If you have an income, are healthy, and your wife wants a baby and is healthy, there probably isn’t a valid excuse to delay children

[christian cerna]

And I believe the application would be different considering the times we live in. Since we can’t divorce someone we are engaged to. We can only divorce someone we are married to.

We don’t interpret Scripture based on our modern day marriage customs but on those of the culture in which and to which it was written. You are right that we do not divorce those to whom we are engaged, but the relationship between Mary and Joseph went way beyond simple engagement. There were legal responsibilities and expectations, and presumably Joseph had already paid a bride-price for Mary with the understanding that she was a virgin, but when he found out she was pregnant, he did what any other man would have done, he assumed she had lied about being a virgin. If she lied about this, then she was entering into a contract under false pretense, and this would nullify any obligation that Joseph had made, and give him the right to demand a refund.
Betrothal and the marriage ceremony in the Ancient Near East was a very different animal from engagement and the marriage ceremony today. As far as I know, it is not a custom in the USA to have the newly married couple spend their first night together with the wedding party waiting outside their tent to see the proof of their consummation and the woman’s prior virginity on the bed sheet. Though we would find it disgusting, it was not uncommon for parents to display their daughter’s sheet from her wedding night in their own home, proving beyond question that she had remained a virgin until marriage. Her faithfulness after marriage was her husband’s responsibility, but her virginity before was her parents’ and it carried with it great weight, if for no other reason than she would claim a higher bride-price as a virgin.
If we are going to understand what Jesus meant, we must deal with all of the trappings of ANE marriage customs, and not try to force his words to fit into our modern practices.

May I suggest that before you try to figure out the exceptions for divorce and remarriage, you examine the actually language which Christ uses in this discussions with the Pharisees?

There are two different words which have been translated into the English word divorce. One is a noun, one is a verb. The ESV has gone so far as to translate all of them as divorce. Yet that is not what the original language states. The Pharisees ask about a cultural custom using the verb, Jesus answers them with both the verb and the noun.

Reading the first Scriptural mention of divorce in Deut. 24 show us that the same language was used in the Hebrew.

Equating the noun and the verb has caused confusion for centuries. One is an action, one is a legal description. They are not interchangable.


Apostasion

divorce, repudiation

a bill of divorce

Apolyo

to set free

to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)

a petitioner to whom liberty to depart is given by a decisive answer

to bid depart, send away

to let go free, release

a captive i.e. to loose his bonds and bid him depart, to give him liberty to depart

to acquit one accused of a crime and set him at liberty

indulgently to grant a prisoner leave to depart

to release a debtor, i.e. not to press one’s claim against him, to remit his debt

used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. The wife of a Greek or Roman may divorce her husband.

to send one’s self, to depart

Somehow it has become acceptable Biblical hermeneutic to transliterate the two Greek (and Hebrew) words which have different tenses and meaning into the same word. This leads to confusion and inaccuracy.


kĕriythuwth

divorce, dismissal, divorcement

shalach

to send, send away, let go, stretch out

(Qal)

to send

to stretch out, extend, direct

to send away

to let loose

(Niphal) to be sent

(Piel)

to send off or away or out or forth, dismiss, give over, cast out

to let go, set free

to shoot forth (of branches)

to let down

to shoot

(Pual) to be sent off, be put away, be divorced, be impelled

(Hiphil) to send

Go examine the original text again. Read it without confusing the noun with the verb. Understand that the two are different.

Then ask yourself how the Jews were trying to trick Jesus with their questions.

Using the incorrect meaning of words was part of the trick.

And the modern church is using the meaning the Pharisees used. Which is not how Christ answered them.

I have read Edgar’s argument and found them wanting. I am surprised anyone actually still advances some of these points.

That’s revealing.

The pharisees asked specifically why Moses commanded divorce.

That was actually the secondary question. The actual question was about whether or not divorce was permissible for any reason. They were trying to trap Jesus, likely between two rabbinic teachings. In the end, Jesus comes back to the question and says, Yes, divorce is permissible for porneia.

Jesus made it clear that it was for an exception, which was not adultery, since adultery was punishable by death. So whatever the exception was, it wasn’t adultery.

If by “it” you mean the command of Moses, then no, Jesus didn’t make “it” clear. In fact, Jesus didn’t really address Moses’ concession except to say it was a concession and it was for hardness (though he doesn’t specify whose hardness it was).

