Help With Study On Divorce

http://www.logos.com/product/16631/remarriage-after-divorce-in-todays-church-3-views

The "blatant" situation of adultery is only blatant if you think it is. That passage (Matthew 19:3-9) is certainly not as easily interpreted that way as many might think. Desertion, however, Paul did make clear.

Abuse is very heartbreaking. Yet, even as you said, there is no direct or explicit biblical support for divorce because of abuse, regardless of what kind it is. You may think that it's a no-brainer that it is allowed. But God's standards are higher than man's natural inclinations.

You seem to be pretty set on what you believe even though the biblical support may or may not be there, as you said. So my 2 cents are that maybe you should reconsider and approach the Scriptures less set on what you think. That is, let them determine your thinking.

With respect to passages you could look at, I've found that Matthew 18:21-35 to be very convicting with regards to marriage/divorce. I've read a few times by a few authors that Matthew is said to have grouped a lot of his Gospel topically. So I find it very interesting that this parable at the end of 18 comes right before discussion on marriage and divorce. Ephesians 5:21-33 is, of course, critical in understanding divorce.

When counseling a married friend who was going through the painful situation of discovering past adultery committed by his spouse, talking with him about that Matthew 18 parable and Ephesians 5 affected him profoundly. After truly considering how Christ died for him despite his own spiritual adultery, my friend completely changed his mind, refusing to even consider divorcing his wife as an option. Jesus refuses to divorce us, His bride. We should treat our spouses the same. Despite whatever tremendously horrible pain they put us through. Ultimately, earthly marriage is first and foremost, itself, a parable to our heavenly marriage to Jesus Christ. All our actions in marriage should be with this in mind. (My friend and his wife are doing much better now. They were able to make it through their rough time. Rather quickly, in fact. He was so convicted, we only had to talk once about it. Granted, I don't think for a second that his case is typical. Just sharing my experience.)

If one wonders then why desertion alone is allowed, the answer is simple: one spouse cannot stop another spouse from leaving if that's what the latter makes up their mind to do. A person could be the most Christlike in the world, but that's only half of the relationship. Both have to commit. If one decides to leave and cannot be swayed to reconsider, as incredibly sad as it is, nothing can be done (except prayer of course, but such things are in the Father's hands). However, if a spouse repents of sin (even so much as adultery) and wants to stay together, the two should stay together.

Forgive me if these thoughts of mine aren't what you were/are looking for. I pray you receive the wisdom you seek concerning marriage and divorce from the Creator and Keeper of wisdom.

Rick

I just finished "Remarriage after Divorce in Today's Church: 3 Views" and the third view took abuse into consideration. If you would like, you can email me at rick68AT vqme.net(not com) and I will send you a few excerpts that I highlighted for you to sample and see if you would like to purchase it.

It is a pretty quick and easy read.

DMB

The 'simple' instances are at least the easiest to track to something in the NT. But in today's society (and I would suspect even in NT times), there's rarely anything 'simple'. Anecdotal is real-life: I knew a pastor who had to deal with a Christian son-in-law abusing his granddaughters. And the question from the Christian wife. His daughter. I really don't know what answer you're looking for Jerry that can overcome telling someone to accept excruciating pain.

Rosie Perera

Priscilla Papers volume 21 has a very good article on "Clergy Responses to Domestic Violence," with reference to divorce, and with plenty of biblical references to support its conclusions, as well as a bibliography of other helpful Christian books on domestic violence.

Unfortunately PP is only available as part of the Theological Journal Library Volume 13, but you can read that article in entirety online here.

Alan

A resource you might consider is

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities by David Instone-Brewer. I do not think it is a logos resource but you can read the reviews on Amazon to see if it is something like you are looking for.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479203#Comment_479203

Here is the search result for resources in Logos:

http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=Divorce+and+Remarriage+in+the+Church

That said, please remember that these three states are not synonymous; Separation, Divorce, Divorce & Remarriage. The Bible does not command us to remain in an abusive situation but it does not say remarriage is an option. Some radical feminists teach that all sexual relations in marriage are abuse. Some children think thy are "abused" when you make them attend church, The United Nations agrees with them. Wholesale divorce based on subjective "abuse" is not provided for in the Bible.

David Matthew

It's not in Logos, but to my mind a breakthrough volume on this subject is David Instone-Brewer's Divorce And Remarriage.

Bob

There are two blatant situations in the New Testament allowing for remarriage after divorce (adultery and desertion). Here is my issue:

sorry

RLP

Jerry Bush

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479320#Comment_479320

I hesitate to post things like this on message boards because I seem to be misunderstood often. In my attempt at brevity, perhaps I did not make my intentions clear. Perhaps by responding to a few of you I can clarify my thinking:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Robert W. wrote:

The "blatant" situation of adultery is only blatant if you think it is. That passage (Matthew 19:3-9) is certainly not as easily interpreted that way as many might think. Desertion, however, Paul did make clear.

Jerry (me) says:

Agreed; Paul is clear on desertion. But what is not clear about Matthew 19? If a spouse commits adultery, the other spouse is free to divorce and possibly remarry. They do not have to, but they are allowed to. What am I missing? I am not asking that in a smug or sarcastic manner. What is a different interpretation of that passage?

I would certainly want reconciliation in these cases when possible, even when the spouse is Biblically free to divorce. Sometimes reconciliation is possible and sometimes it is not.

