{"id":4480,"date":"2016-02-10T07:20:39","date_gmt":"2016-02-10T07:20:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=4480"},"modified":"2018-06-04T05:37:56","modified_gmt":"2018-06-04T05:37:56","slug":"stop-abusing-the-indecency-in-deuteronomy-24-the-debunk-series-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/2016\/02\/stop-abusing-the-indecency-in-deuteronomy-24-the-debunk-series-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The “Indecency” of Abusing Deuteronomy 24: “Debunk” Series – Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/RevAllWet7.png?ssl=1\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-4481\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-4481\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/RevAllWet7.png?resize=474%2C282&ssl=1\" alt=\"RevAllWet7\" width=\"474\" height=\"282\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/RevAllWet7.png?w=928&ssl=1 928w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/RevAllWet7.png?resize=300%2C179&ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/RevAllWet7.png?resize=768%2C458&ssl=1 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 474px) 100vw, 474px\" \/><\/a>by Standerinfamilycourt<\/p>\n<p><em>Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.\u00a0\u00a0 <span id=\"en-NASB-29843\" class=\"text 2Tim-2-15\">Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 –\u00a0<\/span><\/em><span id=\"en-NASB-29843\" class=\"text 2Tim-2-15\"><strong> 2 Timothy 2:14-15<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p>We began this series of blogs by first establishing Jesus Christ’s core truth in Matthew 19:6 about the lifelong\u00a0indissolubility of the covenant marriage of our youth, and rigorously applying each of the five basic principles of sound hermeneutics to that scripture passage:\u00a0 Content, Context, Culture, Comparison and Consultation.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If you missed that installment, please start <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=4327\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">there<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Having done that, we will now do the same with each of the most egregiously mishandled passages that apostate theologians and church leaders seek to water down or refute that unpalatable truth with.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 You may see these same scholars dutifully applying these principles to other biblical topics,\u00a0 but when it comes to <em>this one<\/em>, they’ve never heard of “Herman”.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We will tackle these in subjective order of damage to the church and society, doing the worst of them first, the ones that trap people in a life that the bible makes clear will send them to hell if they don’t repent and sever the illicit “marriages”.<\/p>\n<p>In our view, the most abused scripture on marriage in the Old Testament is purported to “prove” that God instituted divorce through Moses for adultery and other sundry causes, and that once a divorced spouse “remarries”,\u00a0 they can never be reconciled with the one-flesh partner of their youth.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 But is this actually so?<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Principle of CONTENT<\/strong><br \/>\nAs we did with our core truth, Matthew 19:6 we will take Deut. 24: 1-4 back to the original Hebrew manuscript and literal syntax to strip away any bias about what it actually says on the surface.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We will rely on the\u00a0Hebrew interlinear text tools and the literal syntax for our analysis of content, in order to remove any translation bias that may have occurred in your favorite bible version in more contemporary times.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The text of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads (NASB):<\/p>\n<p><em>When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found<\/em><strong><em> some indecency in her, <\/em><\/strong><em>and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts <\/em><em>it in her hand and sends her out from his house,\u00a0<span id=\"en-NASB-5528\" class=\"text Deut-24-2\"><sup class=\"versenum\"><span style=\"font-size: small;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/sup>and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man\u2019s wife,<\/span> <span id=\"en-NASB-5529\" class=\"text Deut-24-3\">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,<\/span>\u00a0<span id=\"en-NASB-5530\" class=\"text Deut-24-4\"><sup class=\"versenum\"><span style=\"font-size: small;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/sup>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 <span class=\"small-caps\">Lord<\/span>, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the <span class=\"small-caps\">Lord<\/span> your God gives you as an inheritance.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p><span id=\"en-NASB-5530\" class=\"text Deut-24-4\">Naturally, the surface conflict with <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+19%3A6&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthew 19:6<\/a>\u00a0and some other scriptures\u00a0is that according to Jesus and Paul, men have <em><strong>no<\/strong><\/em> power or authority to dissolve holy matrimony, nor to unjoin a one-flesh entity joined by God.\u00a0\u00a0 If Moses was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, how can he be contradicting the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=John+1%3A1&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Word Incarnate<\/a>?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 And what exactly was the “indecency” that justified a certificate of divorce (rather than Deuteronomy 22 stoning)?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/Deut24one_4.jpg?ssl=1\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-4555\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-4555\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/Deut24one_4.jpg?resize=474%2C492&ssl=1\" alt=\"Deut24one_4\" width=\"474\" height=\"492\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/Deut24one_4.jpg?w=975&ssl=1 975w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/Deut24one_4.jpg?resize=289%2C300&ssl=1 289w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/Deut24one_4.jpg?resize=768%2C797&ssl=1 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 474px) 100vw, 474px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Young’s Literal translation (YLT)\u00a0reads:<\/p>\n<p><em>`When a man doth take a wife, and hath married her, and it hath been, if she doth not find grace in his eyes (for he hath found in her nakedness of anything), and he hath written for her a writing of divorce, and given [it] into her hand, and sent her out of his house,<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"verse\"><em><span