God Hates Divorce

[LinkH]

ValleyGal,
Let's consider these quotes to determine whether 'shalach' or 'apoluo' mean to send away with no writing of divorcement. Does that make sense.

[FONT=&quot]The term “shalach” I mentioned earlier has nothing to do with divorce, although it is the word used in Malachi. It is also used in the following contexts: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1. Genesis 8:7: (Noah on the Ark) ...of the ark which he had made. And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to…

Do you think the passage is making an important point here that Noah did not give the raven a divorce certificate when he sent her out?

Or it just saying he sent the raven out?

2. Genesis 24:7: (God giving Abraham the Promised Land) ...Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee…

Is the passage telling us that God will send an angel out without a divorce certificate, or is it just that he would send his angel?

3. Exodus 5:1: (Moses delivering Israel from Egypt) ...the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto...

Do you think part of the prophecy is that Pharaoh was to let the people go without a divorce certificate?

4. Joshua 6:25: (Rahab hid the Spies) ...day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Are you saying that Joshua 6:25 is making a point of the fact that when the spies were sent to Jericho, they were sent without a divorce certificate?

5. 2 Kings 5:10: (Naaman healed) ...of the house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and ...

Are you saying this verse is making a point of the fact that Elijah sent a messenger out without a divorce certificate?

From reading these verses, I get the distinct impression that the Hebrew word does not have anything to do with the absence of a divorce certificate.

Do you know what husband did after they gave their wives a certificate of divorce-- they sent them out. If God hates putting away wives, why would He cease to hate it if husbands did it without a divorce certificate? If He hates putting away wives, if you don't have evidence that doing so with a certificate is something that he does not hate?

The term “apoluo” Jesus used to refer to Malachi is used in the following contexts, and again has nothing to do with legal proceedings:

Then how can you argue as you do about the text? If 'apolou' does not mean 'send away without a certificate' you have no argument, do you? That seems to be the whole basis of this new interpretation of the Greek that the divorce hope website and certain posters on this forum are promoting.

1. Matthew 14:15: (Jesus feeds the Five Thousand) ...desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go ...

If 'apoluo' meant to send out without a divorce certificate, it wouldn't make much sense to use that word in this context, since Jesus wasn't married to all those people in the desert.

2. Luke 8:38: (Man with/ 2000 plus Demons) ...that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, Return to thine

Again, it makes no sense to read 'without a divorce certificate' into the meaning of word here.

3. Luke 13:12: (Woman with the Issue of Blood) ...her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid ...
4. Acts 4:23: (Lame man healed at the Gate Called Beautiful) ...this miracle of healing was shewed. And being let go, they went to their own company, and...
5. Acts 15:33: (Judas & Silas Leaving Antioch) ...And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the...

Again, it would be nonsensical to argue from these passages that the concept of 'without a divorce certificate' is inherent in the meaning of the word 'apoluo.'

There are separate terms used for the legal proceedings regarding divorce. When God (and Jesus) says that he hates divorce, he means he hates it when someone "sends away" their spouse without the legal benefit of divorce.

And this based on absolutely nothing but your assertion. You've just demonstrated that 'apoluo' does NOT mean to send away without a divorce certificate. There is no reason to think that 'without a divorce certificate' is inherent in the meaning of the word if used in the context of marriage, either.

If you send someone away without divorce, you doom them to a life of being unable to remarry or committing adultery if they do remarry.

If you call doing so a sin, wouldn't you consider that being legalistic? I wouldn't.

But if you send them away WITH the divorce certificate, the divorce is dissolved. You no longer have a spouse, so either is free to marry someone else. If you are not married anymore, marrying someone else is not adultery because you have no spouse. This is why God hates sending someone away without the benefit of divorce....it prevents them from marrying. And God's design for mankind is to be married.

And this totally ignores the argument that Jesus makes in Matthew 19, and the 'but I say unto you' in Matthew 5. Throughout that chapter, Christ adds a 'higher layer' of morality on the law. Early in the discourse he tells His listeners that unless their righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, they would not enter the kingdom of heaven.

