Jesus Does Not Allow Divorce-An Apology

[Alaska]

Jesus did exactly what the prophets foretold. He came to expound the full meaning of God's law. He did not introduce new laws and void the old in a rebellion against His Father. He upheld the law of God publicly and in practice.

So are we correct to suppose that you support the practice of polygamy?

[Amazedgrace21]

So are we correct to suppose that you support the practice of polygamy?

"WE"..lol, whats with the 'we bit"? Alaska..gimme a break here..

that would be like me saying to you , "so are we correct to suppose that you support Fred Phelps position regarding homosexuality and his manner of pleading his case?"


We are obligated to do as Christ did with the Pharisees: distinguish between what God gave through Moses for Israel during that time,and what God's original plan was. In other words, we must "rightly divide the word of truth ". (2Tim. 2:15)

By remembering that Christ lived under the dispensation of the law (see Gal. 4:4, "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..."). Thus, He observed the passover, one of the regulations of the law of Moses, but we are certainly not commanded to do so today.

Christ explained Deut. 24:1 to the Pharisees because they were still under the law. The four Gospels record many places where the Lord Jesus dealt with local and temporary matters which affected them, at that time, in that place, but not us today.

We should remeber here that Christ told His disciples, in John 16:12-13, that he had not told them everything, becasue they could not have absorbed it .

He said that the Holy Spirit would come and reveal more of Christ's truth. for example in 1Cor. being a fullfilment of that. While on earth , the Lord Jesus did not say anything about a believer being married to an unbeliever. That was left for Paul to deal with.


Lawful divorce as stipulated to by Christ was not done away with at that time..but at the same time God's original plan for marraige remained the same..adultery was still "wrong" as were any immoralities or idolotries'.

Is God's authority to be the judge of what He stiputlates as sin inconsistent here, never? Prov. 14:9: "Fools make a mock at sin." We must not have a frivolous attitude toward sin.


Likewise, every Christian should have the attitude toward those who have been divorced and remarried which is described in Eph. 4:32,

"Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." The only person who can do this is one who knows what it is talking about.

It appears "we" shouldn't "assume" lest you know what happens...

[VerticalReality]

Hey VR....

Could you tell me how you know (Scripturally) that Jesus was talking to ONLY BELIEVERS in the Gospels?

Jesus was sent to the Jews . . . not the gentiles . . .

And to your question about those who were "sinners" that he ministered to . . . they were still Jews . . .

Matthew 15:24
But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Now Jesus had mercy on the gentile woman, but that was not why He was sent. Jesus came to teach the lost sheep of the house of Israel and fulfill the prophecies concerning Him. The gentiles would come later.

In addition, it wasn't like Jews and gentiles just hung out and mingled together. The Jews didn't want to have anything to do with the gentiles. They considered them to be unclean.

[Alyssa S]

Jesus was sent to the Jews . . . not the gentiles . . .

And to your question about those who were "sinners" that he ministered to . . . they were still Jews . . .

Now Jesus had mercy on the gentile woman, but that was not why He was sent. Jesus came to teach the lost sheep of the house of Israel and fulfill the prophecies concerning Him. The gentiles would come later.

In addition, it wasn't like Jews and gentiles just hung out and mingled together. The Jews didn't want to have anything to do with the gentiles. They considered them to be unclean.

Hey VR! Thanks for your reply...

I agree that Jesus came first to the Jews then to the Gentiles.... BUT... what did he come for? Or better yet, WHO did he come for? The LOST SHEEP. Can we make the assumption that ALL Jews are "believers" and that ALL Jews are saved?

Right before the "Exception Clause" in Matthew, we read that Jesus was speaking to "the lost sheep of Israel", and within that group were DEMON-POSESSED people he had healed. They might be a Jew by nationality... but I don't know where in the Bible it says a DEMON-POSESSED person will inherit the Kingdom (Jew or Gentile).

We as believers can be OPRESSED by a demonic spirit, but if we ARE believers who have the Holy Spirit living in us, we CANNOT be POSESSED by a demonic spirit. We could make the assumption that Jesus FIRST healed ALL the people in the crowds to make sure they were ALL believers before he delivered the Beatitudes, but I think that is totally reaching and stretching to try and fit a square peg in a round hole. If this were the case, I would think we would hear Jesus saying something like, "Before I begin my sermon, we must make sure you ALL are believers because my message is only for believers."

