-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
N
I'm still working my way through this thread, so please forgive me if somebody else has already answered this question. Personally, I believe that Jesus answered this question here:
Mark 10:1
And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
Mark 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Mark 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Mark 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mark 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mark 10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Mark 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
When the Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife, Jesus responded by asking them "What did Moses command you?" In turn, the Pharisees replied with something that Moses had written in the book of Deuteronomy, but this apparently was not the command of Moses that Jesus was looking for. The word "Deuteronomy" literally means "second law", and Jesus not only told the Pharisees that Moses, in his second giving of the law, permitted putting away solely due to the hardness of the hearts of the people he was dealing with, but he also pointed them back to what Moses originally commanded in the book of Genesis, or in the book of beginnings, because this was the proper answer to Jesus' question. In the proper answer, we find that "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female", and "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." Jesus concluded the proper response by saying "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Divorce was never a part of God's original design, and Moses' permission for putting away due to the hardness of certain peoples' hearts does nothing to change that reality. That's how I read it, anyway.
Mark 10:1
And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
Mark 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Mark 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Mark 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mark 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mark 10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Mark 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
When the Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife, Jesus responded by asking them "What did Moses command you?" In turn, the Pharisees replied with something that Moses had written in the book of Deuteronomy, but this apparently was not the command of Moses that Jesus was looking for. The word "Deuteronomy" literally means "second law", and Jesus not only told the Pharisees that Moses, in his second giving of the law, permitted putting away solely due to the hardness of the hearts of the people he was dealing with, but he also pointed them back to what Moses originally commanded in the book of Genesis, or in the book of beginnings, because this was the proper answer to Jesus' question. In the proper answer, we find that "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female", and "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." Jesus concluded the proper response by saying "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Divorce was never a part of God's original design, and Moses' permission for putting away due to the hardness of certain peoples' hearts does nothing to change that reality. That's how I read it, anyway.
N
Again, I'm just working my way through this thread, so please forgive me if somebody else already answered this.
I think that the answer to your question is found if we look at that verse in its entirety:
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Seeing how Jesus added "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery", the implication, in context, seems to be that Jesus was only referring to wives who had been put away and then remarried. In other words, if there wasn't legal grounds in God's sight for the putting away and then the woman remarried, both the woman and whoever she married would be guilty of committing adultery.
I think that the answer to your question is found if we look at that verse in its entirety:
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Seeing how Jesus added "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery", the implication, in context, seems to be that Jesus was only referring to wives who had been put away and then remarried. In other words, if there wasn't legal grounds in God's sight for the putting away and then the woman remarried, both the woman and whoever she married would be guilty of committing adultery.
Well I did tell you where it is and I'm confident that with some careful study of Malachi you can see it for yourself.
It's obvious once you parse out the Hebrew poetry. This whole "put away" wives thing is nasty business...and this passage clearly spells out what happens. It's a type of torturous murder. (Abuse)
This is why a put away wife was not responsible for her sins by God...her husband was. So if she committed adultery or lied or stole... it was on him.
Also...
A husband who beat his wife unrestrained had one chance....the men of the village would beat him for beating a daughter of Abraham's...and if he didn't learn the lesson once he wouldn't learn at all and she was now a widow. No divorce necessary.
It's obvious once you parse out the Hebrew poetry. This whole "put away" wives thing is nasty business...and this passage clearly spells out what happens. It's a type of torturous murder. (Abuse)
This is why a put away wife was not responsible for her sins by God...her husband was. So if she committed adultery or lied or stole... it was on him.
Also...
A husband who beat his wife unrestrained had one chance....the men of the village would beat him for beating a daughter of Abraham's...and if he didn't learn the lesson once he wouldn't learn at all and she was now a widow. No divorce necessary.
N
I hear you. I often wonder why certain teachings in the Bible aren't more clear cut or easier to understand. Especially one like this that could have major consequences if misunderstood. I think that I'll join you on the trip to Israel. Just don't take your socks off on the plane ride if you're sitting next to me, okay? 
N
I don't know if anybody else has already mentioned this or not, but God didn't even hold himself accountable to Moses' precept as is recorded in Deuteronomy chapter 24.
Jeremiah 3:1
They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
Here, the LORD, who I personally believe is Jesus in that he's the bridegroom in scripture, while referencing Moses' precept in the 24th chapter of Deuteronomy, was willing to take back his wife who had previously been put away. Seeing how this is apparently so, this is just another indicator that what Moses "suffered" or allowed in Deuteronomy chapter 24 was never really a part of God's original intentions. Instead, it was only allowed or permitted due to the hardness of certain peoples' hearts, so we really shouldn't be building any of our doctrines or beliefs about divorce based upon that particular portion of scripture. That's how I see it, anyway.
