Divorce in Catholicism on grounds of adultery

[presidente]

@NOV25


He also says,
>>>>This, sometimes, was a way for husbands to get revenge or punish their wives/handmaids/concubines. A classic example can be found in 2 Samuel 20:3:

Then David came to his house in Jerusalem, and the king took the ten women, the concubines whom he had left behind to take care of the house, and put them in custody and provided them with food, but did not have relations with them. So they were locked up until the day of their death, living as widows.

2 Samuel 20:3, NASB<<<

These concubines had had sex with Absalom, possibly against their will, as a political statement. It makes sense that David would not sleep with them again considering his on had done so. Why would this be revenge? David, as a God-fearing man, was probably just trying to do the right thing. Politically, sex with a king's former wife was probably a really big deal and something that would undermine his authority. He got Micah back from her illegitimate husband. She had been his agunah because he was fleeing for his life.


He goes on with his weird divorce-and-remarriage-justifying hypothesis.

>>>Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

KJV

Notice that the ESV chose “divorce” rather than “put away.” Additionally, the ESV (and other translations) states, “he who marries a woman divorced from her husband.” This translation seems illogical because if a woman is divorced, who is her husband? She has no husband if she’s divorced. <<<

This is sophistry, again. Also, it doesn't track with Pharisees' and Jesus' conversation. Let's look at Matthew 19. You can see it in Mark 10 also. The Pharisees ask about the __cause__ for putting away, not whether a certificate is required. We know Shammai and Hillel disagreed about causes of divorce. Hillel followers were probably quite influential during this time. It may be Shammai folks assassinated Hillel folks at a later time (unless that is a metaphor) and became dominate for a time later in the first century. Debates between these groups may have been a big deal to them. This one was about causes for divorce.

Jesus pointed out 'two, saith he, shall be one flesh.' He said what God hath joined together, let not man put assunder. The Pharisees ask why Moses ___commanded___ giving a divorce certificarte and sending her away. The Lord Jesus countered that Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts __allowed__ "you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

He is not allowing something Moses did. He puts permission for divorce with a certificate on Moses, not God. He forbids a man putting away his wife, except it be for fornication. Again, look at the context, put away clearly does not exclude putting away with a certificate, since Deuteornmy 24 mentions it, and the Pharisees had just mentioned it.

The website you rely on argues that if a man gave his wife a certificate, that she isnt' his wife, but that does not align with what the Lord Jesus teaches here.

And again, the command is that _when_ a man finds some nakedness in his wife that displeases him, he gives her a certificate and sends her away, and she marries another man who gives her a certificate or dies, the first husband is not to take her. There is a set-up to a situation, a case, then a command. You, like the Pharisees, are treating the set-up for the case as a command, unlike the Lord Jesus, here. Jesus' teaching overturns the Jewish understanding of marriage and divorce. Your author there is just trying to stick to the old status quo. He doesn't even bother to deal with the details of Jesus' argument about Moses. Neither are you.

The website you referred to says,
>>>Remember, Jesus was speaking to Law-observing Jews.>>

Really? Several chapters later, Jesus would say the Pharisees say and do not, that they neglected the weightier matters of the law. He disagrees on this issue of divorce also. To the chief priests and elders He would say the kingdom of heaven would be taken from them and certificate given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

And 'Whosoever shall put away his wife' includes those who give a to do so. And clearly a woman who has been put away with a certificate has been put away.

 

[presidente]

That was my first way of thinking too; however, there is one possibility.

Requiring that certificate of divorce does give a woman significant leverage if your welfare/comfort has become dependent on the dowry or her property in any way. If you could simply put her away while keeping the rights to use her wealth, it could alleviate a lot of hardship; this would be useful if your wife decided to go crazy. (However; if the man is the bad guy, it gives him way too much leverage to exploit.) So, requiring a divorce to put away significantly raises the risk-factor of marriage for men.

I'm sure it would give the man a lot of leverage. Especially with the Hillel interpretation, he could decide whether to initiate the divorce for any cause.

But the passage isn't about the agunah problem. The Pharisees ask if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause. They didn't ask if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife without a certificate. Hillel and Shammai apparently disagreed about the cause for which a man could give a certificate, base don the Mishnah. Hillel said a man could put her away for burning a meal. Shammai focused on the uncleanness of the woman in the Deuteronomy 24 passage.

