Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/2/2008 11:11:35 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1150
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: the_silver_cup
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
(1Corinthians 7:15)
What is the difference in principle in the letting the unbelieving depart, and in letting the believing spouse who has determined to act out of faith with God depart?
The "believer" is expected to adhere to Christ's commands, while those who reject Him obviously have no problem rejecting His commands. The believer can only keep our end of the covenant, but we can't force an unbeliever to honor theirs.
quote:
From your own website you say that not all who claim to be Christians are, so how is there a law to govern what we can't know?
We do know that those who depart are not making Christ their Lord, since He commanded them not to.
quote:
And what we can't know is who has committed adultery, adultery in the heart or adultery against their faith in God, or perhaps who didn't really have faith in God.
We don't necessarily know who commits adultery in their hearts, but we do know who has divorced and remarried.
quote:
The verses you quote so often look much like Christ speaking against frivolous divorces springing from a lack of marital commitment. That isn't true of everyone.
The text makes no distinction between frivolous and non-frivolous divorces.
quote:
When I read Luke 16:18 for example I think of the motivations of those involved in the example. Since there is no mention of those being destructive situations previous to the divorce, I don't see it as addressing those type of situations.
It says nothing about motives, but states that it applies to "everyone" which means it is an all inclusive statement without distinctions.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/2/2008 11:27:15 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1150
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
I have found that your side completely disregards certain facts like even the "exception" verses clearly show that an innocent woman who is put away will commit adultery if she remarries, and "anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery." That pretty much covers it... if the innocent one is committing adultery upon remarriage- who isn't?
Of course, that's "assuming" that the traditional interpretation of those passages is correct. However, if one realizes that "apoluo" (put away) can be understood as either "divorce" or "illegal separation" (expulsion without divorce) in those same verses, then the meaning is completely changed. Rather than Jesus repudiating the Mosaic bill of divorce and enforcing upon mankind the perfection of Eden, Jesus is seen as promoting the divine ideal of Eden, and revealing the purpose behind and endorsing the Mosaic bill of divorce.
You're trying to create a false distinction that isn't in the text. Jesus says that anyone who divorces their spouse and remarries is committing adultery and does not distinguish between situations where the proper paperwork is submitted and where it is not. In fact when the Pharisees asked about the issue of paperwork as it related to the Old Covenant in Matthew 19, Jesus specifically said that everyone under the Old Covenant who divorced apart from the cause of fornication was committing adultery even with paperwork. He condemned the Pharisees as adulterers for misusing this Law and giving their wives certificates of divorce and sending them away when they hadn't been guilty of premarital fornication. They were said by Jesus to be committing adultery, making their wives commit adultery, and causing the one who remarried her to commit adultery because they misused this Old Covenant Law and gave their wives divorce papers when they hadn't been guilty of what the Law stated. It was not the paperwork that was the issue, but the fact that they were illegally divorcing.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 9:18:21 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Civil Law Designed by God - A
Many would classify Moses’ day as barbaric. Imagine hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves living in the wilderness with virtually no established civil or religious authority structures or laws. The only civil authority the Israelites had known for four hundred years was that of their slave masters–the Egyptians. Concerning religious authority, the golden calf incident reveals that their religious beliefs had significantly mingled with those of the Egyptians (Deuteronomy 9:6-29) and that they were in desperate need of divine revelation if they were to fulfill the covenant that God had made with their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Moses definitely had his hands full maintaining order, and establishing religious and civil law and authority structures for the new nation of Israel, as well as facilitating the radical paradigm changes required by the giving of the Law of Moses. Law, inspired by God, was to be the foundation of man’s government, rather than man governing man in the form of a dictatorship–civil, domestic, or religious! It is in this context that Moses wrote down God’s teachings on the best way to conduct life.
Many of the teachings of Moses brought significant positive social reform in the treatment of disenfranchised segments of society, especially women, children, slaves, and aliens (as in foreigners, not extraterrestrials). In fact, most of the laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage are for the protection of women. In Moses’ day, the legal and social standing of women was drastically lower than that of men. Women had few rights except those given them by their closest male relative. In most Ancient Near Eastern cultures, women were considered property and almost totally dependent upon their father’s, husband’s, or owner’s good will. This is still prevalent today in some of the Islamic countries of the Near East.
In his book “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible,” Dr. David Instone-Brewer highlights the similarities between the Old Testament Israeli culture and other ancient Near Eastern cultures. He writes the following:
...Comparisons of the Pentateuch with other ancient Near Eastern sources have shown that they share the same culture with regard to marriage, divorce and remarriage. Their customs, terminology and laws are similar in almost all respects. …
...Because of the similarity of the Pentateuch with other ancient Near Eastern law codes, we must assume that where the Old Testament is silent, there was a broad agreement with the prevailing culture. However, the Israelites were very proud that they did not conform to the prevailing culture of the nations surrounding them. We can therefore assume that when there was a distinctiveness between the Israelites and their neighbors, this would be likely to be recorded in the Pentateuch. One of the purposes of the Pentateuchal Law was to highlight these differences.
During biblical times, in the Near East, when a man desired to marry, he, his father, or a representative would approach the father of the woman that the man wished to marry and establish a marriage covenant. This usually involved the payment of the mohar, the bride price, which was about ten months wages. It might appear or sound like the groom was purchasing a wife, but it was customary for the bride’s father to add his daughter’s share of the family inheritance to the mohar. The total sum was called the ketubah, the dowry. At the wedding, the dowry was then given to the bride and groom and could be invested or kept in safekeeping. Technically, the dowry or its equivalent value was considered the bride’s property throughout the marriage and the husband was charged with its safekeeping.
These ritual payments served several vital purposes. First, they served as the legal seal of the marriage covenant. When money or material wealth changed hands, the marriage covenant was ratified, thus allowing for civil judicial intervention if needed. Second, the dowry served as a stable financial foundation for the new family. Several months wages was a significant amount of money for the groom to save up for the mohar—the bride price. The groom must prove able and willing to provide for a family. Furthermore, this helped ensure that a marriage covenant was not lightly entered. Third, the dowry served as financial security for the wife in case of divorce or the death of her husband; and fourth, it served as a significant deterrent to divorce. Dr. Instone-Brewer points out the following:
The whole system of payments was weighted against divorce, because whoever caused the divorce was penalized financially. If the husband divorced his wife without cause, he usually returned the dowry, and if the wife divorced her husband without cause, she lost her right to some or all of her dowry. However, if the divorce was caused by one partner breaking a stipulation in the marriage contract, the guilty partner was deemed to have caused the divorce and the innocent partner kept the dowry.
Although ancient Near Eastern marriage customs are not specifically delineated in the Pentateuch or the remainder of the Bible, there is much evidence to support that this was the custom in Israel. For example, in Genesis 24, Abraham sent his servant from Canaan back to Abraham’s family in Mesopotamia to get a bride for Isaac, his son. The servant took ten camels loaded with much wealth, the bride price that would have made up the first part of the dowry. Likely, Abraham sent an overly large bride price in order to insure the family of Rebekah, the bride-to-be, that she would be well taken care of. He did this because she would be moving a great distance away from her family. We can also assume that Rebekah’s father, Bethuel, would have added her share of the family inheritance to the bride price, providing for her an exceptionally large dowry. This helps us understand why Rebekah was so willing to accept the offer of marriage to a man she had never met and to leave her family so quickly. In that culture, security and provision were primary motivations in a woman’s selection of a husband.
Concerning specific guidelines for marriage, divorce, and remarriage, relatively little is mentioned in Moses’ teachings or the remainder of the Bible, especially considering the importance of the subject. Moses forbids sexual intercourse and thus marriage with a close relative (Leviticus 18:6-17), marrying a woman and her sister (Leviticus 18:18) or a woman and her mother (Leviticus 20:14), and a priest marrying a divorcée or prostitute (Leviticus 21:7). A daughter in line to inherit property was not allowed to marry outside of her tribe (Numbers 36:8); and if a man took a slave girl as his wife and then married another, he was not to diminish the slave wife’s food, clothing, or conjugal rights. If he decided to divorce her or refused to meet her needs equitably in comparison to his other wives, she was to be given her freedom at no cost (Exodus 21:10 & 11).
Concerning divorce, a man who rapes a virgin must marry her if her father demands/allows it; and that man is never allowed to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:29). A man may never divorce his wife whom he wrongfully accused of not being a virgin at the time of their marriage (Deuteronomy 22:19); and a man that divorces his wife may not remarry her if she has subsequently married someone else even though she is widowed or divorced by her second husband (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
Note the clarity and specificity with which Moses dealt with these issues. Moses does not forbid divorce; nor does he establish guidelines for acceptable or non-acceptable reasons for divorce. One must assume that the common practice of the guilty party in a divorce losing the dowry was sufficient and that Moses, as inspired by God, saw no need for further civil legislation.
Moses clearly does not forbid divorce or a divorcée to marry again. In fact, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 makes provision for a divorcée to remarry legally with no fear of social or legal retribution. Even polygamy was not outlawed; and Exodus 21:10 & 11, Leviticus 18:18, and Leviticus 20:14 all assume that polygamy would continue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 9:37:46 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Civil Law Designed by God - B
Having briefly reviewed the Ancient Near Eastern and Old Testament biblical culture of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, let us examine closely the passage concerning divorce that Jesus is questioned about in the Gospels by the Pharisees.
Deuteronomy 24: 1-4 (NKJV)
When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
This passage is a prohibition of a man remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man, regardless of whether her second husband dies or divorces her. One must ask why? Why would Moses write this law? What problem did this law address? These questions can not be correctly answered without an understanding of ancient Near Eastern cultures. Recall that one of the primary reasons something is mentioned in the Pentateuch is to highlight beliefs and practices where the Israelites were to be different than the surrounding cultures.
In ancient Near Eastern cultures, if a man dismissed or abandoned his wife, he could reclaim her several years later though she had married another man and had children with her second husband . Not only was her first husband able to reclaim her, but he could also claim, as his own, any children from her second “marriage.” In agrarian societies, children are a valued asset. This could be a significant financial motive for the first husband to take her back. Thus, a primary reason for the bill of divorce mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was to protect divorcées, giving them the legitimate and legal right to marry again and to remain married without fear of their first husbands reclaiming them. This legal document severed the marital bond and freed the divorcée to remarry without civil or religious sanctions. “It provided a clean and proper end to a broken marriage.”
There is also significant evidence indicating that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 mentions two different kinds of divorce. Notice the contrast between the first and second divorce. The first divorce, mentioned in verse one, was because the wife found no favor in her husband’s eyes, because he “found some matter of uncleanness in her.” “Uncleanness” comes from the Hebraic word er-vaw’, meaning nakedness, shamefulness, blemish or disgrace. This divorce would likely have ended in the woman losing all or part of her dowry because she had transgressed the marriage covenant in some manner. There was presumably a legitimate and morally acceptable reason for the husband to divorce his wife—a shameful or disgraceful act or lifestyle.
This “legitimate” reason could have been a refusal to fulfill her end of the marriage covenant (specified and understood obligations) in food preparation, bearing children, caring for their children, taking care of the household, refusal of the husband’s conjugal rights, etc. This was understood in their culture and governed (to a limited degree) by their local civil governments. Extended family members would have also significantly influenced such decisions concerning divorce. It is highly unlikely that “uncleanness” referred to adultery or some other sexual sin, before or after they were married, because Moses dealt specifically with such cases in other passages.
The second divorce, mentioned in verse three, is due to the husband detesting or hating his wife. It was a “hateful” divorce, apparently due to the bad attitude and/or selfish motives of the husband and not the errant actions or detestable traits of the wife. This divorce would have ended with the wife retaining her dowry because there was no “legitimate” reason for the divorce. Similarly, the wife would have retained her dowry if she were widowed. In either case there could have been a significant financial motive for her first husband to desire to marry her again.
Moses, by the inspiration of God, established the law of divorce in order to protect women from being treated sadistically and to elevate women’s rights allowing them to legally remarry and remain married! The law of divorce also kept women from being seduced back into relationships through which they had already suffered rejection.
King David’s marriage to Michal, King Saul’s daughter, is a biblical example of a man reclaiming his wife after having abandoned her and she having married another man. David married Michal after paying the gruesome bride price demanded by King Saul of killing one hundred Philistines (I Samuel 18:20-28). Requiring the death of one hundred Philistines was one of the initial indirect attempts of King Saul to have David killed. King Saul’s jealousy and hatred of David continued to grow until Saul set aside all pretence and openly conspired to kill him.
Michal helped David escape; but in the course of events, he abandoned her, leaving her to suffer the wrath of her deranged father, King Saul (I Samuel 19:9-17). Over the next ten to fifteen years, Saul made several attempts at trapping David, but they all failed. During this time David married Ahinoam and Abigail; and Saul arranged for Michal to marry another man, Palti (I Samuel 25:43 & 44).
King Saul eventually died along with Jonathan, his firstborn son. Another son of Saul, Ishbosheth, was made King of Israel, but civil war erupted and the tribe of Judah broke away from the union and made David their king. Following this, Israel consistently lost battles against Judah for seven and a half years. Toward the end of this period of time, Abner, Ishbosheth’s top general, conspired with David to reunite Israel and make David king over all. During their deliberations, David demanded that Michal be given back to him as a prerequisite for him taking the throne of Israel.
The Bible does not state David’s motive for this demand. From the way the incident is recorded, though, it sounds like it was primarily a political move for David, positioning himself to be King of Israel. Michal was King Saul’s daughter, a princess of Israel. Thus, from a political perspective, her husband would be a rightful heir of the throne. One must also take into consideration that David was separated from Michal for ten to fifteen years or even longer, and she was “married” to Palti for almost that entire time. During that time, it is not recorded that David ever attempted to regain her as his wife, either by force, abduction, or negotiation, either before Saul’s death or after.
On the other hand, Palti’s love for Michal is evident as revealed in that he shamelessly wept as he followed along behind the caravan that took her away. “So Ishbosheth took Michal away from her husband Palti son of Laish. Palti followed along behind her as far as Bahurim, weeping as he went. Then Abner told him, “Go back home!” So Palti returned” (II Samuel 3:15&16 NLT). Apparently, Palti loved Michal passionately. He followed her all the way to the border of Judah, where Abner, the captain of the armies of Israel, commanded him to go back home. To go any further could have caused problems in the exchange and been embarrassing for Ishbosheth and Abner.
What a tragic story! Michal loved David enough to suffer the wrath of her father, King Saul; and yet it is not recorded that David ever attempted to get her back before or after she was given to another man. Apparently, David’s primary and possibly only motivation for reclaiming her as his wife was political—to help establish him in the opinions of others as the rightful heir of the throne of Israel. By then Michal had been married to Palti for ten to fifteen years, and it is obvious that he loved her dearly; but David had her forcibly taken away from him. David did this, though he had already married two other women. It is probable that Michal never fully embraced David again and even came to despise him. Sadly, she remained childless for the remainder of her life (II Samuel 6:16-23)–a tragic ending for a Princess and Queen of Israel. If a Princess of Israel, God’s people, was treated this way, one can only imagine the horrors that the common woman faced in the ancient Near East!
Although tragic, Michal’s story does provide an important example of the reason for Moses’ legislation of the bill of divorce. The motivation behind the bill of divorce was compassion. It empowered an abandoned or expelled wife to remarry and remain married without fear of her first husband reclaiming her years later. The bill of divorce was meant to correct this sadistic ancient Near Eastern cultural practice.
When David abandoned Michal, he did not give her a bill of divorce. Therefore, Michal’s marriage to Palti, although arranged and sanctioned by her father, King Saul, was not a marriage at all, according to civil law, but was an illegal adulterous relationship! It was an illegitimate, illegal marriage. David thus caused Michal to commit adultery by abandoning her; and the man that married Michal, Palti, committed adultery by marrying her. This sounds like something Jesus said, “whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9 KJV); and “whosoever shall put away his wife, … causeth her to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32 KJV).
The bill of divorce was unique to Israel in biblical times. There is no record of any other ancient Near Eastern culture making provision for such a document. The closest thing to it is an Assyrian bill of widowhood that was provided for a woman whose husband had been taken away as a captive by another nation. After two years, the woman could assume that her husband was dead and ask for a bill to be drawn up that would allow her to legally marry another man.
To “put away” a wife was to abandon, desert, or expel her from the household. A woman who was put away without a bill of divorce was relegated, at best—to a life of abject poverty, at worst—to a life of adultery and even prostitution. To “put away” a wife without a bill of divorce was cruel, hard-hearted, treacherous, and sadistic.
To “put away” comes from the Hebraic word gaw-rash, meaning to put away, expel, or thrust out. Whereas “divorce” comes from the Hebraic word kereethooth, meaning divorce, a cutting of the matrimonial bond. Although gawrash is closely related to kereethooth and is translated as “divorce” in many modern translations, it is important to distinguish between these two words so that we can better understand Jesus’ comments concerning this passage.
Sadly, though the bill of divorce was meant to bring increased freedom into the lives of abandoned women by empowering them to legally remarry and to remain married, it became a means of stopping some women from divorcing their husbands, even though their husbands broke understood stipulations of their marriage covenants. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 came to be interpreted in Israel to mean that the husband must be the one to write the bill of divorce or at least sign it; the wife could not. Therefore divorce became the prerogative of the husband.
Furthermore, no legal provisions were made for wives whose husbands came up missing due to war or tragedy while traveling, much less for those whose husbands deliberately abandoned them. These women could not legally marry another man no matter how long their husbands were missing. Orthodox Jewish communities struggle with this issue to this day; although some Jewish women obtain civil divorces, Orthodox Rabbinical leadership does not recognize these divorces as valid. This is what happens when law becomes isolated from the spirit behind and purpose for which it was written!
On the other hand, requiring a certificate of divorce to be written strengthened marriages and added weight to the decision to break a marriage covenant. Divorce was not something that should be done in the heat of the moment; rather, it was something that took time, required the witness of others, and sometimes the intervention of judges, thus increasing civil oversight to aid in the protection of women.
Another benefit of the divorce certificate was the establishment of a specific point in time for the settlement of the financial aspect of the divorce–the dowry. If it was a “hateful” divorce, one based on selfish illegitimate reasons on the husband’s part, the wife would be given the entire dowry. If the husband could provide ample evidence of a legitimate reason to divorce his wife, the judges might only require him to pay a fraction of the dowry, if any. But whether the divorce was based on legitimate or illegitimate reasons, it was legal, valid, and final. In either case, the wife was free to marry another man. This was a specific part of the wording in the certificate of divorce; and of course considering that polygamy was legal, the husband was free to marry at any time, unless otherwise specified in a current marriage contract by which he was bound by law.
As mentioned earlier, Moses was clear and specific regarding marital laws. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, however, he was non-specific, even vague. Moses made a generalized statement recognizing that men divorce their wives for a variety of reasons—legitimate and illegitimate.
Also, note that though Moses did specify one case where a man could not divorce his wife, he did not provide specific civil legislation concerning "acceptable" reasons for divorce. Why? I believe that Moses understood that civil legislation could not adequately address the conundrum of establishing acceptable or non-acceptable reasons for divorce. Divorce is the result of a problem of the heart that is impossible to regulate via civil law. If a husband or wife has a hardened heart against his or her spouse, the marriage covenant will be broken in some way. In fact, today “It is commonly accepted among sociologists that there is no necessary relationship between the actual reasons for which a couple seeks divorce and the legal grounds they use in the divorce suit.” Only God can discern the motives of the heart and thus civil authority is powerless to control such personal/domestic matters as "acceptable" reasons for divorce.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 10:11:38 AM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 828
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Like I said, Torquemada thought that, too. So have many very wrong people.
I think you are still missing my whole point. I am speaking specifically about the fact that Jesus taught that marriage is for life. If one believes that teaching is extreme, it would line up with Jesus who is extreme. If a teaching makes us look just like the world, I have trouble seeing how it comes from Jesus. He did extreme things, and He raised the standards high for us (read Matthew).
If we believe that is too extreme, maybe we shouldn't get married because the vows come out of our own mouths that say for better for worse til death. It must not be too extreme because plenty of people fulfill their vows with our without their spouse.
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 10:12:04 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
SealedEternal,
You know, I think I've come to realize that you might not even realize when you're attacking the person, speaking negatively or disrespectfully of them and their motives instead of just discussing the issue; so I'm going to try to overlook any negative condemning statements you might make and deal with the few issues you raise.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
I have found that your side completely disregards certain facts like even the "exception" verses clearly show that an innocent woman who is put away will commit adultery if she remarries, and "anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery." That pretty much covers it... if the innocent one is committing adultery upon remarriage- who isn't?
Of course, that's "assuming" that the traditional interpretation of those passages is correct. However, if one realizes that "apoluo" (put away) can be understood as either "divorce" or "illegal separation" (expulsion without divorce) in those same verses, then the meaning is completely changed. Rather than Jesus repudiating the Mosaic bill of divorce and enforcing upon mankind the perfection of Eden, Jesus is seen as promoting the divine ideal of Eden, and revealing the purpose behind and endorsing the Mosaic bill of divorce.
You're trying to create a false distinction that isn't in the text. Jesus says that anyone who divorces their spouse and remarries is committing adultery and does not distinguish between situations where the proper paperwork is submitted and where it is not.
Actually the Greek word "apoluo" (put-away) can either mean "expulsion without the bill of divorce" (illegal separation), or "expulsion with the bill of divorce" (divorce). The Greeks did not have a bill of divorce and thus did not have a specific word for "divorce". However, it's significant to note that Jesus likely actually spoke those words in Aramaic. And Aramaic does have two different words relating to divorce and illegal separation.
Concerning the difficult passages in Matthew 5:31-31 ethnologist and Aramaic language expert, George M. Lamsa, B. A., wrote in his book “Gospel Light,”
It is very important to know that the Eastern text in reference to this verse uses two Aramaic words whereas Western texts use only one. One word is nishbook which means to leave, and the other is nishry which means to divorce. At the present day, if a man marries a woman who is left, both man and woman are excommunicated from the church. But if a woman who has been left by her husband obtains a decree of shiriana, divorce, which means the loosening of the bond, she is allowed to marry again and the marriage is lawful.
The following are quotes from Lamsa’s translation of the Bible, The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts: Containing the Old and New Testaments, translated from the Peshitta, the Authorized Bible of the Church of the East. I have again emboldened the words that are significant to our immediate discussion.
Matthew 5:31-32 (AEM)
It has been said that whoever divorces his wife, must give her the divorce papers. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is separated but not divorced, commits adultery.
Matthew 19:8-9 (AEM)
He said to them, “Moses, considering the hardness of your heart, gave you permission to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. But I say to you, whoever leaves his wife without a charge of adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a woman thus separated commits adultery.” (emphasis mine)
Luke 16:18 (AEM)
He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries the one who is illegally separated commits adultery.
And of course, when Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, Paul even uses two different Greek words, chorizo and apheimi to note the distinction between "separation" and "divorce". Paul quotes Jesus saying that "A wife must not separate "chorizo" from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce "apheimi" his wife.
Jesus spoke against men divorcing their wives (even with proper documentation), especially those who did so in order to marry another woman. Women were much more than just property! And Jesus spoke against the even more hateful sin of a man expelling his wife without a bill of divorce causing her to commit adultery and any man that marries a woman so illegally separated to commit adultery.
Of course, you're welcome to ignore the distinction between illegal separation and legal divorce, but I am certainly not "trying to create a false distinction" as you said above; rather, I'm simply recognizing the various possible interpretations of the passages in question and pointing out why I believe as I do.
< Message edited by tn1 -- 10/3/2008 6:21:47 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 10:18:02 AM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7702
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
To everyone,
I want to be very clear about something.
The purpose of this thread is to dicuss the TOPIC of Remarriage After Divorce.
It is NOT for the purpose of discussing YOUR divorce.
I have found that people who post with statements like, "so because I divorced my spouse I am now forever a sinner and never to be forgiven?" are opening themselves up to being hurt or hurting someone else.
If you are not able to participate in this topic without discussing the experience of YOUR divorce then I must request that you stay out of the thread.
Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service.
Thank you for your attention, understanding, and cooperation.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 1:50:17 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
I realize how difficult it is to rethink long held beliefs, and yet that's exactly what the Bereans did. They were both open minded eagerly receiving Paul's radical new-to-them interpretation of scripture and diligent to verify what he presented was correct.
It's especially difficult for people to rethink the traditional doctrine of mdr. The traditional doctrine basically affirms that marriage is a sacrament, under ecclesial authority, and indissoluble. It's also taught the Jesus repudiated the bill of divorce restoring marriage to being indissoluble like it was in Eden, being only breakable by death.
Of course, as those who've read my posts realize, I disagree with each of these foundational elements of the traditional doctrine. First, marriage is not a sacrament of the church; it is a human covenant and as breakable as any covenant between humans, being only as strong as the character of the covenantors. Marriage is also not under ecclesial authority; rather, marriage is under limited civil authority as it was in Israel as inspired by God through Moses. Marriage is not indissoluble; even marriages joined together by God run the risk of ending in an ungly divorce. And Jesus certainly did not intend to repudiate the bill of divorce; rather, Jesus rebuked men for not giving their expelled wives bills of divorcement, putting them in terrible conditions. If such illegally separated wives marry, they commit adutlery and the men that marry them commit adultery. Jesus also chastized men in general for divorcing their wives, especially if they are doing so to marry another woman. Of course, marriage is meant to be for life, a little heaven on earth like in Eden and God encourages us to do our part to make that a reality in our marriages!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 2:51:22 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 4169
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
Jesus also chastized men in general for divorcing their wives, especially if they are doing so to marry another woman.
in many of the scripture quoted, it appears Jesus is speaking to those who initiated divorce with no biblical grounds. so your above statement is exactly true tn1 except for clauses like marital unfaithfulness (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9).
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 3:22:34 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
Jesus also chastized men in general for divorcing their wives, especially if they are doing so to marry another woman.
in many of the scripture quoted, it appears Jesus is speaking to those who initiated divorce with no biblical grounds. so your above statement is exactly true tn1 except for clauses like marital unfaithfulness (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9).
Actually, I believe the "except for fornication" clauses in Matthew are a reference to existing illegal/immoral relationships. If a couple is either shacking up or illegally married then the bill of divorce is not needed to legally break the union. For example, Herodias and Herod's relationship would not need a bill of divorce to break it for it was both immoral and illegal. This is most evident in the Mt.19 passage for Jesus had just crossed the Jordan and entered Herod's territory. So it's likely that the Pharisees were trying to position Jesus to get beheaded like John the Baptist did by Herod.
It's also important to remember that the Pharisees did not ask Jesus about acceptable reasons for divorce; rather, they asked Him about the "Any-matter" (No-fault) divorce debate, a hot topic among the Pharisees and the people.
P.S. btw, what I mean by "general" chastizement for divorce, is that Jesus new that most of the divorces happening at that time (as is today) happen because of selfish reasons and thus he says in general that when you do so, divorce for selfish reasons, you are committing adultery, being unfaithful to your spouse and your covenant vows! But it's not saying that all divorces are evil.
< Message edited by tn1 -- 10/3/2008 3:44:03 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 3:35:35 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 4169
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
I realize how difficult it is to rethink long held beliefs, and yet that's exactly what the Bereans did. They were both open minded eagerly receiving Paul's radical new-to-them interpretation of scripture and diligent to verify what he presented was correct.
Actually, I believe the "except for fornication" clauses in Matthew are a reference to existing illegal/immoral relationships.
yep there's no real common ground for the two sides to agree on regarding this belief. however i would like to opint out that this belief draws on ancient church tradition of which seems to imply close-mindness from your earlier paragraph?
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 3:54:47 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
I realize how difficult it is to rethink long held beliefs, and yet that's exactly what the Bereans did. They were both open minded eagerly receiving Paul's radical new-to-them interpretation of scripture and diligent to verify what he presented was correct.
Actually, I believe the "except for fornication" clauses in Matthew are a reference to existing illegal/immoral relationships.
yep there's no real common ground for the two sides to agree on regarding this belief. however i would like to opint out that this belief draws on ancient church tradition of which seems to imply close-mindness from your earlier paragraph?
I didn't mean to imply that those who believe the traditional doctrine are closed-minded; actually just wanted to encourage us all and even remind myself to be open-minded like the Bereans. It's really difficult to rethink doctrines and passages that we've come to understand in a specific way. Not only do we disagree on the intended meaning of the scriptures in duscussion, but we also disagree on the principles that have been developed from our different understandings of scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 6:53:52 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Another fact that few consider is that there are several significant variations in the early Greek manuscripts of each of the more difficult texts. Matthew 5:32 has at least three different texts. One group of texts totally omits the part about a man committing adultery who marries a woman that has been illegally separated. Mark 10:12 has at least five different texts, and there are eight different texts of Matthew 19:9. Luke 16:18 has at least three variant texts in early manuscripts.
David Parker, Lecturer in New Testament at The University of Birmingham, author of Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text, and co-editor of The International Greek New Testament Project, wrote an astute article concerning the numerous variations in the Greek text of these difficult passages. He wrote the following:
"Many church reports have struggled with the questions raised by these passages. On the whole, their examinations seem to have presupposed that each saying exists only in one text form. They could have advanced their studies considerably by looking at the bottom of the page and reading the apparatus criticus. They would have discovered that they were grasping at shadows. What we have is a collection of interpretative rewritings of a tradition. … the concept of a Gospel that is fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature, has to be abandoned. The invitation to pay heed to the words of Jesus is then freed from the demand to accept the authority of the text. And the freedom with which the early churches altered the tradition to make sense of their own difficulties and conflicts is another invitation—to find the living word of Jesus that spoke to the tradition and that continues to speak."
Please note that when Dr. Parker writes “Gospel,” from the context of this quote, it is evident that he references ONLY the controversial verses, the difficult passages previously noted. In no way is he calling into question the authority of the entire word of God, especially the Gospels as a whole; but he does question our ability to distill an authoritative text for the verses under consideration–the difficult quotes of Jesus concerning divorce.
Why note this quote? 1) Due to the numerous variations in the early Greek manuscripts, we certainly must not rely completely or even heavily on these passages as a foundation for doctrine, especially any radical changes from the prevailing understanding of marriage, divorce, and remarriage as established in the remainder of the Bible, especially in the OT!
And 2), in order to best interpret these passages and arrive at an authoritative and redemptive message applicable for all generations and any situation—the “living word of Jesus”—due to their unstable nature we are even more so dependent than normal upon their context (cultural, literary, and authorial).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 8:29:36 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1150
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
SealedEternal,
You know, I think I've come to realize that you might not even realize when you're attacking the person, speaking negatively or disrespectfully of them and their motives instead of just discussing the issue; so I'm going to try to overlook any negative condemning statements you might make and deal with the few issues you raise.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
I have found that your side completely disregards certain facts like even the "exception" verses clearly show that an innocent woman who is put away will commit adultery if she remarries, and "anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery." That pretty much covers it... if the innocent one is committing adultery upon remarriage- who isn't?
Of course, that's "assuming" that the traditional interpretation of those passages is correct. However, if one realizes that "apoluo" (put away) can be understood as either "divorce" or "illegal separation" (expulsion without divorce) in those same verses, then the meaning is completely changed. Rather than Jesus repudiating the Mosaic bill of divorce and enforcing upon mankind the perfection of Eden, Jesus is seen as promoting the divine ideal of Eden, and revealing the purpose behind and endorsing the Mosaic bill of divorce.
You're trying to create a false distinction that isn't in the text. Jesus says that anyone who divorces their spouse and remarries is committing adultery and does not distinguish between situations where the proper paperwork is submitted and where it is not.
Actually the Greek word "apoluo" (put-away) can either mean "expulsion without the bill of divorce" (illegal separation), or "expulsion with the bill of divorce" (divorce). The Greeks did not have a bill of divorce and thus did not have a specific word for "divorce". However, it's significant to note that Jesus likely actually spoke those words in Aramaic. And Aramaic does have two different words relating to divorce and illegal separation.
The phrase "put away" means what it says. It means that the person divorces themself from their spouse and doesn't speak one way or the other about if proper parperwork was filled out. You are trying to create a distinction that isn't in the text and then build an entire doctrine off of that false precept.
If you read the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees in Matthew 19, you'll notice that it is the Pharisees who are concerned with the paperwork issue, while Jesus is only concerned with the cause of divorce:
Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
The Pharisees were testing Jesus on His Biblical knowledge as it relates to divorce, asked Him if there is any cause whatsoever to divorce one's spouse. He responds taking them back to Genesis and uneqivocally answering that there is not:
Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Clearly Jesus' position is that divorce is not permitted because it is a lifelong covenant joined by God where one man and one woman become one flesh with one another. The Pharisees assuming they have caught Him in a contradiction to the Mosaic Law ask Him about the "divorce" prescribed in Deuteronomy:
Matthew 19:7-9 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" 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. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Jesus responds saying that Moses permitted Old Covenant people to "divorce" for the cause of fornication because they were hard hearted and unregenerate, but added that if they divorced for any other cause and subsequently remarried, that they were committing adultery because their divorce did not separate what God had joined. Thus despite the fact that they thought they had divorced their spouse by giving her the proper paperwork, it was irrelevent because they didn't have just cause:
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
A woman that was a virgin when her husband married her could not be divorced but must "remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days", so there were no "divorces" allowable after the betrothal period ended and he didn't challenge her virginity, or if he did and she proved she was one. Originally the woman who was not a virgin when her husband married her was to be "divorced" by stoning:
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Then an additional regulation was added permitting a certificate of divorce rather than stoning, with the stipulation that he could not take her back if she married again:
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.
What you are claiming about paperwork being the issue under debate is false. It is only the Pharisees that were concerned about the paperwork issue, because they had falsely taught that if the woman was given the proper paperwork that the divorce was legal, but Jesus challenged that contention and focused on the cause of divorce, which was only supposed to be for premarital fornication according to the Old Covenant Law. Because their divorces were not done for the proper cause according to the Old Covenant Law, Jesus said their second so-called "marriages" were actually nothing more than extramarital affairs.
So yes, "put away" can refer to either divorces with paperwork or without, because the term itself does not deal with the issue of paperwork. It is a broad term that is synonymous with what we call "divorce" which is why it is translated that way in most English Bibles. Jesus says that "everyone" who puts away (divorces) their spouse and remarries commits adultery, and He makes no distinctions whatsoever about whether it is with or without paperwork:
Mark 10:10-12 In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces (puts away) his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces (puts away) her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."
Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces (puts away) his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced (put away) from a husband commits adultery.”
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 8:40:56 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1150
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
It's especially difficult for people to rethink the traditional doctrine of mdr. The traditional doctrine basically affirms that marriage is a sacrament, under ecclesial authority, and indissoluble. It's also taught the Jesus repudiated the bill of divorce restoring marriage to being indissoluble like it was in Eden, being only breakable by death.
That's a real strawman since no one here has ever suggested that marriage is a sacrament or that it is under ecclesial authority. I for one do not believe that the concept of sacraments is taught anywhere in the Bible, and have always stated that marriage is under God's authority alone. I also believe that scripture clearly teaches that Christians are not under the Old Covenant Law, so in that sense we aren't required to divorce and stone people anymore.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/3/2008 11:06:46 PM
|
|
|
huckfinn327
Posts: 305
Joined: 1/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huckfinn327
1. Divorce in the Law of Moses was not a “legislative” act, i.e. to legislate meaning to make or enact a law. Deut. 24:1-4 contains only one enacted Mosaic Law: Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin.
quote:
(Reply of tn1) I encourage you to do a little more research. The Bill of Divorce was unique to Israel; the other ancient near-eastern cultures did not have such a thing. Throughout those cultures, if a man was a woman's first husband he always had rights over her even though he expelled her from his household.
God inspired Moses to stop this common practice through enacting the law of the the bill of divorce. In Israel, if a man decided to expell his wife, he was to give her a bill of divorce. This legally freed her to marry another man and the first husband could never again reclaim her even if her second husband died or divorced her too.
btw, as you noted, to legislatively enact does mean to enact as law. The Mosaic Law was just that; it was law enacted by Moses to govern the new nation of Israel. It contains both civil law and religious directives as well as moral teachings. If issues concerning mdr arose, they were taken before the city leaders who served as judges. In the time of Christ, issues concerning mdr were taken before a board of 3 rabbis that would serve as judges; such issues were not taken before the priests.
These few verses, Deut. 24:1-4 served as the basis for the civil laws of Israel concerning divorce. From these verses the Jews determined that only a man could divorce his wife; a woman could not divorce her husband. The bill of divorce had to be hand written by the husband. The woman also had to be expelled from his care. etc.
Most of the Mosaic Law was very practical, dealing with current cultural problems of the day, mitigating the oppression of the weak, of women, slaves, and foreigners.
Greetings tn1;
IMHO you make many bold assumptions and claim that you have the authority of antiquity on your side because you excel in a pure knowledge of all the ancient customs and cultural issues involved with both the OT and NT. Regarding the above comments you have failed to establish your assumption, i.e. That Deut. 24:1-4 is a promulgated Mosaic Law concerning divorce. The English translators have it: "no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then LET him write her a bill of divorcement." Jay Green in his literal translation has it: "that she not finds favor in his eyes, because he has found in her improper behavior and he writes her a bill of divorce", and again the Jewish English version reads, "because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement." This only speaks about a concession caused by their evil propensity to violence.
Both NT versions Matt. 19 and Mk. 10 declare that Moses did not write a law or commandment regarding divorce he only "suffered" (a permission, a concession, a toleration) them to write a bill of divorce, or suffered them to put away their wives.
Regarding your knowledge of the ancients and your assumption that Moses was primarily concerned with the abuse of women's rights may be another bold tn1 assumption. Other ancient law codes of nations that predated Moses and Israel had laws protecting women relating to divorce:
Code of Ur Nammu (2050 B.C.) which preceded Moses (1500 B.C.) by almost 600 years makes these statements: "If a man divorces his primary wife, he must pay her one mina of silver."
Code of Eshunna (1925 B.C): "If a man divorces a wife after having made her bear sons and takes another wife, he shall be expelled from his house and whatever property there is and he will go after him who will accept him."
Code of Hammurabi (1700 B.C.) "If a man wishes to divorce his wife who did not bear him children, he shall give her money to the full amount of her marriage-price and he shall also make good to her the dowry which she brought from her father's house and then he may divorce her.
I adjure you to find the "truth" of Scripture. Divorce in the Law of Moses is not a legislative act; it is a concession to the evil heart of man.
All For His Glory Huckfinn
_____________________________
NO-REMARRIAGE-THIS-SIDE-OF-DEATH .... JESUS TAUGHT CREATION MARRIAGE
www.jesusremarriagekeller.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rema | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