[/FONT]

 

[LinkH]

In Matthew 19, apoluo is used to refer to putting away a wife WITH a certificate of divorce. Look at the Pharisees question,

"7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

Notice Christ's answer, and may the Lord open the eyes and hearts of those who read now,


8 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.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.


Notice that Jesus is talking about 'whosoever' shall put away his wife. Now the context is clearly those who do it the Mosaic way, with a certificate. But the word 'whosoever' is used, so that includes those who put away their wives with or without a certificate. Either way, it falls under the category of 'whosoever shall put away his wife.' Not only is there no exception for men who give their wives a certificate, but that is also the specific situation being addressed which is obvious from the passage.


Putting wives away without a certificate is a topic no one brings up. From what I've read, it would seem the Pharisees would have been in agreement on that. The debate at the time was whether a wife could be divorced over 'any cause' (the house of Hillel's opinion) or whether there had to be serious grounds like adultery (the house of Shammai's opinion.)



Btw, BD, ValleyGal, and all those who think the passage is simply condemning those who divorce without certificates, do you think there is nothing wrong with a man who gets bored with his wife when she hits 40 putting her away with a certificate and finding a 'younger model'? Do you approve all divorces as ethical as long as there is the proper paperwork? That seems to be conclusion one would draw from your doctrine. Would you consider forbidding divorce under such circumstances also do be the doctrine of demons?

 

[ValleyGal]

Link, there is absolutely no point in discussing this with you further. You have been shown by many here what the context of the passage is, as well as the difference between apoluo (apolyo) and apostasion.

You have also been shown that the cultural practice at the time was to send wives away for any reason, and without a divorce certificate (today the equivalent of that would be separation, but not divorce). And it does happen even today, but in order to move on and be able to marry again, divorce needs to happen rather than just separation, so today most people divorce.

Btw, BD, ValleyGal, and all those who think the passage is simply condemning those who divorce without certificates, do you think there is nothing wrong with a man who gets bored with his wife when she hits 40 putting her away with a certificate and finding a 'younger model'? Do you approve all divorces as ethical as long as there is the proper paperwork? That seems to be conclusion one would draw from your doctrine. Would you consider forbidding divorce under such circumstances also do be the doctrine of demons?

None of us have ever advocated divorce for just any and every reason. I'm pretty sure most of us at some point or another have said it should be a last resort, but if it's going to be done, to at least divorce rather than separate, as "Moses" said.

 

[LinkH]

Link, there is absolutely no point in discussing this with you further. You have been shown by many here what the context of the passage is, as well as the difference between apoluo (apolyo) and apostasion.

Which is exactly why I consider this argument that divorces are okay with a certificate to be false.

To me, it's extremely easy to see it in the text, just reading it in context. Yet, I realize even something that simple can just be a matter of having eyes to see and ears to hear. There is a spiritual component.

You have also been shown that the cultural practice at the time was to send wives away for any reason, and without a divorce certificate (today the equivalent of that would be separation, but not divorce).

If you are talking about 30 AD, as I've pointed out, you can find numerous commentaries, even articles online, that will tell you the cultural issue at the time, specifically mentioned in the passage where the Pharisees bring up the question in Matthew 19 is the 'any cause' divorce. The debate was between the house of Hillel (who believed in divorce with a certificate over small things like burning the bread... the 'any cause' divorce) and the house of Shammai (who allowed for divorce with a certificate for major things like adultery.)

I have not seen any evidence that the issue in Matthew 19 was divorcing women without a certificate. No one has presented any historical evidence that this was an issue beyond just asserting it on this thread. From actually reading the passage, it is clear this is not the topic of Matthew 19. The Pharisees ask why Moses allowed for divorce with a writing of divorcement. Those kinds of divorce are what is being discussed.

