On divorce Part 2

I wrote a fairly lengthy article on divorce back in December last year. I want to explore this topic further because I have further solidified my understanding of what Jesus is actually saying, and what the Scripture teaches as a whole on this topic. This is a bit in response of the inability to understand what Jesus is saying about divorce recently in Dalrock’s post.

Basically, the heresy that I’m addressing directly is that people believe that Jesus said Christians can divorce if a spouse (or wife) commits fornication or adultery during marriage.

This is an extremely common interpretation of the Matthew 5 and 19 passages which is false given you look closely at what Jesus in saying in reference to Deuteronomy 22 and 24.

Relooking at Deuteronomy 22 and 24

To fully understand what Jesus is talking about we first have to analyze the OT Scriptures in which He is discussing. These are important in historical context because Jesus always refers back to the law, and then explicates His position on the fulfillment of the law.

Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement (sêpher kerı̂ythûth), and give it in her hand, and send (shâlach) her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement (sêpher kerı̂ythûth), and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth (shâlach) her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Deuteronomy 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away (shâlach) all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

There are two parts of “divorce” required of the husband in the OT covenant. This will be important when we look at the passages in Matthew.

  1. Sepher keriythth — Writing and giving the wife a bill of divorcement.
  2. Shalach — Sending her out of the house or away.

Note: I’m specifically using the KJV because almost every English translation has the wrong wording of the text from the Greek. Even the KJV has one mistranslation of the word as well.

Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion): 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (porneia), causeth her to commit adultery (moichaō): and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluō) committeth adultery (moichaō).

[…]

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos)? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away (apoluō) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another,commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Here are Strong’s words for each of the highlighted wording:

G630 — ἀπολύω — apoluō — ap-ol-oo’-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: – (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

G647 — ἀποστάσιον — apostasion — ap-os-tas’-ee-on
Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: – (writing of) divorcement.

G4202 — πορνεία — porneia — por-ni’-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: – fornication.

G3429 — μοιχάω — moichaō — moy-khah’-o
From G3432; (middle voice) to commit adultery: – commit adultery.

As you can see from these passages, there are specific words in the Greek and Hebrew that are synonymous. A divorce by Jewish law MUST have both of these components.

  • GREEK Apostasion and HEBREW Sepher keriythth — Writing and giving the wife a bill of divorcement.
  • GREEK Apoluo and HEBREW Shalach — Sending her out of the house or away.

Likewise, it is important to see that “put away” is in a few occasions translated as “divorce” in Matthew 5 and 19 and likewise in Mark 10 and Luke 16. This is a wrong translation.

Additionally, it is important to understand that porneia and moichao (or moicheuo) are not synonymous with each other. Fornication is sex or illicit sexual behavior PRIOR to marriage. Moichao/moicheuo is specifically used in context of adulterous sex.

Analyzing Matthew 19 line by line

Apparently, the analysis in the previous article is quite poor that people still do not understand what Jesus is talking about. Hence, a verse by verse analysis is required. Starting with Matthew 19:3 to get a full view of the story the line by line logic is clear:

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife for every cause?

  1. The Pharisees come to Jesus intending to entrap him as shown by Matthew referring to this as a temptation. This is the importance of understanding that a divorce in Jewish law is putting away AND a bill of divorcement.
  2. The background behind this temptation is that the Pharisees are pitting Roman law versus Jewish law. In Roman law you could “divorce” your wife by “putting her away” (apoluo). However, as we know in Jewish law in Deuteronomy 24 you could divorce your wife by “putting her away” (apoluo or shalach) AND giving her a bill of divorcement (Apostasion or Sepher keriythth).
  3. Likewise, the Pharisees, specifically the Hillelites, claimed you could put away for “every cause.” Although the article referenced does get the conclusion wrong which I will show later it provides more background to this trap.
  4. This is similar to other traps the Pharisees employed such as it being lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or God (Matt 22, Mark 12) or to stone the adulterous woman (John 8).
  5. Hence, the trap. If Jesus answers that you can put away a wife without a bill of divorcement the Pharisees can call Jesus a blasphemer as He is not following Jewish law. If Jesus says that you need a bill of divorcement then the Pharisees can take Jesus to the Romans and say that He is subverting Roman law. The additional part of the trap that is subtle is that “every cause” is thrown in so that they are not referring directly to Jewish law but solely one liberal interpretation of it.
  6. Obviously, this is a no win question, so the only right answer is not to play at all.

All of this should be pretty straight forward and clear so far.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

  1. All of these verses are Jesus’ response and they all go together.
  2. Jesus neatly sidesteps the Pharisees trap by avoiding talking about Roman and Jewish law and instead discusses the creation of man and what God intended. He would know because He was there (see: John 1:1-4).

Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos)?

  1. The Pharisees see that Jesus has cleverly sidestepped their trap.
  2. However, they now are not a bit confused. If God did not intended for any divorce at all then why was it written in the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24 that they can divorce by putting the wife away AND giving her a bill of divorcement?
  3. The fact that they readily acknowledge that the Law of Moses declared that a divorce is composed of putting away AND bill of divorcement allows us to understand that the prior exegesis of the “trap” set by the Pharisees as indicated by Matthew is correct. The Pharisees were again pitting Roman Law against Jewish Law trying to make Him break one or the other.

Again, everything is so far straight forward.

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away (apoluō) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

  1. Jesus responds to the Pharisees that this part of the law was created because human hearts are hard.
  2. This does not mean that putting away (or apoluo) is synonymous with divorce. Rather, it means that Jesus doesn’t want “putting away” for any reason valid divorce or not because of the hardness of hearts.
  3. Next, Jesus goes on to talk about the only valid reason for putting away and not a reason for divorce.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

Let’s go through this part by part.

  1. Specifically, Jesus starts off with “Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife.” Again, putting away is not synonymous with divorce as Jewish law is 2 parts: putting away and giving a bill of divorcement.
  2. Jesus knows what a bill of divorce is as He is familiar with Jewish law. Additionally,  the Pharisees just asked him about putting away (apoluo) and bills of divorce (apostasion). Hence, Jesus is only talking about the specific scenario of putting away a wife WITHOUT a bill of divorcement.
  3. This is important to realize because we now understand that Jesus is going back and answering the original question in Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife for every cause?”

Thus, Jesus is addressing their original question with His statement here.

The next part:

  1. Jesus specifically says “except it be for fornication (porneia). “Fornication” is an illicit sexual union including incest (1 Cor 5) and includes adultery. However, if Jesus was referring specifically to adultery here then “moichao” would have been used instead of “porneia.” That Greek word is not used here.
  2. Additionally, in combination with “putting away (apoluo)” and “fornication (porneia)” this tells us that He is referring to Deuteronomy 22 where a husband marries a wife who is not a virgin by fraud. If it was talking about “putting away (apoluo)” and “bill of divorcement (apostasion)” and “adultery (moichiao)” this would reference Deuteronomy 24 on rules of divorce.
  3. The Greek wording is extremely important to look at here because it tells us what Jesus is talking about and what He is not talking about. This wording absolutely denies the so called “adultery clause” which is that you can divorce a wife for adultery in Deuteronomy 24 and instead refers to the passage about putting away and fornication in Deuteronomy 22.

Thus, a husband cannot put away a wife [without a bill of divorcement] except for fornication. This refers back to Deuteronomy 22 instead of Deuteronomy 24. As Donal points out in the comments, this is specifically fornication by fraud.

The next part:

  1. Jesus says: “and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).” Let’s put all of the parts together now.
  2. Remove the “except” part for a moment. Jesus is saying: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).
  3. In other words, Jesus is saying [under Jewish law] that if you put away your wife and marry another each of you commit adultery. This makes sense because if you put away your wife under Jewish law without giving her a writ of divorcement then you commit adultery as you were still married to her! This is where Jesus refers to Deuteronomy 24 specifically on the laws of divorce. It’s two parts!
  4. Now, what about the “except it be for fornication (porneia)” part? The Pharisees rightly understood that in Deuteronomy 22 that if a husband accused his wife of not being a virgin then the proof was the sheet with the blood stains on it. If the parents were able to produce that (gross, I know) then the husband must pay a penalty and could never put her away as long as he lives. The wife, in other words, committed fraud by lying/deception by marrying her husband claiming to be a virgin when she was not.
  5. Therefore, this “except” clause means that a husband COULD put away a wife (read: not divorce) if she had fornicated prior to marriage but claimed to be a virgin. This goes back to our understanding of covenants. The proof of the covenant was the blood that the virgin bled. Likewise, the proof of God’s covenant with Abraham was the blood from cutting animals in half. The remission of sins was the blood of the sacrifice of animals. The New Testament was made in Jesus blood permanently for our redemption from sin.
  6. Indeed, there is no covenant marriage formed between the husband and the wife if she fornicated prior to marriage as there would have been on blood sheet as proof. Hence, a husband can “lawfully” put away his wife for that cause under Jewish law. This bring us full circle to the fact that Jesus fully answered the Pharisees’ question.
  7. Under Jewish law a husband can put away his wife [without a bill of divorcement] if she had fornicated and deceived him that she was a virgin as there was no lawful marriage in the first place. Hence, he can put her away and it is not a divorce.

When understood properly in this context, we see that Jesus was not commenting on reasons for divorce. Instead, He comments on specifically the one reason why a covenant marriage is not formed and a husband can put away his wife.

This means that what Jesus statement on marriage and divorce still stands: Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus gives ZERO exceptions for divorce.

Matthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

  1. The disciples, despite how they are often mocked at not understanding things, readily understand that Jesus is saying that there is no divorce period. The only exception is that you can put away a wife if she fornicated prior to marriage as there would have been no covenant marriage formed.
  2. Hence, they say that it’s better not to marry since it would be a bad deal to marry if you couldn’t divorce for any reason.
  3. Jesus then responds that only some can receive the gift of singleness without women. This is important to note in the context of 1 Corinthians 7, and Paul’s concession that it’s better to marry than to burn. Both Jesus and Paul under the inspiration of the Father understand that many will marry because singleness has not been given to everyone.

As you can see from a close reading of the text in Matthew 19 Jesus is not talking about specific causes for divorce. Rather, He says that there is no divorce period. The only reason you can put away a wife is if she fornicated prior to marriage and fraudulently claimed she was a virgin.

Other support for this interpretation

This also agrees with Matthew 1:19 where Joseph was going to put Mary away.

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

In this specific case, Joseph was not married to Mary (only betrothed), but Jesus is saying in this instance that if a husband did marry a woman who was not a virgin he could put her away without a bill of divorce.

This unifies what Jesus also states in the same topical passages on divorce and there being “no potential exception clause” in Mark 10:

Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos). 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery (moichaō) against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away (apoluō) her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (moichaō).

And also in Luke 16:

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. 14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

18 Whosoever putteth away (apoluō) his wife, and marrieth another,committeth adultery (moichaō): and whosoever marrieth her that is put away (apoluō) from her husband committeth adultery (moichaō).

If you recognize these passages they also agree with the correct interpretation of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. Mark and Luke specifically do not mention fornication because it is assumed that Jesus was speaking for everything on divorce when He said “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

The reason why Matthew mentions this in the gospel is because he was the Jewish tax collector. Since Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, he includes the details of the specifics in accordance with Deuteronomy 22 and 24 of what Jesus said so that they may understand it in the context of the law. Mark and Luke don’t put that in there because it is obvious: there are no reasons for putting away save if a woman fornicated prior to marriage.

Understanding Jesus in the context of other Scriptures

Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Romans 7 does not speak specifically about whether you can legally divorce or not. Obviously, Deuteronomy 24, which Paul is quite familiar with being a Pharisee of Pharisees, states that husbands could divorce their wives.

Paul is instead speaking to the scenarios of being unbound by the law (in death) more than about divorce because He is discussing our salvation and grace versus works. In particular, husbands were allowed to divorce their wives in Deuteronomy 24; however, wives were not allowed to divorce their husbands. Hence, when Paul speaks to this scenario a wife is bound by the law to her husband until he dies [or he divorces her which didn’t comment about in this passage].

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

G5563 — χωρίζω — chōrizō — kho-rid’-zo
From G5561; to place room between, that is, part; reflexively to go away: – depart, put asunder, separate.

G863 — ἀφίημι — aphiēmi — af-ee’-ay-mee
From G575 and ἵημι hiēmi (to send; an intensive form of εἶμι eimi (to go)); to send forth, in various applications: – cry, forgive, forsake, lay aside, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, put (send) away, remit, suffer, yield up.

G630 — ἀπολύω — apoluō — ap-ol-oo’-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: – (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

It’s important to understand that Paul is speaking to a Roman/Greek population in the Corinthians here and not the Jewish people. Hence, Paul is speaking against the Roman law that “divorce” could be done through “putting away” or simply “departing” in the case of the wife.

Likewise, Paul follows this up with the only correct path for those separated or divorced: stay single or reconcile. This is a hard word for most Christians because divorce and remarriage is not an option.

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put away (aphiēmi autos). 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him (aphiēmi autos). 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart (chōrizō), let him depart (chōrizō). A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

This passage is also used as a so-called exception clause for remarriage. “Well, if I’m not under bondage anymore because my unbelieving wife or husband left me then I can remarry.” That is not what this passage says at all. It only says that if they depart then you’re not under the bondage of the marriage anymore. However, it does not necessarily condone remarriage either. In fact, going back to the earlier part of 1 Corinthians 7 it would be best to stay single or reconcile if at all possible.

Old Testament passages on divorce not in Deuteronomy

Malachi 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away (shâlach): for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. 17 Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

You will notice in Malachi 2 that it is referring to the same circumstances as was during Roman occupation. The law of Moses basically gave the Israelites the right to divorce if they wrote up a bill of divorce, handed it to her, and then sent her away. However, the Israelites were dealing treacherously by sending their wives away without a bill of divorce.

The reason behind this is because if a wife was divorced she would receive back the dowry and the bride price which may have also included land. The Israelite husbands were sending away their wives without the bill of divorcement which allowed them to keep the dowry and bride price but also left the wife destitute and on the street.

Additionally, with a bill of divorce the wife would now be single and able to be remarried. However, as Jesus discussed with putting away without the bill of divorce the woman would be unable to be remarried without committing adultery which is a grievous sin before God. Since the wife was left destitute without the bride price and dowry back and unable to be married again to support herself, the Israelite husbands were basically condemning the woman to poverty and begging in a treacherous manner.

This passage does not say that God hates divorce. It is falsely used by many pastors to that note. This passage says that God hates putting away [without a bill of divorce]. Although God does not like divorce via Jesus’ statements on Genesis, God is willing to carry out divorce Himself under His own laws in the old covenant as we will see:

Jeremiah 3:6 The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away (shâlach, and given her a bill of divorce (sêpher kerı̂ythûth); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. 9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. 10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord.

This is one of the reasons why Israel was not brought back out of Assyrian captivity, and why Samaritans were treated like garbage by the Jews. They were no longer “Jews” because they have been divorced by God. This passage in Jeremiah 3 shows that God Himself divorces the Israelites, gives her a bill of divorce, and sends/puts her away into Assyrian captivity. God abides by His own law that He gave the Israelites.

However, the Lord speaking to Judah does not divorce her even though He puts her away:

Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement (sêpher ‘êm kerı̂ythûth), whom I have put away (shâlach)? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away (shâlach). 2 Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst. 3 I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering.

In the case of Judah, we know that Jesus comes from the lineage of Judah and David. Thus, even though the Lord allows Judah to be put away into captivity for their transgressions. Then He brings her back out of captivity as read in Nehemiah and Ezra, and remakes the covenant with them through the rebuilding of His temple. Then He brings full redemption to them through sending His Son Jesus to die bring forth the New Covenant.

Conclusions

There are many conclusions about marriage and divorce that we can draw from these passages:

  1. Putting away is NOT divorce in the Scriptures. It is a two part process of putting away and a bill of divorcement. – Deut 22, 24; Mal 2; Jer 3; Isa 50; Matt 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16
  2. God and Jesus’ plan for marriage is that “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” – Gen 2, Matt 19; Mark 10
  3. There is no get-out-of-marriage adultery clause. Who you are married to you should stay married to regardless of any sins they commit. This is a hard word as even the disciples said it was better not to marry. – Matt; 19, Mark 10, Luke 16
  4. Under Jewish law according to Jesus: You can put away your wife if she fornicated prior to marriage and committed fraud by claiming she was a virgin as the blood on the sheet proved her testimony false (no blood was spilled making it a covenant marriage). – Deut 22, Matthew 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16,
  5. Under Jewish law: Wives are bound to their husbands as long as they live [or until their husbands divorce them which was not said]. – Rom 7, Deut 24
  6. If a spouse leaves stay single or be reconciled. – 1 Cor 7
  7. If an unbelieving spouse leaves you are not under bondage. This can still be liberally interpreted as being able to remarry; however, the prior part of the chapter tends to speak against it since it says to stay single or reconcile. Note the wording: “10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord … [remain unmarried or reconcile]” versus “12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if [they leave you are not under bondage].” I take this to generally mean that “not under bondage” means that you are absolved of your marriage duties, but given the context of the wording about the Lord saying versus Paul saying it would seem that stay unmarried or be reconciled is the ideal. Remarriage is likely not an option. – 1 Cor 7
  8. Remarriage is a singular sin and not perpetual adultery This is one of the falsely propagated conclusions from the heretical “You can divorce your spouse if they commit adultery” exegesis. However, the act of remarriage is a sin since the ideal is to stay single or reconcile. The important thing to understand is that it is a singular sin and not a constant state of sin. Confess your sins to God and repent. – Matt 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16; 1 Cor 7
  9. Those already remarried in their second and third marriages are NOT to divorce and reconcile with their first spouse. This follows out of #8 because the heretical interpretation is perpetual adultery with the new spouse. Hence, divorce and reconcile and remarry with the first spouse. Rather, this view goes against what Deuteronomy 24 says in that if a first husband divorces a wife and another marries her even if she is divorced or her husband dies then she is not to remarry him again. – Deut 24, Matthew 19

Obviously, some of these do not apply to us as Christians now. For example, those things that are under Jewish law do not necessarily apply as Jesus has fulfilled the law. But all of Jesus’ commands are stricter than the law anyway. For example, “love one another as I have loved you” as opposed to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus is the standard rather than ourselves.

