DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE (P1)
Now, it is essential for us to understand that marriage is a contract, and not a sexual relationship. Already in Genesis 2, we have proof of this when it is said about marriage that a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, that is, she is his wife before the consummation of the union. Genesis 2 is also relevant in showing the type of contract that exists in marriage: when a man and a woman enter into this contract, they are united as long as there is life in their flesh, and therefore, the marriage contract ends when the husband dies (Romans 7:3; 1 Corinthians 7:39) – it is the end of the contractual bond, after all, the contract lasts as long as there is flesh, and if one of the two dies, then there is no more contract because the flesh no longer has life; it is quite simple: the contract states that the flesh is the temporal bond that limits the marriage.
Similarly, it is important to emphasize that God's Law is fundamental in this matter, for what it says about marriage is naturally a rule. If it does not prohibit, it is allowed, if it prohibits, it is not allowed. Thus, when the law stipulates a form for marriage, it must be accepted, resulting in a breach if this line is crossed. Naturally, some things that biblical law allows offend Western sensibilities, dating back to the time of Augustine, although this is not our focus now.
Here, however, we will not dwell on the evangelical issues raised against what we will say, as we will focus on what the biblical text says: Genesis 2, Deuteronomy 24, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, and Paul. All of this will be addressed here, albeit briefly.
OLD TESTAMENT (OT)
Marriage in Genesis – The Involiable Contract
We have already strongly demonstrated the contractual nature of marriage; however, it remains to note the detail that we saved for this text: in Genesis 2, it is said that man and woman become one flesh (v. 24). This needs to be understood, first, as a mystery (Ephesians 5:31, 32) and, second, as something definitive. The text in Genesis does not say: one flesh until something happens. It simply states that the union exists as long as the flesh exists (without flesh, there is no way to be one flesh, obviously).
You might say, "But in Genesis 2 there was no sin, so the contract is treated ideally there; with adultery and fornication, we should understand that divorce and remarriage by the innocent party are permissible." However, in Genesis 2, there is also no "father and mother" (neither did Adam have parents nor did they have children themselves), yet both are mentioned in the text. It is obvious that the purpose of the text is to establish the rule for any place and time in the world, maintaining the exceptionality of Adam's case only in the fact that there was no sin, but not in God having changed what He established for the marriage contract (Jesus will refer to this by saying, "it was not so from the beginning," showing that this is the order, not the ideal).
Note: Jews in their theological disputes claim that 'one flesh' means the children, but this is absurd. The text is pointing to a mystery, for we do not know what "one flesh" really is (if one flesh is "the children," then the mystery is over), no text explains this; in the same way that being one spirit with the Lord is likewise a mystery (1 Corinthians 6:17). Furthermore, the Jews knew that Genesis 2 establishes an inviolable contract, with the legal permission for divorce being an explanation due to the existence of sin and, therefore (they believed), undoing this mystery of one flesh (would the children die in the divorce?). Moreover, this explains why there is no marriage in heaven, since flesh and blood do not enter heaven (1 Corinthians 15:50), preventing a new contract.
Note that in Genesis 2 the commandment is very clear: "and they shall become one flesh": this is the commandment, seeking to cease being one flesh results in sin, therefore, showing that there was never, even in creation, any possibility for divorce and remarriage, since ceasing to be one flesh is breaking the commandment if I circumvent it to become one flesh with another woman (or man).
Deuteronomy 24 – The Proof that the Contract is invioable
"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 indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter man also comes to hate her, writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man who took her as his wife dies, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. You shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 24:1–4)
We don't know why men, when reading this text, stop at the first verse, which mentions the reasons for divorce, and ignore the rest. Now, the text is clearly stating that a divorced woman cannot remarry because, upon remarriage, she becomes defiled, and as Leviticus shows, defilement (in the context of marriage) is adultery (Lv 18:20; Lv 20:10). But let's go step by step.
First, we have the possible reasons. Now, the problem is clear: the man saw some indecency ("nakedness" or "blemish") in the woman, and therefore gives her a certificate of divorce. Here, it is not mentioned, for example, that the man could have mercy on the woman, because the law wants to express the hardness of the people's hearts. For this reason, this order is not given conditionally, which led the Pharisees to understand that it was a mandatory command to give the certificate of divorce. Foolishness. If they truly knew God's law, they would know that this order exists only to prove the fact that the people (the men) had hard hearts. This law does not aim to show that the woman is indecent, but rather that the man could (and should) surpass the expectation and not give the certificate of divorce. The concern is that the man does not cause the woman to become defiled or, in other words, commit adultery.
