PREFACE TO ARTICLES ON MARIAGE, DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE (MDR)

10-16-2013

When the Lord’s body (ecclesia, those called out) was established in the first century (A.D. 34), almost immediately division began. Judaism sharply divided the Lord’s people. By the second century what would eventually become a world class denomination (Catholicism) had already gained complete control of the Christian world. Other religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam would create an even further division of the religious world. Throughout the following centuries Christianity slowly became more divided into apostate denominations, which now number into the tens of thousands. The Lord’s congregations in modern times have also become more and more divided over such issues as the use of instrumental music in worship, institutionalism (the supporting of scripturally unauthorized organizations, i.e., orphan homes, colleges, preaching schools etc…), or how many containers should be used in the Lord’s Supper, to name a few. Now it appears we must add another issue to this division; marriage, divorce and remarriage (MDR)!

Like the issues mentioned, which have been debated for over a hundred years now (with no or very little apparent positive results), I don’t envision a time when the Lord’s people will ever be completely united on this issue either. Sharply drawn lines have been established over these issues, and made a test of fellowship. Those who hold positions against the use of instrumental music, institutionalism, etc… have ceased to be associated with those who do and they will never, ever, be in agreement.

When a debate on any of these issues is to be held, each side seeks to find the one person they believe knowledgeable enough to defend their position. But more importantly it seems they want a well known person, if possible, with great debating skills. And the one that is usually considered to have “won” the debate is not the one that necessarily has proven his position beyond any reasonable doubt, but one that can present the most popular, polished and cleaver argument regardless of the facts; or in some way discredit and make his opponent appear to be ignorant or unreasonable!

I was listening to a debate once between a gospel preacher and a Catholic priest. Having studied the subject in years past, I knew the gospel preacher was correct on his position. But this preacher, thinking this would be an honest debate, had no idea who he was up against. This priest was a very skilled debater and made the preacher look like a complete fool! There was not a word of truth in anything the priest said. Yet, it appeared everything he said was backed up by scripture.

Notice I said, “It appeared to be scripture.” What was quoted was 90-99% out of context, misapplied, or misinterpreted. But I could see where those who had little or no knowledge of the subject would be deceived into accepting his argument as sound.

The same holds true with debates on marriage, divorce and remarriage. There are an abundance of cleaver arguments presented by those valiant defenders that have been thoroughly schooled (in CoC traditions) and have aligned themselves with Catholic doctrine by continuing to hold to the traditional teaching on mdr (tt/mdr). But when correctly interpreted, their position (which is mainly based on out of context scripture) really doesn’t make sense. Following are some articles presented that, hopefully will be considered on their own merits. To borrow a line from a T.V. commentator; “we report, you decide.”

J.D. Williams~

DIVORCE, A JEWISH PROBLEM

5-8-2015

Traditional teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage (MDR) is apparently based on what the majority of those, both in the Lord’s body as well as most denominations, think Jesus taught. Or more accurately, what they have been told to think by those elders or professional ministers believing only they have the truth on this matter. It is further apparent (to me); no other teaching has been given serious consideration by the majority of religious people. And anyone, they say, who dares go against this traditional teaching is only giving their opinion and almost immediately attacked as being a false teacher, held up to ridicule, or portrayed as an ignoramus and certainly not to be taken seriously! Any opinions I hold on this matter are drawn from conclusions based on studies found within the context of the subject; not on unwarranted speculation or conjecture based on traditional teachings.

Let me point out here, because something has been traditionally taught for years, does not mean it is always wrong. Traditions, good or bad, usually reflect the general views of the majority. To be sure, somewhere in the past it was decided this is what is to be taught on any given subject. It took me many years to come to the realization there was something wrong with what I had been taught on mdr; because there were too many things taught I couldn’t harmonize with the scriptures. And believe me, I tried for decades! Having come to that realization, I was left with the question, “what did the scriptures actually teach?” And it was only after I decided to begin a fresh independent study of the subject did I realize the truth of what Jesus was really teaching. I am very much aware there will be those who will disagree with me. Although having the same verses and passages available to all concerning mdr in both testaments, please note the vast differencing of beliefs and contradictions generally or popularly held among religious people. We do not address the correctness of these beliefs here, only what is believed by many.

