Why Is Divorce & New Marriage Not Adultery?

[Gray]

I have not really found a textual critic, i.e. one who has a degree in Greek and Hebrew and is an expert in textual criticism, but I have found several people on the internet that have come to similar conclusions. I do not think that  "it's a creative reinterpretation" but rather seems to have support from others. And that interpretation is more in line with Church policies.

 

I remember something about some official part of LDS canon or other which states that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."  

I think that the culture and religious beliefs of the time had some influence on the translations of those scriptures (as well as all other parts of the Bible). It certainly has something to do with the way we interpret what we read here and now.

 

Glenn

 

It's not an interpretation that works with the substance of what Jesus is quoted as saying. But, as we have no real idea what the historical Jesus might have said on the matter, I think it's a reasonable reinterpretation of those passages. Keeping in mind that it's probably not consistent with authorial intent. 

[danielwoods]

If Jesus is just saying, "it's okay to get divorced, just make sure it's official first" then that renders his entirely commentary null. The format of his teaching is "Moses taught you X, but I say, do Y. Y is higher than X" What you say makes Jesus' teaching entirely nonsensical and pointless. 

 

Do you know of any textual critic who agrees with your reading?

 

It's an interesting question, and one that will take a bit to study out. This thread may be long dead when I do find something. One thing I have found is that the text alone isn't enough. For example, why were the Pharisees asking this question? What was the culture and/or religious reason for doing so? 

 

If what the guy who wrote what I linked to before is correct, it's based on what was taught in their cultural context at the time. I agree with you that more digging  and verification is needed. 

[danielwoods]

The secret is not to be condemned.

 

Which avoids the question. You stated that it's more difficult to follow the law of the Gospel, than the law of Moses. 

 

Well, contained in the Gospel is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. So, how is it more difficult again? 

[The Nehor]

Which avoids the question. You stated that it's more difficult to follow the law of the Gospel, than the law of Moses. 

 

Well, contained in the Gospel is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. So, how is it more difficult again? 

 

The Law of Moses in many instances strictly delineated your duties. Some were left up to interpretation but a lot were not.

 

Now we have the law of the gospel where we define a lot of those duties.

 

How should I personally help the poor?

How much time should I put into my calling?

How should I hallow my Sabbath?

 

I could go on forever. To some this is liberating but it does take more effort at least mentally and usually physically. It may be more joyous but it takes more effort.

 

Unfortunately some seem to go neurotic thinking they are failing so for them it must be harder full stop.

[danielwoods]

The Law of Moses in many instances strictly delineated your duties. Some were left up to interpretation but a lot were not.

 

Now we have the law of the gospel where we define a lot of those duties.

 

How should I personally help the poor?

How much time should I put into my calling?

How should I hallow my Sabbath?

 

I could go on forever. To some this is liberating but it does take more effort at least mentally and usually physically. It may be more joyous but it takes more effort.

 

Unfortunately some seem to go neurotic thinking they are failing so for them it must be harder full stop.

 

And even in light of all these things, there is still no condemnation to those who are in Christ, even for those who fail. 

 

As Jesus said, he didn't come into the world to condemn the world.

[The Nehor]

And even in light of all these things, there is still no condemnation to those who are in Christ, even for those who fail. 

 

As Jesus said, he didn't come into the world to condemn the world.

Yeah, the parable of the sheep and the goats was just Jesus joking around.

[3DOP]

Apologies, I was just going off my understanding of the Catholic "declaration of nullity", such as described here. It was an illustration of the contrast between how Mormons have learned to deal with the reality of "divorce" in light of the scriptural teachings against it (i.e. ignoring those teachings) compared with a religion which takes those teachings very seriously but also must deal with the reality of "divorce" (i.e. by making the argument that the marriage was never valid in the eyes of the Church in the first place, and thus it is annulled instead of "divorced"). 

 

The point being that even if the LDS Church decided today that this was a teaching of Jesus that we were going to start adhering to 100%, there would still need to be some process put in place for members to get divorced and remarried and remain in good standing in the Church.  Whether that process was similar to the Catholic "annulment" or some new and creative method were adopted, it would need to be done.

 

Sheesh Cinepro...I was hoping you wouldn't see it. I get so melodramatic. Thank you for your gracious acceptance of my "fraternal correction". Your apologies? No. My apologies. I overreacted. Calumny? No. It isn't just you. Everybody thinks that Catholic annulment is merely divorce.