id=\"en-YLT-5528\" class=\"text Deut-24-2\"><sup class=\"versenum\"><span style=\"font-size: small;\">2\u00a0<\/span><\/sup>and she hath gone out of his house, and hath gone and been another man’s,<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"verse\"><em><span id=\"en-YLT-5529\" class=\"text Deut-24-3\"><sup class=\"versenum\"><span style=\"font-size: small;\">3\u00a0<\/span><\/sup>and the latter man hath hated her, and written for her a writing of divorce, and given [it] into her hand, and sent her out of his house, or when the latter man dieth, who hath taken her to himself for a wife:<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"verse\"><em><span id=\"en-YLT-5530\" class=\"text Deut-24-4\"><sup class=\"versenum\"><span style=\"font-size: small;\">4\u00a0<\/span><\/sup>`Her former husband who sent her away is not able to turn back to take her to be to him for a wife, after that she hath become defiled; for an abomination it [is] before Jehovah, and thou dost not cause the land to sin which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee — an inheritance.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p><span id=\"en-YLT-5530\" class=\"text Deut-24-4\">A few key words need a bit of a deep dive in this passage:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"verse\"><em><span id=\"en-YLT-5530\" class=\"text Deut-24-4\"><strong><span class=\"hebrew\">\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<strong> <span class=\"toptitle2\">kerithuth: divorcement<\/span>\u00a0 –\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><span id=\"en-YLT-5530\" class=\"text Deut-24-4\"> <\/span><\/em><span id=\"en-YLT-5530\" class=\"text Deut-24-4\">from the Hebrew word <em>karath <\/em>which means “a cutting”, which in the Mosaic usage functioned like a sort of “quit-claim” deed so that such a woman could survive by marrying another man, perhaps also protecting her from being stoned as an adulteress under the law in Deuteronomy 22\u00a0if she did so.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This word\u00a0is used in <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/hebrew\/3748.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em><strong>just two other<\/strong> <\/em>scriptures <\/a>Jeremiah 3:8 and Isaiah 50:1,\u00a0 and it differs from the <em>other<\/em> Hebrew word for severing a spouse,\u00a0 the more generic word, <em>shalach\u00a0 <\/em><strong><span class=\"hebrew\">\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7 \u00a0<\/span><\/strong>meaning “send (or put) away”.\u00a0 The latter word was more often used in the post-exile days when stoning was not available to dispose of fully- consummated wives of many years standing, such as in <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/interlinear\/malachi\/2-16.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Malachi 2:16<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<span class=\"hebrew\">\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8\u00a0\u00a0 <em>dabar:\u00a0 word, saying, commandment, law<\/em> –<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"hebrew\"> Many\u00a0different meanings and 1441 OT occurrences.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span class=\"hebrew\">\u05e2\u05b6\u05e8\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<strong><em> ervah \/ erwat: nakedness, shame, uncleanness<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>From <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/hebrew\/6168.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">arah<\/span><\/u><\/a>; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda – female genitals) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish) — nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).\u00a0\u00a0 This word has 54 total occurrences throughout the Levitical moral\u00a0laws and the Genesis account of Noah’s drunkenness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Principle of CONTEXT<br \/>\n<\/strong>\u00a0The major context for\u00a0Deuteronomy 24\u00a0is the 40-year extended trek through the wilderness under the often embattled leadership of Moses, following the Israelites’ \u00a0release from captivity in Egypt.\u00a0\u00a0 A major biblical covenant was established between God and His people on Mount Sinai.\u00a0\u00a0 Bible teacher Ray Vander Laan called that momentous occasion a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=3269\">Divine “wedding”<\/a> of sorts.\u00a0\u00a0 It was the only conditional covenant God made, and it was from the beginning\u00a0designed to be replaced by the Messianic covenant at the commencement of Christ’s ministry.\u00a0\u00a0 After the Ten Commandments were given to Moses near the start of the journey, it wasn’t long before they had to be interpreted and specifically applied to real life stuff.\u00a0\u00a0 That Serpent, whose favorite sport was (<em>and still is<\/em>) saying “Did God REALLY say…??”\u00a0 had slithered from the Garden to the desert plains.<\/p>\n<p>Moses was constantly putting down large and small uprisings.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 He had been given a <em>gig<\/em> that he would have been the last man on earth to sign up for.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 He was leading something like\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/LVanswers\/2004\/2004-07-10a.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">4 million<\/a> men, women and children and the various plunder they removed from Egypt, but that wasn’t all they carried out of Egypt with them, as the golden calf incident vividly illustrates.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 They had just spent some 400 years learning from the Egyptians how to build marriage around<em> anything but covenant<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In a bit of a double-standard, the descendants of Isaac and Jacob had also carried some distinctive things into Egypt with them, including the custom of <em>kiddushin<\/em> betrothal with its bride price, which they also carried back out of Egypt into the wilderness.\u00a0 How amazing was it to hear from Moses that animal sacrifice\u00a0done\u00a0daily could atone for living however they chose, despite the Lord’s commandment?\u00a0\u00a0 How much of a relief to\u00a0 Moses, the reluctantly-drafted leader of this multitude\u00a0\u00a0to\u00a0learn that\u00a0this system\u00a0 would allow him to <em>manage<\/em> sin rather seek to <em>eradicate<\/em> it\u00a0 and promote holiness instead?\u00a0\u00a0 How disheartening must it have been for the Pharisees to stomach Christ’s New Covenant announcement that obedience to God must now flow from devotion to Christ and gratefulness for His appearing to take away the sins of the world, to such an extent that we begin to emulate Him?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No wonder they (and modern-day Pharisees) hanker again for the days of Moses, but this time with the siren song of Luther and Calvin playing in the background, “Christ died for your past, <em>present and future sins<\/em>!”