1) No one may divorce for any reason; because only death frees one to remarry. Even if she or her children are beaten or abused every day or in extreme cases, beaten to death, she must stay in the marriage.

2) One may divorce for any reason.

3) Divorce is for fornication/adultery only.

4) Guilty party cannot re-marry.

5) Guilty party can re-marry after spouse is re-married, or dies.

6) Innocent party only is allowed to re-marrying.

7) If the guilty party files for divorce first, this makes the innocent party the “put away” one (regardless of their innocence), therefore they cannot ever re-marry. This is sometimes called the “race to the courthouse” position.

8) In divorce, the guilty party is still bound to the innocent party, but the innocent party is not bound to the guilty!

9) Divorced men or divorce and remarried men may not preach although their divorce may be considered as scriptural.

10) Men who marry divorced women may not be allowed to serve as ministers, elders or deacons or supported in their work.

11) Those divorcing and re-marrying before becoming a member of the “church” are not to be held accountable for their actions; Aka “not under covenant relationship.”

12) Teachings on divorce are to be applied to “Christians only.”

Those outside the church are free to do as they wish!

13) Divorced/re-married persons must dissolve their marriage before being baptized.

14) Jesus was talking to Jews only concerning mdr.

15) Jesus was talking to “future Christians” only.

16) Jesus was talking to both.

17) Jesus changed the Law of Moses on mdr.

18) A divorced person must divorce second mate and re-marry first one again.

19) A divorced person may be baptized although in a questionable relationship. After becoming a member, they may be taught to understand the truth of their situation and take whatever action is needed.

20) Divorce is a civil action which is regulated by civil government; and has nothing to do with religion.

21) If conformity to civil laws of marriage constitutes a valid marriage, then conformity to civil laws concerning divorce constitutes a valid divorce regardless of the cause; and both parties are free to remarry, if they choose.

These are some of the beliefs uncovered over many decades from talking to or reading about those who hold traditional teaching on MDR. There may be other views or variations of these views; these are the ones I am aware of.

One might ask, “What then, does traditional teaching actually teach, since there is such a diversity of opinion?” I would have to honestly say, I’m not sure what they teach. Obviously there is no consistency among them. Evidently it depends on who you ask! My experience had been different regions across the United States and different congregations (sometimes in the same city) hold slightly different views, depending on how their elders believe; so it is difficult to find consistent teaching on this subject. Oddly enough, every one of them is certain what they believe is the truth, and all differing views are wrong!

And I have actually heard elders say, elders at another congregation were wrong if their view differed from theirs! And I have also experienced those who would refuse to listen to any thing that slightly contradicted what they have been taught to believe and many times have walked away! I recall many years ago discussing or trying to discuss this issue with a member that insisted a person must mate for life and could not ever divorce under any circumstances. I pointed out God had made provisions for those who couldn’t. “It doesn’t matter, he replied angrily: God’s original intention was for man and women to marry for life and only death could end the marriage!” He thought the Jews wrong or anyone that divorced, and grew angrier as we spoke, the fact that God had permitted it made absolutely no difference to him. Realizing I would never convince him otherwise, I ended the discussion. It is impossible to teach a closed minded person anything!

Is it little wonder there has been, and now is, so much confusion concerning mdr! Does this not at least suggest there is something wrong with this multi-factice traditional teaching? Or that no one seems to be that alarmed or concerned about it; because each person is happy with their particular position and see no reason for further investigation? The traditionalist’s argument is: If you don’t agree with us, then you are wrong; although the traditional teaching contradicts itself and varies somewhat from congregation to congregation; and sometimes even among those within the same congregation! And here is another thing I find amusing: each one with their diversity of opinions believes they are following “correct traditional teachings!” Traditions (whether good or bad), by definition are teachings and practices developed over many years. One of the problems I have discovered is; wrong or questionable traditions are not easily dispelled mainly because those practicing them are very reluctant to admit they are wrong and have been all those years. And to do so would disrupt too many lives or even weaken or destroy one’s faith. Another is since certain traditions have been taught and practiced for so many years no one questions them as it is assumed they are correct. And we shouldn’t forget how many ministers would be out of jobs should they preach against traditional teaching!

