Divorced does not mean "put away"...or does it?

thisguy · Mar 6, 2014

I should have made this clear in the beginning... in fact I'll probably start a new thread... but the divorcee was abused by her non-Christian husband. She moved away, then tried to file for divorce, but found out that HE already filed for divorce. So this is likely a case for 1 Corth 7:15

[SUP]15 [/SUP]But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

But this verse is even up for interpretation... the greek roots of bondage doen't necessarily mean bondage to marriage and instead could mean that "separation" is ok but divorce isn't...and even if the verse does mean divorce is ok...there's no conclusive mention anywhere in the Bible that remarriage is ALLOWED. In those times remarraige was EXPECTED for the woman to survive, it wasn't necessarily what God says is ALLOWED.

phil112 · Mar 6, 2014

thisguy said:

No it isn't. It means just what it says.

Misty77 · Mar 6, 2014

thisguy said:

Now that you have shared some more vital information, I can say that marrying her may be a very good decision. Just make sure she is mentally and emotionally healthy. Take it SLOW and get premarital counseling to build a good foundation.

presidente · Mar 7, 2014

thisguy said:

This is a lie and one I suspect is demonically inspired. It seems to be one of those doctrinal lies that is very popular these days, that many people believe. The 'DivorceHope' website argues for this nonsense. But you can easily disprove it simply by reading Matthew 19 in a translation besides the NIV that preserves the distinction between 'put away' and 'divorced.'

The Pharisees in Matthes 19 ask Jesus why Moses allowed a man to write his wife a writing of divorcement and 'put her away.' Look up put her away in Greek. Clearly, the woman who gets the writings of divorcement is 'put away' in the language of the Pharisees question.

'Putting away' includes putting away with a certificate.

Jesus said that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts allowed divorce. So the context clearly shows that Jesus is talking about the 'legal' putting away according to the law of Moses. His comments about a man putting away his wife and marring another being adultery are in the context of the legal divorce. Notice His argument is based on two becoming one flesh in the creation account, while Moses allowing a divorce was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. Does what Christ require contradict Moses? No. As He does on the sermon on the mount, Christ requires righteousness that is higher than that of the scribes and Pharisees.

Another problem with this interpretation that 'put away' means without a certificate (rather than includes putting away with a certificate which is obvious from scripture) it that it totally ignores the cultural context. There were two houses, two schools of thought among the Pharisees that were dominant on this matter. One was Hillel's set of teachings. The other was Shammai's. I don't remember the lineage, but their families intermarried, and they may have even been in-laws. Hillel allowed a man to divorce if his wife burned the toast. Shammai interpreted the Old Testament to only allow divorce for severe offenses.

If Christ's teaching were just as liberal as Hillel's, then why would the apostles have said it was better not to marry. Would they have been astonished.

"Oh no! If we have to shell out a half a days wage for a piece of papyrus or parchmet or something else to write a writing of divorcement on to actually get divorced, it's better not to marry! Oh no, you mean we actually have to sit down and write something."

That would have been a silly reaction if all Christ was saying is that if your wife had not fornicated, you had to give her a writing of divorcement.

This liberal interpretation also would lead to actually violating the Torah. Because if the wife had committed fornication and there were no witnesses to put her to death or it were not a death-penalty offense (or if the Romans wouldn't allow it) and that were grounds for divorce, wouldn't the Jews have required that a man give his fornicator wife a writing of divorcement? How does this new-fangled interpretation handle the exception clause? Wouldn't it mean that a man has to give his wife a writing of divorcement if he divorces her for burning the bread, but wouldn't have to give her any writing of divorcement if she cheated on him sexually or was not a virgin when he wed her? That interpretation would lead to direct violations of the law of Moses. In Matthew 5, Jesus gave some similar teachings. Toward the beginning of the message He said that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away until all be fulfilled and spoke of His listeners need for their righteousness to exceed that of the scribes or Pharisees.

This liberal interpretation of divorce and remarriage is less righteous than that of the scribes and Pharisees, and would have been a lot less compassionate toward women.

After she is given a bill of divorcement there is a reason to believe that marrying her is NOT adultery...because she is now properly divorced.

Details:
NIV is innacurate. Going to the greek roots provides clarity.

