• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

William F. Luck's Divorce and Re-Marriage book

nathan

nathan

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
For those of you who like to read, and enjoy a good Biblical argument, we've posted a link on our Links page, http://biblicalfamilies.org/links to Professor Luck's book:

Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View: http://bible.org/series/divorce-and-re-marriage-recovering-biblical-view

This is an interesting book, the author William F. Luck (http://bible.org/users/william-luck), is well-known in evangelical circles. He's written what we find a very Biblically-sound, scholarly, complete treatment on divorce and remarriage. In doing so, he found he couldn't ignore the implications regarding plural marriage, and was somewhat surpised by what he found. He's not 'advocating', he's just being honest about the truth he found in the Word, making for a compelling argument -though he took a fair amount of grief in theological circles for being willing to make it. Kudos to Professor Luck for being willing to be honest on the subject, and for making the book available at bible.org. Some of you may wish to start with Appendix B: http://bible.org/article/morality-biblical-polygyny

Many thanks to member 'henryhuiz' for bringing this book to our attention.

Let's make this thread a place to discuss things from this book (We should do the same with some other books we have listed there: Jay C's, Tom Shipley's.)
 
Wow. This is really good stuff. I do not think I really understood Matthew 19:8-9 until I read this. He is a funny writer, too. "However unhappily this may strike the modern ear, it is, I believe, scriptural." While I do not necessarily agree with his take on the Timothy and Titus verses, I think in general it is a tour de force on the subject.
 
I just read an excerpt from this book on Facebook. WOW !! It's so good that I ordered a copy of the book. :D
Thanks Chris Nystrom for posting the excerpt on FB !!! :D
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
I read a little of his take on Matt 19 and Mk 10 and I gotta tell ya, the guy is long winded. And from preliminary reports, I don't see him as presenting much of anything new. Now there may be a nuance or two that I'd never seen, but I completely disagree as to his treatment of the phrase hardness of hearts.

The idea that the divorce was to protect the innocent wives from abuse is just so much baseless conjecture repeated over and over. How could a bill of divorcement be a good thing for an innocent wife? It charges her with uncleanness.

Furthermore, not all women need or needed a bill of divorce to remarry. If they were abandoned by their husbands, I don't think they needed one. I think Samson's father-in-law knew this when he gave Samson's wife to another man after thinking Samson had skipped town. And there is no mention of the girl needing a bill of divorcement in Exodus 21:10-11 where her husband has simultaneously taken another wife while neglecting his duties to her.

These are just some thoughts of mine.
 
I found the book interesting, and a worthwhile read. It is indeed refreshing to read the testimony of people who admit that Scripture is true, and what we have been taught about it may well not be. Most of us, I suspect, have "Been there, done that"...which is part of the reason we are now here on Biblical Families.

And while I don't agree 100% with all of Luck's interpretations, I find the vast majority to be sound. (I'm working on a paper which will hopefully, and fairly soon, address those differences when it comes to the divorce issue.)

But I will say this to Dwight's objection:

Furthermore, not all women need or needed a bill of divorce to remarry. If they were abandoned by their husbands, I don't think they needed one.
Click to expand...

Put yourself in the place of a man evaluating a woman (not a "maiden") for remarriage (particularly, but not necessarily ONLY, "in those days"), MD.

"Let every thing be confirmed in the mouths of two or three witnesses."

A woman says she was "abandoned" by her husband. Was she "really", or did she abandon him? After all, people are fallen, and opinions vary. Is there a second witness?

If she has a written testimony (that "get" or "certificate of divorce" from that former husband) - then she does. It's his written witness that she is able to remarry.

Is that get "needed"? I will not so presume, nor deny. But I guarantee you that it will make the process a lot smoother; don't think for a minute that it's not therefore important.
 
Shoot a monkey, Mark! I'm agreeing with you a LOT lately. Whassup wid dat? :ugeek: :lol:

Think about it ... the "get" prolly isn't a matter of Heaven or Hell in the Sweet Bye'n'Bye. Fair enough.

But it it could well be a matter of "in Limbo" or on to greener pastures while she's here on the ground.

If you figure that "a goo man" is likely to be conscientious, and a conscientious man is likely to want things done decently and in order, with the paperwork all clarified ... a get of divorce is definitely preferable.

In fact, it is my understanding that God's accusation against men in Malachi isn't that He hates divorce, but that He hates it when men put away their wives into marriage limbo, without properly cutting them loose. That's just mean, and He don' lak dat!
 
