Jesus Does Not Allow Divorce-An Apology

[Alaska]

So, wouldn't you agree then that an unbeliever would be like a babe needing someone to hold their hand as they cross the street?

The NT says that the OT law was a schoolmaster. So like when someone gets older and are no longer under the dictates of the schoolmaster, so we by becoming part of the Kingdom of God in Christ are no longer "under the law" (OT law) as it stood in its entire package.
While the moral commandments of the OT have been carried over into the NT, such as not killing, stealing, etc., there are numerous things that were allowed under the OT that are not allowed under the NT. Divorce and remarriage are two of those things. The OT and NT are very separate and different covenants even though they do have some things in common.

Concerning unbelievers, I am going to post a short document that was written to address this very thing.

[Alaska]

Is It True That What Jesus Said About Marriage And Divorce Applies Only To Believers?

A person has been both married and divorced before becoming a Christian; he becomes a Christian and is lonely. He wants to know if he can remarry. Let us now look at what Jesus said:
"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." Luke 16:18
"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." Mark 10:11,12
In answer to his question about remarriage, his pastor tells him that he is eligible to become remarried because that first marriage and divorce took place before becoming a Christian. Has this man been told the truth? To answer this question let us ask other questions:
Does the Old Testament commandment, [which is included in the New Testament, (Matt. 19:16-22)] "Thou shalt not commit adultery" apply only to believers? Cannot an unbeliever also commit adultery? What about another of the Ten Commandments which is also included in the New Testament: "Thou shalt not steal"; Is it possible that this commandment can only apply to believers? Cannot an unbeliever also be guilty of theft? Can we be so arrogant as to assume that an unbeliever cannot be held guilty of theft because as an unbeliever he is incapable of grasping the concept of the ownership of possessions and that it is wrong for someone to take into their possession that which does not belong to them? Similarly, can we be so blind as to assume that an unbeliever, because he is an unbeliever, cannot grasp the concept of marriage; one man and one woman belonging to one another only and that it is wrong to engage themselves in a sexual relationship with anyone other than their partner to whom they have committed themselves in marriage?
In the same way that it would be foolish to say that the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" applies only to believers, so likewise, it would be foolish to say that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" applies only to believers. Marriage is one of those things that unbelievers do by nature that gives evidence of the knowledge of good and evil in their hearts, as Paul said:
"(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" Romans 2:13-15.
It is hoped that the reader of this paper can appreciate what their accepting that an unbeliever can commit adultery implies. The acknowledgement that an unbeliever can commit adultery is in effect an admission that the unbeliever's marriage is recognized by God. Otherwise, a sexual relationship with someone other than his or her spouse could not be regarded as adultery.
Since God made man and woman and since he instituted marriage, all those partaking of it are bound by the regulations he has placed on it regardless of whether or not they are aware of them. Jesus, in the process of teaching and introducing the New Covenant, plainly revealed the truth concerning marriage. "Whosoever", in the above quoted statements made by Jesus, literally means whosoever. Believer or unbeliever, if you are remarried and your first lawful[1] husband or wife is alive, you are committing adultery. You cannot repent of your lawful marriage. It is holy.
[1] By "lawful" I mean both parties in the first marriage had not been married before. The only way that someone may lawfully marry a previously lawfully married person is if that person's spouse is dead. See Rom. 7:1-3 and 1 Cor. 7:39.

[VerticalReality]

I actually don't believe I buy that article at all. The author of this stated that even an unbeliever should know the law of God on adultery. I don't think so, IMO. Sure, an unbeliever might know the law that they should not go and sleep with another person if they are married to another. However, I don't know many unbelievers that know the teaching of Jesus that if you marry another when you are divorced you are committing adultery. In fact, most unbelievers I know today pretty much go with what Moses allowed in regard to divorce, which is my point all along. So, what must one do when they finally come to the knowledge of what Jesus taught in regards to divorce? Should they then leave their current marriage and return to who they were with previously? What if the person they are currently with is born again and both are living their life for the Lord? Let's throw another wrench into the equation. What if the previous spouse is an unbeliever? Would you teach them that they need to return to their unbelieving spouse? Where would you find support for such direction?

Let me ask you this, how can a believer not be bound if an unbeliever chooses to depart if you go by the teachings of Jesus? Jesus doesn't seem to cover that if you go by your point of view. However, Paul does cover it.

[Brotherken]

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and if a woman divorce her husband and marry another she commits adultery.

The wife is bound to her husband for as long as he lives.