For what reason, then, does the law not say: if you find sin in her? More interestingly, Moses (if that were the objective) could have used the Hebrew term "zanah," which means prostitution or some dishonorable sexual relationship (Dt 22:20, 21). See, the law would not contradict itself. Two chapters earlier, it was stated that if a woman hides that she is no longer a virgin, she is liable to death (not divorce). And the man, if he imputes any sin to a woman he married, and it turns out to be false, cannot divorce her (Dt 22:16-19) – note that if he suspected sin, there was also another route: Nm 5 (The Law of Jealousy). Thus, Deuteronomy 24 is not talking about sin, since in the case of sin, the woman would be put to death, therefore, the concern of Dt 24:1 is mercy. The focal point is not the reason for divorce, but rather that the man is not being encouraged to practice it because, by doing so, he makes his wife adulterous – if she remarries. Therefore, the man who divorces his wife makes her commit adultery (Lk 16:18b).
Clearly, the law is not legislating on zanah, not even in the case of the divorced woman. Now, a divorced woman who lies with a man does not marry him, so she commits adultery, but she does not have a contractual bond, so if she has lain with another man after the divorce, she can still return to the first (and this is what happens with Israel in Jeremiah 3, we will see below). It is only a second marriage that makes her indefinitely adulterous, locking her into the impossibility of returning to the first husband, making him adulterous if she returns to him (because whoever marries a divorced woman…). If sex were equal to marriage, a man could never lie with the wife who betrayed him again, because she would be married to the other man forever! This would nullify any chance of forgiveness.
In summary, the reason for divorce can be anything a man considers shameful; however, neither the woman (nor he) can enter into a new marriage. Likewise, he could not enter into a new marriage without first reconciling with his wife.
Secondly, the text is so clear that it requires no further explanation: the role of divorce has no real value in nullifying the fact that they are still one flesh. It is a formality that, to some extent, protects another man from taking that woman as his wife. Thus, divorce does not annul the contractual vow; it merely separates the parties, who will remain married.
Thirdly, the text only deals with the woman because the Scriptures show that the woman is the one bound to the husband (Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). This is because no husband is bound to any woman in the singular, but the woman is bound to the husband (in the singular). Therefore, there is no better way to illustrate divorce than through the woman, to prove not only that the man has the authority for divorce but also that she is the one in the role of being bound to one man. We will discuss this in detail in the next chapter.
I don't know what magic is supposed to allow, as many theologians claim, the "innocent party to remarry." For what reason would either party be free to remarry? Think about it: if marriage makes two people one flesh, how can the guilty party continue to be one flesh with the other person, but that person is no longer one flesh with the guilty party? It simply doesn't make sense, since the marriage contract makes both one flesh, therefore, either the contract is completely undone or it is not possible to undo it.
Now, having said that, is it a sin to give divorce? Not at all! The law does not legislate sin, nor does it regulate it. Otherwise, God would sin by giving a certificate of divorce to Israel! (Jeremiah 3). The problem is that, having given the certificate of divorce, I doubt that any man or woman would want to remain alone for the rest of their life... that's where the sin would lie.
Note: Abraham did not divorce Hagar, so he could take Keturah as his wife. Check Genesis 21:8-14 and 25:1 (by this time, Sarah had already died). Similarly, King Xerxes (Ahasuerus), upon marrying Esther, did not give a certificate of divorce to Vashti, thus preventing Esther from committing adultery by marrying him (Esther 1:10-12, 19 - note: as in the case of Abraham, there is no mention of divorce, despite the physical distance [no, being physically separated is not divorce; otherwise, a long journey would make husband and wife divorced {ironically, the Romans allowed remarriage if the man stayed away from home for a long time, even under Christian rule. There was a lack of biblical knowledge}]).
Closing this chapter (as it is very important), the conclusion is simple: giving a certificate of divorce to my wife makes her adulterous unless she already is before (in which case it will not be my certificate that makes her adulterous, but herself).
