SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Divorce and Re-marriage

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Hi Alive-to God

You wrote........

"Brother Frank, your mother was a brave woman. Thank you for sharing that testimony."

Thank you for your kind words towards my mother, and yes she was brave :) Yet, if you were to ask her, she would tell you that she was obedient and that the only reason she was able to stand was because the Lord enabled her. We can see what the Lord can do with a little. Whether it is 300 men or a few loaves and fishes or a simple act of obedience. He can glorify Himself through weak and broken vessels and all the honor is His...........God bless you brother......Frank

 2009/3/28 0:54
utilizer001
Member



Joined: 2008/2/15
Posts: 83
Oregon

 Re:

It seems that some erroneous data was given in this thread.

Strong's H7971 (שלח) shalach (The word translated as putting away in Malachi)
According to blueletterbible the words Biblical usage is:
1) to send, send away, let go, stretch out
a) (Qal)
1) to send
2) to stretch out, extend, direct
3) to send away
4) to let loose

b) (Niphal) to be sent
c) (Piel)
1) to send off or away or out or forth, dismiss, give over, cast out
2) to let go, set free
3) to shoot forth (of branches)
4) to let down
5) to shoot
d) (Pual) to be sent off, be put away, be divorced, be impelled
e) (Hiphil) to send

Strong's G630 (ἀπολύω) apolyō (the word for putting away in Matt 5:32)
According to blueletterbible the words Biblical usage is:
1) to set free
2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)
a) a petitioner to whom liberty to depart is given by a decisive answer
b) to bid depart, send away
3) to let go free, release
a) a captive i.e. to loose his bonds and bid him depart, to give him liberty to depart
b) to acquit one accused of a crime and set him at liberty
c) indulgently to grant a prisoner leave to depart
d) to release a debtor, i.e. not to press one's claim against him, to remit his debt
4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. The wife of a Greek or Roman may divorce her husband.
5) to send one's self away, to depart

In both of these instances I see that both Strong's and Gesenius's Lexicon see the word as being used in reference to divorce. To simply say that either of these does not refer to divorce would be incorrect.

God guide us deeper into His word, and into a deeper relationship with His Son Jesus Christ.
Jason


_________________
Jason Smith

 2009/3/28 3:20Profile









 Re: Divorce and Remarriage p13

Hi brother Frank... please check my profile. I hope you'll remember meeting me at Greenock ;-) Thank you for your blessing, also.

Quote:
the only reason she was able to stand was because the Lord enabled her.

This truly is the key.

 2009/3/28 6:16









 Re: Divorce and Remarriage

Hi utilizer001,

I haven't read this whole thread, but am very familiar with the strife the topic causes.

Let me say again, that I found the audio teaching linked from p6 on this thread by BeYeDoers, very helpful. It gives a good bit of Jewish background, thus giving context to the words of Jesus.

I recommend everyone who has not heard it already, and still doesn't understand the difference between 'putting away' and 'writing of divorcement', to try to listen to them all, for they are short. (There may be a broken link to report on the second 07 session, but all the rest is there).

The distinction between the word for [i]separation[/i] (putting away) and the word for [i][u]writing[/u] of divorcement[/i] is vital, and has totally cleared up my previous misunderstandings of this. Jesus addresses both, fully knowing the implications of His words, and that in centuries to come, people will mangle them to death, unnecessarily. I'm sure I've been guilty of this, and I'm very sorry for it - and, for not simply immersing myself in the word, and getting the truth out of it for myself.

I feel we need to be careful also, that we don't confuse the purpose of marriage - that a man should have a helpmeet (and so on) - with the spiritual realm, in which God deals with hearts and minds and souls and spirits, to make people right with Himself for [u]His[/u] [i]eternal[/i] purposes. Of course, what He works in a man and a woman through the life of their marriage, is also, for His eternal purpose in their lives, but, for all that one is a picture of the other, they are not the same.

What follows is my own mixture of repeating points heard in the audio, quotes from savannah's exposition on p12, and incidental comments. I've tried really hard not to impute any meaning to scripture which is inconsistent with other scripture, or which I have not heard or read, or which is not reflected in what I know about God's character.

I believe savannah made a very important distinction at the end of her post, between God's written word, which cannot be changed or accommodated by anything other than submission to it (my words), and, any extrapolation we might make on the basis of our personal experiences of His grace in action.

Quote:
Believe what you will but don't call it God's Truth.

