Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage

[ShermanN]

This quote was regarding Malachi 2:13-17. We find that God (called a 'divorcee' by some) remains faithful to Israel , using 'divorcement' as a means of compelling Israel to return to Him. God's heart of faithful love is seen in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 3
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
11 And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.
12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.
14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

Again, divorce did NOT break God's covenant with Israel... it merely served to help bring 'her' back into right relationship.

TrueColors, thanks for sharing your observations on this specific passage! And your observations would seem to make sense; but when interpreting biblical metaphors one needs to be careful to not make them say more than they do. Biblical metaphors are used to communicate specific points and messages. This passage is using the metaphor of marriage, divorce, and even polygamy to communicate God's love for Israel and Judah and His desire for them both to turn to him.

Of course, at the writting of this passage, Israel and Judah were two seperate nations, and Israel had been taken into captivity. The passage starts off by recognizing that God was married to both sisters, Israel and Judah. He then calls Judah to stop running around on Him and return to Him in repentance, why? Because if she doesn't, He'll divorce her (send her into captivity) like He did her sister Israel. Then God says that even though He has divorced Israel and sent her as a nation into captivity, if individuals will repent he'll bring them back to Zion.

So this passage is a mixed metaphor communicating God's love for the Jewish people, as a united group (greater Israel), as seperate nations (Judah and Israel), and as individuals (God's children).

This passage is a prophetic call of love to the chosen people of God to repent and turn back to Him with their whole hearts; but it is certainly NOT a discourse on the principles of marriage, polygamy, divorce, and/or remarriage! So to try to use this passage to "prove" that marriage is unbreakable, is as erroneous as using it to prove that polygamy (even being married to sisters) is acceptable.

Jesus said, "What God has joined together, let not man seperate." The command to not do something implies that it is possible to do it, not that it's impossible; thus it is possible for man to seperate even what God has joined togther, though we shouldn't. Jesus said that a man should not divorce his wife to marry another, and wife should not divorce her husband to marry another. Thus, divorce is possible and marriages are breakable, though they shouldn't be broken.

We should do all we can to make a go of our marriages (moral and legal marriages that is). But the Bible does not teach or imply that marriage is indissoluble. Rather it very clearly teaches that marriage is breakable and divorce is possible, though we shouldn't seek divorce.

Since the Fall of mankind from the Garden, death happens, sometimes by natural causes, and other times because of the violence of mankind (murder). In like manner, since the Fall of mankind, relational death happens, sometimes by natural causes (physical death), and sometimes by the violence of mankind (divorce).

Which does one treat with more care, an indistructable cast iron pot or a priceless extremely fragile China vase? The fragile China vase, of course! In the same way, to have healthy life-long marriages, we need to recognize the fragility and weaknesses of our relationships and work to protect them and make them stronger. It's the "small foxes that spoil the vine." Most often, it's the seemingly small, day-to-day, hateful acts of disrespect that destroy most marriages - the progressive hardening of one's heart against their spouse. If we want to help people's marriages last a lifetime, we need to help them recognize their weaknesses and seek to strengthen these areas. But to assert that marriage is indissoluble is both unscriptural and impractical.

Blessings,
Sherman

P.S. In no way am I advocating divorce, I'm advocating that we protect and strengthen moral/legal marriages. And to accomplish this we need to recognize both the importance (high-value) of marriage and that our marriages are breakable, even fragile.

P.S.S. Though I use this passage as the basis for the title of my book, "God Is A Divorce' Too!", I'm careful to point out that this scripture should not be used to prove anything about MDR because of the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, though it is valid to say that "God is a divorce' too", it is not valid to use this metaphor to prove anything, and I don't. Though just the recognition that it is a valid scriptural metaphor speaks volumes to many who have suffered divorce and are trying to overcome the unrelenting pain and stigma associated with it. It speaks to them that God understands their pain because He has experienced it Himself!

 

[TrueColors]

It speaks to them that God understands their pain because He has experienced it Himself!

I understand, Sherman... but can't we agree the greater message is faithfulness? One day Israel will acknowledge her 'husband'... and He will not have 'remarried' another... He will receive 'her' in faithfulness.

 

[ShermanN]

I understand, Sherman... but can't we agree the greater message is faithfulness? One day Israel will acknowledge her 'husband'... and He will not have 'remarried' another... He will receive 'her' in faithfulness.