Jeremiah 3 - A Proof of Deuteronomy 24
If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her again? Would not that land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers—would you now return to me?" declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 3:1)
What do we have here? Well, the explanation of Deuteronomy 24! As we argued in the text about the Marriage Contract, the marriage between man and woman is, in a certain way, a shadow of God's marriage with His people. What applies to one applies to the other. Therefore, God could not marry His people again if it were possible for this people to marry another god. Just as we saw in Deuteronomy 24 regarding the woman.
And after she had done all this, I thought that she would return to me, but she did not return. Her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. Because of all this, because she committed adultery, I divorced the unfaithful Israel and gave her a certificate of divorce, yet her sister Judah, the unfaithful one, did not fear; she too went and prostituted herself. Because of the noise of her prostitution she defiled the land, she committed adultery with stones and trees. (Jeremiah 3:7-9)
Indeed, God Himself gave a certificate of divorce to Israel, but since she did not marry another deity, God still says to her:
Go, then, and proclaim these words toward the north and say: Return, O faithless Israel, declares the Lord; I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the Lord; I will not be angry forever. (Jeremiah 3:12)
Now, we have the final proof of the role of the certificate of divorce: it came to signify the mercy of the husband! And in this particular case, God showed that the "loophole" in the law allowed Him to take back Israel! When we read Scripture with Scripture, everything becomes clear. God would not contradict His law; He would not confuse what it permitted. Now, if the law does not forbid it, it is not sin; therefore, God can take back the wife who has prostituted herself, and He could not do so if she had remarried.
"Return, O faithless children," declares the Lord; "for I am your husband; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion." (Jeremiah 3:14)
Ezekiel 23 – The Death of Israel
Ezekiel 23 is a lengthy text, so we'll only mention its central points. In Ezekiel, God doesn't give a divorce decree; instead, He pronounces a death sentence. Israel did more than worship idols; they engaged in idolatry through sexual acts (yes, actual sex, using it as a form of worship) and by sacrificing their children to the idols. To ensure a greater penalty upon Israel, God, this time, doesn't cry out for mercy but foresees the destruction of the people.
This demonstrates how the final destruction of Israel would make God the husband solely of Israel (the true one). Just like in the story of Abraham, where God sent away the children of the slave woman (cf. Galatians 4) to remain only with His wife, the New Jerusalem, who gives Him children of promise.
Malachi 2 – Serial Marriage with Divorce: Infidelity
Judah has been unfaithful, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god. May the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob any descendant of the man who does this, who brings an offering to the Lord of hosts! And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” (Malachi 2:11-16)
This is our last text from the Old Testament on the subject. In it, we have the treatment of something unusual. By this time, Israel was no longer a wealthy nation, which made it difficult for a man, for example, to support two wives. What happened then: to avoid the fixed expense of supporting two wives, the man divorced the woman he married when he was young ("wife of your youth") and married another (who, besides everything, worshipped another deity). Here is the importance of seeing the noun in the feminine. In Jeremiah, Israel and Judah were two women who related to "men," that is, gods. Now Israel is divided into individuals, each of whom marries women (thus, the problem is not primarily that they worshipped other gods, but that something was wrong in the marriage).
When God shows that he hates divorce, he is not hating what he himself allowed merely for allowing it, but because both parties who practice it begin to sin (as we have already said). Now, men were not prohibited from marrying more than one woman, they never were (Dt 21:15 - God doesn't care about this Greek philosophy and Roman law sensitive to the fact that he allowed a man to have more than one wife), but divorcing one to marry another is disloyalty and, in the context of marriage, disloyalty is adultery. Do not be unfaithful, as infidelity is the breaking of the covenant, and every breach of the covenant results in death, because it is sin.
Note: if you haven't noticed, no text (neither in the Old Testament nor the New Testament) allows divorce initiated by the woman. This is for a simple reason: just as Israel asking for divorce from God would be a sin, it is also a sin for a woman to initiate divorce against her husband. Perhaps you may say, "What about cases of abuse? What do you do?" When the Scriptures were written, there was also "abuse," and yet the treatment of the text does not revolve around this problem. But just as a man is not free for remarriage after divorcing a woman, even if she becomes a prostitute, so too a woman is not simply free to give a certificate of divorce as she pleases.
FIRST CONCLUSION
We have seen that since Genesis, the main texts about marriage accept with tranquility not only the enduring validity of the contract but also show that divorce does not annul it; on the contrary, divorce is a superficial rupture that does not break the nature of becoming one flesh. The reason for divorce is irrelevant.
Moreover, if the New Testament offers a different interpretation, relaxing this (or increasing the rigidity), it would clearly contradict the biblical Law, which would be absurd because God does not invalidate His commandments! How does God deal with it? It is quite simple: if Jesus came with any novelty, Christ cannot say that He only speaks what the Father has spoken (John 14:10) if He says something different from what the Father has spoken!
Similarly, it is important to emphasize that God's Law is fundamental in this matter, for what it says about marriage is naturally a rule. If it does not prohibit, it is allowed, if it prohibits, it is not allowed. Thus, when the law stipulates a form for marriage, it must be accepted, resulting in a breach if this line is crossed. Naturally, some things that biblical law allows offend Western sensibilities, dating back to the time of Augustine, although this is not our focus now.
Here, however, we will not dwell on the evangelical issues raised against what we will say, as we will focus on what the biblical text says: Genesis 2, Deuteronomy 24, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, and Paul. All of this will be addressed here, albeit briefly.
OLD TESTAMENT (OT)
Marriage in Genesis – The Involiable Contract
We have already strongly demonstrated the contractual nature of marriage; however, it remains to note the detail that we saved for this text: in Genesis 2, it is said that man and woman become one flesh (v. 24). This needs to be understood, first, as a mystery (Ephesians 5:31, 32) and, second, as something definitive. The text in Genesis does not say: one flesh until something happens. It simply states that the union exists as long as the flesh exists (without flesh, there is no way to be one flesh, obviously).
You might say, "But in Genesis 2 there was no sin, so the contract is treated ideally there; with adultery and fornication, we should understand that divorce and remarriage by the innocent party are permissible." However, in Genesis 2, there is also no "father and mother" (neither did Adam have parents nor did they have children themselves), yet both are mentioned in the text. It is obvious that the purpose of the text is to establish the rule for any place and time in the world, maintaining the exceptionality of Adam's case only in the fact that there was no sin, but not in God having changed what He established for the marriage contract (Jesus will refer to this by saying, "it was not so from the beginning," showing that this is the order, not the ideal).
Note: Jews in their theological disputes claim that 'one flesh' means the children, but this is absurd. The text is pointing to a mystery, for we do not know what "one flesh" really is (if one flesh is "the children," then the mystery is over), no text explains this; in the same way that being one spirit with the Lord is likewise a mystery (1 Corinthians 6:17). Furthermore, the Jews knew that Genesis 2 establishes an inviolable contract, with the legal permission for divorce being an explanation due to the existence of sin and, therefore (they believed), undoing this mystery of one flesh (would the children die in the divorce?). Moreover, this explains why there is no marriage in heaven, since flesh and blood do not enter heaven (1 Corinthians 15:50), preventing a new contract.
Note that in Genesis 2 the commandment is very clear: "and they shall become one flesh": this is the commandment, seeking to cease being one flesh results in sin, therefore, showing that there was never, even in creation, any possibility for divorce and remarriage, since ceasing to be one flesh is breaking the commandment if I circumvent it to become one flesh with another woman (or man).
Deuteronomy 24 – The Proof that the Contract is invioable
"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 indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter man also comes to hate her, writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man who took her as his wife dies, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. You shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 24:1–4)
We don't know why men, when reading this text, stop at the first verse, which mentions the reasons for divorce, and ignore the rest. Now, the text is clearly stating that a divorced woman cannot remarry because, upon remarriage, she becomes defiled, and as Leviticus shows, defilement (in the context of marriage) is adultery (Lv 18:20; Lv 20:10). But let's go step by step.
First, we have the possible reasons. Now, the problem is clear: the man saw some indecency ("nakedness" or "blemish") in the woman, and therefore gives her a certificate of divorce. Here, it is not mentioned, for example, that the man could have mercy on the woman, because the law wants to express the hardness of the people's hearts. For this reason, this order is not given conditionally, which led the Pharisees to understand that it was a mandatory command to give the certificate of divorce. Foolishness. If they truly knew God's law, they would know that this order exists only to prove the fact that the people (the men) had hard hearts. This law does not aim to show that the woman is indecent, but rather that the man could (and should) surpass the expectation and not give the certificate of divorce. The concern is that the man does not cause the woman to become defiled or, in other words, commit adultery.
For what reason, then, does the law not say: if you find sin in her? More interestingly, Moses (if that were the objective) could have used the Hebrew term "zanah," which means prostitution or some dishonorable sexual relationship (Dt 22:20, 21). See, the law would not contradict itself. Two chapters earlier, it was stated that if a woman hides that she is no longer a virgin, she is liable to death (not divorce). And the man, if he imputes any sin to a woman he married, and it turns out to be false, cannot divorce her (Dt 22:16-19) – note that if he suspected sin, there was also another route: Nm 5 (The Law of Jealousy). Thus, Deuteronomy 24 is not talking about sin, since in the case of sin, the woman would be put to death, therefore, the concern of Dt 24:1 is mercy. The focal point is not the reason for divorce, but rather that the man is not being encouraged to practice it because, by doing so, he makes his wife adulterous – if she remarries. Therefore, the man who divorces his wife makes her commit adultery (Lk 16:18b).
Clearly, the law is not legislating on zanah, not even in the case of the divorced woman. Now, a divorced woman who lies with a man does not marry him, so she commits adultery, but she does not have a contractual bond, so if she has lain with another man after the divorce, she can still return to the first (and this is what happens with Israel in Jeremiah 3, we will see below). It is only a second marriage that makes her indefinitely adulterous, locking her into the impossibility of returning to the first husband, making him adulterous if she returns to him (because whoever marries a divorced woman…). If sex were equal to marriage, a man could never lie with the wife who betrayed him again, because she would be married to the other man forever! This would nullify any chance of forgiveness.
In summary, the reason for divorce can be anything a man considers shameful; however, neither the woman (nor he) can enter into a new marriage. Likewise, he could not enter into a new marriage without first reconciling with his wife.
Secondly, the text is so clear that it requires no further explanation: the role of divorce has no real value in nullifying the fact that they are still one flesh. It is a formality that, to some extent, protects another man from taking that woman as his wife. Thus, divorce does not annul the contractual vow; it merely separates the parties, who will remain married.
Thirdly, the text only deals with the woman because the Scriptures show that the woman is the one bound to the husband (Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). This is because no husband is bound to any woman in the singular, but the woman is bound to the husband (in the singular). Therefore, there is no better way to illustrate divorce than through the woman, to prove not only that the man has the authority for divorce but also that she is the one in the role of being bound to one man. We will discuss this in detail in the next chapter.
I don't know what magic is supposed to allow, as many theologians claim, the "innocent party to remarry." For what reason would either party be free to remarry? Think about it: if marriage makes two people one flesh, how can the guilty party continue to be one flesh with the other person, but that person is no longer one flesh with the guilty party? It simply doesn't make sense, since the marriage contract makes both one flesh, therefore, either the contract is completely undone or it is not possible to undo it.
Now, having said that, is it a sin to give divorce? Not at all! The law does not legislate sin, nor does it regulate it. Otherwise, God would sin by giving a certificate of divorce to Israel! (Jeremiah 3). The problem is that, having given the certificate of divorce, I doubt that any man or woman would want to remain alone for the rest of their life... that's where the sin would lie.
Note: Abraham did not divorce Hagar, so he could take Keturah as his wife. Check Genesis 21:8-14 and 25:1 (by this time, Sarah had already died). Similarly, King Xerxes (Ahasuerus), upon marrying Esther, did not give a certificate of divorce to Vashti, thus preventing Esther from committing adultery by marrying him (Esther 1:10-12, 19 - note: as in the case of Abraham, there is no mention of divorce, despite the physical distance [no, being physically separated is not divorce; otherwise, a long journey would make husband and wife divorced {ironically, the Romans allowed remarriage if the man stayed away from home for a long time, even under Christian rule. There was a lack of biblical knowledge}]).
Closing this chapter (as it is very important), the conclusion is simple: giving a certificate of divorce to my wife makes her adulterous unless she already is before (in which case it will not be my certificate that makes her adulterous, but herself).
Jeremiah 3 - A Proof of Deuteronomy 24
If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her again? Would not that land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers—would you now return to me?" declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 3:1)
What do we have here? Well, the explanation of Deuteronomy 24! As we argued in the text about the Marriage Contract, the marriage between man and woman is, in a certain way, a shadow of God's marriage with His people. What applies to one applies to the other. Therefore, God could not marry His people again if it were possible for this people to marry another god. Just as we saw in Deuteronomy 24 regarding the woman.
