Summary: Jesus didn't forbid divorce and/or called remarring adultary. He condemned Babylonian style of divorce in which a man could divorce a woman without divorce papers and giving her some money/things to live from.
YLTMatt 5
32 but I--I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.
This book was NOT written to encourage divorce, but rather to show that if one remarries after a lawful divorce, he has not committed adultery. Divorce itself is not a sin, but a judgment for sin. Many translations of Matt. 5:32 make Jesus appear to forbid remarriage, but we show that the text has been mistranslated and then misunderstood. Jesus did not put away the Law. Deut. 24:1-4 specifically permits divorce and remarriage.
.....
Hammurabi's Law on Divorce
According to Hammurabi's Code, a marriage was a simple contract, valid only if it was written, sealed (signed), and witnessed (Par. 128). Divorce was allowed, but treated in various ways, depending on which party broke the contract. If the wife were guilty, he could divorce her with the words, "I put her away," and he could send her away empty-handed (Par. 141).
......
Divorce that is, a complete break in the marriage contract is lawful, because virtually all marriage contracts involve vows made by two parties. In God's marriage to Israel at Mt. Sinai, Israel (the bride) agreed to submit to His authority and obey His laws (Ex. 19:3-8). God, on the other hand, agreed to give them the Kingdom and the blessings of the Birthright. These included honor, protection, sustenance, and children (Gen. 12:1-3).
Israel violated this contract, being incapable of full obedience, and refused to repent; and thus, her Husband divorced her and sent her out of His house. Jeremiah 3:8 says,
8 And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.
Note that God not only sent her away, but only did so after giving her a written bill of divorce. This was in accordance with the law in Deut. 24 that we will quote shortly. Hosea 2:2 also shows that God's divorce meant Israel was no longer God's wife, saying to her,
2 Contend with your mother [Israel], contend, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband;
Because God Himself is a divorcee, we can safely say that divorce itself is not necessarily a sin.
......
Did Jesus Outlaw Divorce?
In Mark 10:2-9 the Pharisees asked Jesus if it were lawful to put away one's wife. Jesus asked them in turn what Moses had said. They answered that Moses had commanded them to write a bill of divorcement and to put her away. Jesus then replied, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept." He went on to explain that divorce did not follow the perfect order of creation that was set up at the beginning. In other words, divorce is not a good thing, but because men's hearts are hard, it is necessary that provision be made for handling broken marriage contracts. For the same reason, God instituted the death penalty for first-degree murder. From the beginning it was not so, for God created us to live together in harmony. But for the hardness of men's hearts, it became a very necessary judgment to curb such violent crime.
.....
In a nutshell, then, the purpose of the "Sermon on the Mount" was to improve upon the law's interpretation and application. The true spirit of the law had been lost through the traditions of the elders.
With that context in mind, and knowing that Jesus did not destroy the law, let us look at Matthew 5:31, 32 in greater detail. These two verses are a part of His comment on "Thou shalt not commit adultery," so the final thrust of His comment is to define adultery in relation to the laws of divorce and remarriage. Verse 31 simply refers to Deut. 24:1, where God demanded that men give their wives a WRITTEN bill of divorcement before they could lawfully put away their wives. Verse 2, of course, allowed divorced wives to remarry after a lawful divorce. So let us take another look at Matthew 5:31, 32, inserting a few key words in the original Greek, so that we get a proper translation of the passage.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion). 32 But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluo, lit. "put away") committeth adultery.
To paraphrase this: The law says that she commits adultery if she remarries without a written bill of divorcement. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU that whoever puts her away (without divorce papers; that is, unlawfully) causes her to commit adultery (if she remarries under such conditions). Thus, he who simply put her out of his house without divorcing her properly is JUST AS LIABLE AS SHE IS. And whosoever marries her that has been put away (without divorce papers) also commits adultery, because he is marrying another man's wife.
Jesus is here condemning men who put away their wives Babylonian style (verbally), instead of putting them away in the manner prescribed by God's law. Under the laws of liability, this would make him guilty of adultery if she were to remarry. So we see that the whole point of this commentary is to bring out a point of law that had not been covered by the Pharisees in their interpretations.
.......