 

That said...I think it might be timely for me to talk a little about the Sacrament. There is going to be news this Fall (Synod on the Family, more like Synod from the Devil if you ask me) that Mormons will be talking about. A handful of Catholics will object. I will be among them. People will be saying that the Catholics have changed their teaching on Holy Matrimony.

 

You guys don't accept anybody else's baptisms. Are we supposed to accept everybody else's weddings? We teach that marriage is a Sacrament. So somebody is coerced into "marrying" somebody. Its just like baptism! You can't be coerced into baptism or marriage. Coercion invalidates the sacrament. Maybe this isn't so common anymore, but if you are pressured into marrying, and that is why you do it, you're not married, according to Catholic teaching. You don't need a divorce. You were never even married. There is a juridical process that involves an analysis of the events and if it turns out you were coerced, you are eligible for an annulment. A decree from the Church which says that although you went through some ceremony of marriage, it was non-sacramental. 

 

If you are eligible for an annulment you are eligible for marriage. Why? Because according to Catholic Tradition, you may have even made babies, but you didn't enjoy the graces of sacramental marriage. But if you married somebody who was committed to Catholic moral doctrine and they suddenly started beating on you, that is really a tough thing. I don't know if I believe it has ever happened. Like there is this guy who loves God, and accepts that the first reason for marriage is the propagation of children, and then all of a sudden he starts beating you? Okay. There was no way you could have known that this would happen. You aren't eligible for annulment because when you got married when he was like a good Catholic. But he became a nut...a mean nut at that. I admit that it isn't impossible. Brain tumors or mental fatigue or other kinds of emotional setback can trigger unexpected bad behaviours. This is the worst case scenario of all time. For Heaven's sake, as a faithful Catholic, divorce the screwball. If he keeps living, you can't remarry, but you are eligible for every other sacramental privilege that you would otherwise have.  

 

As far as divorce goes...no problem. I know many faithful Catholics who have been divorced. That doesn't give them the freedom to remarry somebody else while their spouse still lives.

 

I think that is what separates us. Correct me if I am wrong. but Mormons tend to think that everybody needs to be married. Marriage is best according to Mormonism. We Catholics only think marriage is great. It is even raised to the level of a Sacrament when it is valid, giving graces to their spouses that will help them to attain eternal life. But to refrain from marriage is certainly better. Virginity is best. Virginity has always been honored, including after a non-sacramental marriage. So anyway...divorce is fine for Catholics, but to keep things on point with the opening post...the problem isn't divorce. Everybody, including Catholics, accept divorce. If you make the mistake of validly marrying someone who is a screwball, get divorced. But you can only "remarry", if you were once married, after the spouse is dead.

 

Here is the lesson. Be careful who you marry. Find out what they think about God and the sacraments and especially about the duties and purpose of Holy Matrimony. There are always remedies for mistakes. There are even remedies for when the spouse becomes unpredictably crazy. But not every remedy restores everything to a state as though nothing happened. The Church stops short there. Those who marry someone who appeared to be faithful Catholics who become unpredictably crazy are in a spot where they can only divorce...and remain single.

 

Anyway..."inventing annulments". I think that the need preceded the invention. Not every "marriage" is sacramentally valid. (Mormons should be able to relate. Why would every "marriage" be valid but only Mormons can baptize?) Maybe a lot of wife beaters weren't all that holy before the marriage? That is why annulments are so important and so different from divorce. The concept of annulment, of invalid marriage allows the Church to tell some poor girl or guy that they made a bonehead move and can really start all over with a clear conscience.  

Edited September 16, 2015 by 3DOP

[danielwoods]

If Jesus is just saying, "it's okay to get divorced, just make sure it's official first" then that renders his entirely commentary null. The format of his teaching is "Moses taught you X, but I say, do Y. Y is higher than X" What you say makes Jesus' teaching entirely nonsensical and pointless. 

 

Do you know of any textual critic who agrees with your reading?

 

I found this below, which I understand is from his book, http://www.amazon.com/Divorcé-Message-Hope-Healing-Forgiveness/dp/1933148187

It confirms my suspicion that a textual critic wouldn't be enough to get to the bottom of this issue. An understanding of the culture and history is also necessary. 