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Those bent on justifying their fleshly lusts are indeed comforted by the (false) notion that one cannot wander from their salvation, even though Paul repeatedly warns that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>How, specifically, does <em>kiddushin<\/em> (Hebrew betrothal) factor into the context of Deuteronomy 24:1-4?\u00a0\u00a0 Once a<em> ketubah<\/em> marriage contract proposal was accepted and the bride price paid, the bride became the legal wife of the groom approximately 12 months before the groom returned for his bride and consummated the marriage.\u00a0\u00a0 If the bride committed fornication (played the harlot) during this time, or lied about her virginity and it was discovered on the wedding night, she was brought before the priests and stoned to death unless her parents could produce the “tokens of her virginity” in the form of bloody bed sheets.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 However, harlotry was not the only cause for seeking dissolution of the binding arrangement.\u00a0\u00a0 Other reasons may have included disease such as leprosy developing during the betrothal period, discovery of too-close a consanguinity, a bleeding disorder, and other causes short of provable infidelity.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The only way in those cases\u00a0to legally dissolve a<em> ketubah<\/em> was a writ of divorcement.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Under Moses, this was <strong><em>not<\/em><\/strong> an open-ended opportunity to unilaterally divorce a one-flesh spouse (with or without due cause) after God had joined them as one-flesh, but rather a legal way to dissolve the betrothal for a cause other than a capital cause.<\/p>\n<p>To ensure survival of the family lines throughout the deprivations,\u00a0 as well as the wars in reaching and settling in the Promised Land, Moses also laid down laws that cultivated concurrent polygamy, a practice unrighteously deviating from the holy principle of one-flesh, and a practice\u00a0that carried over in the Hebrew race from the time of Abraham’s grandsons Jacob and Esau, actually traceable to his concubinage with Hagar.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For example, Moses required the brother of a widow of childbearing age to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Deuteronomy+25%3A5-10%3B+Genesis+38%3A8-10&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">marry that widow to give her a son<\/a>, and he did not set aside an exception if that brother was already one-flesh with the\u00a0living \u00a0wife of his own youth.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Moses’ example for that went back several generations to an incident in the family of Judah.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Moses also permitted men to take more than one wife if the first (one-flesh) wife did not produce a son.\u00a0\u00a0 That being the case, some sort of writ was likely necessary to prevent a woman not guilty of a capital offense from being stoned as an adulteress if her one-flesh or polygamous husband abandoned her in the wilderness and she had no son or birth family.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Verse 4 specifically prevented men from engaging a\u00a0sort of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=1541\">arbitrage of the bride price <\/a>of <em>kiddushin<\/em> through divorce and remarriage to a materially-enriched widow, but this civil system did not dissolve the one-flesh state that God had created in a wife of a man’s youth.<\/p>\n<p>While studying CONTEXT of this scripture, it is also important to consider the difference in the nature of the presence of the Holy Spirit before and after Jesus was resurrected, and Pentecost arrived 40 days later.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There may legitimately be a difference in the inspired nature of an Old Testament passage, especially one that was later explicitly repudiated by Jesus.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Unlike the provision for the <em>sealing<\/em> and \u00a0<em>constant indwelling<\/em> of the Holy Spirit that came with the New Covenant, scripture tells us that the presence of the Holy Spirit rested on and departed from God’s Old Testament spokespersons at various times.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We know that Moses was far from infallible because he built his altars and offered sacrifices for his own sins, including the murder of a man.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We know that he was disqualified from entering into the Promised Land despite all that he had accomplished because he committed the sin of <em>unknowingly<\/em>\u00a0transgressing a holy symbol of God\u00a0which stood\u00a0for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion\u00a0 when he disobeyed God and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Numbers+20%3A6-13&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">struck the rock instead of speaking to it <\/a>as instructed by God.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0If the Holy Spirit revealed this to him, he evidently ignored Him.\u00a0 Those who quote Jesus’ saying <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Luke+16%3A17&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>“not one jot or tittle of the Law shall pass away”<\/em><\/a>, \u00a0and construe it as authority that <em>everything<\/em> Moses ever pronounced is still binding as inspired instruction\u00a0during the New Covenant, are missing the much larger context of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=2510\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">historic overlap or phasing of the major covenants of God<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nThe Principle of\u00a0 CULTURE<\/strong><br \/>\nHebrew culture was patriarchal and valued virginity enough to pay a bride price for it,\u00a0so that the bloodlines and inheritance would be uncorrupted and genealogies would be as pure as possible.\u00a0\u00a0 Even so, this was not the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Leviticus+5%3A2-3%3B7%3A19%3B10%3A10%3A11%3A26%2C28%3B+12%3A2-3%3B+13%3A8%2C+14%3A19%2746%3B+15%3A2%2C4%2C7-8%2C16-20%3B24-25%3B+21%3A1%3B+22%3A4%3B+Numbers+5%3A2%3B+6%3A7%3B+19%3A20%3B+Deuteronomy+23%3A9-14&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>only<\/em> law of ceremonial cleanness\u00a0<\/a>stringently observed\u00a0by\u00a0the Jews of Moses’ day and of Jesus’ day.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Additional laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus deal with the ceremonial uncleanness produced by blood, semen, excrement, disease, touching a dead body, types of animals that could be used for food, etc.