King Herod, who killed John the Baptist, was a Jew... but he was also a wicked man... Just because he was a Jew, did not make him a "believer."

Please help me if I am missing something. You know I want to find an "out" brother! The Scriptures just have to harmonize before I can jump in with both feet on this remarriage thing... and so far, I just can't see it.

God bless!!

[VerticalReality]

I agree that Jesus came first to the Jews then to the Gentiles.... BUT... what did he come for? Or better yet, WHO did he come for? The LOST SHEEP. Can we make the assumption that ALL Jews are "believers" and that ALL Jews are saved?

I would make the argument that none of them were saved yet. That's what we needed Jesus to go to the cross for. We can make the argument that all Jews were under the law, and we can make the argument that none of them could fulfill it, which is why Jesus came for the "lost sheep of the house of Israel".

Right before the "Exception Clause" in Matthew, we read that Jesus was speaking to "the lost sheep of Israel", and within that group were DEMON-POSESSED people he had healed. They might be a Jew by nationality... but I don't know where in the Bible it says a DEMON-POSESSED person will inherit the Kingdom (Jew or Gentile).

Which ones who weren't demonized were going to inherit the kingdom of God in their current situation? To inherit the kingdom of God one must be born again, and I think it a sound argument to say that none of those Jesus was ministering to were born again. Jesus came to those who were given the law and knew it. He came to the house of Israel.

We as believers can be OPRESSED by a demonic spirit, but if we ARE believers who have the Holy Spirit living in us, we CANNOT be POSESSED by a demonic spirit.

Could you explain the difference between possession and oppression and give Scripture to show the difference? My stance is that I don't believe there is a Scriptural difference.

We could make the assumption that Jesus FIRST healed ALL the people in the crowds to make sure they were ALL believers before he delivered the Beatitudes, but I think that is totally reaching and stretching to try and fit a square peg in a round hole. If this were the case, I would think we would hear Jesus saying something like, "Before I begin my sermon, we must make sure you ALL are believers because my message is only for believers."

When I say believers, I'm talking about the believers of the law. In other words, those who were given the law, which was Israel. Perhaps believer isn't the best word to get my point across. I'm talking about those who were given the law and knew it.

King Herod, who killed John the Baptist, was a Jew... but he was also a wicked man... Just because he was a Jew, did not make him a "believer."

Who wasn't wicked?

Please help me if I am missing something. You know I want to find an "out" brother! The Scriptures just have to harmonize before I can jump in with both feet on this remarriage thing... and so far, I just can't see it.

Honestly, I'm not trying to give you an "out". I'm simply reasoning the Scriptures. My argument here is not in support of divorce or support of remarriage. My argument here is the freedom and cleansing from the blood of Jesus Christ from any and all condemnation from past sin. I would not support any born again Christian if they choose to decide to divorce their spouse for whatever reason they feel justified in, nor would I support this same Christian in their decision to remarry. My point of view stems from those who are dead spiritually compared to those who are born of a new nature.

[drew]

Hello Alaska:

Actually, please consider this question as directed towards any readers who believe that there are no Scripturally defensible reasons for divorce / remarriage.

I am going to ask a very unrealistic hypothetical question about a situation that is virtually impossible to occur. Of course, you are free to object that the situation is so unrealistic as to make my question invalid.

My question is this: Suppose that someone you dearly love, say your daughter, has some kind of physiological disorder that occasionally causes her to do irrational things - things that in moments of normalcy, she would never do. Suppose that in one of these episodes, she marries someone she intensely dislikes and has no "real" intention of marrying.

Do you think God wishes her to remain married if both she and her husband are miserably unhappy?

You should know that I will have a follow on question if you argue that such a situation is so unrealistic as to not be fair.

Sorry to repeat, but anyone interested in responding to the above?

[VerticalReality]

Sorry to repeat, but anyone interested in responding to the above?

I would ask in the above scenario, as goofy as it may be , did God join the two together?

[drew]

I would ask in the above scenario, as goofy as it may be , did God join the two together?

I believe that I know why you ask this and would answer "no", probably not. But I am not the person who believes that divorce and remarriage are always sinful as I understand others like Alaska believe.

Just to lay my cards on the table, my present position is that, whatever else He is doing, Jesus can in no way be modifying the Old Testament law about divorce, because I believe that both He and Paul essentially affirm the Law as "perfect and holy". I admit that I have not given this a lot of thought and the issues are complex.