There is some historical background type information we can read from the 1st century because of the Talmud. But what real historical information can you get from the time of Malachi. If I remember correctly, it was my Old Testament professor from college who said that the issue related to a trend toward divorce that started when Ezra had people put away foreign wives, and men had gone to the extreme with putting away or another prophet had a different opinion. That class was kind of liberal at times. Lot's of academic fields tolerate theories and speculations. The problem with Biblical studies is that this is something holy,and people will treat speculations as fact.

Be that as it may, if God hates putting away wives, keep in mind that men who gives their wives a writing of divorcement also put/sent away their wives. They didn't usually divorce them and then keep them in the house so they could just 'shack up' instead of be married.
And it does happen even today, but in order to move on and be able to marry again, divorce needs to happen rather than just separation, so today most people divorce.

None of us have ever advocated divorce for just any and every reason.

But if you interpret Matthew 19 the way you do, then you can't argue that the Bible condemns it, can you? That is the topic the Pharisees ask him about, and it seems like your interpretation has Him agreeing with it, as opposed to what He actually said.

 

[ValleyGal]

I have not seen any evidence that the issue in Matthew 19 was divorcing women without a certificate.

That's because you refuse to look at it in the original language.

But if you interpret Matthew 19 the way you do, then you can't argue that the Bible condemns it, can you?

Exactly. The Bible does not condemn divorce. The Bible, as a whole, suggests that God's original intent for marriage is to be one man and one woman for life, but due to sin, God has made concessions for divorce. He has also stated he hates sending away a spouse without the benefit of divorce because it leads to adultery. Jesus encourages us to pursue God's higher calling for divorce, which is to model his ministry - the ministry of reconciliation. But again, we are human, prone to sin, and have the concession to divorce.

That is it in a nutshell, when you take all biblical passages on divorce and sum them up.

 

[LinkH]

That's because you refuse to look at it in the original language.

Not true. And many of my posts have been about debunking the 'Greek myths' in this thread. I've gone through the interlinear looking at word usage. I also notice that Greek speakers from close in time from the time the text was written, as close as 100 years, did NOT interpret the passage the way you do.

Like another poster pointed out, when someone doesn't have an argument about the Bible, they can just say the original Greek means this. But who actually knows Greek that supports this interpretation? The commentators throughout history take Christ's words as referring to the Mosaic divorce. It is very obvious from the context. It's not the case that the true meaning of the Greek was lost. The people who knew Greek who lived back then take a very conservative interpretation, some maybe even more conservative than mine.

Do you know of one person who actually knows Greek that believes as you do? You don't even have to know Greek to see that the argument is false. The Pharisees are asking about the 'any cause' divorce. You can look that up in commentaries or even dig into the Talmud or other Jewish writings if you want to.

The issue here is not Greek. It's basic semantics. If 'put away' does not mean 'put away without a divorce certificate' then you have no argument. From the very context we can see that the word is not used that way.

Exactly. The Bible does not condemn divorce. The Bible, as a whole, suggests that God's original intent for marriage is to be one man and one woman for life, but due to sin, God has made concessions for divorce.

But then Jesus, the Messiah, Who has the authority to reveal authoritative interpretations of the Law, to bind and to loose, said that from the beginning it was not so. Look at all the 'but I say unto you's in Matthew 5, including the one on divorce and remarriage. He is giving a higher standard than what was written before, not a lower one. You are making Christ out to have a lower standard than the house of Shammai.

Therefore, He declared that whoever put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and married another commits adultery. And whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery.

Whoever includes those who put away their wives with a certificate of divorce. In fact, that is the very issue Jesus addressed in the passage. He is talking about the divorce with a certificate.

Apoluo does not mean to put away a wife without a divorce certificate. It means, when used in this context, to put away a wife. To send her away. Observant Jews gave a certificate first. That was the kind of putting away Jesus was talking about in context-- the one with the certificate. Pray for the Lord to open your eyes and then read the passage.

I have never seen any evidence that Pharisees allowed for divorce without a certificate. Where is the evidence that this was something the Pharisees would have tolerated in the first century? How could someone claim to be a Pharisee, a member kind of Torah-purist society, and not believe in a divorce certificate. Their debate was over when it was justified to give the certificate.