\u00a0 that would exclude a man from the temple of God for a season.\u00a0\u00a0 It’s not hard to see how some of these laws, intended mostly for public health and hygienic purposes under the conditions of the time\u00a0\u00a0also\u00a0tended to encourage\u00a0polygamy in a misguided effort to maintain a sort hypocritical “holiness”,\u00a0 not too unlike the civil and ecclesiastical stronghold around serial polygamy\u00a0today.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 When Jesus came along knowing that He would take the place of animal sacrifice, would usher in the age of direction by the Holy Spirit, and a new order where obedience would flow from the heart,\u00a0 the context of what He said in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Mark+7%3A+1+-+23&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Mark 7:20-23 <\/a>gains an incredible power:<\/p>\n<p><em>And He was saying, <span class=\"woj\">\u201cThat which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.\u00a0 <\/span><span id=\"en-NASB-24485\" class=\"text Mark-7-21\"><span class=\"woj\"><sup class=\"versenum\"><span style=\"font-size: small;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/sup>For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,<\/span><\/span> <span id=\"en-NASB-24486\" class=\"text Mark-7-22\"><span class=\"woj\">deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><span id=\"en-NASB-24487\" class=\"text Mark-7-23\"><span class=\"woj\"><em>All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>These things were now true precisely because the Messianic Covenant had suddenly arrived 1400 years since these rules had been promulgated, and was now an unconditional, <em>superior<\/em> covenant to replace the <em>conditional<\/em>\u00a0Mosaic Covenant, with its\u00a0former dependence on animal sacrifice and stringent regulation of cleanness and uncleanness, \u00a0which was <em>never intended<\/em> to be permanent.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, when Jesus had His confrontation with the Pharisees in Matthew 19,\u00a0 if going back to Deuteronomy 24 in agreement with them was appropriate to the kingdom of God, He would have done so.\u00a0 \u00a0However under the Messianic Covenant,\u00a0where His bride was to be <em>purified<\/em>, as so vividly described by Paul in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Ephesians+5%3A25-31&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Ephesians 5<\/a>, it was necessary to go all the way back to the Garden, and repudiate this\u00a0transitory law of Moses that only endeavored to “manage” sin.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Principle of COMPARISON:<br \/>\n<\/strong>By this\u00a0fourth basic principle of sound hermeneutics, scripture interprets scripture, with\u00a0the clearest passages helping to answer any ambiguity remaining\u00a0after\u00a0an honest analysis of CONTENT, CONTEXT and CULTURE.\u00a0\u00a0 Since\u00a0 God’s word tells us that all scripture is\u00a0God-breathed, that is,\u00a0 equally inspired by the Holy Spirit, then if its seems that\u00a0one scripture contradicts another, it’s a sign of bias or that the analysis\u00a0is not complete enough.\u00a0\u00a0 In other words,\u00a0we don’t just run with it as\u00a0the “<a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/media\/set\/?set=a.1678980009008079.1073741841.1506212662951482&type=3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Reverend All-Wets<\/a>” of our day are all too prone to do, but we\u00a0keep studying until the conflict is resolved, and we <em>err on the side of holiness,\u00a0<\/em>out of love and gratitude toward the Bridegroom\u00a0in the meantime!<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=4327\">Part 1 of our series<\/a>, on Matthew 19:6 built a strong case\u00a0for this verse (and its counterpart verse, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Mark+10%3A8-9&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Mark 10:8-9<\/a> from the same historical occasion)\u00a0being the <em>cornerstone verse<\/em> for this comparison, but as also shown, there are many others.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+19%3A6%3B+Mark+10%3A8-9&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthew 19:6 \/ Mark 10:8-9<\/a>\u00a0 –\u00a0 established\u00a0by\u00a0the divine, instantaneous act the\u00a0irrevocable reality\u00a0of the one-flesh relationship, and its permanent\u00a0inseverability by any act of man.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0What came\u00a0directly out of the mouth of Jesus Christ\u00a0is in direct conflict with Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, at least\u00a0as it applied to the still-living husband or wife of our youth, but not necessarily is it\u00a0in conflict with dissolving subsequent, non-widowed\u00a0civil remarriage which <em>actually lacks<\/em> the characteristic of one-flesh joining by\u00a0God, as was also the case\u00a0for the instances of sequential and concurrent polygamy of Moses’ day\u00a0.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+5%3A23-25%2C+6%3A14-15%2C+18%3A21-35%3B+1+Corinthians+7%3A11%3B+2+Corinthians+5%3A18&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthew 5:23-25, 6:14-15, 18:21-35; 1 Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0–\u00a0 Jesus and Paul both instructed us that insofar as it depends on us, we are <em>never<\/em> to leave our relationships unreconciled, <strong>much less our <em>sole and exclusive<\/em> one-flesh relationship.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+18%3A7%2C+23%3A13%2C+1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10%3B+Galatians+5%3A19-21%3B+Hebrews%EF%BB%BF+13%3A4+&version=KJV\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthew 18:7, 23:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Hebrews 13:4<\/a>\u00a0– Neither are we to interfere in any way with <strong><em>another person’s<\/em><\/strong> entry into the kingdom of God through maintaining an ongoing state of sin by willful direct violation of God’s law.\u00a0 (Speaking of <em>stumbling blocks<\/em>, we’re citing the King James version here because virtually all modern English translations <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Galatians%205:19&version=KJV;NIV;NASB;YLT;GNV\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">wrongfully omit <em>adultery <\/em><\/a>from Galatians 5:19 due to the deliberate choice\u00a0of the Westcott & Hort\u00a0late 19th century bible translation team to translate\u00a0a faulty and incomplete manuscript, and to merge the separate single \/ married sins of\u00a0<em>fornication<\/em> and <em>adultery<\/em> into the far more fungible “sexual immorality” in order\u00a0to\u00a0appear to justify civil divorce with remarriage while having a living covenant spouse.)