But either way, I do think that if 2 people somehow marry each other through gross incompetence and / or impaired judgement (e.g. one of them has a mental disorder), that God would sanction a divorce and later remarriage in such cases. And I believe that this is not simply a "I know the Scriptures teach X but I choose to believe Y" response. I do think I could make a case that my opinion about this is Scripturally defensible. But not in this post.

[Alaska]

I am going to ask a very unrealistic hypothetical question about a situation that is virtually impossible to occur

You should know that I will have a follow on question if you argue that such a situation is so unrealistic as to not be fair.

You have admitted that it is unrealistic by stating that it is virtually impossible to occur.

This thread is a defense of the plain wording and apparent clear implication of Mark 10:2-12.
So let us make a scenario that is more realistic. A couple gets married and then they drift away from one another so that they are both "miserably unhappy". Either the man or woman initiates the divorce and so a divorce happens. What is their status before God? Can they both remarry, or can one remarry, or is one innocent and the other not, so that the innocent can remarry?

Here is the answer from 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

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.
Paul made reference to those who "frustrate the grace of God" by resorting to the OT law to justify themselves in areas where the NT has changed those things.
Deut. 24:1-4 has been thrown out by the "better covenant" of the NT.

[drew]

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.

This is an entirely uncharitable statement and you really should not make it. You are speculating. If your case is strong, your Scriptural arguments will carry the burden - you need not resort to this sort of subtle suggestion that those who disagree with you are not under God's grace and are looking for a way to weasel out of things. Please not speculate about the motivations of those who do not share your view.

Returning to the essence of my question, it seems to me that you would say that divorce is unacceptable even if the circumstances were the following (which, unlike my first example, is at least arguably realistic):Your beloved daughter somehow married someone she despised because she forget to take her anti-depression medicine and made a wild rash decision in the middle of a highly manic episode.

Its no crime to hold to such a view if you think that is what the Scriptures, in their broad sweep, really teach. But make no mistake: if divorce is always against God's will, then it is against God's will in the unlikely, but certainly possible, situation I have just described.

What about a young man who, after some sexual indiscretion, makes a vow to God that he will go live in a monastery for the rest of his life. Let's say that he made this vow in a highly emotional state of contrition and that he really did not make a sober competent decision. The Scriptures teach that we need to keep our vows. If I understand you properly, and perhaps I do not, you would say that he needs to keep this vow even if his parents are desperately dependent upon him to stay with them.

Again, you are, of course, free to argue that he must fulfill his vow as the Scriptures teach. For my part, I doubt that the intent of the teaching on vow-keeping was to enforce a vow made in a state of arguable mental incompetence. And same for marriage.

[Alyssa S]

I would make the argument that none of them were saved yet. That's what we needed Jesus to go to the cross for. We can make the argument that all Jews were under the law, and we can make the argument that none of them could fulfill it, which is why Jesus came for the "lost sheep of the house of Israel".

I agree!

Which ones who weren't demonized were going to inherit the kingdom of God in their current situation? To inherit the kingdom of God one must be born again, and I think it a sound argument to say that none of those Jesus was ministering to were born again. Jesus came to those who were given the law and knew it. He came to the house of Israel.

Exactly!! That was the point that I was trying to make. You said in your earlier post that Jesus was speaking to BELIEVERS. I was just trying to prove that not all of these people were believers, because the verse mentioned a demon-possessed individual. We can be a "sinner" (who is UNSAVED)... or we can be SAINT who also sins (SAVED.)

Could you explain the difference between possession and oppression and give Scripture to show the difference? My stance is that I don't believe there is a Scriptural difference.

Well, this is getting off track of the point I was trying to make... or the point I was trying to clear up. But from what little I know about this subject of oppression and possession, here is my take....

Demon Possession - is from Within - (For UNBELIEVERS)
Demon Oppression - is from Without - (For Believers and Unbelievers)

Demon Possession in the Scriptures appears to mostly involve unbelievers:

Saul (I Sam. 16:14-23; 18:10; 19:9) -- OT dispensation
Isa. 14
Ez. 28
Dan. 10:13
Mark 5 -- the picture of conversion
Mark 9:14-29
Luke 22:3 -- Judas Iscariot

And here are some Demon Oppression Scriptures... things Satan can DO TO a believer:
Cause sickness (Job 2:7; 2 Cor. 12:7)
Kill (1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 1:19-20)
Deceive (Matt. 24:24-28)

Do I honestly think I can be POSSESSED by a demon if the Holy Spirit is living in me? From what I know and from what this verse tells me, I do not think so... 1 John 4:4 "Greater is HE that is in you, than he that is in the world."

