I kind of thought I was clarified.
Whatever the hell ‘Nothing further to add other than noting the interesting distinction the Peshitta makes.’
Which is what I was getting at to begin with… You must not want to tell about the Peshitta or I am being taken for a fool.
Ok Chad… so I might be a little slow on the uptake here, so I went back and read post 140 onward to see what you or I have missed.
I mentioned the Peshitta (the Aramaic text) that has additional information that gives a reading that can/could lead to a differing conclusion than the standard evangelical conclusion, namely…
…and whoever marries a woman who is divorced, commits adultery. — Greek
…and whoever marries a woman who is separated but not divorced, commits adultery. — Aramaic
So the standard hard-line evangelical position is… anyone marrying a divorcee commits adultery — position 1 above. However… THAT hard-line position cannot be reached IF one considers the Peshitta — position 2, which seems rather obvious and logical AND certainly fits with today’s modern rationale; which is important to you, as per your previous… “The divorce idea is a real issue for all of us today.”
Does that make sense?
On the contrary, both biblically and even in the secular world, divorce is necessarily a legality. To separate from your spouse without a written-valid-legal divorce, and then remarry to someone else constitutes abandonment, adultery, and polygamy. The fast and easy tradition among the Jews of “putting away” but not legally divorcing is precisely what I believe Jesus was confronting.
If a man [an Israelite in the Old Testament] did not divorce his wife he would put her away. There is a word for that in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word ‘shalach’. It is different than the Hebrew word for divorce, which is *‘keriythuwth’. ‘Keriythuwth’* (Jeremiah 3:8) literally means ‘excision, a cutting of the marital bonds’; legal divorce was written, as commanded in Deuteronomy 24, and permitted subsequent marriage. ‘Shalach’ is usually translated ‘to put away’. Women were ‘put away’ when their men married others, ‘put away’ to be available if needed or wanted again, ‘put away’ to become mere property, as slaves, or ‘put away’ in total dismissal; it was a cruel system. They were ‘put away’ in favor of another, but not given a divorce and the right to marry again. This word (Shalach) described a cruel tradition, common, but contrary to Jewish law.
Some of the hardships women experienced who were ‘put away’ can be seen as this Hebrew word ‘shalach’ is described in the Langenscheid Pocket Hebrew Dictionary (McGraw-Hill, 1969); “to let loose, roaming at large, to be scared, abandoned, forsaken”.
J. B. Phillips, in his book of meditations For This Day (Word, 1975) wrote: “The Christian faith took root and flourished in an atmosphere almost entirely pagan, where cruelty and sexual immorality were taken for granted where slavery and the inferiority of women were almost universal, while superstition and rival religions with all kinds of bogus claims, existed on every hand.”
God hated this ‘putting away.’ Malachi the prophet broken-heartedly pleaded with God’s people to stop the practice.
…16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”
The word translated ‘putting away’ in Malachi 2:16 is not the Hebrew word for divorce but it is ‘ shalach’ – ‘put away.’
Jesus said the same thing in Luke 16:18 “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”
Whoever ‘putteth away’ his wife (husband) [and remarries] commits adultery! This practice was cruel and was adulterous, but it was not divorce. This New Testament word, translated ‘put away’ is a form of the Greek word ‘apoluo’. It is the word in Greek which parallels the Hebrew word ‘shalach’ – ‘put away.’
The Old Testament Hebrew word for divorce, ‘keriythuwth’ , and the New Testament Greek word, ‘apostasion’ also parallel. The Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon of the New Testament cites usage of the word ‘apostasion’ as the technical term for a bill or writing of divorce as far back as 258 B.C.
‘Apoluo,’ the Greek word for ‘putting away’, was not technically divorce, though often used synonymously. In that age of total male domination men often took additional wives and did not provide written release when they forsook wives and married others. The Jewish law demanding written divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-2 was largely ignored. If a man married another woman, so what? If a man ‘put away’ (apoluo) his wife without bothering with a written divorce, who was going to object? The woman?
Jesus had some objections. He told them that this earth would pass away before the law requiring a written bill of divorce should fail (Luke 16:17). And He said when you put away a wife (without a written bill of divorce), and marry another (while still married), you are guilty of adultery. And the women who is ‘put away’ though abandoned, is still married. She would commit adultery if she married again (Luke 16:18) just as the man has done.
[from Divorce and Remarriage © Bruce D Allen 2013, emphasis added.]
Yes, and thanks for clarifying 
And would you be willing to say where your personal view on modern divorce resides?
Yes… I do have a bee in my bonnet with regards to your fundamental DISHONESTY! You know full well my above statement you partially reference was referring to YOUR previous claims that Moses cast out the Levites… your deliberate perpetrating of falsehoods is not good!
It’s never nice but sometimes it can’t be avoided. As to that hard-line fundamentalist evangelical view… IF people feel the need to wed themselves to that, they are welcome… it’s not one I would personally lay on anyone — it’s none of my business.
Well, I think I understand. Thanks
Yes, Moses did cast them out.
As Exodus 19:6 says, "And you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."
This was the inheritance of the children of Israel which the Levites received no portion or inheritance in.
Deut. 18:1-2 “The priests, the Levites, indeed all the tribe of Levi shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and His portion. Therefore they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance, as He said to them.”
I don’t know which “Lord” was their inheritance, but it certainly wasn’t the Lord God of Israel.
Deut. 32:9 “For the Lord’s portion is His people, Jacob( Israel) is the place of His inheritance.”
Joshua did as Moses commanded. He scattered them in the cities of refuge throughout Israel.
Scatter- to disintegrate, disband, weaken or break apart, go their separate ways, dissipate etc.
It’s interesting to note in Deut. 17 verse 18 says this: " Also, it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites.
Yes well I’ve dealt with these texts before; but I’m not sure how you can even repeat them as though having any confidence in them to support your novel theories given your revelation that… “how do we know if_______even said these words?” — in which case it really matters diddly squat!
You’ve quoted a lot from the OT, Hermano. So why would “putting away” one’s wife (in the sense that you understand it) be adultery? The OT saints had multiple wives and weren’t considered to commit adultery unless they copulated with another man’s wife.
I have tried to make the case, from both OT Hebrew and the NT Greek, of the distinction between “putting away” and “[written] divorce.”
Further, we know that although there was polygamy in the Old Testament, “in the beginning,” God announced the “two” would become one flesh, not the “three” or the “seven.” So things deteriorated.
You are referring to a man having multiple wives in the OT, whereas I am referring to putting away a wife without giving her a written divorce, followed by remarriage anyway. This would have been contrary to the law of Moses, even for king David—if he ever would have done such a thing:
Deuteronomy 24:1-2 “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, and give it IN HER HAND and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she MAY go and be another man’s wife.” [legal, with no adultery]
Further, David’s adultery with Bathsheba should legally have resulted in their being stoned to death; but God is gracious and merciful, not legalistic and harsh.
Legal divorce followed by legal remarriage does not create adultery. We all know divorce is a devastating, terrible occurrence, especially for the children—to be avoided at all costs. It should be counseled and prayed against, if at all possible. And even after divorce, repentance, reconciliation, and remarriage to the original partner can be hoped and prayed for, if both of the divorced partners have remained single. Nevertheless, remarriage to a new partner does not subsequently cause some “permanent state of adultery” to then exist.
Legally remarried people struggle enough to succeed, without added rejection and condemnation from some in the Church, who should be encouraging them to build their house on the Rock, not calling them adulterers.
Davo, It’s not a theory, but a simple fact. Tell me what portion of the Lord God of Israel they received. We all know the answer. NONE. Their portion was the fire, the works of their hands were burned up, just as Moses said.
Yes, you’ve tried to make the case, and you are repeating your arguments. But you haven’t addressed the prime objection I’ve made. Listen to the words of Jesus:
“So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so and I tell you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:7-9)
If the word means only “sends away” or “puts away” rather than “divorce” it doesn’t make sense that if one marries another it is adultery under the OT laws. For at that time a man could have as many wives as he chose. He couldn’t commit adultery by marrying another one. But Jesus said, “I tell you: whoever ‘puts away’ his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
I don’t recall any biblical examples of polygamy among Jews by the time of Jesus.
Some translators have assumed that in Israel back in those days, “sending away” was synonymous with “legally divorce.” But I am saying that would be like assuming nowadays that divorce and separation were the same thing.
A suggested amplification of Matt. 5:31-32 (NASB)—
“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY (apolyō), LET HIM ALSO GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’ (apostasion); but I say to you that everyone who sends away his wife, except for the reason of unchastity (porneia), makes her to appear like an unchaste woman [and if she remarries, a genuine adulteress]; and whoever marries a sent away (but not legally divorced) woman commits adultery (moicháō), since she’s still legally married to someone else.
A man remaining separated from his wife without a certificate of divorce is wrong.
I think that the “exception clause" was obviously not limiting the grounds for divorce to adultery, as a written divorce was not necessary where adultery was confirmed— because those found guilty of adultery were to be stoned, so they would certainly not need a certificate of divorce to remarry legally–they would be dead soon. Rather, Jesus was discussing the matter of the issuing of the certificate of divorce.
Any woman who is sent away without a certificate of divorce is only separated and not lawfully divorced. Marriage to a woman who is only separated would represent adultery, since she is still not divorced from her original husband.
Notice there is also a guilt upon the one who merely sends away without a legal, written divorce: he ‘makes her to appear like an unchaste woman [and if she remarries, a genuine adulteress].’
We all know that from the beginning it was supposed to be one man, with one woman, for life—unless separated by death.
But again, Paidion, more explicitly, what are you saying, by extension, in 2019? That Jesus means that legally divorced and remarried people are now in a perpetual state of adultery?
How do you know Moses even said these words… 
Legalities have no moral meaning. A divorce is not a mere legality. Separation from one’s spouse is the sin. A divorce is tantamount to separation.
Jesus said, “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
The Jews said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?"
THEY were arguing from what Moses said, that it was okay to separate from your wife, if you made it legal.
Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to separate from your wives, but from the beginning it was not so and I tell you: whoever separates from his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”*
So Jesus was pointing out the real issue—separation. In no way was He indicating that it was okay to separate and remarry if you made the separation legal with a “certificate of divorce.”
We don’t. But, whoever wrote the words didn’t trust the Levites. Their ways weren’t the ways of Israel’s God; so they weren’t given any portion or inheritance among the children of Israel, not even the ministry, because it too is part of the inheritance.
No… YOU don’t! You really are stuck 
I doubt LLC is alone in finding the Pentateuch’s historicity and composition subject to question.