have included the giving of a certificate of divorce or not is not stated; but it is likely that Joseph was going to act in accord with the principles set out at Deuteronomy 24:1-4, possibly giving her the divorce in front of just two witnesses so the matter would be settled legally without bringing undue shame on her. While Matthew does not give every detail regarding the procedure Joseph intended to follow, he does indicate that Joseph wanted to deal mercifully with Mary. Joseph is not considered an unrighteous man for this, but, rather, it was “because he was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle” that he “intended to divorce her secretly.”—Matt. 1:19.

CIRCUMSTANCES BARRING DIVORCE IN ISRAEL

According to God’s law given to Israel, there were conditions in which divorce was impossible. It might occur that a man took a wife, had relations with her and then came to hate her. He might falsely state that she was not a virgin when he married her, thus improperly charging her with notorious deeds and bringing a bad name upon her. When the girl’s parents produced evidence that their daughter had been a virgin at the time of her marriage, the men of the city would have to discipline the false accuser. They would fine him a hundred silver shekels ($47.50), giving these to the girl’s father, and she would continue to be the man’s wife, it being stated: “He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.” (Deut. 22:13-19) Also, if it was discovered that a man seized a virgin who was not engaged and had relations with her, it was stipulated: “The man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.”—Deut. 22:28, 29.

ONLY GROUND FOR DIVORCE AMONG CHRISTIANS

Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, stated: “Moreover it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, seeing that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:31, 32) Also, after telling the Pharisees that the Mosaic concession of divorcing wives was not the arrangement that had prevailed “from the beginning,” Jesus said: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:8, 9) Today, generally, distinction is made between “fornicators” and “adulterers.” Those guilty of fornication are unmarried persons who willingly have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex. Adulterers are married persons who willingly have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex who is not their legal marriage mate. As shown in the article on FORNICATION, however, the term “fornication” is applied in the Scriptures to any voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and a woman aside from copulation of a husband with his wife or concubine. Hence, Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 mean that the only divorce ground that actually severs the marriage bond is adultery on the part of one’s marriage mate. The follower of Christ may avail himself of that divorce provision if that is his desire, and such a divorce would free him to marry an eligible Christian.—1 Cor. 7:39.

A person is not Scripturally obligated to divorce an adulterous though repentant marriage partner, however. The Christian husband or wife can extend mercy in such a case, even as Hosea seems to have taken back his adulterous wife Gomer and as Jehovah extended mercy to repentant Israel that had been guilty of spiritual adultery.—Hos. chap. 3.

Sexually immoral acts committed by a married person with someone of the same sex (homosexuality) are filthy and disgusting. Unrepentant persons of this type will not inherit God’s kingdom. And, of course, bestiality is Scripturally condemned. (Lev. 18:22, 23; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10) However, though these acts are grossly filthy, they do not constitute adultery and are not named as Christian grounds for divorce. An individual cannot, for instance, Scripturally marry a person of the same sex and become “one flesh” with that one in the way God ordained when uniting Adam and Eve in wedlock.—Gen. 2:24.

Jesus Christ pointed out that “everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:28) But Jesus did not say that what was in the heart, but not carried into action, furnished a basis for divorce. Christ’s words show that the heart should be kept clean and one should not entertain improper thoughts and desires.—Phil. 4:8; Jas. 1:14, 15.

The Jews’ rabbinical law laid emphasis on the married person’s duty to perform the marital act and allowed a husband to divorce his wife if she was unable to produce children. However, the Scriptures do not give Christians the right to divorce their mates for such a reason. Barrenness for many years did not cause Abraham to divorce Sarah, Isaac to divorce Rebekah, Jacob to divorce Rachel, or the priest Zechariah to divorce Elizabeth. (Gen. 11:30; 17:17; 25:19-26; 29:31; 30:1, 2, 22-25; Luke 1:5-7, 18, 24, 57) Nor did Jehovah divorce his symbolic “woman” because of her barrenness for a great many years.—Isa. 54:1-13.

