Is it a sin?

[tall73]

LinkH, I agree with your view of the text. But having this topic in multiple threads makes it harder to figure out what folks think, and to have a good discussion on the point.

Keeping up with three threads going concurrently it is hard to get any real dialogue on the specifics.

Part of exegetical dialogue is comparing notes on the specific points to see where things come out, and then seeing if that makes any difference to the overall view.

It is only when you get down to the sticking points of the specifics that you can see if there is any real possibility of either side changing views and coming to agreement on the meaning of the text.

I know the general trend is to say folks never change their mind on theology. However, I have seen it happen numerous times, even on Christian forums, and have done it myself. I am open to changing views if the text calls for it. Others have said the have had changes of view on the text. If we take the text seriously lets try to have a dialogue on each point.

However, I personally at least, am having trouble doing that when the discussion is spread across various threads.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

apostolic34,

Our hypothetical husband Bob clearly has a skewed perception of things. So let's consider another couple. They marry in Vegas, but after a short while, both consider that their decision was foolish. Neither one of them has any animosity toward the other. Neither has cheated. But they both feel no spark after a week or two.

Each both believes the loving thing is to divorce. Given your belief that divorce itself is not a sin, is there any reason you should have a problem with the idea of a couple like this divorcing? Is there any reason you would have for advising against it?

If divorce (other than for fornication) were not a sin, then why would the couple in my scenario have to commit some sin to get a divorce?

Bye for now...

 

[LinkH]

It is interesting, though, that it bothers you. You don't have any problem telling other people they're in the wrong, even living in sin, but you get your feathers ruffled when someone suggests you're looking at the letter of the law instead of the spirit.[q

You can dish criticism but can't take it, huh?

I've been pointing out what the text says is sin. I haven't been naming names and telling people they are in sin.

And what you insinuated was a pretty bad accusation, but you don't see it that way maybe because you seem to think think 'letter' versus 'spirit' is about whether you view the text loosely or strictly. I see it more as living in Romans 7 or Romans 8.

 

[LinkH]

tall73,

You make a good point. I just suspected it was unlikely people would really re-examine what they think or really think through the text. So I thought throwing up a practical example that shows what this new interpretation could lead to would be useful.

You may be more skilled at discussing this in the other threads, though.

 

[Inkachu]

I think we should all just sit down together and have some barbecue and play badminton.

 

[LinkH]

When Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts do you think that means he was giving the hardhearted men a pass? Like God was saying "oh, well, I can't get them to be softhearted, so I'll go ahead and allow them to do this thing that I hate and so that way they won't be sinning when they do this thing that is hardhearted."

Nope.

It was because the hardness of men's hearts was causing damage to the women who were being abandoned. It was for the sake of the victims, not for the sake of the hardhearted men that Moses allowed divorce.

The problem is, the second scenario doesn't make sense according to the text. It's not what Jesus commented on. It's not what the Pharisees asked about.

Historically, it makes no sense. The Pharisees asking if putting away a wife for 'any cause' was acceptable. Was their majority opinion right? Was Hillel right? Could you divorce a wife for burning the bread. The need for a certificate of divorce was already accepted by the Pharisees. Hillel was the leader of the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin for quite a while right up to the time of the birth of Christ. A school of thought among the Pharisees was named after him, the house of Hillel.

Orthodox Jews, ideological descendants of Hillel, still believe in the 'any cause' divorce.

Jesus' answer to the 'any cause' divorce question was that 'two, saith he, shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'

The Pharisees asked him why Moses allowed a husband to give his wife a certificate of divorce and put her away.

Notice, the legal divorce. The divorce with the certificate, not one without a certificate.

Jesus responded that Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed divorce, but from the beginning it was not so. He had appealed to the account of the creation of woman, two shall be one flesh.

Then he made His proclaimation about adultery.

 

[ValleyGal]

tall73,

You make a good point. I just suspected it was unlikely people would really re-examine what they think or really think through the text. So I thought throwing up a practical example that shows what this new interpretation could lead to would be useful.

You may be more skilled at discussing this in the other threads, though.

I can't answer for Tall, but I personally studied the subject 18 years ago before all the online resources came up. I studied because I wanted to validate my beliefs, which were actually the same as yours then. I examined and found myself to be in error, and I adopted the views that led to my current understanding. I have continued to re-evaluate my beliefs in this area, as well as in remarriage and the marital institution to start with. Not only that, but in my undergrad years (especially in the year I took nothing but full time psychology courses), I focused on the marriage relationship and divorce/remarriage. I have enough understanding both biblical and secular to have a fairly concise conversation about it. My current beliefs are validated through social sciences and through biblical studies such as divorcehope.

So knowing my own history of study in this area, I am inclined to suggest that perhaps it is you who is not willing to re-evaluate and test your own beliefs, that maybe you are so stuck in them that there is no room for you to admit that perhaps you are the one in error.

 

[tall73]

tall73,

You make a good point. I just suspected it was unlikely people would really re-examine what they think or really think through the text. So I thought throwing up a practical example that shows what this new interpretation could lead to would be useful.

