|
"No need to dig deeper. Christ defines 'put away' as divorce by referring the Pharisees to Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1, 2) in answer to their question (Matthew 19:7)." "Strong’s Concordance gives one definition with the word divorce present and that's all that's needed. Until you can give evidence from the Bible of anyone divorcing without the writing of divorcement, then you have no argument, just fables (1 Timothy 1:4)." [Where Jesus referred the Pharisees to Moses was actually Mark 10:3 - "What did Moses command you?" RW]
The man represents a multitude who have been deceived and are confused, resulting in such comments that do not make sense. (I have revised the original comment for the sake of clarity.) This man claimed that when Christ responded to a question by referring to what Moses had written (Mark 10:3), He was defining apoluo as divorce but gave no explanation that would help one to see it that way. To the contrary, Jesus was letting GOD define divorce, which He had done by inspiring Moses to write about it.
To accomplish a divorce there were/are three essential parts: 1) write the bill of divorcement; 2) put it in her hand; and 3) send her out of the house (apoluo is the Greek equivalent). Now, what is difficult about this definition? How could it be disobeyed? What did Moses say about the freedom of the woman who received the certificate? Why do you think Christ condemned the men for committing adultery against their women (Mark 10:11)? What is involved in obeying the command and how could one disobey? One’s answers to these questions can make it apparent as to whether someone is honest or merely a defender of human tradition.
More evidence of confusion from the man who sought to defend his tradition is seen by his demanding evidence of someone's divorcing without the writing of divorcement before he would see the facts as anything but fables. The whole controversy came about because men were not obeying Moses, which would free the woman who was divorced as God prescribed. By not obeying Moses there was no divorce.
That men in various parts of the world have "divorced" their wives (according to their definition of divorce) is not questioned. It was and is today common. But they did not obey Moses (God) and committed adultery against their wife (Mark 10:11). Why was their action such a great sin? Was it because they divorced her? No, divorcing (destroying the covenant) may have been sinful, but it was not "adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). The great sin was in NOT divorcing her according to God's command, which meant if the woman should marry, or take up with another man, she would be guilty of adultery, which could get her the death penalty. She would have been happy to have been divorced scripturally so she could "go and be another man's wife."
Now, what this man evidently meant (his comment was convoluted) is that he wanted to see evidence from the Bible of a case when apoluo (putting away) ended a marriage. Well, there are two cases, but only in one instance did the hearer take the proper course of action. First, a man had his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1). This was incest (not lawful or legal), and all that the man needed to do was separate and end the relationship, which the record tells us he did. The other example in the New Testament is Herod, who married his brother's wife (Matt 14:4). The problem was not that he married any divorced woman. The problem was that Jewish law forbade a man to marry his brother's wife while the brother lived (Lev. 18:16, 20:21; Deut. 25:7).
I asked the man, "Do you believe mere separation is divorce?" Separations are common, even among Christians. Paul spoke of such, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. In this case, it was the woman who left, or departed. Because mere "leaving" (separation) is what is under consideration and since Paul speaks of the need to be "reconciled," and remain "single" (as she is), it is apparent that Paul was not dealing with divorce in this situation. But it was/is considered to be divorce by: 1) people who are ignorant of God's definition of divorce; 2) people who do not respect God's law; 3) people who don’t care about God's law; and 4) people who are determined to defend the idea that Jesus taught, contrary to Moses' teachings, that a person actually divorced (according to GOD'S definition) has no right to marry.
The man demanded scripture to answer his questions but set forth Strong's Concordance as being the authority to settle the matter. Previously, I asked him to look at the first definitions that Strong (as well as Thayer) gives for apoluo. At the end Thayer says, "used of divorce." Now what does this prove? It proves only that Thayer was fully aware that some have considered separation to be divorce. Indeed, some Greek speaking people considered apoluo (put away, send away, send, repudiate, etc.) to be divorce.
The fact that a dictionary lists a definition is not proof that it is accurate. It just means that's how people use it. They simply report how people use words. Like "I could care less" is listed as meaning "I couldn't care less." It doesn't mean that, of course, but people use it to mean that, so the dictionary simply reports that. And that's what Thayer, and other biblical language scholar did. For further study of this important observation, click on the following link: https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-definition/?fbclid=IwAR0amxOZ01yYt5R1eFgbJxDjoRbdBMspBunokzRUcBiA5iOlNQLFfaK8Arw
All that matters is God's definition of divorce, and He was very clear, as we have seen from Deuteronomy 24:1, 2. But God made it even clearer by using His own divorce to stress the importance of not just sending away, resulting in mere separation, but by giving the bill of divorcement, which would allow another marriage (Jer. 3:8). Israel, any who would return to God, is now married to Christ and is now His bride, who are the saved (Romans 7:1, 4; Acts 2:47).
Clink on the link below to see articles on virtually every aspect of the marriage and divorce issue: https://www.totalhealth.bz/marriage-and-divorce.htm
|
