quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorilynn777

quote:

ORIGINAL: Katie51

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorilynn777

I have a question that I've debated with my Christian family for a while.

My cousin got married at 20. After her husband started drinking and getting more and more violent (he threatened her but didn't beat her) she divorced him. She is now happily remarried and they have a daughter and another on the way.

My cousin is a Christian and so is her new husband. She was a Christian when she married. I don't think her ex was a Christian, though.

According to the bible, she is living in adultery now. Even though they attend church every Sunday and are happy, is God looking at her as an adulterer. Will she be an adulterer as long as she stays in her current marriage? If you ask forgiveness for the divorce is that covered or are you living an adulterous life every day of your life once you remarry? These are the questions I have. Reading the Word is sounds as though you are an adulterer every day of your life until you return to your former spouse or get unmarried. Then you are divorced again in accordance with the word and try to get back with your ex are you guilty of divorce #2? If you get divorced and remarried it seems like you are doomed. I can't find it anywhere in the word where God give you an o.k. to remarry unless your spouse cheated. How can we live under that yoke of bondage? There are things worse than cheating. I think getting beat everyday or being told you're worthless, drugs, etc. is worse, personally (I'm not living the above exactly per-se, I'm using it as an example).

That is why I am staying in an unhealthy, unloving, sometimes violent, horrible marriage. I don't want to divorce and then be doomed to hell if I find someone who loves me and wants to get married. I don't want to raise a child alone either. I want my son to have a father, but a Christian one but I can't because God doesn't allow for divorce unless my husband cheats on me. Not likely since he works third shift with a bunch of guys and never leaves the house.

The rules of marriage/remarriage are so rigid. No wonder Paul wished everyone would stay unmarried like him.

As you can see, this is an area of contention with me. But who am I to question God, although I do.

I dont believe God intended for any man or woman to remain in an abusive marriage like that. That is some peoples opinion, not Scripture. Do you really think the God shown to us in Jesus Christ wants a woman beaten to a pulp, degraded, her child ruined....I dont. and divorce doesnt doom anyone to hell.

No not at all. I'm just saying that I can't find scripture to back up leaving in a situation where there is verbal/mental abuse. I'm sure abuse existed back in Jesus' time, I've just wondered why Christ only mentioned adultery as a reason for divorce.

Nobody should put up with physical abuse or let their kids see that. I just have been going through a questioning time because when you've been whomped on the head by scripture as much as I have by well intentioned Christians, you make sure you can back everything up by scripture. This is just a very debated topic among Christians because Jesus didn't address the verbal/mental abuse issue directly. In my mind it is obvious that a woman should leave if she is getting her butt kicked by her husband.

When I refer to violence in my own marriage it is mostly verbal abuse and sometimes he will throw things against the wall or hit things and break them. Since going on the meds he has gotten better with the violent outbursts. There are degrees of violence, though. I consider screaming, cursing, throwing things violence. I know many others would not call that violence. I should have made myself more clear. My husband is not beating me. If that were the case I would have been gone in a flash.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chuckels

I'm new here, I've read through about half of this extensive thread... but from what I've read I think I have something to offer.

When is divorce an acceptable option?
Adultery, abandonment, abuse.

quote:


What does God think about divorce?
God required it... and by the way... the Deut. 24 requirement of a "divorce document" was the first time in human history that such was required. It was actually a part of God's "Justice" on behalf of the offended party... the one being sent away. This is also the point grievously missed... "divorcement" was God acting in His character of "Justice" acting on the behalf of the "kicked out" wife.

What I didn't see in the other discussion is the clear distinction in scripture between two very different social realities in biblical times that are totally alien to us today.. "putting away" and "divorcement." We have committed the horrid interpretive error where we read into the text a contemporary understanding rather than understanding the context in which the scripture was written. The very unfortunate reality is that none of our English translations keep the distinctions clear, and this has caused much confusion in the Church. For example, Mal. 2 does not say that God hates "divorce" but rather the Hebrew says that God hates "putting away."

quote:


God required a man in Deut. 24 to give his wife a certificate of divorce if he, because of his hard heart, was going to put her away. This was because some Hebrew men were so hard hearted that they would put away their wives... kick them out on the streets... and the wives were still the property of the man kicking them out... they were still his wife. Jesus clarifies this in Matthew 19 when he says that Moses gave the requirement for a man putting away his wife in Deut. because of the man's hard heart... the fault was not with the wife... thus the curious "uncleanness" word in the Hebrew... if you will... by Christ's interpretation... the "uncleanness" was given as a sarcastic judgment on the hard hearted man kicking his wife out.

quote:


Of course, the man had the privilege of having other wives... but certainly not the wife. How is that for a hard heart?