I should have said abuse is a “no-brainer” in that the spouse should leave the situation – they are in danger. What is not clear from the Bible is the injured spouse allowed to divorce and remarry if she or he wanted to? That is what I am after – Biblical support one way or the other.

Robert, you completely missed what I was saying. I want to know what the Bible says. You accuse me of being “pretty set” on what I believe. I said I wanted Biblical principles, not something that supports my opinion(s). When I said abuse seems like a no-brainer, I meant that is what it feels like but I want to know what the Word says about it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rick wrote:

I just finished "Remarriage after Divorce in Today's Church: 3 Views" and the third view took abuse into consideration.

Jerry says:

Thanks Rick, but as I said above, I read it and did not feel is sufficiently addressed the issue. Maybe I am wanting something that is just not there. However, I will read that section again. Thanks for your input. It is a very good book.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Denise wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jerry says:

Wow. I would NEVER ask someone to accept excruciating pain. I am not sure how you got that from what I said, but let me be clear: I would never tell a spouse or child to stay in a dangerous situation. I would help them find shelter, and if needed that shelter would be my own home. I am asking if the Bible would allow divorce and remarriage in that situation, not separation.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Robert Phillips wrote:

A bunch of stuff that made little sense.

Jerry says:

Robert, in all my years with the Logos boards and the newsgroups before them, I don’t think I have written anything negative to anyone – ever. If someone can refute that, I will admit it here.

I am a Pastor and have been one for 20 years. I have a decent education. I am only saying that to say that I am not an idiot and can follow what people say regardless of agreement or disagreement.

I have tried to craft a closing sentence to respond to your post, but I keep erasing it. So I shall just stop.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Everyone else, thank you for the helpful articles and resources. I will check every one of them out. I am still taking suggestions, both resource-wise and thoughts-wise. I want to show all I can from God's Word; hard teachings wrapped in grace.

Jerry

Tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479289#Comment_479289

It's not in Logos, but to my mind a breakthrough volume on this subject is David Instone-Brewer's Divorce And Remarriage.

http://www.divorce-remarriage.com/

I have found this very useful. http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479337#Comment_479337

Thanks Rick, but as I said above, I read it

Whoops, sorry. I must have read right over that when I read your post. [:$] [:#]

Tom

Jerry. Hope this will help. http://www.reformedsingles.com/theses-divorce-and-spousal-abuse-dr-greg-bahnsen

You will find Brewster and Bahnsen using differente lines of though, come to the same conclusion.

Randy O'Brien

I have found Craig Blomberg's exegesis of Matt 19 to be very helpful.

Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, And Celibacy: An Exegesis Of Matthew 19:3–12, vol. 11, Trinity Journal Volume 11 (2; Winona Lake, IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1990), 159.

This journal is available in Logos.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479384#Comment_479384

I don't think divorce is as much the problem as remarriage is.

Bill Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479388#Comment_479388

Desertion by an unbelieving spouse could possibly apply in instances of abuse or any other serious sin. If the abuser, a professing Christian, is confronted with his/her sin, is unrepentant and cannot be convinced otherwise, our church's and denomination's disciplinary rules would allow the elders of the church to declare the person an unbeliever following the application of Matthew 18. If this abuser also deserted the marriage, then the case would fit into the divorce/remarriage framework.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479393#Comment_479393

Desertion by an unbelieving spouse could possibly apply in instances of abuse or any other serious sin. If the abuser, a professing Christian, is confronted with his/her sin, is unrepentant and cannot be convinced otherwise, our church's and denomination's disciplinary rules would allow the elders of the church to declare the person an unbeliever following the application of Matthew 18. If this abuser also deserted the marriage, then the case would fit into the divorce/remarriage framework.

I believe Bill is on to something here. It all depends upon defining "unbeliever" and "desertion". Is an unbeliever one who claims to be a believer or one whose life is consistent with those claims? Is it the right of local church elders to make that determination? Can the offended party make that determination? Would the Officiant of the subsequent marriage ceremony have the right to make that determination? Is it possible for a repeat abuser to be a believer (Gal 5:20-21)?

A very loose reading of 1 Cor 7:12-13 passage could reason "by nature of repeated abuse (hatred, discord, fits of rage) the guilty party has proven to have no part in the kingdom of God (Gal 5:20-21) and has emotionally (if not physically) refused to "live with" his/her spouse as the marital covenant requires."

This may be a broader reading of 1 Cor 7 than your theology allows, but I would never be surprised to hear an abused spouse make this argument to justify divorce and remarriage.

To return this thread to the Forum Guidelines. If one were to read the resources cited above with this definition of desertion in mind, it may help define a general principle.

To all forum readers: I am NOT saying this is my theology so you have no obligation to correct where you think I may be wrong. I am just offering this as a possible solution to the original post which asked for resources to help craft general principles.

Here's an article on "desertion" that some assume is made clear by Paul (but is it really?)...again, for your consideration on your studies:

Now my take on an abusive relationship is as simple as it gets (we sometimes make it difficult with the "what if's") if they cannot leave together, then let them separate, but let them remain unmarried. If the abusive partner later goes and commits adultery, then the innocent party can exercise their right to obtain a Scriptural divorce as taught in Matthew 19:9. But then again, if you feel you need to dig deeper, then do so. Marriage counseling is sometimes very tough due to the various scenarios that come up and sometimes you wonder "Why am I even trying to counsel this couple?" But hey, pray for wisdom and it will be given to you. Have a great day! Here's the article:

What Is the Meaning of “Not under Bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15)?