When I say believers, I'm talking about the believers of the law. In other words, those who were given the law, which was Israel. Perhaps believer isn't the best word to get my point across. I'm talking about those who were given the law and knew it.

OK... that makes more sense. So would you say that Jesus was indeed speaking to both BELIEVERS and UNBELIEVERS? Obviously we cannot call these Jews believers of Christ... Believers of the Law, yes, but not believers of Christ.

When Jesus delivered the Beatitudes, he was speaking to the Jews, the believers of the Law. But were all of these people in Jesus' crowd his sheep?

John 10:24 "The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because YOU ARE NOT MY SHEEP."

This verse seems to say to me that when Jesus was speaking about marriage and divorce and remarriage, his audience were believers as well as non-believers. And my point in all of this is that in order for a person who has been saved after divorce (such as myself) who considers themself a New Creation to be able to remarry withour committing adultery, Jesus would have had to been speaking to BELIEVERS and only believers.... not believers of the law... but believers in Him. The Pharisees didn't believe in him.

So when Jesus said "'Everyone or 'Anyone'' who divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery," he was speaking to the believers as well as non-believers, the Pharisees, who Jesus himself said, "YOU are not my SHEEP."

I don't see how it fits... but I want to!!

Who wasn't wicked?

AMEN! I agree!

Honestly, I'm not trying to give you an "out". I'm simply reasoning the Scriptures. My argument here is not in support of divorce or support of remarriage. My argument here is the freedom and cleansing from the blood of Jesus Christ from any and all condemnation from past sin. I would not support any born again Christian if they choose to decide to divorce their spouse for whatever reason they feel justified in, nor would I support this same Christian in their decision to remarry. My point of view stems from those who are dead spiritually compared to those who are born of a new nature.

[/quote]

And I apologize for wording my last post the way I did. I realize you are not trying to give me an "out." I actually have not even been following this thread, because I believe there IS a provision for divorce... just not sure there is for remarriage. So I am surely not taking any sides with my post. I just happened to log in and read what you posted, and wanted to address it. Because I would like to understand your logic... OR TRUTH.
I agree with you whole-heartily that we should be free from all SINS and CONDEMNATION of the past. I think what I have been trying to stress all along is that marriage is not a sin... it is a covenant. A covenant cannot be forgiven.... period. A covenant is separate than a sin....so it cannot be thrown into the "Sin and Condemnation" category... so I believe at this point.

Can we make a sinful covenant? Sure... Joshua made one with the Gibeonites, and it was sinful, because they didn't consult God first. The Gibeonites LIED to them and God STILL held them to it. How "unfair"... why should they be held accountable to a covenant with a NON-BELIEVER, NON-JEW who even lied in the Covenant???? I don't know... seems very unfair to me. But I didn't make the rules. I don't know.... it all makes me . haha.....

[drew]

Jesus came to teach the lost sheep of the house of Israel and fulfill the prophecies concerning Him. The gentiles would come later.

If I may insert my snout here...

I actually agree with you (although do you not agree that most Christians would not see things this way?).

Can you please clarify how this observations connects to the divorce / remarriage issue?

[VerticalReality]

OK... that makes more sense. So would you say that Jesus was indeed speaking to both BELIEVERS and UNBELIEVERS? Obviously we cannot call these Jews believers of Christ... Believers of the Law, yes, but not believers of Christ.

Like I said, I believe Jesus was speaking strictly to those who knew the law, and these were Jews. Whether they were His sheep or not is another story, but they were all of the house of Israel nonetheless.

This verse seems to say to me that when Jesus was speaking about marriage and divorce and remarriage, his audience were believers as well as non-believers. And my point in all of this is that in order for a person who has been saved after divorce (such as myself) who considers themself a New Creation to be able to remarry withour committing adultery, Jesus would have had to been speaking to BELIEVERS and only believers.... not believers of the law... but believers in Him. The Pharisees didn't believe in him.

