General DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

[meryc]

Say you, and you alone. Good grief! It doesn't say "second marriage," EITHER, it just says (as I note, and you ignore) the she cannot return TO THE MAN who gave her his written certificate and sent her away!


This is so hideously, apologetically WRONG that it doesn't even merit a rebuttal.

If you don't know the meaning of words (like divorce, vs 'put away,' - just for starters - and won't read the text as written for comprehension, there is no dialogue.


Fail.

But the text says about her return only after a second marriage, so she can return her husband if she do not get into another marriage (as God made with Israel - didn't you read the entire text I've posted?)

 

[meryc]

@meryc, have you read "Divorce and remarriage, recovering the Biblical view" by William Luck?

Note that I am not saying everything Luck says is correct. I'm saying that if you want to write a book on this, you need to be somewhat familiar with the books that have already been written on the topic. And Luck has covered these issues both in depth, from a background of sound scholarship, and arrived at a more practical, compassionate understanding of this issue that you would do very well to consider.

Also, you might find that the matters you intend to address have already been addressed adequately by others, so you can save your effort and not bother writing another book. "Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh" (Ecc 12:12).

I know this position, and because I desagree I'm writting a different thing! So, if I were defending the same thing, why would I write another one? Avoiding "scholar argumentation" is one of the reasons I'm writting too.

 

[meryc]

If these were equivalent, then these words of Jesus:
"Whoever puts away his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce"
Would be logically equivalent to:
"Whoever gives his wife a banana, let him give his wife a banana".
The two terms would be completely redundant. They MUST mean different things, or we would not be told that if you do one you must then do the other.

Equivalent doesn't mean "same thing". Put away is an equivalent to "certificate of divorce". So, I could say:
"Whoever gives his wife a fruit, let him give his wife a banana". There are differences, but in the context fruit is the equivalent to banana. Without context they are different things.

 

[meryc]

Say you, and you alone. Good grief! It doesn't say "second marriage," EITHER, it just says (as I note, and you ignore) the she cannot return TO THE MAN who gave her his written certificate and sent her away!


This is so hideously, apologetically WRONG that it doesn't even merit a rebuttal.

If you don't know the meaning of words (like divorce, vs 'put away,' - just for starters - and won't read the text as written for comprehension, there is no dialogue.


Fail.

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Dt 24 NIV)

So, the text is clear: after divorce and remarriage a man cannot take back his wife. But the text does not say anything about to get back your wife if she do not get into another marriage. The reasons for the divorce is not the point on this text, because the real problem is, once you write a certificate of divorce, and remarries, you cannot take her back. Look: even if the second husband dies you cannot take her back, proving that the problem is not a divorce certificate.

Afterwards, the "after" is present in the text twice, and points out that the problem is another marriage after the first. This is the same thing that we see in Luke and Mark, for exemple, where we read: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Luke) "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery" (Mark).

If you read my text, you will see in fact that in no one moment I contradicted the biblical text itself.

 

[Mark C]

I know this position, and because I desagree I'm writting a different thing!

That seems to apply to Scripture as Written. The world is already full of such ....hmm...there's no polite term...

Put away is an equivalent to "certificate of divorce"

Sorry, this is simply idiocy.

You quote the text for Deuteronomy 24:1-3 and can't even be bothered to get it right when the glaring contradiction in your thesis is pointed out to you.

Can you do simple math?

"put away" + "certificate of divorce" = "divorce"

IF "certificate of divorce" != zero THEN

"put away" Can NOT POSSIBLY = "divorce"​

And Yahushua said so, but you won't read that for comprehension either.

Enough already. Unless you can acknowledge error, this is a waste of time.


The only reason I respond here is because such EVIL TWISTING of Scripture has already
RUINED TOO MANY WOMEN'S LIVES.

 

[Mark C]

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and...

Here it is:

if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man...

What? Say again? She does WHAT????

Can you not even see that you just CONTRADICTED your own fatally asinine claims?

[Hint: It's highlighted for you!]

 

[FollowingHim]

Equivalent doesn't mean "same thing". Put away is an equivalent to "certificate of divorce". So, I could say:
"Whoever gives his wife a fruit, let him give his wife a banana". There are differences, but in the context fruit is the equivalent to banana. Without context they are different things.

