Jesus Does Not Allow Divorce-An Apology

[Alaska]

An exception clause can effect a view-shift as a means to create contrast in order to crystallize a point.

Into statements designed to emphasize total prohibition of a certain action, an exception clause may be interjected that points to some related action that is allowable as a means to create contrast between the two situations, thereby emphasizing how totally prohibited the action is, which is the main focus of the statement.
The exception clause found in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is not the main focus of those statements. The exception clause serves rather to provide comparison between what is and what is not allowed in a manner that causes the prohibition of divorce to be more clearly visible.

When there is more than one way of doing something, (one way that is wrong and another way that is right), and a statement is being made that focuses on prohibiting that way which is wrong, then the allowable right way may be made reference to in an exception clause as a means to bring into perspective that wrong way which is being prohibited.

So much for the claim that the exception clause could not have "jumped" to a closely associated aspect of that which Jesus was directly addressing.

[drew]

Greetings Alaska:

You indeed have every right to not respond to my arguments. For those who, for whatever reason, are not willing to engage arguments against blanket prohibition of divorce, no amount of scriptural argument will change their minds.

But there will be people reading this thread whose minds are open. And I humbly suggest that for those people, your failure to respond substantively to my arguments against your position will seem suspicious. If my arguments are flawed, why not point out the flaw by responding to them?

[Alaska]

We are complete in Christ. The righteousness in Him is "without the law". The NT stands reliable without the need of input from the OT that would seem to contradict the NT. Paul had a lot of conflict with Jewish believers who couldn't let go of things from the OT that Jesus clearly changed for us in the NT. Jesus, in reference to his changing some things, in Matt. 5 is in effect saying, don't view the changes I am making as a destroying of the law. See these changes rather as a fulfillment of the law.
The law served its purpose, with regard to it's moral standard, until Jesus came and brought regeneration, the new birth, and hence also a higher moral standard.
The law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Hence, not all of the OT was the truth, meaning some of it served the practical purpose of regulating things that weren't right but that needed regulating under the circumstances existing under the OT.

It is He, not Moses, who has revealed what Gen. 2 has always meant. This is found in Mark 10:2-12 and Matt. 19:1-9.
If it is indeed true that Gen. 2 has always meant what Jesus says is the meaning, then Deut. 24:1-4 is very understandably not a righteous allowance. Especially since it contradicts Gen. 2 and Jesus said it was written only for the hardness of their hearts.
Yet doctrine bound to the law and not free in Christ will maintain that the provision for divorce was righteous; that divorce must be allowed. That mentality is why the ordinance had to be written: the hardness of hearts.
Unfortunately for those hoping to continue in the liberty to divorce provided under the OT, It is no longer allowed. Hardness of hearts is no longer allowed. Divorce is hardness of heart.

His conclusion of his expository teaching on Gen. 2 is that what God has joined together, man is not allowed to put asunder. The putting asunder that Deut. 24 was used for was in direct contradiction to the meaning of Gen. 2.
This is because the ordinance for divorce was not written because that is how it should be but rather because of the hardness of their hearts. It served to maintain some order to what they in their unregenerated state would inevitably do.
We also see in the OT, ordinances that relate to polygamy. This is another subject that had ordinances whose purpose was to establish order. It was not part of God's righteousness, which later was revealed in Christ.

[Alaska]

Fair enough in respect to that issue. However, a reader who has been following this thread will know that you have not satisfactorily addressed at least 2 significant weaknesses in your position.

The first is the Matthew 12 teaching where Jesus condones the breaking of God's own Laws under certain circumstances. These laws had no stated exceptions and yet Jesus holds those who violated them blameless. It would naturally follow that the divorce teaching also has unstated exceptions. This is an argument that you must engage and somehow work into your position. To this point, you have not done so, at least not satisfactorily (unless I have missed something).

