Quote: What makes you think that just because society changed the rules of divorce (allowing a W to divorce there H) That God did? God's words back then are God's words still. As society changes it rewrites the bible not God. He has never sent a memo out to my knowledge recanting anything said that was the word of the Lord. But I lack alot of knowledge so I might have missed that memo.
I was afraid that I would be misunderstood – and apparently I have been. Let me try again. And please remember that I don’t claim to be a theologian and that this is my personal interpretation.
I have never seen any Biblical reference to a woman divorcing her husband. I’ve never seen any indication that she could, but neither have I seen any indication that she couldn’t. It simply isn’t addressed. That being the case, I’m left with two options: either women are bound by the same rules given to men, or alternatively, there are no rules at all for women. Given those choices, it seems much more reasonable to assume the former.
I agree completely with the things you said about society trying to change what God said to fit with what they want. I believe that God said what He meant and meant what He said. But I don’t see this as changing anything that God said. I don’t see it as rewriting, recanting, or re-anything. God gave specific instructions to men concerning circumstances under which they could divorce their wives without sinning. No such instructions were given to women. Even though I said two, that really leaves three alternatives: the two I listed above, and a third option of there being some other rule(s) which aren’t delineated in the Bible.
Given the Bible’s other teachings, I simply can’t believe that God would place these rules on men and allow women to do whatever they please. So I feel it’s safe to dismiss that option. I likewise find it hard to believe that God would explain what is acceptable to men, but leave women to flounder around trying to guess what He finds acceptable for them. That leaves the final option. Women are bound by the same rules as men.
OK, now everybody can feel free to point out all the flaws in my reasoning and show me all the things I missed.
So if the spouse divorces us (against our own wishes) and leaves, then we must remain single. I thought there was something in the bible about abandonment by ones spouse.
Cemar you didnt specify which religion. Everyone here is asuuming christian. Most every religion and civilization disapproves of divorce. Its pretty easy to google scriptural view of divorce and get a wide range of opinions if you want various christian views. Undoubtedly one will fit with what you want to hear.
I loved her response - she didn't defend it or justify it or attack them over their legalistic righteousness, she would just express hope that God would deal with her with mercy.
live your life with honesty, honor and integrity. Be able to look at yourself in the mirror. do your best. And be grateful that you arent judged by humans, who are much less forgiving, hypocritically superior, and always wanting to cast the first stone.
Quote: physical....emotional abuse...
Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Men are not loving their wife as himself if they are emotionally and physically abusing her. They are breaking scriptural mandate, and their marriage vows. Anyone who disapproves of a woman divorcing a man over this,(or vise versa) can argue the semantics of it with their god when it is their turn to be judged.
Its patently absurd IMO to even wonder about this. Even in the New Testament, the bible repeatedly makes allowance for self protection, and self defense. I find this sort of thinking that it is not explicitly laid in in scripture as argumentative and merely designed to cause contention.
Physical abuse is definitely defined differently by culture though.
People who think they are perfect, should try redeeming, instead of judging.
CeMar if muderers and all sorts of other 'evil people' can call upon grace for forgiveness, why would you worry about divorce and abandonment?
I find the devils advocate and looking for validation for certain questionble outcomes and permission seeking, not very decisive or strong minded and slightly victimish.
Those of us who have been here a while are well aware that CeMar is a Christian. We’ve had a number of discussions in the past.
CeMar,
I’m not ignoring your question. The fact, as I have said numerous times, is that I’m not an expert. I don’t recall any mention of abandonment and felt that I needed to check a couple of concordances and/or commentaries before I answered you. I got sucked into working in the concession stand at a JV football game last night (band boosters you know), so I didn’t get a chance to do that. If W doesn’t have me too booked up with her animal rescue stuff, I’ll try to do some research this weekend.
I would be interested in your response, and no BF, not because I am trying to rationalize myself getting a divorce. If I ever do decide to get a divorce, it won't be based on whether or not I can make a few versus in the Bible make me feel better about it. This is just one of those academic questions about the Christian faith that I have had for a long time. There are a number of others, most of which are not apropos to this message board. My interest in it comes from a variety of life experience, including several situations where good people in VERY bad marriages who took (in my opinion) the strong choice to end the marriage were absolutely destroyed by fellow church members who chose to take one verse of the Bible and paint a broad stroke.
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Chromo, I know your interest is merely academic. It is very apparent to me you do not WANT a divorce. Since this thread is religious fire away with your questions. I always like the mental exercise. My responses are probably not typical though.
were absolutely destroyed by fellow church members who chose to take one verse of the Bible and paint a broad stroke
ignorance of the bible, intolerance, lack of understanding what a marriage was compared to what it has become. IMO
The bible makes no mention of marriage covenants or vows. The social custom for marriage back then was taking a woman under your roof, ususally with public acknowledgement followed by a party.
some scriptures on divorce.
God is a divorce` Jer 3:8
Matt 19:6 says 'let not man put assunder', NOT cannot.
There is no scripture prohibiting a man from remarrying if his wife divorces him. Capital sins, or mortal sins are pretty well laid out.