By the way, the same distinction is also in the NT. Matthew 5:32 does not say that a man marrying a "divorced" woman is committing adultery, but the Greek clearly says that a man marrying a "put away" wife is committing adultery... she was still the property of the man if simply put away.

quote:


Is divorce a sin?
Would God require sin? No way.

What the divorce did was to do away with the marriage, it no longer existed, the woman was no longer the property, wife, of the man.

By the way, Joseph was not going to "divorce" Mary, he was simply going to "put her away" since it was going to be done "privately"... a "divorce" was always a "public" event ensuring that the general public knew that the woman being put away was no longer the wife of the man. I have a source quote from Josephus stating the same, that until a man gave his wife the divorce decree that she was still property of, wife of, the man. ("He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, and many such causes happen among men, let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do...") [Antiquities of the Jews, The Life and Work of Flavius Josephus, Book IV, Ch. VIII, Sec. 23, p. 134; tr. Wm. Whiston; Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, NY]

quote:

ORIGINAL: chuckels

I'm new here, I've read through about half of this extensive thread... but from what I've read I think I have something to offer.

When is divorce an acceptable option?
Adultery, abandonment, abuse.

What does God think about divorce?
God required it... and by the way... the Deut. 24 requirement of a "divorce document" was the first time in human history that such was required. It was actually a part of God's "Justice" on behalf of the offended party... the one being sent away. This is also the point grievously missed... "divorcement" was God acting in His character of "Justice" acting on the behalf of the "kicked out" wife.

What I didn't see in the other discussion is the clear distinction in scripture between two very different social realities in biblical times that are totally alien to us today.. "putting away" and "divorcement." We have committed the horrid interpretive error where we read into the text a contemporary understanding rather than understanding the context in which the scripture was written. The very unfortunate reality is that none of our English translations keep the distinctions clear, and this has caused much confusion in the Church. For example, Mal. 2 does not say that God hates "divorce" but rather the Hebrew says that God hates "putting away." God required a man in Deut. 24 to give his wife a certificate of divorce if he, because of his hard heart, was going to put her away. This was because some Hebrew men were so hard hearted that they would put away their wives... kick them out on the streets... and the wives were still the property of the man kicking them out... they were still his wife. Jesus clarifies this in Matthew 19 when he says that Moses gave the requirement for a man putting away his wife in Deut. because of the man's hard heart... the fault was not with the wife... thus the curious "uncleanness" word in the Hebrew... if you will... by Christ's interpretation... the "uncleanness" was given as a sarcastic judgment on the hard hearted man kicking his wife out.

Of course, the man had the privilege of having other wives... but certainly not the wife. How is that for a hard heart?

By the way, the same distinction is also in the NT. Matthew 5:32 does not say that a man marrying a "divorced" woman is committing adultery, but the Greek clearly says that a man marrying a "put away" wife is committing adultery... she was still the property of the man if simply put away.

Is divorce a sin?
Would God require sin? No way.

What the divorce did was to do away with the marriage, it no longer existed, the woman was no longer the property, wife, of the man.

By the way, Joseph was not going to "divorce" Mary, he was simply going to "put her away" since it was going to be done "privately"... a "divorce" was always a "public" event ensuring that the general public knew that the woman being put away was no longer the wife of the man. I have a source quote from Josephus stating the same, that until a man gave his wife the divorce decree that she was still property of, wife of, the man. ("He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, and many such causes happen among men, let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do...") [Antiquities of the Jews, The Life and Work of Flavius Josephus, Book IV, Ch. VIII, Sec. 23, p. 134; tr. Wm. Whiston; Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, NY]

Does divorce make a person ineligible for ministry?
This will of course depend on the individual and the circumstances around the divorce... who was responsible for the divorce? Would have to be considered on a case by case basis.

This is of course very brief! Thanks for letting me bend your ear a little. There is of course much more I could share on this if there is interest.

God Bless,

chuck

quote:

Eep! Here we go again! This argument has been discussed extensively - the difference between divorce and putting away.

I have lived in a country where Greek is the first language, and asked a friend who is a native Greek speaker, and who has also studied biblical Greek, and he said that neither apoluo nor apostasion are used these days in referring to divorce, but in the context in which they were used, they are both referring to a complete divorce, and neither are referring to 'putting away', as so many people these days like to claim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chuckels

Thanks for the responses!

How about a question?

Do you think it was possible in biblical times for a Hebrew man, who owned his woman/wife as a piece of property, to simply kick her out of his house, and she was still legally his property?

quote:

ORIGINAL: chuckels

Hey Benelchi,

We are of course talking about more than Jewish women in 1st century culture... Deut. was give well over a thousand years before the first century.

