PDA

View Full Version : Jesus Does Not Allow Divorce-An Apology



Pages : [1] 2

Alaska
Oct 25th 2007, 12:11 AM
There are many who read Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 (verses which appear to be clearly prohibiting divorce and remarriage for anything) and they would like to believe that viewpoint because in their conscience that seems how it should be. 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.
It is said that apologetics is a patient work. In defense of this view that "til death do us part" is in fact an accurate reflection of what the NT teaches, I ask your patience while you read this document. It will be a source of strength and Biblical confirmation to those who believe as I do and it may be a cause for reconsideration for those who believe that the NT does in fact allow divorce.
I am the author of the attached article. I invite those who desire to do so, to copy and distribute for discussion and consideration. The following is about one half of the document.



Jesus Does Not Allow Divorce (Part One)

When asked about divorce, Jesus based his prohibition of divorce on what is written in Genesis chapter two. Jesus used what was said with regard to Adam and Eve's marriage as the grounds to why divorce is not allowed. Their being "one flesh" in marriage had special meaning since Eve was literally one flesh with Adam, having been made from his own rib. But Jesus made the same pronouncement of "one flesh" on all subsequent marriages! This places all lawful marriages on equal footing with that first one. Though wives today are not made from their husbands' ribs, married couples possess the same status as if they were. As it was impossible for Adam to change the fact that he and Eve were one flesh, so it is equally impossible for any lawfully married husband or wife to change the fact that they also are "one flesh". The Apostle Paul understood this very well as we can see in Ephesians 5:28,29. He refers to the husband and wife being one flesh as a great mystery" whereby the wife is part of the man's own body. Also in1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2,3, he very clearly states that only after the death of the husband may the wife marry again. The truth of this subject is accurately reflected in the old solemn phrase, "Till death do us part".

But did not Jesus allow divorce for the single reason of adultery? The following is an exploration of that assumption. Matthew chapter 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Most people would agree that verse 32 is not very clear. It seems to be somewhat of a run-on sentence. And after looking at it for a while, one might say that its exception clause ("saving for the cause of fornication") causes it to appear somewhat self-contradictory. However, its context offers substantial help: In six places in Matthew chapter 5, verses 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, and 43, Jesus says "It hath been said" or "it was said", as we see in verse 31 above. And to each of these he makes an answer like: "But I say unto you... ". Many have not discerned the spirit in which Jesus is speaking in this chapter and have stumbled on his words in verse 32. They have interpreted them legalistically by supposing that Jesus meant 'adultery' when he said 'fornication'.

One of the explanations of being legalistic is when someone takes the particular words that are used and reckons them to mean something other than what the spirit and context is truly saying. As the Jews did not correctly understand God because they stumbled on "the letter" of the Old Testament, so likewise, many Christians today have accepted a major heresy on the subject of divorce and remarriage because they have stumbled on the wording of Jesus' exception clause.
Unregenerated human nature is also a factor to consider in understanding how the scriptures are incorrectly interpreted. In Luke 16:14-19 (17,18) Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees for their covetousness is tied in with a denouncement of their allowing divorce. Pride and discontent are often at the root of both of these sins.

If the assumption that Jesus meant adultery when he said fornication is indeed true, then Matthew 5 verses 31 and 32 would be the only one of the six topics in that chapter where Jesus lets a partial allowance remain. In reality however, the context indicates that his wording in verse 34; "But I say unto you ... not at all" nicely sums up the answer to the question of whether or not any of those six deeds are allowed. In verses 21 and 22 where Jesus addresses killing, we find that we are not even to be angry with our brother without a cause. In verses 27 and 28, on adultery, we find that we are not even to let it be in our heart. In verses 33 and 34, on forswearing and oaths, we are to "swear not at all". In verses 38 and 39, on "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", we are not to do that at all. In verses 43 and 44, on hating our enemies, we are to rather love them.

Now in going back to verses 31and 32, on divorce; are we being told that if our wife commits adultery we may divorce her if we so choose? If that were indeed true, then verses 31 and 32 would also be the only one of the six where we are being given a choice! All the others are spoken straightforwardly in a graceful form of commandment, as Jesus the great reformer, ministers the New Testament. See Matt. 5:19 and Heb. 9:10 (Rom.14:17 Col. 2:8 John 16:8)

This assumed choice given to the man to divorce his wife for adultery, not only violates Jesus' mode of speech and consistent train of thought, but also amounts to nothing less than allowing the man to harden his heart and not forgive. Consider these scriptures: "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Eph. 4:31,32. "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matt. 6:14,15. See also Matt. 18:21-35, (32,33). If Jesus' exception of fornication is indeed a liberty to divorce a married wife for adultery, then an exception must be made for these and all other similar references concerning forgiveness when applied to the sin of adultery. (A little leaven leavens the whole lump).

The divorce-for-adultery pro-choice advocates are in effect making the statement that such references about forgiveness are deceptive to the common reader. They apparently believe that those scriptures are not necessarily applicable to the sin of adultery. It would seem they would have us believe we are in need of their assumed superior knowledge. To us, Jesus' teaching on forgiveness appears by every indication to pertain to all trespassers, including wives who have committed adultery. Is this not strangely reminiscent of the misguided professing Christians of the 14-1500's who felt that without their learned guidance, the common man or woman would be misled by reading the scriptures?

By the above references, and especially in Eph.4:31,32, it is sound to conclude that tenderness of heart goes along with the act of forgiving, in the same way that hardness of heart goes along with unforgiveness. In Matt. 19:8 and Mark 10:4,5, Jesus states that the precept written by Moses allowing a man to divorce his married wife (Deut. 24:1-4) was written for the hardness of their hearts. Is divorce a product of hardness of heart as Jesus said, or is it not? In Matt. 5:31,32, Jesus is referring to that same precept given by Moses: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you... ".

How could the New Testament teach such things that we have read on forgiveness and also that Moses' allowance for divorce was written solely because of the hardness of their hearts; and at the same time allow divorce? Would God emphatically state that he hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and then command his Son to make divorce a personal preferential thing of choice? The New Testament never allows what God hates. If the exception of fornication means allowing divorce on the grounds of adultery, then Jesus by his own admission is allowing hardness of heart and unforgiveness towards the wife if she commits adultery.

Furthermore, since by the New Testament, his laws of truth are written in the hearts of the believers (Heb. 8:10 Rom. 8:4 John 1:17), if divorce for adultery is legal, then hardness of heart and unforgiveness has also been written in our hearts in regard to adulterous wives.

There are worse trespasses than adultery that a wife may commit. If Jesus' exception of fornication is assumed to pertain to the married wife, then fornication is defined to mean adultery. It would then seem reasonable to conclude that if she were to commit an offence other than adultery, her husband couldn't put her away for that because it is not the specified offence. But what if that other offence is worse than adultery? Wouldn't that cause Jesus to appear unfair and unreasonable? This kind of argument could be levelled at Jesus if he had allowed divorce in the married state for adultery or for any other specific sin because there will always be a sin which is at least as severe as the one which has been specified. Divorce would thereby be allowed for one sin but not for another, which may be even worse.

Someone will now say that if she were to commit something worse than adultery, it should be understood that the husband has the right to divorce her for that also. But if this were true, Jesus then appears not to have said what he meant and not to have meant what he said. However, these valid arguments, which reveal that Jesus would have been unreasonable and inconsistent if he had allowed divorce for any specific sin, cannot be used against him because his exception clause does not at all pertain to the married state as will presently be shown.

Though many have stumbled on Matt. 5:32 by assuming that the phrase, "saving for the cause of fornication" means that adultery is a legal grounds for divorce, there have also been many who have discerned the spirit in which Jesus spoke in Matthew 5 and have concluded that it does not seem that Jesus could have been allowing divorce. After all, he gave no partial allowance to any of the other five subjects that he addressed in that chapter. As for the exception, they honestly say they don't understand it. They find consolation in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18, where Jesus gives no indication whatsoever that an exception to the married state exists. In fact, those verses seem to be unquestionably against the slightest notion of divorce.

With the apparent prohibition on divorce (Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18) set alongside the exception of fornication (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) it is understandable how the exception of fornication could appear at first, and perhaps for a long time afterward to be a thoroughly confounding problem. The question may be asked: "Is there an exception or is there not?" However, a more appropriate question, which at first seems unworthy even to consider, holds the key to the understanding of this issue. It is as follows:

Is it possible that the apparently more easily understood teachings in Mark and Luke are to be accepted at face value without adding anything, and at the same time, some form of exception happens to exist which does not conflict with those straightforward prohibitive statements in Mark and Luke? In other words, could Jesus' apparent outright prohibition on divorcing the married wife stand unmovable while at the same time some form of exception happens to exist, which does not oppose that outright prohibition? Could there be found some largely unnoticed Biblical evidence that would shed some light on the subject so that we could see that an exception does exist but at the same time there is "no exception"? You can see now what I mean when I say it is a question that seems unworthy even to consider. Unfortunately for those who have not asked themselves that question and thereby have not discovered its potential, but have assumed and taught that Jesus meant adultery when he said fornication, the answer to that question happens to be a very loud and provable 'yes'.

Let me illustrate with a hypothetical situation. You are working, unloading large bags of grain by hand. A notice on the wall states, Whosoever Tears a Bag Must Pay the Cost of Contents. Suppose that as you bring a bag to your shoulder, it slips, and in an attempt to grab it, a large section of the bag rips off before it hits the floor. It would not seem possible that this could happen without your being found guilty. But there is a way, by virtue of a previously unknown factor whereby you would be judged as not violating the true intent of the notice. How could this be? The answer is very simple. You would not be found guilty if the bags were all double-walled and after tearing and hitting the floor, the grain was still very well contained within the remaining layer. The phrase "tears a bag" was expected to be understood to mean that if a bag tore, the contents would spill on the floor.

Let us say also that after tearing only the outer layer and hitting the floor, (the grain being yet very well contained), some of your fellow labourers are uncertain on whether or not you should still pay, since technically you did tear a bag. Therefore, the man in charge, in order to avoid such a misunderstanding, changes the notice so that it reads;

Whosoever tears a bag, unless it is only the outer layer, must pay the cost of contents.
This hypothetical scenario does not pretend to cover all the aspects to be discussed about Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. There are hypothetical statements that could be brought out which are grammatically similar in construction to Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. These show in a straightforward manner the effect of an exception clause inserted within such statements. They also show how certain kinds of exception clauses (such as those we find inserted in Matt. 5:32: 19:9) may apply to a closely associated aspect of the subject and not to that aspect which is being directly addressed. However, in this present scenario, the main purpose is to show how separate true statements made about a particular situation may seem to be totally contradictory and unquestionably irreconcilable, simply because an unknown duality exists pertaining to the situation.

The bags being double-layered was the unknown duality which in effect made it possible to tear a bag without tearing a bag. It was torn, but not after the intended meaning of the notice. The unknown duality concerning Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 lies in the fact that there were two kinds of wives; 1) the betrothed or espoused wife, and 2) the completely married wife. Therefore also, there were two kinds of divorce. While Jesus upheld the liberty practised by the Jews to divorce their unmarried betrothed wives for their fornication (in which case the husband would divorce "his wife" before he married her), he prohibited the divorce of the completely married wife for whatever reason. We can see by this how it is possible to divorce without divorcing.

About the closest comparison with this to modern culture would be the scenario of a man breaking off the marriage plans after discovering that his engaged wife-to-be has fornicated. In old time, this would have been regarded as a divorce on the grounds of fornication. (For Biblical proof that the words "husband" and "wife" and "put away" applied to both the married and unmarried couple, see Deut. 22:23,24 "virgin" "betrothed" "husband" "wife". Deut. 20:7 "taken". Matthew 1:18-24; verses 19 "put her away" and 20 "take... Mary thy wife" and 23 "virgin").

Another point this scenario serves to highlight is in regard to the question of why Jesus mentioned the exception at all since it doesn't pertain to the married state anyway. In answering this we should again consider how an exception clause may apply to a closely associated aspect of a subject and not to that aspect which is being directly addressed. Though Jesus was directly addressing the married state (which is proven by Matthew 5:31) the closely related state of betrothal warranted the insertion of the exception clause. Since there were two kinds of wives that could be divorced, Jesus clarified himself by including the exception clause. In the above scenario, not just any tear required payment. It had to be a complete tear. So likewise, not just any divorce constitutes a transgression of God's law. What God hates, is the divorcing of the completely married wife.

By the context of Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10 6-9, it is easy to understand that the husband and wife to whom God says "Let not man put asunder" are those couples who have been pronounced by God to be one flesh by virtue of lawful marriage. That pronouncement was not intended for the betrothed unmarried husband and wife. Though the exception clause, which allows "divorce" is found in the context of the married state, it does not pertain to the married state. Since betrothal was so closely associated with marriage itself, inasmuch that in betrothal the man and woman were regarded as husband and wife, it seems that Jesus' strong words concerning divorce could have been wrongly perceived to also prohibit the customary divorce of the betrothed wife for fornication. The exception clause would have prevented that misunderstanding.

xlive_4_godx
Oct 25th 2007, 12:13 AM
Sorry m8, I have a bit of an ADD, would you mind splitting it up into smaller paragraphs?

Would help me read it so much faster ;)

wrldstrman
Oct 25th 2007, 12:39 AM
Fact is it was said what God has joined together let no man seperate.. God also said he HATES divorce. But like everything else God knew man wouldnt listen and would come up with every excuse to get divorced.

Amazedgrace21
Oct 25th 2007, 04:53 AM
I am not fond of divorce myself..and do not wish to derail your thread but would be interested if you might offer some insights with greater detail to how you determined scripturally "why God hates divorce" and how you have applied it..

I am offering these thoughts for some possible explanations why He does..that challanges your position on adultery because as you said God does not condone what he hates..he hates adultery and he hates divorce but perhaps there is a bit more "to this"..God did indeed "institute divorce" so this is not a "sin" when under very specific circumstances..and "adultery" was one of them..



Divorce that is, a complete break in the marriage contract is lawful, because virtually all marriage contracts involve vows made by two parties. In God's marriage to Israel at Mt. Sinai, Israel (the bride) agreed to submit to His authority and obey His laws (Ex. 19:3-8). God, on the other hand, agreed to give them the Kingdom and the blessings of the Birthright. These included honor, protection, sustenance, and children (Gen. 12:1-3).

Israel violated this contract, being incapable of full obedience, and refused to repent; and thus, her Husband divorced her and sent her out of His house. Jeremiah 3:8 says,
8 And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.


Note that God not only sent her away, but only did so after giving her a written bill of divorce. This was in accordance with the law in Deut. 24 that we will quote shortly. Hosea 2:2 also shows that God’s divorce meant Israel was no longer God’s wife, saying to her,
2 Contend with your mother , contend, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband;

Because God Himself is a divorcee, we can safely say that divorce itself is not necessarily a sin. It can be a sin, of course, if the one demanding a divorce does so with evil motives that are not in the will of God. But the fact that God divorced Israel shows that lawful divorce is the result of sin, or violation of the contract. It is the final solution to the problem when all else fails, and when reconciliation is impossible. God's law on divorce and remarriage is given in Deut. 24:1-4.



1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [I]it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

From verse 1 we see immediately that God recognizes there must be a cause of divorcement. It is not specified in any detail, other than finding something unclean in her. Some insist that means divorce is only lawful in case of adultery. But the penalty for adultery is death—not divorce.
Others say it means divorce is only lawful if the husband discovers that his wife had had illicit sexual relations with someone else before they were married. However, such a situation also calls for the death penalty, and this is elaborated upon in detail in Deut. 22:13-21.
Thus, the grounds for divorce in the 24th chapter must be something else.


When a marriage contract has been broken, and especially if one or both parties refuse to repent and restore the lawful order, divorce may well be the only solution. God does not expect the innocent party to honor the contract when the guilty party refuses to do so. The contract is always conditional. Thus, Jesus' statement, "For the hardness of your heart," should not be construed to mean that divorce itself is a sin. Remember that God Himself is a divorcee, according to Jer. 3:8, yet He did not sin in divorcing Israel.

Nor must we believe that the people twisted God's arm and forced Him to allow divorce. If divorce were a sin, and God allowed it, then God was legalizing sin. This would be a serious accusation for mortals to make, especially in view of the testimony of David in Psalm 19:7 that "The law of the Lord is PERFECT, converting the soul."




:hmm:

Alaska
Oct 25th 2007, 03:39 PM
Divorce is one of those things the new covenant has abolished. If Dt. 24 is going to be quoted to support divorce as if it is still allowed, why not quote the scriptures from the old covenant requiring physical circumcision or the verses implying that polygamy is OK or killing your son for being a drunkard and slothful or ....
Jesus gave the reason for throwing out DT. 24:1-4. It was written for the hardness of their hearts. Unforgiveness is directly connected to hardness of hearts. If there is any one thing that is emphasised in the NT, we should agree that forgiveness fits. Hence no more "eye for an eye" hating your enemies or any other of the things, including divorce, from the OT that was a part of the law but that is now not part of the NT law.
I believe those using the OT law to claim obligation to do what the NT now contradicts are under, as Paul said, "bondage to the law".
"The law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".
Divorce in itself is a sin by the NT but going on to get remarried is another and greater sin because it is an ongoing state of adultery as long as the divorced person is involved in the second marriage.
Marriage involves sex. Adultery is a sexual sin that violates a marriage.
Remarriage is adultery because the real and lawful spouse is still alive.
They are still husband and wife in God's eyes.

threebigrocks
Oct 25th 2007, 03:55 PM
Alaska, this is more suited to Bible Chat and I have moved it on over here for discussion.

I<3Jesus
Oct 25th 2007, 06:06 PM
Can I get the Cliff Notes version? How about thread on tape? Walls of text makes my eyes bleed! LOL! :bounce:

Amazedgrace21
Oct 25th 2007, 06:15 PM
Divorce is one of those things the new covenant has abolished. If Dt. 24 is going to be quoted to support divorce as if it is still allowed, why not quote the scriptures from the old covenant requiring physical circumcision or the verses implying that polygamy is OK or killing your son for being a drunkard and slothful or ....
Jesus gave the reason for throwing out DT. 24:1-4. It was written for the hardness of their hearts. Unforgiveness is directly connected to hardness of hearts. If there is any one thing that is emphasised in the NT, we should agree that forgiveness fits. Hence no more "eye for an eye" hating your enemies or any other of the things, including divorce, from the OT that was a part of the law but that is now not part of the NT law.
I believe those using the OT law to claim obligation to do what the NT now contradicts are under, as Paul said, "bondage to the law".
"The law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".
Divorce in itself is a sin by the NT but going on to get remarried is another and greater sin because it is an ongoing state of adultery as long as the divorced person is involved in the second marriage.
Marriage involves sex. Adultery is a sexual sin that violates a marriage.
Remarriage is adultery because the real and lawful spouse is still alive.
They are still husband and wife in God's eyes.

I am simply going to have to disagree here regarding the claim the "divorce" was abolished ..per the scriptures of the NT..that is simply not accurate..

I am also going to have to disagree that "divorce" is declared a 'sin" scripturally, when in fact there was provision for divorce per Christ himself with clarification and qualification that in very specific cases that is simply not the case.

There is scriptural context for what constitutes "cause" and Christ clearly stipulating that He did not come to do away with the Law, as in the spirit of it..but to 'complete it,the "hardness of the heart" was directed to those who saught divorce and pursued it for illigetimate and evil purposes at the same time maintaining great care and sensitivity for those who were the victims of this abuse.

In this manner Christ instituted grace in regards to the hypocrisy and harm of "legalizing" for hypocritical and sinful reasons on the part of those who abused Gods "intent and purpose" for marraige.At the same time Christ responded that writing a certificate of divorce should not be taken as a "legislative privalege", as many men were doing and also brings into context the "law" that "what God has brought together, let no man tear assunder.".

Furthermore it would appear Christ wanted it clearly understood that sins committed against 'a spouse' are sins committed against God. When a covenent is established my mutual agreement, it is the "fault" and burden for the covenent being 'violated', .."murdered..put to death" on the part of the one who does this, not God or the innocent party..

This constitutes "death" of the covenent..that God permitted both divorce and remarraige..in the event there was no longer hope or opportunity for "life" or the covenent to be 'restored or healed.

Adam and Eve were instructed by God not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or they would 'surely die'

They did 'eat'..Did they "physically die"?..Not right away but they did die "covenentally" with God right?

Romans 6:23 says, "for the wages of sin is death..", again not 'physical death..sinners are not physically dead but they are dead "covenantally.

Divorce and remarraige are both based on the same covenant model that marraige is..

I genuinely believe that the stipulation of one being inelligible to remarry contingent to the death of the former spouse is limited to no valid scriptural "cause" for divorce being in place, hence no "legal" divorce at all..

OR spiritual grounds to have 'left' the covenent..and was addressing one specific case being asked to be responded to, and this "case" being sited as a standard for others who tried to justify 'wrongful' divorce.

No differently than the standard of how Pauls own sins and crimes, or Peter's were from Judas's against Christ, but indeed the response to God in regards to the matters of remorse and repentence were vastly different.

Remarraige is "only adultery" on the part of the one who broke covenent with God and their innocent spouse..AND THEIR spouse is still alive,they may have obtained a legal divorce but they never received a biblical one from Christs standpoint..they are the ones who must "wait" for the death of their former spouse "literaly" as one of the consequences for their conduct..not the innocent spouse.

They acted under the letter of man's law and are subject to the "Letter of the spiritual law" of God.Not the innocent party..they are under the law of Grace...as this is applied to 'believers' opposed to unbelievers. IMHO.

"If" once again remarraige is ever allowed at all scripturally ..it can not be called sin..same with divorce..and reciprocally not every marraige is allowed. Furthermore, the covenent God has entered into with each individual spouse "in Christ" preceeds the covenent betweens the spouses and God..there is no contradiction here.

There is always a distinction of the letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law when Christ set forth his teachings..he never taught contradictions, he simply resolved them and exposed those who attempted to impose them upon others.

ChristianKid37
Oct 26th 2007, 12:52 AM
I dont advocate divorce but...

What of the case of the husband beating and abusing his wife? SHould we as Christians counsel her not to seperate herself or get a divorce telling her it is sin?

Say she does stay in the relationship, and eventually the husband kills her. Should we still stand on the grounds that we gave her godly and wise counsel by staying in the marriage and that obviously it was God's will for her to be murdered?

Or are we violating another commandment if we tell her to stay, which says, "Love your neightbor as yourself?"

Alaska
Oct 26th 2007, 01:25 AM
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."

Alaska
Oct 26th 2007, 02:10 AM
Nor must we believe that the people twisted God's arm and forced Him to allow divorce. If divorce were a sin, and God allowed it, then God was legalizing sin. This would be a serious accusation for mortals to make, especially in view of the testimony of David in Psalm 19:7 that "The law of the Lord is PERFECT, converting the soul."


It was perfect only in certain senses. It was perfect in the sense that it fit the bill for what it was intended for: unregenerated humans who had not the regeneration of the Holy Spirit because Jesus had not yet come.
God planned that new wine would be placed in new wineskins.
The atonement came also with a new covenant, a reformed law: the NT.
The NT says that perfection did not come by the law and that if it did there would not have been a need for the Messiah. The NT says that the law made nothing perfect and that the law was weak and that the law has been changed and abolished in some regards.
The law pointed to the time when the Messiah would come. When Jesus came it had served its purpose as a schoolmaster. Jesus brought about its fulfillment by introducing the NT. He came not to destroy it but to fulfill it.
By the obvious changes made in the NT when compared to the OT, we cannot interpret him coming to fulfill the law to mean he came to enforce it.
No more are we to exercise, for example, "an eye for an eye". Yet that was part of their OT law. Changes such as this infuriated those bound to the law and not free in Christ. Hence, the offence of the cross yet offends.
"No man is justified by the law" yet believers continue to use from the OT law what the NT has abolished to justify certain behaviours. Paul had to war against this with regard to physical circumcision among other things.
Amazingly some believers in Jesus today are using certain OT references to make polygamy acceptable to God now. An example of the logical conclusion of the leaven of not understanding what Jesus meant when he said he came to fulfill the law.

Since there existed what was called a "divorce for fornication" which meant a termination of the engagement, (See the situation of Joseph and Mary in Matt. 1) the exception clause in 5:32 would have served to emphasise the prohibition of divorce and remarriage (as we see it emphasised in Mark 10: and Luke 16:18) because it holds the message that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if he does it before he marries her.

Amazedgrace21
Oct 26th 2007, 05:27 AM
Thank you for your responses however I would need to see the scriptural verses you are using in regard to the context you are coming to the conclusions you are for these statements for better clarification:


The NT says that perfection did not come by the law and that if it did there would not have been a need for the Messiah.

The NT says that the law made nothing perfect and that the law was weak and that the law has been changed and abolished in some regards.


The law pointed to the time when the Messiah would come.

When Jesus came it had served its purpose as a schoolmaster.

Jesus brought about its fulfillment by introducing the NT.

He came not to destroy it but to fulfill it.


By the obvious changes made in the NT when compared to the OT, we cannot interpret him coming to fulfill the law to mean he came to enforce it.



Since there existed what was called a "divorce for fornication" which meant a termination of the engagement, (See the situation of Joseph and Mary in Matt. 1) the exception clause in 5:32 would have served to emphasise the prohibition of divorce and remarriage (as we see it emphasised in Mark 10: and Luke 16:18) because it holds the message that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if he does it before he marries her.

Have to say this is a bit subjective commentary IMHO>>

"to put away" has broader applications, as does "fornification" and I am aware of Josephs "legal and spiritual" right to "put Mary away" on the basis the engagement itself held the contractual status of a "marraige".

The "exception clause" was addressed because of the corrupt grounds that were being used liberally, to obtain the right to divorce and "put away" a spouse opposed to the only ones Christ permitted...and He did "permit" on specific grounds, fully aware of the cival and spiritual grounds of marraige, divorce and remarraige laws being practiced by Jews as well as subject to Roman law and authority.

Again..adultery, as were other sexual immoralities, already prescribed a legal recourse of action..in most cases, capital punishment...so "fornification" met other criteria and "divorce", ( putting away) was indeed a practice that was permitted by Christ and discussed in detail by Paul..

So it was not done away with, nor was remarraige not allowed. So I believe that Christ was not simply addressing Deut. and simply a concession to Deut 24 but also if not exclusively the "moral law" of Gen.2:23-25 in respect to the restoration of the original marraige law.

There was the case of Gods "divorce' of Israel..Jere. 3: 8,14..so again God can not sin, so not all divorce "is sin"..

I can follow and accept the challanges to establish if there is indeed a scriptural basis for remarraige outside of very limited situations..what I can not follow or accept are the statement's that God did not permit divorce, or that all divorce is sin..clearly He hates it..and understandably "why". Also that marraige was intended to be a life-time commitiment to be abided by both spouses..however Christ acknowledged that this was sadly not always going to be the case..and he did not avoid the fact that it was, and responded to it.

I do not wish or intend to derail your thread if you do not desire questions to be posed, so thank you once again for responding. :hug:

kardia
Oct 26th 2007, 06:59 AM
Nevermind, I read something wrong

DIZZY
Oct 26th 2007, 08:02 AM
Hi guys,
I just thought I'd put my 2 cents worth in. As a young girl I was forced to marry someone I didn't love by my dad. I was not a christian and I did not know God's laws. The marraige never lasted more than 12 months and we were seperated for about 12 months and we divorced months later. I prayed for years after not knowing who I was praying to for a real family, someone to love me and to have children to and to share the joy of those children together as they grew up. I had been through 2 more relationships and had 2 children one from the marriage and one from a defacto relationship. Then after my last relationship broke up God found me and rescued this sinners tail from hells fire. God brought in my life a wonderful christian man and we got married and now we have two beautiful boys. As a young christian I had asked God to forgive me of all my sins and I realize my divorce was one of those sins. It was done as a sinner not as a child of God and God has forgiven me that sin. I do not condone divorce I am saying if it is done unknowingly and you become a christian and confess that sin God if faithful and just and He forgives you that sin. But on the other hand if you are a christian and you knowing God's law on divorce decide to divorce and remarry, then that marriage will not be blessed by God, because you have done it knowing it is a sin and that sin will not be forgiven you. As christians we should not go out to intentionly sin against God. If you do that then you don't love your Father enough to obey Him.

Alaska
Oct 26th 2007, 03:34 PM
what I can not follow or accept are the statement's that God did not permit divorce, or that all divorce is sin


Of course God did allow divorce but that does not mean it was right or that he wasn't suffering that for the time being until perfection came by way of a new testament.
After establishing that the truth is reflected in "let not man put asunder" based on that they are one flesh after the pattern of Adam and Eve, the Pharisees very clearly saw the implication in this and asked him why then did Moses command to allow divorce. He responded that it was for the hardness of their hearts but that from the beginning it was not so; again supporting the prohibition based on the pattern of the first marriage in the beginning. Paul said the law served until the seed should come to whom the promise was made and that the law was imposed until the time of reformation. We now have a reformed law as per the NT. In their carnal unregenerated nature, it was kinder to allow them to do what their very nature would do in rebellion anyway if he tried to prohibit it. They weren't able to bear what Jesus would later bring along with the Holy Spirit and regeneration and clarification. Some of the law was in very deed regulation to control and order the then present state of affairs which existed under the control of the unregenerated fleshly nature. It was but a man's covenant. Law regulating polygamy is a good example of what was allowed for the time being until perfection in a "better" covenant came.
Which brings to mind your belief that since God described a parabolic spiritual divorce scenario to people under the OT law, therefore the ability to divorce literally for us in the NT must be allowable.
By this reasoning we should also then be able to have more that one wife because he uses what they were familiar with regarding polygamy to equate himself as having two wives in another parable in Ezekiel.
I appreciate your patience and ability to listen. Talk to me more.

Amazedgrace21
Oct 26th 2007, 04:55 PM
Hello again Alaska,

I believe the concept you are refering to when it comes to parabolic 'proclivities' is not with out merit..many are guilty of this in terms of both mistaken, yet honest intent as well those who are set forth by Satan to intentionally raise false teachings to the detriment of the body of Christ, out of sheer force of their nature.

That being said..


Of course God did allow divorce but that does not mean it was right or that he wasn't suffering that for the time being until perfection came by way of a new testament.

After establishing that the truth is reflected in "let not man put asunder" based on that they are one flesh after the pattern of Adam and Eve, the Pharisees very clearly saw the implication in this and asked him why then did Moses command to allow divorce.

He responded that it was for the hardness of their hearts but that from the beginning it was not so; again supporting the prohibition based on the pattern of the first marriage in the beginning.

What I observe here is an example of pesher commentary..

The term pesher means, "to explain." In fact, however, pesher is an application of OT scripture with little to no concern for the context of the passage applied.Pesher interpreters assume that OT authors were speaking to the contemporary audience. This form of interpretation is tied to a word, text or OT allusion, which is then related to a present person, place or thing. The interpretations are generally aloof from the source context and appear to lack any coherent methodology.


This is why I have asked you to supply the scripture used as a source context outside of simply making a citation of what your personal reaction was to it at the time you began building your commentary on this subject so that I might be able to better understand the them you have arrived at as the actual intent of Christs teachings as they apply to the matters of marraige, divorce and remarraige..

To some extent, it appears you have done the very thing you have cited was an error on the part of "others" you are holding accountible the standards you are citing are one and the same as Christs.


an example:


Which brings to mind your belief that since God described a parabolic spiritual divorce scenario to people under the OT law, therefore the ability to divorce literally for us in the NT must be allowable.
By this reasoning we should also then be able to have more that one wife because he uses what they were familiar with regarding polygamy to equate himself as having two wives in another parable in Ezekiel.


You have made an assumption of what is "a belief", assigned it to being mine ..opposed to yours, and that yours is representing "gods" merely on the basis its, "your conclusion".

The reasoning you have applied to the issue of "polygamy or homosexulaity" have very clear and numerous scriptural contexts set forth in scripture for scripture to expose and respond to parabolic interpretations.