In Hebrews 12:16 Esau is called a fornicator ; yet there is no record in Scripture of his buying the services of a prostitute. But Genesis 26:34 does say that he married Hittite wives. From the account in Scripture, this obviously went against God's command not to take a wife from among the Canaanites. Thus, it may be classified as an unlawful marriage.
.......
27 Art thou bound (by law) unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed (from the bonds of marriage). Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.
Few verses are plainer than these. If you are married, do not seek a divorce. If you are divorced or widowed, do not seek a wife (because of the "present distress" mentioned in verse 26). But if you do marry, YOU HAVE NOT SINNED; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned either. In other words, Paul says, remarriage after a divorce is NOT a sin. Thus, divorce and remarriage is NOT adultery.
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/coldfusion/Chapter.cfm?CID=197
I've read something similar to this, and it's thought-provoking. Maybe even true :laughing7:.
I know I certainly personally don't "condemn" people for remarrying (at the "very least", I figure God forgives us and gives us fresh starts), but it's still one of those things that was pounded in my head through the years and I still have that question in the back of my mind. But studies such as the one you posted give another view of it.
Is there anything to forgive? God married Israel. Later He divorced Israel. (and later remarries)
Did God sin? - It's written He's unable to sin.
Did He break His own laws? - That would be sin.
Is God above His own laws? - Mmmm, I think not.
QuoteIn God's marriage to Israel at Mt. Sinai, Israel (the bride) agreed to submit to His authority and obey His laws (Ex. 19:3-8). God, on the other hand, agreed to give them the Kingdom and the blessings of the Birthright. These included honor, protection, sustenance, and children (Gen. 12:1-3).
Israel violated this contract, being incapable of full obedience, and refused to repent; and thus, her Husband divorced her and sent her out of His house. Jeremiah 3:8 says,
8 And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.
Note that God not only sent her away, but only did so after giving her a written bill of divorce. This was in accordance with the law in Deut. 24 that we will quote shortly. Hosea 2:2 also shows that God's divorce meant Israel was no longer God's wife, saying to her,
"Is there anything to forgive? "
I haven't studied this through, context and all, but I remembered this verse;
for consideration -
Malachi 2:13 Here is another thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, weeping and groaning because he pays no attention to your offerings and doesn't accept them with pleasure. 14 You cry out, "Why doesn't the Lord accept my worship?" I'll tell you why! Because the Lord witnessed the vows you and your wife made when you were young. But you have been unfaithful to her, though she remained your faithful partner, the wife of your marriage vows.
15 Didn't the Lord make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth. 16 "For I hate divorce!" says the Lord, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty,
" says the Lord of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife."
17 You have wearied the Lord with your words.
"How have we wearied him?" you ask.
You have wearied him by saying that all who do evil are good in the Lord's sight, and he is pleased with them.
Quote16 "For I hate divorce!" says the Lord, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty," says the Lord of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife."
:thumbsup:
wow. The Lord is so smart. How many times have I seen this play out?
But, it's something no one ever thinks about these days.
Mal 2:14 speak about being unfaithful. That's a sin because there si sex between partners without a written marriage contract.
(btw muslims have 1 hour marriage contracts....)
Verse 15 It's clear divorce is something to avoid. But sin is not mentioned.
I think you should focus on this statement from the article:
Hosea 2:2 also shows that God's divorce meant Israel was no longer God's wife
If the verse isn't taken out of context and God really divorced, then the sin component is taken out of divorce.
EDIT: Speaking about context... read the whole article because my quotes are selective.
Thank you. :bigGrin: This is something I've been thinking about a lot as the Christian circles I move in seem to be fine with divorce and remarriage (a position several dear friends of mine find themselves in) and I've been wondering how we all got to that point when Jesus said what he did in Matthew 5. (Well, I know how I got there, I just accepted it without thinking about it much... :mblush:)
One of the reasonings behind Yeshuas talks on divorce is that men in that time period would lots of times marry a woman get posession of all her goods and then divorce her and get to keep the good and the leave the woman with nothing. So what Yeshua was doing was protecting women from greedy men.
Quote15 Didn't the Lord make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth. 16 "For I hate divorce!" says the Lord, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty,
" says the Lord of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife."
No God did NOt say I hate divorce.
The hebrew word for divorce is keriythuwh
But in the hebrew text the word shalah i sused.
