Christian Perspectives on Divorce

[dmp]

I found this today, as posted by a guy on another forum. Thoughts?

Matther 19:8 talks about a spouse that puts away their spouse, it has nothing to do with divorce. In the OT if one was divorced and remarried, then divorced again, they couldn't go back to their first husband. In the NT it says if you are bound to a wife, don't seek to be loosed. If you are loosed, you do not sin by remarrying. Here is some additional info:

(ASV) but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the
cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her
when she is PUT AWAY committeth adultery.

(Bible in Basic English) But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife
for any other cause but the loss of her virtue, makes her false to her husband;
and whoever takes her as his wife after she is PUT AWAY, is no true husband
to her.

(Darby) But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for
cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one
that is PUT AWAY commits adultery.

(DRB) But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the
cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her
that is PUT AWAY, committeth adultery.

(LITV) But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of
fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one
PUT AWAY commits adultery.

(MKJV) But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause
of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is
PUT AWAY commits adultery.

(Worldwide English) But I tell you, no man may send away his wife unless she has
committed adultery. If he does send her away, he is making her commit adultery.
And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away from her husband, he
commits adultery.’

(World English Bible) But I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for
the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her
when she is put away commits adultery.

(WYC) But I say to you, that every man that leaveth his wife [that every man
that shall leave his wife], except (for) [the] cause of fornication, maketh her to do
lechery, and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth adultery.

(Youngs Literal Translation) But I—I say to you, that whoever may PUT AWAY
his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and
whoever may marry her who hath been PUT AWAY doth commit adultery.

But, “Apoluo” is not the verb form of “apostasion,” that would be aphistemi. They are different words but similar in meaning.
Here is a quote I found that explins a little more…

Divorce in the New Testament

In the Greek New Testament the verb translated ?to divorce? is apoluo. The root meaning of apoluo is ?set free, release, pardon,? or ?let go, send away, dismiss.?5 One of the most frequent usages of apoluo in the New Testament is in the sense of setting someone free. It is used of the releasing of Barabbas (Mark 15:15). It also appears when Agrippa said that Paul could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:32). When the writer of Hebrews said that Timothy had been set at liberty, he also used apoluo (Hebrews 13:23).
Apoluo is also translated as forgive (Luke 6:37). In Luke 2:29, when S~mon saw the child Jesus and prayed, ?Now lettest thou thy servant depart,? the word translated ?depart,? signifying death, is apoluo.
The noun form used in the New Testament, divorcement, is the Greek apostasion. It carries with it the idea of relinquishing property after sale, of giving up one?s claim.6 Apostasion comes from the verb aphistemi, which literally means ?to stand away from.? The verb carries the idea of leaving, forsaking. A closely related word, apostasia (from which we get our word apostasy) is used in Acts 21:21, where some said that Paul taught the people to forsake Moses. It also appears in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where Paul said the falling away would come before the second coming.

The New Testament equivalent of the bill of divorcement (sepher kenthuth) of Deuteronomy 24:1 is biblion apostasiou. This literally means ?a book of separation, dismissal,? it appears in Matthew 19:7. Apostasion also occurs in Matthew 5:31.

In the New Testament both the verb for ?divorce? (apoluo) and the noun (apostasiop) continue the Old Testament concept of complete dissolution of the marriage bond. In both Testaments the meaning of divorce is clearly more than putting away the wife with separate bed and board. It is granting freedom for the party to marry again.
Neale Pryor. Divorce ? It?s Meaning. Your Marriage Can Be Great. Thomas B. Warren, Ed. (98-104).

 

[misterblu]

I found this today, as posted by a guy on another forum. Thoughts?

 

[5stringJeff]

First, the passage (Matthew 19:3-9, NASB) in context:

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created 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?' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"
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. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Now, how can anyone say that this has nothing to do with divorce? It's Jesus' main teaching on the subject.

As far as the last paragraph, I understand the guy to be making the point that one shouldn't just leave one's wife and not grant her a divorce; he should divorce her, so that both could remarry if they wanted to. But that's not Jesus' point. His point is that, excepting cases of adultery, divorce is sin.

 

[Nuc]

As far as the last paragraph, I understand the guy to be making the point that one shouldn't just leave one's wife and not grant her a divorce; he should divorce her, so that both could remarry if they wanted to. But that's not Jesus' point. His point is that, excepting cases of adultery, divorce is sin.

What about if the man is "immoral" and commits adultery, does the woman have a right to divorce him as well?

I thought in the Catholic Church divorce was forbidden even in the case of adultery. It was illegal in Italy until fairly recently.

