Words'nTone

Regarding the wife (the woman who marries twice) and her defilement, it does not say she is defiled because of her action.  The “Certificate of Divorce” allowed her to marry again, freely, which was also a way to avoid poverty as well.  So the defilement comes not because of her action, but because of her intended use.  I know poor word, but it fits the concept of defilement, namely that the first husband has caused her to be defiled by the (freedom) to marry and be “used” in a second marriage.

The defilement has religious overtones—similar to the defilement of a temple or altar, whereas it is not the action of the temple or altar that brings defilement, but the action toward it.  Again, the text seems to be implying that the first cause (i.e., the issuing of a “Certificate of Divorce”) brought the affect of the defilement—the “use” as a wife of another.  The defilement had no religious, political, or land/inheritance affect until the former first husband wished to remarry the woman (if she became available—again).  The “abomination” relates to remarrying the woman for whom he divorced in the first place.  We tend to think that it’s all the woman (ah, so convenient for us guys, isn’t it?), but it is the man’s action that would bring about the sin/guilt on the land of inheritance (if he does remarry her). 

Someone has rightly pointed out, and I believe is correct, that the purpose of this text relates to “the property aspect of marriage” and “the financial consequences of its dissolution.” The “Certificate of Divorce” allows the husband some justification for divorce without any financial consequences to himself.  This is significant in that the first husband is actually “the sinner” here (not the woman) and in need of repentance; but more so, that there is no mention of a similar rationale of indecency in the second divorce.  Why does this latter observation matter?

The second marriage dissolution is based solely on the second husband either “turning against” his wife (literally “hating” her) or she is widowed—both are mentioned as cause.  Both, also add a financial and/or land/inheritance aspect with regard to the former first husband if he seeks to remarry her.  He, that is, the former first husband might attempt to have another dowry (which is like stealing) and, if the second husband has died, the inheritance of the second husband would infringe on the family inheritance laws, promises, and expectations given elsewhere in the Pentateuch.  And this would especially be a problem if any children are produced in the second marriage in terms of proper land/inheritance.  The first husband ought not to benefit twice by the marriage and then remarriage of the first wife—again this is stealing, and at least dishonest and coveting.  This is an unjust act that the law/code in Deuteronomy seeks to prevent.  Furthermore, God will not allow dishonest gain to corrupt (pollute, defile) his intention and promises of land/inheritance.  This is why such a second remarriage to the first husband brings a curse on the land.

So for us who need an “excused divorce” for voctaional Church ministry, do Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 19 provide our parameters?  Do these texts offer guidelines for those in power over ministry credentials in determining access for those who are divorced?  These are the questions… to be continued in the next post...

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.