PDA

View Full Version : Divorce and remarriage



Brother Mark
Apr 28th 2009, 12:57 AM
Under the OT law, if adultery was committed, then the guilty party was stoned.

Lev 20:10

10 'If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
NASB

We know from Christ that divorce was only granted because of the hardness of hearts.

Matt 19:3-6

3 And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 "Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
NASB

Here we see that Jesus clearly shows that divorce for any cause is not encouraged by God though it was allowed. God hated it and stated so in the OT, though even he himself used it. Perhaps God decided to allow it as the lesser of two evils, I do not know. I do know Jesus taught very strongly against divorce. It was because of the hardness of the heart that it was allowed.

Matt 19:7-8
7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
NASB

However, he did have an interesting caveat in his words in teaching on divorce. In the case of immorality (i.e. fornication/adultery) divorce was something that Jesus OK'd.

Matt 19:9
9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
NASB

Why did Jesus make this exception? Because under the OT law, when one committed adultery, he was stoned and thus the marriage was destroyed. Adultery destroys the marriage bond and death occurs. In this case, if one remarries, he/she has not sinned under the new covenant. When God removed the death penalty for adultery, he added the clause "except for immorality" to the law on divorce and remarriage.

Grace and peace,

Mark

Alaska
Apr 28th 2009, 01:49 AM
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.

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.

Matthew 19:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

When accepting the understanding that the allowance of divorce provided for by the exception of fornication means the termination of betrothal for her premarital sex discovered in betrothal, then the last clause means exactly what it appears to mean in Luke 16:18 above where there is no exception. This understanding places all divorced women from a lawful marriage off limits; it is adultery to marry them. This meaning of that last clause would stand true in all verses having that last clause; those that have and those that do not have the exception clause. Same meaning wherever it is found.

If divorce immediately terminates the marriage, then a meaning has to be assigned to that last clause.
I understand that a private interpretation is often characterized by the text not supporting the interpretation. Is your theory a private interpretation or is there some reasonable meaning you can appoint to that last clause underlined in the above quoted scriptures?

SwordmanJr
Aug 20th 2009, 08:14 PM
When accepting the understanding that the allowance of divorce provided for by the exception of fornication means the termination of betrothal for her premarital sex discovered in betrothal, then the last clause means exactly what it appears to mean in Luke 16:18 above where there is no exception. This understanding places all divorced women from a lawful marriage off limits; it is adultery to marry them. This meaning of that last clause would stand true in all verses having that last clause; those that have and those that do not have the exception clause. Same meaning wherever it is found.

Could you show us where the context of those verses, such as Matthew 5:32, say anything about betrothal, or is there some hidden meaning in the Greek definitions that somehow allow you to bring betrohtal to the foreground as the defined meaning behind the apostle's words?

Please enlighten us.

Thanks

SwJr

JohnDB
Aug 20th 2009, 08:24 PM
How about the "put away" part that yawl are missing out on.

In the ANE there was a practice where a husband who was displeased with his wife and didn't want to grant her a divorce proper (because it would be expensive) would just kick her out of the house. No more food, clothing, or shelter for her.

This practice is also referred to in the Malachi passage where God is quoted as saying, "I hate divorce"...it was part of a larger text where God was saying that He hates divorce but that He hates abuse more which is what God was saying that this practice of "putting away" a wife without divorcing her was.

Women didn't have access to the courts in those days the same as men did. (No ERA in those days) So a woman couldn't get divorced if she was destitute.

Adultery did get women stoned to death...no need for a divorce from a dead woman now was there? So...if we will look to see to whom Jesus was speaking and that Jesus was using an allusion to "unfaithful Israel" when speaking in terms of harlotry....meaning that apostacy was the primary grounds for divorce...being married to a person who doesn't believe and regularly acts out that unbelief in such a fashion as to endanger your life and faith...it is better to leave than to stay.

Jesus also was saying that marrying a woman that you believe is simply "put away" and not properly divorced is adultery. You may believe that you are helping her situation...but you are not. You and she are committing adultery. Don't do it.

