Here are the questions from the divorce thread pertaining specifically to divorce and church leadership:

Can a man who was divorced and married to another before he became a christian preach or be an elder?

Can a man who was divorced, if the divorce came after he became a believer as a result of his spouse leaving him, hold a church office? Are they accountable for their spouse's sin? Regardless of how dynamic of an abiding faith he may be otherwise, how much he may have to contribute to the congregation spiritually?

Can divorced persons ever re-marry?

Can the preacher ever marry a divorced person to another?

Does "husband of but one wife" apply to divorce, or to polygamy?

What are your views?

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001

Answers

John,

Let me take a stab at these questions and let's see what the "Collective" here has to say.

First, let me start off by saying that I believe divorce to be a sin - as it "puts asunder" what God has joined. Therefore, it shares the same penalty as murder and as "telling a little white lie" - no better & no worse. Fortunately, the blood of Christ covers all sins; therefore divorce IS NOT the unforgiveable sin that some make it out to be. But also, like all sin, it should be confronted when necessary and avoided if AT ALL possible.

As I answer the questions, keep in mind what I consider to be acceptable reasons for divorce in the first place. Jesus said that infidelity was a valid reason....I accept that. I also consider abuse to be a valid reason, as that is why Moses permitted divorce in the Old Testament. I cannot off-hand think of any other scriptural reasons to permit divorce, so my answers are based on these being the circumstances involved.

And now.....on to the chase:

1) "Can a man who was divorced and married to another before he became a christian preach or be an elder?"

Yes.......All sins are forgiven at Baptism, the slate is clean at that point. However, if his divorce was not because of the above reasons, then I would definitely have some questions for him - to determine his repentance over the act and what type of stance he would teach & preach from that point forward.

2) "Can a man who was divorced, if the divorce came after he became a believer as a result of his spouse leaving him, hold a church office? Are they accountable for their spouse's sin?"

Yes, they can serve under this condition. The Bible is clear that one is responsible for their own sin only (unless they have been teaching false doctrine to others as well). Again, this person's repentance and position on the subject needs to be investigated before giving him "Carte Blanche" as a leader.

3) "Regardless of how dynamic of an abiding faith he may be otherwise, how much he may have to contribute to the congregation spiritually?"

As much as anybody else in the congregation - AS LONG as they are not abiding in their sin (i.e. divorced for unscriptural reasons and unrepentant in that action). If they revel in their sin, they are not to be listened to until they have a change of heart - afterall, would you let an unrepentant child-molester teach a Sunday School Class?........Of course not.

4) "Can divorced persons ever re-marry?" and "Can the preacher ever marry a divorced person to another?"

That's a tougher question. Without a doubt, someone who puts aside their spouse for unscriptural reasons and then re-marrys commits adultery. However, in Matt 5:32, Jesus says that if the divorce was because of infidelity, they do not commit adultery when re-married. Logically, that would also apply also to abuse cases - though an argument could be made both for and against such.

Typically, I would re-marry someone from an abuse divorce (as long as they understood the scriptures on divorce) - so maybe that makes me a "liberal" (oh, I hate that word :). But then again, Jesus' teachings on divorce were in-line with the more liberal school of thought in His day. However, I would not marry one who left their spouse for unscriptural reasons after they had become a Christian - otherwise my actions would be leading them into adultery. Now I would marry those who were divorced before becoming a Christian AS LONG AS they fully understand the scriptures on divorce and are willing to live accordingly to them - afterall, that sin was forgiven them at their Baptism. To refuse them would be like refusing to marry someone who had told a lie before becoming a Christian.

5) "Does "husband of but one wife" apply to divorce, or to polygamy?"

That phrase, as used in the Evangelist Epistles, refers to polygamy. It literally means a "one woman man". It combatted the Greek preference of the day where a man took a wife to have children, but took concubines (mistresses) for sexual pleasure. Paul's teaching was that that lifestyle was unacceptable. Man was to cleave to ONE woman and woman to ONE man...PERIOD! Any man who gathered women unto himself was not be a leader and in the case of continuing unrepentant in that sin, he was to be considered as a pagan...i.e., not a member of Christ's Church.....until he repent & change from those ways. Could this teaching apply to divorce? Possibly.....it just depends on the circumstances of the divorce and the actions & the heart of the individual.

Well MrBatman, with all that said.........it's time for the other "Jokers" to have a crack at this. :-)

Love you guys....

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

If divorce itself is a sin then we have a God who has sinned. Read Jer. 3:1-10.

Also, divorce is something that God put in His Law. It was not Moses' idea. Read Deut. 24:1-5. The allowable reason for divorce was "indecency", whatever that meant. It did not mean adultery, for adultery was punishable by death.

More study needs to be done upon the words that Jesus actually uses, Mark, instead of trusting the English translations. There is not a single one of them that is consistent in the "divorce" passages due to traditional understanding.

This issue, concerning leadership, I believe falls more into the question of how well a man can manage his family rather than the "sin of divorce."

Also, if divorce itself is sinful, why does God make allowances for it in the Law?

Don't anyone mistake what I am saying. Divorce is a terrible matter. And I do not take the subject lightly. But sin is what occurs before, after and sometimes after the divorce. Divorce is God's answer, not mine or Moses', to a bad marriage. Deut. 24 is in God's handwriting, not mine.

As far as remarrying, God gives the conditions for remarriage, it's not a very difficult question. There are limits, but it is pretty well spelled out. Just read the law (Deut 24).