Hence, no divorce, no remarriage, and if you are separated only reconciliation or singleness is likely the correct interpretation of all of the points put together.

This is a straight forward exegesis of the Hebrew OT and Greek NT reading on marriage and divorce. See also this for more support. Ignore and give advice against it at your own spiritual peril.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle, Mission Framework and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to On divorce Part 2

  1. Pingback: On divorce Part 2 | Manosphere.com

  2. theasdgamer says:

    “Fornication” can only be done prior to marriage. If a wife had sex with another man it would be called “adultery.” That Greek word is not used here.

    ‘Porneia’ is better translated “sexual immorality”, which encompasses all sexual sins, including adultery. That radically changes the conclusion. The main point of the passage, however, is that Jesus is claiming to be superior to Moses.

  3. @ theasdgamer

    It can be, but it’s never used in that context.

    Jesus is specifically talking about in marriage and “putting away,” so he’s referring to fornication before marriage which relates to Deut 22. Otherwise He would’ve used moichiao which would have meant he was referring to Deut 24.

    Deut 22 specifically talks about putting away as opposed to divorcing which is putting away and giving a bill of divorcement. This is another clue that He is talking about that passage instead of Deut 24. Additionally, both Mark 10 and Luke 16 do not mention the “except for fornication” part which supports the fact that Jesus is NOT referring to a get-out-of-marriage clause but rather the act of putting away a wife who fornicated prior to marriage.

    This is why wording is important because it tells us which passages of the laws He was speaking about. The conclusion isn’t changed.

    But yes, Jesus is claiming to be superior to Moses… among many other things He claimed to be including the bread of life, light of the world, the good shepherd, the way the truth and the life, etc.

  4. dvdivx says:

    Thank you for your completely missing multiple points. The penalty for adultery was death. The “let him without sin” was added later and is NOT in any copies of the earliest bibles. So clearly you plan on shooting your wife if she cheats. Guess divorce is a moot point then. You also clearly fail to understand the sheer nastiness of cuckoldry or complete withdrawal of sex from marriage. It’s interpretations like this that drive men from church and make them stay out.

  5. @ dvdivx

    Thank you for your completely missing multiple points. The penalty for adultery was death. The “let him without sin” was added later and is NOT in any copies of the earliest bibles. So clearly you plan on shooting your wife if she cheats. Guess divorce is a moot point then.

    It’s true that John 8 is a story about Jesus that is not in the original text of John. However, did float around in various gospels before being put there. It’s likely that it’s a true story about Jesus, although I am fine with removing it as it can be warped. It’s most often used by feminists as a “don’t judge me” story.

    The main point about referencing this story is that the Pharisees tested Jesus. I don’t use it in any other context.

    You also clearly fail to understand the sheer nastiness of cuckoldry or complete withdrawal of sex from marriage. It’s interpretations like this that drive men from church and make them stay out.

    The Scriptures say that it is a sin to deny your spouse sex in 1 Corinthians 7. However, this topic is on divorce not sex in marriage.

    If Christians need loopholes to divorce then they’re not serious about marriage or God. What Jesus said still stands: “What God has put together let man not separate.”

    Personally, if my wife ever cheats on me I will get a permanent separation and never remarry. She can divorce and remarry to her own soul’s peril.

  6. hoosierpope says:

    Really nicely done Deep Strength (i clicked over here from Dalrock after your response to Weenis). I am glad i didn’t write more in that you apparently have done most of the heavy lifting. I agree to a great extent with this interpretation, particularly the elaboration of the “put away” and “fornication” terminology. I think the “under bondage” section is less certain, however, I’m not entirely convinced that there is not some “lesser of two evils” for those men abandoned or divorced unjustly such as Weenis.

  7. @ hoosierpope

    Thanks.

    I am glad i didn’t write more in that you apparently have done most of the heavy lifting. I agree to a great extent with this interpretation, particularly the elaboration of the “put away” and “fornication” terminology.

    When I first read about it and started studying this interpretation of the passage makes the most sense in the context of how the Greek words are used, how they relate to Deut 22 and 24, and the support of “no exception” because both Mark 10 and Luke 16 don’t mention them.

    The passage interpreted this way is consistent with all of the available passages on divorce in the entirety of Scripture. When you bring in the loophole in Matthew 19, it is not consistent with what Mark 10 and Luke 16 say. Nor is it consistent with the wording in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Malachi.

    To be honest, I’m quite surprised that many Christians want to keep hanging onto the divorce loophole that isn’t actually there.

    I think the “under bondage” section is less certain, however, I’m not entirely convinced that there is not some “lesser of two evils” for those men abandoned or divorced unjustly such as Weenis.

    That is indeed the part that I am most uncertain about.

    The Father is particular about kindness and generosity especially to those less fortunate. James 1:27 in particular where “true religion” is visiting orphans and widows in their need. A spouse that was abandoned may fall under this category.

    If someone were to believe that they had reason to remarry because they were abandoned I would tell them to take it up with God in prayer. If it is right between them and God then by all means go for it.

    I wouldn’t admonish them for it because I don’t know for certain either.

  8. Looking Glass says:

    @DS:

    It’s anger at having to take responsibility for choices. Some choices (whether to marry or how you act within your marriage) can have permanent effects. However, there’s one little detail, especially for the Men: Having more than 1 wife is only an disqualification for Pastor/Elder. God is pretty clear that, while it’s better for a Man to only have 1 Wife, it quite clearly isn’t a Sin. (Polygyny isn’t good for a society in general, but hold on for a second)

    2 Samuel 12:8 (ESV): “And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.”

    Then there’s the issues of levirate marriage. (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) Plus the issue of being a “redeemer” in general, which is the crux of the book of Ruth.

    Taken together, given the reality of the Modern Legal systems, it really should, as a Christian, work this way:

    1) You are not to divorce.
    2) If you are divorced, you should firstly seek to reconcile, if possible.
    3) If the other party was not a Christian (and no game playing allowed here), then you are removed of your responsibility to them.
    4a) If you’re a Woman, you’re not marriageable so long as your ex-Husband lives.
    4b) If you’re a Man, you can marry another “marriageable” Woman, but you give up the ability to be a Pastor/Elder.

    Now, if you want to cause a ruckus, that policy should get you there.

  9. hoosierpope says:

    Looking Glass:
    That list is essentially the conclusion that I favor. Part 3) would depend on the exegesis of the “under bondage” verse. But in any case, by all means, let’s bring on the rukus

  10. Don Quixote says:

    Great post DS, keep up the good work. The two part approach to divorce gets messy when addressing this subject to us gentiles. I suspect that is why Mark and Luke use the terms [putting away and divorce] synonymously. What think ye?
    This post is the first time I have seen this point used NOT as an excuse for divorce and remarriage. Wow I’m impressed!

  11. theasdgamer says:

    Why did Jesus use “said” instead of “written”? (Mt. 5:31)

    What does “put her away” mean?

    Would Jesus have supported stoning a married woman for committing adultery?

    Does any of this apply to anyone not under Jewish Law?

    Why does BAGD have “porneia” in Mt. 5 and 19 as “adultery”?

  12. @ theasdgamer

    Why did Jesus use “said” instead of “written”? (Mt. 5:31)

    This is answered by this article:

    http://www.instonebrewer.com/divorceremarriage/Articles/WhitefieldBriefing.htm

    They explain that the Hillelites allowed divorce for “any cause.” Unfortunately, They still get the conclusion wrong as they assume “putting away” means divorce, and that the passage is speaking about Deut 24 instead of Deut 22. However, this gives us insight into the background of why Jesus is debunking a “saying.”

    If you do any study about the Sermon of on the Mount, Jesus is basically debunking common wisdom of the day. Hence, the Hillelites were speaking (not writing) that you could divorce for any cause and that was what Jesus was debunking.

    What does “put her away” mean?

    The Greek and Hebrew definitions are in the above post. Basically, it means sending her away. Divorce specifically involves putting away/sending away AND a bill of divorce.

    Would Jesus have supported stoning a married woman for committing adultery?

    No, according to John 8. Although John 8 was added to the gospels later as I mentioned earlier.

    We can infer not because Jesus prefers compassion and mercy over judgment and sacrifice. Jesus would rather people repent than be punished.

    Does any of this apply to anyone not under Jewish Law?

    Nope. Jesus was discussing to the Pharisees what was under Jewish law with those verses.

    The only thing He claimed about marriage and divorce is “what God has put together let man not separate.”

    Why does BAGD have “porneia” in Mt. 5 and 19 as “adultery”?

    It’s similar with the translation of “Gune” in the passage of adultery. Are we talking about a “woman” or a “wife”?

    It can’t be “adultery” unless we’re assuming the reader is married, and even if the woman wasn’t married a man could take another wife lawfully. That would not be adultery. Hence, to be adultery “gune” had to be referring to a wife not a woman.

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/male-and-female-sexual-desire-is-not-sinful/

    Porneia is used 26 times in the KJV and it is always translated and referred to as fornication. When adultery is discussed it is referred to separately. Another example of this aside from the Matthew 5, 19; Mark 10; and Luke 16 passages is Galatians 5:19 — now the works of the flesh are manifest: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, etc.

    Likewise, Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 7 about fornication by stating to avoid porneia (fornication) each man should have his own wife and each wife her own husband.

  13. @ Don Quixote

    I suspect that is why Mark and Luke use the terms [putting away and divorce] synonymously.

    Sort of.

    For the Gentiles since there was no “bill of divorcement” in the culture that means that if the Gentiles divorced (or put away without the bill of divorcement) then they were committing adultery.

    The Greek wording is still the same as in Matthew, so He does mean “put away” and not “divorce.” The fact that put away and divorce are synonymous to the Gentiles doesn’t change that He still made the statement for the Pharisees as is seen in both passages.

    However, the conclusion is the same. The gospels that went out to the Gentiles have the standard that Matthew has as well: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    This post is the first time I have seen this point used NOT as an excuse for divorce and remarriage. Wow I’m impressed!

    I only came across it last year. It fits the Greek wording, harmonizes Matthew, Mark, and Luke along with Malachi, Isaiah and Jeremiah with Deuteronomy 22 and 24, and closes down loopholes so that the only standard is Genesis 2. It makes the most sense given that the fulfillment of the Law in the New Testament is the highest standard possible.

    Then the only potential exception comes in 1 Corinthians 7 to the Gentiles. Although Paul’s wording to start the passage is important: “12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if…” so we know it’s HIS opinion about the matter NOT GOD’S.

    I’m saddened that people want to cling onto a supposed loophole based on a misinterpretation of Jesus’ words.

  14. theasdgamer says:

    “Fornication” is just transliteration of “porneia”.

    Why do we think that the KJV translators got the meaning of “porneia” right?

    It seems that the meaning turns on the interpretive framework that is applied. That seems backwards. The context should determine the meaning.

    What you mean by “put away” is still unclear. Are you talking about kicking the wife out of the house to the curb or sending her back to her family or what? And what happens to the dowry?

    We have to bear in mind the historical context of the NT. There were a lot of Christians who were slaves. Slaves could be used sexually by their masters at will. There wasn’t much priggishness in the church–it wasn’t practical. Still thinking thru the ramifications….

  15. @ theasdgamer

    “Fornication” is just transliteration of “porneia”.

    Why do we think that the KJV translators got the meaning of “porneia” right?

    It seems that the meaning turns on the interpretive framework that is applied. That seems backwards. The context should determine the meaning.

    Let’s ignore all of this “translation” stuff for a second.

    1.. There is a different word for adultery: moichiao / moicheuo.
    2. Jesus talks about adultery in the same verses.
    3. If Jesus was talking about a wife or husband having illicit sex during the marriage then why does He use porneia instead of adultery?

    It simply makes no sense to use “except for porneia” there when instead He could’ve said “except for moichiao” if He meant that you could divorce for adultery.

    Additionally, given that Apoluo is synonymous with Hebrew Shalach we can tell He is not talking about divorce in Deut 24 but rather fornication in Deut 22. The fornication being that the wife is not a virgin; therefore, the marriage is invalid.

    What you mean by “put away” is still unclear.

    Are you talking about kicking the wife out of the house to the curb or sending her back to her family or what? And what happens to the dowry?

    Basically, you could just tell a woman to leave and that you didn’t want her in your house anymore. She was then forced to leave.

    She received back the dowry though. This is why “putting away” is condemned in Malachi because husbands were putting away without the bill of divorcement. If you didn’t give her a bill of divorcement she didn’t get back the dowry.

    If you divorced her by putting her away and giving her a bill of divorcement she would receive back the dowry.

    Still thinking thru the ramifications….

    It’s a hard word certainly.

    To be honest, some part of me wants there to be an adultery clause. That way I could remarry instead of being single and separated if my future wife cheats (which I don’t think she will but you never know).

    But it’s extremely consistent with the text, the other passages in the Scriptures, and unifies all marriage teaching to “What God has put together let man not separate.” AKA no divorce period.

  16. theasdgamer says:

    Actually, “porneia” can mean “adultery”. And Jesus likely didn’t speak Greek to the crowds or to his disciples.

    It simply makes no sense to use “except for porneia” there when instead He could’ve said “except for moichiao” if He meant that you could divorce for adultery.

    “Porneia” is the most general term for sexual immorality. Using that would make sense. Any kind of illegal sex would allow divorce. Or are you saying that any kind of illegal sex by married women is adultery. If you allow “porneia” to mean “adultery” here, which is one of the optional meanings for “porneia”, the problem goes away. Otherwise you are requiring the writer of Matthew to use a specific word when another word would do.

    Your strongest argument is the one tying Deut. 22,24 to Jesus’ teaching about divorce in Matthew. It still seems wrong–force-fitting the NT Greek translation of Jesus’ Aramaic words back onto the Hebrew in Deut.

    And your thesis still has a big problem with the bondage passage. Paul’s explanation becomes meaningless if the husband isn’t even present. Paul’s explanation would be moot. And what if the wife leaves? Paul doesn’t cover that. One wonders why. Maybe she abandons all rights if she leaves?

  17. theasdgamer says:

    unifies all marriage teaching to “What God has put together let man not separate.” AKA no divorce period.

    Except Deuteronomy did allow divorce. And Jesus most certainly did as well in Mt. Even if the marriage hadn’t been consummated, divorce ended the marriage.

  18. donalgraeme says:

    DS, you are getting close here, but you went awry at porneia. As others have pointed out, it refers to illicit sexual unions in general. Often it is simply fornication, but it does refer to things such as incest. This pops up in 1 Corinthian 5, with the man marrying his step-mother.

    The key thing about those *incest) unions is that they are unlawful. They were never valid or acceptable in the first place. Since it was never a marriage proper (in the eyes of God), there is no divorce. The woman can be, in fact, “put away.”

    This applies in Deut 22 as well. The key thing about that passage isn’t that the women wasn’t a virgin- it was that she lied about it. Fraud, in other words. The marriage was induced by fraud, and therefore was invalid- as a contract induced by fraud is invalid and marriage is a contract. Such a woman could be put away then, because it never arose to a marriage where a divorce was possible. Remember that plenty of non-virgin women, women and former harlots alike, married in the OT. If the determining factor was virginity, then those marriages were unlawful. But no hint is ever given of that, and for good reason- they were lawful. And that is because there was no fraud.

    What Jesus was saying in Matthew was that unlawful unions were a situation where a man could put away a woman. Since they were never valid marriages in God’s eyes, it wouldn’t constitute a divorce.

    Oh, and regarding Polygamy- nowhere in the NT is it expressly permitted for a Christian to marry more than one woman. Furthermore, none of the early Church fathers, or the saints, or anyone until any time recently made the argument that Christianity allowed polygamy. In fact, the exact opposite was the case. They, the saints and early Church fathers, all said it wasn’t acceptable.

  19. @ theasdgamer

    Actually, Donal clarified the point quite well. I agree with him. Read what he wrote.

  20. @ Donal

    Ahh, that makes sense. I’ll edit the OP to clarify that point.

  21. theasdgamer says:

    Polygyny was allowed for the same reason that married Orthodox priests can become Catholic priests–practicality and grandfathering.

    Nothing in the NT or OT prohibits polygyny. Obviously, it isn’t practical on a large scale.

  22. stickdude90 says:

    For better or worse, this is not a theoretical question for me.

    I’m a widower, so there’s no problem with me remarrying in the future. However, the person I’m currently seeing is divorced, and her ex-husband is still alive (and currently on his 3rd marriage – so reconciliation is very unlikely). If your analysis is correct and I understand it correctly, there are no circumstances short of her ex-husband passing away under which we could get married – if it gets to that point – without committing adultery, correct?

  23. Don Quixote says:

    Deep Strength says:
    September 2, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    “Basically, you could just tell a woman to leave and that you didn’t want her in your house anymore. She was then forced to leave.

    She received back the dowry though. This is why “putting away” is condemned in Malachi because husbands were putting away without the bill of divorcement. If you didn’t give her a bill of divorcement she didn’t get back the dowry.

    If you divorced her by putting her away and giving her a bill of divorcement she would receive back the dowry.”

    My understanding of how the dowry system works is simple, the father of the bride receives the dowry from the prospective husband. If for whatever reason the marriage doesn’t work, and she returns to her father’s house the dowry will help pay the bills.
    There are many examples of the dowry system in both the NT and OT. No better example than Jesus paid a dowry for His bride, not the usual silver and gold but His own precious blood.

