BCP #62 | Divorce & Remarriage: What the Bible Does (& Doesn't) Say - A Messianic Jew Explains

God hates divorce, and the Bible has nothing even close to good to say about it. So why is no-fault divorce rampant in the Body of Messiah today? Why do believers allow their marriages to be torn apart by it? In this episode, Kevin lays out and explains what the Scriptures actually say about divorce and remarriage, then offers some biblically-based advice for believers who have been divorced, have been involved in remarriage, or are right now contemplating either one.

Don't forget to like, share, comment & subscribe!

Help support the work of Perfect Word Ministries & MJMI!

If you prefer audio podcasts, subscribe on these platforms:

The Biblically Correct Podcast: Teaching Biblical Correctness in a Biblically Incorrect World

Kevin Geoffrey, Messianic Jewish Teacher
Perfect Word Ministries & MJMI

The Biblically Correct Podcast is a ministry of Perfect Word Ministries. Our goal is to equip both Jewish and Gentile believers in Yeshua through sound, Scriptural exhortation to uphold God’s word as their solely authoritative standard for life in Messiah. Our vision is to provide teachings from a Messianic Jewish perspective that promote Yeshua-centric, scriptural principles and values, and confront unbiblical beliefs that are hostile to the Scriptures. We value the Scriptures—from the Torah to the New Covenant Writings—above all religions and traditions of man, not to disesteem those traditions, but to elevate the perfect word of God.

#messianic #yeshua #bible

[Mr.Fotingo-qfhk]

In other translations it says, "in case of fornication". The reason Jesus didn't just say, "in case of adultery"..is because if you cheat on your wife, that IS adultery and if your wife cheats on you, that is ALSO adultery...but Jesus uses the word fornication (sexual immorality), which means ANY immoral sexual act.

That makes me conclude that Jesus meant if the wife or husband commits ANY sexual immorality, that means with an animal or with a minor, it constitutes the right for divorce.

Excellent
How many families could have been saved if they had been given this instruction.

[BrunoFernandesPinto]

Brother, thank you for your teaching. I'm going to write a rather long text to ask your opinion on some aspects. But as the text will not be short, I know that you may not have time to respond. And that's fine. And I apologize for any errors in the english. I translated on Deepl.

I studied the subject for years. I didn't want to have to study it, but I was in the situation.
After a long time of studying and praying, I came to the conclusion that I could remarry, and I could even by your understanding.
I'll point out a few issues:
1. wouldn't the absence of a clear prohibition from Jesus on some behaviors that would seemingly be okay be an indication that they are not prohibited? I say this because of the clear colors permissions and prohibitions in your matrix (in special, when the woman puts away the man).
2. In addition to the absence of a clear prohibition, the difference in the treatment of men and women is constant throughout the Bible. Yes, most of the biblical treatment is the same, but there are differences that we tend not to see, both in the old and new testaments. In the New Testament, both Jesus and Paul treat men and women with some differences.
3. in relation to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, isn't it strange that the woman can separate without sinning and the man is left alone with nothing to do? In fact, the man couldn't even say that he was putting up with the woman's sin, because she wouldn't be sinning by separating from him. In other words, the married woman could become celibate of her own free will without sinning and the man would have nothing to do. But wouldn't that be strange if we remember that Paul told each man to have his own wife in order to avoid porneia? How could “having” a woman who decided to become celibate (and this not even being a sin) help to avoid porneia?
4. Today we have the internet, cell phones and many other things. But how in the old days could someone know if their unbelieving spouse was still alive if they traveled far away? If Ruth gave up on the God of Israel and Boaz, should he go to Moab from time to time to see if she was alive? This idea of an eternal and uncertain wait (because the person may even have died and nobody knows) is seen in Greek literature, not in the Bible.
5. I believe that in Deuteronomy 24 divorce was not fair (even if it had real and legal effects).
But that woman was not to be stoned, nor was she forbidden to marry another (except priests...Lev 21...Ezekiel 44, 22). Isn't it strange that Jesus actually said that she should always live alone? And Jesus didn't give a new law, but clarified the Tanach. Jesus didn't allow or forbid something that wasn't, he just clarified what was already written (there's discussion around “Truly I tell you”, but I'm with the one that considers that he was clarifying, not creating.
In legal terms, his explanation of the law had declaratory rather than constitutive effects (unless I'm mistaken). There are other passages in which Jesus clearly gave a new commandment (John 13:34), but I don't believe it happened in the Sermon on the Mount.
6. the verbs “allow” and “command” are reversed in Matthew and Mark, in the conversation with the Pharisees. In general, theology on divorce focuses only on Matthew. What do you think about it?
7. Paul told Timothy that doctrines of demons would arise which would forbid marriages and food. In Reformed circles, it is customary to interpret the prohibition of marriages only in relation to the Roman church and its priests. However, Paul did not say that the prohibition was only for the leaders. In fact, denominations that prohibit certain foods prohibit them for all members. So, if the ban on marriages wasn't only for leaders, and since it's impossible to interpret the doctrine of the devil as teaching that no marriages should exist (because no one would believe that, since humanity would cease to exist), what ban on marriages would the demons teach?
8. if an unjust divorce had no effect, a woman who married another after an unjust divorce could return to her first husband. And she can't, even though her first husband has already died (in fact, this was called an abomination). I don't think Jesus repealed that part. He only clarified that Deuteronomy 24 did not legitimize the repudiation of women.
9. 1, Corinthians, 7, 34, in most manuscripts (including the oldest Vulgate...even the Catholics defend total indissolubility), differentiates between the virgin woman, the unmarried woman (agamos...innupta) and the married woman (gameo). There are 03 states. Therefore, when Paul refers to wives, this does not include unmarried women (agamos...innuptas).
10. Paul clearly said that he was an agamos (therefore not a parthenos). So either he was abandoned by his wife or she died. And he explicitly said that he had the right to take a believing woman with him, just like the other apostles. He referred to the woman who separated from her husband as “agamos”.
11. Paul told the spouses not to abstain from sexual relations, lest they be tempted. And he also said that the woman who wanted to separate would be tolerated. How to fit these two passages together, which are in sequence. “Man, your wife wants to separate and be alone. That's tolerated. Now forget what I said before about not abstaining from sexual relations and live as a celibate, and forget that I said it's better to marry than to live scorched, because now you'll live 'married' and scorched.”?
12. On the question that the brother said that it would not be up to us to presume whether a spouse is a true believer or not, Paul said not to even have lunch with some “Christians”, not by their declaration, but by their actions. And if a “Christian” spouse abandons the home and gives every possible proof that he or she is not a Christian, with the only thing left to do being to declare it in full, how can we not understand him or her in this way? I understand that you can force reality to fit your fallen desire, but often reality is crystal clear.
13. If divorce, even if unjust, had no effects, why should a priest's daughter married to a stranger be able to eat the priestly bread once divorced? She couldn't eat the priestly bread on a visit to her father while married to the stranger, but she could if he repudiated her (and if she hadn't had a child by him). Leviticus 22, 12-13
14. What do you think of the interpretation of Tertullian, who understood that the word kai did not mean “and”, but “for” (divorce and remarriage or divorce for remarriage)? This is also how the scholars of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research understand it. They have retranslated the Synoptic Gospels into Hebrew. Another schollar interpretates that this passage has a Hendiadys.

