|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: With a Valid Divorce, Remarriage is Not Adultery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
In Mark 10:2-12, Jesus is attributed with decreeing that remarriage by divorced people is adultery unless the reason for the divorce was adultery.
My contention is that the argument Jesus supposedly presented isn’t reasonable. 1. We don’t have any verification of what Moses supposedly wrote concerning the rule of divorce. All we have is Deuteronomy 24 which addresses a specific situation concerning divorce and remarriage.2. The Talmud allows divorce and remarriage. Greek Divorces were simpler than Jewish Divorces. Roman Divorce 3. God making mankind male and female has nothing to do with the legalities of marriage, which are manmade. 4. God making mankind male and female has nothing to do with which two people are joined in marriage. Marriages are negotiated by mankind. So verse 9 isn’t really a valid conclusion since man decides which two people are married.
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. In Jewish law, the woman could not initiate a divorce, so again, Jesus’ comments to his disciples isn’t valid either.
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery. A legal divorce is a legal divorce. I don’t see anything in the OT that implies a remarriage after a legal divorce constitutes adultery. I do understand Jesus’ attempt to get men to stop divorcing their wives for minor reasons, but the argument he presented doesn’t really hold water and didn't change the face of Jewish Divorce. The change came considerably later as Christianity was picked up by Rome and spread.
Christianity and the Tradition of Marriage To modern eyes, the influence of Christianity on the institution of marriage has been mixed. The early church adopted and promoted the model of marriage from Imperial Rome, which was certainly preferable to earlier Roman, Greek or Gothic marriage. It slowly and erratically moved marriage from a civil institution to a sacred one. However, at the same time it denigrated women, marriage and sex while elevating celibacy. The misogyny this created lives on. This discussion is about whether the argument attributed to Jesus in Mark 10 is reasonable, valid, or logical. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread copied here from the With a Valid Divorce, Remarriage is Not Adultery thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Just a minor correction, the exception for adultery is not in Mark 10 - it is in Matthew 5:31-2. This makes the Mark passage even less reasonable. I would add that the fact that Protestant denominations typically allow divorce and remarriage indicates that a good many Christians feel that it is unreasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: This discussion is about whether the argument attributed to Jesus in Mark 10 is reasonable, valid, or logical. Why does it have to be reasonable, valid, or logical? To rebellious humans it is none of the above. They want to be their own God and make their own rules. My view: For sinful mankind it is unreasonable.I believe it is totally reasonable and my wife of 53 years agrees. For sinful mankind it is not logical.To me it is perfectly logical as that is what God teaches me. For sinful mankind they don't want to believe that it is a valid fact.I believe God and accept His rules therefore it is a valid fact to me. Matthew quotes Jesus as giving a little stronger statement about this lesson than Mark did.
Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Matthew said Jesus said a granting of divorce as suffered by Moses was not so from the beginning. As far as God is concerned there is no such thing as divorce. In Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 Tells us that if a man took the virginity of a woman she was his wife for as long as he lived. He was responsible for her upkeep, and welfare. So since Jesus said divorce has never been accepted by God, why would you say what Jesus said is not valid? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That's what happens when I don't reread and make sure I'm not conflating the passages. Thanks for the correction. And yes it does make the case in Mark less reasonable. Divorce was allowed in the OT.
quote:Precisely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Why does an argument have to be reasonable, valid, or logical? If it isn't, then the argument is lost. Remember, this is about the argument presented.
quote:The argument still doesn't hold water. As my links showed, the legalities of marriage are man made. The contracts are man made. Being made male and female has no impact on who is joined. Man decides who is joined together. Specific individuals aren't put together by God. quote:Show me. quote:Just like Deuteronomy 24, that is a specific situation for which they made a decree. It isn't a general rule on divorce. But it does show that divorce is in the system and allowed, but not for that situation. quote:Neither argument implies that God never accepted divorce. As I said, the argument made doesn't support the conclusion. As far as the verse in Matthew, it doesn't really matter what it was at the beginning; divorce was brought into the Jewish legal system. People didn't wear clothes at the beginning either, but they did at the time of Jesus. You need to show me that the God of the OT didn't accept divorce under any circumstances and that those who do divorce and remarry are committing adultery. (Luke 16:18) What was the definition of adultery at that time? From the Bible Encyclopaedia and Scriptural Dictionary of 1902 the Jewish view of adultery was the act whereby any married man was exposed to the risk of having a spurious offspring imposed upon him. With a legal divorce there is no adultery. Jesus can say it all he wants, but there isn't any support for the argument or reasoning that remarriage constitutes adultery given the definition of adultery then or now. The person is no longer married. Marriage and divorce were both legal issues at the time. As my links showed the church didn't get involved until much later. As I said, I understand the point of the issue; but the argument doesn't hold water. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: quote: Show me. If you won't believe Jesus I can't show you what God says.
Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Jesus said Moses allowed them to put away their wives. Jesus said but from the benning it was not so. That statement of Jesus is plain as it says divorce was an invention of mankind because of the hardness of the hearts of mankind. Divorce was not and is not sanctioned by God. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Cop out. ICANT, the point of the discussion is to address the argument made, not just that Jesus supposedly said it so it is. If that's all you got, you're not adding anything to this discussion. Show me that the argument made by Jesus is supported. Show me that as far as God is concerned there is no such thing as divorce. quote:So you're saying that the laws in Deuteronomy are not from God. The OT doesn't present that the idea of divorce was from Moses himself and not God. Like I said, there really isn't anything on the legalities of divorce in the OT. There are only specific issues addressed. quote:Marriage is also an invention of mankind. That's why the argument doesn't hold water. quote:Show me that divorce is never allowed by God in the OT. A lot of things weren't around in the beginning, that isn't support for the conclusion. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
purpledawn writes:
Wasn't Jesus asserting a high standard, one that people could not live up to, as a rhetorical device?
This discussion is about whether the argument attributed to Jesus in Mark 10 is reasonable, valid, or logical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
nwr writes: Wasn't Jesus asserting a high standard, one that people could not live up to, as a rhetorical device? Couldn't you say that about sin in general?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Phage0070 writes:
Perhaps so, though I don't think the standard was intended to be that high.
Couldn't you say that about sin in general?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Mark 10 doesn't suggest any such thing. The Pharisees ask Jesus on the question of divorce, Jesus answers and that's it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The Pharisees had two distinct approaches to halacha. Hillel (progressive) and Shammai (conservative) led great schools in Jerusalem in the generation before Jesus began his ministry. Hillel said a man could divorce his wife for any reason, even if she burnt his dinner. Shammai said a man could only divorce his wife for adultery. Their interpretations of Deuteronomy 24 supposedly. The only different idea, depending on whether we are reading Matthew or Mark and Luke, and consistent between the three is the idea that remarriage constitutes adultery. Matthew addresses it twice. (Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:1-11). The one in chapter 19 is closer to the Mark version than chapter 5. There the author makes the same male and female argument. As I was corrected, the writer of Mark didn't even provide adultery as an option. Neither does the book of Luke. This author only gives one line to the issue.
16:18 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Even divorce for the reason of adultery doesn't make sense given the laws in Deuteronomy. If a woman commits adultery she and the man she slept with are to be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22). No need for divorce. So Deuteronomy 24 wouldn't be talking about adultery as grounds for divorce. The idea that remarriage after a legal divorce is adultery isn't supported in the OT. Marriage was a legal contract that could be ended by the death of one party, breach of contract, or mutual agreement. Divorce is the legal means to end the marriage contract. Even God divorced Israel. (Jeremiah 3:8) A Jewish marriage could only be absolved by a Jewish Divorce. IOW, a Greek divorce was not recognized by Jewish Law. It's possible that the conclusion in Mark 10: 10-12 deals with releasing a woman without a paper of divorcement as the Greeks allowed. I think the author of Matthew was alluding to that situation. Remember that earlier in the chapter Jesus said he didn't come to change what was written in the law.
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: There's a difference between just letting one's wife go (as the Greeks could) and legally divorcing her. So in Matthew 5:32 we have Jesus stating that just letting one's wife go (as the Greeks did) causes her to commit adultery. If she is not legally divorced, then yes she she would be committing adultery. Since the writer of Mark shows some Greek tendencies, this may be the point of the issue. Unfortunately the argument that since they were made male and female there should be no divorce is not a reasonable argument. I do think Jesus was trying to get the people to stop frivolous divorces for the sake of a better deal. It wasn't fair to the women or good for the children. Of course saying that there is no good reason for a divorce is also unreasonable. Marriage and divorce are both man made. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I feel it comes down to the understanding that just because something is legal doesn't mean we need to avail ourselves of it. Just like abortion. It's legal, but a woman doesn't have to get an abortion. There are actions that are legal, but not necessarily ethical. Just because a man could divorce his wife because she burnt the dinner, doesn't mean he should. So either he was trying to stop frivolous legal divorces or he was addressing the issue that letting one's wife go without a paper of divorcement was unacceptable. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7
|
Woah, woah!
Mark 2:5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. Is there any way that can be read over than Jesus explicitly stating that the laws of the old Testament are not the true and perfect version of God's laws?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024