Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 10:45:59 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Why then did God say "let not"? He could have avoided a lot of confusion if he had said "can not" if that was what he really meant, couldn't he have? I will trust that he really meant what he said, "What God has joined together, let not man separate." If Jesus had intended anything else, I believe that he would have clearly said so.
If my Lord tells me "let not" you ______. That tells me that I am being forbidden from doing whatever that is, so I better not even think about doing it. That's what it means for Him to be my "Lord", so conversely to go ahead and do whatever He was commanding me not to would be a denial of His Lordship.
To whether one "can not" divorce their spouses, we know it seems it can be done because it is millions of times today. However, God says those who do so are deluding themselves in thinking they can get away with defying Him, and that when they attempt to remarry they are entering into adulterous affairs, so they weren't really free from their marriages at all, even though they are under the delusion that they had been.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 10:52:11 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
He said there was a "fornication" provision in the Law of Moses for Old Covenant people, but also said that there are no exceptions whatsoever to New Covenant people:
That is one of the most imaginative ways to get around Jesus' clear teaching that I have seen you come up with so far!
Matthew 19:7-9 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The context is the Pharisees asking Jesus about the Law of Moses in regard to divorce, and He responds calling them adulterers for divorcing apart from the fornication provision given in the Law of Moses. However, later when His disciples asked Him about it further, Jesus specifically said there are no exceptions for them:
Mark 10:10-12 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."
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 11:02:53 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3634
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
He said there was a "fornication" provision in the Law of Moses for Old Covenant people, but also said that there are no exceptions whatsoever to New Covenant people:
That is one of the most imaginative ways to get around Jesus' clear teaching that I have seen you come up with so far!
Matthew 19:7-9 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The context is the Pharisees asking Jesus about the Law of Moses in regard to divorce, and He responds calling them adulterers for divorcing apart from the fornication provision given in the Law of Moses. However, later when His disciples asked Him about it further, Jesus specifically said there are no exceptions for them:
Mark 10:10-12 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."
SealedEternal
Wow what an imagination! Most bible scholars believe that both passages are a retelling of the same event; one from Mathew's perspective, and one from Mark's, but YOU somehow have figured out that these were different events on the same day, and you have somehow figured out that Mark was told only to the disciples?
I guess it doesn't matter that Mark mentions the Pharisees being present just like Mathew does in his account? No, that would mess up a very imaginative "solution" that allows one to explain away what Jesus really said.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 11:10:27 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Wow what an imagination! Most bible scholars believe that both passages are a retelling of the same event; one from Mathew's perspective, and one from Mark's, but YOU somehow have figured out that these were different events on the same day, and you have somehow figured out that Mark was told only to the disciples?
Perhaps they should have read it more carefully:
Mark 10:10-12 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."
quote:
I guess it doesn't matter that Mark mentions the Pharisees being present just like Mathew does in his account?
You're not reading it carefully either. It is the same scenario described in Matthew 19, but in both cases it describes first a debate with the Pharisees and then later a discussion with His disciples:
Matthew 19:10-12 The disciples *said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 11:22:06 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3634
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Wow what an imagination! Most bible scholars believe that both passages are a retelling of the same event; one from Mathew's perspective, and one from Mark's, but YOU somehow have figured out that these were different events on the same day, and you have somehow figured out that Mark was told only to the disciples?
Perhaps they should have read it more carefully:
Mark 10:10-12 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."
quote:
I guess it doesn't matter that Mark mentions the Pharisees being present just like Mathew does in his account?
You're not reading it carefully either. It is the same scenario described in Matthew 19, but in both cases it describes first a debate with the Pharisees and then later a discussion with His disciples:
Matthew 19:10-12 The disciples *said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
SealedEternal
Or maybe you should have begun reading in verse 10:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 8:27:13 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
And as I've noted before, "one flesh" was an idiomatic phrase that referenced "family". If you are of my "flesh", you are part of
I agree with everything you said in your last post, except the part written above. There is no evidence that "one flesh" ever referred to any relationship other than that between a man and a woman. In Genesis where it is first used, it is clear from the context that it didn't mean "family" i.e. "a man will leave his father and mother (his family) and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" Both in Genesis, and in Jesus' quote of Genesis, it is clear that this statement refers only to the relationship between a man and his wife.
