Accepted

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

[QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[qb] Now to your previous post.

The problem with the Roman Catholic tradition is that it completely moved the church away from its Jewish roots

.

What in the piece that I posted is not is keeping with God's word?

The church began as a Jewish sect. One of the compromises the church made to escape persecution was to become more Roman (gentile) and do away with its Jewishness. The ensuing anti-semetic route the established church took ensured all aspects of Judaism was repressed

I dare say I disagree with you on this. In fact as you read Pauls letter to the Galatians you see very clearly that the early church parted from Judaism even before the Roman Church was formed and in fact was the reason why the early church endured much persecution.

However a wife acquired in battle from a defeated people had no such costs to him. A man could simply divorse her for any reason and put her out without food or sustinance.

Why was this so?

God in his mercy allowed Moses to issue letters of divorce to appease a deliberate husband who was determined to rid himself of a spouse he despised. In a society dominated by men this was a necessary protection for women who had little rights.

The law had many mercy clauses to prevent abuse. This is the framework on which Jesus builds on in his discourse on marriage. Though he went back to the original concept of one flesh he realised men could and did put assunder what God had joined togather.

Jesus upheld fornication as one reason the marriage vow could be set assunder, but he encouraged forgiveness up to the point of hardness of heart. Once hardness of heart seeps in the hurt party is able to remarry.

The law had mercy on the broken hearted.

Stop here. First of all you are saying what Jesus didnot say. Nowhere does Jesus say that for hardness of heart a person could divorce and remarry. Please refresh my memory on this for I donot seem to see that anywhere in the Gospels.

Jesus used this mercy of the law in the case of the woman bought before him for commiting adultery. Notice the intent here was to put to death the woman by stoning. The man was not presented. Husbands could and did use this as a way to rid themselves of wives to marry another.
Divorce was a lot more life saving.

Okay point well taken but is that not for the very same reason that He says, whoever divorces his wife except for adultery may not marry another, and also isn't that the reason why adultery must be proven in order to use it for an excuse to divorce? Help me here.

[QUOTE] Notice that the Romans based marriage not on obligation but on virginity.

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119.

How does this deviate from what has been set forth in the word of God concerning purity as it concerns the virgin bride in the Old and New Testaments? In fact we see that a man could return his wife if he found her to be unchaste on their wedding night. As a matter of fact was that not one of the reasons why God had to convince Joseph to marry Mary after she was found with child. Virginity was absolutely essential to marriage and in fact is still encouraged in youth today.

Marriage is built not on the procreation of male female but on abstinance and sexual purity

I wouldn't go that far, marriage begins (ideally) in purity, for many reasons one being the absolute indelibility of sexual relations on the emotions particularly when one or the other has had relations with one who is not the espoused. Much has been written on this topic which would be too lengthy to get into here. However fidelity is also another practical concern once one or the other partner has had relations on the outside.

The Roman vestigal virgins in reverence to Diana was the model used to establish the convents and later the orders of chasity.

Has nothing to do with marriage. This is an off to the side.

To the Romans chasity is more noble than marriage, though marriage is compared in scripture as a mystery akin to Christ and the Church.

Guess who they got that from? Paul.

In effect annulment can be done by preists to say a marriage was not holy and never existed. Children born of these marriages are considered illegitimate to avoid calling the break up of the marriage a divorce.

This is where the Holy matriomny clause is mainly used. A marriage deemed not holy can be annulled.

Good point but I would tend to think that the above has to do with the the Catholics rearranging things to get around what is already instituted. Holy Matrimony means holy marriage, and is a likeness of Christ and his bride the Church which will be united at the end of the age. That is not something which the Catholics made up it is there in the book of Revelations.
And while on the point of Holy Matrimony I also noticed many have said that before the Levitical Priest there were none to officiate over marriages
I just wondered who approved of the covenants made by Abraham and his offspring, if it was not God? And was God less than Holy then than when the Priesthood was formed during Moses'time?

[kthydvs]

Re: Accepted

At the present time, in most lands of the earth, marriage is governed by laws of civil authorities, "Ceasar," and the Christian should normally comply with these (Matthew 22:21). The Bible record nowhere sets out the requirment of a religious ceremony or the services of a clergyman. According to the arrangment in Bible times, the requirment would consistently be that a marriage be legalised according to the laws of the land and that marriages and births be registered where such a provision is made by law. Since the "Ceasar" governments exercise such control of marriage, the Christian would be obliged to apply to them for a legalising of a marriage. And even if he should desire to use the adultery of his mate as a Scriptural ground for terminating the marriage, he must obtain a legal divorce if this is possible. A Christian who remarries without due respect for Scriptural and legal requirments would be violating God's laws (Matthew 19:9; Romans 13:1)

In many lands around the world, marrying in a Christian church or in a religious ceremony officiated by a clergyman, is not accepted as a legal marriage. Christians there would have to ask the state to legalise their marriage. Prior to the Law, marriage was a civil affair. There was no religious ceremony or form, and no priest or clergyman officiated or validated the marriage. The bridegroom took the bride to his house or to the tent or house of his parents. The matter was publicly made known, acknowledged, and recorded, and the marriage was binding (Ge 24:67).

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by kumba1:
[qb] At the present time, in most lands of the earth, marriage is governed by laws of civil authorities, "Ceasar," and the Christian should normally comply with these (Matthew 22:21). The Bible record nowhere sets out the requirment of a religious ceremony or the services of a clergyman. According to the arrangment in Bible times, the requirment would consistently be that a marriage be legalised according to the laws of the land and that marriages and births be registered where such a provision is made by law. Since the "Ceasar" governments exercise such control of marriage, the Christian would be obliged to apply to them for a legalising of a marriage. And even if he should desire to use the adultery of his mate as a Scriptural ground for terminating the marriage, he must obtain a legal divorce if this is possible. A Christian who remarries without due respect for Scriptural and legal requirments would be violating God's laws (Matthew 19:9; Romans 13:1)

In many lands around the world, marrying in a Christian church or in a religious ceremony officiated by a clergyman, is not accepted as a legal marriage. Christians there would have to ask the state to legalise their marriage. Prior to the Law, marriage was a civil affair. There was no religious ceremony or form, and no priest or clergyman officiated or validated the marriage. The bridegroom took the bride to his house or to the tent or house of his parents. The matter was publicly made known, acknowledged, and recorded, and the marriage was binding (Ge 24:67). [/qb]

Okay I accept that all marriages are legalized and recorded by the state but which ones are these:

Matt. 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[1] ?