BY WAYNE JACKSON

Would you address First Corinthians 7:15? Does desertion by a non-believing mate grant the abandoned Christian the right of remarriage?

In First Corinthians, chapter 7, the apostle Paul responds to a number of questions that had been submitted to him by various members of the church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1). Some of these queries had to do with the relationship of a believer who is married to an unbeliever.

For example, should the Christian leave the unbeliever? Paul’s answer was in the negative — not if the unbeliever is content to keep on dwelling with the Christian (7:12-13). The “sanctified” environment of a home in which the influence of the gospel is found could lead to the conversion of the heathen partner (7:14; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1).

But what if the unbeliever should not be content to remain with the Christian, and he “departs” (chorizetai, literally “separates himself”)? What should the Christian do? Paul says that the child of God “is not under bondage” in such cases (7:15).

Some have argued that First Corinthians 7:15 provides a second cause for divorce (in addition to the “fornication” of Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and so, by implication, expands Jesus’ teaching, and authorizes a subsequent remarriage on the ground of “desertion” by an unbelieving mate. This view is commonly called the “Pauline privilege.”

The theory certainly is not a new one; it was advocated by Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), one of the so-called “church fathers.” It became a part of Roman Catholic Canon law, and was defended by Martin Luther. This view, we are convinced, is unwarranted and constitutes a compromise of the Lord’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.

A look at the context

First of all, this theory reads into the context that which simply is not there. Here are the facts. Some of the Corinthian saints had been influenced by a proto-Gnostic philosophy which asserted that sexual relations were intrinsically evil. These brethren, therefore, wanted to know the following:

Should a Christian husband and wife separate from (chorizo_) or leave (_aphiemi) each other (10-11)? Paul’s answer was, No; but should a separation occur, celibacy should be maintained, or else a reconciliation effected.
Should a Christian leave his unbelieving mate? Again, Paul’s response was, No; not if the unbeliever is willing to remain with the believer (12-13).
What if the unbeliever initiates a separation? What should the Christian do? Let him go, the apostle says, the Christian is not enslaved to that mate, so that domestic proximity is absolutely required (15). “Divorce” is not under consideration here. The New Testament term for divorce is apoluo (literally, to loose away; cf. Mt. 5:31-32; 19:3,7-9; Mk. 10:2-4,11-12; Lk. 16:18), and that word is meticulously avoided in First Corinthians 7:10-15.

In the second place, Paul makes it clear that the general theme under consideration in this context had not been comprehensively dealt with by the Lord. The Lord had taught concerning some matters — “not I, but the Lord” (v. 10), but not with reference to othermatters — “say I, not the Lord” (v. 12). However, regarding divorce, Christ had spoken comprehensively (note the “whosoever” and “every one” (Mt. 5:31-32; 19:9). Thus, the subject being reviewed in First Corinthians 7:10-15 was not that of divorce.

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness(note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

Interestingly, douloo (under bondage) in verse 15 is, in the Greek Testament, a perfect tense form, dedoulotai. The perfect tense denotes a present state resulting from past action. Its force here is this: “was not bound [past action], and is not bound [present state].” The sense of the verse thus is:

Yet if (assuming such should occur) the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself: the brother or sister was not [before the departure] and is not [now that the departure has occurred] enslaved ….

Whatever the “bondage” is, therefore, the Christian was not in it, even before the disgruntled spouse left. But the saint was married (and is) to him; hence, the bondage is not the marriage!

Let the reader substitute the word “marriage” for “bondage,” giving the full force to the perfect tense (i.e., “has not been married, and is not married”) and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as the marriage itself will be apparent.

First Corinthians 7:15 does not expand upon the Savior’s teaching with reference to divorce and remarriage, as much as some wish that it were so.

Note

Some contend that the term chorizo is used in verse 15 of divorce. The word is related to choris which means “separately, apart, by itself.” Chorizo simply means to “divide” or “separate” (cf. Rom. 8:35; Heb. 7:26; Philem. 15).

The term is generic, and thus may include divorce, as Matthew 19:6 indicates, but there is no indication that it means divorce in First Corinthians 7:10-11, 15 (though some lexicographers, leaving their areas of expertise and assuming the role of commentators, have so designated it).

Professor Lewis Johnson notes: “It is true that the verb ‘to depart’ in the middle voice [it is middle in verse 15] was almost a technical term for divorce in the papyri … This, however, really proves nothing here” (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Charles Pfeiffer & Everett Harrison, Eds., Chicago: Moody, 1962, p. 1240).

Addendum: Additional Testimony Regarding First Corinthians 7:15

“We are not, however, to suppose … that the marriage was, in such a case, ipso facto dissolved, so that the believing party might contract a fresh one. This is alike at variance with the letter and spirit of our Lord’s decision (Matt. 5:32); and, indeed, with the Apostle’s own words in this Chapter … the conjugal union is not to be dissolved by reason of difference in religion; yet if the unbelieving party be disposed to separate, the believing party may blamelessly submit to such separation” (S. T. Bloomfield, The Greek New Testament With English Notes, Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1837, II, p. 119).