But rather than admitting there may be a problem with these views, much time and energy is expended debating and trying to defend a position that is not defendable! Could it be they are fearful an unbiased re-examination would reveal too much error and inconsistencies in their traditions? It certainly seems that way. And it also appears they had rather excerpt more time and energy debating the issue than calmly restudying it. Following traditional teaching on mdr is done so for at least five reasons. 1) They are told by elders and professional ministers this is what it teaches. 2) They have not studied it for themselves, or if so, with preconceived ideas or in view of what general beliefs are (such as those listed above). 3) Don’t really know what it teaches or are not sure, but don’t want to rock the boat. 4) It is easier to go along with everyone else! 5) Very few in the Lord’s body (or other denominations) have realized just how much the Catholic denomination has influenced Christianity on this subject.

A few of their leaders realized even God understood divorce is sometimes inevitable and in some situations best for all parties concerned. So he made an exception to his law of mating for life (Gen 2:23-25) and allowed it (Deut 24:1-2). But their position was stricter than God’s (no divorces period) and they had difficulty sustaining such a position by the scriptures. So in order to bolster their position, they simply changed the meaning of a particular Greek word to justify their view. This word was “apoluo” a koine Greek word meaning to put away or separate, and rendered it, “Divorce” (Greek, apostasion). As anyone may see, those are two different words. Yet they insist one is equal to the other and interchangeable; when in fact they are not! And to do so makes the Lord say things he never did! Has no one ever asked themselves, why our Lord used apoluo instead of apostasiou? I’m confident our Lord was well acquainted with his own language, and any other language or dialect spoken at that time; and knew exactly which word best be used to convey his thought to those he was teaching. And being a good teacher, he knew they would understand exactly what he said!

So why not use the word that best fits the context? Before answering that question; let me give you an example of how lexicographers translated another word of great significant that will help us understand the reason. over the centuries, Lexicographers, being heavily influence by the Roman denomination, interpreted the word (apoluo) to fit Catholic teaching as they did with the word baptize (baptize), to mean sprinkle, instead of immerse (to dip, plunge or submerge). Any student of the bible is aware the English word baptize is a transliteration of the Greek word baptize. But may not be aware why it was not translated simply, “to immerse.” For example: Acts 2:38, “Repent and be (baptized) immersed for the remission of your sins,” leaves no doubt as to the action ordered by the word, which is immersion. That’s because all religions of that era, including the main denomination of England; which King James was head of at the time he authorized the production of an English version of the bible was influenced by the Catholic denomination which practiced sprinkling. Had they given the word a better and more correct translation, it would have contradicted the “Catholic’s” teaching! And we might add here the only concept of a so-called “church” King James and others had at that time was the Catholic denomination or those that taught the same of similar doctrines!

By transliterating the word baptizo it left the concept of baptism open to whatever they wanted it to mean. Thereby allowing any mode of baptism one wished. So when the Catholics or any other denomination which teaches this false doctrine says baptism, they really mean sprinkle (or in some cases pouring)! I suppose by that logic, John the Baptist should have been called John the “sprinkler!” Tragically enough, most verses dealing with elders was given much the same treatment in order for them to remain in power.