    There is a different dowry system that ~kinda~ works in India. In the Indian system the father of the bride pays the groom to take his daughter. The result of this is many Indian daughters are aborted during pregnancy or murdered soon after they are born. The Indian system is the reverse of the Biblical model.

    @stickdude90: You might find this interesting:
    http://oncemarried.net

  24. hoosierpope says:

    Adsgamer and Donal:

    What do you think is the best unambiguous case where porneia definitely refers to adultery where other possible interpretations are excluded? It seems unlikely to me that porneia would be listed beside moichaō in so many cases if the former term can be understood to encompass the latter.

  25. Looking Glass says:

    @asdgamer:

    Divorce shouldn’t be allowed (at least the Romans got that… for a while), but we live in a foolish & evil society. So the topic of remarriage (which the early church leaders did split on, quite a bit) is why I brought up polygyny. I’m quite aware the havoc it causes if allowed in general, but in the question of remarriage for a fraudulently divorced Man, it does effect how we should handle the situation.

    @stickdude90:

    My general advice is simply “don’t”.

  26. theasdgamer says:

    LG, is Marriage 2.0 in any way similar to the Roman marriage? I see lots of differences. NFD. Women’s rights. Safety net. No patriarchy. Mother owns children. Child support. Abuse claims.

    So I don’t see how we can compare Roman marriage and divorce to Marriage 2.0, which really isn’t marriage if it can be terminated at will by either partner. Marriage 2.0 is more like a glorified bf/gf LTR with fancy titles.

  27. theasdgamer says:

    hoosier, repetition is often used for emphasis. Stylistically, a different word is generally chosen if the emphasis is a single word. If the emphasis is a phrase, we see the important phrase boilerplated, by comparison.

    See Genesis 1 for example of boilerplating. “And there was evening and morning, a ______ day.”

    Also 1 Cor. 15:3-4, where we see the phrase “according to the Scriptures” repeated.

    All of this is moot to me, since we’re not under Jewish Law. Marriage 2.0 has very little to do with marriage as set forth in Genesis 2. So even Jesus words don’t have much applicability to marriage and divorce in our current situation. As I have said before, the main point of Mt. 5 is that Jesus is greater than Moses (and Hillel), which was controversial when Jesus said it.

  28. @ stickdude90

    If you are going to remarry I would not remarry a divorced woman period. Divorced women are too much of a risk given the statistics. Those previously divorced have astronomical divorce rates compared to those on their first marriage. Now, people aren’t statistics, but the percentages are heavily not in your favor.

    This is not even looking into what the Bible says about it.

    I would personally not marry a divorced woman because “stay unmarried or reconcile” is what the Scripture says about it. However, that is a strict interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7.

  29. @ Don Quixote

    Oops, I did a poor job of explaining.

    1. Correct, there is a “bride price” given to the daughter’s father to pay for her. (e.g. Abraham’s servant bringing gifts to Rebekah’s family, Jacob laboring for Laban 7+7 years)

    2. Typically in Jewish custom the bride brought with her property (land) and other material possessions to the marriage. This is the dowry.

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5297-dowry

    The dowry that the woman brought to her husband, whether real estate, slaves, or movable property, was recorded in the marriage contract (Ketubah). Custom decided whether the sum mentioned in the marriage contract should be exactly the same as the dowry was really worth, or more or less. In some places the custom prevailed of recording an amount one-third or one-fifth more than the value of the actual dowry; in others, less than the value of the dowry (ib.; Ishut, xxiii. 11; Eben ha-‘Ezer, 66, 11). This sum then became a claim upon the husband’s property equally with the ketubah itself; so that when he died or divorced her, the woman could collect from his estate both the sum stipulated in the marriage contract and the value of her dowry. During the husband’s life, however, the dowry belonged to him, and hemight derive all benefits from it. He might even sell it for the period of his lifetime. The laws governing the relation of the husband to the dowry vary with the manner in which the woman has acquired that property.

    What husbands were doing is they were putting away without the bill of divorcement. Thus, they were keeping the land and other possessions received from the bride and leaving her to go back to her father destitute.

    With the bill of divorcement, the bride would receive back the property and possessions. Thus, she had a chance at marrying again to enrich her husbands family. Without the property and possessions it would be unlikely that another man would want to marry her if she couldn’t enrich his family. He would move onto a woman that could.

    Hence, Malachi 2 mentioning ‘you have dealt treacherously’ meaning putting away without bill of divorcement.

  30. @ hoosierpope

    What do you think is the best unambiguous case where porneia definitely refers to adultery where other possible interpretations are excluded? It seems unlikely to me that porneia would be listed beside moichaō in so many cases if the former term can be understood to encompass the latter.

    This is the wrong question to ask.

    The question to ask is what are the theological ramifications of knowing that Jesus was discussing Jewish law here as opposed to what was originally meant from the beginning.

    The main heretical interpretation that follows those who divorced and remarried under what Jesus said about ‘porneia’ is that those in their second marriage are committing constant adultery when they have sex with their remarried spouse.

    However, we know that this is false. Those who remarried are not committing “perpetual adultery” every time they have sex as Jesus was referring to the Jewish law in Deuteronomy 22 of illegitimate marriages.

    We also take into consideration the words that Jesus said directly: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” What most people don’t realize is that man CAN separate according to Jesus.

    Although it is a sin, it is a singular sin and not a perpetual sin. Those separated are still to remain unmarried and reconcile. However, if they do remarry it is again a sin. Yet, it is only a singular sin and not perpetual sin.

    This is how God can use 2nd and 3rd marriages to serve him even though they were sinful acts in the beginning. If the participants repent and confess their sin He gives graces. God has the possibility of redeeming them given that they are not perpetual sin every time the couple has sex. In other words, you shouldn’t rip apart another marriage causing more harm and damage to the participants and children for one of the spouses to go reconcile with their previous partner. This goes against Deuteronomy 24 where the first husband is NOT to remarry the woman that he divorced after a second husband married her.

    This is additional support that this view is correct because it aligns rightly with Deuteronomy 24 according to 2nd and 3rd marriages.

    This is the main conclusion that comes out of the longer article here if you want to read through it:

    http://www.academia.edu/3622738/What_Jesus_Really_Said_Putting_Away_the_Mistranslations_about_Divorce

  31. hoosierpope says:

    Deep Strength:

    Very in depth article.

    If this is correct we would then have to accept that the “He who marries a put away woman commits adultery” verse can only refer to “married put away without a certificate women” and not “marital fraud put away women” which we glean from context and the fact that Christ uses the adultery term.

    Interesting.

  32. @ hoosierpope

    Correct. The put away woman is still married to her husband even though she appears to be unmarried.

    You wouldn’t want to marry the marital fraud woman anyway though.

  33. Looking Glass says:

    Dealing “treacherously” is a pretty grievous sin that we don’t like to deal with much. And as Ananias and Sapphira found out, God takes it very seriously.

  34. Don Quixote says:

    Deep Strength says:
    September 3, 2015 at 9:41 am

    Although it [remarriage] is a sin, it is a singular sin and not a perpetual sin. Those separated are still to remain unmarried and reconcile. However, if they do remarry it is again a sin. Yet, it is only a singular sin and not perpetual sin.

    Here we disagree.
    I have seen remarried christians so burdened with guilt they are at their wit’s end. It is my understanding that the way forward in Christ for these individuals would be to terminate their adulterous remarriage and live apart or reconcile with their original partners, usually it’s not possible to reconcile with their original partners.
    I know this sounds extreme but I am convinced of the correctness of this. Do you know of a solid biblical argument against this?

  35. @ Don Quixote

    Here we disagree.

    I have seen remarried christians so burdened with guilt they are at their wit’s end. It is my understanding that the way forward in Christ for these individuals would be to terminate their adulterous remarriage and live apart or reconcile with their original partners, usually it’s not possible to reconcile with their original partners.

    I know this sounds extreme but I am convinced of the correctness of this. Do you know of a solid biblical argument against this?

    Let’s first talk about guilt.

    1. Feeling guilty does not always mean you are guilty.

    Many husbands are made to feel guilty because their wife divorced them and the Church tells them it was their fault. Is that the truth? No. Obviously, they bear some guilt, but so does the wife.

    Therefore, for the feelings of guilt to be true, you actually have to be guilty of something. I think we can agree on this.

    2. What are the sins?

    First, divorce is one of the sins. Man separated when God wanted together. – Matt 19, Mark 10, Luke 16

    Second, remarriage is one of the sins. It is better to stay unmarried or reconcile. – 1 Cor 7

    • Is the guilt true? Yes. Confess it to Jesus.
    • Is it misplaced advice AND misplaced guilt to advise divorce and remarriage to the original partner? Yes.

    Why is it misplaced advice and misplaced guilt? This leads to…

    3. The heresy of the “get-out-of-marriage adultery clause” is that they assume that “man cannot separate” and God wants the original couple together.

    This is false.

    Obvoiusly, God is privy to the hardness of human hearts and allow divorce in Deut 24. However, Jesus by affirming Genesis 2 closes down divorce from the Law of Moses and makes it a sin.

    However, we have to take into account Deut 24 in accordance with those who are hard hearted:

    Deuteronomy 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens [a]that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband [b]turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.

    This tell us two things.

    A. Those that feel guilty within a remarriage should confess their sins and allow God to heal their hearts, but they should not divorce again. Divorcing again is yet another sin.

    B. They must definitely NOT divorce their current partner and remarry the original partner. This is an abomination before God.

    This is the main problem with those who say remarriages are perpetual adultery. They suggest divorce and to remarry the original spouse which God literally calls an abomination. Their theology is wrong because they are misinterpreting what Jesus said.

    Conclusion

    This brings us, finally, to the distinction that needs to be made. Sex in marriage will never be a sin. Marriage is created for sex and sex for marriage. Even if it’s a remarriage.

    It’s the remarriage that is the sin. The hardness of heart that leads to the divorce, and hardness of heart that does not want to stay unmarried or reconcile. These are the sins. Not the sex in marriage. It is misplacing the guilt of divorce and remarriage ONTO the sex within marriage that is bad.

    Those who feel guilty about remarrying should confess their sins to God: divorce and remarriage. Then they will no longer hang like a black cloud over them.

  36. Looking Glass says:

    @Don Quixote:

    You can be crushed with guilt about any action. The “Church” has gotten really good about making Men feel guilty for being… Men. So anguish and torment over something has little to require it being of God.

    One thing that just dawned on me. We’re treating these discussions as if the Man->Woman and Woman->Man parts are identical. The Law is very clearly not operating under that assumption, so we also have to be mindful of that. Though the ability for Women to use the legal system wasn’t something available at any point until recently.

  37. Don Quixote says:

    Deep Strength says:
    September 3, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    [remove comments I agree with]

    Second, remarriage is one of the sins. It is better to stay unmarried or reconcile. – 1 Cor 7

    Is the guilt true? Yes. Confess it to Jesus.
    Is it misplaced advice AND misplaced guilt to advise divorce and remarriage to the original partner? Yes.
    Why is it misplaced advice and misplaced guilt? This leads to…

    3. The heresy of the “get-out-of-marriage adultery clause” is that they assume that “man cannot separate” and God wants the original couple together.

    This is false.

    Obvoiusly, God is privy to the hardness of human hearts and allow divorce in Deut 24. However, Jesus by affirming Genesis 2 closes down divorce from the Law of Moses and makes it a sin.

    However, we have to take into account Deut 24 in accordance with those who are hard hearted:

    Deuteronomy 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens [a]that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband [b]turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.

    This tell us two things.

    A. Those that feel guilty within a remarriage should confess their sins and allow God to heal their hearts, but they should not divorce again. Divorcing again is yet another sin.

    B. They must definitely NOT divorce their current partner and remarry the original partner. This is an abomination before God.

    This is the main problem with those who say remarriages are perpetual adultery. They suggest divorce and to remarry the original spouse which God literally calls an abomination. Their theology is wrong because they are misinterpreting what Jesus said.

    Here is where our two schools of thought meet the fork in the road.
    The Catholic Catechism states:

    Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

    I am not Catholic but I share this view with them regarding remarriage. And I am not alone, there are a few Protestant churches that still see it like that. Note: The Catholic church as an annulment process that I think is as dishonest as most Protestant divorce apologetics.

    I am yet to see a single case where a remarried person has been able to reconcile with an original spouse. I have seen cases where a remarried person is convinced their remarriage is sinful and they repent and separate/divorce their second spouse, but in every example they end up living alone. IIRC there are some youtube testimony vids about this.

    However Jeremiah 3:1 trashes the no reconciling argument from Deut. 24:4 with the following:

    “They say, ‘If a man divorces his wife,
    And she goes from him
    And becomes another man’s,
    May he return to her again?’
    Would not that land be greatly polluted?
    But you have played the harlot with many lovers;
    Yet return to Me,” says the Lord.

    When an eligible couple [man and woman] exchange vows before God and man they are bound according to their vows. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, sickness and health blah blah blah.
    A covenant until death stands until one party is dead, even if the covenant exists in the deadness of the letter it still exists.
    When finally the Kingdom of God arrives on earth [I’m premil] I am sure the marriage between God and Israel will be restored.

    Conclusion

    This brings us, finally, to the distinction that needs to be made. Sex in marriage will never be a sin. Marriage is created for sex and sex for marriage. Even if it’s a remarriage.

    It’s the remarriage that is the sin. The hardness of heart that leads to the divorce, and hardness of heart that does not want to stay unmarried or reconcile. These are the sins. Not the sex in marriage. It is misplacing the guilt of divorce and remarriage ONTO the sex within marriage that is bad.

    Those who feel guilty about remarrying should confess their sins to God: divorce and remarriage. Then they will no longer hang like a black cloud over them.

    I agree that confessing their sins to God is the way forward but they must seek God’s direction for their lives, whatever that is. I would caution against justifying a remarriage because often the clergy share in the guilt of the remarried couple and the couple feel better for having unloaded their guilt onto their pastor, mistakingly thinking that God is ok with their actions.

  38. Don Quixote says:

    Looking Glass says:
    September 3, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    @Don Quixote:

    You can be crushed with guilt about any action. The “Church” has gotten really good about making Men feel guilty for being… Men. So anguish and torment over something has little to require it being of God.

    One thing that just dawned on me. We’re treating these discussions as if the Man->Woman and Woman->Man parts are identical. The Law is very clearly not operating under that assumption, so we also have to be mindful of that. Though the ability for Women to use the legal system wasn’t something available at any point until recently.

    Hey we’re on exactly the same page with this. Check out my youtube thing on exactly that subject:
    .

  39. @ Don Quixote

    Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

    1. The problem with this thought is that both the Catholic Church and those in the Protestant Church claim the verse has changed:

    “What God has put together man CAN’T separate

    versus

    “What God has put together let man not separate

    Man can separate, even though God doesn’t want that. Hence, the sin.

    Therefore, if man does separate through hardness of heart, we already have God’s opinion in the Law of Moses on what to do in Deuteronomy 24.

    2.

    “They say, ‘If a man divorces his wife,
    And she goes from him
    And becomes another man’s,
    May he return to her again?’
    Would not that land be greatly polluted?
    But you have played the harlot with many lovers;
    Yet return to Me,” says the Lord.

    This argument doesn’t stand because Israel was playing the harlot and God divorced her (put away with a bill of divorcement). However, Israel did not marry again to another husband. She remained single playing the harlot, and she could remarry the first spouse again: God. Thus, the return to me. Deuteronomy 24 specifically talks about what the first husband cannot do if his former wife remarried another husband.

    Either that or God is saying He is above the law He made which is also plausible. That still does not make us above the law He made.

    3.

    I agree that confessing their sins to God is the way forward but they must seek God’s direction for their lives, whatever that is. I would caution against justifying a remarriage because often the clergy share in the guilt of the remarried couple and the couple feel better for having unloaded their guilt onto their pastor, mistakingly thinking that God is ok with their actions.

    The direction for them is laid out in Deut 24. They should not divorce and remarry the previous spouse. That is an abomination.

    They should not divorce again based on what Jesus says about not divorcing. What is done is done. Even though they were hard hearted and divorced and remarried, this does not mean the continued marriage is sinful.

    Clergy share in the sinful action because they know it’s a second or third marriage yet they married them anyway. That’s why it’s a singular sin and not a continued sin.

  40. Don Quixote says:

    Deep Strength says:
    September 4, 2015 at 8:20 am

    [remove previous remarks]
    And thanks for your thoughts on this subject.

    1. The problem with this thought is that both the Catholic Church and those in the Protestant Church claim the verse has changed:

    “What God has put together man CAN’T separate”

    versus

    “What God has put together let man not separate”

    Man can separate, even though God doesn’t want that. Hence, the sin.

    Therefore, if man does separate through hardness of heart, we already have God’s opinion in the Law of Moses on what to do in Deuteronomy 24.

    My response to that is woe unto those who commit such a sin, and how should they address their current situation if they are truly repentant for committing such betrayal?
    Thus begins the scrambling for the status of the ‘innocent party’. <== this is why all divorced women sing the same song about how bad their first husband was. They are not really repentant, they are only trying to justify their situation.

    2.

    “They say, ‘If a man divorces his wife,
    And she goes from him
    And becomes another man’s,
    May he return to her again?’
    Would not that land be greatly polluted?
    But you have played the harlot with many lovers;
    Yet return to Me,” says the Lord.

    This argument doesn’t stand because Israel was playing the harlot and God divorced her (put away with a bill of divorcement). However, Israel did not marry again to another husband. She remained single playing the harlot, and she could remarry the first spouse again: God. Thus, the return to me. Deuteronomy 24 specifically talks about what the first husband cannot do if his former wife remarried another husband.

    Either that or God is saying He is above the law He made which is also plausible. That still does not make us above the law He made.

    God is certainly above the law He made.
    The law is for us, and the example of Duet.24 is for the husband who betrayed his wife. We mostly agree about this. I have never seen an example of a man who divorced his first wife and later remarried her after she was divorced a second time. I have heard of such examples but I have not seen it.

    3.

    [remove my previous comments]

    The direction for them is laid out in Deut 24. They should not divorce and remarry the previous spouse. That is an abomination.

    They should not divorce again based on what Jesus says about not divorcing. What is done is done. Even though they were hard hearted and divorced and remarried, this does not mean the continued marriage is sinful.

    Here is where we disagree. And it gets a bit messy.
    In nearly all cases it is impossible to reconcile with a first spouse.

    If a woman has been divorced and remarries, I would expect her repentance to include separation from her second husband if her first husband is still alive. This would result in her living alone.

    If a husband has initiated a divorce and remarried, I also would expect his repentance to include a separation from his second wife. The end result will be the same, living alone.

    If however the husband was the victim of a treacherous wife I would consider his second marriage a valid marriage, the guy has two wives, although the first has alienated herself from the marriage.

    The divorce laws in the Bible are different for men and women, but in our secular society divorce laws are written for both parties. The above conclusions are based on Luke 16:18. Addressed to the gentile church which lived in a similar society. Luke is my go-to guy on this.

    Clergy share in the sinful action because they know it’s a second or third marriage yet they married them anyway. That’s why it’s a singular sin and not a continued sin.

    But lines must be drawn somewhere. And I don’t think is it OK to put a limit on repentance. This results in some horrific situations, so I think it is good to make people aware of the outcomes. But woe unto the steward [clergy] that discounts the Masters goods [marriage].

  41. @ Don Quixote

    My response to that is woe unto those who commit such a sin, and how should they address their current situation if they are truly repentant for committing such betrayal?
    Thus begins the scrambling for the status of the ‘innocent party’.

    It’s much like committing any other sin. Repenting to God and then apologizing to the other person.

    The fact that some people play the blame game is not a good reason for literally changing the verse which Jesus said.

    But lines must be drawn somewhere. And I don’t think is it OK to put a limit on repentance. This results in some horrific situations, so I think it is good to make people aware of the outcomes. But woe unto the steward [clergy] that discounts the Masters goods [marriage].

    1. The clergy obviously have fault for a 2nd or 3rd marriage.

    2. I agree that a literal interpretation of the Bible (legalistic so to speak) does allow a man to marry many different women. However, if my wife divorced me I would not remarry. I wouldn’t go the legalistic route.

    3. This is by no means a perfect analogy to the situation at all, but the overall “feel” of it encompasses what I believe the Scriptures say in reference to the NT and Deut 24.

    It’s basically like rape and a pregnancy. One follows the other. There is a rape (evil thing) and pregnancy after it (a good thing). Most Christians believe rightly even though rape is evil, it would also be evil to abort the baby as the baby had done no wrong.

    Basically, the fact that an evil things happened — divorce and remarriage — does not negate that something good may have come out of it — marriage and/or children.

    Hence, adding another evil on top of that — divorce — would not be the godly decision. Repent of the evil that you have done in the past, apologize to those involved, and turn away from more divorce.

  42. Looking Glass says:

    @DS & Don:

    The crux is always what the Church is going to do with regard to remarriage in an age where divorce by Women slaughters families. That’s why, up thread, I suggested what I did. Though I realized I forgot a step: For a Man to be allowed to be remarried, the Elders would need to closely examine what transpired. I basically come down that the only non-Widow(er) option for remarriage is a Man who has sinned against by his ex-wife & the State. (And even then, I can probably be convinced to remove even that option.)

  43. Don Quixote says:

    Deep Strength says:
    September 4, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    [remove comments I agree with]

    2. I agree that a literal interpretation of the Bible (legalistic so to speak) does allow a man to marry many different women. However, if my wife divorced me I would not remarry. I wouldn’t go the legalistic route.

    That is easier said than done.
    My wife divorced me over 20 years ago. Staying single [and away from women] has been harder than I expected. The struggle with sexual frustration takes a heavy toll over the years. I have never remarried.

    3. This is by no means a perfect analogy to the situation at all, but the overall “feel” of it encompasses what I believe the Scriptures say in reference to the NT and Deut 24.

    It’s basically like rape and a pregnancy. One follows the other. There is a rape (evil thing) and pregnancy after it (a good thing). Most Christians believe rightly even though rape is evil, it would also be evil to abort the baby as the baby had done no wrong.

    Basically, the fact that an evil things happened — divorce and remarriage — does not negate that something good may have come out of it — marriage and/or children.

    Hence, adding another evil on top of that — divorce — would not be the godly decision. Repent of the evil that you have done in the past, apologize to those involved, and turn away from more divorce.

    Very interesting analogy, rape & pregnancy V divorce & remarriage. I have never heard that before. But I partly I disagree, I have seen on two occasions where a single Christian guy [never married] has married a divorcee. This is an ongoing tragedy that persists from ignorance. The churches don’t teach guys what to look for in a bride. Keep up the good work, and God bless your efforts to educate.

    Not many Christian venues will tolerate a tough stand against divorce and remarriage these days. Thanks again for your tolerance.

    P.S. I am posting from Australia, thats why I often post when you guys are asleep.

  44. @ Don Quixote

    But I partly I disagree, I have seen on two occasions where a single Christian guy [never married] has married a divorcee. This is an ongoing tragedy that persists from ignorance. The churches don’t teach guys what to look for in a bride. Keep up the good work, and God bless your efforts to educate.

    In my opinion, it would be a good idea to discern whether the issue stems from guilt over what passages. Educate. Then have them examine their hearts with God, especially according to 1 John 4, and get it right. And then see where the guilt lies.

    I’ve seen some second and third marriages go on to do some wonderful things in the Lord. However, the people involved had to be truly repentant about what they did what sin: divorce and remarried. However, like I said I don’t think there is evidence there that points to another divorce as that would be changing the Matthew verse and ignoring Deut 24.

    At the end of the day it could be like a 1 Corinthians 8 issue on whether to stay married or separate. Some people are convicted even though there’s freedom. Some people are not.

    And thanks.

  45. stickdude90 says:

    DS,

    I read the article you linked (http://www.academia.edu/3622738/What_Jesus_Really_Said_Putting_Away_the_Mistranslations_about_Divorce), and while the author mostly agrees with you, he doesn’t seem to have an issue with remarriage after a legal divorce –


    Appendix 1, Part III, #3:
    We will recognize the right of either party, when a marriage is over,to remarry. However, we will encourage a divorced person to wait at least a year before entering into a new relationship.

    I keep re-reading I Cor 7, and it seems like the “remain single or reconcile” idea is specifically talked about in context of a wife leaving her husband (v. 10-11). Are there verses other than that to support the “the act of remarriage itself is a sin” view – especially if the husband is the one who initiated the divorce (which is clearly a sin) and has remarried – making reconciliation impossible?

    Before I categorically write off 98% of my potential dating pool as non-marriageable because of a previous divorce, I just want to be 100% sure that doing so is Biblically sound – and I’m probably only 90% sure currently. (And yes, I’m still very aware of the extra-Biblical reasons to not marry a divorcee).

  46. stickdude90 says:

    Another thought I just had about I Cor 7:11 – Paul specifically says she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband”. I read your post to mean that this prohibition applies to both the spouse who left (the wife in this case) as well as the one who was deserted – even though Paul only references one of the spouses in this verse. Is there a different verse that would make it clearer that the command applies to both spouses?

  47. @ stickdude90

    The main point of the verse is to encourage reconciliation between the wife and the husband as she is to stay single or to reconcile and the husband is not to put her away. In the Greek it does not say “she” but later in the verse it says “man/husband” so it’s basically implied.

    1. As you noted it doesn’t explicitly say that a husband cannot remarry. I would not advise it as I don’t think the principle behind the 1 Cor verse is to do that.

    2. Correct, women do not have the potential to remarry based on this verse. Hence, don’t marry a [woman] divorcee.

  48. stickdude90 says:

    Ok, I think Mark 10:12 is the clearest to me – both Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 use the same Greek word for “put away” that’s used in Matthew (see, you have me studying Greek now – well done) where Jesus is clearly referring to the Jewish law – as you pointed out, under Jewish law “putting away” is not the same as divorce unless it’s accompanied by a certificate of divorce.

    In Luke 16:18 Jesus is again talking to the Pharisees, and I couldn’t tell from the context if the “putting away” mentioned in that verse from was the Jewish law, as it was in Matthew, or Roman law, where “putting away” was synonymous with divorce as we know it.

    However, in Mark 10:12, although it uses the same word, Jesus can only be talking about “putting away” under Roman law, or true divorce – as a wife could not put away her husband under Jewish law, so there’s no way that He could have been referring to Jewish law here.

    I think that was the missing piece I was looking for to be 100% sure.

    Thanks again for this post – it has been very thought-provoking, and has successfully challenged beliefs I have been taught my entire life.

  49. @ stickdude90

    Yes, Mark 10 is the most clear. If Jesus said that to the Pharisees he would have violated Jewish law.

    However, He says it later privately to the disciples indicating God’s philosophy overall: What God has put together let no man separate.

    I think the researched post I link talks about the Mark passage as well near the end of it. However, I still don’t agree fully with his conclusion that remarriage is fine.

    A hard word indeed.

  50. stickdude90 says:

    So, as a follow-up to your post trying to calculate the number of marriageable Christian women in the US between 18-29, want to take a crack at calculating the number of single non-divorced Christian women between 35-45 that meet your other standards for attractiveness, etc – which realistically would be widows only, as a marriageable Christian woman would almost certainly be married by age 35?

  51. Looking Glass says:

    @stickdude90:

    Some years ago, there was a female commenter who, apparently, happened to know a lot of Nuns leaving the ministry when Baby Rabies kicked in. She was the classic “exception exists, so it must be easy!” argument so many Women like to make.

    I get the feeling you’re a widower?

    I do know of a single case of a Christian Man finding a committed Christian Woman (that was a virgin; both of them were, actually) in the low 30s. But I believe she was physically disabled for a significant part of her 20s, which was why she was still available.

  52. Looking Glass says:

    Or, just to be clear: you’re pretty much talking Unicorn hunting, Widows or Divine Providence. And probably need more of the latter than anything else.

  53. stickdude90 says:

    @Looking Glass:

    Correct, I am indeed a widower – a few years younger, and there would probably be more never-been-married women available; a few years older, and there would probably be more widows available.

  54. @ stickdude90

    I don’t think you want to know those results….

    I can if you really want me to but it will probably take me a couple days.

  55. stickdude90 says:

    I already know it’s a unicorn hunt on an epic scale – no need to really run the numbers and depress me further. 🙂

  56. stickdude90 says:

    If you don’t mind one more swing at this dead horse, though, could you do a post specifically on #8 in your list of conclusions? Almost all of the sources I’ve studied since first reading this post disagree with you. For example (from page 42-43 of the book “Remarriage is Adultery Unless…”):

    Furthermore, the tense of the verb for ‘committing adultery’ is the present continuous, which means to go on doing something. Some have tried to say that only the initial act of remarriage and its first physical union is adultery, but Jesus is including all subsequent intercourse. To put it bluntly, remarriage after divorce is bigamy in God’s sight. It is not a valid marriage.

    I’m not a Greek expert, so I don’t know if he’s correct about the tense of that particular verb, but he’s not the only one who’s pointed that out. Either way, it makes sense to me. As I see it, it comes down to a simple question:

    If someone divorces and remarries while their first spouse is still alive, is their second marriage a valid marriage in God’s eyes?

    If yes, then why do Jesus and Paul call it adultery?

    If no, then what changes after the first physical union to change it from adultery to not-adultery?

  57. @ stickdude90

    It is not adultery if you are legally divorced: put away with a bill of divorce. – Deut 24

    It is simply a sin to divorce, just as it is [likely] simply a sin not to reconcile or stay unmarried.

    Like I said before, all of the other sources are changing Jesus’ words to say: “What God has put together man can’t separate” versus “What God has put together let man not separate” as I said before.

    If man can’t separate then it’s obviously adultery if you remarry at all. However, the fact that Jesus said “let man not separate” means that man can actually separate. What conditions can man separate under? Man can separate according to Jesus under “hardness of heart” via Deut 24. Hence, if such persons separate it’s a sin (hard hearted), but if they remarry it’s not [perpetual] adultery.

    Jesus when talking about putting away is referring to Deut 22 and not Deut 24. Mark and Luke specifically refer to Gentile cases since they lived in a culture without bills of divorcement. Indeed, what Jesus said in Mark 10 specifically refers to their culture since they had no bills of divorcement: any putting away at all and remarrying is adultery because there are no bills of divorcement. However, Deut 24 stands for those who are hard of heart AND it applies to our culture since we have bills of divorcement.

    This is the importance of two things:

    1. Understanding Jesus’ words and not morphing them to what you think they should mean. In particular, Jesus did NOT say “What God has put together man can’t separate.”
    2. Understanding that when you don’t obey Jesus words that God already had a law for those who were hard of heart in the OT.

    This is why divorce and remarriage in our culture is not considered adultery but singular sins.

    Make sense?

  58. stickdude90 says:

    Yes and no.

    It does clear up why you believe that remarriage after divorce is not continuous adultery – because you believe that remarriage after divorce in our culture is not adultery in the first place. That makes sense to me. I was previously under the impression that Mark 10 applied to our culture as well, which would mean remarriage == adultery for us, but I agree with your explanation.

    I’m still not sure if and how I Cor 7:10-11 applies to our culture.

    1. When Paul says “depart from”, is that equivalent to “putting away” as in Mark and Luke (which would mean it doesn’t apply to our culture), or is Paul talking about a bill of divorcement? It appears he uses a different verb than is used in Mark and Luke, so I don’t know one way or the other.

    2. Does the admonition to “remain unmarried or reconcile” apply equally to both spouses (or ex-spouses if Paul was talking about a bill of divorcement), or just the spouse who departed? Again, I couldn’t find an answer either way.

    Finally, one last question about “divorce == sin” – if both spouses mutually agree to end the marriage, I would agree that both spouses are guilty of sin. If, however, one spouse is determined to keep their marriage vows no matter what happens, and the other spouse unilaterally divorces the other (as can and does happen under no-fault divorce laws), what sin has the first spouse committed?

  59. @ stickdude90

    Paul is speaking to the Corinthians who were Gentiles. So it’s similar to Mark and Luke in that context.

    1. Paul does use different verbs for put away than Jesus which makes it more difficult to understand the passage. However, note where Paul talks about what the Lord is saying versus what he is saying. See the OP for what verbs he uses because I show them up there.

    2. It JUST mentions the wife. So legalistically speaking it could be that the husband could remarry given that men were allowed to have multiple wives. I tend away from this like Donal has said earlier. Based on a strict reading like LG said then the husband could remarry and the wife cannot.

    3. You are responsible for what you do. So if you did not consent to the divorce you are not responsible for it. However, you are responsibility for your actions in the marriage that may have influenced the other person to want to divorce you. Likewise, you are responsible for the circumstances you find yourself in after the divorce. However, you are not responsible for the divorce. If that makes sense.

    It is important to know what “responsibility” you have. You can’t control others but you can control yourself. However, you should also take responsibility for influencing others as well.

  60. stickdude90 says:

    Ok, I’m finally doing something I probably should have done *before* I started dating again – fleshing out my positions on various issues that will come up during my search for a Godly wife.

    Here is what I have so far on divorce, since that’s been the topic of this thread:

    =====================================
    Multiple divorces = automatic deal breaker. Even if she is completely innocent each and every time, the fact that she has been divorced multiple times shows a troubling lack of discernment when it comes to choosing a life partner. That lack of discernment is likely to spill over into other areas of her life.

    One divorce
    Was she the one that initiated the divorce? I’m trying to come up with a scenario where I Cor. 7:11-12 would not apply, but I’m having trouble doing so. Even if she now knows that divorcing her husband was a sin and she was truly repentant, she should still reconcile with her ex-husband or remain unmarried according to Paul.

    Her husband initiated the divorce
    * Is her ex-husband open to reconciliation? If so, that’s the route she needs to take.

    * Looking back on the marriage now, is there anything she would have done differently? Since she’s not perfect, it’s a good guess that she also made mistakes during the marriage, even if she was completely committed to remaining married. If she didn’t learn anything at all from the experience, that’s not a good sign.

    * Does she believe that divorce is a sin under all circumstances, or does she believe there are exceptions that allow divorce?
    ** If she believes that adultery is valid grounds for divorce in the eyes of God, then her hamster will, for example, find a way to equate whatever sin she thinks you’ve committed with adultery –> Game of Thrones has naked women; naked women automatically create lust in all males; Jesus equated lust with adultery; and BOOM! Get out of marriage free card because she didn’t like you watching a TV show!
    ** If she believes abuse is valid grounds for divorce, not paying enough attention to her needs and feeeeeelings suddenly morphs into abuse and BOOM! Get out of marriage free card!
    ** If she believes addiction is valid grounds for divorce, guess what happens when she thinks you watch too much football???

    * Does she still believe there are exceptions that allow divorce in the eyes of God, even after you explain it to her? If so, it’s time to move on, as she will have problems with your leadership the entire relationship.

    * If at any time during this discussion she becomes defensive or tries to imply that her past is none of your business, cheerfully agree with her – and then move on.
    =====================================

    Other than “categorically exclude divorced women from your dating pool”, what would you add to this list? Is there anything that jumps out as being non-scriptural?

  61. stickdude90 says:

    It’s important to understand that Paul is speaking to a Roman/Greek population in the Corinthians here and not the Jewish people. Hence, Paul is speaking against the Roman law that “divorce” could be done through “putting away” or simply “departing” in the case of the wife.

    Likewise, Paul follows this up with the only correct path for those separated or divorced: stay single or reconcile.