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+15%3A8-9%2C19-20%3B+Mark+7%3A6-7%2C20-22&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthew 15:8-9,19-20; Mark 7:6-7, 20-22<\/a> –\u00a0 God indeed “knows our heart” and sets the record straight on moral defilement, <em>not<\/em> by Deut. 24:4, nor by the letter of any other Mosaic law, other than the Ten Commandments.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+22%3A35-40&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthew 22:35-40<\/a> –\u00a0 Jesus pared down the 613 laws of Moses to just two easy-to-follow commandments, which actually<em> fully encompass all<\/em> of the Ten Commandments.\u00a0\u00a0 If we love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, there’s no excuse for disobeying Him when His Son declares three different times that marrying and staying civilly married to a divorced person is adultery, and refusing to remain celibate, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A10-11&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>as\u00a0explicitly instructed by Paul<\/em><\/a>\u00a0in the name of the Lord,\u00a0in order leave room to reconcile with our <strong><em>sole<\/em><\/strong> one-flesh partner,\u00a0is <em>living and walking in the state of ongoing unforgiveness,.<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0 Moreover,\u00a0 the <em>first greatest law<\/em> encompasses the first four commandments, and the <em>second greatest law<\/em> encompasses all of the last six, as well as the Golden Rule of treating others as we would like to be treated, but with <em>eternal destinations<\/em> firmly in mind for all persons involved.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A10-14&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Deuteronomy 21:10 -14 <\/a>–\u00a0 The situation of taking a captive woman as a wife as a result of war spoils,\u00a0perhaps polygamously,\u00a0which might also\u00a0have required a writ of divorcement if she wanted to go free,\u00a0where there\u00a0wasn’t necessarily a one-flesh relationship joined by God.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is because this was essentially an <em>unlawful<\/em> marriage, of the type repented of in Ezra, chapters 9 and 10, where a holy God forbid the taking of pagan wives and presumably would not have participated.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u00a0seems a bit\u00a0unclear why Moses permitted it.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A+13-28&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Deuteronomy 22: 13-28<\/a> –\u00a0 The penalty for both fornication by a betrothed wife, for whom a bride-price has been paid under a <em>ketubah<\/em>, and a fully-consummated wife of some years was always stoning under the Mosaic law.\u00a0\u00a0 In the latter case, this law was ripe for possible abuse and false witness, and for this reason, it is possible or even <em>likely<\/em> that the scope of Deuteronomy 24:1 was expanded over time.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jesus was likely referring to this when He talked about the hardness of the Pharisees’ hearts.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=1+Samuel+25%3A44%3B+2+Samuel+3%3A13-15&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1 Samuel 25:44 \/ 2 Samuel 3:13-15<\/a> –\u00a0 Saul gave Michal, David’s betrothed wife to another man;\u00a0 he later recovered her, even though they were not yet one-flesh.\u00a0\u00a0 In this case, the <em>ketubah<\/em> governed (apparently God chose not to join\u00a0her with Paltiel) \u00a0and Michal was not tainted by the immoral union because she was a valid wife for David to begin with so he was able to take her back.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (That said, David was apparently only supernaturally joined by God with <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=2+Samuel+3%3A2&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Ahinoam, the first wife <\/a>he actually took in consummation.)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Isaiah+50%3A1%3B+Jeremiah+3%3A1&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Isaiah 50:1 \/ Jeremiah 3:1<\/a> –\u00a0 Aside from Deuteronomy 24, these are the only two instances where reference to a writ of divorcement (also known as a “get”) was used instead of the far more common variations of the word “<em>shalach<\/em>“, which is putting away, sending away, dismissing, and never with God’s approval if the marriage was consummated and lawful to begin with.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In both of these two instances, He is speaking to Judah or Israel in rhetorical fashion, saying quite emphatically in the first instance that He did not issue such a writ (due to the nature of His character in covenant), and in the second instance, He’s beginning a long rhetorical discourse that actually ends up to Jeremiah 4:1 with God urging His bride to return 5 different times, and declaring Himself to be her <strong><em>Husband<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0\u00a0 The point is that Deuteronomy 24 can <em>never<\/em> be used as <em>conclusive evidence<\/em> that anyone but Moses permitted the attempted severing of God-joined holy matrimony.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It does not appear that God ever approved of the issuing of a writ of divorcement to any one-flesh spouse.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Jeremiah+3%3A8-14&version=NIV\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Jeremiah 3: 8-14 <\/a>–\u00a0 Another <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=4854\">pervasively-abused passage<\/a>, typically mentioned almost in the same breath by the Rev. All-Wets of our churches,\u00a0will be the subject of an upcoming blog in the series.\u00a0\u00a0 For now the discussion above suffices, except to note that we had to shift between versions again because of some documentable translation hanky-panky around the word “husband” in verse 14.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Malachi+2%3A+10-14+&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Malachi 2: 10-14<\/a> –\u00a0\u00a0Some 1,000 years\u00a0after the bones of Moses had returned to dust, (and about the time of the purge of unlawful wives and children from what remained of Judah after a remnant returned from 70 years’ exile in Babylon), here’s a prophet of the Lord thoroughly dressing down the remarriage adulterer, whose one-flesh wife\u00a0presumably had been issued a writ of divorcement, since she was evidently still alive for the Lord to stand as a witness with.\u00a0 Among other graphic rebukes, the Lord makes clear that man’s paper <em>never<\/em> dissolves a covenant in which God is a party.