Divorce and Remarriage according to Messianic Jews.

At the outset, I would like to point out what I keep repeating: the church of Rome, through our interest in the Old Testament and Hebrew culture, drives us into a so-called corner, immediately pigeonholing those seeking it as Judaists. This is a deliberate practice and only yesterday I realized, if not the Spirit of God made me realize this seemingly truism:

 

THE ROMAN CHURCH FOUNDED AN ENTIRELY NEW RELIGION.

 

New, completely cutting off from Hebrew culture at the level of God's law, and in 100% preserving Pharisaic traditions such as (yarmulkes, daily sacrifices, Ashtarte, size of hierarchs, etc).

 

This text, which is not only about divorce but is also political and political-religious, was also translated by Marcin, a reader, brother in the faith and member of the convention.

Thank you, because probably many people will find this text useful, even those who are happily married in their first marriage or are just about to enter the covenant of marriage.

______________________

 

Text by Dr. Vered Hillel

Seas of ink and forests of trees have been used for the plethora of Bible commentaries, books and articles written on the subject of divorce. However, there is no definitive statement on the matter. Although the attitude, of both Judaism and Christianity, toward divorce can be outlined by the same sources and context-the Tanakh and the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai of the first century-their conclusions are opposite. In Judaism, a valid marriage can only be dissolved by death of a spouse or issuance of a divorce letter. Divorce in Judaism is considered a tragedy, but it is not forbidden or considered a sin. The main concern is not the permissibility of divorce, but rather The correct reasons and procedures for divorce, allowing remarriage without committing adultery.[1] This emphasis is based on the biblical injunction in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which governs remarriage after divorce. In the first century AD, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was considered the primary legal text on divorce. Paradoxically, it is not a text about divorce, but about remarriage. It simply takes divorce for granted.

 

Modern Christianity also bases its understanding of divorce on Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as interpreted by Jesus in Mark, 10:2-12/Matthew 19:3-9/Luke 16:18/Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. These references have been placed in the context of the rabbinic discussion of divorce between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai and evidence from the Qumran documents. In general, these texts were examined to determine whether Jesus permitted or prohibited divorce. Two main views emerged, albeit with many variations. The first view is that there are 2 correct reasons for divorce to occur - adulterous partner(Jesus) and abandonment(Paul) - but remarriage is not allowed unless one of the former spouses dies. The other view holds that there are no reasons for divorce or even separation.[2]

The complexity of the passages mentioned above is far more profound than a simple reading of these texts can provide. Various exegetical techniques, textual and source criticality, as well as institutionalizing marriage and divorce, are just some of the areas that show the complexity of these passages and highlight the problems. For example:

References are highly abbreviated and must be "unpacked."[3]
The task of the "Exception Clause" in Matthew(Matt 19:9), including the meaning of the word porneia, which can be complicated and must be unraveled
Placing passages in the context of rabbinic discussions and evidence from the Qumran community is academic and must be authorized and developed.

 

 

