Error Taught on DivorceHope website

[BigDaddy4]

Link - I had trouble following your OP, too. Your references to websites (divorce hope and a Jewish reference) did not have links to them and your quotes do not notate where they were from. Did you expect everyone to google it and assume where you got the information from?

Just because someone disagrees with your points/conclusions does not mean they have not studied the subject. I DID do an in-depth study on the topic and you and I disagreed on certain points. I have a different, real life perspective on this than you, but that's beside the point.

 

[LinkH]

See, the thing is, I didn't dislike the topic, and I asked for a response from you because frankly, the OP was very long, rather rambling, and hard for me to follow. You ignored me and didn't even have the courtesy to respond.

So why I'm being called rude and disrespectful, when I've said NOTHING of the kind to either you OR Avniel in this thread, is just plain obnoxious and all too telling. You two pick and choose who you want to respond to, who you want to ignore, who is "worth" your attention, and who's not.

I was honestly and sincerely hoping for some insight into your thinking and reasoning, but obviously, I was hoping for too much.

Inkachu,

Sorry if I offended you by ignoring your post. The OP was rather involved. I prefaced it by asking people to read the whole thing before responding. The idea was for people who weren't interested enough to read to skip the post and go elsewhere. I interpreted your comment as a kind of complaint from someone who didn't want to read the post, so I didn't really have a response. It's a long involved topic.

If I did have to summarize it, I would say,

The divorce hope website and several people on here, wrongly define 'put away' in scripture to mean 'put away without a certificate.' This is clearly false from the context of Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 19, goes against theological journal articles on the issue, contradicts the beliefs of early Christians who could actually read the text in their own language, and ignores the theological debate the Pharisees were asking Jesus about which we can read about in the Jewish Mishna and other writings.

 

[akmom]

LinkH, I finally got around to reading your OP and it makes sense. I think Jesus was perfectly clear that He didn't condone divorce, with the exception of fornication. It is a sensible rebuttal to the convoluted claims that Jesus was only condemning "illegal divorce."

I think the vitriol you are seeing is because people are so emotionally invested in justifying divorce. I'm sure it is no different than what Moses experienced when he permitted a legal avenue for divorce. Our society is becoming so hardened that we can't accept marriage for what it is supposed to be. So we are, as modern Christians, leaning back on Mosaic law as an excuse for divorce without disobeying God. Just like the Israelites.

 

[Inkachu]

I haven't seen anyone using Mosaic Law as an "excuse" for divorce in this thread? Am I missing something? Akmom - do I understand you correctly that you believe divorce is only permissible for adultery, but would not be for things like physical abuse or abandonment?

 

[akmom]

The question was, was Jesus condemning all divorce or just illegal divorce defined by Mosaic Law? I think it's pretty clear He was condemning all divorce (except for fornication).

Is it permissible to divorce for reasons like physical abuse or abandonment? I'm sure those are some of the questions people asked Moses when he made concessions. The Pharisees didn't ask Jesus about those exceptions, and He didn't mention them. He also didn't tell the Pharisees, "Moses permitted divorce because the people brought up some really good reasons back then." He said it was permitted because their hearts were hardened.

Jesus does, however, take a position against physical abuse and abandonment in how He tells us to treat each other, and Paul applies that more specifically to marriage.

 

[Inkachu]

OK, that was kind of an elaborate non-answer lol. What do YOU believe about divorce for reasons other than adultery? I'm not talking about petty things like "we just fell out of love" but serious betrayals like abuse or abandonment. Do you believe there's a concession for those, or are they condemned?

I'm not baiting you. I honestly just want to know what you think.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

OK, that was kind of an elaborate non-answer lol. What do YOU believe about divorce for reasons other than adultery? I'm not talking about petty things like "we just fell out of love" but serious betrayals like abuse or abandonment. Do you believe there's a concession for those, or are they condemned?

I'm not baiting you. I honestly just want to know what you think.

