Vince's Boring Thesis on Divorce

[Vince]

Several years ago, I researched an 18-page thesis on the Biblical teachings on divorce and re-marriage. I found that Christians suffer from four major errors:

1) Divorce and remarriage can be understood from an English Bible.
2) Divorced people are still married to each other.
3) Divorcing your wife and putting away your wife are the same thing.
4) "Fornication" is a general term for sexual immorality.

I'll be posting the thesis, a few paragraphs at a time, starting tomorrow, and courteous comments are welcome.

 

[Vince]

1 Corinthians 7:27-28 contains a controversial verse that is often used to
show that a divorced Christian man is allowed to remarry. Every
commentary I own skips this passage.

This is not necessarily wrongdoing. It APPEARS that God has made the
subject of Christian divorce and remarriage difficult enough to dissuade
immature Christians from pursuing the matter. The Holy Spirit does not
appear to be leading God's people into lengthy  consideration of divorce;
God wants His people to stay married.

I have seen that even people who agree with me do not understand the
Biblical teaching on remarriage, nor is the Holy Spirit leading them to
research the matter. I found one book on divorce written for Christians, and
it specifically excluded any Scriptures on the subject of remarriage.

 

[Caroline H]

Looking forward to reading it

 

[Vince]

1 CORINTHIANS 7:27-28

1Co 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.... The Greek
word "bound" is the same word used when Jesus was bound by the
authorities after His arrest. In Revelation, it refers to the four angels bound
at the River Euphrates (Revelation 9:14). It is also used for Satan being
bound for a thousand years (Rev. 20:2). In other words, if a man feels
trapped in his marriage, he is still not allowed to seek a divorce.

The Greek word "loosed" in 1 Corinthians 7:27 is also used for describing
the four angels bound at the River Euphrates and of Satan being "loosed"
after a thousand years. It is used for the chief captain loosing Paul from his
bands so that Paul could answer the accusations of the Sanhedrin (Acts
22:30). The Greek word is "luo," the ordinary Greek word for loosing an
animal. So once again we see that if a Christian man feels trapped in his
marriage, he cannot get a divorce.

 

[Vince]

1Co 7:27 ... Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned...

This is the passage that many commentaries skip. This time, the Greek word "loosed" is "lusis."
This is the definition, quoted straight out of Strong's Greek Dictionary of
the New Testament: " a loosening, i.e. (spec.) divorce: --to be loosed." This
Greek word does not appear anywhere else in the Bible. M.R.Vincent skips
this passage in his book on the Greek New Testament. Young's Analytical
Concordance to the Bible describes the word: "A loosening," with no other
comment.

I found a large book entitled A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition. It defines lusis with
"release, separation, (in marriage) a divorce."

 

[Vince]

None of these Greek words are ever used in the Bible to refer to a person
loosening himself. It is the person who was loosed by someone else who is
being referred to.

The 1929 Abington Bible Commentary teaches that many of the Corinthians
had entered into spiritual unions in which the man and woman were
betrothed to each other, but had determined that they would never marry. If
one of them changed their mind, that person was free to break the betrothal
and marry someone else.
Although the context supports the view that the Corinthians were practicing
such unions, this would contradict Jesus's teaching that a betrothal could
only be broken for fornication. On the other hand, such a union would not
be a betrothal (which was ALWAYS a prelude to marriage). In this case,
applying the word "wife" to the woman cannot be backed up by the Greek
language.
As weak as this explanation is, it is the only one I can find after a diligent
search of commentaries. I feel that a better explanation is to simply believe
that the passage  means what it says: if a man has been divorced by his wife,
he is allowed to remarry.

 

[Guest]

Great topic.
I see from your 4 points in the OP that I probably already know what doctrinal position you believe is.
Ive done most of the research myself over the last 6-7 years and have a lot of studies on my site, if youre interested in checking them out.
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... m.php?f=12

 

[Guest]

None of these Greek words are ever used in the Bible to refer to a person
loosening himself. It is the person who was loosed by someone else who is
being referred to.

The 1929 Abington Bible Commentary teaches that many of the Corinthians
had entered into spiritual unions in which the man and woman were
betrothed to each other, but had determined that they would never marry. If
one of them changed their mind, that person was free to break the betrothal
and marry someone else.
Although the context supports the view that the Corinthians were practicing
such unions, this would contradict Jesus's teaching that a betrothal could
only be broken for fornication. On the other hand, such a union would not
be a betrothal (which was ALWAYS a prelude to marriage). In this case,
applying the word "wife" to the woman cannot be backed up by the Greek
language.
As weak as this explanation is, it is the only one I can find after a diligent
search of commentaries. I feel that a better explanation is to simply believe
that the passage  means what it says: if a man has been divorced by his wife,
he is allowed to remarry.