 2009/3/28 13:49









 Re: Divorce and Remarriage

Hi utilizer001,

You said:

Quote:
In both of these instances I see that both Strong's and Gesenius's Lexicon see the word as being used in reference to divorce. To simply say that either of these does not refer to divorce would be incorrect.

Please could you re-read savannah's post on p12, and check out the rest of her discoveries?

Let me also draw on Ron Bailey's discoveries.

Ron admits, right at the start, that he has greatly changed his thinking, since studying this topic over the years. He also highlights our need to have an idea of what is [i]not[/i] being said by Jesus, or the Pharisees, on points well-known to them all, so we may make sense of what [i]is[/i] being said.

Touching early on Genesis 2:24, he states that 'bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh' (said first by Adam, Gen 2:23), became 'a Hebrew idiom' for 'family' or 'of my family unit'.

But, this union is not indissoluble, because 'marriage', the Jews understood, is first of all a contract, which [i]can[/i] be broken.

Ron's insight to what might be included in a marriage contract comes from [color=003366]Exodus 21:10 If he take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, [u]shall he not diminish[/u].[/color] This had been the criteria for a [i]slave[/i] who had been taken as a wife.

Rhetorically, he asks, how much more did it apply to the marriage contract between a man and his Jewish wife? Thus, the understanding that these provisions should also be applied to higher born women, was foundational in Jewish marriage contracts.

However, another point arises from Exodus 21:10, namely that it refers to a man taking 'another wife'. This was not illegal, but, the man was charged with keeping each new contract [u]fully[/u].

[i](It is worth reading the verses before and after, to get a feel for the honour God bestows upon wives, under His minimum legal requirement.)[/i]

Notice that the purpose of the provision in Exodus 21 with regard to a wife being released from marriage, was that she [i][b]should[/b] be able to go out, [u]free to remarry[/u].[/i]

A man was not committing adultery, by taking an-other [u]wife[/u]. It was 'adultery' if he took someone else's wife, who had [i]not[/i] been put away, or who had been put away [i]without[/i] a 'writing of divorcement'.

I gather he was free to take as many wives as he wished, and could afford, according to marriage contracts with each of them. As long as [i]they[/i] were 'free to marry' - being virgin, divorced, or widowed - he was not committing adultery.

Mistakenly, I think, we have assumed divorce was always necessary for [i]the man[/i] to be made 'free to remarry' after a wife had committed adultery, as is the case today.

Yet, in putting any of them away, [i]apart from for adultery[/i], both Moses and Jesus accuse the man of 'hardness of heart', for [u]breaking his contract[/u] (his word and promises).

For this reason, Moses insisted such a man give the departing woman a 'writing of divorcement', (to 'give it in her hand' Deuteronomy 24:1), as a formal confirmation of his putting her away.

The purpose of this, was to [u]declare publicly[/u], that she was now [u]legally free[/u] to be taken as another man's wife; thus, given a home, provision of food, clothes, and marital rights.


I hope this is making sense... A 'putting away', therefore, was a 'divorce', only if the woman could produce a 'writing of divorcement' from her ex-husband. This was her proof of freedom to remarry.

According to Ron, only [i]wealthy[/i] women could have arranged the divorce of a husband who had ceased to fulfil his legal obligations to her, and, this was a rare scenario.

But the reciprocity of the [i]spirit[/i] of Jesus' teaching, is picked up in Mark 10:12.

In seeing the difference between the Hebrew and Greek terms for 'put away', and 'writing of divorcement', one realises that neither the men who asked Him, nor Jesus, were any way confused about the meaning of the question.


I'm being as faithful as I can, to what I've picked up. Some other observations, and possible repetitions, will be in the next post, then I'm done!

 2009/3/28 16:20









 Re:

Quote ...

"Ron admits, right at the start, that he has greatly changed his thinking, since studying this topic over the years. He also highlights our need to have an idea of what is not being said by Jesus, or the Pharisees, on points well-known to them all, so we may make sense of what is being said."

A couple of things that probably need not be said, just because Ron and Savannah say things, does not make them so:) As far as gleaning teaching from what is not said, that is making arguments from silence and is never a good idea on any subject in the Bible. We can know context, and the context of this is that it was a raging issue in Jesus' time. Jesus brought clear and simple clarity to it, as He did with life after death and taxes, all raging and divisive issues.

Quote....