Shalah = sendig away
Quote from: wasco55 on July 06, 2012, 12:05:29 PM
Quote15 Didn't the Lord make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth. 16 "For I hate divorce!" says the Lord, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty,
" says the Lord of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife."
No God did NOt say I hate divorce.
The hebrew word for divorce is keriythuwh
But in the hebrew text the word shalah i sused.
Shalah = sendig away
:iagree:
Divorce is ok because marriage is a contract.
Of course, then you have other problems regarding remarriage.
God divorced Israel.
Understanding the social, cultural, historical, and legal context of any passge, helps us understand it better. This is especially true of the "divorce" passages in the Gospels. And it helps to take each passage individually, instead of lumping them together. For example, though Mt. 19 and Mark 10 are similar passages, likely recording the same event, the two passages are radically different and have a significantly different message because Matthew was writing to the Jews and challenging the doctrine and attitude of the Pharisees; whereas Mark was likely writing to the Romans and seeking to convey the teachings of Jesus to apply to Roman culture and law. Matthew records in detail Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees but Mark records in more detail Jesus' discussion with the disciples.
In Mt.19, the Pharisees tried to embroil Jesus in the debate concerning "No-fault" (any-matter, put away quietly) divorce procedures promoted by the Hillelites, as opposed to the fault-based divorce proceedings promoted by the Shammaites. Jesus skirts the issue and points them back to the divine ideal of marriage - a monogomous life-long loving devoted union of a man and woman. I get the feel Jesus was pointing to this implying that the Pharisees were arguing over no-fault divorce proceedings when instead they should be helping people have lasting loving marriages. Anyhow, the Pharisees come back, pressing the issue, asking; Well, then why did Moses command us to write a bill of divorce and send away our wives? Again, trying to embroil Jesus in the no-fault debase that is based on the exact wording of Moses' legal enactment of the bill of divorce.
Jesus, though, instead of getting into that debate, answers their question by pointing them back to the purpose of the bill of divorce, why God inspired Moses to legislatively enact the bill of divorce. It was to mitigate the oppression and abuse of women. Throughout the ancient near-east, even today, women were considered little more than property. Once a man married a woman, she was legally his from then on whether he cared for her or not. He could expell her from the home, deprive her of any care, thus consigning her to a life of adultery, even prostitution, just to stay alive. And the woman still belonged to the man. It was an evil, common, cultural practice throughout the cultures of the ancient near-east.
Israel was to be different from her neighboring cultures/countries! In Israel, if a man expelled his wife, he was to give her a bill of divorce to free her legally to marry another man - thus stopping the practice of a man expelling his wife causing her to commit adultery and any man that marries her committing adultery. Sadly, though the Pharisees argued over the way a man must give the bill of divorce and whether or not he had to publicly declare his reasons for the divorce, they failed to emphasize the spirit of the Law, it's purpose, and build upon that! They did not force men to give a bill of divorce, and thus men could continue to expell wives and not give them a bill of divorce.
This, I believe, is what God was condeming again in Mal. where He says "I hate 'putting away'"! It was a sadistic evil mean way to treat the wife of one's youth. And the reason a man would expell, put away his wife without giving her a bill of divorce was because if he put her away he had to pay her the dowry, which was the bride-price plus her family inheritance, a considerable sum of money, likely equivalent to 7-10 years salary. By expelling a wife, not giving her a bill of divorce, the man retained the dowry for himself. And in the culture of that day, the expelled wife had "NO" legal recourse to sue for divorce or support. It was an evil practice that the Pharisees didn't do anything about, completely ignoring the reason God inspired Moses to legislatively enact the bill of divorce!
The conversation certainly didn't go the way the Pharisees wanted, and they couldn't trap Jesus. Instead, he shamed them for taking the Law of God and nullifying it through their traditions, their oral commentary on the Law that failed to embrace the Spirit of the Law and understanding the issues they addressed. Of course, if the couple was just living together and their was not marriage covenant (except for fornication) then there is no need for a bill of divorce.
Mark skips over all this wrangling with the Pharisees and focuses on what Jesus later says to disciples. In Roman law a man could divorce his wife simply by leaving and a woman could divorce her husband simply by leaving; they had no "bill of divorce". And, as is evident in the Greek text, one viable (likely imo) interpretation, Jesus says to the disciples that "If a man puts away his wife 'in order to" marry another, then he commits adultery. And if a woman puts away her husband 'in order to' marry another man, she commits adultery."
