-
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
No, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. You're saying there is a two step process referenced in Dt. 24 that is repeated in Mt. 5. Therefore, since Mt. 19:9 the Pharisee's only reference half of the process ("send away"), the question they are asking (and therefore Jesus' answer) is not about divorce. A modern day equivalent would be a separation that may or may not lead to a divorce. Is that a fair summary?
Roger
Correct. *edit to add* I'm saying there is a two step process explicitly defined in the Law of Moses. Not simply referenced. That is the standard by which "divorce" https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3748/kjv/wlc/0-1/ occurs and what the word means.
As the passage stated, they were trying to trap Him with a false set of parameters and a twisting of the law. We shouldn't answer according to their twisting. Jesus did not, neither should we. šālaḥ H7971 bayiṯ H1004 וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ׃ is "send out of his house". That isn't the word "divorce" (kᵊrîṯûṯ) Neither is apostasion (divorce) the same word as apolyo (send away). We should not interpose them when God does not.
The Pharisees were technically only asking about the apolyo part.
Jesus referenced the entirety of the process to avoid their trap.
And since there is a two step process, we cannot therefore interpret "send away" (ἀπολύω) as if it means "divorce". Because sending away is not divorce, it is only sending away.
Last edited:
You shouldn't begin interpretation from a faulty assumption. They didn't ask about divorce, they asked about "sending away".
They did not ask about the lawfulness of divorce but specifically sending away.
Scripturally is a far better standard than culture or history. And scripture clearly defined those words as not synonyms but absolutely different words that are not interchangeable.
Last edited:
Ah, I see what you are saying now. We may have been speaking past each other after all haha. You are saying Jesus' answer in Mt. 19 was about the whole law of divorce, and saying the Pharisee's were tricking him by using half of the law. I thought you were saying that Jesus' answer wasn't about Dt. 24 divorce.
Perzackly.
Their question was an attempt to trap him, so it's worded to accomplish that end.
Actually, they failed. Because He answered them correctly, in spite of their attempt.
It's just that so many are still fooled by the attempt at twisting.
My point exactly, and in light of this fact, we ought to be exceptionally careful to follow His lead and not answer according to the trap.
It's probably what you ARE seeing. And, if you check, you'll see the word used translates (correctly) as "put away".It would be nice to see Greek translation in English for us less educated.
But for Matthew, you can also find the Hebrew/Aramaic. (Matthew Gordon's, but there are others. "Shem Tov's" is also referenced, by translators such as Nehemiah Gordon.)
The entire passage starts with the Pharisees trying to trap him:It would be nice to see Greek translation in English for us less educated.
Matthew 19:3 NLT
Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
Just like they tried with Caesar's coin, remember? The exact and righteous process is here:
Deuteronomy 24:1-2
Suppose a man marries a woman but she does not please him. Having discovered something wrong with her, he writes a document of divorce, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house. 2 When she leaves his house, she is free to marry another man.
The NKJV rendering says this for the cause: "she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her."
So the Torah says there must be a cause for a divorce. It can not be for any reason. That's where the trap comes in. Yahshua goes into detail that divorce is not the intention of a marriage. But if it does happen - you need to give her a certificate - send her out of the house - then she is free to re-marry. Unless she is already an adulteress. Why? Because without the certificate - she still belongs to her husband - therefore - if she sleeps with anyone because her husband did not follow proper procedure - her husband that only sent her away (terribly mis-translated to "divorce" in most renderings) is responsible for her committing adultery.
Last edited:
I would add that women were extremely dependent upon men, Uncle Sam wasn’t supporting them, and if a woman was sent out she most likely had to provide something in exchange for food and shelter.
Indeed - Babylon does a fantastic job providing for these women. It rewards women for rebelling against their Creator, and their husband. But it's not entirely their fault - men have failed, and the "church" has been infiltrated to put the customs of Babylon ahead of Torah teachings.
Proverbs 14:12 NLT
There is a path before each person that seems right, but it ends in death.
Proverbs 3:5 NLT
Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding.
Last edited:
The link I mentioned @JoshuaMatthew 19
As I feel more and more led to do. I'm staying out of arguments and debate. Instead I'm starting threads about the topic that sparks an interest in me. Publishing my thoughts and perspective on the matter and looking for commentary. Matthew 19 1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished...biblicalfamilies.org
Are you sure they were asking about "divorce"? Because that's not the word they used.
See https://greekbible.com/matthew/19/3