I welcome accountability Alaska to how and why I have arrived at my understandings of Christs teachings of divorce, and remarraige, I am a devout and fierce advocate of marraige..but I would never go so far in my love and respect for marraige to impose inaccurate or unscriptural bias against "literal" divorce in respect to the fact God has indeed approached this subject "literally" with "literal" concession and this "literal" concession ever being construed as "being a 'literal' sin" he authored and allows..

Until you can seperate the concept that not all divorce is "sin" and that God does not 'author' sin because he allows divorce and demonstrate how this is resolved scripturally..in your thesis..well I am gonna be a bit cautious here..with the conclusions you have arrived at, albeit sincere and well meaning..

:hug:

Alaska
Oct 27th 2007, 02:59 AM
The reasoning you have applied to the issue of "polygamy or homosexulaity"

I don't recall saying anything about homosexuality.

God speaks parabolically in the OT when he divorces Israel. It was not a literal husband and wife scenario from which God "divorced". It is parabolic because it uses a concept with which they were familiar (divorce as was allowed in their time) to reflect a spiritual message. You used that parable to defend the belief that literal divorce is allowable in the NT because God "divorced" Israel in the OT. (The underlying rationale seems to be that if God did it it must be allright for us to do the same.)
I responded that if this kind of thinking is sound, then there should be no objection to endorsing polygamy now in the NT since in another place in the OT (Ezekiel) God speaks another parable showing himself to have had two wives.
I do not believe I have violated the context of our discussion here by pointing out what I believe to be inconsistency in your argument. (Your 'Peshur' point ?). I suggest that your defense of your belief that divorce and remarriage is allowed in the NT should use something other than God's "divorce".

Amazedgrace21
Oct 27th 2007, 05:02 AM
Please forgive me regarding adding homosexuality alongside polygamy, I obviously mispoke as I was thinking ahead of myself how the same arguements are often posed to try to legitimze either by "twisting scripture" which I was certainly not accusing you of doing.

What I am trying to do once again is come to a better understanding in respect to how you have corresponded scriptures to correspond some of your conclusions absent the specific scriptures to do so.

In my personal approach, I am taking the NT scriptures, and allowing for the setting in regard to who Christ was addressing and what prompted these responses..to discern their intentions..

Now in another thread I pointed out:


Keeping in mind the question posed to Jesus by the Pharisees..(and once again the Jewish audience Christ set forth his response to)

Matt. 19:3.."Is it lawfaul to divorce a wife for any ( and every) cause?"

This question establishes the context of the current practice adopted by the culture to expand the reasons for divorce way beyond the OT grounds..some Hilleties Rabbis had been responsible for this and it was being abused by the people to such an extent and caught on in popularity to the equivalent of "no fault divorce" today..because almost no one relied on the literal OT grounds.



Quote:
The "any cause" divorce was invented from a single word in Deuteronomy 24:1. Moses allowed divorce for "a cause of immorality," or, more literally, "a thing of nakedness." Most Jews recognized that this unusual phrase was talking about adultery. But the Hillelite rabbis wondered why Moses had added the word "thing" or "cause" when he only needed to use the word "immorality." They decided this extra word implied another ground for divorce—divorce for "a cause." They argued that anything, including a burnt meal or wrinkles not there when you married your wife, could be a cause! The text, they said, taught that divorce was allowed both for adultery and for "any cause."
Furthermore, there was an opposing view upheld by the Rabbis of the Shammaites , that there was no grounds for divorce except in the case of 'immorality'....and argued that not only were all of thes divorces "invalid" so were all of the remarraiges that followed..and these two views were as publically known and a souce of debate "then" in the Jewish cultures as they are here, today in our own Christian circles..



To expand upon this, Matt. 19 ..Jesus had just left Galilee and "after" he had delivered the Sermon on the Mount..and was per 19:1 .."in the region of Judea, to the other side of Jordan" when he was approached by the Pharisees aand the exchange began regarding the question he has posed..

Now obviously earlier in Matthew , Christ had said spontaneously to the crowd on the hillside near Caperneum:


"32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery....(Matt.5)

and in Matt. 19:9, his response to a direct question,

"9:And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19).

Now this calls into question the first time this was taught by Christ what the point was for it..and toput it simply he was addressing the crowd with a two fold purpose..he was directly challanging the proud and 'legalistic' teachers of the day, the Pharisees..and was calling attention "back" to the OT prophets that heartfelt obedience was superior to legalistic observance.

Obviously he 'got' their attention..the location where Christ was confronted is a clue to why these "buzzards" shoed up and tried to pin Him down..the words posed to him regarding the "heart of the question" was also a clue..this was Herods territory, and where his cronies 'lurked' and were trying to catch Christ in a mistep to discredit him but to also find a loophole to bring him up on charges for "legalistic" abuse of the Laws..by teaching "heresy"..

Whichis why Christ nailed them..he brought back around the original plan for marraige set forth and instituted by God, he proceeded with God's authority over the "lawws" of men and he dealt with the hypocrisey of their attempts by 'clueing in" whoses teacheings and who the teachers were that they were quoting..they were quoting the "any divorce laws" of the Hilleties rabbis..

Christ exposed "them" as the false teachers when he brought around the Law of Moses, gave them a "smack down" so to speak..this was more thanlikely the "divorce practice" Herod had used and what John the Baptist had brought tolight when he cited what Herod had done and later discussed in furhter detail..but exposed the heartof the problem..

In Deut. which Christ quoted..he cited the Mosaic Law..and as Christ said , he did not come to do away with the 'moral law' of God that Moses instituted but to fulfill it..and was teaching the "intent, as in the spirit of the law that was above the letter of the law..in contrast to the "legalistic" and ceremonial aspects that had been corrupted by the Pharisees along the way.

So the "spirit of the law" is very alive..as is the written Word of God, the living "breath" of God.. and both were 'present' when the Son of God, spoke from his position of authority..that was His claim and that was what he was teaching, revealing to everyone..who he was and why he had come..

So these answers bear great weight..Christ clearly was also reaffirming the plan and purpose of marraige to set forth his identity and what it was to be based upon in respect to Christ as the groom and the body of Christ as the bride...but he was going further..he was not doing away with the moral law but bringin it into its fullness and light..

Moses instituted those laws with Gods authority..and he instituted divorce as a remedy for "sin", the sin of abusing marraige for the benefit of those who were being abused by anothers sinfulness in the marraige .."their hardness of heart" spiritually and otherwise..

divorce was not instituted as "a sin" to cure another sin..

which is why God resorted to this in response to Israels spiritual conduct of covenent breaking, Christ was not condeming "divorce" he was condeming the sinners who's conduct resulted in the need for divorce..nor was he condeming the innocent parties of a divorce, he was advocating them..and why he spoke to the abuses of the divorces resulting in dire Legal and spiritual harm to others, as well as the offense of it to God.

Furthermore to restablish the original order, sancity and design, Jesus was exposing the abuses of "divorce" and this "hardness of heart" as well..God hated divorce and it was men who were taking apart marraiges for absurd and selfish evil reasons..also in context of the culture and times, the men who had the "legal authority" to put away their wives..

and why Christ was adrressing their conduct..not devaluing or punishing "women" but advocating them..this was being practiced as well as marrying outside the nation and with pagan women..corrupting the "chosen nation" of Christs bloodline...breaking covenat with God on this issue as well..

All this to say..that many points you have offered do not incorporate the scriptures in context of when and why they were spoken nor bring together scripturally the scripture that sustained the 'spirit' being conveyed behinf the letter of the laws you are quoting when you ommit these considerations..

Christ was addressing the problems and the sins of of wrongful divorces, unscriptural and "forbidden" divorces..not forbidding or calling divorce sin, nor did he forbid and call remarraige sin..

Furthermore if he was addressing fornification adultery, lust, murder and other sins as sins that could be commited in the heart..of course he was allowing for these sins as well in the scope of a literal solution for a parabolic sin..Chist died on the cross for his blood to wipe away these 'sins' as he did for their "literal counterparts.

Jesus said that only the innocent mate has the right to divorce his/her mate for the cause of their adultery and remarry. All other situations involve sin and adultery when there is a remarriage. Those in sin are (making application):

1). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery.
2). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery and remarries is in adultery.
3). The person whom he remarries in such a circumstance is in fornication.
4). The wife whom he unscripturally divorced is in adultery when she remarries.
5). The man whom the "wife" remarries is in fornication.
6). The put away mate who is guilty of adultery is in sin when she remarries.
7). The man whom she remarries is in fornication.

Christ spoke in these verses to the example of two living spouses in respect to becoming divorced..he spoke to remarraige for the innocent party "while" the guilty party was still living..what he was concened about wa that the divorce, if had to be resorted to , had biblical right to be resorted to..so that the biblical right to remarry was present for the "innocent party"..the status of the guilty party was treated differently and they were not permitted to remarry, evenf they could not reconcile with their innocent spouse until they had reconciled with God for breaking the covenent with Him..with confession, repetence and returning to him for forgiveness for reconciliation with him and restoration "from Him"..

Gender did not matter in respect to any of this..the guilty party could be either spouse..it just was customary in that time for men to be the ones who were responsible primary parties in these matters as was the structure of the laws at that time which is why the wife and the husband were specifically cited in the teachings in terms they were , women as wives were at the recieving end of all the abuses of the legal entitlements men took with wrongful divorces and marraiges for the most part, and Christ was very sensitive and concerned for their welfare.....the same principles, spirit and moral laws apply today..

Hope this is "strong enough"..:)


.

DIZZY
Oct 27th 2007, 09:23 AM
Matthew 5:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=32&version=50&context=verse)
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

My question is. Is adultery sin and if it is then to divorce is a sin.

The only reason Jesus gave for divorcing someone is if they have committed adultery, sexualy immorality. Because with a husband and wife in their sexual desire and love making they become one.

ikester7579
Oct 27th 2007, 10:10 AM
Hi guys,
I just thought I'd put my 2 cents worth in. As a young girl I was forced to marry someone I didn't love by my dad. I was not a christian and I did not know God's laws. The marraige never lasted more than 12 months and we were seperated for about 12 months and we divorced months later. I prayed for years after not knowing who I was praying to for a real family, someone to love me and to have children to and to share the joy of those children together as they grew up. I had been through 2 more relationships and had 2 children one from the marriage and one from a defacto relationship. Then after my last relationship broke up God found me and rescued this sinners tail from hells fire. God brought in my life a wonderful christian man and we got married and now we have two beautiful boys. As a young christian I had asked God to forgive me of all my sins and I realize my divorce was one of those sins. It was done as a sinner not as a child of God and God has forgiven me that sin. I do not condone divorce I am saying if it is done unknowingly and you become a christian and confess that sin God if faithful and just and He forgives you that sin. But on the other hand if you are a christian and you knowing God's law on divorce decide to divorce and remarry, then that marriage will not be blessed by God, because you have done it knowing it is a sin and that sin will not be forgiven you. As christians we should not go out to intentionly sin against God. If you do that then you don't love your Father enough to obey Him.

jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

This also would apply in the opposite as well. if you did not know it was a sin, then it cannot be held against you. For how can a rightous God condemn you of a sin you knew not of?

Also, forced love is not true love. This is why Christ is about choice and free will. So in my "opinion", I don't think you were married to a man that you did not love. This is because you did not mean the words of the marraige covenant in which you spoke. Just as a person who says the sinners prayer and does not mean what is said will not be saved. Because having faith in God, which means you mean what you are saying, also means your words are heart felt. And unless the words come from your heart, then Christ cannot live where your heart does not agree.

Love is a heart felt emotion. So the words spoken in covenant have to be from the heart or they have no meaning. So forced marraige is not heart felt so it has no meaning if the words you spoke were not from the heart.

Amazedgrace21
Oct 27th 2007, 03:51 PM
I'm certainly no expert nor profess that my understanding are ever to be considered without prayerful consideration and to always seek God's will.

Howerever,

What always breaks my heart is the spirits of condemnation and guilt that seems to be associated with the divorced, more often unintentionally and insensitively because there has not been careful and humble study given to this subject..

The words, DIVORCE and ADULTERY, ADULTERER's jump off the pages of the bible and that sets so many negative and fear based emotions into play towards the entire subject..and these are the only things seen or heard..

The word "divorce" is not actually ever used.."puting away" , is..and it is always done with the citing of a written document, as was the custom of law of Moses..

Thats pretty significant if you go back and study how "put away" was used in other situations..

Divorce.."putting away" was dealt with by God in the sense He was the original "put awayer"..:)

Divorce.."putting away" is not a sin..as in murder or stealing, etc..it was a "ceremony, legal action" in response to a set of circumstances to rectify a sin, or crime..

Thats a huge distinction..becasue that signifies it it can only be wrong or a sin , if the "putting away" is wrong or sinful..and that seems to fly out the door as a principle when folks see "DIVORCE" opposed to "putting away"..

For example:

Judges 10:16
And they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the LORD: and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.

Which needs to be cross referenced with (Deut. 32:36) to understand "putting away" from God's perspective, pursue what his "meaning" was and the desired response or resolution he was seeking..in context when certain words and their directives were spoken by Him..in order to seek His will.

"For the LORD will vindicate His people, And will have compassion on His servants, When He sees that their strength is gone, And there is none remaining, bond or free.

Secondly, the matter of the "writ" the legal document is always part of the formality of "putting away" when it is associated with the proceedure of "divorce/putting away"..


So there were laws and there were legal proceedures and there was Legal presceedence of the wrongful party as well as the wronged party in these proceedings..

That brings attention to the fact God always discerned the circumstances in this context when Christ counciled and taught about these "proceedings" of putting away..

So its not as simple and I humbly submit, an error, to step forward and simply say all divorce is sin hence any divorce is sin God hates divorce and all divorce ..period end..Get a divorce and that retroactively makes one an adulterer just because they were "divorced"and a parriah who can never get remarried based on this logic..even if they were the ones victimized by the sins of another and/or a completely innocent party to them.

Something I see cited so often as Gods..will, intention and final word..which just drives me crazy ( in case no one has noticed how adamently I speak to this subject)

I have studied, have poured my heart, mind and soul into this subject as have many ..always seeking Gods will and I am completely willing and not one bit frustrated or wounded in respect to accepting God's will if this is literally the stance He has taken with my own personal circumstances as both the wife and the innocent party of a very wrongful divorce..that I had no say or choice in being pursued...nor have I ever been mad or resented God over this..not once...now my ex is fortunate the Holy Spirit holds the leash when it cames to much..this I confess honestly and remorsefully..:).thats something entirely different..

I am not seeking "loopholes"..so tospeak..I have absolutely no hesitation in abiding here and remaining single or ineligible to get remarried "if" indeed that is being asked of me..and I actually see wonderful opportunities in the prospect as it stands in respect to being single at ths stage of my life should this status remain as such..

Please stop and consider that when God says "he hates divorce" that it is not a statement simply saying he forbids it or it is a sin..he hates marraiges failing and for all the reasons they often do..every one that
does involves Him and am sure in my small limited perspective as a human being might even go sofar as to suggest breaks his heart for his children..no differently than mine did for my children when I faced all of this..

The only adultery Christ was concerned about in regards to the "wife" in the case of "putting away" was the unbiblical and illegal divorce/putting away prctices of thattime..and how 'any cause' divorces had crept in and this was an abomination becasue it was destroying the sanctity and foudations of marraige as God had always intended it to be from the begining..no differntly than we see today with the "no fault" divorces..

There was no condemnation from God if the divoce was out of control and against the wishes of the innocent party..his anger and the dire consequences of the adultery was pointed inthe direction of the husbands who knew better and yet persisted in doing this..just review the women who was brought forward toHim to be stoned..and how he responded to the adulter's and fornicators who were demanding "she be put to death" after using her..the sheer hypocrisey of demanding legal rights to "murder her" legally..

Christ did not say >"woman" go out and get a divorce from all the men who slept from you and remember you are an adulteress, so don't get remarried..I hate divorce, I hate remarraige, I hate adultery....he did not say anything except "I will not judge you either, get up and go, sin no more".. who was he directinghis condemnation to in this case?..the unrepentent, the hard hearted, the hypocrites, the legalists...

Things to consider when responding to statements that "divorce is sin" and that Christ ever intended the condmenation or the consequences of a divorce to be borne by the innocent party.. or that the guiltyone was not able to be restored and forgiven in spite of the gravity of what they had done. These things always need tobe brought into the study of these subjects..for they are the heart of them..not the legal aspects of theletter of the law but the divine aspects of the spirit of the law in these matters.:pray: of course we need to take a stand and speak out to those who wrongfully abuse Gods grace in these matters but we must always speak as loudly and passionately to the ones who have been abused about Gods love for them.

:hug:

Alaska
Oct 28th 2007, 04:02 AM
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.

VerticalReality
Oct 28th 2007, 04:25 AM
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.

Let me ask you a question . . .



Deuteronomy 22:28-29
“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.


Do you believe that God has joined these two together?

Alaska
Oct 28th 2007, 05:54 AM
Your post is useful for some of what I am trying to share here. The law was imposed until the reformer (Jesus) came.
Truth is not judged by all what was done in the OT.

The NT church is the ground and pillar of the truth.
Would someone in the NT force a marriage as is prescribed in the verse you quoted from the OT? If someone did, would it not
seem unreasonable and uncharitable?
Not all the OT was "Truth" as truth is defined by the NT.
The law served a purpose. Partly to keep people in line. Partly to make examples of people who sinned so others wouldn't do the same. it served numerous puposes. God allowed such things in the OT, some which we now recognize as negative, because the law was intended for the unregenerated, to regulate things for the sake of order. Not necessarily for the sake of truth.

"The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".

This leads me to the point I have been trying to make all along.
The provision to allow divorce was not the "truth". It was instituted for the sake of ordering what they in their unregenerate state would inevitably do no matter what the law said. Law, in and of itself cannot change the heart as the Holy Spirit in Jesus can. It can, however, provide enlightenment, and incentive by fear of consequences, to restrain people from doing things.

Hence, the provision made by Moses to allow divorce. Because it is right and Holy? No. Because of the hardness of their hearts.

Is it wrong to perceive NT believers who resort to such a provision to justify their divorces, as attempting to justify themselves by the Law even though the NT says that "no man is justified by the law"?
By resorting to a law that was written for the hardness of hearts, is it wrong to consider that their hearts may be hard?

The offence of the cross still offends.

VerticalReality
Oct 28th 2007, 08:54 PM
Your post is useful for some of what I am trying to share here. The law was imposed until the reformer (Jesus) came.
Truth is not judged by all what was done in the OT.

The NT church is the ground and pillar of the truth.
Would someone in the NT force a marriage as is prescribed in the verse you quoted from the OT? If someone did, would it not
seem unreasonable and uncharitable?
Not all the OT was "Truth" as truth is defined by the NT.
The law served a purpose. Partly to keep people in line. Partly to make examples of people who sinned so others wouldn't do the same. it served numerous puposes. God allowed such things in the OT, some which we now recognize as negative, because the law was intended for the unregenerated, to regulate things for the sake of order. Not necessarily for the sake of truth.

"The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".

This leads me to the point I have been trying to make all along.
The provision to allow divorce was not the "truth". It was instituted for the sake of ordering what they in their unregenerate state would inevitably do no matter what the law said. Law, in and of itself cannot change the heart as the Holy Spirit in Jesus can. It can, however, provide enlightenment, and incentive by fear of consequences, to restrain people from doing things.

Hence, the provision made by Moses to allow divorce. Because it is right and Holy? No. Because of the hardness of their hearts.

Is it wrong to perceive NT believers who resort to such a provision to justify their divorces, as attempting to justify themselves by the Law even though the NT says that "no man is justified by the law"?
By resorting to a law that was written for the hardness of hearts, is it wrong to consider that their hearts may be hard?

The offence of the cross still offends.

Just so I'm clear where you're coming from, are you speaking of the believer or the unbeliever here?

My stance is that I do not believe the unbeliever is free from the law.

third hero
Oct 28th 2007, 10:35 PM
Ok. I did not read all of the OP, but I can add this to at least one of the comments that he presents.

1. The meaning of adultery.

In the OT, a man was able to give a writ of divorce to a woman if he did not desire to be married to her. This is the doctrine that Jesus first tackled in Matthew 5. He knew thatt he OT definition of adultery, as it was prescribed in that time period, is one man having relations with another man's wife. For a woman, it is a wife who has relations with another man. Thisis the definitions with which Jesus is working with.

With His proclamation, he single-hjandedly changed the meaning of adultery to make it equal. The men were able to marry more than one woman. The woman could only have relations with her husband. Jesus changed all of that. With His proclamation, the man must be with only his wife, and because the definition was changed to fornication, the man would be guilty of committing adultery if he had relations with another woman, and not just another man's wife.


With Jesus using the word fornication, the man is now guilty if he has relations with another woman, whether he intended to make her his wife or not. That relationship would now be considered adultery. This is why the word "fornication: was used. Jesus knew what He was doing by using that word. Now, when he goes on to say that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he would be committing "Adultery", which under the OT definition was not possible.

I will have other posts on this as soon as I decipher the rest of the OP. So, thanks for the thread!

Alaska
Oct 28th 2007, 11:29 PM
Just so I'm clear where you're coming from, are you speaking of the believer or the unbeliever here?

My stance is that I do not believe the unbeliever is free from the law.


Your question is not clear concerning the believer or the unbeliever. please be more specific.

Concerning being free from the law. Paul warned believers concerning becoming entangled again in the yoke of bondage of the law. This is not diminishing of the importance of moral obligation. Some things of the law have been deleted under the new covenant. Holding to outdated things from the old that are not now necessary, such as circumcision, while believing they are still necessary is being in bondage.
Imagine a teenager still believing that an adult must hold his hand before crossing a street. We are no longer under a schoolmaster in the new law of the NT.

deepjagga
Oct 29th 2007, 01:38 PM
Maybe it's best not to marry any one ever. I mean as long as
one doesn't understand completely what God is saying about
marriage, adultery, fornication, divorce, etc...

Maybe marriage should be left out of the equation period
and no one should do it because no one completely understands
what God nor Jesus are saying about all of this.

Half the time Jesus was not very clear, the other half he changed
what he was saying. Ex: In some verses he flat out says it's adultery
to marry someone else while the first husband or wife is still living.
In other verses he turns around and says, Ok, you can go ahead
and divorce as long as someone committed fornication. (Verses
below)

Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Just to be on the safe side, it would seem logical that we just leave
the whole marriage thing alone period. It's just too much of a
Biblical gamble based on the different things Jesus said.

Alaska
Oct 29th 2007, 03:46 PM
Finally someone with honesty to see that the two accounts, Matthews and Marks contradict.
But they do so only IF putting away for fornication means for adultery.

The whole pont of the document in the first post is to show that putting away for fornication DOES NOT mean putting away for adultery.

Reading Mark 10 2-12 and Luke 16: 18 is the plain and simple truth.
The complexity caused by the cultural issue of how they "divorced" before they got married "put away for fornication" does not contradict the simplicity of Mark 10:2-12 1 Cor 7:39

Read Mark 10:2-12. Believe it in all its implications. You are then wiser than the high ranking theologians who in ignorance cannot agree with Jesus as he plainly spoke in that passage.
The exception clause does not contradict because the exception does not pertain to the married state but to the betrothed.
Please read the first post.

VerticalReality
Oct 29th 2007, 04:02 PM
Your question is not clear concerning the believer or the unbeliever. please be more specific.

Concerning being free from the law. Paul warned believers concerning becoming entangled again in the yoke of bondage of the law. This is not diminishing of the importance of moral obligation. Some things of the law have been deleted under the new covenant. Holding to outdated things from the old that are not now necessary, such as circumcision, while believing they are still necessary is being in bondage.
Imagine a teenager still believing that an adult must hold his hand before crossing a street. We are no longer under a schoolmaster in the new law of the NT.

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?

My problem here is not that believers shouldn't divorce. I don't believe believers should divorce. However, what seems to present folks with the most problems are those who were divorced prior to salvation who have gone on to remarry.

I certainly won't give you any argument that believers are not to divorce.

Alaska
Oct 30th 2007, 01:17 AM
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
Oct 30th 2007, 01:23 AM
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
Oct 30th 2007, 03:17 AM
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
Oct 30th 2007, 03:46 AM
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
Oct 30th 2007, 03:57 AM
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
Oct 30th 2007, 04:14 AM
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
Oct 30th 2007, 04:25 AM
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
Oct 30th 2007, 06:22 AM
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.




:pray:

VerticalReality
Oct 30th 2007, 01:26 PM
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
Oct 30th 2007, 03:43 PM
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
Oct 30th 2007, 04:03 PM
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
Oct 31st 2007, 01:20 AM
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
Oct 31st 2007, 01:32 AM
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
Nov 1st 2007, 12:36 AM
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:saint:
I tried to give reps but I need to spread some around 1st:)

Brotherken
Nov 1st 2007, 12:44 AM
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?

Alaska
Nov 1st 2007, 01:13 AM
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?


Mark 10:

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
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.

Whosoever means whosoever.

Read carefully verses 6-9 above. That is the definition of that which God has joined together. The fact that a couple gets married is reckoned as that which he has joined together because he made male and female and he made it to work that way. He honours their decision of partner and pronounces them as that which he has joined together by virtue of the fact that he made it to work that way.

Your application of "all things are become new" as pertains to your scenario is not rightly dividing the word. You are reckoning the lawful marriage, that which God has joined together, as what passes away when someone becomes a Christian. It doesn't pass away, it should rather become understood more clearly after becoming a Christian: That it is sacred and that it is terminated only by the death of one of the parties.

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.

What Moses allowed in the OT concerning divorce is sin by the higher standard of the NT. Deut. 24:1-4 was written for the hardness of their hearts. From the beginning it was not so.

John 1:

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ

VerticalReality
Nov 1st 2007, 01:39 AM
Mark 10:

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
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.

Whosoever means whosoever.

Read carefully verses 6-9 above. That is the definition of that which God has joined together. The fact that a couple gets married is reckoned as that which he has joined together because he made male and female and he made it to work that way. He honours their decision of partner and pronounces them as that which he has joined together by virtue of the fact that he made it to work that way.

Your application of "all things are become new" as pertains to your scenario is not rightly dividing the word. You are reckoning the lawful marriage, that which God has joined together, as what passes away when someone becomes a Christian. It doesn't pass away, it should rather become understood more clearly after becoming a Christian: That it is sacred and that it is terminated only by the death of one of the parties.

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.

What Moses allowed in the OT concerning divorce is sin by the higher standard of the NT. Deut. 24:1-4 was written for the hardness of their hearts. From the beginning it was not so.

John 1:

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ

Your refusal to address my question leads me to believe you are here not for a biblical discussion, but rather with an agenda.

Is that the case?

If not, how about addressing my question . . .

Since we know Jesus' comments were not just a New Testament thing, and we can say that it certainly was applicable from the beginning as Jesus points out, how could Moses still permit divorce?

Alaska
Nov 1st 2007, 02:22 AM
Since we know Jesus' comments were not just a New Testament thing, and we can say that it certainly was applicable from the beginning as Jesus points out, how could Moses still permit divorce?


The NT clarified many things. Those under the OT had Gen. 2 from which they could have supposed that marriage is supposed to be til death but then Moses plainly writes a system and ordinance to deal with divorce.
Jesus revealed in no uncertain terms that Gen 2 meant "till death do us part". The problem existed that Moses permitted divorce. Jesus revealed that Deut. 24 wasn't from the beginning like Gen 2 was. Deut 24 is very different from Gen. 2. Jesus said that Deut 24 1-4 was written for the hardness of their hearts but from the beginning it was not so. He was making a correction as prophesies pertaining to the Messiah said he would.

This is a new covenant. Under the OT, divorce could be justified as per Deut 24. Under the NT divorce is prohibited as per Jesus' commentary and revelation of what was intended from the beginning and now upheld.
In Christ there exists the "new man", regenerated by the Holy Spirit and thereby capable of receiving the truth concerning marriage. Under the OT a provision was made to deal with the hardness of hearts of the unregenerated concerning divorce. It existed until the Reformer, Jesus, came to correct the situation and call for what was intended at the beginning as per the real meaning behind Gen. 2.
The NT says things had been hid for ages and for generations but were revealed by the NT. The fact that the provision for divorce was written for the hardness of their hearts and that it was NOT the truth but was to accomodate and put some order to their divorcing is one of the things the NT clarified and brought to light.
Your question is answered by reading Mark 10:2-12.

Brotherken
Nov 1st 2007, 12:19 PM
Im a Simple Man and I don't claim to be anything else

But

Alaska;



17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ

Im Not Sure you Know what Grace is.


Im Done here.....You win

:giveup:

VerticalReality
Nov 1st 2007, 12:34 PM
The NT clarified many things. Those under the OT had Gen. 2 from which they could have supposed that marriage is supposed to be til death but then Moses plainly writes a system and ordinance to deal with divorce.
Jesus revealed in no uncertain terms that Gen 2 meant "till death do us part". The problem existed that Moses permitted divorce. Jesus revealed that Deut. 24 wasn't from the beginning like Gen 2 was. Deut 24 is very different from Gen. 2. Jesus said that Deut 24 1-4 was written for the hardness of their hearts but from the beginning it was not so. He was making a correction as prophesies pertaining to the Messiah said he would.

This is a new covenant. Under the OT, divorce could be justified as per Deut 24. Under the NT divorce is prohibited as per Jesus' commentary and revelation of what was intended from the beginning and now upheld.
In Christ there exists the "new man", regenerated by the Holy Spirit and thereby capable of receiving the truth concerning marriage. Under the OT a provision was made to deal with the hardness of hearts of the unregenerated concerning divorce. It existed until the Reformer, Jesus, came to correct the situation and call for what was intended at the beginning as per the real meaning behind Gen. 2.
The NT says things had been hid for ages and for generations but were revealed by the NT. The fact that the provision for divorce was written for the hardness of their hearts and that it was NOT the truth but was to accomodate and put some order to their divorcing is one of the things the NT clarified and brought to light.
Your question is answered by reading Mark 10:2-12.

The fact of the matter is that there are still many who are "unregenerated" and have a "hardness of heart". You're saying here that there is no longer "provision" for their hardness of heart, but this was just something that the graceful and forgiving law of Moses allowed?

That doesn't quite sound right to me. It seems to me like there has to be more to it than that.

What I do know is that such doctrines bring about severe hopelessness and condemnation in many who have given their life to the Lord Jesus Christ but are remarried as well. It makes them feel like they are truly not forgiven and that the Lord refuses to have a relationship with them as long as they're in their current marriage.

I wonder if this is the way the Lord would truly make someone feel for something they did before they ever knew the ways of the Lord. It sounds more like a tactic of the enemy to me. The Lord brings hope and not discouragement in those who believe. The Lord brings forgiveness and not condemnation in those who believe.

We should definitely preach that marriage is a union that should be kept and honored for life. However, we also must understand that many are going to come to faith with a lot of baggage from their past that the enemy will try and use against them. I believe this is the reason Paul notes by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that old things have passed away and behold ALL THINGS have become new. I think Paul understood that the enemy would try to bring condemnation and guilt to those who now believe in a hideous attempt to defeat the believer and keep them from walking in their new life in Christ.

What about the unbeliever that comes to faith that has been remarried a time or two or three? What are they to do? Are they to ditch the one they love and have a family with or can they be assured that they are forgiven and their wretchedness of old is gone and done away with?

VerticalReality
Nov 1st 2007, 02:34 PM
Just to give the reference to what I posted earlier . . .



2 Corinthians 5:16-19
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Amazedgrace21
Nov 1st 2007, 03:09 PM
Alaska,

Is it your contention with the position you are holding about divorce and remarraige that you believe the divorced and remarried have committed some "unforgivable sin?Or can not be believers?

What is this about in terms of its relevent message here?

Or is it your priority to uphold the sanctity of marraige? THAT is a given and a very worthy cause to embark upon a lesson for all, believers and unbelievers.