JohnDB
Aug 20th 2009, 09:31 PM
I wasn't so much referring to these two's body of text as I was the scripture that they posted...The scripture that they posted (with the exception of Matthew 5) is translated accurately. IN the Greek it is still "put away"...but for whatever reason they decided to substitute "divorce" there.

The Pharisees (as you can see in 19:3 of Matthew) were the ones coming to Jesus to question him. These guys knew their bible and were looking for a clarification as to his position concerning two Schmeeka Rabbis differing opinions.

Hillel and Shammai held opposing opinions. Shammai held to a view that if you caught her with another man that you could divorce her. (some couldn't throw a rock...LOL)
Hillel was promoting that if she burned a pot of beans you could divorce her.

Jesus sided with neither side. Chastised them for their own personal divorce records. (they were guilty of almost wife-swaping) and told them not to do or permit the practice of "putting away" a wife or to marry a put away wife.
Divorces cost real money. A dowry would have to be returned to the woman you were divorcing or some other equal amount as determined by the judge. Monetarily it was expensive to get divorced...so many men (and pharisees) would practice this "putting away".

9Marksfan
Aug 20th 2009, 09:50 PM
I wasn't so much referring to these two's body of text as I was the scripture that they posted...The scripture that they posted (with the exception of Matthew 5) is translated accurately. IN the Greek it is still "put away"...but for whatever reason they decided to substitute "divorce" there.

The Pharisees (as you can see in 19:3 of Matthew) were the ones coming to Jesus to question him. These guys knew their bible and were looking for a clarification as to his position concerning two Schmeeka Rabbis differing opinions.

Hillel and Shammai held opposing opinions. Shammai held to a view that if you caught her with another man that you could divorce her. (some couldn't throw a rock...LOL)
Hillel was promoting that if she burned a pot of beans you could divorce her.

Jesus sided with neither side. Chastised them for their own personal divorce records. (they were guilty of almost wife-swaping) and told them not to do or permit the practice of "putting away" a wife or to marry a put away wife.
Divorces cost real money. A dowry would have to be returned to the woman you were divorcing or some other equal amount as determined by the judge. Monetarily it was expensive to get divorced...so many men (and pharisees) would practice this "putting away".

I don't believe there's as much significance in "puting away" as you are making out, although I accept it was "divorce on the cheap". But referring to Alaska's reference to betrothal, there are two broad hints at it in Matthew.

The first is the use of the word porneia (a broad term, denoting various forms of sexual immorality but principally fornication and very rarely adultery) as the ground and not moichao (the general word used for adultery). "How could spouses commit porneia? Didn't they commit moichao?" would most likely be what the Jewish hearers would think - or perhaps they already knew that Jesus was talkiing about fornication during the betrothal period, for the legitimate way to break of the betrothal was divorce. This leads to my second broad hint:-

In Matt 1:19, Joseph planned to divorce his betrothed, Mary, because it was obvious to him that she had committed porneia - it wasn't wrong for him to want to do this, for he was a just man - the law permitted this and Jesus was confirming that this was the ONLY ground.

JohnDB
Aug 20th 2009, 10:38 PM
OK well...this practice of "putting away" is still in practice to this day in countries where women do not have the same rights as men.

That is going to be a real hard one to get around.

notuptome
Aug 21st 2009, 12:00 AM
Jesus of course knew He was being set up by the Pharisees. In order for the woman to be taken in the very act of adultery there would need to have been a man involved. My bible does not record the guy who was with the woman. I suppose Jesus may have been writing in the dirt some of the things the guys making the charges had to their account. They left in decending order. With no one left to make the charge the Lord chose mercy over judgment. Hmm I wonder if that is why He came in the first place? Grace preferred over the law. Novel idea.

Would be something of a sticky wicket to stone all the divorced men and women who have remarried. It is done in islamic countries. Well at least the women are stoned.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Beckrl
Aug 21st 2009, 12:01 AM
Hi, Brother Mark

Trying to stay with your question and not go in different direction as of yet.



Why did Jesus make this exception? Because under the OT law, when one committed adultery, he was stoned and thus the marriage was destroyed. Adultery destroys the marriage bond and death occurs. In this case, if one remarries, he/she has not sinned under the new covenant. When God removed the death penalty for adultery, he added the clause "except for immorality" to the law on divorce and remarriage.



