Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is 1 free if divorce not due 2 adultery? | Matt 19:9 | Searcher56 | 144157 | ||
I see the sequence as 1. divorce (for other than adultery - Luke 16:18 skips this) 2. marriage to another ... means adultery So (I'm not dealing with an unbeliever leaving) ... Was the divorce even legal in God's eyes, if there was no adultery BEFORE the divorce? ... If one remarries another when the divorce wasn't because of adultery ... is that adultery give the other freedom to remarry? |
||||||
2 | Is 1 free if divorce not due 2 adultery? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144172 | ||
Searcher56 – (I know it is long, but I tried real hard, so forgive me) It’s been awhile, so I will try to tackle this one and see where it goes. :-) I’m going to deal with Luke 16:18 here for reasons that make sense below. Also, I will provide some context, some Greek verb stuff, and THEN answer your question. Luk 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Divorce was one of the 8 great debates of the first century, thus the reason He is asked the question (Matt. 19:3). The 2 schools of thought were Hillel and Shammai. Jesus sides 7 times with Hillel and 1 time with Shammai. With divorce Jesus agreed with Shammai. (Hillel said you could divorce for “burnt toast.”) It is, of course, important to value the context, which I know you all know I bring up a lot. Jesus did not equate divorce and remarriage with adultery, as is often thought. Prohibiting divorce would abrogate the Torah passage Deut. 24:1-2. Jesus was intent on interpreting the Torah properly, but he did not want to destroy it. Another context can be seen in the Mishnah (Sotah 5.1) where a woman who is divorced because of an adulterous relationship is not permitted to marry the man with whom she had an affair. (Most of the Mishnah was taught before and during Jesus’ time, but not all.) - Context is used here NOT to change Jesus words or their meaning, but to help see the world as it was during the time he said these words. - Divorce for the SAKE of remarriage was therefore also adultery. When we look at the Luke 16:18, the verbs “divorce” and “marry” are in the present tense. (The parallel in Mark 10:11 put them in the subjective mood.” (see note below). Also, the conjunction “and” was often intended to express purpose. Re-wording the translation of the Greek into English to better capture the original meaning might be, “Every one who divorces his wife [in order] to marry another commits adultery.” “In light of the Mishnah passage in Sotah, if a man marries a woman who obtained a divorce merely for the sake of her second marriage, then it is considered adultery. Divorce is not adultery” and neither is remarriage. (see note below) Answer to your question. Divorce is allowed, but not divorce simply for the sake of convinces, whether that be to marry another or simply to avoid responsibility. Divorce for the sake of abuse, adultery, and any other things that fit under the term “unfaithfulness” is Biblically okay. If a spouse divorces un-Lawfully, then their partner is made free and permitted to remarry without committing adultery. (1Co 7:15 “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”) I understand that you said that “Unbelief” is not a part of the issue in your stated situation, but I think the “rule” here can still be applied. It was not the choice of the innocent partner to divorce, so if their spouse acts in an unbelieving manner by divorcing for illegitimate reasons, the spouse who is left is free (not enslaved.) Luke 16:18b “He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” This is the same idea only this time the woman is divorcing. So if a woman was divorced by her husband because her husband wanted another woman or simply because he didn’t liker her or she “burnt his toast”, then she would be free to re-marry. But if she divorced for the reason to marry another, then to marry her would be adultery. These things can get very complicated and so in the end we need to use our understanding of scripture on a WHOLE and apply it. We ought not to take one statement within the text and try to make situations fit, and thereby nullify other commands in the process. This was the BIG mistake of the Pharisees. Example: they took the Sabbath laws separate from the rest of the Torah, and applied them. They were correct in the letter of the one command, but wrong in interpreting the Torah as a whole. Jesus corrected them on this, and “loved His neighbor” by healing on the Sabbath. We too can take divorce laws out of the text and apply them to the letter correctly, but actually be misinterpreting the text on a whole at the same time. MJH |
||||||
3 | MJH, Where does the Bible add abuse? | Matt 19:9 | Searcher56 | 144201 | ||
Scripture ... Gen 2:23-24; Exo 20:14; Deu 24:1-5; Mal 2:13-16; Mat 5:31-32, 19:3-12; Rom 7:2-3, 1 Cor 7:1-40; 2 Cor 5:17, 1 Tim 3:1-13, Tit 1:6-9 ... MJH You said "Divorce for the sake of abuse, adultery, and any other things that fit under the term “unfaithfulness” is Biblically okay. Why do you add abuse and other things? - cite Scripture. This is the Hillel school of thought, which Jesus corrected (Mat 19:3-12). Also respond to my 144199 post. Searcher |
||||||
4 | MJH, Where does the Bible add abuse? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144209 | ||
Thank you for making me put more meat on this issue. To begin with, Jesus and Paul being silent on this issue does not mean that it is not scriptural. The overriding text on divorce is Deut. 24:1-5. All other text interpret this one either loosely or strictly. Jesus and Paul were very strict, but their comments do not touch on abuse specifically. Deut. 24 says that if a "man" finds. I am going to take this to also mean "woman" and argue that in our post messianic times (and probably before) this was most certainly applicable both ways (see Mark 10:12). The reason for divorce here in Deut. is "anything displeasing." What Jesus was dealing with was a gross miss-application of this law that said, "anything displeasing" is literally anything and everything that causes the man to be displease in any form. (Such as burnt food.) Had Jesus been asked the specific question of “gross abuse” of a wife by a husband there is no doubt in my mind that He would find this a "displeasing" issue that fit Deut 24. (note: Jesus made the law more strict AND more loose in the same statement in Mark 10:12 by including the passage to mean, “If a wife finds a husband . . .”) And then we need to