I'm wrestling through the following and would appreciate everyone's input.
Foundational assumptions as Christians:
1) ALL authority comes from God and every aspect of life is under God's ultimate authority.
2) God has delegated authority to mankind that can be divided into the following: the family (domestic), the church (ecclesial), national and local governments (civil), and individual (personal).
Of these, which one, or combination, governs issues concerning MDR, biblically speaking?
Who says who can marry whom? Is a couple married though they did not get a marriage license? Is marriage completely a personal decision? Is a couple married if they aren't married by a minister, pastor, or priest? Can a minister marry a couple apart from civil authority? Does a couple need anyone (minister or judge) to marry them for it to be a viable marriage and not just shacking up?
Concerning divorce, is it purely a personal decision? What is the role of the church? What is the role of the civil government? What about remarriage? What about polygamy or polyandry?
These are just a few of the questions that we can wrestle through on this thread.
Thanks,
Sherman
P.S. The foundational concepts of the Traditional Doctrine of marriage and divorce were clearly expressed in the sixteenth century at the Counsel of Trent (AD 1546–1565). At that time marriage was affirmed to be a sacrament, under the auspices (authority and control) of the Church, and, once solemnized (performed with formal religious rites) indissoluble until death. Though most Protestant churches do strictly affirm this doctrine, the influence of this doctrine still permeates every denomination. Is MDR under the auspices (authority and control) of the church?
Who says who can marry whom? i find most folks rely upon themselves within the context of what is the prevalent practice within their culture
Is a couple married though they did not get a marriage license? yes
Is marriage completely a personal decision? i don't have a reference frame to answer the question
Is a couple married if they aren't married by a minister, pastor, or priest? can be
Can a minister marry a couple apart from civil authority? i would accept that, but there can be resulting legal problems. it's wiser to work within the acceptable legal frameworks.
Does a couple need anyone (minister or judge) to marry them for it to be a viable marriage and not just shacking up? i do not think so. isn't that a common-law marriage if it goes on for a set number of years?
Concerning divorce, is it purely a personal decision? who else makes the decision? i have a friend whose wife rapidly succumbed to the problems of Alzheimer's disease and was soon placed in the state hospital for mental patients. after the guy visited several weekends, her dr. explained that she was quickly gone and would never know he was around or even whom she was. he said they could expedite her care more efficiently if the husband divorced the spouse and let the social system take over. that's what he did. i think it was personal, but on the advice of a dr. and for the better care of his spouse.
What is the role of the church? to realize that they can offer and provide valuable care during this time
What is the role of the civil government? to ensure things are done legally
What about remarriage? you have to make up your own mind
What about polygamy or polyandry? who the heck wants more than one spouse at a time!
Is MDR under the auspices (authority and control) of the church? heck, no. they can advise only.
dj
Ok, so what's your scriptural support/reasoning for your answers?
the answers are mostly what i've noticed. which do you want support for?
can't see that i have to support 'who the heck wants more than one spouse at a time!'
if you want more than one, i'll be glad to read your scriptures.
dj
David, ultimately what I'm seeking to understand more is which authority is over MDR; personal, domestic, religious, or civil. From your responses to the individual questions it seems that you lean towards MDR being primarily a personal issue with little if any oversight by either religious or civil authority. Do I understand you correctly? And if so, how do you come to that general conclusion scripturally?
i see. i guess we weren't on the same channel. sorry.
civil authorities i've been around (usa) insure marriages are within the acceptance of the legal system w/proper legal forms and registrations. i assume each nation has a similar procedure. civil govt. dosen't usually feel the need to base it's operations upon the bible, hence they will allow procedures as legal with which many christians would not agree. that doesn't make things 'right', just legal.
is there a scripture that forces a christian to accept or oppose this state of affairs? i don't think so, it's just the way it is. bible verses verify that we should both 'render caesar his due' and 'obey God rather than man'.
we must be aware of how things work and realize the legal isn't always proper for christians.
that's only one question, i know. is that what you
are interested in?
dj
: Sherman Nobles Thu May 17, 2007 - 16:38:57
I'm wrestling through the following and would appreciate everyone's input.
Foundational assumptions as Christians:
1) ALL authority comes from God and every aspect of life is under God's ultimate authority.
2) God has delegated authority to mankind that can be divided into the following: the family (domestic), the church (ecclesial), national and local governments (civil), and individual (personal).
Of these, which one, or combination, governs issues concerning MDR, biblically speaking?
Who says who can marry whom? Is a couple married though they did not get a marriage license? Is marriage completely a personal decision? Is a couple married if they aren't married by a minister, pastor, or priest? Can a minister marry a couple apart from civil authority? Does a couple need anyone (minister or judge) to marry them for it to be a viable marriage and not just shacking up?
Concerning divorce, is it purely a personal decision? What is the role of the church? What is the role of the civil government? What about remarriage? What about polygamy or polyandry?
These are just a few of the questions that we can wrestle through on this thread.
Thanks,
Sherman
P.S. The foundational concepts of the Traditional Doctrine of marriage and divorce were clearly expressed in the sixteenth century at the Counsel of Trent (AD 1546–1565). At that time marriage was affirmed to be a sacrament, under the auspices (authority and control) of the Church, and, once solemnized (performed with formal religious rites) indissoluble until death. Though most Protestant churches do strictly affirm this doctrine, the influence of this doctrine still permeates every denomination. Is MDR under the auspices (authority and control) of the church?
Depends, doesn't it?
In some sense, all of life is under the auspices of the church, since Christianity is supposed to be our life, not something we do on weekends, and we live Christianity in community, which is the church. We submit to one another all the time, and we accept correction and encouragement from other Christians all the time.
But, are you married if you've only had a civil ceremony? Yes. Just like having a baby, once you've had one, you've got it. And the church gets to be involved in how you raise that kid. And the church gets to be involved because you've chosen to be married.
Can you be divorced even if the church says 'no?' Of course. Just like you can commit adultery without the church's permission. Doing so though, allows the church to become involved.
: Sherman Nobles Thu May 17, 2007 - 16:38:57
I'm wrestling through the following and would appreciate everyone's input.
Foundational assumptions as Christians:
1) ALL authority comes from God and every aspect of life is under God's ultimate authority.
2) God has delegated authority to mankind that can be divided into the following: the family (domestic), the church (ecclesial), national and local governments (civil), and individual (personal).
Of these, which one, or combination, governs issues concerning MDR, biblically speaking?
My view is and always will be that Gods word is the authority in marriage issues.
A couples reasons are:
-God created 'marriage' in the garden and it is His alone to govern as far as 'permission' to marry and how each partner is to behave.
-what happens when mans law starts defining male/male unions as 'marriage' ?
-what happens when mans law tells a man he cannot marry a woman whom God would permit?
I personally do not believe that man has been given the 'authority' over Gods marriage covenant.
Who says who can marry whom?
Barring other laws being broken....incest, sex with minors, etc, Gods word doesnt give much in the NT as to limitations. Neither should human law be permitted to deny permission since marriage was created by God in the Garden.
Is a couple married though they did not get a marriage license?
For legal purposes as far as the state goes, it depends on the state a person lives in.
My personal view is this: "Lack of a godless governments licensing does not nullify a covenant made to and before God Almighty"
When the states start prosecuting a couple living without making a covenant of marriage to each other while living together in a sexual relationship, then it might be a bit more acceptable for that same state to tell a couple that they MUST get a license in order to live together as man and wife whom HAVE made a life covenant to each other before God.
As it stands few, if any, states will actually complain about a man and woman living together with NO covenant to each other, let alone making a claim as to whether God accepts a covenant of marriage if no license is in place.
Im one of few christians, one of a rapidly growing group, who believe that the church should never have turned our marriages over to government 'supervision'.
There are laws in place that will defend a battered woman or if a man has sex with an underage girl, so I personally dont believe there is a whole lot of need to for the Government to oversee our marriages.
Of course there are issues such as insurance and who my death benefits go to, as well as my estate, so we DO need some legal involvement...and Lord knows that some men will change who their 'wife' is as soon as they find some young woman to run off with, but I dont like this 'permission' nonsense that says I must go get a license ("permission") to marry.
Ceasar can be involved, as Moses was, when necessary, such as divorce or in the mistreatment of a wife, without being in so great a position as to actually 'define' what 'marriage' is (gay marriages are only a step away).
Is marriage completely a personal decision?
*IF* the man and woman are of an acceptable age (personally, I think 18 is too young to make that decision) then I think it should be completely personal between those two alone.
Is a couple married if they aren't married by a minister, pastor, or priest?
Absolutely.
Marriage is a family affair and never needed priest when God created it. It is a nice custom, but not necessary.
However, I do agree that if one wants their marriage recognized by the state, that they need to follow the states proceedures to get that acknowledgment (ie. licensing).
Can a minister marry a couple apart from civil authority?
Actually there is a growing group of christians who are doing just this. Marrying without state licensing.
Of course the state doesnt have to offer the protections and benefits to these couples that it does with a licensed couple..
Does a couple need anyone (minister or judge) to marry them for it to be a viable marriage and not just shacking up?
In my opinion GOD is the one who matters.
A man might think he's getting away with covenanting himself to a woman then later running off with little Jane Doe Downthestreet....but just like any other person living in sin, he will answer to God Almighty.
The question that ought to be asked is this.
Does licensing CHANGE a single thing as far as 'shacking up' and this man ditching out on his 'wife' ?
It doenst.
All licensing does is make a LOT of money for crook lawyers who charge some poor woman her entire life savings to divorce this man who bailed out on her 5 years prior with 4 kids and a mortgage.
I have been married three times and I assure everyone here that having that license didnt keep my exs from whoring around on me, didnt keep one of them from trying to take my life, didnt keep them from moving out and in with another man....
All it did was cost me thousands of dollars to get it over with.
It really comes down to one issue.
Are BOTH persons in this union sincere ?
If BOTH are, then its going to work.
If one or both arent, then no license or civil ceremony, and no amount of money is going to make them keep their vows.
Concerning divorce, is it purely a personal decision?
Absolutely.
ive seen cases where a person put on such a great show that NO one around them knew how terrible they were.
My ex wifes brother was convinced that I was the cause of our divorce. You should have heard the list of things she told him that were horrid lies. She was so infuriated when she found out that I had told him the REST of the story that she literally tried to stab me in the kitchen.
Many times only the persons in the marriage actually know what is going on.
What is the role of the church?
Counciling only.
I do not believe the church should have any authority to permit or deny divorce.
Far too many times they have no clue what is actually going on in the home.
What is the role of the civil government?
I dont even want to get started on civil law and divorce.
What about remarriage?
This is one reason why I feel GODS word must be the authority. Remarriage is simply no big deal to Civil law at all. A man can literally divorce TO remarry some young woman and the law isnt going to condemn the action at all if he can pay for the divorce.
Of course, she can sue for alimony, but somehow that just doesnt seem like enough to me.
What about polygamy or polyandry?
Again, I think Gods word should be the authority.
While these arent out right forbidden, they are presented as not being very desirable in a couple places.
P.S. The foundational concepts of the Traditional Doctrine of marriage and divorce were clearly expressed in the sixteenth century at the Counsel of Trent (AD 1546–1565). At that time marriage was affirmed to be a sacrament, under the auspices (authority and control) of the Church, and, once solemnized (performed with formal religious rites) indissoluble until death. Though most Protestant churches do strictly affirm this doctrine, the influence of this doctrine still permeates every denomination. Is MDR under the auspices (authority and control) of the church?
I dont think the church should have any more control that what is given to them in Gods word in a very clear manner.
Sherman, greetings
In real time of the first century--in the Greek-Roman world there were four acceptable types and kinds of marriages.
FATHER POWER--Father had total absolute power over family--includes wife and all children male and female.
Again, in our "society" this is unthinkable and we don't
Hey everyone, I appreciate your responses. I've swamped and don't have the time this week to respond or ask more questions.
Blessings,
Sherman
Careful study shows no conflicts--none at all
Impossible.
The moment Jesus says 'except' there is technically a 'conflict'.
An exception is, by its very definition, contrary to the general rule....thus an 'EXCEPTion'...ie a 'conflict' against the rule.
Just like when God says 'keep your vows' (an idea taught in a few different places in His word) while turning around in Numbers 30 and offering 'exception' for a woman who is kept from keeping her vows by her father or husband....a definite 'conflict' in the texts, but fully and completely explained and harmonized very easily.
God says marriage is for life....EXCEPT in a case of whoredom. This exception is in conflict with the general rule.
Just as Moses sufferance for divorce was contrary to the rule.....just as Exodus 21 showing an allowance for a wife to leave her husband if he failed to provide for her presented something contrary to 'marriage is for life'.
There is a lot of things in scripture that seem contrary or to be in conflict....Jesus saying that John WAS Elijah (Mat 11:14), while John himself saying he was not (Joh 1:21)....'conflict'.
Depends upon which sense the question is asked. For example, two people may divorce in the State of Texas. According to the authority of the State, the marriage bond may be legally broken and no longer binding; however, according to God, the two persons may still be married.
: OkiMar Thu May 24, 2007 - 00:55:40
Depends upon which sense the question is asked. For example, two people may divorce in the State of Texas. According to the authority of the State, the marriage bond may be legally broken and no longer binding; however, according to God, the two persons may still be married.
Im just thinking aloud here, but Ive been contemplating if this couple is actually still 'married' if she is put away for no just cause, or if Jesus was simply assigning guilt in Matt 19 concerning this 'for every cause' divorce since the Jews believed that they were not 'guilty' because of Moses suffering them to put their wives away frivolously and not actually assigning any guilt.
I mean, in Matt 19 He says 'and marry another'...the word there meaning precisely that.
In 1 corinthians 7:10-11 (to an equally yoked couple) Paul says if this wife leaves her husband she is to remain 'unmarried' or reconcile to her 'man'(looking at the greek here as well).
The word 'unmarried' there is only used four times in scripture and in every other case the context shows conclusively that it is an 'UNmarried' individual being spoken to or about...(see HERE (http://www.assembly-ministries.com/page42.html)..go down to 'unmarried').
My views over the last few months have been steering more to the idea that when this spouse is 'put away' with THAT intent of abandoning the marriage, that they ARE indeed 'divorced' if we've followed proper procedure for divorce, and that Jesus isnt dismissing that in Matt 19 at all, but is instead STILL assigning guilt to the situation....that we DO still commit adultery against that spouse if we have put them away 'for every cause' (no just cause at all) and then taken another.
Jesus saying 'and marry another' just doesnt fit if it isnt 'marrying' that we are doing but simply committing adultery.
again, Im just thinking out loud and Im going to keep pondering it alone (ie, not interested in debating or discussing it much) and see if that thought can be harmonized with the whole....
There is a very interesting study on the "put away" issue that was written by Dyrel W Collins called "Marriage is God's Plan". It was originally published by Star Bible Publishing but is no longer listed in their catelog. I highly recommend this study as it looks at the Hebrew and the Greek words used foe divorce and being put away and how these words would have been understood in the 1st Century. Star Bible is located at http://www.starbible.com/page/page/1906830.htm if you wish to see if they still sell Dryel's study. I will be happy to send Dryel Collins last published address to you by PM if you wish to order a copy direct from him. I have had the priviledge to talk with Dryel at ACU Lectureship a couple of times. Very interesting conversations!
: FoC Thu May 24, 2007 - 14:37:19
: OkiMar Thu May 24, 2007 - 00:55:40
Depends upon which sense the question is asked. For example, two people may divorce in the State of Texas. According to the authority of the State, the marriage bond may be legally broken and no longer binding; however, according to God, the two persons may still be married.
Im just thinking aloud here, but Ive been contemplating if this couple is actually still 'married' if she is put away for no just cause, or if Jesus was simply assigning guilt in Matt 19 concerning this 'for every cause' divorce since the Jews believed that they were not 'guilty' because of Moses suffering them to put their wives away frivolously and not actually assigning any guilt.
I mean, in Matt 19 He says 'and marry another'...the word there meaning precisely that.
In 1 corinthians 7:10-11 (to an equally yoked couple) Paul says if this wife leaves her husband she is to remain 'unmarried' or reconcile to her 'man'(looking at the greek here as well).
