|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 2:51:38 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 828
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
it seems to me that the anti-remarriage crowd is all about casting stones at those who believe the Bible
The difference is we believe ALL of the scriptures on marriage/divorce- not just 2 verses. You've never reconciled those verses with all the other verses that contradict your interpretation.
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 2:53:13 PM
|
|
|
CoeurdeLeon
Posts: 9501
Joined: 9/4/2005
From: Inside my head
Status: online
|
quote:
So we have to commit the sin to make it not the sin? We have to commit an immoral act to free ourselves to remarry?
And yet this is the exact reasoning used by the no-remarriage camp when the subject of David/Bathsheba/Uriah comes up. It wasn't adultery because David had Bathsheba's husband killed.
_____________________________
This morning I was awakened by the sound of purple
colliding with the fragrance of laughter.
Eutychus
10.13.08
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 4:03:43 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 4171
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
Thank you, then what this LITERALLY says is that UNLESS I commit adultery and my spouse divorces me for that, then I will be committing adultery if I remarry.
i checked your profile and there was no location listed. i am not trying to be mean, are you from the US, is English your native language? the grammar is saying that anyone marrying the unfaithful spouse is commiting adultery.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 4:21:50 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 4171
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
The difference is we believe ALL of the scriptures on marriage/divorce- not just 2 verses. You've never reconciled those verses with all the other verses that contradict your interpretation.
there's no reconciliation needed ... it's more on the topic ... connect the dots ... when expounding on a point, it's not necessary to go back and list everything yet again ...
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 6:07:32 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
A woman that was a virgin when her husband married her could not be divorced but must "remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days", so there were no "divorces" allowable after the betrothal period ended and he didn't challenge her virginity, or if he did and she proved she was one. Originally the woman who was not a virgin when her husband married her was to be "divorced" by stoning:
Your conclusion of this verse is errant. It was a virgin who was unjustly accused by her husband of not being a virgin who could not be divorced; if she was found to not be a virgin, she was stoned. By forbiding divorce in this specific situation, this law actually assumes that other divorces were allowed, not forbidden. This law certainly doesn't imply, much less state, that "there were no 'divorces' allowable after the betrothal period".
quote:
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Then an additional regulation was added permitting a certificate of divorce rather than stoning, with the stipulation that he could not take her back if she married again:
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.
Deut. 22:13-21 forbids divorce in a specific situation, and thus assumes that divorce was allowed in all other situations not restricted by this law or others like it.
Deut. 24:1-4 then forbids a man remarrying a woman whom he has divorced and she has subsequently married another man. It is a completely different situation, a completely different law. Deut. 22 forbids divorce in a specific situation. And Deut. 24 forbids remarriage in a specific situation.
quote:
What you are claiming about paperwork being the issue under debate is false. It is only the Pharisees that were concerned about the paperwork issue, because they had falsely taught that if the woman was given the proper paperwork that the divorce was legal, but Jesus challenged that contention and focused on the cause of divorce, which was only supposed to be for premarital fornication according to the Old Covenant Law. Because their divorces were not done for the proper cause according to the Old Covenant Law, Jesus said their second so-called "marriages" were actually nothing more than extramarital affairs.
You're welcome to verify what the contents and focus of the "Any-matter" debate was by reading the Pharisees debate in the Talmud for yourself; or you can continue to assert your beliefs based on assumptions and ignorance concerning their beliefs.
Furthermore, the OT only forbids divorce in a specific situation and does not even begin to legislate acceptable and non-acceptable reasons for divorce. Divorce happens because of the hardness of heart, however that is expressed, whether it's the one doing the divorcing or the one being divorced that is hard-hearted.
In Israel, mdr was primarily a personal/domestic affair under very limited civil authority.
quote:
So yes, "put away" can refer to either divorces with paperwork or without, because the term itself does not deal with the issue of paperwork.
