Quaint, yes. Legally binding, no.
Matthew 22:23-30. Not an issue.
I have two questions that I wonder if anyone could answer.
First, in the passages from Matthew that MEBuckner posts, Jesus refers to “marital unfaithfulness” as the basis for divorce; otherwise, a subsequent marriage would be “adultery.” Is there any significance to the different terms used? Is “marital unfaithfulness” a broader term than “adultery” or are they interchangeable? Any idea what the original text reads? The reason I ask is that I wonder if “marital unfaithfulness” can be read more broadly than adultery, supporting a broader view of the basis for divorce than simple sexual infidelity.
Second, what where the rules governing divorce at that time under Jewish law, which is what I assume Jesus is referring to? Was it a unilateral action by the husband, or was it akin to modern divorce, where either party had to get the approval of a court? A legal concept has to be understood in its context, and I wonder if these statements can be seen as a comment on a power imbalance between the husband and the wife.
It’s worth noting that the original texts that formed the Bible were written in Greek, and that it’s a good bet that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, so we have one layer of potential translation error in there already.
The original word in Matthew 19:9 transliterates as “porneia”; my Classical Greek dictionary defines that as “fornication; idolatry”. I don’t have a New Testament Greek reference, and the language did evolve between those time periods; however, I suspect that this may provide useful targeting information for interpretation.
The word used for adultery transliterates as “moikhatai”; I think this is the middle voice form of “moikheuo” – third person middle voice verbs end in -etai, and that’s not much of a vowel shift for period or verb stem effects. (For the grammar-curious, “middle voice” is another form like “active voice” or “passive voice”; where active voice would be “he does it” and passive “it is done by him”, middle voice generally means “he does it for his own purposes”. There are exceptions, but the vagaries of Classical Greek grammar are probably far afield of this topic, and that’s enough for a loose translation.) It’s possible that the active verb for “to commit adultery” was lost between the Classical Greek period and the New Testament Greek period, leaving only “to commit adultery for one’s own gratification”, the middle voice form, so it’s possible that the nuance that might be expressed in choosing middle over active is entirely illusory. It’s also entirely possible that I’m talking out my ear.
Disclaimer: I am not a New Testament Greek scholar. I’m not even really a Classical Greek scholar. I just play one on the internet.
Cut her some slack. She had to use her powers to help defeat Magneto.
Does anyone know what Jack Chick says about divorce? I’d check it out myself, but I’m a sensitive guy. I deal with murderers and thieves much more readily than I deal with looking at Chick tracts.
I’ll try to get the above answered in GQ
There is more to the debate about divorce and remarriage than simply the verses already cited.
Apparently the prohibition against divorce and remarriage is not across the board.
My interpretation is that divorce is a bad thing, but sometimes it is a necessary evil.
Obviously everyone thinks their own divorce is justified, and it is not my place to judge whether it is or not.
Regards,
Shodan
Ok, here’s what I think:
Yes, divorce is bad. Divorce for any reason other than adultery is sin, and remarriage after any divorce for other than adultery is in itself adultery.
Translation: Don’t get divorced unless your spouse has cheated on you. Regarding abuse - I believe that if you’re able to stay in the marriage and tolerate the abuse, living your life as an example to your abusive spouse, then you should. If not, there are, as Jesus said himself, times when obeying the letter of the command can be contrary to the spirit of the command. This, I believe, is one of those circumstances.
Jesus said that divorce is, as Shodan said, sometimes a necessary evil. That God did not ever intend for marriages to be broken, but that divorce was given as a concession to the hardness of heart and sinfulness of mankind:
Note that Jesus says here the same thing that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7 - that if you are able to, it is good to forego marriage and dedicate yourself to God and to His kingdom, but that not many are able to do this, and it’s a suggestion, not a command. Here’s more relevant writing on marriage by Paul:
So the Bible is pretty clear that even though divorce is bad, there are circumstances that warrant it (though it should never be undertaken lightly), and also that following divorce for other than adultery (though I’m not sure on this one. The text seems to say that remarriage after a divorce for adultery is permitted, but there’s a pretty strong statement made against divorce at all), you must remain unmarried.
HOWEVER…
Sin can be forgiven. All sin. Any sin. Even adultery committed by remarriage after a divorce for unlawful reasons (adultery). And it is even more wrong to compound your sin by dissolving a second marriage because of the first one. So if some person has been married and divorced several times, then he or she has committed sin in doing it. But to divorce their current spouse, or to refuse to perform as wife or husband (remain celibate) is heaping sin on top of sin, and making it even worse. You can’t dishonor your current marriage in order to make up for past wrongs.
The only way that celibacy inside marriage is right is by mutual consent, and for the cause of worshipping and paying honor to God.
Thank you, Joe for your thoughtful response. But I must admit I still do not see how you get from the biblical quotes to this:
How is the sin of adultery not perpetuated on a regular basis, if the individuals in the subsequent marriages continue to have sexual relationships?
cjhoworth, I agree with you completely (and not for the first time). The more I read your posts, the more I’m convinced that I would want to marry you.
SIZE=1]Except, you see, I’m already married…[/SIZE]
Nice try, J_C. Too bad what you’ve quoted above has absolustely nothing to do with adultery. Jesus did not define circumstances. He defined one circumstance. Y’all have been beating folks upside the head with a literalist view of scripture and when it turns out to not be so fun for yourselves, you get rather creative in no longer being a literalist.
Actually, Monty, Jesus did define circumstances.
Apparently there are people to whom the restrictions on divorce do not apply - those who cannot accept His word on the subject. If you are one of those people, or in those circumstances, wherein you cannot follow the strict teaching, Jesus gives an out.
Or at least, so I would expect a literalist to argue.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting question, but I don’t see the point. How does dissolving a subsequent marriage make up for the wrong in leaving a previous one? Once you’ve taken vows, you’re bound by them. The fact that you broke earlier vows doesn’t mean that it’s ok to break more of them.
Monty, nice try as well. But I’ve never said I’m a literalist. That’s what you all have decided. And of course if that’s what you says, then them must be the facts, right? Give me a break.
Joe: Good answer. I see nothing to disagree with in it.
On the Pizza Parlor, I had this to say (to a mutual friend, as it happens) on the subject:
I’d be very interested in your and others’ reactions to that.
My reaction? Sounds pretty similar to what I said. I think we finally found a subject where we agree. How about that? haha
Actually, Shodan, the Big Guy defined the one circumstance in which a (literalist) believer could initiate divorce. Paul defined the other circumstances in which the believer could accept it. Not the same thing at all.
J_C: You hedge badly.
Ok, now I understand how you can reason thus on the topic of divorce and remarriage. And that is not meant to be a slur.
But I still am interested in hearing how a biblical literalist could justify divorce and remarriage in a setting where there was no adultery in the initial marriage.
Joe, you said about being able to stand abuse-and that person should stay in a marriage?
How could one “stand” for abuse?
I guess I’m not sure which part of my reasoning you’re unclear on. Can you elaborate a bit, and I’ll try to give a more clear answer? While I don’t think every word in the bible is meant to be taken absolutely literally (there are, as Polycarp said when summarizing my thoughts, things that are obviously poetic and things that are obviously metaphorical) I believe those parts that are in plain language generally mean what they say.