Divorce
DIVORCE
Was tolerated by Moses for sufficient reasons, Deu 24:1-4 ; but our Lord has limited it to the single case of adultery, Mat 5:31,32 .
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Divorce
See Marriage.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
DIVORCE
Is the dissolution of marriage, or separation of man and wife. Divorce a mensa et thoro, 1:e. from bed and board,
in this case the wife has a suitable maintenance allowed her out of her husband’s effects. Divorce a vinculo matrimonii, 1:e. from the bonds of matrimony, is strictly and properly divorce. this happens either in consequence of criminality, as in the case of adultery, or through some essential impediment; as consanguinity, or affinity within the degrees forbidden, pre-contract, impotency, &c. of which impediments the canon law allows no less than 14. In these cases the woman receives again only what she brought. Sentences which release the parties a vinculo matrimonii, on account of impuberty, frigidity, consanquinity within the prohibited degrees, prior marriage, or want of the requisite consent of parents or guardians, are not properly dissolutions of the marriage contract, but judicial declarations that there never was any marriage; such impediment subsisting at the time as rendered the celebration of the marriage rite a mere nullity.
And the rite itself contains an exception of these impediments. The law of Moses, says Dr. Paley, for reasons of local expediency, permitted the Jewish husband to put away his wife; but whether for every cause, or for what cause, appears to have been controverted amongst the interpreters of those times. Christ, the precepts of whose religion were calculated for more general use and observation, revokes his permission as given to the Jews for their hardness of heart, and promulges a law which was thenceforward to confine divorces to the single cause of adultery in the wife, Mat 19:9. Inferior causes may justify the separation of husband and wife, although they will not authorize such a dissolution of the marriage contract as would leave either at liberty to marry again; for it is that liberty in which the danger and mischief of divorces principally consist. The law of this country, in conformity to our Saviour’s injunction, confines the dissolution of the marriage contract to the single case of adultery in the wife; and a divorce even in that case can only be brought about by an act of parliament, founded upon a previous sentiment in the spiritual court, and a verdict against the adulterer at common law; which proceedings taken together, compose as complete an investigation of the complaint as a cause can receive.
See Paley’s Mor. and Pol. Philosophy, p. 273; Doddridge’s Lectures, lect. 73.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
divorce
A legal separation of married persons. It is of three kinds: from the bond of matrimony, which is called an absolute divorce; from the bed, which makes lawful the denial of the marriage debt; from bed and board, which denies the rights of cohabitation. The last two do not cause the cessation of the bond of marriage, and are self-explanatory. For a release from the bond of matrimony in the case of a non-consummated Christian marriage, see dissolution of a marriage and for the dissolving of the bond of a marriage contracted validly by unbaptized persons, one of whom afterwards was baptized in the Catholic Church, see Pauline privilege. Except in these special cases, the matrimonial bond, once validly contracted, is indissoluble except by death. The State, the civil power, has no right whatever to grant divorces. It has the power to regulate marriages by license, registration, etc., but it has no authority to annul a valid marriage. Statistics prove that the number of divorces is increasing.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Divorce
The dissolution of the marriage tie was regulated by the Mosaic law (Deut. 24:1-4). The Jews, after the Captivity, were reguired to dismiss the foreign women they had married contrary to the law (Ezra 10:11-19). Christ limited the permission of divorce to the single case of adultery. It See ms that it was not uncommon for the Jews at that time to dissolve the union on very slight pretences (Matt. 5:31, 32; 19:1-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18). These precepts given by Christ regulate the law of divorce in the Christian Church.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Divorce
Deu 24:1-4 permits the husband to divorce the wife, if he find in her “uncleanness,” literally, “matter of nakedness,” by giving her “a bill of divorcement,” literally, a book of cutting off. Polygamy had violated God’s primal law joining in one flesh one man to one woman, who formed the other half or converse side of the male. Moses’ law does not sanction this abnormal state of things which he found prevalent, but imposes a delay and cheek on its proceeding to extreme arbitrariness. He regulates and mitigates what he could not then extirpate. The husband must get drawn up by the proper authorities (the Levites) a formal deed stating his reasons (Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8), and not dismiss her by word of mouth. Moses threw the responsibility of the violation of the original law on the man himself; tolerating it indeed (as a less evil than enforcing the original law which the people’s “hardness of heart” rendered then unsuitable, and thus aggravating the evil) but throwing in the way what might serve as an obstacle to extreme caprice, an act requiring time and publicity and formal procedure.
The school of Shammai represented fornication or adultery as the “uncleanness” meant by Moses. But (Lev 20:10; Joh 8:5) stoning, not merely divorce, would have been the penalty of that, and our Lord (Mat 19:3; Mat 19:9, compare Mat 5:31) recognizes a much lower ground of divorce tolerated by Moses for the hardness of their heart. Hillel’s school recognized the most trifling cause as enough for divorce, e.g. the wife’s burning the husband’s food in cooking. The aim of our Lord’s interrogators was to entangle Him in the disputes of these two schools. The low standard of marriage prevalent at the close of the Old Testament appears in Mal 2:14-16. Rome makes marriage a sacrament, and indissoluble except by her lucrative ecclesiastical dispensations.
But this would make the marriage between one pagan man and one pagan woman a “sacrament,” which in the Christian sense would be absurd; for Eph 5:23-32, which Rome quotes, and Mar 10:5-12 where even fornication is not made an exception to the indissolubility of marriage, make no distinction between marriages of parties within and parties outside of the Christian church. What marriage is to the Christian, it was, in the view of Scripture, to man before and since the fall and God’s promise of redemption. Adulterous connection with a third party makes the person one flesh with that other, and so, ipso facto dissolves the unity of flesh with the original consort (1Co 6:15-16). The divorced woman who married again, though the law sanctions her remarriage (Deu 24:1-4), is treated as “defiled” and not to be taken back by the former husband. The reflection that, once divorced and married again, she could never return to her first husband, would check the parties from reckless rashness.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
DIVORCE
Gods plan for marriage was that it be a permanent union between one man and one woman a union broken only by death. Divorce was something God hated (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:16; Mat 19:3-6; Rom 7:2-4). From earliest times, however, people on the whole rejected God, and polygamy and divorce became common practices (Gen 6:1-8; Rom 1:20-27; see MARRIAGE).
Examples from Bible times
Among the Israelites of Moses time, marriage disorders had become so widespread that Moses set out special laws designed to deal with the problem. In particular he wanted to stop easy divorce and protect women from unjust treatment.
For instance, if a man tried to find an excuse for divorcing his wife by accusing her (falsely) of sexual immorality before marriage, he was fined for his cruel accusation and prevented from divorcing her (Deu 22:13-19). He could divorce her only if there was a valid reason, and only if he gave her divorce documents that protected her rights should she want to marry someone else. He could not take her back if he later changed his mind, and she could not go back to him if her second marriage came to an end (Deu 24:1-4).
Moses decision to permit divorce in certain circumstances was not because he approved of divorce. Rather he was trying to reduce divorce and restore some moral order to society. When Jews of later times quoted Moses law as approval for divorce, Jesus referred them back to Gods original standard. According to that standard, to divorce and remarry was adultery (Mar 10:2-12; Luk 16:18; 1Co 7:10-11). The only exception that Jesus allowed was the case where a persons adultery was already destroying the marriage (Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:3-9; see ADULTERY; FORNICATION).
A difficult situation arose in New Testament times when one partner in a non-Christian marriage later became a Christian. The Christian was not to divorce the non-Christian partner, but was to do everything possible to make the marriage work harmoniously. If the non-Christian partner was not willing to continue the marriage and departed, the Christian partner had to let it be so and consider the marriage at an end. The statement that in such cases the Christian partner was no longer bound seems to mean that he or she was free to remarry (1Co 7:12-15).
A universal problem
In any society where there is a widespread breakdown of marriage, the result will be an increasing number of social and family problems. The Creator knows what is best for his creatures, and where people reject the plan he has laid down, they will have troubles (cf. Deu 10:13).
There is often no clear-cut solution to the complications that arise because of divorce and remarriage. In some cases, no matter what is done, some ideal will be broken. Moses accepted less than the best because of the peoples hardness of heart, which suggests that the right course of action may at times mean choosing the lesser of two evils (Mat 19:8).
Repentant sinners can receive Gods merciful forgiveness for divorce and adultery as they can for other sins (2Sa 12:13; Psalms 51; Psa 145:14; Isa 43:25). Whatever people might have been guilty of previously, when God forgives them the church must also forgive them (1Co 6:9-11; cf. Mat 6:14-15). Although Christians must, like Jesus, uphold Gods standards when others want to destroy them (Mat 19:3-9), they must also, like Jesus, give help to those who, having broken Gods law, are later repentant (Luk 7:36-50; Joh 8:1-11; cf. Hos 14:4).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Divorce
DIVORCE.The teaching of Christ on this subject in the earliest Gospel, that of St. Mark, is clear and decisive. It is given in Mar 10:1; Mar 10:12. The Pharisees came to Him with the question, Is it lawful for a husband to divorce a wife? The Pharisees themselves could have had no doubt upon the point thus broadly stated. Divorce was, as they believed, sanctioned and legalized by Deu 24:1-2. But they debated about the scope and limits of divorce (cf. Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Gittin, 90a, where the views of the Schools of Hillel and of Shammai are given. The former allowed divorce for trivial offences, the latter only for immoral conduct). In putting the question to Christ, the Pharisees therefore had an ulterior object. They came, says St. Mark, tempting him, knowing probably from previous utterances of His that He would reply in words which would seem directly to challenge the Mosaic Law (cf. His criticism of the distinctions between clean and unclean meats, Mar 7:14-23). Christ answers with the expected reference to the Law, What did Moses command? They state the OT position: Moses sanctioned divorce. Notice how nothing is said as to grounds or reasons for divorce. Christ at once makes His position clear. The law upon this point was an accommodation to a rude state of society. But a prior and higher law is to be found in the Creation narrative, Male and female he created them (Gen 1:27 LXX Septuagint ), i.e. God created the first pair of human beings of different sexes that they might be united in the marriage bond. Further, it was afterwards said that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that he and his wife should be one flesh. In other words, married couples were in respect of unity, as the first pair created by God, destined for one another. The marriage bond, therefore, which may be said to have been instituted by God Himself, must be from an ideal standpoint indissoluble. What God joined, let not man sunder.
In answer to a further question of His disciples, the Lord enforces this solemn pronouncement. A man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. A woman who puts away her husband and marries another commits adultery. Upon this point Christs teaching passes beyond the ordinary conditions of Jewish society. No woman could divorce her husband by Jewish law. But that is no reason why the Lord should not have expressed Himself as Mk. records. There were exceptional cases of divorce by women in Palestine (cf. Salome, Josephus Ant. xv. vii. 10: She sent him [Costobar] a bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was against the Jewish laws). And there is no reason why He may not have been acquainted with the possibility of divorce by women in the West, or why, even if He had not this in view, He may not have wished to emphasize His point by stating the wrongfulness of divorce, on either side, of the marriage bond.
With this earliest record of Christs teaching the fragment in the Third Gospel (Luk 16:18) is in agreement: Every one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. That is to say, the marriage bond is indissoluble. The husband who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery. And the man who marries a divorced wife commits adultery, because she is ideally the wife of her still living (first) husband.
In the First Gospel, however, we find this plain and unambiguous teaching, that divorce is inconceivable from an ideal standpoint, modified in a very remarkable way. In Mat 5:32 occurs a saying parallel in substance to Luk 16:18, but with the notable addition of the words, except for the sake of unchastity ( ). Thus modified, the Lords teaching becomes similar to that of the stricter school of Jewish interpreters. The supposed sanction of divorce in Deu 24:1-2 is practically reaffirmed, the clause , which formed the point at issue in the Jewish schools, being interpreted or paraphrased as , by which is probably meant any act of illicit sexual intercourse. In other words, Christ here assumes that divorce must follow adultery, and what He is here prohibiting is not such divorce, which He assumes as necessary, but divorce and consequent remarriage on any other grounds. It might further be argued that the words affect only the first clause, and that remarriage after divorce even on the ground of adultery is here prohibited. But if this were intended, it would surely have been explicitly expressed and not left to be inferred. And such teaching would seem to be illogical. Because, if adultery be held to have broken the marriage tie so effectually as to justify divorce, it must surely be held to leave the offended husband free to contract a new tie.
In view, therefore, of Mar 10:1-12 and Luk 16:18, it must appear that Mat 5:32 places the teaching of Christ in a new light. So far as Lk. is concerned, we might, with some difficulty, suppose that the exception save for adultery was assumed as a matter so obvious that it needed no explicit expression. But in view of the disputes in the Jewish Schools, this is very unlikely. And Mar 10:1-12, with its criticism of the alleged Mosaic sanction of divorce, leaves no room for doubt that on that occasion at least Christ pronounced marriage to be a divinely instituted ordinance which should under no circumstances be broken by divorce. It would not, of course, be difficult to suppose that on other occasions the Lord Himself modified His teaching. We might suppose that He taught His disciples that, whilst from an ideal standpoint, marriage, for all who wished to discern and to obey the guidance of the Divine will in life, ought to be an indissoluble bond, yet, human nature and society being what they are, divorce was a necessary and expedient consequence of the sin of adultery. But a careful comparison of Mat 5:32 with Mark 10 and Luke 16 irresistibly suggests the conclusion that the exception in Mt. is due not to Christ Himself, but to the Evangelist, or to the atmosphere of thought which he represents, modifying Christs words to bring them into accordance with the necessities of life. This conclusion seems to be confirmed when we compare Mat 19:1-12 with Mar 10:1 f. It is on many grounds clear that the editor of the First Gospel is here, as elsewhere, re-editing St. Mark (see Expos. Times, Oct. 1903, p. 45, and St. Matthew in the Internat. Crit. Com.). Contrast with the logical and consistent argument of Mk. stated above, the account of the First Gospel. The Pharisees are represented as inquiring, Is it lawful for a man to put away a wife on any pretext? Christ answers, as in Mk., that marriage from an ideal standpoint is indissoluble. The Pharisees appeal to the Law against this judgment. In reply we should expect the Lord, as in Mk., to state the accommodating and secondary character of the legal sanction of divorce, and to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage. But instead He is represented as affirming that constitutes an exception. Thus He tacitly takes sides with the severer school of interpretation of Deuteronomy 24, and acknowledges the permanent validity of that Law thus interpreted in a strict sense, which immediately before He had criticised as an accommodation to a rude state of social life. This inconsistency shows that Mk. is here original, and that and . are insertions by the editor of Mt. into Mk.s narratives, and confirms the otherwise probable conclusion that in Mar 5:32 is an insertion into the traditional saying more accurately preserved in Luke 16. The motive of these insertions can only be conjectured. But, in view of other features of the First Gospel, it is probable that the editor was a Jewish Christian who has here Judaized Christs teaching. Just as he has so arranged Mat 5:16-20 as to represent Christs attitude to the Law to be that of the Rabbinical Jews, who regarded every letter of the Law as permanently valid, so here he has so shaped Christs teaching about divorce as to make it consonant with the permanent authority of the Pentateuch, and harmonious with the stricter school of Jewish theologians. To the same strain in the editors character, the same Jewish-Christian jealousy for the honour of the Law, and for the privileges of the Jewish people, may perhaps be ascribed the emphasis placed on the prominence of St. Peter (Matthew 10 :2 , Mat 14:29-31, Mat 15:16, Mat 16:17-19, Mat 17:24-27, Mat 18:21), and the preservation of such sayings as Mat 10:5-6; Mat 10:23. And to the same source may perhaps be attributed the Judaizing of the Lords language in such expressions as the kingdom of the heavens, and the Father who is in the heavens. See, also, artt. Adultery and Marriage.
Literature.Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , art. Marriage; Dykes, Manifesto of the King, 255 ff.; Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics, 410 ff.; Expositor, iv. vii. [1893] 294.
W. C. Allen.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Divorce
DIVORCE.See Marriage.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Divorce
Divorce [MARRIAGE]
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Divorce
This was explained by the Lord. Moses had suffered a man to put away his wife for any cause, as we see in Deu 24:1; Deu 24:3; but the Lord maintained God’s original ordinance that what God had joined together, man had no right to put asunder, therefore a man must not put away his wife except for fornication, when she herself had broken the bond. Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:3-9. A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT must be given to the woman, the drawing up of which, and having it witnessed, was some little check upon a man’s hasty temper.
Divorce is used symbolically to express God’s action in putting away Israel, who had been grossly unfaithful, and giving her a bill of divorcement. Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Divorce
General references
Exo 21:7-11; Deu 21:10-14; Deu 24:1-4; Ezr 10:1-16; Neh 13:23-30; Jer 3:1; Mic 2:9; Mal 2:14-16; Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:3-12; Mar 10:2; Luk 16:18; 1Co 7:10-17
Disobedience of the wife to the husband, a sufficient cause for, in the Persian empire
Est 1:10-22 Marriage
Figurative
Isa 50:1; Isa 54:4; Jer 3:8
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Divorce
Divorce. A dissolution of the marriage relation. The law on this subject is found in Deu 24:1-4, and the cases in which the right of a husband to divorce his wife was lost are stated in Deu 22:19; Deu 22:29. The ground of divorce is a point on which the Jewish doctors of the New Testament era differed widely; the school of Shammai seeming to limit it to a moral delinquency in the woman, whilst that of Hillel extended it to trifling causes, e.g., if the wife burnt the food she was cooking for her husband. The Pharisees wished perhaps to entangle our Saviour with these questions in their rival schools, Mat 19:3; but by his answer to them, as well as by his previous maxim. Mat 5:31-32, he declares that he regarded all the lesser causes than “fornication” as standing on too weak ground, and set forth adultery as the proper ground of divorce, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9; Mar 10:11-12; Luk 16:18.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Divorce
Divorce. Divorce is “a legal dissolution of the marriage relation”. The law regulating this subject is found in Deu 24:1-4, and the cases in which the right of a husband to divorce his wife was lost are stated. Deu 22:19; Deu 22:29.
The ground of divorce is a point on which the Jewish doctors of the period of the New Testament differed widely; the school of Shammai seeming to limit it to a moral delinquency in the woman, whilst that the Hillel extended it to trifling causes, for example, if the wife burnt the food she was cooking for her husband.
The Pharisees wished, perhaps, to embroil our Saviour with these rival schools by their question, Mat 19:3, by his answer to which, as well as by his previous maxim, Mat 5:31, he declares that he regarded all the lesser causes than “fornication” as standing on too weak ground, and declined the question of how to interpret the words of Moses.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Divorce
As the ancient Hebrews paid a stipulated price for the privilege of marrying, they seemed to consider it the natural consequence of making a payment of that kind, that they should be at liberty to exercise a very arbitrary power over their wives, and to renounce or divorce them whenever they chose. This state of things, as Moses himself very clearly saw, was not equitable as respected the woman, and was very often injurious to both parties. Finding himself, however, unable, to overrule feelings and practices of very ancient standing, he merely annexed to the original institution of marriage a very serious admonition to this effect, viz. that it would be less criminal for a man to desert his father and mother, than without adequate cause to desert his wife, Gen 2:14, compared with Mal 2:11-16. He also laid a restriction upon the power of the husband as far as this, that he would not permit him to repudiate the wife without giving her a bill of divorce. He farther enacted in reference to this subject that the husband might receive the repudiated wife back, in case she had not in the meanwhile been married to another person; but if she had been thus married, she could never afterward become the wife of her first husband; a law, which the faith due to the second husband clearly required, Deu 24:1-4, compare Jer 3:1, and Mat 1:19; Mat 19:8. The inquiry, What should be considered an adequate cause of divorce, was left by Moses to be determined by the husband himself. He had liberty to divorce her, if he saw in her any thing naked, any thing displeasing or improper, any thing so much at war with propriety, and a source of so much dissatisfaction as to be, in the estimation of the husband, sufficient ground for separation. These expressions, however, were sharply contested as to their meaning in the later times of the Jewish nation. The school of Hillel contended, that the husband might lawfully put away the wife for any cause, even the smallest. The mistake committed by the school of Hillel in taking this ground was, that they confounded moral and civil law. It is true, as far as the Mosaic statute or the civil law was concerned, the husband had a right thus to do; but it is equally clear, that the ground of just separation must have been, not a trivial, but a prominent and important one, when it is considered, that he was bound to consult the rights of the woman, and was amenable to his conscience and his God. The school of Shammai explained the phrase, nakedness of a thing, to mean actual adultery. Our Lord agreed with the school of Shammai as far as this, that the ground of divorce should be one of a moral nature, and not less than adultery; but he does not appear to have agreed with them in their opinion in respect to the Mosaic statute. On the contrary, he denied the equity of that statute, and in justification of Moses maintained, that he permitted divorces for causes below adultery, only in consequence of the hardness of the people’s hearts, Mat 5:31-32; Mat 18:1-9; Mar 10:2-12; Luk 16:18. Wives, who were considered the property of their husbands, did not enjoy by the Mosaic statutes a reciprocal right, and were not at liberty to dissolve the matrimonial alliance by giving a bill of divorce to that effect. In the latter periods, however, of the Jewish state, the Jewish matrons, the more powerful of them at least, appear to have imbibed the spirit of the ladies of Rome, and to have exercised in their own behalf the same power that was granted by the Mosaic law only to their husbands, Mar 6:17-29; Mar 10:12.