Hey bro, notice the use of "flesh" in the following verse, Lev.25:49.
47`And when the hand of a sojourner or settler with thee attaineth [riches], and thy brother with him hath become poor, and he hath been sold to a sojourner, a settler with thee, or to the root of the family of a sojourner, 48 after he hath been sold, there is a right of redemption to him; one of his brethren doth redeem him, 49 or his uncle, or a son of his uncle, doth redeem him, or any of the relations of his flesh, of his family, doth redeem him, or -- his own hand hath attained -- then he hath been redeemed.
So, if you are of my flesh, then you are part of my family. The word "flesh" is used to denote a family relationship. Modern translations of this passage translate it variously, as "kin", "family", etc. all denoting "family". To become of my flesh, it to become part of my family. It does not mean that a couple in some way becomes like one person, or that they are some how metaphysically linked together by some unbreakable bond.
quote:
I do agree with you that there is no question, from the context of Jesus' statement, that a man can break that marriage covenant; changing what the text says i.e. "let not" into "can not" is completely unjustifiable. However, tearing a marriage apart is something that is very painful, and damaging because it really is very special relationship ordained by God that goes even beyond that of the familial ties. Almost anything possible should be done to avoid the severing of that relationship, if at all possible.
I did not change the text into "cannot", rather, I pointed out that it does NOT say "cannot" but rather says "let not". You might read my posts a little closer. I was pointing out that the doctrine of the indissolubility (unbreakableness) of marriage is errant. Scripturally, marriage is breakable, even marriages joined together by God.
I agree that we should do what we can to avoid divorce, but divorce is a possibility, not an impossibility. I run into this misunderstanding a lot; people mistakenly think that by me pointing out that marriage is breakable I am somehow saying that marriage is disposable; but this couldn't be further from the truth. Rather, I believe that by recognizing that marriage is breakable, we thus will take steps to strengthen and protect it if we value it. For example, which does one handle with more care, a priceless extremely fragile China vase, or a priceless solid gold statue. Both are of equal value, but because the China vase is breakable, we would treat it with greater care.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 8:47:04 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huckfinn327
quote:
(Quote tn1) Becoming "one flesh" means to become family,
tn1,
One family. Yes. And that family exists in whole until DEATH DOES US PART ... divorce cannot destroy the family. Your son or daughter, or wife is youR family until death does you part. Let not man put asunder the family, because he CANNOT.
Also your game of logic does not prevent the wisdon of God.
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Huckfinn
Huck,
Studying scripture to understand it is no "game of logic". And making such disrespectful remarks only betrays a weakness of one's position. If one's interpretation is solid, there is no need to resort to disrespectful remarks.
Scripture does not say, "Let not man put asunder the family, because he CANNOT"; rather, Jesus said "What God has joined together, let not man put assunder", because it is possible, not impossible to tear apart even what God has joined together. But of course, that's just common sense and nothing about the doctrine of marriage being indissoluble makes sense either scripturally or practically.
< Message edited by tn1 -- 10/16/2008 8:55:37 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 10:08:57 AM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 4479
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
He said there was a "fornication" provision in the Law of Moses for Old Covenant people, but also said that there are no exceptions whatsoever to New Covenant people:
i think it's clear the Jesus was not extending the Law of Moses. in order for you to believe that premise, it means you are saying uncleanness (ervah) only means fornication from Matthew 19:9 tead it's pretty clear Jesus is addressing God's moral law: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24). anyways if you persist on equating uncleanness only meaning fornication, it conflicts with Leviticus 20:10 stating adulterer to be put to death. thus you're saying God is allowing an exception divorce for adultery only, a contradiction. no wonder the anti-remarriage-in-all-cases crowd stops quoting at verse 8 as you did, it reveals a contradiction.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 10:10:56 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3634
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
And as I've noted before, "one flesh" was an idiomatic phrase that referenced "family". If you are of my "flesh", you are part of
I agree with everything you said in your last post, except the part written above. There is no evidence that "one flesh" ever referred to any relationship other than that between a man and a woman. In Genesis where it is first used, it is clear from the context that it didn't mean "family" i.e. "a man will leave his father and mother (his family) and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" Both in Genesis, and in Jesus' quote of Genesis, it is clear that this statement refers only to the relationship between a man and his wife.