The word 'unmarried' there is only used four times in scripture and in every other case the context shows conclusively that it is an 'UNmarried' individual being spoken to or about...(see HERE (http://www.assembly-ministries.com/page42.html)..go down to 'unmarried').
My views over the last few months have been steering more to the idea that when this spouse is 'put away' with THAT intent of abandoning the marriage, that they ARE indeed 'divorced' if we've followed proper procedure for divorce, and that Jesus isnt dismissing that in Matt 19 at all, but is instead STILL assigning guilt to the situation....that we DO still commit adultery against that spouse if we have put them away 'for every cause' (no just cause at all) and then taken another.
Jesus saying 'and marry another' just doesnt fit if it isnt 'marrying' that we are doing but simply committing adultery.
again, Im just thinking out loud and Im going to keep pondering it alone (ie, not interested in debating or discussing it much) and see if that thought can be harmonized with the whole....
Hey brother FOC,
I know you don't want to debate, so I won't. LOL ::smile:: But I do have a question. When you write what I have bolded above, are you thinking committing in "ongoing adultery" against the wronged spouse, or a "one-time" act?
: 4Christ Fri May 25, 2007 - 21:10:26
Hey brother FOC,
I know you don't want to debate, so I won't. LOL ::smile:: But I do have a question. When you write what I have bolded above, are you thinking committing in "ongoing adultery" against the wronged spouse, or a "one-time" act?
Hi 4Christ :)
Actually I believe in both, in a manner of speaking.
Lets say your husband isnt 'sorry' for what he did in your case.
What he did was an 'act' of adultery upon remarrying this woman
against you as per Mark 10.
I personally believe that if he isnt sorry about what he did, if he isnt repentant for his sin, how can he be forgiven of it?
If, in his heart, he is perfectly content with the wrong he committed against you, with the adultery he committed against your marriage, then just as any other sin, it simply isnt required of God to forgive.
So, I do believe that, as I said above 'in a manner of speaking', that it is possible for this sin to be an ongoing thing of sorts...altho I do not believe it is like some others believe that it is a 'state' of being, supposedly being defined as such because of the word 'committeth' in the KJV bible. I believe it is 'ongoing' where there is a lack of repentance in a mans heart.
But, as you know, I do not believe that scripture teaches us to tear apart one marriage to reconcile another.
altho, I do not believe it would be an unforgivable sin if that happened, anymore than I believe it is unforgivable to make the first mistake.
What would worry me personally, would be the persons complete lack of concern about the meaning of 'marriage' who could so frivolously cast aside their mate.
Honestly, if my wife did that to me, theres no way I could ever feel trusting enough of her to allow her back into my wife in that way. Id be far to afraid of a repeat, given human nature.
But that is just a personal view of mine that is based on two terrible marriages....
Greetings,
One of the battles being fought around the beginning of the fourth or fifth century and actually voiced and argued and debated until 1529 and the council of Trent is who has the authority over people and in marriages and divorces.
IN the world of the first century and up till the sixth century--God's control over marriages can be identified here --
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Most folks do not associate this with the problem of the trational view of MDR today and they do not know that this is a battle fought between civil government and the Roman Catholic Church--who by the way won that battle at the council of Trent.
Marriage became a "sacrament" ruled and governed by the church--not by civil government.
We today who fall into the trap of following along after the thinking of the Catholics on this--Should know and understand that marriages have always been governed by God via the Governments.
One of the harder things for us to grasp is the idea that Matt 19:9 is old Mosaic Covenant--so some cling to the traditional view not understanding covenants and that man is governed by covenants.
This does nothing to negate the thinking of 2 Time 3:16-17 when put in perspective of 2 Tim 2:15.
Scoobydoo ::smile::
who created marriage, man or God?
Does Gods word give any rules for marriage and how each spouse is supposed to behave?
Is it a 'sin' if we disobey those rules?
Personally, I dont believe that civil govt was ever given the right to oversee Gods marriage unions.
Marriage is a family issue that is overseen by God and His word alone and should have been kept there.
Hey everyone,
Thanks for the input. As I've reviewed the discussion thus far and the revelation of scripture, I've increasingly come to understand that MDR is primarily a personal/domestic issue with limited civil oversight.
In Israel, Moses established both civil (judges) and religious (priesthood) authority structures. Marriage was primarily a personal/domestic issue as governed by personal and familial morality with limited (very limited) civil oversight. Even the laws against certain relationships imply the possibility of one breaking the law and establishing illegal and immoral marriage covenants. So civil authority helped to define and regulate socially acceptable mariage relationships.
When it comes to divorce, this came to be under civil authority, though when one reads Deut.24:1-4, the institution of the bill of divorce, divorce too appears to be primarily a domestic issue, with little, if any, civil oversight. By the time of Christ, civil law had been defined to such a degree that Rabbis (civil/religious leaders) acted as judges and judicated divorce proceedings. Under rabbinical leadership, based on a legalistic interpretation of Deut.24.1-4, men had the perogative of divorce, but women did not. Thus if a woman left her husband who refused to give her a bill of divorce, she had to remain single. If she did marry, it was not considered a legal/legitimate marriage actually living in adultery. Of course, this was due to the civil law of the Jewish culture.
Paul's writings in 1 Cor. 7 also allude to MDR being under civil authority. Paul actually applies Jesus' words to His Jewish audience concerning divorce to Paul's Greco-Roman audience, noting that Jesus said a "separated" wife must remain unmarried, but gave no such directive to husbands that divorce (only telling them they shouldn't divorce). In the Greco-Roman world wives could initiate divorce as legally as men, and thus Paul applies Jesus' words to that culture telling both husbands and wives that they should not divorce their spouses, and does not tell women who either divorce or have divorced their husbands to remain unmarried.
Furthermore, in Israel, I am aware of no scriptural or extra-biblical evidence that suggest that religious authority (the priesthood), before or during the time of Christ, had any authority over MDR. As mentioned in a previous post, the concept that the church had authority over MDR was not officially endorsed in the RCC until the 11th century when marriage was declared to be a sacrament, under the auspices of the Church.
Relatively few Christians who espouse the traditional doctrine of MDR are willing to critically consider whether or not the church even has the authority to declare who can or who can not marry, divorce, or remarry. Without such authority, the church is powerless to effect such edicts and thus ends up spending tremendous energy to accomplish nothing, making it's doctrine irrelevant to the everyday lives of people in, much less outside of, the church.
In conclusion, Moses, Jesus, and Paul all recognized the limited rule of civil authority over MDR, and to my knowledge there is no scriptural precedence for the priesthood having any authority concerning MDR.
On a seperate note, one of the biggest problems that the traditional doctrine has caused is how it keeps many Christian divorce's from moving on with their lives, especially if the errant spouse was a Christian too. When a legal divorce occurs, regardless of the reason (moral or immoral), the marriage is oven and both parties are free to move on as they see fit, even if a husband or wife divorced his/her spouse so that he/she could marry another. Remarriage was not the issue before God, but the motive of the heart(s) that caused the divorce. Sadly, by teaching that marriage is indissoluble, unbreakable, the one left holding the bag and not being able to move on with his/her life is often the victim, the one that was left who did not want the divorce. Forgiveness is hard enough, without trying to figure out why the errant spouse seems to go on with his/her life with seemingly little if any negative repercussions for his/her evil actions. And yet the victim (according to the traditional doctrine) is left and can not seek a new relationship.
Well, I had better go for now. I've started back to school and thus have little time to correspond. So please understand if I do not reply to individual posts.
Blessings,
Sherman
Sherman,
You have gained manna for a great response. ::thumbup:: You and I think exactly the same on this issue. So does Deryl Collins ::nodding:: as he says basically the same thing in his little booklet I recommended earlier. I suspect it will be a long time, though, before many good Christians realize that the "traditional" view is not the scriptural view. Those of us who are involved in the gender battle know already how difficult it is to change "traditional" views, no matter how wrong they are, and the MDR issue falls into the same category of degree of difficulty!
When it comes to divorce, this came to be under civil authority, though when one reads Deut.24:1-4, the institution of the bill of divorce, divorce too appears to be primarily a domestic issue, with little, if any, civil oversight.
Its interesting that you deem this as 'civil' when Deuteronomy is quite clearly the 'law' of our God.
Divorce was under Gods law, not mans, as Deuteronomy IS Gods law. It was never turned over to godless Ceaser by God or by His prophets and apostles.
That foolishness was done by us....
Marriage was created by God and is to be governed by HIS law, not mans where it conflicts with His.
Divorce has been explained in His law, and the reasons for divorce also included.
Godless men have no right or authority to override or supercede HIS law pertaining either to marriage OR divorce....meaning if HE has declared that a divorce is not just, there is nothing ceaser can do to alter that fact.
What bothers me is when men try to take religion out of the marriage just enough to justify divorce where God has said 'NO"....
In conclusion, Moses, Jesus, and Paul all recognized the limited rule of civil authority over MDR, and to my knowledge there is no scriptural precedence for the priesthood having any authority concerning MDR.
I personally dont know of anyone who has made the claim that the priesthood had anything to do with marriage law.
Moses seems to have hade the sole authority during his lifetime, given the laws laid out for whom man may not lie with, and how divorce is to be handled.
While these 'laws' are, as you say, 'civil' in nature....possibly.....they ARE Gods 'law' and thus quite religiously based. We CANNOT remove the spiritual or the religious from marriage because GOD is the one who created it.
I believe marriage to be ultimately governed by God. Neither the Church nor the civil government has the authority to separate what God has joined. Accordingly, I hold to what some refer to as the "traditional" church of Christ view...once two proper candidates (male and female) are married, they remain married in the sight of God until either 1) death severs the marriage bond or 2) one spouse chooses to put the other away due to marital infidelity.
: FoC Mon May 28, 2007 - 19:44:35
When it comes to divorce, this came to be under civil authority, though when one reads Deut.24:1-4, the institution of the bill of divorce, divorce too appears to be primarily a domestic issue, with little, if any, civil oversight.
Its interesting that you deem this as 'civil' when Deuteronomy is quite clearly the 'law' of our God.
Divorce was under Gods law, not mans, as Deuteronomy IS Gods law. It was never turned over to godless Ceaser by God or by His prophets and apostles.
That foolishness was done by us....
Marriage was created by God and is to be governed by HIS law, not mans where it conflicts with His.
Divorce has been explained in His law, and the reasons for divorce also included.
Godless men have no right or authority to override or supercede HIS law pertaining either to marriage OR divorce....meaning if HE has declared that a divorce is not just, there is nothing ceaser can do to alter that fact.
What bothers me is when men try to take religion out of the marriage just enough to justify divorce where God has said 'NO"....
Actually, Deuteronomy is the 2nd recording of the Mosaic Law. Moses was inspired by God to inact these laws for the people of Israel. When you say "God's Law", it implies a universality that is not appropriate, imo. It's wise for all individuals/cultures/governments to respect the Mosaic Law as inspired by God and draw from the Mosaic Law the universal principles that it reveals, but it's wrong to imply that the Mosaic Law can be legalistically applied to all individuals, cultures, nations, and governments.
Furthermore, Moses, as inspired by God, established both civil and religious authority structures for Israel. Civil authority included local judges and even cities of refuge. Of course, the Levitical priesthood provided the religious authority of Israel. Based upon their understanding of Deut.24.1-4, the Jews understood divorce as a civil issue, and not a religious issue. It is true that all authority comes from God, but God has also delegated authority to man and institutions of man including domestic, civil, and religious authority institutions.
If one reads Deut.24.1-4, where Moses instituted the bill of divorce, it appears that divorce was a domestic issue and the passage did not delineate either acceptable or non-acceptable reasons. Also, there seems to be a difference between the two divorces mentioned (though it is not specifically delineated).
The first divorce, vs.1, being because the man's wife "finds no favor in his eyes, because he found a matter of uncleaness in her". This one implies some negative characteristic of the wife, something the man found displeasing. It's unlikely that it was anything of a sexual nature for such issues were handled specifically via other laws. And it's also important to note that Moses was very specific when he intended to be specific. However in this verse his wording is non-specific.
The second divorce mentioned in vs. 3 was because the man detested/hated his wife, apparently due to the man's negative attitude and not some negative action or character flaw of the wife.
Whether this verse reflects a then current view of morally acceptable and non-acceptable reasons for divorce, or this verse influenced the Jews to understand two classes of divorce is not known. But it's important to understand that the Jews came to classify divorce into two categories, divorce in general and "hateful divorces" (those based on selfish, morally unacceptable reasons). And it's also important to recognize that whether divorce was based on morally acceptable reasons or morally non-acceptable reasons (the hateful divorce), that divorce ended the marriage covenant and relationship in the eyes of men and God.
Also, you said, "
What bothers me is when men try to take religion out of the marriage just enough to justify divorce where God has said 'NO"." The amount of "religion" that is involved in a marriage is determined by how much "religion" the couple brings to the marriage. If marriage/divorce is not governed by the church then "justifying" divorce is between the individual, God, and civil authority, and not for the church to judge or declare as either just or unjust. Divorce is always tragic and most often is sin (imo), but divorce is not always in and of itself sin. Divorce always is the result of the hardness of heart; it is always the result of sin, though divorce itself is not necessarily sin in itself.
Not only that, but many churches and church leaders, acting under assumed illegitimate authority has sat in seats of judgement and tried to judge specific divorces as either just or unjust. This practice has caused much trouble in the church and in people's lives. The church has no resposibility to or authority to sit in judgement concerning divorce. Ultimately, only God knows what goes on behind closed doors between a married couple.
: FoC Mon May 28, 2007 - 19:44:35
In conclusion, Moses, Jesus, and Paul all recognized the limited rule of civil authority over MDR, and to my knowledge there is no scriptural precedence for the priesthood having any authority concerning MDR.
I personally dont know of anyone who has made the claim that the priesthood had anything to do with marriage law.
Moses seems to have hade the sole authority during his lifetime, given the laws laid out for whom man may not lie with, and how divorce is to be handled.
While these 'laws' are, as you say, 'civil' in nature....possibly.....they ARE Gods 'law' and thus quite religiously based. We CANNOT remove the spiritual or the religious from marriage because GOD is the one who created it.
I agree that we can't remove the spiritual or the religious from marriage, but that does not mean that the church or church leadeship should attempt to control, legislate, or judge MDR. The church's role is to empower people to lead godly lives and have lasting marriages and healthy families. But too often the church has attempted to control and judge people, overstepping their biblical authority and oppressing the very people they are called to serve!
Back around the 11th century, the church errantly assumed authority that it did not have biblically, declaring that marriage was a sacrament, under ecclesial authority, and indissoluble. Each of these points is unscriptural.
Marriage is not a sacrament. It is not a means of grace. It is a covenant. Also, it is not a divine covenant, but a human covenant and thus only as strong as the character of the covenantors. Furthermore, the marriages of unbelieving heathens are just as valid and real as the marriages of Christians.
Marriage is certainly not under ecclesial authority, but under limited civil authority, scripturally speaking. I discussed this in depth already.
And marriage is not indissoluble, but is very breakable. Marriages shouldn't be broken, but sadly often are. And the church should stop trying to control people and focuse rather on empowering people.
: OkiMar Mon May 28, 2007 - 20:54:52
I believe marriage to be ultimately governed by God. Neither the Church nor the civil government has the authority to separate what God has joined. Accordingly, I hold to what some refer to as the "traditional" church of Christ view...once two proper candidates (male and female) are married, they remain married in the sight of God until either 1) death severs the marriage bond or 2) one spouse chooses to put the other away due to marital infidelity.
All of life is ultimately governed by God and we are all responsible before God individually, but that does not negate the fact that God has also instituted both civil, religious, and domestic (family) authority structures. Concerning what "God has joined together," Jesus said "what God has joined together, let not man put assunder." The "let not" (a conditional negative) is to be understood as "should not" recognizing that man can tear apart what God has joined together, though we shouldn't. It is not an absolute negative, as in it's impossible for man to tear apart what God has joined together. Marriage is breakable, not indissoluble.
Also note that it recognizes that "man" is capable of breaking apart what even God has joined together, though man shouldn't. Marriages break apart - reality. The church needs to empower people to have healthy relationships, lasting marriages, and freedom from false religious bondage (which the tradtional doctrine is).