I'm glad that you recognize that the word "apoluo" can signify either "illegal separation" or "legal divorce". Thus we are dependant upon other information to determine which English phrase to use. As I've pointed out though, the Aramaic text indicates that in the passages where a woman is forbidden to marry another man, the woman is only separated from her husband and not legally divorced. Not only that, but when Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, it is the woman who is separated from her husband, not legally divorced who is commanded to remain single. The man who divorces his wife is not commanded to remain single. (Of course, considering polygamy was legal and still practiced, it's possible that the man could still be married to another woman though he divorces one.) Understanding a text through the lens of its cultural context is very important.
And as I've pointed out, in the Mark 10 passage, the words "apoluo" and "gameo" are both in the subjunctive mood and thus indicate purpose and intent. Thus the best interpretation is "divorces in order to marry another".
< Message edited by tn1 -- 10/6/2008 6:32:06 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 8:13:14 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1147
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
Thank you, then what this LITERALLY says is that UNLESS I commit adultery and my spouse divorces me for that, then I will be committing adultery if I remarry.
i checked your profile and there was no location listed. i am not trying to be mean, are you from the US, is English your native language? the grammar is saying that anyone marrying the unfaithful spouse is commiting adultery.
You're the one having difficulty comprehending the English here:
Matthew 5:31-32 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The text says that the woman who is innocent of unchastity (or as one translation errantly says marital unfaithfulness) is made to commit adultery by her husband divorcing her. It also says that whoever marries the woman who was unjustly divorced by her husband is also guilty of adultery by marrying her.
So how does that fit what you are trying to claim here?
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 8:47:01 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 828
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
i checked your profile and there was no location listed. i am not trying to be mean, are you from the US, is English your native language? the grammar is saying that anyone marrying the unfaithful spouse is commiting adultery.
Even though that is not actually what the text says, I'm glad you said that because it only proves why the whole innocent party theory doesn't add up. The whole idea that somehow the innocent party can be free to remarry and the guilty party cannot remarry without it being adultery makes no sense... because the guilty party is committing adultery against someone when they remarry and the only person they can be committing adultery against is the innocent party, who they are obviously still bound to.
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 10:50:45 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1147
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
A woman that was a virgin when her husband married her could not be divorced but must "remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days", so there were no "divorces" allowable after the betrothal period ended and he didn't challenge her virginity, or if he did and she proved she was one. Originally the woman who was not a virgin when her husband married her was to be "divorced" by stoning:
Your conclusion of this verse is errant. It was a virgin who was unjustly accused by her husband of not being a virgin who could not be divorced; if she was found to not be a virgin, she was stoned. By forbiding divorce in this specific situation, this law actually assumes that other divorces were allowed, not forbidden. This law certainly doesn't imply, much less state, that "there were no 'divorces' allowable after the betrothal period".
No, the Law established one variation from the one flesh marriage Law that God established from the beginning, but clarified that if the woman was a virgin at the time of the marriage, that they were bound together for life as the marriage Law had always been:
Genesis 2:21-24 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
This was confirmed by both Paul and Jesus:
Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Mark 10: 6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."
Ephesians 5:28-33 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
It is you that assumes that divorce is allowable for other causes, but you have failed to present any scriptural support for your assertation.
quote:
quote:
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Then an additional regulation was added permitting a certificate of divorce rather than stoning, with the stipulation that he could not take her back if she married again:
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.
Deut. 22:13-21 forbids divorce in a specific situation, and thus assumes that divorce was allowed in all other situations not restricted by this law or others like it.
The text forbids all divorce from the time of marriage if the man's wife was a virgin. Again, you asume it was allowed in all other situations, but there is no verse anywhere in the Old Covenant Law, or the entire Bible for that matter that says anything of the sort, and it actually says repeatedly that divorce and remarriage results in adultery, which proves that divorce doesn't end a marriage, or else adultery couldn't be an issue.
quote:
Deut. 24:1-4 then forbids a man remarrying a woman whom he has divorced and she has subsequently married another man. It is a completely different situation, a completely different law. Deut. 22 forbids divorce in a specific situation. And Deut. 24 forbids remarriage in a specific situation.
No, it is the exact same situation but chapter 22 established the Law and chapter 24 added an additional regulation to it:
Deuteronomy 22:13 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her..."
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her..."
Deut 22 "...and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her..."