6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

[kthydvs]

Re: Accepted

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife according to the standard set out by GOD. Marriage is a divine institution, authorised and established by GOD in Eden. HE created male and female and ordained marriage as the proper arrangment for the multiplication of the human race. So as the marriage arrangment was established by God, would he look less favourably on couples who marry but are not Christians? Would their marriage be less Holy because they are not Christians? If GOD himself set the standard, and that is a man and a woman, who become one flesh (united)to live together with fidelity, until death separates them, providing a couple are living by these standards, isn't the marriage acceptable to GOD even though they may not be Christians? There are not two different sorts of marriage, whether it took place as a civil ceremony or religious ceremony. It is whether it fits the criteria set down by GOD, and that dosen't mean civil marriages are less 'Holy' than religious marriages as they both adhere to the same standards. The only difference is the person who conducts the marriage, but the result is the same.

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by kumba1:
[qb] Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife according to the standard set out by GOD. Marriage is a divine institution, authorised and established by GOD in Eden. HE created male and female and ordained marriage as the proper arrangment for the multiplication of the human race. So as the marriage arrangment was established by God, would he look less favourably on couples who marry but are not Christians? Would their marriage be less Holy because they are not Christians? If GOD himself set the standard, and that is a man and a woman, who become one flesh (united)to live together with fidelity, until death separates them, providing a couple are living by these standards, isn't the marriage acceptable to GOD even though they may not be Christians? There are not two different sorts of marriage, whether it took place as a civil ceremony or religious ceremony. It is whether it fits the criteria set down by GOD, and that dosen't mean civil marriages are less 'Holy' than religious marriages as they both adhere to the same standards. The only difference is the person who conducts the marriage, but the result is the same. [/qb]

Hence my question to Accepted before - Would the man who is separated from God by sin, and only through or by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord can that person be reconciled to Him, find favor in God's sight even when he does things which could be counted as righteousness, yet while still remaining in a state of unbelief?

[kthydvs]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by kumba1:
[qb] Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife according to the standard set out by GOD. Marriage is a divine institution, authorised and established by GOD in Eden. HE created male and female and ordained marriage as the proper arrangment for the multiplication of the human race. So as the marriage arrangment was established by God, would he look less favourably on couples who marry but are not Christians? Would their marriage be less Holy because they are not Christians? If GOD himself set the standard, and that is a man and a woman, who become one flesh (united)to live together with fidelity, until death separates them, providing a couple are living by these standards, isn't the marriage acceptable to GOD even though they may not be Christians? There are not two different sorts of marriage, whether it took place as a civil ceremony or religious ceremony. It is whether it fits the criteria set down by GOD, and that dosen't mean civil marriages are less 'Holy' than religious marriages as they both adhere to the same standards. The only difference is the person who conducts the marriage, but the result is the same. [/qb]

Hence my question to Accepted before - Would the man who is separated from God by sin, and only through or by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord can that person be reconciled to Him, find favor in God's sight even when he does things which could be counted as righteousness, yet while still remaining in a state of unbelief? [/qb]

Having scrolled through, I will assume it is the question below that you are referring too.

But if you say that God honors all marriages as holy or acceptable to Him, then how is it possible for Him to accept the actions/institutions of the unbeliever yet reject the unbeliever and any unbelieving offspring from that same union even to the point of casting them into hell for their unbelief?

The point I was making is that there is no difference in GOD's eyes between marriage conducted religiously and one conducted through civil means.

But that is not saying HE finds the people in that marriage acceptable, whether they profess to be Christian or not. Salvation is through Jesus, and our conduct. If we deliberately sin after knowing the truth, there is no ransom for us. But this is not applicable to people who don't have this faith. We know that faith without works is dead, so we could go on to say works without faith is dead. But it is us saying that, not GOD. None of us know who will be saved and who won't, only GOD can see into our hearts. I can't judge the next man nor can he judge me. Remember what Jesus said (Matthew 7:22,23) when he told those who professed to be doing his will to get away from him as he dosen't know these workers of lawlessness.

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

But that is not saying HE finds the people in that marriage acceptable, whether they profess to be Christian or not. Salvation is through Jesus, and our conduct. If we deliberately sin after knowing the truth, there is no ransom for us. But this is not applicable to people who don't have this faith. We know that faith without works is dead, so we could go on to say works without faith is dead. But it is us saying that, not GOD. None of us know who will be saved and who won't, only GOD can see into our hearts. I can't judge the next man nor can he judge me. Remember what Jesus said (Matthew 7:22,23) when he told those who professed to be doing his will to get away from him as he dosen't know these workers of lawlessness.



C'mon (((Kumba))) that is an obvious dodge and I expected more from you. Let us examine this again,
1.Would a just God accept one part of a man and not the other?

2. Would God put His stamp of approval on any act of the unbeliever good or bad?

3. If your response is yes then tell me why did He not want the Children of Israel to marry with the Caananites (to site one example)? bearing in mind that the Children of Israel are a picture of those who have been adopted into His holy family (Christians) and the Caananites being a picture of the unsaved.