But the exception that Jesus speaks of is porneia, a common word used for sexual immorality of all sorts. The idea that it is premarital sex and moicheia (adultery) is extramarital sex is not borne out by the actual usage of it. Here the people involved are married. The Pharisees weren’t asking about how to get out of a betrothal.

Invoking the death penalty for adultery doesn’t help support the betrothal view because sexual immorality of a betrothed person was also punished by death (Deut 22:13-21). So no matter what, death was the penalty.

The betrothal period however was a time of expectation. If a person rejected the expected marriage BY having sex with another person, then the choice was made to not continue in marriage.

Yes, the the offending partner was stoned (Deut 22:13-21).

I find it a valuable and legitimate question as to why 2/3 of synoptics didn’t bother to record the exception clause. You find some absurd comparison because it isn’t your view. That is fine.

It might be a valuable and legitimate question, but it is not one we can answer because God hasn’t given us one. As a cessationist, I am willing to leave it at that. But the one thing we can’t do is ignore what it says, no matter how noble our intent might be.

Not sure what you mean by absurd comparison. I don’t recall making any absurd comparison. I simply pointed out that the Gospels differ in their accounts of the same events, and we aren’t told why. That has nothing to do with my view. I wasn’t aware that anyone disputed that. But perhaps there are.

We don’t interpret Scripture based on our modern day marriage customs but on those of the culture in which and to which it was written.

True, but we do have to apply them to our modern day marriage customs. And we do have to understand the Scriptures in their context. In their context, the Pharisees were asking about the divorce of married people, not about betrothed people.

But even if it is about betrothed people, we still have to apply the situation to today. So what happens when a spouse decide to leave a marriage and seek a divorce? The answer is that they are granted a divorce.

Somehow it has become acceptable Biblical hermeneutic to transliterate the two Greek (and Hebrew) words which have different tenses and meaning into the same word. This leads to confusion and inaccuracy.

These words aren’t transliterated and it isn’t hermeneutics. They are translated, and they are, in this context, virtually synonyms. Every language has them. The Pharisees question didn’t hang on the distinction between the words. They ask about apoluo, and Jesus answers them about apoluo. Apostasian in only used in reference to the certificate of divorce, a question Jesus answers by talking about apoluo.

The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus between two rabbis; they weren’t trying play word games.

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

-I Cor. 7:12-16

[christian cerna]

Well, I don’t care what Ryrie did. I care what the scriptures mean.

And I believe the application would be different considering the times we live in. Since we can’t divorce someone we are engaged to. We can only divorce someone we are married to.

i was giving you that information because you took the question away from scripture by asking what a person would do in a hypothetical situation. The point was that if that is your conviction it doesn’t matter how bad of a situation is.

[Jay] How do people that fall into the ‘no divorce permissible’ camp handle this passage for the believing spouse who has been left behind?

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

-I Cor. 7:12-16

I personally see two separate questions. The first is about divorce. I may not seek or condone divorce apart from the exception clause, which I understand to be for illegitimate marriages such as incestuous relationships. 1 Cor 7 has to do with someone divorcing me, not my divorcing someone. It is an action happening to me, not one I am doing. I have no control over what other people do, only over my response to what they do. That brings up the second question, is remarriage permissible. I don’t see any grounds in any of the passages for remarriage as long as the first spouse remains alive. Jesus in Matthew and Paul in 1 Cor both reiterate that marriage is till death. So, even though I may find myself divorced without having sinned (because someone left me) I still am not free to remarry while my first spouse remains alive.

Larry said, quote

Matthew 5:31,32

“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away(apoluo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement(apostasion):

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away(apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced(VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU GO CHECK FOR YOURSELF THIS IS APOLUO ALSO) committeth adultery.”

Now Matthew 19:7-9

“They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement(apostasion), and to put her away(apoluo)?

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away(apoluo) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away(apoluo) his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluo) doth commit adultery.”

Is there a difference between the words food and eat? The are related correct? Yet one is a noun one is a verb. They do not mean the same exact thing.

Do you agree with the ESV in (translating) the same passage with divorce in place of apoluo?

Careful with your answer. Because if you go back to Deuteronomy 24: God allowed kĕriythuwth.

But He very specifically says in Malachi 2:16 that He hateth shalach.

Now if God hates something that He Himself does, does that make God a liar?

