I misled us on the issue of divorce - wrong interpretation

[GodsGrace]

Not only do I agree with you Jethro, I find some to be a little self-righteous. Like they know more about Jesus than I ever could. That's like my friend "Mary" up the block, telling me she knows my husband better than I do because they speak the same mother language...

W

 

[JohnDB]

I find the argument for 'put away' instead of 'divorce' to be the most irrelevant part of your argument. If I understand the argument correctly, you are saying it's okay to 'divorce' a person who is not a good follower of God (even though Paul says not to), but it's not okay to 'put away' a spouse by conveniently sending them away without an actual divorce because that is when their remarrying would be adultery (IOW, no divorce has occurred to set them free to do that).

If there's one thing I've learned from talking to others on-line....do not get your spiritual guidance and insights from Jews! The only exception are Spirit-filled Jews in the church, but even then, be careful. We love to exalt Jews as somehow being close to God and enlightened by virtue of them being Jews but the exact opposite is true. They do NOT have the Spirit of God, and in fact have rejected the Savior outright. Everything they say is tainted by Spiritless, legalistic worldliness. Do not listen to them. Centuries have proven that the Bible in it's plain unadulterated form is in fact the counsel of the Spirit to the church. There is little to no need to reach outside of the Bible for extra spiritual insight. The Jews have no valuable spiritual insights into the life and ways of a Savior they have rejected and outlawed in their own country.

Talk to the hand Rabbi so-and-so. You couldn't even recognize your own Savior!

It is THE most relevant information.

Look at the ISR98 translation. It's a Messianic Jewish translation. It has no European influence in it.

It's translated correctly.

It shows what was said. Look at Matt 5&19 again without the bias from England or Catholics.

This all goes to the character of the man Jesus, the God/man.
There's something different being said that makes sense and the bar much higher than you are setting it with a codified law.

Motives and intentions and heart condition are impossible to get a loophole in.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It is THE most relevant information.

Look at the ISR98 translation. It's a Messianic Jewish translation. It has no European influence in it.

It's translated correctly.

It shows what was said. Look at Matt 5&19 again without the bias from England or Catholics.

No, you're not understanding. It isn't the translation that is causing the problem as you suggest. There is, practically speaking, no difference between 'putting away' a wife, and 'divorcing' a wife. To put away a wife is to divorce a wife. A certificate of divorce was exactly how you sent a wife away:

31“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY (puts her away), LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces (puts away) his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced (put away) woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32 NASB capitals in original parenthesis mine)

You are trying to make a distinction between 'putting away' a wife, and 'divorcing' a wife, that does not exist.

 

[JohnDB]

No, you're not understanding. It isn't the translation that is causing the problem as you suggest. There is, practically speaking, no difference between 'putting away' a wife, and 'divorcing' a wife. To put away a wife is to divorce a wife. A certificate of divorce was exactly how you sent a wife away:

31“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY (puts her away), LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces (puts away) his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced (put away) woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32 NASB capitals in original parenthesis mine)

You are trying to make a distinction between 'putting away' a wife, and 'divorcing' a wife, that does not exist.

There may not be any difference to you but to those women who were "put away/sent away" with no access to the courts, who had no income potential, who could only commit adultery either by prostitution or marrying someone else it was a world of difference. If they ever got found out it would be a death sentence by stoning.

What I'm telling you is that since the husband's could practice polygamy they wouldn't necessarily give their wives a certificate of divorce. That's what the fullness of the famous passages where God is quoted as saying, "I hate divorce" is talking about because the "putting away" God equated to abuse which He hates more.

 

[reba]

Government laws ... the access to courts .. does not change the Word of God..

 

[JohnDB]

Government laws ... the access to courts .. does not change the Word of God..

Quite right.

Today legality has nothing to do with morality and righteous behavior to God.

The new standards of acceptable behavior is much higher than any codified law...and that blade is two sided and razor sharp.

God and I both hate divorce... With a passion. But we hate abuse more. And I feel really bad about those who are going to face judgement for their abuse.

 

[reba]

you are confusing me

 

[evenifigoalone]

I have to wonder why scripture is silent on it. Clearly God hates the mistreatment of another human being, more than half of the commandments are about our treatment of others.

