marriage, divorce, and remarriage

[YoreyC]

hey, i have been studying the topic of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and i am wondering if this sermon series is correct, and if it might be helpful to people here.

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

www.youtube.com

[COLOR=var(--text-link)]https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxXBdAlSNGZBuKxonwMIcHFbWwvvxkvXT6?si=l2Zny1iOg-8N-7ov[/COLOR]​

i am still in talks with my friends and my pastor's father. Ron has purchased John Carrol's book on MDR, and will read it, and let me borrow it when he's done.

most recently, Ron doesn't see how "putting away" and "divorcing" are necessarily different, but I think that's an easy prove by just pointing to how the language of "putting away" is used elsewhere.

if yall have anything to add to make this more consistent, or corrections to issue, i'd love to hear it.

 

[YoreyC]

the difference between divorcing and putting away can be seen in deut 24:1. the hebrew will back you up on this.

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. (Deuteronomy 24:1 KJV) Notice carefully the progression in this text: write her a bill of divorcement, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house. The bill of divorcement is separate and distinct from sending out (putting away). It is possible to put away one's spouse without divorcing them. And men in Israel were doing just that. When they put away their wives without a bill divorcement, they were putting them in a position that they could not remarry. And if they did remarry they would be guilty of adultery. So Moses commanded them to not just put them away but to also give them a bill of divorcement (Matthew 19:7). If she received a bill of divorcement when she was put away then she was free to remarry (Deuteronomy 24:2).

John Calvin: Calvinism My Way

calvinismmyway.blogspot.com

 

[NickF]

Simple to clear up as Jesus “sent away” a crowd of people. He certainly didn’t divorce them. So it must mean “send away”.

 

[YoreyC]

Simple to clear up as Jesus “sent away” a crowd of people. He certainly didn’t divorce them. So it must mean “send away”.

still in talks with my pastor's father regarding this. seems he is hinging his argument strongly that the terms in greek and hebrew are used interchangeably.

we are going over this paper: https://michaeldursoblog.com/2020/0...ng-away-different-things-or-are-both-divorce/

he printed it out, made notes, and handed it to me on sunday, and i promised i would study it this week.

my interlocutor himself used to be a pastor and has 5 years greek 3 years hebrew formal training.

how sensible are these assertions? i will be studying myself but i won't be able to give an opinion if it involves hebrew or greek lexicon since i dont know it.

 

[YoreyC]

(your view, putting away refers to seeking divorce)

No, I think the position is that putting away is separation, not seeking divorce. to do that is a violation of the law in deut 24, such violation being what jesus was speaking against. jesus was condemning the putting away without divorcing, which traps the woman.

(putting away in the case of betrothal is tantamount to divorce)

maybe not? I know of no such argument to assume the synonym in the case of betrothal.

(matt 5:31-32)

the definition of adultery is important here. by popular understanding of the term, jesus is simply incoherent.

(...whoever marries divorced woman commits adultery)

mistranslation. put away, not divorced. elsewise all 2nd marriages would be adulterous, and jesus would not have needed to clarify because the law would not have left a capitol offense like adultery unclear.

(jesus teaching is that sexual immorality is the only justification for divorce and remarriage)

this makes no sense because jesus taught the perfect law (ps 19:7) perfectly, and it allowed divorce and remarriage.

 

[YoreyC]

To make the theory more interesting, it’s also pointed out that none of the other New Testament passages use the proper word for divorce either. In 1Corinthians 7 Paul uses the word ἀφίημι aphiēmi several times, which is a synonym of ἀπολύω apoluō and means to dismiss to send away. Moreover, you will find the same phenomenon in the Old Testament; the words used for divorce really just mean “put away.” God, therefore, does not hate divorce, but hates the wrongful putting away of a wife for selfish reasons without the issuance of a divorce certificate.

in 1 cor 7:10-13, it is aphiemi that is used 4 times, not apoluo. it seems to me this passage is talking about separation, and it is incorrect to render it as divorce.