My personal participation in this has been to respond to the teachings you are teaching my friend and they are required by scripture to "be tested" and this semms to trouble you, as if there is no willingness or desire to consider if perhaps you are the one who has erred on some vital points here yourself.

Do you not see the relevency of upholding the Loving and forgiving nature of Christ along side of his Holy one?

I hope its understood , nor is it being suggested that "if" anyone gets married..they are restricted to remain in a marraige as a condition of slavation or,

that if they have remarried they are "damned" because they have ..that is simply untrue..there seems to be no empathy or connection ( personal vested relationship) to the souls you are speaking about or the God that you are citing your relationship with as a Christian to be addressing your own brothers and sisters in Christ with such a "hardened heart" here.


I question your priorites and intentions here..as they seem devoted to the YOU in your message rather than the meassage of Christ. What is your concern and ultimate priority for the sinners you seem to be resolved are condemed due to divorce that was not their fault..

Simply sharing any lesson about divorce being a sin is gonna bring about a response.. for one that is calling Christ a liar..he never said divorce is a sin..andits understood that God love marraige and hates divorce..but the word of God provides the reasons why to both..no one is in disagreement in this forum and community with those words here, where some of us perhaps relate to some of those reasons more than others..

Furthermore anyone who is in Christ and many unbelievers already know that divorce is horrible, and they hate it too..

So what is you message for them as a Christian?..What did Christ offer you, do for you and give you as a sinner that you seek them to know about Christ? For the unbelievers who are now divorce becasue returning to their former spouses is not going to "fix" the sin is it?

:)

drew
Nov 1st 2007, 07:27 PM
Divorce is one of those things the new covenant has abolished. If Dt. 24 is going to be quoted to support divorce as if it is still allowed, why not quote the scriptures from the old covenant requiring physical circumcision or the verses implying that polygamy is OK or killing your son for being a drunkard and slothful or ....
Jesus gave the reason for throwing out DT. 24:1-4. It was written for the hardness of their hearts. Unforgiveness is directly connected to hardness of hearts. If there is any one thing that is emphasised in the NT, we should agree that forgiveness fits. Hence no more "eye for an eye" hating your enemies or any other of the things, including divorce, from the OT that was a part of the law but that is now not part of the NT law.
Perhaps I misread you here, but you seem to be suggesting that the OT Law was somehow "imperfect" or incomplete and needed to be updated and revised by Jesus. I am no expert about the contents of the Law, but I do think a case can be made that Paul saw the OT Law as "God's perfect law". And we also have Psalm 119 which exults in the Law.

I am not sure that the notion of abolishing Old Testament laws and replacing them with new ones really works given the entire scope of Scripture. I realise I seem to be arguing myself into promoting the keeping of what seem like some pretty harsh laws.....

drew
Nov 1st 2007, 08:31 PM
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.

Alaska
Nov 1st 2007, 08:41 PM
This is one of the previous posts that pertains to your question



Your post is useful for some of what I am trying to share here. The law was imposed until the reformer (Jesus) came.
Truth is not judged by all what was done in the OT.

The NT church is the ground and pillar of the truth.
Would someone in the NT force a marriage as is prescribed in the verse you quoted from the OT? If someone did, would it not
seem unreasonable and uncharitable?
Not all the OT was "Truth" as truth is defined by the NT.
The law served a purpose. Partly to keep people in line. Partly to make examples of people who sinned so others wouldn't do the same. it served numerous puposes. God allowed such things in the OT, some which we now recognize as negative, because the law was intended for the unregenerated, to regulate things for the sake of order. Not necessarily for the sake of truth.

"The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".

This leads me to the point I have been trying to make all along.
The provision to allow divorce was not the "truth". It was instituted for the sake of ordering what they in their unregenerate state would inevitably do no matter what the law said. Law, in and of itself cannot change the heart as the Holy Spirit in Jesus can. It can, however, provide enlightenment, and incentive by fear of consequences, to restrain people from doing things.

Hence, the provision made by Moses to allow divorce. Because it is right and Holy? No. Because of the hardness of their hearts.

Is it wrong to perceive NT believers who resort to such a provision to justify their divorces, as attempting to justify themselves by the Law even though the NT says that "no man is justified by the law"?
By resorting to a law that was written for the hardness of hearts, is it wrong to consider that their hearts may be hard?

The offence of the cross still offends.

Amazedgrace21
Nov 1st 2007, 09:32 PM
"The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".



Excuse me?..but if anything, Moses was simply God's 'secretary'..:)
The Law came from God my friend..

Christ himself, once again made it emphatically clear he did not come to do away with the moral Law's of God the Father.

A mere letter-of-the-law approach with its focus on minimal standards was not acceptable to Jesus Christ. He wanted His followers to be activists so others could see the results of a repentant attitude. They were to be a culture that would run counter to the society around them.

By introducing the new concept of a repentant mind and attitude, Jesus inspired His listeners at the Sermon on the Mount to wonder if He were abolishing everything God had revealed in Scripture up to that time. The people as a rule still believed in the law. They respected God's commandments, even though they didn't properly understand them.


Now the crowd wondered how far Jesus would go in introducing and implementing His new ideas. Was He doing away with their tradition and the law as they understood it? Was He introducing new laws?

Jesus, as the Son of God, could perceive people's thoughts.

In Matthew 5:17 He begins answering their unspoken questions:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets." In effect He was telling them: "If you think I came to destroy the law or prophets, you are not thinking clearly." He makes it plain that anyone who thought He was abolishing the law or prophets was mistaken. He assures them of His respect for God's law: "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
The meaning of "destroy" is fairly simple to understand.

As Jesus continued to speak, He clarified what He meant by "fulfill." But at this point we can simply note that, whatever Jesus meant by the word, it did not involve destroying the law. Jesus emphatically said not to think such a thing.

The word for "fulfill" comes from the Greek word plerosai, which means "to fill." Some believe this filling of the law means Jesus somehow filled up the law and prophets, thereby somehow abolishing the law; the law has supposedly been superseded by Christ. In effect, this theory has Jesus saying, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to abolish or supersede."

Such an interpretation, called antinomian (antilaw) theology, however, is in direct contradiction to Scripture.

When we understand that Christ was prophesied to "magnify the law and make it honorable" (Isaiah 42:21), we realize that such an interpretation is unscriptural, distorted and misleading. The remainder of Jesus' words in Matthew 5 clearly show that the "filling" of the law had to do with filling up, or confirming, of the meaning of the law rather than bringing the law to a completion.

In Matthew 5:18 Jesus validates this perspective when He adds, "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." As long as heaven and earth exist, Jesus said, we can be sure God's law will exist.
In verses 17 and 18 Jesus speaks theoretically about the law. But in the next two verses, 19 and 20, He speaks of the practical application-the significance of the law for anyone listening to Him and, conversely, its meaning for each of us.

In verses 19 and 20 Jesus says: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

The word breaks comes from the Greek word lusai, which means "to dissolve, to loose or untie the obligation of." Jesus came out categorically against anyone who would try to water down the commandments. Because Jesus first speaks of "the Law" in verses 17, 18, His audience clearly understands He is referring to the law of God, including the Ten Commandments, when He refers to "these" commandments.

Jesus does nothing to dispel this impression by His audience because it is precisely the perspective He wants them to understand. In the following verses, He confirms his listeners' understanding of the continuing validity of the Ten Commandments by citing several of them and magnifying or expounding their full intent.

Verse 19 reveals a key principle of Christ's teaching. Greatness in the Kingdom of God will be measured by "doing" the commandments of God and teaching others to do likewise. It is not our place now to judge how well others keep God's commandments, but Jesus will judge.

Notice Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." Jesus said entrée into the Kingdom is based on obeying the Father's will. In John 10:30 Jesus said, "I and My Father are one."

In John 17:21 Jesus explains that He and His Father are in perfect unity.

In John 5:30 Jesus says: "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."

Jesus perfectly yielded to the will of the Father, even to the point of death (Luke 22:42). He and His Father did not have different agendas.

They did not have separate laws.

Then what did Jesus mean when He expounded using the format, "You have heard that it was said . . . But I say to you . . ."? To begin, let's notice something about these phrases themselves. "It was said" refers to the common interpretation or nominal religion of the Jewish society Jesus was addressing.

This phrase does not refer to God's law, but Jewish tradition.


Jesus used the Greek word errethe for "it is said," as opposed to gegraptai, which is translated "it is written," to make this distinction. In Matthew 4:4, 7, 10, in His confrontation with Satan, Jesus answers the devil's questions with gegraptai, "It is written," in referring to the Scriptures as the basis for His answers.

Perhaps Matthew 5:43 best shows this faulty tradition: "You heave heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'" Those last three words were never part of God's law. They were only part of the faulty tradition Christ condemned.

In verses 3-6 Jesus says: "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"-'then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

In this passage, Jesus showed the unlawfulness of the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees. They played one honorable deed-giving money to the temple-against the commandment to honor one's parents to justify their refusal to help their parents financially. Jesus said this kind of action nullified the law.

The scribes and Pharisees gave the appearance of obeying the law while making it of none effect. They were misinterpreting the law (Romans 10:2). Jesus condemns their hypocrisy...

This is the Christ Jesus of grace and truth..that spoke about the "lawfulness" of divorce and remarraige as it was "contorted, misinterpreted, mistaught and wrongfuly applied to what Jesus stiputaled was a "just cause", per God and God's laws when it was practiced..the focus was upon those who wrongfully, unlawfully and sinfully did so..not the ones who did not Alaska..

It was not unlawful to divorce for the reasons God instituted and Christ upheld..it was WRONG and unlawful before God to do for the "any cause" nonsense the Pharisees and Saducee teachers were in violation BEFORE God's laws for a divorce or remarraige. These laws were underming every principle of what marraige was intended for..and promoting divorce rather than protecting marraige.

Just as Jesus deferred to the will of the Father, we must do the same. Just as Jesus honored His mother (John 19:26, 27) and kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16) and Holy Days (John 7:2, 10, 37), so should we. Some may ask if doing these things can earn us salvation. The answer is absolutely not. Obedience cannot earn us salvation. Because everyone sins (Romans 3:23) and deserves death, eternal life can come only as a gift from God (Romans 6:23). Salvation is a gift made possible by God's grace.

How does God say we may avoid this punishment?

"Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments" (verse 4). Jesus Christ inspired John to pen this same sure punishment-the lake of fire-for those who deliberately and incorrigibly break God's law (Revelation 1:1; 21:8). The simple truth is we are saved by grace for a life of obedience.

The apostles and the early New Testament Church of God obeyed Jesus' instruction to keep the commandments. They imitated the life of commandment-keeping that Jesus lived.

In 1 Peter 2:21, Peter says we should follow in Christ's steps, after His example. Paul tells the church in Corinth to imitate him as he followed Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). He tells the Philippians to think like Jesus (Philippians 2:5).

In other words, we need to have the mind of Christ.

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.

He wants us to do the same. This is why He says, in John 14:15, "If you love Me, keep My commandments."

:hug:

Alyssa S
Nov 2nd 2007, 03:02 AM
. [quote]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 . . .

Hey VR....

Could you tell me how you know (Scripturally) that Jesus was talking to ONLY BELIEVERS in the Gospels? In order to believe the "New Creation" argument allows remarriage, Jesus would HAVE to have been speaking ONLY to believers... otherwise the Matthew, Mark, and Luke verses will be a complete contradiction to the "New Creation is free to remarry" concept.

When we read Paul's instruction on marriage, he is very clearly speaking to the Christians in Corinth. But I'm not sure Jesus was only speaking to believers. If he was speaking to both Jews and Gentiles... then that throws the "New Creation" defense out the window. Jesus said "ANYONE who divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another commits adultery."

Who is "ANYONE"? Either it is EVERYONE (believers and non believers) or he is addressing only believers.

This section in Matthew opens with: Matt 19:1-2

"When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them." How do we know that these large crowds of people were believers? Because he healed them? But did he heal EVERYONE before he delivered his sermon?

Also in Matt 4:24
"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the DEMON- POSESSED....and he healed them. Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the Jordan followed him. 5:1 "Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them, saying:......"

Has he left the crowds at this point? Is his group only the disciples? If you read on to the end of the Beatitudes it says....
Matt 7:28 "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the CROWDS were amazed at his teaching...."

In Luke, it says that "the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear him. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." Later in Luke 16:18 it says "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery..."
It would appear that Jesus was very clearly speaking to non-believers as well.

Thanks and God bless...:D

Alaska
Nov 2nd 2007, 06:45 AM
Such an interpretation, called antinomian (antilaw) theology, however, is in direct contradiction to Scripture.

Do you know of any law in the OT that was abolished or done away with by the NT?

Alaska
Nov 2nd 2007, 06:53 AM
Appreciate your post Alyssia.

Alaska
Nov 2nd 2007, 07:12 AM
Is anyone interested in hearing how I believe Matthew 5:17-20 should be understood, which understanding fits perfectly with the fact that there are numerous changes the NT makes from the OT?

Alaska
Nov 2nd 2007, 07:14 AM
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
Nov 2nd 2007, 09:22 AM
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...:lol:

VerticalReality
Nov 2nd 2007, 12:40 PM
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
Nov 2nd 2007, 02:01 PM
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." :hmm:

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
Nov 2nd 2007, 02:28 PM
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." :hmm:

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
Nov 2nd 2007, 06:01 PM
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
Nov 2nd 2007, 06:18 PM
Sorry to repeat, but anyone interested in responding to the above?

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

drew
Nov 2nd 2007, 06:59 PM
I would ask in the above scenario, as goofy as it may be :lol:, 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
Nov 2nd 2007, 07:15 PM
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
Nov 2nd 2007, 07:34 PM
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
Nov 2nd 2007, 08:03 PM
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 :o. haha.....

drew
Nov 2nd 2007, 09:12 PM
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
Nov 2nd 2007, 09:30 PM
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
Nov 2nd 2007, 10:17 PM
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!! :confused

Brotherken
Nov 3rd 2007, 01:23 AM
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?

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 01:43 AM
Excellent point!

If a Two Persons were not Christians when they were Married

Did God Join them Together?

Answer to that question would be NO.

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 02:04 AM
Originally Posted by Brotherken http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1429094#post1429094)
Excellent point!

If a Two Persons were not Christians when they were Married

Did God Join them Together?

Answer to that question would be NO.


Jesus' words don't agree.The fact that there is a leaving father and mother and cleaving to the wife is in itself Jesus' definition of what God has joined together.




Mark 10:

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
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.

Whosoever means whosoever.

Read carefully verses 6-9 above. That is the definition of that which God has joined together. The fact that a couple gets married is reckoned as that which he has joined together because he made male and female and he made it to work that way. He honours their decision of partner and pronounces them as that which he has joined together by virtue of the fact that he made it to work that way.

Your application of "all things are become new" as pertains to your scenario is not rightly dividing the word. You are reckoning the lawful marriage, that which God has joined together, as what passes away when someone becomes a Christian. It doesn't pass away, it should rather become understood more clearly after becoming a Christian: That it is sacred and that it is terminated only by the death of one of the parties.

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.

What Moses allowed in the OT concerning divorce is sin by the higher standard of the NT. Deut. 24:1-4 was written for the hardness of their hearts. From the beginning it was not so.

John 1:

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 02:31 AM
"WE"..lol, whats with the 'we bit"? Alaska..gimme a break here..



You have boldly declared that Jesus came to support or enforce the OT law. Contained in the law are things that pertain to regulating polygamy.
Then later you suggest that not all the law is upheld or supported in the NT.
And you did not answer the question. You say Jesus supported the OT for us now. The OT has statements pertaining to regulating polygamy.
Do you believe that polygamy is acceptable now? If your answer is no, then shouldn't you retract your statements concerning Jesus coming to support all the OT?

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 02:31 AM
Jesus' words don't agree.The fact that there is a leaving father and mother and cleaving to the wife is in itself Jesus' definition of what God has joined together.




Ok then. Here is a example of a whosoever being married by God, as you say.

Two people meet in a bar one night and have a real nice time drinking it up during the evening. The bar tender needs to call a cab at 2:00 in the morning to drive these two people home because they are to intoxicated to drive.

They go to one of their places and a few months down the road they meet again and the women tells the man that she is expecting a baby from that little night cap that they decided to have that one evening a few month ago. Now mind you these are two whosoever people as you say. Whosoever means in plain simple English anybody. The man decides that well since he is the father well I guess we should get married and give this child a mother and a father. Two years later they get divorced and everybody wants to know why.

Now I ask you this question about these two whosoever God joined together that got divorced six months later.

What was God during in a bar letting two people get drunk out of their minds so that they could get married, have a child, and then get divorced?

Since you seem to think that God joins every marriage.

I will wait for your reply.

drew
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:04 AM
Hello Alaska:

Please respond to my post about the fictitious daughter suffering from severre depression who gets married to someone she actually does not even like in the midst of a manic fit of some sort. Do you think God would condone her getting divorced?

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1428785#post1428785)
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.



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.

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:29 AM
Ok then. Here is a example of a whosoever being married by God, as you say.

Two people meet in a bar one night and have a real nice time drinking it up during the evening. The bar tender needs to call a cab at 2:00 in the morning to drive these two people home because they are to intoxicated to drive.

They go to one of their places and a few months down the road they meet again and the women tells the man that she is expecting a baby from that little night cap that they decided to have that one evening a few month ago. Now mind you these are two whosoever people as you say. Whosoever means in plain simple English anybody. The man decides that well since he is the father well I guess we should get married and give this child a mother and a father. Two years later they get divorced and everybody wants to know why.

Now I ask you this question about these two whosoever God joined together that got divorced six months later.

What was God during in a bar letting two people get drunk out of their minds so that they could get married, have a child, and then get divorced?

Since you seem to think that God joins every marriage.

I will wait for your reply.

This has already been clearly addressed in another post earlier in the thread. The institution of marriage is of God and belongs to God. The problems and circumstances of the parties involved is a separate issue. Especially since your scenario involves a decision with honourable motives, it cannot be claimed that there was not a leaving and cleaving which in itself constitutes that which God has joined together. Mark 10:6-9.

Mark 10:2-12 clearly and directly applies to the situation. Remarriage after divorce while the first and lawful spouse lives is adultery.

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:34 AM
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!! :confused

I don't know if it's a case of God "getting more strict". It just seems to me that things are just returning to where it was intended to be. I mean if you truly think about it these folks posting in this thread have excellent points. Is God really bringing people together in the true biblical definition of marriage who are engulfed in rampant sin and are dead spiritually? Is that what was meant when Jesus said "What God has joined together let not man separate"?

If divorcing your spouse and getting remarried is considered adultery, then why in the world was Moses permitting people to do it? Are we seriously trying to claim that Moses was permitting sin? If God really did bring those folks together in marriage, how in the world could it be permissable to allow divorce simply because somebody felt like it?

If all these folks were committing adultery, how do you then reconcile such a situation? Do you believe God expects those who are remarried to then leave their current wife and children? Is that how this should work? Can you imagine how many people were remarried to another wife, and another wife, and another wife, and another wife when Jesus gave them this information about "in the beginning"? No wonder the disciples' mouths dropped when they heard what Jesus was saying.

"If that is the case it is better not to marry."

That is what the disciples had to say on the matter. They were in shock. So, how were those folks expected to handle that situation that they found themselves in? Apparently, according to some folk's view here, those remarriages do not exist and every last one of them are living in a perpetual state of adultery. I wonder how many husbands returned home and packed their bags to leave after they heard Jesus' teaching? I wonder how many children were left in fatherless homes after those husbands ditched who they thought were their wives?

What sort of colossal domino effect of destruction would that have caused? Yet, that is what some would have us to believe.

It's amazing to me how some can see that the apostle Paul was forgiven and cleansed free from all the murders of Christians that he was responsible for, the blashemies that filled his past, and the total destruction he left in the church before his salvation, and yet they can't see how God can repair a person's poor decision in regards to marriage.

As long as a person is not born again and divorcing people, I don't see what the issue here is. If you are not born again and you divorce some unbelieving spouse, and then a few years down the road you are born again, that past is gone. It is wiped clean. It is completely erased from existence. And you know what? Praise God for that! I don't know what I would do if I had to account for every single stupid thing I did before I knew the Lord. I would be in a serious world of hurt! That old man was as wretched as wretched can get, and unfortunately some doctrines will not allow folks to let that old man die. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think it's God that's not wanting that old man to die.

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:36 AM
Mark 10:2-12 clearly and directly applies to the situation. Remarriage after divorce while the first and lawful spouse lives is adultery.

Yet you still have not given a solid argument as to why Moses still allowed it under the law . . .

Why is that?

cross crusader
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:45 AM
As long as a person is not born again and divorcing people, I don't see what the issue here is. If you are not born again and you divorce some unbelieving spouse, and then a few years down the road you are born again, that past is gone. It is wiped clean. It is completely erased from existence. And you know what? Praise God for that! I don't know what I would do if I had to account for every single stupid thing I did before I knew the Lord. I would be in a serious world of hurt! That old man was as wretched as wretched can get, and unfortunately some doctrines will not allow folks to let that old man die. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think it's God that's not wanting that old man to die.

Preach it brother. God cannot remember your first marriage, So you shouldnt either. Either it is all forgiven or it isnt, Either Christ did it all or HE did nothing, praise GOd that He did it all. Praise GOd that i have been forgiven.

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:00 AM
I don't know what I would do if I had to account for every single stupid thing I did before I knew the Lord. I would be in a serious world of hurt! That old man was as wretched as wretched can get, and unfortunately some doctrines will not allow folks to let that old man die. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think it's God that's not wanting that old man to die.


What if, as an unbeliever, you gave much to the poor and rescued abandoned children and did all manner of good things. Then after you became a Christian and repented of your sins, would you consider the good things you did as sin and wretched?

It is blasphemous to equate marriage to something "stupid" of the "old man" when God claims it to be of himself, the maker of male and female, and the instituter of the institution of Marriage. Hence, whosoever means whosoever because marriage belongs to God regardless of whether the parties are believers or not. I believe that those who desecrate what Jesus revealed about the sanctity of marriage have gotten themselves into a world of hurt.

What about those living before the introduction of the new man, by which we get the old man? Weren't the OT peoples' marriages recognized as that which God has joined together even though they were not new creatures in Christ? Christ hadn't come yet. And weren't those marriages recognized as that which God has joined together by virtue of the facts that God made them and that they left father and mother and cleaved to one another as prescribed by their creator?

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:16 AM
Yet you still have not given a solid argument as to why Moses still allowed it under the law . . .



Jesus, after prohibiting divorce and remarriage based on Gen. 2, was asked, why then did Moses allow divorce.

Jesus answered your question because he was asked the same question.
You have refused to listen to the answer though it has been answered numerous times and in different ways on this thread.

Deut. 24:1-4 is not included in NT, like physical circumcision or polygamy or swearing or executing "an eye for an eye" or a long list of other things. Some severe things were not included, like stoning your son for being lazy and a drunkard. Yet in other areas, things of the flesh like polygamy were disallowed making some things by the NT more strict when compared with the OT.

Amazedgrace21
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:25 AM
You have boldly declared that Jesus came to support or enforce the OT law. Contained in the law are things that pertain to regulating polygamy.

Then later you suggest that not all the law is upheld or supported in the NT.
And you did not answer the question.

Alaska..

I 'boldly' quoted in post #56 exactly, what Christ Himself said about "the law"...


Now the crowd wondered how far Jesus would go in introducing and implementing His new ideas. Was He doing away with their tradition and the law as they understood it? Was He introducing new laws?

Jesus, as the Son of God, could perceive people's thoughts.

In Matthew 5:17 He begins answering their unspoken questions:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets." In effect He was telling them: "If you think I came to destroy the law or prophets, you are not thinking clearly." He makes it plain that anyone who thought He was abolishing the law or prophets was mistaken. He assures them of His respect for God's law: "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
The meaning of "destroy" is fairly simple to understand.

As Jesus continued to speak, He clarified what He meant by "fulfill." But at this point we can simply note that, whatever Jesus meant by the word, it did not involve destroying the law. Jesus emphatically said not to think such a thing.

The word for "fulfill" comes from the Greek word plerosai, which means "to fill." Some believe this filling of the law means Jesus somehow filled up the law and prophets, thereby somehow abolishing the law; the law has supposedly been superseded by Christ. In effect, this theory has Jesus saying, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to abolish or supersede."


and,


In Matthew 5:18 Jesus validates this perspective when He adds, "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." As long as heaven and earth exist, Jesus said, we can be sure God's law will exist.
In verses 17 and 18 Jesus speaks theoretically about the law. But in the next two verses, 19 and 20, He speaks of the practical application-the significance of the law for anyone listening to Him and, conversely, its meaning for each of us.

In verses 19 and 20 Jesus says: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."


The question "was answered", perhaps simply not agreed with. :)

It's just like when I pointed out...this verse regarding the OP that "Jesus does not allow divorce"..

Matthew 19:9, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery."

In, http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=103891&page=4
Post #52 I offered an explanation for the difference in the manner this recorded to account for them..

Mark 10:2

"And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife."

Matthew explores this same situation within a larger framework (he writes more about it) than Mark does, but it is the same event they are both referring to in their writings.


Matthew's context includes the words, "...for any cause at all?" - question, and Mark makes note of the words,... whether it is [was] lawful for a man to divorce a wife.


Each writer keeps Jesus' words (of His reply) within the focus of the author's subject of interest, regarding the question(s) asked.


Matthew 19:4 -- In verse 4,

In His reply, Jesus, sets the historical stage in response to their question regarding divorce rights, by presenting the intentions of God for creating marriage in the first place.


Notice also, that Jesus will let them know that He is aware they had wrongfully stated the question.


"And He [Jesus] answered and said,

"Have you not read, that He who created then fromthe beginning made them male and female and said, "For this casue a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife;and the two shall become one flesh?"


Mark's Account

Examining closely Mark's account of the same event helps clarify this biblical concept of contextual precision in which the New Covenant documents were written:

Mark 10:2 "And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife."

Mark's attention focuses on the word "lawful" in regards to the divorce question.



"And He [Jesus] answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"


Mark's context focus, is "...whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife."


Mark made the decision to report Jesus' response on this aspect of the divorce question.


Mark quotes Jesus as beginning His reply with a question about the lawfulness of divorce under Moses (staying faithfully within the context of the question).


Mark reports their reply to Jesus' question:

" And they said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY."


Mark reports the same historical and moral lesson regarding the original intentions of God for creating marriage, that Matthew reported.


" But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."


A reader who has come this far (within this study), understands that Jesus was not denying that God had provided a divorce right under the Old Covenant nor did Jesus deny a divorce right remained for His followers
(within His reply to them during this question and reply incident).


Mark notes (at this point) in his telling of the account, that the discussion between the "some Pharisees" stopped regarding their question about divorce rights --
(the Pharisees had realized that their "test" question had produced no incorrect answer from Jesus -- which is what they had been going for).

For them, the discussion had finished.

After entering the house, it was the Disciples of Jesus, that began questioning Him about the divorce right:

Once again, Jesus' reply went for the target morality.

"And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'" Mark 10:10


The reader’s understanding is constrained by the context of the situation both Matthew and Mark are reporting.

Another way of expressing the framework of these words, is that Jesus was reminding them, that without a “just-cause” for divorcing, it is (and was) not lawful to divorce and remarry without committing sin

(Remember this is the same account as Matthew records).


When/if a reader takes this reply out of its context (which has been done many times), this verse appears to be stating that Jesus is claiming in Mark's account that there is (was) NO RIGHT to divorce and remarry without committing sin; and His reply appears to conflict with Matthew's account.


To understand our liberty under the New Covenant does not mean that any Christian has a moral right to trivialize the marriage contract by divorcing without "just-cause" (or, for that matter, simply ignore the conditions within any contract that we place our promises on through our signature and oaths). We each answer to God
for our choices


Neither Jesus nor His Apostles set-up “divorce professionals" within the Christian community.


Activating the divorce right was at that time a personal choice to be based on the immoral abuse of our God-given human rights within Christian morality as taught by Jesus Christ and remains so under the New Covenant.


When Jesus chose the word He used regarding the question of divorce rights He was not limiting our human rights within marriage to sexual faithfulness alone:


Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."


Christians are not to place unjust burdens on anyone by denying the very words of Christ and His Apostles. Jesus expressed His distain for such arrogant people in His day, this way:

"And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger." Matthew 23:4

Now as a wife for over 25 years of "one man" Alaska,one who has not chosen to get remarried because I do not have a burden to and one who to this day, seven years after my divorce ,continues to take everything Christ and the Word of God says "very seriously" and holds it dear to her heart..I can assure you that I am not trivializing the sanctity of marraige or what Christ did on the Cross for me..

I have presented Christ'sown words on these matters..now the burden here seems to be upon you to resolve the issue scripturally you appear to have with them..the answer to your question regarding "polygamy" is in the same "book":)..

I am curious Alaska, everyone who has responded here has presented their own personal situation with regard to their marital status, divorce "if" it pertained and their remarraige to be held "accountable" before those they council in regard to their personal perspectives.

Would you mind sharing with us what your personal situation is in respect to how you approached this if indeed it pertains to you in the event you were married and/or divorced and under what circumstances as a believer or unbeliever..

Or are you simply making a commentary about "others" and what you present the case is for how they should be judged by Christ in your humble opinion?

Alyssa S
Nov 3rd 2007, 06:55 AM
[quote]I mean if you truly think about it these folks posting in this thread have excellent points. Is God really bringing people together in the true biblical definition of marriage who are engulfed in rampant sin and are dead spiritually? Is that what was meant when Jesus said "What God has joined together let not man separate"?

"Logically".... no it wouldn't "seem" that God would bring together a party engulfed in sin... but does he? Logically it doesn't sound right... but Scripturally, does it happen? Did God define a marriage covenant any different than the other covenants? I don't (think) so. An oath is an oath is an oath. God continuously warned Israel not to make a covenant with pagan lands or they would suffer for it. As I have mentioned before, Joshua entered a covenant with the deceptive Gibeonites... and GOD JOINED IT TOGETHER. But they were pagans! God still joined it together. This is not logic... it is Scriptural truth. God was so serious about this deceptive covenant of sin that when King Saul disobeyed it 500 yrs later, God brought a famine over the land for three years.

i. In the days of Joshua - more than 400 years before David's time - Israel swore not to harm the Gibeonites, a neighboring tribe (Joshua 9). God expected Israel to keep their promise, even though the Gibeonites tricked Israel into making the agreement. Saul's crime was not only in the killing of the Gibeonites but also in breaking this ancient and important oath.

ii. This emphasizes many important principles:
· God expects us to keep our promises
· God expects nations to keep their promises
· Time does not diminish our obligation to promises
· God's correction may come a long time after the offense

iii. If God has such a high expectation that men keep their covenants, we can have great confidence that He will keep His covenant with us. There is an emerald rainbow around the throne of God to proclaim His remembrance to His everlasting covenant with His people.



If divorcing your spouse and getting remarried is considered adultery, then why in the world was Moses permitting people to do it? Are we seriously trying to claim that Moses was permitting sin? If God really did bring those folks together in marriage, how in the world could it be permissable to allow divorce simply because somebody felt like it?


Excellent point... See below...


If all these folks were committing adultery, how do you then reconcile such a situation? Do you believe God expects those who are remarried to then leave their current wife and children? Is that how this should work?

I am in the grey as to what God expects in regards to this specific situation to be quite honest. I have more verses that clearly say remarriage is adultery. God divorced Israel in Jeremiah 3:8... but in verse 14 he called them back to him and still referred to himself as their husband. I have an identical picture in the book of Hosea where a man is left by his adulterous wife to prostitute herself... and instead of God telling him to go get a new wife, he told him to go and get her and bring her back. We talk about in this forum "What God joined together" and "would God REALLY join that kind of person with this kind of person??".... I mean C'mon... God joined Hosea with a hooker!! :ppWould God REALLY do that?? That "seems" so unlike him and that "seems" so unfair to poor Hosea... (I TOTALLY agree)... but GOD DID IT... it's in the Scriptures.