“If the heathen husband or wife is resolved upon separation, they must be allowed to separate. The Christian is not a slave in such matters, although the Christian’s duty is to labor for peace and agreement. The separation here spoken of is not a separation allowing the Christian man or woman to marry again during the lifetime of the heathen spouse. It is separation, not divorce” (J.R. Woodford, “The Epistles to the Corinthians,” Commentary on the New Testament, New York: E. & J.B. Young, 1881).

“In such circumstances, where the unbeliever was unwilling for cohabitation, the believing partner did not need to feel bound to persist in seeking reconciliation since God’s calling was to peace, not discord …” (M. J. Harris, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, Ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971, III, p. 535).

“Many have supposed that this means that they would be at liberty to marry again when the unbelieving wife or husband had gone away; … But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle” (Albert Barnes, First Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956, p. 119).

“We cannot safely argue with Luther that ou dedoulotai implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by a heathen partner, may marry again … All that ou dedoulotaiclearly means is that he or she is not so bound by Christ’s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on separation” (Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, I Corinthians, International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, T.&T. Clark 1958, p. 143).

“Paul has not said in that verse (7:15) or anywhere else that a Christian partner deserted by a heathen may be married to someone else. All he said is: ‘If the unbeliever departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage (dedoulotai) in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.’ To say that a deserted person ‘hath not been enslaved’ is not to say that he or she may be remarried. What is meant is easily inferred from the spirit that dominates the whole chapter, and that is that everyone shall accept the situation in which God has called him just as he is … If an unbelieving partner deserts, let him or her desert. So remain” (C. Caverno, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, Ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939, II, p. 866).

“… What does ‘not in bondage’ mean? The fathers, at least to some extent, the Catholic and older Protestant interpreters, understood it to mean not in bondage to keep up the marriage connection, and hence, at liberty to contract a new one. The interpretation has had wide effects. In the canonical law a believing partner was allowed, if thrust away by an infidel one, to marry again; and as the early Protestant theologians extended the rule, by analogy, to malicious desertion in Christian lands, an entrance-wedge was here driven into the older ecclesiastical laws, and much of the shocking facility of divorce in some Protestant countries has flowed from this source. But we reject the interpretation. We hold … that the apostle means ‘not under bondage’ to keep company with the unbeliever at all events, without having the thought of remarriage in mind. This must be regarded, we think, as settled by the soundest modern exegesis” (McClintock, John & Strong, James, Eds.,Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968, II, p. 841).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479519#Comment_479519

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness(note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

1 Cor. 7:27, 39

[^o)]

The staggering thing here is...IT'S IN THE SAME CHAPTER!

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479388#Comment_479388

I don't think divorce is as much the problem as remarriage is.

I agree.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479523#Comment_479523

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness(note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

1 Cor. 7:27, 39

The staggering thing here is...IT'S IN THE SAME CHAPTER!

Also, there is the passage leading into the above chapter...

1 Cor. 6:15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Notice in particular the last part of verse 19, and then consider Lev. 18:7, 8.

I was going to just quote the above verses and leave it at that...they are rather explicit in their conclusion--then I remembered that most of my experience has shown me that "obvious" Scriptural conclusions can often be stared at for hours, days, or longer and never be seen, so I will elaborate.

"bound", "free", "not your own", one person's body belonging to another...these speak IN THE CLEAREST POSSIBLE TERMS OF A BONDAGE THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO SLAVERY. Eph. 5:21, 24

...and sandwiched between the quote from DAL's article (that marriage is never likened to slavery) and the verses from my post above later in that chapter...IS THIS:

1 Cor. 7:22, 23 , and we know 2 Cor. 11:2 & Rev. 19:7

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479196#Comment_479196

I knew a pastor who had to deal with a Christian son-in-law abusing his granddaughters. And the question from the Christian wife. His daughter.

If someone verifiably harmed my child or grandchild, the first thing I would do is buy a millstone--ebay has plenty to choose from.

Next, Mr. Man would vanish. Psa. 37:10, 36

Then he would have his very own chance to find Nemo.

Who am I to argue with Yeishuu`a?

George Somsel

I'm assuming that you have read the gospel sections dealing with divorce so I will not recount them. There seems to be some ambiguity regarding the case where a partner is discovered to have commited adultery, but situations regarding other instances have been mentioned. I think part of the problem involves the attempt to find scriptural justification which might cover every instance: If X then Y but if A then B, etc. I think that the scriptures deal mainly with generalities and cannot be expected to cover every instance. Sometimes a little common sense is necessary. Desertion without provable adultery might be considered to implicitly involve adultery since "anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery" assumes that one will not remain single. The case of spousal abuse and of abuse of the children are truly difficult cases. Sometimes cases of spousal abuse can be resolved if it is possible to work with the abusing spouse. Abuse of children [sexual ?] is an exceedingly difficult case. I see little help for that.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479337#Comment_479337

Agreed; Paul is clear on desertion. But what is not clear about Matthew 19? If a spouse commits adultery, the other spouse is free to divorce and possibly remarry. They do not have to, but they are allowed to. What am I missing? I am not asking that in a smug or sarcastic manner. What is a different interpretation of that passage?

I would certainly want reconciliation in these cases when possible, even when the spouse is Biblically free to divorce. Sometimes reconciliation is possible and sometimes it is not.

I should have said abuse is a “no-brainer” in that the spouse should leave the situation – they are in danger. What is not clear from the Bible is the injured spouse allowed to divorce and remarry if she or he wanted to? That is what I am after – Biblical support one way or the other.