 

[reba]

I dont think the scripture is silent... Men love your wives as Christ loves the Church

 

[evenifigoalone]

Well yeah. I mean more that none of the scriptures on separation and divorce address abuse situations.

 

[JohnDB]

Well yeah. I mean more that none of the scriptures on separation and divorce address abuse situations.

Actually it does.
I explained this more fully in a looong post previously. But essentially it went unread and glossed over.

The passage so often quoted where God hates divorce is the very passage where God talks about hating abuse more than divorce. It's very clear when verse numbers are removed.

And then:

The "pornea" noun is a reference to being unfaithful to God. Same reference as in Hosea, and other prophetic books about those behaving unfaithfully to God.
This covers a multitude of behaviors including drug use, physical abuse, excessive gambling, infidelity and etc.

This is where it gets tougher.
Because now it isn't about a particular act but more about a heart condition. None of these individual acts alone are grounds enough for divorce. People are known for momentary stupidity. But that doesn't mean that they really ever gave up their devotion to God or even desired to.
And that is part of what Jesus was talking about.

It's not OK to subscribe to a pornographic magazine. Because according to Jesus that is adultery. But should a wife have a clear conscience in divorcing him when she knew going into the marriage that he viewed such things regularly?
Of course not. But she probably shouldn't have married him to begin with. Her focus wasn't on God when wanting to marry him to begin with.

I understand that this is confusing because it's new to your ears.
But really, Jesus was here and made it abundantly clear that the New Covenant was about your heart and not about codifying a new set of rules.

Another instance in the opposite direction is where a Christian woman and man got married and were happy for years. One day she decided she wanted to give up all that "Christian mumbo jumbo" and began to give a good sized portion of their income to various charities and help these charities such as the LGBT alliance and Atheists Against Christ by attending meetings and printing brochures as well as handing them out at busy intersections. But she didn't have an affair nor was abusive to anyone.

But God is also clear that we aren't to assist the wicked in being more wicked either.

Hummm...

Codified law says that the husband can't divorce her...but this New Covenant says to kick that heathen to the curb in a New York minute.

Again this New Covenant is all about your heart and devotion to God.
My feelings, wants, and whining aren't relevant.
Paul was shown how much he was going to suffer for the Gospel... Not how happy/joyful or how his spouse was going to be responsible for his happiness.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Codified law says that the husband can't divorce her...but this New Covenant says to kick that heathen to the curb in a New York minute.

I find that utterly abhorrent, but anyway, if what you say is true, explain what I do with this again?:

"if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away." (1 Corinthians 7:12-13 NASB)


.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The "pornea" noun is a reference to being unfaithful to God. Same reference as in Hosea, and other prophetic books about those behaving unfaithfully to God.
This covers a multitude of behaviors including drug use, physical abuse, excessive gambling, infidelity and etc.

The word pornea is not spiritual adultery against God. Sexual sin--pornea--is used to describe spiritual adultery against God. Pornea is sexual sin. The prophets used human sexual sin to illustrate spiritual unfaithfulness to God. Jesus is not saying you can divorce a spouse on the grounds of spiritual unfaithfulness against God just because the prophets used sexual sin to illustrate unfaithfulness to God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I explained this more fully in a looong post previously. But essentially it went unread and glossed over.

By the way, I read it and studied it. But it is so convoluted, and addresses more than one issue, that I suspect few are going to take the time to understand it. It took me a while to sort it out.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Codified law says that the husband can't divorce her......but this New Covenant says to kick that heathen to the curb in a New York minute.

Wait, wait, wait.....I just caught this.

Codified law most certainly does say the husband can divorce her:

“Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” (Mark 10:3 NASB capitals and italics in original)

But then Jesus says this is the way it really is, and has been from the beginning...

"5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation,God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

10In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”
(Mark 10:5-12 NASB capitals and italics in original)

It's easy to see that neither Jesus nor the Pharisees are talking about just 'putting away', but putting away a spouse with a divorce. And he says you were allowed to do that under the law but you are not allowed to do that now....except for the cause of sexual sin. But you have it turned around the other way that codified law prohibited divorce and that now he's saying we can divorce.

Notice also how verses 11 and 12 remove the argument that the husband who gets rid of his wife is guilty of adultery only in that he is enabling his wife to commit adultery. Remember, your argument about that was the basis for saying polygamy is still okay to do. But since this passage shows us the clear distinction between the adultery of the woman who has been put away (through a certificate of divorce) and the adultery of the man upon remarrying the argument that remarriage of the man is not adultery can not stand.