so, is this foundational proposition simply untrue? are aphiemi and apoluo synonyms?

edit: actually, im misunderstanding the argument. aphiemi and apoluo both mean send away, put away, separate, and i dont know what the word is for divorce. perhaps the author's point is that there isn't one?

edit: yes, that is the author's point, at least part of it. he is demonstrating the high contextuality of language, to show that the meaning is not definitive just based on the word being used.

which is true, but what that demonstrates is that neither position can be proven solely on the word being used. which will end up working against the "no cause" position because it makes little sense in context

 

[Mark C]

which is true, but what that demonstrates is that neither position can be proven solely on the word being used. which will end up working against the "no cause" position because it makes little sense in context

So the only logical answer is to recognize that Yahushua was not changing His own Word, only explaining it. (As He said.) Which means that the correct understanding MUST be consistent with the rest of His Word, especially Deuteronomy 24:1-3.

Go to the original Hebrew for the answer.

The process resulting in the English word "divorce," MUST include the entire process described, which includes, but is not limited to, the 'putting away' ("shalach" in Hebrew.)

 

[YoreyC]

The process resulting in the English word "divorce," MUST include the entire process described, which includes, but is not limited to, the 'putting away' ("shalach" in Hebrew.)

matt 5:31-32:

(apoluo can mean divorce or put away, apostasion is always divorce, or the divorce certificate...)

31 “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away (apoluo), let him give her a certificate of divorce’; (apostasion) 32 but I say to you that everyone who [ae]divorces (apostasion) his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a [af]divorced (apoluo) woman commits adultery.

The argument goes, in example of matt 5:31-32, that sending away IS the divorce, and that the certificate is just the legal document. so, jesus is not saying "whoever sends away the wife must also divorce her," but he is saying "whoever divorces his wife must give her the official documentation."

edit:

one problem my position might have is the following: why is "putting away" without divorcing allowed? surely the cruelty of this is against the law? in what sense was it "allowed," or, why was it going on?

 

[Mark C]

one problem my position might have is the following: why is "putting away" without divorcing allowed?

Because Yah Himself did it, for one. (With Judah - read Ezekiel chapter 23, and essentially the same story in Jeremiah chapter 3.)

A woman who is ALREADY GUILTY of adultery (parallel = "idolatry") does not DESERVE a "divorce" (to be allowed to remarry.)

You will see that ALL of His teaching is consistent on this point. It is the translations which are the problem. (Big time.)

 

[YoreyC]

Because Yah Himself did it, for one. (With Judah - read Ezekiel chapter 23, and essentially the same story in Jeremiah chapter 3.)

A woman who is ALREADY GUILTY of adultery (parallel = "idolatry") does not DESERVE a "divorce" (to be allowed to remarry.)

You will see that ALL of His teaching is consistent on this point. It is the translations which are the problem. (Big time.)

god says he handed israel a bill of divorce, though. not sure if that changes your point at all but it seems he did indeed divorce israel, and in jer 3 she went off whoring, but not marrying, which is why god will be able to take her back

do you have an answer for this:

sending away IS the divorce, and that the certificate is just the legal document. so, jesus is not saying "whoever sends away the wife must also divorce her," but he is saying "whoever divorces his wife must give her the official documentation."

 

[Mark C]

You've got to understand the whole story, in context.

After Solomon, the kingdom split - north and south. THOSE are the 'two whoring wives both prophets speak of (Israel and Judah, Aholah and Aholibah, etc.) "Backsliding" Israel He gave a 'sefer keretutah' to; Judah He did NOT. But He was disgusted that she (Judah) saw what her whoring sister had done, and what resulted, and STILL didn't get the message.

Neither of them has YET.

(The rest of the answer, in some detail, I have posted a number of times. Yahushua did NOT change His Word, He did not say that adultery was an "exception" - if she has ALREADY committed adultery, her husband CAN put her away, because she is ALREADY an adulteress...he doesn't make her one, and so on. But He does confirm the process as given in Deuteronomy 24:1 and repeated almost verbatim in v 3.)