Robert, you completely missed what I was saying. I want to know what the Bible says. You accuse me of being “pretty set” on what I believe. I said I wanted Biblical principles, not something that supports my opinion(s). When I said abuse seems like a no-brainer, I meant that is what it feels like but I want to know what the Word says about it.

A different interpretation... We all know the questionable part about that whole passage is in fact only one verse, verse 9. Personally, this throws up a red flag for me. As an exercise pretend for a second that verse 9 isn't there in that passage in Matthew 19:3-9. All of a sudden, without that verse there, the passage is now completely condemning divorce. But one verse changes that and now makes for an allowance for divorce? That's fishy to me. It seems like Jesus is wholeheartedly against divorce up until verse 9.

So why is that verse included then? I believe Jesus is simply stating the Mosaic law, and that's all He's doing in that verse. Basically, in the passage, Jesus gives two sides... how the issue should be seen and what the Mosaic law says. He actually does this in other places. Remember the rich young ruler later in Matthew 19? The rich man asked Jesus what He could do to have eternal life. Jesus told him to follow the Mosaic law. The rich man continued to press Jesus about it, so Jesus gave him another answer. The same thing is happening here in 19:3-9, just reversed. The Pharisees are pressing Jesus about what the Mosaic law, specifically, says. Jesus tells them that essentially, God never meant for divorce to even be an option. But the Pharisees continue to ask Jesus about it even though He had already given them an answer. So Jesus tells them that basically people only get a divorce because of their hardness of heart (of both parties), because Moses only gave that law because of the people's hardness of heart on the issue. Then Jesus restates what the Mosaic law says. (The context of this conversation is related to the conservative and liberal views of the Jews on this issue in New Testament times. Understanding that context shows that as the Pharisees continued to ask Jesus about the issue, Jesus basically agrees with the conservative reading of the Old Testament. But how one reads the Mosaic law in the Old Testament doesn't change the fact that we are held to a higher standard as New Covenant Christians.)

Certainly the Mosaic law allows for divorce. That's not in dispute. The issue is, in the New Covenant, aren't we as followers of Jesus held to a new, higher standard? By the law, adultery was physically cheating on the spouse. Jesus says that adultery is committed when you even lust after someone else. In the same way, divorce was once allowed without issue when physically adultery was committed. But now we're called to love like Christ and never forsake our partners, as that was always God's original intention. Anyway, sorry if that's a butchered version of how I read the text. Admittedly, a few paragraphs doesn't do much justice to explaining it, I wrote a 7-page paper on this passage and still doubt I covered the issue as much as it deserves. But ultimately, I simply find it too difficult to reconcile "allowing" divorce with everything else the Biblical authors say about divorce, even within Matthew 19:3-8 itself.

Yeah, the reconciliation goes back to what the spouse who committed the offense does. If they decide they don't care that they committed adultery and really don't care about the relationship and want to leave, then Paul says let them. However, if they repent and want to stay in the relationship, that is the proper road to take. I think the issue with "allowing" divorce for a sin committed, like adultery, is that it can be treated as a ticket to get out of the marriage, which I don't think God ever intended. For instance, what if adultery is committed but the offending spouse repents and wants to stay together, but the victim spouse says "no" because divorce is allowed and that spouse would rather just give up? Should the victim spouse be allowed to basically not forgive the offending spouse simply because divorce is allowed? Seems crazy, but that is a legitimate concern if divorce is simply "allowed" at the discretion of the victim. Of course, someone can make the argument that there is forgiveness from the victim, but divorce is still wanted. But that seems to be one of those "actions speak louder than words" situations.

Oh of course, I didn't mean that they couldn't separate for a time either (even Paul says to do so, in a way, for the sake of prayer), to be removed from the abusive situation. But like I said, no, there is no biblical support for abuse granting the "allowance" of divorce and/or remarriage. They should certainly separate, but continue to work out their problems while separated for however long it takes to resolve them (as long as both partners still want to reconcile). At least, that would seem to be the wisest and most biblical course of action.

Sorry if I did misunderstand you. Some of your language simply seemed like you were firm on your opinions and were looking for confirmation of them. If you are an open man, I commend you. Most are not, especially with difficult issues. Thank you for hearing what I have to say.

Derek Ennis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479289#Comment_479289

I agree 100%! His work in the "social and literary context" version at presenting a biblical theology of divorce and remarriage as well as a thorough examination of first century divorce language helped clear up my questions and most of the perceived contradictions on the topic. It is a must own!

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479655#Comment_479655

I agree 100%!

About what? [;)]

It would be helpful if you were to quote the person you are interacting with. You can click the quote button when you are composing your reply. Even better: Highlight the passage you are interacting with and THEN hit quote. Notice that I quoted only part of your reply.

Derek Ennis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479655#Comment_479655

Referring to David Instone-Brewer's book Divorce and Remarriage: the social and literary context as cited earlier in the thread. Still figuring out how to cite other people's posts [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479523#Comment_479523

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness(note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

1 Cor. 7:27, 39

The staggering thing here is...IT'S IN THE SAME CHAPTER!