He has also stated he hates sending away a spouse without the benefit of divorce because it leads to adultery.

No, God said He hates sending/putting away. He did not specify that He only hated the kind that does not involve a certificate.

Btw, if someone vows 'till death do us part' don't you consider it a sin to break the vow?

 

[ValleyGal]

Do you know of one person who actually knows Greek that believes as you do? You don't even have to know Greek to see that the argument is false.

Yes, I do. Two were pastors (one is now deceased) and one was a Bible interpreter who worked on one of the most well known and accepted translations of today. I have also spoken to several pastors since, and done my own study using commentaries, Greek Theological dictionary, and other resources for cultural understanding.

God hates putting away because it is sending someone away without the divorce certificate, which is why the discussion includes "send away AND give her a certificate of divorce." There is a different word for separation (apoluo and shalach) than there is for divorce (apostation and I do not have my resources handy for the Hebrew for divorce).

Btw, if someone vows 'till death do us part' don't you consider it a sin to break the vow?

People vow other things till death do us part. They vow to love, cherish, honour, better, worse, rich, poor, in sickness and health, and there is usually a clause about being faithful. Here's the thing. Long before a divorced couple breaks the "till death do us part" part of the vow, they break the love, cherish and honour parts, and those will often happen during the worse, poor or sick parts.

This is why divorce is not sin. The sin is in breaking the vow to love, honour and cherish, and that can lead to unfaithfulness and divorce. If divorce were sin, God would be in sin.

Like I said, I won't discuss this further with you since you will not see what is actually written when it comes to the language used. You are welcome to believe as you like. Hopefully it works in your marriage. After all, that is the one that counts to you. Don't worry about the rest of us.

 

[LinkH]

Yes, I do. Two were pastors (one is now deceased) and one was a Bible interpreter who worked on one of the most well known and accepted translations of today.

That is very sad, but there are people with title 'pastor' who promote homosexuality, too, these days, so it shouldn't be that big of a surprise. If Revelation 2 speaks of the state of churches in the last days, we should take the warning, since there were groups of false teachers who taught people to commit fornication and to eat meat offered to idols.

It is very telling that people who actually spoke Greek from the time period as a native language or used it as their academic language and could speak it fluently as a second language did not interpret the Greek word apoluo the same way.

I have also spoken to several pastors since, and done my own study using commentaries, Greek Theological dictionary, and other resources for cultural understanding.

I'm wondering why you don't go to the trouble then, to put together a reasonable argument for your idea instead of just accusing me of not looking up the words.

God hates putting away because it is sending someone away without the divorce certificate,

Matthew 19 disproves that the word apoluo was used with the definition you describe. The Pharisees ask why Moses allowed the man to divorce his wife and put her away. So the wife with the certificate gets dismissed/put away/sent away as well. (That is the scenario under discussion when Christ makes his statement.)

The Greek scholars figure out what the words mean by looking at the usage, and usage in Matthew 19 disproves your argument.

Moses allowed 'putting away' with a certificate. When Christ says Moses allowed them to put away their wives, he is talking about what Moses DID allow, not what he did not allow.

which is why the discussion includes "send away AND give her a certificate of divorce."

Exactly. Exactly. This is the scenario Christ addresses in the chapter.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 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.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

1. In verse 8 Jesus is talking to the types of divorce that Moses allowed, the kind with the writing of divorcement, mentioned in verse 7.

2. In verse 8, Jesus calls putting away a wife with a certificate of divorce 'putting away.'

3. Christ does not bring up the topic of illegal divorces without certificates when he gets to verse 9. He adds His own command/interpretation, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Toi say he is talking about divorce without a certificate because of a secret about the Greek word apoluo is sophistry. Jesus refers to a divorce with a certificate as apoluo! Sending a wife away without a certificate may be apoluo, but that was illegal, and it was not the topic of conversation.

