You’re answering a question with a question. If you answer my question first, then I’ll answer your question.
But as a sign of good faith, I leave you with this:
Now answer MY question!!!
And let’s remove the word “infallible”, so you don’t get tripped up. When you give an answer and quote from the Bible…how do you know that, the part you are quoting - is true or correct?
HF, I suppose it depends on what you are trying to prove as true and correct. To me, the Bible is basically a book of spiritual advice. Is the advice true and accurate, and if you follow it, will it lead to prosperity and the fullness of life or to destruction. As in the case of divorce that we have been recently discussing, in post 153 there are three choices. Out of the three, I would say that #3 is more accurate.
That the only exception to divorce is sexual immorality seems odd. Attempted murder, physical abuse, substance abuse, etc.etc. are just as sinful and the person practicing such thins is not living in the Spirit.
That there would be no exception to divorce seems odd as well, as we are not to be yoked to those who live in sin.
If God is as a loving Father, then He would want the best for His children, which in this case would be Paul’s advice. If one is divorced, then why should he/she be deprived of the love that can be found in the company of another, just because their first spouse went south?
Jesus cast out the both the Levitical priesthood and their law. That’s the truth, so I don’t see how you can argue with it. And if Moses knew God, he would have done the same. Otherwise, he was a false shepherd.
And as I further shared:
I am against remarriage after divorce. But remarriage after divorce is not the unpardonable sin.
Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
True. The Eastern Orthodox allow - via a pastoral provision - allow remarriage up to 3 times. But it gets progressively harder, to get approval. For a 3rd marriage, you need a bishop’s approval.
The Orthodox Church recognizes the sanctity of marriage and sees it as a life-long commitment. However, there are certain circumstances in which it becomes evident that there is no love or commitment in a relationship.
While the Church stands opposed to divorce, the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people, does permit divorced individuals to marry a second and even a third time.
The Order of the Second or Third Marriage is somewhat different than that celebrated as a first marriage and it bears a penitential character. Second or third marriages are performed by “economy”—that is, out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved and as an exception to the rule, so to speak.
Here’s an interesting Catholic article:
Can the Orthodox Way End the Divorce and Remarriage Debate?
The Eastern Orthodox on Divorce and Remarriage
Let me quote a comment, from an Orthodox priest - from the last article:
In spite of what a lot of people say, including Orthodox people, the Orthodox Church views sacramental marriage as indissoluble. There is no difference between second and third marriages in this regard. There is no canonical permission for divorce and remarriage. However, practice is another thing. And some priests, with their bishops’ permission, marry divorced people who repent of their divorces and are in a situation where remarriage to the original partner is impossible. Some bishops do so on the basis of forgiveness of the divorce, and others on the basis that the sins that led to the divorce de facto destroyed the marriage. And other bishops simply do not recognize the legitimacy of any remarriage of a divorced person while the original partner remains alive.
Let me quote a bit, from the Protestant - Got Questions:
This is a very difficult, interesting, and challenging question. Some would say that since believers in Christ are “new creations” with “all things made new” (2 Corinthians 5:17), the sin and consequences of divorce are washed away, allowing a person who was divorced before becoming a believer to be remarried. Others would say that while the sin of the divorce was atoned for by Christ, the consequences of the sin are not, and therefore a person who was divorced before becoming a believer cannot remarry.
Making this question even more difficult is the fact that there are varying viewpoints on whether Christians can remarry. Please read the following articles:
Let’s end with their perspective:
However, as the articles listed above indicate, we believe in the exception clause. If a divorce occurred as a result of unrepentant, continual adultery, we believe the innocent party can remarry. This is equally true if the innocent party was a believer or unbeliever when the divorce occurred. So, the answer to this question would depend on the circumstances of the divorce. It is our contention that whether the divorce occurred before or after salvation is not the ultimate deciding factor. Whatever viewpoint a person takes on this particular issue, it is important to understand that salvation does not free us or excuse us from all the foolish and sinful decisions we made before coming to faith in Christ.
I think you are mistaken, Hermano. The Greek “απολυω” (apoluō) literally means “I loose from.” If you loose your wife from you, you are loosing her from the bonds of matrimony. To do that is to divorce. That’s why Moses said that if you loose your wife from you, give her a certificate of divorce. Merely sending her away or “putting” her away, would not require a certificate of divorce.
The word “αποστασιον” (apostasion) can refer to a certificate of divorce. Indeed, it refers to that in three of the five instances it occurs in the New Testament. But consider the other two cases:
Acts 21:21 They were informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles that apostasy from Moses.
You may see that the English word “apostasy” is a transliteration of the Greek word. It means “a standing from,” that is, a standing away from, a repudiation, a complete separation, that is a divorce itself (not merely a certificate of divorce.)
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way, because it will not come until first the apostasy.
So the word can mean “divorce” itself. Divorce is not necessarily a legality; it is a position of repudiating one’s spouse. It is tantamount to “loose from.” If you loose your spouse from the marriage, you are divorced.
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?