When Christ told them what God hath joined together, let not man put assunder, then they asked him why Moses __commanded__ the writing of divorcement. He told them it was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses __allowed__ divorce, but from the beginning it was not so.

The Pharisees referenced a __different__ legal problem than the agunah problem at the beginning of the conversation... that of the any cause divorce.

 

[NOV25]

Ok I give up.

Jesus taught fornication only divorce and all remarriage is adultery.

The pastors and elders say:
Sorry Christian ladies, if your husband goes out for milk and never returns, you’re forbidden to file for divorce. Just pray he doesn’t pick up the kids from school one day and serve you papers from another state.

Sorry women and children, dad is only emotionally abusive, but he’s not fornicating, you’ll have to stick it out and hope it never turns physical. Maybe you could just move out, pray he doesn’t file and get custody.

Sorry new converts who were previously divorced, you’re not permitted to remarry.

Sorry new converts, that second marriage you’re in is adultery. Have fun sleeping tonight.

Sorry ladies, I know he refuses to work, steals your grocery money to buy drugs, but he’s willing to stay and he’s not fornicating so you’ll have to stick it out.

Sorry husbands, she keeps having abortions but she’s not fornicating, so you’ll have to deal with it.

Sorry husbands, she’s encouraging your son to have a transition surgery, but she’s not fornicating so hang in there tiger, we’ll pray for you.

Sorry husbands, she’s gotten into satan worship and she’s even teaching your children, but she’s not fornicating so no divorce is permitted.

Sorry y’all, the Deuteronomic permission would have helped you with all these things and more, but apparently Jesus wants you hang in there.

Don’t forget to share your wonderful testimony at work and in the grocery store, just hope they don’t ask you how that black eye happened.

———

All of you permanence folks be warned, your doctrine doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Your advice has real life consequences for the bride, be careful how you handle her.

False divorce and remarriage doctrines are the most harmful, non salvific, false doctrines known to Christendom. Not only responsible for unwarranted emotional and even physical pain to the bride as well as her young, but also causes damage to gospel in those outside the body who witness this type of unbiblical, cult like behavior.

 

[presidente]

Ok I give up.

Jesus taught fornication only divorce and all remarriage is adultery.

The pastors and elders say:
Sorry Christian ladies, if your husband goes out for milk and never returns, you’re forbidden to file for divorce. Just pray he doesn’t pick up the kids from school one day and serve you papers from another state.

Hold on a second here. You were interpreting Matthew 19 to say that a woman put away without a certificate couldn't remarry. So your interpretation would lead to the scenario you mockingly suggest.

Not only that, but if the husband decides he doesn't want to return when he goes out for milk, then he can just give her a certificate of divorce to his innocent wife, and it's no big deal if he marries another woman. If sees she has a wart and he doesn't like it, he can give her a certificate and marry again. The next day, he can marry another one, and if she bores him, he can give her a certificate.

If wife number 4 commits a sexual sin, according to your interpretation, he wouldn't even have to give her a certificate. He could just marry another wife.

Your interpretation lets a man divorce his wife for any ol' reason as long as he gives her a piece of paper, right?

And we do live in a culture where adulterous divorce and remarriage is rampant. If you see this in church, that doesn't mean it's normal. It has crept up on us just in the past several decades. In denominations that 6 decades ago scarcely had a divorce person in the pews, are 'marrying' two men together nowadays. Think of the Episcopalians and Church of England folks. It's perversion. First society started embracing ;no fault' divorce, and many churches stopped teaching what Jesus said about it. Then it became the norm for church-going kids to fornication, and adults also. Now we have gay marriage and people like yourself reinterpreting the words of Jesus in the most ridiculous ways.

Can you find a single commentator before the 20th century who suggested the interpretation of Jesus' words that you are suggesting? Your interpretation doesn't even align with what he says in the passage, His commentary on Moses... and it doesn't align with what readers of the Greek language in the first century who read the Gospels.

Paul wrote that the Lord commanded the wife not to leave her husband and the husband not to leave his wife. How is that in line with what you and the website you are referring to says Jesus taught?