The staggering thing here is how you overlooked the fact that douloo found in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not the same verb found in 1 Corinthians 7:27, 39 you just cited. The greek verb there is deo: "Δέω is used fig. for the binding of man and woman in marriage, founded on the order of creation and in the law (Rom 7:2; 1 Cor 7:27, 39; cf. Achilles Tatius i.11; Iamblichus VP xi.56)." [Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-). Vol. 1: Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament (293). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.]

The Greek verb found in 1 Corinthians 7:15 as mentioned in the article is dedoulotai from the Greek douloo which means to "enslave, make a slave; to make a slave of, reduce to bondage." [Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Beng Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (158). New York: Harper & Brothers.]

Hence is two different things. And again, as I mentioned in my post to the OP, the fact is that the article is for his consideration to further his studies on the subject, not to start a debate.

Blessings!

DAL

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479658#Comment_479658

Still figuring out how to cite other people's posts

No problem. [:)]

I'm not at home to give you a better screenshot... Here is one from my phone. Notice the "quote" button above the formatting pallet:

Tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479657#Comment_479657

I agree 100%!

About what?

Highlight the passage you are interacting with and THEN hit quote.

Great Idea!!!!!

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479737#Comment_479737

Great Idea!!!!!

Thanks. [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479585#Comment_479585

A different interpretation... We all know the questionable part about that whole passage is in fact only one verse, verse 9. Personally, this throws up a red flag for me. As an exercise pretend for a second that verse 9 isn't there in that passage in Matthew 19:3-9. All of a sudden, without that verse there, the passage is now completely condemning divorce. But one verse changes that and now makes for an allowance for divorce? That's fishy to me. It seems like Jesus is wholeheartedly against divorce up until verse 9.

So why is that verse included then? I believe Jesus is simply stating the Mosaic law, and that's all He's doing in that verse. Basically, in the passage, Jesus gives two sides... how the issue should be seen and what the Mosaic law says.

Matthew 19:9 is the key verse. Jesus and God hate divorce, of course, but what Jesus is saying to the Jews who were testing him is: "Ok, is not lawful to divorce for any reason, because it hasn't been like that from the beginning. In fact, the only reason why Moses/the Law "allowed it" (tolerated it) was because of your hardness of heart. And I say to you (better rendered BUT I say to you) that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

The particle "δέ" dé; a particle standing after one or two words in a clause, strictly adversative, but more frequently denoting transition or conversion, and serving to introduce something else, whether opposed to what precedes or simply continuative or explanatory. Adversative, meaning but, on the contrary, on the other hand. [Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.]

Simply put, Jesus is saying the only reason (not just any reason) you can divorce your spouse is if he/she has sex with someone else. Sex is such an intimate privilege that is to be enjoyed within the marriage bond that if someone violates that intimacy, then Jesus, in essence, says you can either forgive that person and stay with them and try to repair the marriage or you can divorce them.

Here's the obvious interpretation of Matthew 19:9, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” [The New King James Version. 1982 (Mt 19:9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson].

Very simple, do you want me to elaborate on the obvious some more, "And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.*” [Tyndale House Publishers. (2007). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (3rd ed.) (Mt 19:9). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

Here's another way to explain it, "Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the basis of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” [The Lexham English Bible. 2012 (W. H. Harris, III, E. Ritzema, R. Brannan, D. Mangum, J. Dunham, J. A. Reimer & M. Wierenga, Ed.) (Mt 19:9). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.]

And last but not least (not my favorite translation but it makes the same point combining verse 8 and 9), "

Matthew 19:8-9, "Jesus said, “Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God’s original plan. I’m holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery.” [Peterson, E. H. (2005). The Message: The Bible in contemporary language (Mt 19:8–9). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.]

So what's the "red flag" or what's so "fishy" about Jesus plain, clear and simple teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage? I don't think it can get any clearer than that. The reason many don't accept it is because Jesus himself said it was hard to accept for those who are not mature, he said that when his disciples objected --- again, not my favorite translation but here it goes, "Jesus’ disciples objected, “If those are the terms of marriage, we’re stuck. Why get married?” But Jesus said, “Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn’t for everyone..." [Peterson, E. H. (2005). The Message: The Bible in contemporary language (Mt 19:10–11). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.]

Anyway, to the OP, I pray that God may give you wisdom to be able to study this subject and be able to provide Scriptural answers. A word of advice: "Don't let yourself get intimidated by 'what if's' because the what if's are mainly thrown at you so you can deviate from the plain teaching of Jesus and make you doubt His Word and worst of all make you start making excuses for those who are living in adultery with someone who is not lawful for them to have."

Blessings!

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479828#Comment_479828

Stuff

You totally missed the premise of what I was saying. And your insinuation that I am immature is rude and unnecessary, especially since you don't know me at all and completely failed to understand what I was saying. Also, what is even more offensive is your insinuation that I am "throwing what if's" at the OP to deviate him from the "plain teaching of Jesus" and to cause him to doubt. I desire and intend nothing of the sort and only wish that followers of Jesus would uphold the sanctity of marriage and truly understand what it means to conform to the image of Christ. Even if you disagree, as a Christian, you should be more respectful, if nothing else.

I said in my other post clearly that Jesus was affirming that divorce was allowed in the Old Testament. This is clear and obvious, and the translation of the sentence, what His words mean, etc, are obvious and completely unrelated to anything I said earlier. I affirmed then and still do that Jesus was saying divorce is allowed... according to the Mosaic law. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we follow the law or the higher standard Jesus set. Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of heart of the people. God hates marriage. These two facts we know. Therefore, if you pursue divorce, you are pursuing what God hates and are showing that your heart is hard and that you refuse to forgive. Those are not signs of followers of Jesus to say the least. And it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would effectively say your heart and motivations are sinful if you pursue a divorce, but it's okay in certain circumstances anyway.

