The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce

[pinoybaptist]

My feet are not being stepped on, I am thinking of superwoman and others who surf in here seeking help and hope and compassion.

I am among the first, if not the first, who offered her words of compassion, if you go back and reread the posts, page one.
But as the thread progressed, one thing started to become clearer and clearer.

superwoman8977 is full of bitterness, anger, and negativity, rightly or not.
she is angry at Christians.
she is rebelling against God, and questioned God's integrity and kindness, and I don't care at that if she had the right to do so.
Do you think anyone has the right to do that, who names the Name of Christ ?
There is nothing anyone can say that will console her, because I think she doesn't need consolation.
She needs approval, and she sure got a lot of that from a lot of people here.

she wants to hear people tell her it's alright. you're not making a mistake. go for the divorce, and so on, and I think she got what she wanted and got more than she bargained for from the Christians here.

although I feel sorry for her, and I do know how hard divorce can be because I have had close friends who cried on my shoulder over this thing still I cannot compromise what I feel the Bible says on the matter.

What I am seeing in this divorce threads is that anger gets the better even of Christians. They have accused us of stating that (1) divorce is an unforgivable sin. NONE of us anti-divorce people said that. We said divorce is a sin, but never said it was unforgivable. We spoke against it and our consciences are clear before God and man that we never said it was an unforgivable sin. Those who accused us of saying that but couldn't prove it now stand accused of bearing false witness.

(2) We were accused of being hard-hearted, legalistic, unloving, and so on. To that I echo Paul's words: have I now become your enemy because I told you the truth ?

What I said to another poster I say again: Knowledge and insight are the boundaries of love. It is not love for love's sake.

We are all parents, brothers and sisters in our families and we know what the above, "love for love's sake" means.

Here are the Scriptures:

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment Philippians 1:9 (KJT};

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, Philippians 1:9 (NIV);

and this I pray, that your love yet more and more may abound in full knowledge, and all judgment, Philippians 1:9 (Young's Literal Translation).

 

[LadyEagle]

Is that your final word? Because if it is, here is passage in the Gospel of Matthew translated from the Aramaic (the language Jesus probably spoke). The Greek word "pornea" - from which the KJV word "fornication" was translated, says this in the Aramaic:

Quote:
Aramaic English
Standard Version
3 And Pharisees also came to him, and were tempting him saying: “Is it in accordance with the law for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 But he answered and said to them: “Have you not read, that he who created them at the beginning, male and female? 5 And he said: ‘Because of this, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and both of them will be one flesh.’ 6 Therefore they will not be two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united man should not separate.” 7 They said to him: “Why then did Mosha command to give a permit of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them: “Because of the hardness of your heart, Mosha permitted you to divorce* your wives; but from the beginning it was this way. 9 But I say to you, that whoever leaves his wife outside of adultery, and takes another, commits adultery. And if he takes a divorced woman, he commits adultery.”


http://www.standardversion.org/p-aesv-book-matthew.php

 

[DHK]

Evidentally, according to you, it is a bigger sin to commit fornication than adultery since one is permitted to divorce their betrothed but not their spouse.
Both are "sexually immoral" or "porneia". Both are sins.

King James Dictionary
1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.
2. Adultery. Matt. 5.
3. Incest. 1Cor. 5.
4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2Chron. 21. Rev. 19.


Strongs
πορνεία Transliteration
porneia

1) illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

2) metaph. the worship of idols

a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

NO. Since Mat.5:32 doesn't apply; that is there is no exception clause, God has made no provision at all for divorce. He never did.

"From the beginning it was not so."
That is what Christ taught. Divorce is always wrong.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Is that your final word? Because if it is, here is passage in the Gospel of Matthew translated from the Aramaic (the language Jesus probably spoke). The Greek word "pornea" - from which the KJV word "fornication" was translated, says this in the Aramaic:

Quote:
Aramaic English
Standard Version
3 And Pharisees also came to him, and were tempting him saying: “Is it in accordance with the law for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 But he answered and said to them: “Have you not read, that he who created them at the beginning, male and female? 5 And he said: ‘Because of this, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and both of them will be one flesh.’ 6 Therefore they will not be two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united man should not separate.” 7 They said to him: “Why then did Mosha command to give a permit of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them: “Because of the hardness of your heart, Mosha permitted you to divorce* your wives; but from the beginning it was this way. 9 But I say to you, that whoever leaves his wife outside of adultery, and takes another, commits adultery. And if he takes a divorced woman, he commits adultery.”


http://www.standardversion.org/p-aesv-book-matthew.php

are you addressing this question to me ? If you are, I do not understand your point. Please clarify.