[kthydvs]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] But that is not saying HE finds the people in that marriage acceptable, whether they profess to be Christian or not. Salvation is through Jesus, and our conduct. If we deliberately sin after knowing the truth, there is no ransom for us. But this is not applicable to people who don't have this faith. We know that faith without works is dead, so we could go on to say works without faith is dead. But it is us saying that, not GOD. None of us know who will be saved and who won't, only GOD can see into our hearts. I can't judge the next man nor can he judge me. Remember what Jesus said (Matthew 7:22,23) when he told those who professed to be doing his will to get away from him as he dosen't know these workers of lawlessness.



C'mon (((Kumba))) that is an obvious dodge and I expected more from you. Let us examine this again,
1.Would a just God accept one part of a man and not the other?

He is not accepting the man, but the act itself, which He instigated

2. Would God put His stamp of approval on any act of the unbeliever good or bad?

His stamp of approval is already on marriage providing the marriage fulfills the standards set by Him. I wouldn't argue that God approves of any act of unbelievers, and yes, just because someone is fullfilling a part of what is expected of us, makes no difference. It is the faith together with works that is important. However, I am not arguing that non-Christians, just because they married according to the standard set down by God would have his approval. My arguement is that marriage is marriage. We cannot define one as being Holy and the other not. What makes it Holy? Wouldn't it be the fact that it was an act sanctified by God. So marriage, as long as it complies with God's standards could be nothing less than Holy.
3. If your response is yes then tell me why did He not want the Children of Israel to marry with the Caananites (to site one example)? bearing in mind that the Children of Israel are a picture of those who have been adopted into His holy family (Christians) and the Caananites being a picture of the unsaved. [/qb]

But isn't this a different arguement. We are talking here of being unevenly yoked. God did not want the Israelites to marry people from other nations because he knew that they would be led away from pure worship. The same can be said of Christians today. Marrying a non-believer can have detremental effects on a persons spiritual well-being. As Christians, we have (or should have) a way of life that is different and often the opposite of those without the Christian faith. GOD in all His wisdom, knows how vunerable and weak we are. He is giving us this advice as a protection for our spiritual well-being. But this is not the same as marriage. He dosen't condem marriage per say, but marriage between believers and non-believers and those who do not fulfill His standards.

[Tropicana]

Re: Accepted

BTW, this passage is NOT talking about marriage:

Do Not Be Yoked With Unbelievers

14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[1] ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."[2]
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."[3]
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."[4]

although I have frequently heard it quoted out of context and discussed as if marriage IS the focus of this passage Also, I have occasionally used the light and darkness portion of this passage used to justify a stance against interracial marriage. It is VERY dangerous to quote scripture out of context....very dangerous indeed.

[accepted77]

Re: Accepted

Jedi I did not want to lift the contents out of the document but since you persist and apparently did not read the links here goes.

A marriage contract can be ended

If the terms of a marriage contract were broken, the injured party could choose to end the contract. However this was not compulsory, and was not done lightly. The various stages of the divorce were designed to give the person time to think carefully before going through with it. A marriage contract could be broken by either party and so provoke a divorce. The divorce was, of course, easier for the man to carry out because he could initiate the divorce himself. The woman had to petition the rabbinic court to force her husband to divorce her. But divorce was theoretically available to either male or female if their spouse did not keep the terms of their marriage contract. If one partner was unfaithful, for example, the other would have to decide whether to end the marriage or to forgive. As in any contract, the injured party has the right to decide what is best for them whether to regard the breach of contract as end of the contract, or whether to ignore the breach and carry on with the contract. Of course in modern business contracts there is a variety of other options such as renegotiating the terms of the contract, or the payment of a penalty. However the marriage contract cannot be renegotiated because it is based on lifelong commitment and any penalty would hurt both parties. Once the marriage vows have been broken, the offence must either be forgiven or the contract must end. Disregarding the offence drives a wedge of silence into the marriage which can only result in further harm. It should be pointed out that there should be no pressure, even on a Christian, to forgive an unrepentant partner who has broken a marriage contract. If the partner repents and asks forgiveness, then of course the Christian should strive to obey our Lord's injunction to forgive even "seventy times seven times" (Mt.18.22). However, if the partner does not repent, there is no pressure on the other to forgive. This is clear in Luke's presentation of this teaching: "If he sins against you seven times in a day and turns to you seven times and says 'I repent' you must forgive him." We are only instructed to forgive if the person repents and asks for forgiveness. The man or woman who physically or emotionally abuses their partner repeatedly should be forgiven if they repent and ask for forgiveness, and even the repentant multiple adulterer should be forgiven. But it is reasonable to doubt whether there is true repentance when the same offence recurs. Repentance involves not only being sorry, but taking steps to ensure it does not happen again. A recurrent abuser should therefore seek help, and an adulterer must renounce the affair and possibly seek help as part of their repentance. Although a marriage contract can be ended, the rabbis added obstacles to the process. They recognised that it was too easy to divorce someone in a fit of temper and regret it afterwards. They therefore gave strict and detailed interpretations of the various stages of a divorce outlined in Dt.24.1. They found three stages of divorce in Dt.24.1: 1) The man writes out a bill of divorce. The rabbis said that the man himself must write out the certificate, so that he thinks carefully about what he is doing. Later a loophole was found in this law. A man could hire a scribe to write out the divorce certificate so long as he sold the man the pen and ink he used. Nevertheless this still served to delay the divorce to a certain extent. 2) The man hands the divorce certificate to his wife. The rabbis said that the man must do this himself personally he cannot use a messenger. This ensured that there was the possibility of communication between the partners. They had to meet each other at least once before the divorce went through. Loopholes were again found which limited the usefulness of this law. 3) The wife leaves the man's house. This, according to the rabbis, includes the return of the dowry to the wife. This may involve selling the family home or part of the family business in order to raise the amount she was owed, and this took time. These three stages were designed to delay the divorce process. It was hoped that a hasty divorce could be avoided by such delay. Although it was possible to end a divorce contract, this was not to be undertaken lightly.