Nothing is said in the Scriptures that would permit a Christian to divorce a marriage partner because that one was physically unable to perform the marital act, or had gone insane or contracted an incurable or loathsome disease. The love that Christians are to show would call, not for divorce, but for merciful treatment of such a mate. (Eph. 5:28-31) Nor does the Bible grant Christians the right to divorce their marriage mates because of difference in religion, showing, instead, that by remaining with an unbelieving mate the Christian may win that individual over to the true faith.—1 Cor. 7:12-16; 1 Pet. 3:1-7.

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that “everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, seeing that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:32) By this, Christ showed that if a husband divorces his wife for reasons other than her fornication (adultery) he exposes her to adultery in the future. That is so because the unadulterous wife is not properly disunited from her husband by such a divorce and is not free to marry another man and have sexual relations with another husband. When Christ said that whoever “marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” he was referring to a woman divorced on grounds other than “on account of fornication” (adultery). Such a woman, though divorced legally, would not be divorced Scripturally.

Mark, like Matthew (Matt. 19:3-9), recorded Jesus’ statements to the Pharisees regarding divorce and quoted Christ as saying: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11, 12) A similar statement is made at Luke 16:18, which reads: “Everyone that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he that marries a woman divorced from a husband commits adultery.” Taken alone, these verses seem to forbid all divorce by Christ’s followers, or at least to indicate that a divorced individual would not be entitled to remarry except after the death of the divorced marriage partner. However, Jesus’ words, as recorded by Mark and Luke, must be understood in the light of the more complete statement recorded by Matthew. He includes the phrase “except on the ground of fornication” (Matt. 19:9; see also Matthew 5:32), showing that what Mark and Luke wrote in quoting Jesus on divorce applies if the ground for procuring the divorce is anything other than adultery committed by the unfaithful marriage partner.

God’s original standard restored

It is clear, therefore, that Jesus Christ’s statement pointed to a return to the high standard for marriage originally set by Jehovah God, and showed that those who would become Jesus’ disciples would have to adhere to that high standard. Though the concessions provided by the Mosaic law were still in effect and would be for a few more years, yet those who would be true disciples of Jesus, doing the will of his Father and ‘doing’ or putting into effect the sayings of Jesus (Matt. 7:21-29), would no longer avail themselves of such concessions to exercise “hardheartedness” toward their marriage mates. As genuine disciples, they would not violate the original divine principles governing marriage by divorcing their mates on any grounds other than the one Jesus specified, namely, adultery.

A single person who commits fornication with a prostitute makes himself “one body” with that person. Similarly, the adulterer makes himself “one body,” not with his legal wife, but with the immoral person with whom he has sexual relations. The adulterer thus sins against his own flesh, not only his own personal flesh, but also against his legal wife who until then has been “one flesh” with him. (1 Cor. 6:16-18) For that reason adultery provides a true basis for breaking the marital bond in accord with divine principles and, where such ground exists, a divorce obtained brings about the formal and final dissolution of the legal marriage union, freeing the innocent partner to remarry with honor.—Heb. 13:4.

FIGURATIVE DIVORCE

The marriage relationship is used symbolically in the Scriptures. (Isa. 54:1, 5, 6; 62:1-6) Reference is also made to symbolic divorcing, or the sending away of a wife.—Jer. 3:8.

The kingdom of Judah was overthrown and Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E., the inhabitants of the land being taken into Babylonian captivity. Years earlier Jehovah had said prophetically to Jews who would then be in exile: “Where, then, is the divorce certificate of the mother of you people, whom I sent away?” (Isa. 50:1) Their “mother” or national organization had been put away with just cause, not because Jehovah broke his covenant and started divorce proceedings, but due to her wrongdoing against the Law covenant. But a remnant of Israelites repented and prayed for a renewal of Jehovah’s husbandly relationship with them in their homeland. Jehovah, for his own name’s sake, restored his people to their homeland as promised, in 537 B.C.E., at the end of the seventy-year desolation.—Ps. 137:1-9; see MARRIAGE.

DIZAHAB

(Diʹza·hab) [possibly, place of gold].

A site, E of the Jordan River, where Israel was camped at the time Moses delivered his farewell address. Although various suggestions have been offered, its exact location is unknown today.—Deut. 1:1.

DODAI

See DODO No. 2.

DODANIM

(Doʹda·nim).