 

[DHK]

Is that your final word? Because if it is, here is passage in the Gospel of Matthew translated from the Aramaic (the language Jesus probably spoke). The Greek word "pornea" - from which the KJV word "fornication" was translated, says this in the Aramaic:

That so-called theory is nothing but the unsaved higher criticism's attempt to discredit the Bible of its inspiration. All the books of the NT were written in Greek. All of them. Don't buy into that Aramaic liberal junk.

 

[LadyEagle]

although I feel sorry for her, and I do know how hard divorce can be because I have had close friends who cried on my shoulder over this thing still I cannot compromise what I feel the Bible says on the matter.

What I am seeing in this divorce threads is that anger gets the better even of Christians. They have accused us of stating that (1) divorce is an unforgivable sin. NONE of us anti-divorce people said that. We said divorce is a sin, but never said it was unforgivable. We spoke against it and our consciences are clear before God and man that we never said it was an unforgivable sin. Those who accused us of saying that but couldn't prove it now stand accused of bearing false witness.

(2) We were accused of being hard-hearted, legalistic, unloving, and so on. To that I echo Paul's words: have I now become your enemy because I told you the truth ?

You are not an enemy, Pinoy. You and DHK have sweet spirits even though we may disagree with the interpretation of Scripture. I apologize if I have offended you in any way, and I hope I haven't. raying:

 

[Amy.G]

NO. Since Mat.5:32 doesn't apply; that is there is no exception clause, God has made no provision at all for divorce. He never did.

"From the beginning it was not so."
That is what Christ taught. Divorce is always wrong.

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

As has been shown repeatedly, fornication (porneia) means ANY sexual sin.

God permitted divorce in the case of sexual sin and that alone. He said it Himself!

 

[LadyEagle]

are you addressing this question to me ? If you are, I do not understand your point. Please clarify.

No, it was to DHK. Too many posts are flying too fast for me to keep up! :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

As has been shown repeatedly, fornication (porneia) means ANY sexual sin.

God permitted divorce in the case of sexual sin and that alone. He said it Himself!

Seriously Amy, ask yourself the question:
Why are these so-called "exception clauses" found only in the Book of Matthew and in no other book of the New Testament? Don't you think that there is a good reason for that?

 

[Amy.G]

Seriously Amy, ask yourself the question:
Why are these so-called "exception clauses" found only in the Book of Matthew and in no other book of the New Testament? Don't you think that there is a good reason for that?

I have no idea. There are several differences between each of the gospels, but that doesn't mean that one is more valid than another.

 

[DHK]

I have no idea. There are several differences between each of the gospels, but that doesn't mean that one is more valid than another.

Matthew was written to a Jewish audience. The purpose of the book was to demonstrate to the Jews that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Mattew wrote with the Jews in mind. Thus "the fornication" clause has application to the Jews, as demonstrated in Matthew chapter one with Mary and Joseph.

Check Matthew chapter 19, a reference you quoted.
Who was Jesus speaking to?
He was answering the questions of the Jews--the Pharisees.
He was speaking about their law, and their customs.
He made it quite clear in that passage: "But from the beginning it was not so."

 

[LadyEagle]

This may shed some light:


http://www.paleotimes.org/articles/divorceAllowed.htm

 

[pinoybaptist]

You are not an enemy, Pinoy. You and DHK have sweet spirits even though we may disagree with the interpretation of Scripture. I apologize if I have offended you in any way, and I hope I haven't. raying:

Thank you, Lady Eagle.
You're a kind soul.
I'm sorry if I had spoken harshly to you or sounded like.
I'm going to bed.
My wife came down twice already, glaring but smiling.
You have a good night.

 

[Amy.G]

Matthew was written to a Jewish audience. The purpose of the book was to demonstrate to the Jews that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Mattew wrote with the Jews in mind. Thus "the fornication" clause has application to the Jews, as demonstrated in Matthew chapter one with Mary and Joseph.