I give this brief background in order to clearly demonstrate their interpretation of the word apoluo (to put away) to mean divorce; because it has suffered a similar fate. And is what the majority of traditionalists today rely on as their authority. Because when the word apoluo is interpreted correctly within the contexts in which it is found it destroys traditional teaching! We of the called out of Christ (the ecclesia) give much credence to Greek words and their meaning. But for some strange reason when it comes to the word “apoluo” (which simply means to “put away” or separate) as used by Jesus in Matt 19:9 and other places it is never given its best or appropriate definition by those holding traditional teaching on this subject. As a matter of fact it seems to be deliberately misinterpreted in order to justify certain views that to me are blatantly obvious attempts to justify a position the scriptures will not sustain. When interpreting any passage or verse of scripture, one must always stay within the context of what is being said! It is little wonder then traditionalists continue to come to the wrong conclusions because they fail to interpret within the context, and fail to properly translate key words in that context. So, in what context are we to interpret apoluo?

In Matt 19:3 we read, “

And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

Notice…they did not ask Jesus “Is it lawful for a man to DIVORCE his wife for every cause!” They knew the answer to that already (Deut 24:1). But “is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.” This is the proper context of his entire conversation and teaching he gave in answering their question. Divorcing was not a problem for the man as he could do so for just about any reason that suited him! Kicking her out of the house without the benefit of a written bill of divorcement was.

So the question (the context) the Jews were asking Jesus was about “putting away” or separating (apoluo), not about divorcing (apostasion), a writing or bill of divorcement)! But if both words are given the same meaning one may see how easily it is to come to the wrong conclusion as to what Jesus is teaching!

And it should be done so in Matt 19:9 by selecting the most obvious and natural word that would convey the thought Jesus used in order to show the Pharisees they held incorrect views of the Law of Moses by their practice of allowing men to put away or separate from their wives without actually giving them a proper divorce. Instead, the Catholics (and traditionalists) chose the word (divorce=apostasion) which is not contained anywhere in the teaching as Jesus taught in these verses. And we might add this was the only way they could sustain their erroneous view of mdr. Perhaps their confusion lies in the fact that “putting away” was only a part of the divorce proceedings. So they tend to reason in a circle; saying: “If you put her away, you divorce her; if you divorce her, you put her away!” Here’s the problem with that circulatory thinking: There were three elements involved in a divorce under the old law: 1) a bill of divorcement had to be written; 2) it had to be place into the hands of the one who was being divorced (the wife); and 3) she had to be sent away from his house. Deut 24:1b.

In other words, she could no longer remain under his roof nor was she any longer under his authority. She was freed to re-marry or stay single. And he no longer had any legal or moral responsibility toward her! So yes, sending away was part of the divorce proceedings; but only a part!

And it should be obvious there was no legal divorce if the first two steps were passed over! But these traditionalists insist, “These words are equal and inter-changeable (apoluo and apostasion), and it doesn’t matter to them that different words with different meanings are used.” But we remain firm in our belief these two Greek words do have major significance and must be interpreted and applied correctly if one is to understand what Jesus is teaching!

As stated above, if any steps were missing in the divorce proceedings, or not in the correct order there could not be a valid divorce under the LOM. And the common practice was sending them away without giving them a bill of divorcement or putting said bill in their hand. And that was the problem Jesus was addressing when he condemned them for just sending their wives away without initiating the other two steps (writing a bill of divorcement and putting it into her hands). By the way, this document usually stated the purpose for the divorce. Sending them away required no record or legal reason therefore did not constitute a valid divorce.

It is usually at this point that one of two standard arguments are made: 1) that Jesus changed the law when he said, “have you not read…?” Matt 19:4-6.

I think we would all agree that God’s plan for man and woman was to mate for life. (Gen 2). All Jesus was doing was stating (or restating) the original intent of God when he created male and female; and that was, they were supposed to mate for life.

So why did God allow them to divorce (lawfully and permanently separate) and remarry if they chose to? There were two reasons: “for the hardness of your hearts” he told them. Matt 19:8. 2) So the divorced woman could re-marry if she chose to! Although it is usually assumed the divorce was for some sexual infidelity the reason she was divorced was irrelevant as finding an “unseemly thing in her” could mean anything! Deut 24:1b.

Let me remind you traditional teaching is based on what Jesus said to those living under the Mosaic Law not Gentiles or Christians.

The traditional teaching about the guilty not being able to re-marry does not have any support here. As a matter of fact, the reason for the divorce was so she could remarry if she chose! (“And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” Deut 24:2). She was under no restrictions or doomed to a life of celibacy regardless of the reason for the divorce. Where such traditional teaching came from or how it became part of their teaching cannot be determined from these verses as it is never mentioned under the LOM or Christian. But if Jesus changed the law (of Moses) that would indicate Moses was wrong to allow divorces, which means God was wrong also as he was the one that gave Moses permission to allow them!

So the teaching that Jesus changed the law is seen to be transparently false. The second standard argument is: This teaching would somehow also apply to Christians in the future. And then a convoluted effort is made to harmonize what Paul said to Christians with what Jesus said to Jews.

Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s teaching

There are three major components necessary to understanding what Jesus and Paul taught: who was Jesus talking to and who was Paul talking to? We’ll discuss the third one later. Traditionalist, when asked, “Who may divorce and re-marry,” will usually quote Matt 19:9 as though that is all that must be considered. And to them, Jesus’ teaching is very clear. I would agree his teachings were clear, but what exactly was he teaching? There’s the problem. When we keep Jesus’ teaching within the context of which he was teaching, then, yes, it is very clear!

Jesus said in Matt 19:9, “… whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.” Before considering what this verse teaches: notice again the circumstances under which Jesus made this statement. Because In Matt 19:2-3 we are told, “And there came unto him Pharisee, trying him, and saying, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

In order for us to properly understand the full context of their question and Jesus’ answer, we must also understand the political atmosphere of the times. There were basically two schools of thought prevalent at that time. Two Rabbis, Hillel (who held to the working class), and shammai, (who held to wealthy land owners), had opposing views on many things including marriage. Shammai was more conservative in his views and believed divorce could be only for unfaithfulness. Which is a bit strange to me as death was the penalty for adultery under the law, not divorce; however stoning for adultery, under Roman occupation was not allowed at that time.

Hillel believed, the wife could be given a bill of divorcement for any reason, “Even if she spoiled his dish: for it is written, “Because he has found some indecency in her.” To further demonstrate the importance of each teacher’s views, Shammai believed all commerce between Jews and Gentiles be completely prohibited. Hillel disagreed. The Sanhedrin (the ultimate ruling body of the Jews both religious and civil) however sided with Shammai. And taught contact with a Gentile would render a Jew (ceremoniously) unclean. Both houses (Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel, are still followed by Jews to some degree even today). The irony of this question is: Jewish men were not following either Rabbi’s teaching, as they were simply kicking their wife out of the house without the benefit of a legal divorce. They were usually motivated by monetary gain. Without a divorce they didn’t have to return the woman’s dowry, and in some cases the “bride’s price!”

As always these Pharisees were not that interested in what the law actually said, but whether they could trick Jesus into saying something that would cause him to lose credibility with one side of the other, or both! The motive of the Pharisees in this particular incident is the proper context in which all that was asked of Jesus and his reply to them must be considered. And before we continue with our study, I want to interject a similar example of how the Pharisees dealt with Jesus on another occasion, that will help clarify this one.

In the eight chapter of John vss 2-11, we have recorded for us the women caught in the act of committing adultery. Before we may understand what is said here, we must consider the immediate context (the real motive) of what is being said and why. First, were the Jews really interested in what Jewish law said, if so, where was the man? John informs us in vs 6 their sole purpose was to somehow trick Jesus into saying something that might be used against him either with the Romans or the Jews. Now In verse 7 Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Let him that is without sin, cast the first stone.” Now to what sin was he referring? Adultery? Not likely because the odds of every man in the crowd having committed adultery in almost astronomical! Could he be referring to all sin committed in a general sense? I think we all agree “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, but does the immediate context support that conclusion? Not really. Well to what sin could he be referring to? What did John tell us in vs 6; they came with deception and dishonest motives. Is that not to be considered a sin? Of course it was. That has to be the sin He is referring to concerning them! And they knew it, because they slowly, one by one left the scene. Since her accusers all left, no one could accuse her and under Jewish law neither could Jesus! Nevertheless he does recognize her actions as sinful, and tells her to go on with her life and don’t do that again. Here is the problem.

