The Sanctity of Marriage?? The Protection of Divorce...

[theologystudent]

“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.”
The good news, or the gospels of Christ were written by four early Christian missionaries who saw fit to spread the word that Jesus the Christ, came to proclaim – that although we may sin against God’s desires, he desires to grant us forgiveness.
In chapter nineteen, verses one through twelve of the gospel of Matthew an account of the questioning of Jesus on the topic of divorce is described. After preaching in Galilee, Jesus is said to have gone to Judea, on the other side of the river Jordan. In an attempt to test the one who was being considered by some as the messiah, the Pharisees questioned Jesus on the lawfulness of divorcing one’s wife for any reason. Jesus recalls God’s design for creation that, when a man and a woman are joined they become one flesh and what God joins together, no man should separate.
The Pharisees respond by recounting Mosaic Law which allows a man to issue his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus responds that Moses allowed such practice because their hearts were hard, but Jesus says that unless there is marital unfaithfulness, no man and woman should separate.
Through an exegetical study of Matthew 19:1-12, it can be established that the common belief that Jesus’ teachings forbid a man and women to end a marriage in divorce is untrue.
Later intensified in the seventh chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, Matthew’s Jesus says that under situations of marital unfaithfulness, divorce is not encouraged, but permitted. The key to understanding the teaching given in the divorce passages of the New Testament is realizing the Greek terminology used and its relevance. Two thousand years of development, linguistic translation and distortion often give rise to conclusions for which there is no factual basis.
If evaluated textually, the teaching of the Matthean Jesus is not preaching against divorce per se but against divorcing one’s wife for no good reason. In Matthew’s original writing in the Greek text, he uses the Greek word “apoluo” the word used for divorce in Matthew 19:9. The word in its true meaning is interpreted to mean to ‘resolution through the removal of difficulties,’ used in scripture in separating or issuing ones wife a certificate of divorce. In the time before Christ, Jewish men could receive a certificate of divorce from the authorities and remove their wives from their homes if they were dissatisfied with them for any reason. In such an occurrence, the woman would likely become homeless and resort to prostitution. Jesus is clarifying Mosaic Law and declaring that, from then forward; a man may no longer put his wife out into the street and leave her for as good as dead.
“I tell you, that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” This exception spoken of in the Matthean gospel for “unfaithfulness” again merits textual exploration. Matthew’s Jesus proclaims under this exception that grounds for divorce may be found to be legitimate. The Greek word used for unfaithfulness is “porneia” in Matthew 19:9. The word has a range of meanings outside of unfaithfulness, most relevantly, “something shameful.” With such understanding, the original meaning of the passage could now read, ‘I tell you, that anyone who resolves their marriage through the removal of difficulties, except in the instance of shameful behavior, and marries another woman commits adultery.’ Hence, the clearly defined line between black and white – right or wrong, quickly disappears and is replaced by an area of grey.
In examining Pauline text, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians further exemplifies Matthew’s clarification on divorce again using the word “apoluo” to describe the sanctity of a marriage. “To the married, I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” Paul explains here that, although a woman may leave her husband, she cannot be joined with another, thus giving her the ability to remove herself from any situation that might endanger her well being. Similarly, a man may not reach a marriage resolution through the removal of difficulties (apoluo aka. divorce) thus throwing his wife out into the street.
The two thousand years that have passed since the writing of the New Testament have seen developments in societal structure and hierarchy. It appears to me as though Matthew alludes to the early Christians as those who acted first in favor of human rights; that a woman could not be ostracized by her husband without having committed any wrongdoing.
Due to the fact that the Pharisees were testing Jesus, his answer is tailored to the skewed question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” On these grounds, Jesus was never expected to give an answer of wisdom or enlightenment, but it was hoped that he would stumble upon the inquiry and the Pharisees would expose him for what they believed he truly was, a fraud.
Often, in the early education of students, they are asked to answer questions ‘properly’ to ensure that they develop the communicational skills needed for adult life. If a young student were to be asked “How many oranges are in that sack?” it would be expected that the answer should pertain directly to the question, “there are four oranges in that sack.” Similarly, by the Pharisees asking “for any and every reason,” it is reasonable to suppose that Jesus was not laying out teaching as he would have in a sermon, but was directly answering their question, “No, a man may not divorce his wife, ‘for any and every reason.’” This is not to say that Jesus’ teaching here is false or tainted in any way, but rather that his answer sheds light specifically on the blanket question. The Pharisees approached him, not seeking knowledge, but in hopes he would falter upon their request. Just as a child is put to the test in a classroom, Christ was put to the test by Pharisaical judgment.
Weakness is defined as a lack of strength, will, or determination. In understanding weakness, one appreciates that it is an inherent quality that all human beings struggle with their whole lives. Moses allowed the Jews to divorce because of their hardened hearts but Jesus held that divorce was not allowed from the beginning in Matthew 19:8. This exemplified Jesus’ understanding of the Old Testament covenant and that human weakness is understood by God. In turn, divorce is derived from such weakness and although God asks his people to obey the sanctity of marriage, he saw their inherent inabilities and took mercy upon them.