Deut 24 "...and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes..."
Deut 22 "...and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin..."
Deut 24 "...because he has found some indecency in her..."
Both are speaking about the same scenario, but Chapter 22 established the Law and how it is to be implemented, while chapter 24 speaks of a man in that situation assuming that the reader is already familiar with the Law, and adds an additional regulation allowing for a bill of divorce rather than stoning, but since she is allowed to live it went on to state that he couldn't take her back if she remarried.
This is confirmed by Jesus when He said that fornication (porneia) is the only allowable grounds for divorce, and that any other divorce and subsequent remarriage is actually adultery:
Matthew 5:31-32 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery."
If there were other allowances for divorce to Old Covenant people, then Jesus' statements would be false, but He says that fornication was the only allowance which a man could put his wife away.
quote:
quote:
What you are claiming about paperwork being the issue under debate is false. It is only the Pharisees that were concerned about the paperwork issue, because they had falsely taught that if the woman was given the proper paperwork that the divorce was legal, but Jesus challenged that contention and focused on the cause of divorce, which was only supposed to be for premarital fornication according to the Old Covenant Law. Because their divorces were not done for the proper cause according to the Old Covenant Law, Jesus said their second so-called "marriages" were actually nothing more than extramarital affairs.
You're welcome to verify what the contents and focus of the "Any-matter" debate was by reading the Pharisees debate in the Talmud for yourself; or you can continue to assert your beliefs based on assumptions and ignorance concerning their beliefs.
If you regard the Talmud as superior to scripture, then that explains our different conclusions. Scripture states that Jesus was disputing the cause of divorce in the Old Covenant that the Pharisees were misapplying, while it was the Pharisees that were concerned about the paperwork. You take the word of the Pharisees which Jesus rebuked as abusing His Word, above His Word itself, while I regard His Word as taking precedence.
quote:
Furthermore, the OT only forbids divorce in a specific situation and does not even begin to legislate acceptable and non-acceptable reasons for divorce. Divorce happens because of the hardness of heart, however that is expressed, whether it's the one doing the divorcing or the one being divorced that is hard-hearted.
It only allows divorce for one cause anywhere in the Old Covenant Law, and you have not presented any scripture that states otherwise. Jesus Himself confirmed that the only permitted cause for Old Covenant people was fornication, so you are denying His statement on the subject, not to mention His uneqivocal statements saying that all divorce and remarriage is adultery without exception:
Mark 10: 6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."
Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”
quote:
In Israel, mdr was primarily a personal/domestic affair under very limited civil authority.
Sadly the Israelites did not adhere to God's Law, but He established His Law of marriage from the beginning stating that He joins the two into one for life, and stated repeatedly that those who attempt to separate what He has joined, are not able to do so but are simply entering into extramarital affairs in remarriage.
quote:
quote:
So yes, "put away" can refer to either divorces with paperwork or without, because the term itself does not deal with the issue of paperwork.
I'm glad that you recognize that the word "apoluo" can signify either "illegal separation" or "legal divorce". Thus we are dependant upon other information to determine which English phrase to use.
No, we are to limit the term to what it means, and it doesn't deal one way or the other with paperwork. Jesus said that everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery, so it means that this is the case with or without proper paperwork. You want to add this concept to the text to create a false distinction, but there is nothing in the text itself that indicates that paperwork has anything to do with the discussion.
quote:
As I've pointed out though, the Aramaic text indicates that in the passages where a woman is forbidden to marry another man, the woman is only separated from her husband and not legally divorced.
First of all you haven't proven that the Aramaic is specially inspired and the Greek is in error. Secondly, even you have not asserted that the other two Gospels were specially inspired in Aramaic and they say the same thing. Oh yeah, you have a completely different excuse why those don't mean what they say.
quote:
Not only that, but when Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, it is the woman who is separated from her husband, not legally divorced who is commanded to remain single. The man who divorces his wife is not commanded to remain single.