We can assume all day long that "Jesus would never want me to do this or I know Jesus just wants me to be happy and that's all that really matters." But... what does the Scripture say? I agree that it doesn't make sense that God would bind a covenant with a believer and a deceiver... but he DOES... He did, and that's all I know...whether it makes sense or not.

Why do all of the earliest church fathers starting with Justin Martyr to Augustine agree that remarriage is not allowed in the church and stated that in their creeds? These are people who lived around the time of Paul to about 200 AD. They knew the culture...they were much closer to the time of Christ's message and I can't help but wonder how it is that as time has gone on, divorce and remarriage has grown more and more popular in the church to the point that it's almost as acceptable as marriage.

If God was so big on remarriage for new believers, how come we don't have JUST ONE story about it in the bible? The consistent theme in the Bible is FAITHFULNESS. God knew this was going to be a HOT topic... why is there so much confusion and division on this subject? And if he really wanted us to be free to remarry, why wasn't he more clear? I ask him this all the time, believe me. But we don't have a story of a remarriage blessed or approved by God in the bible (that I know of). And David and Bathsheba don't count... her husband was dead.

And lastly... for myself, I could believe that a new believer is free to remarry if ONLY Jesus's words in Matthew harmonized with this concept... but they don't as far as I can see at this point. Jesus' words MUST, MUST, MUST harmonize in order for this to be allowable. But he said "Everyone/Anyone".... he didn't say "New Believers", if you divorce your wife and marry another you are committing adultery."

The Scriptures must harmonize...period. Logic can't explain it away...Emotions can't...Feelings can't...What is fair can't. We can ONLY depend on the Word.

Please know that I am not trying to win an argument here... it is not about that at all. But if it were, I'd really want to lose this one! I am a divorced woman who was saved after her divorce and I very, very much want to be married in a Godly relationship. Perhaps I can be... but the Scripture must harmonize before I can move forward.



It's amazing to me how some can see that the apostle Paul was forgiven and cleansed free from all the murders of Christians that he was responsible for, the blashemies that filled his past, and the total destruction he left in the church before his salvation,

But I am not free to remarry? I agree! I wrestle this out with God often.



As long as a person is not born again and divorcing people, I don't see what the issue here is. If you are not born again and you divorce some unbelieving spouse, and then a few years down the road you are born again, that past is gone. It is wiped clean. It is completely erased from existence. And you know what? Praise God for that! I don't know what I would do if I had to account for every single stupid thing I did before I knew the Lord. I would be in a serious world of hurt! That old man was as wretched as wretched can get, and unfortunately some doctrines will not allow folks to let that old man die. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think it's God that's not wanting that old man to die.

What "past" is wiped clean? The SINS we committed. Marriage is not a sin...or is it? We already know that we can make a sinful covenant (IE: Joshua and Gibeonites). But as far as I can see from the history of Scripture, God treats these two separately. Yes..we are forgiven for the sin... but we still made an OATH... a promise to stay together TILL DEATH do us part. What is there to forgive? How can God forgive that? And how can I make this statement? Do you think it makes me warm and fuzzy on the inside to say this? Of course not! But I know from reading the Book... He didn't excuse Joshua. He didn't excuse Herodias and Philip, He didn't excuse Hosea. These were not individual stories of 2 believers joining in holy matrimony...Two were unequally yoked...and one of these marriages consisted of 2 non believers.

You mention Moses and why he would allow divorce and remarriage if it were sinful. Jesus clearly says that it was because of their hard hearts that Moses allowed this.... not because God WANTED it. Were all of these people sinning in the OT when they remarried? Very possibly. Would God have "allowed" this through Moses' instruction? Very possibly. Again... and this is very important... Joshua was SINNING when he made a peace treaty (covenant) with Israel. God adamantly directed Israel to NEVER do this. So WHY on earth would he have allowed it?? Was God joining a covenant of sin? YEP! (I didn't say it... it is in the Scripture.) This just goes to show that God honors the decision we choose to make when it comes to oaths...whether it is a sin, deceptive, or made as an unbeliever... so that's how it seems. Nope... I don't like it.

I would like to think you are right about a non-believer divorcing a non-believer... but what is the Scripture that supports this?

Since we like to use logic alot (including myself) let me share this:
A person commits a murder, this person goes to jail for life, this person later receives Christ as Savior. According to Scripture, the old life is gone and the new has come. He is born again! Could this person then convince the court system that he is no longer who he was, his slate is wiped clean, his past is gone, and he is a new creature and therefore should be freed from prison? Extremely highly unlikely. :rolleyes: Is he forgiven? Of course! Is there condemnation? Of course not. But does he still pay the consequences of the "poor choices he made?" He sure does in this case. God did not "throw the rock"... the guy did and there is still a ripple effect even though he has been forgiven.

Or what about the guy who signs an OATH to serve in the US Military, serves 2 years, becomes saved, and returns to the ones he made an oath to and informs them he is no longer bound, since he died to his old life. Can we assume they would see things as he does? An oath, a covenant is a spiritual act, but it is also very much a physical act. That is why (I believe) when Paul says a woman is FREE to remarry if her husband DIES, that a covenant is also physical. If a couple is one ONLY spiritually, then when one dies the other would too since they are one flesh. But obviously this doesn't happen. It is the physical death of a mate (so I believe) that severs that covenant.


And I do (think) that I believe that all marriages are a covenant... because John the Baptist considered Herodias and Philip "MARRIED" and they were certainly not believers. And God allowed John the Baptist to die for defending this truth. (Yes, as you mentioned before, Herod married her after she left Philip (his brother) and the Scripture did not allow a brother to marry his brother's wife)... but if God doesn't recognize covenants between UNBELIEVERS, then he would have never bothered with Herod and Herodias because her "original" marriage to Philip would have never even existed...since they weren't believers. But we know this wasn't the case.

I, like you, am very thankful that my old life of sin is gone. And I am thankful that there is no condemnation. Jesus washed every sin away and I praise him for that.

This is all I know my friend. I am totally open to what you may want to share. Thanks again, as always, for your patience. :hug:

God Bless,
Alyssa

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 01:50 PM
Alaska,

I've given you something that you cannot answer biblical. I have read all six pages of this thread and this questions that I asked was not answered on a biblical sense.

I'm sorry you just do not understand what I am saying. I don't have the time right now to explain it all to you, but I will try to later on today.

But in the mean time read carefully want VR is saying to you. It is very good.

awestruckchild
Nov 3rd 2007, 02:20 PM
In the NT it says for adultery a person can divorce. But we are all adulterers because we have all, at one point or another, had impure thoughts or daydreams.
I don't remember where in the NT this was, but the disciples were really shocked out of their sandals when Jesus talked about this. They sputtered something like, But - but - this means it is never good to marry!!!?
In worrying about if divorce is a sin, we miss seeing that we are all adulterers and so we all deserve to be divorced by our spouses.
Just some things I think about.

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:00 PM
In the NT it says for adultery a person can divorce.


This is an assumption. The NT does not say this

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:46 PM
Or what about the guy who signs an OATH to serve in the US Military, serves 2 years, becomes saved, and returns to the ones he made an oath to and informs them he is no longer bound, since he died to his old life. Can we assume they would see things as he does? An oath, a covenant is a spiritual act, but it is also very much a physical act. That is why (I believe) when Paul says a woman is FREE to remarry if her husband DIES, that a covenant is also physical. If a couple is one ONLY spiritually, then when one dies the other would too since they are one flesh. But obviously this doesn't happen. It is the physical death of a mate (so I believe) that severs that covenant.


And I do (think) that I believe that all marriages are a covenant... because John the Baptist considered Herodias and Philip "MARRIED" and they were certainly not believers. And God allowed John the Baptist to die for defending this truth. (Yes, as you mentioned before, Herod married her after she left Philip (his brother) and the Scripture did not allow a brother to marry his brother's wife)... but if God doesn't recognize covenants between UNBELIEVERS, then he would have never bothered with Herod and Herodias because her "original" marriage to Philip would have never even existed...since they weren't believers. But we know this wasn't the case.



Hi Alyssa, liked what you said about John.
1 Cor. 7:39 is unmoveable and true as written as is Mark 10:2-12.
Thought I would share this, which is in the other half of the document posted at the beginning of the thread. Be strong, girl!


What can be said about John the Baptist?Before Jesus, he was the greatest prophet born of a woman ever to walk the planet. Jesus made that claim.John was greater than Noah, Daniel or Job, or even Enoch or Elijah, even though he wasn't translated or taken up in a whirlwind.Yes, John fulfilled Malachi's prophecy of the coming of Elijah before Jesus (See Matt. 17:10-13; 11:7-11,14 Luke 7:24-28 Mark 9:11-13 Mal.3:1; 4:6 Luke 1:13-17) but he was greater than Elijah.Jesus was the greatest man ever to be born of a woman, and he didn't get a ride into heaven in a chariot of fire.He died a cruel death standing in defence of the truth.

It appears to be a greater honour than Elijah's, for John, like Jesus, also to die in defence of the truth.To be more precise, he died for standing in defence of a particular biblical truth.He told Herod that it was unlawful for him to marry his brother Philip's wife.What Paul wrote about the wife being bound by the law as long as her husband lives, perfectly describes the truth which John was defending.(See Mark 6:14-29 Romans 7:2,3 and 1 Cor.7:39).The honour for his dying for the truth, cannot be taken away from that truth for which he died.Thus did God choose to honour the "friend of the bridegroom". See John 3:29

We can call John the last living prophet before Jesus as we can call Malachi the last writing prophet.And Malachi also was he who prophesied of John's ministry (Mal.3: 1; 4:5). Isn't it interesting that this same prophet who prophesied of John's ministry, also makes the most zealous defence of what God said about marriage that is found anywhere in the Old Testament? This is in the second chapter of the last book in the Old Testament and that which it is defending is in the second chapter of the first book of the Old Testament.It appears that through Malachi's writings, God is confirming what he initially established in Genesis. Also, the same spirit of reasoning is found in Malachi as was used by Jesus.Jesus asked,"Have ye not read?" and Malachi asked, "And did not he make one"?They are both referring to the second chapter of Genesis in regard to God's Word pronouncing Adam and Eve "one flesh".It is as if God expected the hearers who knew Genesis chapter two, to have easily concluded that divorce is unquestionably forbidden by reason of the fact that the husband and wife are one flesh.

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:58 PM
What if, as an unbeliever, you gave much to the poor and rescued abandoned children and did all manner of good things. Then after you became a Christian and repented of your sins, would you consider the good things you did as sin and wretched?

How do you equate good things with things not authorized by God such as sin?


It is blasphemous to equate marriage to something "stupid" of the "old man" when God claims it to be of himself, the maker of male and female, and the instituter of the institution of Marriage. Hence, whosoever means whosoever because marriage belongs to God regardless of whether the parties are believers or not. I believe that those who desecrate what Jesus revealed about the sanctity of marriage have gotten themselves into a world of hurt.

Then perhaps you should relate your message to those of Israel who didn't believe God had joined them to pagan wives in Ezra 9 and 10. It doesn't appear those unions were considered to be a "sanctity", and it also doesn't appear as though God joined them together.


What about those living before the introduction of the new man, by which we get the old man? Weren't the OT peoples' marriages recognized as that which God has joined together even though they were not new creatures in Christ? Christ hadn't come yet. And weren't those marriages recognized as that which God has joined together by virtue of the facts that God made them and that they left father and mother and cleaved to one another as prescribed by their creator?

Can you show where all marriages of Old Testament folks were joined by God? If they all were joined by God, how could folks be permitted to end those marriages? Regardless of what you may think, you haven't given a sufficient answer to that question.

Your reference to Matthew 19 and the "hard heart" answer doesn't explain anything. Nowhere in the Old Testament do I see where sin is justified because of a hard heart, so you're going to have to dig a little deeper. As a matter of fact, sin is committed throughout the Old Testament because of the hard hearts, and it is never justified. As a matter of fact, it is judged.

awestruckchild
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:01 PM
This is an assumption. The NT does not say this

I was pretty sure mine did............guess I will have to check.

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:06 PM
Jesus, after prohibiting divorce and remarriage based on Gen. 2, was asked, why then did Moses allow divorce.

Jesus answered your question because he was asked the same question.
You have refused to listen to the answer though it has been answered numerous times and in different ways on this thread.

Oh I've listened quite closely to Jesus' answer, and I agree with Him wholeheartedly. However, that was not my question to you. Jesus simply said that it was permitted because of the hardness of their hearts. My question to you is how can this be? I'm asking you what about a hardened heart permits sin? It is your stance here in this thread that putting away your wife and remarrying is sin. However, in the same breath you state that Moses allowed this sin. Yet you can't explain why Moses would do such a thing. How is it possible for a man that is giving people the law on one hand then permit them to break it on the other? Sin is a transgression of the law, so if what you are saying in this thread were true, Moses would be permitting folks to break the very law he is giving them by allowing them to divorce their wives.


Deut. 24:1-4 is not included in NT, like physical circumcision or polygamy or swearing or executing "an eye for an eye" or a long list of other things. Some severe things were not included, like stoning your son for being lazy and a drunkard. Yet in other areas, things of the flesh like polygamy were disallowed making some things by the NT more strict when compared with the OT.

I'm afraid not. Again, this is not a New Testament thing. This is something that has been the same from the beginning. It was never changed, and Jesus wasn't inserting some new process. If divorce and remarriage is a sin now it was a sin in the beginning as well and has always been a sin. The Lord Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, and He doesn't change nor does the institutions that He establishes.

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:10 PM
Alaska & Alyssa,

I have a single question for the both of you, which I would like you to answer for me if you would please.

In the beginning where all of this starts just as Jesus says and the both of you have quoted many many times in your replies. When God created man and women which did he create first Spirit or Flesh?

The answer to this question is the meat and potato's to this on going problem in todays world.

If either one of you will answer that question for me from the beginning (keeping in mind that God is a Spirit according to what Jesus says in John 4:24) we will go from the beginning of scripture all the way through the Bible to the end and see what God Has Joined Together, and What God Has Not Joined Together, and Man Has and called it being Joined Together by God.

If you really really want to understand.

The choice is now yours.

God Bless

Dave

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:17 PM
This is an assumption. The NT does not say this

Actually, your opinion is an assumption as well derived by your own interpretation of the Scriptures. Many believe that the NT does say exactly what was quoted above. It is your own interpretation that argues. However, many here do not believe your interpretation is correct, so therefore it won't be taken as infallible.

awestruckchild
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:21 PM
Alaska & Alyssa,

I have a single question for the both of you, which I would like you to answer for me if you would please.

In the beginning where all of this starts just as Jesus says and the both of you have quoted many many times in your replies. When God created man and women which did he create first Spirit or Flesh?

The answer to this question is the meat and potato's to this on going problem in todays world.

If either one of you will answer that question for me from the beginning (keeping in mind that God is a Spirit according to what Jesus says in John 4:24) we will go from the beginning of scripture all the way through the Bible to the end and see what God Has Joined Together, and What God Has Not Joined Together, and Man Has and called it being Joined Together by God.

If you really really want to understand.

The choice is now yours.

God Bless

Dave

I know this question was not asked of me but didn't God form mans flesh first and then breathe life or spirit into it?
The flesh profits nothing without what He gave to it? Which was then lost by sin but which He came in the flesh to give back to us?

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:23 PM
It appears to be a greater honour than Elijah's, for John, like Jesus, also to die in defence of the truth.To be more precise, he died for standing in defence of a particular biblical truth.He told Herod that it was unlawful for him to marry his brother Philip's wife.

That's because according to Leviticus 20 it was unlawful . . .

Leviticus 20:21
If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.


What Paul wrote about the wife being bound by the law as long as her husband lives, perfectly describes the truth which John was defending.

Actually, John the Baptist was simply defending the law of Moses, as I have referenced for you above.



We can call John the last living prophet before Jesus as we can call Malachi the last writing prophet.And Malachi also was he who prophesied of John's ministry (Mal.3: 1; 4:5). Isn't it interesting that this same prophet who prophesied of John's ministry, also makes the most zealous defence of what God said about marriage that is found anywhere in the Old Testament? This is in the second chapter of the last book in the Old Testament and that which it is defending is in the second chapter of the first book of the Old Testament.It appears that through Malachi's writings, God is confirming what he initially established in Genesis. Also, the same spirit of reasoning is found in Malachi as was used by Jesus.Jesus asked,"Have ye not read?" and Malachi asked, "And did not he make one"?They are both referring to the second chapter of Genesis in regard to God's Word pronouncing Adam and Eve "one flesh".It is as if God expected the hearers who knew Genesis chapter two, to have easily concluded that divorce is unquestionably forbidden by reason of the fact that the husband and wife are one flesh.


Divorce is "forbidden" yet still allowed under the law which is stated by Paul to be holy?

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:50 PM
I know this question was not asked of me but didn't God form mans flesh first and then breathe life or spirit into it?
The flesh profits nothing without what He gave to it? Which was then lost by sin but which He came in the flesh to give back to us?

Not if we are going to believe that the word of God was written through the inspired HAND OF GOD. I know what is taught and what is told through Scholars of Theology. I am in no way a Scholar of Theology and will never be a Scholar of anything. All I am is someone who Loves Our Lord who has a desire to show the Love our Lord has for all of us. Which is just what Jesus commanded all of us to do.

As to answering your question if God is a Spirit like Jesus said in John 4:24, and God created male and female in his own image like he said he did in Genesis 1:27. Well then my friend we were created first in Spirit form (which is what the real you and I are) and God formed flesh second out of dust of the ground which is what goes back to dust when we leave this earth. The Spirit is how God communicates with us, the flesh is nothing but a house for that Spirit to live in. Once it comes alive when we become Born Again in Christ.

When God created male and female in the beginning he created them perfect in Spirit after Himself in His very own Perfect Likeness. That was the Joining of male and female in the beginning that God created and Jesus talks about which was perfect in Spirit after God. We can never be perfect in the flesh, but we can be perfect in Spirit. Paul tells us this in Romans 12:1-2 if you read it. But it is only done after we are transformed from the Old to the New.

God Bless

Dave

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 05:06 PM
Here's another question . . .

Is God currently joining all those practicing witches out there in marriage? As I've shown from Ezra 9 and 10, it apparently wasn't approved of or joined by God for those folks to take pagan wives.

If a new Christian chooses today to go and take a practicing wiccan as his wife, is it the stance of some in this thread that God is really going to join them together for something they should stay in for the rest of their lives?

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 05:25 PM
"Logically".... no it wouldn't "seem" that God would bring together a party engulfed in sin... but does he? Logically it doesn't sound right... but Scripturally, does it happen? Did God define a marriage covenant any different than the other covenants? I don't (think) so. An oath is an oath is an oath. God continuously warned Israel not to make a covenant with pagan lands or they would suffer for it. As I have mentioned before, Joshua entered a covenant with the deceptive Gibeonites... and GOD JOINED IT TOGETHER. But they were pagans! God still joined it together. This is not logic... it is Scriptural truth. God was so serious about this deceptive covenant of sin that when King Saul disobeyed it 500 yrs later, God brought a famine over the land for three years.

i. In the days of Joshua - more than 400 years before David's time - Israel swore not to harm the Gibeonites, a neighboring tribe (Joshua 9). God expected Israel to keep their promise, even though the Gibeonites tricked Israel into making the agreement. Saul's crime was not only in the killing of the Gibeonites but also in breaking this ancient and important oath.

ii. This emphasizes many important principles:
· God expects us to keep our promises
· God expects nations to keep their promises
· Time does not diminish our obligation to promises
· God's correction may come a long time after the offense

iii. If God has such a high expectation that men keep their covenants, we can have great confidence that He will keep His covenant with us. There is an emerald rainbow around the throne of God to proclaim His remembrance to His everlasting covenant with His people.

It's interesting you bring up the Gibeonites. Now let me ask you, what would have happened if the Gibeonites would have broken the covenant? Did God join it together or did Israel join it together? To say that God brought the covenant together would be to say that God was responsible for it. God isn't responsible for what Israel did here, and he did not bring that covenant together. Regardless, we're not talking about covenant here. We're talking about what God has brought together. Did God bring together Israel and their pagan wives in Ezra 9 and 10?

awestruckchild
Nov 3rd 2007, 05:54 PM
I read it as He formed man out of the dust of the ground and THEN breathed life or spirit into him............

Alyssa S
Nov 3rd 2007, 06:32 PM
Alaska & Alyssa,



I have a single question for the both of you, which I would like you to answer for me if you would please.

In the beginning where all of this starts just as Jesus says and the both of you have quoted many many times in your replies. When God created man and women which did he create first Spirit or Flesh?

The answer to this question is the meat and potato's to this on going problem in todays world.

If either one of you will answer that question for me from the beginning (keeping in mind that God is a Spirit according to what Jesus says in John 4:24) we will go from the beginning of scripture all the way through the Bible to the end and see what God Has Joined Together, and What God Has Not Joined Together, and Man Has and called it being Joined Together by God.

If you really really want to understand.

The choice is now yours.

God Bless

Dave


Hey Dave...

I sure hope you have the "missing link"!! ;) I DO want to understand... And I am not going to pretend to know it all. EVERYTHING I have presented to you in my posts are directly from Scripture. And I FIRMLY believe that the Scriptures MUST harmonize. I cannot stress that enough. I am sure you will agree. But no one has addressed yet what I have presented in my last post...(but it's still early). I will, however, address what you have presented in hopes that you have the answer in turning what is grey into black and white. I would be greatful!!

Instead of me telling you what I think... I will give Scripture in reference to your question of what God made first:

Genesis 2:7 "The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH of life, and the man became a living being."

Without the breath of life... the man is dead. The breath of life (our spirit)is what makes us a living being. When we die physically, the breath of life departs from us. Everyone on this planet who is physically alive has the (spirit) the breath of life in them. If they didn't, they would be dead.

Gen 25:8 "Then Abraham's spirit was released, and he died at a good old age...."
Gen 25:17 "And Ishmael lived 137 years; then his spirit left him, and he died...."
Gen 35:29 "And Issac's spirit departed; he died...."
Matt 27:50 "And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and gave up his spirit."

Ok... I hope that is sufficient.

God bless,
Alyssa:)

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 07:02 PM
Genesis 2:7 "The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH of life, and the man became a living being."

Without the breath of life... the man is dead. The breath of life (our spirit)is what makes us a living being. When we die physically, the breath of life departs from us. Everyone on this planet who is physically alive has the (spirit) the breath of life in them. If they didn't, they would be dead.

Actually, I don't believe this passage is talking about the spirit but rather the soul. Look at the King James translation . . .



Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


According to your reading here, we could not live if we are dead spiritually. However, before accepting the Lord Jesus Christ we are all dead spiritually and separated from God according to Ephesians 2:1-3. However, we all still have a soul, which is our mind, our will and our emotions.

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 07:08 PM
Actually, Alyssa, believe it or not I think you are touching on something I'm trying to say here in regards to what Jesus proclaimed in Matthew 19. You have shown that mankind can enter into a "covenant" without God actually bringing it together. Could this be why Moses was able to allow divorce under the Old Covenant?

I mean think about in the beginning as Jesus said. Who brought Adam and Eve together? God did. Sin didn't bring Adam and Eve together. The carnal mind did not bring Adam and Eve together. God brought Adam and Eve together.

It seems to me there is a huge difference between what God has brought together and what man has brought together. In Ezra 9 and 10, man brought themselves together with pagan wives. They later separated this union as well. However, the verse doesn't say, "What man has brought together let not man separate."

It says . . .

"What God has brought together let not man separate."

Alyssa S
Nov 3rd 2007, 07:26 PM
Actually, Alyssa, believe it or not I think you are touching on something I'm trying to say here in regards to what Jesus proclaimed in Matthew 19. You have shown that mankind can enter into a "covenant" without God actually bringing it together. Could this be why Moses was able to allow divorce under the Old Covenant?

I mean think about in the beginning as Jesus said. Who brought Adam and Eve together? God did. Sin didn't bring Adam and Eve together. The carnal mind did not bring Adam and Eve together. God brought Adam and Eve together.

It seems to me there is a huge difference between what God has brought together and what man has brought together. In Ezra 9 and 10, man brought themselves together with pagan wives. They later separated this union as well. However, the verse doesn't say, "What man has brought together let not man separate."

It says . . .

"What God has brought together let not man separate."


Yes... that seems to make sense... Hmmmmm. (My brain is FRIED!!) :sleeping:
The Ezra story is definitely one we cannot ignore... and I have the same question as you! Grrrr.. this is so frustrating... because not everything harmonizes. The arguments you have are very strong... but then did you read what I presented in my last long post? About the earliest church fathers and everything else? Why did the earliest church fathers radically disapprove of remarriage? They were closer to the time of Christ. Hmmmm... I need a break. I'll come back later!

Thanks!
God bless... ~A

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 07:42 PM
Yes... that seems to make sense... Hmmmmm. (My brain is FRIED!!) :sleeping:
The Ezra story is definitely one we cannot ignore... and I have the same question as you! Grrrr.. this is so frustrating... because not everything harmonizes. The arguments you have are very strong... but then did you read what I presented in my last long post? About the earliest church fathers and everything else? Why did the earliest church fathers radically disapprove of remarriage? They were closer to the time of Christ. Hmmmm... I need a break. I'll come back later!

Thanks!
God bless... ~A

If we're speaking of two born again Christians, I radically disapprove of divorce and remarriage also. You won't get any argument from me there.

Let's look at this from your own example . . .

Israel is God's chosen people . . .

Israel is given the law and God informs them of what He expects . . .

Israel is carnal and makes covenant with Gibeonites against God's will . . .

Israel is then made aware of their error but God makes them honor their covenant . . .

However, what happens if Gibeonites no longer want to keep the covenant and then reject it and go about their own business?

Is Israel still bound by this man-made covenant?

Now onto how this translates to marriage . . .

Two unbelievers decide to bring themselves together . . .

One of those folks gets saved and puts their faith in Jesus Christ (now born again spiritually) . . .

The believer is now required Scripturally by Paul to honor the covenant they made because why? Paul says it is because we do not know if we may be able to save the other . . .

However, the unbeliever (the Gibeonites) decides they no longer want to be in this covenant . . .

The unbeliever (the Gibeonites) chooses to break covenant and depart . . .

Is the believer still bound?

Not according to Paul they're not . . .

Why? Could it be because God never brought that covenant together in the first place? Could it be because it was man and woman in their carnality who brought that relationship together? How are two people who don't know the Lord being brought together by Him in marriage? That doesn't make sense to me, and it's not how it happened in the beginning. In the beginning it was God that brought the two together. Adam and Eve did not bring themselves together.

Anyway, this has been an interesting conversation. The main thing Jesus taught us was that we are not to view things from a carnal perspective. Jesus showed us what it means to be spiritual people.

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 07:50 PM
Then perhaps you should relate your message to those of Israel who didn't believe God had joined them to pagan wives in Ezra 9 and 10. It doesn't appear those unions were considered to be a "sanctity", and it also doesn't appear as though God joined them together.



You are again showing yourself to be as Paul said bound to the law and not free in Christ to accept the NT that overrides some things of the OT. Why not then endorse polygamy? If you can justify yourself by the law with regard to divorce you can also do so with regard to polygamy.
It is the NT that determines what things have been abolished

The exception clause of 5:32 and 19:9 is in direct contradiction to Mark 10:11,12 and Lk 16:18 IF the exception clause is interpreted to mean that adultery is a legal grounds to divorce.

Alyssa, I would like you to read carefully the entire first post because it brings the relief that Jesus DID NOT allow divorce for adultery. Putting away for fornication is a term used in the Hebrew culture supported by Dt. that pertained to their practise of terminating an engagement, not a marriage. Hence in 5:32 Jesus is in effect saying that the only way a man can divorce his "wife" is if he does it before he gets married. The terms "husband" and "wife" were used to describe the engaged as is also supported by Dt. and Mt. 1.

There were many things done by those under the law that are not acceptable by the NT. What they did in Ezra is one of those things. Though under the first covenant that was justified.
Please someone stop those here who keep trying to justify things done in the OT that are now not justifiable by the NT.

VR, how on earth do you deny the many today who justify polygamy? Without the acceptance that the NT overrides some things of the OT, how can you justify divorce and not polygamy?

VerticalReality
Nov 3rd 2007, 08:06 PM
You are again showing yourself to be as Paul said bound to the law and not free in Christ to accept the NT that overrides some things of the OT. Why not then endorse polygamy? If you can justify yourself by the law with regard to divorce you can also do so with regard to polygamy.
It is the NT that determines what things have been abolished

The exception clause of 5:32 and 19:9 is in direct contradiction to Mark 10:11,12 and Lk 16:18 IF the exception clause is interpreted to mean that adultery is a legal grounds to divorce.

Alyssa, I would like you to read carefully the entire first post because it brings the relief that Jesus DID NOT allow divorce for adultery. Putting away for fornication is a term used in the Hebrew culture supported by Dt. that pertained to their practise of terminating an engagement, not a marriage. Hence in 5:32 Jesus is in effect saying that the only way a man can divorce his "wife" is if he does it before he gets married. The terms "husband" and "wife" were used to describe the engaged as is also supported by Dt. and Mt. 1.

There were many things done by those under the law that are not acceptable by the NT. What they did in Ezra is one of those things. Though under the first covenant that was justified.
Please someone stop those here who keep trying to justify things done in the OT that are now not justifiable by the NT.

VR, how on earth do you deny the many today who justify polygamy? Without the acceptance that the NT overrides some things of the OT, how can you justify divorce and not polygamy?

Alaska, apparently you do not understand whatsoever what is being said here. Jesus didn't abolish anything in Matthew 5 or 19. He simply clarified something that carnal people miss . . .

Let me try to simplify this thing . . .

In the beginning God brought together Adam and Eve . . .

There was no divorce . . .

There was only harmony in spirit and unity between both . . .

Then comes the fall . . .

Now we have sin and hard-heartedness . . .

Now we have men doing things the way they want to do things . . .

We have men that are dead spiritually and not caring what God has to say on the matter . . .

We have men entering into marriages that God never brought together . . .

Being that these marriages were never brought together by God in the first place . . . Moses can allow divorce since it was just a carnal union brought about by man . . .

Jesus comes and informs folks about how things were intended to be in the beginning . . .

In the beginning there is no divorce . . .

In the beginning there is no polygamy . . .

In the beginning there is no men bringing themselves together with women who are excluding God from the process . . .

So, to make it as simple as I possibly can . . .

"What God has joined together let not man separate."

There is a reason why Israel could leave those pagan wives in Ezra 9 and 10. It is because God never brought them together to begin with.

God does not have anything to do with that which is carnal . . .

In fact, Paul makes it clear that to be carnally minded is death . . .

To be carnal is enmity between us and God . . .

This is why I've been trying to get you to dig a little deeper instead of just looking at things by the letter.

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 09:05 PM
Alyssa S & paintdiva,

I will answer the both of you with this response, since my answer will pertain to both of your questions. I hope anyway:).

I don't believe that we have a problem agreeing on the fact that we all have a Spirit, a Body, and a Soul. If I am wrong assuming this well then we are really going to have a problem with the scripture. Anyway, I am going to assume for now just for giggles that we can agree on this;).

Now moving forward God did two things in the beginning when he created male and female. In Genesis 1:27 God created male and female in his own image and stopped. End of story. God did not do anything else to his creation. God did not give it a body out of dust in Genesis 1, and God also did not give his creation a Soul (which is the breath of life) in Genesis 1. God did not do anything to his creation at all in Genesis 1 except create it in His own perfect image, which was Spirit. Now, what is a Spirit? A Spirit is something that we as humans can not see, touch or smell. A Spirit is like the wind. It is there, but you can't see it. That is what God had in the beginning when it came to male and female. Not when it came to the trees and animals and everything else that was created on the earth in Genesis 1, because they were not made in Gods perfect image, which is a Spirit. The only thing that was made in God's perfect image during the creation in Genesis 1, was male and female in the beginning.