One mistake made by many in this area is in seeing ancient Hebrew betrothal like it was even remotely similar to our meaningless engagements today. It was nothing of the sort.

Heres a snippet from a half way decent website.

The term "betrothal" in Jewish law must not be understood in its modern sense; that is, the agreement of a man and a woman to marry, by which the parties are not, however, definitely bound, but which may be broken or dissolved without formal divorce. Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite status in rabbinical law.

In the Bible.

Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.

The root ("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract ("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of thepassages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... z0rXmrk3kD

I hope that is of some help.
Knowing this sort of detail and how it lines up with scripture overall really helps make sense of some of the details

 

[Guest]

This is not necessarily wrongdoing. It APPEARS that God has made the
subject of Christian divorce and remarriage difficult enough to dissuade
immature Christians from pursuing the matter. The Holy Spirit does not
appear to be leading God's people into lengthy  consideration of divorce;
God wants His people to stay married.

Absolutely agree.
Where two believers are concerned, especially, the Lord commands them to get their act together and start ACTING like His followers and MAKE the marriage work. This theme is unmistakable in scripture.

Only if there are extreme circumstances are we to even consider divorce.

 

[Guest]

Several years ago, I researched an 18-page thesis on the Biblical teachings on divorce and re-marriage. I found that Christians suffer from four major errors:

1) Divorce and remarriage can be understood from an English Bible.

Not entirely certain of your intent here. We English speaking peoples pretty much have very little choice BUT to use an English bible
That said, the bible AND a study of the Hebrew culture is pretty much the only way to really understand what the scriptures are dealing with.
In my travels the last few years Ive concluded that some folks actually seem to believe that scripture is given in a vaccuum...no context at all, just random statements tossed into the wind like some peyote smoking mountain top guru spewing forth meaningless parables about trees falling in the forest.

It is RARELY without a context that scripture speaks...
For example, in 1 corinthians chapter 7 many think that Paul is simply spouting out instructions for marriage blindly.
But that isnt the case at all. Verse 7:1 starts off immediately showing us that Paul is RESPONDING to things asked of him by the Corinthians.

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:

Thus EVERYTHING he says therein is a response TO those questions.
It seems like a small point to the unstudied, but to the true student a detail like that is huge as it removes ambiguity and helps us see that Paul may not be giving instruction to EVERY possible scenario there, so we have to be careful about making blanket assumptions.

2) Divorced people are still married to each other.

This one an epidemic.
These false teachings that reject Gods word about what divorce is are marriage wreckers, for certain...and they cause a lot of pointless anxiety among the brethren who, no fault of their own, end up divorced and possibly remarried at some point.

3) Divorcing your wife and putting away your wife are the same thing.

Depends on the context where each is presented, but generally they are meant as being one and the same.

4) "Fornication" is a general term for sexual immorality.

Actually it is just that.
Fornication can be committed by the married individual or the unmarried. Porneia is all inclusive of perversion and immorality, Im afraid. Thousands of hours of study in the matter have proven that to me.
See >>> Porneia/Fornication


.

 

[n2thelight]

Bottom line to me is that divorce is not the unforgivable sinm,therefore although wrong you can and are forgiven....Did not God divorce Israel....

 

[Guest]

Bottom line to me is that divorce is not the unforgivable sinm,therefore although wrong you can and are forgiven....Did not God divorce Israel....

He gave her a writ of divorce and thereby shows that, where its justified, that divorce is entirely lawful and isnt sin.

 

[n2thelight]

Bottom line to me is that divorce is not the unforgivable sinm,therefore although wrong you can and are forgiven....Did not God divorce Israel....

He gave her a writ of divorce and thereby shows that, where its justified, that divorce is entirely lawful and isnt sin.

I agree,however even if it's not justified,it can be forgiven....

 

[Vince]

UNFAIRNESS PART 1

Murder, rape, and robbery are always wrong, yet some of the people
involved can be innocent. However, it is usually impossible for these people
to receive fair treatment in the court. It isn't the judge's fault or the
legislature's fault: there is usually no way that they CAN be fair to the
victim.

Because divorce is almost always wrong, divorces are almost always unfair.
Women get treated far more unfairly than men, often both spouses get
treated unfairly, and children almost always suffer unfairly.  When a judge
is given wide latitude in being fair, it is often the spouse with the best
lawyer who gets the better settlement. It is so difficult to be fair that many
states have simply given up; they assign guidelines, and the judge follows
them, regardless of who is to blame.

 

[Guest]

I agree,however even if it's not justified,it can be forgiven....