Luke 16:18 “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

Whoever ‘putteth away’ his wife (husband) commits adultery! This practice was cruel and was adulterous, but it was not divorce. This New Testament word, translated ‘put away’ is a form of the Greek word ‘apoluo’. It is the word in Greek which parallels the Hebrew word ‘shalach’ – ‘put away.’

‘Apoluo’, the Greek word for ‘putting away’, was not technically divorce, though often used synonymously.

He said when you put away a wife (without a written bill of divorce), and marry another (while still married), you are guilty of adultery. And the women who is ‘put away’ though abandoned, is still married. She would commit adultery if she married again (Luke 16:18)

Old Syriac text, a revision of the Peshitta, the scribe felt the need to add into Mark 10:11 the supplementary "and any man who divorces his wife and takes another commits adultery" which serves as confirmation, that even at that time, "putting away" a spouse was not considered to be divorce.

"It has been said, that, he who breaks up(שרי)with his wife shall give to her a certificate of divorce(דוללא). Therefore I am telling you that anyone who suffices with breaking up(שרי) with his wife, except in the case of her running around, forces her to commit adultery, and he who takes such an abandoned(שביקתא) woman commits adultery." - Matay 5:31-32
[/QUOTE]

thisguy · Mar 7, 2014

phil112 said:

1 Corith 7:15
"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

I'm not trying to be difficult but are you saying that the verse spoken in the original language is what God meant...I agree with that. So what does the verse actually mean? In today's words it sounds like the person is not under bondage to the marriage and can remarry. But is that what the original test spoken by Paul is actually saying?

The link below shows my concern:
http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_2002spring2.pdf

Text from the link (page 9):

One argument:
This phrase distinctly frees the
innocent party to remarry.
30
The
essential formula in the Jewish bill of
divorce were the words “you are free
to any man” (
m. Git.
9:3). Paul
employs the same formula for
believers abandoned by unbelieving
spouses.
31
Douloo
(1 Cor 7:15) and
deo
(1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2) “are related”
32
and used interchangeably (unless one
excludes categories so as to have so
few examples left as to be able to
argue whatever one wishes). Both
free someone who was once married
to remarry.

The other side of the argument:

Like Matthew’s exception clause,

Paul’s qualifier relieves the inno-
cent party of the guilt of violating
Christ’s command
not
to divorce
(mentioned 4x in vv. 10-13).
Nothing is said about the possibil-
ity of remarriage. The following
considerations suggest remarriage
is not permitted: (1) marriage is a
creation ordinance, binding on all
irrespective of their faith or the
lack thereof; (2) Paul has already
specifically prohibited remarriage
in vv. 10-11; (3) when Paul speaks
about the binding character of
marriage he uses the term
deo
(Rom 7:2; 1 Cor 7:39; cf. 7:27, a
promise of engagement), not
douloo
(1 Cor 7:15); and (4) where he
clearly mentions the possibility of
remarriage, Paul also refers to the
death of one of the marriage
partners (1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2).

thisguy · Mar 7, 2014

phil112 said:

Here's additional information behind the argument that remarriage is not ok sourced from:
What God hath joined together...

Does I Corinthians 7:15 teach that if the unbelieving spouse insists upon a divorce, the believing spouse is no longer bound in that marriage, and therefore is free to remarry?

We know from our previous studies that the conclusion that a divorced person can remarry is erroneous. The key word that we need to understand is the word that means "under bondage." It is the Greek word "douloo" which means "to enslave." It is from the Greek word "doulos" which is translated "slave," "bondservant," or "servant" in the Bible. It is commonly used to refer to a man’s relationship to Christ. Paul was a servant (doulos) of Christ (Romans 1:1). We are servants of Christ (Colossians 4:12;II Timothy 2:24). On the other hand, we may be the slave of sin (II Peter 2:19).

The word "doulos" or "douloo" is never used of the relationship that exists between husband and wife. Insofar as the Bible is concerned, the husband is never the slave of the wife; the wife is never the slave of the husband.