Now this is not excepted by Scholars today because they simply refuse to except what God did. Genesis 1 was the Creation of the World. Genesis 2 was the Creation of Man. They are two separate things. Yes God did create male and female in his own Perfect Image which can only be in the form of a Spirit in Genesis 1:27. But that was during the creation of the world. God did not create man until Genesis 2. It is not until Genesis 2 that God makes his creation become a living Soul, by breathing the breath of life into a formed body which he made out of the dust of the ground, to cover the Spirit that God had already created in Genesis 1:27. When God created the World.

Every person has a Spirit, and a soul, which lives in a body. Our Spirit is made up of God because God is a Spirit (John 4:24). Our Spirit is in the image of God because God created us in His Image (Genesis 1:27).
Our Spirit is the DNA that links us all who were born into this world to God. There is no one who can escape the image of God. Because He placed His image inside of each of us before we were born, because He created us.
Now I can't remember who it was but someone on this thread was mentioning something about John the Baptist, and on how great of a prophet or teacher he was, other then Jesus. Well yes he was I don't disagree with them on what they were claiming, but, John the Baptist was no perfect man at all. John the Baptist was still born into sin just like every single one of us were. John the Baptist was not placed into his mother's womb like Jesus was placed into the womb of Mary. Yes John the Baptist was a great man, but John the Baptist was not a perfect man. But John the Baptist was born with the Holy Ghost already in him. Scripture proves that in Luke 1:15. Here the Bible tells us this "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine or strong drink; AND HE SHALL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, EVEN FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB." John the Baptist did not need to wait on Jesus to die for his sins to receive the Holy Ghost. John the Baptist was born with the Holy Ghost in him already. Well my friends this is imposable to do unless we have a Spirit from God at birth to begin with, which ever single one of us do.

Our Soul is made up of three parts of our inner person. One is our mind, the other is our will and the other is our emotions. We as humans spent a great deal of our time on a daily basis living out of these parts of our inner person that we call the Soul. Before we are saved the Spirit of God works with our Soul (our mind,will,and emotions) to steer us in the direction of Christ. This is done through various ways whether it be Church, TV, Internet, School, Friends, Experience's, whatever. However the way God needs to use to get our attention He will use it, and God goes through the Spirit of himself that was planted inside of us at birth in order to reach the Soul which controls our mind, will and emotions. Wants God reaches us and we accept Him as Lord that Spirit which was in us becomes ALIVE inside of us and gives us a hunger and a thirst for Gods Word. I like what it says in Hebrew 4:12 when I explain this, you may like something else, I don't know. Anyway in Hebrews 4:12 it says "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper then any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a descerner of thoughts and intents of the heart. Without our Spirit being in the image of God at birth we as humans would not stand a chance in todays world when it comes to our Soul and what it controls. We need Gods Spirit in His Image inside of us in order to be able to be drawn toward him when we are among the lost. There is not a one of us who can say that they were saved from birth.

As for the Body, it consist of the physical components like touching, smelling, hearing, seeing and so forth. But even though the body goes back to dust after this life as we know it, it is still a very important part for God in this life as we know it, with a very important role. This place we call the body houses our Spirit and our Soul, and once we are saved and accept Jesus. Jesus comes to live inside of this body with us which is what we call the Holy Spirit. The Bible clearly stats this in 1st Corinthians 6:19 where Paul writes "What? know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own." But this only happens after we become saved not before. This only happens after we have become transformed with our Spirit Soul and Body. Being transformed Spirit Soul and Body is what Jesus was talking about when he said that you must be Born Again in John 3:3 that so many people do not understand. Paul explains in Romans 12:1-2 the importance of this transformation when he writes this "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Without this transformation of Spirit Soul and Body, we can never enter into the kingdom of heaven. But before we can even think about making a transformation we need to have a starting point. That starting point is the Spiritual Image of our Lord planted inside of each and every single one of us before we are even born. Without it we have no starting point and no place to go, and God has nothing to work with. Yes that Spirit that we have is dead, but it is dead to the word of God, not to God himself. Our Spirit before we are saved communicates with our conscience. Then our conscience in turn starts to communicate with our mind and our will and our emotions which is all attached to our Soul. Then our Spirit and Soul starts to communicate with what we see and with what we hear which is attached to our Bodies, and before we even know what hit us it reaches our hearts and we start to realize how wrong we have been, and the transformation begins as Paul described in Romans 12:1-2.

So you see my friends, God Joins Two People Together first through their Spirits, in order to form a Marriage, just like he did in the very beginning. Why does God do this? Well so they can Worship Him in Spirit and in Truth John 4:24. It is for this reason that Jesus said when asked the question about divorce, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." The heart of man is going to follow the Spirit of man every time. If the heart of man is after God (which is Love) then the Spirit of man is alive. If the heart of man is conformed to this world (false love) the Spirit of man is dead. This is the problem we have with marriages today. We have men and woman who are conformed to this world (false love) who are Spiritually dead. Getting married and thinking that they are doing it in the name of God (which is TRUE LOVE) and God had nothing to do with there Marriage, because their Spirit is dead to him. The scriptures speak of this from the OT through the NT. We just refuse to except it as truth.

Alyssa S, you asked me to give you the missing link to your problem which would be the answer in turning what is grey into black and white. This I can not do, only God can. All I can do is present what God has showed me in my Spirit. I am not a Scholar in Theology and have no Theology training or diplomas on my walls to speak of. All I have is a desire in my heart to proclaim the Love of Christ to a Confused World. Given to me By My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That is all I have. Don't get me wrong, I do not in any way promote divorce. I have a brother on this board who I told would be doing wrong if he got a divorce. But that was a different case, and that is the way God led me, and as a result God restored their marriage. But this is not always the case because God is not in every marriage. God just happen to be in that one with my brother. My last marriage I was in God was not, and I have discussed that with VR and others on this board who can tell you. I do not go off of what man says, I go off of scripture as you say in harmony. The scripture in harmony talks about a Spiritual union between God, Our Lord Jesus, and us 99.9 percent of the time. The other 0.1 percent of the time it is talking about a fleshly union between God, Our Lord Jesus, and us. God could care less about this body that we live in, but the Spirit which he created in His Own Perfect likeness is what he sent His Son to Die on a Cross For. It is that Spirit which God created that God uses to Join man and woman in Marriage, so they can become one flesh. Whether we as men and women want to except this or not.

God Bless

Dave

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 09:07 PM
I'm sorry for my last post being so long. But there is no short answer to it.:)

awestruckchild
Nov 3rd 2007, 09:29 PM
BCF-
I enjoyed reading your post.

I guess I don't look at myself so much as created in His image as a sort of twisted or perverted abstaction of His image.
I think it was Gen 5:3 that led me to think this, because yes, Adam was made in His image, but then Adam had a son, Seth, in his image and likeness after the "fall"
At any rate, thank God He didn't leave me that way but is remaking me.

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 09:50 PM
BCF-
I enjoyed reading your post.

I guess I don't look at myself so much as created in His image as a sort of twisted or perverted abstaction of His image.
I think it was Gen 5:3 that led me to think this, because yes, Adam was made in His image, but then Adam had a son, Seth, in his image and likeness after the "fall"
At any rate, thank God He didn't leave me that way but is remaking me.

In Genesis 5:3 with regards to the birth of Seth, let me ask you this if I may. Adam created his son Seth in his own image which was what? Was it a image of flesh or a image of Spirit?

In Genesis 5:1 the Bible says that God created man in the likeness of God made he him. We have already seen that God's creation was different then Adams creation. But without God nothing gets created in the first place, not even Seth. Because Adam can't give breath of life to Seth. Adam can only give likeness or DNA, which would be flesh.

God Bless

Dave

awestruckchild
Nov 3rd 2007, 10:03 PM
Was it an image of flesh or an image of spirit?
Hmmm....
Might be getting a little deep for my mind to follow there.
I guess I would say..........he had Seth in his own image which was a putrid, dying- from- the- moment he was born flesh and..............a badly crippled and imprisoned spirit............

Alaska
Nov 3rd 2007, 10:31 PM
In Genesis 1:27 God created male and female in his own image and stopped. End of story. God did not do anything else to his creation. God did not give it a body out of dust in Genesis 1, and God also did not give his creation a Soul (which is the breath of life) in Genesis 1. God did not do anything to his creation at all in Genesis 1 except create it in His own perfect image, which was Spirit.


Gen. 2 is a more detailed account of what he described in general terms in Gen.1.
Gen. two gives detail on how the woman was made: from Adams rib as he slept. Saying she was made in Spirit in Gen one and then made flesh in Gen. 2 doesn't fit. The account in Gen. 2 is a detailed account of how she was created (fully flesh and blood). The same for the man. He was created flesh and then given life by the breath of God. Opposite from what you are claiming.

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 10:54 PM
Gen. 2 is a more detailed account of what he described in general terms in Gen.1.
Gen. two gives detail on how the woman was made: from Adams rib as he slept. Saying she was made in Spirit in Gen one and then made flesh in Gen. 2 doesn't fit. The account in Gen. 2 is a detailed account of how she was created (fully flesh and blood). The same for the man. He was created flesh and then given life by the breath of God. Opposite from what you are claiming.

What you have been taught is religion. What I am teaching you is a relationship. There is a HUGE
difference between the two.

If you want to believe that you don't have a Spirit (which is just what you are saying) that is your choice, and their is nothing I or anyone else can do about it. The Spirit of God that resides in each and every single one of us from birth is the most important thing that we have. Without it we have nothing to discern from right and wrong, and no defense from Satan.

And people want to know why God does not do anything about the things that are going on in todays world. It's not that God is not doing anything, it's that we won't listen because we are smarter then God.

God Bless

Dave:)

BCF
Nov 3rd 2007, 11:41 PM
Was it an image of flesh or an image of spirit?
Hmmm....
Might be getting a little deep for my mind to follow there.
I guess I would say..........he had Seth in his own image which was a putrid, dying- from- the- moment he was born flesh and..............a badly crippled and imprisoned spirit............

Adam was a man. Man can not make a Spirit and give life to a Soul. Man can only make flesh. Which is why cloning will never work. Man will be able to make a carbon copy of another man. But man will never be able to make a carbon copy of God's Spirit. And man will never be able to give life to a Soul. That is something that God did that only God can control. This is why cloning will never be successful IMO.

Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:28 "fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell". Here in this verse Jesus plainly tells us that we are not to be concerned about those who can kill the body, but we are to be concerned about him who can destroy both the Soul and the Body. Man can kill the body yes, but man can not touch our Souls or Our Spirits only God can. Why is this? Because man can make a body, but man can not make a Spirit and give life to a Soul. Even Satan can not touch the Spirit or the Soul of a man without God's approval. Satan can touch the body all he wants to, but he can not touch the Spirit or the Soul. Why? Because the Spirit and the Soul belong to God, until God determines where that Spirit spends it's Eternal life. And that my friend depends on whether we choose life, or whether we choose death. The choice is Ours. God forces nothing on anyone.

God Bless

Dave:)

Alyssa S
Nov 4th 2007, 03:45 AM
Gen. 2 is a more detailed account of what he described in general terms in Gen.1.
Gen. two gives detail on how the woman was made: from Adams rib as he slept. Saying she was made in Spirit in Gen one and then made flesh in Gen. 2 doesn't fit. The account in Gen. 2 is a detailed account of how she was created (fully flesh and blood). The same for the man. He was created flesh and then given life by the breath of God. Opposite from what you are claiming.


Hi Dave... I appreciate your post and the time you put into it. I do agree that man is made up of a body, a soul, and a spirit.
1 Thess 5:23 "May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I do, however, agree with Alaska that Genesis 2 was giving detail of how man and woman were made. I really cannot see where you are interpreting that God gave the spirit first. Scripture clearly says that he 1.) Formed the man from the dust of the ground
2.) Breathed into his nostrils the breath of life...and then man became a living soul. That's how it is recorded.

When you go to Genesis 1:1 it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Then, in Chapter 2 it says, "By the seventh day God had FINISHED the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work."

Would you agree that God was finished by the seventh day... and everything had been created? That verse is pretty clear. There was no more creating left to do.

If God only created a spirit in Gen1 without a body or soul, then how do we explain Gen 1:28? "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it...." How could they increase in number if they didn't have a body to do it with?? :confused

Now Chapter 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created....When the Lord God made the Heavens....:7 "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul."

This is just showing HOW man was made.

As far as man being the image of God, this is what I believe:

When God said, "Let us make man in (OUR) image", who is he referring to by saying "our"? "OUR" is obviously plural... so he must be referring to the TRINITY:
1.)The Invisible Father - (Spirit) ...No one has seen God the Father, and no one CAN see Him but the Son. Jn 1:18.
2.) The Holy SPIRIT - (Soul)
3.) The SON - (Body).. "The Image of the Invisible God." Col 1:15

So when we read, "Let us make man in OUR image" we see that we are a representation of his image and likeness:
We are made up of a BODY, SOUL, and SPIRIT.

Alaska
Nov 4th 2007, 03:48 AM
How are two people who don't know the Lord being brought together by Him in marriage? That doesn't make sense to me, and it's not how it happened in the beginning. In the beginning it was God that brought the two together. Adam and Eve did not bring themselves together.


Whenever a marriage between believers falls apart it is easy to use the excuse that God didn't bring it together in the first place; otherwise it wouldn't have fallen apart. So then there is no absolute criteria of determining what God has joined together. It ends up being what the individual decides at any time after the marriage. This is not at all the implication in what Jesus said.

By your above statement it leads to the belief that any "marriage" between unbelievers cannot be what God has joined together. Alyssa brought up this point by pointing out that John reproved Herod concerning what God said was lawful.

A main reason why Christians have died at the hands of unbelievers has been because those unbelievers have become offended after having been reproved by Christians citing the unbelievers' behaviour as being unlawful after God's law.

The document in post 32 of this thread addresses the belief that Jesus' teachings on divorce/remarriage apply only to believers. It manifests that belief to be nonsensical.

awestruckchild
Nov 4th 2007, 04:29 AM
I thought about my earlier reply for a long time. Couldn't get it out of my mind and before I read your reply to me I changed my thinking a little.

I still think I was made in Adams' image and that Adam was made in Gods' image, but....

God said they would surely die in the day they ate the fruit and then they ate the fruit.

But they were still alive.......
So they died spiritually at that moment, in that day, but they BEGAN to die physically.

This is why Jesus said we must be reborn
And it fits with: What is born of the flesh is flesh
What is born of the Spirit is spirit.

And"the flesh profits nothing.

Besides, there is no way possible that I was created in His image........I am despicable.

Because we are spiritually dead is why we must be reborn.
See, I've figured it out - Quick, somebody tell Nicodemus!!

BCF
Nov 4th 2007, 06:16 AM
Hi Alyssa S.

My friend you seem to be trying to put our time with God's time frame, and this is imposable to do. What God calls seven days could be seven years for all we know. Take for instance Seth, he was one hundred and five years old when he begat his son Enos. After he had his son Enos he lived another eight hundred and seven years and begat more sons and daughters during that time frame the Bible tells us in Genesis 5:6-7. In Genesis 5:8 the scripture tells us that all the days that Seth lived before he died were nine hundred and twelve years. Now you tell me my friend. How crazy in our time frame does that sound? I mean really, I can't even start to think of what Seth might have looked like after living in this flesh for nine hundred and twelve years. He had to be falling apart. I mean really, I'm forty four and think that I am falling apart sometimes. Can you imagine being nine hundred and twelve. For all we know Seth could have been all but ninety years old in our time frame. Our time is not God's time. Another example is Adam and Eve themselves. They did not have a child that was recorded until Adam was one hundred and thirty years old. I'm sure that Eve was happy about that decision by Adam also. I mean after all they were both created around the same time. Even if it was a few years apart, having a child at the age of one hundred and twenty eight I'm sure was not on Eve's top ten to due list. It probably was not even on the top one to do list at that age. So you see my friend, when God said that he made his creation in six days and rested the seventh in his time he probable did. But in our time it was a lot longer or shorter I'm sure. Because all of that is told in God's time not ours, and God's time is not our time.:)

Now in regards to how you understand the Body, Soul and Spirit makes no difference to me. The important thing is that we end up at the finish line in the end. If you can understand your illustration of the Trinity better as a way of understanding man being in the image of God, this is fine with me. So let's look at what you said here.


As far as man being the image of God, this is what I believe:

When God said, "Let us make man in (OUR) image", who is he referring to by saying "our"? "OUR" is obviously plural... so he must be referring to the TRINITY:
1.)The Invisible Father - (Spirit) ...No one has seen God the Father, and no one CAN see Him but the Son. Jn 1:18.
2.) The Holy SPIRIT - (Soul)
3.) The SON - (Body).. "The Image of the Invisible God." Col 1:15

So when we read, "Let us make man in OUR image" we see that we are a representation of his image and likeness:
We are made up of a BODY, SOUL, and SPIRIT.

What you are saying here my friend is the same thing that I said, just on a lower scale. How do I know this? Well 1. Nobody has seen the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) Why have they not seen the Trinity? Because it is God, and God makes up the Trinity. All three parts.
2.The Trinity because it is God, no one can see him, because God is a Spirit. God is not a person. God is not a angel. God is a Spirit. This is something that we can not change no matter how hard or how badly we may want to change it, we can't. God is a Spirit. Jesus says so himself in John 4:24 "God is a Spirit". Now, since God is a Spirit, so is the Trinity. God is three Spirit's combined into one Spirit. Just like I am three people combined into one person. In the Trinity God is God the Father (and God the Spirit) God the Son (and God the Spirit) and God the Holy Spirit (and God the Spirit). Just like in this world I am the husband to my wife (while being Dave) the father to my son (while being Dave) the son to my mother (and still being Dave). Nowhere close to being like the Trinity, but it makes good for a simple example.

The invisible Father (Spirit) as you say no one can see. The Holy Spirit (Soul) nobody can see this either. And finally the Son (Body) or as you said the image of the invisible God. Nobody has seen him either. He is the Comforter as Jesus calls him sent in his place by the Father. In the beginning when God made this creation of man kind these three things (the Trinity) was not on this earth, but it was in heaven and in the creation. When God created Adam and Eve in the beginning and put them together, he created them using these three things. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, better known as the Trinity. We are all made up of this Trinity which is a Spirit, because Jesus said that God is a Spirit and we can't change that no matter how much we want to. This Trinity which we are made up of is the Exact Perfect Imagine of God. And through this Perfect Image God Put Together two people and made them one flesh. All being done through a Spiritual transformation by the Loving had of God.

God Bless

Dave:)

BCF
Nov 4th 2007, 06:26 AM
Whenever a marriage between believers falls apart it is easy to use the excuse that God didn't bring it together in the first place; otherwise it wouldn't have fallen apart. So then there is no absolute criteria of determining what God has joined together. It ends up being what the individual decides at any time after the marriage. This is not at all the implication in what Jesus said.

By your above statement it leads to the belief that any "marriage" between unbelievers cannot be what God has joined together. Alyssa brought up this point by pointing out that John reproved Herod concerning what God said was lawful.

A main reason why Christians have died at the hands of unbelievers has been because those unbelievers have become offended after having been reproved by Christians citing the unbelievers' behaviour as being unlawful after God's law.

The document in post 32 of this thread addresses the belief that Jesus' teachings on divorce/remarriage apply only to believers. It manifests that belief to be nonsensical.

A marriage between two believers should not fall apart. Although it does because one party falls away from God and refuses to return back to him. But when two believer get married there total focus is on God and God first. Not themselves, not their jobs, not their money, not their parents, not their friend, not anyone or anything, but God. Nothing comes between them and the relationship that they have with God. That marriage will not ever be broken. Not because I said so, but because God so.

When God does something, it does not fall apart. When man does something, it will always fall apart.

BCF
Nov 4th 2007, 02:05 PM
paintdiva


Besides, there is no way possible that I was created in His image

There is my friend if you believe in the Trinity. Because the Trinity was there in the Creation and it was already in tact. The Trinity was who made creation, and it was all done on a Spiritual level, and so is life.;)

VerticalReality
Nov 4th 2007, 02:29 PM
By your above statement it leads to the belief that any "marriage" between unbelievers cannot be what God has joined together. Alyssa brought up this point by pointing out that John reproved Herod concerning what God said was lawful.


And I've already addressed why John the Baptist confronted Herod about what was lawful. Herod was under the law of Moses, and John the Baptist confronted him with the law that says in Leviticus 20:21 that a man shall not take his brother's wife because it is unclean and he is uncovering his brother's nakedness. When you make reference to John the Baptist and his confrontation with Herod and what was unlawful, you are simply defending the law of Moses, and you are not making reference whatsoever to what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 5 or 19. That is simply applying something to that situation that was never intended. John the Baptist was under the law of Moses as well, which is why he confronted Herod with that law in order to correct him about his actions.

Herod is not an applicable example for you to be using here.

The fact is here that my point of view harmonizes with Scripture. Your view accuses Moses of allowing sin under a law that Scripture says is holy. I refuse to believe Moses is allowing sin with the law he is giving. That simply defeats the entire purpose of the law. The law was to show us our sin, not allow us to commit sin.

BCF
Nov 4th 2007, 04:19 PM
My Friends,

As my friend Alyssa S pointed out in one of their replies, in Colossians 1:15 the writer Paul explains to us how Jesus the Son is the image of the invisible God. Which is all true and would link Jesus into the Trinity as the Son. But what I want to do is go on with what Paul is saying and show how it not only links Jesus with the Trinity, but it also links us at birth to Gods Image, because of the Trinity.

Starting with Colossians 1:15-18 Paul writes, 15."Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16.For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. 17.And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18.And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

John backs up these words when he writes in John 1:1-5.
1."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2.The same was in the beginning with God. 3.All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4.In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5.And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

In these verses lies the answers to Marriage and Divorce today. Marriage was and still is a creation by God for His Glory. God does this by Putting Two Spirits together that God has created and makes them one Flesh ( For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him (Colossians 1:16.) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3). If the leaders of today's world could just understand to teach couples that Marriage is a creation for Gods Glory only, by using these very verses, there would be no Divorce and Remarriage in this world. Simply because their would be no unequally yoked marriages in this world. God created marriage in the very beginning to help God, not to help man. All the propaganda that you hear today as to what a marriage is has nothing to do with these verses. Most of the time the first thing that is said is Love. Man you must promise to love your wife and women you must promise to love your husband. These people agree to do this and they don't even know how to love themselves. This makes no sense. How is someone going to love someone else if they can't even love themselves right? Then to top it all of they want to promise until death do them part, and they don't even realize that they are already dead. Not in the physical, but in the most important place that they need to be alive. With God. Then they want to try and say that they were married under the mighty hand of God. This makes no sense. Then when they get divorced the church and the Christian wants to sit back and hollow at them, and tell them how wrong they are, when they should not have been married in the first place. Because they did not know why marriage was created in the first place, and this makes no sense either.

Then you got people saying that you can't get remarried because of this verse and that verse, and Paul said this and Jesus said that, and nobody is bothering to look at these verses and what God created and why God created it. It's not about us my friends. This is about God and His Glory. God is looking to built a army of people filled with the Holy Spirit to stand up and Fight for Him. God created Marriage because Two people are better then One. God created the women to stand by her husband and be his helper. Well what good is God's creation during Him if they are not getting married because of a mistake they made in the flesh. God's got a lot of single men and women out in this world who are lonely and are in need of a helper. We as followers of Our Lord need to stop putting these people who have made mistakes in the flesh under bondage and let God take control and teach them why God created Marriage in the first place and help lead them to whoever God has for them, so God can increase His Army.

By doing this we may not be able to stop the Marriage and Divorce on slot that is sweeping the earth today. But we sure can stop adding to the pain that goes with it, and maybe restore Peace and Love into the Hearts of those who have made the mistakes in the flesh, so that they can go on and enjoy the Love that God does have for them. Marriage just like everything else on this earth including you and me (mankind) was created for God and for God's Glory. Everything was created by Him and for Him only, not for us, and that includes Marriage. The Trinity was there in the beginning, it is here now, and it will be here forever. We were a part of that creation then and are a part of that creation now because of the Trinity. The only way we can change that is if we change God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and say that He was not there at the beginning, so he may not be here now. Well I'm sorry, He was present then and He is Present now. The scriptures that I started out with prove that, and we can't change it. Nothing comes into this would without the mighty hand of God attached to it. Nobody can escape the Spirit of God. Because He Is Everywhere.

God Bless

Dave:)

deepjagga
Nov 4th 2007, 05:04 PM
Finally someone with honesty to see that the two accounts, Matthews and Marks contradict.
But they do so only IF putting away for fornication means for adultery.

The whole pont of the document in the first post is to show that putting away for fornication DOES NOT mean putting away for adultery.

Reading Mark 10 2-12 and Luke 16: 18 is the plain and simple truth.
The complexity caused by the cultural issue of how they "divorced" before they got married "put away for fornication" does not contradict the simplicity of Mark 10:2-12 1 Cor 7:39

Read Mark 10:2-12. Believe it in all its implications. You are then wiser than the high ranking theologians who in ignorance cannot agree with Jesus as he plainly spoke in that passage.
The exception clause does not contradict because the exception does not pertain to the married state but to the betrothed.
Please read the first post.
Christians tend to keep themselves bond by marriage, divorce, fornication, adultery, and so many other things. They hold themselves to a much higher standard than the heathans and others, yet their marriges are filled with stepsons, stepdaughters, visitation rights, child support orders, spousel support, etc... Some times it appears as if the entire marriage realm of society is messed up-especially where the Christian churches are concerned.

As far as Moses giving a bill of divorce for the hardness of one's heart, there are many times now days where divorce is very peaceful. There is no hardening of the heart at all, poeple simply checked with their inner child and it told them they weren't being loved like they deserved to be, it told them there were way too many irreconsolable differences there, and that the marriage was a mistake or it was the wrong time for marriage.

This confuses it even more that despite what Jesus
says about marriage, divorce, adultery, etc... the
Bible also says, "Obey the laws of the land." The
law makes all types of divorces legal-simple as that.

Everything is a business decision now days. The marriage and especially the divorce and remarriage-all business decisions. People rarely pay any attention to the stuff that's in the Bible-which is a bit confusing. This is a feel-good generation. If it feels good-we do it. If it doesn't feel good-we get away from it. Whereas people back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's would stay together no matter how bad someone abused them verbally and physically, no matter how many times their husbands slept with their daughters, nor how often their wives sold their bodies...they kept those messed-up marriages together. We don't do that anymore-thank God.

Alaska
Nov 5th 2007, 05:09 AM
"Obey the laws of the land." The
law makes all types of divorces legal-simple as that.



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?

Alaska
Nov 5th 2007, 05:33 AM
Herod is not an applicable example for you to be using here.



First of all tell me what proof you have that Herod was a Jew.


1 Cor. 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.


Paul, like John the Baptist knew that the real truth concerning marriage is found in Gen. 2 as was confirmed by Jesus. Malachi also referred to Gen 2 and concludes that God hates divorce, which also demotes Deut. 24:1-4 from the assumed status of it being the truth. Hence Pauls reference to the law binding the woman to her husband for as long as he lives shows his understanding that the provision made in Deut. 24:1-4 was a temporary allowance that was not the truth.

It is true that Moses allowed it, but it is not an absolute moral truth because it was written for the hardness of their hearts and is contrary to the meaning of Gen 2 as Jesus revealed its meaning by concluding, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder". Allowing divorce in the NT is in direct contradiction to Jesus and the real meaning of Gen 2.

"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"

But separation is allowable and sometimes necessary. But even then the separated are not to get remarried but are to either be reconciled or live a single type of life. Unlike divorce, separation is not a declaration that the couple are no longer husband and wife. Making such a declaration is denying Jesus' words.

Alaska
Nov 5th 2007, 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1429469#post1429469)
This is an assumption. The NT does not say this

Actually, your opinion is an assumption as well derived by your own interpretation of the Scriptures. Many believe that the NT does say exactly what was quoted above. It is your own interpretation that argues. However, many here do not believe your interpretation is correct, so therefore it won't be taken as infallible.


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.

BCF
Nov 5th 2007, 06:29 AM
Alaska

Let me ask you something if I may, you keep quoting this one verse of scripture "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" and then point back to Genesis 2. I'm just wondering if you even know what God has joined together in the first place in Genesis 2?

The reason I ask is because you seem to quote this a lot but you don't give any explanation as to why you are quoting it. You see you can't say Christians because Adam and Eve were not Christians. I don't find that in the Bible. You also can't say believers because they deliberately went against what God told them to do when the ate from that tree. Now I presented to you already my explanation of "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" meant to me, Now I think it is about time that you give us (or at least me) what yours is. Simply because anyone can though scripture around without giving an explanation as to why they are saying it.


I shall wait for your reply

God Bless

Dave:)

Amazedgrace21
Nov 5th 2007, 07:37 AM
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.

Well we agree on this point at least..
What I can not agree with is the fact if we simply use the KJV for each passage in Matthew, Mark and Luke, for the sake of continuity..

There are specific verses you are completley disregarding in Matthew that harmonize the context of Marks account, as well as Lukes and ignore that Christ "permited" what he called "lawful", while he set the record straight what was lawful..as in "permitted" by God..permitted by Moses to allow "lawfully" under God's authority..

Jesus "precisely" used the word "fornicate..fornication..the sin of an immorality,against a spouse from God's perspective between two marired partners ..was what God permitted to take apart that which He put together, he did not want to see this happen, hates it when it does.

God also hates and opposes what men set forth as permissable to take apart their marraiges, God had put together..

The "asunderers" were the ones "guilty of fornicating"..the unlawful ones, were the ones , taking apart the sanctity of being made one..cleaving with another other their spouse, among other immoral behaviors..

"divorcing for 'any reasons', above , beyond and outside, apart from that which God set apart, was not permitted and permission at all, WAS ONLY FOR the other spouse, the innocent spouse .."fornification" while married..was a cause Christ said Himself, was lawful to "put away", to obtain a divorce from the sinful spouse, for the innocent spouse. ( and legally required to prevent adultery, legally.)

Jesus did not say..just and ONLY seperation was allowed, it was also permitted as was a "lawful" divorce ALSO PERMITTED and 'lawful" before God as was granted the authority from God, to permit, and what Jesus upheld as well..because it was.

Read it again..what you are saying is not scriptural, its an opinion not set forth in Christ's own words..or supported by scripture, but conforming scripture to your opinions here.

What Christ says In Matthew ..about divorce.."putting away" a spouse:

3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him,

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every casue? ( emphasis is upon , "for any/every cause" in Matthew..)