 

[GodsGrace]

It is THE most relevant information.

Look at the ISR98 translation. It's a Messianic Jewish translation. It has no European influence in it.

It's translated correctly.

It shows what was said. Look at Matt 5&19 again without the bias from England or Catholics.

This all goes to the character of the man Jesus, the God/man.
There's something different being said that makes sense and the bar much higher than you are setting it with a codified law.

Motives and intentions and heart condition are impossible to get a loophole in.

Couldn't you have posted the ISR98 translation?
Some here may not even know what it is. Myself included.

Your post no. 271 speaks to matters of the heart.
I understand very much from your posts that everything is a matter of the heart. But you mean it in a different way than I do. You always make it sound like one could do whatever he wishes because it's a matter of his heart.

God wants our heart - not our good works. But if we love God with our heart, good works will follow.
In my heart I may want to leave my husband, but if I'm to follow God's words, then I must stay with him. My heart wanting to leave him cannot supersede God's law in having to stay with him. (let's leave abuse out of this for the sake of this argument).

I either totally misunderstand you (which I don't think I do from other posts) or you take God's love to an extreme that no longer makes your type of Christianity perceptible to me. Or others on this thread, I think. You always seem to be saying that we could do whatever we want to.

In a previous post you speak to the difference between "putting away" a wife and divorcing a wife. You bring up the fact that a put away wife would have problems economically and have no legal recourse. Would this change for a divorced wife? Would the husband, in this case, be forced to maintain her? What legal recourse would she have? If I remember correctly, women had more rights in Moses' time than in Jesus' time. In Jesus' time women that were divorced were in a very bad situation. Please comment.

W

 

[Hospes]

JDB,
As I follow your reasoning I track it until you make a leap that leaves me scratching my head. For instance:

The "pornea" noun is a reference to being unfaithful to God. Same reference as in Hosea, and other prophetic books about those behaving unfaithfully to God.

Agreed. We adulterate ourselves when we place anything in higher priority than God. The OT passages use the word for marital infidelity to describe the act of of prostituting ourselves to other gods...

This covers a multitude of behaviors including drug use, physical abuse, excessive gambling, infidelity and etc.

The other gods we prostitute ourselves with are innumerable and include what you list here. Our hearts truly are "idol factories".

This is where it gets tougher.
Because now it isn't about a particular act but more about a heart condition. None of these individual acts alone are grounds enough for divorce. People are known for momentary stupidity. But that doesn't mean that they really ever gave up their devotion to God or even desired to.
And that is part of what Jesus was talking about.

The reason I find that "it gets tougher" is that you make an irrational leap in your reasoning. Yes, it's a heart condition. Yes, we show ourselves unfaithful to God in a myriad of ways. But this does not lead to "None of these individual acts alone are grounds enough for divorce." God has very good reason to divorce every one of us. And your statement "But that doesn't mean that they really ever gave up their devotion to God or even desired to." is phenomenally incorrect. When we place another god before the One True Holy God, it isn't "momentary stupidity." It is leaving the fount of living water, the bread of life, the satisfaction above all others, and whoring ourselves to something akin to a $20 whore. Words cannot describe the moral stench of such "momentary stupidity."

As I said, God has every reason to divorce me. The point of the New Covenant isn't that sin is not so bad anymore, it is that Jesus' work of the Cross takes whore mongers as myself and reconciles them to a ever-faithful and all-satisfying Husband. Such grace!! This is the same grace to be displayed in our earthly and temporary marriages. If Christians showed as much interest in how to display such grace as they do how to justify divorce, there would be no divorce among them.

 

[JohnDB]

JDB,
As I follow your reasoning I track it until you make a leap that leaves me scratching my head. For instance:

Agreed. We adulterate ourselves when we place anything in higher priority than God. The OT passages use the word for marital infidelity to describe the act of of prostituting ourselves to other gods...
The other gods we prostitute ourselves with are innumerable and include what you list here. Our hearts truly are "idol factories".
The reason I find that "it gets tougher" is that you make an irrational leap in your reasoning. Yes, it's a heart condition. Yes, we show ourselves unfaithful to God in a myriad of ways. But this does not lead to "None of these individual acts alone are grounds enough for divorce." God has very good reason to divorce every one of us. And your statement "But that doesn't mean that they really ever gave up their devotion to God or even desired to." is phenomenally incorrect. When we place another god before the One True Holy God, it isn't "momentary stupidity." It is leaving the fount of living water, the bread of life, the satisfaction above all others, and whoring ourselves to something akin to a $20 whore. Words cannot describe the moral stench of such "momentary stupidity."