If we were to look at the OT laws of Harmony of the Nations (Deu. 24).
We find that at that time Moses "allowed" for a bill of divorcement and the wife were also "allowed" to remarry another man. The reason being is the wellfare of the woman, knowing that if she is simply put away without the letter, she would receive no wellfare. She would most like to become a prostitute. This was "allowed" because the man had found some uncleaness in her, by law she was to be stoned, but by the "allowance" (bill of divorcement). She would receive a letter and may remarry for the reason of support.

As for the "except for fornication" it would be in the understanding of the covenant of the betrothal period. In this case it would be permartial sex, in the context of fornication.(Deu.22:13-30)

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused (betrothal) to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily(Matt.1:18-19)

Would we say that Mark 10 and Luke 16 omitted this "except for fornication" No for they weren't trying to show the law of Moses as Matthew had.

Matthew bring the point that save only for forincation(permartial sex)one can divorce.


Beck

Beckrl
Aug 21st 2009, 12:10 AM
I don't believe there's as much significance in "puting away" as you are making out, although I accept it was "divorce on the cheap". But referring to Alaska's reference to betrothal, there are two broad hints at it in Matthew.

The first is the use of the word porneia (a broad term, denoting various forms of sexual immorality but principally fornication and very rarely adultery) as the ground and not moichao (the general word used for adultery). "How could spouses commit porneia? Didn't they commit moichao?" would most likely be what the Jewish hearers would think - or perhaps they already knew that Jesus was talkiing about fornication during the betrothal period, for the legitimate way to break of the betrothal was divorce. This leads to my second broad hint:-

In Matt 1:19, Joseph planned to divorce his betrothed, Mary, because it was obvious to him that she had committed porneia - it wasn't wrong for him to want to do this, for he was a just man - the law permitted this and Jesus was confirming that this was the ONLY ground.


The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=47&passage=Matthew%205.32) and 19:9 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=47&passage=Matthew%2019.9) where Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication (permatial sex)rather than adultery?

Therefore, in order to avoid the jarring inconsistency between what he has said about Joseph and what Jesus says about divorce, Matthew inserts the exception clause in order to exonerate Joseph and show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication, is not included in what Jesus had said. This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages: 1) it does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke; 2) it provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew’s exception clause instead of moicheia; 3) it squares with Matthew’s own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=47&passage=Matthew%2015.19); 4 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=47&passage=Matthew%2015.4)

Beck

JohnDB
Aug 21st 2009, 12:44 AM
Joseph wasn't goin to "divorce" Mary...he was going to "put away" Mary.

that is what "lathra apolusai autën" literally means.

third hero
Aug 21st 2009, 01:08 PM
Joseph wasn't goin to "divorce" Mary...he was going to "put away" Mary.

that is what "lathra apolusai autën" literally means.
What do you think "put away" means? He was going to divorce her. He was going to divorce her quietly, and not publicly.

JohnDB
Aug 21st 2009, 01:21 PM
What do you think "put away" means? He was going to divorce her. He was going to divorce her quietly, and not publicly.

The same thing I have been contending all along that you haven't picked up on.
Divorce was a different thing than "Putting away". As stated above marriage started at the betrothal stage. Their system was a little more complicated than ours is today based upon Deuteronomy Law (22:23-24)

But remarriage was always encouraged. Deut 24:1-4 Women's only hope, comfort, and pride was the children that they had.

And on another point...
God forgives sin completely and removes it from us as far as the east is from the west. He doesn't have a "but if" clause in his forgiveness...it is as if the marriage never happened in his law books. So...so long as you are not married to anyone you may remarry.

Lonliness is much easier to bear than working with someone to form a lasting relationship. Go for the tough and not the easy. IOW being single is much much easier than being married ever thought about being. Marriage also exercises your grace, forgiveness, and giving muscles. Single life doesn't exercise those near as much as married life does.

