Jesus Does Not Allow Divorce-An Apology

[Redeemed by Grace]

The belief that the phrase "except it be for fornication" means "except it be for adultery" is an assumption. "Adultery" is a specific sexual offence as it violates a marriage. The precise word to use if adultery was a grounds for divorce is "adultery". You are assuming that fornication in 5:32 and 19:9 means adultery.
Sometimes the word fornication and adultery are listed side by side indicating difference of meaning.

I understand that, Alaska, but how can the husband be guilty of adultery if he marries another if he's not truly married to begin with? If he's not truly married wouldn't he be guilty of fornication as you claim here?

John Piper, of the Bethlehem Baptist Church of Minneapolis, writes a similar understanding within one of his latest books "What Jesus Demands from the World" Crossway Books Publishing, 2006 which is very similar to what Alaska has stated within the above quote -- and Piper offers very compelling logic in building this position through chapters [Demands] 40, 41, and 42.

In a nutshell, Piper separates adultery and fornication and positions the time of fornication within the betrothal period, for which Joseph would have been justified in putting Mary away... for this was during their betrothal period and not marriage.


God hates divorce, and Piper builds a very strong case that there really is no biblical justification given by God for divorce, but that there is biblical justification if there is fornication during the betrothal...

FWIW....

[VerticalReality]

John Piper, of the Bethlehem Baptist Church of Minneapolis, writes a similar understanding within one of his latest books "What Jesus Demands from the World" Crossway Books Publishing, 2006 which is very similar to what Alaska has stated within the above quote -- and Piper offers very compelling logic in building this position through chapters [Demands] 40, 41, and 42.

In a nutshell, Piper separates adultery and fornication and positions the time of fornication within the betrothal period, for which Joseph would have been justified in putting Mary away... for this was during their betrothal period and not marriage.


God hates divorce, and Piper builds a very strong case that there really is no biblical justification given by God for divorce, but that there is biblical justification if there is fornication during the betrothal...

FWIW....

I understand that, Redeemed, but that is not what Alaska said. Alaska's definition of adultery is the following . . .

"Adultery" is a specific sexual offence as it violates a marriage.

There is a difference between a "marriage" and a "betrothal". If you want to say the folks that Jesus is talking about in Matthew 19 are betrothed that is fine with me. I have no problem with that at all. However, that would not fit Alaska's definition of adultery.

So, it seems to me that Alaska's definition of adultery is wrong.

I also have no issue with folks saying there is no biblical grounds for divorce according to the law of Christ. However, that still leaves us with a huge problem if we view things from Alaska's point of view. If there are no biblical grounds for divorce, and divorce is a sin as Alaska proclaims, then how could Moses allow this sin to take place?

One can only come to two conclusions . . .

1) There is a huge contradiction going on within Scripture. . .

or

2) The real meaning of "What God has joined together . . . " is not being understood

I refuse to believe option 1 is a possibility.

If you view Matthew 19 as a betrothal and not a marriage, it seems to me the only way this can be adultery is because God has already brought the two together. However, what would that then say? It would say that God joining two together is not a physical thing but rather something much deeper than that.

That also leaves us with the question of does God bring all marriages together? Did God bring together Israel and their pagan wives? Does God currently bring together all those practicing witches today who are serving their own gods and performing their idolatrous rituals?

It seems to me like we haven't even cracked the surface of what God has truly brought together . . .

[drew]

You are speculating that I am speculating. You are also speculating that I am not being charitable. There is at least one strong scripture that supports my assertion that grace in a persons life will cause them to submit to the promptings of grace. It then follows that a persons refusal to believe, much less submit to Mark 10:11,12 is in itself evidence of a lack of grace. Grace in a persons life will manifest itself with regard to that person being receptive and appreciating the truth.
You also twisted my words. A person lacking grace in a certain area and a person "not being under grace" are two different things.
You have indicated that your knowledge of scripture is very limited.
Have you even read the first post on this thread? If you haven't, then why are you even writing here? This isn't about a complex situation concerning someone getting married who is not mentally competent, yet this is the kind of thing you bring here with no attempt whatsoever to address the issues as reasoned in the first post in favor of the belief that Mark 10:2-12 does in very fact mean exactly what it says in all its plainly worded implications.