"But, this union is not indissoluble, because 'marriage', the Jews understood, is first of all a contract, which can be broken."

I would ask "what Jews thought this?" Thats a broad statement, and a great many of "the jews," differed greatly on this and other subjects. So do we appeal to Pharisees? Saducees? Which group? I would also state that I do not have a contract with my wife, I have a covenant. Paul goes into great length in Romans chapter 7 to draw the parrallels between the marriage covenant and the old covenant and the new.

Quote....

"In seeing the difference between the Hebrew and Greek terms for 'put away', and 'writing of divorcement', one realises that neither the men who asked Him, nor Jesus, were any way confused about the meaning of the question."

So, what is your application of all that you believe , Alive-to God? What do you believe a modern day believer should do if they no longer want to be with their husband or wife? What is the practical application from what you have shared?.............Frank


 2009/3/28 17:09
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3396
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re: Go to the source: Judaism Rules of the Get Document

Let's not talk about 'what' the Jewish people believed, let's go to the source.....

All the following is taken from the website of [url=http://www.chabad.org/]Chabag.org[/url]. [i]Chabad.org is a division of the Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center[/i]

[b]Rules of the [i]Get[/i] Document[/b]

By Naftali Silberberg

The [i]get[/i] is a document which states the husband's intent to "release, discharge, and divorce" his wife. In it he declares to her that "no person may object against you from this day onward, and you are permitted to every man." (1) The following are the basic rules of the [i]get[/i] document:

* The [i]get[/i] is written on paper by an expert scribe, using permanent ink and quill. The calligraphy lettering required does not allow for the use of a pen. Before writing the [i]get[/i], the scribe uses a sharp tool to etch twelve horizontal lines on the paper, which will guide him when he writes the [i]get[/i]. Beneath the twelve lines he etches two small lines, where the witnesses will attach their signatures. He also etches margin lines on the two sides of the paper. The writing on the [i]get[/i] is justified, every line starting and ending at these predetermined margins.

**removed 4 paragraphs (see full article)

* It is also an age-old tradition for the body of the [i]get[/i] to be written in twelve lines. The witnesses sign on the lines beneath the text. Several reasons are given for this ancient custom. Among them: The numerical value of the Hebrew word "[i]get[/i]" is twelve. [b]Also, the twelve lines signify the woman's freedom to now marry any member of any of the twelve tribes.[/b](4) {**bold emphasis by Lysa, not the author.}

**removed last 3 paragraphs (see full article)

FOOTNOTES
4. Although a divorcee is precluded from marrying a [i]Kohen[/i], she may marry any other member of the root tribe of Levi.
[url=http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/557910/jewish/Rules-of-the-Get-Document.htm]Rules of the Get Document[/url].

__________________
[i][b]The "Get"[/b]

According to biblical law, a married couple is released from the bonds of matrimony only through the transmission of a bill of divorce from the husband to the wife. This document, commonly known by its Aramaic name, "get," serves not only as a proof of the dissolution of the marriage in the event that one or both wish to remarry, it actually effects the divorce.[/i]
From: [url=http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/557906/jewish/Divorce-Basics.htm]Divorce Basics[/url]

[b]Other articles [/b]
[url=http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/560109/jewish/The-Right-to-Divorce.htm]The Right to Divorce[/url]

[url=http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/557909/jewish/In-Depth-Study.htm]In-Depth Study of Divorce[/url]


_________________
Lisa

 2009/3/28 19:36Profile
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:

-[b]Rules of the [i]Get[/i] Document[/b]-

By Naftali Silberberg



-[b]The Bible[/b]-

By God



:-)


_________________
Christiaan

 2009/3/28 23:20Profile









 Re: Divorce and Remarriage

Hello brother Frank!

First of all, I recommend you listen to the audio, to hear what Ron [u]did[/u] say.

Quote:
A couple of things that probably need not be said, just because Ron and Savannah say things, does not make them so:)

True, I have read only savannah's post on p12, but it is verifyable with respect to the occurrences of the words in Hebrew and Greek, and the insistence of Moses as to giving a certificate of divorce, which Jesus mentions.

Because Ron has researched Jewish practice, and I have not, I have to take what I know of his ministry and personal integrity as an indicator of the likelihood he would not even mention in a formal teaching session, anything he could not justify as vital to our understanding. He doesn't claim to have finished learning, either. On the matter of 'putting away', the phrase he chose was 'invald divorce', in which a woman had not been legally freed to remarry.