You have indeed addressed the matter but by simply making an unsupported assertion that the divorce teaching is somehow a "special" law, in a different category than the sabbath and shewbread laws. You referred to the divorce teaching as, if memory serves, "an eternal moral law", with the implication that the other laws were not. You need to defend that assertion by doing both of the following:

1. Demonstrating scripturally, or otherwise, that there really are such categorical distinctions in God's law;

2. Assuming that you succeed in task 1, you need to demonstrate scripturally why the category including the Sabbath and shewbread laws admits to unstated exceptions while the category including the divorce law does not.

I suggest that you may make some progress on item 1 - perhaps arguing that the sabbath and shewbread laws are "ceremonial" in nature while the divorce law is a matter of fundamental morality. But I do not see how you will be able to scripturally defend item 2 - I have never seen any basis in the Scriptures for unstated "exceptions" to some of God's laws, whatever category they are in.

But, of course, Jesus was very clear in Matthew 12: some of God's laws do have unstated exceptions.

And you have also failed to address the issue of whether we are to take the "gouge out your eye if it makes you sin" directive literally. Since this instruction immediately precedes a teaching on divorce and remarriage, it seems that you are obliged, in order to be consistent, to assert that there are no exceptions to the command to "gouge out the sinning eye" just as you assert no exceptions to the prohibition on divorce.

Do you hold the position that people should gouge out their eye if it causes them to sin?

Things such as the Sabbath served as types or shadows of something that was to come later that would be revealed to be the fulfilling of it. Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. You are interpreting what was done with regard to the Sabbath and the shewbread as exceptions when they should be seen as a clarifying of their purpose. The NT reveals their real purpose, one of which was they served as a type of something that was to come.
Were they to be taken to an extreme so that what was really important would be overridden by them? Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for making a big deal out of healing on the Sabbath, while bringing to their attention that if they had an ox fallen in a pit, they would get it out.
Jesus was answering the questions that were not answered by the OT but were assumed to be understood by the Pharisees. They were wrong in their assumption of purpose of those laws.
The main point is that the NT has revealed things hidden. An overriding moral responsibility takes precedent over a non morally binding lesser commandment. Would someone on the Sabbath not take their dad with severe chest pains to the hospital because it requires the work of driving?
It is a clarity of purpose. The shewbread and Sabbath are no longer required under the NT anyway so it is a mute point.
The fact that what Jesus revealed to be the truth is not a mute point.
Jesus revealed the clarity of purpose for those OT obsolete laws.
The same with the revelation of the ordinance allowing divorce. Jesus revealed it to be written for the hardness of their hearts but that from the beginning it was not so; effectively throwing out Dt. 24:1-4 as being understood as morally responsible. By him revealing what Gen. 2 really meant, this revealed that the purpose for the allowance of divorce was not because it was morally correct to do so. It was only written for the hardness of their hearts. They were being given what they wanted, even if it wasn't right, as is the nature of God to do so. Some laws serve to regulate what is not right but that will be done anyway. Polygamy for example.

Jesus used the singular "eye" when speaking about plucking it out if it offend you. Don't we always see with both eyes at once?
The main point that Jesus is making is so severe that what he said mirrors the extreme gravity of his point.
If we have anything in our lives that will put us in hell; get it out of your life no matter what!!!
How about the hiker who cut off his own arm after a boulder fell on it? He got to the point where he realized that unless he cut it off he was going to die. He walked out of the wilderness with one less arm but he had his life. He survived.
If gouging out a person's own eyes is the only way for let's say a pornoholic to stop sinning, then yes, he should view eternity as seriously as the man with his arm under a boulder and ready to perish in his predicament. But when faced with such dramatic choices we will of course look for an alternative. The pornoholic, I would venture, would rather opt for some serious fasting and prayer to get rid of those demons. Either way, by gouging or by fasting, the main thing is just as extremely grave: make the activity stop or face eternity in the lake of fire.
Where would you rather be and in what circumstances?
In hell with both eyes or in heaven with no eyes?