I have indeed read the first post of the thread and my question is directly relevant to your assertion that:

I am one such person. I believe that marriage is sacred and can only be broken by the death of one of the parties involved.

I found nothing in the first post that addressed the issue of entering marriage incompetently. Based on what you say above, the reader will probably conclude that you believe that there are no circumstances under which God allows divorce. So I think you are obliged to address the hypothetical scenario that I provided. Please do so or point us to some post(s) where you have addressed this issue.

Please stop speculating as you do in the following statement. Other posters will know that you have precisely zero evidence to support this statement:

You have indicated that your knowledge of scripture is very limited

This is a backhanded way of trying to have your argument carry the day. If your case is actually so strong, you should need to have to take pot-shots at those who disagree with you - the content of argument will carry your point for you. And this is indeed how it should be. You, of course, have just encountered me. Readers are free to judge my knowledge of scripture, but only after they read a reasonable number of my posts.

And I do not believe that I ever twisted your words. You wrote as follows

Such questions as yours are often created to find a way of getting out from under grace. Grace in a persons life has them obedient to the "Gospel of the Grace of God" which provides the truth concerning marriage. Jesus, full of grace and truth, spoke from the abundance of his heart that was full of grace and truth when asked about divorce. Lack of the ability to receive those words of grace are, I believe, evidence of the lack of grace. Such questions or attempts at casting away Gods cords from them, I believe, fall into the category of frustrating the grace of God as referred to by Paul

Let the reader judge whether the statement "evidence of lack of grace" really draws the distinction that you claim when you responded with

You also twisted my words. A person lacking grace in a certain area and a person "not being under grace" are two different things.

But my main concern in this post is to elicit a direct response from you concerning the issue of people entering into marriage in a state of mental incompetence. This clearly can and does happen, even if in a small minority of marriages. Does God allow divorce in such cases?

[VerticalReality]

Another question, Alaska . . .

How is it possible for the lady at the well to have five different husbands and when Jesus confronts her she doesn't have any?

Do you believe by some strange occurrence all five were dead?

Why was she not bound to those husbands for life? How could Jesus Christ state that she has no husband?

John 4:17-18
The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”
Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”

[drew]

Hello VR;

I am having a little difficulty synthesizing an understanding of your basic position on this issue. Can you you either give me a reader's digest view and / or point to some other posts of yours.

And I am interested: What do you think about the case where people enter marriage in a state of relatively obvious mental incompetence?

[VerticalReality]

I am having a little difficulty synthesizing an understanding of your basic position on this issue. Can you you either give me a reader's digest view and / or point to some other posts of yours.

My position is that it seems to me that not all marriages are brought together by God. In order to get a clear understanding of what a marriage brought together by God looks like, Jesus Christ stated that we have to look 'in the beginning'.

In the beginning man didn't go to the bar to party and hook up with chicks. In the beginning, man didn't just hook up with some girl, move in with them, and then just all of sudden decide one day that they feel like going down to the justice of the peace and draw up a marriage license. This was not how it was in the beginning. In the beginning God brought together man and woman as they had a relationship with God and it was possible for this to happen. In the beginning this union was more than just a carnal union.

And I am interested: What do you think about the case where people enter marriage in a state of relatively obvious mental incompetence?

It's really impossible for me to judge really. I guess it depends on what you mean by mental incompetence. Do I believe that God can join two mentally disabled people in marriage? I don't really see why not, although I don't really have any Scripture to make a case for it.

[Redeemed by Grace]

I understand that, Redeemed, but that is not what Alaska said. Alaska's definition of adultery is the following . . .



There is a difference between a "marriage" and a "betrothal". If you want to say the folks that Jesus is talking about in Matthew 19 are betrothed that is fine with me. I have no problem with that at all. However, that would not fit Alaska's definition of adultery.

So, it seems to me that Alaska's definition of adultery is wrong.

I also have no issue with folks saying there is no biblical grounds for divorce according to the law of Christ. However, that still leaves us with a huge problem if we view things from Alaska's point of view. If there are no biblical grounds for divorce, and divorce is a sin as Alaska proclaims, then how could Moses allow this sin to take place?

One can only come to two conclusions . . .

1) There is a huge contradiction going on within Scripture. . .

or

2) The real meaning of "What God has joined together . . . " is not being understood

I refuse to believe option 1 is a possibility.

If you view Matthew 19 as a betrothal and not a marriage, it seems to me the only way this can be adultery is because God has already brought the two together. However, what would that then say? It would say that God joining two together is not a physical thing but rather something much deeper than that.

That also leaves us with the question of does God bring all marriages together? Did God bring together Israel and their pagan wives? Does God currently bring together all those practicing witches today who are serving thier own gods and performing their idolatrous rituals?

It seems to me like we haven't even cracked the service of what God has truly brought together . . .

Yep, I haven't been following the thread, just happen to see your one post with his quote and based on that on comment, gave reply.

But to that one post, and to Piper's hermeneutics that seems to me saying the same thing: God hates divorce....and the 'out' in marriage... well maybe there really isn't one.... no matter who is unfaithful or not....


So even though God told Israel not to take foreign wives - God hates divorce, even if it meant in trying to right a wrong - [the book of Ezra]


Carry on....

[VerticalReality]

So even though God told Israel not to take foreign wives - God hates divorce, even it it meant in trying to right a wrong - [the book of Ezra]

True enough, but what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is what "God has joined together . . ."

If divorce is a sin on the basis of "what God has joined together let not man separate", as Alaska has proclaimed, how can Moses allow these divorces if God has truly brought those people together? Going by Alaska's interpretation isn't that the same as Moses permitting sin?

[Redeemed by Grace]

True enough, but what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is what "God has joined together . . ."

If divorce is a sin on the basis of "what God has joined together let not man separate", as Alaska has proclaimed, how can Moses allow these divorces if God has truly brought those people together? Going by Alaska's interpretation isn't that the same as Moses permitting sin?

I am persuaded that God honors all marriages...

Again, not having read the legions of pages of opinions in this thread, but looking at the topic and the initial post I came in on - fresh - void of those opinions, I am equally being persuaded by Piper's writings that maybe those exceptions that we have traditionally applied to the 'bad' marriages in saying that there is an 'out' based on 'biblical' circumstances, maybe there is not this out within adulterous marriages as we think.


God hates divorce... As He hates sin, and the sin of adultery.

And He hates divorce between believers - and He hates divorce between non-believers.... and His love within one of the partners should be the strongest glue between them, and if both are believers, then divorce and wandering and lust should not even be named among them.

So I think that there may be a better understanding to learn than putting away one's spouse who has been involved in adulty as saying it's biblical. I'm still studying the word as Piper has presented it and again, he does offer a compelling argument in stating that marriage is for life... for which I say AMEN!

[VerticalReality]

I am persuaded that God honors all marriages...

Even the Satanists who in their ceremony say their vows to Satan instead of God? You believe God brought them together the same as He did Adam and Eve?

Again, not having read the legions of pages of opinions in this thread, but looking at the topic and the initial post I came in on - fresh - void of those opinions, I am equally being persuaded by Piper's writings that maybe those exceptions that we have traditionally applied to the 'bad' marriages in saying that there is an 'out' based on 'biblical' circumstances, maybe there is not this out within adulterous marriages as we think.

But again, I have no problem with someone saying there is an "out" within a legitimate marriage brought together by God. I do not believe there should be an "out". However, I can also see how God can bring together born again believers that seek His will and desire above their own. Those who are carnal and have rejected God, how is He bringing them together? What about the atheists who don't even believe in God? How are they being joined into the bond of marriage by God when they don't even believe in Him?

God hates divorce... As He hates sin, and the sin of adultery.

And rightly He should, IMO. However, why is it still allowed under the law? Jesus says it's because of a hardness of heart. Well, we automatically assume that the hardness of heart has caused the divorce, but can't it also be true that a hardness of heart brought the marriage together as well? A hardness of heart is the root of all sin, and it is the cause of all man's rejections of God and His ways.

And He hates divorce between believers -

Indeed. I'm not convinced that any born again believers have a biblical justification for divorce.

and He hates divorce between non-believers

Yet it is allowed without judgment and permitted by Moses. Therefore, I have a difficult time accepting that God is bringing those folks together that Moses is allowing to divorce because of their hardened heart. Born again Christians aren't supposed to have hardened hearts. Therefore, I can understand how they could be expected to remain married for life. However, you can't say the same thing for unbelievers who are hard hearted and do know know or understand God's ways.

and His love within one of the partners should be the strongest glue between them

But unbelievers do not have His love in them, nor do they really care about how they may serve the other. A carnal union is usually a very selfish one.

So I think that there may be a better understanding to learn than putting away one's spouse who has been involved in adulty as saying it's biblical. I'm still studying the word as Piper has presented it and again, he does offer a compelling argument in stating that marriage is for life... for which I say AMEN!

I'm not the one making the argument that born again believers should put away their spouse . . .

My argument here is whether or not God truly brings together ALL marriages. I have a difficult time believing that he does. In fact, if God doesn't bring all marriages together I can then see how Moses could allow divorce.

[Redeemed by Grace]

Even the Satanists who in their ceremony say their vows to Satan instead of God? You believe God brought them together the same as He did Adam and Eve?

So... I guess you want to go to the extreme.... OK. Two couples, one being Christian, the other couple are not Christians. The Christians who marry end up divorced within 10 years and then each marries again. The non-christian couple marries and stay together 'til the first one dies.

Which one honored God's law of marriage?



///

'And God brings together'....Hmmm, are you quoting scripture or your wedding vows? And what exactly do you mean, that as God brought you and your wife together like Adam and Eve, but not for the non-Christian? I think there might be a double standard you are suggesting, that He mates the Christians but cannot do the same for non-christains? Just asking.

But again, I have no problem with someone saying there is an "out" within a legitimate marriage brought together by God. I do not believe there should be an "out". However, I can also see how God can bring together born again believers that seek His will and desire above their own. Those who are carnal and have rejected God, how is He bringing them together? What about the atheists who don't even believe in God? How are they being joined into the bond of marriage by God when they don't even believe in Him?

Does it rain on the just and not the unjust? I can see 'non-christians' love their spouse just as... and maybe even more Christ-like in sacrifice and love than some of the 'christian' couples I know. So what one believes about God doesn't negate God's working in their life, for He moves kings hearts, why wouldn't He do the same for all men, and for some give them love for their family?

And rightly He should, IMO. However, why is it still allowed under the law? Jesus says it's because of a hardness of heart. Well, we automatically assume that the hardness of heart has caused the divorce, but can't it also be true that a hardness of heart brought the marriage together as well? A hardness of heart is the root of all sin, and it is the cause of all man's rejections of God and His ways.

I'm missing this point...but that's OK.

Indeed. I'm not convinced that any born again believers have a biblical justification for divorce.

I don't think anyone has.

Yet it is allowed without judgment and permitted by Moses. Therefore, I have a difficult time accepting that God is bringing those folks together that Moses is allowing to divorce because of their hardened heart. Born again Christians aren't supposed to have hardened hearts. Therefore, I can understand how they could be expected to remain married for life. However, you can't say the same thing for unbelievers who are hard hearted and do know know or understand God's ways.

This reminds me a bit of John 6:32 Albeit that God hates divorce, and whether Mose gave written permission or not, the action of divorce is hated by God. God is the subject, not Moses.

But unbelievers do not have His love in them, nor do they really care about how they may serve the other. A carnal union is usually a very selfish one.

I'd like to argue this point a bit, for doesn't something inside a man, every man points to God's grace. Doesn't a non-Christian obey the traffic laws and civil laws? Or does every man sin in everything? Cannot a non-christian obey some of the commandments? Cannot a non-christian obey the civil law of God as the Christian is suppose to also do? Then can not this non-Christian man also love his wife and by doing so obey God's law about divorce? Blanket statements are dangerous IMO, for absolutes like this can be proven wrong.

I'm not the one making the argument that born again believers should put away their spouse . . .