Re: Matthew 19:9

I was looking at how different English versions of the Bible worded Matthew 19:9, and I found one Bible version that admits that there are some variations of how it can be understood based on manuscripts. It's the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible. The makers of this Bible pride themselves on giving a literal translation, that is, word-for-word translation instead of a thought-for-thought translation. As a footnote to Matthew 19:9 they mention:

Matthew 19: 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” [1]

[1] 19:9 Some manuscripts add and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery; other manuscripts except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery

The 1st highlighted quote that's mentioned in the footnote I believe goes as an addition at the very end of the verse, so it would read:
Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery {and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery]”


As for the 2nd highlighted quote, I believe the footnote is not only referring to addition of words at the end of the verse but also adds some extra key words starting at the middle of the verse:
Matthew 19: 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery "

Source: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Matthew+19#f1

Does anyone know about this Greek or whichever language manuscripts that the ESV translators are referring to?
 
Mark,
I hear where you're coming from because I once thought the same regarding the bill of divorcement.

Things to put into the mental mix when trying to figure this all out:
1 Even some of the Jews looked at the bill of divorce that way, like its primary purpose was to end the marriage. Or to let it be known to whomever concerned that the marriage was ended.
But what if the law of divorcement was a type of punishment to the wrongful wife?

And what if its purpose was to free the man from the charge of not being a providing husband to the wife? Back then, the men prided themselves on being good providers. This is the basis of that jewish prayer that goes "thank you God for not making me a woman..." It goes on to say thanks for not making me a slave, as well... The point of that prayer and the gratefulness behind being a free man was that he was able to provide and to serve in a larger capacity than the slave or the woman.

So.... maybe when the wife was remarried, the first husband would have everyone know also that he was not cuckolded and that he had not failed in his responsibility to his wife. That he was totally innocent.
Maybe the Pharisees of the time of Christ believed in a culpability-free divorce. No one was to blame?

Tell me this, if the bill was absolutely needed in every instance for the wife to remarry, then what if the man abandoned her or in the case of Exodus 21:10-11, he stopped providing while showing he had the means to do so by giving to another woman instead? Wouldn't he be bearing false witness against the first wife by having claimed to have found some uncleanness in her behavior by giving a bill of divorce? I direct you to Deut 24:4. Read it carefully.

Furthermore, what about that freed wife in Exodus 21:10-11? Why no mention of a bill of divorce? And the woman captured in war and then freed? How about the wife that belongs to the slave that gets set free? If she was a part of the master's family before he became a slave, then she stayed with the master.... no mention of a bill of divorce there.

So much has been said about the bill of divorce, but in all actuality, it makes her out to be the wedlock breaker... which is why maybe Mt 5:32 uses the greek poieo. It is used in another place where it is said that God is made a liar. In this instance it doesn't literally mean that God becomes a liar but well, you see?
 
I will submit that the answers to the questions you ask are consistent with the teachings of Numbers 30, and Deuteronomy 24, MD. (There are many others, too, of course.) They were clarified by Yeshua in Matthew 5:32 as well.

Men who put the wives under their covering in an intolerable position are responsible for that reprehensible action. That is why He said that such men "cause" their wives to commit adultery by that failure to properly cover them.

The purpose of His "teaching and instruction" is not to tie us up in legalism, or hair-splitting, or "hard cases" (which any Shyster Lawyer knows "make bad law"). It is to avoid sin, and for our blessing.

The sad truth is that there are fallen men who abuse their wives, fallen wives who abandon their husbands, and plenty of liars and adulterers among both genders. And there are people who just plain see the same thing differently...perhaps because they are deceived, have been hurt in the past, or simply do not trust Him -- or anyone else.

The proper witness, written or otherwise, is unfortunately no longer a guarantee. But He says we should confirm "all things" in the mouths of more than one. Having the paperwork can't hurt.

Blessings,
Mark


PS> I don't claim that the get is "absolutely needed in every instance for the wife to remarry." Certainly a woman whose husband who was "lost and presumed dead" may, or may NOT, be a widow...but the "get" clarified the situation, and kept her out of "legal limbo". It is for this reason that the custom of giving a wife a 'get' before a man went to war was often practiced.

Is a woman "utterly abandoned", a freed slave, the widow of an MIA, or a former whore?

How do you KNOW? And, as Dirty Harry once observed, "Do ya feel lucky?"