The division between the Old and New Testaments signifies the imminent arrival of the messiah and the formation of a new covenant with the Lord. The Pharisees were threatened by Jesus’ teaching and would continue to draw back into the safety of the Mosaic covenant. Matthew’s gospel is filled with revisions of Old Testament law. Jesus’ clarifications of the Mosaic Law were given to the people through him as the will of God. Thus, the “hardened hearts” of the Jews which gave justification for a man to divorce his wife in the Matthean passage is Jesus’ way of explaining that Deuteronomy 24:1-5 were no longer accurate under the new covenant: that a significant reason must exist for a man and a woman to end a marriage in divorce.
Understanding that the Matthean gospel was written after Mark’s, and with the use of the Markan gospel as a source, it is likely that Matthew was attempting to clarify Jesus’ teaching on divorce in his redactional divorce passage. Unfortunately, general public understanding of gospel authorship is minimal and common acceptance that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all contemporaries of Jesus who wrote their scriptural text during or immediately after his life is, regrettably, untrue. The common criticism that the gospels are riddled with contradiction and inaccuracy can be better alleviated through historical and textual evaluation of the text.
The account of Pharisaical questioning of Jesus on the topic of divorce occurs twice in the synoptic gospels, in the passage under discussion in Matthew as well as in the tenth chapter of Mark.
The most prevalent and relevant difference between the gospels is the proposed question asked by the Pharisees and the absences of “for any and every reason” in Mark’s account of the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Immediately, Mark’s divorce account will be responded to differently as it is questioned differently.
In the Markan gospel, Mark’s Jesus takes a much more hard-line approach to the question being sprung upon him. Unlike in Matthew 19: 7-9 where the Pharisees question Jesus’ teaching by introducing the Law of Moses, in Mark, Jesus responses to their question: “What did Moses command you?” It seems as though in Mark, the case is being made that Jesus is drawing directly upon the teachings of Moses and explaining that although Mosaic Law commands them the allowance to write a certificate of divorce, that in God’s design, anything he joins must no be separated. Regardless of the Matthean and Markan Jesus’ agreement on not separating that which God has joined, in Matthew, the passage further explains exceptions to which human inabilities come into play.
Again, in the conclusion of each of their passages, the tone and direct teaching are in contrast. Mark very forcefully makes his point through Christ’s words to his disciples in Mark 10:11-12, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” By contrast, Matthew chooses to conclude his passage with the display of Christ’s mercy and understanding, “Not everyone can accept this word, but to those to whom it has been given. For some eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by others and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
In the first century so much misconception and conjecture was passed among the early Christians. It would not be out of order to assume that the early Christian leaders must have attempted to further clarify Jesus’ teachings before misinterpretation became assumed truth. Mark, having been the first evangelical writer of the New Testament, was the source which all others would likely base their writings upon. Matthew, writing in approximately the late eighties and after having a generation passed since the circulation of the Markan gospel began, had a basis for his writings. The Matthean account written using the Markan base and adopting the material from the sayings of Jesus in the Q source brought about a much different tone to the divorce passage. “The later evangelist reworked the Markan text for the needs of his own community. He added a prologue, the infancy narratives, and an epilogue which consisted of narratives about the appearances of the risen Christ.” All of Matthean text could be interpreted as a late first century ‘reader friendly’ version of the gospel of Mark. This included explanations of beginning and ending, as well as clarifications to the questions that were so heavily in debate.
Therefore, the common conception that Jesus’ teaching forbids a man and a woman to end a marriage in divorce is, I contend, concluded falsely as demonstrated through the textual, redactional, historical, and contextual study of Matthew 19:1-12.
First, through the textual criticism of the Matthean divorce passage, supported by chapter seven of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, Jesus taught that under situations of marital ‘unfaithfulness,’ divorce is not encouraged, but permitted.
Second, since the Pharisees were testing Jesus, his answer is not free thought and concocted of his own design, but tailored towards the skewed question.
Last, the appreciation that the Markan gospel was written before the Matthean while being used as a source for the latter writing, it is a reasonable assumption that Matthew was attempting to clarify the teaching on divorce in his account of the passage.
The above argument suggests that Matthew wrote his gospel for the people of his community. Awareness of this is important in the context of what present day readers of the gospels should be drawing from the gospel accounts. At the time of Jesus’ teachings, men and women were not equals in the eyes of society. Divorce had everything to do with the will of the man, and very little if nothing to do with the resolve of the woman. Christ’s teachings brought protection to women who would have otherwise been cast aside and into the streets from their husband’s homes.
For the most part in North America and European society today, woman and men are equals. There are laws protecting human beings from abuse of power and mistreatment of others. A woman is no longer bound for the streets if her husband no longer desires a marriage with her. Thus, is the teaching on divorce anywhere in the New Testament relevant to what divorce is today? Do Christ’s important words ring true only for men and women of the early centuries, or for all eternity?

[drewcosten]

I can't comment too much, but I will post an excerpt from an interesting sermon on the topic by Greg Mohr:

The gospel story begins by telling us that some Pharisees have come up to Jesus and have asked him a leading, a trick, question. Right away we know that their intent is not to gain some insight into the issue regarding the increasing rates of divorce. They want to trap Jesus into saying something that would put him into more theological hot water. "Is it lawful," they ask, "for a man to divorce his wife?"

Time out: Before we go any further, we need to understand what was going on in first century Palestine. Divorce was fairly easy for Jewish men to obtain. Notice I said "men," not "women." It was a simple matter of writing out a certificate of dismissal and that was that.

One school of rabbis claimed that a man could divorce his wife only if there was unfaithfulness involved. Another school of rabbis taught that a man could divorce his wife for anything that displeased him: if he didn’t find her attractive, if she talked to much, if she burned something when cooking. Human nature being what it is, it is easy to figure out which school of thought would have had the greater following.

Also understand that in their culture, women had extremely limited rights, and practically no possibility of making a living outside of a marriage relationship. So if they were divorced they had no choice but to remarry just to survive.

That is why Jesus tells these men that their divorce practices are so self-centered that it is similar to committing adultery – you force your wife to be with another man, Jesus counters. That is why, says Jesus, that the book of Genesis told them that a man was to leave his family and cling to his wife, so that the woman, who had no opportunity to fend for herself, would not be left destitute, forgotten, or cast aside if something happened to her husband, or if her husband divorced her. She would be living near her family and her father or brothers would be required to support her. But oh, no. They changed things, so that the one with little protection would have even less.

This whole issue is not about sexual morality. It is about justice. The Pharisees wanted to argue about moral legalism but Jesus always sided with those on the outside, with those excluded due to the self-righteousness of the religious folks. And that may be the most important thing for us to remember in our day, with our issues.

The Pharisees’ question was, in essence, "What is allowed?" That is always the human question: "What are the limits?" "What is the least amount I have to do?" "Define for me who is my neighbour so I know who it is I do not have to help." "How often do I have to forgive – 7 times?"

They asked those kinds of questions so they would know when they had done the right thing, when they had done enough, when they had reached the limit of what they needed to do. They asked those kinds of questions so they could feel morally and spiritually superior.

But what Jesus does is challenge that arrogant self-righteousness. As Robert Capon says in his book: "Jesus is zeroing in on the Pharisees’ desire to establish their own righteousness – to be the winners, successful livers of lawful lives – by whittling the law down to the size of their own less-than-successful obedience. But that, Jesus tells them in effect, won’t wash. The law still stands in all its righteous, unflinching obligation. And he goes on to imply what Paul was to say later . . . namely, that if they take their stand on the law they will simply be condemned by the law because no one can ever really keep it." (Capon, Parables of Grace)

If you are counting on your own righteousness, your own "goodness," then please note that God demands perfection. I told you opening this chest was risky, dangerous. It’s going to be the death of us yet. And maybe that is the way it should be, needs to be, if we are ever going to be able to live.

For anybody that starts looking down their noses like the Pharisees did, for anyone that starts saying, "Well, I’ve never been divorced," or "I’ve never done such and such," or, "My kids haven’t done this or that," and so on – if you find yourself saying those sorts of things, then Jesus has some very pointed words for us. As soon as we allow ourselves to think we are morally superior to someone else, we are as guilty as the Pharisees.

Remember the story of the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned to death by a self-righteous crowd? Jesus says, "Whoever is without sin can cast the first stone." That is, it is only that person can look down on others from a self-righteous perspective. Only that person can be judge.