ABsolutely.
Another issue in the church is this error that a remarriage is a 'state' of adultery. The Greek doesnt support any such idea.
Some claim that because the Greek present tense is 'ongoing' that it means that the sin is also. This is simply some trying to pretend they are scholars of the Greek language when they arent.
Since Im not either, the study I did on this particular point invokes the thoughts of real scholars of greek instead.
>>> “Committeth adultery†The Present Indicative deception

 

[Vince]

UNFAIRNESS PART 2

Three states simply require that the assets be divided equally. Eight states
require that the assets be divided equally unless it is blatantly unjust. Thirty-
nine states start at an equal division, and then have various laws to adjust
for fairness.

One study showed that one year after divorce, the average man has
improved his standard of living 10%, while the average woman has seen her
standard of living decline 30%. The study attributed this to the woman
usually being given custody of the children. 

 

[Vince]

UNFAIRNESS PART 3

The woman with custody might actually get a fair amount of child support.
But raising a child also involves time, and since the working mother no
longer has a husband to help with the load, her expenses rise while her
parenting decreases. In some cases, life is so harsh that when they get older,
the children prefer the company of the father who left them.

About half of the men who are required to pay alimony and/or child support
are behind on their payments, and yet the children often do not hold this
against him when they are older.

 

[Vince]

UNFAIRNESS PART 4

Divorce is also blatantly unfair to spouses who meet their financial
responsibilities. A man who does not hold a job, and therefor does not make
his payments on time, usually does not go to jail. Meanwhile, the mother has
to support the children without those payments.

Husbands who diligently meet their financial obligations also get treated
unfairly. The wife can leave without "just cause" and collect half their
savings, pensions, etc., and be released from all her obligations to her
husband. Meanwhile, the judge can force the man to keep working, without
retirement, in order to support her. This is especially true in long-term
marriages (usually longer than ten years). The wife can simply decide that
she wants to go off on her own, and the husband has to support her.

In their defense, legislators point out that spouses have an obligation to
provide intimacy. If one spouse fails to meet the emotional and physical
needs of the other, the other spouse then is legally entitled to a divorce.
However, the spouse who is over-burdened with children or a job is the one
who pays the penalty, even if the other spouse also did not provide the extra
support that was needed.

 

[Vince]

DEUTERONOMY 24:1-2 PART 1

This passage teaches that if a man finds some uncleanness in his wife, he
may give her a bill of divorcement and send her away. The woman is then
allowed to remarry. However, verses 3 and 4 state that if her next husband
divorces her or dies, she may not return to her first husband.

The Hebrew word translated "divorcement" is "kereethooth." It is related to
the Hebrew word for cutting something, whether a tree or meat. Kereethooth
means "a cutting (of the matrimonial bond), i.e. divorce" according to
Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary.

In 24:1, the word "uncleanness" does not appear anywhere else in the Bible.
"Ervah" is defined by Strong: "nudity" and then Strong explains that it is
both literally naked and figurative for disgraced or blemished. It is related to
the Hebrew word "to be bare" which can refer to destroying something
utterly as well as to making naked.

 

[Guest]

DEUTERONOMY 24:1-2 PART 1

This passage teaches that if a man finds some uncleanness in his wife, he
may give her a bill of divorcement and send her away. The woman is then
allowed to remarry. However, verses 3 and 4 state that if her next husband
divorces her or dies, she may not return to her first husband.

The Hebrew word translated "divorcement" is "kereethooth." It is related to
the Hebrew word for cutting something, whether a tree or meat. Kereethooth
means "a cutting (of the matrimonial bond), i.e. divorce" according to
Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary.

In 24:1, the word "uncleanness" does not appear anywhere else in the Bible.
"Ervah" is defined by Strong: "nudity" and then Strong explains that it is
both literally naked and figurative for disgraced or blemished. It is related to
the Hebrew word "to be bare" which can refer to destroying something
utterly as well as to making naked.

Good post

However, I would like to point out that the phrase used for 'some uncleaness' does actually exist in one other OT passage, in Deut 23...here it is rendered as 'unclean thing' instead...

Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean6172 thing1697 in thee, and turn away from thee.
(Deu 23:12-14)

same as;

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some1697 uncleanness6172 in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

The difference being that our translators reversed the order of the two words in our bibles in the Deut 24 passage. In the Hebrew in my INterlinears they are both the same ...'nakedness of thing''.

If your interested I did a study on the two uses of the phrase here...
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... ?f=18&t=55

Even with my interlinear bibles it seems to be the exact same phrase.
This definitely helps us see that this is about some random 'uncleanness'....ie frivolous putting away, which your post seems to show as well.
If that be your intent, this second usage of the phrase definitely supports you.