Check Matthew chapter 19, a reference you quoted.
Who was Jesus speaking to?
He was answering the questions of the Jews--the Pharisees.
He was speaking about their law, and their customs.
He made it quite clear in that passage: "But from the beginning it was not so."

So it seems that under the New Covenant, some things got even more strict. Under the NC, divorce was not permitted even if Mr. Jones got caught by Mrs. Jones fooling around with Bessie the cow. (bestiality, one of the sexual sins defined by "porneia/fornication)
Good grief.

 

[Amy.G]

This may shed some light:


http://www.paleotimes.org/articles/divorceAllowed.htm

That's also what my resources said, which I think is the more orthodox view.

 

[DHK]

This may shed some light:


http://www.paleotimes.org/articles/divorceAllowed.htm

It is a biased site and I don't trust it.
It sounds like it comes from a cult.

Intent of Faith

The purpose of Paleo Times is to edify the Body of Messiah:
Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Why is Paleo Times the name of this website and ministry? First and foremost we must serve Yahweh and to do this properly we must do what Yahweh asks of us throughout our life. His teachings have existed since the beginning of time. Yahshua followed Yahweh's teachings as he walked this earth and as he lives today.
The foundation of all the scriptures is found in just two verses:
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Yahshua said to him, You shall love Yahweh your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:36-40)

 

[pinoybaptist]

So it seems that under the New Covenant, some things got even more strict. Under the NC, divorce was not permitted even if Mr. Jones got caught by Mrs. Jones fooling around with Bessie the cow. (bestiality, one of the sexual sins defined by "porneia/fornication)
Good grief.

No.
It is not that under the NC or NT things got even more strict. It has always been strict. Jesus said "from the beginning", and then explained the reason Moses (not Jehovah) allowed divorce, and ended His statement with "but I (Jehovah God Himself in the flesh, who instituted marriage in the garden of Eden) say unto you......" and He specifically mentioned and singled out fornication because the Jews, human beings as they are, began to abuse the permission to divorce.

Jewish society being patriarchal and masculine-dominated, the men would divorce their women in a heartbeat for any reason: runny nose, too much earwax, smelly ear, underarm odor, too fat, too thin, ugly, nagger, don't know how to cook, fights back. You name it, they got it.
Anything and any pretext.

Now, before this goes anywhere else, I am in agreement with DHK that this putting away specifically pinpoints only the betrothed woman, not the married woman.

 

[Brother Bob]

Matthew was written to a Jewish audience. The purpose of the book was to demonstrate to the Jews that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Mattew wrote with the Jews in mind. Thus "the fornication" clause has application to the Jews, as demonstrated in Matthew chapter one with Mary and Joseph.

Check Matthew chapter 19, a reference you quoted.
Who was Jesus speaking to?
He was answering the questions of the Jews--the Pharisees.
He was speaking about their law, and their customs.
He made it quite clear in that passage: "But from the beginning it was not so."

By that reasoning then we should first find out who the audience was of each book. Take the hair and dress issue in Corth, it was to the Corthians, so why should we worry about it. The book of faith without works is dead, is to Israel, so why should we worry.

It scares me when some start using the audiences to determinine which part of the Bible is to who! I know that is not right, no matter who on this board says it.

Will someone who does says it, stand up and say whether the beatitudes were to the Jews or to all of us???

2Ti 3:16All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[exscentric]

"Will someone who does says it, stand up and say whether the beatitudes were to the Jews or to all of us???"

Sure, Christ was speaking to a Jewish audience about a coming Jewish Kingdom and their proper lifestyle in that kingdom.

Anything else you want to know. :laugh:

Now if you want to talk application to "all of us" that is another thread :thumbs:

 

[pinoybaptist]

Brother Bob:

I think that while the books were written to a particular audience it is merely for readers to understand the cultural or regional context of the letter.
Where a principle is applicable to all, Jew or Gentile, then that principle should be applied.
For example, we all know that the letters to Timothy and Titus were by and large pastoral letters discussing principles in pastoring. However, there are principles in the same letters that are applicable to non-elders or non-pastors.
We know that most of the other letters of Paul, including Corinthians, were addressed to both Jew and Christians because that was the racial make-up of these churches, but the tenor was by and large for Gentiles.
Again, this is helpful for us in order to understand the cultural backdrop against which those letters were written.