I know that you are not.... Thanks

My argument here is whether or not God truly brings together ALL marriages. I have a difficult time believing that he does. In fact, if God doesn't bring all marriages together I can then see how Moses could allow divorce.

With all due respect, I see you stuck on Moses and the Law.... I think looking at the word and looking at God's active involvement within people, I see that it's not only possible, but also probable that He can work good in a man without that man knowing Him.... King Cyrus is just one of many examples.

[deepjagga]

The laws of the land that contradict the laws of God are not to be respected by Christians. Signing a divorce paper that says the couple are no longer husband and wife is spitting in Jesus' face because he said "let not man put asunder" and he taught that if either one divorces and marries another it is adultery. It is adultery because the divorce does not change the fact that the Word of God has pronounced them husband and wife until one of them is dead. The law of the land says one thing and the NT law says another. Will we serve the "god of this world" Lucifer, or Jesus the Creator?

I said earlier that maybe people shouldn't marry nor should
they remarry. Just to be on the safe side no one should remarry.

Apparently, based on what you said, adultery doesn't come into play until someone re-marries-not when they di-vorce. Is it true that the only way a man puts asunder a marriage is by marrying someone who has been married before...whos first husband or wife is still living?

Also, signing a divorce paper that says a couple is no longer husband and wife is by no means spitting in God's face. Divorcing someone who has shot you with a gun, raped your children, beat and abused your children physically, who has run off to be with another man or women, who abuses you verbally, steals everything you have, etc... is in no way spitting in God's face.

....we are not in bondage to such things. There's no since in hindering the
holy spirit in you. Would the God in you want to remain in such bondage?

[Alaska]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska
The belief that the phrase "except it be for fornication" means "except it be for adultery" is an assumption. "Adultery" is a specific sexual offence as it violates a marriage. The precise word to use if adultery was a grounds for divorce is "adultery". You are assuming that fornication in 5:32 and 19:9 means adultery.
Sometimes the word fornication and adultery are listed side by side indicQuating difference of meaning.

I understand that, Alaska, but how can the husband be guilty of adultery if he marries another if he's not truly married to begin with? If he's not truly married wouldn't he be guilty of fornication as you claim here?

VR, I genuinely appreciate the above question because there is a very good and practical answer. The main reason for starting this thread was to answer such questions whose answers indisputably supports what I and RbG are saying. I believe you are making reference to 19:9.
I have examples of parallel statements that function grammatically the same as 19:9. When something is closely associated with the main topic being discussed, an exception clause can be inserted and understood to be jumping over to the commonly understood closely associated point. Immediately after the exception, the next statement can jump right back to the main topic and there is no disruption as far as being able to be understood. You've probably done this very thing.
In our culture, the words husband and wife pertain exclusively to married people who are living together etc. Also the word put away or divorce only apply to the married. Betrothal and these words were closely associated with actual marriage.
I have to get back to work. As I said at the first post, this is a patient work. There are very good and practical answers. Let me share these with you.
Be back this afternoon late.

[VerticalReality]

So... I guess you want to go to the extreme.... OK. Two couples, one being Christian, the other couple are not Christians. The Christians who marry end up divorced within 10 years and then each marries again. The non-christian couple marries and stay together 'til the first one dies.

Which one honored God's law of marriage?

Those who remained married, but I don't see what the argument is. I don't believe just because two people marry and happen to stay together for as long as they live means that God brought them together. Ahab and Jezebel did not divorce. However, I don't believe God brought them together either. It was not God's will that Ahab marry Jezebel, so I don't believe God is responsible for bringing them together.

'And God brings together'....Hmmm, are you quoting scripture or your wedding vows? And what exactly do you mean, that as God brought you and your wife together like Adam and Eve, but not for the non-Christian? I think there might be a double standard you are suggesting, that He mates the Christians but cannot do the same for non-christains? Just asking.

I'm saying he brings together those who allow Him to do so. I'm pretty sure an atheist doesn't give two hoots about what God has to say when they get married, and I'm also pretty sure this atheist isn't going to seek the Lord in regards to this decision.