It’s funny. The only person I know that could have picked up a stone that day chose not to. Instead, he offered the woman a word of grace.

Jesus knows there will be brokenness in relationships. He knows that our marriage relationships will see their share of hurt, anger, resentment, jealousy, and sometimes even unfaithfulness. Sometimes our marriages don’t work. Sometimes the problems cannot be resolved. Then we must face the painful truth that maintaining the marriage may be a destructive choice.

It is at that point that we are asked to deal with each other with compassion. No one gets divorced because it’s fun, or easy, or something they set out to do. It happens because something goes wrong, dreadfully wrong, and sometimes we humans cannot make it right. And it is a painful thing. There is much heartache, much anguish, much soul-searching. It is a type of death; a grieving.

The Pharisees should have known better than to tangle with Jesus and try to trap him. Their arrogance, their conceit, traps them instead. Jesus shows them that it is not through their own goodness, through their own moral perfection, that they are saved.

Which means, writes Robert Capon, "that we are saved not by our successes but in and through our failures. He does not care beans about the titles and roles we assign to ourselves in our successes, any more than he cares beans about the names we call ourselves in our failures.

"It is us he saves, not our lives. It is the person he dies for, not the suit of clothes in which people hide from the bare truth about themselves. He does not save you or me as we dress ourselves up at high noon on a good day, he saves us only as we stumble naked and uncombed from lumpy mattress to cold shower after a long hard night – (in other words) as we limp in faith from the bed of our death, through the blood of the cross, to the joy of the resurrection."

In some ways, perhaps, the divorced person has a greater understanding of God’s grace than most do. They’ve experienced a death inside them, or hopes and dreams and promises. They know they’ve failed at something they had promised to uphold in their wedding vows. We don’t have to remind them of that. They know it.

And so they know that they come before God with a bruised, messed-up life. They know they don’t have it all together. And so they experience God’s grace as a gift of new life, of new promise, as a new start. Some of us in our blindness haven’t figured that out yet. We’re still trying too hard to present the perfect life to Christ.

I told you we shouldn’t have opened this chest, this treasure. We don’t have a leg to stand on anymore. We’re no better off than anyone else. There is no distinction. We are all sinners. We are all in need of being saved.

But wait! It gets worse. (Or better.)

Both of the gospel writers of Matthew and Mark follow this question about divorce with the account of the blessing of the little children. As we saw just two weeks ago in one of our texts, children had very little status in the ancient world. They were on par with the household slave. They were seen as losers, in other words.

When the disciples shoo the children away because they think Jesus has more important things to do, Jesus rebukes them for being the same thick-headed, missing-the-point disciples that they have been all along. Life’s losers, he tells them – the last, the least, the dead – are what his plan of salvation is all about. "Let the children come to me. Do not stop them. For it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs."

Jesus’ desire to be with the children is a rare act for Mediterranean men of his day.

They usually had little contact with children, leaving them in the care of women until the child reached puberty. Again, it shows Jesus’ openness, acceptance, inclusiveness of those whom society pushed aside, those, like a woman divorced, who faced being ostracized and cast aside; those, like children, who were considered inferior and not of as much value in God’s eyes as the adult.

Jesus accepts us, in all our failings and disappointments and mediocrity, and takes us in among him, blesses us, even when we don’t deserve it, and maybe I should say, blesses us BECAUSE we do not deserve it.

That is what makes this chest, these Scriptures so important to open. God continuously turns our world upside down. It challenges our assumptions, our way of ordering things, our way of setting status and superiority. And it says that unless we die to it all, unless we come empty-handed, we come not at all.

Jesus is in the business of saving sinners, of offering grace to those who know they have nothing to boast about. Which is the only way it can be, and should be, and is: God saving us in spite of our failures.

[TheRussian]

All of Matthean text could be interpreted as a late first century ‘reader friendly’ version of the gospel of Mark. This included explanations of beginning and ending, as well as clarifications to the questions that were so heavily in debate. Therefore, the common conception that Jesus’ teaching forbids a man and a woman to end a marriage in divorce is, I contend, concluded falsely as demonstrated through the textual, redactional, historical, and contextual study of Matthew 19:1-12. First, through the textual criticism of the Matthean divorce passage, supported by chapter seven of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, Jesus taught that under situations of marital ‘unfaithfulness,’ divorce is not encouraged, but permitted.

Full and complete agreement with this.

[Shawn Cuthill]

Here's Don Welborn's view. I have heard him preach on divorce and remarriage quite convincingly:

http://www.donaldwelborn.com

Neither divorce nor remarriage after divorce is Scriptural in His sight.