I agree that we can't remove the spiritual or the religious from marriage, but that does not mean that the church or church leadeship should attempt to control, legislate, or judge MDR.
On this point we surely will agree. There are far too many rogue flocks out there who would damn an innocent woman to actually STAY with her abusive husband, even to the point if dying at his hands if he so felt the urge.
This group is probably the sickest body of 'christians' Ive ever seen, and thank the Lord not too great in numbers.
i believe that the choice to marry, the choice to divorce and the choice to remarry is entirely up to the individual.
If the marriage is outright condemned as sin in the law, such as not taking our brothers wife, or our fathers brother, then I do not think the church has any right to condemn the marriage as unlawful.
if the local body cannot discern truth in the matter, and reject the repentance of someone who may have done wrong, and then try to forced a second divorce, then they should simply ask the person to leave their congregation.
I personally am eager for judgment day because of this whole MDR matter. Im eager to see the responses of those standing before the Lord who are guilty of causing a brother and sister an unjust divorce by using fear tactics to cause them to do so.
Maybe that says something negative about me, so be it. But Im really sick of seeing a few trying to tear down marriages that Christ has permitted. And honestly, I want those who have done so held responsible instead of those they lied to and tricked into divorcing (are you reading this 56ford?)
I'm suprised that no one has really promoted the church as having authority of MDR. And for those who haven't read the thread on "Divorce, MDR, & Mt.19", I encourage you to do so. It's an interesting read, especially what my posts! rofl
Sherman, greetings,
you stated
I'm suprised that no one has really promoted the church as having authority of MDR. And for those who haven't read the thread on "Divorce, MDR, & Mt.19", I encourage you to do so. It's an interesting read, especially what my posts! rofl
My observation--I have known over the last 20 years or so--just a few who were willing to state that the church had authority over marriages--since that is clearly and distinctly a Roman Catholic Church concept and application.
Scoobydoo ::tippinghat::
Sadly, to my knowledge, few, if any, evangelical or protestant pastors or theologians that hold to the traditional doctrine have thought through the issue of authority even though it is foundational to the doctrine of MDR. If the church does not have the authority to declare who can or cannot marry, divorce, or remarry, then it is powerless to either enforce its related edicts or judgements. That's why when the Catholic Church decided to rule over such and declare that marriage is indissoluble it could only do so where it wielded civil authority. Even then it had to in some way facilitate the breakup of marriages; it did this by "annulment" rather than divorce. I believe their intentions were good - to strengthen marriage and family; however, their means were twisted - usurping civil and individual authority and redifining marriage as a sacrament.
Sherman greetings,
you states
Sadly, to my knowledge, few, if any, evangelical or protestant pastors or theologians that hold to the traditional doctrine have thought through the issue of authority even though it is foundational to the doctrine of MDR.
My response--It is, I believe that around 595-60506 AD that the man just prior to the first pope took a look around and asked the question: Who has the authority?
Romans 13 is pretty clear that the government has been given juristriction over such matters by God. Note, I did not say they always did a good job because they did not.
The church does not control the world and unfortunately, the church is more influenced by the world than the other way around.
you stated..
If the church does not have the authority to declare who can or cannot marry, divorce, or remarry, then it is powerless to either enforce its related edicts or judgements.
My question--where in scripture can we find such authority? God never gave the church such authority--and if He had, why stop with just this issue?
If the church is the authority--which church? When was the Lord's church ever given such authority?
you stated
That's why when the Catholic Church decided to rule over such and declare that marriage is indissoluble it could only do so where it wielded civil authority.
My response--Are you familiar with Martin Buccer? He lived during and after the council of Trent where this finally became law--RCC law.
To the best of my knowledge this power is still working in RCC churches across the world. And, they do not control the USA.
you stated
Even then it had to in some way facilitate the breakup of marriages; it did this by "annulment" rather than divorce. I believe their intentions were good - to strengthen marriage and family; however, their means were twisted - usurping civil and individual authority and redifining marriage as a sacrament.
My response--I disagree--they have made literally billions and billions over this control of people and yes, they did usurp civil authority over this when they redined marriage as a sacrament.
Scoobydoo ::clappingoverhead::
Scoobydoo,
I'm not familiar with Martin Buccer; I look forward to studing more of church history in years to come.
Sherman, greetings
Also, I just thought of another man, John Milton, the poet--He has a full volume in the middle of his poems on this issue.
There is another person--one of the greatest hebrew scholars ever--last name of Fagan, I think, He and Martin Buccer bones were burned along with many of their books by the Roman Catholic church four years after they had died.
They make interesting reading--both of these guys made Fox's book of Mrytrs??
These guys were around at the end of the council of Trent
Scoobydoo
Concerning John Milton, the following is a from my book, "God Is A Divorce' Too!":
Furthermore, to Protestants and Evangelicals it is compelling to note that the Puritans too rejected the traditional doctrine of divorce. John Milton, Puritan writer and theologian, author of Paradise Lost (AD 1608–1674) wrote two books concerning divorce, "The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce I & II,
You know. We can debate MDR until pigs fly and hell freezes over. The point of the matter is that divorce is one of the most destructive human structures there is. Especially where children are involved. Sin destroys, both temporally and eternally.
If God is not the authority structure over issues concerning MDR, that certainly does explain the plain evilness of divorce - no matter who is/was at fault. The only good that comes from it is when God intervenes and turns ashes to beauty on someone's behalf. I wish those blessings more upon the children of divorce than the man or woman who instigates it.
: 4Christ Fri Jun 01, 2007 - 22:53:45
You know. We can debate MDR until pigs fly and hell freezes over. The point of the matter is that divorce is one of the most destructive human structures there is. Especially where children are involved. Sin destroys, both temporally and eternally.
If God is not the authority structure over issues concerning MDR, that certainly does explain the plain evilness of divorce - no matter who is/was at fault. The only good that comes from it is when God intervenes and turns ashes to beauty on someone's behalf. I wish those blessings more upon the children of divorce than the man or woman who instigates it.
Amen, sister.
Divorce and its causes are literally tearing the church apart.
And the spirit that is behind the causes of those divorces is surely not helping even where there is no marraige.....envy, selfishness, hatred, anger, malice.....marriage or not, those things are destroying all things good and wonderful....
Divorce is a tragedy. Speaking as one coming from a broken home, divorce can be and most often is a sourse of ongoing, neverending struggles and pain. Often times, the joy is either stolen from or tempered during most, if not all, family events and holidays for the children and their parents.
Typically, the hardest thing to overcome is bitterness, to be able to live in forgiveness. It's especially hard for the responsible spouse left behind, especially if the errant spouse seems to go on with his/her life, remarry, and seems to be happy and blessed or not held accountable by God for their evil actions.
Sadly, ongoing bitterness, continual mourning, and even jealousy can negatively effect the responsible spouse's relationship with his/her children, especially if the errant spouse comes to be seen by the children as repentive and just trying to go on and make the best out of the mess that they've created.
Divorce is tough on all involved, even extended family and friends. In-laws become out-laws, and the church and friends are often expected to choose sides and in some way penalize the errant spouse. Sadly, divorce is often worse than the death of a spouse, especially when there are children involved.
Unfortunately, the traditional doctrine of MDR has actually weakend marriages and made divorce worse than it is just naturally. For example: by teaching that marriage is indissoluble, couples are not empowered to hold eachother in godly accountability. We must recognize that though love is "unconditional", relationship is NOT unconditional; there are expectations of mutual fidelity, provision, love, and respect (in the typicaly Western marriage). These are elements of the marriage covenant though they are unstated. If these expectations are consistently not met or broken, then the responsible spouse has the right to threaten the errant spouse with either separation or divorce. Love is not only forgiving, but it also holds another accountable for his/her actions, meeting out justice with mercy.
I need to close now, but please hear my heart on this issue. Divorce is not to be taken lightly in any way, but divorce happens, marriages end for morally "acceptable" and "non-acceptable" reasons. But regardless of the reason for the divorce, we need to help both parties pick up the pieces of their lives and go on with life, especially walking in forgiveness.
Blessings,
Sherman
: Sherman Nobles Tue May 29, 2007 - 11:01:20
: OkiMar Mon May 28, 2007 - 20:54:52
I believe marriage to be ultimately governed by God. Neither the Church nor the civil government has the authority to separate what God has joined. Accordingly, I hold to what some refer to as the "traditional" church of Christ view...once two proper candidates (male and female) are married, they remain married in the sight of God until either 1) death severs the marriage bond or 2) one spouse chooses to put the other away due to marital infidelity.
All of life is ultimately governed by God and we are all responsible before God individually, but that does not negate the fact that God has also instituted both civil, religious, and domestic (family) authority structures. Concerning what "God has joined together," Jesus said "what God has joined together, let not man put assunder." The "let not" (a conditional negative) is to be understood as "should not" recognizing that man can tear apart what God has joined together, though we shouldn't. It is not an absolute negative, as in it's impossible for man to tear apart what God has joined together. Marriage is breakable, not indissoluble.
Also note that it recognizes that "man" is capable of breaking apart what even God has joined together, though man shouldn't. Marriages break apart - reality. The church needs to empower people to have healthy relationships, lasting marriages, and freedom from false religious bondage (which the tradtional doctrine is).
I couldn't disagree more. Jesus verifies in verse 9 that "whosoever" may indeed put away his wife in practice, but in reality "whosoever" will be committing adultery if he marries another. The clear implication is that man does NOT have the spiritual legality to dissolve the marriage bonds except for the cause of death or adultery. The State may grant an unauthorized (in the eyes of God) divorce in practice on earth, but the reality is that the two are still married in the eyes of God.
Deuteronomy 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not
hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to
heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the
sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that
thou mayest do it.
Sherman, you may try to make me out to be a "bitter" woman, yet I assure you; the Lord has removed all bitterness from my heart. Instead there is both a sorrow and an indignation at man's attempt to usurp the words of our Lord Jesus regarding divorce and remarriage and change it to make it "acceptable for them to sin".
Jesus said in Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth
adultery: and whoso
marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
It's so simple, a third grader can understand it. God has not spoken to us in secret Sherman.
Isaiah 19: I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto
the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare
things that are right.
I personally am under the belief that marriage is Gods alone to see finally.
Men may think they have authority over marriage, but in the end we all will stand before the Judgment seat of Christ and give an account.
I hardly think that God is going to look at that paper ceaser issued for our frivolous divorce and find us justified in the matter.....
Whether we remarried is another issue in and of itself. God says it is the putting away that He 'hates'.....
: OkiMar Mon Jun 04, 2007 - 22:52:40
: Sherman Nobles Tue May 29, 2007 - 11:01:20
: OkiMar Mon May 28, 2007 - 20:54:52
I believe marriage to be ultimately governed by God. Neither the Church nor the civil government has the authority to separate what God has joined. Accordingly, I hold to what some refer to as the "traditional" church of Christ view...once two proper candidates (male and female) are married, they remain married in the sight of God until either 1) death severs the marriage bond or 2) one spouse chooses to put the other away due to marital infidelity.
All of life is ultimately governed by God and we are all responsible before God individually, but that does not negate the fact that God has also instituted both civil, religious, and domestic (family) authority structures. Concerning what "God has joined together," Jesus said "what God has joined together, let not man put assunder." The "let not" (a conditional negative) is to be understood as "should not" recognizing that man can tear apart what God has joined together, though we shouldn't. It is not an absolute negative, as in it's impossible for man to tear apart what God has joined together. Marriage is breakable, not indissoluble.
Also note that it recognizes that "man" is capable of breaking apart what even God has joined together, though man shouldn't. Marriages break apart - reality. The church needs to empower people to have healthy relationships, lasting marriages, and freedom from false religious bondage (which the tradtional doctrine is).
I couldn't disagree more. Jesus verifies in verse 9 that "whosoever" may indeed put away his wife in practice, but in reality "whosoever" will be committing adultery if he marries another. The clear implication is that man does NOT have the spiritual legality to dissolve the marriage bonds except for the cause of death or adultery. The State may grant an unauthorized (in the eyes of God) divorce in practice on earth, but the reality is that the two are still married in the eyes of God.
Actually, in Mt.19.9 Jesus is explaining the reason He inspired Moses to legislate the bill of divorce - to stop the practice of men putting away (abandoning/expelling) their wives and yet retaining legal rights over them; because if a man married a woman who was separated but still legally married, her and the man both committed adultery and the "marriage" was not legitimate.
The purpose of the bill of divorce was to legally free expelled wives from their husbands so that they could legally marry someone else. Of course, if one reads Mt.19.9 apart from it's cultural context, it sounds like Jesus disagreed with Moses and intended to make marriage indissoluble. But this traditional interpretation does not fit the cultural context, the literary context, the authorial context, or even make sense. This is all covered extensively in the MDR thread on Mt.19. And I cover it even more thoroughly in my book, "God Is A Divorce' Too!"
Blessings,
Sherman
: 4Christ Tue Jun 05, 2007 - 21:34:04
Deuteronomy 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not
hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to
heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the
sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that
thou mayest do it.
Sherman, you may try to make me out to be a "bitter" woman, yet I assure you; the Lord has removed all bitterness from my heart. Instead there is both a sorrow and an indignation at man's attempt to usurp the words of our Lord Jesus regarding divorce and remarriage and change it to make it "acceptable for them to sin".
Jesus said in Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
It's so simple, a third grader can understand it. God has not spoken to us in secret Sherman.
As I just mentioned in the previous reply to Okimar, the purpose of the bill of divorce was to stop the practice mentioned in vs.9 quoted above. It did this by legally freeing an abandoned wive to legally marry someone else. Vs. 9 is Jesus' answer to the question in vs. 7 as to why Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce. The Jewish audience of His day and of Matthews 1st century audience would have understood this; but we who are removed by 20 centuries and several cultures do not make the same assumptions that they would have.
If you want to take the third-grade understanding of this passage, you're welcome to; but a little research into the culture and how this saying fits with the prophetic (not civil) ministry of Jesus would be helpful - but that takes more research and analytical skills than a third-grader posseses.
And concerning bitterness, I'm very glad that you're walking in forgiveness. Most divorce'es struggle with bitterness for many years after their marriage has ended, especially those who were left for another. Sadly, many never fully overcome it but just learn to deal with it.
Also, concerning "changing" the words of Christ to make it "acceptable to sin", unfortunately, the church for generations has taken the third-grade interpretation of what Jesus said and brought many people into bodage, especially those who were divorced against their will and now are left in limbo errantly thinking that they are still married and can not marry another without committing adultery. The traditional doctrine is a mess because of only using third-grade exegetical skills to interpret a very difficult passage, not recognizing the importance of context in understanding any text.
A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an assumed meaning that often misses the authors intended meaning.
Blessings,
Sherman
: Sherman Nobles Wed Jun 06, 2007 - 13:51:09
: OkiMar Mon Jun 04, 2007 - 22:52:40
: Sherman Nobles Tue May 29, 2007 - 11:01:20
: OkiMar Mon May 28, 2007 - 20:54:52
I believe marriage to be ultimately governed by God. Neither the Church nor the civil government has the authority to separate what God has joined. Accordingly, I hold to what some refer to as the "traditional" church of Christ view...once two proper candidates (male and female) are married, they remain married in the sight of God until either 1) death severs the marriage bond or 2) one spouse chooses to put the other away due to marital infidelity.
All of life is ultimately governed by God and we are all responsible before God individually, but that does not negate the fact that God has also instituted both civil, religious, and domestic (family) authority structures. Concerning what "God has joined together," Jesus said "what God has joined together, let not man put assunder." The "let not" (a conditional negative) is to be understood as "should not" recognizing that man can tear apart what God has joined together, though we shouldn't. It is not an absolute negative, as in it's impossible for man to tear apart what God has joined together. Marriage is breakable, not indissoluble.
Also note that it recognizes that "man" is capable of breaking apart what even God has joined together, though man shouldn't. Marriages break apart - reality. The church needs to empower people to have healthy relationships, lasting marriages, and freedom from false religious bondage (which the tradtional doctrine is).