 

[YoreyC]

The misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 24 is the focus of the 3rd
Antithesis. When Jesus said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a
certificate of divorce,” He was not quoting Scripture. He was quoting the
contemporary misunderstanding of this law passage. The Scripture nowhere
says “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” It
says if a man divorces his wife for cause, and her second husband divorces
her without cause, she can’t remarry her first husband. We have to allow
Scripture to say what it says.

hebrew language argument, from https://michaeldursoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/divorce-vs.-putting-away-1.1.pdf , pp. 19ff

ignore the antinomianism for a bit... any validity to this language argument? if im understanding correctly, it is trying to say that de 24:1-4 is in fact not a command regarding how divorce is to happen; rather, it is merely presupposing that this is how divorce happens, then the bits about not remarrying because defiled are where the actual commands are.

i have no idea if this language argument is true.

i can grant the argument and still say "ok, so if there's no command not to divorce, then it isn't a sin to divorce" but that will be unconvincing to the antinomian(s) i am engaging with

 

[Mark C]

Read it (Deut. 24:1-3) carefully. It describes a process. Twice, and almost identically.

To put away a woman means just that. ('shalach' in the Hebrew.) IF she is to be allowed to remarry - she MUST have a get, or 'sefer keretutah' (certificate). Otherwise, she STILL HAS A LIVING HUSBAND. (ref: Paul/Shaul, etc.)

If she is put away, and has that written proof, then, "she may go and be another man's [isha]." Period.

What Yahushua addressed, repeatedly, was "what happens if she does NOT have it?" Answer: She still has a husband. AND if he forced her out, and she did what he should have suspected she might, "HE causeth her to commit adultery." And the reason should be obvious.

What if she was ALREADY an 'adulteress' - and he 'put her away' for cause? (I.e., JUST LIKE what YHVH did with both His whoring wives!)

He certainly doesn't "cause her" to commit adultery - SHE ALREADY DID!

So, as YHVH did, if that man gives her a certificate, it is an act of grace on his part. He'd be justified in just leaving her hanging.

 

[YoreyC]

Read it (Deut. 24:1-3) carefully. It describes a process. Twice, and almost identically.

To put away a woman means just that. ('shalach' in the Hebrew.) IF she is to be allowed to remarry - she MUST have a get, or 'sefer keretutah' (certificate). Otherwise, she STILL HAS A LIVING HUSBAND. (ref: Paul/Shaul, etc.)

If she is put away, and has that written proof, then, "she may go and be another man's [isha]." Period.

What Yahushua addressed, repeatedly, was "what happens if she does NOT have it?" Answer: She still has a husband. AND if he forced her out, and she did what he should have suspected she might, "HE causeth her to commit adultery." And the reason should be obvious.

What if she was ALREADY an 'adulteress' - and he 'put her away' for cause? (I.e., JUST LIKE what YHVH did with both His whoring wives!)

He certainly doesn't "cause her" to commit adultery - SHE ALREADY DID!

So, as YHVH did, if that man gives her a certificate, it is an act of grace on his part. He'd be justified in just leaving her hanging.

i like how you tell a story and make sense of it. well-writ.

but, i don't think you refuted the conceit of the latter argument, which is that in the hebrew this is not describing a process and it is not a prescription or a command. it is simply descriptive. and i think also the point is there's no necessity to translate the writing of the certificate, putting in hand, and sending away as a sequence of multiple events.

 

[Mark C]

but, i don't think you refuted the conceit of the latter argument, which is that in the hebrew this is not describing a process and it is not a prescription or a command. it is simply descriptive. and i think also the point is there's no necessity to translate the writing of the certificate, putting in hand, and sending away as a sequence of multiple events.

Honestly, I don't follow what you mean. It seems to me it just says what it says. Twice, even.