In other words, Mark records Jesus addressing the motive behind divorce. If the person, whether male or female, divorces his/her spouse so that he/she can marry someone else, then he/she is committing adultery! He/she is sinning against the marriage covenant. It is not the remarriage that is the problem, but it is the reason for the divorce. In fact, even though a person doesn't remarry, if he/she divorces for selfish reasons, he/she is committing adultery, sinning against their marriage covenant!
I cover all this in detail, and much more, in my book, "God is a Divorce' Too!". And an excellent book that covers the historical and cultural context of these passages is "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" by Dr. Instone-Brewer.
Remarriage after divorce is not a sin. Even divorce in itself is not a sin, but is dependant upon the reason for the divorce and the attitude of the heart. Divorce though is the result of sin. Divorce is like death; it is not a sin in itself, but murder certainly is!
Very interesting read Sherman.
Jesus is not a fan of divorce.
"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" Matthew 19:6
Matthew 19:8, "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Matthew 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Mark 10:12 "And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Luke 16:18 "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2012, 07:42:39 PM
Jesus is not a fan of divorce.
"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" Matthew 19:6
Matthew 19:8, "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Matthew 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Mark 10:12 "And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Luke 16:18 "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
I haven't delved into the specific words, but it appears Jesus is using "put away" (send away?) and "divorce" as synonymous/interchangeable..
That word can mean divorce. I don't know why the KJV chose 'put away.'
"shall put away"
G630
απολύω
apoluō
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
I've read various opinions on this, but I haven't carefully studied it out and it's not a "major" personal focus of mine. But in your opinion, does your last post affect in any way these thoughts earlier in the thread, or sort of two different "topics"?
"No God did NOt say I hate divorce.
The hebrew word for divorce is keriythuwh
But in the hebrew text the word shalah i sused.
Shalah = sendig away"
"Divorce is ok because marriage is a contract.
Of course, then you have other problems regarding remarriage.
God divorced Israel."
Quote from: jabcat on July 06, 2012, 10:43:20 PM
I've read various opinions on this, but I haven't carefully studied it out and it's not a "major" personal focus of mine. But in your opinion, does your last post affect in any way these thoughts earlier in the thread, or sort of two different "topics"?
"No God did NOt say I hate divorce.
The hebrew word for divorce is keriythuwh
But in the hebrew text the word shalah i sused.
Shalah = sendig away"
"Divorce is ok because marriage is a contract.
Of course, then you have other problems regarding remarriage.
God divorced Israel."
well, by 'ok' I meant lawful. I should have said that. I agree with what wasco said about the error of just abandoning the woman or putting her out on the street, which is not a lawful ending to a long term marriage contract. You can't just pretend the contract never existed with a wave of your hand.
You end a contract [marriage] with a contract [writ of divorce].
It doesn't mean that divorce is 'approved of.'
I hope that makes sense.
Quote from: jabcat on July 06, 2012, 10:25:02 PM
I haven't delved into the specific words, but it appears Jesus is using "put away" (send away?) and "divorce" as synonymous/interchangeable..
To "put away" and divorce are two seperate things in Orthodox Jewish culture. A man could "put away", expell, his wife without giving her a bill of divorce. The problem even exists today among modern Judaism. A Jewish wife who has been separated from her husband, even if she got a "legal" divorce, legal according to local civil law, but did not get a rabbinic bill of divorce (a "get") is considered an Agunah, a woman still bound, chained to her marriage. And if the woman marries another, that marriage is not recognized in the Jewish community, and any children born of that union will be considered a mamzer (bastard). This is an issue today because Orthodox Judaism is founded largely upon the doctrine of the Pharisees, the Oral Law, which was recorded in a scentence outline form in the Mishnah, which was expanded in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.
Paul, in quoting Jesus, uses two different words for separation and divorce. 1 Cor. 7:10-11
"10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not
separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not
divorce his wife.
Note that it is the woman who is separated (
chorizo) but not divorced from her husband that is instructed to remain single or be reconciled to her husband. The man though who is told to not divorce (aphiemi) his wife is not instructed to not marry again if he does.
In this passage, 1 Cor. 7, Paul is actually quoting Jesus statement which was spoken to a Jewish audience under Jewish civil law, where there was a difference between separation and divorce, and applying it to question concerning marriage amoung Paul's Corinthian Gentile audience under Greco-Roman law where there was not a difference between separation and divorce.
And it is especially interesting to note that Paul specifically says in 7:27-28a, "Hast thou been bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; hast thou been loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou mayest marry, thou didst not sin." So Paul specifically says that if a divorced man marries again he is not sinning. In other words, he specifically affirms that remarriage after divorce is not wrong.
Sadly, because of not understanding the Jewish culture, the Gentile church has traditionally misunderstood Jesus' words concerning separtion and divorce, and the "any-matter" divorce, especially Matthew's quotations of what Jesus said, because Matthew was written to the Jews.
Sherman are you saying the divorced man is allowed to remarry but not the divorced woman?
If so, why would that be?
Traditional "Christian" doctrine affirms that marriage is:
1) a sacrament,
2) under ecclesial authority, and
3) indissoluble.
All 3 of these conclusions are wrong. Marriage is actually (and biblically, I believe):
1) a covenant (a human covenant, not a divine covenant),
2) under civil authority, and
3) dissoluble.
Of course, "dissoluble" only recognizes that marriage is breakable; it doesn't address whether or not it should be. In fact, I think it is not only realistic to recognize that marriage is dissoluble, but it is healthy to recognize such. Which does one provide better protection for, a priceless solid gold statue or a priceless fragile China vase? The vase of course - because of it being fragile!
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2012, 11:05:11 PM
Sherman are you saying the divorced man is allowed to remarry but not the divorced woman?
If so, why would that be?
No, not at all. I'm pointing out that Paul specifically says that the divorced man can remarry. And this principle is applicable to women as well. In this passage, Paul was not actually addressing the issue of marriage and divorce and remarriage directly. He's actually clearing up some misunderstandings that motivated some of the Corinthians to believe that sex even within marriage in itself was wrong, or less than to be desired (7:1). Part of the reason some had come to believe that was because of misunderstanding what Jesus said, as quoted in vs. 10-11. And in vs. 12-14, Paul recognizes the potential for both men and women in Corinthian's Gentile culture to "divorce" (leave) their spouse. The direction to not do something implies that it is possible to do what is prohibited, not impossible.
Remarriage for either the man or woman is not an issue. The problem is not remarriage, the problem is divorce. And divorce is not really the problem, the core issue is the condition of one's heart - hardness of heart!
Quote from: Sherman on July 06, 2012, 10:58:16 PM
Sadly, because of not understanding the Jewish culture, the Gentile church has traditionally misunderstood Jesus' words concerning separtion and divorce, and the "any-matter" divorce, especially Matthew's quotations of what Jesus said, because Matthew was written to the Jews.
I believe that's true in a LOT of cases.
Quote from: Sherman on July 06, 2012, 10:58:16 PM
And it is especially interesting to note that Paul specifically says in 7:27-28a, "Hast thou been bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; hast thou been loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou mayest marry, thou didst not sin." So Paul specifically says that if a divorced man marries again he is not sinning. In other words, he specifically affirms that remarriage after divorce is not wrong.
I see the immediate context. Without looking at surrounding/extended context, it seems at least possible that line is [also?] talking about getting married in the first place, not just about remarriage?
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2012, 10:50:25 PM
You can't just pretend the contract never existed with a wave of your hand.
You end a contract [marriage] with a contract [writ of divorce].
It doesn't mean that divorce is 'approved of.'
I hope that makes sense.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. Thanks.
Quote from: Sherman on July 06, 2012, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2012, 11:05:11 PM
Sherman are you saying the divorced man is allowed to remarry but not the divorced woman?
If so, why would that be?
No, not at all. I'm pointing out that Paul specifically says that the divorced man can remarry. And this principle is applicable to women as well. In this passage, Paul was not actually addressing the issue of marriage and divorce and remarriage directly. He's actually clearing up some misunderstandings that motivated some of the Corinthians to believe that sex even within marriage in itself was wrong, or less than to be desired (7:1). Part of the reason some had come to believe that was because of misunderstanding what Jesus said, as quoted in vs. 10-11. And in vs. 12-14, Paul recognizes the potential for both men and women in Corinthian's Gentile culture to "divorce" (leave) their spouse. The direction to not do something implies that it is possible to do what is prohibited, not impossible.
Remarriage for either the man or woman is not an issue. The problem is not remarriage, the problem is divorce. And divorce is not really the problem, the core issue is the condition of one's heart - hardness of heart!
Ok. Thanks.
Sherman do you have any input about the OT prohibition about remarrying the wife you divorced? Because I think that has to do with Israel.
Molly and Sherman, I believe this addresses some of both of your points, i.e., that divorce is not necessarily God's primary delight or will, nor should it be done out of selfishness or cavalierly, but also that it can be "legitimate".
This author was a Baptist preacher, who decided to delve indepth into the old Rabbinical writings. He says "I'd read the biblical texts on divorce many times in the past, but I found something strange as I did so again. They now said something I hadn't heard before I read the rabbis!
The texts hadn't changed, but my knowledge of the language and culture in which they were written had. I was now reading them like a first-century Jew would have read them, and this time those confusing passages made more sense. My book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (InterVarsity Press), is a summary of several academic papers and books I began writing with this new understanding of what Jesus taught.
One of my most dramatic findings concerns a question the Pharisees asked Jesus: "Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?". This question reminded me that a few decades before Jesus, some rabbis (the Hillelites) had invented a new form of divorce called the "any cause" divorce. By the time of Jesus, this "any cause" divorce had become so popular that almost no one relied on the literal Old Testament grounds for divorce.
So he surmises that the original intent of scripture allowed for divorce under certain circumstances. Those circumstances
a) Had been "changed" by a new means of divorce developed by the religious elite, which said one could divorce for "any cause". He says Jesus was specifically addressing that in His statements to them – not divorce for a just cause
b) The modern church has neglected to understand the true just causes for divorce, making it much more restrictive and condemning than the Bible actually teaches
He says this about it;
Although the church forgot the other cause for divorce, every Jew in Jesus' day knew about, which allowed divorce for neglect. Before rabbis introduced the "any cause" divorce, this was probably the most common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave wife, had three rights within marriage—the rights to food, clothing, and love. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. Even women could, and did, get divorces for neglect—though the man still had to write out the divorce certificate. Rabbis said he had to do it voluntarily, so if he resisted, the courts had him beaten till he volunteered!
These three rights became the basis of Jewish marriage vows—we find them listed in marriage certificates discovered near the Dead Sea. In later Jewish and Christian marriages, the language became more formal, such as "love, honor, and keep." These vows, together with a vow of sexual faithfulness, have always been the basis for marriage. Thus, the vows we make when we marry correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce.
The three provisions of food, clothing, and love were understood literally by the Jews. The wife had to cook and sew, while the husband provided food and materials, or money. They both had to provide the emotional support of marital love, though they could abstain from sex for short periods. Paul taught the same thing. He said that married couples owed each other love and material support. He didn't say that neglect of these rights was the basis of divorce because he didn't need to—it was stated on the marriage certificate. Anyone who was neglected, in terms of emotional support or physical support, could legally claim a divorce.
Divorce for neglect included divorce for abuse, because this was extreme neglect.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html?start=1
Quote from: jabcat on July 07, 2012, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: Sherman on July 06, 2012, 10:58:16 PM
And it is especially interesting to note that Paul specifically says in 7:27-28a, "Hast thou been bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; hast thou been loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou mayest marry, thou didst not sin." So Paul specifically says that if a divorced man marries again he is not sinning. In other words, he specifically affirms that remarriage after divorce is not wrong.
I see the immediate context. Without looking at surrounding/extended context, it seems at least possible that line is [also?] talking about getting married in the first place, not just about remarriage?
Being "bound to a wife" is the subject of this scentence. Are you "bound to a wife" (married)? Paul is addressing specifically men who are married. If you are married do not seek a divorce (to be loosed). Are you divorced (loosed from a wife), do not seek to marry; but if you do you do not sin.