(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]
Ending a marriage contract is not sinful

Although the ending of a marriage contract was a serious matter, it was not a sinful matter. The sin lay in breaking the vows, not in the divorce which results from this. Divorce is a divinely prescribed procedure in the Law, and even God is described as 'divorcing' Israel. God ended his covenant with Israel, which he likened to a marriage covenant. Frequently the prophets speak of Israel as an adulterous wife, going after other gods (See Is.50; Jer.3; Ezk.16; Hos.3). God is portrayed as a forgiving and longsuffering husband, but one who eventually sees that his mercy and forgiveness is merely leading his wife to sin even more. Although there is an almost constant message of forgiveness, this is not because it wound be unrighteous for God to end the covenant. In fact Jeremiah even records "I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries" (Jer.3.8). If divorce was sinful, Jeremiah could never have spoken of God divorcing Israel. The sin was not with God who ended the covenant, but with Israel who broke it. When God said "I hate divorce" he made it clear that this was because it involved a breaking of vows: "you have broken faith with the bride of your youth" (Mal.2.14). It is the breaking of vows which is sinful. Divorce is the divinely instituted way of clearing up the mess made by breaking these vows. It is part of the Law of Moses, as Jesus himself acknowledges. The whole OT Law is realistic, recognising the sinfulness and frailty of man. It provided punishments for crimes, safe havens for accidental murderers who may be pursued by angry relatives, and it provided divorce. Any contract can be ended when one party fails to keep it. A contract is broken when one party fails to do what was agreed. If this happens, the injured party can choose to end the contract and extract whatever penalties were agreed from the start. The injured party may of course decide to ignore or forgive the offence and patch things up between them. If a covenant is ended, the fault lies with the person who broke it and not with the injured party who decides to end it. Marriage covenants, like any other covenants, could be ended in the Old Testament, and were ended, without any guilt implied for the person who ended it.

(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]
A broken marriage covenant can be healed

Although the injured party can quite properly end a covenant, they need not. God was quite willing to forgive and welcome Israel back many times, as seen most graphically in Hosea who is asked to act it out himself. He married an adulterous woman who was unfaithful to him, and yet he welcomed her back. God was like that with Israel for a long time. He kept forgiving and welcoming her back without ending the covenant. In New Testament times some rabbis felt that one was obliged to divorce an adulterous wife (Mishnah Sotah 1.2; 5.1; 6.13 - see p.~). This was presumably because one could not be certain about the legitimacy of children born to such a wife. Children were considered to be illegitimate (a Mamzer) unless proved otherwise. Illegitimate children were not just an embarrassment, but a terrible burden, because they could not marry a Jew, and their offspring could not enter the Temple for the next 10 generations. One can see why the Jews had such a high regard for genealogies. For Christians this problem disappeared as soon as Gentiles were converted. A child from a mixed marriage or gentile marriage was regarded by the Jews as a Memzer ie the same as an illegitimate Jewish child. They could not enter the temple or marry a Jew. But these restrictions did not bother Christians too much, and so there was no necessity for divorce after adultery for a Christian. This did not mean that adultery was treated lightly it was still a ground for divorce, as Jesus affirmed but it did not oblige the injured party to seek a divorce. There was no need for the NT to teach that adultery could be forgiven. This was already clear in the OT. Hosea in particular showed how God continually forgave unfaithful Israel, and put off the final divorce so many times despite 'adulteries' with other gods. The custom of Jews in this regard was not based on scripture but on practical necessity, which did not apply to Christians.

(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]
Jesus' and Paul's comments on the marriage contract

Jesus and Paul did not mention the marriage contract by name, but they affirmed the various terms of that contract - faithfulness, emotional support and material support. Jesus also taught that all contracts should be honoured - 'Let your Yes mean Yes'. They appear to have assumed that the OT teaching about marriage contracts was valid for the Christian. However, their approach to OT Law suggests a slightly different approach to contracts in general. Jesus affirmed the OT law in his sermon on the mount, but then said that his followers should go further still. Instead of avoiding adultery they should avoid lust outside marriage (Mt.5.27-28). The law allowed for revenge, but his followers should go the second mile (Matt.5.38-41). Paul, similarly, revered the Law, but urged Christians to live by the Spirit instead. This would not lead them to sin, but to greater righteousness (Gal.3; Rom.8). Hebrews takes up this theme in the words of Ezekiel who spoke of a new Covenant written on hearts, and not on stone (Heb.8). All this is understood by some to mean that all the regulations and rights of the Old Covenant are now abrogated by the believer. This means that a Christian may not regard a marriage as a covenant written on paper, but as agreement written in their heart, which cannot be broken. As far as the believer is concerned, this is true. A Christian is now even more bound to keep the terms of God's law (except the ceremonial law which was fulfilled in Jesus). A Christian obeys it not only because it is written on paper, but written on their heart as well. This applies just as much to a marriage agreement as any other agreement. But this does not mean that a marriage contract will never be broken. It means that a Christian should never break any marriage vows, but it does not ensure that they will not, and it does not ensure that a non-Christian partner will not. Jesus did not say that a broken marriage vow cannot result in divorce. Indeed he specifically said that the vow mentioned in Deut.24.1, the vow of faithfulness, could lead to divorce if it was not kept. Jesus did not say that those joined together by God could not be separated, but that they should not. No Christian nor non-Christian should ever be the cause of marital breakdown by breaking marriage vows. The attitude of Jesus and Paul to written covenants was not less strict than OT teaching, but more strict. The believer is now bound not only by a piece of paper but by a commitment to God as well. This is true for marriage covenants as well as biblical covenants.

source

[accepted77]

Re: Accepted

Another long post Jedi, Here is the argument that marriage is not indissoluable. You wanted to know where I got that hardness of heart argument.

Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage is contained in two passages in Matthew, which each have a parallel in another Gospel.