[Alaska]

1Cor. 7:

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Any lawful wife is covered by this verse. The law from the OT that Paul is referring to is the revelation Jesus provided concerning God's purpose at creation in Gen. 2. The scenario is one man one woman who have never married. They are married and only death frees the woman from being the husbands wife. And if the woman is bound to the man as his wife and cannot get married to anyone else for as long as he is alive, then it stands to reason that the man also is therefore also bound to his wife for as long as she lives.

It would make sense then that if the woman's rightful husband is still alive and she marries someone else, then that would be adultery, which is what Jesus said. And wouldn't the man who married her also be committing adultery because the woman has a husband who is still alive?

Luke 16:18

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

This applies to exactly who Jesus said it applies to: "Whosoever" which happens to be everyone's middle name so to speak.
He is obviously speaking with regard to all lawfully married couples which is defined by the first marriage, one man one woman neither of whom have been married.

And this also is directed toward the man putting away his wife for any reason because the fact that they are one flesh is not determined by whether or not they commit adultery but rather on the pattern after which marriage was fashioned, namely Adam and Eve's marriage. Notice that the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Well of course because as we saw in 1 Cor. 7:39 she is bound to her husband for as long as he is alive.

So what if the wife put her husband away for something? If she remarries while he is still alive, is this also adultery?

Mark 10:11,12

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

It doesn't matter the reason. What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
To interpret the exception clause in Matt. to mean adultery is a grounds for divorce in the NT makes Jesus to contradict himself and justifies a remarriage which is in reality adultery. It also gives license to not forgive for adultery.
So the divorce for adultery doctrine is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness by providing an allowance to commit adultery which is what the second marriage really is if the former lawful spouse is still alive.

Many well meaning but misunderstanding teachers will be ashamed in the day of judgement for advocating the committing of adultery by justifying the woman no longer being bound to her husband in direct contradiction of the rightly divided Word

[drew]

Things such as the Sabbath served as types or shadows of something that was to come later that would be revealed to be the fulfilling of it. Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. You are interpreting what was done with regard to the Sabbath and the shewbread as exceptions when they should be seen as a clarifying of their purpose.

I do not disagree that Jesus clarified the purpose of the shewbread law and the Sabbath law. But in so doing, He clearly "broke" the letter of these laws. There were no stated exceptions to either the Sabbath law or the shewbread law - and yet Jesus clearly teaches that there are. So while I can agree with you that He was clarifying the purpose of these laws, the clarification is made manifest by Jesus' condoning of the breaking of the letter of both these laws. So there is no reason to expect that the divorce teaching does not likewise have unstated exceptions, unless one can argue that Jesus "brought an end" to a state of affairs where the true purpose of a law, even one from Christ's own lips, does not sometime require breaking its letter. It seems that you have not given us any reason to believe this.

I think it would be very hard to argue that God's Old Testament Laws required "clarification" that clearly takes the form of unstated exceptions as per Matthew 12, while the New Testament of teachings do not have this same property. Why would you think that the Son can figure out how to give "exceptionless" moral statutes and the Father cannot?

[garycavendish]

Grace to you, and peace, in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

I'm brand new in this forum, and have no interest in stepping into a very lively discussion. However, like everyone else, I do have opinions. Mine is in this article on my ministry site: http://www.jesus-is-the-bridge.org/B...orce_a_sin.htm. I thnik the important thing is that a Christian who is divorced should not feel condemned, or be condemned (Romans 8:1). Divorce is not the unpardonable sin.

May God's blessings be with you.

[Alaska]

Hi Gary,

Excuse me as I let loose on this topic. I am not attacking you personally. It is just that I am passionate about the sanctity of marriage as Jesus defined it from Gen. 2.

I believe you are making the same fatal error that most modern Christians are making concerning the assumption that the exception clause could not have pertained to the termination of the betrothed situation for fornication as was their custom and which was called a man divorcing his wife for fornication, not adultery.

