Divorce/Remarriage

[Sherman]

Hello

A few comments here. Here is one presumed axiom quoted from a website referenced in the thread:

"FACT: We all know its dealing with sexual sin by a person we have entered into a marital covenant with." (referencing the exception clause)

I don't think we can accept this statement as a fact. The term "fornication" as used in Jesus' day had a very broad meaning, referencing sexual sins within and without marriage, but its use in the Bible seems to be mainly confined to unlawful sexual unions outside marriage. (I Cor 5:1, I Cor. 7:2)

The term "adultery" or "marital unfaithfulness" was not used by Jesus as an exception. Therefore, the term "fornication" may actually be referencing the unlawfulness of the marriage/relationship rather than sexual sin of one within a legal marriage.

Also, to describe the "any matter" divorce procedure as "frivilous" divorce, and that Jesus was condemning this divorce procedure seems to be connecting dots that don't really deserve to be connected here.

The "any matter" divorce procedure was not really meant to be an instrument for frivilous divorce, but was just a procedure that allowed divorce without the blood and guts display that the Shammaites required. Joseph was going to divorce Mary under the "any matter" divorce procedure and the Bible says that Joseph was a righteous man.

In fact, in that day, it was a well accepted fact that the any matter divorce was considered the more righteous. The Shammaites' divorce procedure was looked upon as harsh and impractical and was eventually banned from civil practice altogether.

So the concept that Jesus was establishing that divorce for "any matter" was adultery makes zero sense, IMHO.

Thanks for reading

Frank

Hi Frank and thanks for the post,

You are correct that the Pharisees' debate over the "Any Matter" divorce is NOT about morally acceptable or non-acceptable reasons for divorce, or over "frivolous divorce." It was about two significantly different philosophies and systems of divorce. This is a very common misunderstanding based upon some often quoted texts where the Rabbis are arguing over the interpretation of "ervah dabar". If one reads those quotes apart from their context in the Talmud, then it would seem to say that they were arguing over frivolous divorce. As always though, a text without a context is a pretext. So is the case here. I believe I mentioned this in one of my first posts on this thread.

The Shammaites and the Hillelites both shared basically the same view of morally acceptable or non-acceptable reasons for divorce, based primarily on the law concerning taking a slave as a wife, and then taking another wife, how one should not diminish her rightful share of provision in food, clothing, shelter, or conjugal rites.

They differed in their philosophies and systems of divorce. Basically, the Shammaites believed that divorce needed to be public and controled to a greater degree than what the Hillelites did. The Hillelites believed based on their view of "ervah dabar" that in most cases divorce should be more private; in fact, if the husband was willing to pay the full dowry then he did not have to disclose the reason for the divorce to anyone, only draw up the proper papers, and deliver them to his wife in person. In order to facilitate reconciliation a little, the Hillelites made the giving of the "get" more difficult, having to jump through a couple of hoops. And the divorce was not considered complete and enacted until the dowry had been paid and the "get" was delivered personally.

The Shammaites believed, based on their view of "ervah dabar" that the man should disclose the reasons for wanting to divorce his wife. The Rabbis would then judicate how much if any of the dowry the man had to pay or they might encourage strongly the man to do what he could to reconcile the relationship. But if the man insisted, they would draw up the "get" and give it to the man. Their system of obtaining the "get" was more difficult, but the divorce was considered final once the "get" was drawn up, even before the man actually gave it to his wife.

And yes it is significant to note the other idiomatic term used to reference the Hillelite divorce procedures, "quietly", as when Joseph was going to put away Mary "quietly"; he was going to divorce her by not exposing her to public shame via Shammaite judges, but was going to use Hillelite judges and thus was also willing to possibly loose his monetary investment in the marriage, the bride-price which established the marriage covenant thought they had not been intimate. Joseph was said to be a righteous man because of chosing to use this method for divorce. The common people did consider this a more righteous, even compassionate way for a man to divorce his wife, especially if he had a morally acceptable reason to divorce her and thus could shame her and keep the dowry.

Concerning "porneia", in Mt.19 I believe too that it refers to "immoral/illegal" relationships and does not reference at all the trap question concerning the "Any Matter" divorce debate; it was in the answer to the question concerning Moses' reason for the bill of divorce. And I believe it likely was an indirect reference to Herod's and Herodias' immoral/illegal relationship. So the "exception clause" concerned when a "get" was NOT needed. "Immoral/Illegal relationships don't need a bill of divorce to break them; they just need to be broken. Herod and Herodias just needed to break up; no "get" was necessary because they were not legally married.

What's often overlooked in the Biblical Jewish culture is what is known as the "Hateful divorce." This is alluded to, I believe, in Duet. 24.1-4. Note, the 1st divorce in vs. 1 was for something bad about the woman. The 2nd divorce was because the man "detests" her; it was a "hateful" divorce. A "hateful" divorce was one based on the bad attitudes of the husband. Actually, this is the type of divorce referenced in Mal. 2.16. Sadly, most translations say something like, "God says, I hate divorce..." However, this is one case where the KJV is valuable for it's wooden word-for-word translation of scripture. Note in the KJV that the "he" in "he hateth putting away" is NOT capitalized. The reason it is not capitalized is because in the Hebrew this is a difficult passage to transalte and if one doesn't know that in their culture there was such a thing as a "hateful" divorce, then this passage in the Hebrew is impossible to interpret correctly. That's why the KJV did NOT capitalize "he" in "he hateth putting away."

Not only that, but saying that God hates divorce is about senseless considering that He inspired Moses to give the bill of divorce, and even says that He divorced Israel, Jer. 3.8. It's about like saying God hates amputation. Amputation is a terrible thing to have to go through, but if you will die otherwise, amputation is a necessary evil, a good actually.

Anyhow, thanks for the post, I hope rehashing these things will help everyone further understand Mt. 19. When we've been trained to understand a passage a certain way all of our lives, it's very difficult to re-think it an "hear" it differently.

Blessings,

[firehill]

Your original point was that there are no 'roles' for each gender in the marriage to play.

That is ALL Im concerned with, FH.

This 'role' terminology sprang up around the 80's being used by those who believe in the traditional view of gender. To convey the marriage relationship, in part, in terms of 'roles' is ultimately silly in a sprit of control and confinement. In this light, the word is a psychological term that puts the marriage partners into their own separate box according to their differientiated gender ('male and female' in both OT and NT language refers to sex alone whether animal or human) which God never ever ordained. He ordained unity of man and woman in marriage not male and female

[Floatingaxe]

The wife

[firehill]

The wife

[Floatingaxe]

The wife

[Sherman]

The Shammaites believed, based on their view of "ervah dabar" that the man should disclose the reasons for wanting to divorce his wife.

I have to ask, sherman....do you believe Moses just woke up one day and thought..."I think I'll ADD a law giving a man a way to divorce his wife" ?

Deut 24:1-4 was written in RESPONSE to something already occuring.

We see this fact in Leviticus 21 where the priests were forbidden to take a wife put away from her husband.

'Ervah dabar' is not what Moses is 'permitting' men to divorce over, but Moses RESPONSE/REGULATION to what they WERE divorcing for....for EVERY reason they could come up with...for some "uncleaness' they had determined in her to rid themselves of her and most likely just to take another.

THAT is the context of Moses regulation in Deut 24:1-4

ANY and all distortions made by Hillel and Shammai AFTER the fact are irrelevant as they have no bearing on what Moses was actually saying or dealing with.

Moses, knowing Gods view on marriage, would not, for no reason, have simply added to God own law a reason for divorcement.

His actions were RE-active based on what Israel had been doing ....tossing out their wives for no just cause and many times just to marry another.

Deut 24:!-4 is a regulation to these divorces that were 'for every cause'...

What the Jews did with this regulation, tho, was to make it a commandment instead of what it was.

They literally took Moses attempt to regulate this divorces by adding restrictions to them by then making it a 'commandment' supposedly given by Moses to divorce...thereby putting the guilt on Moses instead of themselves.

Jesus corrected this twist by telling them Moses 'suffered' or tolerated these 'for every cause' divorces.

I think Ill stick with what scripture shows as far as 'ervah dabar' means

Concerning "porneia", in Mt.19 I believe too that it refers to "immoral/illegal" relationships and does not reference at all the trap question concerning the "Any Matter" divorce debate; it was in the answer to the question concerning Moses' reason for the bill of divorce. And I believe it likely was an indirect reference to Herod's and Herodias' immoral/illegal relationship. So the "exception clause" concerned when a "get" was NOT needed. "Immoral/Illegal relationships don't need a bill of divorce to break them; they just need to be broken. Herod and Herodias just needed to break up; no "get" was necessary because they were not legally married.

Herod and Herodias could never have been 'lawfully' married from the start as she was his own neice...and she had a daughter by his brother...in no wise would this marriage EVER have been lawful..so Jesus' exception would cover it simply because of the immorality involved, as you say.

But regardless of that, this example does not dismiss what is being discussed in Matt 19 and deut 24....'for every cause' divorce.

Good afternoon FoC,

I don't quite understand what you're getting at, or what point you're trying to make. You are correct in that Moses as inspired by God was addressing a problem through his legislation of the bill of divorce. What was that problem? If I understand you correctly, you believe it was frivolous divorce that Moses was trying to reighn in. You make a couple of assumptions here though; 1) Men were divorcing their wives & 2) Men were divorcing their wives for any reason, & 3) Moses wished to limit the acceptable reasons for divorce and do away with frivolous divorce -- if I understand you correctly.

However, 1) Men were not divorcing their wives, they were abandoning, expelling, putting away their wives and yet retaining control over them. The bill of divorce is what was new and unique to Israel!!! Dr. Instone-Brewer points out in his book, "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" that the bill of divorce was meant to stop men from putting away, abandoning their wives and yet retaining control over them. He presents significant evidence from the writings of ancient near-eastern peoples that it was a common cultural practice for a man to put away (not divorce) his wife but he still retained rite over her. Years later, though she married someone else, the first husband could reclaim her and even any children of that second union. Thus the second marriage was not legal and the woman lived under the threat of her first husband reclaiming.

This evil satanic practice was common throughout the ancient near-east; a biblical example of this is David, Michal, and Palti. David abandoned Michal his wife (Saul's Daughter). Saul gave her to Palti though David had never given her a bill of divorce. Then David conspired and reclaimed her some 15 or so years after abandoning her. Another example is Samson and his first wife. He abandoned her after a spat with her, and her father married her to their best man at the wedding.

So the purpose in the bill of divorce was to stop that from happening -- to stop the practice of men putting away their wives, causing these wives to commit adultery and the men that marry them to commit adultery. It did this by bringing a legal end to an otherwise broken relationship. That's why when Jesus is answering the Pharisees' question concering why Moses gave the bill of divorce, He mentions men puttion away their wives causing them to commit adultery - the original reason for the bill of divorce.

So the purpose of the bill of divorce was freedom for oppressed women. In Israel women were not to be treated so badly, though it continued to happen as evidenced by David's and Michal's relationship.

Now Mt.19.3 does reference the "Any Matter" divorce procedures debate, I agree. But Jesus did not get sucked into that debate, refusing to answer it He points them back to God's original intent for marriage. Then the Pharisees come back with a rebuttal question asking why Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce. Jesus gave two reasons: 1) Because of the hardness of heart, & 2) because men were putting away their wives causing them to commit adultery and the men that marry them to commit adultery.

Jesus didn't even address the Pharisees' "any matter" debate. The thing concerning Herodias is really a side issue, not worth discussing; we both agree it was an illegal relationship. Whether Jesus was referencing it specifically in the "exception clause" is just conjecture.

The main point is that Moses was inspired by God to give the bill of divorce to stop the common ancient near-eastern practice of a man expelling his wife, causing her to commit adultery, and the man that marries her to commit adultery. It did this by legally freeing an abandoned wife to remarry and remain married.

Again, I recommend Dr. Instone-Brewer's book as a resourse on the cultural and literary context of MDR in the Bible. He presents a lot of extra-biblical evidence that is just too much to copy and put here. You can read major portions of his book online, just google him, Dr. David Instone-Brewer.

Blessings,

[Guest Biblicist]

To quote myself and scripture on the matter.

I'm not interested in wasting 3 days on this with you only to realize you are going to keep switching words and concepts around to suit your needs.

IF you can show me a CLEAR scripture that nullifies the context of these, then give me a ring...

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

(1Pe 3:5-6 KJV)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

(Eph 5:22-24 KJV)

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

(1Pe 3:1 KJV)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

(Col 3:18 KJV)

Maybe scripture that says "Husbands submit yourselves to your wives".

The reality is that Marriage is a picture of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Jesus Christ has a clear "role" in the trinity, just as God the Father does. Neither one could occupy the other's role. Jesus Christ was submissive to God in His Holy Will. It did not make Him less equal, or less a part of the God Head, it only showed us how our relationships should be.

As I have said before, taking any scripture out of the context of the entire Bible and trying to base a belief on it is dangerous doctrine.

[firehill]

To quote myself and scripture on the matter.

I'm not interested in wasting 3 days on this with you only to realize you are going to keep switching words and concepts around to suit your needs.

IF you can show me a CLEAR scripture that nullifies the context of these, then give me a ring...

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

(1Pe 3:5-6 KJV)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

(Eph 5:22-24 KJV)

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

(1Pe 3:1 KJV)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

(Col 3:18 KJV)

Maybe scripture that says "Husbands submit yourselves to your wives".

The reality is that Marriage is a picture of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Jesus Christ has a clear "role" in the trinity, just as God the Father does. Neither one could occupy the other's role. Jesus Christ was submissive to God in His Holy Will. It did not make Him less equal, or less a part of the God Head, it only showed us how our relationships should be.

As I have said before, taking any scripture out of the context of the entire Bible and trying to base a belief on it is dangerous doctrine.

FoC, haven't forgot your request! I'm getting there...

Bib, the biblical reality actualy is that marriage pictures the relationship between Christ and the church as the Bible outright speaks of and NOT the Father and the Son. I won't go into discussing the Trinity here but subordinatism with the Godhead has been a heresey that been around for a long long time. The subject of subordination within the Trinity became a hot topic amongst scholars within the last 20 or so years because modern gender hierarchalist try to use it as a model to subordinate woman to man. Now the Son's willing submission to the Father is an example for all believers not just wives.

In Ephesians 5 Paul talks about believers being members of Christ's body, and he speaks of the mystery that is now revealed which is that the church comes out of Christ! For this reason the two shall become one. (woman out of man foreshadowed the church coming out of Christ!)

'The reality is that Marriage is a picture of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.'

NO. God IS ONE. In marriage on the other hand TWO become ONE. The Son did NOT come out of the Father (which is also a heresey from the past and Mary in fact conceived by the Holy Spirit NOT the Father...many have a hard time even as I did once before understanding the relationship between the Father and the Son) as woman did man and the church, Christ. the relationship between the Father and the Son is nothing like marriage! God IS ONE never divided.

[Sherman]

As I said, my guess is that you and I will end in a stalemate on this issue because Im betting that you define 'putting away' and 'divorce' as two separate issues.

As far as Christs words in Matt, and His teachings on 'putting away', I dont believe for a second that Jesus' real problem was 'legal' divorcment at all, but the REASONING for that breaking of the marriage union.

wm

FoC,

Yep stalemate, "apoluo" can refer to "expulsion without a legal divorce" and to "divorce". It is completely dependent upon the text and foundational assumptions you're making. The reason for Moses inacting the bill of divorce is not explicitly stated in the Bible unless one takes Jesus answer to that question as explaining.

I do find it significant that in Mt.19 in the Peshitta Bible of the Coptic church of North Africa, in Aramaic there are two words used in Mt.19, one references a legal divorce, the other references separation without a legal divorce.

I also find it significant, as previously noted in another post long ago, that when Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor. 7 he uses two different words; the man was not to divorce his wife; and the woman was not to separate from her husband, if she did she was to remain single. It's also interesting that after he quotes Jesus, he applies what Jesus said to the Greco-Roman culture that Paul was ministering to, in which a woman could divorce a man as easily as a man could a woman. Thus his command was that the woman should not divorce her husband, and the husband should not divorce his wife, using the same Greek word for both. One of these days we'll get around to looking at 1 Cor. 7 together. I look forward to it.

This coupled with the extra-bibilical support that I mentioned earlier pretty well solidifies my position, as I understand it. But I'm open to other information though. So, we are pretty much at a stalemate.

The Lev. passage could refer to either a divorced woman or one put away without divorce, I tend to go with divorce like you do though. But that doesn't necessarily speak concerning the reason for the divorce.

Anyhow, stalemate!

Blessings,

[Guest Biblicist]

FoC, haven't forgot your request! I'm getting there...

Bib, the biblical reality actually is that marriage pictures the relationship between Christ and the church as the Bible outright speaks of and NOT the Father and the Son. I won't go into discussing the Trinity here but subordinatism with the Godhead has been a heresey that been around for a long long time. The subject of subordination within the Trinity became a hot topic amongst scholars within the last 20 or so years because modern gender hierarchalist try to use it as a model to subordinate woman to man. Now the Son's willing submission to the Father is an example for all believers not just wives.

In Ephesians 5 Paul talks about believers being members of Christ's body, and he speaks of the mystery that is now revealed which is that the church comes out of Christ! For this reason the two shall become one. (woman out of man foreshadowed the church coming out of Christ!)

'The reality is that Marriage is a picture of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.'

NO. God IS ONE. In marriage on the other hand TWO become ONE. The Son did NOT come out of the Father (which is also a heresey from the past and Mary in fact conceived by the Holy Spirit NOT the Father...many have a hard time even as I did once before understanding the relationship between the Father and the Son) as woman did man and the church, Christ. the relationship between the Father and the Son is nothing like marriage! God IS ONE never divided.

Firehill,

Obviously, there is no way our finite minds can understand or comprehend the nature of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

However, when the two become one flesh, marriage can indeed become just the same as the relationship that Father, Son and Holy Spirit share within the Trinity. If you think of all the ways that the Father and Son relate(d) to each other you will see that Jesus Christ was also giving us clear examples as to how Marriage relationships are to be. As a couple, we should be ONE, never divided.

When we understand that, marriage becomes something more important than just something to endure. Something to be thrown away, or passed over. The relationship that Jesus and the Father share is eternal, our marriages should also be eternal. Marriage can be a beautiful, harmonious union between two souls. Each one sharing in the importance and strength of the bond, while fulfilling the roles set before us as a man and woman. Face it, men and women are different. Each one plays a different role in this world. There are things men can do that women can't, and visa versa. All in God's perfect creation.