My view is that He is speaking to the house of Israel. I do not believe gentiles were intermingling with Jews here. Regardless, I still think it goes much deeper than we are allowing here. My point of view comes from the born again/not born again direction. And my main point of view is that I think the Pharisees had no idea what Jesus was talking about with His "from the beginning" talk because they were not born again. They were hard hearted, and that is why Moses gave them permission for divorce. The question now is was what they were doing under Moses direction considered adultery? If it wasn't, why has that all of sudden changed now the Jesus has arrived with his proclamation of the true way in the beginning?

So when Jesus said "'Everyone or 'Anyone'' who divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery," he was speaking to the believers as well as non-believers, the Pharisees, who Jesus himself said, "YOU are not my SHEEP."

Who there was believers in the context you are using it? Were any of them born again? I think what people are missing is the fact that Jesus is not giving them a law way. He's giving them a way that was before the law. And what I also think people are missing is how people were in the beginning also. Were the people "in the beginning" the same as the people that Moses was dealing with? If not, how were they different?

And I apologize for wording my last post the way I did. I realize you are not trying to give me an "out." I actually have not even been following this thread, because I believe there IS a provision for divorce... just not sure there is for remarriage. So I am surely not taking any sides with my post. I just happened to log in and read what you posted, and wanted to address it. Because I would like to understand your logic... OR TRUTH.
I agree with you whole-heartily that we should be free from all SINS and CONDEMNATION of the past. I think what I have been trying to stress all along is that marriage is not a sin... it is a covenant. A covenant cannot be forgiven.... period. A covenant is separate than a sin....so it cannot be thrown into the "Sin and Condemnation" category... so I believe at this point.

Covenant or no covenant. In Matthew 19 Jesus says nothing about covenant. Jesus simply says, "What God has joined together let not man separate."

Where in the bible have two unbelievers made a covenant that was brought about by God?

[Alyssa S]

Like I said, I believe Jesus was speaking strictly to those who knew the law, and these were Jews. Whether they were His sheep or not is another story, but they were all of the house of Israel nonetheless.



My view is that He is speaking to the house of Israel. I do not believe gentiles were intermingling with Jews here. Regardless, I still think it goes much deeper than we are allowing here. My point of view comes from the born again/not born again direction. And my main point of view is that I think the Pharisees had no idea what Jesus was talking about with His "from the beginning" talk because they were not born again. They were hard hearted, and that is why Moses gave them permission for divorce. The question now is was what they were doing under Moses direction considered adultery? If it wasn't, why has that all of sudden changed now the Jesus has arrived with his proclamation of the true way in the beginning?



Who there was believers in the context you are using it? Were any of them born again? I think what people are missing is the fact that Jesus is not giving them a law way. He's giving them a way that was before the law. And what I also think people are missing is how people were in the beginning also. Were the people "in the beginning" the same as the people that Moses was dealing with? If not, how were they different?



Covenant or no covenant. In Matthew 19 Jesus says nothing about covenant. Jesus simply says, "What God has joined together let not man separate."

Where in the bible have two unbelievers made a covenant that was brought about by God?

Hey VR...

I will respond to more of your letter later... gotta run right now. But... I think you have a good argument about what Moses allowed that is (supposedly) suddenly not allowed under Jesus. Why does it seem that God has gotten more strict under grace than he was under law regarding divorce and remarriage? I simply cannot comprehend that. But I am obviously just a piece of clay!

BUT... I also know that Scripture has to harmonize. And (to me) the only way it can harmonize, if we believe in the "New Creation" argument for remarriage, is if Jesus was only speaking to believers... otherwise he is contradicting himself. And here... I think I have a good argument...just as you do with the Moses debate.

So where does that leave things? In the grey...

It would put me at much more ease if Jesus would have said, " If anyone divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery, unless his wife commited fornication. And anyone who becomes born again, is permitted to remarry, for they are no longer bound to their husband."

But Jesus obviously did not say this. And if we believe that a "new creation" can remarry, why didn't Jesus say so? Afterall.... I would imagine a lot of his crowd were divorcees who were being born again.... and he didn't even address it!!

[Brotherken]

Covenant or no covenant. In Matthew 19 Jesus says nothing about covenant. Jesus simply says, "What God has joined together let not man separate."

Where in the bible have two unbelievers made a covenant that was brought about by God?

Excellent point!

If a Two Persons were not Christians when they were Married

Did God Join them Together?