“Does God Hate Divorce?”

[alon]

“Does God Hate Divorce?”

This was the question asked in a recent discussion. It generated a lot of discussion, and the overwhelming response was “yes!” But I decided to look deeper.

Let’s start with some biblical precepts:
1. God instituted marriage
Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
2. Marriage is sacred:
Mark 10:9 “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
This is the ideal.
3. Torah permits divorce in circumstances that would make a marital relationship intolerable (as we'll see later on).

The marriage and divorce metaphor is carried all through scripture, even to:
Revelation 14:9-11 (ESV) … : “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark …, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, … the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”
Worship is a picture of longing and desire for God as for one’s spouse. Taking the mark of the Beast is the spiritual equivalent of a woman taking another man’s name:
Genesis 3:16c “and thy desire shall be to thy husband.”
Once you take the mark (name) of the Beast, there is no going back to God. Taking the mark will include an act of worship:
Revelation 13:15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.
Worship is an expression of desire, and the wife’s heart longing for her husband is a picture of this.

Malachi 2:16a (NASB) “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel,
When our English Bibles say “God “hates” divorce” we must question the translation. By looking at meanings of Hebrew terms we get a better picture of what is being said. For example, divorce: שָׁלַח shâlach- to send away, forsake, leave, let depart, loose, put or send away. These are just some of the connotations of the term which can give us a better idea how the Hebrews saw divorce

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (ESV) “When a man takes a wife …, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce … and sends her out of his house, …  and if she becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce …, or if the latter man dies, …  then her former husband … may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. … .

We need to look at the biblical terms translated “hate:”
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Yet we are told in Exodus 20:12 to “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.” The key to resolving this is hidden in the ancient meaning of the Hebrew word שנא soneh
inadequately translated in English Bibles as “hate.”

We read that Jacob “hated” his first wife, Leah.
however a closer reading tells us that Jacob simply loved Leah less than Rachel:
Genesis 29:30a So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah,
So the best I can tell in biblical Hebrew soneh is a relative term, making more a qualitative comparison than simply one emotion.
Even in English hatred can vary wildly in intensity, though not as much as in biblical usage. I think this distinction is important to our understanding of HaShem’s views on and subsequent laws concerning divorce and remarriage.

Divorces are messy, painful affairs. But worse than divorce can be an abusive marriage. This is not the picture of a Godly relationship the Almighty intended. Torah protected people from having to continue in an ungodly bond. So to translate Mal.2:16 as, “God hates divorce” would seem to be a terrible misrepresentation of how a loving God deals with a fallen world.

How did the original writers of our Bible define what we call “hate?”

Vine’s TO HATE שָׂנֵא śânê’ represents emotion ranging from intense “hatred” to the much weaker “set against”
jealousy; as Joseph’s brothers experienced because their father preferred him
increased when Joseph reported his dreams
the brothers plotted Joseph’s death and achieved his removal
special use is ingressive, indicating the initiation of the emotion
“Amnon hated [literally, “began to hate”] her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he [“began to hate”] her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her” (2 Sam. 13:15).
In a weaker sense, signifies “being set against” something.
One frequent use means “to be unloved;”  possibly “unloved” in the sense of deteriorating marital relations.  
In the case of two wives in a family, in which one was preferred over the other, it may be said that one was loved and the other “hated.”
It can also represent a spurned woman.
So the Hebrew term covers an emotional range from the first stirrings of disdain to outright, virulent hatred
what about the Greek?

G3404  μισέω miseō hatred; to detest, persecute; to love less.
Vine’s Verb, “to hate,” used especially: of malicious and unjustifiable feelings towards others, aversion from what is evil; said of wrongdoing; aversion from, or disregard for the claims of one relative to another; the impossibility of serving two masters;  disregard for one’s life relative to the claims of Christ; negatively, of one’s own flesh, therefore a man’s wife as one with him.
In 1 John 3:15, he who “hates” his brother is called a murderer; for the sin lies in the inward disposition, of which the act is only the outward expression.
The Bible was written by Jews. The terms translated “hate” cover a wide range of emotion. But when we read, we tend to read using the most extreme meaning. We must look closely at context, taking into consideration the nuanced meanings.

But didn’t Yeshua condemn divorce? The Bible must be read in context, including everything else written on divorce.

Mark 10:2,12 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” … Yeshua answers: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
This seems to abnegate any legitimacy both to divorce and remarriage, however almost no Jew in the time of Yeshua would think it possible that Torah was wrong in permitting divorce. No one was was arguing about whether divorce was allowed. The  debate was primarily between houses of Hillel and Shammai about how liberally it could be practiced.

The Gospel of Mathew gives us a more complete version of the same encounter:
Matthew 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”
Now we see it in the proper context: “Can a man divorce a woman for any reason?”
Exodus 21:10-11 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. … Deuteronomy 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
The conservative approach of the House of Shammai saw unfaithfulness, abuse, or abandonment to be the only valid grounds for divorce.  As with us today, more “progressive” interpreters say a man may divorce for any reason; the  view represented by the more liberal House of Hillel. The argument is preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin 90a (I'll post an excerpt if anyone is intrested).

In practical terms, there were at the time many illegitimate divorces granted which were not congruent with the instructions in Torah. It was in this divorce-for-any-reason context Yeshua said “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18, Mark 10:12).

Then we have Rav Shaul’s instructions:
1 Corinthians 7:10-13,15a To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. … But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved.
Shaul was laboring under a common misconception among believers in that time. He honestly thought Yeshua was about to return. Some of his remarks were due to anticipation of very near return of ha’Moshiach. I always advise people “read it in context!”
1 Corinthians 7:25-29 (ESV) Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present [impending] distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,
Rav Shaul clearly says he had no answer from God, “I, not the Lord” would lend credence to the idea that he could be misinformed here. He had no revelation nor even spiritual unction on this topic; only an opinion. Shaul was despite all his education and righteous standing still human; he could be wrong, except where he was instructed by God. Here he was not, on his own word.

Did God/Yeshua, our bridegroom ever participate in divorce?
Jeremiah 3:8a (ESV) She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce.
God did divorce Israel How should we should take this? Israel never joined to another nation, and always a remnant was kept set apart.


The prophet Hosea was told to marry a sleeper, Gomer. She continually played the harlot, but never remarried; so he could remarry her despite her defilement.

But what about:
Matthew 19:8 (ESV) He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

The peshat seems pretty straight forward. But let’s look at another encounter between Yeshua and His Judean Pharisaic brethren.
We’ll look at a debate over the fact Yeshua’s Galilean disciples did not perform a long-standing tradition of the elders,
that before eating otherwise clean and properly prepared food, a person must do n’tilat yadayim (ritual hand washing).
elstwise you might make something already taharah (clean) become common, or tumah by transference.

Mark 7:1-4a (ESV) Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem,  they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.  (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly [Greek unless they wash the hands with a fist, probably indicating a kind of ceremonial washing] holding to the tradition of the elders,  and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash.
At issue was the belief if the food is kosher (properly available), you could transfer uncleanness with unwashed hands. Torah does teach tumah can be transferred, and  the Pharisees believed since you can transfer uncleanness to objects, then touching food with unclean hands also makes it tumah. Eating it then defiles you, thus disqualifying you from worship, especially at the Temple.
So they invented netilat yadayim, the hand washing ceremony.

Why did Yeshua oppose this Pharisaic tradition?

Daniel Boyarin is a historian of religion and Rabbinic Jew, thoroughly knowledgable in Jewish context and culture. However he has a great interest in the New Testament, especially Jesus and Paul. How does he read that? As a Jew looking at this passage he can see much more clearly what Yeshua was teaching
because He comes at it from the context of Torah.

Yeshua quotes the prophet Yeshayahu as He replies:
Mark 7:6-8 (ESV) And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
Yeshua has no problems with traditions per-se; His problem is when traditions contradict Torah.
Addressing the crowd:
Mark 7:15 (ESV) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”
Boyarin says this was nothing new. It’s a summary of regulations governing bodily discharges as spelled out in Leviticus 15. These discharges come out, and do not enter.

Yeshua is saying this addresses a deeper spiritual reality; all evil comes out into the world from the human heart:
Mark 7:19-23 (ESV) since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Some rightly seeking to reclaim the intensely Jewish character of Mark’s gospel have mistakenly suggested that vs. 19 (Thus He declared all foods clean) is an editorial addition to the original text, made by Gentile Christians disinterested in Jewish issues. I suggest, however, that this line is in fact an integral part of Mark’s very Jewish argument! The law of bodily discharge is a case in point. Defending Torah against the Pharisees, Jesus upholds a long-standing Galilean Jewish tradition, declaring that foods cannot make an Israelite unclean, because in Torah it works the other way around!