Absolutely! The passage's foundation is God's faithful unending love for His people. No matter how wicked and evil His children are, He will gladly receive us back when we repent. And to be Christ-like, who is the express image of God, we too should be faithful in our relationships -- loving, long-suffering, patient, kind, and gentle. Faithfulness is a foundational element of healthy lasting marriages.

Marriage is established by covenant, and covenants are ultimately only as strong as the combined moral character of the covenantors. God's relationship with Israel was established by covenant and is a very strong covenant, because God's character is perfect. But the marriage covenant between a man and woman is only as strong as their combined moral characters. The weaker the moral characters of the covenantors, the more likely the covenant will be broken (divorce), ending the marriage relationship.

TrueColors, I really do appreciate the open and respectful discussion with you. When we've been taught all of our lives that marriage is unbreakable, and taught to understand scripture through that lens, it's very difficult to take off that lens and view scripture without that assumption.

I commend you for being both open-minded and yet not gullible by being diligent to study the scripture, like the Bereans!

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[TrueColors]

But the marriage covenant between a man and woman is only as strong as their combined moral characters. The weaker the moral characters of the covenantors, the more likely the covenant will be broken (divorce), ending the marriage relationship.

The relationship yes, yet the covenant is not ended, as we see in God's pleading for backsliding Israel to return though He had 'divorced' her and broken 'relationship'. Again, Paul teaches only death breaks the one-flesh covenant.

God's relationship with Israel was established by covenant and is a very strong covenant, because God's character is perfect. But the marriage covenant between a man and woman is only as strong as their combined moral characters. The weaker the moral characters of the covenantors, the more likely the covenant will be broken (divorce), ending the marriage relationship.

I have to disagree, Sherman. Covenants are binding, regardless if those making them are 'strong' or 'weak'. It's not a situational ethic... and God doesn't lower His standards to be defined by the 'weak'. Instead, He offers His power to live by His standard.

 

[TrueColors]

our marriages are breakable, even fragile.

I don't see this taught in scripture anywhere... it's human reasoning. Jesus taught that two people become one in marriage.. no longer two. Have you ever tried to mix two colors of clay together, and seperate them again into their original states? It can't happen... each retains part of the other color. So it is with one flesh... two, become one. Weaknesses in each, do not change God's making them one flesh.

 

[ShermanN]

I don't see this taught in scripture anywhere... it's human reasoning. Jesus taught that two people become one in marriage.. no longer two. Have you ever tried to mix two colors of clay together, and seperate them again into their original states? It can't happen... each retains part of the other color. So it is with one flesh... two, become one. Weaknesses in each, do not change God's making them one flesh.

Another embedded theological concept that's neither biblical or practical. Sadly, there has been a lot of errant teaching on the phrase "one flesh." I did two posts on the meaning of this phrase used in scripture, posts 148 & 153.

The phrase "one flesh" was an ancient Near-Eastern idiomatic (culturally specific) phrase that meant "family". To be of one's flesh was to be a member of one's family. In Gen.2.24, when a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, they become one flesh (a new and seperate family unit). That's the meaning of this phrase in the OT and in the Gospels.

Paul uses this phrase in 1 Cor.6 to instruct the men to stop availing themselves of Aphrodite's temple priestesses/prostitutes. He did this by making allusions, metaphorically speaking to how sexual intercourse with these prostitutes ties the family (body) of Christ, with the family of the prostitue, Baal. I believe that he also alludes to the biochemical/emotional/mental/soulish connection that is enhanced by sexual intercouse.

But "one flesh" does not mean that two people become like "one person" in any way, practically, physically, spiritually, emotionally, mentally, or even parentally. My wife and I are the parents of our children, but I'm the father, and she's the mother - very different roles and functions.

So it is erroneous to use the idiomatic phrase "one flesh" to attempt to support the errant concept that marriage is indissoluble.

As I mentioned, I did two extensive posts looking at the use and meaning of "one flesh" in the bible, posts 148 & 153.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Spiritsong]

Another embedded theological concept that's neither biblical or practical. Sadly, there has been a lot of errant teaching on the phrase "one flesh." I did two posts on the meaning of this phrase used in scripture, posts 148 & 153.

The phrase "one flesh" was an ancient Near-Eastern idiomatic (culturally specific) phrase that meant "family". To be of one's flesh was to be a member of one's family. In Gen.2.24, when a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, they become one flesh (a new and seperate family unit). That's the meaning of this phrase in the OT and in the Gospels.