Matthew 5.3132 (parallel in Luke 16.18):

And it was said: Whoever releases his wife should give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you: Everyone who releases his wife except for a matter of indecency makes her commit adultery and whoever marries her who is released commits adultery.

Matthew 19.39: (parallel in Mark 10.212):

And the Pharisees came to him, testing him, and asking: "Is it lawful for a man to release [ie divorce] his wife for any matter?" And answering he said: "Have you not read that the Creator, `from the beginning, male and female made he them', and said: `For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh'. Therefore, they are no longer two, but one flesh. What then God has joined together, let not man sever". They said to him: "Then why did Moses permit giving a divorce certificate and releasing her?" He said to them: "Moses, because of your hard hearts, allowed you to release your wives. But from the beginning it was not so. But I say to you: Whoever may release his wife except for indecency, and marry another, commits adultery."

The parallels in Mark and Luke are very similar except that they do not include 'except for indecency' as Matthew does in both passages.

In the translation above, 'indecency' is used for the Greek word PORNEIA which was a general term for sexual indecency. The more specific term MOICEIA is translated 'adultery'. The two words 'release' and 'divorce' represent different Greek words but they both have very similar meanings. [add notes on textual criticism]

The Contexts

The first passage is part of a collection of teaching which Matthew compiled as the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.57) and which Luke spreads throughout his gospel. In Matthew it is part of the collection of contrasts between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of Tradition (Mt.5.2148). This has the format "You have heard it said that ....but I say to you that .....". Here Jesus replaced 'Do not murder' with 'Do not be angry'; he replaced 'Do not commit adultery' with 'Do not look lustfully at another woman'; he replaced revenge ('a tooth for a tooth') with submission ('offer the other cheek'); and he replaced divorce with lifelong marriage.

Most Christians regard these as unattainable ideals, and when Jesus concludes them with the words "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (v.48) we reluctantly admit that we are not perfect. It is difficult to know how to apply "Do not resist an evil person" (v.39) in this evil world, and by Jesus' standards most of us are murderers and adulterers.

If this was the only passage we had from Jesus about divorce, we might be tempted to regard this too as an unattainable ideal. However we cannot dismiss Jesus' teaching about lifelong marriage as if it were an unattainable ideal, because the second passage (Mt.19.39 = Mk.10.212) discusses the matter in very practical terms. The context of this second passage was a legal debate which was still being debated amongst the Pharisees concerning the practicalities of divorce. The question was grounded in reality and Jesus' answer would be literally binding for any of his disciples.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]

Mt.19.3: The Question put to Jesus

The question the Pharisees put to Jesus concerned the practical problem of the grounds for divorce, which they had to consider every time a divorce certificate was brought to them for validation.

In Mt.19.39 (and parallel in Mark 10) Jesus was asked about his interpretation of "indecent matter" in Dt.24.1. They wanted to know whether he agreed: a) with the Hillelites, who separated the phrase into two words so that people could be divorced for any "matter", as well as for something sexually "indecent", or b) with the Shammaites' more straightforward interpretation of Dt.24.1, which only supported divorce for a sexually "indecent matter"?
This question is more obvious in Matthew than in Mark, because the positions of both parties are actually stated by Matthew and Jesus' answer specifically includes the Shammaite conclusion.

In Matthew 19.3 the Pharisees ask "Is it lawful for a man to release his wife for any matter" (ie the Hillelite position), and in verse 9 Jesus replies that one may divorce a wife "only for indecency" (ie the Shammaite position).
In the Sermon on the Mount the Shammaite position is referred to even more specifically in Mt.5.32: "except for a matter of indecency" LOGOU PORNEIAS). This is a direct translation of the Shammaite position who changed the order of the words in Dt.24.1 ("indecent matter") to "matter of indecency" in order to emphasise it's meaning.

Mark and Luke do not record the phrases which summarise the position of the Hillelites and Shammaites in their parallels to the two passages in Matthew. The reason for this is not certain. Most scholars think that Matthew or someone in the early Jewish Christian community added these phrases later. Although there are very good reasons for thinking this, the internal evidence of the passage makes it much more likely that these phrases were part of the original debate.

The original debate would not make sense in the original context without the Hillelite phrase "for any matter". Without that phrase, the question put to Jesus is "Is it lawful to divorce your wife", to which the only possible answer is: "Yes - it is lawful because the Law says that you can". This shorter version does not ask Jesus his opinion, but only asks him an elementary question that any schoolboy could answer. However it does make sense for the Pharisees to ask Jesus "Is it lawful to divorce your wife for any matter?", which would mean: "Do you follow the Hillelite interpretation of Dt.24.1?".

It has been suggested that the Dead Sea Scroll Community did not allow divorce, so that the question "Is it lawful to divorce your wife" would not be so meaningless. However it is unlikely that the Dead Sea Scroll community had such teaching. As pointed out above (p.) there is good reason to believe that they believed in divorce, and no reason to believe that they denied the possibility.

Why did Mark and Luke omit the phrases summarising the Hillelite and Shammaite positions? Most likely because there was little need to include them. Their original readers (or the original readers of their sources) were familiar with these terms of the debate. It was common practice among the rabbis to abbreviate debates by omitting unnecessary words or phrases - see p~.
Whatever the reason, the account makes little sense without the assumption that these phrases were included in the original debate. To ask "Is it lawful to divorce your wife" is like asking "Is it lawful to eat beef?. The law is clear on both matters and any thirteen year old boy could answer either question without hesitation.
It is therefore much more likely that Mark and Luke employed the common practice of summarising the account, than that Matthew added to it. Mt.19.4-6:
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]