What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

We all Know Divorce is sin
We Know God Hates Sin
with good Reason (it hurts people for one)
We also Know that Jesus Died to atone for Sin

I Just don't think we should be so Hard on divorced people

No Its Not OK
But It Is Forgivable
just as a Host of other sins that you are all guilty of

[Alaska]

The author of this stated that even an unbeliever should know the law of God on adultery. That's complete baloney. Sure, an unbeliever might know the law that they should not go and sleep with another person if they are married to another.

Where did I say that an unbeliever should know the law of God on Adultery? The article was written to reason with believers who believe that their first lawful marriage has "passed away", which is a lie.
What I have written in the article was to bring attention to the fact that those who are not Christians are capable of committing adultery. By someone admitting that, that is also an admission that unbelievers' marriages are lawful in God's eyes. If they weren't lawful, then their extramarital sex could not be called adultery.

Being ignorant of something doesn't mean that if you do it you are not guilty. A person is guilty of stealing even though he may have been taught from an early age that it is good and right to take things from others. When he becomes educated that he has been stealing and that it isn't right, what he has done is just as wrong after he learns, as it was before he learned.

Marriage belongs to God. He made male and female and said things about marriage. Those entering into lawful marriage are bound to the regulations He set thereto even if they are not aware of those regulations. Once they become educated, that only sheds light on the wrong they may have done. The knowledge of the truth doesn't cause what they have done to not have been done. People who have become lawfuilly married while unbelievers are still held guilty in God's eyes if they commit adultery. If they divorce and remarry, they are still committing adultery by remarrying even if they are not aware that it is adultery. It is in ignorance, like the child taught that stealing is good and right.

[Alaska]

We also Know that Jesus Died to atone for Sin

I Just don't think we should be so Hard on divorced people

Yes, for sin.
He did not come so we could get another wife or husband.
The first and lawful marriage is not a sin.
There may have been things done by both parties that were sin resulting in separating and then divorcing, but the marriage itself is not a sin.
Marriage is binding till death and the cross many Christians should be bearing, is their faithfulness to God by being faithful to their divorced spouse even though their spouse is not faithful to them.
Divorce has not dissolved the marriage. That it why it is adultery to remarry.
To claim that the divorce has dissolved the marriage is a denial of Christs teaching where he said, What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
To claim forgiveness for the marriage is blasphemous. It in effect charges what God has joined together as sin. Only sin is forgiven. A marriage is not a sin. It does not pass away except by the death of one of the parties.

It is not about being hard on divorced people, it is about respecting the sanctity of marriage as binding till death as the Scriptures reveal it to be. It is about denying ourselves in favor of truth even if that truth hurts real bad.

[Alaska]

Let me ask you this, how can a believer not be bound if an unbeliever chooses to depart if you go by the teachings of Jesus? Jesus doesn't seem to cover that if you go by your point of view. However, Paul does cover it.

The woman in very deed is bound from getting married again as long as her husband lives. The liberty or "not in bondage" Paul refers to is the immediate context of not being bound to have to dwell with the unbeliever. This principle of how she is bound for as long as he lives is reiterated again in the same chapter where he says that "but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband." Because he is still alive she cannot remarry. If she has an unbelieving husband, and he departs, she is not bound to have to live with him for "God has called us to peace". She is, however, bound from remarriage. 1 Cor. 7:39

[Amazedgrace21]

Hmmm...The Pharisees rightly understood that marriage was the union of a man and a woman, but they saw it as a much more tenuous relationship. Their “proof text” was not to be found in Genesis, but rather in the Book of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.The Pharisees had taken this text and made it say what they wanted to hear, while they ignored its clear message and meaning. To them it meant: “If a man is unhappy with his wife for some reason, he merely needs to write her a bill of divorce, and then he is rid of her.”

Please note, First,Deut. 24 is not prescribing divorce based upon sexual immorality before marriage, or adultery after marriage...the Law had very specific provisions for identifying and dealing with sexual sins before and after marriage. Deut. 22 13 -19, instructs the Israelites concerning sexual immorality before marriage on the part of the wife.