Also, since you brought it up, I'd say your interpretation of verses 10-11 are wrong too. When Jesus said "Not everyone can receive this statement, but only those to whom it is given... he who is able to receive (or accept) this, let him receive it" He was referring to the statement that the disciples just made, "it is better not to marry." Paul affirms this teaching in 1 Corinthians 7. Jesus wasn't talking about how the "terms of marriage" and divorce are hard to accept and only the mature can accept them. That doesn't even make sense given what He says about eunuchs afterward. Rather, Jesus was affirming that it is better not to marry and that those who can accept that fact (and those "forced" to accept it) should and, therefore, should not marry.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479845#Comment_479845

Hi Robert

To avoid confusion - I believe above that you meant to say "God hates divorce"

If so, you might want to edit your post.

Graham

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479847#Comment_479847

Hi Robert

To avoid confusion - I believe above that you meant to say "God hates divorce"

If so, you might want to edit your post.

Graham

Oops, my bad. I guess I got to typing too fast and overlooked that mistake. You're right, "God hates divorce" is what I meant. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'm unable to edit my post because I took too long.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479683#Comment_479683

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness(note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

1 Cor. 7:27, 39

The staggering thing here is...IT'S IN THE SAME CHAPTER!

The staggering thing here is how you overlooked the fact that douloo found in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not the same verb found in 1 Corinthians 7:27, 39 you just cited.

Really?? You think I overlooked that? [:)] I would never overlook something like that.

On the other hand, I can see how the guy you quoted "overlooked" the evidence against his point that is found in the same chapter, because the verb in verses 27, 39 is "different"--or rather, not the exact same word. What I can't quite understand is how you managed to "overlook" the FULL definition of the word δέω...

The greek verb there is deo: "Δέω is used fig. for the binding of man and woman in marriage, founded on the order of creation and in the law (Rom 7:2; 1 Cor 7:27, 39; cf. Achilles Tatius i.11; Iamblichus VP xi.56)." [Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-). Vol. 1: Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament (293). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.]

I will save others from the bother of reading the whole EDNT entry in the body of this post, but suffice to say you only cut-and-paste a small "cherry-picked" part of one of the four definitions given for the word. For clarity, a cross-section of some of the verses that use this word include Mt. 12:29, Mt. 14:3, Mt. 22:13, Mk. 5:3, 4; Mk. 6:17, Mk. 15:1, 7; Lk. 13:16, Jn. 11:44, Acts 8:2, 14, 21; Acts 12:6, Acts 20:22, Acts 21:11, 33; Rev. 20:2, not to mention 1 Cor. 7:27, 39.

Curious how these uses appear to have been "overlooked" by you when you were telling me I "overlooked" the fact that there are two different verbs being used for "being bound" and "bondage" in 1 Cor. 7. Also curious is the fact you chose to use two different resources to get your lexical references for δέω and δουλόω. That said, I do accept your definition of δουλόω...

The Greek verb found in 1 Corinthians 7:15 as mentioned in the article is dedoulotai from the Greek douloo which means to "enslave, make a slave; to make a slave of, reduce to bondage." [Thayer, J. H. (1889). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Beng Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (158). New York: Harper & Brothers.]

...as meaning "to enslave" or "reduce to bondage". But even on that point, there is more to the meaning than most would probably expect. Notice these uses of the word: Rom. 6:18, 22; 1 Cor. 9:19 Here we see that bondage is portrayed positively as something that ensures a close, responsive relationship to YHWH and His will that is entered into purposefully and willingly. But there is something more here. Look at the build up to Rom. 6:18...

Rom. 6:16, 17, 18 ...and then notice the last clause of verse 17, "you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed." That word "committed" is παραδίδωμι and it means "paradídōmi; fut. paradṓsō, from pará (3844), to the side of, over to, and dídōmi (1325), to give. To deliver over or up to the power of someone." ** Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament, electronic ed. (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993). G3860.

See that? "To give to the side of"...sounding a lot like giving in marriage. Am I making that up? Eph. 5:24, 25, 26, 27, where (verse 25) "Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (NASB) is παραδίδωμι. McReynolds translates it as "himself he gave over on behalf of her". Alright, put all this together--the δουλόω of Rom. 6:18, which your guy Wayne Jackson says NEVER is associated with marriage, is presented in clear context with παραδίδωμι in the previous verse (Rom. 6:17), which is itself presented smack-dab in the middle of Eph. 5:25, which is the one of the most explicit passages on marriage in the whole Bible.

I had about 2-3 other passages I wanted to add, but I'm suffering from the worst allergy attack I've ever experienced and I frankly don't feel like it. Your guy Jackson is just plain wrong. Marriage is a covenant of "submission", of voluntary binding and subjection, which is precisely why the whole thing is referred to as "the bond of matrimony". This is simply indisputable. We call ourselves "bond-servants" of Yeishuu`a, but the word is exactly the same word translated as "slave". Because the words "slave" and "slavery" make us uncomfortable, there is a tendency to avoid them. Biblically, that can't be supported.

Hence is two different things.