take the scripture as a whole. The scripture speaks of LIFE, not death. Of reconciliation, not divorce. Of protection for the weak, not abuse. Taking people OUT OF BONDAGE not placing them in it. Some texts that apply to relationships in general: Lev 19:16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (All apply equally to a wife.) Lev 19:33 "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. Lev 19:34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (If this is how they were to treat foreigners, then even more applies to the native born and yet more to the wife.) None of these texts apply specifically to the issue of abuse in marriage, but as stated before, one must look at the whole of scripture when attempting to apply it to an issue not specifically addressed in scripture. I believe that gross abuse of a spouse falls under the guidelines of “anything displeasing” since such acts are OBVIOUSLY displeasing to God Himself as is seen throughout the Text. (Sexual sins are displeasing as seen in the Law, but this isn’t in disagreement, but Jesus had to say what displeasing meant, and to do so had to rely on the Law to point out that sexual sins fell into the “displeasing” definition, but burnt toast did not. I am using the same method to show that abuse also fits the “displeasing” definition.) Then, like I said before. 1 Cor 7:15 – “If an unbeliever leaves. . .” Acts such as gross abuse render any so-called believer as an actual unbeliever (excommunicated if you will). AND such acts would mean the spouse has “left” even though he still remains physically. Then, finally, the texts on “Binding and Loosing” apply as well. The terms “bind” and “loose” given to the Apostles and henceforth to the elders of churches or denominations, allow for interpretation of texts to apply to new situations. If the church permits (looses) the divorce in cases of abuse, then so does heaven. The majority of competent Pastors, Elders, and church doctrine permit divorce in such cases, and those that do not have failed to see the heart of God (I believe). In summary: Jesus interprets Deut 24, and more specifically the term “displeasing.” The correct method for finding what “displeasing” means, is to known the rest of the Law. Sexual sin falls under this definition, and so does gross abuse. How did I do? MJH |
||||||
5 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | Searcher56 | 144214 | ||
MJH, why did you only cite a few passages? Aren't there more in the Law and the Bible how we are to deal with our spouse, family and others? If one violates Ephesisans 5:22-33, is that grounds for divorce, if it is disipleasing? The displeasing (no favor -lo khane) is because is indecency in Deuteronomy 24:1. See post 144212 on indecency. Searcher |
||||||
6 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144233 | ||
Searcher, The argument is one for you to prove otherwise. You have not taken much time or effort to make your point clear. I have laid out my position on divorce quite clearly. Since we are talking about divorce, not marriage, I stuck with the scriptures that deal with that. I will, for your sake, paste a commentary note on the subject: By John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible: Deut 24:1 "because he hath found some uncleanness in her;" "something that he disliked, and was disagreeable to him, and which made their continuance together in the marriage state very uncomfortable; which led him on to be very ill-natured, severe, and CRUEL to her; so that HER LIFE was exposed to danger, or at least become very uneasy; in which case a divorce was permitted, BOTH for the badness of the man's heart, and in favor of the woman, that she might be FREED from such rigorous usage." (CAPS are my additions). If you would write a position that is different, I'd like to read it because I am not dogmatic on every point with this issue. I also have not taken as much time with this issue as I have with others, so any detailed arguments that contradict any of my arguments would be looked at with appreciation. MJH |
||||||
7 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | Searcher56 | 144385 | ||
MJH - I contradict your arguments because you failed to read what the original says, not what an expert wrote. Gil not only is wrong in his translation of the test, he take it out of context. Searcher | ||||||
8 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144412 | ||
Searcher, I am still waiting to hear why you feel that a woman should stay married to a husband who is grossly abusive. This is the whole bases of our discussion of which I have provided much to think about, but which you have said nothing other than that you don't agree. Ex. 21 forbids gross abuse of SLAVES, but I am to assume that a married woman is lower than a slave and should not be defended in such a case? The scripture also forbids that a man allow another man's animal to be abused or put under a load that is too heavy. And, oh yeah, it was an ENEMIES animal that was under the heavy load, fell down, or fell into a hole. Yet, we are to treat our enemy’s animal with more respect than a man's wife? Is that what Jesus taught? To be literal in the very strictest way, as you suggest would be impossible at times. Let me show. The Sabbath laws forbid work on the Sabbath. The laws about property require that a man helps another man's donkey if it falls into a pit. What happens if the donkey falls into a pit on the Sabbath. Which law do you break? The rabbis in Jesus time said you break the Sabbath laws and help the donkey. Even they, those strict den of vipers, cared enough for an animal to break their beloved Sabbath. But I am to understand that Jesus was more of a viper by allowing women to be abused? Please, please provide an argument for your case. I am afraid that I may be getting sarcastic and I certainly do not wish to break the rules of the forum. MJH |
||||||
9 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | Searcher56 | 144444 | ||
MJH - You are trying to link the treatment of a slave, and others with that of a spouse. The Bible is specific and if divorce was allowed for that reason, it would say so. You twist and turn Scripture to your own pleasure which for me falls short of 100 truth - therefore is trash. I have proven the truth about what Deut 24:1 says ... plus the only reasons for divorce ... and nowhere does Scripture allow abuse, much less does it allow divorce if the wife doesn't submit or if the husband doesn't love her. Why do you wait for what I have already done? |
||||||