This is a quote from an article I wrote several years ago concerning Mt 5:31, 32: Is Jesus changing the law or didn’t He understand the law? The Law demanded the adulterer to be stoned and Jesus had just said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.” (Matthew. 5:17) The Jews were sending their wives away without the certificate of divorce. This was causing adultery to take place because without the certificate they were still married. The only exception to giving the certificate of divorce was for marital unfaithfulness (unchastity). This is the same as the OT Law in which the unfaithful one was stoned. The Jews in the time of Christ did not have the authority to stone (being under Roman rule), so they were to just send her away. The unfaithful one did not need the certificate for he/she was already an adulterer. Jesus is neither changing nor misunderstanding the Law. If He did so He would be contradicting the Father. He is upholding the Law - rather than tradition. He does the same thing in the next passage. (Mt. 19:3-11).

More study needs to be given to this issue than the simple traditional ones. And more study needs to be given before we start making claims that do not hold up or make God out as a sinner.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Scott,

How do you get "God has sinned" from Jer. 3:1-10? I don't see it (but my eyes ARE growing dimmer these days). God has never divorced Himself from man. Sure He punished, severely at times, but He never left us......we left Him. In fact, how many times in scripture has man been declared the harlot? God has not sinned in the matter of divorce - Man has!

Indeed, God did include divorce into the law (after the fact), but it was because of the hardness of man's heart that it was put in (Matt 19:3-9). It was never God's intention to allow divorce, but it became necessary as men would put away their wife - basically abondoning them..........and in those days, that meant death to them if someone else didn't step in. So, divorce is not God's answer to a bad marriage - but to a dangerous situation. God's answer to a bad marriage is found in Eph 5:22-33.

As far as Matt 5 goes, Jesus indeed fulfilled the Law and in the Sermon on the Mount He fulfilled it by changing the Law from a matter of actions to the matter of the heart. I.E......it's not as much the action, as it is the intent behind the action.

Therein lies the "sin" of divorce - the intent of the act. Which is why I said so much about checking individuals' resolutions toward the scriptures in those questions that were asked concerning leadwership & re-marriage.

You are probably correct in the fact that the Greek is more in line with just "putting one away" as opposed to today's idea of divorce - but does that justify "turning the other cheek" to the concepts in scripture. A Piece of legal paper means nothing unless it also conforms to the scriptural concepts concerning this issue.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Mark,

You said, "I believe divorce to be a sin." If this is so, we have a God who has sinned because in the Jer passage, verse 8 in particular, God says, "And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also."

God divorced Israel. If divorce is a sin then we serve a God who has sinned.

And what does "after the fact" mean? Either God wrote it or He did not. What the Jews were asking Jesus was if they could "send away" their wife for any reason. This was a common practice and being done without the certificate of divorce. Jesus corrected what they said and quoted the Scripture accurately. He let's them know that if they send her away without the certificate it was adultery. Mark, break out your Greek stuff and look at the words translated as "divorce." YOu will see that it is not always so. Many times the Greek word "apoluo" is translated as "divorce" when it actually means "send away". If your interested in an article I wrote on this let me know, or visit my web site.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Scott....you are absolutely correct in your assessment that the issue with leadership is "control of the family"....not the divorce itself.

However....I think you are streching your argument using the metaphorical and/or anthropomorphic language of Jer. to argue your case.

Woe is us when we start taking prophetic language.....literally.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Metaphoric or not, if it were a sin God would not said that He had done it.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

God also says...."He is a Jealous God"....and yet....we are clearly told in Scripture that jealousy is a sin.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Where does it clearly say jealousy is a sin? As I understand it jealousy is like anger - depends on how you use it.

Num 25:11 - "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy."

II Cor. 11:2 "For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin."

These are positive examples of jealousy. Of course there are the negative aspects of jealousy as in II Cor 12:20 "For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances..."

But I do not see where jealousy is called a sin.

My argument is that divorce itself is not the sin when divorce happens. The sin is what causes the divorce.

God never, anywhere, says that He committed a sin, whether metaphorically, typically or actually.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

So in other words, Scott, what you are saying is that if the divorce is for a good reason: infidelity, abuse (physical, emotional), or some other such thing, it may not be a sin in and of itself ... but if it is just because you don't care for the other person and want to explore greener pastures, it is. Am I reading you right? I'm thinking of when Jesus came up against seeming contradictions in the Law, such as healing on the Sabbath, and his basic principle was that the law that did the greater good was the one that should be followed.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

in II Cor 12:20 "For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances..."

Sooooo...in other words....none of these are "sin??"

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

I didn't say none of them were sin. I said that I understand jealousy in the same way as I do anger. Is anger a sin? It can be. Does God get angry? Yes. Does God sin? Absolutely not.

You said that "we are clearly told in Scripture that jealousy is a sin." I do not see a clear statement of that. Can jealousy be a sin? Yes, it certainly was when the Corinthains were jealous of the others' gifts. But jealousy is not wrong in every case, e.g., Phinehaz or God Himself. It, like anger, depends on how you use it and handle it.

If jealousy were always shown as evil in the Scriptures, such as gossip always is, then there would not be a problem in calling it an outright sin. But since some forms of jealousy are shown to be pleasing to God, plus the fact that our God is a jealous God, it cannot be called sin in every case, or else we get back to having a sinful God.

John,

Go to my web site and read my study on divorce. It'll further explain what I mean. I don't think that you are quite yet grasping what I am saying.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

and John,

You may not agree with my study, that's okay. But you will understand my position better.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

"Go to my web site and read my study on divorce. It'll further explain what I mean. I don't think that you are quite yet grasping what I am saying. "

Got to be honest.....I read it a year ago....and I still don't grasp what you are saying.