There is a different word for separation (apoluo and shalach) than there is for divorce (apostation and I do not have my resources handy for the Hebrew for divorce).

We are in agreement about this. What I disagree with is the idea that 'apoluo' means 'putting away without a divorce certificate.' It does NOT mean that, and I just proved it by quoting the passages from Matthew 19 above and showing how the word is used to refer to divorces with certificates, from the words of the Pharisees and from Christ Himself.

Like I said, I won't discuss this further with you since you will not see what is actually written when it comes to the language used.

I'm not making you post.

You keep accusing me of not seeing what language is used, when I keep pointing out what words were used and showing what they mean from context. You are the one who hasn't put forth a cogent argument.

You are welcome to believe as you like. Hopefully it works in your marriage. After all, that is the one that counts to you. Don't worry about the rest of us.

You can keep quiet with the doctrines that encourage adultery if you wish. But I'll be very vocal about this and other doctrines that I see that beguile unstable souls.

 

[mjmcmillan]

I've read the passages any number of times.

I've kept up with this thread until--

I can tell you straight, Jesus wasn't talking of certificates. He wasn't arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. He was talking of something very serious. It reads clear enough in English, and as I read this thread it's been reading clear enough and to spare in my heart.

I've been through two marriages and divorces, the second time around so bad I swear it will not happen again. Do I have a reason to believe that if I were to marry again this time it would be for life? Maybe if I'm going to die in six months. Beyond that, I see too many people ready to divorce the instant they fall out of love with their mates, and now trying to use Greek to make it seem as if Jesus is writing blank checks for it--- as long as you do it legal and get that certificate.

So, what should I reasonably expect? I expect, as this thread is running, that if I marry again she will fall out of love with me in a couple of years, either file for divorce or make me do it, and because I'm the man she'll try to take me for whatever she can get. Now, mind you, these are Christian writers who are giving me the idea that this is to be expected. Because it says so in the Greek. Supposedly.

I have an idea. How about "never again"? Does that work for anybody here? Divorce hurts like you wouldn't believe if you haven't ridden that bronc. I understand, by bitter experience, exactly why Malachi says what it does and why Jesus said what He said-- in English. A divorce decree-- certificate-- doesn't make the hurt any less, I can assure you of that. It just makes it "legal".

 

[ValleyGal]

Beyond that, I see too many people ready to divorce the instant they fall out of love with their mates, and now trying to use Greek to make it seem as if Jesus is writing blank checks for it--- as long as you do it legal and get that certificate.

If you did indeed read the thread, you will know that no one is advocating that people run to divorce court the moment they fall out of love. And no one is saying Jesus is advocating for it either. Again, Jesus calls us to use our marriage as a platform to live out his ministry of reconciliation. He calls us to aim for the ideal God created marriage to be. But he did make concession for it by providing divorce (in all its legal proceedings).

Yes, marriage can be painful, but so can the wounds of a faithful friend as well as iron sharpening iron - both which should be part of a growing marriage. But marriage needs to be reciprocal - both husband and wife need to be accountable for their own behaviour and Christian growth in the marriage, rather than pointing fingers or coping in some other unhealthy character defect. If both are willing to work hard in dying to self, hearts are more likely to stay soft.

If one allows negative thinking, lies of the enemy, resentment, contempt, silent treatment, disrespect, etc, and the other is still working hard on dying to self, eventually one or the other will give up. And God makes concession for that. Yes, divorce hurts - it hurts the spouses, but it also hurts extended families, friends, children, neighbourhoods, etc. Even God gave Israel a certificate of divorce and pursued Judah for a time....so even God had enough.

That does not change the meanings of the words used in the original languages. The fact is that God has made divorce a concession because he knows we are prone to sin, to hard hearts, to defects of character, to selfishness.

I am sorry for the depth of your hurts....I, too, have been through one very difficult divorce and one very difficult marriage which made divorce more a relief. I am now married to the most amazing man whose love is more selfless than any love I've ever known aside from the Lord Jesus. He is truly a gift from the abundance of God's mercy.