In summary, the problems are political and social background, the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels and the existence of Q[texts from Qumran], as well as our own preconceived opinions and the many scholarly studies written on Jesus' teaching on divorce.[4]
It is impossible to address all of these difficulties and challenges in this dissertation, nor is it appropriate that we do so. The purpose of this treatise is to present how Messianic Jews view the subject of divorce. We are not trying to find out whether Jesus permitted or forbade divorce. Since Messianic Judaism shares the same context with both Judaism and Christianity, any view of divorce must take into account the traditions of both communities. This is a daunting task, as the two communities hold opposing, irreconcilable views. Our task, then, focuses on the view of divorce in Judaism during Second Temple times, and more specifically on the pivotal debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as the basis from which both communities developed their views on divorce and remarriage. Along the way we will look at the institutionalization of marriage in the Tanakh noting its implications to understand divorce in the Tanakh and the Apostolic Writings, as well as look at early Jewish and Christian understandings and practices of divorce. Also, we will explain passages from the Tanakh and the Apostolic Writings, taking into account legitimate historical and cultural influences, reinforcing Jewish and rabbinic texts from the Second Temple period, and consider their common aspects.
Divorce in Second Temple Judaism
Views on divorce in modern Judaism and Christianity are rooted in the Jewish debate of the Second Temple period between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Various Jewish groups from the Second Temple period debated the correct procedures for writing and presenting a certificate of divorce, as well as reasons for divorce, all of which are based on the meaning of the phrase עברת דבר 'ervat davar' in Deut 24:1.[5] Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai took opposite positions. Beit Hillel interpreted the phrase as "indecency' and 'any matter', introducing a new type of divorce. They ruled that anything the husband considered unsatisfactory was grounds for divorce.[6] Beit Shammai, on the other hand, interpreted 'ervat davar' as "indecent matters" and limited the grounds for divorce to bad conduct (in the sexual sense), especially adultery.
Beth Shammai states: "No man may divorce his wife unless he has found shameful behavior in her(immodesty/uncleanness) for it is written(Deuteronomy 24) 'because he has found something obscene in her' " but Beth Hillel says: "Even if she cooked his food wrong, because it is written ערבת רבד". R. Akivah said "even if he found a prettier one than her, for it is said 'and then it will happen that she will not find liking in his eyes' "[7]

The phrase 'ervat davar' is hard to translate. It appears only twice in the Tanakh, Deut 24:1 and 23:15 both times in the context of dealing with holiness. Deuteronomy 23:15 refers to the holiness of the camp of Israel because of the presence of Adonai in their midst, and the holiness of Deut 24:1-4 is in Israel's exhortation to avoid sexual impurity. The phrase can be translated as "a matter of indecency" but the word "indecency" is in a constructive form that forces it to be read literally as "indecency of the matter," rendering the word "matter" (davar דבר) as obsolete/outdated.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4

In the beginning, Adonai told a man to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife(Genesis 2:24), establishing a lifelong marriage between two people, as an ideal. Throughout Tanakh, marriage is consistently referred to as "berith ברית"(Covenant; e.g., Prov 2:17;Ml 2:14;Ez 16:8,59-62). Theologically, the marriage covenant includes the idea that the faithful person will not break the covenant, even if the covenant partner breaks the terms. This meaning of covenant stems from the relationship between Adonai and Israel and was developed in later prophets and in the writings of the apostles. However, the Hebrew word berith(Covenant) also carries the legal aspect of a marriage contract.

In the ancient Near East the word "covenant" was used for any kind of legally binding agreement or contract e.g. tracts such as the Torah, business agreements, hiring of employees, and other legal agreements including marriage.[8] Each covenant contained terms agreed upon by both parties and sanctions that occurred when the terms were violated. The legal term for marriage in the ancient Near East was "covenant" because it was a legal agreement that included conditions and sanctions.[9] Marriage contracts included fees such as bride price(mohar) (Gen. 24:53;Ex. 22:16-17; Hos. 3:1-2) and dowry(ketubah) agreed upon in the conditions and penalties for not keeping the conditions. The idea of marriage as a contract, developed together from the traditional theological meaning of marriage as a covenant. The marriage covenant and the marriage contract are like two sides of a coin. There are two aspects, the theological (hence covenant) and legal (hence contract/covenant) aspects of the marriage agreement that developed one after the other and do not show that they were ever separate. That is, when evaluating the Messianic Jews' view of divorce, a person must distinguish between breaking the marriage covenant, which is always wrong, and divorce, which is a legal recognition that the marriage contract has been broken. The breakdown of a marriage is always because of the sin of breaking the marriage vow(terms) in the marriage contract, and divorce is simply a legal joint recognition that the marriage covenant has been broken.

Genesis establishes lifelong marriage as the ideal, but in reality people sinmarriage contracts are broken and divorces occur. The Torah deals in a practical way with the sin of broken marriage contracts in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.and the time of Moses, men sent away their wives (divorced them) or abandoned them, thus causing harm to individuals, families and the community as a whole. Therefore The Torah limits the damage inflicted by broken marriage vows by requiring a written certificate of divorce(divorce letter).