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+5%3A32b%3B+19%3A9b%3B+Luke+16%3A18+&version=KJV\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Luke 16:18 <\/a>–\u00a0\u00a0 Citing the King James version here, because virtually all modern English translations <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew%2019:9&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">wrongfully omit the phrases,<\/a><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew%2019:9&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> “whoever marries one who has been put away commits adultery”\u00a0and “causes her to commit adultery<\/a>” <\/em>from Matthew 19:9<em>, <\/em>due to the deliberate choice\u00a0of the bible translation team to translate\u00a0a faulty and incomplete manuscript.\u00a0\u00a0 These are three separate occasions where Jesus redefined the popular understanding of adultery from the patriarchal view (going into somebody else’s civil current wife) to <em>marrying <strong>anyone’s<\/strong> divorced partner of <strong>either gender <\/strong><\/em>under any circumstances.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is wrongfully applied to the covenant spouse of our youth because one-flesh joined by GOD\u00a0is inseverable by man’s paper, and does not even exist with man’s remarriage where there is a prior living spouse.<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p><strong>The Principle of CONSULTATION:<br \/>\n<\/strong>Whom is it most appropriate to consult on the authority of scripture\u00a0which seeks to \u201csanctify\u201d marriage to another while still having a living one-flesh spouse?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Due to the carnality of man which tends to escalate over time, that is a very important question\u00a0which requires a strong knowledge of church history to reliably answer.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hopefully, we\u2019ve made it clear with indisputable evidence up to this point <em>exactly where Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul) stood<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 They discipled the next generation of followers of The Way, who in turn discipled the successive generations of the ante-Nicene church fathers.\u00a0\u00a0 It makes sense therefore to start the consultation with the writings of those who knew the Apostles (for example, Luke and Mark), and with those whom the next generation \u00a0discipled.<\/p>\n<p>We need to be a bit skeptical while consulting theologian commentators from the time\u00a0 of the Reformation<em> forward<\/em> when it comes to this topic.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Some will be biased in defense of the heretical Westminster Confession of Faith, which dominated mainline Protestant Churches from the 17th century, and others will be swayed by the tampering with word translations that began to occur in the lexicons published after the latter half of the 19th century.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 On this basis, an equal number of later scholars will refute and discredit the many writings of the disciples of the Apostles, literally lapsing into \u201cReverend All-Wet\u201d mode, and only superficially applying the\u00a0 principles of disciplined hermeneutics \u00a0that we\u2019ve just stepped through together.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 For example, in convoluted fashion they\u2019ll say that \u201cscripture cannot contradict itself\u201d,\u00a0 so\u00a0since \u201cmost scholars agree\u201d (a presumption based on <em>confirmation bias \u2014 <\/em>and a weakened, distorted\u00a0application of the COMPARISON principle that completely bypasses application of both the CONTEXT\u00a0and\u00a0 CULTURE\u00a0principles)\u00a0\u2026that <em>porneia<\/em> \u201cshould always be\u201d translated as \u201csexual\u00a0immorality\u201d,\u00a0 all of the many scriptures that refute this must therefore be\u00a0interpreted as not universally authoritative, and the church fathers should be\u00a0dismissed as \u201cflawed\u201d asceticists.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Two free downloadable scholarly books\u00a0are available, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.danielrjennings.org\/except_for_fornication_version_1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">here<\/span><\/u><\/a> and<a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/download\/1206731982673756\/JEWISH%20MARRIAGE%2C%20BIBLICAL%20DIVORCE%2C%20AND%20REMARRIAGE-1-25-2016.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\"> here<\/span><\/u><\/a>, that will be very helpful in carrying out the CONSULTATION step for\u00a0almost every scripture we\u2019ll be examining in this series.\u00a0\u00a0 Our <a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/media\/set\/?set=a.1549703365269078.1073741834.1506212662951482&type=3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Church Fathers <\/span><\/u><\/a>and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/media\/set\/?set=a.1567256070180474.1073741835.1506212662951482&type=3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Church Wolves <\/span><\/u><\/a>series will also be historically helpful.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0What follows below is intended to be a sampling and not exhaustive.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Once again, it shows that the proponents of the heretical view did not surface for centuries after the first disciples of the apostles were unanimous in the faithful gospel.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Clement of Alexandria<\/strong> (circa 215 A.D.)<br \/>\nNow that the scripture counsels marriage, <strong><em>and allows no release from the union<\/em><\/strong>, is expressly contained in the law, \u201cYou shall not put away your wife except for the cause of fornication,\u201d and it regards as adultery the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.\u00a0\u00a0 The Church cannot marry another, having obtained a bridegroom;\u00a0 each of us individually has a right to marry the woman he wishes according to the law;<strong><em> I mean here first marriage<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Tertullian<\/strong> ( circa 160-220 A.D.)<br \/>\nA divorced woman\u00a0cannot even marry legitimately; and if she commits any such act without the name of marriage, does it not fall under the category of adultery, in that adultery is crime in the way of marriage?\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Such is God\u2019s verdict, within narrower limits than men\u2019s, that <strong>universally, whether through marriage or promiscuously, the admission of a second man to intercourse is pronounced adultery to Him.<\/strong>..so true, moreover, is it that divorce \u201cwas not from the beginning,\u201d that among the Romans it is not until the six hundredth year from the building of the city that this kind of \u201chard heartedness\u201d is set down as having been committed.\u00a0 But they indulge in promiscuous adulteries, even without divorcing their partners: to us, even if we do divorce them, even marriage will not be lawful.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Innocent I\u00a0<\/strong> (417 A.D.)