The "Let Man Put Asunder God's Way" Argument
The Argument Stated:
RW: But we are saying that if a divorce is done God's way then the divorce does what was intended for it to do. Actually, when a divorce is done God’s way God is doing the “putting asunder” – or at least having a part in it. But when man does the putting asunder his way (merely putting away) the divorce is not God’s way and therefore if she marries another she commits adultery, as well as the man who marries her (Matt. 5:31-32).
RW: The O.T. clearly taught that when a man was intent on getting rid of a woman, he was commanded to give her a certificate as opposed to just sending her out of the house, which would not be a divorce at all, and would result in sin if her sexual needs were met by another man, even if she married. It would be "man" putting "asunder" his way, wouldn't it?
The Argument Answered:
First, does the Bible say how to "put asunder God's way"? There is one statement (not command) showing how they commonly did it (Deut.24:1-3). But, that is not a command from God on how to do it correctly. Others did it by an oral witness system. Our system allows the couple to already be out of the house, then lawyers draw up papers and then it is over legally. Would we say that since all these do not conform with the COMMAND of Deut.24:1-3, that these all constitute adultery? There is no command on how to divorce properly. Where is the scripture? Jesus denied that the writ of divorce was God's way of putting asunder. He said:
Matt 5:31-33
"Furthermore it has been said,'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. NKJV
Jesus is clearly saying that the writ of divorce is not "God's way" at all. He said if you do this and marry another, the writ of divorce will not have prevented "adultery". Divorce assumes the writ of divorce. The writ of divorce did not keep the woman that was divorced from being "defiled" in a second marriage under the Law (Deut.24:4). So, what is the only way to divorce God's way? "Except it be for fornication". Man's way was to find some uncleanness in her and put her away with a writ of divorce. God never commanded it. But, since hardened people were doing it, then God put a national judgment into place. What was it for? It was to regulate something suffered in the state, namely, legalized divorcing and defilement. This is much like other things that God suffered or allowed without approving it. He suffered and allowed polygamy for a time. He allowed incest for a time. He allowed the hardened to divorce their wives and another to marry her. Did He view it as the ideal He approved in Gen.2? Not at all. He merely tolerated it and controlled it. Why? We don't know for sure it may be that it was because it was a national kingdom, not a spiritual kingdom of righteousness, and hardened hearts and concessions had to be made within an imperfect world while working toward the more ideal kingdom within kingdoms. It was a less perfect stage that was being prepared for better things.
Secondly, what the argument would mean then, is that Jesus should have said: "If the divorce is done God's way you can divorce for every cause". Or, "you can put asunder what God joined together if you do it God's way, with the divorce papers". Or, He could have said that "I don't approve of divorce, but when you do it you need to do it with a certificate of divorce and then put it in their hand and then send them out of the house". The Pharisees would have been thrilled to hear this, and so would the disciples. Jesus said something that could not be accepted by all men. What RW is saying is that Jesus said something all could easily accept. This cannot be what Jesus was saying because the Pharisees and the disciples would not have had any problem with the idea as long as they gave a certificate of divorce there was no adultery or defilement in the next marriages.
Thirdly, let us carefully observe that the Bible shows that Moses did not command a divorce or a procedure for divorcing "God's way". To establish this point, we need to make an observation about the structure and wording of different versions of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that (this should be "and") he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, ....
(Please notice that in this version there is not a "command" to write a divorce, nor is there a command telling HOW to divorce properly. All we have so far is a contingency statement leading up to a ruling in verse 4. "If" this happens, and this happens, and this happens, THEN the ruling in verse 4. There is no command to divorce, nor a command about how to properly divorce. Nor is there a three-step command about how to divorce properly as some brethren assert. This is very important to observe as we go along).
2 and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife,...
(Still no command in this version, and this rendering is what matches the Hebrew text. So, we go along reading a series of contingency statements and still no command of any kind, and the sentence is still not through stringing the series of contingency statements).