Next,we find God’s provision for dealing with adultery after marriage in (Numbers 5: 12-31)

12 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, 13 and a man has sexual relations with her without her husband knowing it, and it is hidden that she has defiled herself, since there was no witness against her, nor was she caught – 14 and if jealous feelings come over him and he becomes suspicious of his wife, when she is defiled; or if jealous feelings come over him and he becomes suspicious of his wife, when she is not defiled – 15 then the man must bring his wife to the priest, and he must bring the offering required for her, one tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he must not pour olive oil on it or put frankincense on it, because it is a grain offering of suspicion, a grain offering for remembering, for bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 “‘Then the priest will bring her near and have her stand before the Lord. 17 The priest will then take holy water in a pottery jar, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle, and put it into the water. 18 Then the priest will have the woman stand before the Lord, uncover the woman’s head, and put the grain offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of suspicion. The priest will hold in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest will put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you, and if you have not gone astray and become defiled while under your husband’s authority, may you be free from this bitter water that brings a curse. 20 But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had sexual relations with you….” 21 Then the priest will put the woman under the oath of the curse and will say to her, “The Lord make you an attested curse among your people, if the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that causes the curse will go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh rot.” Then the woman must say, “Amen, amen.” 23 “‘Then the priest will write these curses on a scroll and then scrape them off into the bitter water. 24 He will make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and the water that brings a curse will enter her to produce bitterness. 25 The priest will take the grain offering of suspicion from the woman’s hand, wave the grain offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar. 26 Then the priest will take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial portion, burn it on the altar, and afterward make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, the water that brings a curse will enter her to produce bitterness – her abdomen will swell, her thigh will fall away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself, and is clean, then she will be free of ill effects and will be able to bear children. 29 “‘This is the law for cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when jealous feelings come over a man and he becomes suspicious of his wife; then he must have the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest will carry out all this law upon her. 31 Then the man will be free from iniquity, but that woman will bear the consequences of her iniquity’”

Deut. 24:1-4, This passage is about who cannot remarry, and it deals with a very rare and specific set of circumstances. There are many differences of opinion as to who can divorce, based on this text, but there is no question about who cannot remarry. That is clear.

This is about the remarriage of a couple after the husband has divorced his wife and she has remarried. If the second husband divorces her, or if he dies, the wife cannot return to her first husband because of her second marriage...the concern in this passage is the issue of "defilement"..this was not a sin limited to women, per the Word of God either..

Here are some examples of defiled men from which such a wife might want a divorce.

The penalties for these defilements are also given.

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with another man's wife. [An adulterer]

Penalty: Death by stoning for the man as well as for the other man's wife. [Leviticus 20:10]

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with the widow of his father.
Penalty: Death for both the widow and for the stepson. [Leviticus 20:11]*

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with the widow of his son.
Penalty: Death for both the widow and for the father-in-law. [Leviticus 20:12]*

A husband who has defiled himself by laying with a man as with a woman. The Bible calls this an abomination and calls such men dogs.
Penalty: Death Penalty [Leviticus 20:13]

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with both a woman and her daughter.
Penalty: Death by fire for both the man and the two women. [Leviticus 20:14]

A husband who has defiled himself by laying with an animal
Penalty: Death [Leviticus 20:15]

The man is required to provide the woman with her marital rights; food, clothing, and sex. [Exodus 21:10]


These are clear cases of defilement and the complete list is much longer than this.

If a woman asked her husband to give her a Bill of Divorcement in such cases she would not be sinning nor would the husband be sinning by giving her a Bill of Divorcement.

Jesus forbade men to give a Bill of Divorcement for the hardness of "their hearts" in Matthew and Luke, but He did not forbid them to give a Bill of Divorcement out of the tenderness of "his" heart.If God had His way, the man would be given the death penalty.

Luke 14:5 where Jesus "answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?" Honoring the sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and yet Jesus says it can be broken to do certain types of good.


Deut.23:14 uses the word.."erwath dabar, and has no reference to sexual sin..but rather the idea of repulsiveness orrepugnancy.


Please note the woman is defiled by unbiblical divorce & remarriage. Her divorce from the first man could not have been biblically acceptable even though it may have been formally valid. If it had been proper, and not sinful, that divorce would have freed her to marry the second man without 'sin'.However the second divorce defiled her.


Although Jesus did say that divorce is permitted in some situations, we must remember that His primary point in this discourse is to correct the Jews’ idea that they could divorce one another “for any cause at all” and to show them the gravity of pursuing a sinful divorce. Because of sexual sin (porneia) the New Testament allows for divorce. Porneia is a general term that encompasses sexual sin such as adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and incest.

When one partner violates the unity and intimacy of a marriage by sexual sin—and forsakes his or her covenant obligation—the faithful partner is placed in an extremely difficult situation. After all means are exhausted to bring the sinning partner to repentance, the Bible permits release for the faithful partner through divorce (Matt. 5:32; 1 Cor. 7:15).

