Being “on a break”, or “separated”. Or a woman packing her bags and just leaving. Pretty commonplace in the western world.
-
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.
Proper interpretation of scripture (Matthew 19:9)
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Wow, sorry, @MeganC, but SO wrong. Since 'marriage licenses,' and gay trannies being declared 'married' by the 'law of men' which HATES His Word now dominates 'culture' - that makes it more important than ever to know Who we serve. And to "be not deceived!"
A man who sleeps with a woman, decides he doesn't like her any more, and kicks her out, is THE quintessential example. But the others are "legion."
The biggest issue I have with this interpretation, is the context of Matt 5:32 found in verse 31.
It’s one of the things that Babylon will actually agree with Torah on. Babylon does not want men sending out their wives without their involvement (if you got married with the state). Why? Because they’ve made many millions (if not billions) in total profit. The court fees. The administration fees. And don’t forget - the lawyer fees. Whatever profit the lawyer makes to settle a divorce - Babylon takes a percentage through federal and state taxes
And the way the system is set up - a man must go to Babylon for the certificate - otherwise - he can’t marry another through the state. Because they’ve made that illegal and it’s called bigamy. You can’t be legally married to two wives with the Babylon system. You must properly obtain the certificate of divorce through Babylon, and they don’t consider simply “sending away” a divorce.
I have no proof - but it’s very possible - there was some type of fee involved with obtaining the certificate during the time when the Messiah showed up. So it may of been that un-righteous men didn’t want to pay for the certificate - so they sent out their wives without going through the Biblical procedure for righteousness.
The other way - as Mark pointed out - men sleeping with virgins - and not following the Creator’s instruction (you “MUST” marry her - unless her father says no), but instead the man kicks her out, and moves onto the next one. Something very mainstream in Babylonian culture - just look at the hit show “Friends.”
Matthew 19:9 is the answer to the Pharisee's question in v. 3, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause." The thought is that they are including Jesus in on the debate they all were having regarding the Shammai (strict) and Hillel (lenient) interpretation of Deut. 24:1 "if she finds no favor in his eyes." Jesus' answer was, "whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another, has committed adultery." Presumably, he is taking the Shammai stance here since that was that schools view as well.
However, it is important to note that "has committed adultery" in the end may be better interpreted as "has [caused her (the one being unlawfully divorced) to commit] adultery" transferring the consequence of that sin to the man responsible for the unlawful divorce, rather than the women (cf. Luke 17:2). The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have the translation you see, but later manuscripts include "except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries [this] divorced woman commits adultery." The later being an early commentary in my opinion, which can be important to harmonize the text in a historical honoring way.
My view is that Jesus' reply was along the lines of "God hates divorce, but if you're going to do it, do it according to the law. If you don't, you're the one in trouble, not the women. And if you want to marry a divorced women, make sure she has been divorced lawfully or you're committing adultery too."
However, it is important to note that "has committed adultery" in the end may be better interpreted as "has [caused her (the one being unlawfully divorced) to commit] adultery" transferring the consequence of that sin to the man responsible for the unlawful divorce, rather than the women (cf. Luke 17:2). The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have the translation you see, but later manuscripts include "except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries [this] divorced woman commits adultery." The later being an early commentary in my opinion, which can be important to harmonize the text in a historical honoring way.
My view is that Jesus' reply was along the lines of "God hates divorce, but if you're going to do it, do it according to the law. If you don't, you're the one in trouble, not the women. And if you want to marry a divorced women, make sure she has been divorced lawfully or you're committing adultery too."
Are you falling prey to their trickery? Were they asking about "divorce" or something else?
The question the Pharisees posed in Matthew 19:3 is about the lawfulness of divorce, specifically the extent of what is considered lawful ("for any cause").
Are you sure they were asking about "divorce"? Because that's not the word they used.
They came to temp him with a question where "they should had known better." The Father in Heaven himself gave Israel (Northern Kingdom) a certificate of divorce, and sent her out of the land. Was he patient with her? Did he give her time after time to repent? Yes - he was very patient with her, and willing to forgive her trespasses if she returned back to him. But she didn't - therefore - the certificate came in after much time had passed. Is divorce the goal of marriage? Of course not - but if the woman is rebellious - refuses to repent - the man has a righteous option in terms of a certificate.