I couldn't disagree more. Jesus verifies in verse 9 that "whosoever" may indeed put away his wife in practice, but in reality "whosoever" will be committing adultery if he marries another. The clear implication is that man does NOT have the spiritual legality to dissolve the marriage bonds except for the cause of death or adultery. The State may grant an unauthorized (in the eyes of God) divorce in practice on earth, but the reality is that the two are still married in the eyes of God.
Actually, in Mt.19.9 Jesus is explaining the reason He inspired Moses to legislate the bill of divorce - to stop the practice of men putting away (abandoning/expelling) their wives and yet retaining legal rights over them; because if a man married a woman who was separated but still legally married, her and the man both committed adultery and the "marriage" was not legitimate.
The purpose of the bill of divorce was to legally free expelled wives from their husbands so that they could legally marry someone else. Of course, if one reads Mt.19.9 apart from it's cultural context, it sounds like Jesus disagreed with Moses and intended to make marriage indissoluble. But this traditional interpretation does not fit the cultural context, the literary context, the authorial context, or even make sense. This is all covered extensively in the MDR thread on Mt.19. And I cover it even more thoroughly in my book, "God Is A Divorce' Too!"
Blessings,
Sherman
Sherman,
Thanks for the response, but I believe your conclusions to be erroneous. In Mt 19, Christ is reestablishing marriage as God would have it. From the beginning, a man and woman were to be married permanently. Under the Law of Moses, God winked at the Israelites excuses and reasons for getting divorces. No longer. Christ is correcting this fallacious idea and the past allowance, and He legislates that sexual immorality is the only justification for divorce (but not without consequence for the guilty party).
No amount of so-called "cultural context" manipulation on our part can change the force of the inspired words of Christ as penned by Matthew. While I agree that we should consider the context of all passages, we should never give more influence to culture than to the actual words of Christ...especially considering the fact that Christ is rebuking the culture of whimsical divorces.
4Christ is absolutely correct. It does not take a rocket scientist to determine the will of God on this matter. God in His infinite wisdom never intended to shroud his will from the multiplied millions of truth seekers throughout the ages who did not have access to Israelite Culture 101. Christ's language couldn't be any plainer. Unfortunately, many who desire to circumvent the will of God or who attempt to justify their own actions confuse the issue and lead others astray. I am not accusing you of being in either category, but I do honestly believe that your teaching is contrary to the will of God all the same.
OkiMar,
Studying the cultural context only helps one understand the intent of the author, and it is certainly not "manipulation". I encourage you to read through the other thread on Divorce, MDR, Mt.19:1-9. In that thread I share a lot of information that's readily verifiable, especially for anyone who has studied "Israelite Culture 101". ::smile::
The better one understands the context of what is written, the more likely one is to understand what the autor intended by whay he said. When passages are taken out of context, they are often misunderstood and thus misinterpreted. We should always take into consideration the literary, cultural, historical, social, and authorial context. But, I covered a lot of that in the other thread and there is no need to repeat it all here.
You said, "Christ's language couldn't be plainer." Actually, many of the things you conclude from the passage, He did not say. For example, you said that "Under the Law of Moses, God winked at the Israelites excuses and reasons for getting divorces. No longer. Christ is correcting this fallacious idea and the past allowance, and He legislates that sexual immorality is the only justification for divorce". In this statement make several errant assumptions. First of all, Jesus did not disagree with Moses or intend to change the Mosaic law of divorce; rather, He was explaining why Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce. Elsewhere, Jesus repeatedly said that He did not intend to change the Mosaic Law, not one jot or tittle. Luke quotes a version of Mt.19.9 in Luke 16.18 which is immediately preceeded by vs 17 which strongly affirms the Mosaic Law (including the bill of divorce).
Not only that, but your use of the word "legislate" reveals a misunderstanding of Jesus' purpose and role before the cross, His role in His earthly ministry. Jesus did not come to "legislate", or change any aspect of the Law. Furthermore, He did not assume the role of a civil leader; remember when he asked a young man "who made me judge over you?" In Israel, issues concerning MDR were regulated by civil authority, as deligated by God through Moses. MDR issues were certainly not regulated by religious authority. Jesus spoke as a prophet, but did not speak as a "legislator" with civil authority , nor did He attempt to change civil law in any way and He surely wasn't going to get embroiled in the Pharisaical debate concerning the "Any Matter" (No-Fault) divorce legislation that they were trying to trap Him in. Oops, there's another part of the cultural context that we need to ignore so as not to disturb the "plain meaning." (Of course, I'm speaking sarcastically).
Please don't misunderstand me; I believe that marriage should be for life, that many people give up way too soon, that we need to encourage and empower people to have healthy life-long marriages. But I also believe that what Jesus said has been tragically misinterpreted every since the Gentile branch of the church rejected the Jewish branch and started intepreting what Jesus said in a Jewish context from thier Greco-Roman pagan context. Sadly, the whole Roman doctrine of MDR is based upon this misunderstanding and subsequent misinterpretation.
And by the way, I'm happily married to the wife of my youth, almost 19 years now. This is the first and only marriage for both of us; and I certainly have no plans for that to change. I mention that because people often errantly assume ill motives of self-justification on my part, not that you do.
Also, concerning the "plain meaning", Jesus also said that "if your eye sins, pluck it out" did He mean what it "plainly" says? Of course not, so just because something seems "plain" to you, does not mean that that is what it means. Text must be understood within its Context. A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an ASSUMED meaning or interpretation. This is the first principle of sound exegesis. What you stated is just that, an assumed meaning, an assumed interpretation that is not what Jesus intended at all.
OkiMar, greetings,
you stated
In Mt 19, Christ is reestablishing marriage as God would have it. From the beginning, a man and woman were to be married permanently. Under the Law of Moses, God winked at the Israelites excuses and reasons for getting divorces. No longer. Christ is correcting this fallacious idea and the past allowance, and He legislates that sexual immorality is the only justification for divorce (but not without consequence for the guilty party).
My response--How about the fact in this text that Jesus is not establishing marriage as God would have it.
The "key" here is how to reasonably and logically bridge the "gap" between the two points of views.
There are some problems to be faced and some of us will not or cannot face those issues as scripture actually gives it because we have made up our mind as to what the scriptures teach us.
Another problem is that we are not thinking this issue out for ourselves but are being influenced by tradition and time--and both of these things change things.
Over the last 35 years I have watched many discussions over this issue and I have seen some new doctrine introduced as gospel as a result of this issue.
Yet the "basic issue " is learning to get at the scripture without our prejudices and attitudes getting in the way.
Matthew 19:9 is not about conditions on who can remarry. The Mosaic law clearly defines this.
God not Moses is the author of the Mosaic law True____ False____
God not Moses is the author of Deut 24:1-4 True____ False_____
Your statement given about means you must give as an response here a False to both statements--yet do you really believe that?
Let's take another look--at your above statement
you stated
In Mt 19, Christ is reestablishing marriage as God would have it.
My response--This is an untruth. By Mosaic law Deut 24:1-4 God clearly gives an example of a woman properly put away and given the bill of divorce being free to remarry for the third time
And the text itself will not support your statement--By law by Mosaic law--Adultery is never rewarded with a putting away and a bill of divorcement. Thus allowing one to remarry.
Adultery was by law punishable by a putting away and followed by the community stoning the adulter to death.
you stated--
From the beginning, a man and woman were to be married permanently.
My response--another untruth--In the beginning--this is the ideal--The law in the garden covenant was "don't eat of the forbidden fruit!!!"
After sin enters the world--after man experiences "hardness of heart" God gives them another covenant--since the first one is no longer valid.
you stated
Under the Law of Moses, God winked at the Israelites excuses and reasons for getting divorces.
My response--another untruth and a big one. First false assumption it was God not Moses that Gave the law--Moses was the "spokesman of God" He is not was not ever the author or giver of the Mosaic covenant.
Out of curosity where do you find this idea at all within scripture? Answer one does not it comes from the mind of men.
you stated
No longer. Christ is correcting this fallacious idea and the past allowance, and He legislates that sexual immorality is the only justification for divorce (but not without consequence for the guilty party).
My response==another untruth a big one--What are the consequences of making such a statement.
[1] It can be proven that Jesus Christ did not ever make "new law" as the Jewish Messiah
[2] It has been shown from Mosaic law that God in Deut 24:1-4 and not man legislates the breaking of the marriage covenant by man.
It can be clearly proven that under the Mosaic law--a law given by God that our word divorce--when done properly and by law--is allowed for any and every reason save one--and that is fornication/Adultery.
How is God going to treat a person--who changes his law?--And, does so in His name??
Jesus did not make new law--In fact he was with the father when this law was given
to the Jews by Moses.
However, the best way to come at this is to look at the teachings in the scripture and determine which covenant the teaching belongs to.
The garden covenant had just one law--don't eat of the forbidden fruit--since there was no third person there was no need for a law governing marriage.
God has always delt with men by covenants--something we are beginning to relearn for ourselves.
you stated
No amount of so-called "cultural context" manipulation on our part can change the force of the inspired words of Christ as penned by Matthew.
My response--we both know that Sherman did not manipulate culture but I suggest to you that you have. I know you have not thought of it in those terms but you have.
You are doing so by forcing our culture back on theirs and making it law.
Now, here is a factiod--If you choose to follow all the words of Christ in the gospel accounts--you are going to be forced to teach things that Jesus taught that are not in the new Covenant..Are you willing to do this?
Listen, I am not deliberately picking on you--But all of us need to think about these things but what I have illustrated are the natural results of your statements.
Statements which we for years have given as fact when in truth they are a long ways from the truth.
Matthew 19:9 is focused on the adultery that is being caused throughout Israel because the men are not lawfully and scripturally putting away their wives with the bill of divorce.
What they are doing is what we call abandonment, desertation followed by bigmy--being married to more than one woman at the same time.
These men were guilty of adultery when they married again because by Mosaic law they were still married to the one they put away. And the man who married the put away woman and the woman her self are also guilty of adultery.
On the other hand if the man had put away his wife and given her the bill of divorcement--there would not be a need for Jesus to bring them back to the Law itself.
Oh--I almost forgot--one of the new doctrines men are believing today is that Jesus did indeed make new law.
And another one is that all men are accountable today to the law of Christ--that all men are going to be judged by the law of Christ.
Nothing could be further from the truth but this is based on a lack of understanding of Covenants. And, upon the idea that Matt 19:9 governs men today.
Scoobydoo
While I agree that we should consider the context of all passages, we should never give more influence to culture than to the actual words of Christ...especially considering the fact that Christ is rebuking the culture of whimsical divorces.
Sherman,
Thanks for the response. I'll reply tomorrow.
Scooby,
Sorry...I don't read long posts. If you would like for me to read and reply, you'll have to edit and shorten so that I don't have to scroll. Nothing personal; very limited time forces me to be judicious. I suppose the Marine Corps has influenced me too much in that regard...if we can't make our point in one page, it usually won't be considered.
Okimar, greetings,
You know, That is beyond the scope of my concerns. Sorry.
Scoobydoo
: OkiMar Wed Jun 06, 2007 - 20:16:20
Sherman,
Thanks for the response, but I believe your conclusions to be erroneous. In Mt 19, Christ is reestablishing marriage as God would have it. From the beginning, a man and woman were to be married permanently. Under the Law of Moses, God winked at the Israelites excuses and reasons for getting divorces. No longer. Christ is correcting this fallacious idea and the past allowance, and He legislates that sexual immorality is the only justification for divorce (but not without consequence for the guilty party).
No amount of so-called "cultural context" manipulation on our part can change the force of the inspired words of Christ as penned by Matthew. While I agree that we should consider the context of all passages, we should never give more influence to culture than to the actual words of Christ...especially considering the fact that Christ is rebuking the culture of whimsical divorces.
4Christ is absolutely correct. It does not take a rocket scientist to determine the will of God on this matter. God in His infinite wisdom never intended to shroud his will from the multiplied millions of truth seekers throughout the ages who did not have access to Israelite Culture 101. Christ's language couldn't be any plainer. Unfortunately, many who desire to circumvent the will of God or who attempt to justify their own actions confuse the issue and lead others astray. I am not accusing you of being in either category, but I do honestly believe that your teaching is contrary to the will of God all the same.
While I do have a few different ideas about what it was that Jesus was actually doing in His words about divorce and remarriage, I do agree with what you are stating in this post for the most part.
Marriage WAS created with the intent that it be for life and it was only because sinful man chose to treat his wife so horridly that, starting in Exodus 21:10-11, she be permitted to leave that marriage if he did not do as a husband should do.
Frivolous putting away obviously became bad enough for Moses to have to try to legislate it in some manner, thus the regulations for putting away for 'some uncleaness' as he defined in her to be rid of her of giving it to her in writing and once REmarried (sorry to whomever, but remarriage WAS permitted regardless of your views as proven by the text itself) she could NEVER return to this first husband...thus ending this foulhearted practice of casting her out for a time, then bringing her back into the home at some later point when the fling was over.
Man should ONLY divorce where a legitimate breach of covenant is present...and an UNrepented one at that.
Deut. 24:1-4 NIV
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Why was Moses inspired by God to legislate the bill of divorce, Deut.24.1-4? This is an important issue that impacts how one should interpret Jesus' statements concerning concerning divorce. First note that OT scripture does not explain why Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce.
Some think that Moses legislated the bill of divorce in order to "allow" divorce, assuming that it wasn't allowed before. But considering that polygamy was lawful and culturally acceptable, why would a man need to divorce his wife when he could just leave his wife, expell her, put her away from his care and still continue to marry other women? Isn't that what David did with Michal, his first wife - abandoned her and just continued to marry other women! Not only that, but where is the evidence to support the assumption that divorce did not happen before Moses legislated the bill of divorce?
Others think that Moses was trying, in some way, to hinder rampant frivolous divorce. If this was the case, then he would have certainly legislated some type of acceptable or non-acceptable reasons for divorce, but he doesn't do that. The wording for the divorce in vs. 1 was very vague, the wife "becomes dispeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her." And the divorce in vs. 3 is based on if the husband "dislikes" or hates her, which doesn't even have anything to do with acceptable reasons for divorce. Talk about frivolous divorce, because he "dislikes" or hates her! How can Deut.24.1-4 be said to regulate or hinder divorce in any way? It can't!
So why did Moses legislate the bill of divorce? First note that in Deut.24.1-4, the bill of divorce is not the issue, it is not the focus of the passage. Also note that the "reasons" for divorce is not the issue or focus either. The law stops a man from ever remarrying his ex-wife, if his ex-wife had subsequently married another man. He could not remarry his ex-wife even if her 2nd husband had died or divorced her too!
So the law did not regulate divorce, did not hinder divorce, and it did not hinder the divorce'e from marrying another man. It only stopped a man from remarrying his ex-wife if she had married other man. Why would Moses forbid this?
Why? Because throughout the ancient Middle-East (Canaan, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, etc.) if a man was the first husband of a woman, he always had rights over her even if he abandoned her or expelled her from his household. And having been abandoned, if she did marry another man, it was not a fully legitimate legal marriage and her first husband could actually reclaim her years later, even if she and her 2nd "husband" had children together.
A couple of biblical examples of a man leaving his wife and she marrying another man: 1) David did this with Michal, his first wife. In escaping Saul's attempt to kill him, David abandoned Michal. Saul subsequently gave her to Palti to wed. They were "married" some 10 or 15 years. After Saul died and David was ready to ascend to the throne of Israel, he, David, reclaimed Michal having her forceably taken from Palti though Palti loved her enough to follow the caravan taking Michal away, weeping for he loved her so. If a princess of Israel was subjected to such evil treatment, one can only imagine how oppressed women must have been throughout the ancient near-east! Women are still terribly oppressed throughout the "modern" middle-east.
2) Samson's first wife was given to another man to marry within days of Samson leaving her with her family. These are 2 examples of men abandoning their wives and their wives being given to other men to marry. And in David's case, he actually reclaimed her after years of separation and her being married to another man.