Certificate of divorce, later called a letterIt qualifies the divorce as valid, thus enabling the woman to remarry. A divorce is therefore a legal, joint approval that the marriage contract has been broken and that the divorce was for valid reasons. Tanakh does not decry the permissibility of divorce, but rather seeks to regulate it.
The passage from Deuteronomy presupposes divorce and remarriage, but specifies conditions and consequences: verses 1-3 list the conditions(palingamia[returning to the person with whom one was previously divorced] is completely prohibited,[10]) when verse 4 gives the consequences that are declared in the purity of the language. To a doubly divorced woman, remarriage to her first husband causes her to become "dishonored" טמא (tamei) and the result of such an act is "abomination" תועבה (to-'evah). The use of purity of language in these verses is quite puzzling. First, it places the use of 'ervat davar in context purity/holiness similar to Deut 23:15 is the only other appearance in Tanakh. Second, the purity of the language links Deut 24:1-4 to adultery as mentioned in Leviticus 18:20 and Numbers 5:13,14,20. Adultery is one of the sexual sins considered an "abomination" (to-'evah) by Adonai, which is punished by death(Leviticus 18:24-30;20:10;22-26; Deuteronomy 22:22-24) and that it defiles the land of Israel by causing the land to be "sinful" or "guilty" and that it spits out its inhabitants(Leviticus 18:24-25; Jeremiah 3:1)
Jeremiah 3:1 looks at remarriage to ex-wife, who married and divorced in a similar manner; such an act defiles the earth (תחנף techanef). Second Temple Jewish texts understood Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in a similar manner. For example, Philo compares a divorcee who remarries her first husband with an adulterous woman, and terribly mocks men who maintain sexual relations with their ex-wife after belonging to someone else.[11] In re-telling Reuben's crime from Bilhah, Jubilees 33:7-8 and T. Reuben 3:10-15 emphasizes that Jacob denied any further sexual relations with her after the affair.

The emphasis on purity during the Second Temple period brought Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to the surface. The correct reasons and procedures for divorce were defined in light of the contemporary situation to avoid illicit sexual relations and subsequent exile.
Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period
In the unfolding narrative of Abram, Sarai, and Pharaoh, the Genesis apocrypha presents the same approach as Philo and Jubilees. The text claims that even Pharaoh captured Sarai and kept her for two years, in response to Abram's request to God that Pharaoh "Do not dishonor(make unclean) my wife from me" Pharaoh and his household suffered from an evil spirit and disease that stopped any sexual relations between the king and Sarai. If they had sexual relations, Sarai would have been incapable of returning to Abram. The author repeats this point twice, assuring the reader that Pharaoh never touched Sarai. As a result, she was not dishonored(tamei) and could return to her husband Abram. Philo knows of a similar legend. She also shares the understanding that sexual relations between a woman and someone other than her husband would make her unclean to her husband(Phila, Abr. 98). These examples demonstrate that during the Second Temple period, the idea of sexual contact during marriage would have scarred a woman, making her unlawful to her first husband.
Other developments in Second Temple Judaism provide background for the debate over the reasons for divorce. These in particular are implicated:
Criticism of polygamy and the movement toward monogamy;
Developments of ketubah and marital instability;
The ease of divorce for both men and women and the Greco-Roman world.

These changes are especially evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Dead Sea Scrolls
The movement from polygamy toward monogamy is seen quite early with the addition of the word "two" in Genesis 2.24 in the Septuagint(LXX) and other early versions where it says "and two shall become one flesh."[13] The word "two" is not found in the Masoretic texts. The implication is that glossa was a common addition that was considered a commentary on the text rather than a variant. This means that the glossa affirmed that marriage consisted of two people, making polygamy something unnatural. The Dead Sea sectarians indeed forbade polygamy or more specifically polygyny[14] because it was considered a sexual sin(CD 4:20-5:21).[15] The Damascus Document(CD) uses three proof texts to defend its view: Genesis 1:27("he created them male and female"), Genesis 7:9("After a couple entered Noah into the ark, male and female"), and Deuteronomy 17:17(concerning the king that he would not "multiply wives for himself"). This part of the CD was combined with passages from the Temple Scroll[16] to infer that the Qumran sectarians forbade both polygyny and divorce.[17] However, it has been successfully demonstrated that the Qumran community permitted divorce.
Let us take the two texts above as examples. CD 13:17 mentions the role of the overseer in the matter of marriage and divorce, and the Temple Scroll suggests that divorce was normally permitted.(11Q19 66.11). The Damascus document attempts to understand God's purpose and the nature of things: God created humans, male and female, having paired all beings in pairs, and a king should not have multiple wives. None of the Qumran texts say anything substantial about divorce or remarriage. Instead, it interprets the texts as referring to someone taking two wives.
.
.
.
Before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, it was generally agreed that Important reasons for divorce include: infertility, infidelity, material neglect(food, clothing) and emotional neglect. The last two were drawn from Exodus 21:10-11. Also, divorce was considered undesirable but sometimes necessary.
...
Infidelity or adultery was another accepted reason for divorce. Theoretically, adultery was an offense punishable by death. However, it is unlikely that the death penalty for adultery was ever carried out during the Second Temple period. The normal procedure for adultery was divorce without paying ketubah(...) The right to divorce for adultery applied only to a husband divorcing his wife. If he committed adultery with a maiden, he simply married her, if with a married woman, it was an offense against the woman's husband, who could then divorce his wife.

 

(from blog admin: as above fornication was considered cohabitation without marriage)

...
Cruelty and humiliation are forms of emotional neglect considered in the Mishnah as grounds for divorce without paying ketubah.(...)Wife beating was considered an act of cruelty and treated as an act of assault(...). A wife's malicious acts towards her husband were considered, e.g. making him unclean by not eating properly, not warning him about menstruation, behaving improperly in public or cursing his parents. The difference between cruelty and neglect of conjugal rights was that cruelty resulted in divorce rather than punishment.
(...) During the first century AD, the debate over divorce between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai permeated society. Beit Hillel's "for any reason" divorce instantly replaced all other biblically grounded reasons for divorce -. Infertility, infidelity(adultery), material neglect and emotional neglect.
Summary
In this section it is shown that marriage was meant to be a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman, but sin prevented this ideal. Breaking the marriage covenant is always a sin, but the Torah deals practically with this sin through the legal process of issuing a written letter of divorce. This legal document is a joint confirmation that the reasons and procedures involved in the divorce were correct and that the woman had the right to remarry without committing adultery, except palingamias.
All Jewish groups during the Second Temple period accepted divorce and remarriage after correct divorce. The reasons and procedures for a valid divorce were highly influenced by the strong emphasis on chastity and by modern culture and society. Therefore, the main focus of the debate was to correctly explain Deuteronomy 24:1 to establish the correct reasons and procedures for divorce to ensure a valid divorce. Without a valid divorce, remarriage caused a woman to commit adultery and put society at risk of being banished once again. Beit Hillel created a new type of divorce called "divorce for any reason," expanding the reasons for a valid divorce to include almost anything. Beit SHammai rejected "any reason" declaring that Deuteronomy 24:1 accepted divorce only for "matters of indecency." Both Beti Hillel and Beit Shammai accepted sexual indecency as a reason for divorce, also accepting infertility, infidelity, material neglect and emotional neglect, demonstrating pragmatic and compassionate positions.