Mt.19.4-6: Jesus' first digression on Monogamy

The rabbis asked Jesus whether he supported the Hillelite or the Shammaite interpretation of Dt.24.1. Jesus digressed before answering this question. He wanted to emphasise that God is not really interested in divorce he is more interested in marriage, which he said should be lifelong and monogamous.
In Mt.19.4-6 Jesus laid the groundwork which he needed in order to answer the Pharisees question about Dt.24.
Before he could give an adequate interpretation of Dt.24 he needed to show that polygamy is wrong.
Polygamy was still considered legal by the Jews of Jesus' day, because the OT never actually outlawed it. Jesus had to show that polygamy was not part of God's will, because polygamy would legally allow a man to marry any number of wives, even if his divorce was invalid.
First Jesus quoted Gen.1.27, reminding them that in the perfection of Eden God gave Adam one wife. He then quoted Gen.2.24, though with the addition of the word "two": "...and the two will become one flesh" (Matt.19.5; Mark 10.7).
The Hebrew text does not have the word "two", but simply reads "and they will become one flesh".
By adding the word "two" Jesus emphasised that God originally intended marriage to be between two people only.
Jesus may have been following a common custom in adding the word "two" to the text of Gen.2.24. Although this word is missing from the Hebrew text, Targums and Jubilees, it is found in the Septuagint and Samaritan recession of the Pentateuch.
Jesus appears to use this tradition to give emphasis to his teaching on monogamy. Just in case this point has been missed, he highlights it by adding: "So they are no longer two but one".

From these two texts Jesus concludes that a perfect marriage has only two people, who become one flesh when they marry. [Androgynous Adam theology ? - see Sigal] Jesus concluded this excursus about God's ideal plan by pointing out how serious it is to break up a marriage: "That which God has joined, let no-one separate" (Mt.19.6; Mk.10.9).
The language which Jesus used is as solemn as any Jew could use. Jews very rarely referred to God directly, and even Jesus used 'Father' or the common Jewish circumlocutions such as 'heaven'. Jesus here, not only referred directly to God, but also to something which God does, so that divorce becomes an act which is in direct opposition to the will of God.
This is even stronger than the language of Malachi who recorded the word of the Lord: "I hate divorce" (Mal.2.16) Jesus used the same argument as Malachi who, like Jesus, argues from the order at Creation (Mal.2.10), refers to the "single being" of Gen.1.27; 2.24 (Mal.2.15) and concluded that God does not want anyone to get divorced (Mal.2.16).
Jesus and Malachi made it clear that although divorce is perfectly possible and legal, it is against the will of God.

The teaching that marriage is indissoluble (ie a couple remain married in God's eyes even if they are divorced, until one partner dies) suggests that divorce is impossible.
This teaching implies that even if the couple wanted to separate what God had joined, they would not succeed. Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated.
This makes nonsense of Jesus' teaching here.
If it was impossible to separate what God had joined, Jesus would be saying, in effect: "I forbid you to do what it is impossible to do".

At this point it is necessary to make clear something which will be dealt with more fully later.
The sin of divorce is not committed by the person who brings the legal proceedings, but by the person who breaks up the marriage by breaking the marriage vows.
Malachi 2.14 says clearly: "Why is the LORD acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth? Because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant."
Malachi says that the Lord is against the person who breaks the marriage vows, the marriage covenant.
The act of separation occurs when the act of adultery is committed - when one partner joins themselves to someone else. They "become one flesh" when they "cleave" to each other (Gen.2.24; Mt.19.5; Mk.10.7) - ie a human act joined them as one flesh, though it was sanctified by God.
A human act, such as adultery, can also cause the separation, though this is not sanctified by God, so it is a purely human act.
The divorce itself is simply a legal recognition that the separation has already occurred and that it can't be mended.

Jesus points out to the couple who are joined as one flesh that they have been joined by God, and it is a serious offence to break the vows which they have made before God.
The translation "let no man separate" is particularly unfortunate, because it suggests that only the man is ever to blame. The Greek word is ANTHOPOS, 'a human', not ANHR or ANDROS 'a man'. Either partner can break the marriage vows and sever the bond which God has sanctified.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]

Mt.19.7-8: Jesus' second digression: Optional divorce

The rabbis regarded Jesus' teaching about monogamy as a digression, and they saw from what he said that Jesus was against divorce in general.
They therefore brought Jesus back to the point by referring directly to the text at the centre of the debate - Deut. 24.1-4. This was the only place where a divorce certificate is mentioned in the OT, so they ask:
If God is against divorce (as you claim) "Why did Moses command the giving of a certificate of divorce".
They no-doubt wanted Jesus to get on with answering the original question, which was about the two different interpretations of the phrase "indecent matter" in Dt.24.1.
However, the way they put this further question prompted Jesus to correct another mistake they made about divorce.
They said in their question that Moses "commanded" divorce (Mt.19.7), but Jesus replied that Moses only "permitted" divorce (Mt.19.8).

The Jews in Jesus' day considered divorce obligatory if the wife committed adultery.
That is why Joseph was described as "righteous" for wanting to divorce Mary when it seemed as though she had been unfaithful (Mt.1.19).
{The Greek/Roman world had similar ideas. Mishnah Yebamoth 2.8 and Sotah 5.1 and other references in Epstein 1927 p210f. Bockmuehl 1989 p292 gives yet more Jewish sources and the most important Roman ones.}

Jesus stood against this prevailing idea by saying that Moses "permitted" divorce when adultery had occurred, but it was not compulsory.
Such divorce is due to human sinfulness - in particular "hard-heartedness".
This is a particularly apt term for the cause of divorce because it incorporates the twin ideas of stubbornness and breaking of promises.
A 'hard heart' was a common metaphor for stubbornness in the OT. It indicated an unwillingness to bend (eg Ezekiel 3.7: "they refuse to listen to me ... for they have hard hearts").
The term was also used especially for those who broke their covenant with God in their hearts.

Those who were hardhearted were also described as having "uncircumcised hearts" (Dt.10.16, Jer.4.4).
The Septuagint coined the Greek term which Jesus used here, SKLHROKARDIAN, and used in these two texts. It was not a normal Greek word, and Jesus probably had Dt.10.16 in mind when he used the term.
The context of this passage is the second presentation of the Tablets of Law, with the warnings that Israel should not be hardhearted, but obey the covenant.