False divorce and remarriage doctrines are the most harmful, non salvific, false doctrines known to Christendom. Not only responsible for unwarranted emotional and even physical pain to the bride as well as her young, but also causes damage to gospel in those outside the body who witness this type of unbiblical, cult like behavior.

You should be very careful, then, what ideas you spread.

 

[presidente]

@SomeDisciple and @NOV25

Consider the disciples reaction-- that if such be the case of a man with his wife, it is good for a man not to marry.

If Jesus were just saying it were adultery to marry a who had been married who did not have a divorce certificate, we might have expected them to say 'no duh.' What religious Jew would have thought that is okay?

Also, do you think these apostles would be so despicable as to just kick a woman out, not support her, without giving her a certificate, just to save on financial support? Is there any evidence that doing this would be considered righteous behavior for a religious Jew?

Woman put away with a certificate is put away. This is very clear from Deuteronomy 24 and the words of the Pharisees which refer to it in Matthew 19.

 

[NOV25]

Hold on a second here. You were interpreting Matthew 19 to say that a woman put away without a certificate couldn't remarry. So your interpretation would lead to the scenario you mockingly suggest.

Which one of the scenarios I mentioned involved fornication? None.

You really should take the time to understand a view before you attempt to argue against it?

 

[NOV25]

@presidente ”Your interpretation lets a man divorce his wife for any ol' reason as long as he gives her a piece of paper, right?”
You must be watching Mike Winger videos 🤣

My point exactly, you haven’t even taken the time to work through my view to the end. Just lashing out at something you don’t understand. Sad really.

In a nutshell, I’m a 3-4 clause permissive, with remarriage being permissible, if you must, but only in the Lord.

What are you? We’ll wait while you to google it.

 

[presidente]

@presidente ”Your interpretation lets a man divorce his wife for any ol' reason as long as he gives her a piece of paper, right?”
You must be watching Mike Winger videos 🤣

I think I've seen a couple of his videos, but I do not know what you are referring to. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion given your interpretation of the passage? How do you interpret it? If Jesus' restriction on divorce an remarriage was the already-existing restriction that a bill of divorce was needed (it certainly was for a woman) then wouldn't Jesus just be allowing divorce for any cause, as long as there is paperwork in your view?

My point exactly, you haven’t even taken the time to work through my view to the end. Just lashing out at something you don’t understand. Sad really.

Why don't you explain it? While you are at it, you could explain what that comment about Moses and hard hearts and 'form the beginning it was not so' means in your interpretation, and explain the disciple's reaction, and hnow a woman who is put away with a certificate is not put away.

In a nutshell, I’m a 3-4 clause permissive, with remarriage being permissible, if you must, but only in the Lord.

Whag is a 3-4 clause permissive?

 

[Adstar]

I was explaining the traditional view, considering the topic of this thread.

Mark and Luke do not contain 'the exception clause'.

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

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

If you were a first or second century believer who only had the gospel of Mark or the gospel of Luke and the book of Romans, what would you conclude Christian doctrine was regard to divorce and remarriage?

I have read one interpretation, in line with the traditional interpretation, that 'the phrase 'except it be for fornication' that He was saying He was setting aside the issue of fornication an not addressing it.

If one takes the view that Jesus makes an exception for fornication and that one should interpret the less clear scriptures by adding details of another scripture, then you have a typical Protestant viewpoint. (Protestant views vary.)

And of course if Jesus is not calling divorcing over fornication 'adultery', one may also ask if it is runs contrary to 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I have also read of Protestants disagreeing over whether 'except it be for fornication' modifies what is before or after, resulting in differing views on whether the fornicator who is divorced can remarry.

I'd also point out that the statement relates to one divorcing his wife over fornication and not vice versa. The Torah did not mention women giving men certificates of divorce.

Modern Protestants and evangelicals tend to be a lot more liberal about divorce and remarriage than these historical views. People divorce left and right in some churches, and I suspect there is no pastoral inquiry. I don't hear a lot about pastors or church people telling someone who divorced over irreconcilable differences to remain celibate or reconcile with the previous spouse, either.

