It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus and divorce

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 05:01 PM
link   
“And the Pharisees came to him and tested him by asking ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’” (Matthew ch19 v3)

Of course they were not making this enquiry in good faith, proposing to follow his advice. The scribes and the Pharisees were prone to ask challenging questions, following a regular strategy. They would know already that something in his teaching or in the conduct of bis disciples was at odds with their own views. They assumed it would be offensive to other conservative believers, so they did what they could to bring it out into the open.

Presumably, then, Jesus had already been expressing his Father’s judgement on the question of divorce.

“He answered; Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 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’? What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (vv4-6).

The quoted verse (Genesis ch2 v24) clearly demands faithfulness from the husband. As Jesus points out, it rules out the legitimacy of divorce. It also, incidentally, rules out polygamy, but that was not a current issue.

This moral had been anticipated in the words of Malachi;
“[Why does not the Lord accept our offerings?] Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant… For I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless” (Malachi ch2 vv14-16).

“They said to him; Why, then, did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away?” (v7)

In the first place, that claim is not true. There is only one reference in the laws, and this is what we find when we look at the wording;
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it into her hand and sends it her out of his house…” (Deuteronomy ch24 v1).
This sentence beginning “When…” is not commanding the practice of divorce or even permitting it. Moses is simply describing the existing practice, which developed independently, in order to introduce a regulation designed to mitigate one of the bad effects. He might have forbidden it altogether if he thought that the people of the time would take any notice. Exactly the same is true of some of the other laws, like the ones which are supposed to “permit” slavery, but I’ve already discussed that in other threads.

The regulation, which ought to be noted, says that if the divorced wife remarries, and then parts from or loses her second husband, then the first husband is forbidden to take her back. This would be “an abomination before the Lord” which would “bring guilt upon the land”. Elsewhere, prostitution is described in similar terms. The apparent principle behind the rule is that a marriage is “dead” once the wife has been with another man, so a resumption of the relationship would be no better than fornication.

“He said to them; For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives…” (v8).
In other words, the practice of divorce developed out of male chauvinism. Men did it because they found it convenient. But it was nearly impossible for the divorced wife to survive, economically, except by finding another husband or resorting to prostitution. When a man divorced his wife, the woman would suffer. That is why Malachi calls it “violence”. So the current practice of divorce was anti-feminist, and the objection raised by Jesus was pro-feminist. Modern feminists need to grasp that point before they give knee-jerk reactions to this teaching. He was on your side here.

The point about “hardness of heart” is reinforced by the reaction of the disciples;
“His disciples say unto him; If the case of a man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” (v10, AV)
“The disciples said to him; If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (v10 RSV).
A catholic-minded reader could take the older translation of the last phrase out of context, as confirming the non-Biblical idea that permanent celibacy is spiritually better than marriage.
But the modern version is a better translation, or at least a less misleading translation, of OU SYMPHEREI. They are indeed making the astoundingly cynical and self-centred observation that it would be more convenient for a man not to marry at all, if he is going to be bound to his wife permanently. That thought is the reason why divorce became a custom in the first place.

(One commentator suggests that their words might have been spoken “with a wry smile, which cannot be conveyed on the printed page. I’m not going to take that seriously.)

It takes the response of Jesus to give a positive spin to the suggestion of voluntary celibacy. Even then, he limits it (as does Paul) to the possibility that a man might give priority to the needs of the kingdom.

Jesus gives rulings on the subject of divorce, recorded in several gospels;
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her.
And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark ch10 vv11-12).
Luke ch16 v18 has the same two rulings, except that the second one is addressed to the man who marries her. The same variant is found in Matthew ch5 v32.

That verse in Matthew ch5 also has a third ruling; “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of unchastity, makes her an adulteress”.
(The manuscripts of Matthew ch19 v9 offer some or all of these rulings, but the exact form of the verse varies among them. It seems to depend on the scribe.)

“Makes her an adulteress” looks like a non-sequitur, at first glance, but it isn’t. As I observed earlier, a divorced woman was forced by necessity to take up with another man or other men, which in itself turns her into an adulteress.

The exception relating to divorce “on the grounds of unchastity” is also logical. If she was an adulteress already, it can’t be said that the divorce has made her one.

The same exception is part of the Matthew ch19 v9 version of “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery”. Some commentators claim that this compromises the strictness of his condemnation of divorce. I think not, because it’s perfectly in keeping with the Deuteronomy principle that the marriage is already “dead” once the first wife has been with another man.