Quote:
As far as gleaning teaching from what is not said, that is making arguments from silence and is never a good idea on any subject in the Bible.

My apologies for not being clearer. This is not exactly what I meant. Ron is exquisitely careful, when looking at the text, to restrict his deductions to what has been asked, and Jesus' replies. To assist in this, he has read about the arguments which were being made between the different Rabbinic schools, then listened carefully to their question, and to Jesus' answer. That's all. He has not pulled explanations out of fresh air.

Quote:
it was a raging issue in Jesus' time. Jesus brought clear and simple clarity to it, as He did with life after death and taxes, all raging and divisive issues.

He did. And this is why savannah's observation that the word in Malachi means the same as the words in Matt 5:32, Matt 19:3, 8 and 9, and Matt 5:31, all in clear distinction from the word for 'a writing of divorcement' (Strong's #647), is of importance; mostly because Jesus gives adultery as the only acceptable reason for a man to give such a 'writing'.

Quote:
I would ask "what Jews thought this?"

I think I explained here:
Quote:
what might be included in a marriage contract comes from Exodus 21:10 If he take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. This had been the criteria for a slave who had been taken as a wife.

Rhetorically, he asks, how much more did it apply to the marriage contract between a man and his Jewish wife? Thus, the understanding that these provisions should also be applied to higher born women, was foundational in Jewish marriage contracts.

My impression is that there was a cultural understanding of what should go into a marriage contract, based on the relevant provisions of the law. Not the contract, but the dissolving of it, was under discussion.

Quote:
do we appeal to Pharisees? Saducees? Which group?

Marriage contracts had been hammered out way back (as mentioned above), with obligations on both sides. God did not want husbands to 'put away' wives. But if they insisted, they should do it as Moses stipulated, to preserve life. Pharisees and Sadducees were only lately come to power in comaparason with the ancient authority of the law.

Quote:
I would also state that I do not have a contract with my wife, I have a covenant.

I agree that there is a difference under the New Covenant, tied in with Paul's statement near the beginning of 1 Corinthians 7:3 - 5 which Ron touches on; but he didn't discuss the difference between a contract and a covenant. As he had explained, there had been a day when a man could expect to take more than one wife at a time.

I don't know if this still occurred in Jesus' day, or 'we have no king but Caesar' Jews had been influenced by Roman practices, but in Matt 5:28, Jesus directly challenged the attitudes which permitted polygamy, and 'any cause' divorce, bringing monogamy right into the spotlight, under the New Covenant.

Quote:
Paul goes into great length in Romans chapter 7 to draw the parrallels between the marriage covenant and the old covenant and the new.

Ah! Under the Old Covenant there were big differences, including, originally, stoning for adultery. Back in Exodus 21, it was [i][b]against[/i][/b] the law to send a woman away destitute. Permission to divorce a wife was supposed to create a situation in which the original husband was no longer responsible for her, [u]and[/u] she [i]was[/i] free to remarry, so that [i]someone[/i] could care for her. While Jesus didn't endorse 'any cause' divorce, He definitely left open the option of divorce for the spouse of an adulterous marriage partner, under the New Covenant.

Quote:
What do you believe a modern day believer should do if they no longer want to be with their husband or wife?

I'm very tempted to reply with 'Pass'! ;-) But seriously, probably I would leave them both to work it out with God and His word, if they know Him. People outside a marriage have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. Only the couple can decide if one or both of them is too broken to continue.
Quote:
What is the practical application from what you have shared?

I'm not aware of having shared one, except in the case of sexual immorality, (which also can take place [i]within[/i] a marriage).


Miccah said...

Quote:
-The Bible-

By God

Exactly. Jesus was the word in both Testaments, and He drags everything back into line under the New Covenant, while still making some provision for sin and failure, according to the tender mercies of God, as previously demonstrated under the Old.

 2009/3/28 23:45
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=20443&forum=48&post_id=&refresh=Go]An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce? [/url]

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=18583&forum=35&post_id=&refresh=Go]Your Thoughts[/url]

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=16858&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]The husband of one wife[/url]

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1923&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Marriage, Divorce, and ReMarriage.. Toward a Biblical Perspective[/url]

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1861&forum=35&post_id=&refresh=Go]Divorce and Re Marriage[/url]

Some older threads.

Savannah, some very good study you have presented.

I would recommend Ron Bailey's study wherever it may be found.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2009/3/29 0:53Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy