@NOV25
I have given that article you posted earlier a more careful look. Have you noticed one of the fuzzy arguments he makes.
Here is a quote,
>>>They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband…
(Leviticus 21:7; KJV)
Leviticus forbids marrying a woman put away by whom? By her husband. But if ‘put away’ merely meant she was divorced—she no longer has a husband.<<<
This was a law for priests, not everyone. There is not even a command forbidding marrying a prostitute in the Torah for the non-priest. It was clearly not desirable. But the priest was not allowed to marry a prostitute.
If you read the same chapter a little further, it is clear that the priest has to marry a virgin.
13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
Presumably the put away woman is going to have had sex with her husband, right? The priest can't marry divorcees, because he is not a virgin.
This bit of reasoning, "But if ‘put away’ merely meant she was divorced—she no longer has a husband." seems on the one hand like a lame bit of sophistry, but on the other hand, it seems like the kind of lame bit of sophistry you might find in the Talmud or used by Jewish scholars when they are trying to argue for a particular doctrine or get out of keeping a vow, or get out of supporting parents or something like that.
There is also this quote from that article,
>>>First, recall that through Ezra, God directed the Levites to put away their foreign wives (even if they had shared children; Ezra 10:3). This is a “catch-22” for the fundamentalist interpretation because if “put away” meant “divorce,” then here God requires the Levites to divorce, something He allegedly hates<<<
Where does the Bible say here that God directed the Levites to put away their foreign wives? The passage says Ezra told them to make a covenant to put away their foreign wives. The priests in the group were not allowed to marry foreign wives. So this is a special case. If a regular man marries his sister or his father's wife, is that marriage even legitimate?
Paul Ezra goes on to have regular Jews put away Egyptian wives. How is that required by the Torah? Wives to the seven nations were forbidden. Some people debate whether Ezra did a bit of overreaching here, but to say God directed him to do it is to make an assumption.
It may be that Malachi addresses some of the issues here, but it could be that there was just a big divorce culture among Israelites
This is also false from that article:
>>>In fact, no one until recently ever associated Malachi 2:16 with divorce, as Christian fundamentalism does today. <<<
This quote from ~220 AD does.
Tertullian of Carthage
AD 220
>>>For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery.” He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder that which he himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. Now if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of an agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: “You shall not forsake the wife of your youth.” Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in forbidding it. You find him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when he will have the marriage inviolable; he permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united, and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. <<< taken from the Catena Bible site.
He also says,
>>>>This, sometimes, was a way for husbands to get revenge or punish their wives/handmaids/concubines. A classic example can be found in 2 Samuel 20:3:
Then David came to his house in Jerusalem, and the king took the ten women, the concubines whom he had left behind to take care of the house, and put them in custody and provided them with food, but did not have relations with them. So they were locked up until the day of their death, living as widows.
2 Samuel 20:3, NASB<<<
These concubines had had sex with Absalom, possibly against their will, as a political statement. It makes sense that David would not sleep with them again considering his on had done so. Why would this be revenge? David, as a God-fearing man, was probably just trying to do the right thing. Politically, sex with a king's former wife was probably a really big deal and something that would undermine his authority. He got Micah back from her illegitimate husband. She had been his agunah because he was fleeing for his life.
He goes on with his divorce-and-remarriage-justifying hypothesis.
>>>Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
KJV
Notice that the ESV chose “divorce” rather than “put away.” Additionally, the ESV (and other translations) states, “he who marries a woman divorced from her husband.” This translation seems illogical because if a woman is divorced, who is her husband? She has no husband if she’s divorced. <<<
This is sophistry, again. Also, it doesn't track with Pharisees' and Jesus' conversation. Let's look at Matthew 19. You can see it in Mark 10 also. The Pharisees ask about the __cause__ for putting away, not whether a certificate is required. We know Shammai and Hillel disagreed about causes of divorce. Hillel followers were probably quite influential during this time. It may be Shammai folks assassinated Hillel folks at a later time (unless that is a metaphor) and became dominate for a time later in the first century. Debates between these groups may have been a big deal to them. This one was about causes for divorce.
Jesus pointed out 'two, saith he, shall be one flesh.' He said what God hath joined together, let not man put assunder. The Pharisees ask why Moses ___commanded___ giving a divorce certificarte and sending her away. The Lord Jesus countered that Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts __allowed__ "you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
He is not allowing something Moses did. He puts permission for divorce with a certificate on Moses, not God. He forbids a man putting away his wife, except it be for fornication. Again, look at the context, put away clearly does not exclude putting away with a certificate, since Deuteornmy 24 mentions it, and the Pharisees had just mentioned it.
The website you rely on argues that if a man gave his wife a certificate, that she isnt' his wife, but that does not align with what the Lord Jesus teaches here.
And again, the command is that _when_ a man finds some nakedness in his wife that displeases him, he gives her a certificate and sends her away, and she marries another man who gives her a certificate or dies, the first husband is not to take her. There is a set-up to a situation, a case, then a command. You, like the Pharisees, are treating the set-up for the case as a command, unlike the Lord Jesus, here. Jesus' teaching overturns the Jewish understanding of marriage and divorce. Your author there is just trying to stick to the old status quo. He doesn't even bother to deal with the details of Jesus' argument about Moses. Neither are you.
The website you referred to says,
>>>Remember, Jesus was speaking to Law-observing Jews.>>
Really? Several chapters later, Jesus would say the Pharisees say and do not, that they neglected the weightier matters of the law. He disagrees on this issue of divorce also. To the chief priests and elders He would say the kingdom of heaven would be taken from them and certificate given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
And 'Whosoever shall put away his wife' includes those who give a to do so. And clearly a woman who has been put away with a certificate has been put away.