Pilgrim,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. First, I have to say that the term "familial-type bond" is mine and not Wenham's. Although I do not have access to Wenham's article, his position is discussed by J. Carl Laney in an article published in Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (Jan. 1992): 3-15. Laney's article is online at: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...eronomy/Text/Articles/Laney-Dt24-BS.htm.

Laney writes:

Wenham has noted that the reasons the husband should not take back his former wife--defilement, abomination, and pollution of the land--occur repeatedly in connection with the sexual offenses listed in Leviticus 18 and 20.

As background for his viewpoint, Wenham argues that marriage establishes a close and lasting "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24) relationship that does not terminate with divorce. From a biblical perspective, marital intercourse makes a man and wife as closely related as parents and children. If a man may not marry his sister-in-law because she has in effect become his sister (Lev. 18:16; 20:21), may he remarry his former wife?

Assuming Laney has correctly represented Wenham’s position, I think it is safe to say that Wenham would agree that the reason the remarriage is prohibited is because of defilement. It is Wenham’s attempt to define the nature of the defilement is that has attracted my attention.

More specifically, my focus at this time is to try to understand why, under Wenham's theory; a wife would not be prohibited from remarrying her husband even if she hadn’t married another man.

May the Lord’s grace and peace be upon you.
Al