Does it rain on the just and not the unjust? I can see 'non-christians' love their spouse just as... and maybe even more Christ-like in sacrifice and love than some of the 'christian' couples I know. So what one believes about God doesn't negate God's working in their life, for He moves kings hearts, why wouldn't He do the same for all men, and for some give them love for their family?

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what I'm saying? You think just because folks get along then that must mean that God brought them together? I know a married couple who get along great. They love to get drunk every single day on whiskey along with numerous other things that God hates. However, they are "happy" and they "get along" and they "love" one another so that must mean that God brought them together right?

I'm missing this point...but that's OK.

Ahab married Jezebel because of a hardness of his heart.

Israel married women from Moab because of a hardness of heart.

Solomon married a bunch of foreign women because of a hardness of heart.

In the hardness of the heart these folks disobeyed God and brought themselves together with women they never should have been with. Why should God then be held responsible for "bringing them together"?

It was their own carnal and hard hearts that had them going out of God's will into the marriage bed with wives of foreign gods.

I don't think anyone has.

So then why did Moses make what Alaska calls "provision" for it?

This reminds me a bit of John 6:32 Albeit that God hates divorce, and whether Mose gave written permission or not, the action of divorce is hated by God. God is the subject, not Moses.

Let's put that into context . . .

Malachi 2:10-16
10 Have we not all one Father?
Has not one God created us?
Why do we deal treacherously with one another
By profaning the covenant of the fathers?
11 Judah has dealt treacherously,
And an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem,
For Judah has profaned
The LORD’s holy institution which He loves:
He has married the daughter of a foreign god.
12 May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob
The man who does this, being awake and aware,
Yet who brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!
13 And this is the second thing you do:
You cover the altar of the LORD with tears,
With weeping and crying;
So He does not regard the offering anymore,
Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.
14 Yet you say, “For what reason?”
Because the LORD has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
15 But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
16 “ For the LORD God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
Says the LORD of hosts.

Now, it sounds to me like Israel has divorced the wives of their youth that God had brought them together with and left them weeping while they went off and married women of foreign gods. Why wouldn't God hate such a thing?

Doesn't a non-Christian obey the traffic laws and civil laws?

Not many that I know of.

Cannot a non-christian obey some of the commandments?

Sure, but what does that really have to do with anything here?

Cannot a non-christian obey the civil law of God as the Christian is suppose to also do?

Sure. If he knows what those laws are.

Then can not this non-Christian man also love his wife and by doing so obey God's law about divorce?

Sure, but then again that still does not mean that God brought them together.

With all due respect, I see you stuck on Moses and the Law.... I think looking at the word and looking at God's active involvement within people, I see that it's not only possible, but also probable that He can work good in a man without that man knowing Him.... King Cyrus is just one of many examples.

Of course you would see that because you have admittedly not read the entire thread and you don't see where I'm coming from. The reason the law of Moses is so heavily involved in this discussion is because it brings conflict to Alaska's viewpoint, which has not been reconciled as of yet.

[VerticalReality]

VR, I genuinely appreciate the above question because there is a very good and practical answer. The main reason for starting this thread was to answer such questions whose answers indisputably supports what I and RbG are saying. I believe you are making reference to 19:9.
I have examples of parallel statements that function grammatically the same as 19:9. When something is closely associated with the main topic being discussed, an exception clause can be inserted and understood to be jumping over to the commonly understood closely associated point. Immediately after the exception, the next statement can jump right back to the main topic and there is no disruption as far as being able to be understood. You've probably done this very thing.
In our culture, the words husband and wife pertain exclusively to married people who are living together etc. Also the word put away or divorce only apply to the married. Betrothal and these words were closely associated with actual marriage.
I have to get back to work. As I said at the first post, this is a patient work. There are very good and practical answers. Let me share these with you.
Be back this afternoon late.

I actually already know those answers, and I have already acknowledged them in this thread. I really don't have any issue with whether or not this is a betrothal or a marriage. I feel that if God has brought you together with your wife or husband, there shouldn't be any reason justifying divorce. God doesn't make mistakes.

It seems to me like the only mistakes are made when man walks out of God's will and joins themselves with someone that God never intended for them to be with.