Writings of the Apostles

 

Mark 10:2-12 is traditionally understood as a passage about divorce. Although the passage begins with some Pharisees engaging Jesus in a debate about the legality of a man's divorce from his wife, Jesus' response changes the topic of discussion from divorce to marriage and remarriage. The Pharisees' question seems to test Jesus on the permissibility of divorce. Such a universal question, however, is strange because all Jewish groups at that time permitted divorce. A first century audience would have understood that the question was about "any reason" for divorce. This is like asking if it is "lawful for a 16 year old to drink. We automatically understand that it is about drinking alcohol; the person would dehydrate and die without drinking anything. Matthew 19:3 removes any ambiguity by adding the phrase "for any reason" which was a legal term referring to Beit Hillel's view of divorce. Therefore, this question is best understood in relation to the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai on the correct reasons and procedures for divorce.
After the Pharisees' initial question, the "cat and mouse game" begins. Jesus asks the Pharisees what Moses commanded and they respond that he permitted them to write a letter of divorce, paraphrasing Deuteronomy 24:1-3. Jesus responded with two texts from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. It has been suggested that the difference in terminology between commanded and permitted indicates a popular assumption understood by Jesus and the Pharisees that the commandments of Moses(Deuteronomy 24:1) are juxtaposed against God's commandments(Genesis 1:27;2:14) indicating that Moses' permission to divorce was God's concession/permission. In other words, Moses gave his own commandments and Adonai simply acquiesced. Such an exegesis is untenable in Mark's Gospel because Besorah clearly identifies Moses' commandments as equal to God's. Furthermore, Jesus himself returns to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 when explaining his teaching privately to his disciples(10:10-12) treating it as the word Adonai. The Pharisees were simply using common terminology for what can or cannot be done.
Jesus connects two texts from Genesis in a type of exegesis later known as gezerah sh'vah so that 1:27 is inferred in 2:24 detailing that it is God who brings two together. By doing this Jesus shows the Pharisees that he is not interested in their debate and reminds them that marriage was meant to be monogamous and for life. The passages in Genesis were standard texts for monogamy; a man should marry only one wife, as in Eden. Notice that Jesus includes the word "two" when he quotes Genesis 2:24 showing that he supports the teaching that monogamy was Adonai's original intention. Jesus' juxtaposition of these two texts diverts the topic of debate from Deuteronomy 24:1-3 to creation and the dawn of an eschatological era that will restore conditions from Eden. In this way, Jesus assures us of Adonai's sovereignty.