Deuteronomy is the mosaic law covenant, god laid out some 700? 800 individual laws for the Israelites. Divorce was prohibited on a couple counts Deut 22:13- 29
If D was prohibited across the board on all counts why the need to spell these specific ones out?
Of course all this is moot, as christians now are under Grace. and none should have the where-with-all to cast any pebble, let alone a stone.
New testament is all about forgivness, when remorse is shown.
Mark 10:4-9 God didnt intend divorce, or prohibit, but Moses -not god- made a concession because of the lack of forgiving ability of men.
Many of Gods favorites, loved ones, chosen ones where polygamous. If only the first marriage was 'real' then they would all have been adulterers.
David was only a adulterer after he took another mans wife, despite his many wives and arranged for the H inevitable death to boot to hide the resulting pregnancy.
2 sam 11
David paid heavily for this, but he was still forgiven.
But I am no expert and no prophet or voice of god.
OK, here’s my take. Remember, this is the Gospel According to ZB and is based on my reading and my interpretations, and is colored by my background, my history, my biases, and so on and so forth. It is not, by any means to be taken as definitive.
My understanding is that in the beginning, God intended marriage to be forever. It talks about a man cleaving unto his wife. The notes I found on that say that the verb translated as “cleave” is the same verb that means “solder” or “weld”, so the implication there is certainly that they are inseparable.
In Deuteronomy 24 it talks about a man divorcing his wife if he finds “uncleanness” in her”. It says that he can write her a bill of divorcement and send her away. It says that she is free to remarry, but if something happens to her second husband, the first can’t take her back. Jeremiah 3 says more or less the same thing.
But as I’ve quoted here before, Malachi just flat out says that God hates divorce. Chapter 2, verses 14-16 say, "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant...Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away...therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." Pretty straightforward stuff.
Now we get to the New Testament. My interpretation here is that Jesus says that marriage was intended to be for life, but because of the hardness of mens’ hearts, divorce would be allowed in cases of adultery (or the fornication/immorality I mentioned finding in other translations). In Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus refers to Deuteronomy 24 saying that it was written that a man can divorce his wife by giving her a bill of divorcement. Then he goes on to say that any man who divorces his wife, except for fornication, causes her to commit adultery and causes anyone who subsequently marries her to commit adultery.
In Matthew 19, this whole thing gets repeated. The Pharisees are trying to trip Jesus up and ask him if it’s lawful to divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus answers by asking them if they haven’t read the scriptures. He mentions the cleaving thing and says that the two are now one flesh: they’re no longer two, but one. Then we see the well-known, “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder”. Then they ask him why Moses allowed divorce. He answered that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts – “but from the beginning it was not so”. Then he reiterates that any man who divorces his wife and remarries (except for fornication) commits adultery, and anyone who marries the divorced wife commits adultery as well.
Mark has a little bit different take on the same incident. He also proves my contention that I’m no expert when he does mention a woman divorcing her husband. In Mark 10, we have this same incident with the Pharisees questioning Jesus. In the Mark version, Jesus says that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, he’s committing adultery. No exception for fornication is given here. But he does state the converse as well : if a woman divorces her husband and remarries, she’s committing adultery. Again, no exceptions given.
Luke 16:18 says pretty much the same thing as the others: any man who divorces his wife and remarries is committing adultery, and any man who marries the divorced woman is committing adultery.
Then in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul talks some more about this. He tells us that the Lord says that a woman shouldn’t leave her husband, but if she does, she is to remain unmarried or reconcile with her husband. Men are not to divorce their wives. Once again, no exceptions are given.
Then he goes on to give his opinions. He specifically says that this is from him and not from God. He says that if a believer is married to an unbeliever and if the unbeliever wishes to depart, the believer should let them go. Then there’s a statement that I haven’t really figured out yet. It says, “A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace”. I don’t have a clue what that means. Does it mean that the marriage bond isn’t binding? I don’t know. That one will take some more study.
When all is said and done, it looks to me like God intends marriage to be forever, but because of our own weaknesses, He has made a single exception in the case of infidelity. I’m getting into my own interpretation here, but since he says that anyone who marries the divorced woman is committing adultery, my personal opinion is that it goes both ways – a man divorced by his wife who enters into another marriage is committing adultery.
The position of the Catholic Church is that marriage is forever and divorce is not allowed. I’m not Catholic, but based upon what I’ve read, I think that’s a highly defensible position. They say that the only way a marriage can be ended is if it never existed in the first place.
In any case, I have to agree with Blackie here. We are under grace, not the law. I believe that God doesn’t like divorce and doesn’t want us to get divorced. I also believe that God will forgive our sins. That doesn’t give us license to do whatever we please, but it does alter things somewhat. ZB still says that divorce is wrong. That played a BIG part in getting back together with MrsBube. But I don’t profess to be the final authority on anything. This is all just my opinion. Take it or leave it.
you lose respect and the women start questioning your authority. Dont do it.
HP
ZB that was a fantastic post. I personally only disagree with one thing in it. not that you care.
Malachi 2:14 the translation to english by some translations is divorce and in others it is putting away. Putting away is different. It was not divorcing or releasing the women to go find another husband. This was a cruel act for financial, social and emotional reasons. No moral person would touch her or they would be committing adultery, she couldnt find a husband for support and her only choice really was to become a harlot.
Some translations choose to translate the hebrew word into english as divorce one time and put away another. Others maintain consistancy.
The gospel record of Jesus comments to the Pharasees is the same story viewed thru diffenent eys and different writing styles. Matthew was a tax collector and so trained and practiced at recording precise detail.
It says that she is free to remarry, but if something happens to her second husband, the first can’t take her back
internal conflict due to above.... what is definition of marriage..... going under his roof or POP.....this is pretty much where I am. she went to other state. adultery is the antithesis of marriage so it is void she has new H now.
Hm. Well, I suppose I'm in a mood to throw in my $.02. I have to say I'm with Lil on this one: men wrote the bible, not God. As far as I know, God never took pen to paper and scribbled down some thoughts. Do I think men were divinely inspired? Absolutely. Politically inspired as well.
The bible was also EDITED by men. There were many, many writings by the disciples that didn't make the final cut. The new testament and the old testament were thrown together several hundred years after the death of Christ by a Pope, I believe.
Paul created the church under his own steam and was never directed by Christ or anyone else to create it. Least as far as I know and have been able to find.
Take any other book of law from 2000 years ago and try to apply it to today's society and you would have utter anarchy on your hands. Slip the word God into it and you've got yourself a new religion.
I have often wondered how many people would interpret the bible a bit differently if they spent even 1/4 the time studying the historical and cultural arenas during which the bible was written, not to mention just the time in which Jesus lived, because kids, they happened hundreds of years apart, and really understanding a time period is really crucial in understanding what those time periods produced. Many of the disciples chapters weren't even written until many hundreds of years later. Most of the disciples were uneducated and didn't even know how to write.
Ever played the game 'telephone' where you sit in a big circle and whisper a sentence in the ear of the person sitting next to you and then they pass it on? And by the time the sentence gets around to the last person, it is completely different?
Just to put this into some context, it would be like all of us collecting up diaries, notes, letters, songs, verbal stories, etc., of America's founding fathers, completely disregarding the two hundred year difference in word meaning, context, cultural norms and societal expectations, not to mention a COMPLETE ignorance and direct experience of living in those times, under those conditions, with an army from England numbering more men than the most populated city in your young country... then a few years later, throwing together the Declaration of Independence, the Land Ordinance of 1775, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution, just for good measure, putting it all together in one book, claiming it was divinely inspired and THE WORD of George Washington himself.
Does anyone here know that the first draft of the Bill of Rights was taken directly from the six articles of the Northwest Ordinance? These 'articles' were added to the final document one week prior to its passage, (the entire document was nearly entirely recrafted in one week's time, as a matter of fact), and the document rewite, and those six articles were largely crafted and influenced by ONE presbyterian minister from Massachusettes who was acting on behalf of Revolutionary war soldiers who wanted to buy land in the Ohio country with their near worthless war notes as payment for service in the army. The funds from that ONE land sale, which that minister was there (New York, final act of the 2nd Continental Congress) to conduct, kept our country from going bankrupt and was what was used to start jump start our National Treasurey. ????
The Northwest Ordinance was the one document that kept slavery out of five newly formed states and led to the imbalance to free states and slave states, and it is the only piece of legislation ever passed in our country's history that exists in perpituity. It cannot be overturned except by unanimous vote. There's way more to the story than this, but I'll shut up.
All of this was carried out, written, passed into law, and shaped 2/3 of the development of the U.S. due to the efforts of war veterans who just wanted to be paid, and rightly so, for all they had given up to fight for our country. Most people don't KNOW this for they do not take the time to FIND OUT, and just assume that the very brief and inadequate history lessons in school are not only accurate, but wholly TRUE. We only get the tip of the ice berg, kids, and most people never even think to question it, nor wonder if there is perhaps more to the story.
But now knowing this, doesn't that change your thinking about things, even just a little bit, and we're only dealing with a little over 200 years of our own history?
My point to this little history lesson being... people take the bible out of context, out of historical perspective, do not bother to educate themselves on its historical, political or cultural influences during the time it was written and compiled, take it ver batim after it has undergone hundreds of translations through three languages... and claim it is THE WORD of God, and the accurate account of Jesus' time on earth.
Y'all are dickering over whether or not a few passages in the bible apply the same meaning to both men and women... are assuming it was intended to cover both parties... kids, women weren't considered citizens then!! Only men counted... women were treated as property, little better than slaves... and you now apply modern day considerations and regard for equality to writings crafted over 1000 years ago? Really?
Okay. I know, ya gotta believe in something... but gosh kids, if you believe that the bible is the definitive word of God, you also have to believe that He gave you your own mind and the ability of independent thought, the ability to question, the ability to reason, to explore, to examine...