3 and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
(Each underlined word shows more contingency statements strung together and still no command is given. We will not get to the command until all of these conditional statements are brought into the ruling of the command in verse 4).
4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; 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.
(Now we have the apodosis of the long protasis. This means that in Hebrew we cannot see a command at all until we get to verse 4 and the only command is that when this series of things happen (not are commanded to happen), then the ruling is that the first husband may not take her back "after that she is defiled". The ruling is that the original husband could not take her back, and please observe that even though she was given a certificate of divorce, it did not make the second marriage undefiled. The woman is "defiled" now that she has been married again. Keep this point in mind, because Jesus will call this defilement "adultery" to get the attention on this matter that so many had conveniently overlooked. There is no command to divorce in verse 1-3, nor is there a command on how to divorce properly. There is a series of conditions that lead up to the ruling in verse 4.)
My Observations:
1. Jesus said this was "suffered" because of the hardness of your hearts, "but from the beginning it was not so"(Matthew 19:3-8). Jesus does not allow this contingency passage which regulated the hard-hearted violators of Gen.2 to be used as proof that God will accept remarriages or the legitimacy of the writ of divorce. The one flesh rule still applies when the man gives a writ of divorce. Therefore, when he or she marries another there is defilement of a sexual nature. It was obviously tolerated or suffered to be so, else the woman would have been punished or stoned for marrying and committing sexual defilement.
2. The contingency statements do not authorize a man to put away his wife. A contingency statement only tells "if" this happens, "then" here is the ruling. The ruling is that if those things listed in verse 1-3 happen then the former husband "may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD". This is not legislation designed to tell the woman she is free to marry whom she would if she can get the writ of divorce. It is legislation designed to control the state from being over-run with hardened men frivolously divorcing, creating the defilement situation, and then wanting to take back the woman he caused to be defiled. God was not "protecting the woman so that she would always be free to marry" but protecting the woman from reckless behavior in her husband. How does it control him? He is made to think long and hard before he writes a divorce. He may not be so lucky the next time and he may not ever have her back again after she is defiled in another marriage. It is not designed to protect the woman from "defilement". She is defiled in a second marriage even though it was allowed. It was not designed to protect her so that she can have another marriage. She could have that legally under what was tolerated at the time.
What About The KJV and ASV?
Let us observe that these versions are usually good, but they are not always accurate in every case or passage. The KJV was one of the best in its time, but we have acquired many more manuscripts, and accumulated richer insights through many archaeological discoveries since its time. However, in this case, the text was not carefully rendered in the way the Hebrew text presents it. One writer observes regarding the ASV: It's only weakness is that since 1901 we have considerably more information concerning manuscripts, texts, archaeology, and biblical geography than was available in 1901. We have also learned a great deal about the "syntax" and "idioms" of the Koni Greek language of the first century.
Another wrote: The ASV had the ill-fate of being released just before many of the major manuscript and archaeological discoveries were made which forever altered the way we approach the work of biblical translation and revision. In 1877, Philip Schaff (who was the director of the ASV translators) said that only 1500 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were available to them. There are now close to four times that many available! The Greek papyri have also come to light since the publication of the ASV (the Chester Beatty Papyri and the Bodmer Papyri perhaps being among the most significant). Knowledge of ancient versions in various languages has increased. These, and other, significant advances have made the ASV very much "behind the times" with regard to biblical translation and revision.
Dr. Jack P. Lewis writes, "It is not at all suggested that these tools radically change the biblical message, but each new insight is a welcome one for the English reader!" For example: Psalm 16:9 speaks of one's heart being glad, and "my glory rejoiceth." Actually, Assyriology has shown that this word literally means "my liver rejoiceth" (the liver was believed at that time to be the seat of one's emotions). In II Kings 18:17, Jeremiah 39:13, and others, such words as "Tartan," "Rabshadeh," "Rabsaris," and "Rabmag" are not proper names, as the ASV translators believed, but rather are now known to be titles of individuals. These were things that simply were not known at the time the ASV translators worked, but which have since been discovered.
The assertion that the ASV renders every passage most dependably accurate, and especially this passage, is willful ignorance. David Willis made the observations from the Hebrew structure of Deut. 24:1-4 (which we cannot print here), which is why most of the modern versions have corrected the mistake made on v.1-2. David said: "what is VERY significant I think is this....look at the last line of :1 (reading right to left). The second word and the fourth word begin with "I". This is the way they say "and"...by adding an "I" to the verb. Now....look at :2. The second (from right), third and fourth words also begin with "I". This means that all these words are a sequence of actions....verbs in the conditional (protasis). They continue the list of "if" actions started in :1. Now look at :3. More verbs beginning with "I". Now look at :4. The second line begins (on right) with a word that starts with a letter that looks like "W". That is "shalach." That tells us where "who sent her away" is. Now keep going left. Notice that the words DO NOT begin with "I"...so this is where the sequence of "and's" ends and the apodosis is given. It is a command that he may not take her again. I believe it is the ONLY command in these 4 verses."
This argument matches what we are finding in most all post 1901 translations. Please observe the following:
Deut 24:1-4
"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. NKJV
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. NIV
"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 and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.NASU
WHEN A man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,
2 And when she departs out of his house she goes and marries another man,
3 And if the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her as his wife,
4 Then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she is defiled. For that is an abomination before the Lord; and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance. AMP
24:1 "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 and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. NASB
1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 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, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance. RSV
In fact, I could not find a post 1901 version that retains the rendering of the KJV or the ASV. Why is that? Is it because all of these are modern and liberal? Or, is it because the Hebrew never really said "let him give a writing of divorce" and the knowledge of Hebrew structure and syntax has corrected the mistake made in those versions? It does not cause any liberal ideas. It actually prevents the liberal ideas that are now being circulated. Why do some of our liberal brethren want to hold on to the KJV and ASV rendering? Because it is the foundation of a faulty premise, and that premise is crucial to the new wave of traditionalism that teaches that all divorces are fine with a writing of divorce, and all remarriages are fine if the "command" is followed to "give a writing of divorce". It is most likely that people will have their ears tickled by this new traditionalism, and that new traditionalism feels a strong need to retain those versions that make it sound like divorce was commanded in Deut.24:1-4. Now, let us look at the wording as it is presented in the KJV:
Deut 24:1-4
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
(That sounds like a command doesn't it? The problem is that the Hebrew text does not have the apodosis at this point. The expression "then let..." is not there in the Hebrew text. But, that is not the only problem. Let us suppose that the text actually DID say "then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house". What would that mean? Well it would mean that any time we find some uncleanness in our wives, we are commanded (have no choice but to) to divorce her. That is not what the text actually says. The ASV is even more emphatic that "he shall write her a bill of divorcement". It allows no choice, and it means that we would have to know what is "some uncleanness" in order to fulfill this command. Even these more liberal brethren don't want to face those matters demanded by this rendering. So, it becomes clear that they only want a certain aspect of the KJV and ASV, and it is a clever maneuver for them to cast doubt on all who would prefer "these modern (liberal) versions over the faithful and trustworthy KJV and ASV. Those old dependable versions are under "attack", they say. They don't like those versions on other issues like "hell" in the place of Hades and tartarus, but now on THIS passage, it becomes handy to try to protect those versions and cry foul to those who question the rendering. Let me caution the reader to be careful about those claims. Now, let us go on with the rest of the passage in the KJV).
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
(Here it sounds like the text is saying that she may permissively go and be another man's wife. Actually, it says "and she goes and becomes another man's wife". In this case it is not saying "she may (permissibly) go be another man's wife", but is stating a fact that she may go be another man's wife. The passage is stating circumstances that may happen, and if they do, the ruling is that he cannot take her back after she has become defiled in that second marriage. Why would Moses say she may "permissibly" go and be another man's wife, and then tell us that she "is defiled" in doing what she was permitted by divine law to do? She was permitted by society and hardened hearts to do this legally, but God was not giving approval. God was merely tolerating it).
