Divorce between believers..

[Svt4Him]

I would beg to differ on this. I think the marriage is just as important to God, as He tells us in His word that a marriage between husband and wife directly relates to the marriage between Christ and the church.

You may, but even God put away Israel, His bride.

 

[ValleyGal]

You may, but even God put away Israel, His bride.

My understanding is that God didn't just send her away, but he also gave her a divorce certificate. Jer. 3:8

 

[LinkH]

My understanding is that God didn't just send her away, but he also gave her a divorce certificate. Jer. 3:8

But accepted her back, later.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

You are assuming an exact word-for-word correspondence between languages. That does not exist.

No, she's not, actually.

She's saying that in ancient Greek and Hebrew there were different words for divorce and separation just as there are two words in English. It's not an assumption, it's a statement of fact. It's something that can be easily proven or disproven.

Just because there isn't always an exact word-for-word correspondence between languages doesn't mean there never is. In fact, there are lots and lots of words that have an exact one-word correspondent in other languages. Objects, for example. You don't need three words in English to translate "leg" or "arm," etc.

The logical fallacy here is yours, Link.

You are also ignoring that other languages can have different idioms, set collocations, etc. that do not correspond with English.

Just because they can doesn't mean that in this instance we are dealing with an idiom or some other figure of speech.

And anyway, what different idiom, set of collocations, etc, is it that is at play here? What word or phrase in Scripture about divorce or "sending away" is a figure of speech? What does the figure of speech mean? How does that affect the interpretation?

Just claiming that something could be a figure of speech doesn't really go far toward explaining your position.

A woman put away with a certificate is still put away.

A man who puts/sends his wife away with a certificate still sends/puts her away

Okay, but it doesn't logically follow that because these are true that the Hebrew and Greek speakers didn't have two words to distinguish the difference between sending away with or without a certificate of divorce.

It is true that either way, the wife still gets sent away. But it is not true that either way she is in possession of a certificate of divorce.

The two things are not exactly the same. They're not even close to the same thing. If a woman was sent away without a certificate of divorce, she was not free to remarry, she was probably destitute, unable to support herself. If she had a certificate of divorce she could at least try to remarry and have a chance of survival.


That's a huge difference. I don't believe there's any reason to assume that the people wouldn't have made a distinction in their language between the two situations.

 

[LinkH]

No, she's not, actually.

In this particular case, I believe that is what is going on.

She's saying that in ancient Greek and Hebrew there were different words for divorce and separation just as there are two words in English. It's not an assumption, it's a statement of fact. It's something that can be easily proven or disproven.

If we are talking about Biblical usage you draw a Venn diagram, circled, 'divorced' is a circle either completely or mostly in a larger circled called 'put away.'

In the Bible, a woman who is divorced legally is 'put away.' I can show from Matthew 19 where the put away woman under discussion has a certificate of divorce. We can also infer from Matthew 1 that since Joseph was a just man, if he was contemplating putting away his betrothed, Mary, legally, with a certificate, and not illegally, without one.

There is no exact word to word correspondence in regard to usage between English and Greek. "Divorced" is our 'go to' word for a divorced woman. When we read the Bible, the word 'put away' is used. 'Divorce' is used in narrower contexts.

'Separation' does not exactly correspond with 'apoluo', either. Of course, there are many instances outside of the context of marriage where the words differ in usage vastly, separating versus sending away. In English, 'separated' use din regard to marriage involves a legal status. In the Greek of the New Testament, a wife who is 'apoluo'ed, would generally be legally divorced from her husband, or maybe just kicked out illegally.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that a wife who was 'apoluo'ed was sent away without a certificate, since 1) Matthew 19 uses the term in the context of a legal divorce according to the Law of Moses, 2) Jews, at least on the Pharisaical/scribe/Talmudic/Mishna/Orthodox side of things had meticulous laws about divorce certificates that they took quite seriously.

Just because there isn't always an exact word-for-word correspondence between languages doesn't mean there never is. In fact, there are lots and lots of words that have an exact one-word correspondent in other languages. Objects, for example. You don't need three words in English to translate "leg" or "arm," etc.