Hey bro, notice the use of "flesh" in the following verse, Lev.25:49.
47`And when the hand of a sojourner or settler with thee attaineth [riches], and thy brother with him hath become poor, and he hath been sold to a sojourner, a settler with thee, or to the root of the family of a sojourner, 48 after he hath been sold, there is a right of redemption to him; one of his brethren doth redeem him, 49 or his uncle, or a son of his uncle, doth redeem him, or any of the relations of his flesh, of his family, doth redeem him, or -- his own hand hath attained -- then he hath been redeemed.
So, if you are of my flesh, then you are part of my family. The word "flesh" is used to denote a family relationship. Modern translations of this passage translate it variously, as "kin", "family", etc. all denoting "family". To become of my flesh, it to become part of my family. It does not mean that a couple in some way becomes like one person, or that they are some how metaphysically linked together by some unbreakable bond.
I have never questioned that the word "flesh" ('basar') can be used to denote family, I have questioned whether the idiom "to one flesh" ('levasar echad') can be used to denote a relationship other than a husband and wife. Idioms like this one can and do change the meaning of the individual words. Related to just this topic is another example, while the word ('ervah') is frequently used and well understood, the exact meaning of idiom ('ervat devar') from Due. 24 has been hotly debated for almost 3000 years. There is far less debate about what relationship is denoted by the idiom 'one flesh' because every use of this idiom in ancient Hebrew literature always refers to the relationship between a husband and a wife.
BTW - Both idioms actually carry over into English. "You are my flesh and blood" denotes family, and "one flesh" denotes the marriage relationship. We don't interchange these idioms in English either.
Where I differ is that I do believe that there really is a "metaphysical link" that is created in marriage (I prefer to call it a Spiritual bond), but I do not believe that it is unbreakable. However, I do believe that breaking it is very painful, and causes a great deal of damage to everyone. It is something that should be done only when there is no alternative to do otherwise. I also do not believe that there is a direct relationship between the breaking of that spiritual bond, and the piece of paper that is issued by the state. That is why Jesus declared that when a marriage is severed for reasons other than unfaithfulness, a remarriage constitutes adultery.
quote:
quote:
I do agree with you that there is no question, from the context of Jesus' statement, that a man can break that marriage covenant; changing what the text says i.e. "let not" into "can not" is completely unjustifiable. However, tearing a marriage apart is something that is very painful, and damaging because it really is very special relationship ordained by God that goes even beyond that of the familial ties. Almost anything possible should be done to avoid the severing of that relationship, if at all possible.
I did not change the text into "cannot", rather, I pointed out that it does NOT say "cannot" but rather says "let not". You might read my posts a little closer. I was pointing out that the doctrine of the indissolubility (unbreakableness) of marriage is errant. Scripturally, marriage is breakable, even marriages joined together by God.
I agree that we should do what we can to avoid divorce, but divorce is a possibility, not an impossibility. I run into this misunderstanding a lot; people mistakenly think that by me pointing out that marriage is breakable I am somehow saying that marriage is disposable; but this couldn't be further from the truth. Rather, I believe that by recognizing that marriage is breakable, we thus will take steps to strengthen and protect it if we value it. For example, which does one handle with more care, a priceless extremely fragile China vase, or a priceless solid gold statue. Both are of equal value, but because the China vase is breakable, we would treat it with greater care.
I think that it is you who needs to "read my posts a little closer"; I was agreeing with you!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 12:38:03 PM
|
|
|
DuckTalk
Posts: 228
Joined: 9/16/2008
From: A Duck Hole in Tennessee
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
God didn't choose my family for me as far as I know, but once I chose to start it, it was mine, and He expected me to follow through with my obligations to it. .......................If remarriage after a divorce is adultery for believers and unbelievers alike, then both are equally bound together by Him for as long as they both shall live.