Why was Moses inspired to legislate the bill of divorce? To stop the oppression of women!!! Actually, the bill of divorce was unique to Israel; no other ancient near-eastern culture had such. God inspired Moses to legislate the bill of divorce in order to stop women from being treated like property. In Israel, if a man was to put away (abandon or expel) his wife, he was to give her a bill of divorce which freed her legally to marry another man, remain married to him, and never fear her first husband destroying her second family too!!!! It was meant to stop the evil sadistic oppressive treatment of women!!! The purpose of the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law was to stop or mitigate the oppression of the weak by the strong, the poor by the rich, foreigners by citizens, women and children by men, and slaves by their masters!!! The Law was good, righteous, and holy (inspired by God).
So when the Pharisees asked Jesus in Mt.19, "Why did Moses give us the bill of divorce?" Jesus said because the hardness of heart made it necessary (universal reason) and to stop the practice of men putting away their wives, causing them to commit adultery, and the men that married them to commit adultery. How did it do this? By bringing a legal end to the covenant of marriage, freeing abandoned/expelled wives to legally marry again and remain married (cultural reason).
Jesus then, rather than disagreeing with Moses is actually explaining why Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce.
Why then did he say "except for fornication"? Because if a couple is just living together (fornication) and are not legally married, a bill of divorce is not needed to break that illegal/immoral union. They only need to separate.
Well, I've written too much again, repeating some of what is shared in the other thread on Divorce, MDR, Mt.19.1-9.
Blessings,
Sherman
Does common law marriage make MDR scriptures in effect? It would seem that fornication (as many and as often as possible!) would be "safer" than MDR.
: zoonance Thu Jun 07, 2007 - 17:22:11
Does common law marriage make MDR scriptures in effect? It would seem that fornication (as many and as often as possible!) would be "safer" than MDR.
I assume that you're interjecting a little levity into the discussion, but you do raise another interesting side-note - common law marriages.
States have various laws concerning common law marriages. Some recognize cohabitation for over a specified period of time as legal marriage. Other states do not. But cohabitation biblically doesn't equate marriage; recall what Jesus said to the woman at the well, "You've had 5 husbands and the man you live with now is not your husband." In states that recognize common law marriages, if a couple lives together, they are committing fornication until they meet the requirements and the marriage is established legally by common law marriage and then they are married.
In the OT, MDR was regulated to a minor degree by civil authority. In the NT, Jesus and Paul's comments concerning MDR also indicate that they both recognized that MDR was regulated by civil authority. Paul quoted Jesus saying that a woman who was separated should remain single. Why did Jesus say this? Because in Israel, because of the Pharisees' interpretation of Deut.24.1-4, the man had the perogative of divorce. A woman could leave her husband, but she could not divorce him; therefore she could not legally marry another man unless her husband divorced her. Thus she should remain unmarried.
Paul goes on to apply Jesus' words to the Corinthian Greco-Roman culture and tells women to not divorce their husbands and doesn't mention them remaining unmarried if the do, why? Because in Greco-Roman culture a woman could divorce her husband as readily as a man could divorce his wife.
God instituted civil authority to curb the wickedness and evil in man, especially in social matters. The civil laws of Moses were meant to stop or mitigate the oppression of the weak. MDR needs to be under civil authority because of the wickedness of man's heart. And civil authority, its laws and leaders, need to be inspired by God (His Word and Spirit) in order to fulfill its purpose.
Thanks for your interjection of a little levity; I can tend to be a little too serious.
Blessings,
Sherman
: Scoobydoo Thu Jun 07, 2007 - 11:32:47
Okimar, greetings,
You know, That is beyond the scope of my concerns. Sorry.
Scoobydoo
Rgr, suit yourself. Good Day.
Sherman,
I certainly agree that context is important, but I disagree that the contexts you mentioned are valid.
The context of Matt 19:3-9 is very simple. Beginning in v3, the Pharisees ask a question pertaining to divorce and the Law of Moses. The real emphasis of their question surrounds the phrase, "for every cause.
OkiMar greetings,
WE end up in these long going nowhere discussions simply because we are not dividing the texts by covenants. That is the short answer. Here is the long answer in response to your writings.
you stated
The context of Matt 19:3-9 is very simple. Beginning in v3, the Pharisees ask a question pertaining to divorce and the Law of Moses.
My response--Actually this is incorrect. If one is going to use scripture use it as it is given.
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause
Jesus uses the word "put away" some ten times and once and only once Matt 5:32 the second time is it translated as "divorce". It is used some 84 times in scripture and only once--once only is it used as divorce..
This is a fact of life that is ignored because folks want "put away to be translated as divorce" and in Matt 19:9 it isn't.
Here is the actual law--Deu 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
In the hebrew it is "send away" and in the greek it is "put away" Put away means to cast out, abandon, desert one's wife.
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away[THAT IS --IS IT LAWFUL FOR A MAN TO CAST OUT, ABANDON, DESERT] his wife for every cause
This text does not say:Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife[ANG GIVE HER THE BILL OF DIVORCE] for every cause
Next--you stated--The real emphasis of their question surrounds the phrase, "for every cause.
Good morning OkiMar, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm glad that you recognize the importance of context too. Now to address a couple of things in your reply. Actually, I'll have to address them in a couple of posts, as I have time. The first that I would like to look at the common misinformation concerning the "Any Matter" divorce legislation. You wrote:
: OkiMar Fri Jun 08, 2007 - 02:35:53
The context of Matt 19:3-9 is very simple. Beginning in v3, the Pharisees ask a question pertaining to divorce and the Law of Moses. The real emphasis of their question surrounds the phrase, "for every cause.
OkiMar, the next thing involves the direct topic of this thread - AUTHORITY. You note:
: OkiMar Fri Jun 08, 2007 - 02:35:53
Christ's answer in verses 4-6 doesn't embrace either school of thought. Instead, Jesus goes all the way back to the creation and reaffirms God's original purpose for marriage. God created Eve from man, then gave Eve to man, and Adam and Eve became ONE flesh. God's intent was for marriage to be permanent. In v6, Jesus states such. Notice that He states "what GOD has joined, let no MAN.
OkiMar, next you say:
: OkiMar Fri Jun 08, 2007 - 02:35:53
Next, in v7, the Pharisees respond by asking about the Law of Moses. Essentially, they are asking, "If marriage is permanent, why did Moses COMMAND divorce in Deut 24?
Scoobydo asserts that the issue that Jesus was addressing was a rampant practice of "putting away" without the "bill of divorce." I don't know how much this was going on, or how much support there is that this was a rampant problem, but it was a problem and, in fact, remains to be a problem to this day. In Jewish communities today, though a couple gets a civil divorce, if they do not get a "get" - a bill of divorce written by a Rabbi, the couple is considered still married. Any subsequent marriages are not considered legitimate marriages though they are legal. Furthermore, any children born to these "illegitimate" marriages are also considered "illegitimate" though the couple is legally married.
However, if a couple gets a "get", the couple is considered fully divorced and can remarry at will and the marriage and any subsequent children are considered legitimate. The "get" is not a civil document, but a religious one. Of course, in OT days, the "get" was written by judges. During the days of Exhile, the community leaders served as judges and religious leaders. This adaptation continued even after the Temple was rebuilt and the priesthood reestablished, especially in the diaspora. Especially in Jewish communities outside Israel, but even in Jerusalem, civil and religious authority was often embodied in the same community leaders, the Rabbis.
Unfortunately, this blurr between civil and religious authority also happened when the RCC assumed much civil authority in Europe. I believe that Moses was inspired when He separated religious and civil authority for Israel. And concerning MDR, what little oversight there was, was done by civil and not religious authority, but most, apparently even the bill of divorce, was under personal/domestic authority.
Some might say that all is under God's authority and it doesn't matter what civil or religious authority says or dictates, however, I disagree. It is true that everything is ultimately under God's authority, but God also instituted domestic, civil, and religious authorites. Each has it's own authority and responsibility as delegated by God and before God. If we say it's directly under God's authority, and that it doesn't matter what civil or religious authority says, then that functionally means that every man does what is right in his own eyes, it's between him and God. But God established civil authority to curb man's evil; that's a primary reason that I believe MDR needs to be under civil authority. One of the church's responsibilites is to act as salt and light bringing preservation and revelation to the public sector, empowering the families and the civil government to fulfill their roles and responsibilities.
Blessings,
Sherman
Sherman, greetings
Several years ago I entered into a long and involved discussion with some modern day Jews on this subject. It was like pulling teeth out of a chicken to get these Jews to admit to any wrongdoing ever.
After we had visited for a bit--I raised this issue--and Shermon, only after I had totally demostrated a knowledge and their history and usage of the law--could I get these folks to admit to anything.
I had to do this every time on every part of each issue. As a result, I was able to confirm certain things.
[1] They had not as a people been giving the get for hundreds of years up to the Jewish Rabbi, Jesus Christ. As a result of His teachings on the law--the Jews reinstituted the get
after the teaching of Jesus on the subject according to the law.
[2] Today, the divorce is written into the marriage ceremony for one of the three major groups of Jewish people.
To get this admission--I had to show that I understood "hands" and how that changed as their society changed.
I also had to demostrate--the attitude of the Jews prior to and during and after the time of Christ concerning WOMEN BEING PROPERTY..
Oh in the end they threw me off their board--I knew too much for a Gentile. This was way back when Prodigy was running well.
From a covenant standpoint--The Jewish civil law was also very much a part of the religiious part of the law--All of it being from the Mosaic Covenant.
The discussion in Matt 19:9 is clearly old Mosaic Law--yet Shermon folks continue to want to bind a law that kills on Gentiles and Christians. Go figure.
And, when one understands the "significance" of the "test question" and understands no divorce for Adultery{by law} and the fact that in Matt 5:31 Jesus illustrates knowledge of exactly what that law stated --it is also clear that the Jews in Matt 19 also knew the actual teaching of the law. Ergo, both groups knew what the two schools of the Jews taught on this--They were not giving their wive the "get" but simply casting them out, abandoning them, deserting them and then remarrying.
Matt 19:19 clearly points out that every time these Jewish men did so--everyone involved were guilty of adultery.
Richard GF ::intherain::
Scoobydoo,
Thanks for the reply. That's really interesting and plausible, but to build my understanding of Mt.19 around it I need some sort of verifiable academic suppot. And, it doesn't make sense in light of the Hillelite/Shammaite debate which is plenty verifiable. The arguments between the two schools is recorded in the Mishnah and Talmud. Not only that, but the Hillelites were commended by the common people for their system of divorce which seemed more kind to the average person. If a man was willing to pay the full dowry, he did not need to air their dirty laundry (provide reasons for the divorce.) If the majority of men put away their wives with no bill of divorce, why then the debate?
But, then again, we are speaking about Pharisees, and the Pharisees were notoriously hypocritical, so it is possible that they spent much time arguing over divorce procedures knowing that few men would actually end up giving the get. If anyone questions how wicked the Pharisees were just read Mt. 23.
So if you could give some support for your point, I'd be very much interested in researching it further.
Richard,
Thanks and blessings,
Sherman
Sherman, greetings
Scoobydoo,
you stated
Thanks for the reply. That's really interesting and plausible, but to build my understanding of Mt.19 around it I need some sort of verifiable accademical suppot.
My observation -- Well, that conclusion is obtainable by a reading of Matt 5 and Matt 19.
It is difficult to separate "us" out of that time period as you well know--
What we do know--
[1] In Matt 5_31-32 AND in Matt 19:3-9 they are discussing Mosaic law i.e. Deut 24:1-4.
[2] Deut 24:1-4 provides two "reasons" for a putting away and the giving of the bill of divorce.
verse one--some uncleanness
[ii] verse 3--husband "hateth her"
[3] This law--Deut 24:1-4 --requires two separate acts to equal our word divorce
[1] send away\put away
[2] give the bill of divorcement
[4] We need to understand the question i.e the test question in Matt 19:3 and what it DOES NOT ASK..
Mat 19:3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
It does not ask:Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife {and give his wife the bill of divorcement]for every cause?
According to the law--it is "NOT LAWFUL" to just "put away" one's wife for every cause
simply because put away in and of itself does not mean: divorce.
[5] Jesus uses the word "apoluo--#630--put away" some ten times and only once to the translators translate it as "divorce" and that is the second time it is used in Matt 5:32.
[6] Under Mosaic law--a man had one cause in which he could lawfully just put away his wife and legally remarry. And that is when the wife is guilty of fornication\adultery
[a] The law did not provide a divorce--a putting away and a bill of divorcement for adultery.
[7] The Jews were unbelivers and disobedient to the Mosaic law to the point that they were lost--as lost as the Gentiles when Jesus came to the earth.
[8] A correct application of the disputed text Matt 19:9 --Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.
[a] Both schools allowed for divorce
[9] The test question--gives the actual practise of the Jews of the land at the time of Jesus. It was unlawful.
[10]Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? this statement tells me that the Jews knew the actual process--but they had gotten aroundit--like every other law of God.
And, then some time ago in my life in my studies I arrived a the conclusion that Matt 19:9 along with the other texts in Matt up to the cross are Old Covenant.
While a discussion on the words are vital and important--we are in actuallity discussing a Mosaic law given to none but the Jews who broke the law.
[11] a woman was "property" and controlled first by the father and then by the husband.
[12] And any half smart Jewish scribe figured out that ifa woman was just "put away" hiswife the husband could keep the dowry.
Finally, when men get done arguing and discussing the meaning and application of a Jewish law given to Jews by God and to no one else--we have wasted a lot of time.
People are so conditioned to a wrong view of Matt 19:9 that they have followed in the steps of the scribes in making new laws governing this Jewish law.
As a result--some men in the church of Christ are now teaching as gospel that all men are under the new covenant law--which just goes to show what folks don't know about covenants.
When we learn to study by covenants that is "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD"
we can move beyond matt 19 and do a much better job of teaching the lost. ::clappingoverhead::
Scoobydoo
And, it doesn't make sense in light of the Hillelite/Shammaite debate which is plenty verifiable. The arguments between the two schools is recorded in the Mishnah and Talmud. Not only that, but the Hillelites were commended by the common people for their system of divorce which seemed more kind to the average person. If a man was willing to pay the full dowry, he did not need to air their dirty laundry (provide reasons for the divorce.) If the majority of men put away their wives with no bill of divorce, why then the debate?
But, then again, we are speaking about Pharisees, and the Pharisees were notoriously hypocritical, so it is possible that they spent much time arguing over divorce procedures knowing that few men would actually end up giving the get. If anyone questions how wicked the Pharisees were just read Mt. 23.
So if you could give some support for your point, I'd be very much interested in researching it further.
: Scoobydoo Fri Jun 08, 2007 - 07:49:43
OkiMar greetings,
WE end up in these long going nowhere discussions simply because we are not dividing the texts by covenants. That is the short answer. Here is the long answer in response to your writings.
you stated
The context of Matt 19:3-9 is very simple. Beginning in v3, the Pharisees ask a question pertaining to divorce and the Law of Moses.
My response--Actually this is incorrect. If one is going to use scripture use it as it is given.
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause
Jesus uses the word "put away" some ten times and once and only once Matt 5:32 the second time is it translated as "divorce". It is used some 84 times in scripture and only once--once only is it used as divorce..
This is a fact of life that is ignored because folks want "put away to be translated as divorce" and in Matt 19:9 it isn't.
Here is the actual law--Deu 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
In the hebrew it is "send away" and in the greek it is "put away" Put away means to cast out, abandon, desert one's wife.
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away[THAT IS --IS IT LAWFUL FOR A MAN TO CAST OUT, ABANDON, DESERT] his wife for every cause
This text does not say:Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife[ANG GIVE HER THE BILL OF DIVORCE] for every cause
Next--you stated--The real emphasis of their question surrounds the phrase, "for every cause.
Okimar, greetings
you stated
Doo,
No offense, but I've heard some extraordinary ideas for justifying MDR & this one ranks right up there. You are absolutely incorrect. The passage (Mt 19:3-9) does in fact refer to divorce. It seems rather silly to assert that the text actually means: "Is it lawful for a man to abandon his wife for every cause?" Sorry, this is simply not true.
Good day.
My response--once again this is not justifying anything--It is clearly dealing with the words given to us by God and in the texts.
I do understand a 1500 plus year old lie about a text is hard to overcome--but what I stated is true and accurate to the text itself. You might think about that.
In fact, look closely at the contrast of our posts..Not only did I make a claim, I supported that claim with texts. On the other hand--what do we get from you? A mere assertion.