 

 

"Understanding the social, cultural, historical, and legal context of any passge, helps us understand it better.  This is especially true of the "divorce" passages in the Gospels.  And it helps to take each passage individually, instead of lumping them together.  For example, though Mt. 19 and Mark 10 are similar passages, likely recording the same event, the two passages are radically different and have a significantly different message because Matthew was writing to the Jews and challenging the doctrine and attitude of the Pharisees; whereas Mark was likely writing to the Romans and seeking to convey the teachings of Jesus to apply to Roman culture and law.  Matthew records in detail Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees but Mark records in more detail Jesus' discussion with the disciples.

In Mt.19, the Pharisees tried to embroil Jesus in the debate concerning "No-fault" (any-matter, put away quietly) divorce procedures promoted by the Hillelites, as opposed to the fault-based divorce proceedings promoted by the Shammaites.  Jesus skirts the issue and points them back to the divine ideal of marriage - a monogomous life-long loving devoted union of a man and woman.  I get the feel Jesus was pointing to this implying that the Pharisees were arguing over no-fault divorce proceedings when instead they should be helping people have lasting loving marriages.  Anyhow, the Pharisees come back, pressing the issue, asking; Well, then why did Moses command us to write a bill of divorce and send away our wives?  Again, trying to embroil Jesus in the no-fault debase that is based on the exact wording of Moses' legal enactment of the bill of divorce. 

Jesus, though, instead of getting into that debate, answers their question by pointing them back to the purpose of the bill of divorce, why God inspired Moses to legislatively enact the bill of divorce.  It was to mitigate the oppression and abuse of women.  Throughout the ancient near-east, even today, women were considered little more than property.  Once a man married a woman, she was legally his from then on whether he cared for her or not.  He could expell her from the home, deprive her of any care, thus consigning her to a life of adultery, even prostitution, just to stay alive. And the woman still belonged to the man.  It was an evil, common, cultural practice throughout the cultures of the ancient near-east.

Israel was to be different from her neighboring cultures/countries!  In Israel, if a man expelled his wife, he was to give her a bill of divorce to free her legally to marry another man - thus stopping the practice of a man expelling his wife causing her to commit adultery and any man that marries her committing adultery.  Sadly, though the Pharisees argued over the way a man must give the bill of divorce and whether or not he had to publicly declare his reasons for the divorce, they failed to emphasize the spirit of the Law, it's purpose, and build upon that!  They did not force men to give a bill of divorce, and thus men could continue to expell wives and not give them a bill of divorce. 

This, I believe, is what God was condeming again in Mal.  where He says "I hate 'putting away'"! It was a sadistic evil mean way to treat the wife of one's youth.  And the reason a man would expell, put away his wife without giving her a bill of divorce was because if he put her away he had to pay her the dowry, which was the bride-price plus her family inheritance, a considerable sum of money, likely equivalent to 7-10 years salary.  By expelling a wife, not giving her a bill of divorce, the man retained the dowry for himself.  And in the culture of that day, the expelled wife had "NO" legal recourse to sue for divorce or support.  It was an evil practice that the Pharisees didn't do anything about, completely ignoring the reason God inspired Moses to legislatively enact the bill of divorce!

The conversation certainly didn't go the way the Pharisees wanted, and they couldn't trap Jesus.  Instead, he shamed them for taking the Law of God and nullifying it through their traditions, their oral commentary on the Law that failed to embrace the Spirit of the Law and understanding the issues they addressed.  Of course, if the couple was just living together and their was not marriage covenant (except for fornication) then there is no need for a bill of divorce.

Mark skips over all this wrangling with the Pharisees and focuses on what Jesus later says to disciples.  In Roman law a man could divorce his wife simply by leaving and a woman could divorce her husband simply by leaving; they had no "bill of divorce".  And, as is evident in the Greek text, one viable (likely imo) interpretation, Jesus says to the disciples that "If a man puts away his wife 'in order to" marry another, then he commits adultery. And if a woman puts away her husband 'in order to' marry another man, she commits adultery."

In other words, Mark records Jesus addressing the motive behind divorce.  If the person, whether male or female, divorces his/her spouse so that he/she can marry someone else, then he/she is committing adultery!  He/she is sinning against the marriage covenant.  It is not the remarriage that is the problem, but it is the reason for the divorce.  In fact, even though a person doesn't remarry, if he/she divorces for selfish reasons, he/she is committing adultery, sinning against their marriage covenant!

I cover all this in detail, and much more, in my book, "God is a Divorce' Too!".  And an excellent book that covers the historical and cultural context of these passages is "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" by Dr. Instone-Brewer. 

Remarriage after divorce is not a sin.  Even divorce in itself is not a sin, but is dependant upon the reason for the divorce and the attitude of the heart.  Divorce though is the result of sin.  Divorce is like death; it is not a sin in itself, but murder certainly is!"

 

The above taken from:

http://tentmaker.org/forum/christian-life/the-bible-says-divorce-and-remarriage-is-not-adultery/

[Stargazer]

No, adultery is sex with someone other than your spouse. Sex with someone you're not married to is fornication. It's clear that Jesus didn't recognize the validity of divorce, and so taking on another spouse was regarded as adultery, since the first marriage was still in place in his eyes. Which really means that polygamy would not be allowed under this viewpoint.

So, is adultery worse than fornication? If a married man has sex with someone married to someone else that is adultery but if she isn't married to anyone that's fornication? Or is she fornicating, and he's adultering? How many words for "snow" are there in Eskimo? Did you know that the ancient Hawaiians had different terms for different forms of adultery? Criminy, if you're not married to someone, don't have sex with them. End of story.

Polygamy was never adultery in ancient Israel. A man could be married to multiple wives, but a woman could only be married to one man, that's why Jesus said that putting away the wife would cause her to commit adultery, but said nothing about the man. Are you trying to tell me that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joseph ben Israel, and huge mobs of men with multiple wives that were mentioned in the Old Testament as faithful Israelites were all committing adultery because of having more than one wife?

Edited September 17, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

It makes sense because we want to believe it. Pretty much a textbook definition of "wresting the scriptures".

For whatever reason the Lord currently allows divorce. Probably for the same reason he took away consecration. I still think many people will face some hard questions about their divorces in this life.

I don't disagree, but sometimes I think that when we look at an English translation of a scripture originally written in Koine Greek or Aramaic, we need to understand the cultural milieu and the prevalent idioms behind the original words, which the English cannot give because it doesn't share the background.

When Jesus said to sell your cloak and buy a sword, do you interpret that to mean that Christians should all carry swords? I don't have a sword, so am I being disobedient? Let's all be as literal as possible.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

I don't disagree, but sometimes I think that when we look at an English translation of a scripture originally written in Koine Greek or Aramaic, we need to understand the cultural milieu and the prevalent idioms behind the original words, which the English cannot give because it doesn't share the background.

When Jesus said to sell your cloak and buy a sword, do you interpret that to mean that Christians should all carry swords? I don't have a sword, so am I being disobedient? Let's all be as literal as possible.

 

Some of the instructions are clearly not universal. The sell your cloak and buy a sword instruction is one such command. For the same reason we do not try to force the Word of Wisdom on Jesus or his apostles. The divorce law given to Moses was similar. Jesus laid out the law but because of our sins he allows exceptions.

[Stargazer]

Some of the instructions are clearly not universal. The sell your cloak and buy a sword instruction is one such command. For the same reason we do not try to force the Word of Wisdom on Jesus or his apostles. The divorce law given to Moses was similar. Jesus laid out the law but because of our sins he allows exceptions.

 

Here you've made some interesting selections.  A la carte.  The scripture clearly says "buy a sword".  It's meanwhile illogical to force the WoW on people 2,000 years dead. 

 

Other things which we obviously need to change according to the New Testament:

 

• Paul forbids women speaking in church, which we ignore
• Paul says its shameful for a man to wear long hair -- go talk to Porter Rockwell about that, I dare ya!

Just to name two more.  OK, wise guy, what eisegesis do you have to wiggle out of these two? 

[The Nehor]

Here you've made some interesting selections.  A la carte.  The scripture clearly says "buy a sword".  It's meanwhile illogical to force the WoW on people 2,000 years dead. 

 

Other things which we obviously need to change according to the New Testament:

 

• Paul forbids women speaking in church, which we ignore
• Paul says its shameful for a man to wear long hair -- go talk to Porter Rockwell about that, I dare ya!

Just to name two more.  OK, wise guy, what eisegesis do you have to wiggle out of these two? 

 

To follow that scripture I just ignored women when they spoke in church so I got the same effect. Then I realized I was sexist and stopped doing that. Now I ignore everybody.

Edited September 17, 2015 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

To follow that scripture I just ignored women when they spoke in church so I got the same effect. Then I realized I was sexist and stopped doing that. Now I ignore everybody.

 

Now you're cookin'!  At least stay awake so it isn't obvious.  Don't be like me, claiming to be just checking my eyelids for holes.

