The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I was just thinking about david and bethsheba...did god allow the second marriage of them? seems god was with david after the marriage..was the marriage acceptable because of the murder,divorce was not an option. this kind of dog mattic thinking would lead someone to believe that since god does not allow divorce, then it will be ok to murder your lovers spouse and then marry her. worked for david.

eternallysealed please explain how david can do it and we cant. is murder to get out of a divorce better than divorce? i can be forgiven for murder but i cant be forgiven for divorce? why the double standard..god is no respector of person..why didnt god inform david of his convenant standards..he never changes so im sure that he felt the same way in davids time as he did in pauls time. i just am finding it hard to believe that david was a life long adultrer until his death and jesus or anyone ever spoke of his life long adultry yet found may times to praise him.

yes his acts were spoken of and he paid for his mistake but then you hear no more about it. maybe beause it was forgiven and forgotten as far as the east is from the west? just a thought

Sealed, you quoted Luke 16:18, but you need to see the parallel passages:

Did the Gospel writers make Jesus contradict himself? There have been very convincing arguments that we have forgotten the context of this passage in regards to its teaching. We need to keep in mind who was asking the question, and what they were asking. There was a debate during the time of Jesus' ministry over the reasons one could get divorced. One side said one could divorce another for any reason, while the other argued they could only divorce the other in the case of "a matter of indecency." Because Matthew included the "any reason" and "matter of indecency" was because these were the catch phrases of the two sides in the debate. Any reader who was familiar with first century Judea would have instantly known that this passage was dealing with the rabbinic debate. The Pharisees were coming to see which side Jesus was on. Jesus seems to have agreed with the latter interpretation.

One author points out that the fact that Mark and Luke do not include the extra words is tantamount to someone within the modern church asking another insider, "Do you believe in the Second Coming before or after the Millennium? Of course the "Second Coming" refers to the second coming of Jesus, and the Millennium refers to Christ's literal or figurative reign on earth, but someone not familiar with the intricacies of Christian eschatology would have no idea what the question meant.

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

_________________
The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist.

Psychobobicus,

The passage you quote is not parallel per se, but is a separate incident describing a separate covenant. Let me explain:

Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

First of all, the entire claim that God allows divorce and remarriage is refuted by Jesus immediately when the Pharisees ask Him the question, because His answer was an unequivocal NO! The Pharisees then go on to question Him about the Old Covenant Law and an apparent “exception” offered there:

Matthew 19:7 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" 8 He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication (porneia), and marries another woman commits adultery."

The obvious fact that many people ignore when reading this passage, is that the context of the “exception” is in the Old Covenant Law for Old Covenant people. It is irrelevant therefore for New Covenant believers regardless of what it was referring to, but when we look at what it actually says, it is clear that even this provision was not for “divorce” as it is practiced today:

Deuteronomy 22:13 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' 15 then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

This is the fornication (porneia) that Jesus was referring to to the Pharisees which He acknowledged was in the Law of Moses. This is the only provision anywhere in the Laws of Moses which permitted a "divorce" of any kind. A subsequent law also forbade the man from taking the woman back after rejecting her for finding her indecent at the point of marriage:

Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

As you can see, the Law of Moses only allowed a man to divorce his wife if he found indecency in her, “WHEN HE MARRIED HER.” This means that she had fornicated prior to him marrying her, which is why Jesus said that the Old Covenant Law allowed “divorce” for the cause of “fornication.”

In Old Covenant marriages, the family of the man would normally make a covenant with the family of the bride offering a dowry. If it was accepted the two were regarded as husband and wife from that day forward, but they still continued to live separately for a period of time called the “betrothal.” Therefore they were husband and wife because they made a binding covenant, but not yet “married” which means they actually lived together as one flesh. It was during this point of time that he could divorce her, but only for this one specific cause. As Deuteronomy 22:19 specifically said: If she hadn't been found guilty of this one specific sin (fornication) that "she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days". So the perminency of marriage has always been in effect under both covenants, except for this very limited provision which has nothing to do with "divorce" as we know it today. These have never been lawful anywhere in scripture under any covenant.

I will continue this thought in a subsequent post.

SealedEternal

_________________
All scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation unless otherwise noted.

Absolutely. Divorce should be the last possible resort.

Oh? It seems you are confused.

Your following comments are a mishmash of misreading the English, ignoring the cultural context in which Jesus was ministering, misunderstanding Greek, missing the point of the question and missing the point of Jesus' answer.

I would ask you to answer this question in an unequivocal yes or no: Would you say a woman cannot divorce her husband if he is physically abusing her?

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

No, I'm not "confused" because if you read on you'll see that the passage we were discussing was in the context of Jesus discussing what the Law of Moses with the Pharisees, while the Gospel of Mark continues the story further. It contains additional information about what Jesus taught to His disciples after they had left the Pharisees and gone back home.