I may have slightly overstated my case. But please refrain from the tendancy to focus on the minutia of the words, rather than the intended meaning. There may be another langauge where 'leg' means exactly the same thing. But one could wax philosophical and argue that words mean slightly different things to every individual or that they change by the time they reach the listeners ear as in Xeno's paradox.

'Leg' is not a good example of word-to-word correspondence, IMO. It can be difficult to decide whether to translate a word as foot or leg from some languages. The same is true with hand and arm.

'Triangle' or other geometric forms may translate nearly exactly in terms of denotation. 'Square' probably has some uses that do not translate into other languages (square dance, be there or be square, etc.)

Just because they can doesn't mean that in this instance we are dealing with an idiom or some other figure of speech.

We are dealing with a usage issue, similar to the issue of idiom or set collocation but not quite the same. 'Apoluo' is used to refer to legally divorced women in certain contexts. 'Separated' is not. A woman who is 'put away' was sent away form her husband. If he was a Jew, especially a religious one, she probably had a certificate. If not, then her husband was not following Torah.

The issue Jesus addressed in Matthew 19 had to do with legal divorces, legal according to the law of Moses... the type of divorces Moses permitted. Moses allowed the putting away of wives with a certificate of divorce. Jesus appealed to a higher, earlier standard for His Messianic pronouncment on the issue.

Okay, but it doesn't logically follow that because these are true that the Hebrew and Greek speakers didn't have two words to distinguish the difference between sending away with or without a certificate of divorce.

The error is in assuming that because we make a sharp distinction between being 'separated' and 'divorced' that such a difference much exist between the two words in question in Greek is a faulty assumption, and one that does not stand up to examination of the texts.


It is true that either way, the wife still gets sent away. But it is not true that either way she is in possession of a certificate of divorce.

That's a huge difference. I don't believe there's any reason to assume that the people wouldn't have made a distinction in their language between the two situations.

They had ways of explaining both situations. The error lies in assuming that 'without a certificate' is inherent in the word apoluo. Just reading the text in KJV in Matthew, it is obvious that this is not the case.

We are also dealing with a Jewish context. The Pharisees accepted the law about needing a certificate. They quibbled about under what circumstances they could dump their wives, with a certificate, and under what scenarios they were justified in divorcing their wives without having to pay a dowry. You can do a little reading in the Mishna or Talmud, which presents some of the debates the Pharisees would have argued over.

 

[LinkH]

In the passage, is Jesus really saying that?

1. It's okay to divorce your wife if she burns your meal, if you give her a certificate.
2. It's okay to divorce your wife if she gets old, if you give her a certificate.
3. It's okay to divorce your wife if she gets a mole, if you give her a certificate.

and... drumroll please.

4. If your wife commits fornication, you can send her away without a certificate, and marry a second wife.

How is that an interpretation that presents Jesus as protecting women and addressing a social problem, the social problem we know of from historical writings?

These are the conclusions that one should come to if ValleyGal and Apostolic are right on this issue. This interpretation would make Jesus' teaching far more liscentious than even Hillel's or, later, Akiba's interpretation on divorce.

No, Jesus was going far in the opposite direction, outlawing most divorce because of the teaching of Genesis, saying that Moses' law made a concession, which He no longer allowed. He was going beyond Shamai, who was very conservative on this passage.

That is why the apostles said if the case be so with a man and his wife, it is better for a man not to marry. They were shocked that Jesus was taking away their 'loop holes' to let them divorce.

There is a reason early Christians who actually read Greek were so strict against divorce. They could actually read the text in their own language.

 

[BigDaddy4]

In the passage, is Jesus really saying that?

1. It's okay to divorce your wife if she burns your meal, if you give her a certificate.
2. It's okay to divorce your wife if she gets old, if you give her a certificate.
3. It's okay to divorce your wife if she gets a mole, if you give her a certificate.

and... drumroll please.

4. If your wife commits fornication, you can send her away without a certificate, and marry a second wife.

These are the conclusions that one should come to if ValleyGal and Apostolic are right on this issue. This interpretation would make Jesus' teaching far more liscentious than even Hillel's or, later, Akiba's interpretation on divorce.