It is fatal because a marriage is unbreakable except by death. Remarriage is adultery and adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God, like thieves murderers etc.

The claim that adultery must therefore be an unpardonable sin will then of course be answered with the fact that all unrepented sin, such as thieving and murdering is of course not to be pardoned, for they that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
If God is to judge this nation, the fact that people who say they represent his word are saying he allows divorce, will be near the very top of the list for which judgment will fall.
It is extremely disrespectful to slander him by putting words in his mouth contrary to his plain teaching that divorce was not so from the beginning and that what God has joined, man may not put asunder. That statement is a lie if divorce is allowable by the exception clause.

But go ahead, all who do not fear God enough to admit that they are not really so sure what the exception clause means but assume that it is an allowance that contradicts Jesus' own words: go ahead and bring wrath upon yourselves for making Jesus one who endorses unforgiveness toward wives who have committed adultery.

Making Jesus out to be pro divorce is a horrible, disgusting crime for which he has to pass judgement. Twisting the exception clause to be a major allowance for divorce is nothing less than making Jesus pro-divorce.

That is not the Jesus that died for our sins, that is a counterfeit Jesus, the result of the lack of knowing God through the rightly divided word.

[drew]

It is fatal because a marriage is unbreakable except by death. Remarriage is adultery and adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God, like thieves murderers etc.

Just so we're all clear, I understand you as saying that any who have re-married after divorce, need to leave what you obviously view as "invalid marriages" if they are to legitimately repent of their sinful remarriage and retain hope of future life with God.

While I can see the logical coherence of such a position - and please correct me if you do not hold to it - I think, again, it cannot survive application of Jesus teaching in Matthew 22:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Let's say that a never-married Fred marries Jane and they divorce within 3 months (if that is possible) - they produce no children. Fred then gets remarried to Alice and three young children are produced in this second marriage for Fred. Suppose that Alice is disabled and cannot generate income nor care for the children.

Is Fred to leave Alice and his children family and return to his original wife? It would seem that this would "ruin the lives" of 4 people - a disabled Alice and three needy children. Is this really what you think Jesus would want, given what he says about the "law" hanging on the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself?

I still maintain, as I think Matthew 12 shows, that acting in love sometimes trumps the letter of "law" and "rules" that emanate even from the mouth of God / Jesus. Sure, following the letter of Jesus' teaching on divorce is "easier" - in the sense of prescribing what Fred should do. But the fact that we sometimes arguably need to struggle to "figure out" a course of action that complies with the admittedly vague teaching of Matthew 22 does not make it any less the right thing to do.

I have not finished addressing some points re the Matthew 12 issues that you have raised. I will post later.

[Alaska]

Just so we're all clear, I understand you as saying that any who have re-married after divorce, need to leave what you obviously view as "invalid marriages" if they are to legitimately repent of their sinful remarriage and retain hope of future life with God.

While I can see the logical coherence of such a position - and please correct me if you do not hold to it - I think, again, it cannot survive application of Jesus teaching in Matthew 22:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Let's say that a never-married Fred marries Jane and they divorce within 3 months (if that is possible) - they produce no children. Fred then gets remarried to Alice and three young children are produced in this second marriage for Fred. Suppose that Alice is disabled and cannot generate income nor care for the children.

Is Fred to leave Alice and his children family and return to his original wife? It would seem that this would "ruin the lives" of 4 people - a disabled Alice and three needy children. Is this really what you think Jesus would want, given what he says about the "law" hanging on the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself?

I still maintain, as I think Matthew 12 shows, that acting in love sometimes trumps the letter of "law" and "rules" that emanate even from the mouth of God / Jesus. Sure, following the letter of Jesus' teaching on divorce is "easier" - in the sense of prescribing what Fred should do. But the fact that we sometimes arguably need to struggle to "figure out" a course of action that complies with the admittedly vague teaching of Matthew 22 does not make it any less the right thing to do.