Paul uses this phrase in 1 Cor.6 to instruct the men to stop availing themselves of Aphrodite's temple priestesses/prostitutes. He did this by making allusions, metaphorically speaking to how sexual intercourse with these prostitutes ties the family (body) of Christ, with the family of the prostitue, Baal. I believe that he also alludes to the biochemical/emotional/mental/soulish connection that is enhanced by sexual intercouse.

But "one flesh" does not mean that two people become like "one person" in any way, practically, physically, spiritually, emotionally, mentally, or even parentally. My wife and I are the parents of our children, but I'm the father, and she's the mother - very different roles and functions.

So it is erroneous to use the idiomatic phrase "one flesh" to attempt to support the errant concept that marriage is indissoluble.

As I mentioned, I did two extensive posts looking at the use and meaning of "one flesh" in the bible, posts 148 & 153.

Blessings,
Sherman

Becoming 'one' with a prostitute is a far cry from the 'one flesh' GOD creates when a couple makes a marital covenant. If this were not true... there would be no such sin as fornication... just multiple spouses. That, is error.

 

[ShermanN]

Concerning the word "covenant" in the bible; it is a big word that covers any type of formalized agreement ranging from the agreement that a man makes with workers to pay them for a day's labor, to the divine covenant that God made with Noah to never again flood the world.

The Marriage Covenant established a family, husband and wife, relationship between a man and woman. The marriage covenant had both non-specified (but commonly understood) expectations and specified expectations for both the husband and wife. In fact, Dr. Instone-Brewer, in his book, "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible; The Social and Literary Context," points out that the Jewish, Biblical, and ancient near-easter understanding of the marriage covenant would be better termed today as marriage contract. Ancient Near-Eastern cultures actually used a written document, marriage contract, with general and specific expectations spelled out. This was a legal document enforceable by civil law. Thus when it is written that a couple is married by law, it is referencing both the civil law and moral principles common to every marriage. Marriages were entered with the intent of both parties and families that the marriage would last for life; but they recognized that if either party refused to meet both the specified and non-specified expectations of the marriage covenant, the marriage could be broken, ending in divorce.

That is how the marriage covenant was understood and spoken of in the bible, Old and New Testaments. The concept of marriage being indissoluble is just not biblical. It is something that is read into the text coming from errant embedded theology that marriage is indissoluble. Jesus did not say that divorce was impossible; Jesus said that a man should not divorce his wife.

Marriage is breakable, not indissoluble.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[ShermanN]

Becoming 'one' with a prostitute is a far cry from the 'one flesh' GOD creates when a couple makes a marital covenant. If this were not true... there would be no such sin as fornication... just multiple spouses. That, is error.

The point is that the phrase "one flesh" does not mean that two people become like one person, or like two paints inseperably mixed together. In no way does the marriage covenant somehow mystically morph or join like Siamese twins a married couple.

Please don't misuderstand me though, unity and agreement in marriage is very important and to be worked towards. But the idiomatic phrase "one flesh" does not mean to become like one person. It's primary meaning is to join together by a family tie.

It's similar to the idiomatic phrase "blood brothers". Through specified ceremonies, Native Americans would commit themselves to eachother like they would their own physical brother. The phrase "blood brothers" does not meant that they their was some kind of metaphysical exchange mixing their blood though. In the same way the phrase "one flesh" means family and does not mean that there is some mystical spiritual joining or morphing into a new creature.

Also, remember, the phrase "one flesh" was used biblically of marriage within a culture with polygamous families. It simply meant "family", and does not mean that marriage is indissoluble.

 

[ShermanN]

I have to disagree, Sherman. Covenants are binding, regardless if those making them are 'strong' or 'weak'. It's not a situational ethic... and God doesn't lower His standards to be defined by the 'weak'. Instead, He offers His power to live by His standard.

I'm not advocating lowering standards, just recognizing the biblical and practical reality that marriages are breakable, not indissoluble. Men should not divorce their wives. And wives should not divorce their husbands. People should not commit murder. But both murder and divorce happens, and the Church needs to recognize this truth and learn to deal with it accordingly. Murder's go to jail. Divorce's suffer almost as much, sometimes more. Saying that marriage is indissoluble, unbreakable is illusionary.

But I do agree that God does give us power to do what is right if we ask Him. The problem is that we often don't want to do what is right, our hearts are hard against God, our spouses, and others. And thus we need to focus on helping everyone repent from such selfishness and empower them to have lasting marriages because marriages are breakable.

 

[Spiritsong]

Also, remember, the phrase "one flesh" was used biblically of marriage within a culture with polygamous families. It simply meant "family", and does not mean that marriage is indissoluble.