God says in I Corinthians 7:27, "Art thou bound unto a wife?" but this word "bound" is entirely different from "doulos" or "douloo." It is the Greek word "deo." It is a word that gives the sense of two things being bound or tied together. The prisoner is bound (Mark 6:17). The donkey was tied (Mark 11:2). The husband and wife are bound to each other (I Corinthians 7:27, 39; Romans 7:2), but the idea of being a servant or a slave is not found in the word "deo."

Nowhere else in the Bible is "douloo" identified with the husband-wife relationship. How are we to understand its use in I Corinthians 7:15? The answer can be seen if we properly understand the problem being addressed by this verse.

Let use look at a situation common to our day. The Christian wife knows there is not to be a divorce under any circumstance, but the unsaved husband insists on a divorce. He refuses to obey God’s Word because he is unsaved. God’s Word means little or nothing to him.

What is his wife to do? Is she bitterly and relentlessly to fight her husband in order to prevent the divorce? God has an answer for this situation. She is called to peace. She is not to fight. In her bondage to Christ, earnestly desiring to do God’s will, she is not to fight the divorce. She is not bound to Christ’s written law to the point that she is to engage in such a fight.

If her husband divorces her, she cannot remarry as long as her husband is living (Romans 7:2-3). Instead of marrying, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband as I Corinthians 7:11 says:

But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

I Corinthians 7:15 is not intended to give aid or comfort to those seeking divorce. When carefully understood in the light of everything else the Bible teaches about marriage, this verse is found to be in perfect agreement with the principle that there is not to be divorce for any reason.

presidente · Mar 7, 2014

thisguy,

When I was dating, a divorced woman would not have been in my consideration set. Jesus said, "and he that marries her that is divorced commits adultery.'

We need to keep in mind that Jesus was commenting on the law. Men divorced women. Women did not divorce men. Prior to this statement of Christ, some men, including men God had made covenant with, were polygamous. Polygamous women would have been stoned. Christ showed that people had not lived up to 'two... shall be one flesh', the ideal of marriage shown in creation.

For the instructions regarding a man, there is an exception clause. If he puts away his wife, except it be for fornication, he commits adultery. Regarding women, it says he that marries her that is divorced commits adultery.

Paul says to the married woman, let not the wife depart from her husband, but if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. A lot of remarriages interfere with that last option. With all the millions of single women out there, why marry a divorced woman? (or divorced man for that matter?)

presidente · Mar 7, 2014

I just notice how people like to lock onto that 'not under bondage verse.'

Here are some observations,
1. This is one of the few, if not the only passages where Paul says he is giving his own opinion and that he has no commandment of the Lord.
2. People like to expand the meaning of the passage.
2a) It says if the unbeliever depart. The way he/she is treating me, he/she is acting like an unbeliever. So he/she must be an unbeliever.
2b) It says if the unbeliever depart. Well he/she departed from me in her heart by not sleeping with me/mistreating me/not sharing his/her feelings/ yelling at me/ not buying me that diamond anniversary band.

It seems like people nowadays, just like the Pharisees of Jesus day, have a tendency to spend their efforts arguing to themselves that they are obeying God instead of really obeying God. It's an easy trap to fall into if we aren't careful.

thisguy · Mar 7, 2014

presidente said:

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that post...I think your correct... I didn't see that before.

7They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

presidente · Mar 7, 2014

parablepete said:

Do you have any scripture for 'If you cheated on her, she has the right to remarry.' I can't find that in the verse you quoted. Remember, also, the Law of Moses allowed for polygamy, and that was the law Jesus was commenting on in the passage.

presidente · Mar 7, 2014

Misty77 said:

I know that idea is popular right now, being promoted by a website, but it contradicts Matthew 19. The Pharisees call being put away WITH a certificate, being 'put away.' Christ's comments apply to those who give certificates. I've read no evidence that any Pharisee allowed for divorce without a certificate under any circumstance. What religious Jew would believe that after reading Deuteronomy? What we know of debates over the issue from the Jewish writings of the time was that some legal scholars believed a man could divorce his wife over small offenses like burning the bread, and others believed it was only for severe

None of the Greek-speaking early church commentators I've read about interpreted the passage to refer to separating rather than divorcing, and it doesn't seem to fit with any of the historical commentators on the time who examine the debates among Jewish legal scholars that the Pharisees would have been concerned with when the issue was raised in Matthew 19.