 

[LinkH]

I Corinthians 7
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
(NIV)

 

[mkgal1]

Ijwts:

 

[mkgal1]

I Corinthians 7
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
(NIV)

Which was a specific answer to a specific question about how the lives of the early Christians were to be transformed.......was it not? There were many teachings at the time (IIRC) about sexual immorality.....which it seems that often gets translated (even here....on CF) to mean that abstinence is being taught (even in marriage). That was a clarification, if I recall.

ETA: this is the opening verse for that chapter (Chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians)....

Now regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to abstain from sexual relations.

It seems to me the question that was asked (and answered) was something along the lines of "should we be abstaining from sexual relations?".....and this (the entire chapter) was the elaborated upon answer. None of it is truly relevant in a general kind of way. To do so would be like taking Paul's short answer ("yes, it is good to abstain from sexual relations") and apply that in a general way to our Christian life.

 

[ValleyGal]

I just looked up the Greek for divorce. It is "aphiemi". The "e" has a little line above it, but I don't know how to make that on my computer keyboard. Anyway, my Theological Dictionary says it means to "let go from legal debt, office, or penalty."

Compare that to "apoluo" which means simply to send someone away, without the nuance of legal position.

This further supports the position that Jesus was speaking of sending away with out the legal aspect, as he used the term "apoluo" rather than the more legal term "aphiemi".

 

[LinkH]

I just looked up the Greek for divorce. It is "aphiemi". The "e" has a little line above it, but I don't know how to make that on my computer keyboard. Anyway, my Theological Dictionary says it means to "let go from legal debt, office, or penalty."

Compare that to "apoluo" which means simply to send someone away, without the nuance of legal position.

Okay, I'm following you so far?

This further supports the position that Jesus was speaking of sending away with out the legal aspect, as he used the term "apoluo" rather than the more legal term "aphiemi".

How in the world do you come up with this interpretation? Either Paul is interpreting the words of Christ, like those recorded in Matthew 5, 19, or the other synoptics to mean one should shouldn't legally divorce his wife, or he is sharing a separate revelation he received from the Lord. Either way, there is no way to get out of I Corinthians 7 the idea that Christ was forbidding ONLY putting away without a certificate.

I Corinthians 7 says the Lord says NOT to do aphiemi.

 

[LinkH]

I just looked up the Greek for divorce. It is "aphiemi". The "e" has a little line above it, but I don't know how to make that on my computer keyboard. Anyway, my Theological Dictionary says it means to "let go from legal debt, office, or penalty."

Compare that to "apoluo" which means simply to send someone away, without the nuance of legal position.

Okay, I'm following you so far?

This further supports the position that Jesus was speaking of sending away with out the legal aspect, as he used the term "apoluo" rather than the more legal term "aphiemi".

How in the world do you come up with this interpretation? Either Paul is interpreting the words of Christ, like those recorded in Matthew 5, 19, or the other synoptics to mean one should shouldn't legally divorce his wife, or he is sharing a separate revelation he received from the Lord. Either way, there is no way to get out of I Corinthians 7 the idea that Christ was forbidding ONLY putting away without a certificate.

I Corinthians 7 says the Lord says NOT to divorce/aphiemi one's spouse.


I do notice a pattern here-- looking up a Greek word to try to find a way to interpret it to mean divorce is okay. The people who translate these versions of the Bible usually know Greek and most translations are anti-divorce. Christians who actually spoke Greek as native speakers who read these passages back then were actually very anti-divorce to, and believed that way because of the words of Christ.

 

[ValleyGal]

It's not a "pattern to find a way to mean divorce is okay." I'm not sure how many times I have to say that the Bible is quite clear that divorce is a concession as a last resort.

Where did I get it? I looked up 1 Cor. 7 in blueletterbible, got the Greek words, then looked them up in my Greek Theological Dictionary.

Let's look at this verse by verse.