The woman is commanded not to leave her husband or to send him away, while he is commanded not to divorce her. As you are aware, women were not permitted to divorce their husbands which explains the slight distinction in terms. Beyond that, It's absurd for you to assume that the text is actually saying the husband can't legally divorce his wife and she can't illegally separate from him, but he may illegally separate from her and she may legally divorce him. Obviously it makes infinitely more sense to assume it means that she can't leave him and he can't divorce her as it says.
quote:
And as I've pointed out, in the Mark 10 passage, the words "apoluo" and "gameo" are both in the subjunctive mood and thus indicate purpose and intent. Thus the best interpretation is "divorces in order to marry another".
Then why does virtually every Greek translator disagree with you. And don't bother bringing up The Message, because that's a paraphrase and not a translation of the text. It's funny how your excuses change with each verse for why it supposedly doesn't mean what the text says.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 10:52:59 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1147
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon
quote:
So we have to commit the sin to make it not the sin? We have to commit an immoral act to free ourselves to remarry?
And yet this is the exact reasoning used by the no-remarriage camp when the subject of David/Bathsheba/Uriah comes up. It wasn't adultery because David had Bathsheba's husband killed.
The murder was a very serious sin, but someone can't be married to a dead person. If there's no marriage, there can't be adultery. That's just a fact.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 11:13:20 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1147
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
It's especially difficult for people to rethink the traditional doctrine of mdr. The traditional doctrine basically affirms that marriage is a sacrament, under ecclesial authority, and indissoluble. It's also taught the Jesus repudiated the bill of divorce restoring marriage to being indissoluble like it was in Eden, being only breakable by death.
That's a real strawman since no one here has ever suggested that marriage is a sacrament or that it is under ecclesial authority. I for one do not believe that the concept of sacraments is taught anywhere in the Bible, and have always stated that marriage is under God's authority alone. I also believe that scripture clearly teaches that Christians are not under the Old Covenant Law, so in that sense we aren't required to divorce and stone people anymore.
SealedEternal
If you'll notice, I didn't address this to anyone specific; rather, I was simply pointing out the traditional doctrine of mdr as expressed in the Cousel of Trent in the 16th century. There are more people reading this thread than just you.
But as I stated, no one here is defending the Council of Trent in the 16th century, or any of the things you say they taught. So why bring it up?
quote:
And btw, the OT didn't "require divorce", rather divorce was allowed because of the hard-heartedness of mankind, the same hard-heartedness that breaks up marriages today.
That's the key, because the New Covenant states that children of God are given new hearts through the regeneration of His Spirit, so by definition we are not hard hearted.
quote:
Concerning stoning people, capital punishment still exists in many of the United States and in many countries; though capital punishment is administered differently among different peoples.
But as someone who claims the Old Covenant is still in effect, do you also promote stoning of people where the Law states the penalty is to do so, and if not then why do you use the Old Covenant Law to promote divorce?
quote:
Moses established both civil and religious authority structures and laws as well as teachings concerning domestic and personal affairs. Issues concerning MDR were predominantly domestic/personal affairs, but were also under limited civil authority, with all (civil, domestic, & personal) being supported (but not controled) by the religious.
The Old Covenant was an earthly covenant to one earthly nation which was Israel. Moses under God's inspiration gave specific parameters for only one type of divorce, and it was consistent with God's statement from the beginning in Genesis, which stated that God joins the two into one for life. The only "exception" in Moses' Law was for a man who had discovered his wife to have committed fornication when he married her, and that was confirmed by Jesus Himself:
Matthew 5:31-32 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery."
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/7/2008 6:22:22 AM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 901
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
A woman that was a virgin when her husband married her could not be divorced but must "remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days", so there were no "divorces" allowable after the betrothal period ended and he didn't challenge her virginity, or if he did and she proved she was one. Originally the woman who was not a virgin when her husband married her was to be "divorced" by stoning:
Your conclusion of this verse is errant. It was a virgin who was unjustly accused by her husband of not being a virgin who could not be divorced; if she was found to not be a virgin, she was stoned. By forbiding divorce in this specific situation, this law actually assumes that other divorces were allowed, not forbidden. This law certainly doesn't imply, much less state, that "there were no 'divorces' allowable after the betrothal period".
quote:
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Then an additional regulation was added permitting a certificate of divorce rather than stoning, with the stipulation that he could not take her back if she married again:
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.