...................As a matter of fact, my wife and I were both unbelievers and quite foolish when we met. Maybe God had a part in bringing us together,.............
SealedEternal
I hear what you are saying & admit that it sounds quite definitive in instructing us in marriage. Yet very ominous when God is not allowed in the initial union (but I guess that is our fault, due to our freewill) & brother, you should certainly consider yourself one of the fortunate ones. Perhaps God did indeed bring you & your wife together, but you (or we) may also be living in a "rose-colored" world because we don't tend to think of the horrific things that truly do happen & sometimes as close as next door to you or maybe even to your cousin or your sister.
There actually are women who, without forewarning, suddenly find themselves married to men who rape them daily, who endure senseless beatings, broken bones, brutal sexual perversions, torture, and don't go saying this is an exaggeration because it would be remiss of us to think this does not happen & very cruel of us to pass it off by saying, "Well, if they didn't walk with God, then they are due their just desserts".
Would you then say, "Tough kitties little lady, you should have consulted God, but in your stupidity you freely chose, now deal with it or otherwise be an adulterer."? Even God is not predisposed to judge a man or woman until their death, so how can we? And THAT is judgement my friend!
You suggested
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
" If someone is beaten or abused they need to have that situation dealt with,....."
How? Really now, just how do you have those situations that I mentioned "dealt with" without the possibility of her being beaten to a pulp?
You say,
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
and if they must leave to protect themselves, they are commanded to either remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to their spouse:
Okay, I concede that God hates divorce & all things considered, I imagine He hates alot of things that we do daily. He hates laziness, He hates greediness & He hates the actions of a husband who raises his fist to his wife & the husband who looks at another woman lustfully & raging anger & pridefulness & a person who does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned & He hates mockers & gossipers & on & on & on...........
Clearly, remarriage does not make any one person any worse than the other.
I am not justifying, I am just telling the truth.
_____________________________
Sufferin' sassafrass. The nerve of some people, profitting from other people's miseries.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 8:16:12 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Or maybe you should have begun reading in verse 10:2
Alright:
Mark 10:2-9 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY." But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. "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."
Obviously this is the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees about whether "it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife". Jesus answers them by conceding that there was a provision in the Law of Moses due to the hard hearts of the Israelites, but then goes back to Genesis and shows that it was not God's plan for marriage to have any divorce, and then adds that God joins us into one and that we must not separate that union.
In Matthew's rendition we have more information about this debate, including the cause that was permitted under the Old Covenant Law. But first they asked Him a different question about whether it was lawful to divorce for any reason:
Matthew 19:3-6 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 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."
The Pharisees asked Him whether divorce was permitted, to which He gave about as unequivocal of a NO as He possibly could. So then they asked about the Old Covenant provision in Deuteronomy:
Matthew 19:7-9 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery."
To this He conceded that there was a divorce provision in the Old Covenant Law, but added that those under the Old Covenant who divorced their wives for reasons other than "fornication" were committing adultery in remarriage. This is because their divorces not done according to the provision of an Old Covenant man finding fornication in His wife when he married her as the Law stated, did not separate the marriage bond, and thus the next marriage was an extramarital affair. So even under the Old Covenant "divorce" as we know it was never permitted, and always resulted in adultery if someone remarried.
The Textus Receptus added another statement that isn't in all translations here, but is found in Matthew 5 in all translations:
Matthew 19:9b "And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery."
Matthew 5:32 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 innocent woman who was illegally divorced by her husband is also made to commit adultery by her treacherous husband illegally divorcing her. That would be because in those days she would likely need to join to another in order to survive. Also, the man who married this woman who was treacherously divorced by her husband is said to be having an extramarital affair with the first man's wife, even though the first man divorced her.
That was one discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees about the Old Covenant, but then the scriptures state that when they were back at the house, His disciples began questioning Him about this again:
Mark 10:10-12 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."