Mark 10:10-12 In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

When Jesus discussed the same issue with His disciples regarding the New Covenant, He specifically said there are no exceptions whatsoever in the New Covenant. This is consistent with what He taught in the book of Luke:

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”


Then why don't you prove it rather than making these vague accusations. The Bible itself shows us how this Old Covenant Law was to be implemented. I showed in my previous post that the Law stated that a man could dissolve this covenant, if when he married her, he found that she had already fornicated with someone else. In other words, she had defrauded him of the virgin bride that he agreed to marry when the covenant was made, so he could dissolve the covenant and marry someone else, but he could not ever take her back if she married again. We actually have a Biblical example of this Law almost being implemented by Jesus’ earthly father Joseph:

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her awaysecretly.

We see that Joseph mistakenly assumed that Mary had fornicated during his betrothal to her, and intended to implement the Old Covenant Law to dissolve the covenant. Obviously he was informed that the child was from God’s Spirit and never carried out the Law, but nevertheless this passage confirms how it was meant to be applied.

This is the only provision anywhere in the Bible for "divorce". It was for Old Covenant men only, and it has nothing to do with the types of divorces that are practiced today.

SealedEternal

_________________
All scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation unless otherwise noted.

You didn't answer my question. I will ask again.

I would ask you to answer this question in an unequivocal yes or no: Would you say a woman cannot divorce her husband if he is physically abusing her?

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

*crickets chirping*

Nowhere in scripture is there a provision to do so, but if she were to, it is clear that she cannot remarry:

1 Corinthians 7:10-13 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

Romans 7:2-3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Mark 10:12 "and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

As far as an "unequivocal" answer the Bible doesn't make any provision for her to separate the marriage bond for this issue, so she is still bound to him until death do them part. If she must separate from him, then she would have to remain unmarried and perhaps consider reconciling with him if he repented of his sin.

SealedEternal

_________________
All scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation unless otherwise noted.

So, if a woman who was married to an abusive husband came to you for advice you would advise her to go home? What if she had children???? Would you say, "Go home, remain a punching bag and place your children in harms way as well" ?
Or would you tell her to remove herself from that situation and then remain in abject poverty as she tries to raise children in a fatherless home.

Doesn't seem so great a set of chioces.

Blessings,
Randy

No. Assaulting a woman is a crime, and I would protect her from his abuse. He should be arrested and punished for such behavior.

The sin of ones spouse does not dissolve the marriage itself however. She is still married to him until death do them part regardless of his wrongdoings, and must therefore either remain unmarried or else reconcile with him if he ever repents of his sin.

For her to go on and marry someone else while he lives, is her sin of adultery regardless of what he has done. She cannot justify her sin of adultery in that case, by pointing her finger at him, because it is she who chose to enter the extramarital relationship while her husband still lived.

Nothing is requiring her to live in poverty. Any decent Christian should be willing to assist such a woman so she doesn't have to, but even if she had to chose between poverty and adultery, I believe that poverty would be preferable option over living in sin.

This was an issue that Jesus condemned the Old Covenant people about

Matthew 5: 31 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The woman who was not guilty of premarital fornication is made to commit adultery by the treacherous actions of her husband divorcing her. She would have likely joined to another man in a relationship considered by God to be adulterous in order to not have to "remain in abject poverty as she tries to raise children in a fatherless home." Jesus does say that her relationship is adulterous even though in those days it would have been much more difficult to survive on her own than it would today, so adultery is still adultery and she cannot blame her husband for her sin even though he created the situation unjustly.


SealedEternal

_________________
All scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation unless otherwise noted.

Sealed, you continue to simply cut and paste verses without dealing with their contexts. I would suggest you read the fine work of David Instone-Brewer called Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context He does a very thorough job explaining all the issues going on at the time of Jesus' ministry.

As I said earlier, cultural context is very important to our understanding of marriage. As I pointed out before, Jesus was answering a specific question posed to him by experts in the Law. It is wrong for us to ignore this aspect of Jesus' answer. Instone-Brewer concludes (after thorough explanation of the language, issues, context, etc., of the passages),

Note that he does not see Jesus teaching that adultery is the only grounds for divorce.

Instone-Brewer argues that Paul was teaching in a Greek culture where no divorce certificate was needed. If one wanted to leave their spouse, they just left, and legally they were no longer considered married. Paul was telling the Corinthians that they should not do this. He was telling them that desertion did not produce a valid divorce. As for the "bound as long as he lives" Instone-Brewer says that Paul quoted from the standard Jewish divorce certificate: "You are free to marry any Jewish man you wish." Paul changed it to "in the Lord" instead of Jewish. Instone-Brewer says,

In other words, soul, you are focusing on "bound while he lives" but Paul focused on "free to marry."
Instone-Brewer concludes that Paul's teaching on divorce is,


I think we all agree that God hates divorce. That is why marriage should not be something lightly entered into, and should not be dissolved except as a last resort. But I think God also hates the abuse of the helpless. I think you are flat-out wrong concerning an abused spouse or abused children. God does not make marriages insoluble except in the case of adultery.

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

_________________
Jennifer Dent
Site Administrator

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Learning Environment
The Administrators Desk Blog