3 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;
(The interesting thing here is that "and write her a divorce" is the same structure in verse 1. Why would the KJV not put "if the latter husband hate her, then let him give her writing of divorce"? It has the same structure in both places. Thus, the evidence favors thinking that the KJV and the ASV got verse 1 and 2 wrong, but verse 3 right).
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; 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. KJV
(Here is the ruling, the apodosis of the four verse contingency statements and ruling. Now, what do we conclude? We conclude that the only command is for the first husband not to think he can take her back after he put her in position to be defiled. That would be a greater defilement than God would tolerate).
Didn't Jesus and the Pharisees Agree That the Divorce Paper was Commanded?
No, all we would have to do is ask where God commanded people to give a certificate of divorce, rather than just show that there is evidence that He tolerated it and suffered it and regulated it. I would flash on the screen under Matthew 19:7 (where the Pharisees asked why Moses commanded the writing of divorce) verse 8: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so, and I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery". The Pharisees developed the idea that it was commanded but later had to admit that it was only permitted. Then, I would flash up on the screen Mark 10:3 where Jesus did not state that it was commanded to give a certificate of divorce, but instead we would just read the verse and see that Jesus asked them "what did Moses command you?" and then we would read the next verse where the Pharisees could not prove that God commanded a divorce with a writing, but we would see that they could only say "Moses permitted..."(verse 4) Then we would look at the actual wording of the Hebrew text to determine which versions or translations got the structure correct. People can easily see that there was no command there at all and that there was no instructions on how to divorce "God's way".
When the Pharisees said "commanded" in Matthew's account, Jesus resorted to "permitted". In Mark's account, when Jesus asked "What did Moses command"?, the Pharisees wanted to ignore what was actually commanded by Moses in Genesis 2 "the two shall be one flesh", but they could not get a command out of Deut.24, so they settled on admitting that that passage only gave a "permissive" statement, not a command. The divorce paper was a long established custom that society established due to hardness of heart. God did not institute divorce and how to divorce in Deut.24. It was going on as a fact long before Moses mentioned it here. To one brother who holds this idea that the divorce paper was installed here as "God's way to divorce properly", I asked: That practice had been developed by society for years before Deut.24:1-2. It had been tolerated, but not commanded by God. Can you tell me where it first got started? Can you tell where God first commanded it? Are you saying that there had been no such practice of giving a certificate of divorce, and then suddenly God started commanding it in Deut.24? Can you point us to the phrase in Deut.24:1-4 where God commanded the writing of divorce for the first time in history? The question could not be answered, because there is no command to divorce in Deut. 24, and there is no evidence that this is where "proper divorce" was first installed by God. It had been going on for many years, and this had been a socially acceptable way to do it. Deut.24 is NOT God now commanding how to divorce properly.
Conclusion
Jesus said the certificate of divorce would only cause further adultery "except if be for fornication". He seems to intensify the facts that Moses commanded a man and woman to be one flesh and stated that when a man divorces his wife and she marries another "she is defiled" (which Jesus intensifies into our conscience by using the word "adultery"). So, "one flesh" is Moses' command. Divorce was what was "suffered" due to hardness of heart. Remarriage brings "defilement" (except the divorce be for fornication) even though it was tolerated under earthly kingdoms. Those who think the kingdom of heaven is worth more than everything can accept the saying that "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery". Those who do not know how valuable the kingdom of heaven is will never be able to accept this saying. Instead they will make up their own traditions of men. They will tickle the ears of people who are ready to be told that it is all right to put asunder what God joined together providing that you give her a certificate of divorce. This is the new traditionalism, but it is not God's way.
Terry W. Benton
