled." As Jesus says, that fact is indeed his fault for divorcing her:

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

That is the very thing that Jesus addresses: the man who divorced her made her commit adultery, hence she became "defiled." The full context of divorce teaching in Matthew 19 involves Jesus telling a very ignorant audience that there is almost no reason to divorce a wife, along with this teaching, that a man causes her to commit adultery and that a following marriage with the divorced woman IS adultery. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reflects the reality that Jesus stated: "Moses suffered you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard."

Consider this statement: "what God has joined together, let not man separate." If God wants marriages restored (the law of Deut 24:1-4 does not apply until after the second marriage) then how would we then say the same thing about the second marriage? How did God join a second marriage while simultaneously desiring the original marriage to be restored, since man never should have separated it?

 

[OttoM]

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

That's not what he said. That is what a translator said he said.

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who divorces (sends away) his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality (she is already an adulteress - punishable by death), causes her to commit adultery (because she would still have a living husband), and whoever marries a divorced (sent away) woman commits adultery (because she still has a living husband).

Check the original Greek - it aligns with what "He Actually Said" and it aligns with the torah - which he said "He is NOT changing."

Without the certificate of divorce - in the eyes of the Almighty - you're still married. So let's say the husband simply wants a younger wife; but wants to remain monogamous. So he simply sends his older wife out of his home - for an issue not regarding fornication/sexual sin - and she goes and sleeps with another man to survive - that husband has caused her to commit adultery. He did violence to his wife from his youth. This is sin. Likewise - if he marries a woman that has simply been sent out of the home - without the certificate - he has committed adultery. She still belongs to another husband.

Once again - check the original greek - study to show yourself approved. You'll see it perfectly resonates with the rest of scripture. There's no contradictions in his Word. Let the Word be true and every man a liar (including translators).

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

YAHUAH (God) had two wives. Israel (Northern Kingdom/Ephraim), and Judah (the Jews). From the scripture - he only gave the Northern Kingdom of Israel a certificate of divorce. He only sent away his wife - Judah (the Jews) - for her adulteries and wickedness - but he did not give her a certificate. Which is why she was allowed to return back to the land in Jerusalem in repentance.

After YAHUAH (God) sent Israel (Northern Kingdom) out of the land, and gave her a certificate of divorce - it would be an "ABOMINATION' if he took her back. You're adding to the scripture by saying - "well if she repents." That is not true. If she goes to be with another god/husband - he can not take her back.

I'm seeing an extremely weird way of reading this passage, that ignores key points of the chapter to make this assertion, in order to put an emphasis on the divorce certificate, arbitrarily. Whether a certificate is used as an illustration or not, God separates himself from the idolator/adulterer.

Jeremiah 3:8
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Israel was sent away first, indicating that Judah should have taken as a warning that the same thing would happen to her, and yet she "feared not" and did the same thing. The certificate is used symbolically, but there is no difference as far as the actual outcome as far as both being sent away because the core issue of refusing to join with a wife who is a harlot.

Jeremiah 3: 11-14
11 And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.

Your idea's first problem: Judah is worse than Israel.

12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Your assertion's second problem: God IS telling Israel to return, but on the condition that they repent:

13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the Lord.

14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am MARRIED unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

I'm attempting to put major emphasis on the Lord saying He IS MARRIED to Israel. He will in fact take her back as being MARRIED to her, but on the condition that she acknowledges the whoredoms that separated her; hence, the same thing might occur in the situation with Deut 24:1-4 -- granted, it's not stated, but as mentioned, repentance of the heart as a condition for a legal recourse isn't a thing in Moses' law (punishment or atonement with a sacrifice is).

It's all the same concept: repent and then return. The divorce certificate is not a significant issue whatsoever. In Israel's law, it was essentially a woman's evidence that her removal from her husband was HIS idea, not hers, as if it were a woman running off on her husband, reactions to her would be harsh -- there is no more to it than that.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

That's not what he said. That is what a translator said he said.

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who divorces (sends away) his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality (she is already an adulteress - punishable by death), causes her to commit adultery (because she would still have a living husband), and whoever marries a divorced (sent away) woman commits adultery (because she still has a living husband).

Check the original Greek - it aligns with what "He Actually Said" and it aligns with the torah - which he said "He is NOT changing."

Without the certificate of divorce - in the eyes of the Almighty - you're still married. So let's say the husband simply wants a younger wife; but wants to remain monogamous. So he simply sends his older wife out of his home - for an issue not regarding fornication/sexual sin - and she goes and sleeps with another man to survive - that husband has caused her to commit adultery. He did violence to his wife from his youth. This is sin. Likewise - if he marries a woman that has simply been sent out of the home - without the certificate - he has committed adultery. She still belongs to another husband.