Further the texts introduced by Jesus expand the discussion from one specific form of forbidden sexual relationship called palingamia which is the focus of Deuteronomy 24:1-3 to include all forbidden sexual relationships. Any sexual relationship other than that between two(a man and a woman) who have become one is outside the original intent of Adonai. Any reworking of this model affects creation, community and those in community, as well as the image of Adonai and His holiness. Jesus does not contradict the Torah by prohibiting divorce. Rather, He emphasizes the heavier issue by giving primacy to creation and allowing it to correct the image.
The disciples, however, seemed not to understand Jesus' answer. When they were home alone, they asked for clarification of Jesus' statement. He explains that any man who sends away/divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her (meaning his first wife) and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery. This extends the teaching of verses 6-9 and focuses on Deuteronomy 24:4; which the Pharisees did not include in their argument.
If two people who have become one through marriage divorce and remarry another person, they are committing adultery because they are in essence still "married" to their first partners. Thechnically, this is bigamy, not adultery. Adultery in Tanakh in Second Temple period literature and rabbinic literature is defined as a man having intercourse with a woman married to or promised to another man. Bigamy, on the other hand, describes a person who marries another while still married. Neither bigamy nor polygamy is forbidden or defined as a sin in Tanakh. Although monogamy was strongly recommended during the Second Temple period, polygamy and bigamy were not officially prohibited in Judaism until the 13th century AD.
...
Jesus' statement: "What God has joined together, let not man separate" connects to Genesis. Vocabulary choice plays an important role in understanding Jesus' statement. The Greek uses scho-rizeto "to separate" instead of apolyo- "to release/let go" which the Pharisees used when asking Him. Although both words were typical terms for "divorce" and had a very similar semantic field, the Apostolic Writings use cho-rizeto- only in relation to Jesus' statement about divorce in Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:6(1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Cho-rizeto- is a third-person prohibition. It is not a direct command. The third-person imperative mode in Greek does not convey the power of a direct command; rather, it conveys a request, supplication, exhortation, or exhortation. For example, Jesus taught the disciples to pray "...hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done."(Matthew 6:9) These are requests, not commands. The same nuances apply to prohibitions. Most prohibitions ask people to refrain from one behavior and engage in another (e.g. Rom 14:3; 2 Thess 3:10;Ex 20:19;Leviticus 25:14; 2 Sm 11:25;Jon 14:27) His words are a prohibition against divorce, but they do not carry the force of a direct commandment. They do not say "You shall not divorce" or "Divorce is forbidden". Jesus is not saying that divorce cannot happen, but that it should not happen. This interpretation does not condone divorce; Tanakh and Jesus in the Apostolic Writings clearly equate divorce with sin. Instead, it places the statement in the context of the more important things of creation, eschatological restoration, and the Torah's pragmatic handling of the breaking of marriage.
The prophets present a picture of Adonai divorcing Israel because she consistently broke her marriage contract. The main message is not that Adonai is a divorcee, but that Israel and Judah have broken their marriage contracts. Malachi extends this criticism to all marriages where marriage vows are broken(2:10-16;3:5,8-10). Adonai himself witnessed these vows(Ml 2:14). He calls for them to be faithfully fulfilled(v. 15) and gets angry when the vows are broken(v. 16). He even states that he hates divorce. However, he does not criticize the legal process, or the person who brings it.
...
In Matthew 19:9, "beyond porneia" explains that Jesus did not condone "divorce for any reason," but that the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 meant no less no more than "sexual immorality."(...) Jesus was not answering the question of whether divorce is lawful or not, or whether it is accepted or forbidden in Scripture. He was answering a specific question about reasons for a valid divorce, explaining from Deuteronomy 24:1-4. By using two legal idioms, Jesus emphasizes that divorce "for any reason" "[for a reason that is] beyond porneia" is not a valid divorce. Consequently, anyone who remarries after divorce "for any reason" commits adultery.(...)
Many different interpretations(of the word porneia) have been proposed. Among them are polygamy, incest, adultery, premarital sex, and prostitution. Each of these is correct because the root meaning of the word porneia is "to engage in any type of sexual immorality". (...) Jesus said that divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality was invalid. Therefore, remarriage would be adultery because they are still married to their first partners. Conversely, divorce for sexual immorality established the divorce as valid and then remarriage was acceptable.
From Jeremiah 2:1-2;2:20-26;3:1-8;3:10-14;4:3-4 it can be inferred that a spouse who continues in his or her sinful ways with a hardened heart and does not repent has broken the marriage vow and can be divorced by the spouse. However, the hurting spouse cannot divorce until the hurting spouse continues in his or her sinful ways without repentance. If the hurting spouse repents of his or her hardness, which includes changing his or her sinful ways, he or she is to be welcomed back into the marriage.
...
Jesus taught that breaking a marriage is a sin with serious consequences because Adonai witnessed the vows of the married couple and joined them together. He defended divorce only when the erring partner continued in his sinful ways "with a hardened heart." On the other hand, he taught that divorce was not mandatory in cases of adultery, nor was marriage required.
...
Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 allows remarriage after divorce without considering it a sin. Verses 27 and 28 say "Are you bound to your wife? Do not seek separation. Are you resolved from your wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin" Paul does not support either divorce or remarriage, but if you marry after a valid divorce, it is not a sin. Paul is referring to a valid divorce[Biblically understood].

...
Separation without divorce creates a new status, one who is neither married nor divorced is in a state of limbo. This brings us back to the problem in the Torah where a written letter of divorce was given to determine one's marital status, thus permitting remarriage. Remarriage after a valid divorce in Tanakh and the Second Temple period was the norm. In fact, it was considered part of the nature of divorce.