Matthew 19:10-12 The disciples *said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
To His disciples in a separate conversation about the New Covenant, Jesus specifically says there are no allowances whatsoever to divorce and remarry without committing adultery, to which they were shocked at the perminency of the marriage covenant to the point that they decided it would be better not to marry at all. This fact is difficult for most to swallow as Jesus acknowledged to them, but those of us who can accept Him as our Lord and His Word as our instructions can accept it.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/17/2008 3:14:09 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
I have never questioned that the word "flesh" ('basar') can be used to denote family, I have questioned whether the idiom "to one flesh" ('levasar echad') can be used to denote a relationship other than a husband and wife. Idioms like this one can and do change the meaning of the individual words. Related to just this topic is another example, while the word ('ervah') is frequently used and well understood, the exact meaning of idiom ('ervat devar') from Due. 24 has been hotly debated for almost 3000 years. There is far less debate about what relationship is denoted by the idiom 'one flesh' because every use of this idiom in ancient Hebrew literature always refers to the relationship between a husband and a wife.
BTW - Both idioms actually carry over into English. "You are my flesh and blood" denotes family, and "one flesh" denotes the marriage relationship. We don't interchange these idioms in English either.
Where I differ is that I do believe that there really is a "metaphysical link" that is created in marriage (I prefer to call it a Spiritual bond), but I do not believe that it is unbreakable. However, I do believe that breaking it is very painful, and causes a great deal of damage to everyone. It is something that should be done only when there is no alternative to do otherwise. I also do not believe that there is a direct relationship between the breaking of that spiritual bond, and the piece of paper that is issued by the state. That is why Jesus declared that when a marriage is severed for reasons other than unfaithfulness, a remarriage constitutes adultery.
Ok, I appreciate you explaining further. I agree that the phrase "one flesh" references the marriage union and references the marriage relationship. And of course, in any relationship there are emotional/psychological links that are created. Concerning a "spiritual link", I don't know that scripture indicates such, either for or against. But we certainly agree that divorce is a terribly painful thing for those going through it. Often, divorce is a lingering death, especially if there are children from that union. Divorce should be avoided if at all possible. Divorce is very much like amputation. Amputation can save a person's life, but it leaves the person handicapped; and one certainly doesn't want to go around hacking people's legs off.
And of course, we disagree on the interpretation of what Jesus said. You believe as stated above; however, I believe that Jesus is in Mt. 19 is explaining the reason why Moses gave the bill of divorce - to stop a man from expelling his wife causing her to commit adultery and any man that marries her to commit adultery because she was still legally the wife of the man who expelled her without giving her a bill of divorce. For example, Michal and Palti committed adultery when they married because she was still legally married to David who later reclaimed her. The bill of divorce freed a woman to legally marry another man and not be committing adultery. Except for fornication (illegal/immoral relationships) a bill of divorce was needed to break the marriage bond. But of course, if a relationship was illegal to start off with, there was no need for a bill of divorce.
quote:
I think that it is you who needs to "read my posts a little closer"; I was agreeing with you!
oops, my bad!!  . I'm so use to people misunderstanding and disagreeing with me on that point, I completely misunderstood you, missing that little word "not".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/17/2008 10:30:48 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3634
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
And of course, we disagree on the interpretation of what Jesus said. You believe as stated above; however, I believe that Jesus is in Mt. 19 is explaining the reason why Moses gave the bill of divorce - to stop a man from expelling his wife causing her to commit adultery and any man that marries her to commit adultery because she was still legally the wife of the man who expelled her without giving her a bill of divorce. For example, Michal and Palti committed adultery when they married because she was still legally married to David who later reclaimed her. The bill of divorce freed a woman to legally marry another man and not be committing adultery. Except for fornication (illegal/immoral relationships) a bill of divorce was needed to break the marriage bond. But of course, if a relationship was illegal to start off with, there was no need for a bill of divorce.