The only teaching most get from this entire episode is: no one has the right to judge another person, because we are all sinners! That is a blanket statement arrived at simply because it has been taken out of context!!

And here we find basically the same thing: Jesus’ words have been taken out of context and used as a general statement to try to justify traditional teaching on mdr!

Now that we have some background let’s analyze some cold hard and undisputable facts Jesus taught in its proper context: First, Jesus, a Jew, living under the Law of Moses, was addressing a Jewish problem that existed under the Mosaic law, which was based on Deut 24:1-2. The Jews had asked him concerning a question that was being practiced under Jewish law, by Jews. The answer he gave them (Jews) was based strictly on Jewish Law. No Gentiles were ever considered. Because no Gentile was ever subject to Jewish law (unless they were proselyted)! And neither are Christians! But in order to make this Jewish law applicable to Christians living after the LOM was done away with, they insist Jesus either: 1) changed the law or 2); he was giving a teaching that would apply to Christians in the future. But any serious student of the bible knows Jesus did not come to change the law but to fulfill it. Had he attempted to change one iota of the law, he would have immediately been charged with teaching against what Moses taught; which carried severe penalties.

There is no question Jesus clashed with Jewish leaders over many issues of the Law. And he constantly told them they were wrong on many things. But he never changed any part of the law, and neither did they ever charge him with doing so. In reality, it was Jewish leaders that had changed the law. And they did so by their traditions which did not follow the law as it had been written.

Jesus’ challenge to them was their interpretation of the law. They were practicing things the Law of Moses simply did not support. And Jesus said many times, “It is written” or “ye have heard… it has been said,” “It is not written in your law,” “But I say unto you” etc… This was not changing the law, or giving them new (different) teaching on the old Law; but giving them the original meaning as God intended and a correct interpretation of it. From every account I have heard or read concerning what Jesus taught in Matt 19:9, 5:33-32 and Mark 10:11-12; observe Jesus’ use of these words fourth verse: “…Moses suffered to write a “bill of divorcement (apostasion) and to put her away.” (ordered her out of his house). Notice the two part procedure: divorce was only legal after she had been; a) served with divorce papers! b) And sent away. That wasn’t being done. And that was what Jesus was addressing! And in the 11th verse Jesus said, “…whosoever shall put away his wife (apoluo) and marries another commits adultery.” It was not the divorce that condemned but the unlawful separation without a legal divorce. But that’s just common sense!

Therefore, Jesus is teaching if anyone re-marries under those circumstances that is what constitutes adultery. Even under today’s laws it is understood no one with a “legal separation” may legally co-habituate or copulate with another person. Although they may no longer be living together as man and wife, they are nevertheless still married and have civil and moral obligations to each other.

There is no question in my mind tradtionalist have failed to understand Jesus was not talking about divorce per se, but the unlawful sending away of their spouse without the benefit of a valid, legal document of divorce, which the law required. This was so the (ex) wife could legally re-marry if she chose to. The reason for the divorce had no bearing on it and was not limited to just “fornication or adultery only as many teach today, but for whatever reason the husband said! One of the traditionalist’s failings today is their belief when a divorce occurs, there has to be a guilty party and it has to be of a sexual nature! That is simply not the case.

Another lesser known teaching indirectly related to MDR states: The Gospels and parts of acts are to be considered to be in our New Testament therefore; everything taught in them (especially Jesus’ teachings on divorce) is to be applied to future Christians. And if not then everything he taught has no meaning! I have several problems with that primus. First, it really offers one no choice; that is, either you accept all Jesus taught as applying to future Christians or you must reject the entire record! This, to me, is a cleverly devised ruse to sneak in traditional teaching on mdr. But these gospel records must be studied within the context of the subject; and what it teaches must be placed and applied in proper order (rightly divide the word, or put everything in its proper order II Tim 2:15). Certainly there are some teachings that would only apply to future Christians. For example; Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.”

Obviously that statement concerning baptism as a condition of salvation did not apply to Jews living under the Mosaic Law unless they wished to convert to Christianity at some point. They had their own system under which they could be saved (which would eventually be abolished however). In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16:31, Abraham told the rich man after he was asked to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers not to come to this awful place (Hades/tartarus) said, “…if they hear not Moses and the prophet, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.” Are Christians today supposed to listen to the Old Testament prophets or follow the Law of Moses where their salvation is concerned? No; that was for Jews only. So how can that possibly be applied to Christians today? This teaching also assumes Jesus never addressed any Jewish problems under the Old Law. Because traditionalist teaching on mdr is an unwarranted assumption that everything must be applied to future Christians. And the case in point is Jesus’ teaching on Jewish laws on divorce and marriage. If one rightly divides the scriptures they will see nothing he said can be applied to Christians! And that is the reason this (rather simple) subject has become so difficult to understand. They have failed to stay within the context of what Jesus was teaching, i.e., he was speaking to Jews only! To further illustrate my point, when we study other New Testament letters, we realize many things taught cannot be applied to us today. The miraculous gifts are one. Laying on of hands or calling for elders to anoint those that are sick is another. There are others but these should be sufficient. I’ve often said if as much time were devoted to studying what Jesus actually taught, as there is spent on trying to find ways to discredit it, there would be no confusion on this subject!

The Jewish view of mdr

I don’t believe our study of this subject would be complete without considering the Jews understanding of what Jesus taught on mdr. Much of the Mosaic Law given to the Jews by God through Moses was based on what is known as Hammurabi’s code. This code or law in Babylon existed perhaps as far back as 1500-2000 yrs before Moses. The law or code (136) concerning divorce stated that a man or woman may divorce their spouse “VERBABLY.” That had some readily potential problem as the ex-husband (or wife), could stop a marriage or after she had remarried, could later claim he didn’t give her a divorce; creating obvious problems (i.e., adultery) for her as well as her new husband. The Law of Moses corrected that loophole by stating: “a bill of divorcement must be given in writing.” Deut 24:1.The code gave various reasons under which a divorce could be had; The Law of Moses did not stipulate or list any particular ones, just “if he found some unseemly thing in her.” Evidently the grounds may have been similar under both laws so no need to be specific. The word Divorce (Hebrew= Kerithuth) is only used four times in the Old Testament; and each time it is plainly and fully stated “a bill of divorcement” (Deut 24:1,3, Isaiah 50:1. And Jeremiah 3:8) and always referred to a legal proceeding whereby the marriage is lawful, and legally ended by permanent separation relieving each spouse of any further civil or moral obligations toward each other. The act of “putting away” (Hebrew= shalach, or sometimes garash, to drive away) simply means a “separation.” A bill of divorcement must always be in conjunction with a separation (putting away). Without this written bill of divorcement the act of putting away would not constitute a legal divorce! And she would not be free to remarry. And to do so would be considered adultery! As one may see, these two words are not synonymous or equal with each other and cannot be interchanged. Now the New Testament equivalent of the Hebrew Kerithuth (divorce) and shalach (to put away) in the (koine) Greek are apostasion, from apo, away from, and stasis, standing (or something established by law). And apoluo, apo, away from. And lu, to loosen. Again it can be readily seen these two words are different and cannot be interchanged. And even in the English language we may see the difference between the words separate and divorce. And understand one is not equal to the other! If a separation is court ordered, it would be called a “legal separation.” This meant they were still married, just not living together as man and wife. If it is a divorce that meant all ties civilly and morally were permanently broken. In conclusion then, we have the traditional teaching on mdr proven to be false is three languages! I really don’t see how it could get must plainer than that!!

See also on this subject: “Bound but free…?” And “The case of Joseph and Mary.”

J.D. Williams~