You may be more skilled at discussing this in the other threads, though.

Understood. you are trying it from another angle.

The irony is now I am tempted to make yet another thread!

 

[tall73]

So knowing my own history of study in this area, I am inclined to suggest that perhaps it is you who is not willing to re-evaluate and test your own beliefs, that maybe you are so stuck in them that there is no room for you to admit that perhaps you are the one in error.

We are not here to study motives, either side. Those who want to study the text can, and those who want to apply it can, and those who don't want to do not have to.

I have seen on both sides people saying "you haven't studied it out" or "you are not willing to change".

Let's just stick to the text. If we come to agreement, great. If not, we can have a better understanding. And if someone already has the understanding they want and don't want to participate, by all means do not.

 

[Inkachu]

Sometimes people get so wrapped up in using their brains, that they forget their hearts. I wonder if everyone in this discussion is praying for God's wisdom and englightenment, even if that means Him telling them that they're wrong. And I wonder if the motives for these threads are to help others out of loving concern, or is it just because people want to "prove" their own rightness?

Just a thought.

 

[tall73]

I appreciate VG's point, and it's something I hadn't really thought about before. If your spouse divorces you OR abuses you to the point where you have to flee the marriage, how are you to blame (how have you sinned)? You haven't. And as VG said, to force that person to remain in a marriage covenant (saying they can't remarry) that they didn't voluntarily destroy, but were victimized by its destruction, is to say that there is no mercy, no grace, and that the other spouse's sin is on the victim's shoulders forever. That does not match up with who God is or how He operates. If, for example, you get married, and your wife runs off with another man and you can't track her down for an "official" divorce proceeding - to say that you're still married to her for the rest of your life seems preposterous. SHE'S the one who sinned, but YOU'RE the one paying for it.

Just thinking out loud here, I may be wrong on some points.

It is alright to think out loud. There are a lot of details surrounding this issue, and it is hard to grasp them all at once, along with the various possibilities for each text.

Now on the scenario you mention though, someone running off with another man, both Link and VG would be fine with the one who was wronged remarrying.

Link would see that as under the exception clause spelled out by Jesus in Matthew 19.

 

[mkgal1]

I think you put too much effort into winning this particular argument.

But your hypothetical has a problem in it. You're looking at it from Bob's point of view.

The point of requiring a certificate of divorce in this situation is so that MARY can remarry without sinning.

I know that you know that OT law would have allowed Bob to take another wife no matter what. He could have taken a younger wife and kept Mary, too. He could have sent Mary away and taken another wife. He could have divorced Mary and taken another wife.


I'm not one who goes around classifying things as sin and not-sin. That strikes me as being legalistic. Rather, the question to be asked is whether it is loving or not.

It's not loving or Christ-like for Bob to divorce his wife in the situation you described. It is, however, perfectly legal for him to do so.

You seem to me to focus so much on the letter of the law that you miss the spirit.

Great points.

In my opinion......the scenario that Link laid out in the OP is probably close to what the Pharisees had in mind when they asked Jesus their question (and Jesus being able to know their thoughts would be responding directly to them----not a general question about divorce). This is another text where the audience really matters.

 

[LinkH]

It is alright to think out loud. There are a lot of details surrounding this issue, and it is hard to grasp them all at once, along with the various possibilities for each text.

Now on the scenario you mention though, someone running off with another man, both Link and VG would be fine with the one who was wronged remarrying.

Link would see that as under the exception clause spelled out by Jesus in Matthew 19.

I wouldn't say that. This particular passage is about a divorce under Mosaic law, which involves a man divorcing his wife with a certificate, and not vice versa. There was a big embalance in how men and women treated each other. Men could divorce their wives. If a man wasn't treating his wife right, she had to figure out some way to get a divorce certificate out of him under Jewish law.

Christ declaring most divorce invalid would have done away with much of that if people would have applied it. For the most part Judaism continued to follow Hillel on the issue.

 

[LinkH]

Great points.

In my opinion......the scenario that Link laid out in the OP is probably close to what the Pharisees had in mind when they asked Jesus their question (and Jesus being able to know their thoughts would be responding directly to them----not a general question about divorce). This is another text where the audience really matters.

That's what I was thinking of. I went with Akiba's example of a reason for divorce rather than Hillel's, though.

 

[LinkH]

So that scenario is supposed to make women put themselves into Mary's shoes and change their minds? LOL. Unfortunately it has all of the OP's prejudices glaring so brightly. The plump and boring wife who doesn't put out enough .. the wonderful man who is so perfect.

I didn't try to write up Bob as a perfect husband. He's got some flaws related to love and loyalty if he is seriously considering leaving his wife. I'm also drew from mid-life crisis stereotypes, and tried to present something the Pharisees who addressed Jesus in Matthew 19 might have considered lawful.

But he is also the type of man that, if he did leave his wife, some young pretty woman who wants a well-to-do man, a woman who doesn't have the good sense to stay away from men who aren't faithful to their wives, might want to marry.