Jesus does, however, take a position against physical abuse and abandonment in how He tells us to treat each other, and Paul applies that more specifically to marriage.

I think AK gave an appropriate answer here. It seems clear and avoids argument/discord.

 

[Inkachu]

Well, since I'm not looking to stir up an argument or discord, maybe Akmom can PM me her thoughts if she has that concern? The phrases "takes a position" and "applies that more specifically" doesn't really nail down specifics for me. I like clear answers.

"Do you believe divorce for any reason other than adultery is condemned by God?"

1. Yes.
2. No.

Kinda what I'm looking for here lol.

 

[LinkH]

I think the vitriol you are seeing is because people are so emotionally invested in justifying divorce. I'm sure it is no different than what Moses experienced when he permitted a legal avenue for divorce. Our society is becoming so hardened that we can't accept marriage for what it is supposed to be. So we are, as modern Christians, leaning back on Mosaic law as an excuse for divorce without disobeying God. Just like the Israelites.

Very good points.


It is also human nature, the fallen nature at least, for people who read the Bible to try to read it in a way that justifies their behavior rather than looking for how they need to repent. it can effect any of us.

The Pharisees did that when it came to the issues of oaths and supporting parents (Matthew 5, 15) and also on the issue of divorce.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Very good points.


It is also human nature, the fallen nature at least, for people who read the Bible to try to read it in a way that justifies their behavior rather than looking for how they need to repent. it can effect any of us.

The Pharisees did that when it came to the issues of oaths and supporting parents (Matthew 5, 15) and also on the issue of divorce.

Careful. Your self-justification is showing. It really isn't very becoming, Link...

Besides, weren't the Pharisees the legalists? (Rhetorical...)

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

In marriages where there is some sort of irreconcilable difficulty, but apparently not adultery, since that is dealt with specifically, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 seems to allow for separation from a spouse. The kicker is that there is no remarriage, so that means the separated partners would either have to remain celibate, or reconcile.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

In the old days, some pastors actually taught this. I don't think it caught on very well because few can accept celibacy, so this is tough stuff for sure.

The bottom line is that marriage is an incredibly profound lifelong committment. "Lifelong", just think about what that means. And the only Biblical way out is adultery, death, or in the case of unequally yoked marriages, the unbelieving spouse departs.

Did any of us really consider what we were getting into, committing too? I think most of us were too obsessed with the upside when we got married. I wasn't thinking "What if something goes wrong, what if my wife cheats on me, what if she chronically puts us into debt, what if she is gone more than she's around, [etc, etc]." Did we see the true present and future consequences of taking the vows when we took them?

And then we have trouble, desperately look for a way out, and if that means coming up with some creative rationalizations or interpretations of Scripture, we do it. The bottom line is that the only bigger decision in life is in regard to salvation, marriage is right behind it. We commit before we know how good a decision it will turn out be, and for some it won't be good.

 

[tall73]

The question was, was Jesus condemning all divorce or just illegal divorce defined by Mosaic Law? I think it's pretty clear He was condemning all divorce (except for fornication).

Is it permissible to divorce for reasons like physical abuse or abandonment? I'm sure those are some of the questions people asked Moses when he made concessions. The Pharisees didn't ask Jesus about those exceptions, and He didn't mention them. He also didn't tell the Pharisees, "Moses permitted divorce because the people brought up some really good reasons back then." He said it was permitted because their hearts were hardened.

Jesus does, however, take a position against physical abuse and abandonment in how He tells us to treat each other, and Paul applies that more specifically to marriage.

I appreciate your posts here so far in this topic. Can you elaborate on that last sentence? Where do you see Paul referencing physical abuse? I see the abandonment part in I Cor. 7.

Or are you referencing the leaving but not remarrying as summing up contexts that could include abuse?

 

[tall73]

Jesus is not against divorce. After all, God divorced Israel - which means that divorce in and of itself is not sin.

Israel was divorced for idolatry, not adultery. Kinda hard for a nation to have sex with false gods.