Once again - check the original greek - study to show yourself approved. You'll see it perfectly resonates with the rest of scripture. There's no contradictions in his Word. Let the Word be true and every man a liar (including translators).

I'm aware of the pursuit to make a spiritual issue out of the legal ceremony of a divorce certificate. But, it's a mistaken one.

Matthew 19
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

I'm aware that some people assert that the entire issue is the lack of a divorce certificate despite Jesus putting absolutely no emphasis on that. It would make no sense for the disciples to react to such a thing like "if that is the case between a man and his wife, then it is better not to marry." What, just because it's that painful to bother getting her a divorce certificate?

The whole context of Jesus' teaching involves a mention of a divorce with a certificate that was hard-hearted, and yes I'm aware that some assert that "hard-hearted" is less of an issue, but that sidesteps the core issue: certificate or not, God does NOT want the divorce. So if God does not want the divorce in the first place -- again, certificate or otherwise -- then how could God then possibly be the one who joins a marriage to another man afterward?

 

[OttoM]

I'm seeing an extremely weird way of reading this passage, that ignores key points of the chapter to make this assertion, in order to put an emphasis on the divorce certificate, arbitrarily. Whether a certificate is used as an illustration or not, God separates himself from the idolator/adulterer.

Jeremiah 3:8
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Israel was sent away first, indicating that Judah should have taken as a warning that the same thing would happen to her, and yet she "feared not" and did the same thing. The certificate is used symbolically, but there is no difference as far as the actual outcome as far as both being sent away because the core issue of refusing to join with a wife who is a harlot.

Jeremiah 3: 11-14
11 And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.

Your idea's first problem: Judah is worse than Israel.

12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Your assertion's second problem: God IS telling Israel to return, but on the condition that they repent:

13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the Lord.

14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am MARRIED unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

You will not find a single case - in all of scripture - where a husband gave his wife a certificate of divorce - she went to be with another man - and then he took her back. Before he gave her the certificate - Northern Kingdom of Israel already had chance after chance after chance after chance to repent - she refused to. She continued in her evil ways, and simply grew more brazen. So it happened:

Isaiah 50:1 (Regarding Israel)
1 This is what the LORD says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.

Ezekiel 23:9-10 (Regarding Israel)
Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, the Assyrians for whom she lusted. / They exposed her nakedness, seized her sons and daughters, and put her to the sword. Thus she became a byword among women, and they executed judgment against her.

She was violently sent out of the land. It wasn't peaceful. Probably the most violent divorce in human history. You had mothers eating their own children to survive the plague. The Assyrians raped and slaughtered. And took the rest as their slaves "out of the land" back to their own kingdom further north. Once Assyria fell - they became scattered among the nations. Which we know is Europe and Asia - because that's where the apostles went to. In European countries their day for “Saturday” sounds very close to “Sabbat.” In the balkan region - I AM (Hebrew for YAH) - they pronounce "JA" -- (meaning I am). So there's many clues as to who and where the lost tribes are.

Jesus (Yahushua) - "I have come for the lost sheep of Israel." "Go to the lost sheep of Israel."

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

You will not find a single case - in all of scripture - where a husband gave his wife a certificate of divorce - she went to be with another man - and then he took her back. Before he gave her the certificate - Northern Kingdom of Israel already had chance after chance after chance after chance to repent - she refused to. She continued in her evil ways, and simply grew more brazen. So it happened:

I'm seeing that you are simply reading the passage's statements out of order, then. That looks impossible to contend with: He gave Israel the certificate in verse 8, and told her to return after repentance in the following verses.

In addition, I'll return to your earlier statement: you're comparing this to Israel's return to Christ overcoming the divorce certificate? Wouldn't that mean, according to your logic, that not everyone needs Christ, but only the groups of people who got the divorce certificate? I might be understanding your ideas wrongly, but that looks like how things would add up.

 

[OttoM]

I'm seeing that you are simply reading the passage's statements out of order, then. That looks impossible to contend with: He gave Israel the certificate in verse 8, and told her to return after repentance in the following verses.

The section where the Creator is telling her to return is regarding future prophecy. It's something that is mentioned over and over - including by the prophet Hosea - who confirms the lost sheep of Israel are indeed the gentiles of today. He says we will go many days without a king. But there will be a return. This prophecy is mentioned as early as Deut 30:1.

The Creator says that Israel will be scattered for her sins, but one day - a remnant - will return back to the land. A remnant of Israel (the lost tribes), and Judah. Together united under one King, and there will be an everlasting peace covenant. Who will be King?

Luke 1:32-33
He (Jesus/Yahushua)) will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

Read Romans Chapter 11. Any gentile can be grafted into the house of Jacob. Including the Jews that were broken off from the root. Because not every person that is a Jew - is truly a Jew. There's many that say they are Jews, but they follow the synangogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9)

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

The section where the Creator is telling her to return is regarding future prophecy. It's something that is mentioned over and over - including by the prophet Hosea - who confirms the lost sheep of Israel are indeed the gentiles of today. He says we will go many days without a king. But there will be a return. This prophecy is mentioned as early as Deut 30:1.