Because God is divorced (keriythuwth). Jeremiah 3:8

“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away(shalach), and given her a bill of divorce(keriythuwth); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”

God is divorced. Let that sink in for a second. Yet God also hates putting away(shalach).

The big question is, are divorce and putting way different. And if they are, what was the question the Pharisees were asking Jesus?

Because I think the two are different and Jesus clearly tells them that Moses allowed them to apoluo their wives out of the hardness of their hearts.

A women who has been shalach/apoluo with out a certificate of keriythuwth/apostasion would still be married, hence anyone who married her would be committing adultery.

Remember there is a difference between food and eat.

You do not eat eat, nor do you food food, you eat food. The two are different.

In the same way a certificate of divorce (keriythuwth/apostasion) can not be the same as (shalach/apoluo) putting away. One is a noun (person, place or thing), one is an action.

Read Deuteronomy 24:1 again, one is a noun, one is an action, they are not interchangable.


“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement(keriythuwth), and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house(shalach).

He does not divorce, divorce her. Nor does he put her way, put her away.

He gives her a bill of divorcement and puts her away. Two different things.



BTW, My computer does not like the format for this program. My attempts to put quotes and differentiate between my comments and quotes did not work. I apologize for the way this looks. That’s what I get for refusing to run either Windows or Mac as my operating system. Linux doesn’t use it’s money for population control and funding Planned Parenthood.

Is there a difference between the words food and eat? The are related correct? Yet one is a noun one is a verb. They do not mean the same exact thing.

You ever try eating without food? Of course they are related. A better example is eats and eats. Eats is a noun meaning food and a verb meaning to consume food. But even that really isn’t a good comparison. As you know, divorce is both a noun and a verb. There are many words that function that way. When you divorce you are granted a divorce.

Do you agree with the ESV in (translating) the same passage with divorce in place of apoluo?

Of course. All translations except the KJV do that because the word means divorce. Why would you translate it any other way?

But He very specifically says in Malachi 2:16 that He hateth shalach.

Actually, Malachi 2:16 talks about one who hates so as to divorce or hates and divorces. It doesn’t say that God hates divorce.

The big question is, are divorce and putting way different. And if they are, what was the question the Pharisees were asking Jesus?

No, they aren’t different. In marriage, to divorce is to put away. The Pharisees were asking if a man could divorce his wife for any reason.

Because I think the two are different and Jesus clearly tells them that Moses allowed them to apoluo their wives out of the hardness of their hearts.

In the same way a certificate of divorce (keriythuwth/apostasion) can not be the same as (shalach/apoluo) putting away. One is a noun (person, place or thing), one is an action.

No one is saying it is the same thing, are they? The certificate is the legal instrument. The divorce is putting away of a spouse.

He gives her a bill of divorcement and puts her away. Two different things.

The bill of divorcement is how he divorces her.

[Chip Van Emmerik] That brings up the second question, is remarriage permissible. I don’t see any grounds in any of the passages for remarriage as long as the first spouse remains alive.

Deut. 24:1-4 restricts someone from remarrying a former spouse if that spouse has been married to others and subsequently divorced. I understand from this passage that the remarriage of the departing spouse, ends for all time the possibility of reconciliation. At this point I believe remarriage is permitted (for the non-departing spouse) as the first spouse is no longer a spouse.

Johnbrian, you are referring to the regulation of those under the law. Jesus wiped that away. The church isn’t a nation of saved and unsaved people.

Would this not apply only to the nation state of Israel, which had at that time this betrothal and marriage custom? Does it also apply to the Gentile nations? What if certain nations or tribes or peoples have different marriage customs or laws?

Are not the only laws that apply to the Gentiles that they abstain from eating foods offered to idols or eating strangled meat, and of course that they lead a godly life? Would the Jewish marriage laws apply to Gentiles too?

[christian cerna] Would the Jewish marriage laws apply to Gentiles too?

I don’t know. My former pastor insisted that the restriction had not been voided, and he was a no-divorce-no-remarriage proponent.

“Invoking the death penalty for adultery doesn’t help support the betrothal view because sexual immorality of a betrothed person was also punished by death (Deut 22:13-21). So no matter what, death was the penalty.”

Actually Larry, if you read the whole passage, the husband was to bring a specific charge against the girl. So no, that passage does nothing to address the situation of Joseph and Mary, since Joseph was not going to bring a charge and they had not yet been married.