Do a little word study on the Greek. Jesus told her that she had had five 'men' (andras) and the one she now had was not her husband, (aner.) The word used for the 'husbands' she had had was a generic word for men. But when he said the one she now had was not her husband, he used a word for man that is frequently used for 'husband' (according to what I have heard and read.)

Didn't God take her back? Be that as it may, the Old Testament speaks of the idea of a wife treacherously departing from her husband and the husband treacherously putting away his wife. Many divorces are sin, or at least the remarriage after it is sin. There is an 'exception clause' in Matthew regarding a man who divorces his wife over fornication, but that does not allow divorce in all cases. I disagree with the idea that divorce cannot be a sin.

I speak another language, a second language, in which the word used to translate widows is also used to refer to divorced women and women who have lost their virginity without the benefit of marriage. So I have wondered about this. I can't find any evidence that either the Greek or Hebrew words translated 'widow' are this broad, but I can't prove how narrow they are from what I know.

What I do know is that the widows that Paul would have had on the list had to meet some very specific requirements. Also, the examples of 'widows' that we know about had husbands who were dead. It makes sense that the church would have a particular obligation to these widows, who had lived holy lives meeting a specific description and had reached the age of 60. But that doesn't mean the church shouldn't help support others who are poor. I know of no case where a divorced woman was referred to as a 'widow' in scripture.

I'd need to do a word study, but this verse from Leviticus 21 (NIV) seems to indicate the words had a distinction in meaning.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]“‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. [SUP]14 [/SUP]He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, [SUP]15 [/SUP]so that he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’”

There seems to have been some distinction between the meaning of the word(s) translated widow here and the word(s) translated divorced woman, or woman defiled by prostitution. There are three categories of non-virgin women in the verse.

I don't really find this to be evidence at all. Much of the language in the Old Testament is repetitive in this way, saying the same thing in two different ways, especially the poetry.

thisguy · Mar 7, 2014

Misty77 said:

I see 3 thing here:

#1)
John 4:17 is inconclusive because a widow clearly can get married again according to scripture, and she could have kept getting married after each one of her other husbands died, and the verse doesn't confirm or deny that she was ever a widow.

#2)
John 4:18 seems to prove that marrying a legally divorced person is NOT ok (...and see #3 below to why abandonment as in 1 Corth 7:15 is not addressed here)

"18for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband."
...the only rational explanation is that her current "husband" (she clearly legally married him AND therefore he has NOT abandoned her if God is calling his her husband) is not her actual husband BECAUSE he is still married to his other/first wife?!? Therefore the man either did not legally divorce his other wife (which is unlikely given other scriptures), OR because he DID legally divorce his other wife but that legal divorce doesn't break up the marriage in GOd's eyes...(aka "one flesh")...either way her marriage is clearly not legitimate because the man is still married to someone else in God's eyes.

#3) Neither of these verses don't speak to if remarriage after desertion is ok (1 Corth 7:15) because it is unclear if her current husband was abandoned (which likely wasn't the case given the historical background) or if he just tried to end his other marriage via divorce papers.

thisguy · Mar 7, 2014

presidente said:

Does the translation of "husband" and "man" in John 4:18 make a difference in how I draw conclusions regarding #2 in my last post? Wasn't being with someone in a household-type setting, with or without proper ceremony, still considered marriage? Either way the man/husband she "is with now" is not her husband ?

presidente · Mar 7, 2014

thisguy,

I don't think we know enough about the Samaritan woman to say what her relationship was this man was. In the Old Testament, the actual Torah talks about a father giving his daughter away in marriage and receiving a bride price for a virgin daughter. If she lost her virginity, he could give her in marriage to the man who took her virginity, or collect the bride price and marry her off to someone else or keep her at home.

In addition, Jewish culture was to have a legal contract stipulating the expectations of marriage. The woman could have 'shacked up' without the men making a commitment to marry her according to the Samaritan, or Jewish, understanding of the Law. Maybe she was married the first, second, third, or fourth man and was living in adultery with her current man.
She may have been divorced five times, but slept with her most recent boyfriend without marriage. There are a number of scenarios we could imagine.

lookuptoseeJesus · Mar 8, 2014

If you wish to see what something means
get a free bible
ESword.com: The Leading E Sword Site on the Net
or
Bible Software theWord!

and type in verse
and click mouse on the word

garash =
1644. garash, gaw-rash'; a prim. root; to drive out from a possession; espec. to expatriate or divorce:--cast up (out), divorced (woman), drive away (forth, out), expel, X surely put away, trouble, thrust out.

so why would you start a thread on what garash means?
Why would you care what other people think?
They probably are wrong.