And after she had done all this, I thought that she would return to me, but she did not return. Her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. Because of all this, because she committed adultery, I divorced the unfaithful Israel and gave her a certificate of divorce, yet her sister Judah, the unfaithful one, did not fear; she too went and prostituted herself. Because of the noise of her prostitution she defiled the land, she committed adultery with stones and trees. (Jeremiah 3:7-9)
Indeed, God Himself gave a certificate of divorce to Israel, but since she did not marry another deity, God still says to her:
Go, then, and proclaim these words toward the north and say: Return, O faithless Israel, declares the Lord; I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the Lord; I will not be angry forever. (Jeremiah 3:12)
Now, we have the final proof of the role of the certificate of divorce: it came to signify the mercy of the husband! And in this particular case, God showed that the "loophole" in the law allowed Him to take back Israel! When we read Scripture with Scripture, everything becomes clear. God would not contradict His law; He would not confuse what it permitted. Now, if the law does not forbid it, it is not sin; therefore, God can take back the wife who has prostituted herself, and He could not do so if she had remarried.
"Return, O faithless children," declares the Lord; "for I am your husband; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion." (Jeremiah 3:14)
Ezekiel 23 – The Death of Israel
Ezekiel 23 is a lengthy text, so we'll only mention its central points. In Ezekiel, God doesn't give a divorce decree; instead, He pronounces a death sentence. Israel did more than worship idols; they engaged in idolatry through sexual acts (yes, actual sex, using it as a form of worship) and by sacrificing their children to the idols. To ensure a greater penalty upon Israel, God, this time, doesn't cry out for mercy but foresees the destruction of the people.
This demonstrates how the final destruction of Israel would make God the husband solely of Israel (the true one). Just like in the story of Abraham, where God sent away the children of the slave woman (cf. Galatians 4) to remain only with His wife, the New Jerusalem, who gives Him children of promise.
Malachi 2 – Serial Marriage with Divorce: Infidelity
Judah has been unfaithful, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god. May the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob any descendant of the man who does this, who brings an offering to the Lord of hosts! And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” (Malachi 2:11-16)
This is our last text from the Old Testament on the subject. In it, we have the treatment of something unusual. By this time, Israel was no longer a wealthy nation, which made it difficult for a man, for example, to support two wives. What happened then: to avoid the fixed expense of supporting two wives, the man divorced the woman he married when he was young ("wife of your youth") and married another (who, besides everything, worshipped another deity). Here is the importance of seeing the noun in the feminine. In Jeremiah, Israel and Judah were two women who related to "men," that is, gods. Now Israel is divided into individuals, each of whom marries women (thus, the problem is not primarily that they worshipped other gods, but that something was wrong in the marriage).
When God shows that he hates divorce, he is not hating what he himself allowed merely for allowing it, but because both parties who practice it begin to sin (as we have already said). Now, men were not prohibited from marrying more than one woman, they never were (Dt 21:15 - God doesn't care about this Greek philosophy and Roman law sensitive to the fact that he allowed a man to have more than one wife), but divorcing one to marry another is disloyalty and, in the context of marriage, disloyalty is adultery. Do not be unfaithful, as infidelity is the breaking of the covenant, and every breach of the covenant results in death, because it is sin.
Note: if you haven't noticed, no text (neither in the Old Testament nor the New Testament) allows divorce initiated by the woman. This is for a simple reason: just as Israel asking for divorce from God would be a sin, it is also a sin for a woman to initiate divorce against her husband. Perhaps you may say, "What about cases of abuse? What do you do?" When the Scriptures were written, there was also "abuse," and yet the treatment of the text does not revolve around this problem. But just as a man is not free for remarriage after divorcing a woman, even if she becomes a prostitute, so too a woman is not simply free to give a certificate of divorce as she pleases.
FIRST CONCLUSION
We have seen that since Genesis, the main texts about marriage accept with tranquility not only the enduring validity of the contract but also show that divorce does not annul it; on the contrary, divorce is a superficial rupture that does not break the nature of becoming one flesh. The reason for divorce is irrelevant.
Moreover, if the New Testament offers a different interpretation, relaxing this (or increasing the rigidity), it would clearly contradict the biblical Law, which would be absurd because God does not invalidate His commandments! How does God deal with it? It is quite simple: if Jesus came with any novelty, Christ cannot say that He only speaks what the Father has spoken (John 14:10) if He says something different from what the Father has spoken!