As I said, God has every reason to divorce me. The point of the New Covenant isn't that sin is not so bad anymore, it is that Jesus' work of the Cross takes whore mongers as myself and reconciles them to a ever-faithful and all-satisfying Husband. Such grace!! This is the same grace to be displayed in our earthly and temporary marriages. If Christians showed as much interest in how to display such grace as they do how to justify divorce, there would be no divorce among them.

One of the first allegory Jesus spoke was a parable of four soils.
The human heart being soul types.
And again in Luke we have a series of four sins ending with two sins told in the Prodigal Son story.

Jesus is extremely adept at knowing who we are and how we sin.

That being said, we are to "give unto Caesar what is his and to God what is God's.

It is also said that we are to love God so much that we are to hate our Parents by comparison.

Marriage is difficult for a believer. To walk that line between pleasing God and man at the same time... Especially since time is short. But that's what we are called to do.

I've personally embodied all four soil types...committed all four sin types. I'm saying I was so wrong and likely will be wrong again in the future. The path is so very narrow. But one thing I'm positive about is that the second you look for license to do something you're probably in error. Including divorcing your spouse.

If you find yourself abandoned consider it freedom to do more. If a life partner comes along in your life and wishes to join their ministry with yours to form a bigger, stronger ministry... It just might be a good idea.

There's a vast difference in the two Covenants in performance. They outwardly seem similar but the mechanism behind are much more complex and cannot be codified.

Codified law is always subject to abuse.

 

[JohnDB]

Couldn't you have posted the ISR98 translation?
Some here may not even know what it is. Myself included.

Your post no. 271 speaks to matters of the heart.
I understand very much from your posts that everything is a matter of the heart. But you mean it in a different way than I do. You always make it sound like one could do whatever he wishes because it's a matter of his heart.

God wants our heart - not our good works. But if we love God with our heart, good works will follow.
In my heart I may want to leave my husband, but if I'm to follow God's words, then I must stay with him. My heart wanting to leave him cannot supersede God's law in having to stay with him. (let's leave abuse out of this for the sake of this argument).

I either totally misunderstand you (which I don't think I do from other posts) or you take God's love to an extreme that no longer makes your type of Christianity perceptible to me. Or others on this thread, I think. You always seem to be saying that we could do whatever we want to.

In a previous post you speak to the difference between "putting away" a wife and divorcing a wife. You bring up the fact that a put away wife would have problems economically and have no legal recourse. Would this change for a divorced wife? Would the husband, in this case, be forced to maintain her? What legal recourse would she have? If I remember correctly, women had more rights in Moses' time than in Jesus' time. In Jesus' time women that were divorced were in a very bad situation. Please comment.

W

We are used to a Westernized culture and not one where parents arranged marriages inside a caste based social structure. We are very comfortable with equal rights for men and women. This is the massive difference between our culture and Israel's culture. Women never had equal rights in Israeli society. She was one half step above property (like livestock) in their cultures. There were plenty of scriptures to tell the Israelites that the men should love their wives but they went largely ignored... And so a woman's testimony in court was often ignored or discredited because of her gender.
A woman could not get a divorce decree. She had no right ever to seek one ever in Israel's history. Usually a "putting away" was a means for public disgrace like the woman in The Scarlet Letter. But it could be less noisy as in what Joseph was going to do with Mary when he found out she was pregnant.
The husbands still had go provide some support for a put away wife but it was of no consequence... Maybe a weeks supply of food a year.
It was often used as a means of abusing wives. Very cruel and heartless. Women who were found guilty of infidelity were often killed. No need for a divorce then. No need to repay a dowry.

And then you have Paul's admonition to not divorce spouses.
As usual people were looking to license poor behavior of their own. People (romans and greeks) became "believers" just for the license they believed Jesus gave in Matthew 19.
And on top of that they believed that the early church was going to support them like a widow.
Again wrong motives and wrong attitudes so Paul told them no.