A statement and its converse are NOT the same. I contend from Scripture that a former wife who wants to remarry and who HAS a "get" is eligible for remarriage -- on the testimony of two witnesses. Period. I make no claim about the converse.

And PPS, guys. If you aren't able to cover and take care of her, so long as you live, then DON'T "sleep with her". EVEN if you think giving her a certificate afterward is good enough... :roll:
 
It is for this reason that the custom of giving a wife a 'get' before a man went to war was often practiced.
Click to expand...
Exactly! It was a man made custom, not an authorized biblical practice for a wife to get a "get" when her man went to war.

I certainly can't find that practice authorized anywhere in the holy scriptures. And why should we find that? The reason for giving a bill of divorcement was because the husband had begun to hate his wife for her unclean behavior.

The reason for the law of divorcement was that it was a deterrent to evil. That evil was for widespread disobedience among the wives. The king warned of this in the book of Esther. Does anyone want to discredit the book of Esther??

A bill of divorce and being sent out of his house was a type of punishment. And this would be a warning to all women. She would be free to marry another, but with a huge stigma on her.

And back then, they didn't get to rob the husband of his family when they got divorces. So if she had children, they stayed with the head of the family.

Digression: When a wife displays rebelliousness to her man, the whole family is affected. Children see it and they grow up to hate daddy. This is at the core of the rottenness that has eaten up western civilization today- Daddy Hatred.
In the eyes of the matriarchy, men are evil in general. Look at the crime shows on TV at night... all the husbands killing their wives. Its meant to influence the way we think of men.

Now if the husband hated his wife and yet she was not guilty of insubordination or in any way robbing her husband of proper devotion, and if he wouldn't support her, then he should man up and just let her go without a bill of divorce thereby admitting to the public that his failure to cover her was all his fault.

There is a nonsexual fornication that can happen in marriage. Judges 19:2 demonstrates this. And I Peter 3:1-3 illustrates obedience to a husband as chastity.

For those that have the old King James bible with the margin notes, there is an interesting alternative reading for Mal 2:16. Instead of it saying, God hates putting away, it would read if he hater her put her away.

I would also be interested in knowing how you arrive at the mouth of two or three witnesses thing. I mean, I know that it would be true for some crimes, but for every transaction, arrangement, contract, agreement?
 
I would also be interested in knowing how you arrive at the mouth of two or three witnesses thing. I mean, I know that it would be true for some crimes, but for every transaction, arrangement, contract, agreement?
Click to expand...

There must be more to your question, MD. The "two or three" witnesses test is established repeatedly in Scripture (Deut. 17:6, 19:5, Matthew 18:6, II Cor. 13:1, I Tim. 5:19 are the most obvious, but there are many more). YHVH will ALWAYS provide at least two witnesses for every important principle as well. (Take a look at Deut. 30:19 for a colorful example, and note how He provides multiple witnesses through the prophets as well.)

The most strict test is always that one will not be convicted of a capital crime, deserving of death (as rebellion to Him is, of course) except on the testimony of two or three. But adultery is a similar serious crime; observe that the "remedy for a jealous husband" of Numbers 5 is explicitly provided because there may not BE any "witness against her". (I find the teaching that this passage is really about reconciliation quite compelling, BTW. Perhaps more on that later.)

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. -- Deuteronomy 19:15

I simply see that a certificate of divorce, as a written witness from a former husband that the former wife is no longer "his", is utterly consistent with those teachings.

As for the rest of your comments, as to the "reasons" for divorce, or the effects...it is not my intent to debate such. What Yeshua said seems to me to be a more-than-sufficient summary of both the causes and the effects: men are hard-hearted.

And He is equally blunt (through at least two witnesses!) about the requirement for forgiveness. "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses." (Matt. 6:15, Mark 11:26)

I conclude that His will is clear on the matter; those men who follow Him will forgive, will reprove, correct, and instruct their wives, will cast down and accept responsibility for improper vows...and will not put away their wives. Period.

That is my own understanding of His Word, as applied to believing men who are now husbands and heads of house, or choose to do so in the future.

But we live in a fallen world, and the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 is clearly NOT yet written on all men's (or women's) hearts. Lawfully-divorced women exist - whether their former husband is guilty of putting them away wrongly or not. Those who choose to enter into a new covenant, and become equally-yoked to a believing husband are not prohibited by Scripture from doing so.


Blessings,
Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top