No, Jesus was going far in the opposite direction, outlawing most divorce because of the teaching of Genesis, saying that Moses' law made a concession, which He no longer allowed. He was going beyond Shamai, who was very conservative on this passage.

That is why the apostles said if the case be so with a man and his wife, it is better for a man not to marry. They were shocked that Jesus was taking away their 'loop holes' to let them divorce.

There is a reason early Christians who actually read Greek were so strict against divorce. They could actually read the text in their own language.

What I found perplexing is why you are trying to appeal to ECF's to prove your view on scripture. It is best to let scripture prove scripture.

No matter how you spin it, there is a difference between apolyo (or apoluo) [put away, set free, dismiss] and apostasion [certificate of divorce]. How it is translated into English is of little relevance when compared to the original language.

The same can be said for reading the ECF's. Please show me, in the original Greek language, where any of them used apostasion instead of apolyo in their "strict(ness) against divorce".

Context is our friend for understanding.

 

[LinkH]

What I found perplexing is why you are trying to appeal to ECF's to prove your view on scripture. It is best to let scripture prove scripture.

A careful study of Matthew 19 proves the point I'm making. My appeal to early Christians who read Greek is a scondary bit of evidence.

No matter how you spin it, there is a difference between apolyo (or apoluo) [put away, set free, dismiss] and apostasion [certificate of divorce].

I agree with you that there is a difference. But it is clear from Matthew 19 that the issue is put away/sent away women who were sent away with a divorce certificate.

If a woman were 'put away' (apoluo), that does not mean she did not have a certificate of divorce (apostasion.) It seems that in everyday speech, the woman with a certificate would have been referred to as a 'put away' woman. Jews knew that the certificate was the proper means of legalizing putting away their wives.

The Pharisees, member of a Torah-purity society, would have been especially accepting of the idea that a certificate was required. They argued under what instances the certificate was allowed, and how men could legally get out of paying the dowry/alimony from the marriage contract if there was a divorce.

The same can be said for reading the ECF's. Please show me, in the original Greek language, where any of them used apostasion instead of apolyo in their "strict(ness) against divorce".

Do you mean to say the opposite, apoluo instead of apostasion?

Context is our friend for understanding.

Very true, and that is the downfall of the divorcehope website theory.

 

[BigDaddy4]

A careful study of Matthew 19 proves the point I'm making. My appeal to early Christians who read Greek is a scondary bit of evidence.

Only this "careful study" is not evidently careful enough. The question was posed to Jesus about why Moses permitted an apostation and apolyo. Notice that Jesus ignores the apostation part. That is clear that when the certificate is given, that is an acceptable divorce. Then Jesus corrects them on the apolyo. It's the sending away of the woman and marrying another that is adultery.

I agree with you that there is a difference. But it is clear from Matthew 19 that the issue is put away/sent away women who were sent away with a divorce certificate.

If you used "without" in the bold we would be in agreement.

If a woman were 'put away' (apoluo), that does not mean she did not have a certificate of divorce (apostasion.)

Yes it does. A "put away" woman is different than a divorced woman.

It seems that in everyday speech, the woman with a certificate would have been referred to as a 'put away' woman. Jews knew that the certificate was the proper means of legalizing putting away their wives.

Do you have some insight into everyday speech of the 1st or 2nd century Roman Empire regarding divorce? If not, then this is just your 21st century speculation.

The Pharisees, member of a Torah-purity society, would have been especially accepting of the idea that a certificate was required. They argued under what instances the certificate was allowed, and how men could legally get out of paying the dowry/alimony from the marriage contract if there was a divorce.

I don't see how arrive at that speculation in Matthew 19.

Do you mean to say the opposite, apoluo instead of apostasion?

No, I meant what I said. Show me where they were against a certificate of divorce, which would mean an actual valid divorce, rather than a "putting away" of the wife.

Very true, and that is the downfall of the divorcehope website theory.

It seems like yours is context + speculation (it seems, would have..) = your friend.

 

[HannahT]

Actually, the Jews still have the concept of 'put away' compared to 'divorced' even today. Agunah, the "Chained Wife" is the more popular term they use today.

They even have HUGE agencies that still handle women that were 'put away', and not issued the religious divorce papers - the 'get'. He can go and marry again - according to the custom or Jewish law - but she can't unless she has the paper (the get).

There is a HUGE difference between 'put away', and woman with divorce papers.

I mean think of this way - both aren't the greatest circumstance to be placed in GRANTED! Yet, one circumstance the woman is allowed to remarry, and the other she is forever chained to the husband until the 'get' is given to her. He is allowed to go on his merry old way (and remarry), and she isn't.

Although both circumstances aren't good - one has a sense of justice and one clearly does not. Why would Jesus pick the one that has a sense of justice and leave the other one alone completely? You can't believe he would approve right?

The bible does speak of the 'get' and put away.

 

[LinkH]

Only this "careful study" is not evidently careful enough. The question was posed to Jesus about why Moses permitted an apostation and apolyo. Notice that Jesus ignores the apostation part.

Do you think that the man who gave his wife a certificate of divorce would keep her in the house, or send (put) her away? If he sends her away, she is sent away.

Look again at Deuteronomy 24, if a man puts away his wife, he is to give her a writing of divorcement. She is then 'put away' or 'sent away' WITH a certificate.

A sent away woman with a certificate is a sent away woman. Christ's teaching on a husband putting away his wife certainly apply to the case Moses allowed, since Christ said, "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

Christ contrasts 'two, saith he, shall be one flesh' with the concession Moses allowed (divorce with a certificate.)

That is clear that when the certificate is given, that is an acceptable divorce. Then Jesus corrects them on the apolyo. It's the sending away of the woman and marrying another that is adultery.

If that is the case, then it is still adultery even in the case of an 'acceptable divorce' because men who give women certificates of divorce send them away, too.

In fact, Moses said if a man sends away his wife, he must give her a certificate of divorce. See Deuteronomy 24.

Yes it does. A "put away" woman is different than a divorced woman.

No, a woman with a divorce certificate is sent away, too. The husband didnt' keep her around.

Do you have some insight into everyday speech of the 1st or 2nd century Roman Empire regarding divorce? If not, then this is just your 21st century speculation.

The context is Jewish, not Roman.

I don't see how arrive at that speculation in Matthew 19.

It is not speculation. It's historical background. There are lots of articles that tell about it, or you can look up Tractate Gittin yourself. There are sections of the Mishna and the Talmud that show us that the men they called 'rabbis' had a disagreement on divorce. They agreed a certificate was required and had several rulings on what made it valid (e.g. a date, rules for delivering it by a messengers.)

What the Pharisees differed with one another on was the grounds for divorce. The most influential teacher of his day, and the one after whom a school was named, Hillel, said that a husband could put away his wife for spoiling a meal. Shammai was more conservative.

Wikipedia summarizes it this way, in Hillel and Shammai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Divorce. The House of Shammai held that a man may only divorce his wife for a serious transgression, but the House of Hillel allowed divorce for even trivial offenses, such as burning a meal.[7]

The footnote cites Tractate Gittin as it's source.

This article describes the Hillel v. Shammai argument, http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/24/24.1/24.1.3.pdf

[Hillel was head of the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin around the time of the birth of Christ, Gamaliel's grandfather, and Gamaliel was Paul's instructor. Note that Paul was also a Pharisee.]

it also describes how the discussion fits with the typical pattern of Talmudic/Mishnaic discourse. (I would say rabbinic, but Jesus is the Rabbi.)

That article also points out what should be obvious from the text, that Christ is rejecting the entire Mosaic practice of divorce, given because of the hardness of men's hearts, in favor of the original design that two shall be one flesh. What God has joined together, let not man put assunder.

This following is an article from The Journal of Evangelical Theology, http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/25/25-3/25-3-pp273-281_JETS.pdf

1. Divorce in Judaism. Divorce was an accepted facet of life during hte first century. A Jewish man, for example, could put away his face by providing her with a legal notice of divorce in accordance with the provisions of Deut 24:1. the debate during Jesus' lifetime focused on the acceptable groups for divorce. Difference sof opinion on this issue are preserved in extant Jewish sources:

The School of Shammai say: a man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deut. 24:1a). And the School of Hillel say: (He may divorce her) even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, Because he has found indecency in anything, R. Akiba says, even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, And it shal be if she find no favour in his eyes...1

Properly interpreted, Deut 24:1-4 cannot be construed as initiating or sanctioning the practice of divorce. it takes account of the practice of divorce and its attendant evils. it is intended to mitigate those evils on two fronts: (1) by placing obstacles and penalties befor ethe husband contemplating divorce; (1) by affording some protection of the woman's righs during and after such a process.2

It's the same stuff over and over again if you look it up in different sources. Because of the existence and the Mishna, and the fact that the Pharisaical branch of Judaism won out and became dominant after the temple had been destroyed and preserved these documents, we know what the debates were when it comes to the topic of divorce back then. If you've seen the Fiddler on the Roof, you've head a reference to Hillel's opinion on the topic.

No, I meant what I said. Show me where they were against a certificate of divorce, which would mean an actual valid divorce, rather than a "putting away" of the wife.

I can't. I don't believe the Pharisees were against a certificate of divorce, not most of them, anyway. They insisted on it in the case of putting a wife away, but disagreed as to under what circumstances it was allowed. The liberal view that allowed divorce for every cause was probably the dominant view.

I'm saying the fact that Moses requried a certificate was an agreed upon fact. The Pharisees had an in-house debate going on whether divorce was acceptable for big stuff like adultery, or small stuff like burning the pita bread or just looking old. That's the issue they asked Jesus about. Our Lord let them know that Moses allowed divorce with a certificate because their hearts were hard, but this was not the original intention, and then set a higher standard based on the original intent of marriage.

It seems like yours is context + speculation (it seems, would have..) = your friend.

Mine is mainly context, englightened by some very well-accepted preserved history.

 

[LinkH]

Actually, the Jews still have the concept of 'put away' compared to 'divorced' even today. Agunah, the "Chained Wife" is the more popular term they use today.

Yes, this is an issue in Judaism. But Jewish scholars still agree that a man who puts away/sends away his wife must give her a writing of divorcement. So if a man refuses, they tell him to do it. Then he doesn't do it? And then what?

But that isn't the issue in Matthew 19, and the Pharisees didnt' ask about the agunah. They asked about putting away one's wife 'for every cause'. Apparently, they were asking about a debate characterized by the opinions of Hillel, Shammai, and later comments by Akiba.

They even clarified in their second question, if the reader is unsure, that they are talking about a husband giving his wife a certificate of divorce and putting her away according to Moses' command. It's clear what context Jesus is referring to.

They even have HUGE agencies that still handle women that were 'put away', and not issued the religious divorce papers - the 'get'. He can go and marry again - according to the custom or Jewish law - but she can't unless she has the paper (the get).

That's true, but it is a different issue. The Pharisees asked Jesus about the legal causes to justify a man putting away his wife, not about the plight of a woman whose husband put her away illegally.

There is a HUGE difference between 'put away', and woman with divorce papers.

The difference is the paper. The woman with the paper is still put away, though. The Jewish men of the first century would have sent them off, instead of keeping their ex'es in the house.

Although both circumstances aren't good - one has a sense of justice and one clearly does not. Why would Jesus pick the one that has a sense of justice and leave the other one alone completely? You can't believe he would approve right?

The question he was asked had to do with the causes for which putting away a wife were allowed. The Pharisees agreed that the certificate was required. That wasn't a debate among them as far as we know. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please let me know.

But Christ's answer does address both cases. A man cannot put away his wife, certificate or not, unless it be for fornication. So he still must provide for her and be her husband and love her. Hillel's opinion, probably the majority among the Pharisees, wasn't righteous and good for women. He let men dump their wives for burning the meal, as long as the man gave her a proper certificate.

What does He appeal to as the source for his argument? In the beginning, 'two, saith he, shall be one flesh." What God has joined together, let not man put assunder.

If man does not put assunder what God has joined, then he is not going to follow the scenario of giving his wife a certificate of divorce, which Moses allowed because of the hardness of their hearts.

And how does the 'except it be for fornication' fit into this new-fangled liberal interpretation? Was Jesus saying that a man whose wife commits fornication can send her away WITHOUT a certificate and divorce and marry another woman? That doesn't make much sense.