Deut. 22:13-21 forbids divorce in a specific situation, and thus assumes that divorce was allowed in all other situations not restricted by this law or others like it.
Deut. 24:1-4 then forbids a man remarrying a woman whom he has divorced and she has subsequently married another man. It is a completely different situation, a completely different law. Deut. 22 forbids divorce in a specific situation. And Deut. 24 forbids remarriage in a specific situation.
quote:
What you are claiming about paperwork being the issue under debate is false. It is only the Pharisees that were concerned about the paperwork issue, because they had falsely taught that if the woman was given the proper paperwork that the divorce was legal, but Jesus challenged that contention and focused on the cause of divorce, which was only supposed to be for premarital fornication according to the Old Covenant Law. Because their divorces were not done for the proper cause according to the Old Covenant Law, Jesus said their second so-called "marriages" were actually nothing more than extramarital affairs.
You're welcome to verify what the contents and focus of the "Any-matter" debate was by reading the Pharisees debate in the Talmud for yourself; or you can continue to assert your beliefs based on assumptions and ignorance concerning their beliefs.
Furthermore, the OT only forbids divorce in a specific situation and does not even begin to legislate acceptable and non-acceptable reasons for divorce. Divorce happens because of the hardness of heart, however that is expressed, whether it's the one doing the divorcing or the one being divorced that is hard-hearted.
In Israel, mdr was primarily a personal/domestic affair under very limited civil authority.
quote:
So yes, "put away" can refer to either divorces with paperwork or without, because the term itself does not deal with the issue of paperwork.
I'm glad that you recognize that the word "apoluo" can signify either "illegal separation" or "legal divorce". Thus we are dependant upon other information to determine which English phrase to use. As I've pointed out though, the Aramaic text indicates that in the passages where a woman is forbidden to marry another man, the woman is only separated from her husband and not legally divorced. Not only that, but when Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, it is the woman who is separated from her husband, not legally divorced who is commanded to remain single. The man who divorces his wife is not commanded to remain single. (Of course, considering polygamy was legal and still practiced, it's possible that the man could still be married to another woman though he divorces one.) Understanding a text through the lens of its cultural context is very important.
And as I've pointed out, in the Mark 10 passage, the words "apoluo" and "gameo" are both in the subjunctive mood and thus indicate purpose and intent. Thus the best interpretation is "divorces in order to marry another".
Thank you tn1, for your posts.... and for your time with the brick wall - we understand completely. 
_____________________________
"Ya mom, I got to see "Some Italian guy" in concert..."
Some Italian guy? (Carman) :p
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/7/2008 8:42:20 AM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 4171
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery."
agreed! glad you brought it up, usually it's ignored! btw why do you underline and bold so much in your posts, they make it difficult to read.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/7/2008 9:56:22 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
A woman that was a virgin when her husband married her could not be divorced but must "remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days", so there were no "divorces" allowable after the betrothal period ended and he didn't challenge her virginity, or if he did and she proved she was one. Originally the woman who was not a virgin when her husband married her was to be "divorced" by stoning:
Your conclusion of this verse is errant. It was a virgin who was unjustly accused by her husband of not being a virgin who could not be divorced; if she was found to not be a virgin, she was stoned. By forbiding divorce in this specific situation, this law actually assumes that other divorces were allowed, not forbidden. This law certainly doesn't imply, much less state, that "there were no 'divorces' allowable after the betrothal period".
No, the Law established one variation from the one flesh marriage Law that God established from the beginning, but clarified that if the woman was a virgin at the time of the marriage, that they were bound together for life as the marriage Law had always been:
As I've pointed out before, the phrase "one flesh" was an idiomatic, culturally specific phrase that meant family. In the Bible, in Hebraic and Aramaic cultures, the term “flesh” was used to refer to one’s clan or family group. For example, a law concerning slavery in Leviticus 25:49 says, “or their uncle or their uncle’s son may redeem them, or anyone of their family who is of their own flesh may redeem them” (NRSV). The word "flesh" is the Hebrew word "basar" and is the same word as used in Gen. 2:24 that says the man and woman shall become one "flesh".