Here is the text--read it carefully--
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
There is nothing in this text--that remotely suggests that the test question is about marriage and divorce--
However, when men go to the texts to make a doctrine--then this text cannot be used as given--it has to be changed--but not only must it be changed to fit--some 83 other texts containing "put away" now also must be changed to have a new definition.
This is neither reasonable, logical nor textural bible study.
Scoobydoo ::clappingoverhead::
Ps tell you what I am going to do--After I finish training folks all day today--I am going to give you all of these texts so you can see for yourself. Or, that those who read this can see and consider for themselves.
Doo,
You can go on believing this if you desire, but the simple truth is that divorce is under consideration throughout the passage. "Put away" in this context is understood to mean divorce. The Greek word in v3 is apoluo which means divorce in this instance. Christ's answer in the next three verses affirm this to be the case. The Pharisees understood the subject to be divorce by thier question in v7, and so did Christ in his answer in v8-9. It's the height of nonsense to suggest that divorce for any reason is okay but abandoning one's spouse is a no-no...unless the reason is fornication and then we can abandon all we want. Sorry, both of these actions are wrong.
Scooby,
Thanks for your reply. Concerning covenants, as noted that's a seperate issue that could effect how one applies, what Jesus said, to a non-Jewish context; but of course, regardless of one's doctrine on covenant, we should do all we can to understand what Jesus meant by what He said. In order to do this we should do our best to hear what He said through the cultural, social, historical audio filter of the audience He was speaking to, and the audience that the writter (especially Matthew and Mark) communicated to. Jesus spoke to a 1st century Jewish audience, and Matthew wrote to the same audience. Mark, however, wrote to a Roman audience.
Anyhow, back to your reply; if I understand you correctly, you believe that the word "put away" (apoluo) does not mean "divorce", but means "expulsion without divorce" (separation) unless it is specifically stated that a bill of divorce was given along with the expulsion. Based upon this assumption, you believe that the Pharisees were asking Jesus if they could "expell without divorce" their wives for "any reason".
However, I think that your assumption is not correct, and "apoluo" can mean either separation or divorce and is dependent upon the context to determine the meaning.
Concerning the difficult passage in Mark 10, in his commentary, The Gospel According to Mark, William L. Lane says, "If the reading supported by the Western and Cesarean families of texts is correct, Jesus did not speak of divorce in verse 12, but of desertion and remarriage
The bottom line (what I believe).
1. Jesus clearly affirmed the divine ideal of marriage --- the faithful, loving, interdependent, monogamous, and legal union of a man and woman for life.
2. If you are married, recognize that your marriage is breakable and do all you can to protect it and love and respect your spouse.
3. If you are married and you divorce your spouse so that you can marry another, you commit adultery.
4. The purpose of the bill of divorce, why Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce, was to stop the oppression of women.
5. Remarriage is not morally contengent in any way upon the reasons for the previous divorce. They are two seperate issues blurred by the errant traditional doctrine of the church. Remarriage is only contengent upon the legal breaking of the previous marriage -- divorce.
6. MDR is primarily under personal/domestic authority, but also is regulated to a small degree by civil government.
7. The church has no authority over MDR, but should influence like salt and light both the family and the civil governement.
Another consideration that is important for correctly interpreting these difficult passages is the Greek text subjunctive mood of "marries.
Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12, and Luke 16:18 comprise Jesus' comments about marriage and divorce. They are used as the primary scriptural support for the traditional doctrine of divorce and remarriage. However, there is abundant evidence to support a completely different interpretation than what is commonly believed in Christendom!
They are commonly referred to as "difficult,
Greetings to those who want to read this. This gives every time put away is used in the texts--Astounding that out of all the times--only one time is it ever translated as divorce.
Therefore, I am providing this information--so If you wish you can read all of. If you read all of these texts--there is no way any logical reasoning person could ever say that the only way to translate #630-- Apoluo as "divorce".
Yes, even in Matt 5:32 second time it is used. ."Put away" is by far the best way to understand the word-apoluo. Enjoy.
G630 apoluo, ap-ol-oo'-o; from 575 and 3089; to free fully, i.e. (lit.) relieve, release, dismiss (reflex. depart), or (fig.) let die, pardon, or (spec.) divorce:-(let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
2 verses found. <AT>
ACS 26:32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set <at> liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
HEB 13:23 Know ye that [our] brother Timothy is set <at> liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
25 verses found. <AWAY>
MAT 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her<away> privily.
MAT 5:31 {It hath been said, Whosoever shall put <away> his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:} MAT 5:32 {But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put <away> his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.}
MAT 14:15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude <away>, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
MAT 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes <away>.
MAT 14:23 And when he had sent the multitudes <away>, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
MAT 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her <away>; for she crieth after us.
MAT 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciples [unto him], and said, {I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them <away> fasting, lest they faint in the way.}
MAT 15:39 And he sent <away> the multitude, and took ship, and came into the coasts of Magdala.
MAT 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put <away> his wife
For every cause? MAT 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her <away>?
MAT 19:8 He saith unto them, {Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put <away> your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.}
MAT 19:9 {And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put <away> his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put <away> doth commit adultery.}
MAR 6:36 Send them <away>, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread:for they have nothing to eat.
MAR 6:45 And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, while he sent<away> the people.
MAR 8:3 {And if I send them <away> fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far.}
MAR 8:9 And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them <away>. MAR 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put <away> [his] wife? Tempting him.
MAR 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] <away>. MAR 10:11 And he saith unto them, {Whosoever shall put <away> his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.}
MAR 10:12 {And if a woman shall put <away> her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.}
LUK 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him <away>, saying,
LUK 9:12 And when the day began to wear away, then came the twelve, and said unto him, Send the multitude <away>, that they may go into the towns and country round about, and lodge, and get victuals: for we are here in a desert place.
LUK 16:18 {Whosoever putteth <away> his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put <away> from [her] husband committeth adultery.}
ACS 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid [their] hands on them, they sent [them] <away>.
+-------------------------------------------------------------
2 verses found. <depart>
LUK 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant <depart>in peace, according to thy word: ACS 23:22 So the chief captain [then] let the young man <depart>, and charged [him, See thou] tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me.
+------------------------------------------------------
1 verse found .<departed>,
ACS 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they <departed> after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
+---------------------------------------------------------------
2 verses found .<dismissed>
ACS 15:30 So when they were <dismissed>, they came to Antioch:and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
ACS 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he <dismissed> the assembly.
+-----------------------------------------------------------
1 verse found. <DIVORCED>
MAT 5:32 {But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is<divorced> committeth adultery.}
+--------------------------------------------------------------
1 verse found. <forgive>,
LUK 6:37 {Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: <forgive>, and ye shall be forgiven:}
+-------------------------------------------------------------
1 verse found. <forgiven>:}
LUK 6:37 {Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be <forgiven>:}
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
13 verses found. <GO>;
LUK 14:4 And they held their peace. And he took [him], and healed him, and let him <go>; LUK 22:68 {And if I also ask [you], ye will not answer me, nor let [me] <go>.}
LUK 23:22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let [him] <go>.
JOH 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man <go>, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
ACS 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let [him] <go>.
ACS 4:21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them <go>, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all [men] glorified God for that which was done.
ACS 4:23 And being let <go>, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
ACS 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten [them], they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them <go>.
ACS 15:33 And after they had tarried [there] a space, they were let <go> in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
ACS 16:35 And when it was day, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, Let those men <go>.
ACS 16:36 And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you <go>: now therefore depart, and go in peace.
ACS 17:9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them <go>.
ACS 28:18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let [me] <go>, because there was no cause of death in me.
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
10 verses found. <let>
LUK 22:68 {And if I also ask [you], ye will not answer me, nor<let> [me] go.}
JOH 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou <let> this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
ACS 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to <let>[him]go.
ACS 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten [them], they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and <let> them go.
ACS 15:33 And after they had tarried [there] a space, they were <let> go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
ACS 16:35 And when it was day, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying,<Let> those men go.
ACS 16:36 And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to <let> you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace.
ACS 17:9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they <let> them go.
ACS 23:22 So the chief captain [then] <let> the young man depart, and charged [him, See thou] tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me.
ACS 28:18 Who, when they had examined me, would have <let> [me] go, because there was no cause of death in me.{Enter}
+-------------------------------------------------------------
1 verse found. <lettest>
LUK 2:29 Lord, now <lettest> thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
2 verses found. <liberty>
ACS 26:32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at <liberty>, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
HEB 13:23 Know ye that [our] brother Timothy is set at <liberty>; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
+---------------------------------------------------------+
2 verses found. <loosed>
MAT 18:27 {Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and <loosed> him, and forgave him the debt.}
LUK 13:12 And when Jesus saw her, he called [her to him], and said unto her, {Woman, thou art <loosed> from thine infirmity.}
---------------------------------------------------------------
12 verses found. <put>
MAT 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to <put> her away privily.
MAT 5:31 {It hath been said, Whosoever shall <put> away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:}
MAT 5:32 {But I say unto you, That whosoever shall <put> away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.}
MAT 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to <put> away his wife for every cause?
MAT 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to <put> her away?
MAT 19:8 He saith unto them, {Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to <put> away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.}
MAT 19:9 {And I say unto you, Whosoever shall <put> away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is <put> away doth commit adul
tery.}
MAR 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to <put> away [his] wife? Tempting him.
MAR 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to <put> [her] away.
MAR 10:11 And he saith unto them, {Whosoever shall <put> away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.}
MAR 10:12 {And if a woman shall <put> away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.}
LK 16:18 {Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is <put> away from [her] husband committeth adultery.}
+----------------------------------------------------------------
1 verse found. <putteth>
LUK 16:18 {Whosoever <putteth> away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.}
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
12 verses found. <release>
MAT 27:15 Now at [that] feast the governor was wont to <release> unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
MAT 27:17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I <release> unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
MAT 27:21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I <release> unto you? They said, Barabbas.
MAR 15:9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I <release> unto you the King of the Jews? MAR 15:11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather <release> Barabbas unto them.
LUK 23:16 I will therefore chastise him, and <release> [him].
LUK 23:17 (For of necessity he must <release> one unto them at the feast.)
LUK 23:18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this [man], and <release> unto us Barabbas:
LUK 23:20 Pilate therefore, willing to <release> Jesus, spake again to them.
JOH 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should <release> unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I <release> unto you the King of the Jews?
JOH 19:10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to <release> thee?
JOH 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to <release> him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
+----------------------------------------------------------------
four verses found <released>
MAT 27:26 Then <released> he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered [him] to be crucified.
MAR 15:6 Now at [that] feast he <released> unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
MAR 15:15 And [so] Pilate, willing to content the people, <released> Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged [him], to be crucified.
LUK 23:25 And he <released> unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
+---------------------------------------------------------
6 verses found. <send>
MAT 14:15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him,saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; <send>the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
MAT 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, <Send> her away; for she crieth after us.
MAT 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciples [unto him], and said, {I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not <send> them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.}
MAR 6:36 <Send> them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat.
MAR 8:3 {And if I <send> them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far.}
LUK 9:12 And when the day began to wear away, then came the twelve, and said unto him, <Send> the multitude away, that they may go into the towns and country round about, and lodge, and get victuals: for we are here in a desert place.
+------------------------------------------------------------
6 verses found. <sent>
MAT 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he <sent> the multitudes away.
MAT 14:23 And when he had <sent> the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
MAT 15:39 And he <sent> away the multitude, and took ship, and came into the coasts of Magdala. ]
MAR 8:9 And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he <sent> them away. LUK 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus <sent> him away, saying,
ACS 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid[their] hands on them, they <sent> [them] away.
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 verse found. <set>
ACS 26:32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been <set> at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
+---------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I admit that is a lot--but that is our problem--we are just not thinking. We read and then we react. If we are one who strongly believes in and approves of the traditional view WITHOUT THIS WORK AND EFFORT--YOU JUST WILL NOT BELIEVE!
And, the sad part is that EVEN WITH THE EVIDENCE--folks just choose the way that they have been taught--even when it is proven to be unscriptural.
So, as we continue Remember that Strong's # 630--"Apoluo" out of all the times it is used is only translated as divorce one time. To translate it blindly as divorce in the other places under discussion is criminal.[/b]
Scoobydoo,
It depends upon which version that you use as to how the word "apoluo" is translated. Other translations translate it as divorce more often. The context determines the meaning. One has to take each passage individually and answer which translation makes the most sense according to the context. Does "separation without divorce" or "divorce" make the most sense. For example, in Mark 10:11-12 the difficult passages can be translated as:
"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
Sherman, greetings--
Scoobydoo,
It depends upon which version that you use as to how the word "apoluo" is translated. Other translations translate it as divorce more often. The context determines the meaning. One has to take each passage individually and answer which translation makes the most sense according to the context. Does "separation without divorce" or "divorce" make the most sense.
My response--My my hmmmm..Ok--Yes, you are correct. It really does depend on the version.
So let's just think together for a few minutes..Sherman, I know you have a book to sell and you life is in it but what you are doing here is not cool. It is not good bible study but as an author and writer I do understand the problem.
Look. Let's take a word, the word "conversation" in the Orignal language. It is a clear fact that "conversation" today as we use the word--is very different in meaning and application.
"IF" or "When" we allow ourselves to be tempted with the versions--we pay a price for that.
"Versions" reflect the usage of words in the current society and culture when it comes to translating them into our lingo today.
What do you think of when you hear, read the word "conversation"? OK get that firmly in your mind--now--in the original language it meant "one's whole and total conduct" and that is clearly not how we use the word today.
The issue before us is where do we go to determine the application and meaning of the word as Jesus originally used it-- i.e. apoluo--#630 strong's numbering system.
If we take the majority of todays "translations" you are correct--those folks translate "apoluo" as divorce.
Yet in the Hebrew and in the original language--that is an untruth. As the versions closest to the original language--do a better job of maintaining the pretty close to the original meaning.
The translators later on have been influenced by the Catholic Church and how they wanted the word to be used. This is not a secret--hidden in a cave where almost no one can find it.
The translators tell us--early translators--apoluo means to put away. What I find amazing is that in the KJV of the bible they only translated put away as divorce one time out of the some 80 times it is used. In the ten times that Jesus uses it--IT IS NOT TRANSLATED OR GIVEN AS DIVORCE{emphasis only}
For a deeper view of apoluo I suggest that folks go here ---
http://yesforfamilies.com/religion/marriage/
and choose chapter nine Thanks
I posted a long post of texts where this word is used--There are a couple of reasons for doing this.
[1] Some folks who have not looked at all these texts make the claim that "apoluo" is always always translated as divorce. They really have no clue.
[2] Not all of us are at the same place in the road when it comes to Bible study. I was fortunate to be able to spend off and on several years doing this study and to have a very old bible program that was helpful in putting those texts together.
[3] A lot of us--learn to trust the bible we are using and may have used for a very long time. Nothing wrong with that except one needs to have an understanding of the how and why of translations and what they do or don't do.
[4] Most of us realize how even our own language morphs words in just two or three generations. I.e. the word "gay" has significantly changed in meaning in just my lifetime.
[5] God gave us the original--it is our function to study and to remain faithful to what He has given us--
[6] Folks the Greek is not the oringal here--it is the Hebrew--where instead of put away it is "send away" and it takes two distinct actions to equal our modern word "divorce" Something that we today tend to ignore.
Now, I am going to have to let this go--I am going to Rwanda in about 20 days and there are many things I have yet to do before I can go. In my organization--there is no one to do my job so I must have it done for the month of July and August before I set foot on an airplane. ::groupprayer::
I am temp. disconnecting the "notify me of replies" till the first of August. Have a great summer folks.
Scoobydoo ::clappingoverhead::
: Scoobydoo Thu Jun 14, 2007 - 09:44:40
My response--My my hmmmm..Ok--Yes, you are correct. It really does depend on the version.
So let's just think together for a few minutes..Sherman, I know you have a book to sell and you life is in it but what you are doing here is not cool. It is not good bible study but as an author and writer I do understand the problem.