I do agree that this was the intent of Moses' "law" in Duet. 24:1-4, but all of the evidence I have seen would indicate that withholding the paper was not a problem in the first century despite the fact that it is a problem today. What evidence do you have that would indicate that the 'get' was withheld from a wife who was divorced in the first century. If this wasn't a problem, then I find it difficult to believe that this was the issue Jesus was addressing. I do agree with you that he was addressing the idea of an unjust divorce, but I believe that he was indicating that some divorces were unjust despite any 'get' that may have been issued.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/18/2008 11:57:58 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
And of course, we disagree on the interpretation of what Jesus said. You believe as stated above; however, I believe that Jesus is in Mt. 19 is explaining the reason why Moses gave the bill of divorce - to stop a man from expelling his wife causing her to commit adultery and any man that marries her to commit adultery because she was still legally the wife of the man who expelled her without giving her a bill of divorce. For example, Michal and Palti committed adultery when they married because she was still legally married to David who later reclaimed her. The bill of divorce freed a woman to legally marry another man and not be committing adultery. Except for fornication (illegal/immoral relationships) a bill of divorce was needed to break the marriage bond. But of course, if a relationship was illegal to start off with, there was no need for a bill of divorce.
I do agree that this was the intent of Moses' "law" in Duet. 24:1-4, but all of the evidence I have seen would indicate that withholding the paper was not a problem in the first century despite the fact that it is a problem today. What evidence do you have that would indicate that the 'get' was withheld from a wife who was divorced in the first century. If this wasn't a problem, then I find it difficult to believe that this was the issue Jesus was addressing. I do agree with you that he was addressing the idea of an unjust divorce, but I believe that he was indicating that some divorces were unjust despite any 'get' that may have been issued.
Josephus notes that Phillip refused to give Herodias a bill of divorce; and instead Herodias gave Phillip an illegal bill of divorce when she left to marry his brother Herod. Beyond that, the passages in the Talmud denouncing the practice indicates that men refusing to give the get was a problem; if it wasn't a problem, it wouldn't have been discussed, much less denounced. And of course, it being a continuing problem among Jews even today, to me, indicates that such was likely a problem throughout Jewish history. Men's hearts were just as hard then as they are now.
Even though I believe men refusing to give the 'get' was a problem in the Jewish community of the 1st century as it is today, I don't believe that Jesus was specifically addressing or denouncing that problem; rather, I believe that He alluded to it and specifically addressed the issues of the heart that caused both illegal separation (refusing to give the 'get') and divorce. He also challenged the Pharisees' legalistic attitudes and teachings. And even though one legally divorces, if one does so for selfish reasons (particularized by "in order to marry another" in Mk.10), if one divorces for selfish reasons he or she is actually committing adultery. The remarriage of the divorced spouse is not what is being denounced, but the divorce for selfish reasons. And in Mt. 19, I don't believe Jesus got sucked into the "Any-matter", no-fault divorce debate;
Jesus' message was multifaceted; and the various literary contexts of the writers highlight various aspects of his message. It's very important to take each passage individually to find out what aspect the author is highlighting. Mt.5, Matthew highlights that Jesus disagreed with the overall Pharisees attitudes and doctrines of divorce. Mt.19 continues Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees with Jesus reaffirming the reason Moses gave the bill of divorce, to stop the practice of men expelling their wives causing them to commit adultery and the men that marry them to commit adultery; and Jesus spoke against divorce in general. In Luke 16, Luke again highlights that Jesus' words concerning divorce must be set in the context of His full endorsement of the Law of Moses. And Mark virtually ignores the debate with the Pharisees and focuses Jesus teaching on the motives behind divorce, specifically denouncing when either a man or a woman divorces his/her spouse so that, or in order to marry another person.
This is why I like to discuss one scripture at a time, because each passage has a different, though complimentary, message. Sadly, the traditional doctrine has taken the various passages, ignored their context, homogenized them into an indistinct powerless mush interpreting Jesus' words to mean several things that Jesus never intended. Jesus did not disagree with Moses, much less intend to repudiate the bill of divorce. Rather, Jesus affirmed that the purpose of the bill of divorce was to stop the practice of men illegally expelling their wives causing them and the men they marry to commit adultery. Jesus did not mean that marriage is indissoluble; rather, He recognized that even marriages joined together by God run the risk of being broken apart, torn assunder by human sin. Jesus did not denounce remarriage after a legal divorce; rather, He denounced divorce in general, and especially denounced divorces based on selfish reasons.
Jesus presented a multifaceted message addressing multiple problems, both specific cultural problems and universal multicultural problems!
P.S. I'm enjoying discussing this with you and appreciate your studious thought-provoking replies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/18/2008 12:42:52 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3634
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
Josephus notes that Phillip refused to give Herodias a bill of divorce; and instead Herodias gave Phillip an illegal bill of divorce when she left to marry his brother Herod. Beyond that, the passages in the Talmud denouncing the practice indicates that men refusing to give the get was a problem; if it wasn't a problem, it wouldn't have been discussed, much less denounced. And of course, it being a continuing problem among Jews even today, to me, indicates that such was likely a problem throughout Jewish history. Men's hearts were just as hard then as they are now.
Even though I believe men refusing to give the 'get' was a problem in the Jewish community of the 1st century as it is today, I don't believe that Jesus was specifically addressing or denouncing that problem; rather, I believe that He alluded to it and specifically addressed the issues of the heart that caused both illegal separation (refusing to give the 'get') and divorce. He also challenged the Pharisees' legalistic attitudes and teachings. And even though one legally divorces, if one does so for selfish reasons (particularized by "in order to marry another" in Mk.10), if one divorces for selfish reasons he or she is actually committing adultery. The remarriage of the divorced spouse is not what is being denounced, but the divorce for selfish reasons. And in Mt. 19, I don't believe Jesus got sucked into the "Any-matter", no-fault divorce debate;
Everything we know from history (both biblical and otherwise) indicates that the marriages and lifestyles of Phillip, his brother, and Herodias were uniquely sinful in that culture; they used their positions of power to disregard the laws which were widely accepted in their culture.
I do agree with you that the laws regarding the 'get' would indicate that men left to their own devices would have abused their wives by refusing to give the 'get', but because of the laws it didn't happen in practice. As an example, in Singapore they have some of the strictest laws regarding littering that are in place anywhere in the world. People who left to their own devices would litter, don't do so in Singapore because the consequences are too severe.
Additionally, looking at the writings regarding the debate between Shamai and Hillel, there was never any question that a 'get' would be given in the case of divorce; in fact the only way for a man to divorce his wife was to give her a 'get'; the refusal to give the 'get' in biblical times occurred when a wife wanted the divorce and her husband was refusing to divorce her. The refusal of the 'get' in the first century didn't occur when a husband chose to divorce his wife, but when he was refusing to divorce her. Given the question asked by the Pharisees "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?", I think it is an inescapable conclusion that they were followers of the school of Hillel, and Jesus was directly dealing with that flawed perspective.
quote:
Jesus did not disagree with Moses, much less intend to repudiate the bill of divorce. Rather, Jesus affirmed that the purpose of the bill of divorce was to stop the practice of men illegally expelling their wives causing them and the men they marry to commit adultery. Jesus did not mean that marriage is indissoluble; rather, He recognized that even marriages joined together by God run the risk of being broken apart, torn asunder by human sin. Jesus did not denounce remarriage after a legal divorce; rather, He denounced divorce in general, and especially denounced divorces based on selfish reasons.
In general I agree with you here, I think my biggest difference would be in the definition of "illegally expelling their wives." I do believe that Christ was trying to draw a distinction here between "spiritually illegal" and "legislatively illegal." I think this is especially evident in the Mt. 5 passage where he addresses more than just divorce and remarriage, and in the case of each sin, his point is that sin happens in the heart whether or not it is expressed in an outside action that would be construed as sin or not.
P.S. I'm also enjoying discussing this with you and appreciate your studious thought-provoking replies as well 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/20/2008 12:46:30 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Benelchi,
Another point that indicates to me that illegal separation was an issue during the time of Christ is His instructions concerning women who were illegally separated from their husbands. He instructed such women to either remain single or to be reconciled to their husbands.
In 1 Cor. 7:10-11, Paul quotes Jesus saying, "let not a wife be separated (chorizo) from a husband; but if she is separated (chorizo), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not a husband divorce (apheimi) a wife."
You can verify in the Greek that the wife, in the above, is not the active agent in any of the verbs, except for her choosing to remain single. Otherwise, the woman is being separated or being reconciled to her husband. This covers both situations, one being where a man expells his wife but does not give her a bill of divorce, and if a woman leaves her husband who does not give her a bill of divorce. In either case, under the current civil law of Israel, the woman should either remain single or be reconciled to her husband. So there must have been enough women in that situation to warrent Jesus specifically addressing what they should/could do under Jewish civil legislation.
Note that Jesus also spoke against men divorcing their wives, but does not direct either divorced men or divorced women to remain unmarried.
In the following verses, after Paul quotes what Jesus said to the Jews and applies it to his (Paul's) Greco-roman audience in Corinth, directing both men and women not to divorce (apheimi) their spouses, even unbelieving spouses, and does not instruct either divorced men or divorced women to remain single. In fact, he subsequently writes that if a man is loosed from a wife (divorced), he does not sin if he marries (vs. 27-28).
Paul, being a missionary, understood the challenges of introducing the Gospel to a radically different culture from what the Gospel was introduced in. He fought the Judiazing believers that tried to enforce the traditions of the Jews on new Gentile believers. And he simultaneously fought legalism, the concept that a person can be saved through obedience to ANY code, law, or lifestyle, even obedience to the Law of Moses; rather, salvation has always and will always come by grace through faith in God.
< Message edited by tn1 -- 10/20/2008 4:44:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/20/2008 9:16:02 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1192
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
Benelchi,
Another point that indicates to me that illegal separation was an issue during the time of Christ is His instructions concerning women who were illegally separated from their husbands. He instructed such women to either remain single or to be reconciled to their husbands.
In 1 Cor. 7:10-11, Paul quotes Jesus saying, "let not a wife be separated (chorizo) from a husband; but if she is separated (chorizo), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not a husband divorce (apheimi) a wife."
You can verify in the Greek that the wife, in the above, is not the active agent in any of the verbs, except for her choosing to remain single. Otherwise, the woman is being separated or being reconciled to her husband. This covers both situations, one being where a man expells his wife but does not give her a bill of divorce, and if a woman leaves her husband who does not give her a bill of divorce. In either case, under the current civil law of Israel, the woman should either remain single or be reconciled to her husband. So there must have been enough women in that situation to warrent Jesus specifically addressing what they should/could do under Jewish civil legislation.
Note that Jesus also spoke against men divorcing their wives, but does not direct either divorced men or divorced women to remain unmarried.
That wouldn't make any sense for many reasons:
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
First of all it tells the woman not to leave (chorizo) her husband, and the man not to divorce (apheimi) his wife. Obviously the difference in terminology is due to the fact that women could never acquire a divorce, so they are told not to "leave" their husband, while men did "divorce" their wives so they were being commanded not to do that.
To read it as you are attempting to would suggest that only females were forbidden from illegally separating but apparently could divorce their husband, while males were forbidden from legally divorcing but could apparently illegally separate. Obviously that would be absurd, and the change in terms is due to the gender distinction.
If you read on, another obvious problem with your claim emerges:
1 Corinthians 7:12-14 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce (apheimi) her . And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away (apheimi). For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
So both the male and female is forbidden from "apheimi" their spouses if they are married to an unbeliever. But according to you they are not bound to a spouse who illegally divorced him or her:
1 Corinthians 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves (chorizo), let him leave (chorizo); the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
According to your doctrine, those who "chorizo" are bound because the divorce has not received the proper paperwork, while those who "apheimi" are allowed to divorce because they do have the proper paperwork. That doctrine therefore is self refuting if we apply it consistently to the passage, because here it would be saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 10/20/2008 10:44:36 PM
|
|
|
huckfinn327
Posts: 382
Joined: 1/30/2007
Status: offline
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