4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you,( Jesus say's) Whosoever shall put away his wife,( put's away a wife he is married to, puts away as in divorce to the wife married to, not simply engaged to") except it be for fornication, ( fornification ..not specifically and only adultery,,but "fornification..as in immorality) and shall marry another, ( anticipates remarraige) committeth adultery:

( stipulates adultery occurring because)

A. the divorce was not casued by fornification, 'as in am immorality B.no divorce is permitted unless there is fornification C.no divorce that is not permitted by God, is a divorce at all, the couple is still married..before God. D. If there is no sanctioned divorce that permits remarraige so there is no sanctioned remarraige, and that is why it is called adultery when a married partner "cleaves" with someone else and is not divorced.. E. A "divorce" permited by God, for the innocent party , permits the innocent party to remarry. They can not be found guilty of adultery becaause they are no longer married in the eyes of God becuse he permitted what he put together to be taken apart "by Him". Furthermore..when the disciples said..better to not marry..as in "remarry", if permitted (v.10) ....Christ said.unless one is built to be a Eunech..it is better to "remarry".. and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

( is able to remain unmarried , fine and good, but if not able, still fine and good , to"remarry")

Luke says:

16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic2048.htm), and marrieth another, committeth adultery (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic37.htm): and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic975.htm) committeth adultery (http://www.godrules.net/library/topics/topic37.htm).

again, a man who does not "put his wife away lawfully as in Mark..or for "any cause" as in Matthew, except for "fornification- immorality , THis is a man who is not lawfully divorced, because this was not a divorce, putting away that God permitted for the reasons why God does and will..just this mans reasons, which are for the guilty parties reasons,

These reason ( excuses) do not satsify God's standards or are "His reasons" for permitting divorce for the innocent party..so if either remarry and aren't lawfully divorced, both commit adultery)

Mark says:

2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

The emphasis is upon lawful

3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Jesus said, yes it is lawful, it was lawful, or Moses would not have said so..itis only "lawful" for the cause God permit's divorce"..God does not desire for any marraige to fail..but there are those who "do".."fornicate..are immoral"
6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

( If, there is going to be a divorce permited by God, it is only for the reasons He will permit it, not for "any/every cause, as in any reasons,but for one very specific reason..and for the innocent party, (not the guilty one) God does permit divorce to be lawful, and also for the innocent party, to remarry.They are not required to stay ONLY seperated or to never remarry ..See Matthew 19 for "the cause")
10And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

The answer is directed to the guilty party, a husband (and man) who "unlawfully" divorces his wife before God..and why even though he has "put her away", he remains "married and is an adulterer, the second marraige can't be entered into BECAUSE there was no "fornification - immorality cause on the part of the innocent wife in this scenario..

and the same applies to her, if she does the same..becasue inthose days, it waspossible for a wife to "divorce", or put away her husband, obviously)
11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

The man that God says may not "put asunder" what God has brought together is the party "putting away" for any reason except what God permits a marraige to be taken apart By Him..divorce is permitted under circumstances God provides as lawful as is remarraige..

and that is "fornification..immorality"..and adultery is one form of immorality ..which occurs in marraige as it applies to divorce, and not restricted to only an "engagement" where no "marraige" had occured.

One can not commit adultery if they are not married..one can commit immorality and also adultery when married, which falls under "fornification"...per Christ.

VerticalReality
Nov 5th 2007, 03:00 PM
First of all tell me what proof you have that Herod was a Jew.

Here's an article on Herod Antipas

http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_antipas.html




1 Cor. 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.


So, how can the law both allow divorce and also condemn it?


Paul, like John the Baptist knew that the real truth concerning marriage is found in Gen. 2 as was confirmed by Jesus.

So what you're saying is that Moses just didn't know the real truth?


Malachi also referred to Gen 2 and concludes that God hates divorce, which also demotes Deut. 24:1-4 from the assumed status of it being the truth.

Perhaps you can point out the Scripture that "demotes" anything concerning the law other that the Scriptures that refer to those who are born again under the law of grace?


Hence Pauls reference to the law binding the woman to her husband for as long as he lives shows his understanding that the provision made in Deut. 24:1-4 was a temporary allowance that was not the truth.

That is your understanding, but I believe your understanding is faulty here. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that Deuteronomy 24 was a temporary allowance. What other laws do you believe are temporary?


It is true that Moses allowed it, but it is not an absolute moral truth because it was written for the hardness of their hearts and is contrary to the meaning of Gen 2 as Jesus revealed its meaning by concluding, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder". Allowing divorce in the NT is in direct contradiction to Jesus and the real meaning of Gen 2.

So what happens to those today who still have hardened hearts?

Why do you insist that Moses was allowing sin? What Scripture anywhere in the bible do you see that states Moses allowed sin? Can you give one other example outside of your views on marriage? Why would Moses allow sin in regards to marriage but he wouldn't allow sin anywhere else?


But separation is allowable and sometimes necessary. But even then the separated are not to get remarried but are to either be reconciled or live a single type of life. Unlike divorce, separation is not a declaration that the couple are no longer husband and wife. Making such a declaration is denying Jesus' words.

So why do you believe Moses allowed a sinful "declaration"?

VerticalReality
Nov 5th 2007, 03:02 PM
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?

Redeemed by Grace
Nov 5th 2007, 03:25 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 03:57 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 04:09 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 04:35 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 04:40 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 05:01 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 06:16 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 07:01 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 07:26 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 07:43 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 08:23 PM
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. :saint:




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
Nov 5th 2007, 09:58 PM
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
Nov 5th 2007, 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1430897#post1430897)
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
Nov 6th 2007, 03:47 AM
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. :saint:

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
Nov 6th 2007, 03:55 AM
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.

BCF
Nov 6th 2007, 04:36 AM
VerticalReality


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.

This I can agree with, and also add that I would think God would call it a sin, as far as someone getting
divorced and remarried when taking things into there own hands. Simply because they would not be doing it to Glorify God, they would be doing it to Glorify themselves.

But then again who am I

I'm just a man with an opinion about a LOVING GOD.

Alaska
Nov 7th 2007, 04:22 PM
Deut. 21:
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Deut 24:1-4
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Deut. is full of places addressing what to do in certain circumstances. They start with something like "If a man" or "When a man" as above.
These were laws to Israel for that time. These were not binding absolute moral laws like, "thou shalt not steal".
Paul made reference to the law not being of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live in them. That would relate, among other things, to laws like this that served to put order to situations, not necessarily making such laws moral imperatives.

If it is reasoned that since God allowed it it must be holy and acceptable, then polygamy must be reasoned to be holy and acceptable.

The NT reveals that the law was set in place UNTIL Jesus came to bring in the NT. The NT states that the law made nothing perfect and that if perfection came by the law then there was no need for the Messiah. Jesus the eternal High Preist has changed the OT law as Paul wrote: the preisthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Part of the change of law was to clarify the definition of marriage and answer questions like, is it allowable to divorce. Jesus took care of this by commentinting on Gen. 2.
Mark 10:2-12 has the full answer plainly spoken. No divorce. Remarriage is adultery.
(Separation for self preservation etc. is allowable.)

Alaska
Jan 24th 2008, 03:50 AM
The following is to show that an exception clause can pertain to something closely associated to what is being addressed and not to the main point under discussion. In Matt. 5:31 The main point under discussion is divorce as it pertained to sending the wife out of the man's house as was the context of Dt. 24:1-4 which is what Matt. 5:31refers to. The next verse which possesses the exception clause, 5:32, continues in the same vein addressing the post marital divorce. [The Hebrew culture had a premarital divorce as is exemplified in what Joseph was about to do with Mary]. However, it can be seen that the exception clause in 5:32 can be understood to pertain to a closely associated aspect of what is under discussion, namely, the premarital divorce exercised in their culture.

The way that language works, it can be seen in the following grammatical parallel that an exception clause can indeed pertain to a closely associated aspect of what is being addressed.

Workers in an agricultural setting have two separate water irrigation gateways off of the same canal leading to a field which produces a cash crop. This canal is fed by a reservoir one mile away. In the winter months, the reservoir can get too high and to avoid it spilling over its embankments, the canal is filled by the reservoir and the first of the two gates off of the canal is opened so that the excess water can be drained off into the field which at that time is not planted. This procedure of emptying the reservoir is called diversion. Although irrigating during the months when the crop is growing is also a diverting of water from the same canal and could also be called a diversion, it is preferred to be called irrigation which specifies a certain type of diversion from the canal.
The word "irrigation" indicates that the diversion of water off of the canal is during the growing season and that it is from the second water gateway off of the canal.
"Diversion" indicates that the diversion is during the winter when the crop is not growing and that it is from the first water gateway off of the canal.

For the purpose of showing how language works with regard to how an exception clause can be applied or inserted into a statement, focus should be placed only on the first water gateway in the following scenario:

There is a disagreement among the workers. Some want to use the first gateway, which is used for diversion, for irrigating the growing crop since both gateways empty water into the same field. A big discussion takes place and goes on for more than an hour. Some are in favor of using the diversion gate to irrigate the crop and some oppose the idea.
Finally the old hired hand who knows more about the two gates than anyone else, shows up on the scene. He knows that the first gate used for diversion allows an uncontrollably large amount of water that will damage some of the crops. He makes the men stop arguing and delivers this message:
Whoever opens that gate, saving for diversion, causes damage to the crop: and whosoever assists in the opening of that gate will also be held responsible for the damage caused.

The discussion is not at all about using that gate for diversion, it is about using it to irrigate. Yet an exception clause, pertaining to diversion is inserted into his statement!
There is an acceptable use of that gate, for diversion, which though not the point of discussion, is made reference to as a means to indicate what is not allowed.
Using that gate for diversion is allowable. Using that gate for irrigation is not allowed.

Jesus said,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

It can be understood that, like the example above, what is allowable,for the cause of fornication, is made reference to as a way to indicate what is not allowed. Like the example: reference is made to what is allowable, to indicate what is not allowed. In both cases it can be said that what the exception refers to was not the point of the discussion. Though Jesus is not addressing the well known premarital divorce for fornication, exemplified in what Joseph was about to do with Mary in Matthew 1, He nevertheless refers to that type of divorce that is allowable as a means to indicate what is not allowed.
Divorce for fornication (divorce before marriage) is allowable.
Divorce from a joined lawfully married wife is not allowed.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Alaska
Feb 1st 2008, 03:52 AM
Exception clauses are flexible. They can refer to a side point of that which is being discussed. Jesus' exception clauses in 5:32 and 19 :9 serve the purpose of showing that his prohibition was not to the extent to prohibit the customary termination of the betrothal (engagement). It also served to make the statement that unless a man divorces his wife before he marries her, he cannot divorce her.
What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

If their definitions of the words husband wife divorced and married were the same as ours today then the exception would not have been made because the exception pertains exclusively to the Joseph/ Mary type of divorce recorded in Matt. 1: the only book also to record the exception clauses.
People jump on the issue of how archaic definitions need to be updated. In this case, it served the flesh well to ignore the archaic definitions since the lack of understanding of those definitions and hence how the exception did NOT allow divorce for adultery has resulted in the horrible heresy of allowing divorce: allowing the putting asunder of what God has joined together.
I believe this to be a grievous and horrible crime in God's eyes. A crime pastors and ministers will not escape from when judged.

Alaska
Feb 8th 2008, 02:56 AM
Of all the listed sins of this nation, for which there has to be judgement, the desecration of marriage as committed by the church by allowing divorce must surely be in the top 3 of the list.
Almost all churches allow divorce. What an absolute horrible shame!

JesusPhreak27
Feb 8th 2008, 04:11 AM
Alaska

Im going to be honest.....I read the majority of your first post and then have skimmed through about 5 pages of posts.....so what Im going to ask may have already been discussed.

From what I have gathered you yourself have neither A. been married or obviously B. been divorced.

Now that being stated I have been divorced. My ex wife cheated on me at least once and I suspect on multiple occasions. She and I dicorced a while back. Now both of us have since remarried (to other people obviously). Towards the end of my first marriage it hd turned into a situation where it was literally unhealthy for our children for us to be around each other. Things had gotten to the point to where it came VERY close to physical altercations (by both of us) almost happened.

The question I want to ask is.....are you telling me....in your own words.... that I was supposed to stay in that situation..... put my children through that for their entire childhood?????

I am since remarried and the relationship I have with my son is the best it has EVER been. My ex-wife's relationship wiuth him is better as well. I am now in a place in my walk with Christ that I never thought was possible. My wife now has helped lead me to this point.

Is it your stance that I am living a life of perpetual sin because I divorced my ex wife?

I had a conversation with my pastor about this a while back...... he told me that even though God hates divorce He lets things happen for a certain reason. Jeremiah 29:11 tells us this. He has plans of good in store for us...... look at what Paul writes in Romans about grafting branches. Sometimes God has to remove negative parts of our lives to get us to be able to do His bidding here on earth.

Im not saying that you can get a divorce for any reason. But I absolutely refuse to believe that I am a perpetual sinner because I divorced my wife and walked away from a situation that was causing more harm for all involved then good.

I would like to hear your thoughrs on this.....

JesusPhreak27
Feb 8th 2008, 04:15 AM
Of all the listed sins of this nation, for which there has to be judgement, the desecration of marriage as committed by the church by allowing divorce must surely be in the top 3 of the list.
Almost all churches allow divorce. What an absolute horrible shame!

Read my below post and tell me that you HONESTLY still believe what you wrote......

By the same token Im curious of your stance on this:

Lets say your Pastor and his wife divorce. Should he be removed from his position? And if so why?

itsafreegift
Feb 9th 2008, 07:43 PM
No, you are NOT living in a state of perpetual sin. To say that is to make divorce the same as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

If a Minister goes through a divorce due to the unfaithfulness of his wife, in some cases it may be wise for him to step down from his position in the church until the situation dies down. But he should never quit the ministry. The Bible says that the gifts and the callings of God are without repentence. That tells me that if God places a calling on someone's life then that calling remains intact regardless of what situations may occur.

Alaska
Feb 9th 2008, 10:24 PM
Alaska

Im going to be honest.....I read the majority of your first post and then have skimmed through about 5 pages of posts.....so what Im going to ask may have already been discussed.

From what I have gathered you yourself have neither A. been married or obviously B. been divorced.

Now that being stated I have been divorced. My ex wife cheated on me at least once and I suspect on multiple occasions. She and I dicorced a while back. Now both of us have since remarried (to other people obviously). Towards the end of my first marriage it hd turned into a situation where it was literally unhealthy for our children for us to be around each other. Things had gotten to the point to where it came VERY close to physical altercations (by both of us) almost happened.

The question I want to ask is.....are you telling me....in your own words.... that I was supposed to stay in that situation..... put my children through that for their entire childhood?????

I am since remarried and the relationship I have with my son is the best it has EVER been. My ex-wife's relationship wiuth him is better as well. I am now in a place in my walk with Christ that I never thought was possible. My wife now has helped lead me to this point.

Is it your stance that I am living a life of perpetual sin because I divorced my ex wife?

I had a conversation with my pastor about this a while back...... he told me that even though God hates divorce He lets things happen for a certain reason. Jeremiah 29:11 tells us this. He has plans of good in store for us...... look at what Paul writes in Romans about grafting branches. Sometimes God has to remove negative parts of our lives to get us to be able to do His bidding here on earth.

Im not saying that you can get a divorce for any reason. But I absolutely refuse to believe that I am a perpetual sinner because I divorced my wife and walked away from a situation that was causing more harm for all involved then good.

I would like to hear your thoughrs on this.....

You are leaving out the main thing that makes your situation sinful: the remarriage.
True, the divorce itself was a sin because divorce claims that the parties are no longer one flesh which according to Jesus is only possible if one of them dies. Lets say you only divorced and then realized you had turned the truth of God into a lie and repented of it. That is a sin already done. You could contact your wife and admit your ignorance and blasphemy and assure her that in God's eyes you are still husband and wife because you are still both alive. You could also assure her that you are not ever going to take another wife because you understand that to be committing adultery. You tell her that you are praying for reconciliation and you would forgive her because it is your duty to faithfulness to Christ to forgive.

But in ignorance for which your pastors will also have to give an answer before God, the above is probably not what happened. You were probably lied to by those thinking they were doing God service. Your conscience was seared by the doctrine of a devil that claims you can harden your heart as was permitted under Moses and not forgive. You were also brought under the delusion that a divorce in the NT terminates the status of one flesh between you and your wife when in reality only death does that.

The definition of adultery is when someone is having sex with someone other than who is their lawful spouse in God's eyes.
That is why Jesus said that to remarry is adultery because the remarriage involves sex and the sex with that new spouse, though lawful under civil law, is not with the person with whom God has recorded in His book as being the true other half/one flesh partner in the sacred institution of marriage as described in the revelation of the NT.
Whenever you have sex with the second marriage partner, you are committing adultery against your first and true wife.

Read the first paragraph of the OP and see how the "great mystery" of the married couple being part of each others own bodies is emphasised by Paul.
If your first marriage is after the pattern of Adam and Eve's, meaning neither of you had been married before, then your marriage is reckoned as that which has been joined together by God and which no man may put asunder, especially by you.

I am sincerely sorry for the pastors who will face wrath from God as those who will be damned for adultery by remarriage bring up those pastors' names who encouraged the adultery. They will be held accountable to some extent for the adultery by their heretical counsel, similarly to how the man is held accountable for causing his wife to commit adultery by divorcing her.

We are not to recompence evil for evil.
Forgive your wife. Seek reconciliation. Stay true to God and remain single until either a reconciliation is successful or until you die.
Cursed and damned in my opinion is the counsel from many pastors who will encourage you to abandon this your cross.

threebigrocks
Feb 9th 2008, 11:06 PM
Just some food for thought, as I haven't read this entire thing.

What sort of bride will be married to Christ?

Should our earthly marriages not be a shadow, a sort of mirror image, of what that will be?

If the husband is supposed to present his wife as unblemished to God, pure and without stain, and the wife to be in submission to her husband, how can we carry over the understanding of earthly marriages to what marriage to the Lamb will be like?

What room is there for divorce, unless one spouse walks away from the other? What room is there for divorce of the church from Christ, unless one walks away in unbelief?

VerticalReality
Feb 10th 2008, 12:31 AM
You are leaving out the main thing that makes your situation sinful: the remarriage.
True, the divorce itself was a sin because divorce claims that the parties are no longer one flesh which according to Jesus is only possible if one of them dies. Lets say you only divorced and then realized you had turned the truth of God into a lie and repented of it. That is a sin already done. You could contact your wife and admit your ignorance and blasphemy and assure her that in God's eyes you are still husband and wife because you are still both alive. You could also assure her that you are not ever going to take another wife because you understand that to be committing adultery. You tell her that you are praying for reconciliation and you would forgive her because it is your duty to faithfulness to Christ to forgive.

But in ignorance for which your pastors will also have to give an answer before God, the above is probably not what happened. You were probably lied to by those thinking they were doing God service. Your conscience was seared by the doctrine of a devil that claims you can harden your heart as was permitted under Moses and not forgive. You were also brought under the delusion that a divorce in the NT terminates the status of one flesh between you and your wife when in reality only death does that.

The definition of adultery is when someone is having sex with someone other than who is their lawful spouse in God's eyes.
That is why Jesus said that to remarry is adultery because the remarriage involves sex and the sex with that new spouse, though lawful under civil law, is not with the person with whom God has recorded in His book as being the true other half/one flesh partner in the sacred institution of marriage as described in the revelation of the NT.
Whenever you have sex with the second marriage partner, you are committing adultery against your first and true wife.

Read the first paragraph of the OP and see how the "great mystery" of the married couple being part of each others own bodies is emphasised by Paul.
If your first marriage is after the pattern of Adam and Eve's, meaning neither of you had been married before, then your marriage is reckoned as that which has been joined together by God and which no man may put asunder, especially by you.

I am sincerely sorry for the pastors who will face wrath from God as those who will be damned for adultery by remarriage bring up those pastors' names who encouraged the adultery. They will be held accountable to some extent for the adultery by their heretical counsel, similarly to how the man is held accountable for causing his wife to commit adultery by divorcing her.

We are not to recompence evil for evil.
Forgive your wife. Seek reconciliation. Stay true to God and remain single until either a reconciliation is successful or until you die.
Cursed and damned in my opinion is the counsel from many pastors who will encourage you to abandon this your cross.

Just curious, but what do you think it means to become one flesh with someone?

I'm also wondering why you continuously keep bumping this thread while not adding anything meaningful to it that hasn't already been stated over and over and over again . . .

If you don't have anything new or meaningful to add, why don't you just let this go?

JesusPhreak27
Feb 10th 2008, 05:25 PM
You are leaving out the main thing that makes your situation sinful: the remarriage.
True, the divorce itself was a sin because divorce claims that the parties are no longer one flesh which according to Jesus is only possible if one of them dies. Lets say you only divorced and then realized you had turned the truth of God into a lie and repented of it. That is a sin already done. You could contact your wife and admit your ignorance and blasphemy and assure her that in God's eyes you are still husband and wife because you are still both alive. You could also assure her that you are not ever going to take another wife because you understand that to be committing adultery. You tell her that you are praying for reconciliation and you would forgive her because it is your duty to faithfulness to Christ to forgive.

But in ignorance for which your pastors will also have to give an answer before God, the above is probably not what happened. You were probably lied to by those thinking they were doing God service. Your conscience was seared by the doctrine of a devil that claims you can harden your heart as was permitted under Moses and not forgive. You were also brought under the delusion that a divorce in the NT terminates the status of one flesh between you and your wife when in reality only death does that.

The definition of adultery is when someone is having sex with someone other than who is their lawful spouse in God's eyes.
That is why Jesus said that to remarry is adultery because the remarriage involves sex and the sex with that new spouse, though lawful under civil law, is not with the person with whom God has recorded in His book as being the true other half/one flesh partner in the sacred institution of marriage as described in the revelation of the NT.
Whenever you have sex with the second marriage partner, you are committing adultery against your first and true wife.

Read the first paragraph of the OP and see how the "great mystery" of the married couple being part of each others own bodies is emphasised by Paul.
If your first marriage is after the pattern of Adam and Eve's, meaning neither of you had been married before, then your marriage is reckoned as that which has been joined together by God and which no man may put asunder, especially by you.

I am sincerely sorry for the pastors who will face wrath from God as those who will be damned for adultery by remarriage bring up those pastors' names who encouraged the adultery. They will be held accountable to some extent for the adultery by their heretical counsel, similarly to how the man is held accountable for causing his wife to commit adultery by divorcing her.

We are not to recompence evil for evil.
Forgive your wife. Seek reconciliation. Stay true to God and remain single until either a reconciliation is successful or until you die.
Cursed and damned in my opinion is the counsel from many pastors who will encourage you to abandon this your cross.

OK.... simple qusestion this time. What does that make my current wife and I?

From what Im understanding in your post, its your belief that no matter what happens in a marriage (good or bad) you should forever remain married to that person?

So going by your logic -- I should have stayed married to my first wife even though A. there was no love left in the marriage and B. she told me straight out that she would cheat on me regularly if we were to stay married.

Now you seem well versed in the Scripture. Im just a simple believer who believes more then anything that God is love.

But folks like you truly scare me. You can not even half heartedly believe what you are saying my friend. There is no possible way.

When Jesus was on the earth who exactly did He walk among? Was it the sinners or the saints? Did He tell His disciples that they were to only mingle with the people who were "righteous"? Oh, no wait a minute..... I believe He said "Who needs a doctor? A man in good health or a sick man?"

God is NOT going to judge me based on a failed marriage. He is NOT going tosay "No Heaven for you because you didnt stay in a situation that was bad for you and your children" Nor are those actions going to determine my place in Heaven. I will be judged on what I did with my talents and my time He aloows me.

You seem to be (and please all forgive me for my bluntness) a beat someone over the head with your Bible Holier then thou Christian. Now I dont know you personally but just reading your posts that is the impression I get. You feel the need to live by the Law. There is no more Law. It has been completed. We are to live in love. Love one another the way Christ loves us. Are you doing that by telling others that they are sinners because they had a divorce? Who are we to judge anyone? Who are you to tell me that I should NEVER remarry?

I used to be a lot like you my friend. But God has opened my eyes to the one aspect of this relationship that many Christians are missing.....grace. Im walking in grace. Romans 8:1 states: There is no condemnation for those united in Christ Jesus. Im united in Christ. He is my Lord and Savior. I believe that He was crucified, died on the cross for my sins then three days later He rose again to walk among His followers and was then lifted into Heaven to sit on the right side of our Father.

That being said I am NOT condemned for the sins I have commited. The blood of my Savior has paid that cost. For you to tell me that I am not a good Christian because my first marriage did not work is appalling to say the least. Then for you to say that Pastors who preach and teach of God's LOVE (Look it up in Hebrews God is LOVE not condemnation and rules) is an even bigger issue.

So again I leave you with this..... Love others the way that Jesus loves us...... I mean its only part of the Greatest Commandment right?

Alaska
Feb 11th 2008, 03:38 AM
OK.... simple qusestion this time. What does that make my current wife and I?

An adulteress and an adulterer.

True love respects what Jesus declares to be truth.

MommyTee
Feb 11th 2008, 04:04 AM
oh my word..........I shake my head and I stand astonished that in some of these post and replies there is no compassion and none of the love of Christ exhibited. my word my word my word........I can not believe the utter lack of compassion and the love of Jesus in some of the replies I have read. Jesus would say "you who are without sin cast the first stone". I grew up in a home where I, my mother and my siblings were horribly abused. my dad was unfaithful and only pretended to be a believer. He robbed God and made my mother not pay tithes or else we would be punished. You are telling me my mother and father should not have been divorced! Where is the love? My sister was married for 9 years a God fearling loving woman, her husband told her and I quote "Our lives are going different ways and I do NOT want to be married to you anymore"....He walked away from their marriage and was married not long after to the woman he cheated on her with. So you are telling me, my sister only 40 years old should remain unmarried and alone for the rest of her days? where is the love? where is HIS compassion? in the words of Jesus again I say "You who are without sin cast the first stone". He does NOT like divorce I agree......but saying that someone who has remarried is a sinner refutes the love and sacrifice of the cross. Many Christians are remarried and they love and serve God with all their heart and souls.....should they then divorce their 2nd spouses and go back to the first? I think NOT. Had my parents not divorced someone in our house would have been killed by my father's anger.....I am beyond upset reading some of these posts. My God help people see that your love is greater than anything.......even divorce!

VerticalReality
Feb 11th 2008, 05:06 AM
oh my word..........I shake my head and I stand astonished that in some of these post and replies there is no compassion and none of the love of Christ exhibited. my word my word my word........I can not believe the utter lack of compassion and the love of Jesus in some of the replies I have read. Jesus would say "you who are without sin cast the first stone". I grew up in a home where I, my mother and my siblings were horribly abused. my dad was unfaithful and only pretended to be a believer. He robbed God and made my mother not pay tithes or else we would be punished. You are telling me my mother and father should not have been divorced! Where is the love? My sister was married for 9 years a God fearling loving woman, her husband told her and I quote "Our lives are going different ways and I do NOT want to be married to you anymore"....He walked away from their marriage and was married not long after to the woman he cheated on her with. So you are telling me, my sister only 40 years old should remain unmarried and alone for the rest of her days? where is the love? where is HIS compassion? in the words of Jesus again I say "You who are without sin cast the first stone". He does NOT like divorce I agree......but saying that someone who has remarried is a sinner refutes the love and sacrifice of the cross. Many Christians are remarried and they love and serve God with all their heart and souls.....should they then divorce their 2nd spouses and go back to the first? I think NOT. Had my parents not divorced someone in our house would have been killed by my father's anger.....I am beyond upset reading some of these posts. My God help people see that your love is greater than anything.......even divorce!

1 Corinthians 7:15
But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

drew
Feb 11th 2008, 05:29 AM
I do not think that this view about the absolute exceptionless prohibition of divorce is correct.

In Matthew 12, Jesus holds David guiltless even when he breaks a rule from God (the showbread rule is clearly described in the Old Testament as being from God):

He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.

Later in the same chapter, Jesus basically states, despite what God's own law states, work on the Sabbath can be justified in certain circumstances.

He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

The law concerning working on the Sabbath is not "man's law", it comes from God:

Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: 2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

People try to preserve the notion that God's laws are "exceptionless" by claiming that pulling a sheep out of a pit is not "work". It sure seems like work to me. Either way, there is the very strong implication that Jesus would have approved of doctors performing emergency surgery on the Sabbath - it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. And performing surgery is certainly work. So things are not as cut and dried as some would have you believe.

And we also have the example of David. Jesus condones his actions even though God's own law forbad anyone but the priests from eating the showbread.

The obvious conclusion: The prohibition against divorce should not be seen by us as an "exceptionless" rule. Jesus gives us multiple examples of times when it can be justifiable to break even the laws that come from God's own mouth.

drew
Feb 11th 2008, 05:45 AM
An adulteress and an adulterer.

True love respects what Jesus declares to be truth.
As per my precvious post, I doubt very much that things are as simple as this. Jesus tells us in Matthew 12 that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. I know people feel uneasy with any claim that Jesus broke God's laws but I can see no other way to make sense of the Matthew 12 teaching.

Here is my reasoning:

1. The Torah clearly states (Exodus 35) that God (not man) has created the Sabbath Law - if you work on the Sabbath, its stoning for you.

2. Jesus declares that doing good on the Sabbath is lawful. He backs this up with an example. And you really can't get out of this by saying "pulling the sheep out of the pit is not work". Why? Because Jesus makes the much more general statmenet: It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

3. Are there ways in which "work" can do good? Of course! So, if we are to take Jesus at his word, this work is OK on the Sabbath. But then that breaks the Sabbath law.

You can't have it both ways. Let's assume for the moment that Jesus never taught an "exception clause" - that the teaching on divorce is as per Mark 10 (no except for pornea stuff):

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

So, the argument goes, there are no exceptions. Fine.

The problem is that the Sabbath Law gave no exceptions either. It did not say "no work except pulling sheep out of pits". So unless Jesus is screwed up. we have to conclude that there are indeed unstated exceptions to the divorce teaching.

Please note: the Sabbath Law is God's law, not man's.

And if one tries to argue that Jesus abolishes the Sabbath, there is still the example of David and his men who eat the shewbread - a clear violation of God's own law that Jesus condones.

Given the Matthew 12 teaching, I do not think any "exceptionless" rule about divorce is scriptural.

MommyTee
Feb 11th 2008, 12:59 PM
1 Corinthians 7:15
But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

amen! and my sister, she remains unmarried at this point, why? First of all she has a trust issue where men are concerned.......hmmmmm our dad and her husband. She loved her husband so much she tried to get him to work it out.........but she was God fearing and he did not want to serve God anymore.........walked away from her and his faith. She is now raising my brother's children as her own(that is a whole different story). She is a single mom of children not of her flesh, and she is judged as a single mom and a divorcee by some Christians. Yet there are others that show her love and respect. She would like to be married again should God allow a God fearing man into her life, one that REALLY and truly wants to serve God. My sister did all she could to save her marriage and she was deeply wounded by what her ex did and at her most vulnerable she had people in the church judge her and condemn her..:(....in essence shooting their own wounded. Jesus binds up the brokenhearted........and the compassion of Jesus is beyond anything we can ever imagine.

I know very God fearing people who serve Him in mighty ways and are greatly used by Him that have been divorced and remarried.....I dont know their whole story but I see God's hand on their lives.

threebigrocks
Feb 11th 2008, 02:20 PM
Drew, exceptions to the law aren't as you say. To pick heads of grain or save a sheep is to do good in the Spirit of the law not the letter. We cannot say that since there are exceptions to do good that there are exceptions to go against God and make them up as we go, saying God does so here under these circumstances why not there in these.

In those passages, Christ was addresing things they were already doing, and reinforcing the fact that it did not go against the letter of the Law to do so. It wasn't an exception.

Divorce was never an intention of God's. Either the unbeliever leaves of their choice or because of adultery two may divorce. Otherwise, although they may be physically seperated they may not go on to live as though they are no married. That covenant remains.

drew
Feb 11th 2008, 03:17 PM
Drew, exceptions to the law aren't as you say. To pick heads of grain or save a sheep is to do good in the Spirit of the law not the letter. We cannot say that since there are exceptions to do good that there are exceptions to go against God and make them up as we go, saying God does so here under these circumstances why not there in these.

In those passages, Christ was addresing things they were already doing, and reinforcing the fact that it did not go against the letter of the Law to do so. It wasn't an exception.

Divorce was never an intention of God's. Either the unbeliever leaves of their choice or because of adultery two may divorce. Otherwise, although they may be physically seperated they may not go on to live as though they are no married. That covenant remains.
This is a very common position to take, but I do not think it really works. Let me be clear: when I say that Jesus condoned breaking the law in Matthew 12, I am saying He condoned breaking the letter of the law, not the Spirit. But, the law is what it is. And so if Jesus condones breaking the letter of God's law (remember, the Sabbath law is God's law, the showbread law is God's law), then it is entirely plausible that He would, in certain circumnstances, condone divorce even though that would break the letter of Jesus' own teaching.