Why is it so important to understand that what can defile a man is what comes out of him? Because evil comes from the heart. Under this seemingly hidden nuance there is great, incredible fact. Part of a man is a great idol making factory. All evil comes from inside the human heart, but not the other way around.

it is because of man’s idolatrous heart that God through Moshe allowed divorce. It wasn’t God’s ideal, but the Almighty knew the hearts of His creation and so made a way out of an ungodly relationship.

So I must conclude that divorce is permissible under the circumstances laid out in God’s Torah.  Remarriage is permissible if divorce was in accordance with Torah, however Torah does proscribe remarriage to a former husband if she has remarried since leaving him.

That takes care of divorce law basics. The real lesson however is context is everything in proper biblical interpretation:
- linguistic considerations
-- including here the original definition and nuanced meanings of the original terms and phrasing
- who is talking
- who is audience
- what is actually being discussed
-- in one case the law which applies to everyone
-- in the other a specific case, a point of law being discussed by men intimately familiar with the law
- historical and geographical considerations

Let all of scripture define your terms.
Let all of scripture guide your theology

[alon]

"Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 90a
and the law is that she is allowed to marry either.

MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: A MAN SHOULD NOT DIVORCE HIS WIFE UNLESS HE HAS FOUND HER GUILTY OF SOME UNSEEMLY CONDUCT, AS IT SAYS, BECAUSE HE HATH FOUND SOME UNSEEMLY THING1  IN HER.2  BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, SAY [THAT HE MAY DIVORCE HER] EVEN IF SHE HAS MERELY SPOILT HIS FOOD,3  SINCE IT SAYS,4  BECAUSE HE HATH FOUND SOME UNSEEMLY THING IN HER.5  R. AKIBA SAYS, [HE MAY DIVORCE HER] EVEN IF HE FINDS ANOTHER WOMAN MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN SHE IS, AS IT SAYS, IT COMETH TO PASS, IF SHE FIND NO FAVOUR IN HIS EYES.6

GEMARA. It has been taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: Does not the text distinctly say 'thing'?7  Beth Shammai rejoined: And does it not distinctly say 'unseemliness'? Beth Hillel replied: Had it said only 'unseemliness' without 'thing', I should have concluded that she should be sent away on account of unseemliness, but not of any [lesser] 'thing'. Therefore 'thing' is specified. Again, had it said only 'thing' without 'unseemliness', I should have concluded that [if divorced] on account of a 'thing' she should be permitted to marry again, but if on account of 'unseemliness', she should not be permitted to remarry. Therefore 'unseemliness' is also specified. And what do Beth Shammai make of this word 'thing'?8  — [They use it for the following lesson.] It says here 'thing', and it says in another place 'thing', viz. in the text, 'By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses a thing shall be established':9  just as there two witnesses are required, so here two witnesses are required. And Beth Hillel? — [They can retort:] Is it written 'unseemliness in a thing'? And Beth Shammai? — Is it written, 'either unseemliness or a thing'? And Beth Hillel? — For this reason it is written 'unseemliness of a thing', which can be taken either way.10
R. AKIBA SAYS, EVEN IF HE FOUND ANOTHER. What is the ground of the difference here [between the various rulings]? — It is indicated in the dictum of Resh Lakish, who said that ki11  has four meanings — 'if', 'perhaps', 'but', 'because'. Beth Shammai held that we translate here: 'It cometh to pass that she find no favour In his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her,' while R. Akiba held that we translate, 'Or if again he hath found some unseemly thing in her'.12  R. Papa asked Raba: If he has found in her neither unseemliness nor any [lesser] thing, [and still divorces her], what are we to do [according to Beth Hillel]? — He replied: Since in the case of a man who has committed a rape the All-Merciful has specifically laid down that 'he may not put her away all his days',13  which implies that [if he does so] all his days he is under obligation to take her back, in that case only has the All-Merciful made this the rule, but here, what is done is done.14  R. Mesharsheya said to Raba: If a man has made up his mind to divorce his wife, but she still lives with him and waits on him, what are we to do with him? — [He replied:] We apply to him the verse, Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee.15
It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: As men differ in their treatment of their food, so they differ in their treatment of their wives. Some men, if a fly falls into their cup, will put it aside and not drink it. This corresponds to the way of Papus b. Judah who used, when he went out, to lock his wife indoors. Another man, if a fly falls into his cup, will throw away the fly and then drink the cup. This corresponds to the way of most men who do not mind their wives talking with their brothers and relatives. Another man, again, if a fly falls into his soup, will squash it and eat it. This corresponds to the way of a bad man who sees his wife go out with her hair unfastened and spin cloth in the street"

[alon]

OK, this is for a darash I am supposed to give during our Sukkot celebration. I am actually redoing it, and it has taken a whole new direction, which I hope to have completed in time to post next week. Then that will hopefully give me time to outline it and practice enough to at least sound like I know what I'm talking about. Meantime, comments or questions always appreciated, even i the part discussed is changed or removed from my final draft.

[jimmie]

Did God/Yeshua, our bridegroom ever participate in divorce?
Jeremiah 3:8a (ESV) She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce.
God did divorce Israel How should we should take this? Israel never joined to another nation, and always a remnant was kept set apart.

May want to compare/balance with:

Jeremiah 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

and

Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

God did send Israel away but remained married to her. Thus allowing Israel to return if she were to become faithful again.

[alon]

Well, as I tried to narrow my focus this took a different somewhat track. Let me know what you think:

“Does God Hate Divorce?”

This was the question asked in the Torah study on the day I was asked to give this talk. It generated a lot of discussion, and the overwhelming response was “yes.” But I decided to look deeper.

Now I know I’m going to be ‘preaching to the choir’ here, but I think it is good to be reminded as I saw a little of this in the discussion. And frankly, I can be one of the worst offenders, so this was a bit incisive for me as I went through it.

What struck me most way we use terms. For example:
Malachi 2:16a (NASB) “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel,
When our English Bibles say “God “hates” divorce” we must challenge our understanding. By looking at meanings of Hebrew terms we get a better picture of what is being said. Take divorce: שָׁלַח shâlach- to send away, forsake, leave, let depart, loose, put or send away. These are just some of the connotations of the term which can give us a better idea how the Hebrew authors saw divorce.

But what about marriage itself? The most common Hebrew term f/ marriage is נשא nasa, but let’s look at this from different angle. According to Hebrew scholar Caim Bentorah, the most common term for worship is שחה shachah. It is a picture of total immersion- think tevilah. Now let’s look at this in terms of marriage.

The ח chet in שחה shachah constitutes wholeness, completeness, and nearness to God. It is an intimate joining of man to God. Going into a mikvah the water completely envelopes you. It is a picture of worship and communion with God.

“Any time God has your full attention, He can surround you with His presence and His love, just as … when you are [immersed in water].” CBT

The root שח shin chet is worship. The ה hei at end represents God’s breath; His presence.

“Hence, worship is any act that joins man with God into a completeness surrounded by the presence of the Spirit of God.”

As with most biblical concepts, this can apply to other entities as well. We can give this devotion to other gods. The concept itself is that of a human sharing their passion with a god or goddess and the deity reciprocating.

“When two lovers share their passion with each other, the very nature of such sharing declares they have an exclusive relationship with each other that they do not have with anyone else. To share such passion with anyone else would violate a sacred trust built into that relationship.”

In class we had a great explanation of how the marriage and divorce metaphor is carried all through scripture. It really filled in some gaps for me. Again paraphrasing and filling in with some of my own understanding:
Revelation 14:11 (ESV) And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, …, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

Worship is a picture of longing and desire for God as for one’s spouse. Taking the mark of the Beast is the spiritual equivalent of a woman taking another man’s name. In effect, you enter a marriage relationship with the Beast.

Genesis 3:16c “and thy desire shall be to thy husband.”

Once you take the mark (name) of the Beast, there is no going back to God. Taking the mark will include an act of worship:
Revelation 13:15b …, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. Worship is an expression of desire, and the wife’s heart longing and her desire for her husband is a picture of this.

Back to the original question, the key term is “hate;” “does God hate divorce?” Another way to put this is “how does God view divorce?”

Divorces are usually messy and painful, but worse than divorce can be an abusive marriage. This is not the picture of a Godly relationship the Almighty intended. Torah protected people from having to continue in an ungodly bond (ref.  Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 24:1).  So to translate Mal.2:16 as “God hates divorce” would seem to be a misrepresentation of how a loving God deals with a broken world.