The Corinthians were really messed up on sexual issues. Considering many before becoming Christians were likely participants in the Aphrodite cult which at that time had potentially over 1000 priestess/prostitutes raising money for the temple, it's not wonder they were so messed up. This, combined with the attitude and philosphy of Platonic thought were "passion" was bad, plus a misunderstanding of what Jesus said, I can see why they were so messed up, thinking that sex even within marriage was to be avoided, if not forbidden. This coupled with the divisive spirit that plagued the church of Corinth, some were likely saying, "Man if you really want to be holy, like me you'll follow the example of Jesus and Paul and be celebate. And if you're married, the best thing you could do would be to leave/divorce your spouse and devote yourself to God, or at least refrain from sex!" And considering the possibility (likelyhood imo) that Paul was divorced as a result of coming to Christ and following Him, then it even adds more understanding to why they would be so messed up. Of course, on the other hand they likely had a group that continued to avail themselves of the temple prostitutes. The church at Corinth was a mess and Paul was addressing some of their issues.
Quote from: Molly on July 07, 2012, 12:34:32 AM
Sherman do you have any input about the OT prohibition about remarrying the wife you divorced? Because I think that has to do with Israel.
Moses was stopping the practice of men expelling their wives and yet retaining control over them, and especially stopping the practice of men expelling their wives, and then reclaiming them after they had married again. David actually is an example of this. He abandoned Michal, Saul's daughter, his first wife, when Saul started trying to kill him. Saul married her off to another man, Paltiel. David later, 7+ years later, conspired to reclaim her when he was taking the throne of all of Israel. Of course, David never gave her a bill of divorce; even so though it was an evil sadistic thing to do. Paltiel loved her so much that he followed the army that took her away for miles, crying, until he was told by the army to stop following them. And David during their separation had already married two other women.
Apparently David and Michal never did truly reconcile. The last scene of her in the Bible is when she fusses at David for dancing before the Ark of the Covenant, apparently dancing in a disrespectful (possibly lacivious) manner, at least that's the way Michal interpreted it. Their argment is recorded and then it's noted that she never had any children, thus ending Saul's lineage. Of course, she never had children when she was first married to David, nor the 7+ years that she was married to Paltiel. I think her not having children was a result of the curse that was put upon Saul, her father, which insured that no decendant of his would every take the throne of Israel.
The bill of divorce was meant to elevate the position of women in Israel, so that Israel would not be like their neighbors. Sadly, the Jews did not embrace the spirit of the Law and build upon it wisely. Instead, they made divorce the option of men only, and gave the women no recourse to sue for divorce - regardless of what their husband did. They did not even inforce the law, making a man give his wife a bill of divorce if he expelled or abandoned his wife. And if a husband went away, and did not return, possibly even died, the woman was left married and not able to marry again legally. The state of women in the ancient near-east, even today, was/is deplorable.
Quote from: jabcat on July 07, 2012, 12:34:59 AM
One of my most dramatic findings concerns a question the Pharisees asked Jesus: "Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?". This question reminded me that a few decades before Jesus, some rabbis (the Hillelites) had invented a new form of divorce called the "any cause" divorce. By the time of Jesus, this "any cause" divorce had become so popular that almost no one relied on the literal Old Testament grounds for divorce.
So he surmises that the original intent of scripture allowed for divorce under certain circumstances. Those circumstances
a) Had been "changed" by a new means of divorce developed by the religious elite, which said one could divorce for "any cause". He says Jesus was specifically addressing that in His statements to them – not divorce for a just cause
b) The modern church has neglected to understand the true just causes for divorce, making it much more restrictive and condemning than the Bible actually teaches
He says this about it;
Although the church forgot the other cause for divorce, every Jew in Jesus' day knew about, which allowed divorce for neglect. Before rabbis introduced the "any cause" divorce, this was probably the most common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave wife, had three rights within marriage—the rights to food, clothing, and love. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. Even women could, and did, get divorces for neglect—though the man still had to write out the divorce certificate. Rabbis said he had to do it voluntarily, so if he resisted, the courts had him beaten till he volunteered!
These three rights became the basis of Jewish marriage vows—we find them listed in marriage certificates discovered near the Dead Sea. In later Jewish and Christian marriages, the language became more formal, such as "love, honor, and keep." These vows, together with a vow of sexual faithfulness, have always been the basis for marriage. Thus, the vows we make when we marry correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce.
The three provisions of food, clothing, and love were understood literally by the Jews. The wife had to cook and sew, while the husband provided food and materials, or money. They both had to provide the emotional support of marital love, though they could abstain from sex for short periods. Paul taught the same thing. He said that married couples owed each other love and material support. He didn't say that neglect of these rights was the basis of divorce because he didn't need to—it was stated on the marriage certificate. Anyone who was neglected, in terms of emotional support or physical support, could legally claim a divorce.