I have not finished addressing some points re the Matthew 12 issues that you have raised. I will post later.

In your scenario, you seem to presume that the situation cannot be handled in a manner that love is shown to both God, (in keeping the marriage situation in line with the truth) and the 2nd wife and children.

For the sake of clarity, let's say that all three parties came to the understanding that in God's scheme of things, only the first lawful marriage is acceptable to God. All three can sit down and devise a strategy for caring and loving the children of the second adulterous marriage, while at the same time creating a decent standard to avoid the 2nd wife and the husband from getting tempted to sleep together. Obviously the children need to see their father, but he doesn't need to live in the same house with the mother. Even the children when they get old enough can understand that the second marriage was a mistake, and the unusual arrangement is made for both the love of those children and the love of God's word.
Incidentally the 2nd wife would be eligible to get married, so if and when that happened, the burden of financially caring for both the wife and her children would be lessened. And if she doesn't get married, then there are consequences for mistakes and the honest thing for the husband to do is to be responsible for those children. While he can be forgiven for his mistake of marrying into adultery, he cannot just abandon the children of the mistake. They are just as valuable and loved by God as are any other children.
The presence of children by an adulterous second marriage does not create an excuse for abandoning the absoluteness of what the truth is concerning the sanctity of marriage.

Ministers and Pastors should begin to think more respectfully of the truth, instead of using humanistic reasoning to create loopholes to avoid being bound to self denial and suffer as a result of the truth: instead of saying, "let us break his bands asunder and cast away his cords from us".

[Nyoka]

Paul knew that there would be situations where it is wise for the wife, lets say, to depart from her husband. In the case of abuse or threat to her life it is responsible to counsel her to depart at least until a resolution can be found. And if a resolution cannot be found she is bound to remain "unmarried". To go further than separation and getting a divorce is a sin because divorce is a statement that the parties are no longer husband and wife. Such a statement is a denial of "let not man put asunder". She can get restraining orders and separation and it is not necessarily a sin. To get a divorce and thereby contradict the statement God has made over their marriage is a sin. And then to get remarried is adultery.

"but and if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband"

Remarriage is not an option: remarriage is adultery.

"And if a woman divorce her husband and marry another, she commits adultery."

I was in this situation where I had to leave my ex husband due to severe abuse. I got the restraining orders to stop him and do you know what happened? He came over when we were asleep and tried to kill us. Restraining orders mean nothing if the party they are taken out against ignores them. The police have to get to your place so they can be enforced and most police officers in my country are very reluctant to get involved in a domestic. I moved to another town and he still chased us and threatened us. I was then forced by the government child welfare agency to move back to that town as he promised them he had changed and wouldn't hurt us. He did behave for a few years and I was starting to think he had changed when he walked into my place one day and said: "if my children or I ever leave him he will plant us six feet under." No-one would believe us - he was a convincing actor and knew the right things to say. He began a campaign to kill us after that. We moved to the opposite end of the country to get away from him - so far he hasn't found us. My children are now adults and we are saving to move to another country so we can live peacefully. What you suggest about restraining orders means nothing in the long run. There are a lot of woman in my situation that live with the fear that their spouse may find them and kill them and their children.He also committed adultery while I was with him saying it was his right. I am now divorced from him. I am sick and tired of being told I should have stayed married to him - the church we both went to froze me out because I would not stay with him. What I would love to see is the true body of Christ help those in my situation instead of condemning them. We are dead if we stayed and condemned if we don't. It was God who gave me the wonderful man I am with now to be my husband. One thing God taught me through all this is not all marriages are put together by Him. Sometimes we are in a marriage that He doesn't sanction. We may be married in the eyes of the world but we are not married in the eyes of the Lord - I know I will be told I am wrong here. This is why we must stop condemning and learn to find out the truth of each individual situation. Then we must help them with God's love. That's my opinion for what it is worth. God bless

[Alaska]

It is a common incorrect assumption that an excusable wise justifiable decision to depart from, lets say an abusive husband, is inseparable from a justifiable remarriage.
Paul, while acknowledging the reality of the legitimate need of departing, also emphasised the legitimate need for the departee to remain in a single state after the departure.
Remarriage, while the first lawful spouse is alive, is not an option, it is adultery.