    If Paul is speaking to the same Gentile audience that Jesus was referring to in Mark 10, how would his command to reconcile or remain unmarried apply to legally divorced people? Roman law didn’t have “divorce” as understood in Deut. 24 and today’s culture.

    If you remove “or divorced” from your statement above, I believe Paul’s statement is entirely consistent with Mark, Luke, and Deuteronomy – and it’s also common sense – if you’re only separated from your spouse, obviously you’re not allowed to remarry. If you apply Paul’s words to those legally divorced (with a bill of divorcement), I see a contradiction between Paul’s statement that remarriage is not allowed after a legal divorce and Deut. 24 that does allow remarriage after a legal divorce.

    I think we’re almost on the same page now. If nothing else, this has been a very thought-provoking post that has had me studying the Scriptures more than I have in a long time. For that, I thank you.

  62. @ stickdude90

    That contradiction is why I believe that:

    1. Divorce is a singular sin
    2. Remarriage is a singular sin

    If you divorce or get separated you should stay single or reconcile. Hence, the outside choice given that man can divorce legally in our culture is remarriage which is another sin albeit not perpetual adultery.

    This makes everything consistent with the OT law and how it was translated to the Jewish people via Matthew and to the Gentiles in Mark, Luke, and Corinthians given their cultural setup.

  63. stickdude90 says:

    A couple more questions and then I’ll head to bed – is there a different passage in the OT that makes it clearer that remarriage after a legal divorce is still sin? Deut. 24 only deals with one specific case where remarriage is prohibited (which also brings up the question of why that chapter even has specific rules about when remarriage is not allowed if remarriage is a sin under all circumstances), and I don’t see anything in that passage alone that would allow you to generalize it to all remarriage.

    And I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea that I Cor 7:10-11 applies to today’s culture when Mark and Luke do not, even though all three passages are referring to the same Gentile culture and seem to be referring to the same concepts. Even translations that incorrectly translate the word “apoluo” as “divorce” in Matthew and Mark don’t use the word “divorce” in the first part of I Cor. 7:10. They consistently translate chōrizō to “depart from” or “leave” or “separate from”. I only found one translation (the “NET Bible”, which I never heard of before just now) that translates it to “divorce”.

    Finally, does Matthew 19:6 apply to (sinful) remarriages? Are the previously divorced/now remarried spouses one flesh that have been joined together by God even though the very act of remarriage itself is a sin in His eyes?

  64. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/09/09 | Free Northerner

  65. Don Quixote says:

    re: stickdude90 September 8, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    @ stickdude90: Thanks so much for posting that quote from David Pawson’s book; Remarriage is Adultery unless… [page 43]

    When I first read what DS posted regarding this point I remembered reading that but I couldn’t remember where. I dearly wanted to make that point about the Greek verb tense thing but I know so little about Greek I didn’t want to make a fool of myself.

    I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to read David Pawson’s book. Or if you want a free book on the subject I would also recommend Dirk Evenhuis’ book Holy Matrimony available as a pdf here: http://www.holymatrimony.org

  66. Looking Glass says:

    @stickdude90:

    Firstly, since I forgot to do this: my condolences for your loss. My father died when I was young, leaving my mother a Widow (and apparently I’m called a “half-Orphan” now, which I guess is better than “Fatherless” in a land of Harlots), so I have deep sympathy for your loss. I know what that does, all too personally.

    On the issue with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, I think you need to look down a few verses. Verses 17-20 make pretty clear he’s talking to a mixed church. Otherwise talking about both Jews & Gentiles at the same time doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. And he’s was also, likely, addressing some of the issues we’re dealing with. (And it’s not like this issues hasn’t been argued about for a long while.)

    On the comparative between 10 & 11, let us also remember that the Women wouldn’t have had access to the Legal Framework to divorce. It was much more they just, well, left. The Husband was the supreme authority in the matter. So the wife’s only option was to get up and leave. Something that could easily be a problem. (We know Roman society, especially, was pretty far down the “collapse” train by this point) Whereas the Husband would have had the option to boot the Wife, in some instances. (Depends how much if would have hurt family ties.)

    So I don’t see this being much of any issue. Paul covered both the practical side of things and the issues with the Law. Paul makes no assumption that a Wife can divorce. Even for the “hard hearted”, only a Husband can commence a Divorce. The Wife’s only real choice is to, normally, go “play the harlot”. So Wives aren’t a leave; Husbands aren’t to “put away”. Seems simple enough.

    Still, we’re mostly back to the Legalistic construction I proposed a while ago. In our cultures with our laws, only an “aggrieved” Husband *may* be able to remarry without the remarriage being a Sin. But I can’t say I’m sold on that interpretation. At minimum, I generally wouldn’t consider it a wise idea.

  67. Looking Glass says:

    Oh, on the question of Matthew 19:6, I think we can probably refer to a passage set that really should come up in these discussions. John 4:16-19 (ESV):

    16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.” 19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.”

  68. @ stickdude90

    A couple more questions and then I’ll head to bed – is there a different passage in the OT that makes it clearer that remarriage after a legal divorce is still sin? Deut. 24 only deals with one specific case where remarriage is prohibited (which also brings up the question of why that chapter even has specific rules about when remarriage is not allowed if remarriage is a sin under all circumstances), and I don’t see anything in that passage alone that would allow you to generalize it to all remarriage.

    1. The fact that Jesus says what “Goid has put together let man not separate” — even if you do you should put it back together. That’s the original plan.

    2. 1 Cor 7 — stay single or reconcile (rather than remarry)

    And I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea that I Cor 7:10-11 applies to today’s culture when Mark and Luke do not, even though all three passages are referring to the same Gentile culture and seem to be referring to the same concepts. Even translations that incorrectly translate the word “apoluo” as “divorce” in Matthew and Mark don’t use the word “divorce” in the first part of I Cor. 7:10. They consistently translate chōrizō to “depart from” or “leave” or “separate from”. I only found one translation (the “NET Bible”, which I never heard of before just now) that translates it to “divorce”.

    Mark, Luke, AND 1 Cor 7 apply both then and today.

    The difference is that our culture, like the Jewish, has bills of divorce whereas the Greeks/Romans did not.

    Again, like I said this is the importance of knowing what Jesus is actually saying in the context of the OT He is referencing.

    Finally, does Matthew 19:6 apply to (sinful) remarriages? Are the previously divorced/now remarried spouses one flesh that have been joined together by God even though the very act of remarriage itself is a sin in His eyes?

    1. Can God use hard heartedness for God? Deut 24 is for those who are hard hearted per Jesus.

    2. Does God go back on His laws?

    I think you have your answer.

  69. stickdude90 says:

    A wife is willing and able to keep her marriage vows no matter what happens, yet the husband files for divorce and leaves. We’ve already established that the wife has not sinned in this case.

    The husband then remarries (and I would completely agree that the husband has sinned by doing so), and thus reconciliation is impossible.

    How does I Cor. 7:11 apply to the wife? Why must she remain unmarried the rest of her life because of the actions of her ex-husband? I guess this is the one exception I see to the “remarriage is always sin” idea.

  70. Looking Glass says:

    @stickdude90:

    God first, all other considerations second. There are a lot of people around, and throughout history, that have had brutal lives through no fault of their own. This is where Christian Charity is supposed to help. In that very, very, VERY rare situation (of which I really only have ever heard of 1 single instance), I would suggest to act as David acted in 2 Samuel 20:3. If the Elders find no fault, she is to be treated as a Widow but not free to remarry.

    God doesn’t offer us a Life that will go “our way”. He offers us eternal life. Big difference, but it creeps into all of our thinking. That’s the culture at work.

  71. stickdude90 says:

    @Looking Glass:

    You’ve only heard of 1 single instance where someone who was committed to the marriage was divorced by their spouse followed by the divorcing spouse remarrying soon thereafter? Really?

    The rest of your comment is interesting, but I don’t see the connection to the “remarriages always equal sin” position.

    So again I ask, how does I Cor. 7:11 apply to the innocent wife?

    I’m only asking for any evidence that Paul meant to include both divorced spouses in his command, even though every single translation of that verse references the spouse who left as being the one who must remain unmarried or reconciled – probably translated that way because the form of the verb translated as “must remain”, menetō, is “3rd Person Singular”. Singular. One. One spouse to whom the command applies. (And yes, a 3rd Person Plural form of the verb exists and is used elsewhere in the NT, so Paul must have chosen the singular form for a reason).

    I can only presume that there is not a different verse that unambiguously states that all remarriage after any divorce is sin, because someone would have listed it by now and we wouldn’t still be having this conversation.

  72. stickdude90 says:

    Additionally, in combination with “putting away (apoluo)” and “fornication (porneia)” this tells us that He is referring to Deuteronomy 22 where a husband marries a wife who is not a virgin by fraud. If it was talking about “putting away (apoluo)” and “bill of divorcement (apostasion)” and “adultery (moichiao)” this would reference Deuteronomy 24 on rules of divorce.

    Under Jewish law a husband can put away his wife [without a bill of divorcement] if she had fornicated and deceived him that she was a virgin as there was no lawful marriage in the first place. Hence, he can put her away and it is not a divorce.

    Carefully re-read Deuteronomy 22 – at least the section you posted. If a man marries a wife and discovers she is not a virgin, which verse allows him to put her away? The only reference to “putting away” in that passage is in context of his punishment for a false accusation – where he permanently loses the option to ever put her away. Additionally, it seems to me that verse 21 pretty permanently removes the option to put her away, as you claim he is able to do.

    So is Jesus really only referring back to Deuteronomy 22?

    Just something to think about….

  73. Looking Glass says:

    @stickdude90:

    A godly Wife committed to her Marriage and just randomly dumped by the Husband via divorce? Yeah, only encountered one instance of it, and that was threw commentor connections. I know of one instance that’s a little closer in real life, but she only became a Christian pretty close to the divorce itself.

    Reminder: there aren’t a lot of respectful, Godly wives. And it’s supremely rare that the purity of their Heart which is pointed to God won’t break through nearly all of a Man’s foolishness. This is the power of respect & submission. Sure, we can find a unicorn example, but the first part of “respectful & Godly” will almost as a presumption remove any likelihood of a permanent separation.

    This mostly comes down to an important fact about all of this topic: A Woman can make *any* marriage work. A Man is incapable of making a marriage work if the Wife doesn’t follow. That’s the crux of the matter. It’s a reflection of our discipleship with Jesus. He died for our Sins, but only we, within the Lord’s power, can accept that discipleship. God is Just. He will judge us all by our choices. There is no universal salvation. Sin is the chasm that no Work can bridge. The Lord cannot lead us where we choose not to follow.

    Now, if you want to talk about a Godly Husband getting frivorced… I know a bunch of those.

  74. Looking Glass says:

    @stickdude90:

    One follow on thought.

    What I brought up is why the “strong, independent Woman” is the biggest idiot in human history. That drives a chunk of the anger when Men find out the truth. Quite literally, the “Christian” Women of this era were given the easiest lives of anyone (not any Women; anyone) in Human history. And what we’ve found out is that they’re less self-controlled and less Faithful than most 8 year old boys.

    There’s a reason a lot of us are pretty short on sympathy for fools. We know where there Souls reside, and they will perish for it. Let that sink deep into your spirit. There are a whole lot of “Christians” that will not be with the Lord in eternity.

  75. stickdude90 says:

    Now, if you want to talk about a Godly Husband getting frivorced… I know a bunch of those.

    That’s fine, let’s talk about them – it’s actually even better since I Cor 7:11 specifically mentions the wife leaving.

    According to I Cor 7:11, is it a sin for a frivorced Godly husband to remarry if his ex-wife has already shut the door on reconciliation by remarrying?

  76. Don Quixote says:

    stickdude90 says:
    September 9, 2015 at 10:34 pm

    Yet it’s been clearly established that God only gave that law to the Israelites because of their hard hearts. Was God’s heart hard? If His law against divorce is absolute, can He break His own law, as he appears to in this passage?

    And the most curious thing about this passage – What is the reason God gives for divorcing Israel? (verse 8, in bold). If nothing else, the so-called “adultery exception” appears to not be entirely without precedent.

    Jeremiah chapter 3 is interesting for another reason not yet mentioned in this thread. In verse 14 God says His is still married to backsliding Israel, after the adultery and divorce. You will need to check the KJV on this because most modern versions use the word ‘Lord’ instead of married. The KJV uses married, this is consistent with the OT use and context.

  77. Looking Glass says:

    @Don Quixote:

    Amazingly, everyone translates the same word as “Husband” in Jeremiah 31:32.

    It really is fascinating how many terrible translations have crept in over the years. Though let’s ignore the NIV all together. Reading about the Revised Version in the 1880s is fascinating. Dean Burgon is worth a read, assuming you don’t mind feeling really stupid. (Critical text analysis in multiple languages is pretty amazing. Though some people probably need to not argue for the full Divine Inspiration of the KJV. There are problems with it (though mostly in the editing of the older texts), but it captures the context a lot better. Much evil has been done with “literalism”.

  78. wordsofgoldblog says:

    Great post. This needs to be taught and preached in church.

  79. @ stickdude90

    A wife is willing and able to keep her marriage vows no matter what happens, yet the husband files for divorce and leaves. We’ve already established that the wife has not sinned in this case.

    The husband then remarries (and I would completely agree that the husband has sinned by doing so), and thus reconciliation is impossible.

    How does I Cor. 7:11 apply to the wife? Why must she remain unmarried the rest of her life because of the actions of her ex-husband? I guess this is the one exception I see to the “remarriage is always sin” idea.

    As LG said, no one is blameless really. However, in the infinitesimal chance that this is the case this is not a question of divorce but wholly of human suffering. Why do people have to suffer unjustly?

    Do kids ask to be born starving in Africa? Do babies ask to be born to a crack whore mother? Do kids ask to be abused by their parents? Do women ask to be raped?

    All of us has encountered unjust things that have been done to us that are not our fault. God allows suffering to happen because of sin. However, that doesn’t excuse us from following God’s law.

    Make no mistake: it’s a bad situation for the wife who cannot remarry. However, she has the choice whether to obey God or not. Things that have been done to us that are not our fault are some of the hardest to let go to God because it’s easy to become bitter and choose the path of disobedience.

    Carefully re-read Deuteronomy 22 – at least the section you posted. If a man marries a wife and discovers she is not a virgin, which verse allows him to put her away? The only reference to “putting away” in that passage is in context of his punishment for a false accusation – where he permanently loses the option to ever put her away. Additionally, it seems to me that verse 21 pretty permanently removes the option to put her away, as you claim he is able to do.
    So is Jesus really only referring back to Deuteronomy 22?

    You’re confusing yourself now by overthinking it.

    The statement as a whole refers to Deut 24. Paraphrased ‘Whoever puts away […] and marries another commits adultery.’ This is because a bill of divorcement was needed.

    The “except” part refers to Deut 22. “Except for fornication” – There was no need for a bill of divorcement since the marriage contract was invalid. She was either sent away/put away and went back to her father’s house. They didn’t actually stone the women. If what he said was false he could not put her away implying that he would put her away if what he was saying is true.

    If Jesus had said “except for adultery” along with some of the other Greek words then we would know He was referring to the “uncleanness” in Deut 24 given as a reason for divorce. More on that in the next part.

    Yet it’s been clearly established that God only gave that law to the Israelites because of their hard hearts. Was God’s heart hard? If His law against divorce is absolute, can He break His own law, as he appears to in this passage?
    And the most curious thing about this passage – What is the reason God gives for divorcing Israel? (verse 8, in bold). If nothing else, the so-called “adultery exception” appears to not be entirely without precedent.

    1. We covered this further up thread. Basically either God is saying He can break His own laws, or that fornication with the other idols and whatnot are not actually marriage and he wants her to come back from prostitution.

    2. Correct. Deut 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens [a]that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband [b]turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.

    Indecency = uncleanness = sexual immorality

    Yes, there is precedence for divorce because of sexual immorality. However, Jesus specifically said it was there because their hearts were hard. According to Jesus you’re not supposed to divorce even if your wife commits: “What God has put together let man not separate.”

    ——————–

    That was really long.

    Anyway, the point is that ultimately God wants marriages to be one. If you divorce you can do that but it’s a sin. But He still wants reconciliation as is the case with His relationship with Israel in Jeremiah.

    That’s the short version of why I think it’s a sin to remarry.

    It’s definitely adultery to remarry in a culture that does not have bills of divorcement. However, you can argue that it’s not a sin to remarry in a culture that does, but this goes against what God says about singleness and reconciliation and His example in Jeremiah.

  80. stickdude90 says:

    Thanks for your responses. It has been an informative discussion.

    Given that both you and LG have now replied with “sucks to be her, but all people suffer” responses because you think something is a sin, instead of clearly explaining from Scripture (see Acts 17:11) why it’s a sin, my continuing to ask the same question yet again will likely not add anything to the discussion, so I think it’s time to wrap it up. Thanks again.

  81. Looking Glass says:

    @stickdude90:

    You’re pretty much stuck on the various interpretations of 1 Cor 7:11. If you think you might want to marry the divorced Woman you’re seeing, take it to the Lord in prayer. He’s going to give you the answer. You just have to be willing to accept it. (This issue is called the “Pauline exception”, btw)

    Also, I realized a bit of “Men = Women” thinking crept into the discussion again. A wife can be reconciled to a Husband that’s taken another wife. Just not the other way around. I have no idea what that would look like in our current culture, but that’s running into another issue we should probably bring up.

    We can also pop over to 1 Cor 8 and the issue of stumbling blocks. Remarriage is one of those messy topics less because of the necessity that the Remarriage itself is assuredly a Sin, but because of all of the other Sins that will tend to lead you there. There’s a reason Divorce wasn’t allowed for so very long within Christian practice. It produces a lot of evil.