"""Mark and Luke do not contain 'the exception clause'. ""

So are you claiming that the Gospel of Matthew is uninspired / not the Word of God ?

If one takes the view that Jesus makes an exception for fornication and that one should interpret the less clear scriptures by adding details of another scripture, then you have a typical Protestant viewpoint. (Protestant views vary.)

No... It is a Biblical centered view which takes the WHOLE word of God on the matter into account.. Not just certain verses that seem to support a NO to any divorce, false doctrine, from the false catholic religion..

I have also read of Protestants disagreeing over whether 'except it be for fornication' modifies what is before or after, resulting in differing views on whether the fornicator who is divorced can remarry.

So it seems you are not a protestant? So what are you ? a catholic???

Modern Protestants and evangelicals tend to be a lot more liberal about divorce and remarriage than these historical views. People divorce left and right in some churches, and I suspect there is no pastoral inquiry. I don't hear a lot about pastors or church people telling someone who divorced over irreconcilable differences to remain celibate or reconcile with the previous spouse, either.

Why are you even talking about denominational positions ?? If one is a Bible believing Christian then they concentrate on what the actual Bible says about divorce..

Also Divorce is not needed if twp people want to separate and no longer live together as Wife and husband.. The reason why divorce came into being was to allow those who have separated to marry someone else.. People can separate and just live apart if they have no intention of marrying again..

 

[presidente]

So are you claiming that the Gospel of Matthew is uninspired / not the Word of God ?

I suppose I could respond in kind and say,
'So are you saying we should beat up puppies and small children?'

I pointed out that Mark and Luke do not have the exception clause, and that is your response?

Also Divorce is not needed if twp people want to separate and no longer live together as Wife and husband.. The reason why divorce came into being was to allow those who have separated to marry someone else.. People can separate and just live apart if they have no intention of marrying again..

In the modern world, it separates two individuals financially. There are women who divorce their husbands to be free of them who say they will never remarry. And of course some of them do anyway.

There is also the strategy of divorcing without Biblical grounds, waiting for the other person to remarry or have sex with someone else, then claiming Biblical grounds.. The other spouse may have reasoned the departing spouse is an unbeliever by virtue of departing, and used the 'if the unbeliever departs' verse as justification.

 

[NOV25]

@presidente “Why don't you explain it?” “

Again, I’ll let you do the research. Just google the views on divorce and remarriage, you’ll find plenty of good articles that break down the permanence-liberal views.

An honest conclusion of one who forms their doctrine primarily from a literal reading of the gospel texts alone-through the “ESV” lens, is a John Piper’esque strict no divorce and remarriage doctrine. They eventually come to realize that Deuteronomy is in fact a permission from God, but falsely conclude “that was for then but Jesus raised the standard” to loosely quote Piper.

Permanence folks must ignore the Greek and Hebrew, pit Jesus against Moses, void Deuteronomy and brush off Paul’s “contradictions” in 1 Corinthians 7, to maintain their twisted view.
Not to mention, they must have an un-christlike heart of stone when it comes to enforcing their view in real life applications.
For example, when 2 raised in the church make professions, get married, have children then enter the the biblical counseling office, she with a broken eye socket (which I have personally seen) will hear from a permanence elder that divorce is not permitted. Sadly for all involved, the deceived advising elder who will be judged on how he handles the bride AND of course the suffering family, this type of situation is all too common.

It’s true, God’s will is that two become one for life but after the fall permission and guidelines were set for divorce and remarriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

A careful examination of the Deuteronomic permission, by a true believer, will result in divorce being allowable for seriously shameful acts only and that remarriage is permitted-Paul might say, if you must but only in the Lord.

“While you are at it,you could explain what that comment about Moses and hard hearts and 'form the beginning it was not so' means in your interpretation, and explain the disciple's reaction, and hnow a woman who is put away with a certificate is not put away.”

Christ referencing Moses is a reference to the Tora, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
As mentioned above, permanence folks must read this as Jesus coming to correct Moses, correct the Tora, which is erroneous since Jesus is Tora, every jot and title.

Christ stating his original design, that two become one for life, is just that, it’s his ultimate will from before creation but it should not be used in an attempt to void other scripture.

Think of it this way. Was it God’s plan from before creation that men become servants and slaves? No.
But in Tora, provision and guidelines are set by God because of the hardness of heart in fallen mankind.

As to how the apostles respond, any view can use this as support because it requires assumption. In other words, it shouldn’t be a major column in supporting your doctrinal view.

Again, you don’t have to agree with anyone else’s view obviously but it’s best to understand both yours and theirs before you attempt to debate either. I’m happy to labor with you, to help you try and fill the leaks in your view and to understand the leaks in mine, but moving forward let’s both refill our humility cups. 😅 I apologize for becoming short with you in recent posts.

 

[Nehemiah6]

A careful examination of the Deuteronomic permission, by a true believer, will result in divorce being allowable for seriously shameful acts only and that remarriage is permitted-Paul might say, if you must but only in the Lord.

I believe this would be the proper understanding of divorce and remarriage. God and Christ do not expect one spouse to abuse the other and continue in that relationship. And the abuser could be either spouse.

But before going forward with such a serious decision (which also impacts on children and others), if the couple (or either one) is a member of a local church, at the very least they need to present the issue to the elders. and get their responses and their spiritual guidance. Chances are that either one or both spouses are not even saved, since for the believer Christ says that the husband should love the wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it. Also the wife should "reverence" her own husband by being in submission to him (again not abusive submission but godly submission).

 

[presidente]

Again, I’ll let you do the research. Just google the views on divorce and remarriage, you’ll find plenty of good articles that break down the permanence-liberal views.

An honest conclusion of one who forms their doctrine primarily from a literal reading of the gospel texts alone-through the “ESV” lens, is a John Piper’esque strict no divorce and remarriage doctrine. They eventually come to realize that Deuteronomy is in fact a permission from God, but falsely conclude “that was for then but Jesus raised the standard” to loosely quote Piper.

Permanence folks must ignore the Greek and Hebrew, pit Jesus against Moses, void Deuteronomy and brush off Paul’s “contradictions” in 1 Corinthians 7, to maintain their twisted view.
Not to mention, they must have an un-christlike heart of stone when it comes to enforcing their view in real life applications.

For example, when 2 raised in the church make professions, get married, have children then enter the the biblical counseling office, she with a broken eye socket (which I have personally seen) will hear from a permanence elder that divorce is not permitted. Sadly for all involved, the deceived advising elder who will be judged on how he handles the bride AND of course the suffering family, this type of situation is all too common.[/quote}

Hold on a second. You sent me to a website of a man arguing for basically an Orthodox Jewish/Hillel Pharisee position that divorcing the wife is in the hands of the man and the woman cannot initiate a divorce, who argued that Jesus was just teaching against remarriage if the woman doesn't have a divorce certificate. Under that scenario, a woman cannot divorce a man.

So after all that, you are complaining about an elder telling a wife in dire straits that she cannot divorce her husband. Isn't that the same view you were posting links in favor of... at least to the extent that the woman can't divorce the man.

If it were the man with the broken eye socket, your objection would make more sense, considering that your article was in favor of men divorcing their wives if they chose to if they used a certificate. Regarding the situation you described, there is more going on than just the issue of divorce. David was in a situation where he was supposed to serve (and submit to) a king who was trying to kill him. Instead of sticking around, he fled to preserve his life.

I have heard of a very conservative approach to a marital problem where the leaders said they were exercising church discipline, offered the wife and children a place to stay, and with them cut off fellowship with the man, who repented and was restored to his family. This was some kind of porn type situation, I think rather than violence. There is also the possibility of calling the local police.

Paul says 'but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.' He doesn't mention abuse in that verse, but there may be reasons why a wife leaves, but it isn't adultery if she does not remarry. Preserving someone's life is very important. Divorce and remarriage is not the only issue.

Just as far as Matthew 19 goes, doesn't the interpretation allow a man to dump his wife and remarry for any reason, and not even give her a writ of divorce if it was for fornication? How do you get around that?

It’s true, God’s will is that two become one for life but after the fall permission and guidelines were set for divorce and remarriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

It alludes to guidelines Moses set, along with a command about a previous divorced wife not returning to a first husband. Jesus said that Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it is not so. He said it was Moses allowing it. Are Jesus' words in Matthew there inspired?

A careful examination of the Deuteronomic permission, by a true believer, will result in divorce being allowable for seriously shameful acts only and that remarriage is permitted-Paul might say, if you must but only in the Lord.

So do you think Jesus dodged the question and on the need for a certificate (which does not line up with the actual words He said), but that Shammai was right on divorce?

“While you are at it,you could explain what that comment about Moses and hard hearts and 'form the beginning it was not so' means in your interpretation, and explain the disciple's reaction, and hnow a woman who is put away with a certificate is not put away.”

Christ referencing Moses is a reference to the Tora, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
As mentioned above, permanence folks must read this as Jesus coming to correct Moses, correct the Tora, which is erroneous since Jesus is Tora, every jot and title.

No, not correcting the Torah. The Torah lays out a case where a man divorces his wife and gives her a certificate, and gives a command for that case. The Lord Jesus attributed allowing divorce with a certificate to Moses.

Think of it this way. Was it God’s plan from before creation that men become servants and slaves? No.
But in Tora, provision and guidelines are set by God because of the hardness of heart in fallen mankind.

But Jesus did not declare it adultery to own a slave or to sell one and to get another. Our culture makes slavery a much bigger sin than divorce-adultery. If there had been no servants in history, would we understand scriptures about being servants of Christ or the role of angels in serving, or ministry as service?[/QUOTE][/USER][/QUOTE]

 

[NOV25]

Hold on a second. You sent me to a website of a man arguing for basically an Orthodox Jewish/Hillel Pharisee position that divorcing the wife is in the hands of the man and the woman cannot initiate a divorce, who argued that Jesus was just teaching against remarriage if the woman doesn't have a divorce certificate. Under that scenario, a woman cannot divorce a man.

So after all that, you are complaining about an elder telling a wife in dire straits that she cannot divorce her husband. Isn't that the same view you were posting links in favor of... at least to the extent that the woman can't divorce the man.

If it were the man with the broken eye socket, your objection would make more sense, considering that your article was in favor of men divorcing their wives if they chose to if they used a certificate. Regarding the situation you described, there is more going on than just the issue of divorce. David was in a situation where he was supposed to serve (and submit to) a king who was trying to kill him. Instead of sticking around, he fled to preserve his life.

I have heard of a very conservative approach to a marital problem where the leaders said they were exercising church discipline, offered the wife and children a place to stay, and with them cut off fellowship with the man, who repented and was restored to his family. This was some kind of porn type situation, I think rather than violence. There is also the possibility of calling the local police.

Paul says 'but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.' He doesn't mention abuse in that verse, but there may be reasons why a wife leaves, but it isn't adultery if she does not remarry. Preserving someone's life is very important. Divorce and remarriage is not the only issue.

Just as far as Matthew 19 goes, doesn't the interpretation allow a man to dump his wife and remarry for any reason, and not even give her a writ of divorce if it was for fornication? How do you get around that?



It alludes to guidelines Moses set, along with a command about a previous divorced wife not returning to a first husband. Jesus said that Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it is not so. He said it was Moses allowing it. Are Jesus' words in Matthew there inspired?



So do you think Jesus dodged the question and on the need for a certificate (which does not line up with the actual words He said), but that Shammai was right on divorce?



No, not correcting the Torah. The Torah lays out a case where a man divorces his wife and gives her a certificate, and gives a command for that case. The Lord Jesus attributed allowing divorce with a certificate to Moses.



But Jesus did not declare it adultery to own a slave or to sell one and to get another. Our culture makes slavery a much bigger sin than divorce-adultery. If there had been no servants in history, would we understand scriptures about being servants of Christ or the role of angels in serving, or ministry as service?

No, proponents of my view aren’t Hillel’ish, they’re typically 2-4 clause permissive.

Were you able to look up which of the views you most align with, permanence through liberal permissive? That’ll be helpful for you. 👍

Until you understand where you stand, it’s likely you’ll continue to struggle in understand my view.

 

[NOV25]

I believe this would be the proper understanding of divorce and remarriage. God and Christ do not expect one spouse to abuse the other and continue in that relationship. And the abuser could be either spouse.