This is really all over the place. Gentiles were never God's "chosen people" (Israel literally meaning chosen). They were not a divorced wife because they were never illustrated as being God's wife in the first place. But then, throughout Romans, Paul does indeed describe that "chosen" means something different spiritually, like when he says "not all Israel are Israel," referring to how some fleshly Israel weren't spiritual because of unbelief, but by no means does this have anything to do with some concept of divorce/reconciliation situation with Gentiles. This is a massive confusing of concepts.

And besides, once again, you've continuously made a distinction between people's who have been divorced vs those who haven't, and that would imply that your quote of Romans 7 ONLY applies to the ones divorced with a certificate and all, hence not everyone actually needs Christ.

The verses after verse 8, in which God issues the certificate, refer to a comparison of Judah and Israel, saying that Judah was WORSE. Verse 9 says "so it came to pass," and therefore we have a concept of an actual sequence in Jeremiah 3. We started with Israel's backsliding, then the divorce, then "so it came to pass" that Judah then -- in sequence -- proved even worse than Israel, but then:

11 Then the Lord said to me, “Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say:

‘Return, backsliding Israel,’ says the Lord;
‘I will not cause My anger to fall on you.
For I am merciful,’ says the Lord;
‘I will not remain angry forever.
13 Only acknowledge your iniquity,
That you have transgressed against the Lord your God,
And have scattered your charms
To alien deities under every green tree,
And you have not obeyed My voice,’ says the Lord.

As a sidenote, if Judah was worse than Israel, then why would Israel get the certificate (point of no return) but not Judah if the matter was so significant as you make it out to be?

All of the statements segue as a sequence, hence Israel was beckoned to return after -- and only after -- she acknowledged her iniquities, hence the adulterous woman returns to her husband ONLY if her relationship to another man is renounced. It's the same concept throughout Scripture: repent first, then join to God.

There's one more simple issue that I think isn't being addressed: you and some others are imagining that the law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 takes effect merely after the divorce, in which case that the law would simply end with the sending away with the certificate meaning the first husband can't take her back, but it doesn't. The "defilement" of the woman, being the current condition of the woman, occurs after the second marriage in the scenario, and then, only at that point "after she is defiled" -- not just upon/because of the certificate -- is the first husband forbidden to return.

It's the pervasive concept of Old Testament vs new, repent with water and THEN the infilling with fire: remove oneself from the joining of idols, then join to the true God. We cannot have both. The whorish joining must be renounced and then a rejoining -- or a joining in the first place like we see with Gentiles as a group and a symbol -- can occur.

 

[MemeFan]

You will not find a single case - in all of scripture - where a husband gave his wife a certificate of divorce - she went to be with another man - and then he took her back.

Point, but not strong one.

Just because something isn't mention in Bible doesn't mean it's bad per se.

 

[Joleneakamama]

This is really all over the place. Gentiles were never God's "chosen people" (Israel literally meaning chosen). They were not a divorced wife because they were never illustrated as being God's wife in the first place.

Here you are mistaken. Go back to where Jacob/Israel blessed Ephraim. He prophesied that Ephraim's seed would become a multitude of "Goy" ...now there it is translated "nations" but it is the SAME WORD translated gentiles.

This prophesy was not fulfilled when they were a united Kingdom ...or as the house of Israel, but it WAS fulfilled when Israel was sent into captivity and scattered in the nations....because intermarriage resulted in MORE Israelites...MORE DESCENDANTS and YHWH says the seed of Israel will be A NATION before him forever.

 

[OttoM]

Here you are mistaken. Go back to where Jacob/Israel blessed Ephraim. He prophesied that Ephraim's seed would become a multitude of "Goy" ...now there it is translated "nations" but it is the SAME WORD translated gentiles.

This prophesy was not fulfilled when they were a united Kingdom ...or as the house of Israel, but it WAS fulfilled when Israel was sent into captivity and scattered in the nations....because intermarriage resulted in MORE Israelites...MORE DESCENDANTS and YHWH says the seed of Israel will be A NATION before him forever.

Great point! Also another very interesting tidbit - the names in Hebrew of Ephraim/Manasseh:



They will be a people of great multitude, but they will also forget who they are and where they came from.

 

[MemeFan]

The people that want to prohibit remarriage for divorced women just make them twice and forever victims. A man casts them away and they then have no lawful chance for relations or children?
So even though her created purpose is to be a suitable helper for a man, one man deeming her unsuitable means she is junk?

Fantastic writeup, @Joleneakamama.

Too often forgotten. Woman left by husband, without her fault is victim of his behaviour. Therefore she is available for marriage.