 

[dmp]

As far as the last paragraph, I understand the guy to be making the point that one shouldn't just leave one's wife and not grant her a divorce; he should divorce her, so that both could remarry if they wanted to. But that's not Jesus' point. His point is that, excepting cases of adultery, divorce is sin.

No - adultry is a sin...not divorce.

 

[dmp]

Another comment from the thread in which I found that piece:


context: The Church does little to help a couple decide if they are right for each other...

The church . . . is interested in whether the couple is having pre-marital sex or not and follows that with "Just focus on the Lord and all will be okay"

 

[dilloduck]

First, the passage (Matthew 19:3-9, NASB) in context:

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created 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?' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"
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. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Now, how can anyone say that this has nothing to do with divorce? It's Jesus' main teaching on the subject.

As far as the last paragraph, I understand the guy to be making the point that one shouldn't just leave one's wife and not grant her a divorce; he should divorce her, so that both could remarry if they wanted to. But that's not Jesus' point. His point is that, excepting cases of adultery, divorce is sin.

adultry only ?---in the text you provided it says "immorality".

 

[dmp]

adultry only ?---in the text you provided it says "immorality".

Most of the church doesn't care about ANY vow a couple makes except 'forsake all others'. It's quite common to have one spouse violate/go back on/ EVERY OTHER VOW on the list...eventually the other person finds another and commits adultry, and instantly becomes the villian or the sinner.

:-/

 

[Abbey Normal]

Most of the church doesn't care about ANY vow a couple makes except 'forsake all others'. It's quite common to have one spouse violate/go back on/ EVERY OTHER VOW on the list...eventually the other person finds another and commits adultry, and instantly becomes the villian or the sinner.

:-/

It's kind of like the guy who is taunted repeatedly by another guy. Then when he can't take it anymore and finally throws a punch, he's the one who is in trouble.

 

[dmp]

It's kind of like the guy who is taunted repeatedly by another guy. Then when he can't take it anymore and finally throws a punch, he's the one who is in trouble.

It's exactly like that. I hear and read so often about "Well, NOTHING excuses him for hitting back!! Really! It's his own fault!"

And so what? NEVER...omg...or SO RARELY as to be considered NEVER do we see anyone say "Damn...ya know? who could blame them? A body can only take so much beatin'...right?"

I'm infuriated today...edgy...

 

[Abbey Normal]

It's exactly like that. I hear and read so often about "Well, NOTHING excuses him for hitting back!! Really! It's his own fault!"

And so what? NEVER...omg...or SO RARELY as to be considered NEVER do we see anyone say "Damn...ya know? who could blame them? A body can only take so much beatin'...right?"

I'm infuriated today...edgy...

It is so true.

When you get home, try my recipe: turn on some nice music and have a B&B.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It is so true.

When you get home, try my recipe: turn on some nice music and have a B&B.

Better yet, drive by a middle school with a paint ball gun as it lets out

 

[Abbey Normal]

Better yet, drive by a middle school with a paint ball gun as it lets out

And be sure to target the little darlings' cell phones.

 

[5stringJeff]

What about if the man is "immoral" and commits adultery, does the woman have a right to divorce him as well?

I thought in the Catholic Church divorce was forbidden even in the case of adultery. It was illegal in Italy until fairly recently.

As to your first paragraph, yes, it works both ways.

I'm not Catholic, so I'm not sure what the RCC condones.

 

[5stringJeff]

adultry only ?---in the text you provided it says "immorality".

The NASB, which I quoted from, uses the word "immorality" to mean sexual immorality, i.e. adultery.

 

[Annie]

As far as I know, the Catholic Church, at least in modern times will grant an annulment for adultry, mental and/or physical abuse. One must list their examples for making a claim of such, with other people's affidavits backing one up. They will make exceptions for lack of affidavits, if one can make a case that the abuse kept one 'virtually isolated.' Contrary to common 'wisdom' the cost is about $100, which is waived in cases of financial hardship. Takes about 6 months to a year. Not all are granted, but I've only known one that was rejected, which I tend to agree with, as the wife wanted to be 'free' of control, of her husband that wasn't all that controlling. She left him and 3 kids under 6. Not a nice person.

I would say that our 'pre-marriage' counseling was probably pretty good, the priest asked to speak to me privately after the 6th joint session, expressing deep reservations about the fiance. I talked him out of the reservations, rather convinced him I 'knew' why he was concerned and I could deal with. that's me, hitting myself. If one knew at 30 what one hadn't a clue of at 24.