The Bible Says: Divorce and Remarriage is Not Adultery

[jabcat]

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

[Sherman]

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.

[Sherman]

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.

[Sherman]

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.

[jabcat]

Thanks Sherman, I probably don't have a lot more to say about it anyway.  Good discussion though :)

[jabcat]

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:

[Sherman]

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.

[Sherman]

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.