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary defines terms based on all biblical and sectarian usage of the time. According to my Vine’s, TO HATE שָׂנֵא śânê’ represents emotions ranging from intense “hatred” to the much weaker “set against.” Some connotations:
jealousy; as Joseph’s brothers experienced because their father preferred him
this feeling increased when Joseph reported his dreams
one special use is ingressive, indicating the initiation of the emotion
a frequent use means “to be unloved”
possibly in the sense of deteriorating marital relations:
In the case of two wives in a family, in which one was preferred over the other, it may be said that one was loved and the other “hated”
it can represent a spurned woman
So the Hebrew term covers an emotional range from the first stirrings of disdain to outright, virulent hatred. But what about the Greek?

Vine’s μισέω miseō, “to hate,” used especially:
to detest, persecute; to love less
of malicious and unjustifiable feelings towards others,
aversion from what is evil;
relative preference for one thing over another,
aversion from, or disregard for the claims of one relative to another,
the impossibility of serving two masters;
disregard for one’s life relative to the claims of Christ;
negatively, of one’s own flesh, therefore a man’s wife as one with him.
In 1 John 3:15, he who “hates” his brother is called a murderer; for the sin lies in the inward disposition, of which the act is only the outward expression.
In the Bible, both Hebrew or Greek terms translated “hate” cover a wide range of emotion, but we tend to read using the most extreme English meaning. We must look closely at context, taking into consideration the nuanced meanings.

Speaking of context, didn’t Yeshua condemn divorce? Context includes everything else written in scripture dealing with divorce. An easy example:
Mark 10:2,12 [some] Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” … Yeshua answers: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

This seems to abnegate any legitimacy to divorce. However almost no Jew in the time of Yeshua would think it possible that Torah was wrong in permitting divorce. The debate was primarily between houses of Hillel and Shammai about how liberally it could be practiced.

The Gospel of Mathew gives us a more complete version of the same encounter:
Matthew 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”
Now we see it in the proper context: “Can a man divorce a woman for any reason?”  The conservative approach of the House of Shammai saw unfaithfulness, abuse, or abandonment to be the only valid grounds for divorce (ref Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 24:1). But the more “progressive” House of Hillel said a man may divorce his wife for any reason. The argument is preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin 90a (I have an excerpt if anyone is interested, see 2 posts above).

In practical terms, there were at the time many illegitimate divorces granted which were not congruent with the instructions in Torah. It was in this divorce-for-any-reason context Yeshua said “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18, Mark 10:12)

But what about: Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

The peshat seems pretty straight forward. But let’s look at another encounter between Yeshua and His Judean Pharisaic brethren- a debate over the fact Yeshua’s Galilean disciples did not perform a long-standing tradition of the elders:

Mark 7:1-4a (ESV) Now when the Pharisees gathered …,  they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were … unwashed.  (For the Pharisees and all the [Judeans] do not eat [unless they wash the hands with a fist, (indicating a ceremonial washing)] …,

At issue was the belief you could transfer uncleanness with unwashed hands. Torah does teach tumah can be transferred to objects. The Pharisees believed touching food with unclean hands also makes it tumah. Eating it then defiles you, so they invented netilat yadayim, the hand washing ceremony.

Why did Yeshua oppose this Pharisaic tradition? His problem is when traditions conflict with Torah. Addressing the crowd:
Mark 7:15 (ESV) There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

Hebrew and New Testament scholar Daniel Boyarin says this was nothing new. It’s a summary of regulations governing bodily discharges as spelled out in Leviticus 15. These discharges come out, and do not enter. Yeshua is saying this addresses a deeper spiritual reality; all evil comes out into the world from the human heart:
Mark 7:19-21a (ESV) since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, …”

Some rightly seeking to reclaim the intensely Jewish character of Mark’s gospel have mistakenly suggested that vs. 19 (Thus He declared all foods clean) is an editorial addition to the original text, made by Gentile Christians disinterested in Jewish issues. I suggest, however, that this line is in fact an integral part of Mark’s very Jewish argument! The law of bodily discharge is a case in point. Defending Torah against the Pharisees, Jesus upholds a long-standing Galilean Jewish tradition, declaring that foods cannot make an Israelite unclean, because in Torah it works the other way around!

Why is it so important to understand that what can defile a man is what comes out of him? Because evil comes from the heart. Under this seemingly hidden nuance there is great, incredible fact. Part of a man is a great idol making factory. All evil comes from inside the human heart, but not the other way around.