 

Summary
The Apostolic Writings support indissoluble monogamous marriage as the standard and that divorce should not occur. Jesus presents what marriage should be, but Because we do not yet live in the Kingdom of God, marriage vows are broken, leading to divorce. Therefore, Jesus regulates the reasons and procedures for a valid divorce in response to the demands of the times, using legal idioms. He rejects divorce "for any reason" but upholds divorce for "sexual indecency." Furthermore, it does not invalidate other acceptable biblical reasons for valid divorce from Exodus 21:10-11. Remarriage after divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality, or material/physical and emotional neglect/maltreatment results in adultery. He also requires that the erring spouse be forgiven and the marriage restored unless the sinning spouse refuses to repent and continues in hardness. Paul reiterates the teaching on divorce, but also allows for valid divorce in cases of abandonment as well as remarriage after all.

 

Completion
Any Messianic-Jewish perspective on divorce must be taken from the Tanakh and the Apostolic Writings, as well as the common traditions and practices of Judaism and Christianity. I have tried to make this task less daunting by dividing the major issues raised above into separate sections. I propose 12 points that can serve as a basis from which we can begin to discuss the Messianic view of divorce.
Marriage is designed to be a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, but sin has distorted that ideal.
The marriage covenant includes the aspect of two becoming one in a mystical/spiritual union enacted by Adonai, and the legal aspect of the marriage contract includes the marriage terms and vows.
Breaking the covenant of marriage is always a sin, but The Torah deals with this sin pragmatically through legal The process of giving a written divorce letter.
The purpose of divorce is to legally, jointly acknowledge the breach of the marriage contract, thereby making it possible to remarry without committing adultery.

The reasons for a valid marriage in Tanakh, the Second Temple period and Judaism today are infidelity, material neglect and emotional neglect. Jesus did not abolish these reasons.

A valid divorce is to be determined by the community based on the Tanakh, the Apostolic Scriptures and the traditions of the community in light of contemporary societies and cultures
Jesus endorses monogamous indissoluble marriage as the standard and that divorce should not happen, but does happen. Consequently, he regulates them.
Jesus rejected Beit Hillel's divorce "for any reason" as valid, accepting only Beit Shammai's interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 "except for sexual indecency" having in mind all forms of sexual immorality.
Forgiveness and renewal of the marriage after the marriage vows have been broken are always the primary goal. It is only when the erring partner continues in his hardness in sin that the marriage contract is broken, The cheating partner should initiate a divorce.
Remarriage after a valid divorce is allowed. Remarriage after an invalid divorce[in the Biblical sense] is adultery with common consequences.
The purpose of all correction or discipline in relation to divorce is to renew spiritually, mentally, physically and emotionally those involved in the divorce so that the sin that caused the divorce does not continue
The rules listed above apply equally to men and women

Source : http://www.kesherjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=179&Itemid=456

 

 

__________________

 

Sadly, but because of the vile teachings of the church of Rome, many Catholics live in sin because due to the blocking of the path to a valid divorce some have a new partner which is adultery. Others are second class citizens after divorce. These are the betrayed victims of the relationship. Churches, on the other hand, because of their lack of Torah knowledge, fail to deal with such difficult matters as discussed in the text, thus leading many of their members after divorce to feel guilty and often suspended in a vacuum. For God, there are no legally unclarified matters. Lack of knowledge of the Law leads to self-deprecation and thus to many other sins not to mention psychological effects.

Jak to wspomniałem w innym moim artykule, nierozłączność została ustanowiona dopiero na soborze trydenckim w XVI wieku  i była to polityczna decyzja, ponieważ blokując ścieżkę do ponownego małżeństwa, przywiązywała ludzi samotnych do kościoła Rzymu, a co za tym idzie powiększała ilość monet płynących do skarbca tak samo, jak ma to miejsce ze starszymi kobietami zasilającymi imperium “ojca” Rydzyka.

Unfortunately, but in-depth texts like the one above are rare in Polish pastors, revealing their attachment to the teachings of Rome, resulting in the suffering of thousands.