- Oct 23, 2003
- 16,711
- 1,132
- 54
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
My understanding is that God didn't just send her away, but he also gave her a divorce certificate. Jer. 3:8
You are assuming an exact word-for-word correspondence between languages. That does not exist.
You are also ignoring that other languages can have different idioms, set collocations, etc. that do not correspond with English.
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
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.
Just because they can doesn't mean that in this instance we are dealing with an idiom or some other figure of speech.
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.
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
Do you mean to say the opposite, apoluo instead of apostasion?
Very true, and that is the downfall of the divorcehope website theory.
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.
Yes it does. A "put away" woman is different than a divorced woman.
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.
I don't see how arrive at that speculation in Matthew 19.
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
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.
It seems like yours is context + speculation (it seems, would have..) = your friend.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?