Thus it should be manifestly clear to any Bible student that divorce was only allowed for men in Israel (see Duet. 22:13-29 and 24:1-4, Matt. 5:31-32 and 19:3-9). Then, only during betrothal before the one flesh union (Duet. 24:1-4 and Matt. 19:3-9). It must be remembered that the Lord Himself declared "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:5-6). Divorce was allowed to men who were hardhearted (Matt. 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-9). Men who placed more emphasis on the physical than love and the spiritual. Men who did not appreciate God's intended plan. Men who were determined to live according to the flesh.

http://www.donaldwelborn.com/divorce.html

A review of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 will show that only a man in Israel (not a woman) could write "a bill of divorcement." Then only if he had "found some uncleanness in her" (margin: matter of nakedness) could he do so and send her out of his house. The Lord in His commentary of that passage, lets us know that the one reason was fornication. In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus makes it clear that He came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill (or fill up to the fullness). Notice how he does that in Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-37, 38-42, 43-48. He filled up to the fullness the scriptures that the Pharisees brought before him in Matthew 19:3-9. They wanted to know (from Duet. 24:1) if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.

But He began His answer by going back to the beginning (Gen. 1-2) and not to the law of Moses (Deut 22-24). He interprets marriage for us in his answer. It was a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife that constituted marriage. It is at this point that He said (after the woman becomes his wife) they shall be one flesh. In solemn finality the Lord declares "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." After leaving the father and mother and cleaving to his wife and becoming one flesh with her, God declares that the man and his wife are joined together by Himself. Such a statement is final and God gives no one the right to put it asunder (even Moses).

Using Genesis 1-2 and Deuteronomy 22-24, Mathew 1:18-25 and 19:3-9, we learn that the betrothal system was in effect during those days. Our present day "engagement" is different in that two people, when engaged, are not in fact "husband and wife". They are to refrain from sexual intercourse, which is a one-flesh union, until they become husband and wife. In Israel they were actually husband and wife when betrothed BUT did not become one flesh immediately through sexual union (note carefully Deut. 22:23-24 and Matthew 1:18-25). It would be well also to review Jacob's marriage to Rachel in this connection and see that she was committed to him for seven years (then later, seven additional days) before he became one flesh with her. He also stayed in her father's home (see Gen. 29: 1-30 and especially note verses 13-14 and 19).

The Lord had presented God's standard. One woman for one man for a lifetime. He also made it clear that God is immutable (Malachi 3:6) and had planned no change by referring to the "beginning" two different times (Matt. 19:4 and 8 ).

The Pharisees, however, were not satisfied with his reply and once more put him to the test, "Why then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement and put her away?" Jesus made it clear that it was only because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses allowed (suffered) them to do so. Then only if fornication had been committed. Not adultery, as some are presently being taught, but fornication. If a woman had had sexual intercourse prior to betrothal and the husband discovered it during the betrothal, he could as a hard-hearted man, put her away (divorce her). That is the teaching of Deuteronomy 24:1 and the Lord's PERFECT commentary. However, if the woman had intercourse during the betrothal period with someone other than her husband, she was to be stoned to death, along with her paramour (Deut. 22:23-24). She was to have remained a virgin until the "wedding feast" and her husband was to have had her virginity. If someone other than her husband had a sexual relationship with her, such a relationship would have adulterated her marriage union. Death was the penalty not divorce. God demanded death for adultery under the law. The people of Jesus's day understood the law, at least that part, and put the question to him, "but what sayest thou?" (see John 8:3-5). He came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. How beautifully he handled the situation. In pure grace He, the only One on earth who had power to forgive sins, forgave the woman of John 8:3-11. Blessed Savior! He did not deny or refute the law. He could not.

A woman as well as a man was to have been morally pure before marriage as well as during marriage. God does put a premium on morality. A case in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 shows that through the experience of sexual intercourse during the marriage relationship, a man discovered that his wife was not a virgin. If the marriage cloth (a cloth used during the marriage act containing evidence of virginity) could not be "found" she was stoned, not divorced. Surely by now it should be clear from Scripture that death was prescribed for adultery, not divorce as some modern day expositors would have us to believe.

[mpeever]

To my mind, the fatal flaw in Wellborn's argument is here:

It will be well to remember that fornication (Greek Porneia) and adultery (Greek Moikeia) are not only two different words but mean two different things. According to Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, adultery is "sexual intercourse between a married person and another not the spouse." Fornication, however is "voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons." Admittedly, these are English definitions.