Scoobydoo, it sounds like you're saying that the reason I disagree with your logic is because I have a book to sell, implying selfish motives on my part. Bro. if that's what you meant, that's not cool. Just because I understand things differently than you, does not mean that I am opperating out of selfish motives. Accusing me of selfish motives only shows weakness on your part, if that's what you meant. And by the way, my life is not in my book or selling my book; I have much more going on than that; and if no one ever reads a copy of it, it will not phase me one bit. I'm just being obedient to what I believe the Lord leads me to do.
: Scoobydoo Thu Jun 14, 2007 - 09:44:40
Look. Let's take a word, the word "conversation" in the Orignal language. It is a clear fact that "conversation" today as we use the word--is very different in meaning and application.
"IF" or "When" we allow ourselves to be tempted with the versions--we pay a price for that.
"Versions" reflect the usage of words in the current society and culture when it comes to translating them into our lingo today.
What do you think of when you hear, read the word "conversation"? OK get that firmly in your mind--now--in the original language it meant "one's whole and total conduct" and that is clearly not how we use the word today.
The issue before us is where do we go to determine the application and meaning of the word as Jesus originally used it-- i.e. apoluo--#630 strong's numbering system.
If we take the majority of todays "translations" you are correct--those folks translate "apoluo" as divorce.
Yet in the Hebrew and in the original language--that is an untruth. As the versions closest to the original language--do a better job of maintaining the pretty close to the original meaning.
The translators later on have been influenced by the Catholic Church and how they wanted the word to be used. This is not a secret--hidden in a cave where almost no one can find it.
The translators tell us--early translators--apoluo means to put away. What I find amazing is that in the KJV of the bible they only translated put away as divorce one time out of the some 80 times it is used. In the ten times that Jesus uses it--IT IS NOT TRANSLATED OR GIVEN AS DIVORCE{emphasis only}
The KJV, though it is called the "Authorized" version, is not the gold-standard by which I study. I use as many versions as possible as well as studying the Greek and Hebrew text. Even so, if apoluo is translated in the KJV as "divorce" once, that means that the translators of the KJV considered divorce a possible meaning of apoluo.
Actually apoluo is "apo" (from) and "luo" (to loose) - to loose from, to send away, to put away, etc. The meaning/translation of the word is determined by the context. According to the context, which translation makes the most sense? By saying "to loose from" was the bill of divorce implied? In Mark especially, I believe that it was because of the audience that Mark wrote to. As mentioned, in the Greco-Roman culture husbands or wives could initiate a legal divorce by simply leaving or expelling their spouses. Thus, when Mark wrote "apoluo", his first-century audience would have understood him to mean divorce, not "put away without divorce."
But hey, if, regardless of evidence to the contrary, you want to continue believing that apoluo means expulsion without divorce (except where the bill of divorce is specifically mentioned), that's fine, but don't accuse me of ill motives because I believe differently based on my understanding of the matter.
I hope you have a blessed trip.
"Put away" versus "divorce" in Mosaic law does not seem to have one bit of relevance to today. By law, one cannot put away a wife and marry someone else. It is called "bigamy" is it not?
Why all this reference to the Mosaic law? We are not under the law but under grace. IMHO, divorce is an evil in most instances. I am not speaking about those who are divorced against their will. I'm speaking of frivolous divorces that destroy a spouse and children. This is all foolishness and vanity. Jesus took us back to creation when He spoke on divorce. Why can't we as christians just obey the will of God?
: 4Christ Thu Jun 14, 2007 - 19:35:51
"Put away" versus "divorce" in Mosaic law does not seem to have one bit of relevance to today. By law, one cannot put away a wife and marry someone else. It is called "bigamy" is it not?
Why all this reference to the Mosaic law? We are not under the law but under grace. IMHO, divorce is an evil in most instances. I am not speaking about those who are divorced against their will. I'm speaking of frivolous divorces that destroy a spouse and children. This is all foolishness and vanity. Jesus took us back to creation when He spoke on divorce. Why can't we as christians just obey the will of God?
Good morning 4Christ,
"Put away" vs "divorce" only has importance for us today if Jesus' words have importance for us today. In the few passages where Jesus uses the word "apoluo", it makes a world of difference for the meaning/interpretation of the verse whether He is speaking of legal divorce or illegal seperation. If "apoluo" can only mean "illegal seperation" unless the bill of divorce is specifically mentioned, then Jesus is not speaking of legal divorce at all in these passages. As noted previously, I believe that "apoluo" can mean either and should be determined by the context.
You said "
By law, one cannot put away a wife and marry someone else. It is called "bigamy" is it not?" Short answer, no, that's incorrect. In NT times, polygamy was still legal and practiced in Israel, thus a man could either divorce or illegally seperate from one wife and yet marry other women if he chose to do so. Or he could marry other women and then either divorce or expell his previous wife or wives. Polygamy is still practiced in the Middle East today in Arabic cultures. Is polygamy moral or immoral, that's for another discussion. Regardless of whether it's moral or immoral, it's against the law in many countries.
"Why all this reference to the Mosaic Law?" Because in order to understand what Jesus said, it helps to understand the culture in which He spoke. The less one understands the culture, the more likely that one is to misinterpret what Jesus said. The more one understands the culture, the more likely one is to correctly interpret what Jesus said. The Mosaic Law is a key element of the historical, cultural, literary, and even authorial context of the passages in question.
When you say that "we're not under law but under grace," you're not saying that because of grace we can now live any way we want. But then on the other hand, concerning divorce, if the Law allowed for divorce, how can the requirements of Grace be harder than the Law? And yet, that's what the traditional doctrine teaches - that now under Grace MDR is held to a higher standard than under the Law. Frankly, this crazy-talk is the result of misunderstanding what Jesus said concerning MDR.
Of course, frivolous divorce is evil and the church should do all we can to empower people to have lasting loving relationships; but it's not our place to sit in condemning judgement of others who have been divorced or are even contemplating divorce. And though a person frivolously divorces his/her spouse, there is still forgiveness in God.
Frankly, the traditional doctrine has weakened marriages and bind many people in the sins of the past. For example, I don't know how many Christian divorce'es are pinning away, waiting for their "husbands" to come back to them though their "husbands" have remarried and moved on in other relationships. They say these men are their "husbands", but these men are no longer their "husbands", they are their "ex-husbands"; the marriage bond was broken by divorce - regardless of the reason for the divorce (moral or immoral). The marriage is over.
Not only that, but if they are longing for their ex-husbands to come back to them and their ex-husbands have remarried, they are actually committing adultery - lusting in their hearts after another woman's husband. Thus, the traditional doctrine, by teaching that marriage is indissoluble, has bound some people in sin.
Marriage is breakable, not indissoluble. Now, it shouldn't be broken, but it can be broken for both morall and immoral reasons. And though a divorce is motivated by "
frivolous" reasons, it is still a divorce, the legal breaking of a marriage union. The reason Jesus mentioned the Garden of Eden, was to point the Pharisees back to the way things should be. Their focus was on controlling people via law rather than empowering people via the Spirit. We need to empower people to have godly relationships and lasting loving marriages, and we, the church, need to quite trying to control people through errant doctrine, teaching things that are not true. Marriage is breakable, not indissoluble; but we all long for lasting loving relationships. Therefore we need to do all we can to protect existing marriages, bring healing to sick marriages, and help people bury dead marriages. But the traditional doctrine hasn't helped in any of that.
"Why can't we Christians just obey God?" - Because we all sin and fall short of the glory of God and are thus dependent upon His grace.
Understanding Jesus' words reveal that: Marriage is breakable (though men shouldn't break their marriages). Marriage and especially divorce are under "civil" authority as delegated by God scripturally and not under "church" authority. And though it should be considered "sacred" by Christians, marriage is not a sacrament; marriage is a human (not a divine) covenant that is only as strong as the character of the covenantors.
Another thought concerning the use of "apoluo". As mentioned previously, apoluo is a compound word of "apo" (from) and "luo" (to loose or set free). Paul uses a conjugate of "luo" in 1 Cor.7:27-28, when he says that if you are bound (deo) to a wife, seek not to be loosed (luo). The literary context of the verse strongly emplies that Paul is speaking of legal divorce, especially since he goes on to say that if one has been loosed (luo) from a wife (divorced), he should not seek a wife but if he does marry he does not sin.
So this verse not only shows the word "luo" used to mean divorce, but it also says that divorce's may remarry without sin (apparently aside from any connection to the reason for the previous divorce, or at least non is mentioned).
The problem is divorce, not remarriage; though if one reads Jesus' words non-critically (without thinking), then it would seem that the issue is remarriage.
: Sherman Nobles Mon Jun 18, 2007 - 11:18:57
The problem is divorce, not remarriage; though if one reads Jesus' words non-critically (without thinking), then it would seem that the issue is remarriage.
If the problem is divorce, then God had a problem. He did indeed divorce the nation of Israel. Yet, He calls her back again and again and again. He even made a New Covenant that includes her. The thing that God has never done is take a new "wife".
This is the truth of MDR. Divorce if you must for fornication. But do not take another as long as there is the possibility of healing and restoration. And if we are obedient...and we seek the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and body, as He commands every believer; He will restore.
If reconciliation becomes impossible, the spouse remarries or dies; then remarriage is an option. This is how I see it in the word of God. With our God, the blood of Jesus and His righteousness, and the power of the Holy Spirit; there is no way that any believer can say he or she is not able to reconcile, IMHO. Can our God fail? No. And saying NO, but we can is a willingness to yield to the flesh instead of the Spirit.
4Christ, so, though the Word of God specifically says that if a divorce' remarries, it is not sin, you believe that it is sinful for a divorce' to remarry, except for fornication.
Concerning the analogy of God divorcing Israel, Jer.3.8, if you read the passage closely, God is calling Judah (Israel's) sister to repentance. If she doesn't quit messing around, He will divorce her like He did Israel. So, though He divorced Israel, He was married to another (Judah).
Using biblical metaphors to "prove" anything other than what they are explicitly meant to communicate is not wise. In that passage, God is using a common familial metaphor to call Judah to repent and become faithful to Him; to attempt to use it to "prove" anything else would be an unwise handling or use of the Word of God.
Of course, you're more than welcome to remain single if you wish, because you personally believe that's what God would have you do. And I realize that the traditional doctrine of marriage errantly teaches that marriage after divorce is wrong. But that's not what a thorough deliberative study of the Word reveals.
Sin leads to death, physical and relational. Frankly, to teach that divorce's may not remarry falls in line with what Paul said was a doctrine of demons.
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry," I Tim. 4:1-3a. NKJV
The apostle Paul, though encouraging all singles (virgins, widows, widowers, and divorce's) to remain single (agamos), was very specific to point out that if a divorce' remarries, he does not sin.
The apostle Paul was also careful to use two different words when quoting what Jesus said concerning divorce/separation. 1 Cor.7.10-11,
"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart (chorizo) from her husband. But even if she does depart (chorizo), let her remain unmarried (agamos) or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce (apheimi) his wife."
So, considering that in Israel, women could not legally divorce their husbands, and could only leave, separate from them. If a woman did leave (chorizo) her husband she was still legally married, could not legally marry another, and should remain single.
But the man was given no such command, why? For a few reasons:
1. Polygamy was still practised and accepted during NT times.
2. Men in Israel could legally divorce their wives, and thus if they chose to divorce their spouses, there was nothing legal against them marrying other women.
When Paul translated and applied to his Greco-Roman audience what Jesus said in a Jewish context, he used "apheimi" for both men and women because according to Greco-Roman civil law, either men or women could inact divorce. Paul also did not repeat the command to women to remain single, why? Because in that culture if a woman left her husband it ennacted a legal divorce, as much as if a man left his wife.
We run into problems when we disregard the cultural context of the Word. It was written in a specific historical, cultural context; and to ignore such is not wise.
Frivolous divorce and even divorces based on morally acceptable reasons are tragic, but that's no reason for the church to try and bind people to their past and not allow them to move on through arbitrarily and unscripturally saying that divorce's may not remarry. Rather, let's focus on empowering people to make a go of their marriages, whether it's their 1st, 2nd, 3rd,.....or 10th.
Sherman,
Thanks for taking the time to post on this very difficult issue. It's obvious that the Lord speaks to you and through you.
Divorce is a fact of this life. Like all sad events, it leads to a great deal of guilt and condemnation. Add to this the heavy burden that improper Biblical interpretation creates, the end result is untold misery. How many ignorant are out there who stay blindly in a hopeless state of marriage while they're children are being abused because the pastor says it's God's will? How many foolish people are sentenced to lives of singlehood due to self-righteous or just misguided pastors who feel that all remarriage is adultery? How many Christians embrace a false sense of accomplishment by remaining single, waiting for some opportune time when the ex-husband or wife is somehow caught in the act to free them to remarry without guilt? This is all foolishness and vanity conceived in the heart of sinful man!
When will God's Word be properly divided on this issue to bring freedom to those in bondage to the traditions of men?
: 4Christ Mon Jun 18, 2007 - 12:09:02
: Sherman Nobles Mon Jun 18, 2007 - 11:18:57
The problem is divorce, not remarriage; though if one reads Jesus' words non-critically (without thinking), then it would seem that the issue is remarriage.
If the problem is divorce, then God had a problem. He did indeed divorce the nation of Israel. Yet, He calls her back again and again and again. He even made a New Covenant that includes her. The thing that God has never done is take a new "wife".
This is the truth of MDR. Divorce if you must for fornication. But do not take another as long as there is the possibility of healing and restoration. And if we are obedient...and we seek the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and body, as He commands every believer; He will restore.
If reconciliation becomes impossible, the spouse remarries or dies; then remarriage is an option. This is how I see it in the word of God. With our God, the blood of Jesus and His righteousness, and the power of the Holy Spirit; there is no way that any believer can say he or she is not able to reconcile, IMHO. Can our God fail? No. And saying NO, but we can is a willingness to yield to the flesh instead of the Spirit.
4Christ,
The Lord does not restore every marriage. The Lord does not violate free will. That was why God instituted divorce in the Bible. And regardless of the traditional doctrines that have been promulgated, divorce is the termination of a marriage regardless of the reasons for the divorce. The belief that a remarriage is illegitimate because it's improper is an unbiblical concept that is from improper interpretation of Jesus' words in the gospels. Please don't make the mistake of believing that remarriages should be dissolved to restore former ones. That is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As Sherman has cited, the proper cultural and historical context is needed to understand Jesus' words.
Even if a divorce and remarriage is an adulterous act, Jesus was certainly not saying the person remarried is living in some constant state of adultery, and he certainly was not advocating breaking up remarriages to run after former spouses. Such activity is evil to the core and bad theology in every sense.
Take it to heart, please, and be blessed.
Doesn't this whole issue boil down to 1. all have sinned and fallen short and 2. there is forgiveness in the Lord Jesus Christ? Those are the two points that make me question how this whole "scriptural divorce" even came about. Sure, there are some who may appear "more guilty" than others and there may be "an innocent party" but not when it comes to sin in general for all have fallen short and all have access to Christ forgiveness. Those things seem to not apply to divorce for some reason and I just really don't get that.
Serenity,
You actually touch on a very important point, how the traditional doctrine of MDR was birthed. During the time of Christ and for the 1st Century church, MDR was understood to be primarily under personal authority with little civil oversight. Then the great divide came, the Judiazing believers sowed seeds of division in the church. Because of Jewish uprisings, Rome stepped up it's oppression of the Jews, especially those in Israel. The Gospel was exploding in the Greco-Roman world and in Jewish communities outside Israel. But in Israel, the Jews persecuted the Jewish Christians.
When Rome stepped up oppression of Israel and Jews throughout the Empire, the Gentile Christians quickly forsook their Jewish roots and wished to no longer be seen as a Jewish sect, as it was in the first 40 or 5o years of the church; they did not want to be aligned with the Jews who were causing so much trouble for the Empire in Israel. Sadly, the Jewish Christians were oppressed by the Romans for being Jews and they were persecuted by the Jews for being Christians.