<br \/>\nIt is manifest that when persons who have been divorced marry again both parties are adulterers.\u00a0\u00a0 And moreover, although the former marriage is supposed to be broken, yet if they marry again they themselves are adulterers, but the parties whom they marry are equally with them guilty of adultery; as we read in the gospel:<br \/>\n<em>He who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery; and likewise, He who marries her that is put\u00a0away from her husband commits adultery.<br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Peter Lombard<\/strong> (prior to 1160 A.D.)<br \/>\n<strong><em>The marriage bond still exists between those<\/em><\/strong> who, even if departing from one another, having joined themselves to others.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Thomas Aquinas<\/strong> (circa 1225-1274 A.D.)<br \/>\n<em><strong>Nothing happening after a marriage can dissolve it<\/strong><\/em>: wherefore adultery does not make a marriage cease to be valid.\u00a0 For according to Augustine, \u201cas long as they live they are bound by the marriage tie, which <strong><em>neither divorce nor union with another can destroy<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Isaac Williams<\/strong> (1802-1865)<br \/>\n\u2018What therefore God has joined let not man put asunder.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0 Here our Lord sets aside the letter of Holy Scripture, in one case, in the passage in Deuteronomy, (which He speaks of as the command of Moses,) on account of the higher law of Christian holiness and perfection\u2026and therefore this passage in the book of Genesis not only is spoken, as St Paul says it is, of the Sacramental union betwixt Christ and His Church, <em><strong>but also does signify that marriage is itself of Divine sanction, and the union formed by God, and necessarily indissoluble as such\u2026for if God has joined, man cannot put asunder.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?ssl=1\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=19%2C22&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"19\" height=\"22\" \/><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 <strong>SIFC Note<\/strong>:\u00a0\u00a0 All of the above quotes are from\u00a0 Daniel R. Jennings, \u201c<em>Except for Fornication \u2013 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.danielrjennings.org\/except_for_fornication_version_1.pdf\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Why Evangelicals Must Reevaluate Their Interpretation of Matthew\u2019s Divorce Exception <\/span><\/u><\/a>Clause\u201d<\/em> (2011)<br \/>\nSean Multimedia (www.seanmultimedia.com).<\/p>\n<p><strong>R.A. Torrey<\/strong> (circa 1890)\u00a0 \u2013 Moody Bible Institute<br \/>\n“Look at this legalized adultery we call divorce.\u00a0 Men marry one wife after another, and are still admitted\u00a0in good society, and women do likewise.\u00a0 There are thousands of supposedly respectable men\u00a0married to other men’s wives, and thousands of supposedly respectable women married to other women’s husbands.”<\/p>\n<p><strong>Bill Gothard<\/strong> (circa 1983)\u00a0 – (morally-discredited evangelist who was forced to step down from the\u00a0bible institute he founded)<\/p>\n<p>“….God has expressly forbidden a divorced woman who has remarried to return to her first husband — even if the second husband\u00a0dies. (See Deut. 24:4 and Jeremiah 3:1)…”<\/p>\n<p><strong>Dr. John MacArthur<\/strong> (circa 2009) – President and founder, Masters Theological Seminary in Sun Valley, CA <em>(a multi-point\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/nofaultequalsnoaccountability\/photos\/pb.1506212662951482.-2207520000.1455392070.\/1678980072341406\/?type=3&theater\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">inspiration for “Rev. All-Wet”<\/a>)<br \/>\n<\/em><br \/>\n“…As a matter of fact, in\u00a0the same\u00a0passage where Moses permitted husbands to issue a certificate of divorce, the law added this restriction:\u00a0\u00a0‘When she has departed from his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce,\u00a0puts\u00a0it in her hand, and sends her out of the house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, <em>then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled<\/em>, for that is an abomination before the LORD.\u00a0\u00a0 Clearly, the second marriage — whether biblically-justified or not becomes as binding as the original marriage was supposed to be.\u00a0\u00a0 A return to the original spouse is strictly forbidden.”<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of the citations are from <strong>biblehub.com\u00a0<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ital\"><a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/commentaries\/benson\/deuteronomy\/24.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Benson Commentary<\/span><\/u><\/a>\u00a0 Her former husband may not take her again \u2014 <\/span>This is the punishment of his levity and injustice in putting her away without sufficient cause, which, by this offer, he now acknowledgeth. <span class=\"ital\">Defiled \u2014 <\/span>Not absolutely, as if her second marriage were a sin, <strong>but with respect to her first husband, to whom she is as a defiled or unclean woman<\/strong>; that is, forbidden; for things forbidden are accounted and called unclean, (<a title=\"But he said to me, Behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.\" href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/judges\/13-7.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Jdg 13:7<\/span><\/u><\/a>,) because they may no more be touched or used than an unclean thing. <span class=\"ital\">Thou shalt not cause the land to sin <\/span>\u2014 Thou shalt not suffer such lightness to be practised, lest the people be polluted, and the land defiled and accursed by that means.<a id=\"mhc\" name=\"mhc\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"bld\"><a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/commentaries\/cambridge\/deuteronomy\/24.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/span><\/u><\/a><br \/>\n4<\/span>. <span class=\"ital\">after that she is defiled<\/span>] Ambiguous indeed, as the most carefully chosen terms of some laws often are. But the natural meaning is that she is unclean to the former husband by her union with the latter. It cannot be a matter of indifference to him that she has been another\u2019s, as (presumably) the popular humour took it. Such easy passage of a woman from one man to another did defile her: it is <span class=\"ital\">an abomination before Jehovah<\/span> (notice the peculiar construction <span class=\"ital\">before<\/span> and the absence of <span class=\"ital\">thy God<\/span> after the divine name). She was, therefore, <span class=\"ital\">taboo<\/span>, or unlawful to her first husband. Marti suggests that the <span class=\"ital\">uncleanness<\/span> may have a demonistic origin (cp. <a title=\"You shall not sow your vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of your seed which you have sown, and the fruit of your vineyard, be defiled....