Jesus said that divorce is never part of God's will, and even if adultery has occurred, it may still be possible to save the marriage. However, God recognised that human sinfulness will sometimes cause a breakdown, and therefore Moses permitted a legal recognition of this in the process of divorce. The broken vows which lead to a breakdown of the marriage are due to human hardheartedness or sinfulness. Moses told the Jews not to be hardhearted in this way, and Jesus tells us the same thing.
But the fact is that humans continue to sin against the covenant of God, and they continue to break their marriage covenants, so that marriages continue to break down.
If there were no more human hardheartedness, there would be no further need for the divorce provisions.
Jesus specifically mentioned hardheartedness or stubbornness when he said that divorce is not necessary following adultery.
Adultery, like any sin, can be forgiven.
If a husband or wife falls in this respect, and asks for forgiveness, their adultery need not lead to divorce.
It is often the stubbornness of the other partner, in refusing to forgive them when they ask for forgiveness, that leads to the divorce. Jesus commanded that we forgive 70x7 sins against us. However this only applies if the guilty partner does come and ask for forgiveness (Lk.17.4). If they are blatantly continuing in sin without genuine repentance, Jesus does not even command his most faithful disciples to forgive them. This issue is discussed further on p. .
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]

Mt.19.9a: Jesus supported the Shammaite interpretation

Jesus finally returned to the original question about the rabbinic dispute concerning the interpretation of the Hebrew phrase ERVAT DAVAR, "indecent matter" in Dt.24.1.
Jesus agreed with the Shammaite interpretation that it refers to PORNEIA, "sexual indecency", and not to "indecency" and "(any) matter" as the Hillelites argued.
When Jesus made his pronouncements on topics of the day, the leaders were genuinely surprised at what he said.
Even though he supported the Shammaites on this occasion, this was not his normal practice (as seen in the last chapter). Jesus stood out from the crowd, and was generally provocative. However, when Jesus declared his interpretation of Dt.24.1 his listeners must have been shocked, especially when he outlined the consequences of his interpretation.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]

Mt.19.9b: Invalid divorce results in adultery

This dispute did not just concern a seemingly obscure interpretation, because if the Hillelite interpretation was incorrect then all the divorces which had been granted by Hillelites on the basis of "any matter" were invalid.
As pointed out above, this would include virtually all, if not actually all, the divorces at that time, because the Shammaite divorce was so much more difficult to obtain.
Jesus was, in effect, declaring that all these divorcees were invalid.
Jesus then pointed out a further consequence of his teaching: if any of those divorcees had got married (which would probably include virtually all of them), they were not really married, and were committing adultery.
They were committing adultery because they were still married to their original spouse, while living with someone else.

This was a consequence not only of Jesus' teaching about the meaning of "indecent matter", but also his teaching on monogamy.
If Jesus had allowed polygamy, like most Jews of his time, a man would not be committing adultery by marrying another woman, even if his divorce was invalid. He would simply have married a second wife. However, as shown above, Jesus taught from Scripture that polygamy was wrong.
This teaching was summed up as: Whoever divorces his wife, except for indecency, and marries another, commits adultery.

This summary could be expressed in several slightly different ways.

First, because virtually every divorce at that time was based on the Hillelite ground of "any matter", Mark and Luke are able to summarise Jesus' teaching as: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery" (Mk.10:11; Lk.16.18), and of course "the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Lk.16.18; Mt.5.32) The textual variants are particularly florid in these texts, due to scribes who tried to harmonise all these passages.

Secondly, because the vast majority of divorced women remarried, it could be said that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress" (Mt.5:32)
Women got remarried partly for added financial security, but mostly because the unmarried state was very undesirable.
Financial security was provided partly by her dowry which was returned to her if she was divorced, but this was a lump sum which would soon disappear if it was applied to some business.
The number of businesses open to women were very small, so her best avenue was to find an unmarried man whose business would profit from more finance.
However, the main reason for remarrying was to escape the undesirable state of being single.

Even widows were expected to remarry if they were under 50, both in the Jewish world and in the Greek/Roman world - see Winter, B.W. 1988 p85.

Thirdly, because it was possible in the Greek/Roman world for a woman to divorce a man, Mark deals also with this possibility: "if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." (Mk.10:12)
It is possible that this refers to the rare cases where a Jewish woman is able to divorce her husband.
Technically the woman asks a rabbinic court to force her husband to divorce her, but Mark is correct that in effect the woman divorces him. This is dealt with in greater detail in chapter 9.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]
Mt.19.10-12:

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

The attitude of Jesus and Paul to written covenants was not less strict than OT teaching, but more strict. The believer is now bound not only by a piece of paper but by a commitment to God as well This is true for marriage covenants as well as biblical covenants.

Great piece Accepted, very enlightening. However I hope you are not misunderstanding me somewhere, my bone of contention is not divorce but remarriage after divorce.

Anyway the piece I picked out from your first post highlights I believe exactly what I have been saying that a marriage covenant of the believer is bound not only on paper (legal) but in God as well (spiritual and in love). I stand corrected on the issue of "eternal", and concede that instead it is until "death".

See also the argument with Kumba1 re: the issue of what is holy and what is not. My take on this is that if the marriage of a believer is bound in God then it is the very reason why it differs from the marriage of the unbeliever in that it is holy. God chose a people for Himself, and sealed them with a covenant that covenant is holy, because God is holy, a covenant between God and man such as the taking of vows to God is holy.

On the other hand marriages or covenants of the unbeliever cannot be regarded as holy as what it sin is sin and what comes out of sin is still sinful. Regardless of what, God says in His word - "your righteousness is as filthy rags in my sight." speaking of the unbeliever. So though we see that the unbeliever can model good deeds and righteous acts, they are separated from a holy God by their unbelief. The marriage contract of unbelievers therefore though modeled after God's law is steeped in sin and not righteousness.