Divorce for neglect included divorce for abuse, because this was extreme neglect.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html?start=1
Yes, I'm familiar with that view, but I don't see that Jesus was trying to either affirm or deny the "any-matter" (No-Fault) divorce proceedings. In fact, scripture affirms that Joseph was "righteous" because he planned to "divorce" Mary, mother of Jesus, using the any-matter process and not publicly denounce Mary - even though he would have lost the bride-price (a year's salary) doing so. The "any-matter" divorce proceedings were considered the more "righteous" way of divorce because it did not uncover the problems of the family. The fault-based Shammaite divorce proceedings were used by men who sought to keep all or at least part of the dowry (bride-price + wife's family inheritance).
In Mat. 19, Jesus doesn't get imbroiled in that argument, but points them back to the divine ideal of marriage; and then when pressed further, explains the reason Moses was inspired to legislatively enact the bill of divorce. At least, that's what makes sense to me.
P.S. Just fyi, I'll likely be off-line over the weekend, so I will not be responding to any questions or comments on this thread until next week. I don't get on the computer much over the weekend.
Thanks Sherman, I probably don't have a lot more to say about it anyway. Good discussion though :)
P.S. I guess as with most things; if our heart is "fertile ground", we'll be seeking to love the Lord and each other, and treating each other well. If everyone involved is not doing that, then things often happen that get messy. Thankfully, God can restore us and work things for our good. :2c:
The Mark 10 passage is significantly different than the Mt.19 passage, though apparently they record the same event. In Mt.19 the focus is on Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees. In Mk.10 the focus is on Jesus teaching the disciples. Mt.19 the discussion involves the Any-Matter (No-Fault) divorce debate going on among the Pharisees and subsequently the reason Moses was inspired to legislatively enact the bill of divorce, legally freeing an expelled woman to marry again. Of course, considering it was legal for men to have more than one wife, men remarrying was not an issue. But Mark does not even mention the Any-Matter divorce proceedings or the "except for fornication". (btw, if a couple is in an illegal relationship (fornication) then no bill of divorce is needed).
Why is there so many differences in Mark's recording of this event and Matthew's? Because Matthew wrote to the Jews and part of what Matthew desired to do was highlight the problems of the Pharisees. Mark, writing to the Romans, focused on Jesus' teachings that applied to them of a different, Roman, culture and civil law. In Roman culture and civil law there was no "bill of divorce". The husband or wife only need leave and the "marriage" was over.
Something many translations do not bring out is that in Mark both "put away" and "marries" are in the "Subjunctive Mood" and thus can be interpreted connoting "intent". The Message actually brings this out (correctly imo): "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery."
Jesus was addressing the motive behind the divorce, the heart-issue, something man cannot regulate or control but that only God can judge. It is ultimately the "hardness of heart" that causes divorce; and who can judge the heart except God. If we desire to have healthy lasting marriages, then we need to tend to the condition of our hearts and not allow ourselves to become hardened towards one another.
Another interesting thing about the Mt. 19 passage is where the disciples say to Jesus "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (v.10). Traditionally this is read as if the disciples were so shocked by what Jesus said that they seriously thought it might be better to not marry. Of course, the actual wording does not indicate what the disciples were thinking.
When I read it though I get the feeling that the disciples were just cutting up, joking. Either way, Jesus used the opportunity to challenge another one of the Pharisees' doctrines - the doctrine of the necessity of a man marrying and having children. They believed and taught that the command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply was universal. And it was unthinkable for them that some people might not desire or be called by God to get married and have children. So Jesus used the question as a springboard to launch into teaching that being single and not having children was acceptable before God, even inspired by God for some. One of the keys to understanding Matthew is recognizing that he was focused on countering the doctrine, attitudes, and philosophies of the Pharisees. The Pharisees not only believed that the written Law was to be obeyed, but also the Oral Law, verbal explanations of the Torah that they handed down generation to generation verbally. In fact, Matthew's often repeated phrase "you've heard it 'said'" was an idiomatic phrase used to reference the Oral Law. The Saduccees did not believe the Oral Law was inspired or to be followed. The Oral Law was later recorded in scentence outline form in the Mishnah which was fleshed out in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds.