Divorce/Remarriage

[firehill]

If a person reads Matthew 19:3 without understanding the idiomatic phrase "any matter" they would errantly assume that the debate was about acceptable and non-acceptable reasons for divorce. This foundational errant assumption then sets them up to completely misunderstand what Jesus says in the following verses. It is very important to note and keep in mind that the debate was about divorce legislation and procedures and not about morally acceptable reasons for divorce.

The Pharisees then were actualy questioning Jesus regarding Jewsih divorce legislation and procedure, NOT legal divorce provisions within the Mosaic Law?

The likely reason the Pharisees asked Jesus about this debate was to trap Him in an unending debate, cause Him to loose favor with some of the people, set Him up so that someone could accuse Him of disagreeing with Moses, and/or possibly cause Him to upset Herod and thus loose His head like John the Baptist. The main thing though is that that the Pharisees did NOT ask Jesus about acceptable reasons for divorce, or the viability of divorce.

This makes good sense because the Pharsees were 'leagalists' and therefore were not at all concerned with the heart or true meaning of the Mosaic Law regarding divorce.

[Sherman]

The Pharisees then were actualy questioning Jesus regarding Jewsih divorce legislation and procedure, NOT legal divorce provisions within the Mosaic Law?

Firehill,

Sadly, the idiomatic phrases and elements of the cultural context that I mentioned are lost in a word for word translation, scewing one's understanding of the whole passage. The word for word translation says "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" This is a senseless question, because the Mosaic Law did not specify acceptable or non-acceptable reasons for divorce; and both Rabbinic schools facilitated divorce for any reason. Also, all Rabbis considered some reasons for divorce as more morally acceptable than others. But ultimately, if a man decided to divorce his wife, there was no legislation to stop him even he only wanted to marry someone else. Thus a word for word translation of the Pharisees' question is misleading at best.

A good thought for thought interpretation of the Pharisees question would be:

"Is the Hillelite Any Matter divorce system the correct interpretation and application of the Law of divorce as stated in Deut. 24:1-4?"

And I've only touched on one of several misunderstood concepts and misinterpreted phrases in Mat. 19.1-9.

Also please remember, let's do our best to come up with the best understanding of this passage we can. Once we understand the passage in the light of the historical, cultural, literary, and authorial context; then we can start to discuss what principles and eventually rules for life and ministry that we can derive from this passage. The place to start though is simply doing our diligence to understand this passage in the light we have.

I have much more to share on this, but time is not available until maybe later tonight. The next thing I would like to look at is Jesus' immediate reply to this Pharisaical question. We want to hear His heart on this subject for sure! And I believe this passage bears it out wonderfully -- His passion for healthy marriages and families, AND His opposition to the evil legalistic controlling attitudes of the Pharisees!

Blessings,

[Smalcald]

I am sorry Sherman but for me I have some basic problems with this. First I don't know where you stand on this whole issue yet after all of this. But secondly, I do not believe the bible is open to any sort of historical criticism. It was meant to be read by people in the 1st and 25th centuries alike, by peasant and king, the words stand alone and is referenced only against each other, not against our current view of the history of that time, our view of history and archeology changes.

[GeneV]

Can anyone explain what the Pharisees were asking Jesus regarding the bill of divorce given by Moses?

Can anyone explain what Jesus meant by his answer to them? What is the cultural and historical context of this passage?

Looking at the fact that Jesus had already given His teaching about divorce/remarriage in Matt 5, we can conclude that when the pharisees came upon Him to 'tempt' Him, that they already knew what He had been teaching and knew that He was in defiance of Moses allowance for them to divorce 'for every cause' (some uncleaness...an ambiguous uncleaness that can include simple ceremonial uncleaness as well as a mulitidude of others).

My belief is that they were using this to try to incite His followers against Him which is why the were 'tempting' Him and not merely asking Him.

I believe that they thought to try to get His followers to attack Him for defying what Moses had tolerated.

But instead He turns around on them and shows that Moses did not 'command' them to put away their wives as they distorted it into, but only suffered these divorces because Moses knew what these hardhearted men might do to their wives to be rid of them.

Jesus tells them that from the beginning it was not this way. We conclude He means this 'for every cause' divorce because that is what is asked of Him and also in Exodus 21 we see an allowance for a wife to leave her husband if he is not providing for her showing that there is indeed a legitimate reason why a marriage could be abandoned lawfully by the injured party.

Jesus seems to take things back to more of an Exodus style law where a legitimate breach of covenant must be present in order to lawfully end the marriage instead of this sufferance that had been permitted and regulated (Deut 24:1-4) by Moses.

Ive done some short studies on related issues if you are interested.

http://www.theassemblyministries.com/page27.html

http://www.theassemblyministries.com/page4.html

http://www.theassemblyministries.com/page5.html

FoC thanks! I think the terminology He uses "it was not always so" which I take as a reference to Genesis is important...I do not think He was referring to the law given to Moses.

[firehill]

...But secondly, I do not believe the bible is open to any sort of historical criticism. It was meant to be read by people in the 1st and 25th centuries alike, by peasant and king, the words stand alone and is referenced only against each other, not against our current view of the history of that time, our view of history and archeology changes.

I have question for you Smalcald in regards to the above post of yours:

Since you don't believe that the Bible is open to any historical criticism because you believe that it is intentionaly written to only interpret itself then, can you provide those scriptures that say, mean , and intend to convey this absolute concept?

[Sherman]

I am sorry Sherman but for me I have some basic problems with this. First I don't know where you stand on this whole issue yet after all of this. But secondly, I do not believe the bible is open to any sort of historical criticism. It was meant to be read by people in the 1st and 25th centuries alike, by peasant and king, the words stand alone and is referenced only against each other, not against our current view of the history of that time, our view of history and archeology changes.

Good evening Smalcald,

Thank you for your reply. Concerning the issue of MDR, I have purposefully withheld discussing any rules for life or ministry that I believe, because we can argue all day about such rules, throwing scriptures back and forth with no good being accomplished. The root issues concerning our differences go back to our individual core beliefs, values, attitudes, and specific interpretation of scripture.

For example, I believe understanding the literary context is important, thus I try to understand individual scriptures through the lens of the immediate and extended literary context as much as possible. This, I believe, helps me to understand the Word more clearly. This is one of my core beliefs and values. Others don't hold that belief and thus do not study the literary context and thus such an individual and I can end up with very different understandings, interpretations, and applications of the same passage. Different core values and beliefs then effect how we view scripture.

Another example: I highly value the wisdom and insight into His word that God has given other believers throughout church history, especially those who have devoted their lives to seeking God and His wisdom. When researching a topic or scripture, I often read what others have written about it; because they might have some insight, wisdom, or knowledge that I do not have and would not have even thought to research. Some people though do not value the insight of others, especially those who believe differently than what they've been taught all of their lives; this belief is very arrogant in my opinion.

Concerning your second point about rejecting any information concerning the historical and cultural context that is not explicitly explained in the Bible, well if our goal is to correctly apply the Bible to our lives, then the first place to start is doing our diligence to understand what the scripture said to the original audience. That's why Biblical scholars and theologians study the word in the original languages. Not only do they do that, they also study the culture so that they might understand and translate any phrases that are unique to that culture.

For example, if you and I had a discussion concerning "No-Fault Divorce" and the Christian; we would both understand that the discussion was about civil divorce legislation and how a Christian should view it. However, if someone recorded a sentence or two from our conversation, translated into Aramaic, gave it to a bedoin in Saudi Arabia, and asked him to read it and explain what it was about; it would be virtually impossible for him to understand our conversation, or any points we were making, much less apply the things we were talking about to his life. There is no telling what in the world this bedoin would come up with.

In the same way it's important for us to do our best to understand the cultural context of the Bible. Without applicable information it's very easy to misinterpret scripture and draw wrong conclusions. If one studies biblical hermeneutics, one can find many principles and tools to help one correctly and wisely uncover the wonderful truths of God's word. I recommend Gordon D. Fee's book, "How To Read The Bible for All Its Worth." It's a classic that is used in hermeneutic classes in Bible Colleges aroung the country and across denomenational lines.

Of course, we do have the Holy Spirit to teach us and lead us into all truth - PTL! But that doesn't mean that we don't need to do our due diligence to research applicable information to help us understand the Word. Remember, "It's the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the honor of kings to uncover it."

If you chose to disregard the historical and cultural context, of course, that's your perogative; and it's very possible, even likely that we will end up with different interpretations of the Word. And thus the principles and rules for life and ministry that we accept and teach will be very different. I do pray and trust though, that the Lord will bring us to unity in Him some day.

Smalcald, I pray that the Lord richly blesses you as you study His Word. We're in this together as members of the Body of Christ. I'm confident your goal is as mine -- to Know Jesus and enjoy Him forever!

your brother in Christ,

Edited February 4, 2007 by Sherman

[Smalcald]

...But secondly, I do not believe the bible is open to any sort of historical criticism. It was meant to be read by people in the 1st and 25th centuries alike, by peasant and king, the words stand alone and is referenced only against each other, not against our current view of the history of that time, our view of history and archeology changes.

I have question for you Smalcald in regards to the above post of yours:

Since you don't believe that the Bible is open to any historical criticism because you believe that it is intentionaly written to only interpret itself then, can you provide those scriptures that say, mean , and intend to convey this absolute concept?

Oh no, a lay person like me could never really understand the bible I need a priest to tell me what it "really" means, or at least someone who is versed in Greek and Hebrew and knows archeology. God would never reveal His Word in any other way.

[Smalcald]

I am sorry Sherman but for me I have some basic problems with this. First I don't know where you stand on this whole issue yet after all of this. But secondly, I do not believe the bible is open to any sort of historical criticism. It was meant to be read by people in the 1st and 25th centuries alike, by peasant and king, the words stand alone and is referenced only against each other, not against our current view of the history of that time, our view of history and archeology changes.

Good evening Smalcald,

Thank you for your reply. Concerning the issue of MDR, I have purposefully withheld discussing any rules for life or ministry that I believe, because we can argue all day about such rules, throwing scriptures back and forth with no good being accomplished. The root issues concerning our differences go back to our individual core beliefs, values, attitudes, and specific interpretation of scripture.

For example, I believe understanding the literary context is important, thus I try to understand individual scriptures through the lens of the immediate and extended literary context as much as possible. This, I believe, helps me to understand the Word more clearly. This is one of my core beliefs and values. Others don't hold that belief and thus do not study the literary context and thus such an individual and I can end up with very different understandings, interpretations, and applications of the same passage. Different core values and beliefs then effect how we view scripture.

Another example: I highly value the wisdom and insight into His word that God has given other believers throughout church history, especially those who have devoted their lives to seeking God and His wisdom. When researching a topic or scripture, I often read what others have written about it; because they might have some insight, wisdom, or knowledge that I do not have and would not have even thought to research. Some people though do not value the insight of others, especially those who believe differently than what they've been taught all of their lives; this belief is very arrogant in my opinion.

Concerning your second point about rejecting any information concerning the historical and cultural context that is not explicitly explained in the Bible, well if our goal is to correctly apply the Bible to our lives, then the first place to start is doing our diligence to understand what the scripture said to the original audience. That's why Biblical scholars and theologians study the word in the original languages. Not only do they do that, they also study the culture so that they might understand and translate any phrases that are unique to that culture.

For example, if you and I had a discussion concerning "No-Fault Divorce" and the Christian; we would both understand that the discussion was about civil divorce legislation and how a Christian should view it. However, if someone recorded a sentence or two from our conversation, translated into Aramaic, gave it to a bedoin in Saudi Arabia, and asked him to read it and explain what it was about; it would be virtually impossible for him to understand our conversation, or any points we were making, much less apply the things we were talking about to his life. There is no telling what in the world this bedoin would come up with.

In the same way it's important for us to do our best to understand the cultural context of the Bible. Without applicable information it's very easy to misinterpret scripture and draw wrong conclusions. If one studies biblical hermeneutics, one can find many principles and tools to help one correctly and wisely uncover the wonderful truths of God's word. I recommend Gordon D. Fee's book, "How To Read The Bible for All Its Worth." It's a classic that is used in hermeneutic classes in Bible Colleges aroung the country and across denomenational lines.

Of course, we do have the Holy Spirit to teach us and lead us into all truth - PTL! But that doesn't mean that we don't need to do our due diligence to research applicable information to help us understand the Word. Remember, "It's the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the honor of kings to uncover it."

If you chose to disregard the historical and cultural context, of course, that's your perogative; and it's very possible, even likely that we will end up with different interpretations of the Word. And thus the principles and rules for life and ministry that we accept and teach will be very different. I do pray and trust though, that the Lord will bring us to unity in Him some day.

Smalcald, I pray that the Lord richly blesses you as you study His Word. We're in this together as members of the Body of Christ. I'm confident your goal is as mine -- to Know Jesus and enjoy Him forever!

your brother in Christ,

Well Sherman you seem like a good guy and I will pray for you too. I really don't know whether we would end up in different places on this issue because I don't know what you believe about divorce, and I don't know why we have to "end up" anywhere as I believe the bible is relatively clear. Ending up would mean you start at one place and end up somewhere else. I do agree that we should not ignore all contexts, but the reason we would not ignore it would be to shed further light on the plain meaning, which must come first. My point about historical criticism is the idea that the bible is a product of the time and place and prejudices of those who wrote the bible and to understand the bible we must understand these cultural boundaries makes the bible a human document. That is the essence of historical criticism at least what they do at the university level. But yet we believe that the bible was given to us by God, and given to us today by God. For example, God guided the hand of Peter in writing 1Peter, God meant for Peter to write what he did, and he meant it for all believers throughout all of time.

I don't think the bible is this hugely complex document which God meant to be hard to understand. Most of the New Testament is simply sermons read aloud to the first Christians. I do agree that the bible can be read at many different levels. So indeed maybe you are going to a deeper level and that is good, but the deeper level should not contradict the simpler level.

But I am not done reading what you have to say as I enjoy discussion about what the bible is saying and you have had some interesting things to say.

[firehill]

...But secondly, I do not believe the bible is open to any sort of historical criticism. It was meant to be read by people in the 1st and 25th centuries alike, by peasant and king, the words stand alone and is referenced only against each other, not against our current view of the history of that time, our view of history and archeology changes.

I have question for you Smalcald in regards to the above post of yours:

Since you don't believe that the Bible is open to any historical criticism because you believe that it is intentionaly written to only interpret itself then, can you provide those scriptures that say, mean , and intend to convey this absolute concept?

Oh no, a lay person like me could never really understand the bible I need a priest to tell me what it "really" means, or at least someone who is versed in Greek and Hebrew and knows archeology. God would never reveal His Word in any other way.

Why the sarcasim?

[Smalcald]

Was the bible intentionally written?