It should be looked at as suffering tribulation or affliction for the sake of the Word, as stated in the parable of the sower.
Sadly, many choose to view it as a grievous unfairness that they refuse to accept to bear, in contrast to the love of God that bears all things that should be borne.
Suffering for the sake of respect to the truth of God's NT word should be seen as duty and honour, and not as God being unfair.
After all, He doesn't want us to take his name into our mouths if we are not ready to deny ourselves for His truth. He would rather that we be cold than lukewarm.

[Alaska]

Gal. 5:
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Using the OT law to justify what the NT does not allow is evidence of not walking in the grace of God.
Deut. 24 was written to put some order to what was done for the hardness of their hearts; divorcing their wives.
We also see regulation in the OT with regard to issues pertaining to polygamy.
These are things of the OT law that are not current under the New Testament that came into effect at Jesus' death.
To have the OT mindset even thought he NT has been declared is evidence that the person so doing is fallen from grace, at least in that area of their lives.

Fundamental to Christianity is forgiveness and Love.
Divorce does not fit either.

Emotions and reasons that justify divorce are not from Him that called us to the Grace of God. No man is justified by the law, meaning the OT law that has been nailed to the cross. We are justified however by accepting the teachings of the Word Himself who has revealed that the allowance for divorce (Deut. 24) was written for the hardness of their hearts.

That temporarily imposed ordinance was always in opposition to what Jesus revealed Gen. 2 has always meant: that a married couple after the pattern of Adam and Eve (one man, one woman, neither having been married before) are one flesh until death. The deeds that either of them do cannot alter their God-designated status of being one person, one flesh though two people, which is a great mystery, a mystery we are to accept by faith just as we accept the great mystery of the Godhead, Father Son and Holy Ghost being one.

Will modern Christianity scrap the mystery, and deny that it is not, and adamantly maintain that a man is in fact justified by the law found in Deut. 24 and pursue divorce? Will modern Christianity continue to be fallen from Grace as Paul defines one way in which grace can be fallen from as shown in the verse above?

[Alaska]

The way the mechanics of language works, whether it be Greek or English, when addressing some main point that is associated with something similar, a clause can be inserted as a reference to that similarly related aspect of the main topic under discussion as a side reference. Because of everyone's familiarity with the similarly associated aspect, this interjected side point of reference can be made in the form of an exception clause and then immediately reverted back to in the very next clause to that main aspect under discussion without causing any glitch of flow of understanding to the hearers.
Hence the exception clause refers to that type of divorce they were all very well aware of: the premarital divorce for fornication, (premarital sex), which type of divorce took place BEFORE the couple became married.

Hence the woman divorced in 5:32 is not being caused to commit adultery as the grammar indicates by virtue of the fact that she has not been joined together in marriage, the act that Jesus says is what designates the couple as that which God has joined together, that man may not put asunder.

Hence also, the man does not commit adultery by marrying someone other than the woman he divorced for fornication as indicated by the grammar in 19:9.
In other words, the man and woman involved in this type of divorce were free to marry afterwards because it was a divorce only from the betrothed state (a type of engagement) and NOT from the married state after the definition of having left father and mother and having cleaved to one another as husband and wife after the pattern of Adam and Eve's marriage.

The divorce for adultery is a sad part of the falling away from the truth that is prophesied by Paul, sure to happen and is happening, as evidenced in part by the rejection of the truth that what God has joined together, let not man put asunder. But modern men of faith in Jesus will endorse the putting asunder of what God has joined, out of ignorance, as the Scriptures declare: "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge".