Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 13

DL "Dear Sir, I used to think that "putting away" was another term for divorce. I read in Matthew 5 v 32 (KJV) that both terms are used and now I'm not sure! I am interested to know what the different Greek words were that were used for each term too.

Also, I've heard it said that in Bible times, some men might put their wives away without giving her a certificate of divorce. This would lead her to become an adulteress if she married another man because she was still married to the former man legally. Do you think that it might have been this kind of situation that Jesus was talking about, and that if the certificate of divorce had been given then she could marry another man without being called an adulteress?"

LJ I label the explanation you refer to as the “difference of meanings” explanation, which assumes that the solution for what Jesus meant by his exception clause is found in there being a difference of meanings between “put away” and “divorce”.

First, I would like to point out how that explanation equates to changing what Paul wrote in 1 Rom 7:
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
And in 1 Cor 7:
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

DL Do you think that it might have been this kind of situation that Jesus was talking about, and that if the certificate of divorce had been given then she could marry another man without being called an adulteress?

LJ Notice how your words suggest that having been properly divorced with legal certification can be additionally inserted in those places where Paul pointed out that death is what frees the woman to marry again. Putting your question another way; can we take those places where Paul identified death as being what frees the woman, and add onto that another reason to be freed; her having a proper certificate of divorce? The answer is no.

The scriptures are full of examples of synonymous terms. “Put away” is simply synonymous with “divorce”.

The “difference of meanings” explanation does not fit the contexts. Take for example Matt 5:31,32 broken down in its parts for easier examination:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication,
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Notice that the “But I say unto you” in line B sounds like he is going to differ with what he just referred to in line A. The reason why it appears he is about to differ, is because that is exactly what he is doing in that chapter, where 6 times he says something like “But I say unto you”.
Notice how he blatantly differs in Matt 5:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; …
Falsely swearing (forswearing) was wrong under the OT, but swearing truthfully was completely legal. So here we have examples of two things that Jesus differed with after saying “But I say unto you”. Swearing, like divorce, were legal under Moses, but are forbidden under Jesus. Jesus came to change the law:
Heb 7:
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Notice in line A above, from Matt 5:31,32; Jesus is referring to the very law (Dt 24:1) that allowed divorce, and which called for the certificate of divorce. In line B he says “But I say unto you”. Jesus is abolishing the allowance to divorce even if certification were present. To get the details of how he is changing Dt 24:1, we go to Mark 10:2-12. Jesus over rode Dt 24:1, (the same law that called for divorce with certification) by citing a greater law; that which was established at creation (Gen 2:24).
So how did Jesus differ by his “But I say unto you”? He differed by revealing that Dt 24:1 was AGAINST what was intended at creation. The meaning is clear; as divorce (Dt 24:1) was “not so” from the beginning, so now under Jesus, full of grace and truth, it is “not so”.
As Jesus forbade any further swearing by saying “swear not at all”, so it is understood concerning “putting away/divorcing”, which puts asunder what God has joined together; that Christ’s message is the same “divorce, not at all”.

There are other arguments against the "difference of meanings" explanation. I can share those if you are interested.

LJ RW pushes the "difference of meanings" explanation. Here is a discussion between us.

RW starts off by asserting in effect that Dt 24:1 is a command of God, still current even in the NT, and therefore to disobey that is a sin. In other words, divorce is legal as per Dt 24:1, under the NT, in spite of what Jesus revealed about Dt 24:1.

LJ wrote: Sin is going against the words of the Messiah, who brought a new and better covenant. Moses warned against those who would not heed the words of the Messiah. Jesus also warned those who would not heed his Kingdom commandments in Matt 5:19. They are to be regarded as the least, in the bad way, in danger of damnation if they do not repent. In Heb 7:12 we see Jesus changed the law. We see some of these changes in the Sermon on the Mount. The allowance to divorce, provided by Moses has been changed. Jesus tosses that out because that is not how it was from the beginning. (Mark 10:2-12). Divorce, as per Dt 24:1, was not from the beginning, but was added later as a concession to their hard hearts. The new covenant provides for what mere “law” was not capable of. It goes straight to the root of the problem; the fallen state of man inherited from Adam and Eve. The new birth in Christ changes hearts. Therefore the concession to their hardened hearts, due to their formerly unremedied fallen condition, is no longer in place. The allowance to divorce is abolished in Christ. Those who ignore Christ’s higher standard, and who maintain that what was suffered for hardness of hearts (Dt 24:1) is still in effect, are found guilty of doing exactly what Moses warned about in the prophesy of Dt 18:18,19.

RW; your NOT heeding Jesus’ words places you in extreme danger. Please cease from that which will damn you. Stop spreading the horrific heresy that in Jesus, hardness of hearts is tolerated like it was under Moses. Fall in line with the understanding that the new winskins; the new man in Christ, holds the new wine; the newer higher standard afforded to the new man, who is capable of possessing it.

RW wrote: The idea that Jesus just "tossed" things out that were established law while he was living is illogical. This is because there were Jewish leaders who were looking for a reason to kill him. This is a fact. And had he exhibited the attitude that he could and was teaching things that contradicted the Law they would have used it as the trial where they made things up to justify killing him. If Jesus was going to change the divorce law that ended marriage he would have waited and let the apostles do it in establishing the New Covenant. Paul did answer some questions on the matter, but they in no way harmonize with what Jones accuses Jesus of doing. What Jones and others do is cling to an unbelievable idea regarding what Jesus taught and then TWIST very clear teaching from Paul to FORCE them to confirm to their twisted beliefs that breaks up legal marriages and imposes celibacy on people who have not marriage, but need it to "avoid fornication." Passages like "Let them marry" and "they do not sin if they marry." Just read the texts and believe and follow Paul's command and you will not be in rebellion. 1 Cor. 7:1,2; 7,8; 27,28

LJ wrote: "Let them marry", in context, is referring to those who are eligible to marry, such as those who are no longer bound to their previous spouse because of death or because of having abandoned the former marriage due to it being illegal under the newer higher standard of the NT. There are 3 ways to have been "loosed" from a spouse and be eligible to marry, all the while having in place the absolute of "what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder".RW’s evil doctrine says man MAY in fact put asunder, even after Jesus expounded what Gen 2:24 was intended to mean when it was spoken at creation!