So, what is the difference between them which makes this sentence logical?

 

[FollowingHim]

I know this position, and because I desagree I'm writting a different thing! So, if I were defending the same thing, why would I write another one? Avoiding "scholar argumentation" is one of the reasons I'm writting too.

So, your answer is, "I haven't read it but I think I know it all already"?

Look, I'm not saying everyone has to read his book - they don't. But anyone who is seeking to be an author in this area needs familiarity with the major works that have come before which are available to them, and Luck's book is free online so there's no reason not to read it.

 

[frederick]

Hi @meryc, thank you for the opportunity to read your articles. What you have written has caused me to evaluate my understanding of a number of points you raise.

Something I'm interested to get your take on concerns what is written in 1 Cor. 7:12; (NKJV) But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. How I've come to understand this passage is that the writer first introduces this as a matter that has not previously been addressed, i.e. there is nothing previously written about the situation where one member in a marriage relationship becomes a redeemed believer while the other remains an unbeliever. It is the Holy Spirit who has breathed these words out (the same as in all Scripture), however it is a new situation that needs to be clarified - But to the rest I, not the Lord, say. Jesus never spoke on this matter as He taught about divorce. If the husband or wife is a believer, he or she is not to divorce the unbeliever, however if the unbeliever wants to leave, he or she is free to do so. In v:15, the words, But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; this is a command (a present imperative) which brings about a separation/breakup of the marital relationship. As you have noted in your article Jesus often spoke about marriage and divorce, but He never dealt with this particular issue, so Paul deals with it in this epistle. Your thoughts... ? Thanks again. Cheers

 

[meryc]

First: Imperative and "command" are different things. For exemple, the LXX renders the ten Commandments into Future Active Indicative, so, should I conclude that there we do not have commandments? No. They are commandments, as the whole bibles says. Otherwise, in the New Testament Imperative is often use in requests (as in Prayer that Jesus teaches in Mt 6).

Secondly: Paul is really saying one thing that was not said before, but what he is saying is not a commandment, as you can see in 1 Cor 7:6, 25. The entire chapter is divided between God's commandment and Paul's opinion, which is, of course, an inspired opinion. But opinions are not commandments.

You can see better if you read v. 19: circumcision is "nothing", but, it was commanded by Lord. So, Paul is saying that because something is in "imperative mood" does not mean that that thing is a commandment forever. God's commandments must be keep but not all 'orders' are commandments.

What Paul is saying about the unbeliever is that the believer should not try to catch him back, but it is not a sin to try. And, because we are called to peace, he says that the believer should let unbeliever go. The opposite to this is discussion, court disputes and problems inside family - we are, however, called to the peace.

If it is not clear I can explain more and better.​

 

[The Revolting Man]

You can see better if you read v. 19: circumcision is "nothing", but, it was commanded by Lord. So, Paul is saying that because something is in "imperative mood" does not mean that that thing is a commandment forever. God's commandments must be keep but not all 'orders' are commandments.

Uncircumcision is identified as nothing as well. Bush has nothing to do with whether or not it was required. It was about whether or not it was necessary for salvation.

And maybe it’s just the Marine in me but what the hell is a non-imperative command?

 

[frederick]

If it is not clear I can explain more and better.

Your explanation is sufficient for me to grasp how you've got to where you are.

In the verse (v:15), But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; the context indicates let him depart is to be understood as a command because the unbeliever is separating him or her self, which has just been dealt with. The believer is not to create a conflict when the unbeliever separates, that's the point of the command. But God has called us to peace. Cheers

 

[Earth_is-]

So, as Christ says, a man who marries some woman who was divorced commits adultery... and this is exactly what Dt 24 is saying.​

If a man marries a woman that was simply "put away" then he has committed adultery. Because that woman still belongs to another man. But if that woman has been properly put away according to the Word - which means given a certificate of divorce and sent out of the man's household - she is free to re-marry. It's not SIN. She can find herself a new husband.

However, if she does re-marry another man - and if that 2nd husband properly divorces her (certificate of divorce), then she can not return back to her 1st husband. She can, however, go ahead and find another husband (3rd).