Svt4Him said:
1) It can only be true if Jesus contradicted the Law under which he lived, which
allowed divorce.
Even within the 'traditional view', the most 'conservative' way of looking at it, there is not a contradiction with the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses does not require a man to divorce and remarry.
Consider the sermon on the mount. The law of Moses does not require a man to swear, not usually. A man was not required to make a vow of gifts he planned to give. He was allowed to, but was not allowed to violate the oath. But Christ added a higher level of requirement on the law of Moses when he said 'swear not at all.' Christ quoted the law of Moses not to murder, and then he taught against saying, "Thou fool"-- again being more stringent than the law of Moses. He quoted 'thou shalt not commit adultery', and then He taught against looking with lust-- a higher morality than what they were used to.
And there in Matthew 5, he also wrote that he that puts away his wife and marries another causes her to commit adultery, and he that marries her that is put away commits adultery.
The issue is not one of contradicting Moses' law, but requiring something higher. Early in the sermon the mount, Jesus said except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven.
2) The conclusion does not allow harmony of the scriptures Paul
commanded
to let the unmarried marry (1Cor7:8,9) and stated the reason
to let them marry, which is to avoid fornication (1 Cor7:2)
That's talking about the unmarried and widows. The verses you cited here don't deal with the issue of dumping one spouse to find another.
and stated that
forbidding to marry was doctrines of devils 1Tim 4:1-4.
Would you use that as a verse against those who condemn polygamy as well? Is it wrong to tell someone not to marry his mother or sister because of this verse? There are still some restrictions on marriage. Outright forbidding to marry is wrong. Teaching people to marry in accordance with God's revealed will is not.
3) It has God having made a law that requires punishing someone when they
did nothing to deserve it.
I'm not arguing for a traditional view that ignores the exception clause, btw. But I don't think it's productive to equate celibacy with punishment. There are plenty of examples in the Bible to show that doing the right thing can involve some level of suffering, with Christ being the prime Example.
b. Jesus did not say that divorced persons commit adultery when they marry,
regardless of the reason for the divorce.
2. Here is a paraphrase of what Jesus said: If you put away your wife and marry
another, unless it be for fornication, you commit adultery and anyone who marries
the one who was put away commits adultery. (Matt 19:9).
a. Put away and divorce are NOT THE SAME THING.
b. Put away means, send out of the house and results in separation not
in a legal divorce.
It is clear from the usage in Matthew 19 and also Deuteronomy 24 that those who are legally divorced are also 'put away.' 'Put away' includes those who are put away legally, with a certificate. In fact, as far as I know, there is no clear cut case of apoluo or shalach ('put away') being used in reference to a wife who doesn't have a certificate of divorce in the Bible.
It is certainly not the case that 'put away' is used to refer exclusively to those 'put away without a certificate' and it is clearly the case that the ones put away with a certificate are still 'put away.' Take a look at Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 19 for examples of this.
Here is the passage you referenced from Matthew 10
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Here, it is clear that the Pharisees refer to a woman put away WITH a certificate of divorce as being 'put away.'
If you read commentaries on the issue, they refer to the debates recorded in the Mishna and the Talmud, in which Hillel, Shammai and other men the Jews referred to as 'rabbis' (a title rightly reserved for Christ) argued the conditions under which a man might legally put away his wife. Hillel's view won out in modern Judaism. He was the leader of the Pharisee party in the Sanhedrin in the first century BC right up until around the time of the birth of Christ. Hillel allowed for a divorce if a woman did a small thing like burning the bread. Shammai only allowed for it for major issues like adultery. The Pharisees in Matthew 19's version of the discussion asked if a man could put away his wife for every cause. 'Every cause' was more or less Hillel's position on divorce.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
What precept? The one that allowed divorce WITH a certificate of divorce.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Something to keep in mind is that if a man gives a woman a writing of divorcement and puts her away, he has just put her away. So this scenario is included in verses 11 and 12.
Now, there are Jewish men who don't give their wives certificates of divorce when they should be expected to legally. But Jewish law recognized that a man was required to provide his wife with food clothes and sex. He wasn't supposd to kick her out without a certificate. That wasn't a legal issue being debated from the evidence we see in the first century..
2. Thayer says apoluo means, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate...
(Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg. 66). Later
in the definition "divorce" is noted, but that definition is apparently
included because some think the context of Matt. 1:19 indicates that
Joseph was "of a mind to" actually divorce his spouse. Actually, they
were not married and therfore there is no justification for
including divorce in the meaning in this text.