This idea that the "Reformer", (Heb 9:9,10), and mediator of the new covenant, was silenced from introducing what the NT entails, is simply bizarre. Just read Mark 10:2-12 to see Jesus exposing Dt 24:1 to have been written in direct contradiction to the higher and absolute law of Gen 2:24.

How long will RW continue to rebel against the higher NT standard, that he who is "full of grace and truth" has delivered to us. Heb 2:
2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Yes, Jesus did indeed speak of those things that those in his Kingdom (Christians) are required to observe.
2 Pet 2:
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
Jesus delivered unto us most of the NT commandments.
Matt 28:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
What he taught while he was alive, before his resurrection, are included in the things that we are to teach and observe.
Jesus did NOT teach that Dt 24:1 is to be observed. To observe that now, now that Jesus has revealed its temporary purpose until he came and brought the NT, is a sin.
Gal 3:19 Heb 9:9,10.
Dt 24:1 is an obsolete OT "carnal ordinance

RW wrote: nope. Read the context. You twist it to conform to your preconceived notion and current tradition

LJ wrote: RW, you wrote: "The idea that Jesus just "tossed" things out that were established law while he was living is illogical."

Swearing was very much allowed under the OT. Moses, in a way, commanded to swear, not in a name of any other God but to swear by the name of the Lord their God. Jesus said "But I say unto you, swear not at all". How long will you rebel against Jesus? Jesus is longsuffering, but you are out, in your ignorant misguided zeal, to destroy souls.

DL "Both passages, [1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3], mention the "law". I know they're not referring to the Law of Moses because that law stated a person could indeed get divorced and remarried. Do you think then that the law refers to the laws in Rome and Corinth? If so, then what if a person's country doesn't have that kind of law? It could follow that if a country allows divorce and remarriage we can use only the passages in the Gospels to form our beliefs on the subject. What do you think?"

LJ Jesus revealed that Dt 24:1,2 was written for the hardness of their hearts. He contradicted that law (Dt 24:1,2) by a greater law that was established at creation: Gen 2:24. See Mark 10:2-12 to see how Dt 24:1 was thrown out because it was not the truth, but mere law. Though the term “law” is used for both, (Dt 24:1,2 and Gen 2:24), we understand that one of those was not absolute truth, but only “law” intending to temporarily deal with the problem of their hard unregenerated hearts. I believe the NT refers to those kinds of temporary laws as “carnal ordinances”. See Heb 9:9,10 and Gal 3:19. See how John 1:17 makes a contrast between “law” and “truth”. Dt 24:1 was only law, while Gen 2:24 was absolute truth. So when the word “law” is used, it must be taken in its context to determine the intent of the author.

In 2 Pet 2:8 a form of the word “law” is used, which references a time before the law of Moses was given. The deeds of the people in Sodom are said to have been “unlawful”. There again, we see another example of “law” as it relates to absolute truth. Those deeds are in direct opposition to what absolute truth declares is the rightful use of sex. Under the OT, there was a mixture of law, as in absolute truth, and as in carnal temporary ordinances.

Romans 8:4 is one of the numerous verses in the NT that refer to the purpose for Christ’s death and resurrection: by it, we are supposed to be fulfilling “the righteousness of the law”. Jesus, having thrown out Dt 24:1, revealing it is not suitable for his better and greater covenant for the born again; revealed the truth of the matter by going to Gen 2:24. There is a good example of the righteousness of the law, (Gen 2:24) being contrasted with law that was not truly righteous, (Dt 24:1). Not all of the OT law was righteous after the NT higher standard of absolute truth.

We are to abide in and obey (fulfil) the righteousness of the law, the absolute truth; not the carnal OT ordinances that have been abolished in Christ.

CD DL said in the OP, "Notice how your words suggest that having been properly divorced with legal certification can be additionally inserted in those places where Paul pointed out that death is what frees the woman to marry again. Putting your question another way; ”can we take those places where Paul identified death as being what frees the woman, and add onto that another reason to be freed; her having a proper certificate of divorce? The answer is no."

----------------------------------------------------------------- Too add to this, In Romans 7, Paul was using an exact analogy. Death=freedom from marriage, Christ=freedom from the penalty of the law.

If Death is not the only thing which provides freedom from a marriage, ie: lawful divorce certificate which dissolves, being another, then the analogy falls apart. The analogy would then possibly lead people to believe maybe there was another way to gain freedom from the law other than Christ. Yes, Paul wasn’t going into depth concerning marriage, but what he was doing was teaching a very important point—-death and death alone is what frees from the marriage bond. Christ and Christ alone frees us from the penalty of the law. It is the perfect illustration.

Paul gives no other ‘exception’. That would make the analogy he is using meaningless.

Analogies have to “fit” in order to be understood. If Paul didn’t mean what he said in regards to the marriage bond being permanent until death—even in the face of adultery or a divorce certificate, then it is a ‘faulty’ analogy and there is some other way besides Jesus (Him being only one means of freedom from the law)…………Think about it………….Nothing said in scripture is without meaning.