7:8 - to the UNmarried AND widows, it's better not to marry,
7:9 - but if they burn with passion, it's better to marry
7:10 - to the married, don't separate (chorizo = leave = of your own volition)
7:11 - if you leave (separate without benefit of divorce), you need to either stay alone (because you are not legally divorced) or go back to your spouse; and a husband must not divorce (legally) his wife (in cultural context, for little or no reason)
7:27 - if you are married, don't seek a divorce; if you are divorced, don't seek a wife
7:28 - but if you do (marry again after divorce or death of spouse), you have not sinned

The whole passage supports what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5 and 19, that if you send away your wife (without benefit of divorce = apoluo - shalach), and marry someone else, you are committing adultery. Why? Because you are still legally married. He is, in essence, saying that the legal divorce is necessary to prevent yourself and your spouse from committing adultery. And don't forget that was common practice at the time. But he is also saying that God never intended for divorce to happen, and we should work to honour God's intent in marriage - work to make it work. But if you can't, there is concession called divorce.

Now, you can think all your want, but that is what the Bible says, and you can take it or leave it. I will always advocate that a couple stays married and works it out if they can, but sometimes there are legitimate reasons for not being able to work it out, and divorce is not a reason for condemnation, nor is it sin.

 

[LinkH]

Where did I get it? I looked up 1 Cor. 7 in blueletterbible, got the Greek words, then looked them up in my Greek Theological Dictionary.

Let's look at this verse by verse.

7:8 - to the UNmarried AND widows, it's better not to marry,
7:9 - but if they burn with passion, it's better to marry
7:10 - to the married, don't separate (chorizo = leave = of your own volition)
7:11 - if you leave (separate without benefit of divorce), you need to either stay alone (because you are not legally divorced) or go back to your spouse; and a husband must not divorce (legally) his wife (in cultural context, for little or no reason)
7:27 - if you are married, don't seek a divorce; if you are divorced, don't seek a wife
7:28 - but if you do (marry again after divorce or death of spouse), you have not sinned

It's sounds like this is an interpretation of the text and not a true translation. Did you do it yourself? I've done a little reading and it sounds like interpreters have different opinions on whether the word means to divorce or to leave.

Whatever the case, I doubt there would be such a debate if the word clearly meant 'separate without a divorce'. If a man divorces his wife, he departs from her. If a woman divorces her husband and departs from him and marries another, she still departs and marries another. It's a matter of logic.

The Matthew 19 passage is clear that putting away a wife with a certificate, except it before fornication, is adultery, and he that marries her that is put away commits adultery. Women with certificates were put away as well.

 

[LinkH]

Which was a specific answer to a specific question about how the lives of the early Christians were to be transformed.......was it not? There were many teachings at the time (IIRC) about sexual immorality.....which it seems that often gets translated (even here....on CF) to mean that abstinence is being taught (even in marriage). That was a clarification, if I recall.

ETA: this is the opening verse for that chapter (Chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians)....

It seems to me the question that was asked (and answered) was something along the lines of "should we be abstaining from sexual relations?".....and this (the entire chapter) was the elaborated upon answer. None of it is truly relevant in a general kind of way. To do so would be like taking Paul's short answer ("yes, it is good to abstain from sexual relations") and apply that in a general way to our Christian life.

If you look at the section after it, Paul deals with the issue of unbelieving spouses leaving believing spouses, so he does not only have separating for life-long celibacy in mind. The commands about husbands and wives not separating seem to transition between these celibacy topic and the topic of believers being abandoned by unbelievers, which is a good argument for going with the more straightforward interpretation that he is indeed telling wives not to depart from their husbands and husbands not to put away their wives. The fact that the tells the wife who departs to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband, IMO, makes it crystal clear that he is not talking about couples divorcing to pursue some kind of hermit or monastic style celibacy.

 

[mjmcmillan]

Read this thread. Then come back and tell me that giving a certificate somehow makes it all better. If you're having trouble with it the way it is, switch the genders and try reading the thread again. You won't need to translate Greek to figure it out. Even a Klingon can understand.