In Deuteronomy, stoning is the normal penalty for adultery. So “found some indecency in her” would have to mean that the man suspects adultery but cannot prove it. Even Deuteronomy does not anticipate divorce for any lesser cause. However, Matthew’s hint about “divorce for adultery” implies that the custom of “stoning for adultery” was already beginning to lapse. But that must be a topic for a different occasion.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

This is why I think that couples shouldn't marry until at least a decade of partnership.

If a woman can put up with me for a decade then she's marriage material.

Don't flame me please.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
But will that style of partnership produce "godly children"? That is the question. According to Malachi, that is what God wants from married life and that's why he hates divorce. (I quoted that verse last week, but left it out this time)



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
But will that style of partnership produce "godly children"? That is the question. According to Malachi, that is what God wants from married life and that's why he hates divorce. (I quoted that verse last week, but left it out this time)



Absolutely. It will be a pure marriage as opposed to a rushed one.

Divorce rates are through the roof because a lot of people marry on a whim.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
Fair enough. The key point is stability, not the ceremony in itself. But if the relationship is defined on the premise that you want to "divorce" from it if it doesn't work out, that uncertainty is a kind of built-in instability. If the partnership produces children and then breaks up, it would be similar to a broken marriage in terms of its impact on the children.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

My parents gave me life out of wedlock.

It didn't go too well.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
Did they separate while you were growing up? If so, that's the same point I was making.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes. My Mother had married before but then divorced.

My Father didn't marry her so I was born a bastard.

Then he disappeared when I was 11 years old.

He was an asshole. He shouldn't have spawned me.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
Perhaps in an ideal world, then, someone following your theory of "trial partnership" should at least refrain from having children until they were more certain about their commitment.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Precisely my point.

Don't beget children until you're sure you can look after them.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
We seem to have converged into an agreement, which is fine by me.



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: DISRAELI

This is why I think that couples shouldn't marry until at least a decade of partnership.

If a woman can put up with me for a decade then she's marriage material.

Don't flame me please.


Living together before marriage, in my view, just gives people an out. Things get really tough? Well, you’re not married, so you can bail.

Are you going to commit to one another or not?



posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 10:48 PM
link   
It would been so much easier if said creator made man from an insect, fish, or anything that isnt mammalian or close to dirty apes.

"By all means marry. If you get a good wife you'll behappy: if you get a bad one you will be philosopher."
Socrates



posted on Apr, 24 2021 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Specimen88
The answer to that suggestion is the verse from Malachi which I used last week and omitted this week; "Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring" (Malachi ch2v15). He's not going to get that from insects. This in turn goes back to his original intention (also quoted last week) to give mankind dominion over the earth under himself.

The Biblical God's interest in marriage matters is not arbitrary, but part and parcel of his purposes in making the world in the first place.



posted on Apr, 24 2021 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Wide-Eyes
But will that style of partnership produce "godly children"? That is the question. According to Malachi, that is what God wants from married life and that's why he hates divorce. (I quoted that verse last week, but left it out this time)



Absolutely. It will be a pure marriage as opposed to a rushed one.

Divorce rates are through the roof because a lot of people marry on a whim.



People didn't marry on whims, in those days. In those days, love had little to nothing to do with marriage. Marriages were arranged by family elders and priests. Economics and politics were supreme. Love had nothing to do with it. It was your duty to God, family and your community to marry and have children.

Women were to submit to their husbands and men were to rule their households. Subsequently, there were laws and rules enforced and applied for those who would wander astray of community norms, ranging from compassion to a torturous death penalty, depending on family elders and peer review.



posted on Apr, 24 2021 @ 06:49 AM
link   

a reply to: DISRAELIIn the first place, that claim is not true.
Then you make Joseph out to not be just as the Word of God says he is.

Matt 1:19 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Because if it was not true then Joseph is not a just man.


edit on 4/24/2021 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2021 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I have been married for 23 years. No premarital stuff. Engaged in 96 married in 97. first child in 1999 last in 2007. Sometimes rocky roads sometimes smooth but we give God the praise for all of it good and the bad.



posted on Apr, 24 2021 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And in these days, even though marriage is no longer arranged as it was then for most of us, people should still not marry on a whim. If you marry on a whim, then you are doing it for the wrong reason, and it's a mistake too many people make. Then they decide their vows mean nothing. So they commit the sin being discussed in this thread.


edit on 24-4-2021 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2021 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




So they commit the sin being discussed in this thread.


What sin is would that be? Whimsey? Adultery? Divorce?



edit on 24-4-2021 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2021 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko




So they commit the sin being discussed in this thread.


What sin is would that be? Whimsey? Adultery? Divorce?




Huh ... why am I not surprised you are commenting without actually reading the OP.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join