After asserting that two Greek words differ, he then appeals to Webster's Dictionary. This is a pretty clear-cut case of argument ad verecundium.

His conclusion may be correct (I don't think so, but I could easily be wrong), but his logic is fatally flawed.

[drewcosten]

(lots of text deleted)

A woman as well as a man was to have been morally pure before marriage as well as during marriage. God does put a premium on morality. A case in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 shows that through the experience of sexual intercourse during the marriage relationship, a man discovered that his wife was not a virgin. If the marriage cloth (a cloth used during the marriage act containing evidence of virginity) could not be "found" she was stoned, not divorced. Surely by now it should be clear from Scripture that death was prescribed for adultery, not divorce as some modern day expositors would have us to believe.

Whether or not Don is correct is irrelevant to Christians today. We are not under Mosaic law in any way. I personally like Don but if he is relying on Mosaic law for Christian doctrine then he is way off (IMHO).

[Shawn Cuthill]

Whether or not Don is correct is irrelevant to Christians today. We are not under Mosaic law in any way. I personally like Don but if he is relying on Mosaic law for Christian doctrine then he is way off (IMHO).

Interesting - so does that include things like not murdering? Do you toss the ten commandments too?
If I take the fence off of a playground that still doesn't mean the kids should run on the road because they have "freedom" Galatians says that the Law is the schoolmaster, the tutor, or teacher that leads us to Christ. Christ is superior, but the law still has inherent value - just not for salvation.

Back to the fence, once the kids realize the intent of the fence, they can see the widsom of staying away from the road. Jesus said he came to fullfill the law, not get rid of it. Also, I don't think Don is actually using the OT for doctrine, but simply using the jewish mindset of the time (they would have been familiar with the OT) to help us interpret what Jesus said.

As for marriage - Drew, how do you read Matthew 19 then? Also, Romans 6 or somewhere talks about how the only way to be free of marriage is death, not divorce. (I really wish I could get into this more but the kids are running around.)

[Anthony]

I'll state right off the bat that while I like Don Welborn, and that no Christian minister has reminded me more of Charlton Heston than him, I do disagree with his article on Divorce & Remarriage.

Interesting - so does that include things like not murdering?

That's a trick question. Like asking, "did you stop beating your wife, yet?" Presence or absence of the Torah Moshe has no bearing on God's holy character and standard. God is greater than His Law. Torah was not given until Sinai... but if we follow (what I am presuming to be) your logic, murder must have been o.k. before then. Even if you're a young-earth creationist (and I hope you are), that's around 2,500 years human beings lived before Sinai... how did they know not to murder without Torah??

Do you toss the ten commandments too?

That depends on what you mean by "toss out." But as far as using them as the "rule of Christian life" (as the phrase is so often used), then yes, most definitely.

If I take the fence off of a playground that still doesn't mean the kids should run on the road because they have "freedom" Galatians says that the Law is the schoolmaster, the tutor, or teacher that leads us to Christ.

Right. But should the kids not play in the road because the fence is there... or is the fence there because the kids shouldn't play in the road? A subtle but important difference, especially in terms of the Christian's relation (or lack thereof) to Torah.

p.s. - Galatians 3:25 reads that "now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

Christ is superior, but the law still has inherent value - just not for salvation.

I think scripture teaches just the opposite, Shawn. 1 Timothy 1:8-9 reads, "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious..." I think Torah is great for pointing out unrighteousness in the unrighteous (i.e. unbelievers), and you have to know you're a sinner to know you need saving. Torah should not, however, be directly applied to the believer seated in the heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 2:6).

Back to the fence, once the kids realize the intent of the fence, they can see the widsom of staying away from the road.

Again, are they staying away from the road because the fence was there, or because the road itself is friggin' dangerous?

Just out of curiosity, do you keep (biblically) Kosher? Do you cleanse yourself every time you leave a Goy city? Do you let Torah dictate the scheduling of your sex life? I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Reason being - the Lord's brother wrote that "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10). Apparently it's an 'all or nothing' thing.

Jesus said he came to fullfill the law, not get rid of it.

Correct. Torah didn't go anywhere. We did.

Also, I don't think Don is actually using the OT for doctrine...

I'd say he is. And on one level, he's right to. Marriage + Divorce are somewhat "transdispensational" issues. Anyone writing/teaching on it should use the whole counsel of God. Welborn directly references Torah to support his doctrine in paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12.

...but simply using the jewish mindset of the time (they would have been familiar with the OT) to help us interpret what Jesus said.