As I've just shown, they are about as different as "big" and "large".

So, is there any Tanakh precident for what I'm asserting? Of course...Exo. 21:5, 6, the passages relating to the so-called "love slave", the slave who has opportunity to go free but remains in relationship because he "loves his master".

And again, as I mentioned in my post to the OP, the fact is that the article is for his consideration to further his studies on the subject, not to start a debate.

I suggest that if you don't want to start a debate, then you shouldn't use loaded words like "overlooked". My dispute was with Jackson, not you...until you made it about me. Frankly, I really tire of having to defend myself against comments that are without merit.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/479526#Comment_479526

This is a subject that I also keep revisiting every once in a while. It's something that I am asked about from time to time. Over the years, my views have not remained the same.

Keep those resources coming. If they are in my library I would look at them too.

As for the discussion in this thread, given the fact that whole books have been written from the different perspectives, shall we call a truce?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/480179#Comment_480179

Hi Robert

To avoid confusion - I believe above that you meant to say "God hates divorce"

If so, you might want to edit your post.

Graham

Oops, my bad. I guess I got to typing too fast and overlooked that mistake. You're right, "God hates divorce" is what I meant. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'm unable to edit my post because I took too long.

LOL dude, your post makes me laugh. If I had a nickle every time people read in too much on the posts here I'd be a billionaire and would own ALL the titles Logos sells.

First, I never called YOU immature and second, I never insinuated you're the one "throwing what if's" so chill dude -- the advice was a general advice to the OP. If I wanted to call you immature or even suggest you throw what if's and are trying to deviate people from the Word I'll tell it to your face or in writing in a very DIRECT way. I have no need to imply anything, I'm not like that. Hence, this is not about you is about the OP's question and providing helpful information.

I noticed is a pattern with you that every time someone posts something you don't agree with you are quick to speculate and try to correct them or make unwise statements (e.g. your first post to the OP and you calling me ridiculous on another thread where I mentioned that I didn't believe in having christian punk rock, rap, etc. -- so about the immature thing, if you're not immature, then don't act like one and learn to relax a little...LOL...it seems, based on your profile picture, that you bang your head for Jesus too much and that may be affecting your reasoning a little ;-) Long live Metal Health! Hehehe...

Anyway, let me reply to someone else's post too.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/480199#Comment_480199

LOL David Paul, you too need to learn to relax dude. Do I think you overlooked what I mentioned? Based on the way you made your first post, yes, I think you overlooked it. Now all the examples you cited and your Tanakh precident have nothing to do with the article. Exo. 21:5, 6 is not talking about marriage, is talking about a slave's love for his master and it's in a total different context.

When you said I only picked a cherry from EDNT I did so because that was the only relevant cherry that can be used in the context of 1 Cor. 7:15. Yes words take on different meanings on different contexts, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to make a salad out of all those different context and mix them together to try to justify an erroneous view like the "Pauline Privilege" on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Jesus was clear that man cannot divorce for any reason except for that of fornication Matthew 19:9 and when he says EXCEPT for fornication that pretty much does away with the so called "Pauline Privilege" people misinterpret in 1 Corinthians 7:15. That's my firm believe and it pretty much takes care of the "what if he's a woman beater, or a child abuser, etc." If a man or a woman sexually abuses a child then that man or woman needs to be put away for fornication and not only that, but be put in prison so he can get a taste of his own medicine...and if the spouse tolerates those circumstances he/she too must be thrown in prison for being stupid enough to tolerate such an abominable act. Now if the woman gets beat up by her husband, then she needs to take courage and separate and remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:11) and if he goes and sleeps with another woman, then and only then she can file for divorce and find another scriptural partner. That's all I'm going to add on the subject.

And lastly, as I mentioned before none of this information is given with the intention to start a debate so stop acting childish by taking this or any comment personal. Just listen to yourself saying that you're tired of defending yourself? What do you think, people are out to get you? Chill dude and don't take things personal, the Lord didn't so neither should you. If people in this forum would stop taking things personal then we would all be having some great discussions in spite of disagreements or "debates" LOL...anyway, let me see if I can post on another interesting thread.

DAL

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/480428#Comment_480428

LOL David Paul, you too need to learn to relax dude. Do I think you overlooked what I mentioned? Based on the way you made your first post, yes, I think you overlooked it.

... and if the spouse tolerates those circumstances he/she too must be thrown in prison for being stupid enough to tolerate such an abominable act ...

.

... as I mentioned before none of this information is given with the intention to start a debate so stop acting childish by taking this or any comment personal. Just listen to yourself saying that you're tired of defending yourself?

Chill dude and don't take things personal, the Lord didn't so neither should you.

It's posts like this that make this forum less enjoyable for me. DAL, you did not "think that someone overlooked something". You said it was a "staggering thing that someone had overlooked something." That's different. That pokes fun at people, and elevates yourself, and is not polite in most societies.

As to your exegetical insights and use of Greek. I have no quarrel. But I have a small suggestion for you. You could discuss your posts with some of your friends who perhaps have studied and used Greek in their ministry for a longer time. Greek, or any language for that matter, is not all about consulting lexicons for word entries and piecing interpretations together.

Disclosure: I am not a shill for David Paul. I just wanted to sound out something that was on my mind, after observing the way this thread, and this forum in general, is headed. In my heart, I wish that the forum admins would do something more proactive.