[williamsmith]

As someone who was faithfully married, loving, dedicated, etc. truly believe in and strive to follow the Gospel, and then divorced for no just cause, I understand entirely why divorce is considered adultery.

 

It goes further than spiritual also, but physical.  The act of intimacy shares bodily fluids, but when children come involved, the blood the baby and mother shared which contains the fathers DNA etc. flows through the mother, but not only that, some remains in the mother forever after the child is born.

 

Thus, when God said "one flesh", he was meaning it literally, not just spiritually.

Those who are more sensitive to the spiritual and physical of family and the eternity's can be greatly effected by the betrayal of a spouse, at least an unjust one, because they know, feel and see the consequences, the spiritual and physical death of God's Glory in man.

[williamsmith]

Here you've made some interesting selections.  A la carte.  The scripture clearly says "buy a sword".  It's meanwhile illogical to force the WoW on people 2,000 years dead. 

 

Other things which we obviously need to change according to the New Testament:

 

• Paul forbids women speaking in church, which we ignore
• Paul says its shameful for a man to wear long hair -- go talk to Porter Rockwell about that, I dare ya!

Just to name two more.  OK, wise guy, what eisegesis do you have to wiggle out of these two? 

 

Remember, personal opinions of Apostles and Prophets do not always equal the law and truths of God, or meant for His Church and people.

When we read the Bible, we see all kinds of imperfection with the Prophets and Apostles (well, LDS do, because we read for what things say, not some fantasy of infalibility, false prophet evangelical/protestant mumbo jumbo that would in fact disqualify near every Prophet or Apostle of the Bible they way they believe it).

Edited September 17, 2015 by williamsmith

[Calm]

, the blood the baby and mother shared which contains the fathers DNA etc. flows through the mother, but not only that, some remains in the mother forever after the child is born.

Mother and baby do not share blood.

And even if they did, blood cells have a life span of 120 days more or less. Plus if Dad is the wrong blood type, Mom's antibodies would kill them off.

Scientifically impossible therefore.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Calm

[danielwoods]

As someone who was faithfully married, loving, dedicated, etc. truly believe in and strive to follow the Gospel, and then divorced for no just cause, I understand entirely why divorce is considered adultery.

 

It goes further than spiritual also, but physical.  The act of intimacy shares bodily fluids, but when children come involved, the blood the baby and mother shared which contains the fathers DNA etc. flows through the mother, but not only that, some remains in the mother forever after the child is born.

 

Thus, when God said "one flesh", he was meaning it literally, not just spiritually.

Those who are more sensitive to the spiritual and physical of family and the eternity's can be greatly effected by the betrayal of a spouse, at least an unjust one, because they know, feel and see the consequences, the spiritual and physical death of God's Glory in man.

 

There is all kinds of hardships in this life, but thanks be to God for his power and grace, he has set us free. There is now, therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ. 

[Glenn101]

I can find several people on the internet who believe the Earth is flat or that the abolition of slavery is where the United States started going wrong.

   They were people who actually looked at the underlying Hebrew and Greek wording that produced the translations. Of course most of the Christian sites agree with you, using only the language of the New Testament to make their points.

 

And in another post you said "To follow that scripture I just ignored women when they spoke in church so I got the same effect. Then I realized I was sexist and stopped doing that. Now I ignore everybody."

 

So why are you making an exception and not ignoring me? After all ignorance is bliss, or so I was told.

 

 

Glenn

Edited September 17, 2015 by Glenn101

[Stargazer]

Remember, personal opinions of Apostles and Prophets do not always equal the law and truths of God, or meant for His Church and people.

When we read the Bible, we see all kinds of imperfection with the Prophets and Apostles (well, LDS do, because we read for what things say, not some fantasy of infalibility, false prophet evangelical/protestant mumbo jumbo that would in fact disqualify near every Prophet or Apostle of the Bible they way they believe it).

 

Yes, I know that, and I believe Paul was speaking his opinion in those cases, but I thought a literal reading of one passage should be met by a literal reading of another.

[Gray]

   They were people who actually looked at the underlying Hebrew and Greek wording that produced the translations. Of course most of the Christian sites agree with you, using only the language of the New Testament to make their points.

 

And in another post you said "To follow that scripture I just ignored women when they spoke in church so I got the same effect. Then I realized I was sexist and stopped doing that. Now I ignore everybody."

 

So why are you making an exception and not ignoring me? After all ignorance is bliss, or so I was told.

 

 

Glenn

 

The Greek wording doesn't really alter the meaning of the English text.