It's all about motives resulting from a heart condition.
If a son urinates upon his mother we judge the son very differently based solely upon his age...because we think it an accident at three months and tend to blame the mother but if three decades we want to villify the son. Same action but two different motives we believe.

So the same applies to divorce. One couple's divorce could be sanctioned and another's not sanctioned based upon what the motives and intentions are. There really is no way for me or you to know.

 

[GodsGrace]

We are used to a Westernized culture and not one where parents arranged marriages inside a caste based social structure. We are very comfortable with equal rights for men and women. This is the massive difference between our culture and Israel's culture. Women never had equal rights in Israeli society. She was one half step above property (like livestock) in their cultures. There were plenty of scriptures to tell the Israelites that the men should love their wives but they went largely ignored... And so a woman's testimony in court was often ignored or discredited because of her gender.
A woman could not get a divorce decree. She had no right ever to seek one ever in Israel's history. Usually a "putting away" was a means for public disgrace like the woman in The Scarlet Letter. But it could be less noisy as in what Joseph was going to do with Mary when he found out she was pregnant.
The husbands still had go provide some support for a put away wife but it was of no consequence... Maybe a weeks supply of food a year.
It was often used as a means of abusing wives. Very cruel and heartless. Women who were found guilty of infidelity were often killed. No need for a divorce then. No need to repay a dowry.

And then you have Paul's admonition to not divorce spouses.
As usual people were looking to license poor behavior of their own. People (romans and greeks) became "believers" just for the license they believed Jesus gave in Matthew 19.
And on top of that they believed that the early church was going to support them like a widow.
Again wrong motives and wrong attitudes so Paul told them no.

It's all about motives resulting from a heart condition.
If a son urinates upon his mother we judge the son very differently based solely upon his age...because we think it an accident at three months and tend to blame the mother but if three decades we want to villify the son. Same action but two different motives we believe.

So the same applies to divorce. One couple's divorce could be sanctioned and another's not sanctioned based upon what the motives and intentions are. There really is no way for me or you to know.

Thanks for the informative reply. Actually I understand what you're speaking of better than you might think.
I was born in a small (really small) town in Italy. In the 1960's when I returned here for the first time as a young girl, the situation was such that there was no work for women and they were forced to stay in a marriage even if they were abused for the simple reason of economics. You mention livestock. Listen to this saying:
Moglie e buoi
Dai paesi tuoi
It means: Cows and wives should always be from your hometown. Interesting parallel...

I loved The Scarlet Letter. How come the guy didn't have to wear a big "A"?? Plus other themes.

So Jesus said NOT to divorce. He was trying to avoid the way women were mistreated. It can't be explained better than in Mathew 19:1-11
As we all know, Jesus treated women well in His time and, as I had mentioned, they were not given a lot of consideration, as you confirm by mentioning the difficult decision Joseph had to make to accept Mary and wed her. Jesus was always trying to fix the situation and make us behave more rationally and with more heart.

Do you not agree, however, that some things are not a matter of the heart? If we're to be disciples we should do what Jesus commands. If you've been reading my posts you must know by now how heart wrenching this problem is.. but we are to strive to follow His rules.

I know what you mean by heart condition. I know the covenants and the difference between the Old (Mosaic) one that couldn't be kept and the New Covenant. The inner workings are different indeed. But if Jesus says "Love your neighbor" am I not to strive to love my neighbor? Or do I just go with my heart condition and NOT love him? Maybe I don't feel like it for whatever reason - so do I still strive to love him or just let it go?

How do you understand getting a divorce as being a heart condition? Should we make an effort to stay together or do we just throw up our hands and give up? Don't you think it's become too easy? Or are you saying we're not to judge? My friend has a grandson who is devastated by his parents' divorce. Does their egotistical attitude outweigh their responsibility to their son? Maybe they had a good reason (only they know their business), but where does the heart come in? How about the heart to do the right thing.

It would have been nice for men back in Jesus' time to love their wives and treat them with respect as in Ephesians. But, in the case they didn't, wouldn't it have been nice for the wife, if at the very least, the husband would have followed Jesus' teaching and also Paul's teaching. Is this what we should be doing today?

W