If you'll read some commentaries, I'm pretty sure you can find out that if a man betrothed a woman and paid a bride price for her, after that point if he wanted to get rid of her, he had to get a 'get' to her. A 'get' being a certificate of divorce. Betrothal in scripture is not the same as engagement in our culture, just as separation is not the same thing as apoluo or shalach.
If a man slept with a betrothed woman, it was adultery, a death penalty crime. If he slept with an unbetrothed virgin, he had to pay the bride price and marry her if the potential father-in-law would allow it.
b. The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers:
Put Away
verb[transitive, adverb(ial)]
1 to return (something) to the correct or proper place
example: he put away his books
2 to save
example: to put away money for the future
3 to lock up in a prison, mental institution, etc.
example: they put him away for twenty years
4 to eat or drink, esp. in large amounts
5 to put to death, because of old age or illness
example: the dog had to be put away
c. There was NO MENTION of divorce anywhere in the definition of put away.
1) Why is this significant?
2) Because apoluo is properly translated, put away and put away, in our
language does not mean divorce.
None of this is relevant to what the Greek and Hebrew words mean. Marriage doesn't show up in the definitions because 'put away' is only used in reference to marital problems in formal equivilance Bible translations and discussions of those translations, but pretty much isn't used that way elsewhere in the language.
E. What about the fact that some versions of the N.T. translate apoluo as divorce?
1. It is true that several translations have translated apoluo as divorce in Matt 5:32 etc.
a. However, as far as I have been able to find out, the KJV was the first to translate
apoluo as divorce and it was certainly inconsistent in so doing.
1) Of the 11 times Jesus used the word apoluo the KJV rendered it put away
ever time except in one case Matt. 5:32.
2) There is no apparent reason for the inconsistency.
b. Previous to the KJV was the Wyclilff version:
Mark 10:11 - Whosoever putteth awaye his wyfe and maryeth another, breaketh
wedlock to herward. And if a woman forsake her husband and be maryed to
another, she committeth advoutry also.
c. A margin note in The Geneva Bible translated from the Textus Receptus in
1599 (years before the KJV) concerning the term put away said, that
is, was not lawfully divorced. (see: GENEVA BIBLE 1599
1) Why is this worthy of note? It gives support to the idea that Jesus was talking
about men merely putting away their wives and NOT divorcing them lawfully.
It only shows that this opinion existed at that point in time. The Protestants in England were a bit more liberal about divorce than the RCC had been. Even so, we know that apoluo includes putting away WITH a certificate from Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 19. In 'Whosoever marries her that is put away', the ones put away with certificates are put away, too.
d. Greek/English Interlinear (tr){BUT I} legw [3004] (5719) {SAY} umin [5213] {TO
YOU} oti [3754] {THAT} oV [3739] an [302] {WHOEVER} apolush [630] (5661)
thn [3588] {SHALL PUT AWAY} gunaika [1135] autou [846] {HIS WIFE,} parektoV
[3924] {EXCEPT} logou [3056] {ON ACCOUNT} porneiaV [4202] {OF
FORNICATION,} poiei [4160] (5719) {CAUSES} authn [846] {HER} moicasqai
[3429] (5738) {TO COMMIT ADULTERY;} kai [2532] {AND} oV [3739] ean
[1437] {WHOEVER} apolelumenhn [630] (5772) {HER WHO HAS BEEN PUT
AWAY} gamhsh [1060] (5661) {SHALL MARRY,} moicatai [3429] (5736)
{COMMITS ADULTERY.}
e. The ASV is widely respected as being the most literal and accurate version.
a. It consistently renders apoluo as put away in the passages relative to our
study, but never does it render it as divorce.
b. Had the ASV scholars understood apoluo to mean divorce they would have so
translated it.
b. is a faulty conclusion. This is a very formal equivilance translation, seeking to capture subtle differences. Dynamic equivilance translations use words that kind of perform the same social function like 'divorce' for 'apoluo.' Formal equivilence translations will try to use a word to bring out what the word in the underlying Greek text is in a more literal manner.
'Apoluo' doesn't mean divorce, exactly. It means send away, dismiss, or something along those lines. But when they talked about ending marriages, it's the word they used. The issue is that the New Testament discussions talk about sending away wives legally according to the law of Moses-- with certificates, and Christ makes his pronouncements in that context.
2. What appears to have happened is that the KJV erred by translating apoluo as
divorce in one instance, probably due to Papal influence.
No, it's probably more a case of not sticking with formal equivilence and going with a dynamic equivalence.