Are you looking for a really good argument not to obey the Bble; so you can feel better about yourself and continue in adultery and then be eternally lost?

Are you interested in how many denominations do not believe divorce is adultery?

answer: all of them think it is ok to remarry after divorce if you have the proper "clearance" from the higher ups on their religious system.. which of course is error

So
instead of asking your pastor
who is, of course, wrong...
just get your Bible out and read it yourself
then make a decision
I choose Jesus and leave your church
or
I choose my church and leave Jesus
there are only two choices.

homwardbound · Mar 8, 2014

Explain away Hosea. as the lord says do. No marriage is not of God, it is of us, who decide to marry and we make mistakes, and God knows we are not perfect and can't be. Being born after the similitude of Adam and Eve

Hosea 1:1 The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
Hosea 1:1-3 (in Context) Hosea 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Hosea 1:2 The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord.

homwardbound · Mar 8, 2014

thisguy said:

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

And by Faith:which brings forth works of God's love

Hebrews 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

James 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

God has presenterd us with to have Faith (trusting ) God to teach us and use us, are we willing?. For all have made mistakes and still do, even in the midst of, maybe time to renew the mind in thanksgiving and praises?

presidente · Mar 8, 2014

Btw, it seems like if I reply to the thread, the thread doesn't move to the first page of the forum on my screen.

TCoop08 · May 29, 2014

It's hard for me to ignore the many scriptures that state if you marry someone who is divorced, or if you marry after you have been divorced, that you are in adultery. It's pretty clear in those scriptures. Also, the only clear mention of remarriage I read in the Bible is when death has occurred. It just seems like you have to work so hard in finding a way to justify remarriage. And what for? Is marriage our purpose here on earth? No. Marriage is not a requirement, believing in Christ and building a relationship with Him is. Paul even states its better not to marry. Marriage is a gift from God that is good when done correctly in God's original plan of marriage. If you are divorced, stay single and grow as close to God as you can. He will become the love of your life. Marriage is a representation of Christ's covenant-keeping bond between Himself and the church. So allowing for divorce and remarriage doesn't represent that covenant between Christ and the church. Yes, there are marriages that are broken due to adultery, abuse, etc. And yes no one is required to remain in a dangerous situation. But in all cases, you have made a covenant before God to be with that person until death. Remarrying another person is breaking that covenant. Think of how people in the church reject Christ. He never quits on the covenant that He made with us, even though we have quit on Him many times. Marriage is supposed to represent that type of covenant. It seems to me the ones who try so hard to justify remarriage are the ones who are in a remarriage situation themselves trying to justify themselves. We need to be careful. Especially in today's times. People are doing their best to change the Word of God to whatever makes them feel better.

homwardbound · May 30, 2014

There is a great congruity in the First Testament and the Second Testament in one need to be perfect, and yet can't. We are bidded in the Laws to be perfect and can't. Only fail ,in one and one fails in all commandments period.
Adam through Moses Failed with no Laws in place, to see truth or know truth. So god put them in place to show the First Chosen just like as one can't put Ten Ping pong balls is a bath of water, and hold all under water at the same time with two hands, Not possible.
Same is with the Law of Moses to show ones need for a perfect Savior, Jesus Christ. And through Christ to show us the greatest of all commandments, Love
This love is best described in 1 Cor. 13:4-13 and still no man can be perfect in this type of Love, yet that type of Love is perfection
So since we as people can't be perfect and need perfection, knowing we have sinned period, how then can we be viewed a perfect, since we see we can't after reading what love is, per 1 Cor 13:4-13?

Divorced does not mean "put away"...or does it?

thisguy

Guest

phil112

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

thisguy

Guest

thisguy

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

thisguy

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

thisguy

Guest

thisguy

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

TCoop08

Guest

Senior Member