This Divine Instruction is far better than what is taught from the traditions of men - especially in mainstream Christianity. Because this Torah instruction actually gives women incentive to be good wives - because they know if they aren't - they can be sent out (with a certificate) of the man's household.
Here's something else to consider - if a man easily gives a certificate of divorce to his wife (something minor with no chance of repentance) - wouldn't the Almighty also judge the man according to the same standard he judged his wife? Matthew 7:2.
So the Father in Heaven followed his own Torah. Because that’s what the Torah says (Deut 24:1) - the husband must find just cause. Then issue a certificate. Then send her away. In that exact order. Then she can re-marry someone else. This instruction is repeated in the Sirach (it was included with the KJV in the beginning):
Sirach 25:24-26 KJV
24 Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.
[25] Give the water no passage; neither a wicked woman liberty to gad abroad.
[26] If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go.
Sirach 25:24-26 GNT
Sin began with a woman, and we must all die because of her. 25 Don't let a bad wife have her way, any more than you would allow water to leak from your cistern. 26 If she won't do as you tell her, divorce her.
Last edited:
Well that's interesting. What word did they use?Are you sure they were asking about "divorce"? Because that's not the word they used.
This is humorous to 'old timers' because that word has been hashed out countless times, and (among others) yours truly has pointed out that the MIS-TRANSLATION is at the root of incredible heartache, conflict, and outright evil.
The Hebrew word (used in Deuteronomy 24:1-3, and many other places, is the root 'shalach', and it literally means to "put away," or "send out'." It also means "exile," and it's what was done to Adam v'Chava (Eve) in Genesis 3, and the parallels are intended.
Do a search (or perhaps someone will post a dozen or two thread links
) to words like "put away" and, yes, the twisted 'divorce', and all the mis-uses you'll find. It's one of the worst outright, no-holds-barred ERRORS in the KJV/NKJV (Matthew 5:31-32: you'll find the same word, translated into Greek, then translated DIFFERENTLY into multiple English words in the SAME verse!)Simple bottom line, easily verified: A woman who is merely "put away," (shalach) but does NOT have the requisite "certificate of divorce" is STILL MARRIED. And if you don't understand the differences there, what He taught will never, EVER make sense.
And it is also at the heart of understanding everything about YHVH's two whoring wives (Aholabah and Aholah, Israel and Judah, etc) as well. Everything depends upon building upon 'the Rock,' line-by-line, precept-by-precept.
He was saying if you send a wife away or marry a wife who has been sent away. Not divorced. They are two different words.
ἀπολύσῃ is send away
ἀποστάσιον is the writing of the bill of divorcement
Both are required for a divorce. Being sent away means she's been kicked out, or "on a break" but not divorced. She is still married.
Look at the words actually used in the Greek and it's abundantly clear
Matthew 5 :: King James Version (KJV)
Matthew 5 - It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:www.blueletterbible.org
The two words are used in Matt 5:31-32 and it's clear.
So, you guys are saying that Matthew 19:3 should be translated something like, "And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to send away one's wife for any cause?'"
I'm not saying that. It's literally what they said in the Greek.
Since Jesus' answer is based on the question, I think that's an important clarification. Historically (and culturally) ἀπολύσῃ / שָׁלַח and ἀποστάσιον / סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת are synonyms of each other (Dt. 24:1; also, Is. 50:1 & Jer. 3:8). One can be 'to divorce' and the other can be 'certificate of divorce', but in grammatical-historical context the former would assume the later especially when asking the question "is it lawful..." What law is there for being 'sent out' in a context other than a Dt. 24 divorce? I think Mt. 5:31-32 reinforces that as well.
I think you need to read all the uses of each word before assuming they mean the same thing. If they did, there's no need for God to use two words to say what one word says. They clearly mean different things, you can tell cause they're different words. Jesus didn't divorce a crowd of people when He sent them away.
I understand what you are saying, but the present indicative ἔξεστιν seems to clearly reference a law. What other law could they be asking him about?
Also, Matt 5 is clear that there is a two step process, put away and give a writing of a bill of divorcement. It's logically nonsensical to say you need to divorce and divorce a wife. Two words that mean different things.
"Put/send away" https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g630/kjv/tr/0-1/
"Writing of bill of divorcement" https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g647/kjv/tr/0-1/