It is because of man’s idolatrous heart that God through Moshe allowed divorce. It wasn’t God’s ideal, but the Almighty knew the hearts of His creation and so made a way out of an ungodly relationship.

The real lesson here is context is everything in proper biblical interpretation. There are:
- linguistic considerations
-- including here the original definition and nuanced meanings of terms and phrasing
- who is talking
- and who is the audience
- what is actually being discussed
-- in one case we have the law which applies to everyone
-- in another specific case a point of law is being discussed by men intimately familiar with Torah
- historical and geographical considerations
-- Mark 7 occurred in Gennesaret, on the NE edge of the Sea of Galilee. Galileans did not typically practice Netalat Yadiyim.
But true context is with all of scripture:
* let all of scripture define your terms
* let all of scripture guide your theology

[mystic]

I saw this thread only the morning. I am on the fence with these scriptures. I understand the concept of trying one's best not to divorce but what happens in cases where 2 people simply cannot get along, should they stay in a marriage and be miserable for the rest of their lives? How is that a "Holy" marriage or would be in the best interest of both people?

One of my best buds in a marriage of some 35 years now in which the only thing left for them is for one to kill the other it seems so why should anyone encourage them to stay married aside from Christ commands which in this case I cannot see would be best scenario? So my thinking leans towards Moses where marriage is concerned.

Last divorce stats I had seen showed 50% of marriages end in divorce after 25 years of marriage so why around 25 years in particular? This is because people change over time I think and also because its only after being married for X period of time when a couple gets to "really" know each other and may not be the person he/she was expecting. I have always thought best scenario is for a couple is to live together for some years first then get married if they should be compatible as opposed to jumping into marriage then afterwards finding out they are not.

Paul's command of a divorced woman living alone I don't agree with simply because people make mistakes so why shouldn't she be forgiven and have a second chance at a happy life instead of having to live a lonely life for the rest of her days because of one mistake in marrying the wrong person? My take is if a person is "forgiven" as we were promised then why shouldn't we have a second chance to do better?

p.s. Of course needless to say that when we make vows we are responsible for it and have to suffer the consequences so the above is just my take on things.

[alon]

Aug 28, 2021 5:56:00 GMT -8 mystic said:

I saw this thread only the morning. I am on the fence with these scriptures. I understand the concept of trying one's best not to divorce but what happens in cases where 2 people simply cannot get along, should they stay in a marriage and be miserable for the rest of their lives? How is that a "Holy" marriage or would be in the best interest of both people?

One of my best buds in a marriage of some 35 years now in which the only thing left for them is for one to kill the other it seems so why should anyone encourage them to stay married aside from Christ commands which in this case I cannot see would be best scenario? So my thinking leans towards Moses where marriage is concerned.

Last divorce stats I had seen showed 50% of marriages end in divorce after 25 years of marriage so why around 25 years in particular? This is because people change over time I think and also because its only after being married for X period of time when a couple gets to "really" know each other and may not be the person he/she was expecting. I have always thought best scenario is for a couple is to live together for some years first then get married if they should be compatible as opposed to jumping into marriage then afterwards finding out they are not.

Paul's command of a divorced woman living alone I don't agree with simply because people make mistakes so why shouldn't she be forgiven and have a second chance at a happy life instead of having to live a lonely life for the rest of her days because of one mistake in marrying the wrong person? My take is if a person is "forgiven" as we were promised then why shouldn't we have a second chance to do better?

p.s. Of course needless to say that when we make vows we are responsible for it and have to suffer the consequences so the above is just my take on things.

Timed comp again, so I'll make this quick.

A lot of the problems with people getting so many divorces is it has become too easy. Easy out, easy in; why not? But if people were more responsible and married for more than just feelings, which can change, or looks (can also change, but often good looks hide something else really ugly), or other frivolous reasons, then there would be fewer divorces. Another problem is most people today do not know the meaning of commitment, so when it gets hard (as it always does) they will cut and run. My wife and me almost got divorced back when I was in total rebellion, but we stuck it out because we both understood the meaning of commitment; and I'm glad now that we did.

As for being promised forgiveness, yes, you were. But you were not promised to be able to sin as you please and be forgiven. And when you have intentionally done wrong it is not that easy to truly repent. So be careful before going there. 

Not sure what you mean by going with Moses, since Yeshua agreed with Moses. In any event, God has spoken and that is it. Maybe reread the posts.

Dan