I do see the potential though...."We got a divorce because Scott said it wasn't it a sin."

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Danny,

It's all a matter of trying to handle the Scriptures accurately. If I'm wrong about this, just show me. You know me well enough to know that I would drop it in a heartbeat.

I see too many contradictions with the "traditional view" of divorce. If I just give a cursory study of what Jesus said in the Gospels about divorce, using only my English translations, then Jesus ends up contradicting and/or misrepresenting what the Father said in the Law. I do not believe He did either.

Let me put it this way. Someone may start looking at "greener pastures" (as someone above stated). That leads to a divorce. What is the sin here? The divorce or the lust/coveting that led to it? God, let me say it again, God is the one who put divorce into the Law. He laid down stipulations about it. God divorced Israel, He stayed within His own stipulations. Is divorce the sin, or is the sin what led to the divorce?

One other quote from the end of my study: "Because of the fact that there may be several reasons for divorce, some may be afraid that people may want to get divorced for any reason. 1. God is for marriage. 2. If that fear keeps us from letting people know there is forgiveness in divorce then we better stop preaching I John 1:9, because if Christians hear that all they have to do is confess their sins and God is faithful to forgive them, there is no telling what kind of sins they may go out and commit. Paul dealt with this in Rom 6."

Danny, if I'm wrong, reason with me. It's not like you've never taught me anything before ;o)

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Scot, for the benefit of those who have never been there before, the address of your website is ...?

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

I just assumed everyone knew it by heart ;o)

www.CCCflorida.org

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

John,

I think you nailed the answer on the head when you mentioned the "over-riding" principle in the Law. God always allowed the saving of life to over-ride aspects of the Law. This is illustrated by several instances of Jesus' healings on the Sabbath, but maybe even more so with the incident in I Sam. chapter 21 when David and his men ate the consecrated showbread at Nob. This was a big "no-no" according to the Law, but was permitted to prevent the men from starving.

Likewise, Divorce was allowed by God in order to save the life of the woman who would have been "left for dead" if the husband just put her away. The Law made provisions for her so as not to be treated in such a way.

Scott,

Ok....is see the divorce writ of Jer. 3:8. But I do believe Danny to be correct in not making this a literal passage, but only figurative. Because if literal, God DID INDEED Sin when he saved a remnant from Israel, because Deut. 24:1-4 clearly states that the taking back of a divorced wife who had married another (as Israel had "re-married" with the pagans of Canaan) was not only a sin, but an "abomination before the Lord". I believe that eliminates Jer. 3 from a literal interpretation for our purposes in this thread.

As far as "after the fact" goes...........I just knew you would hang up on that when I typed it (don't you just love knowing someone that well? :~).

All I meant by that, is that I cannot find any reference to the allowance of a writ of divorce until AFTER the Law was given on Sinai. If God was "cool" with the divorce issue, one would think He would have said so then. But then, surely Jesus would not have said what He did in Matt 19:8, "Because of YOUR hardness of heart, MOSES permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning IT HAS NOT BEEN THIS WAY."

Come to think of it, Jesus just said there that MOSES permitted divorce - not God!!! Sure, he meant good by it to protect lives, BUT.....is it possible he acted prematurely and without Godly guidance in the matter.........just like he did at Meribah?

Scott, I think you have to admit that the views I stated at the top are a far cry from the typical "traditional" view of divorce; as many churches make divorce the hard, firm dividing line on leadership qualifications and in some "hardnose" cases, even church membership. I do not, but neither will I wink at it either. Divorce is an issue that really filters up from the soul, as it is the forceable break-up of a lifeform (as the two had become one, but are now split apart - kinda like the Good Kirk, Bad Kirk split in the Star Trek series). And since it is a "window" into one's soul, we need to take a careful look inside each case, as hardnose rules can ruin a person and "tolerance" can lead them further into the depths of sin and damnation.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

Scott....

First, while adultery was punishable by death in the OT....by the time Jesus came on the scene, the Jews had stopped the practice of stoning for adultery....(except on Jesus to either do it to Him or test Him with the issue of the woman). So when Jesus said divorce was allowable for reasons of adultery...He meant...since the offending party was considered dead anyway. That never changed.

I say this to reagain establish that adultery was a grounds for divorce according to the words of Jesus.....and by the grounds of logic.....since the marital convenant has been broken.

Therefore....I have absolutely no problem....and see no inconsistency in saying...."God divorced Israel."

The reason??

Jer. 3:1....God to Israel..."But you are a harlot with many lovers."

Jer. 3:2...."And you have polluted a land with your harlotry and with your wickedness."

Jer. 3:8...."And I saw all the adulteries of faithless Israel."

In fact....the passage is full of even more references to Israel's adulteries with the Canaanite deities.

It appears Israel had "done it"....and "done it" quite often.

It appears that God was justified....and within the Law.....for divorcing His wife Israel.

In this.....where is God's sin???

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

I will get back to this later. I have a tie-rod end to replace and am currently using the heel-mobile to get around. But,

Mark, Jesus did not say that Moses permitted them to "divorce" (apostasion). The word divorce is not used. What Jesus said was that Moses allowed them to send their wives away (apoluo), but it has not always been so. That's what I meant when I said that you cannot depend upon the English translations here. Pay attention to what words are used and where. The "traditional view" has become so entrenched it even affects our translations.

Danny, I'll get back to you. Gotta go buy a tool.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

In this.....where is God's sin???

Danny, I think that's exactly what Scott is trying to say, that God was justified in his "divorce" with Israel, and that that divorce was not a sin.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

Scott, I just read your study. Impressive. Seeing the original words and their meanings, and putting them in their cultural context, made it make so much more sense. Thanks.

Too bad this kind of teaching isn't more prevalent in our churches today. But alas, too many Christians (and perhaps even pastors) would rather believe what they've been taught, believe the modern translations are what God had in mind in the beginning (especially the KJV!), and just don't have the stomach for deeper study into the Word.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

John....

I don't think that is what Scott is saying.....but I'll let him "splain" it.

Of course it's not a sin......since adultery is the one allowance for divorce.

But divorce for any other reason.......is wrong.

And let's quit acting like this is a big deal.

Please tell me.....where is the terrible harm that has been done in preachers preaching against the sin, ugliness, horribleness, destructiveness.....of divorce??? In fact....recent statistics point out.....we obviously haven't been doing it enough.

If a person doesn't want to call divorce a sin.....fine!!! I'm perfectly at peace with it.

Why?? Because as Jesus said...."this was not the way it was in the beginning."

In light of the fact now, according to statistics....that the divorce rate is higher in the church than in society....I don't think we need to give people....another out.

And by the way John....there are a number of preachers....including myself....who have done the study, read the articles....etc...etc....and....we still don't buy it.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

I meant no disrespect, Danny ... I'm just a bit disgruntled at the moment at the lack of spiritual depth in the congregation I attend.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

Scott,

This is one case where the actual Greek wording doesn't really matter. "Divorce" or "putting someone away" - no matter how you slice it......it comes up bad. There are too many scriptures to deny, that says God does not like spliting up married couples. Call it "Sin", call it a "bad choice", call it an "act of lust", or call it "just plain selfishness". Either way, it stinks! To turn your back on the one person whom you swore before God to stay with until parted by death is a horrible thing to do to them. And if you think God will just wink at those who "put assunder" what God has joined - well......I wouldn't hold my breath.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

No problem John....I understand. I've had a few of those days myself. But then I become thankful for all the good ones....and in the congregation where I'm at now....there's a bunch. Keep your chin up!!!

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

I NEVER said that God would wink at divorce, nor do I say that divorce is not ugly and destructive. It is the most horrible thing that can happen in a family. But there are several problems here and I guess either I'm completely off target or you guys just aren't getting it (I'll own up to maybe a little of both).

First, this current discussion started with Mark calling divorce sin. I pointed out that if divorce itself is sin then God has sinned. Danny somehow defended that by saying that jealousy is sin and God is a jealous God, so evidently, by this reasoning, what I see you saying is that God holds us accountable for sin, unto eternal death, but allows Himself exceptions to certain sins. That's a huge problem for me. Whether you want to call it metaphorical or not, you still make God either a metaphorical sinner or an actual one. God is the one who put divorce into the Law, not Moses, and it was allowed for "indecency" and nowhere in Scripture is jealousy, in and of itself, called sin.

Second, Danny, you said, "Please tell me.....where is the terrible harm that has been done in preachers preaching against the sin, ugliness, horribleness, destructiveness.....of divorce???" I agree mostly with what you say here except for two thoughts. 1) You seem to be treating divorce as the sin instead of treating the sin that leads to divorce. I want to say here, for everyone reading this to know, that you are the most preemptive person I have ever met. I wish I had much of your insight into people. You deal with sin as soon as you know of it or step in to prevent it when possible, so please do not think I am attacking your handling of matters of marriage and divorce. But I believe that, at least from what you've written here that the focus is in the wrong place, i.e., the divorce instead of the sin.

2) What's the harm? No more, no less than any passage of Scripture being taught incorrectly. Could it be that the divorce rate is so high because we've been focusing on the result of sin rather than the sin itself? If a man is sick and dies, it's of no value to preach against his dying. What needed to happen is to teach that this sickness leads to death and step in with the cure. You do this regularly. I've heard you, so dont think I'm saying otherwise. I'm just trying to make a point.

Mark, the Greek and Hebrew words used make all the difference. In one instance divorce is properly handled by giving the certificate of divorce and sending the wife away, as the Law said. And the other instance is of just sending her away without the certificate of divorce. Jesus said that the latter is what brought about adultery by the one marrying her. Why? Because there was no divorce. ANd according to what Jesus said, the only time a man may just send his wife away is when adultery was involved. Jesus NEVER changed what God said in Deut. Mark, you know as well as I do that Rush is right, "Words mean things".

Divorce IS NEVER the best thing. Repentance and recommitment would be the ideal. But sometimes divorce, because of sin, is the only thing that can be done.

Danny, I'm not looking for another "way out", as you called it. I am simply trying to uphold what I believe God's Word says. And you must know that if I'm willing to disagree with you, whom I truly respect for countless reasons, that it's more than just an interesting idea to me or a way for me to make it easy on people to end their marriage.

Mark, ditto.

John, Thanks for the kind words but John, Bible words for Bible things. I assume you weren't refering to elders when you said "Pastors." ;o) Like I said before, "Words mean things." (I know, a different thread).

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

Scott: I meant Pastor in it's "left coast" usage, that of the person who is paid to preach ... the preaching elder, the minister, the evangelist, whatever you people east of the Rockies want to call it. :-þ

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Scott.....the one thing you did not answer, was the fact that according to Jeremiah....God's divorce of Israel was justified in light of Israel's harlotries with false gods.

Ergo.....God did not sin. Period.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Danny,

I am not the one who said that God sinned. You and Mark did by inference, i.e., Mark said divorce is sin and you said jealousy is sin and God has done/been both.

Yes, God was more than justified in divorcing Israel (something He did not do with Judah, btw). However, we are disagreeing on why it was justified.

Gotta go. There's a little thing I need to go and do - called preach. Later.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

"I am not the one who said that God sinned. You and Mark did by inference, i.e., Mark said divorce is sin and you said jealousy is sin and God has done/been both. "

Scott....that is almost "Clintonesque" in word twisting.

What was said was....if one follows your logic....this appears to be what is being said.

I have NEVER said....or even infered that God has sinned....because I have not yet been presented with an inconsistency in Scripture.

Gotta go.....I "get to" preach!!! :)

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Danny, you never said or inferred that divorce was a sin. But you inferred that that was what Scott was saying. When in reality, what Scott actually said was IF divorce is ALWAYS a sin, as some make it out to be, THEN God must have sinned.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Brethren:

I am convinced that neither Brother Danny nor Brother Scott believes that GOD has ever been guilty of committing a sin. It seems that the argument is about whether anything God has ever done might be a sin. And it seems that the illustration was taken from the matter of “divorce” to illustrate this point. For Brother Scott has pointed out that God had divorced Israel according to Jeremiah 3:1-10. And as Brother Danny pointed out God had a just reason to divorce Israel because she had “played the Harlot”. And though all of this is overlooking the obvious metaphorical use of the idea of divorce to make the point to Israel that she had so sinned as to cause God separate from them. And this is in harmony with what Isaiah said. “Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. None calleth for justice, nor [any] pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.” (Isaiah 59:1-4). So, it was the sin of Israel and not a SIN for God to “divorce” or separate himself from this evil people.

But the question that Scott has asked is, “IF divorce is a sin then how do we extradite God from the charge of sin when he “divorced” himself from Israel?” And in answer to this let us not forget what SIN IS. Sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4). And God could not sin unless he was under the law and subject to it. And even if he was in some way bound by the same law that he gave to his creatures he must still actually violate it in some way or he cannot be charged with sin. But in what way does God violate the law by “divorcing and adulterous wife”? For are we not told, “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave 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 hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matt. 19:1-9).

Now, just how it is that God could in any way whatsoever be subject to this law is hard for me to comprehend. For this law concerns men and women being LITERALLY joined together to become one flesh. But even if God were subject to the Law of Moses he would have been allowed to divorce Israel and even if he were to be made subject to the law of Christ he would be allowed to divorce Israel because of her “fornication”. Which means in neither case was God sinful to divorce Israel even if we could in some way make God subject to Laws, which he gave to control the behavior of man.

Thus, we cannot, it seems, justly claim that “divorce is not sinful at all under any circumstance” because God, in a metaphorical sense divorced Israel because of her “fornication” and “Adultery” which is the metaphorical description of those who are unfaithful and disobedient to God.

But notice that in the above passage of scripture from Matthew 19:1-6 that when one divorces his wife, except for the cause of fornication, and marries another he “COMMITS ADULTERY”. Thus it seems reasonable for us to conclude that any divorce for any cause other than fornication is in effect according to Christ committing adultery. God divorced Israel, metaphorically, for her adultery and therefore cannot be accused of committing the sin of adultery himself. But when men divorce their wives for causes other than fornication they commit adultery and that is without question a sin.

SO, this discussion, it seems to me, has been sidetracked somewhat from the original questions that were asked about divorce to a argument between two good men about whether God sinned when neither of them believe that God has ever sinned. God has never been subject to the Law of Moses except to the degree that he made promises that he was obligated to keep and one of those promises was what he would do if Israel turn away from him to serve false gods. They turn away and “played the harlot” and God kept his promise and justly divorced them, if you will allow me to say it this way, “scriptural reason” that they had committed fornication. So, by no stretch of anyone’s imagination can God be found guilty of sin by the violation of the Laws which he has subjected man to obey. For God is not a man. “God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19). And we must not forget that, “For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8,9).

Let us be careful, Brethren, when we speak of God. For he is Holy and above us all and he cannot sin and cannot be convicted by any man of having committed any sins whatsoever. Let us determine God’s will as taught in His word without even remotely implying that He would be guilty of sin. And let us not use passages, which are clearly using words in a metaphorical or figurative sense to draw conclusions about the meaning of the passages, which are more clearly literal. Let us do just the opposite and use the literal passages to help explain those which are more figurative in nature.

I know that neither Brother Danny nor Brother Scott has actually taught nor do they believe that God has sinned. And though it appears that Brother Scott has been saying that anyone who believes divorce is a sin is guilty of making God a sinner because God “divorced” Israel. But this would be taking the figure of “divorce” further than God’s word intended it to be taken. For God was not “married” to Israel in the exact same LITERAL sense in which men are married to their wives having conjugal responsibilities toward them, now was he? And neither was he divorced from them in the same literal sense which men divorce their wives either. But the idea being that they were, because God “divorced them”, left desolate and alone without anyone to provide for them because they committed adultery against him by going after false gods. But when a man divorces his wife for any cause other than fornication according to Christ the son of God he is “committing adultery” in the process. And this is what Brother Danny seems to be trying to keep us from over looking. In this way and for this very reason divorce can be sinful. But Brother Scott must be correct in understanding that when a man divorces his wife for the cause of fornication it is not sinful for him to do so. But I cannot imagine that either of these two Brethren would conclude that divorce is NEVER, under any circumstance whatsoever, a sinful thing to do. And, I sincerely hope that I have understood them both correctly. If not then maybe they will correct me.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Lee,

Much of what you brought up has already been discussed earlier in the thread. We must pay closer attention to the actual words that were spoken in the "divorce passages" rather than taking the English at face value.

Danny, Clintonesque huh? You really know how to push my buttons ;o) I felt beamed when I read that.

Let's put this in a logical syllagism:

Mark said: Divorce is sin. Fact is : God is divorced therefore: God has sinned

Danny said: Jealousy is sin Fact is : God is Jealous Therefore : God has sinned

What is Clintonesque about that?

I know you do not believe God has sinned. I know that Mark does not either. But the very arguments you are using, at least the way they were stated, make God a sinner, which I know you do not believe.

If it's alright with you guys, let this peripheral part of the discussion die right here. None of us believe God has sinned. Let's focus on the divorce aspect itself.

Lee, I am very uncomfortable with your reasoning. If I understand what you are saying, to say that God is above His own Law (my paraphrase of what you said) that detracts from His holiness for God cannot sin.

Let me state it again...divorce is not the sin. GOD PLACED IT IN THE LAW, NOT MOSES. The sin is what leads to the divorce. It is THAT sin that needs to be dealt with. GOD allowed divorce for "indecency" and there is debate as to what is meant by that (both now and in Jesus' time). Jesus did not change the Law by one letter when asked about it. As a matter of fact, what Jesus was asked about, the actual wording concerned the act of sending away the wife, not divorce.

The word apoluo means "send away". The word apostasion means "divorce."

Matthew 19:3-11 And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to apoluo his wife for any cause at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,' For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? "Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of apostasion and apoluo her?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to apoluo your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever apoluo his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Mark 10:2-12 And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to apoluo a wife. And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" And they said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of apostasion and apoluo her." But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." And in the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He said to them, "Whoever apoluo his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself apoluo her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery. "

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who apoluo his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is apoluo from a husband commits adultery.

Why does the Law say a divorced woman is free to marry if it is adultery for someone else to marry her (Deut 24:1-5)? It's because we have two different concepts being discussed here in the Gospels - divorce vs. sending away without divorce (abandonment).

According to what Jesus said, the ONLY allowable reason for sending away a wife without the certificate of divorce, is adultery. Pay attention to the actual words that are used by Jesus, not the translators.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

"Mark said: Divorce is sin. Fact is : God is divorced therefore: God has sinned

Danny said: Jealousy is sin Fact is : God is Jealous Therefore : God has sinned"

Scott....your syllogism follows. Problem is....the premises are wrong!! Why are you insisting on buiding straw men????

Mark did not say......"God has sinned." Mark said..."Divorce is sin...and God is divorced." However......you are the one, putting up the straw man with the suggestion that Mark is inferring that God sinned. Please....cut and paste where Mark said that God sinned. Mark feels the same as I do. God did not sin....because His divorce was justified.

My remark about Jealousy....followed on the heals of your straw man. If your straw man is true...i.e., God sinned because He divorced....than...He also sinned because He is jealous.

Your argument by inference is quite unlike you Scott. Your whole argument...or should I say the defense of your argument is predicated on the straw men you keep building.

I think you could go further in your argument if you simply stuck to your linguistics.....and quit trying to get Mark and I to say something we did not say.

For the record....I think waaaaaaaaaay too much is being made of the difference between....."put away"....and "divorced." I'll get back more to this later.

Thanks for the discussion!!!!

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Scott, I can hear this coming, so let me come to your defense before- the-fact. You wrote, "God placed it in the Law, not Moses." Yet some will respond, "You are wrong, Jesus said Moses put it there." Yet we all know that often Jesus and other writers said, "Moses said" and "You have heard it was written" as a way of saying it was found in the Law God wrote through Moses. And I certainly hope no one believes that Moses himself wrote the "Law of Moses." For it is not really the "Law of Moses", is it? It is the Law of God, which God gave through Moses. I'm sure Moses did not embellish what God gave for him to write in scripture. Especially after he had been chastized for embellishing once already, when he struck the rock. So I am certain if it is found in the Law of Moses, it is the very Word of God, and that therefore Jesus words, "Moses said ..." must be a rabbinic metaphor.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Danny,

I know that neither you nor Mark believe God sinned - that's my point! However, if you follow what was stated by you two at first, that is the syllagism that follows. ANd the more I tried to get you to see it the more it seemed you were defending it. No straw men intended. I was NOT trying to bushwhack you or Mark.

And btw, the argument is not predicated upon sin or not sin. It is a linguistical argument from beginning to end. Scroll back up and notice my frustration when linguistics are ignored or the English taken at face value. That is the whole basis of my understanding.

I'll await with eagerness your exegesis of the words involved.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Brother Scott:

You have said:

“Lee, I am very uncomfortable with your reasoning.”

Now, Brother Scott, you know that it most certainly not my intent to make you or anyone else “uncomfortable” by any means especially by use of reason. There is no need for us to misunderstand one another about this matter. I am very comfortable with your reasoning in this discussion and if I understand you correctly I agree with you. My comments were more directed at this nonsense about God sinning when he “divorced Israel”. I know that you were basically using the “ad hominem” in the exact way that it should be used. When someone makes an assertion or an argument you take their argument, as you have done, and demonstrate that if it were in fact true the result would be conclusions that they themselves do not want to accept. But I am convinced in this case that your correct use of this form of argument has rather caused the discussion to be somewhat diverted from the true point that it seems you were trying to make. Which was that “divorce in and of itself is not sinful” but the things leading up to, and possibly following as a result of, divorce are sinful and that it is these things that we should see as sinful and therefore address. And I even pointed out that “putting away” for any cause other than fornication, according to Christ would result in adultery and thus would be sinful. And that argument rests upon the notion that there is nothing about “divorce” in and of itself that would be sinful. Otherwise how could one get a “divorce” even for the cause of fornication without sinning in so doing? God is not condemning the legal document dictating how the one “put away” is to be treated. He is instead condemning the actual “putting away” for causes other than fornication, which necessitates such a legal document to be drawn up in the first place. But the putting away of a wife who is guilty of fornication is not sinful but if she is put away she must be given a “Bill of Divorcement” according to Jesus and Moses.

However, you are uncomfortable about the following:

“ If I understand what you are saying, to say that God is above His own Law (my paraphrase of what you said) that detracts from His holiness for God cannot sin.”

Well, if I had spoken of God being “above the law” in the sense in which we speak of President Clinton being “above the law” then indeed your concern is most certainly one that I would share. God is not a SUBJECT of His law instead he is the author and enforcer of it. But he is, by his own will and design, bound to the covenants that he has made with us. In other words, if we keep our end of the covenant, so to speak, he will keep his promise contained in it. And if we fail to keep our obligations he will still remain faithful to his promise to punish us for breaking that covenant. I did not mean to say that God is not bound to his promises made to us in the covenant. I meant to say that the law was not written to control or judge God but rather to control and judge man. We cannot take the Law and put “God in the dock” to judge Him in anything. For God is indeed ABOVE THE LAW in the sense that He is higher than it is and that he is the author and enforcer of it. But he is not like the president of the United States who is supposed to be subject to the Laws made by the people, as are all other citizens. God can do whatever he wants to do consistent with his Holy nature and essence. But God is not an SUBECT OF THE LAW though he does and will always honor the covenants that he has man with and for man He is not himself a “man” that the Law should judge him. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) but not because the law forbids it but rather because such is inconsistent with his being, essence and Character as God who is above any and all possibility of lying.

But be all of that as it may it would detract from the subject of this thread to engage just here in a discussion of such. If we are truly in some disagreement about this we should either discuss it via email or on another thread. But you can be sure Brother Scott that I believe very strongly in the holiness and righteousness of God. For that reason I quoted Isaiah 55:8,9 which pointed to the truth that God’s ways are HIGHER than our ways and his Thought than our thoughts. Thus saying that God is higher than the Law, which he gave to man, does not in any way whatsoever “detract” from his holiness. He is so holy that he needs no law to control himself. Remember that the law was given because of TRANSGRESSION. God has never transgressed nor in danger of ever doing so and was therefore never in need of any LAW. The law was given for man, not God. “Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” (Gal. 3:19). It was a schoolmaster to bring US to Christ. It was not designed to “lead” God to Christ. So, please do not misunderstand. I do not mean that God is above the law in the sense that he has every right to transgress it in any way. God has the right, and he exercised it, to do away with the law. In fact he did do away with the Law that he gave to Moses and “nailed it to the cross” (Col 2:14). He took it out of the way. He fulfilled it and then abolished it. “For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” (Heb. 8:7). This is the sense in which I speak of God not being subject to the Law and being “above it”. He can do with the law as he pleases even abolish it. But he cannot and will not lie by breaking any promises that he made within it. God is faithful for he cannot deny himself.

But the laws concerning divorce hardly apply to him as it applies to mankind. For “the twain shall become one flesh” cannot be said of God. And this was my only point concerning it. My point was that God did not “put away” Israel for “any cause other than because of her “fornication”. And in doing so he did not cause Israel to commit adultery as a man who “puts away his wife” for any cause other than fornication would do. (Matt. 19:1-9). Instead he divorced Israel because of her spiritual adultery in seeking false gods. Which is metaphorical language based upon the actual and just putting away among men of their wives because of actual and literal physical fornication. But God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:12-15) and in putting away Israel he did not sin. Thus your argument from Jeremiah, though a good “ad hominem” response to those who say that “divorce is in and of itself is a sin” it is hardly significant to the discussion concerning the problem of “putting away” which makes the actual “writing of divorcement” necessary. For if we were to use the word “putting away” instead of “divorce” we would still have many questions to answer, now wouldn’t we?

In other words though I might agree with you that divorce is not sinful, in and of itself, it would not resolve the issue of “putting away” a wife for any cause, now would it? I think that you might also agree that “putting away” a wife for any cause other than fornication is a sin. If not then we would most assuredly be in disagreement with one another about that. For, I do not believe that you are trying to say that man can put away his wife for any cause other than fornication without sinning in the process of doing so. If that is what you are saying then I have misunderstood you completely and would disagree entirely with you on that issue. But that does not appear to be your assertion. I agree with you about the difference between the two Greek words “The word apoluo means "send away". The word apostasion means "divorce." Though I might not agree with all of the conclusions that you draw from this fact. For it seems that the writing of “divorcement” (Apostasion) is given only to those who have been “put away” (apoluo). It seems that it was a formal legal document that required men to have some responsibility toward a wife that had been “put away”. It is much like our English word divorce. For it is possible to “put your wife away” (apoluo) without getting a “bill of divorcement” (apostasion). And, if I understand you correctly, it is this “putting away” for any cause other than fornication that is the problem is it not? The actual formal and legal divorce “paper”, which only recognizes, in a legal way, what has already occurred in fact. And such a writing, since it is designed to force both parties, especially the man, to treat the person “put away” in a fair and equitable manner cannot be a sin, now can it? But the “putting away” if it is done for any reason other than fornication is a sin, isn’t it?

If I misunderstand you then please correct me. For it is not my intent to misunderstand or to misrepresent what you have said in any way. And I ask that you please consider that I have not in any way intended to imply that God is “less then holy and righteous” when I pointed out that God is not a subject under the law. But He is instead the author, enforcer, and Judge of all that are under it. He is the “judge of all the earth” and he will do right.

I apologize for entering this discussion late, Brother Scott. I have been having some difficulty getting onto the forum lately. I still have to go through “greenspun” to get to the forum. And it took some time for me to find that path. A virus hit my computer! Ha! And this is the reason that I have covered some things that you have already discussed in previous post.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Brother Scott:

I also want to notice that you have correctly said:

“Much of what you brought up has already been discussed earlier in the thread.”

I apologize for repeating things that were discussed earlier. I did not intentionally ignore any of it.

Then I also concur with your following words:

“ We must pay closer attention to the actual words that were spoken in the "divorce passages" rather than taking the English at face value.”

TO this I agree completely. The understanding of these words are very significant tot he understanding of the meaning of thess passages dealing with the issue of “putting away” and “divorce”. We should all take some time to review the meanings and uses of these words by making PROPER use of a good and reliable and reputable lexicon of the Greek language. And also much can be learned by remembering to take into account the meanings of words in the period wherein we find them being used and recognize the growth and changes in words and their meaning over time up to the New Testament period. This does not come into play much with these words but I am saying that we must understand that much harm can be done by those who do not make appropriate and accurate use of a good lexicon to determine the full meanings of words. And I am not implying by this that you would fail to make accurate use of the lexicon. For I am convinced that if anyone would use it correctly it would most certainly be you. A good “word study” of these two words would help us all. And a thorough exegesis of the various “divorce passages”, as you call them, taking into account the meaning of these words in their context would probably go a long way toward giving us a better understanding of these matters.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

Lee,

Except for a couple of things that would be "straining at gnats" I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

Scott....after reading your article for the third time at 5:30 AM this morning....it verified to me...that you left out a very important detail for your readers. That detail involves the difference between.....a verb and a noun. That is a huge detail.

The word "apoluo"...."putting away"....is a verb. The word "apostasion"....."divorce"....is a noun.

This is why I said.....waaaaaaaay.....too much is being made of the difference between the two. If they were both nouns....or both verbs....you argument would have a better chance.

Simply put....."apoluo"....is the action of "apostasion." "Apoluo"....is the "apostasion" in progess. "Apoluo"....is the action...."apostasion"....is the end result.

It is the equivalent of having a graduation service. Until you put the diploma in their hands.....they are not a graduate. At the service.....the candidate is "graduating" (verb).....but once he is handed the diploma.....he is a "graduate" (noun).

Someone says today....."I'm going through a divorce."

No they are not. You can't "go through a divorce" (noun).....until the divorce proceedings (verb)....are completed.....at which time you are granted a divorce (noun).

In other words.....they are going through the divorce proceedings (i.e., the loosing).....until the judge renders the verdict of divorce. Once the divorce is final.....and the papers signed.....then....it can be said....you are going through a divorce (noun).

The "apoluo"......was the court proceedings.....the "apostasion"....was the end result.

You ask the question...."If divorce is a sin....why did God permit it??"

Scott.....why did God permit the spies to go into Canaan?? That was the idea of the people....not God's. He had already told them what the land was like. But because of their unbelief....He let them.

Why did God allow Israel a king....when He knew what the end result of that would be...i.e., a divided kingdom??

Why did God allow Balaam to go to Balak....when He had already told him not to??

Why did God allow polygamy to continue???

The why concerning divorce is answered by Jesus...."Because of the hardness of your heart."

Not necessarily their hardness of heart against God....but against the woman. You know full well that a woman in that society without a husband only had two choices.....the poor house (as with Ruth)....or prostitution (or living like one....as the woman at the well).

The certificate of divorce granted the woman certain civil freedoms and rights that would not put her in either of these unfortunate circumstances. Notice the context of that passage in Deut. 24....where it dicusses other potential social outcasts. The whole passage in Deut. 24 deals a great deal with compassion.

God hates divorce as He says in Malachi. Are you suggesting that God is really saying He just hates the "putting away?"

God hates divorce.....but He regulated it....for the protection of the woman who was at the whim of her husband.

God hates slavery.....but He permitted it with regulations.

God hates polygamy....but He permitted it with regulations.

In both cases of slavery and polygamy....the following of the regulations eventually led to the end of the practice.....which was God's ultimate goal.

God's ulimate goal...is one man...one woman....bound for life. When it doesn't happen....there were regulations. Those regulations....followed through consistently....is what caused the disciples to say...."If it is like this....it is better not to marry."

I'm sure Jesus would agree. If you are not going to stick to the original game plan.....then either don't marry....or be prepared to deal with the regulations.

There you go. I know you were anxious for my exegesis....so I got up at 3:30 this morning to get it to you.

Actually....I have a lot of other things to do....so wanted to make sure I could squeeze this in.

Thanks for the opportunity.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

Actually Danny, in Malachi, that's exactly what word is used - send away.

It's not a question of noun and verb, these are two different words. Each has it's own verb and noun form.

Apoluw is used many other times inthe NT in contexts that had nothing to do with marriage.

Danny, you have me at a disadvantage. All of my books are packed. I will be leaving this ministry at the end of September. Will give more public details when when a few more things are solidified. Anyway, all of my resources are "in cardboard box limbo".

I will admit though, good answer. I've heard it before though. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

No problem Scott....I think the world can wait. :)

God bless!

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001