\" href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/context\/deuteronomy\/22-9.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Deuteronomy 22:9-11<\/span><\/u><\/a>). This, of course, may have been the motive of the original law, but if so, it has disappeared from its present form.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ital\">thou shalt not cause the land to sin<\/span>] Sam., LXX <span class=\"ital\">ye shall not<\/span>, etc. Cp. <a title=\"You shall not sow your vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of your seed which you have sown, and the fruit of your vineyard, be defiled.\" href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/deuteronomy\/22-9.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Deuteronomy 22:9<\/span><\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"ital\">which the Lord thy God<\/span> <span class=\"bld\">is to give<\/span> <span class=\"ital\">thee<\/span>, etc.] See on <a title=\"Furthermore the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, and swore that I should not go over Jordan, and that I should not go in to that good land, which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance:\" href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/deuteronomy\/4-21.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Deuteronomy 4:21<\/span><\/u><\/a>.<a id=\"pul\" name=\"pul\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/commentaries\/poole\/deuteronomy\/24.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Matthew Poole’s Commentary<br \/>\n<\/span><\/u><\/a>This is the punishment of his levity and injustice in putting her away without sufficient cause, which by this offer he now acknowledgeth.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"bld\">After that she is defiled; <\/span> not simply and absolutely, as if her second marriage were a sin, but respectively, or as to her first husband, to whom she is as a defiled or unclean woman, that is, forbidden; for things forbidden are accounted and called unclean, <span class=\"bldvs\"><a title=\"But he said to me, Behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.\" href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/judges\/13-7.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Judges 13:7<\/span><\/u><\/a><\/span>, because they may no more be touched or used than an unclean thing.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"bld\">Thou shalt not cause the land to sin, <\/span> i.e. thou shalt not suffer such abominable lightness and lewdness to be practised, lest the people be polluted, and the land defiled and accursed by that means. <a id=\"gil\" name=\"gil\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"cverse2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/commentaries\/gsb\/deuteronomy\/24.htm\"><u><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Geneva Study Bible<\/span><\/u><\/a><br \/>\nHer former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is <span class=\"cverse3\">{b}<\/span> defiled; for that <i>is<\/i> abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee <i>for<\/i> an inheritance.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>(b) Seeing that <strong>by divorcing her he judged her to be unclean and defiled.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?ssl=1\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=19%2C22&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"19\" height=\"22\" \/><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 <strong>SIFC Note<\/strong>:\u00a0 The most faithful of the commentators above carefully note that the defilement existed <em>prior<\/em> to the first marriage and divorce (functioning more like an annulment, actually),\u00a0 hence it was <strong><em>not<\/em><\/strong> the second marriage that defiled her.<\/p>\n<p><em>Father God, in Jesus’ holy name, may the Person of the Holy Spirit be faithful to carry this message to at least <strong>that one (hopefully many) prodigal husband or wife who now feels trapped and ensnared, indeed who sees no way out of what he or she knows is a wrongful, non-covenant marriage, and who longs with all their heart to make their covenant family whole again<\/strong>, redeeming the generations from repeating this debilitating pattern of sin.\u00a0\u00a0 May Your holy anointing rest on these words and that person, and may you make them a level path back to their inheritance in the kingdom of God.\u00a0\u00a0 May\u00a0 You, O God, open their eyes to the only act of true eternal love that will restore their non-covenant spouse to a chance to inherit the kingdom of God, and may You give them the holy resolve to do it, blessing their righteous obedience to Your commandment.<br \/>\n<\/em><br \/>\n<em>We ask these things in Jesus’ name, thanking You in advance for the extra measure of grace you are pouring out over them.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Amen.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>(Next blog in the series: \u00a0Part 3, <strong>“I Don’t Know My ‘<em>Deo<\/em>‘\u00a0 \u00a0From My ‘<em>Douloo’<\/em>\u00a0 –\u00a0 (Do You?)\u00a0\u00a0 Stop Abusing 1 Cor. 7:15″ )<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>www.standerinfamilycourt.com<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>7 Times Around the Jericho Wall\u00a0\u00a0 |\u00a0\u00a0 Let’s\u00a0 Repeal No-Fault\u00a0Divorce!<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p><span id=\"en-NASB-5530\" class=\"text Deut-24-4\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Standerinfamilycourt Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.\u00a0\u00a0 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of … <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/2016\/02\/stop-abusing-the-indecency-in-deuteronomy-24-the-debunk-series-part-2\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">The “Indecency” of Abusing Deuteronomy 24: “Debunk” Series – Part 2<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">→<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[26,22,36,5,13,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4480","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-discipleship-religious-freedom-2","category-divorce-2","category-lost-culture","category-marriage","category-morality","category-spiritual-warfare"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p57mep-1ag","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4480","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4480"}],"version-history":[{"count":123,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4480\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11626,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4480\/revisions\/11626"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4480"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}