Divorce was an analogy within the context of the covenant. God enacted the covenant curses against Israel as they refused to repent, violating repeatedly the terms of the covenant. The violations and dedication to other "gods" He compared to adultery with other lovers. He sent them away to exile, and he compared this to divorce.

The comparison was to drive home how close the relationship was and how far Israel had fallen.However, God also used the living parable of Hosea to show that even though the nation was unfaithful, God would ultimately be faithful to them. God took back his erring "wife". So in that sense the whole description in those terms was to appeal to Israel.

I am not sure I would make hard and fast rules about actual divorce from the comparison to Israel's "adultery" and "divorce". But in the context of the covenant made with Israel idolatry was something that would allow for God to dissolve the covenant. He was acting within the confines of the terms of the covenant when doing so.

And according to Jesus adultery would be something that would allow for dissolving marriage, though even there Jesus did not say one had to dissolve the marriage.

Ultimately God took back the erring nation, just as some take back the erring spouse. However, God's actions towards Israel show that He is not about separation forever either, and remained faithful to Israel even though they did not remain faithful to Him.

God is not in favor of divorce. Divorce in marriage is the result of sinful people in a sinful world. Even when allowed it is not a good thing. And the same was true with the covenant. God divorced His people for a time because of their sinful breaking of the covenant. However, then he brought them back to Himself.

 

[tall73]

Alright, here is the main text in question. Let's go through and put it as folks are suggesting on either side:

Mat 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Mat 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?"
Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."



Interpretive version of those who think "put away" is equivalent to divorce:

Mat 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Mat 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to divorce her?"
Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."


Interpretive version of those who think "put away" is not equivalent to divorce, and does not include an official certificate:

Mat 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to put away without a certificate of divorce one's wife for any cause?"
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Mat 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and put her away without a certificate of divorce?"
Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to put away your wives without a certificate of divorce, but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever puts away his wife without a certificate of divorce, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."


Just putting the proposed definitions into the passage, I am not sure I understand the second view. Especially troubling is this:
Mat 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and put her away without a certificate of divorce?"

It would make no sense for Moses to say "give her a certificate and send her away without a certificate".
Now if you divide the two into two distinct scenarios, it still does not make sense.

Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and why did Moses command to send someone away without a certificate of divorce?
Moses did not command anyone to send away without a certificate of divorce. I just don't understand this view. Definitions of words have to still be considered in context.

 

[tall73]

Then why doesn't Christ deal with divorce in the passage? He only answers the question of wives being 'put away', not divorced. The Pharisees brought up two subjects. Christ only addressed ONE.

Send her away seems to be just a paraphrase of the two steps of the divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1, not a description of two possible scenarios (one with certificate, and one without).

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

The divorce consisted of
1. giving a certificate
2. sending out of the house.

In the Greek LXX:

Deu 24:1 Ἐὰν δέ τις λάβῃ γυναῖκα καὶ συνοικήσῃ αὐτῇ, καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν μὴ εὕρῃ χάριν ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ, ὅτι εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα, καὶ γράψει αὐτῇ βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ δώσει εἰς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῆς καὶ ἐξαποστελεῖ αὐτὴν ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ,

The Greek of Deuteronomy includes sending from the house. The pharisees when referencing it just shortened sending from the house to just send away. However, they are still clearly referring to a situation of a divorce, with a certificate, as outlined in Deuteronomy, where a certificate is given, and then the person is sent from the house.

Mat 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?"
Mat 19:7 λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· τί οὖν Μωσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν;

 

[ValleyGal]

I never suggested God is in favour of divorce. I said he is not against it. Iow, it is an option. It's a desperate, last option, as demonstrated by Hosea and by God, putting up with a LOT of horrible stuff before divorce becoming an option. But it is an option. I believe that covenants are broken by the one who is in the wrong, and the divorce certificate legalizes and finalizes it.

The passage in 1 Cor. also uses the term "apoluo" which has been inaccurately translated as "divorce." For those who are only separated, if they marry, they are committing adultery because the "sending away" was never finalized with the divorce papers.

1 Cor 7:
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

and

1 Cor. 7:28
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Marriage after divorce is not sin for anyone. Marriage while separated is sin.

I believe that God uses his relationship with Israel (and Jesus with the Church) to demonstrate what marriage should look like - and has been demonstrated, marriage takes a lot of work and sacrifice on both parts, and divorce should be a desperate and final option with remarriage as a post-divorce option. God has demonstrated all this.

I believe that God made concessions for divorce in OT law, and that Jesus affirms that law, making concessions for divorce, but not for just sending someone away without the benefit of divorce. God (and affirmed in Jesus) made concessions for divorce for hardened hearts. Current relationship research affirms that a hard heart is one of the bigger predictors of divorce (it comes out in resentment and contempt). As a result, I believe that God knows more about human nature than we do, and that he has made concessions for human nature, including divorce and the death of his Son. God is a merciful God. It is not merciful to require someone to stay divorced and never have the love and companionship that he created us for to start with.

 

[tall73]

I never suggested God is in favour of divorce. I said he is not against it. Iow, it is an option. It's a desperate, last option, as demonstrated by Hosea and by God, putting up with a LOT of horrible stuff before divorce becoming an option. But it is an option. I believe that covenants are broken by the one who is in the wrong, and the divorce certificate legalizes and finalizes it.

We can agree on that.

I think some are just asserting that Jesus is laying out what horrible things would justify divorce and the breaking of that covenant.

As you said earlier, divorce is not sin in itself. But it is a result of sin in the world.

 

[ValleyGal]

Tall, in your "interpretive" passage, you are not carefully studying which times apoluo was used versus apostation. Both terms are used in the passage, one to describe sending away without the certificate and one to describe sending her away with it. Unfortunately, ALL has been translated as divorce and it shouldn't be.

 

[tall73]

The passage in 1 Cor. also uses the term "apoluo" which has been inaccurately translated as "divorce." For those who are only separated, if they marry, they are committing adultery because the "sending away" was never finalized with the divorce papers.

1 Cor 7:
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

and

1 Cor. 7:28
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Marriage after divorce is not sin for anyone. Marriage while separated is sin.

This portion I will review and see what I think. I have not heard this argument before.

I believe that God uses his relationship with Israel (and Jesus with the Church) to demonstrate what marriage should look like - and has been demonstrated, marriage takes a lot of work and sacrifice on both parts, and divorce should be a desperate and final option with remarriage as a post-divorce option. God has demonstrated all this.

God did not demonstrate re-marriage to another--just to the previous spouse.

I believe that God made concessions for divorce in OT law, and that Jesus affirms that law, making concessions for divorce,

Here we agree.

but not for just sending someone away without the benefit of divorce. God (and affirmed in Jesus) made concessions for divorce for hardened hearts. Current relationship research affirms that a hard heart is one of the bigger predictors of divorce (it comes out in resentment and contempt). As a result, I believe that God knows more about human nature than we do, and that he has made concessions for human nature, including divorce and the death of his Son. God is a merciful God. It is not merciful to require someone to stay divorced and never have the love and companionship that he created us for to start with.

this part I am not sure we agree. I will look at the Corinthians passage and see what I come up with. However, I see no evidence in Matthew 19 that Jesus is addressing a situation in which there is no certificate and they are just put away.

 

[tall73]

Tall, in your "interpretive" passage, you are not carefully studying which times apoluo was used versus apostation. Both terms are used in the passage, one to describe sending away without the certificate and one to describe sending her away with it. Unfortunately, ALL has been translated as divorce and it shouldn't be.

There are two interpretive passages. One does indeed use divorce each time, intentionally, because one side views them as equivalent.

The other does not use divorce each time, because they are not seen as equivalent. Can you please explain which interpretive one you are referring to? Or better yet, please put the verse as you would interpret it, filling in your own definitions. You can better speak for your position than I can.