|
Most commentaries follow and support the ancient position of the Catholics regarding Jesus' teaching on the "MDR" issue, and therefore they seek to interpret Deut. 24:4 (as well as the first 3 verses) to make sense of what they think Jesus said. But Gil (noted commentary) is an exception. Regarding the woman being defiled, he writes:
"...with respect to her first husband, being by her divorce from him, and by her marriage to another, entirely alienated and separated from him, and so prohibited to him..."
Verse four states that the man who divorced her may not take her back--she is defiled as far as he is concerned. But, there is no reason to conclude that the woman would “live in sin” or that she even committed a sin. Nor is there reason to conclude that if she, after being divorced, married that both she and the man she married would commit adultery. Many contend that this is what Jesus said, but would it not be strange for God to wait until the very end of the Mosaic dispensation to inform them regarding this very important matter? Furthermore, is it not strange that the Jews did not understand Jesus to have taught such a doctrine contrary to Law?
Now, it makes sense that if a woman was merely put away (with no certificate) she would commit adultery if she married, as well as the man (Matt. 5:32). But if a man was tired of a woman and divorced her, why would God punish the woman by saying she had committed some great sin i.e. that defiled had reference to her, making her impure or polluted, and that she was not free to marry? Indeed, why require a certificate in the first place if it did not entirely free the woman of bondage to her husband "so she may go be another man's wife" and actually have a life?
See related article: http://totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-defiled.htm
|