A divorced woman was destitute and without the legal protection of her husband. Often, a divorced woman was also refused readmission into her family because the bridal price paid by the husband caused the woman to be legally under the control of her husband. Without the support of her husband or her family, divorced women were forced to beg and to become prostitutes in order to survive.


In order to deal with this problem, the Deuteronomic reform under Josiah enacted a law to protect divorced women. The law reads:


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, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD (Deuteronomy 24:1-4 ESV)
.


This Deuteronomic law gives a man the right to put his wife away, but whenever he sends her away, he must provide her with a certificate of divorce. The certificate of divorce allows a divorced woman to remarry if she so desires.


The issues of divorce and sending away appear in the New Testament. In Matthew 19:3 a Pharisee asked Jesus: Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause? Jesus’ answer did not please the Pharisee. So he asked another question: Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away? (Matthew 19:7).



The issue raised in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and in Matthew 19:1-8 is based on the fact that when a man sends his wife away (and this is not figurative language), he is not divorcing her, he is merely sending her away without any legal protection. When a man sends a woman away, the woman is still married to her husband. This is the reason she cannot belong to another man: she is still married.


The Hebrew makes a difference between sending a woman away and divorcing her. In Hebrew, the word שלח (shalah) means “to send away” while the word כרתות (keritut) means to dissolve the marriage by giving the woman a certificate of divorce.

The word shalah appears in Malachi 2:16. However, translators are divided on how to translate the word. These are some of the versions that translate shalah as “putting away” or “sending away”: LXX, ASV, KJV, and JPS. These are some of the versions that translate shalah as “divorce”: ESV, NIV, RSV, and NRSV. The reason Yahweh hates “sending away” is because sending away is an illegal separation: the woman was put out of the house of her husband without a certificate of divorce.



In addition to Deuteronomy 24:1, the words shalah and keritut appear together in Jeremiah 3:8:


She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce (Jeremiah 3:8 ESV).



The two words also appear together in Isaiah 50:1:


Thus says the LORD: Where is your mother's certificate of divorce, with which I sent her away? (Isaiah 50:1 ESV).



It is clear then that in the Old Testament “sending away” does not necessarily mean “divorce.” It means that a man “gets rid of” his wife and sends her away from his house without any legal protection.



Thus, suggested revisions, “get rid of her” or “divorce her” would not be correct because these suggestions do not reflect the practice of divorce in the Old Testament. The expression “get rid of her” could be used in Malachi 2:6 because the sending away was an illegal separation, but not in Isaiah 50:1 because the woman was legally divorced.



The expression “divorce her” could not be used in Malachi 2:16 because the separation was illegal. The same expression also cannot be used in Isaiah 50:1 because once the woman was legally divorced (this is the intent of the certificate of divorce) the woman was sent away from her former husband’s house. The proposal, Where is your mother's divorce certificate that I used to divorce her? may not indicate that she was sent away from her husband’s house.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Once again, I am not promoting divorce, I am absolutely pro marraige.. uphold and believe in the sanctity of it..but once again, we are not dealing with perfect human beings, saved or unsaved, and God knows this today , just as He knew it when Moses set forth God's response to those who defiled their marraige vows.

To claim forgiveness for the marriage is blasphemous. It in effect charges what God has joined together as sin.

To claim forgiveness for the sin that caused the marraige to fail is not "blasphemous"..to do so in effect charges God of what he has said is forgivable "as sin"...Sinners may claim to be "forgiven", this again is not blasphemous, it is scriptural if it is indeed true..biblically.


Only sin is forgiven. A marriage is not a sin. It does not pass away except by the death of one of the parties.

Once again this is avoiding and throwing out scripture to make this statement "stand"..this contradicts what Christ said..that does not mean there is not a resolution for the contradiction, just that this is not it.



It is not about being hard on divorced people, it is about respecting the sanctity of marriage as binding till death as the Scriptures reveal it to be

It is about not being legalistic and unjust towards divorced people or anyone where God is not ,which does not mean one is disrespectful towards the sanctity of marraige at all..its about seeking Gods will and to also abide in truth as to what that is..

which is more important to God, the legal status of the marraige or the divorce, or the spiritual status of the souls of the individual spouses, regardless of their marital status..?

God's primary concern when Adam and Eve broke their covenent with Him was two fold... the remedy of the consequence of the sin but also the restoration of their relationship with Him.

It's about not allowing ourselves to be deceived in favor of the "lie", even if that lie "feel real good" too..

It is about denying ourselves in favor of truth even if that truth hurts real bad.

We must always take care we do not become so "honest" that we become the Prodigal son who never left home and found himself annoyed and very hard hearted towards the Prodigal Father who ran out to greet and welcome his Prodigal brother home.

[VerticalReality]

The woman in very deed is bound from getting married again as long as her husband lives. The liberty or "not in bondage" Paul refers to is the immediate context of not being bound to have to dwell with the unbeliever. This principle of how she is bound for as long as he lives is reiterated again in the same chapter where he says that "but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband." Because he is still alive she cannot remarry. If she has an unbelieving husband, and he departs, she is not bound to have to live with him for "God has called us to peace". She is, however, bound from remarriage. 1 Cor. 7:39

Actually, this teaching is very incorrect, IMO.

1) When Paul said that if a wife departs from her husband let her remain unmarried, in context, he's talking to believers here, so you can't take what Paul says about believers here and force it to apply to unbelievers as well when Paul doesn't say so. He addresses believers first and then goes to the unbeliever later in the passage.

2) Everytime Paul teaches on another being bound or in bondage to another, he's talking about being bound to the law. That's the true context here, IMO. Paul is saying that if the unbeliever chooses to depart the believer, the believer is not bound by law to that person any longer. When Jesus taught on marriage in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, He's talking to folks who had been given the law and were indeed under the law. He's not talking to unbelievers. Again, in Romans 7, Paul is also not addressing the unbeliever but rather the believer . . .

Romans 7:1-3
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

To say it means they just aren't in bondage to live with that person any longer doesn't make sense being that it isn't the believer's decision to begin with. It is the unbeliever who doesn't know or care about the law that has already departed. So to say then after the unbeliever has departed that the believer is not under bondage to live with them is simply redundant. What Paul is talking about, IMO, is bondage to the law . . .

And actually, the context of this passage is initially talking about the believer departing the unbeliever. Paul says that the believer is to remain with the unbeliever if they are willing and do not "divorce" them. In other words, don't end your marriage if the unbeliever is willing to stay with you. However, Paul goes on to say, on the other hand, that if the unbeliever departs the believer is to let them and they are not in bondage to them any longer. So, in context, Paul is talking about divorce. The believer is not permitted to break the law. However, if the unbeliever chooses to break the law and divorce, the believer is not under bondage in such a case.

[Alaska]

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and if a woman divorce her husband and marry another she commits adultery.

The wife is bound to her husband for as long as he lives.

What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

Thou shalt not commit adultery is one of the ten of the first covenant.
It appied to whosoever. Though Paul addresses believer and unbeliever he is using the basis of a NT commndment that pertains to everyone whether they know it or not.
Whosoever happens to mean whosoever, whether believer or unbeliever.
Hence, that last document about 8 posts back.

[VerticalReality]

Thou shalt not commit adultery is one of the ten of the first covenant.
It appied to whosoever. Though Paul addresses believer and unbeliever he is using the basis of a NT commndment that pertains to everyone whether they know it or not.
Whosoever happens to mean whosoever, whether believer or unbeliever.
Hence, that last document about 8 posts back.

Actually it is not a New Testament commandment because Jesus Christ makes it clear in Matthew 19 that this is the way it was intended from the beginning. So, how could Moses then allow divorce?

Personally, I do not believe you are rightly dividing this thing. You are trying to speak of those born again and those who aren't in the same breath. That is impossible, IMO.

[Alaska]

Mark 10:11, 12 is the truth as it pertains to everyone.
Otherwise Jesus wasn't being the light of the world. His truth is light to all and pertains to all.

Mark 10:

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

[VerticalReality]

Mark 10:11, 12 is the truth as it pertains to everyone.
Otherwise Jesus wasn't being the light of the world. His truth is light to all and pertains to all.

Mark 10:

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Yet you still are not addressing the question. If what Jesus Christ stated is not just a New Testament thing but rather how it was from the beginning, how could Moses still permit divorce? Are you suggesting that Moses was permitting sin?

[Brotherken]

We must always take care we do not become so "honest" that we become the Prodigal son who never left home and found himself annoyed and very hard hearted towards the Prodigal Father who ran out to greet and welcome his Prodigal brother home.

I Like that...Thats good advice
I tried to give reps but I need to spread some around 1st

[Brotherken]

I Have a Question/comment that I think pertains to this thread..

What If.....

A woman (non believer) gets divorced, The Husband (non Believer) Remarries another......

Then later the Woman Accepts Christ and Becomes A "New Creation" and
" Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. "

Does She Then commit adultery if she Remarries?