Mr. Nobles, I'm afraid your forms of interpretation are quite suspect... 'cultures of society' don't define God's truth. You have to remember, divorce was merely 'allowed' because of the hardness of hearts... the New Covenant, under Jesus, re-establishes what God intended from the beginning... and holds humanity to those standards because the blood of Jesus makes keeping them possible.

 

[Spiritsong]

The point is that the phrase "one flesh" does not mean that two people become like one person, or like two paints inseperably mixed together. In no way does the marriage covenant somehow mystically morph or join like Siamese twins a married couple.

I choose to believe when Paul talked about the 'mystery' of marriage, and likened it to the believer's relationship with Christ, it had everything to do with something God created... like He created Eve from Adam... they were two yet one flesh. Jesus eluded to this as well in Matthew:

Matthew 19
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh

This seems pretty straight forward to me... God creates the 'mysterious' (Paul's term) one-flesh:

Ephesians 5:
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 

[ShermanN]

Mr. Nobles, I'm afraid your forms of interpretation are quite suspect... 'cultures of society' don't define God's truth. You have to remember, divorce was merely 'allowed' because of the hardness of hearts... the New Covenant, under Jesus, re-establishes what God intended from the beginning... and holds humanity to those standards because the blood of Jesus makes keeping them possible.

It's true that culture does not define the truth of God, but the Word of God was communicted within culture and through people. In fact, much of the Law of Moses was meant to correct specific cultural problems. We run into problems interpreting the Word when we do not take into consideration the context within which the Word was written. The more we understand the culture in which it was written, the more likely we are to understand what the author meant by what he said.

For example, if I said "burning rubber" to a Southern American, he would understand it to mean to speed off in one's vehicle so fast that the tires spin and smoke. If you say "burning rubber" to a Palestinian whose never been to the US, it's likely that he'll have no idea what it means and could possibly assume that it means to set old tires on fire in protest of oppression. Two radically different meanings! What is important is to understand what the author meant by what he wrote.

Of course, you're more than welcome to disregard the cultural context of the biblical text, but it's likely that you'll misinterpret what the author meant by what he wrote. A common saying - "A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an Assumed meaning that often misses the authors intent."

Sadly, when people take scripture out of it's literary, cultural, historical, and social context, it is very often misinterpreted and misapplied.

For example, part of the traditional doctrine of MDR is that when Jesus pointed to the Garden, he disagreed with Moses legislating the bill of divorce, intended to repudiate the bill of divorce, and make marriage indissoluble. One of the many problems with this errant belief is that Jesus repeatedly said that He did not come to change the Mosaic Law and that not one little piece of it (even the bill of divorce) would be done away with until the end of the earth. In fact, these statements are in the immediate literary context of both the Mt.5.32, and Lk.16.18 passages. In fact, Lk.16.17 immediately preceeds 16.18.

The Biblical reality is that Jesus inspired Moses to legislate the bill of divorce. Why? 1, Because of the hardness of hearts which is transcultural and crosses all generations since the Fall. And 2, to stop the practice of men dumping their wives and yet retaining legal control over them; to legally free such abandoned women to remarry and remain married.

But of course, I've covered all of that in previous posts. Of course, you're welcome to ignore the cultural context of the biblical text and base your interpretation upon your cultural context and subconcious beliefs. But I chose to study the context as much as possible, doing my best to get past my own preconceived ideas and concepts and do my best to simply understand what the author meant by what he wrote.

Some people refuse to accept any translation except the KJV, because different translations bring out different elements of the Greek and Hebrew text. But I'd rather study the text in the original languages as much as I can, and study a wide variety of translations.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[ShermanN]

I choose to believe when Paul talked about the 'mystery' of marriage, and likened it to the believer's relationship with Christ, it had everything to do with something God created... like He created Eve from Adam... they were two yet one flesh. Jesus eluded to this as well in Matthew:

Matthew 19
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh

This seems pretty straight forward to me... God creates the 'mysterious' (Paul's term) one-flesh:

Ephesians 5:
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

The mystery that Paul speaks of is not the union between a man and woman, but the mysterious supernatural relationship between Jesus and the church. He pointed that out in vs. 32.

Another verse in Lev. speaks of a person being redeemed by someone of his own flesh, one of his kinsman. I covered this in my previous posts, either 148 or 153. The biblical text and extra-biblical texts reveal that the phrase "one flesh" meant to be "family." This is the primary meaning of this phrase.

However Paul does expand metaphorically the concept of "one flesh" to stand against sexual immorality, and highlight the very real personal, familial, even organic relationship that we have with Christ and in Christ with eachother. But one does not use metaphorical speach to make scripture say more than it was meant to say. The emphasis, point of Eph. 5 is to encourage right attitudes between husbands and wives. But it's not a doctrinal exposition on MDR, and it's not implying that marriage is indissoluble.

Marriages end because of the hardness of heart. They did in Moses' day, and they do today. And they will until the Lord returns. Until then, we do have access by His grace and Spirit to the power we need to help stop such death from happening in our marriages, but that does not discount the possibility of divorce.

Context is very important.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[TrueColors]

The mystery that Paul speaks of is not the union between a man and woman, but the mysterious supernatural relationship between Jesus and the church. He pointed that out in vs. 32.

The 'mysterious supernatural relationship between Jesus and the church'... that is seen in the 'mystery' of marriage, is the true context of Eph. 5.

 

[TrueColors]

We run into problems interpreting the Word when we do not take into consideration the context within which the Word was written. The more we understand the culture in which it was written, the more likely we are to understand what the author meant by what he said.

This is spooky, Sherman. All that is needed to understand scripture, is in scripture. Scripture interprets scripture.

 

[SealedEternal]

SealedEternal,

Please, I know it's difficult, but let's (you and I) discuss one scripture at a time. Prooftexting, yanking scripture from their context, posting them in bold letters, and implying an interpretation that is not contextually based is just foolish.

If you're going to make accusations against me then please back them up with some facts. Which verses specifically have I used out of context. We both know that all of those were clear and straightforward statements that could not be interpreted any other way:

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."

Luke 16:15-18 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it."But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail."Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Romans 7:2-3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

How could I be taking "bound for as long as she lives and if she remarries is committing adultery" out of context? Or "Everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery"? The fact is that these are absolutely clear statements that mean exactly what they state. Only an intellectually dishonest person determined to twist them could not understand what they say.

Please, let's discuss one scripture at a time. If you don't like Mk.10, you pick another and I'll gladly discuss it with you. How about Mal.2.16?

I've already seen what you attempted to do to Mark 10, so I can just imagine what your going to come up with to get around the other scriptures on the topic.

P.S. Concerning Mk.10.11-12, I realize that what I shared does not make any sense to you, because it's against your embedded theology.

I don't have an "embedded theology." I actually read what the scriptures say and allow God to set the doctrines rather than looking to men or trying to twist the scriptures to conform to a preconceived doctrine like you.

But I do ask that you research the validity of the following translation, "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery." (The Message)

I've already told you that the Message is not a translation of the bible. It is a paraphrase of one mans opinions as to what the scriptures mean. It illustrates your intellectual dishonesty that you have gone to possibly the worst rendition of scripture ever written to try to twist the scriptures to fit your doctrine. Then you accuse me of proof texting? Talk about the pot and the kettle.

In my posts I only use literal translations of the Bible. I don't shop around to find a poor paraphrase that I can use to twist them like some here.

If a man or woman divorces his/her spouse in order to, or so that he/she can marry someone else, well of course that's adultery.

Yes that's adultery, but Jesus says that "everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery" (Luke 16:18), so the concept includes any divorce and subsequent remarriage and is not limited to your one scenario.

Clearly if remarriage after divorce is adultery then God doesn't recognize divorce at all, because if divorce severed the marriage then both would be single and neither would be in adultery. Clearly Paul meant it when he said that married people are bound for as long as they both live

Jesus spoke propheticaly concerning the issues/motives of the heart; and He certainly did not get wrapped up in arguing with the Pharisees over civil legislation of divorce. But, oops, that's referencing the Mt.19 passage, sorry. One passage at a time please. Thanks

He did argue with the Pharisees in Matthew 19 and told them that they were adulterers for illegally divorcing their wives and then remarrying, and should be stoned to death according to the old covenant Law.

SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

The 'mysterious supernatural relationship between Jesus and the church'... that is seen in the 'mystery' of marriage, is the true context of Eph. 5.

Yes, Jesus was using the institution of marriage to teach principles about our relationship to Him, just as He does throughout His Word. In the Old Testament He commonly referred to the Hebrews as His harlot wife, while in the New Testament we are told that we will be married to Him according to the book of Revelation. It is clear that our marriages are a type of our relationship to God, which is what Paul was illustrating in Ephesians 5.

Love is selfless, forgiving, long suffering, compassionate, and placing someone else as equal to ourselves. Divorce on the other hand is selfish, hard hearted, hateful, and unforgiving. Christ demonstrated for us the former, while the devil is the epitome of the latter.


1 John 3:7-10 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.


Our approach to our marrriages illustrates the state of our hearts. Do we walk as Christ walked, or do we harden our hearts like the devil?


SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

This is spooky, Sherman. All that is needed to understand scripture, is in scripture. Scripture interprets scripture.

Yes, God is not a respecter of human culture. His Word transcends all cultures, and is written to be understood plainly by all. When some man tries to tell us that the text doesn't mean what it says because he knows something about the culture of the time that is not found in scripture, then that person is twisting the word of God to draw gullible people after himself. There is no scriptural truth that is not found within scripture itself, and cultural arguments are always used to deceive.


SealedEternal

 

[ShermanN]

SealedEternal,

Embedded theology is religious beliefs that are at a subconcious level that are rarely brought to a concious level and examined rationally. We all have embedded theology, values, concepts, interpretations of scripture, beliefs about God, ourselves, and others. Embedded theology is not a bad thing, it's just a reality. When we encounter scripture, information, or experiences that challenge our embedded theology, our natural response is to do all we can to keep our embedded theology intact and rationalize or reject the information. We all do that and it's good to recognize such.

Now concerning the scriptures you mentioned, I really wish you would take time to read through my posts for I've explained in detail why I understand/interpret those scriptures differently than the way you understand and interpret them.

I've already briefly explained why I believe that Mk.10.10-12 is better interpreted as Jesus saying "If a man divorces his wife in order to marry another, he commits adultery against her." and the same for the woman. The reason is because both apoluo "put-away" and gameo "marries" are both in the subjunctive mood in the Greek text. You're welcome to check out any Greek grammar to verify this, or check with a Greek scholar.

The following are some of the points that I covered in previous posts in detail, in brief here.

1. Purpose of the bill of divorce was to stop the practice of men expelling or abandoning their wives and yet retaining legal right to them. It did this by legally freeing the expelled wife from the marriage covenant, to marry another man, and remain married. Thus God inspired its legislation to stop the ancient near-eastern practice of men expelling their wives causing them to commit adultery and the men that marries them committing adultery.

2. The word "apoluo" (put away, KJV) can mean either "divorce" or "seperation without divorce". We are determined

3. Jesus did not disagree with Moses, much less intend to repudiate the bill of divorce. He repeatedly said that the Law of Moses was completely inspired and not one jot or tittle would pass from it until the end of the earth, including the bill of divorce.

4. The Aramaic text and when Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor.7. both confirm that Jesus spoke of two seperate situations, men divorcing their wives, and men expelling their wives without giving them a bill of divorce. And thus we are encouraged to use the one that makes the most sence.

Lk.16.18, "Whosoever expells his wife without divorcing her and marries another commits adultery. And whosoever marries her that is seperated but not divorced from her husband commits adultery."

Mt.5.31-32, "It has been said, Whosoever shall expell his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement; Moreover, I say unto you, that whosoever shall expell his wife without the bill of divorce, except for immoral/illegal relationships, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is expelled without a bill of divorce commits adultery."

Mt.19.7-10,
7 They said to him, 'Why did Moses then command to give a bill of divorce and to put her away?
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts permits you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not meant to be this way.

9 Furthermore I say to you, except for immoral/illegal relationships, whoever illegally expells his wife (without divorce) and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries she who is illegally seperated but not divorced commits adultery."
And of course, Mark, writing to a Roman audience, focuses completely on Jesus' prophetic message concerning selfish motives for divorce when he writes in Mk.10.11-12, "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery."

This is why and how I understand these scriptures. I agree fully that God intends for marriages to last, that's His desire for all moral/legal marriages, and He'll empower us to reach that Goal as we seek Him.

However, divorce happens today just like it did under Jewish civil law because mankind still suffers from hardened hearts. Jesus did not repudiate the bill of divorce, but explained why Moses was inspired by God to legislate the giving of the bill of divorce.

Jesus said "What God has joined together, let not man seperate." Thus He encourages and empowers us to make a go of our marriages, but He also recognizes that marriages do end in divorce and man can seperate what even God has joined together (though he shouldn't.)

And of course, as I've explained in previous posts, I believe the original audience would have understood that a couple is bound by law as long as they lives as being what is intended, but it's not a statement that marriage is indissoluble or that divorce does not end a marriage covenant.

But of course, I've explained all of this much more fully in previous posts.

Blessings,
Sherman