But before going forward with such a serious decision (which also impacts on children and others), if the couple (or either one) is a member of a local church, at the very least they need to present the issue to the elders. and get their responses and their spiritual guidance. Chances are that either one or both spouses are not even saved, since for the believer Christ says that the husband should love the wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it. Also the wife should "reverence" her own husband by being in submission to him (again not abusive submission but godly submission).

All good points.

Also. Mighty big of you to respond in such a way, seeing how we’ve had no shortage of disagreements over the years. 👍

 

[presidente]

No, proponents of my view aren’t Hillel’ish, they’re typically 2-4 clause permissive.

Were you able to look up which of the views you most align with, permanence through liberal permissive? That’ll be helpful for you. 👍

Until you understand where you stand, it’s likely you’ll continue to struggle in understand my view.

You'd have to explain your view or at least link to it. I get UN documents with a Google search. But you haven't even answered my questions about Matthew 19 yet from pages back, so I am not that eager to go on to other topics. Why can't you explain your own view? Do you actually hold to any pre-packaged views? You apparently do not completely hold to the view of the author whose page you seemed to endorse earlier.

 

[NOV25]

You'd have to explain your view or at least link to it. I get UN documents with a Google search. But you haven't even answered my questions about Matthew 19 yet from pages back, so I am not that eager to go on to other topics. Why can't you explain your own view? Do you actually hold to any pre-packaged views? You apparently do not completely hold to the view of the author whose page you seemed to endorse earlier.

I don’t know how to say this without coming across as smug, but it’s clear that I’ve explained beyond your current level of research.

As I said before, I’m glad to discuss the leaks in my view and help your with yours, but I have no desire to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[SomeDisciple]

If Jesus were just saying it were adultery to marry a who had been married who did not have a divorce certificate, we might have expected them to say 'no duh.' What religious Jew would have thought that is okay?

If you're only looking through that specific lens- they did know that part already. But there are broader implications.

Also, do you think these apostles would be so despicable as to just kick a woman out, not support her, without giving her a certificate, just to save on financial support? Is there any evidence that doing this would be considered righteous behavior for a religious Jew?

Joseph was going to put Mary away privily- (That was for supposed sexual immorality, though.) There are some other "despicable things" that a woman could do that would drive a man to put away their wives.... and besides all that, the Apostles at that point in the scriptures are not Holy-ghost filled; they're no better than anybody else.

 

[presidente]

I don’t know how to say this without coming across as smug, but it’s clear that I’ve explained beyond your current level of research.

As I said before, I’m glad to discuss the leaks in my view and help your with yours, but I have no desire to argue for the sake of arguing.

You gave me some kind of 'code' for your viewpoint, but no link. Many books and documents have been written on this. I am not familiar with the label you used for your viewpoint. You posted a link to an article that pointed out that Moses had men only giving women the certificate, and Judaism not recognizing it the other way around, but also trying to argue that when Jesus said that whosoever put away his wife except it be for fornication and married another... that He didn't really mean 'whosoever'... that He was just talking about the ones who did so without a certificate.

But apparently, you don't believe that, but rather some other view that doesn't sound consistent with what you were referring me to before. You believe some theory you had a name for, but didn't explain or link to. Unless I've missed a post, that's what I got so far. And you have 'explained beyond my current level of research' but haven't addressed many of the specific points and questions I raised.

 

[NOV25]

You gave me some kind of 'code' for your viewpoint, but no link. Many books and documents have been written on this. I am not familiar with the label you used for your viewpoint. You posted a link to an article that pointed out that Moses had men only giving women the certificate, and Judaism not recognizing it the other way around, but also trying to argue that when Jesus said that whosoever put away his wife except it be for fornication and married another... that He didn't really mean 'whosoever'... that He was just talking about the ones who did so without a certificate.

But apparently, you don't believe that, but rather some other view that doesn't sound consistent with what you were referring me to before. You believe some theory you had a name for, but didn't explain or link to. Unless I've missed a post, that's what I got so far. And you have 'explained beyond my current level of research' but haven't addressed many of the specific points and questions I raised.

We could start fresh with smaller bites, that might help us 🤷‍♂️