Beckrl
Aug 21st 2009, 03:36 PM
Joseph wasn't goin to "divorce" Mary...he was going to "put away" Mary.

that is what "lathra apolusai autën" literally means.


As for the laws of Moses, the "putting away" of a wife is to give her a bill of divorcement.

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house(Deu.24)

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (Matt. 19)

That is how the Pharisees understood it.

The laws of Moses also says that if a damsel is found unclean by her betrothal husband that she shall be bring out and the city man will stone her. This is the reason for Jospeh being a Just man because was reminded to put her(bill of divorcement) away privily and not stone her in publick.

20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you(Deu.22)

Beck

JohnDB
Aug 21st 2009, 10:19 PM
Your assumptions Beckrl are incorrect...
There are literally thousands of women that are "Put away" wives in the world today who aren't going to believe your position either.

Anytime that men have more rights than women and have access to the courts and women don't; this sort of thing exists.

Beckrl
Aug 22nd 2009, 01:24 AM
Your assumptions Beckrl are incorrect...
There are literally thousands of women that are "Put away" wives in the world today who aren't going to believe your position either.

Anytime that men have more rights than women and have access to the courts and women don't; this sort of thing exists.

My assumption is from scripture!

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (Matt. 19)

Were do you find the scripture in how you interpret to put away with or without the bill of divorcement?

I believe that the Pharisees first question were about is it "lawful" to put away. Then responsed with the second question about the law of Moses to give a bill of divorcement.

I take the law of Moses is in context of these questions. The law to put away with a bill of divorcement.

Beck

JohnDB
Aug 22nd 2009, 02:03 AM
My assumption is from scripture!

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (Matt. 19)

Were do you find the scripture in how you interpret to put away with or without the bill of divorcement?

I believe that the Pharisees first question were about is it "lawful" to put away. Then responsed with the second question about the law of Moses to give a bill of divorcement.

I take the law of Moses is in context of these questions. The law to put away with a bill of divorcement.

Beck

The Pharisees were a legalistic bunch...as was all of Israel. They seen these two things as separate and not the same. They were questioning Malachi passage about divorce and the other two Rabbis that held widely different positions. As has been already posted by me earlier in this thread.

Beckrl
Aug 22nd 2009, 02:34 AM
The Pharisees were a legalistic bunch...as was all of Israel. They seen these two things as separate and not the same. They were questioning Malachi passage about divorce and the other two Rabbis that held widely different positions. As has been already posted by me earlier in this thread.


It would be your assumption that the Pharisees were questioning Jesus about the teaching of two Rabbis :o



Hillel and Shammai held opposing opinions. Shammai held to a view that if you caught her with another man that you could divorce her. (some couldn't throw a rock...LOL)
Hillel was promoting that if she burned a pot of beans you could divorce her.


All along the scripture tells us of the law of Moses not two Rabbis.

Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (Matt. 19)


Beck

JohnDB
Aug 22nd 2009, 02:47 AM
It would be your assumption that the Pharisees were questioning Jesus about the teaching of two Rabbis :o



All along the scripture tells us of the law of Moses not two Rabbis.

Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (Matt. 19)


Beck
fifteen characters.

blessedmommyuv3
Aug 25th 2009, 06:38 PM
I just want to step in for a moment here to bring to the forefront this reminder:

Proverbs 15:1
A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.

This is a discussion board, when you are speaking to one another, please remember to treat others as you wish to be treated. Remember we are Christ's representatives here on Earth.
You may be the most knowledgeable bible scholar in the world, but if you post in a way that is rude or consdescending, no one will listen to you.

Being a Hebrew or Greek linguist is not a requirement of participating in threads in Bible Chat.

There is a whole lot of "ugliness" going on in this thread, and it needs to stop.
Please address one another with civility and grace.

Thank you,
Jen

Beckrl
Aug 25th 2009, 10:16 PM
Scrptural references are posted throughout this thread. Bekrl has some just above your post and the highlighted sections show quite clearly that giving a bill of divorcement and putting away a wife are two completely separate and different things.