War engulfed Palestine. Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in AD 70. Fifty years later, AD 120, Bar-Kochba was labeled the Messiah by Rabbi Akiva and led another revolt against Rome. Rome squelched the rebellion, and built a new city called Aelia in Jerusalem's place. On the temple site was erected another "temple
: SammySmile Fri Jun 22, 2007 - 07:35:58
: 4Christ Mon Jun 18, 2007 - 12:09:02
: Sherman Nobles Mon Jun 18, 2007 - 11:18:57
The problem is divorce, not remarriage; though if one reads Jesus' words non-critically (without thinking), then it would seem that the issue is remarriage.
If the problem is divorce, then God had a problem. He did indeed divorce the nation of Israel. Yet, He calls her back again and again and again. He even made a New Covenant that includes her. The thing that God has never done is take a new "wife".
This is the truth of MDR. Divorce if you must for fornication. But do not take another as long as there is the possibility of healing and restoration. And if we are obedient...and we seek the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and body, as He commands every believer; He will restore.
If reconciliation becomes impossible, the spouse remarries or dies; then remarriage is an option. This is how I see it in the word of God. With our God, the blood of Jesus and His righteousness, and the power of the Holy Spirit; there is no way that any believer can say he or she is not able to reconcile, IMHO. Can our God fail? No. And saying NO, but we can is a willingness to yield to the flesh instead of the Spirit.
4Christ,
The Lord does not restore every marriage. The Lord does not violate free will. That was why God instituted divorce in the Bible. And regardless of the traditional doctrines that have been promulgated, divorce is the termination of a marriage regardless of the reasons for the divorce. The belief that a remarriage is illegitimate because it's improper is an unbiblical concept that is from improper interpretation of Jesus' words in the gospels. Please don't make the mistake of believing that remarriages should be dissolved to restore former ones. That is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As Sherman has cited, the proper cultural and historical context is needed to understand Jesus' words.
Even if a divorce and remarriage is an adulterous act, Jesus was certainly not saying the person remarried is living in some constant state of adultery, and he certainly was not advocating breaking up remarriages to run after former spouses. Such activity is evil to the core and bad theology in every sense.
Take it to heart, please, and be blessed.
I will not take to heart what is so wrong in this world and unfortunately in God's Church. We want to include God in "marriage" when it is beneficial for us to do so. We pick and choose what we will believe in His word as if we are picking ripe fruit in a grocery store. And we cannot ever say that God "created" or even "mandated" divorce. He did not. Man did that, not God. History repeats itself. Men have been marrying and divorcing and remarrying since the days of Moses. It is man's sinful, hardened, and rebellious heart that made the regulations for divorce necessary by Moses.
Jesus is the Master, Lord, and King. You can't serve mammoth and God. You will love one and hate the other. This is what has happened. We try to love the ways of the world in MDR, but we are not of the world. Divorce and remarriage comes about because of hard hearts, rebellion against God. There is no way to justify the destructiveness of it. Did you know the divorce rates were coming down? But it is not because people are becoming obedient to God, NO, they are becoming more disobedient - defiant even. Now people have just decided to "shack up". This is the way to handle the rising destruction of marriages and children's lives - fornicate!
Jesus says there is a way that seems right unto a man. But that way leads to destruction. It's time to preach the truth of the gospel. Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
: 4Christ Fri Jun 22, 2007 - 19:13:55
: SammySmile Fri Jun 22, 2007 - 07:35:58
: 4Christ Mon Jun 18, 2007 - 12:09:02
: Sherman Nobles Mon Jun 18, 2007 - 11:18:57
The problem is divorce, not remarriage; though if one reads Jesus' words non-critically (without thinking), then it would seem that the issue is remarriage.
If the problem is divorce, then God had a problem. He did indeed divorce the nation of Israel. Yet, He calls her back again and again and again. He even made a New Covenant that includes her. The thing that God has never done is take a new "wife".
This is the truth of MDR. Divorce if you must for fornication. But do not take another as long as there is the possibility of healing and restoration. And if we are obedient...and we seek the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and body, as He commands every believer; He will restore.
If reconciliation becomes impossible, the spouse remarries or dies; then remarriage is an option. This is how I see it in the word of God. With our God, the blood of Jesus and His righteousness, and the power of the Holy Spirit; there is no way that any believer can say he or she is not able to reconcile, IMHO. Can our God fail? No. And saying NO, but we can is a willingness to yield to the flesh instead of the Spirit.
4Christ,
The Lord does not restore every marriage. The Lord does not violate free will. That was why God instituted divorce in the Bible. And regardless of the traditional doctrines that have been promulgated, divorce is the termination of a marriage regardless of the reasons for the divorce. The belief that a remarriage is illegitimate because it's improper is an unbiblical concept that is from improper interpretation of Jesus' words in the gospels. Please don't make the mistake of believing that remarriages should be dissolved to restore former ones. That is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As Sherman has cited, the proper cultural and historical context is needed to understand Jesus' words.
Even if a divorce and remarriage is an adulterous act, Jesus was certainly not saying the person remarried is living in some constant state of adultery, and he certainly was not advocating breaking up remarriages to run after former spouses. Such activity is evil to the core and bad theology in every sense.
Take it to heart, please, and be blessed.
I will not take to heart what is so wrong in this world and unfortunately in God's Church. We want to include God in "marriage" when it is beneficial for us to do so. We pick and choose what we will believe in His word as if we are picking ripe fruit in a grocery store. And we cannot ever say that God "created" or even "mandated" divorce. He did not. Man did that, not God. History repeats itself. Men have been marrying and divorcing and remarrying since the days of Moses. It is man's sinful, hardened, and rebellious heart that made the regulations for divorce necessary by Moses.
Jesus is the Master, Lord, and King. You can't serve mammoth and God. You will love one and hate the other. This is what has happened. We try to love the ways of the world in MDR, but we are not of the world. Divorce and remarriage comes about because of hard hearts, rebellion against God. There is no way to justify the destructiveness of it. Did you know the divorce rates were coming down? But it is not because people are becoming obedient to God, NO, they are becoming more disobedient - defiant even. Now people have just decided to "shack up". This is the way to handle the rising destruction of marriages and children's lives - fornicate!
Jesus says there is a way that seems right unto a man. But that way leads to destruction. It's time to preach the truth of the gospel. Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4Christ,
Truth in God is only found in the proper dividing of His Word. Hardness of heart is from man, but freedom from marriage is an ordinance given by God and governed by civil law.
Your view is esoteric. How many spouses and children suffer due to submission to the traditional doctrine? An untold multitude. Antidivorce doctrine is not the answer. It's a relationship with the Lord that leads to repentance.
I am not antidivorce. There are situations when divorce is the only answer. A woman who lives in a state who seeks to escape from abuse, may not have the option of separation if divorce is only offered in that state. A person who violates the marriage covenant by having sex with someone other than his/her spouse may not be able to get past the betrayal in that and seek a divorce.
There are biblical reasons given whereby a person may obtain a divorce. I'm not disputing that because Jesus said it.
The problem I have is that when the truth of the matter is told, only 9% of the divorces granted in this country are due to adultery. "No fault" divorce has all but eliminated the need to even prove anything. We have a nation that has taken marriage (the cornerstone of the family) and torn what God intended asunder. And the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is right "in there" with it. What did Jesus say? Why do we need man to interpret for us what the word of God says? If we are in Christ and He in us, He shows and leads us into all truth. There may be "some" truth in what is being said in favor of divorce - but I see it just the way it was in the days of Moses. Men and women following the lusts of the flesh instead of the Spirit of the Living God.
We are told not to gossip. Yet I see it everyday in Christians everywhere(including myself) We are told not to lie yet it happens quite often in those of us even who profess Christ. There is sin in marriage because it involves two individuals who sin. Now don't get me wrong, it is good to strive to live a sinless life as Christ did and it's good to strive to have a healthy, God-fearing marriage but the truth of the matter is we can not control anothers behaviour and there are times when staying in a marriage is destructive and harmful and I know some will say well in extreme cases its okay to get out of the marriage but when such stigma and harsh ideas are put on divorce it becomes difficult for abused people to be able to get out of that when they've been made to believe that unless some exact criteria is met they must be alone for the rest of their life.
I agree with SammySmile here, " It's a relationship with the Lord that leads to repentance." As I have my own relationship with the Lord and lead by example then I can be of maximum service to my fellow.
: 4Christ Fri Jun 22, 2007 - 23:50:45
I am not antidivorce. There are situations when divorce is the only answer. A woman who lives in a state who seeks to escape from abuse, may not have the option of separation if divorce is only offered in that state. A person who violates the marriage covenant by having sex with someone other than his/her spouse may not be able to get past the betrayal in that and seek a divorce.
There are biblical reasons given whereby a person may obtain a divorce. I'm not disputing that because Jesus said it.
The problem I have is that when the truth of the matter is told, only 9% of the divorces granted in this country are due to adultery. "No fault" divorce has all but eliminated the need to even prove anything. We have a nation that has taken marriage (the cornerstone of the family) and torn what God intended asunder. And the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is right "in there" with it. What did Jesus say? Why do we need man to interpret for us what the word of God says? If we are in Christ and He in us, He shows and leads us into all truth. There may be "some" truth in what is being said in favor of divorce - but I see it just the way it was in the days of Moses. Men and women following the lusts of the flesh instead of the Spirit of the Living God.
4HIm,
The problem with folks which hold to the traditional doctrine is they don't seek to look beyond the black and white print in our English Bible to decipher the true teachings of Christ on this issue. Folks tend to create certain parameters about "acceptable" and "nonacceptable" reasons for divorce, and this just makes no sense. This could not possibly be what Jesus was doing because he would be contradicting what He already said in the Old Testament, it would make Paul's letter to the Corinthians missing the boat entirely, and it would in essence be placing people in ridiculous positions of waiting to catch another in illicit sex. The truth is that the "no divorce except for cases of adultery" doesn't really pass the litmus test of theological scrutiny. What violates the marital covenant is a long, long list of offenses which doesn't begin nor end with sexual unfaithfulness. I'm not minimizing adultery. I'm just saying that is not the issue Christ was addressing.
Most of us would not truly gasp at the divorce rate in the world, but we should at the divorce rate in the church (between 'christians')
Some of us, however, would gasp at how the church handles previously worldly converts affected by MDR.
: 4Christ Fri Jun 22, 2007 - 23:50:45
I am not antidivorce. There are situations when divorce is the only answer. A woman who lives in a state who seeks to escape from abuse, may not have the option of separation if divorce is only offered in that state. A person who violates the marriage covenant by having sex with someone other than his/her spouse may not be able to get past the betrayal in that and seek a divorce.
There are biblical reasons given whereby a person may obtain a divorce. I'm not disputing that because Jesus said it.
The problem I have is that when the truth of the matter is told, only 9% of the divorces granted in this country are due to adultery. "No fault" divorce has all but eliminated the need to even prove anything. We have a nation that has taken marriage (the cornerstone of the family) and torn what God intended asunder. And the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is right "in there" with it. What did Jesus say? Why do we need man to interpret for us what the word of God says? If we are in Christ and He in us, He shows and leads us into all truth. There may be "some" truth in what is being said in favor of divorce - but I see it just the way it was in the days of Moses. Men and women following the lusts of the flesh instead of the Spirit of the Living God.
::amen::
If adultery is not a criterion for divorce, what is?
And if there is no such criteria, what is marriage? ::shrug::
Is it better to curse the darkness or light a candle? Standing against divorce is like cursing the darkness, it's pointless and benefits no one. Whether they divorced for morally accpetable or frivolous reasons, railing on divorce's does no one any good. If the traditional doctrine of MDR was any good, then it would seem that the divorce rate among Christians would be at least a little less than than the divorce rate among non-Christians, but that's not the case. Why doesn't the traditional doctrine have a positive effect? Because it is wrong, it's a web of deception, errant principles, and misinterpretations of scripture. It puts the church in the position of trying to control people without any authority or power to do so (in regards to MDR).
How do we promote healthy marriages? A good place to start is by recognizing that marriages are breakable, and not indissoluble. Instead of entering marriage unrealistically romatically claiming "unconditional love", let's admit that though we can attempt and make loving unconditionally our goal, continuing relationship is conditional. We need to teach couples how to establish healthy personal boundaries. This implies that we draw a line in the sand and declare that if someone persistently crosses these boundaries, a wall of separation might need to be built for both our sakes.
SammySmile spoke of the traditional doctrine being esoteric, and he is so right. The traditional doctrine is so heavenly minded, that it's no earthly good! I agre that marriages should last for a life-time. That's what God wants for married couples "joined by God" but that does not mean that he holds us to that standard. Rather, He gladly empowers us to reach for that star, even though we've crashed and burned before, even multiple times.
Cursing the darkness does no one any good; let's focus on lighting candles with the truth of God's Word.
I'm teaching what I am led to teach. You teach yours Sherman. I'm sure the attorneys and judges felt very much as you do regarding divorce. Hence, the birth of "no fault" divorce. The divorce rate skyrocketed after that invasion of man's will over God's regarding marriage.
Does our own experience drive our theology?
: 4Christ Sat Jun 23, 2007 - 17:26:42
I'm teaching what I am led to teach. You teach yours Sherman. I'm sure the attorneys and judges felt very much as you do regarding divorce. Hence, the birth of "no fault" divorce. The divorce rate skyrocketed after that invasion of man's will over God's regarding marriage.
Of course, 4Christ, you're more than welcome to teach whatever you wish. I do my best to understand what the Word says and live by it, as I'm sure you do. I don't know how the attorneys and judges felt or what they think, or even what you what you meant by that. Divorce is tragic at best, and most times its devestating to everyone even remotely related to the couple, especially the children.
Concerning "no fault" divorce, should the government control who can get divorced and who can not? And if so, what guidelines should they empose? Sadly when lawyers and the civil government have to become involved, everyone looses evern more, especially monetarily. Should a couple have to air their dirty laundry in front of everyone, just because they chose to no longer live together? Not only that, but divorce is devestating enough without requiring everyone to pay exhorbarant fees to lawyers and courts to mitigate the legal separation of a couple who are already separated.
Did the divorce rate skyrocket because of "no-fault" divorce, or because of the increasing immorality in our culture? Many people did not get a divorce, but rather just lived seperately with someone else because they could not or can not afford a legal divorce.
All of this speculation and reasoning wearies me; I'd much rather simply study and apply the Word. Jesus clearly affirmed marriages lasting a life-time, but He inspired Moses to legislate the bill of divorce to bring a proper legal end to otherwise broken relationships, and to mitigate the oppresion of women by allowing women who were expelled by their husbands to legally marry again and remain married.
But I've went over that repeatedly and it seems that you've chosen to believe what you believe regardless of what evidence I present to the contrary so repetition of what I've shared before will likely do no good. And I certainly don't want to get into personal attacks. If you would like to discuss a specific scripture or even a specific concept, I'll gladly do so, but I don't want to just argue. So, may God continue to richly bless you and fill you with His peace!
Sincerely,
Sherman
: zoonance Sat Jun 23, 2007 - 17:30:58
Does our own experience drive our theology?
No, but we are to witness of Jesus the Lord through our lives. Our lives are our experiences. But the focus is not us, it is Jesus. What would Jesus have me to say about MDR? It is that His grace is sufficient. It is that without faith it is impossible to please Him. It is that we are to love and walk in forgiveness towards those who mistreat us as He did for us on the cross at Calvary. It is that He is God. He hates divorce. He holds us to our vows. And the destructiveness of MDR needs to stop within His Church.
: zoonance Sat Jun 23, 2007 - 17:30:58
Does our own experience drive our theology?
I don't know that it drives our theology, but it certainly effects our theology and to a greater or lesser degree is a source of theology. Thomas confessed that Jesus was his Lord and God, why, because he experienced the reality of the Risen Christ. Experience often forces us to critically review what we believe and why we believe it? Critical review will often lead to repentance, a change of mind and a change of heart. Sadly, it often does take an experience before we ever take the time or invest the energy required to do a serious study of the Word and be able to embrace the redeeming and liberating eternal and transcultural principles of Christ.
It's been my experience that experience certainly can help open our minds a bit. I know for me that I usually don't question or change my views unless my views have caused me lots of pain and anquish and then hopefully, with a prayerful mind and attitude, I, then, turn to God and say okay, open my mind to your will, my way is not working.
this is a little about what the bible says in this issue.. check it out.
The proper word used in Rom 7:2 could be translated "bound of law