I would take exception to the statement that Jewish women had more rights than other cultures around them. In the Code of Hammurabi women had far more rights and protections than their Hebrew contemporaries... as well as the children who were rejected by their fathers along with their rejected mothers.

quote:


As to the Hebrew men being above tossing their wives out because of social pressure... remember the golden calf thing? God was ready to kill all of them. :-) I'm afraid that many have sort of this noble idea of OT Israel that doesn't fit the biblical reality.

God Bless!

quote:

from the Code of Hammurabi:

137
If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.

138
If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go.

139
If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold as a gift of release.

140
If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.

144
If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.

145
If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he intend to take another wife: if he take this second wife, and bring her into the house, this second wife shall not be allowed equality with his wife.

148
If a man take a wife, and she be seized by disease, if he then desire to take a second wife he shall not put away his wife, who has been attacked by disease, but he shall keep her in the house which he has built and support her so long as she lives.

149
If this woman does not wish to remain in her husband's house, then he shall compensate her for the dowry that she brought with her from her father's house, and she may go.

150
If a man give his wife a field, garden, and house and a deed therefor, if then after the death of her husband the sons raise no claim, then the mother may bequeath all to one of her sons whom she prefers, and need leave nothing to his brothers.

quote:

…The word adultery had a peculiar significance in Jewish law, which recognized polygamy and concubinage as legitimate. Thus a Hebrew might have two or more wives or concubines, and might have intercourse with a slave or bondwoman, even if married, without being guilty of the crime of adultery (Lev_19:20), for adultery, according to Jewish law, was possible only when a man dishonored the “free wife” of a Hebrew (Lev_20:10).
(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia article on Divorce in the Old Testament)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SmileyTish

Okay to lead this in another direction...I have not read all the posts...I don't have that much time in the day and I'd like to keep a 2nd divorce from occuring...soooo....

How many here would consider unrepentant pornagraphy viewing as adultery...I'm not talking about someone who had an issue every once in a while and dealt with the temptaion, I am talking about someone that seeks it out on a regular basis in all its viewing mediums... and if you do view that as adultery, is that grounds for divorce by the offended party...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikesayen

Theses:
It is true; when Paul speaks to the “men” or “brethren” he is usually addressing all believers, both men and women, in the Church. But when Paul addressed the wife specifically in 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2-3 this was to the women only. Only when someone is divorced according to the Law of Moses are they allowed to marry again indicating the broken covenant. And also, only the woman is addressed in the bible as a “widow” when speaking about remarriage.

http://mikesayen.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/the-cure-4-divorce/

quote:

ORIGINAL: rxw

I found this information and although it's lengthy, I thought it was worth it for those who would be interested.

Their question is, Whether a man may put away his wife for every cause. That it might be done for some cause, even for that of fornication, was granted; but may it be done, as now it commonly was done, by the looser sort of people, for every cause; for any cause that a man shall think fit to assign, though ever so frivolous; upon every dislike or displeasure? The toleration, in this case, permitted it, in case she found no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, Deu. 24:1. This they interpreted so largely as to make any disgust, though causeless, the ground of a divorce.
II. Christ’s answer to this question; though it was proposed to tempt him, yet, being a case of conscience, and a weighty one, he gave a full answer to it, not a direct one, but an effectual one; laying down such principles as undeniably prove that such arbitrary divorces as were then in use, which made the matrimonial bond so very precarious, were by no means lawful. Christ himself would not give the rule without a reason, nor lay down his judgment without scripture proof to support it. Now his argument is this; "If husband and wife are by the will and appointment of God joined together in the strictest and closest union, then they are not to be lightly, and upon every occasion, separated; if the know be sacred, it cannot be easily untied.’’ Now, to prove that there is such a union between man and wife, he urges three things.
1. The creation of Adam and Eve, concerning which he appeals to their own knowledge of the scriptures; Have ye not read? It is some advantage in arguing, to deal with those that own, and have read, the scriptures; Ye have read (but have not considered) that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, Gen. 1:27; 5:2. Note, It will be of great use to us often to think of our creation, how and by whom, what and for what, we were created. He made them male and female, one female for one male; so that Adam could not divorce his wife, and take another, for there was no other to take. It likewise intimated an inseparable union between them; Eve was a rib out of Adam’s side, so that he could not put her away, but he must put away a piece of himself, and contradict the manifest indications of her creation. Christ hints briefly at this, but, in appealing to what they had read, he refers them to the original record, where it is observable, that, though the rest of the living creatures were made male and female, yet it is not said so concerning any of them, but only concerning mankind; because between man and woman the conjunction is rational, and intended for nobler purposes than merely the pleasing of sense and the preserving of a seed; and it is therefore more close and firm than that between male and female among the brutes, who were not capable of being such help—meets for one another as Adam and Ever were. Hence the manner of expression is somewhat singular (Gen. 1:27), In the image of God created he him, male and female created he them; him and them are used promiscuously; being one by creation before they were two, when they became one again by marriage-covenant, that oneness could not but be closer and indissoluble.
2. The fundamental law of marriage, which is, that a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, v. 5. The relation between husband and wife is nearer than that between parents and children; now, if the filial relation may not easily be violated, much less may the marriage union be broken. May a child desert his parents, or may a parent abandon his children, for any cause, for every cause? No, by no means. Much less may a husband put away his wife, betwixt whom, though not by nature, yet by divine appointment, the relation is nearer, and the bond of union stronger, than between parents and children; for that is in a great measure superseded by marriage, when a man must leave his parents, to cleave to his wife. See here the power of a divine institution, that the result of it is a union stronger than that which results from the highest obligations of nature.
[Edited by Admin for length. Please do not copy and paste such large portions. 3-4 paragraphs is plenty and then include a link to where the rest can be found.]

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: rxw

I found this information and although it's lengthy, I thought it was worth it for those who would be interested.

Their question is, Whether a man may put away his wife for every cause. That it might be done for some cause, even for that of fornication, was granted; but may it be done, as now it commonly was done, by the looser sort of people, for every cause; for any cause that a man shall think fit to assign, though ever so frivolous; upon every dislike or displeasure? The toleration, in this case, permitted it, in case she found no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, Deu. 24:1. This they interpreted so largely as to make any disgust, though causeless, the ground of a divorce.
II. Christ’s answer to this question; though it was proposed to tempt him, yet, being a case of conscience, and a weighty one, he gave a full answer to it, not a direct one, but an effectual one; laying down such principles as undeniably prove that such arbitrary divorces as were then in use, which made the matrimonial bond so very precarious, were by no means lawful. Christ himself would not give the rule without a reason, nor lay down his judgment without scripture proof to support it. Now his argument is this; "If husband and wife are by the will and appointment of God joined together in the strictest and closest union, then they are not to be lightly, and upon every occasion, separated; if the know be sacred, it cannot be easily untied.’’ Now, to prove that there is such a union between man and wife, he urges three things.
1. The creation of Adam and Eve, concerning which he appeals to their own knowledge of the scriptures; Have ye not read? It is some advantage in arguing, to deal with those that own, and have read, the scriptures; Ye have read (but have not considered) that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, Gen. 1:27; 5:2. Note, It will be of great use to us often to think of our creation, how and by whom, what and for what, we were created. He made them male and female, one female for one male; so that Adam could not divorce his wife, and take another, for there was no other to take. It likewise intimated an inseparable union between them; Eve was a rib out of Adam’s side, so that he could not put her away, but he must put away a piece of himself, and contradict the manifest indications of her creation. Christ hints briefly at this, but, in appealing to what they had read, he refers them to the original record, where it is observable, that, though the rest of the living creatures were made male and female, yet it is not said so concerning any of them, but only concerning mankind; because between man and woman the conjunction is rational, and intended for nobler purposes than merely the pleasing of sense and the preserving of a seed; and it is therefore more close and firm than that between male and female among the brutes, who were not capable of being such help—meets for one another as Adam and Ever were. Hence the manner of expression is somewhat singular (Gen. 1:27), In the image of God created he him, male and female created he them; him and them are used promiscuously; being one by creation before they were two, when they became one again by marriage-covenant, that oneness could not but be closer and indissoluble.
2. The fundamental law of marriage, which is, that a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, v. 5. The relation between husband and wife is nearer than that between parents and children; now, if the filial relation may not easily be violated, much less may the marriage union be broken. May a child desert his parents, or may a parent abandon his children, for any cause, for every cause? No, by no means. Much less may a husband put away his wife, betwixt whom, though not by nature, yet by divine appointment, the relation is nearer, and the bond of union stronger, than between parents and children; for that is in a great measure superseded by marriage, when a man must leave his parents, to cleave to his wife. See here the power of a divine institution, that the result of it is a union stronger than that which results from the highest obligations of nature.
[Edited by Admin for length. Please do not copy and paste such large portions. 3-4 paragraphs is plenty and then include a link to where the rest can be found.]

Greetings rxw,

Honest, simple, profound, and a truth of commentary on Jesus's Doctrine of MDR:

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

huckfinn

quote:

(Quote benelci) It is not simple or honest to ignore the words given by our Lord in Mt. 5 and 19