What many men would do instead of divorcing a wife (which would involve returning the dowry and financial assistance to the divorced wife) men (due to polygamy being considered OK) would just kick a woman out of the house.,..and not divorce her. She in turn couldn't remarry because she was already married nor could she earn a living. Often these women would resort to prostitution or remarry anyway...making them become adulterers.

There is plenty of scripture all over this thread...what more do you want?:pp


I do not see were Moses allowed for both a bill of divorcement and a putting away. As you put it. Maybe it the interpretation.

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"(NIV)

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (KJV)

My understanding is coming from Deuteronomy 24

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. (KJV)

1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, (NIV)

Beck

JohnDB
Aug 25th 2009, 11:13 PM
Beck,
It is the culture we are living in. We are way more comfortable with viewing a woman/wife as an equal partner and citizen than those during the time in which Jesus walked the earth or Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.

It is only the last 90 years that this has been the case with America leading the world in this. Up to that time women didn't have equal rights or even access to the courts. Women were treated one minor step up from livestock or some other piece of property. Almost like slaves instead of a wife as we know of one today.

Much like we are accustomed to quoting scripture to one another. At one time unless you were a Levite you couldn't quote memorized scripture to your neighbor. When John the Baptist came along he authorized, by his Baptism, that the common man could indeed quote scripture to his neighbor. Until that time only Levites or a family figurehead could do such a thing.

You have to remember that in Israel legalisms were the norm...if you were legalistic with your behavior and lifestyle it was considered to be a good thing...you couldn't be too legalistic...it wasn't even a concept. They went so far as to measure the water used to wash their hands...if you used too much you were a schmeel...if you used too little you were "unwashed". LOL

Of course they would notice the conjunction "and" in the scripture you are quoting...they would have (and did) separate the two things and made one out to be a sort of "half divorce".

It is hard to focus on the times and culture to with which the bible was originally taking place in...we love, by natural selection, to see things in our current, modern civilization...it is part and parcel with internalizing the scriptures...but that doesn't make it always a correct view.

Beckrl
Aug 25th 2009, 11:31 PM
Beck,
It is the culture we are living in. We are way more comfortable with viewing a woman/wife as an equal partner and citizen than those during the time in which Jesus walked the earth or Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.

It is only the last 90 years that this has been the case with America leading the world in this. Up to that time women didn't have equal rights or even access to the courts. Women were treated one minor step up from livestock or some other piece of property. Almost like slaves instead of a wife as we know of one today.

Much like we are accustomed to quoting scripture to one another. At one time unless you were a Levite you couldn't quote memorized scripture to your neighbor. When John the Baptist came along he authorized, by his Baptism, that the common man could indeed quote scripture to his neighbor. Until that time only Levites or a family figurehead could do such a thing.

You have to remember that in Israel legalisms were the norm...if you were legalistic with your behavior and lifestyle it was considered to be a good thing...you couldn't be too legalistic...it wasn't even a concept. They went so far as to measure the water used to wash their hands...if you used too much you were a schmeel...if you used too little you were "unwashed". LOL

Of course they would notice the conjunction "and" in the scripture you are quoting...they would have (and did) separate the two things and made one out to be a sort of "half divorce".

It is hard to focus on the times and culture to with which the bible was originally taking place in...we love, by natural selection, to see things in our current, modern civilization...it is part and parcel with internalizing the scriptures...but that doesn't make it always a correct view.


I can agree to how they viewed their wife, as a slave, property. I also believe even after Moses allowed for a bill of divorce they would none the least just putting away their wife. Notice it was said of Joseph that he was a "just man".



Of course they would notice the conjunction "and" in the scripture you are quoting...they would have (and did) separate the two things and made one out to be a sort of "half divorce".



Although I have to say, I have never heard of this "half divorce". Still I'm not convinced that's what is refered in thier question. As I showed in the scriptures of Deu.24

Beck

JohnDB
Aug 25th 2009, 11:46 PM
I agree that Joseph was a "just man" that is scriptural. Since he hadn't come for her yet for the marriage ceremony he wasn't completely married to her yet...he didn't need a bill of divorcement...He simply needed to put her away. It is part of their complicated marriage ceremonies of that day and time. She was sorta his wife and sorta not all at the same time.

We do things a lot differently than they did back then...we can have a short engagement and not pay a bride price or a dowry or anything like that....building a house first before you can marry isn't something done today either. But it was part of the ceremony and made manditory by the customs of the day.

webhead
Aug 26th 2009, 12:26 AM
Look at the words of Jesus very closely. He does NOT say “Whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery against her every time they have sex.” No. He doesn’t mention sex at all in his teaching on divorce in Mark or Matthew.
Look at Jesus’ words carefully. He says, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery.” It is the act of divorce and remarriage that constitutes the adultery, not any subsequent sex with the new mate that may follow. The same is true in the second statement: “If a woman divorces her husband and remarries, she commits adultery.” Again, the act of divorce and remarriage itself constitutes the adultery, for no sex is mentioned at all.


You see, the Bible teaches that there are two kinds of adultery(playing the harlot in the Greek): physical and spiritual. Physical adultery is the act of having sex with someone who isn’t our spouse. We break our marriage vow to forsake all others with such an act. We break the marriage covenant. Spiritual adultery is also the breaking of a vow or covenant. When we divorce and remarry we break the vow “till death do us part.” We have broken our covenant with our spouse by divorcing him or her and in so doing, commit spiritual adultery. he Bible repeatedly affirms that such an adultery exists. Jeremiah speaks of the spiritual adultery committed by Israel by worshipping idols and telling lies (See Jeremiah 3:9; 9:2). James tells some Christians that they are adulterers because they are praying with selfish motives (James 4:4). Jesus said that a man could commit adultery in his heart without ever having sexual intercourse with a woman to whom he wasn’t married (Matthew 5:28). He also characterized those who sought for a sign from God to prove that he was the Messiah as adulterous (See Matthew 12:39; 16:4).
Now don’t misunderstand. The Bible clearly teaches against physical adultery – the act of having sex with someone besides your spouse. But, several times, it also speaks of adultery(playing the Harlot) that has nothing to do with sex. The heart of the matter is that adultery is the breaking of a covenant relationship such as marriage. It is forsaking vows – both marital and spiritual. The context of the scripture at hand determines which adultery is in view – physical or spiritual.

timmyb
Aug 26th 2009, 03:10 PM
Gentlemen I am closing this thread... This discussion has gotten way out of hand.

threebigrocks
Aug 26th 2009, 05:50 PM
AFter review and some cleaning up, this thread is being reopened. Discuss nicely, salt your words and all is good!

Beckrl
Aug 26th 2009, 09:39 PM
Deuteronomy 24
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.(put away)


Matthew 5
31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (Deu.24:1)
32But 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.


It would seem that at lest Jesus used them in the sence that when one was put away they were divorced or that lest be given the bill of divorcement when put away.

Beck

theodoret
Aug 26th 2009, 10:12 PM
My assumption is from scripture!

Yes. Yes. But who's interpretation of Scripture. Your's?

Scripture needs to be interpreted. This is why there are thousands of denominations with sincere people holding that their view is "Biblical".

So while you say "My assumption...", it is still that: Just YOUR assumption. You are fallible. You may assume falsely?

Surely you can't disagree.

threebigrocks
Aug 26th 2009, 10:19 PM
Okay, let's go back up 3 whole posts and recall the salty part there. If you want to discuss revelation and interpretation, which is always by the Spirit, start a different thread. Let's not bust each other up with semantics here, okay?

Back to the topic!

theodoret
Aug 26th 2009, 11:03 PM
revelation and interpretation, which is always by the Spirit

I was hoping to jump in here with you guys. Just curious, is the above quote the opinion of everyone here?

Just wanted to see the common ground before commenting further.

I do not mean to offend. Simply to understand.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 14th 2010, 11:45 PM
I wasn't so much referring to these two's body of text as I was the scripture that they posted...The scripture that they posted (with the exception of Matthew 5) is translated accurately. IN the Greek it is still "put away"...but for whatever reason they decided to substitute "divorce" there.

The Pharisees (as you can see in 19:3 of Matthew) were the ones coming to Jesus to question him. These guys knew their bible and were looking for a clarification as to his position concerning two Schmeeka Rabbis differing opinions.