[Guest]

Re: Accepted

The teaching that marriage is indissoluble (ie a couple remain married in God's eyes even if they are divorced, until one partner dies) suggests that divorce is impossible.
This teaching implies that even if the couple wanted to separate what God had joined, they would not succeed. Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated.
This makes nonsense of Jesus' teaching here.
If it was impossible to separate what God had joined, Jesus would be saying, in effect: "I forbid you to do what it is impossible to do".



The author seems to be using fancy footwork here and it amounts to nothing more than a dodge of the obvious. Or at least what should be obvious to any believer. Marriage of the believer is both spiritual as well as physical. It is a covenant relationship before God bound spiritually as well as physically. What has been bound on earth has been bound in heaven. The only thing that can sever this relationship is adultery, introduction of a third party or another spiritual influence into the relationship, or death. So therefore in essence what Jesus said interpreted to mean "Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated."
is not so far fetched at all. They can be separated in the physical realm yes. But the two spirits have been joined by an oath before God there is no way that they can be separated except as I said before in death or introduction of another spirit into the union which now becomes two again instead of one. Think about it.

[kthydvs]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The teaching that marriage is indissoluble (ie a couple remain married in God's eyes even if they are divorced, until one partner dies) suggests that divorce is impossible.
This teaching implies that even if the couple wanted to separate what God had joined, they would not succeed. Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated.
This makes nonsense of Jesus' teaching here.
If it was impossible to separate what God had joined, Jesus would be saying, in effect: "I forbid you to do what it is impossible to do".



The author seems to be using fancy footwork here and it amounts to nothing more than a dodge of the obvious. Or at least what should be obvious to any believer. Marriage of the believer is both spiritual as well as physical. It is a covenant relationship before God bound spiritually as well as physically. What has been bound on earth has been bound in heaven. The only thing that can sever this relationship is adultery, introduction of a third party or another spiritual influence into the relationship, or death. So therefore in essence what Jesus said interpreted to mean "Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated."
is not so far fetched at all. They can be separated in the physical realm yes. But the two spirits have been joined by an oath before God there is no way that they can be separated except as I said before in death or introduction of another spirit into the union which now becomes two again instead of one. Think about it. [/qb]

Have to agree with Jedi on this. The only Scriptural reason given for a divorce is if one of the parties in the marriage commits adultery. They have then become 'one flesh' so to speak with someone other than their marriage partner. However, Jesus does encourage forgiveness. But if that is impossible or the mate who committed adultery continues on that path, this is the only reason for divorce. Other than that reason, God will view divorced people as being still married to one another and any subsequent relationship, whether legalised in law or not, is not regarded by God as a marriage.

This is what I was trying to say to you Jedi regarding Holy and Un-Holy marriages. Providing a marriage fulfills the standard set down by God, it is acceptable in His eyes. We have to remember we are all sinners, the difference between Christians and non-Christians is the belief in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. That's what sets us apart.

[accepted77]

Re: Accepted

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The teaching that marriage is indissoluble (ie a couple remain married in God's eyes even if they are divorced, until one partner dies) suggests that divorce is impossible.
This teaching implies that even if the couple wanted to separate what God had joined, they would not succeed. Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated.
This makes nonsense of Jesus' teaching here.
If it was impossible to separate what God had joined, Jesus would be saying, in effect: "I forbid you to do what it is impossible to do".



The author seems to be using fancy footwork here and it amounts to nothing more than a dodge of the obvious. Or at least what should be obvious to any believer. Marriage of the believer is both spiritual as well as physical. It is a covenant relationship before God bound spiritually as well as physically. What has been bound on earth has been bound in heaven. The only thing that can sever this relationship is adultery, introduction of a third party or another spiritual influence into the relationship, or death. So therefore in essence what Jesus said interpreted to mean "Even if they got divorced, they would still be joined in God's eyes, and not truly separated."
is not so far fetched at all. They can be separated in the physical realm yes. But the two spirits have been joined by an oath before God there is no way that they can be separated except as I said before in death or introduction of another spirit into the union which now becomes two again instead of one. Think about it. [/qb]

Jedi & Kumba
I would really like you all to read the book but seeing you are all busy people I will try to cut out the more relevant sections to your comments.

The research done by this authour on this topic is from that of the culture of the first century church. We have been biased by our romanised notion of almost every creed in the bible. Dr Brewer goes back to the roots so to speak and strips away the many years of cultural sensitization we in our modern culture believe obout marriage as it was when Jesus preached the streets of Nazareth.

This have been a major preoccupation of mine since I realised many truths we hold dear as christian are tainted by centuries of modifications to the original. Many of the schisms in christendom have been man made by this very roman way of thinking.

Here's a summary of his work.

Summary of this Book

Most Christians believe that Jesus taught divorce and remarriage to be wrong.
This means that many churches will not marry a divorcee, even if they had been the victim of abuse, and they would have more difficulty accepting a minister who was divorced than one who had repented of a murder. This teaching has often been regarded as undesirable but necessary, because it is based on the Bible.

New light on the Jewish background of the New Testament may now result in a completely different understanding of the biblical teaching on divorce. Some of these findings are startling:

Jesus did not condemn all divorce, but only one particular form of Jewish divorce.
{The any cause type}

Paul specifically allowed remarriage after divorce.

Marriage in the Bible is a contract. If one partner breaks their side of the contract, the other partner has the right to declare that the contract has ended and demand a divorce.

There are four biblical grounds for divorce, based on the four obligations of a biblical marriage contract: to share in the provision of food, the provision of clothing and provision of emotional support, and to be faithful.

Jesus affirmed one of these grounds for divorce, and Paul affirmed the other three.

The words used in modern Christian marriage vows is based on these four biblical grounds for divorce.
(C) 1996 Dr David Instone-Brewer, [email protected]