Becoming "one flesh" is to become "family"; it does not mean that the two people become in any way like one person or enter some kind of unbreakable union.
Furthermore, Gen. 2:24 is not a "law" as you claim, but it is either Historical Narrative or Metaphorical Narrative. "Law" is interpreted differently than "Historical Narrative." A common mistake many people make is to take phrases from narrative and interpret it like law, to take it out of context and make it say much more than was ever intended.
"And the two shall become one flesh", speaks of two seperate individuals covenanting together to create a new family unit. Sadly, tradition has made more of that phrase than what was meant in that culture. It never did, nor does it now imply that some kind of unbreakable union is made. Rather, becoming "one flesh" simply speaks of creating a new family. The two leave their "families" and create a new "family". It does not mean that marriage is either eternal or indissoluble. And of course, nor does it mean either that marriage is only temporal or dissoluble. It doen't affirm or deny either. Rather, it simply affirms that through marriage a couple creates a new family.
If you are of my "flesh" you are part of my family, a relative, my flesh and blood!
Deut. 22:13-19 does not establish one "variation from the one flesh marriage Law". "One flesh" is not a "marriage Law". Not only that, but Deut. 22:13-19 does not even speak of divorce; rather, if the woman was found to not be a virgin when she was suppose to be a virgin, she was killed, not divorced.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/7/2008 10:07:14 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
It is you that assumes that divorce is allowable for other causes, but you have failed to present any scriptural support for your assertation.
Deut. 22:13-19 says that if a man marries a woman who was suppose to be a virgin but who was not, the woman is killed. But if the man is proven to have falsely accused her, it forbids him to ever divorce her.
In like manner, if we had a law that said that people 16 years old cannot drive at night from 12 AM to 6 AM, then it assumes that those who are 16 can drive the remainder of the day.
So, the Law forbid a man divorcing his wife if he falsely accused her of not being a virgin; it does not restrict divorce otherwise.
If you don't understand that, check with your children. If you tell them, "do not play with the red truck", it assumes that you're ok with them playing with their other toys unless you specify otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/7/2008 10:17:56 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
SealedEternal,
I was about to go through your other comments, but I really don't want to just argue, wasting my time. And I certainly don't want to get into being disrespectful towards you or speaking negatively of you personally and that's getting more difficult for your arguments increasingly come across to me as not only based on misinformation, errant interpretation of scripture based on ignorance of the cultural and literary context, and disregard for simple hermeneutical principles, but even irrational. So, as I've started to do several times before, I'm backing out of the discussion with you directly. You're welcome to ignore or denounce my posts as you see fit; but I'm moving on.
Blessings,
Sherman
< Message edited by tn1 -- 10/7/2008 10:30:10 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/7/2008 10:27:41 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Restored_Heart
Thank you tn1, for your posts.... and for your time with the brick wall - we understand completely.
Thanks for the encouragement. The traditional doctrine of mdr is very much like a spider's web. It is made up of multiple misinterpretations of scripture (phrases and verses), and errant principles. And each of these is interconnected. Misunderstanding "one flesh" is linked with misinterpreting what Jesus said. Not recognizing that Jesus fully endorsed the Mosaic Law, sets one up to misinterpret what Jesus said concerning divorce. Not recognizing the major difference in civil law concerning divorce between the Jews and the Gentiles, causes people to misinterpret what Paul wrote. Not recognizing the role of civil government over mdr, keeps the ...... Well anyhow, sadly each of these threads of misinformation, misinterpretation, and mistaken principles overlap and reinforce eachother creating a web of deceit that keeps the church powerless in actually helping people have healthy, happy marriages, a little heaven or earth like in Eden.
Thanks again for the encouragement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/7/2008 10:33:28 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
tn1 I know that brick wall must be hard. Are you not beginning to get a headache? 
Not a headache, but increasingly realizing that some people believe what they believe regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Thanks though for the encouragement.
blessings,
Sherman
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/7/2008 10:52:48 AM
|
|
|
bricole77
Posts: 65 | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