Hillel and Shammai held opposing opinions. Shammai held to a view that if you caught her with another man that you could divorce her. (some couldn't throw a rock...LOL)
Hillel was promoting that if she burned a pot of beans you could divorce her.

Jesus sided with neither side. Chastised them for their own personal divorce records. (they were guilty of almost wife-swaping) and told them not to do or permit the practice of "putting away" a wife or to marry a put away wife.
Divorces cost real money. A dowry would have to be returned to the woman you were divorcing or some other equal amount as determined by the judge. Monetarily it was expensive to get divorced...so many men (and pharisees) would practice this "putting away".


OK well...this practice of "putting away" is still in practice to this day in countries where women do not have the same rights as men.

That is going to be a real hard one to get around.


Joseph wasn't goin to "divorce" Mary...he was going to "put away" Mary.

that is what "lathra apolusai autën" literally means.


The same thing I have been contending all along that you haven't picked up on.
Divorce was a different thing than "Putting away". As stated above marriage started at the betrothal stage. Their system was a little more complicated than ours is today based upon Deuteronomy Law (22:23-24)

But remarriage was always encouraged. Deut 24:1-4 Women's only hope, comfort, and pride was the children that they had.

And on another point...
God forgives sin completely and removes it from us as far as the east is from the west. He doesn't have a "but if" clause in his forgiveness...it is as if the marriage never happened in his law books. So...so long as you are not married to anyone you may remarry.

Lonliness is much easier to bear than working with someone to form a lasting relationship. Go for the tough and not the easy. IOW being single is much much easier than being married ever thought about being. Marriage also exercises your grace, forgiveness, and giving muscles. Single life doesn't exercise those near as much as married life does.


Your assumptions Beckrl are incorrect...
There are literally thousands of women that are "Put away" wives in the world today who aren't going to believe your position either.

Anytime that men have more rights than women and have access to the courts and women don't; this sort of thing exists.

This is all exactly correct!

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 14th 2010, 11:48 PM
The Pharisees were a legalistic bunch...as was all of Israel. They seen these two things as separate and not the same. They were questioning Malachi passage about divorce and the other two Rabbis that held widely different positions. As has been already posted by me earlier in this thread.


I agree that Joseph was a "just man" that is scriptural. Since he hadn't come for her yet for the marriage ceremony he wasn't completely married to her yet...he didn't need a bill of divorcement...He simply needed to put her away. It is part of their complicated marriage ceremonies of that day and time. She was sorta his wife and sorta not all at the same time.

We do things a lot differently than they did back then...we can have a short engagement and not pay a bride price or a dowry or anything like that....building a house first before you can marry isn't something done today either. But it was part of the ceremony and made manditory by the customs of the day.


Beck,
It is the culture we are living in. We are way more comfortable with viewing a woman/wife as an equal partner and citizen than those during the time in which Jesus walked the earth or Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.

It is only the last 90 years that this has been the case with America leading the world in this. Up to that time women didn't have equal rights or even access to the courts. Women were treated one minor step up from livestock or some other piece of property. Almost like slaves instead of a wife as we know of one today.

Much like we are accustomed to quoting scripture to one another. At one time unless you were a Levite you couldn't quote memorized scripture to your neighbor. When John the Baptist came along he authorized, by his Baptism, that the common man could indeed quote scripture to his neighbor. Until that time only Levites or a family figurehead could do such a thing.

You have to remember that in Israel legalisms were the norm...if you were legalistic with your behavior and lifestyle it was considered to be a good thing...you couldn't be too legalistic...it wasn't even a concept. They went so far as to measure the water used to wash their hands...if you used too much you were a schmeel...if you used too little you were "unwashed". LOL

Of course they would notice the conjunction "and" in the scripture you are quoting...they would have (and did) separate the two things and made one out to be a sort of "half divorce".

It is hard to focus on the times and culture to with which the bible was originally taking place in...we love, by natural selection, to see things in our current, modern civilization...it is part and parcel with internalizing the scriptures...but that doesn't make it always a correct view.

This is all exactly correct, too.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77