My brother, thank you for your time and attention. The subject is complex and, frankly, considering the disagreement over the centuries, I think it will still be the subject of discussion until the Lord's return.
May God bless you and keep you in Jesus.

[nenaharvath]

Excellent teaching! This is a very touchy subject and there is so much confusion in the church about remarriage! You are RIGHT that remarriage (except for sexual unfaithfulness) is adultery! Thank you for very clear teaching on this!!!

[DTH]

Shabbat Shalom, Kevin. I pray you and the family are well, dear brother. Thank you for the edifying and thought-provoking teaching on a subject which has caused much division within the body of Messiah. 

Two questions, if I may, Kevin. If one is living in adultery and repents according to scripture (Teshuvah - to return to that which is righteous), how could one stay in that adulterous relationship? Can a thief/drunkard/liar etc. continue to turn to his sin daily after repentance? (I understand King David and most of the Patriarchs had adulterous relationships, which has always puzzled me).
 
Secondly, Kevin, do you think non-believers who marry/divorce/re-marry are governed by the same biblical laws, brother, or just believers, those who are in covenant with the Most High? Your time is much appreciated, as always, Kevin. Stay safe and well, dear brother. Sabbath blessings to you and yours. David (UK)

[erikanederveld]

Very sound teaching! I wish you would have expounded on the definition of marriage first. Marriage is not the certificate I get from the government. Although marriage is laid out in Genesis, it's still not clear. What about "pre-marital sex" if there is such a thing? (Or is a contradiction in terms) Was not Jacob married to Leah after becoming on flesh (Gen. 29:23) even though presumably the feast ( and possibly vows) we're celebrated with Rachel? Therefore, if one has slept with a girl/boyfriend, are they not married in God's eyes?

[johnpratts]

Shalom! Question: what's your take on John 4v18?

[JohnC-nwuu]

So. If a Saved man commits adultery on his Saved wife and then they get divorced and the man gets married to the woman he was cheating with and stays married to her then would they not be in perpetual adultery until they get divorced? Repentance would be them not being together anymore. Otherwise even if they are sorry to The Lord they are still in adultery. Is that not so?

[BenDunn-ji]

Brother I was really hoping that I found someone that was going to teach the scriptures. But you say that Luke 16 v18 he is not talking about divorce in there culture back then they were putting away their wife's with out a divorce. Because they didn't want to have to pay the dowery back. Putting away and divorce is not the same. There's plenty of evidence to support that. I was really hoping that I found someone to break this down in truth. The reason they are committing adultery is because they are still married. They just put them away. Dang I was hoping