Mary would be better off letting that loser go - he's already preparing for it anyway, and has evidently committed adultery in his heart. She can get a nice settlement and then get herself to a gym, get into shape, and go and find a young and successful man whose lovemaking might be exciting rather than as boring as old Bob's has always been. Old Bob will soon develop ED, need Viagra, which will interfere with his heart's function - his heart which is exhausted from all that stress, sneaking around chasing younger women - so he'll probably have a huge heart attack in a couple of years and leave his wife and daughter very well off.

I think we can both agree that if Bob did what he is thinking of, it would be a terrible thing.

I hope if you met a real life Bob and Mary, you wouldn't advise Mary to divorce him. Bob hasn't done anything to her yet. A real life 'Mary' probably wouldn't be thinking she'd be better off with her 'loser husband' at this point. If she knew her husband were thinking of straying, she'd probably be hurt, but want him to change. I'm thinking of examples of grieving husbands and wives posting on the subforum.

Bob hasn't got a girl picked out to replace Mary, so there is no reason to think he's committed adultery in his heart. He's guilty of entertaining bad thoughts and listening to bad advice. Maybe he's guilty of not trying to get closer to God by studying the Bible, and of not being conformed to the image of Christ as he should. He should know better than to seriously consider these ideas. But he could be a seeker or a new believer. Whatever the case, he hasn't cheated on Mary. He's just considering advice that says it's not a sin to divorce her with the proper paperwork and marry someone else.

I think there is something we can robably agree on. The course of action Bob is contemplating in the story is a bad one to take. It would be a disloyal thing to do to his wife.

And the question is, if we all know this would be a bad thing for him to do, then we all know, on some level, that there is something wrong and sinful about Bob divorcing his wife, even if he gives her the proper paperwork.

 

[Hetta]

A real life 'Mary' probably wouldn't be thinking she'd be better off with her 'loser husband' at this point.

I agree that she wouldn't think she'd be better off with him.

Link, you changed the story as soon as nobody fell for it. The OP is all about how he's lining up girls and picking out who her successor would be, now it's all no, he's listening to bad advice. Really?

Bob is welcome to divorce his wife, so long as he doesn't balk at making sure she is well looked after for the rest of her life. Like I said, she'll probably look up and realize what she's been missing all of these years.

 

[LinkH]

I agree that she wouldn't think she'd be better off with him.

I fixed the spelling error. In real life, a wife whose been faithful for years who finds out her husband is contemplating divorce probably won't be too thrilled about it.

Link, you changed the story as soon as nobody fell for it. The OP is all about how he's lining up girls and picking out who her successor would be, now it's all no, he's listening to bad advice. Really?

Maybe you haven't been following the conversations in the other threads so far. I've been saying that Jesus taught against the sort of thing one of Bob's friends is telling him is okay, that he is allowed to dump his wife and find another, just as long as he gives her a certificate of divorce.

The girls Bob lining up are in Bob's imagination as he struggles with this temptation to believe the deception.

Btw, the OP contains the following line, "He has a friend who has explained to him that it is not a sin for Bob to divorce Mary and marry a younger woman, just as long as Bob gives her a divorce certificate. "

Bob is welcome to divorce his wife, so long as he doesn't balk at making sure she is well looked after for the rest of her life. Like I said, she'll probably look up and realize what she's been missing all of these years.

So, that's it? If you knew a couple like this in real life, that's what you would advise? What if Bob is otherwise a decent fellow, and these folks were related to you? If you met Bob and God gave you supernatural insight into Bob's mind, and you had a chance to advise him, would you advise him to divorce his wife? Would you just tell Mary to divorce him?

 

[mkgal1]

I didn't try to write up Bob as a perfect husband. He's got some flaws related to love and loyalty if he is seriously considering leaving his wife. I'm also drew from mid-life crisis stereotypes, and tried to present something the Pharisees who addressed Jesus in Matthew 19 might have considered lawful.

But he is also the type of man that, if he did leave his wife, some young pretty woman who wants a well-to-do man, a woman who doesn't have the good sense to stay away from men who aren't faithful to their wives, might want to marry.



I think we can both agree that if Bob did what he is thinking of, it would be a terrible thing.

I hope if you met a real life Bob and Mary, you wouldn't advise Mary to divorce him. Bob hasn't done anything to her yet.

But......don't you see the importance of whom this passage was directed to?

It wasn't to "Marys"......it was to "Bobs" (women had no option to divorce anyway). This "Bob" has a hardened and calloused heart towards his wife that he promised to love and cherish. That's typically expected to be a life-long thing......(vows or no vows)....not "as long as you stay slim and my idea of 'exciting'".

 

[Avniel]

I agree that she wouldn't think she'd be better off with him.

Link, you changed the story as soon as nobody fell for it. The OP is all about how he's lining up girls and picking out who her successor would be, now it's all no, he's listening to bad advice. Really?

Bob is welcome to divorce his wife, so long as he doesn't balk at making sure she is well looked after for the rest of her life. Like I said, she'll probably look up and realize what she's been missing all of these years.

So divorce is ok depending on the economic gain.

 

[Hetta]

So divorce is ok depending on the economic gain.

Really. That's all you got out of my post. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.