At Genesis 10:4 this name appears as the fourth-listed son of Javan. The Septuagint Version and the Samaritan Pentateuch here read “Rodanim.” “Rodanim” is also found in the Hebrew Masoretic text at 1 Chronicles 1:7, although a number of Hebrew manuscripts, and also the Latin Vulgate, there read “Dodanim.”—See RODANIM.

DODAVAHU

(Dod·avʹa·hu) [beloved of Jah].

A man from Maresha whose son Eliezer prophesied disaster for the ships of Jehoshaphat that were built in partnership with wicked King Ahaziah of Israel.—2 Chron. 20:36, 37.

DODO

(Doʹdo) [his beloved].

1. An ancestor, probably the grandfather, of Judge Tola of the tribe of Issachar.—Judg. 10:1.

2. A descendant of Benjamin through Ahohi. Dodo’s son Eleazar was one of David’s three mighty men. (2 Sam. 23:9; 1 Chron. 11:12) Dodai (an alternate form of Dodo) served, perhaps in a representative sense through his son Eleazar, as chief of the army division of the second month.—1 Chron. 27:4.

3. A resident of Bethlehem whose son Elhanan was one of David’s mighty men.—2 Sam. 23:24; 1 Chron. 11:26.

DOEG

(Doʹeg) [anxious].

An Edomite serving as King Saul’s principal shepherd, a responsible position of oversight. (1 Sam. 21:7; 22:9) Doeg evidently was a proselyte. Because of being “detained before Jehovah” at Nob, possibly on account of a vow, some uncleanness or suspected leprosy, Doeg witnessed High Priest Ahimelech’s providing David with showbread and the sword of Goliath. Later, when Saul, in addressing his servants, voiced the opinion that they were conspiring against him, Doeg revealed what he had seen at Nob. After summoning the high priest as well as the other priests of Nob and then questioning Ahimelech, Saul ordered the runners to put the priests to death. When these refused, Doeg, at Saul’s command, unhesitatingly killed a total of eighty-five priests. After this wicked act, Doeg devoted Nob to destruction, slaughtering all its inhabitants, both young and old, as well as the livestock.—1 Sam. 22:6-20.

As indicated by the superscription of Psalm 52, David wrote concerning Doeg: “Adversities your tongue schemes up, sharpened like a razor, working deceitfully. You have loved what is bad more than what is good, falsehood more than speaking righteousness. You have loved all devouring words, O you deceitful tongue.”—Ps. 52:2-4.

DOG

To the Israelites this animal was ceremonially unclean, and it is therefore unlikely that they gave any thought to the training of dogs. (Lev. 11:27; Isa. 66:3) Although sheep and shepherds are often mentioned in the Bible, only Job, a non-Israelite, speaks of “the dogs of my flock.”—Job 30:1.

Dogs, like carrion birds, were scavengers, particularly in the cities. The Law directed throwing to the dogs flesh that had been torn by a wild beast. (Ex. 22:31) At times Jehovah’s judgment against his enemies was that their dead bodies would be eaten or their blood licked up by scavenger dogs. Because of the course of gross unfaithfulness followed by Kings Jeroboam, Baasha and Ahab, any belonging to their respective households dying in the city were to be devoured by dogs. (1 Ki. 14:11; 16:4; 21:24) In fulfillment of Jehovah’s word, the dogs licked up Ahab’s blood, and the flesh of his wife Jezebel became food for the dogs. (1 Ki. 21:19; 22:38; 21:23; 2 Ki. 9:10, 35, 36) Indicating that dogs would lick up the blood of the foes of Jehovah’s people, the psalmist wrote: “That the tongue of your dogs may have its portion from the enemies.” (Ps. 68:23) Dogs were foretold to share in the ruin that would come upon unfaithful Jerusalem and Judah. Dead bodies the dogs would drag away, mutilating, devouring and licking up blood.—Jer. 15:3.

ILLUSTRATIVE USE

The dog’s filthy habit of disgorging food it has gulped down and then returning to eat it again later is used to illustrate the course of those abandoning the way of righteousness and returning to their former state of defilement. (2 Pet. 2:20-22; Prov. 26:11) Morally unclean persons are called dogs. God’s law to Israel stated: “You must not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog [“male prostitute,” AT; “‘pederast,’ likely,” NW, 1953 ed., ftn.] into the house of Jehovah your God for any vow, because they are something detestable to Jehovah your God, even both