    I also wonder if we’re maybe if we’re looking at the wrong passages of Deut 22. In the theoretical case of our aggrieved Woman, Deut 22:19 brings up even more questions. The treacherous Husband is utterly prevented from divorcing a Wife. (At least in that specific context of treachery)

  82. stickdude90 says:

    If you think you might want to marry the divorced Woman you’re seeing, take it to the Lord in prayer. He’s going to give you the answer. You just have to be willing to accept it.

    Now that I can 100% agree with. 🙂

  83. @ stickdude90

    I’m not exactly sure which thing you were wondering about? The woman who was “unjustly” divorced?

    If so, yes, I do believe that is a situation where it is tough luck.

    If my wife ever divorced me I would adhere to the same principle: don’t marry again as I believe it applies to both men and women (v10 I believe) as that was the intent or principle behind it.

    God promised that we would endure hardships. We don’t expect it from people closest to us unfortunately but it does happen. The question is am I going to obey God when it’s hard or am I going figuratively or literally go my own way.

  84. shammahworm says:

    The HERESY is yours. I wish I’d seen your first post last year so I could’ve addressed it sooner. This was thoroughly discredited on my blog and in multiple comments sections on Dalrock’s. This post is far to long for me to go line by line. So I’ll just do it for your conclusions.

    Quickly though, porneia refers to all manner of sexual sin. The reason why Jesus doesn’t just say adultery in Matt 19 is because a man has the RIGHT to divorce his wife for lying about her sexual history AND adultery. Other sexual activity which isn’t intercourse also constitutes porneia. A man has the right to divorce if his wife lied about any past sexual activities even if its taken him decades to find out. These facts completely and utterly crush all your false claims about Matt. 5 and 19. You don’t understand the actual definition of porneia.

    If your reading this, Don Quixote, I hope you’ve headed the warnings about the false doctrines on your site.

    1) “Putting away is NOT divorce in the Scriptures. It is a two part process of putting away and a bill of divorcement. – Deut 22, 24; Mal 2; Jer 3; Isa 50; Matt 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16”

    Yes, it is divorce in the scriptures. There was no formal system of marriage to many classes of people in Greece and Rome. “Putting away” was the closes thing they had to divorce in many parts of the empire and so that’s how it’s translated. This is further shown when Jesus says a man may remarry in cases of sexual immorality. It’s clear the relationship is over and the man is looking for someone to take his wife’s place.

    2 God and Jesus’ plan for marriage is that “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” – Gen 2, Matt 19; Mark 10

    But God separates them when a man divorces for sexual immorality(porneia). Jesus doesn’t say adultery because a man also has the right to divorce his wife and remarry if previous sexual immorality comes to light after they were married. See Deut 24., Matt 5 and Matt 19. Deut 24 shows that formerly married people can be separated to such a degree that they can’t come together again. In the very next sentence after your quote, Jesus gives an instance where people are separated.

    3 There is no get-out-of-marriage adultery clause. Who you are married to you should stay married to regardless of any sins they commit. This is a hard word as even the disciples said it was better not to marry. – Matt; 19, Mark 10, Luke 16

    Yes there is. Adultery IS fornication. Adultery is fornication(porneia) the way abortion is murder. It always has been. 1 Cor 5: 1 uses porniea to describe adultery. The “porneia is premarital sex” claim is a made-up definition which contradicts the actual usage of the word in scripture. It has NEVER EVER meant this.

    The disciples were shocked not because Jesus was saying “no divorce ever(because He wasn’t)” but because divorce had happened in cases other than sexual immorality throughout their history and Deut 24 could conceivably apply to other forms of “impurity” besides sexual immorality, such as idolatry. This included many “good” reasons. The Pharisees were twisting Deut 24 in order to make “impurity” or “uncleanness(translations very)” mean all sorts of things such as overcooking dinner so as to allow them to trade in their wives at will.

    4 Under Jewish law according to Jesus: You can put away your wife if she fornicated prior to marriage and committed fraud by claiming she was a virgin as the blood on the sheet proved her testimony false (no blood was spilled making it a covenant marriage). – Deut 22, Matthew 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16,

    You actually couldn’t divorce if you found a woman wasn’t a virgin at the consummation.

    Deut 22 compelled a man to report the woman to the leaders of the community and then to have her executed. It wasn’t a choice. It was a duty. Just because the Jews had chosen to be cowards and obey man(the Romans) rather than God in no way changed the law. Deuteronomy 24 refers to divorce AFTER the consummation. Since Jewish law compelled adulteresses to be executed also, there were seldom instances when a man could lawfully divorce for what Deut 24 stated.

    And no, John 8 in no way overturned God’s law which required adulteresses to be executed. Reread the actual requirements to execute someone for adultery and you’ll see that the mob of people who formed payed no mind to the actual law of God(where was the man?). Also, notice how Jesus didn’t condemn the woman He saved physically and spiritually. At no point did it mean she had no earthly consequences for her sin.

    The divorces Moses suffered for “hardness of heart” referred to divorce for other reasons than sexual immorality as Moses faithfully upheld the laws of God. In other words, the divorces weren’t in accordance with Deut 24 because the woman didn’t actually meet its conditions for divorce. See #9 for more on this.

    Notice how TWO questions are asked in Matt and Mark.

    “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife FOR ANY CAUSE?” Matt 19
    “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Mark 10

    The reason why Jesus doesn’t mention porneia in Mark and Luke is because it was already clear from Deut 24 and that was only possible when executions weren’t possible. There was no debate about divorcing for sexual immorality. Call it a “contradiction” all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that porneia has never meant only premarital sex. With your false interpretation, you still have to deal with the fact that porneia doesn’t mean what you say it means. The word itself doesn’t mean falsely representing one’s virginity. It means all manner of sexual sin and it always has. The contradiction from your position between the three gospels is far more glaring than the “contradiction” from mine.

    5 Under Jewish law: Wives are bound to their husbands as long as they live [or until their husbands divorce them which was not said]. – Rom 7, Deut 24

    Agreed.

    6 If a spouse leaves stay single or be reconciled. – 1 Cor 7

    If she is sexually immoral, you can divorce and remarry. In no way does 1 Cor 7 supersede the direct words of Christ. And it’s clear porneia doesn’t refer to only falsely representing one’s virginity.

    7 If an unbelieving spouse leaves you are not under bondage. This can still be liberally interpreted as being able to remarry; however, the prior part of the chapter tends to speak against it since it says to stay single or reconcile. Note the wording: “10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord … [remain unmarried or reconcile]” versus “12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if [they leave you are not under bondage].” I take this to generally mean that “not under bondage” means that you are absolved of your marriage duties, but given the context of the wording about the Lord saying versus Paul saying it would seem that stay unmarried or be reconciled is the ideal. Remarriage is likely not an option. – 1 Cor 7

    If the believer in that situation remarries, it must of course be to a Christian.

    8 Remarriage is a singular sin and not perpetual adultery This is one of the falsely propagated conclusions from the heretical “You can divorce your spouse if they commit adultery” exegesis. However, the act of remarriage is a sin since the ideal is to stay single or reconcile. The important thing to understand is that it is a singular sin and not a constant state of sin. Confess your sins to God and repent. – Matt 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16; 1 Cor 7

    It’s no sin to remarry if a man divorced his wife for porneia. In fact, it’s a right that supersedes what the pastors and elders say.

    I should say at no point in my life have I ever been married or involved any drama relating to this. It grieves me to see people like you spreading false doctrines which lay up heavy burdens on believers which they have no duty to bear.

    9 Those already remarried in their second and third marriages are NOT to divorce and reconcile with their first spouse. This follows out of #8 because the heretical interpretation is perpetual adultery with the new spouse. Hence, divorce and reconcile and remarry with the first spouse. Rather, this view goes against what Deuteronomy 24 says in that if a first husband divorces a wife and another marries her even if she is divorced or her husband dies then she is not to remarry him again. – Deut 24, Matthew 19

    A man can’t take a woman he divorced for sexual immorality back if she marries another. It’s not just sin, it’s an abomination like homosexuality. Deuteronomy 24 was a direct command from God, Moses couldn’t “suffer” those who obeyed it because they weren’t sinning. This is especially the case when most sexually immoral women were executed by him in accordance with the OT.

    The Gospel of Mark is more favorable to your position, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the law still required adulteresses to be executed.

    If you continue in your false doctrine, you’re liable to judgment. I don’t really know who you are, but I wish I’d caught your posts on Dalrock so you could’ve been corrected there. Porneia alone crushes your entire position.

  85. @ shammahworm

    Quickly though, porneia refers to all manner of sexual sin. The reason why Jesus doesn’t just say adultery in Matt 19 is because a man has the RIGHT to divorce his wife for lying about her sexual history AND adultery. Other sexual activity which isn’t intercourse also constitutes porneia. A man has the right to divorce if his wife lied about any past sexual activities even if its taken him decades to find out. These facts completely and utterly crush all your false claims about Matt. 5 and 19. You don’t understand the actual definition of porneia.

    Uh, Jesus talks about porniea (all illicit sexual contact) and moicheuo (specifically adultery) in Matthew 19. I have no clue what you’re talking about in regard to him not mentioning moicheuo.

    I do, however, agree that under Jewish law that a man could divorce his wife for any porniea that occurred. However, I also believe that Jesus’ statement about what God said from the beginning supercedes that: “What God has put together let man not separate”

    Yes, it is divorce in the scriptures. There was no formal system of marriage to many classes of people in Greece and Rome. “Putting away” was the closes thing they had to divorce in many parts of the empire and so that’s how it’s translated. This is further shown when Jesus says a man may remarry in cases of sexual immorality. It’s clear the relationship is over and the man is looking for someone to take his wife’s place.

    Incorrect, it’s contextual.

    1. Deut 24, Jer 3, Isa 50 all refer to divorce as per the Law of Moses: putting away with a bill of divorcement
    2. Matthew, speaking to a Jewish audience, describes divorce as putting away with a bill of divorcement as in the Law of Moses
    3. Mark and Luke, speaking to a Greek/Roman audience only discuss putting away since putting away was considered divorce.

    The difference is that there is no so-called “adultery clause” in Mark and Luke.

    But God separates them when a man divorces for sexual immorality(porneia). Jesus doesn’t say adultery because a man also has the right to divorce his wife and remarry if previous sexual immorality comes to light after they were married. See Deut 24., Matt 5 and Matt 19. Deut 24 shows that formerly married people can be separated to such a degree that they can’t come together again. In the very next sentence after your quote, Jesus gives an instance where people are separated.

    Yes, I agree that God separates when men divorce. I already mentioned “let man not separate” implies man can actually separate. This does not mean it is a good thing to separate.

    My position is what Jesus said: What God has put together let man not separate.

    Yes there is. Adultery IS fornication. Adultery is fornication(porneia) the way abortion is murder. It always has been. 1 Cor 5: 1 uses porniea to describe adultery. The “porneia is premarital sex” claim is a made-up definition which contradicts the actual usage of the word in scripture. It has NEVER EVER meant this.

    The disciples were shocked not because Jesus was saying “no divorce ever(because He wasn’t)” but because divorce had happened in cases other than sexual immorality throughout their history and Deut 24 could conceivably apply to other forms of “impurity” besides sexual immorality, such as idolatry. This included many “good” reasons. The Pharisees were twisting Deut 24 in order to make “impurity” or “uncleanness(translations very)” mean all sorts of things such as overcooking dinner so as to allow them to trade in their wives at will.

    Yes, porniea refers to all illicit sexual conduct. The reason why I state “there is no adultery clause” is because it is clear that Jesus’ words on what God said are meant to stand as an example to emulate — What God has put together let no man separate” — irregardless porniea/moicheuo.

    Re: Deut 22

    Yes, you could “divorce” a woman if you found out she wasn’t a virgin prior to marriage via Deut 24 (see Matthew Henry commentary).

    Fraud deception was supposed to be carried out via Deut 22. However, the marriage bed sheet is the witness: there is no marriage because there was no covenant established through blood on the sheets. Sure, a husband could go “officially divorce” but there was no marriage in the first place.

    Re: John 8

    Agreed. I don’t know where I stated the contrary. If I did it was a mistake.

    The divorces Moses suffered for “hardness of heart” referred to divorce for other reasons than sexual immorality as Moses faithfully upheld the laws of God. In other words, the divorces weren’t in accordance with Deut 24 because the woman didn’t actually meet its conditions for divorce. See #9 for more on this.

    Notice how TWO questions are asked in Matt and Mark.

    “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife FOR ANY CAUSE?” Matt 19
    “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Mark 10

    The reason why Jesus doesn’t mention porneia in Mark and Luke is because it was already clear from Deut 24 and that was only possible when executions weren’t possible. There was no debate about divorcing for sexual immorality. Call it a “contradiction” all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that porneia has never meant only premarital sex. With your false interpretation, you still have to deal with the fact that porneia doesn’t mean what you say it means. The word itself doesn’t mean falsely representing one’s virginity. It means all manner of sexual sin and it always has. The contradiction from your position between the three gospels is far more glaring than the “contradiction” from mine.

    No, Jesus doesn’t mention porneia in Mark and Luke because of the audience. Since “putting away” is not divorce without the bill of divorcement the Greeks and Romans could not get divorced via Jewish law. Hence, Mark and Luke omit the so-called exception clauses because it wouldn’t make sense for those not familiar with Jewish law. This is why Mark 10 summarily states that any putting away and remarriage altogether is adultery.

    If she is sexually immoral, you can divorce and remarry. In no way does 1 Cor 7 supersede the direct words of Christ. And it’s clear porneia doesn’t refer to only falsely representing one’s virginity.

    Disagreed.

    The problem with this position is that Mark and Luke do not agree with it altogether. Those passages do not allow divorce of any sort period.

    Additionally, Paul directly states that this position to stay single or be reconciled is FROM THE LORD. The Lord would not disagree with Christ.

    If you continue in your false doctrine, you’re liable to judgment. I don’t really know who you are, but I wish I’d caught your posts on Dalrock so you could’ve been corrected there. Porneia alone crushes your entire position.

    I’m not worried about “false doctrine” because my final conclusion is always what Jesus said initially: “What God has put together let man not separate” even for fornicators and adulterers.

    As I’ve already indicated porniea does not not interfere with my position at all. The huge glaring whole in advocating any divorce and remarriage still remains that Mark and Luke do not advocate any such position. Matthew needs to be looked in the context of the Pharisees arguing a legalistic position; hence, what Jesus said initially (“What God has put together let man not separate”) supercedes any of the legalistic loopholes as that is not God’s intention from the beginning.

  86. shammahworm says:

    “Uh, Jesus talks about porniea (all illicit sexual contact) and moicheuo (specifically adultery) in Matthew 19. I have no clue what you’re talking about in regard to him not mentioning moicheuo.”

    Jesus says you can divorce for the cause of porneia instead of moicheuo because moicheuo is a type of porneia and is included.

    “I do, however, agree that under Jewish law that a man could divorce his wife for any porniea that occurred. However, I also believe that Jesus’ statement about what God said from the beginning supercedes that: ‘What God has put together let man not separate'”

    Matthew 19: 9 discredits this. “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Jesus specifically separates those who divorce for sexual immorality from those who divorce for other reasons. Jesus makes this distinction and reiterates that it is still in effect literally a few sentences AFTER the passage in Genesis you quoted. Even if Matt 19 is written for a Jewish audience, they would still need the same teachings of the gentiles if divorce for adultery were no longer allowed by God. But Jesus reiterates that divorce for porneia(all manner of sexual sin including adultery) is still allowed.

    Your claim that it’s a special context addressing the law of Moses just isn’t there. The Jews would still need to know the proper NT teaching on divorce and remarriage. You can’t say divorce is only for falsely representing one’s virginity because it’s not what porneia means.

    Matthew 5 and 19 are NT teachings which are still in effect today. What Jesus said in them is as applicable to us as it was to them.

    “Incorrect, it’s contextual.

    1. Deut 24, Jer 3, Isa 50 all refer to divorce as per the Law of Moses: putting away with a bill of divorcement
    2. Matthew, speaking to a Jewish audience, describes divorce as putting away with a bill of divorcement as in the Law of Moses
    3. Mark and Luke, speaking to a Greek/Roman audience only discuss putting away since putting away was considered divorce.”

    1) Deut 24, Jer 3 and Isa 50 are in a different language. Matt. 19 is in Greek and the closest word that it has to “divorce” was used in the translation.
    2) Matthew describes divorce as putting away with a bill of putting away, not “divorcement” as you claim. I just checked the lexicon. It lists apoluō in verse 7 of Matth. 19. All 3 gospels are discussing divorce as “putting away.” Matthew mentions the bill of divorce as “bill of putting away.”
    3) Wrong. Mark 10 mentions a “certificate of divorce” in verse 4 also. It’s false to assume just because these two gospels were sent abroad that it was intended for Gentiles as there were Greek speaking Jews. Even if Mark and Luke is speaking to a Greek/Roman audience, it’s again false to assume they had no knowledge of the OT and teaching on divorce. A lot of ministry was conducted in synagogues by Paul. There were also Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles who worshiped the Lord BEFORE the gospels of Jesus reached them. They would know Deut. 24 and the main teachings of the Torah.

    “The difference is that there is no so-called “adultery clause” in Mark and Luke.”

    It was already established that a man could divorce his wife for adultery in Deut. 24. There was no need to restate it every time divorce was brought up. That was widely known. The law still commanded adulteresses and those who falsely represented their virginity to be executed. Just because the Jews disobeyed the Torah for fear of the Romans in no way changes that it was a requirement of the law. Deut. 24 was well-known and divorce for porneia(all manner of sexual sin) was already clear.

    You know where these gospels were often read to the believers? Synagogues and meeting places where believing Jews were present. Divorce for porneia would be clear and well-known to many of the believers and teachers already. It’s also why Paul doesn’t mention divorce in 1 Cor. 7. They would get their teachings during their regular readings of scripture and meetings. It wouldn’t be meticulously restated in every situation divorce was brought up.

    You’re attempting to separate Matt. from the other two gospels as somehow dated or less relevant than the others and it’s just not the case. There is an adultery clause.

    “Yes, I agree that God separates when men divorce. I already mentioned ‘let man not separate’ implies man can actually separate. This does not mean it is a good thing to separate.”

    The point is, when a man divorces a woman for porneia, he’s not sinning because God sanctions the divorce and separates the man and the woman. The man can’t commit adultery because he’s severed from the woman and no longer one flesh. Jesus says a man who divorces and remarries IS NOT guilty of adultery or for causing the woman to commit adultery. This is because God has already severed them from one another. Therefore it’s no sin.

    I’m not saying divorce is good. But it’s not sin if done for porneia.

    “My position is what Jesus said: What God has put together let man not separate.”

    No, you’re position is a rearrangement of part of what Jesus said. Jesus gives just such an occasion where HE separates the man and woman a few sentences from where your quote is. You’re pretending it doesn’t exist.

    “The reason why I state “there is no adultery clause” is because it is clear that Jesus’ words on what God said are meant to stand as an example to emulate — What God has put together let no man separate” — irregardless porniea/moicheuo.”

    The fact remains that there is an adultery clause and Jesus Christ – God in the flesh – has just made clear that a man who divorces for porneia isn’t sinning. The Body of Christ is never unfaithful to Him. Jesus doesn’t love His bride(the body of believers throughout human history) as an adulteress because she’s never unfaithful to Him.

    “No, Jesus doesn’t mention porneia in Mark and Luke because of the audience. Since “putting away” is not divorce without the bill of divorcement the Greeks and Romans could not get divorced via Jewish law. Hence, Mark and Luke omit the so-called exception clauses because it wouldn’t make sense for those not familiar with Jewish law. This is why Mark 10 summarily states that any putting away and remarriage altogether is adultery.”

    The audience was aware of other teachings and other scriptures besides just Mark or Luke. All you do when you imply “the audience” were blank slates without any knowledge of the word of God is show your ignorance of said audience. Public readings of letters and scripture was the main way it was spread. These were often conducted at synagogues or in places where Hellenists(Greek speaking Jews) frequented.

    Putting away = divorce in the context of ALL 3 gospels. See above. Contrary to your claim, Mark 10 does mention a “certificate of divorce.” Mark and Luke must be viewed through the lens of the OT just as Matthew is.

    “The problem with this position is that Mark and Luke do not agree with it altogether. Those passages do not allow divorce of any sort period.

    Additionally, Paul directly states that this position to stay single or be reconciled is FROM THE LORD. The Lord would not disagree with Christ.”

    See above again. The audience were not blank slates ignorant of God’s teachings. The NT mentions synagogues with Greeks in attendance, Greeks rejoicing when they hear the Lord is going to them, intermarriage between Greeks and Jews(like Timothy’s parents) and Greek speaking Jews. Mark and Luke must be viewed through the same lens as Matt. in regard to Deut. 24.

    Christ IS the Lord and that’s why He wouldn’t contradict Himself in Deut. 24.

    “I’m not worried about “false doctrine” because my final conclusion is always what Jesus said initially: “What God has put together let man not separate” even for fornicators and adulterers.”

    My conclusion is what Jesus said completely and utterly.

    You’re omitting part of what God said. So, I’ll again say if you continue in these false teachings, you’re a liar and liable to judgment. Adulterers ARE fornicators and it’s God, not man who separates them. Jesus makes that clear a few sentences later. God, not man is the one who separates an adulteress from the man who divorced her. This is why it’s impossible for a man who divorced for porneia to commit adultery(even if it’s only once). They are severed and no longer one flesh BEFORE he marries another woman.

    “As I’ve already indicated porniea does not not interfere with my position at all.”

    It absolutely does.

    “The huge glaring whole in advocating any divorce and remarriage still remains that Mark and Luke do not advocate any such position.”

    They don’t need to because it was already established in Deut. 24. The audiences would absolutely be familiar with it.

    “Matthew needs to be looked in the context of the Pharisees arguing a legalistic position; hence, what Jesus said initially (“What God has put together let man not separate”) supercedes any of the legalistic loopholes as that is not God’s intention from the beginning.”

    Nope, because it’s not in the special context you concocted in your mind. It’s not a “legalistic loophole” when Jesus Christ Himself specifically mentions it and makes it clear that it IS NOT adultery a few sentences after what you keep quoting. From the beginning there was no murder and consequences for murder. It in no way means murderers aren’t to be stopped and punished now.

    “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    Recall that the question asked in Mark is different than the one in Matthew. The question in Matthew asked if divorce was lawful “for any cause.” The question in Mark asks if it’s lawful to divorce at all. It’s no surprise Jesus gave the answer in Matthew that He did since the guy who asked it would know sexual immorality was grounds for divorce if the woman guilty of it couldn’t or wouldn’t be executed. Jesus being God in the flesh knew what the follow-up question would be and had no need to mention porneia “initially.”

    You’re making a grave error when you selectively read what Jesus says in Matthew 19 and cling to part of what He says “initially.” If you continue in these teachings you’re liable to judgment.

  87. Looking Glass says:

    @shammahworm:

    First, just to clear something up. Have you been divorced? If so, did your ex-wife cheat on you? And are you remarried?

    Those needed to be asked because, while you seem fairly intelligent, I can see two fairly big issues with your comments. 1) You’re not as careful with the text as you think you are and 2) you come to a place that’s attempting to deal carefully with the Text and with the Lord, and you start throwing around accusations. It, frankly, reeks of self-justification.

  88. shammahworm says:

    @Looking Glass
    I’ve never at any point in my life been married.

    1) It isn’t at all being “careful with the text” to split up the words of Jesus. It’s a grave error.
    2) I’m not just throwing around accusations. It’s very troubling and strange how Deep Strength is splitting up the portion of Matt. 19 so as to ignore the specific passage where Jesus says divorce for sexual immorality isn’t adultery. He repeatedly emphasizes what Jesus “initially” says and then ignores the specific exception Jesus says in verse 9.

    If you’re referring to what I said to Don, than feel free to look up our past exchanges over at Dalrock’s. I’m not just throwing out an accusation.

    Please tell me if you’re referring to something else I said.

  89. @ shammahworm

    Jesus says you can divorce for the cause of porneia instead of moicheuo because moicheuo is a type of porneia and is included.

    Essentially, this whole argument stems from the meaning of porneia. There is no evidence in the NT to suggest that porniea includes adultery as adultery is specifically distinguished from it.

    Thayers Greek Lexicon — πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω), the Sept. for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulg.fornicatio (and (Revelation 19:2)prostitutio)); used a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Demosthenes, 403, 27; 433, 25): Acts 15:20, 29; Acts 21:25 (that this meaning must be adopted in these passages will surprise no one who has learned from 1 Corinthians 6:12ff how leniently converts from among the heathen regarded this vice and how lightly they indulged in it; accordingly, all other interpretations of the term, such as of marriages within the prohibited degrees and the like, are to be rejected); Romans 1:29 Rec.; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Revelation 9:21; it is distinguished from μοιχεία in Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; and Galatians 5:19 Rec.; used of adultery ((cf. Hosea 2:2 (4), etc.)), Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9.

    It is true: a few lexicons mention that porneia includes adultery. However, they don’t readily speak of the the NT distinguishing of porniea and moicheuo which is tenuous at best.

    This is where most of the disagreement is. However, there are other points which do not support your view as well.

    1) Deut 24, Jer 3 and Isa 50 are in a different language. Matt. 19 is in Greek and the closest word that it has to “divorce” was used in the translation.
    2) Matthew describes divorce as putting away with a bill of putting away, not “divorcement” as you claim. I just checked the lexicon. It lists apoluō in verse 7 of Matth. 19. All 3 gospels are discussing divorce as “putting away.” Matthew mentions the bill of divorce as “bill of putting away.”
    3) Wrong. Mark 10 mentions a “certificate of divorce” in verse 4 also. It’s false to assume just because these two gospels were sent abroad that it was intended for Gentiles as there were Greek speaking Jews. Even if Mark and Luke is speaking to a Greek/Roman audience, it’s again false to assume they had no knowledge of the OT and teaching on divorce. A lot of ministry was conducted in synagogues by Paul. There were also Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles who worshiped the Lord BEFORE the gospels of Jesus reached them. They would know Deut. 24 and the main teachings of the Torah.

    […]

    Putting away = divorce in the context of ALL 3 gospels. See above. Contrary to your claim, Mark 10 does mention a “certificate of divorce.” Mark and Luke must be viewed through the lens of the OT just as Matthew is.

    Ok, it’s clear you haven’t read this post and only what I wrote on Dalrock’s. The Hebrew and Greek have synonymous terms. Bill of divorcement = bill of putting away. It’s the same thing.

    1. Sepher keriythth — Writing and giving the wife a bill of divorcement.
    2. Shalach — Sending her out of the house or away.

    1. Apoluo — Putting away
    2. Apostasion — Writing of divorcement

    1. GREEK Apostasion and HEBREW Sepher keriythth — Writing and giving the wife a bill of divorcement.
    2. GREEK Apoluo and HEBREW Shalach — Sending her out of the house or away.

    Putting away (e.g. apouluo, shalach) is simply not a valid divorce which is why Jesus makes this distinction in the gospels. The problem with interpreting putting away as divorce is that Malachi 2 says God hates putting away.

    13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
    14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
    15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
    16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away (shalach): for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

    Saying that “putting away” = “divorce” and that it’s valid pokes a major hole into your argument. This is why Mark 10 and Luke 16 cannot be reconciled with Matthew. At best, you have one source giving a so-called adultery clause against 2.

    It was already established that a man could divorce his wife for adultery in Deut. 24. There was no need to restate it every time divorce was brought up. That was widely known. The law still commanded adulteresses and those who falsely represented their virginity to be executed. Just because the Jews disobeyed the Torah for fear of the Romans in no way changes that it was a requirement of the law. Deut. 24 was well-known and divorce for porneia(all manner of sexual sin) was already clear.

    Deut 22 establishes that the “marriage” is illegitimate/fraudulent because there is no proof of the blood covered blanket. No blood spilled = no covenant marriage.

    No, you’re position is a rearrangement of part of what Jesus said. Jesus gives just such an occasion where HE separates the man and woman a few sentences from where your quote is. You’re pretending it doesn’t exist.

    False. Jesus gives the ideal. Then He discusses a case that was valid under the old covenant. If you want to cling to things under the old covenant other than what is intended from the beginning be my guest.

    The fact remains that there is an adultery clause and Jesus Christ – God in the flesh – has just made clear that a man who divorces for porneia isn’t sinning. The Body of Christ is never unfaithful to Him. Jesus doesn’t love His bride(the body of believers throughout human history) as an adulteress because she’s never unfaithful to Him.

    What? The body of Christ is never unfaithful? Sin = unfaithfulness.

    Additionally, Hebrew 6 describes apostasy where Christians can walk away from the faith. Revelation 2 and 3 describe places where Christians are unfaithful and should turn from their wickedness.

    Although we are sanctified by grace that doesn’t mean we aren’t unfaithful at times: we are when we sin.

    You’re omitting part of what God said. So, I’ll again say if you continue in these false teachings, you’re a liar and liable to judgment. Adulterers ARE fornicators and it’s God, not man who separates them. Jesus makes that clear a few sentences later. God, not man is the one who separates an adulteress from the man who divorced her. This is why it’s impossible for a man who divorced for porneia to commit adultery(even if it’s only once). They are severed and no longer one flesh BEFORE he marries another woman.

    I’m explaining it in context of Jesus referring to the old covenant. What was created from the beginning is the ideal.

    The rest is repeat material.

  90. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    Yes, you could “divorce” a woman if you found out she wasn’t a virgin prior to marriage via Deut 24 (see Matthew Henry commentary).

    Fraud deception was supposed to be carried out via Deut 22. However, the marriage bed sheet is the witness: there is no marriage because there was no covenant established through blood on the sheets. Sure, a husband could go “officially divorce” but there was no marriage in the first place.

    Almost, but not quite. It’s true about there being a blood/covenant analogy, but like Donal said up-thread:

    The key thing about that passage isn’t that the women wasn’t a virgin- it was that she lied about it. Fraud, in other words. The marriage was induced by fraud, and therefore was invalid- as a contract induced by fraud is invalid and marriage is a contract. Such a woman could be put away then, because it never arose to a marriage where a divorce was possible. Remember that plenty of non-virgin women, women and former harlots alike, married in the OT. If the determining factor was virginity, then those marriages were unlawful. But no hint is ever given of that, and for good reason- they were lawful. And that is because there was no fraud.

    Take Ruth and Boaz, for example. Ruth was a widow, meaning she wasn’t a virgin when she married Boaz. No blood on the sheets. But their marriage was every bit as much of a covenant marriage as it would’ve been had she been a virgin at the time. Had she claimed to be a virgin, however, then it wouldn’t have been a covenant marriage.

  91. @ FBNF

    Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten that part.

  92. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten that part.

    You’re welcome. 🙂

  93. shammahworm says:

    Just to be clear, a man can’t retroactively divorce a woman for being a non-virgin if he knew about her sexual history when he married her. I think we’re in agreement on this.

    @FBNF
    You’re right about non-virgins being married if the sexual history of those involved isn’t hidden.

    Deut. 22 required the death penalty for falsely representing one’s virginity. It doesn’t give grounds for divorce. Joseph found out Mary was pregnant and had never made any attempt to consummate the marriage. While it’s true the death penalty wasn’t really carried out in the time of Jesus, the law did still require it. Divorce would only be possible in this situation if the leaders of the community were disobeying the law.

    Deut. 24 is the actual passage that addresses divorce and it refers to divorces after the marriage is consummated.

  94. shammahworm says:

    “Essentially, this whole argument stems from the meaning of porneia. There is no evidence in the NT to suggest that porniea includes adultery as adultery is specifically distinguished from it.”

    The NT NEVER distinguishes adultery from fornication. Look at Galatians 5: 19-21 and how many of the sins overlap and go together. For this quote I’ll use the KJV.

    “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

    Hatred is murder, witchcraft is idolatry, adultery(moicheuo) is fornication(porneia). Jesus uses porneia instead of moicheuo in Matt. 19: 9 because adultery AND falsely representing one’s virginity are grounds for divorce. He needed a broader term to describe all manner of sexual sin.

    Porneia is used to describe adultery in 1 Cor 5: 1. Here’s another quote from the KJV.

    “It is reported commonly that there is FORNICATION among you, and such FORNICATION as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.” Notice how Paul is using fornication as an umbrella term for all sexual sin and then brings up an adulterous relationship as one such example. Porneia is the word he uses. This means two things.

    1) That moicheuo(adultery specifically) is a type of porneia(all manner of sexual sin) according to the definitions from the lexicon you provided. Adultery is most certainly “illicit sexual intercourse.”
    2) Porneia includes adultery in ALL the other passages you quoted.

    If you try to find some reason for saying the lexicon excludes adultery, then the lexicon is wrong because porneia is used to describe adultery in the scripture itself.

    “It is true: a few lexicons mention that porneia includes adultery. However, they don’t readily speak of the the NT distinguishing of porniea and moicheuo which is tenuous at best.”

    1 Cor. 5: 1 is probably why other lexicons include adultery in their definitions. See above. There isn’t a special separation between adultery and other extramarital sex any more than there is a separation between abortion and murder.

    “Ok, it’s clear you haven’t read this post and only what I wrote on Dalrock’s. The Hebrew and Greek have synonymous terms. Bill of divorcement = bill of putting away. It’s the same thing.”

    The lexicon I was using listed Matt. 19: 7 as having apouluo. I’ve checked them more and your position is still false. Read on for the errors you’re making.

    “Putting away (e.g. apouluo, shalach) is simply not a valid divorce which is why Jesus makes this distinction in the gospels. The problem with interpreting putting away as divorce is that Malachi 2 says God hates putting away.”

    http://biblehub.com/lexicon/matthew/19-9.htm

    Except it is. Jesus uses apouluo(apolusē is the actual conjugation) in Matthew 19: 9 not Apostasion. So even if we accept your definitions, your position crumbles because the actual “divorce” Jesus mentions in Matt. 19: 9 is “putting away” and not the special “bill of divorce” that you say. A man ISN’T guilty of adultery for “putting away” for porneia.

    You said Jesus was answering strictly to address legalism and the law of Moses in Matt. 19. But this is false because Jesus uses “putting away” in the adultery clause and not “certificate of divorce.” Which means,

    1) “Putting away” means divorce in Matthew.
    2) It’s not strictly addressing the law of Moses because that would require the use of the word apostasion if what you say is true about the distinctions between the two words.
    3) A wife can be “put away” for sexual immorality and the man can remarry without sinning.

    You also said there was no mention of a certificate of divorce in Luke or Mark when there is in Mark 10: 4. It means those who read and heard Mark would certainly have a basic understanding of Deut. 24 contrary to your claims.

    You destroy your own position in trying to distinguish these two words because Jesus doesn’t use the term for certificate of divorce where he says a man can “put away(divorce)” a sexually immoral woman. He uses apouluo(apolusē).

    “For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away (shalach): for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”

    The Lord hates all forms of sin and their painful consequences. Saying God hates divorce in no way alters or implies divorce for sexual immorality is sin. The ideal is already broken when the wife joins herself in one body to one other than her husband. Of course if she repents she is forgiven. But she still must face the earthly consequences for the sin.

    “This is why Mark 10 and Luke 16 cannot be reconciled with Matthew. At best, you have one source giving a so-called adultery clause against 2.”

    I can’t reconcile something that was never in disagreement in the first place. In one of your earlier posts, you said there was no reference to a “certificate of divorce” in Mark or Luke. That’s false(Mark 10: 4). The audience for Mark and Luke most certainly knew Deut. 24 and that’s why the adultery clause wasn’t restated. And to top it all off, Jesus uses apolusē to describe divorce in Matt. 19: 9. You literally quote it with “putting away” in your article.

    Let me quote what you said from your last comment, “No, Jesus doesn’t mention porneia in Mark and Luke because of the audience. Since “putting away” is not divorce without the bill of divorcement the Greeks and Romans could not get divorced via Jewish law.”

    The problem is Jesus uses “putting away” in Matt. 19: 9.

    If what the Pharisees asked Jesus was a trap to potentially get Him to contradict Jewish law(no certificate of divorce), Jesus stepped right into it!

    “Deut 22 establishes that the “marriage” is illegitimate/fraudulent because there is no proof of the blood covered blanket. No blood spilled = no covenant marriage.”

    But girls/women in this situation were required to be executed. We both know Moses carried this out exactly how it was written. Divorce in this situation wasn’t possible under the law. Deut. 24 refers to divorce AFTER the consummation of the marriage.

    Joseph didn’t try to consummate the marriage with Mary because he assumed it would be discovered she wasn’t a virgin and he would be required to report her to the leaders of the community who would then have an obligation to execute her. They’d be breaking Deut. 22 if they didn’t.

    “False. Jesus gives the ideal.”

    Part of the ideal is the wife staying faithful. Once she’s no longer faithful, the entire ideal has already gone out the window.

    From the beginning there was no idolatry, so no consequences for it.
    From the beginning there was no murder, so no consequences for it.
    From the beginning there was no adultery, so no consequences for it.

    Continuously saying what the ideal is means nothing when it’s already broken.

    “Then He discusses a case that was valid under the old covenant. If you want to cling to things under the old covenant other than what is intended from the beginning be my guest.”

    This destroys your position. Jesus uses apoluō to describe divorce which according to you is “under the old covenant.” But based on your own definitions and the distinction between the two words you emphasize, this is unlawful and no divorce at all because “putting away” =/= divorce. It’s further proof what Jesus says is NT teaching still in effect today.

    “What? The body of Christ is never unfaithful? Sin = unfaithfulness.”

    Nope, the Body of Christ – His virgin Bride – is 100% guaranteed to be faithful before, during and after the marriage supper now and forever amen.

    Here is a definition of the Body of Christ. 1 Cor. 12: 12-13, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

    Together believers are married as one body to God. But individually, we are God’s children. This is why Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son and not the prodigal wife. No matter how many members sin and fail to live as God wants, it’s impossible for the entire body to join itself to another or defile itself. The Christians who’ve gone to sleep are part of the same body as we are.

    “Additionally, Hebrew 6 describes apostasy where Christians can walk away from the faith. Revelation 2 and 3 describe places where Christians are unfaithful and should turn from their wickedness.

    Although we are sanctified by grace that doesn’t mean we aren’t unfaithful at times: we are when we sin.”

    Completely agree. But this is as a repentant child returning to his father. Not an adulteress returning to her husband. There are always people faithful to God regardless of who falls away and is cut off. Hence, there is always the virgin Bride of Christ.

    “I’m explaining it in context of Jesus referring to the old covenant.”

    Again, Jesus uses apouluo(in verse 9 of Matt. 19) when He supposedly refers to the old covenant. But He doesn’t mention the certificate of divorce as you claim He must.

    You’re going back and forth from “putting away isn’t divorce” to “Matt. 19: 9 where Jesus uses ‘putting away’ is in reference to the Old Covenant divorce.” But your own definitions make this impossible.

    “What was created from the beginning is the ideal.”

    See above. The ideal is already broken. It’s great if a man stays with an unfaithful wife and indeed he must if he’s made the promise and the decision to. But we can’t act like that is a picture of Christ and the church because it’s not. A man has the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality. It’s no sin.

  95. @ shammahworm

    I see we are getting nowhere because of inability to agree on terms and context of the verses. For example, Galatians 5 supports my argument that porneia is differentiated from moicheuo in the NT. Otherwise there’s no point using subsequent distinguishing words. However, you claim it supports yours because of so called overlap.

    Unfortunately, Deut 24, Malachi 2, Mark 10, Luke 16, 1 Cor 7 go against the Matthew 19 position that “putting away” means “divorce.” Furthermore Luke 16 and Mark 10 give no exception clauses. Hence, the position I take that Matthew is referring to Deut 22 instead of Deut 24 unifies God’s position throughout Scripture as opposed to having it contradict each other which your view does.

    This paper sums up the position I take with one exception. The author believes that it is OK to remarry if unjustly divorced whereas I do not believe the Scriptures advocate such as position because of the explanation in 1 Cor 7 to stay single or reconcile.

    http://www.academia.edu/3622738/What_Jesus_Really_Said_Putting_Away_the_Mistranslations_about_Divorce

    If that doesn’t convince you then ultimately we will have to agree to disagree.

  96. shammahworm says:

    “I see we are getting nowhere because of inability to agree on terms and context of the verses.”

    Your own definition of porneia that you linked backs my position. Adultery IS fornication and it IS “of illicit sexual intercourse in general.”

    “For example, Galatians 5 supports my argument that porneia is differentiated from moicheuo in the NT.”

    No it doesn’t and you were told exactly why.

    1) Porneia is used to describe adultery.
    2) Many of the other sins mentioned DO overlap. Hatred IS murder. Witchcraft IS idolatry. Adultery IS fornication. It’s not “so-called overlap.” They do overlap.

    “Otherwise there’s no point using subsequent distinguishing words.”

    There are no distinguishing words. As you’ve been shown many times, the reason why Jesus uses porneia instead of adultery is because a man has the right to divorce his wife if she lied about her sexual history AND also for adultery. If a man is married to a woman for decades and finds out she lied about her sexual history before she was married to him, he has the right to divorce and remarry.

    “Unfortunately, Deut 24”

    Deut. 24 refers to divorces after the marriage is consummated. Women who were found not to be virgins at the consummation of their marriages had to be stoned according to Deut. 22: 21-22. Divorce for what was described in Deut. 22 was impossible for this reason. There was no “sending away” in Deut. 22. Stoning was required. The leaders of the community were in rebellion to God if they didn’t do this.

    “But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

    BOTH “SENDING AWAY” AND “BILL OF DIVORCEMENT” were impossible in this case. Moses obeyed this exactly how God commanded him. So we know that Deut. 24 is referring to divorces for people AFTER they have consummated their marriages and been living together for some time.

    “Malachi 2”

    As stated before, God hates all sin and consequences for sin. God hates punishing people even though His judgments are perfect. It in no way implies that divorce isn’t allowed. Jesus says in Matt. 19: 9 that divorce and remarriage for porneia ISN’T adultery. What’s ironic is based on your definitions, Jesus still specifically states that “putting away” for sexual immorality isn’t adultery. We know He’s not referring to Deut. 22 because Deut. 22 commands execution and doesn’t allow for divorce at all.

    “Mark 10, Luke 16, 1 Cor 7 go against the Matthew 19 position that “putting away” means “divorce.” Furthermore Luke 16 and Mark 10 give no exception clauses.”

    Deut. 24 was widely known. There was no debate over divorce for adultery and therefore no reason to restate it. Mark 10: 4 does mention a certificate of divorce contrary to your claims. That means its audience would absolutely know sexual immorality was grounds for divorce per Deut. 24. Luke and 1 Cor. were letters which were read among people who would know or have teachers who knew Deut. 24.

    This also was already pointed out and you’re now refusing to acknowledge it.

    “Hence, the position I take that Matthew is referring to Deut 22 instead of Deut 24 unifies God’s position throughout Scripture as opposed to having it contradict each other which your view does.”

    It doesn’t “unify” anything because at no point does Deut. 22 authorize a divorce. If a man claimed his bride wasn’t a virgin one of two things happened.

    1) No bloody sheets were found and the woman was stoned to death.
    2) She was found to be a virgin and the man was severely penalized. It even says he “can’t divorce her” all his days.

    This is why Joseph wouldn’t consummate the marriage with Mary. Because she would’ve presumably been found not to be a virgin and Joseph would’ve had a duty to report her to the leaders of the community. They would’ve had a duty to execute her. Joseph wouldn’t have had a divorce option.

    You’re position is demonstrably false. You’re making up an option to divorce in Deut. 22 and you’re making up a definition for porneia which it has never had. This is what’s contradictory.

    There is no equivalent between the virgin Bride of Christ and an adulteress.

  97. Pingback: On divorce Part 3 | Christianity and the manosphere

  98. shammahworm says:

    That pingback is just a rehash of the same heresies you put forth this past October.

  99. Pingback: DS’ False Divorce Teaching | Shammah Worm

  100. Interestingly, we both seem to be heretics according to wormtongue.

    1. Putting away is NOT divorce in the Scriptures. It is a two part process of putting away and a bill of divorcement. – Deut 22, 24; Mal 2; Jer 3; Isa 50; Matt 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16

    This is correct, but “putting away” is also a sin, the violation of the law that *if* a man is to put away his wife he is to *put in her hand* a certificate of divorce. Thus, for someone speaking of a lawful action, a divorce (putting the certificate of divorce in her hand and sending her away) can be referred to as both putting away and divorce, because merely putting away a wife is a sin.

    2. God and Jesus’ plan for marriage is that “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” – Gen 2, Matt 19; Mark 10

    Half right, this is the standard of Genesis 2:24, which was the authority to initiate marriage but not to terminate marriage. Likewise, there was no restriction on the authority to initiate marriage, so the standard of Genesis 2:24 that Jesus referenced when He said “but from the beginning it has not been this way” is the man gives permanent (no divorce) but non-exclusive (no restriction on number of wives) commitment to the woman. By law, the woman gives him permanent (until he dies) and exclusive commitment.

    3. There is no get-out-of-marriage adultery clause. Who you are married to you should stay married to regardless of any sins they commit. This is a hard word as even the disciples said it was better not to marry. – Matt; 19, Mark 10, Luke 16

    Partially right, partially wrong, this depends on the status of the person. Are they in Christ or not? If they are, then they have instruction in this area from Christ. If not, they have instruction from Moses. This is one of the only 2 bifurcations of the Law I know of, comparing the Law with the specific instructions for the church.

    The Law cannot be changed and in Matthew 19, while Christ cited the original standard of Genesis 2:24 (permanent but non-exclusive commitment by the man- no divorce), He also acknowledged and interpreted the standard of Moses (Deut. 24:1). So, for men who are under the Law, they may divorce their wife for adultery.

    In the beginning, there was no divorce because Genesis 2:24 gave no authority to do that. Then Moses came along and allowed it. Later, Christ, who has the authority to instruct and set the requirements for His house, instructed His married bondservants there was to be no divorce. The wife is not to separate herself, but if she does she is still married and is to remain single or be reconciled. The husband is not to divorce his fellow bondservant wife.

    Paul gave further instruction to the bondservants unequally yoked, married to unbelievers. If they abandoned the believer, the believer was no longer bound to them in marriage.

    4. Under Jewish law, according to Jesus: You can put away your wife if she fornicated prior to marriage and committed fraud by claiming she was a virgin as the blood on the sheet proved her testimony false (no blood was spilled making it a covenant marriage). – Deut 22, Matthew 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16,

    You are off point and out to lunch on this one. Sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her, and the chart I linked for you lays it out for you, but essentially we see in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that a woman can be raped against her will and if discovered (the evidence says she was raped) she is married. The word in the phrase “she shall become his wife” is the same word in “they shall become one flesh” in Genesis 2:24, which occurs during the act of consummation.

    The woman in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 was guilty of adultery, the question was with whom. If she had sex prior to becoming betrothed (she lied about it) she was married and when she had sex with her betrothed on the wedding night she and he committed adultery. If she was a virgin and had sex during the period of betrothal (she was not eligible to marry so no marriage resulted) she committed adultery against her betrothed. There is no “fornication” or “premarital sex” because she was married to whatever guy broke her hymen in that moment, according to Genesis 2:24. If you want to see a detailed exegesis on Deut. 22:13-21, I have one for you, but look at the bottom of the chart I linked for you under the “advanced Easter Bunny training… words mean things.” You’ll find what you’re looking for there.

    5. Under Jewish law: Wives are bound to their husbands as long as they live [or until their husbands divorce them which was not said]. – Rom 7, Deut 24

    Nothing changed this, the exception (that Jesus mentioned) being under the Law that the husband could divorce a wife who committed porneia (adultery). If she is a Christian married to a Christian, she is bound to that guy until he dies, no exceptions.

    6. If a spouse leaves stay single or be reconciled. – 1 Cor 7

    Correct, but only for wives. Husbands do not have that option because they are commanded to live with their wives (1st Peter 3:7) and love their wives as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5) and we know that Christ will never abandon His believers.

    7. If an unbelieving spouse leaves you are not under bondage. This can still be liberally interpreted as being able to remarry; however, the prior part of the chapter tends to speak against it since it says to stay single or reconcile. Note the wording: “10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord … [remain unmarried or reconcile]” versus “12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if [they leave you are not under bondage].” I take this to generally mean that “not under bondage” means that you are absolved of your marriage duties, but given the context of the wording about the Lord saying versus Paul saying it would seem that stay unmarried or be reconciled is the ideal. Remarriage is likely not an option. – 1 Cor 7

    Three groups, three different standards for divorce:

    Christian man married to Christian woman: 1st Corinthians 7:10-11
    Christian spouse married to unbelieving spouse: 1st Corinthians 7:12-15
    Unbelieving man married to any woman: Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Matthew 19:9

    You do not understand the difference in status. If you look carefully at 1st Corinthians 7:10-15, you will see two different authorities (Christ and the Apostle Paul) giving instruction to two different groups (believers married to believers and those believers unequally yoked to an unbeliever). The Christian wife who leaves (verses 10-11) is not the Christian wife who was abandoned, and even if she leaves she is still married. Not so if the Christian wife is abandoned by her unbelieving husband. Then she is free to remarry and the Apostle Paul was clear about that.

    8. Remarriage is a singular sin and not perpetual adultery This is one of the falsely propagated conclusions from the heretical “You can divorce your spouse if they commit adultery” exegesis. However, the act of remarriage is a sin since the ideal is to stay single or reconcile. The important thing to understand is that it is a singular sin and not a constant state of sin. Confess your sins to God and repent. – Matt 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16; 1 Cor 7

    Remarriage for those eligible to marry is not a sin at all under any circumstances. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 proves this, in that the woman legitimately remarried repeatedly, but was only divorced for her adultery. The husband could not take her back after divorcing her, not because she had married again but because to do so would be to ratify (that is, accept) her sin of adultery.

    “However, the act of remarriage is a sin since the ideal is to stay single or reconcile”

    Again, you confuse those who are governed by the Law and those who have received specific instruction from Christ because they are His bondservants. So-called “remarriage” for someone who is not eligible to marry (because they were still married) is adultery and it will always be adultery to be joined to another mans wife. A Christian woman who is separated from her Christian husband is married to him no matter what some state court judge says because no earthly judge has the authority to over-ride the instruction of either God or Christ.

    9. Those already remarried in their second and third marriages are NOT to divorce and reconcile with their first spouse. This follows out of #8 because the heretical interpretation is perpetual adultery with the new spouse. Hence, divorce and reconcile and remarry with the first spouse. Rather, this view goes against what Deuteronomy 24 says in that if a first husband divorces a wife and another marries her even if she is divorced or her husband dies then she is not to remarry him again. – Deut 24, Matthew 19

    If a person is married, they are to stay married. If a person is in adultery, they are to stop committing adultery.

    “perpetual adultery with the new spouse”

    If a woman is already married, she cannot marry again because she is not eligible to marry. Thus, if she is “joined” to another man, she is known as an adulteress and with every single act of sex with a man other than her husband she commits adultery.

    Again, in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the woman was *legitimately* divorced and no longer married. He couldn’t take her back, not because of some default in her marital status, but because of what she did. If he took her back he would ratify her adultery.

    ______________________________________________________

    What the Bible says about divorce: Marriages have three different statuses, as listed above:

    1. For a man who is under the law, if his woman (regardless of her status) commits adultery, he can give her a certificate of divorce and send her away. She may remarry. Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Matthew 19:9

    2. For a Christian who is married to an unbeliever. The Christian is to stay with the unbeliever and not leave or divorce them, but if the unbeliever leaves, they are no longer bound to that marriage, they are free. They may remarry. 1st Corinthians 7:12-15

    3. For the Christian who is married to a Christian, Christ has given his instruction that there is to be no divorce for any reason. The wife is commanded not to leave, but if she does she is to remain single or be reconciled. The husband is commanded not to divorce her. 1st Corinthians 7:10-11

  101. Pingback: On divorce Part 4 | Christianity and masculinity

  102. JamesWatchman says:

    I see that you’re blocking comments on some threads because you can’t accept the fact that you are wrong about divorce. So God would keep a man shackled to a marriage that doesn’t exist because his wife decided to be unfaithful and have an affair and get remarried? Please don’t twist Jesus’ words to suit this ridiculous idea.

  103. @ JamesWatchman

    The fact is that are no new arguments, so discussion is just pointless bickering.

    Still, I find it interesting that my position on divorce, which was the position of the early Church fathers, is so obviously wrong to a lot of people.

    People are free to believe what they want to believe though.

  104. K Bailey says:

    It breaks my heart to see such judgment,stone throwing to women
    In all this are women that love the Lord ,with all they have!What are the men doing ?judging of course.We all know the scriptures,Interpertatoins are cheap without Love
    Children are usually with the mother than they get hit by the same stones
    Then we have so much pain its inconsolable YES or NO is this my Lord? no its not my Lord
    Karen

  105. @K Bailey:

    Women cause & file the vast majority of divorces, even among “Christians”. Which also means they generally aren’t Christian.

    Try living in the real world; not the world of your pathetic delusions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s