Jeremiah 3:1
They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
Here, the LORD, who I personally believe is Jesus in that he's the bridegroom in scripture, while referencing Moses' precept in the 24th chapter of Deuteronomy, was willing to take back his wife who had previously been put away. Seeing how this is apparently so, this is just another indicator that what Moses "suffered" or allowed in Deuteronomy chapter 24 was never really a part of God's original intentions. Instead, it was only allowed or permitted due to the hardness of certain peoples' hearts, so we really shouldn't be building any of our doctrines or beliefs about divorce based upon that particular portion of scripture. That's how I see it, anyway.
What I'm curious about now is if what constitutes becoming "one flesh" is sexual intercourse (Paul confirms this in 1 Corinthians 6:16) and that's consensual between two adults then what does it mean that God joined them together? If joining together is sex then how was God involved in that aside from creating them male and female?
God made them male and female for His glory. They will procreate and make a family. They will live in glory.
God made them male and female for His glory. They will procreate and make a family. They will live in glory.
N
At first glance, I would agree with you, but the counter-argument is this:
What about married couples who cannot engage in sexual intercourse? Like if the husband is paralyzed from the waist down or something? Are they not considered to be married in God's sight?
I do believe that the whole "one flesh" thing is tied to sexual intercourse, and this would seem to be a reason why God would consider sexual immorality as a violation and seeming breaking of the wedding vow or marriage covenant itself. I'm not sure, but that's sort of how it seems to be to me. I definitely don't have all of the answers. This whole topic has been a giant head-scratcher for me for years.
What about married couples who cannot engage in sexual intercourse? Like if the husband is paralyzed from the waist down or something? Are they not considered to be married in God's sight?
I do believe that the whole "one flesh" thing is tied to sexual intercourse, and this would seem to be a reason why God would consider sexual immorality as a violation and seeming breaking of the wedding vow or marriage covenant itself. I'm not sure, but that's sort of how it seems to be to me. I definitely don't have all of the answers. This whole topic has been a giant head-scratcher for me for years.
I hear you. I often wonder why certain teachings in the Bible aren't more clear cut or easier to understand. Especially one like this that could have major consequences if misunderstood. I think that I'll join you on the trip to Israel. Just don't take your socks off on the plane ride if you're sitting next to me, okay?
The food kinda sucks. Especially if you were eating regularly in Europe before you go. Europe has loads of cheap great food...Israel has good food but its expensive. Wine and tobacco are super expensive there...the doctors are in control...everything is heart healthy for the most part and even Pepto Bismal requires a prescription. So bring your entire medicine cabinet.
Also spend loads of time everywhere but Jerusalem. Old city Jerusalem is the most expensive for trinkets. (And getting lost is normal in those winding, narrow streets with half of the street signs covered) Wait until you are in Haifa or elsewhere for trinkets. The same ones will be available everywhere. But pay attention to the type of shops along the Via de la Cruxa. And how everyone is in your face....just saying that this is important.
Every taxi driver is a con artist...there's not an honest one in the bunch. Ask the concierge of the hotel or place you are visiting to call one for you...that's the ONLY way to get one that won't cost you a fortune.
And don't expect things to be explained there that can't be learned here. There have been so many religious riots over there that it's almost taboo to have those sorts of conversations....so if you feel Jerusalem Fever taking over....stop! They are ready for it and you will get a nice stay in their modern mental health facilities instead of getting to see broken old buildings. They will let you go once you pay your ever increasing medical bill.
And they take terrorism very very seriously there. There is a hatred between moslems and everyone else...Jews and everyone else....Christians just hate each other. (the biggest riots have been Christians)
The weather is the only unchanged thing there. Everything else has been modernized.
-
1
- Show all
N
I doubt that I'll ever get there in this lifetime, but, hopefully, in the kingdom to come.
As far as the exploitation of visitors or travelers is concerned, that's pretty much the norm everywhere. I've only been out of this country a few times, and there were con-men and con-women everywhere. The same principle applies to people visiting this country, and especially if they make the mistake of staying in NYC.
As far as the exploitation of visitors or travelers is concerned, that's pretty much the norm everywhere. I've only been out of this country a few times, and there were con-men and con-women everywhere. The same principle applies to people visiting this country, and especially if they make the mistake of staying in NYC.
N
Pretty much. I don't know if you read my other post here yet or not, but there's also this to seriously consider:
Jeremiah 3:1
They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
This certainly seems like a disannulling of what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy chapter 24 to me in that the LORD himself was willing to take back his put away wife in direct contrast to Moses' precept.
Jeremiah 3:1
They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
This certainly seems like a disannulling of what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy chapter 24 to me in that the LORD himself was willing to take back his put away wife in direct contrast to Moses' precept.
But God doesn't change...only the way in which God expresses himself does He change at all. (Because mankind is always changing in languages)
God is good!
Too busy being good to ever be bad.
God does not make bad laws. God's laws are good....always!
But cultures and trafitions have definitely changed over the years. We don't have polygamy today because of westernized culture and traditions. Women have equal rights with men. We don't have legalized slavery either. Lots of circumstances have changed.
So...because God is Love....which entails elements like grace, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, long-suffering and hope....the law is obvious to all that know him and aren't caught up in legalism.
God gives us laws because He is Kind to us...not always to show us how we fail.
So it's a good thing that divorce proceedings are not codified. Because as sure as I'm here writing someone will wag a finger to tell people how they fail at failing.
God is good!
Too busy being good to ever be bad.
God does not make bad laws. God's laws are good....always!
But cultures and trafitions have definitely changed over the years. We don't have polygamy today because of westernized culture and traditions. Women have equal rights with men. We don't have legalized slavery either. Lots of circumstances have changed.
So...because God is Love....which entails elements like grace, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, long-suffering and hope....the law is obvious to all that know him and aren't caught up in legalism.
God gives us laws because He is Kind to us...not always to show us how we fail.
So it's a good thing that divorce proceedings are not codified. Because as sure as I'm here writing someone will wag a finger to tell people how they fail at failing.
N
How would you reconcile what you said here with what is written in Jeremiah 3:1? Wasn't the LORD himself seeking to violate Moses' precept from Deuteronomy chapter 24? Was the LORD guilty of sin by seeking to do so, or was Moses' precept never really a part of God's original intent surrounding marriage and putting away? It seems obvious to me that it's the latter of the two, and not the former of the two.
Jesus' voiding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is a popular conclusion but there's one major problem with it. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is inspired, God breathed and man written. That is to say, it was God's law, not Moses'.
Are we to believe that God gave Moses Deuteronomy 24:1-4, provision and guidelines for divorce and remarriage, then voided them when he came as Christ?
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Jesus wouldn't give Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to Moses only to void it thousands of years later after He states not one tittle will be voided. So you see, there must be something else going on here.
Google the Hebrew word: (agunah: the chained wife) This will help to explain what Christ was addressing in Matt. Mark and Luke.
Are we to believe that God gave Moses Deuteronomy 24:1-4, provision and guidelines for divorce and remarriage, then voided them when he came as Christ?
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Jesus wouldn't give Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to Moses only to void it thousands of years later after He states not one tittle will be voided. So you see, there must be something else going on here.
Google the Hebrew word: (agunah: the chained wife) This will help to explain what Christ was addressing in Matt. Mark and Luke.
Putting Away and divorce are two separate actions. Men were mandated in certain situations to have multiple wives. But some didn't want to keep all wives. So they kicked the women out of the house and "claimed" poverty. 3 walnut sized portions of food and a small square of cloth was their allowance per week while they lived elsewhere. If they divorced, the men had to return the Dowry and bride price to the wives.
Father's were mandated to not allow a daughter back into his household...and usually mom was a widow anyway.
(Can't go home...can't live with husband...what do you do?)
Women could not get a divorce, could not get access to the courts to obtain one...couldn't get a paying job either.
Father's were mandated to not allow a daughter back into his household...and usually mom was a widow anyway.
(Can't go home...can't live with husband...what do you do?)
Women could not get a divorce, could not get access to the courts to obtain one...couldn't get a paying job either.
-
1
- Show all
In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus was addressing the practice of putting away a wife without a divorce certificate. This practice still occurs today in the Jewish community. Essentially, the man can putt away his wife without the divorce certificate and remarry another woman. Furthermore, without the divorce certificate the original woman is unable to remarry.
As stated, look into the the chained wife (agunah) some pretty sad stories.
In Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 Jesus was addressing the Jewish practice of putting away, he states fornication is the only acceptable reason to do this.
As stated, look into the the chained wife (agunah) some pretty sad stories.
In Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 Jesus was addressing the Jewish practice of putting away, he states fornication is the only acceptable reason to do this.
So you see, in Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 Jesus wasn't addressing modern day gentile Christians.
When we try to apply these verses to ourselves, with a bad translation such as the ESV which uses the word divorce in place of putt away, the result is disastrous. This is the reason for the wide ranging, often harmful, often contradictory divorce and remarriage doctrines.
Biblical hermeneutics is crucial, definition, usage, context, historical, logic, precedent, unity and inference.
The Hebrew word Shalach ≠ Kerithuth and the Greek word Appoluo ≠ Apostasion.
The ESV and other modern day translations get this wrong, it's a perfect of example of letting doctrine dictate translation. In my opinion, it's one of the most harmful (non-salvific) errors we see.
When we try to apply these verses to ourselves, with a bad translation such as the ESV which uses the word divorce in place of putt away, the result is disastrous. This is the reason for the wide ranging, often harmful, often contradictory divorce and remarriage doctrines.
Biblical hermeneutics is crucial, definition, usage, context, historical, logic, precedent, unity and inference.
The Hebrew word Shalach ≠ Kerithuth and the Greek word Appoluo ≠ Apostasion.
The ESV and other modern day translations get this wrong, it's a perfect of example of letting doctrine dictate translation. In my opinion, it's one of the most harmful (non-salvific) errors we see.