Ehh, he's using his interpretation of Torah to set up a 'possible' 1st century "Jewish mindset," but that doesn't necessarily translate to what was actually being believed, taught, and practiced at that time. In fact, if the "Jewish mindset" of the 1st century were so reflective of Torah's true meaning regarding divorce and remarriage, why would Christ have to reprove and teach on it? There were more things that shaped the Jewish mindset than just Torah (as sad as that may be), and the fact that Welborn uses Torah alone (a codex which was 1,500 years old by the time of Messiah) to build this 1st century "Jewish mindset" illustrates - in my humble opinion - that Welborn was not incredibly concerned with delineating the true Jewish mindset of the 1st century.

But no big deal. That wasn't a goal of his paper, so you can't exactly fault him for that.

As for marriage - Drew, how do you read Matthew 19 then?

(Can't answer for Drew, but) that depends on your historical understanding of the phrases "pasan aitian" (any reason), and "porneia" (immorality) in regards to 1st century teaching on divorce and remarriage amongst the Jews. Particularly, the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

Also, Romans 6 or somewhere talks about how the only way to be free of marriage is death, not divorce. (I really wish I could get into this more but the kids are running around.)

I believe you're referring to Romans 7, because Romans 6 expounds upon living through our identification in Christ.

If you read Romans 7 in its entirety, you will see that Paul's entire argument is pointed at the Christian's relationship to Torah (i.e. 'dead'), and that it has nothing to do with divorce and remarriage. Paul merely brings one aspect of divorce and remarriage up to illustrate a point concerning our death to Torah.


Well, it's late and that's all I've got. I gotta get to bed. God bless you guys.

[drewcosten]

Whether or not Don is correct is irrelevant to Christians today. We are not under Mosaic law in any way. I personally like Don but if he is relying on Mosaic law for Christian doctrine then he is way off (IMHO).

Interesting - so does that include things like not murdering? Do you toss the ten commandments too?
If I take the fence off of a playground that still doesn't mean the kids should run on the road because they have "freedom" Galatians says that the Law is the schoolmaster, the tutor, or teacher that leads us to Christ. Christ is superior, but the law still has inherent value - just not for salvation.

Back to the fence, once the kids realize the intent of the fence, they can see the widsom of staying away from the road. Jesus said he came to fullfill the law, not get rid of it. Also, I don't think Don is actually using the OT for doctrine, but simply using the jewish mindset of the time (they would have been familiar with the OT) to help us interpret what Jesus said.

As for marriage - Drew, how do you read Matthew 19 then? Also, Romans 6 or somewhere talks about how the only way to be free of marriage is death, not divorce. (I really wish I could get into this more but the kids are running around.)

Wow, Anthony did an amazing job of replying to your questions and I am going to say that I agree pretty much entirely with what he said. I also agree with the sermon I posted in the second post above.

[Shawn Cuthill]

Wow, Anthony did an amazing job of replying to your questions and I am going to say that I agree pretty much entirely with what he said.

Ya man, this Anthony guy seems like a good catch. Hopefully he'll fill out his ID soon.

As for my stance, I really haven't evaluated what I think since I met with Welborn back in 99 so forgive me if I don't have all my info. I still believe that marriage is forever, no divorce allowed. I like how Welborn explained that the "marital unfaithfulness" was referring to the time of engagement, not after the couple was actually married. I remember something about Hosea being a good example of that. She was unfaithful (from what I remember) after their marriage but God wanted them to stay together.

We also need to consider the picture of Christ and the church. If the church is unfaithful, does Christ divorce us? No, he tries to win us back over and over like the story in Hosea.

Also, the fact that Hayley and I got our wedding bands tatooed on is a factor

[drewcosten]

As for my stance, I really haven't evaluated what I think since I met with Welborn back in 99 so forgive me if I don't have all my info. I still believe that marriage is forever, no divorce allowed. I like how Welborn explained that the "marital unfaithfulness" was referring to the time of engagement, not after the couple was actually married. I remember something about Hosea being a good example of that. She was unfaithful (from what I remember) after their marriage but God wanted them to stay together.

We also need to consider the picture of Christ and the church. If the church is unfaithful, does Christ divorce us? No, he tries to win us back over and over like the story in Hosea.

Also, the fact that Hayley and I got our wedding bands tatooed on is a factor

I agree that ideally marriage should be forever, unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. I will say that I would never consider applying Mosaic laws to gentiles of any era though, and particularly not to our era.

[mpeever]

Ya man, this Anthony guy seems like a good catch. Hopefully he'll fill out his ID soon.

I'm stoked about having Anthony on board. It's not the same being on a forum without him. Glad you joined in, bro !

As for my stance, I really haven't evaluated what I think since I met with Welborn back in 99 so forgive me if I don't have all my info. I still believe that marriage is forever, no divorce allowed. I like how Welborn explained that the "marital unfaithfulness" was referring to the time of engagement, not after the couple was actually married. I remember something about Hosea being a good example of that. She was unfaithful (from what I remember) after their marriage but God wanted them to stay together.

That's another inconsistency in the Wellborn article above. He repeatedly points out that Christ goes back to the ``beginning'' to establish His doctrine of divorce & remarriage. But then, he insists Christ was referring to a cultural thing (i.e. an extended, tightly binding, legally recognized betrothal period) when referring to ``fornication.'' All in all, it seems the ``plain sense'' (Sorry, Blake!) of the passage refers to divorce following adultery.

I reluctantly came to that conclusion several years ago (maybe '97?), having been raised in the strict ``No divorce, never remarriage'' camp.

I won't even pretend that Darby, Kelly, et al. didn't influence my opinion

We also need to consider the picture of Christ and the church. If the church is unfaithful, does Christ divorce us? No, he tries to win us back over and over like the story in Hosea.

But in context, I don't think the issue is whether we should divorce and remarry, but whether we may.


I think Anthony's synopsis above is accurate and concise. On the other hand, my approval/acceptance is not a very good indicator of the truth.

Also, the fact that Hayley and I got our wedding bands tatooed on is a factor

Don't wear a ring myself. I have a thing about jewelry...

And I should point out too that although I haven't spoken to Wellborn in over 10 years (and no doubt he has no memory of our few conversations---I'm not that memorable a guy), I think he's a good guy, and generally honest and diligent in his Bible study. I think well of him, I just think he's wrong on some stuff.

[Shawn Cuthill]

Welborn is quite the character. He is up this way mid-April for a conference in Tavistock. Hopefully I'll get to say hi to him.I'm assuming everyone knows that his wife Gloria died just over a year ago? I think he got remarried to a lady named Vera.

A friend of mine and myself drove down from Toronto to visit Welborn at his home in Texas back in 99. He sat and taught us for 2 weeks and being only 22 and newly saved we semi-worshipped him. We used to make a W sign with our hands (two peace symbols) and yell "Weeelllllbooooorrnnnn".

I still think he's a great guy, quite consistent in life, doctrine and family. At the dinner table him and gloria would kiss every meal after they gave thanks.

[drewcosten]

Welborn is quite the character. He is up this way mid-April for a conference in Tavistock. Hopefully I'll get to say hi to him.I'm assuming everyone knows that his wife Gloria died just over a year ago? I think he got remarried to a lady named Vera.

I had heard that Gloria had died, though I didn't know he'd remarried.

Like mpeever, I like Don, but I definitely don't agree with everything he says (but then who out there in the Church actually agrees 100% with anybody? ).

[Anthony]

I still believe that marriage is forever, no divorce allowed.

Marriage is forever. Unless it ends.

Actually, marriage is "till death." Not forever.

Obviously divorce has to be "allowed," it's in the Bible. There are provisions for it in Torah. Jeremiah 3:8 and Isaiah 50:1 even refer to God Himself *divorcing* Israel(!). If it were as simple a matter as "no divorce allowed," don't you think the Bible would either a) not even bring the matter up, or b) simply state "Thou shalt love thy wife - no divorce allowed"? What we do find, however, is some intricate writing on the subject. Writing we'd better pay sharp attention to, in order to advise our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

I like how Welborn explained that the "marital unfaithfulness" was referring to the time of engagement, not after the couple was actually married.

Yeah... I like those textual gymnastics, too. His point there is wholly dependant upon porneia only meaning "fornication." Which it doesn't. As Peev pointed out above, he's forcing the straitjacket of an English definition of a word, found in only 3 translations (KJV, ASV, Darby), onto the original Greek. That's a big no-no in interpreting anything between any languages.

We also need to consider the picture of Christ and the church. If the church is unfaithful, does Christ divorce us? No...

That's true, Shawn. But we also don't have to live in fear that Christ is out having an affair on us. Or that He'll abandon us for a younger, prettier bride. Or that He'll throw us down the stairs and blacken our eyes in a drunken rage. Praise God we have such a wonderful Bridegroom. Human spouses, however, aren't always so perfect. I believe, though God hates divorce, He still makes provision for it in those extreme, terribly unfortunate circumstances.

Also, the fact that Hayley and I got our wedding bands tatooed on is a factor

Sinner...