The letter of the Sabbath Law is what it is - no work on the Sabbath on pain of death. So if "doing good" takes the form of "work" - pulling a sheep out of a pit, or performing emergency surgery - then to do so is to break the letter of God's Sabbath Law. And we know that Jesus condoned the breaking the letter of God's Sabbath law. We would therefore expect that He might condone the breaking the letter of His very own teaching on divorce if certain circumstances applied.

My argument is basically this:

1. The letter of the Sabbath Law prohibits work on the Sabbath;

2. Jesus says its OK to "do good" on the Sabbath, without adding "as long as its not 'work' ";

3. Some forms of doing good obviously entail work (e.g. performing open heart surgery);

4. Therefore, Jesus has condoned the breaking of the letter of the Sabbath law;

5. Therefore, unless there is some reason to assume that the divorce law is in a special "exceptionless" category of law which the Sabbath law isn't in, then it is reasonable to assume that the divorce teaching has exceptions as well (just like the Sabbath law).

If I were attempting to argue that there are no exceptions to the divorce teaching (over and above the debatable "adultery" exception), I would try to pursue the category distinction of point number 5.

Otherwise, I think the argument I have provided is pretty sound - there are probalby circumstances under which God would condone exceptions to His own law prohibiting divorce and / or remarriage.

threebigrocks
Feb 11th 2008, 06:23 PM
To the Law. Humm.

Matthew 19



7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"
8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."



1 Corinthians


14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?



Here Christ explains why the Law allowed it, and He set them straight as to the "exceptions" to it were no longer applicable. "I say to you..."
Can we claim exceptions to what Christ has clearly laid down?

drew
Feb 11th 2008, 06:34 PM
Can we claim exceptions to what Christ has clearly laid down?
In Matthew 12, Jesus clearly does this very thing in respect to what his Father has "clearly laid down":

1. He expresses an "unstated" exception to the showbread law;
2. He expresses exceptions to the Sabbath Law.

In my opinion, we treat Jesus and God as equally authoritative. It is clear that Jesus condones exceptions to what God has expressed in the form of various Laws - which had no explcit exceptions attached to them. It seems eminently reasonable to assume the existence of exceptions to what Jesus taught.

I suspect I know how people react to this. They say to themselves "surely Jesus gave us a complete and exceptionless teaching". I understand the inclination to want to believe this. But the scriptures teach something else. They teach that there are unstated exceptions to the Sabbath Law and to the showbread law. These are God's laws and they were given without a list of "except for....." qualifiers.

It is simply inconsistent to assert that Jesus' teaching are "exceptionless" when His Father's are not.

It is true that Jesus and Paul further amplified on the divorce / remarriage teaching. But there are no grounds to assume that this closed the door on unstated exceptions.

VerticalReality
Feb 11th 2008, 06:53 PM
To the Law. Humm.

Matthew 19



1 Corinthians


Here Christ explains why the Law allowed it, and He set them straight as to the "exceptions" to it were no longer applicable. "I say to you..."
Can we claim exceptions to what Christ has clearly laid down?

Or he could be giving them the "correct" interpretation of the law instead of the twisted "divorce for any reason" view that some folks of that day were teaching. Don't forget the question the Pharisees were asking Him. They weren't asking Him whether or not the law still applied. Of course it still applied. They were asking Him how He interpreted it. He answered their question with the true interpretation of the Deuteronomy passage.

drew
Feb 11th 2008, 07:22 PM
Or he could be giving them the "correct" interpretation of the law instead of the twisted "divorce for any reason" view that some folks of that day were teaching. Don't forget the question the Pharisees were asking Him. They weren't asking Him whether or not the law still applied. Of course it still applied. They were asking Him how He interpreted it. He answered their question with the true interpretation of the Deuteronomy passage.
I think you make a very strong point here. As Jesus stood there arguing with the Pharisees, how can one possibly argue that Jesus is "changing" the law. Even if one takes the position that Jesus' death and resurrection has "done away with" the law (at least in some sense), this discussion takes place prior to that event.

So obviously the Law is still in force. I think the best conclusion is that Jesus elaboates the true interpretation of the law. We have this from Psalm 19:

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul

To the extent that it is possible, even for God, to prescribe human bevaviour in the form of "exceptionless" rules, the existing law of God has to be understood as being perfect. So there seems to be little doubt -there are grounds for divorce. And I think VR has it right when s/he says that Jesus is elaborating on the meaning of the Deuteronomy law, not modifying it.

threebigrocks
Feb 11th 2008, 07:56 PM
Or he could be giving them the "correct" interpretation of the law instead of the twisted "divorce for any reason" view that some folks of that day were teaching. Don't forget the question the Pharisees were asking Him. They weren't asking Him whether or not the law still applied. Of course it still applied. They were asking Him how He interpreted it. He answered their question with the true interpretation of the Deuteronomy passage.

Then I am thinking that there is a definate misunderstanding between us somewhere. :)

I am seeing this from the pov that Christ understood that the Pharisees were trying to see what he would say about divorce compared to what Moses gave them to follow, what they understood the truth to be. But, divorce was never intended to be at all, and I think the Pharasees were so to the letter of the Law - they forgot God's original design.

If it wasn't for the hardened hearts, divorce would not have been as it was under the Law. Christ came to bring us back to full communion with God, fufill the law, and give us grace and mercy.

Are we closer now? :hmm:

VerticalReality
Feb 11th 2008, 08:34 PM
Then I am thinking that there is a definate misunderstanding between us somewhere. :)

I am seeing this from the pov that Christ understood that the Pharisees were trying to see what he would say about divorce compared to what Moses gave them to follow, what they understood the truth to be. But, divorce was never intended to be at all, and I think the Pharasees were so to the letter of the Law - they forgot God's original design.

If it wasn't for the hardened hearts, divorce would not have been as it was under the Law. Christ came to bring us back to full communion with God, fufill the law, and give us grace and mercy.

Are we closer now? :hmm:

I understand what you're saying. The Pharisees' interpretation of the law either wasn't correct to begin with, or they were testing Him. Their first question to Jesus was could a man divorce his wife for "just any cause". Jesus then goes on to explain to them that when God created us, He never intended for divorce to be a possibility. However, due to the hardness of man's heart, Moses allowed them to divorce. This permission was given in the law found in Deuteronomy 24.

Now, during this time there were basically two teachings going on with regard to Deuteronomy 24. One teaching stated that a man could not divorce his wife for any reason except for the cause of sexual immorality. The other teaching of the time, which was the more popular teaching (imagine that), was that a man could divorce his wife for any cause he deemed necessary. So, first Jesus addresses what God intended in the begining, which was that man and woman were to be one flesh and remain so. They were not created to separate what God had joined together and Jesus Christ makes it clear that this is the way it is supposed to be. However, He also clarifies that even though this is what God desires (because He hates divorce) man was still permitted by Moses to divorce in the law because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus then corrects this goofy teaching that a man can divorce his wife for any cause and makes clear that the law only permitted a man to divorce his wife because of sexual immorality. If you then refer to Deuteronomy 24 you will see that the cause for a man to put his wife out of his house is "uncleanness", which if you check other passages of Scripture where this term is used you will see that it means "sexual immorality" quite often.

Fisher
Feb 11th 2008, 08:40 PM
Hi all,

I was wondering after such an interesting issue where this fits in.......
These are passages from the KJV AND the NIV just to encompass more than one reference.
Now, since we all follow the words of Jesus as He spoke and taught them, isn't this passage entirely clear?

I am not a lawyer or biblical scholar, but when Jesus himself says "EXCEPT or SAVE for the act of marital unfaithfulness", to me, that "language" is crystal clear. I can't find any obscurity in that phrasing.
Take a look:

KJV:
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

NIV:
Matthew 19:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&verse=9&version=31&context=verse)
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I am not for divorce either, but it seems like he clearly left a clause in there for certain circumstances, no?
What do you folks think about this?

Bless you all and all the best,
Fisher

VerticalReality
Feb 11th 2008, 09:04 PM
What do you folks think about this?

Bless you all and all the best,
Fisher

What I believe about this statement by Jesus is the same as my post above. I don't believe Jesus is stating anything new here, and I don't believe Jesus is changing anything either. I believe with this statement Jesus is giving the true meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1.

threebigrocks
Feb 11th 2008, 09:12 PM
jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

This also would apply in the opposite as well. if you did not know it was a sin, then it cannot be held against you. For how can a rightous God condemn you of a sin you knew not of?

Also, forced love is not true love. This is why Christ is about choice and free will. So in my "opinion", I don't think you were married to a man that you did not love. This is because you did not mean the words of the marraige covenant in which you spoke. Just as a person who says the sinners prayer and does not mean what is said will not be saved. Because having faith in God, which means you mean what you are saying, also means your words are heart felt. And unless the words come from your heart, then Christ cannot live where your heart does not agree.

Love is a heart felt emotion. So the words spoken in covenant have to be from the heart or they have no meaning. So forced marraige is not heart felt so it has no meaning if the words you spoke were not from the heart.


Romans 7


7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.


Because of the commandment not to commit adultery, we know it is sin.

Luke 14



27"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
28"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? 29"Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him,



We need to count the costs of what we are entering into, know what the covenant of marriage really is, and not be saying empty words.

The trouble? Many don't claim Christianity, and those that do still don't understand nor take marriage seriously.

drew
Feb 11th 2008, 09:23 PM
At the risk of seeming bold, I am going to suggest that the "Matthew 12" argument I have presented has not really been challenged. I believe that the one objection to it has been satisfactorily answered. We know that Jesus condones "unstated" exceptions to God's law. Why would this principle not generalize?

It is my belief that it is not possible, even for God, to explicitly and prescriptively list all the exceptions to any teaching or commandment. We therefore need to look at each "rule" through what I believe Jesus believed was the true essence of the Law:

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.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

I see this, especially in light of the Matthew 12 stuff, as Jesus asserting that these 2 "great commandments" not only undergird the law, they provide a means for identifying appropriate exceptions. I suspect that most of you do are not happy with such a reading. Well, I would still think you need to explain Jesus' behaviour in Matthew 12.

drew
Feb 11th 2008, 09:35 PM
We need to count the costs of what we are entering into, know what the covenant of marriage really is, and not be saying empty words.

The trouble? Many don't claim Christianity, and those that do still don't understand nor take marriage seriously.
Let me ask you a question. Suppose some "friends" of a guy named Fred slip a hallucinogen into Fred's orange juice. Then Fred gets really disoriented and confused and goes to a bar, meets a woman, and then marries her, all the while under the consciousness-altering influence of this drug he has unwittingly ingested.

Do you think that it would be a sin for Fred to divorce and then remarry later in life?

Although this is a fanciful example, it does point to a reality that often is overlooked in our inclination to think in terms of "moral failure" - sometimes people get married due to simple "mental incompetence". Not all people who seek divorce entered the marriage with a competent understanding of what they were doing. Perhaps you think that "incompetence", as contrasted with moral lapse, has no bearing on the issue of divorce and remarriage. Fair enough. But there is no doubt that there are cases where the person who has made a poor marriage decision is not "guilty" of anything at all - they have merely acted in accordance with limited mental capability.

While perhaps you will claim they cannot divorce and remarry without sinning, they have no more "responsible" for the situation they are in than the person who mistakenly gets on the wrong bus because they have dyslexia and cannot read the numbers properly.

drew
Feb 11th 2008, 09:52 PM
I have been arguing that Jesus' teaching on divorce may have unstated exceptions based on the precedent of Matthew 12. I want to turn to anoyher place where Jesus teaches on divorce - the sermon on the mount material in Matthew 5.

Among other things, Jesus says these things in that teaching:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.

Jesus then gives his teaching on divorce.

Do you believe that Jesus is really asking us to gouge out our eyes? I am going to assume you will answer "no". My follow-on question would then be: On precisely what grounds do you discriminate between the instruction to "gouge" and the instruction to not divorce / remarry, taking one as an exaggerated metaphor not to be literally obeyed (the gouging stuff) and the other as a clear prescriptive, exceptionless "rule" that is indeed to be obeyed "as is"?

It would seem that one needs to treat these either both "as is" or admit that there is a form of literary exaggeration going on for both.

I think it will be really quite challenging to provide a solid basis for not strictly obeying the gouging rule on the one hand, while insisting on strict literal application of the divorce prohibition.

Of course, you may take the position that we should indeed "gouge" our eyes when we look with lust. You would be consistent if you did this, I certainly will admit.

JesusPhreak27
Feb 12th 2008, 12:21 AM
Drew, exceptions to the law aren't as you say. To pick heads of grain or save a sheep is to do good in the Spirit of the law not the letter. We cannot say that since there are exceptions to do good that there are exceptions to go against God and make them up as we go, saying God does so here under these circumstances why not there in these.

In those passages, Christ was addresing things they were already doing, and reinforcing the fact that it did not go against the letter of the Law to do so. It wasn't an exception.

Divorce was never an intention of God's. Either the unbeliever leaves of their choice or because of adultery two may divorce. Otherwise, although they may be physically seperated they may not go on to live as though they are no married. That covenant remains.

Thats the point most are trying to make. The original poster made the statement that there is NO instance in which divorce is allowed. All everyone else is saying is that in the instance that one spouse cheats the other has the right to divorce them.

But by the same token I have to agree with the poster who was talking about her sister. Should the sister be required to stay with an abusive spouse?

BCF
Feb 12th 2008, 03:57 PM
JesusPhreak27,

How do you discribe the word LOVE with an abusive spouse? Or, how would you discribe the word LOVE in an abusive relationship?

In other words how would you define the word LOVE in an abusive Marriage no matter which of the two spouses were being abusive?

Just asking

Dave

JesusPhreak27
Feb 12th 2008, 09:58 PM
JesusPhreak27,

How do you discribe the word LOVE with an abusive spouse? Or, how would you discribe the word LOVE in an abusive relationship?

In other words how would you define the word LOVE in an abusive Marriage no matter which of the two spouses were being abusive?

Just asking

Dave

My point is simply that in a situation like that I dont believe that God would consider leaving a marriage a sin if the alternative is being abused.

threebigrocks
Feb 13th 2008, 06:18 PM
Let me ask you a question. Suppose some "friends" of a guy named Fred slip a hallucinogen into Fred's orange juice. Then Fred gets really disoriented and confused and goes to a bar, meets a woman, and then marries her, all the while under the consciousness-altering influence of this drug he has unwittingly ingested.

Do you think that it would be a sin for Fred to divorce and then remarry later in life?

Although this is a fanciful example, it does point to a reality that often is overlooked in our inclination to think in terms of "moral failure" - sometimes people get married due to simple "mental incompetence". Not all people who seek divorce entered the marriage with a competent understanding of what they were doing. Perhaps you think that "incompetence", as contrasted with moral lapse, has no bearing on the issue of divorce and remarriage. Fair enough. But there is no doubt that there are cases where the person who has made a poor marriage decision is not "guilty" of anything at all - they have merely acted in accordance with limited mental capability.

While perhaps you will claim they cannot divorce and remarry without sinning, they have no more "responsible" for the situation they are in than the person who mistakenly gets on the wrong bus because they have dyslexia and cannot read the numbers properly.

Oops, wrong bus - hey, it happens.

Oooops, I got married, didn't mean it, didn't know what I was getting into? Gimme a break. That wouldn't hold up in a court of law and surely wouldn't stand with God.

Those reasons are used by those who get married thinking oooh how wonderful and then realize it's not a bowl of cherries 150% of the time. They claim they didn't know what they were getting into. Absolutely no grounds for divorce in that situation. It is sin.

drew
Feb 13th 2008, 06:29 PM
Those reasons are used by those who get married thinking oooh how wonderful and then realize it's not a bowl of cherries 150% of the time. They claim they didn't know what they were getting into. Absolutely no grounds for divorce in that situation. It is sin.y
You are judging here without knowing the facts. Although the example I have provided was deliberately fanciful, I claim that people do indeed marry in what is, in essence, a state of mental impairment.

This is true even though it might suit the theology of some to believe otherwise. It makes it easier for us to call divorcees sinners if we believe that they knew what they were doing when they got married.

This is definitely not always the case.

threebigrocks
Feb 13th 2008, 06:40 PM
It makes it easier for us to call divorcees sinners if we believe that they knew what they were doing when they got married.

This is definitely not always the case.

So we make excuses for their sin? Good grief man, justify another man's sin??

Unless one is mentally (medically so) incompetent, in which they probably can't legally marry which means they can't grasp the concept of marriage, there is no excuse for not knowing what marriage is before it's been done - believer or not.

This is like saying I didn't know the house would catch fire - didn't realize natural gas was THAT flammable.

drew
Feb 13th 2008, 06:51 PM
So we make excuses for their sin? Good grief man, justify another man's sin??

Unless one is mentally (medically so) incompetent, in which they probably can't legally marry which means they can't grasp the concept of marriage, there is no excuse for not knowing what marriage is before it's been done - believer or not.

This is like saying I didn't know the house would catch fire - didn't realize natural gas was THAT flammable.
This is not really a very convincing case. You are essentially begging the question at issue, more or less just claiming that there "there is no excuse for not knowing what marriage is before it's been done".

Of course, I am more or less doing the same thing when I assert otherwise.

But the important question is this: is it indeed ever the case that people marry in a mental state where they really do not know what they are doing?"

It is not appropriate to simply assume that the answer must be "no" because such a view legitimizes a certain take on the divorce and remarriage teaching.

The answer to this question would require a lot of research. Even if it turns out that some marriages are entered in a state of mental incapacity, you can still argue that divorce and remarriage is prohibited.

But no reasoable person will take your "say-so" on the incapacity issue - that "there is no excuse for not knowing what marriage is before it's been done".

And they should not take my say-so either.

drew
Feb 13th 2008, 06:54 PM
If the moderators will allow it, I would like to repost something that I posted earlier and to which no one has reponded. I particularly direct this question to those who see the divorce teaching as an "exceptionless" rule:


I have been arguing that Jesus' teaching on divorce may have unstated exceptions based on the precedent of Matthew 12. I want to turn to anoyher place where Jesus teaches on divorce - the sermon on the mount material in Matthew 5.

Among other things, Jesus says these things in that teaching:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.

Jesus then gives his teaching on divorce.

Do you believe that Jesus is really asking us to gouge out our eyes? I am going to assume you will answer "no". My follow-on question would then be: On precisely what grounds do you discriminate between the instruction to "gouge" and the instruction to not divorce / remarry, taking one as an exaggerated metaphor not to be literally obeyed (the gouging stuff) and the other as a clear prescriptive, exceptionless "rule" that is indeed to be obeyed "as is"?

It would seem that one needs to treat these either both "as is" or admit that there is a form of literary exaggeration going on for both.

I think it will be really quite challenging to provide a solid basis for not strictly obeying the gouging rule on the one hand, while insisting on strict literal application of the divorce prohibition.

Of course, you may take the position that we should indeed "gouge" our eyes when we look with lust. You would be consistent if you did this, I certainly will admit.

VerticalReality
Feb 13th 2008, 07:02 PM
All these wild examples really don't go anywhere. Where people get hung up is whether or not a person can divorce and remarry, and 99 out of 100 times these aren't wild circumstantial marriages. They are just your average run of the mill marriage between John and Jane. Most divorces are because one gets tired of the other and they just don't get along anymore. That's just the truth of the matter in regards to most divorces. Now, you won't find argument from me on whether or not such a divorce is wrong. You're absolutely right it is wrong. What gets people into a bunch of confusion is when remarriage comes into play and just what a remarried person is supposed to do when the knowledge of God's law has become known to them. Now, you have folks like Alaska here stating that a remarried person needs to dump their current family and children and return back to the first spouse because they are living in a state of adultery until they do, or they must ditch this marriage and stay single. One of the two. These are the claims being made. Now, what everyone else must do is discuss this point of view from the Word. There's no need for wild examples of folks with mental retardation entering into marriage. I think we have enough examples of plain folks with all their faculties getting divorced.

Now, my position here is that I don't see any way you can Scripturally hold an unbeliever to the same standard as a believer. I believe Scripture shows that there are VERY different expectations for those who live by God's way compared to those who don't, which is why Paul gives different instructions in 1 Corinthians 7 to the folks who are believers compared to the folks who are not. That is the whole issue here. I don't believe that Christians should ever get divorced. However, my problem comes in when we talk about unbelievers who aren't capable of caring about what God thinks on the matter of divorce. My problem is Alaska's view that when these folks are enlightened to the truth about their remarriage, they are then required to ditch their current family and return back to a previous marriage. I just don't see how this is biblical, and I see no example this command was ever given to anyone, which is odd considering that the time that the Scriptures were written divorce and remarriage was a VERY common thing. You'd think Scripture would have at least given one example where Jesus or the apostles instructed folks to abandon their second marriages and return to their first. Not once does that happen anywhere. That's my problem with Alaska's view.

My other problem with Alaska's view is that in order for it to be plausible you would have to believe that Jesus Christ came and changed the law. However, this is completely unbiblical. Jesus never came to change the law. Now, these are the big issues that need to be addressed, and if Alaska is going to prove what it is he is trying to prove he's going to have to answer for some of these HUGE inconsistencies. So far he has not done so. If anyone can address these problems, please . . . go right ahead.

drew
Feb 13th 2008, 07:49 PM
My other problem with Alaska's view is that in order for it to be plausible you would have to believe that Jesus Christ came and changed the law. However, this is completely unbiblical.
Notwithstanding other disagreements between us, I am with you 110 % on this claim. The law is God's perfect law:

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul

drew
Feb 13th 2008, 07:51 PM
All these wild examples really don't go anywhere. Where people get hung up is whether or not a person can divorce and remarry, and 99 out of 100 times these aren't wild circumstantial marriages.
I agree that 99 / 100 are not "wild and circumstantial". But what about the 1 in 100 that is. Do you think it would be sin for divorce and remarriage in such rare cases? They do exist (I believe), rare though they are.

Alaska
Feb 14th 2008, 01:46 AM
Hi all,

I was wondering after such an interesting issue where this fits in.......
These are passages from the KJV AND the NIV just to encompass more than one reference.
Now, since we all follow the words of Jesus as He spoke and taught them, isn't this passage entirely clear?

I am not a lawyer or biblical scholar, but when Jesus himself says "EXCEPT or SAVE for the act of marital unfaithfulness", to me, that "language" is crystal clear. I can't find any obscurity in that phrasing.
Take a look:

KJV:
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

NIV:
Matthew 19:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&verse=9&version=31&context=verse)
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I am not for divorce either, but it seems like he clearly left a clause in there for certain circumstances, no?
What do you folks think about this?

Bless you all and all the best,
Fisher

Hi Fisher.
We know how some archaic words and meanings are in the KJV. Some modern translations have used words that we are familiar with now to make certain passages understandable with regard to what was being spoken as recorded by the NT authors.
An unusual usage of terms is proveable by the Scriptures concerning how the words husband, wife, married and divorce were used. These terms by the old Hebrew culture and also in NT times could relate to the betrothed state, which is something like engagement.
It can be said that Joseph was about to divorce Mary, his wife, for what he thought was fornication. Divorce you say, wife you say, why they weren't married yet! That is correct. In Deut. 22:23,24 we see the use of the words husband and wife to describe a couple who are not yet married, but betrothed. The same situation is in Matt. 1 with Joseph and Mary. Also there we see Joseph about to divorce Mary which in that culture was the terminology also used to terminate their betrothal.
Please read the OP on this thread to find a simple explanation of the exception clause in this light which sets us free to be able to believe the straightforward things Jesus said in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18.
This explanation allows the apparent plain meaning of those verses to stand without contradiction or having to take away or to edit.

An exception clause can refer to something closely associated to what is being discussed especially if the same terms apply to both situations.
Jesus is saying in 5:32 that If a man divorces his wife, unless of course it is a betrothed (unmarried) "wife" on account of her fornication as was understood in their culture, he causes her to commit adultery. Obviously, the wife being caused to commit adultery is a married wife. So the exception is a quick reference to a side point as a way of saying that unless a man divorces his wife before he marries her, he can't divorce her. All post marital divorces from any lawfuly married spouse are illegal by the NT standard.
That is what Mark Luke and 1 Cor. 7:39 are declaring.
That is why remarrige is adultery according to Jesus. Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of their hearts. The NT has a higher standard based on Gen. 2 and not on a provision suffered by Moses to deal with their unregenerated state.

Alaska
Feb 14th 2008, 01:57 AM
Of course Jesus changed some of the OT law.
There are commandments in the OT that tell people to swear.
The NT commands us to not swear at all.

In Matthew 5 Jesus is in effect saying that they shouldn't see his changing of some of the OT things as a destroying of the law but rather as a fulfilment of it.
Also there are commandments in the OT that relate to polygamy. Those declaring that nothing has been changed would appear to be endorsing polygamy.

Then some will say, well he didn't change it, he fulfilled it.
OK, but isn't it true that the fulfillment means that we in the NT don't do some things as were done in the OT?
In fact, if we were to declare some OT things as obligation now, what was obligation then, and say, this is what God wants now, we would rightly be called false teachers.
Circumcision for example.

ViolaSnapdragon
Feb 14th 2008, 03:08 AM
An exception clause can refer to something closely associated to what is being discussed especially if the same terms apply to both situations.
Jesus is saying in 5:32 that If a man divorces his wife, unless of course it is a betrothed (unmarried) "wife" on account of her fornication as was understood in their culture, he causes her to commit adultery. Obviously, the wife being caused to commit adultery is a married wife. So the exception is a quick reference to a side point as a way of saying that unless a man divorces his wife before he marries her, he can't divorce her. All post marital divorces from any lawfuly married spouse are illegal by the NT standard.
That is what Mark Luke and 1 Cor. 7:39 are declaring.
That is why remarrige is adultery according to Jesus. Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of their hearts. The NT has a higher standard based on Gen. 2 and not on a provision suffered by Moses to deal with their unregenerated state.

What? Okay..unless a man divorces his wife before he marries her, he can't divorce her.. This really confuses me. Maybe it's because I've had a stressful day and have a slight tension headache, but I can't grasp the situation you are describing. Are you saying that Jesus is allowing broken engagements maybe?

VerticalReality
Feb 14th 2008, 03:45 AM
That is correct. In Deut. 22:23,24 we see the use of the words husband and wife to describe a couple who are not yet married, but betrothed.

This is completely false when speaking of Matthew 19, however. . .



Deuteronomy 24:1-2
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife,


Betrothed folks didn't live together, Alaska. However, in Deuteromony 24 it is clearly talking about a husband and wife who are living together as a fully married and joined couple. So, obviously once again here's another view of yours that simply doesn't add up to the Word.

VerticalReality
Feb 14th 2008, 03:54 AM
Of course Jesus changed some of the OT law.


Hebrews 9:16-22
For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

Once again, Alaska, another view of yours that doesn't hold up to the light of the Word of God. This passage of Scripture clealy states that nothing of the old could be changed or replaced without the death of the testator. Just as this passage says about Moses shedding blood to bring in the first testament, blood was also required to bring in the second. Without the death of Jesus Christ on the cross this could not come to pass. Therefore, your assertion that Jesus was changing or even doing away with things from the Old is completely and totally unbiblical. I've shown clear Scripture to prove this, so unless you have something else everyone should be able to examine the clear meaning of the Scriptures I've presented and see that you aren't interpreting things correctly here.

Alaska
Feb 15th 2008, 01:38 AM
Hi Lady,
I agree, at first it is confusing and because of our modern day unfamiliarity of what they in old time took for granted, namely, the use of the terms husband, wife, and divorce to pertain also to the betrothed situation, a horrible heresy is being promoted that slanders Christ's character.
It is declared as if proven fact that Jesus allows divorce even though in Mark 10 and Luke 16 it is very clearly stated that he absolutey does NOT allow divorce and remarriage is adultery.
Please read the OP of this thread. It will help you to understand how by getting hold of the slightly complex use of terms as was common in old time, this sets us free to be able to accept in childlike simplicity and faith the plainly spoken truths about divorce and remarriage that Jesus so plainly declared in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18.
Remarriage is adultery because the divorce does NOT dissolve the marriage.

Separation is understandable to God. Sometimes there are situations where the wisest thing is to separate from a spouse. But then there must not be a remarriage until one of the parties is dead. Paul referred to this in 1 Cor. 7. And separation and divorce are different. It is required to lie against God in the process of divorce because a person getting a divorce is understood thereby to be declaring that they are no longer one flesh with the spouse they are divorcing which is a lie and a denial of Christ's teaching. Only death terminates the status of being husband and wife after a couple have become lawfully married.

The following is a previous post showing that although Jesus was in fact addressing the post marital divorce (Matt. 5:31) and NOT the divorce for fornication (exemplified in what Joseph was about to do to Mary), the exception clause in Matt. 5:32 nevertheless is a quick side reference to the divorce for fornication as a way of making the point that unless a man divorces wife for fornication, which was a premarital divorce, he cannot divorce her. The exception clause is a reinforcement of the prohibition on divorce and not a major concession to divorce. That is why Mark and Luke could make no reference to it and make Jesus appear to be prohibiting divorce no matter what. That is because that is exactly what he did.


The following is to show that an exception clause can pertain to something closely associated to what is being addressed and not to the main point under discussion. In Matt. 5:31 The main point under discussion is divorce as it pertained to sending the wife out of the man's house as was the context of Dt. 24:1-4 which is what Matt. 5:31refers to. The next verse which possesses the exception clause, 5:32, continues in the same vein addressing the post marital divorce. [The Hebrew culture had a premarital divorce as is exemplified in what Joseph was about to do with Mary]. However, it can be seen that the exception clause in 5:32 can be understood to pertain to a closely associated aspect of what is under discussion, namely, the premarital divorce exercised in their culture.

The way that language works, it can be seen in the following grammatical parallel that an exception clause can indeed pertain to a closely associated aspect of what is being addressed.

Workers in an agricultural setting have two separate water irrigation gateways off of the same canal leading to a field which produces a cash crop. This canal is fed by a reservoir one mile away. In the winter months, the reservoir can get too high and to avoid it spilling over its embankments, the canal is filled by the reservoir and the first of the two gates off of the canal is opened so that the excess water can be drained off into the field which at that time is not planted. This procedure of emptying the reservoir is called diversion. Although irrigating during the months when the crop is growing is also a diverting of water from the same canal and could also be called a diversion, it is preferred to be called irrigation which specifies a certain type of diversion from the canal.
The word "irrigation" indicates that the diversion of water off of the canal is during the growing season and that it is from the second water gateway off of the canal.
"Diversion" indicates that the diversion is during the winter when the crop is not growing and that it is from the first water gateway off of the canal.

For the purpose of showing how language works with regard to how an exception clause can be applied or inserted into a statement, focus should be placed only on the first water gateway in the following scenario:

There is a disagreement among the workers. Some want to use the first gateway, which is used for diversion, for irrigating the growing crop since both gateways empty water into the same field. A big discussion takes place and goes on for more than an hour. Some are in favor of using the diversion gate to irrigate the crop and some oppose the idea.
Finally the old hired hand who knows more about the two gates than anyone else, shows up on the scene. He knows that the first gate used for diversion allows an uncontrollably large amount of water that will damage some of the crops. He makes the men stop arguing and delivers this message:
Whoever opens that gate, saving for diversion, causes damage to the crop: and whosoever assists in the opening of that gate will also be held responsible for the damage caused.

The discussion is not at all about using that gate for diversion, it is about using it to irrigate. Yet an exception clause, pertaining to diversion is inserted into his statement!
There is an acceptable use of that gate, for diversion, which though not the point of discussion, is made reference to as a means to indicate what is not allowed.
Using that gate for diversion is allowable. Using that gate for irrigation is not allowed.

Jesus said,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

It can be understood that, like the example above, what is allowable,for the cause of fornication, is made reference to as a way to indicate what is not allowed. Like the example: reference is made to what is allowable, to indicate what is not allowed. In both cases it can be said that what the exception refers to was not the point of the discussion. Though Jesus is not addressing the well known premarital divorce for fornication, exemplified in what Joseph was about to do with Mary in Matthew 1, He nevertheless, in His exception clause, refers to that type of divorce which is allowable as a means to indicate what is not allowed.
Divorce for fornication (divorce before marriage) is allowable.
Divorce from a joined lawfully married wife is not allowed.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

VerticalReality
Feb 15th 2008, 04:11 AM
So, by Alaska's silence on the Scriptures presented we can conclude that he has conceded and it is, in fact, established that 1) Jesus Christ did not come and change the law as Alaska has proclaimed against the Scriptures (Hebrews 9:16-22), and 2) in Matthew 19 Jesus Christ is addressing a passage of Scripture of the law that the Pharisees questioned Him about (Deuteronomy 24:1), and this passage is, in fact, dealing not with a betrothed man and woman but a fully married couple who are living together as husband and wife (or one flesh). Furthermore, Alaska claims that passages such as Romans 7:2-3 are proof text that divorce was abolished by Jesus when, in fact, Romans 7 is addressing the old law . . . not some new law. This is evident in verse 7 when Paul states that he would not have known not to covet unless God's law told him so, which is not some new law but from the original law that God gave to Moses . . . not some changed new law that Jesus Christ brought about. Once again, the Scriptures prove that Jesus did not come to change the law or bring about a new law. Alaska has failed to explain the fact that the old law both spoke against divorce but also allowed it at the same time due to the hardness of heart.

Requests to provide Scriptures illustrating his claims have gone ignored, which should inform everyone here just how unbiblical this OP's teaching really is. There's so many holes in it that do not align with Scripture it's a travesty such a thing is still going on. What's even more absurd is the repeated comments by Alaska accusing others of "heresy" and being "adulterers" twisting the Scriptures when his own teaching has been proven inconsistent and erroneous when taking into account the entirety of the Word.

Therefore, I can only conclude that such a teaching is really just an attempt to bring condemnation on those who have not always lived perfect lives, which would also explain why the OP continuously bumps this thread without adding anything new or constructive to it. Its only purpose is to try and condemn those who are currently living with a failed marriage. The saddest part is that I doubt the hypocrisy will be recognized.

drew
Feb 15th 2008, 09:23 PM
If I am not mistaken, no one who believes that the divorce teaching has no unstated exceptions (the adultery "exception" is a stated exception) has responded to my argument as per post 166 that Christ Himself condones the breaking of God's own Law in certain circumstances (that argument was based on Matthew 12). I suggest that you need to deal with argument if your case is to survive in the eyes of the reader who is open to all possibilities.

Alaska
Feb 18th 2008, 03:06 AM
Another point that may be used to object that Mark 10 means exactly what it says and to claim that the exception cannot pertain to the betrothed situation is the claim that if the exception was in fact a side point interjected as a means to emphasise prohibition instead of allowance, then Jesus would have been saying in effect that if a man divorced his betrothed wife on grounds other than fornication (premarital sex), he would then be causing her to commit adultery. It is therefore assumed that it does not make sense.
However, this can be shown to be faulty reasoning by creating another hypothetical grammatical parallel that would show that since it is a side point and not the main point of discussion, extrapolating it out to that extent of conclusion is unreasonable and defeats the main purpose of the exception clause.

For example, If I say: "Whoever opens that door, saving during office hours, causes the alarm to go off", the exception clause there is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all situations imaginable where the door may be opened and not cause the alarm to go off. During office hours would be the generally understood main scenario where the alarm would not go off if opened at that time.
The above is parallel to 5:32 because it has something done and what is caused by that action with an exception inserted in between the clauses; as we find in 5:32.
Therefore if it is agreed that the above parallel statement is a reasonable statement to make, let's say after installing an alarm that would be activated after working hours, then it should also be agreed that certain things said about that reasonable parallel statement are in fact unreasonable.
Such as: The above statement in bold font is not a true statement because what if during the weekend, which is not during office hours, someone needs to do maintenance on the door at which time they would of course turn the alarm system off before they start to work and open the door. The door would therefore be opened without the alarm going off making the statement above in bold font an incorrect and false statement.

To say that the exception clause cannot pertain to betrothal because a termination of a betrothal for something other than for fornication is causing the wife to commit adultery, is just as ridiculous as saying that the above statement in bold font is an unreasonable statement.

Because the exception is a side point and not the main point of the discussion, it was not intended as an exhaustive list, but rather as the generally understood reason how a man can terminate an engagement.
Like the generally understood time of opening that would cause the alarm to go off.

The effect and purpose of the exception in 5:32 is to say that unless a man divorces his wife before he marries her he cannot divorce her.
The effect in 19:9 is to cover all bases. He is not going to the extent in his prohibition of a man divorcing his wife as to include the Mary/Joseph type of divorce which was called a divorce for fornication. Remember, they were regarded as husband and wife in betrothal; what we would call "husband and wife to be."
Of course that type of divorce is allowable because it does not put asunder what has been joined together because it is a termination of an engagement situation and not a joined in marriage situation, the latter we understand by Jesus' own words is not to be done by any man.
"Let not man put asunder."

VerticalReality
Feb 18th 2008, 04:23 AM
Another point that may be used to object that Mark 10 means exactly what it says and to claim that the exception cannot pertain to the betrothed situation is the claim that if the exception was in fact a side point interjected as a means to emphasise prohibition instead of allowance, then Jesus would have been saying in effect that if a man divorced his betrothed wife on grounds other than fornication (premarital sex), he would then be causing her to commit adultery. It is therefore assumed that it does not make sense.
However, this can be shown to be faulty reasoning by creating another hypothetical grammatical parallel that would show that since it is a side point and not the main point of discussion, extrapolating it out to that extent of conclusion is unreasonable and defeats the main purpose of the exception clause.

For example, If I say: "Whoever opens that door, saving during office hours, causes the alarm to go off", the exception clause there is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all situations imaginable where the door may be opened and not cause the alarm to go off. During office hours would be the generally understood main scenario where the alarm would not go off if opened at that time.
The above is parallel to 5:32 because it has something done and what is caused by that action with an exception inserted in between the clauses; as we find in 5:32.
Therefore if it is agreed that the above parallel statement is a reasonable statement to make, let's say after installing an alarm that would be activated after working hours, then it should also be agreed that certain things said about that reasonable parallel statement are in fact unreasonable.
Such as: The above statement in bold font is not a true statement because what if during the weekend, which is not during office hours, someone needs to do maintenance on the door at which time they would of course turn the alarm system off before they start to work and open the door. The door would therefore be opened without the alarm going off making the statement above in bold font an incorrect and false statement.

To say that the exception clause cannot pertain to betrothal because a termination of a betrothal for something other than for fornication is causing the wife to commit adultery, is just as ridiculous as saying that the above statement in bold font is an unreasonable statement.

Because the exception is a side point and not the main point of the discussion, it was not intended as an exhaustive list, but rather as the generally understood reason how a man can terminate an engagement.
Like the generally understood time of opening that would cause the alarm to go off.

The effect and purpose of the exception in 5:32 is to say that unless a man divorces his wife before he marries her he cannot divorce her.
The effect in 19:9 is to cover all bases. He is not going to the extent in his prohibition of a man divorcing his wife as to include the Mary/Joseph type of divorce which was called a divorce for fornication. Remember, they were regarded as husband and wife in betrothal; what we would call "husband and wife to be."
Of course that type of divorce is allowable because it does not put asunder what has been joined together because it is a termination of an engagement situation and not a joined in marriage situation, the latter we understand by Jesus' own words is not to be done by any man.
"Let not man put asunder."

And once again, Alaska, you're arguing something that has been proven incorrect numerous times over. Deuteronomy 24:1 isn't talking about a betrothal, that has been proven with Scripture, and it is this passage of Scripture that the Pharisees are asking Jesus about in Matthew 19. You can try and throw up all this smoke screen nonsense about betrothal and so forth all you want, but that doesn't change the facts here that several Scriptures are loudly speaking out against your teaching, and you simply can't answer for that. Therefore, this makes your entire teaching faulty. Until you deal with those Scriptures, this teaching of yours simply can't be taken seriously. If you are in blatant error against the teachings of very clear Scriptures, you just aren't going to receive in credibility with this very sketchy view of yours.

drew
Feb 18th 2008, 04:05 PM
Hello Alaska:

I have made an argument that, based on Matthew 12, Jesus sometimes condones violation of even God's own "laws" - in others words, even God's own laws have unstated exceptions. I suggest that you cannot simply avoid engaging this argument - it undermines your position if it is indeed a valid argument. The reader who is coming here with an open mind will probably notice the fact that you have not engaged this argument. Rightly or wrongly, they may well conclude that you have no counter-argument. Needless to say, such a conclusion on their part does not help your cause in the least.

And I believe that you have also not responded to the following argument of mine:


I have been arguing that Jesus' teaching on divorce may have unstated exceptions based on the precedent of Matthew 12. I want to turn to anoyher place where Jesus teaches on divorce - the sermon on the mount material in Matthew 5.

Among other things, Jesus says these things in that teaching:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.

Jesus then gives his teaching on divorce.

Do you believe that Jesus is really asking us to gouge out our eyes? I am going to assume you will answer "no". My follow-on question would then be: On precisely what grounds do you discriminate between the instruction to "gouge" and the instruction to not divorce / remarry, taking one as an exaggerated metaphor not to be literally obeyed (the gouging stuff) and the other as a clear prescriptive, exceptionless "rule" that is indeed to be obeyed "as is"?

It would seem that one needs to treat these either both "as is" or admit that there is a form of literary exaggeration going on for both.

I think it will be really quite challenging to provide a solid basis for not strictly obeying the gouging rule on the one hand, while insisting on strict literal application of the divorce prohibition.

Of course, you may take the position that we should indeed "gouge" our eyes when we look with lust. You would be consistent if you did this, I certainly will admit.

threebigrocks
Feb 18th 2008, 05:37 PM
What is marriage symbolic of? Husband and wife, spirit and flesh, husband the covering for his wife.

It is Christ and the church. Christ as the husband and the church his bride. What ought our marriages look like? What happens if we divorce ourselves from God and go to our own ways after knowing Him in an intimate way?

We are thinking way too hard on this. If your spouse sins in adultery, make amends. If amends cannot be made you may divorce and then able to remarry.

Same as if an unbelieving spouse walks away. We are free from them because they choose to divorce, if the believing spouse wishes to.

Any other reason to move onto another relationship is sin. If a woman is being abused and she leaves which she ought to, she must remain faithful to her husband unless he is an unbeliever and HE chooses to leave. Until then, the woman must be obedient to her covenant of marriage.

Are we not to count the costs of what we build before we begin building? We take marriage way too lightly in our society.

Christ will not marry someone who walks away, nor an adulterous wife.

drew
Feb 18th 2008, 06:11 PM
Any other reason to move onto another relationship is sin.
As is often the case, these discussions end in stalemates. In posts 166, 167, 170, and 172, I have argued that Jesus shows us that even God's laws have unstated exceptions. If this argument succeeds, then there are may be exceptions over and above the 'adultery' and 'unbelieving spouse who deserts you' exceptions you have identified. You did respond to these arguments, although with arguments that I think were demonstrably incorrect. Now this is where the stalemate comes - you think your counterargument was valid, I think it was not. I am not sure that we can make much progress we can expect to make. I suppose the best thing we can do is to simply put the arguments out there and hope that everyone is willing to examine them and change their mind if that is what the scriptural evidence demands.

How about my post 182 (reproduced in my latest post). You have not responded to that particular argument.

threebigrocks
Feb 18th 2008, 06:18 PM
As is often the case, these discussions end in stalemates. In posts 166, 167, 170, and 172, I have argued that Jesus shows us that even God's laws have unstated exceptions. If this argument succeeds, then there are may be exceptions over and above the 'adultery' and 'unbelieving spouse who deserts you' exceptions you have identified. You did respond to these arguments, although with arguments that I think were demonstrably incorrect. Now this is where the stalemate comes - you think your counterargument was valid, I think it was not. I am not sure that we can make much progress we can expect to make. I suppose the best thing we can do is to simply put the arguments out there and hope that everyone is willing to examine them and change their mind if that is what the scriptural evidence demands.

How about my post 182 (reproduced in my latest post). You have not responded to that particular argument.

There are no other exceptions. It doesn't matter what we think - but if it holds up to scripture. We can agrue this till the cows come home but until we rightly divide scripture and take it for what it is you are correct - there will be stalemate. There is purity of the gospel if we are motivated to find it.

Drew, why do you find it so hard to accept the teaching on divorce?

VerticalReality
Feb 18th 2008, 06:28 PM
As I've already stated here, my problem here with Alaska's view is not about believers divorcing. I honestly do not believe that Scripture allows for the divorce of Christians. I believe Paul gives the clear instruction to believers that if they depart from their spouse, they are to remain unmarried or patch things up with their spouse. That is Scripture. However, the argument being made by myself is Alaska's attempt to state that anyone, including unbelievers, who divorce and remarry are living in a constant state of adultery and must leave their current spouse and return to their first husband/wife. I don't believe the Scriptures support this. Now, I will say that I can see this teaching in regards to believers. If a believer divorces his/her spouse and goes off and marries someone else, then I believe they are in clear disobedience to the Word. However, if an unbeliever divorces his/her spouse and remarries, I don't believe the Scriptures address such a situation. Now, it addresses this in regards to an unbeliever leaving a believer. Paul makes it clear that the believer should simply let the unbeliever depart, and the believer is no longer in bondage to that marriage in such a case. I believe that then this believer is free to remarry and is no longer bound to that unbeliever. However, Alaska's teaching here is that this believer is still bound to this unbeliever, and if they remarry someone else, even if that someone else is a Christian, this person is living in constant adultery and must leave this believer and try to return to the unbeliever or stay single. I do not believe that this teaching is Scriptural, and Alaska has made every effort to dodge the challenge presented to him. He has been presented with clear Scriptures refuting his position, and he has continued teaching this nonsense even though it has been addressed with Scripture as being false. That's my issue here, and the issue still remains. I will continue countering Alaska's false teaching here because quite frankly I believe it's just a means to condemn other folks on faulty grounds.

drew
Feb 18th 2008, 06:50 PM
Drew, why do you find it so hard to accept the teaching on divorce?
Because I think it is clear from Matthew 12 and 22 that Jesus is telling us an important principle - that we always need to be aware of the fact that even God's "rules" - including the teaching on divorce (even with its stated exceptions) should properly be understood as principles and not as "exceptionless" rules. In Matthew 22, I see Jesus as saying that the highest consideration of all is "love God and love your neighbour as yourself". Sometimes the application of this principle will indeed make it necessary for us to go against what God Himself has expressed as a "law" without exception. The sabbath law says no work on the sabbath. It does not give exceptions.

Yet in Matthew 12, we see that there are indeed exceptions. Jesus could not be clearer about this - it is lawful to violate the command to not work if such work involves doing good.

I am going to state something that I suspect almost everyone will disagree with: the complexity and richness of the world that God has created simply makes it impossible, even for God, to give us a set of "exceptionless" rules that collectively realize the goal that underlies the law - love God and love your neighbour.

People have a very hard time with this notion, even though I think it is indeed scriptural. People want things to be simple - we want a formulaic set of rules from God (perhaps some with exceptions) that we then take to be rock-solid and without further exception. I think it is clear that this is naive and cannot be squared with the concept the 2 great commandments that Jesus says undergird the law.

But I am only following Jesus himself. Two times in Matthew 12, he vindicates people who clearly break God' exceptionless laws - the Sabbath Law and the showbread law.

So I turn your question around and ask you:

"Why do you find it so hard to accept Jesus' teaching that even God's laws have exceptions over and above any that are otherwise provided in the Scriptures"?

And you still have not addressed post 182. Do you teach that if someone's right eye causes them to sin, that they gouge it out? This teaching is right before a teaching on divorce. Assuming that you would not counsel someone to guoge out their eye, I would ask you: Why o ypu find it hard to accept the teaching that the sinning eye should be gouged out? Why are you not up in arms over the blatant absence of any eye-gouging in the church when clearly there are many who repeatedly sin with their eye?

This is God's "plain teaching" - if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge that sucker out. Yet none of us, in our right mind anyway, would do it. Why? I suggest that that because, even though it is a prescriptive teaching from God, just like the divorce teaching - we know that to gouge would be not to "love others as yourself" as per the 2 great commandments "on which all the Law hangs". So we rightly recognize that Jesus is not giving us a "prescriptive" rule.

This is the very real problem with your position - you selectively decide to take Jesus literally in respect to the divorce matter and yet (presumably) you do not in respect to the gouging teaching.

Alaska
Feb 20th 2008, 01:37 AM
Drew,
The Sabbath Law and the shewbread law were never intended to be moral absolutes. In fact in the NT neither are a commandment that needs to be observed.
I believe that by realizing the difference between moral absolutes and laws that are not now current in the NT, you may be able to understand more clearly.
For example, even though there are laws in the OT commanding as it were to swear, Jesus and James both speak very strongly against swearing now. That is an example of a law from the old that has been put aside and replaced with an absolute. Under no circumstances are we to swear by the higher standard of the NT.
Also under the NT, killing someone is prohibited for any reason imaginable. We are to love our enemies under the NT dispensation.
Recompence to no man evil for evil. Vengence belongs to the Lord. We are not, under the NT, to take such matters as violence against the wicked into our own hands but commit it to God's promise to judge righteously.

So swearing and killing are 2 examples of NT laws that have no exceptions.
By Mark 10:2-12 we also see that divorce and remarriage are prohibited while the first and lawful spouse are still alive. Jesus plainly taught:
Whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.
By misunderstanding the exception clause in 19:9 to mean that a man may in fact divorce his wife is making Jesus to contradict himself.
Jesus also said "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder". Again presuming that the complexity of the verses possessing the exception clauses is an allowance for a man to actually divorce his married wife makes Jesus to contradict himself.
Jesus also said that from the beginning, divorce was not so, clearly indicating that it is not so now under His new covenant.

The two places in Matthew having the exception clauses are complicated verses unless someone applies the ancient cultural scenario of the premarital divorce wherein the betrothed were called husband and wife and there existed a "divorce for fornication" that a husband would do to his "wife". It was simply a termination of an engagement situation. Joseph was going to do this to Mary because he thought she had fornicated. Joseph was about to divorce his wife for fornication while as yet they were both still single.
Applying this to the complicated verses with the exception clauses allows a lover of truth to accept in childlike faith the uncomplicated verses in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 where it is very plainly written that divorce and remarriage is in fact adultery, indicating that the people who are divorced are still married in God's eyes and that is why their marriage to someone else is adultery.
By opening a door for divorce and remarriage because of adultery, it also makes Jesus unfair and unreasonable because there will always be a greater sin than adultery. The man would be allowed to divorce for adultery but not for something much worse! It gets real messy.
No mess with Jesus. No divorce. Marriage is sacred. Forgiveness is required, not the presumption that it is alright to not forgive an adulterous wife.
That is a main reason why I believe allowing divorce slanders Christ's character. He does not make forgiveness optional in the case of adultery.

VerticalReality
Feb 20th 2008, 02:19 AM
And there you go again, Alaska, in direct conflict with Scripture. Jesus did not change any law, and the Scriptures back this fact. For you to teach otherwise is absolute heresy. You still have not addressed this Scripture that clearly indicates that Jesus was not changing law in Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 or anywhere else . . .



Hebrews 9:16-22
For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.


You can absolutely count on the fact that if you continue to teach heresy I'm going to be right behind you to correct your error. I'm not going to allow you to lead others astray with false teachings. So, either address the clear Scriptures presented that absolutely refute your false claims or let this nonsense go. Choice is yours, but folks should be able to see the clear Scripture presented and know that you are not teaching Scripture. Again, Scripture makes it absolutely certain that no law was changed by Jesus in Matthew 5, Matthew 19 or Mark 10. The only way for the old covenant to be brought to an end was for Jesus Christ to go to the cross. Before that happened absolutely nothing could change. That is Scripture, Alaska. Either address it or stop teaching others falsely.

Joe King
Feb 20th 2008, 02:42 AM
Thanks for pointing out which scripture deals with the divorce issue. It's important to know that it's in the new testament. I hear people using the that was in the old days for them. I can't see divorce as "right" in any age.

VerticalReality
Feb 20th 2008, 02:48 AM
Thanks for pointing out which scripture deals with the divorce issue. It's important to know that it's in the new testament. I hear people using the that was in the old days for them. I can't see divorce as "right" in any age.

True. Make no mistake about it. Divorce is never "right".

drew
Feb 20th 2008, 04:23 AM
The Sabbath Law and the shewbread law were never intended to be moral absolutes. In fact in the NT neither are a commandment that needs to be observed.
It does not matter how you sort God's laws into different categories. The simple facts are these:

1. God gave a "law" forbidding work on the Sabbath - no exceptions were provided.

2. God gave a law that the shewbread was only for the priests - again no stated exceptions.

3. Jesus condones violation of both these rules.

Unless Jesus is sinning when He does this, these 2 laws, which are God's laws, must have unstated exceptions. I can see no other way to work this out. Whether you call these moral laws or not is beside the point - they are laws without stated exceptions and they are from God.

I doubt that one will be able to find scriptural grounds to defend what I think you are saying - that the Sabbath Law and the shewbread are somehow "more flexible" than the divorce teaching because the latter is a "moral" law and the former are not. What is the basis for such a categorical distinction?

They are all God's stated laws for us. I see no grounds to see the divorce teaching as exceptionless given that we know the Sabbath and shewbread laws are not exceptionless, by Jesus' own clear teaching.

Alaska
Feb 21st 2008, 03:47 AM
Thanks for pointing out which scripture deals with the divorce issue. It's important to know that it's in the new testament. I hear people using the that was in the old days for them. I can't see divorce as "right" in any age.


Your are right Joe. People who use the old testament allowance for divorce don't seem to understand that Jesus brought a new covenant. A covenant of forgiveness. A man should forgive his wife, not divorce her. In fact the only reason why divorce was allowed was because of the hardness of their hearts. The NT tells us that we should be tenderhearted, forgiving one another. Hardness of hearts is not allowed now in God's new covenant.
Jesus commented on Gen. 2 revealing what it always meant, which shows that Deut. 24 that Moses wrote to allow divorce was never right. It was suffered because of the hardness of their hearts, They were going to do it anyway not having the regeneration of the new birth in Christ. So it was there to regulate the evil. Like Paul said, the law is not of faith, it was for the survival of the nation and order until Jesus came and brought the truth.
The law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus.
We were shut up unto the faith until Jesus came and revealed among many other things that the provision for divorce in Dt. 24 was only temporarily allowed by the OT until Jesus came and revealed that it was never right since it contradicts the real meaning of marriage found in Gen. 2.
The purpose of this thread was to glory in the simplicity and greatness of truth on the marriage topic as revealed by Jesus in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke16:18. So an explanation is provided for the exception clause (found in Matthew) that does not at all contradict the plain easy to understand meaning of those verses in Mark and Luke.
We can be confident that the plain meaning of Mark and Luke is the absolute truth on the subject. 1 Cor. 7:39 also very strongly supports those easily understood verses.
Joe, if you go to the OP of this thread, there is a document to help you stand firm on your understanding that divorce, (as many Christians think that Jesus allows it) is not right and not permitted in the NT.
Whoever divorces and remarries commits adultery. It is the remarriage that constitutes adultery though the divorce in itself is also a sin against God.

drew
Feb 21st 2008, 06:12 PM
Greetings all:

In my opinion, we have yet to see a reasonable counterargument to the position that Matthew 12 shows, through Jesus' own words, that even God's laws have unstated "exceptions" (over and above any that are explicitly provided). Jesus condones the breaking of the Sabbath law and He condones the breaking of the showbread law. Both of these laws originate with God and have no stated exceptions.

It has been argued that the divorce teaching is somehow in a different category than the shewbread and the Sabbath laws: "The Sabbath Law and the shewbread law were never intended to be moral absolutes." The reader will need to be given a reason for this categorical distinction - a reason to believe that "some of God's laws have exceptions (as per Matthew 12) and some do not.

To take seriously what Jesus is saying in Matthew 12 is in no way to flout God's law or give license for us to weasel our way out of obeying them. Instead, I suggest, that the reality is that the complexity of the world that God has created simply does not let anyone, even God himself, specify a set of exceptionless "rules" to govern human behaviour. I suspect that it is the case that sufficiently rich and complex systems simply do not allow for the specification of a set of "rules".

But such "philosophical" considerations aside, I think that one cannot avoid concluding from Matthew 12 that even God's laws have unstated exceptions. And we have yet to see any reason why the divorce teaching (whether or not one buys the "except for adultery" clause) are any different.

Besides, no one has yet addressed why we take the divorce teaching as prescriptive and exceptionless and entirely ignore the instruction to gouge out one's eye if it causes one to sin. These teachings appear one after the other. If we take the divorce teaching as literal and exceptionless, why not the "gouging" instruction?

Firstfruits
Feb 22nd 2008, 02:13 PM
[quote=Alaska;1419940]There are many who read Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 (verses which appear to be clearly prohibiting divorce and remarriage for anything) and they would like to believe that viewpoint because in their conscience that seems how it should be. 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.
It is said that apologetics is a patient work. In defense of this view that "til death do us part" is in fact an accurate reflection of what the NT teaches, I ask your patience while you read this document. It will be a source of strength and Biblical confirmation to those who believe as I do and it may be a cause for reconsideration for those who believe that the NT does in fact allow divorce.
I am the author of the attached article. I invite those who desire to do so, to copy and distribute for discussion and consideration. The following is about one half of the document.




With regards to the following what is the difference between fornication and adultery?

Mt 5:32 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mt 15:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mt 19:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Firstfruits

Alaska
Feb 23rd 2008, 08:12 PM
Besides the two verses containing the exception clause there are 4 other verses in the NT that list the word adultery along with fornication.
The word adultery is a specific kind of sexual immorality; it violates a marriage. For example, if two unmarried single young people have sex it cannot be called adultery because no ones marriage is being violated by the sin.
The single word for the premarital sexual sin is fornication, even though that word can also be used to describe sexual immorality in general. Like other words with more than one definition, the context determines the definition.
In the case of 5:32 and 19:9 the context possesses the necessary elements to warrant the definition of fornication there to mean the premarital sexual sin in light of the facts that, 1) in their 1st century culture they had what could be rightly called a divorce for fornication as exemplified in what we see Joseph about to do with Mary, and, 2) 'fornication' is listed along side of the word adultery showing difference between the two words, and 3) If Jesus did in fact allow a post marital divorce for sexual immorality, the word adultery would have more accurately described the sin, to the extent there would be no debate if that word had in fact been used.

In the pagan culture we live in, fornication, (premarital sex that doesn't violate any ones marriage) is seen by many as acceptable. Why? because it doesn't violate a marriage. It is a private matter between the two parties and is considered their choice and right as single people.
It makes sense for the Holy Spirit to distinguish between the post marital and premarital sexual immorality and it makes sense that there is a single word for each differing sin: fornication to identify the premarital sin and adultery to identify the greater sin whereby a marriage is being violated.

But again, the word fornication is understood in some contexts to apply to sexual immorality in general including adultery. However, in places where fornication is listed next to adultery, we could naturally associate fornication to the time scale of before marriage since by definition the word adultery denotes a time when that sin is committed: after marriage.

Extortion can be understood to be a form of theft. However we see the two listed together. The one a general term and the other a specific. The difference between the words adultery and fornication is that though like the words above, (adultery is a specific kind of fornication,) the word fornication also possesses a specific definition denoting what is done by unmarried single people wherein no ones marriage is being violated, which definition should be allowed to be brought into consideration when the context allows it.

By allowing that definition in 5:32 and 19: and seeing how it frees up Mark 10 and Luke 16 to remain self explanatory and unedited, it is a marvel that so many are resistant to that consideration. Could it be that they will not come to the light lest their deeds will be reproved; that a convenient loophole has been closed thereby, which is offensive to the works of the flesh?

Mark 10 and Luke 16:18 stand firm. The exception clause does not contradict those foundational verses as the proponents of divorce in effect are forced by their doctrine to adamantly assert.

Firstfruits
Feb 24th 2008, 01:38 PM
Besides the two verses containing the exception clause there are 4 other verses in the NT that list the word adultery along with fornication.
The word adultery is a specific kind of sexual immorality; it violates a marriage. For example, if two unmarried single young people have sex it cannot be called adultery because no ones marriage is being violated by the sin.
The single word for the premarital sexual sin is fornication, even though that word can also be used to describe sexual immorality in general. Like other words with more than one definition, the context determines the definition.
In the case of 5:32 and 19:9 the context possesses the necessary elements to warrant the definition of fornication there to mean the premarital sexual sin in light of the facts that, 1) in their 1st century culture they had what could be rightly called a divorce for fornication as exemplified in what we see Joseph about to do with Mary, and, 2) 'fornication' is listed along side of the word adultery showing difference between the two words, and 3) If Jesus did in fact allow a post marital divorce for sexual immorality, the word adultery would have more accurately described the sin, to the extent there would be no debate if that word had in fact been used.

In the pagan culture we live in, fornication, (premarital sex that doesn't violate any ones marriage) is seen by many as acceptable. Why? because it doesn't violate a marriage. It is a private matter between the two parties and is considered their choice and right as single people.
It makes sense for the Holy Spirit to distinguish between the post marital and premarital sexual immorality and it makes sense that there is a single word for each differing sin: fornication to identify the premarital sin and adultery to identify the greater sin whereby a marriage is being violated.

But again, the word fornication is understood in some contexts to apply to sexual immorality in general including adultery. However, in places where fornication is listed next to adultery, we could naturally associate fornication to the time scale of before marriage since by definition the word adultery denotes a time when that sin is committed: after marriage.

Extortion can be understood to be a form of theft. However we see the two listed together. The one a general term and the other a specific. The difference between the words adultery and fornication is that though like the words above, (adultery is a specific kind of fornication,) the word fornication also possesses a specific definition denoting what is done by unmarried single people wherein no ones marriage is being violated, which definition should be allowed to be brought into consideration when the context allows it.

By allowing that definition in 5:32 and 19: and seeing how it frees up Mark 10 and Luke 16 to remain self explanatory and unedited, it is a marvel that so many are resistant to that consideration. Could it be that they will not come to the light lest their deeds will be reproved; that a convenient loophole has been closed thereby, which is offensive to the works of the flesh?

Mark 10 and Luke 16:18 stand firm. The exception clause does not contradict those foundational verses as the proponents of divorce in effect are forced by their doctrine to adamantly assert.

The fact that Jesus used fornication when speaking about divorce doesn't that mean that in this case it is applied to a wife/husband/marriage?

Mt 19:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Alaska
Feb 25th 2008, 02:06 AM
That is the crux of the misunderstanding. Until someone can grasp that the terms husband and wife and divorce were terms that in ancient time pertained to both the married as well as the betrothed state, it will be seen as a matter of absolue certainty that the exception clause can ONLY pertain to the adultery of the married wife and not the fornication of the betrothed wife.

I have repeatedly made reference to the function of language wherein an exception clause that is closely associated to what is being spoken on, can be inserted without any hangup in the flow or understanding of the sentence.
A person being unaware of how language can work; that an exception clause can be referring to something closely associated and not to the main point of discussion is the other main stumbling block behind such a person not being able to perceive that the exception clause can refer to a separate situation than that of divorcing the married wife.

Examples of real life situations have also been made to show that an exception clause can in very deed "jump" to a closely associated aspect of what is being addressed and in the very next clause in the same sentence can jump right back without any hitch of flow or understanding because of the close association both situations share and the commonly held understanding held by the hearers of such a sentence.
You probably have made such a sentence at some time in your life and thought nothing of it.

Matt.5:32 and 19 :9 are not simple to understand passages. Where there is complexity, let us allow for an explanation also possessing complexity. We can leave the complexity where it belongs.
Alternatively, we can assume that the misunderstanding of the complex has to redo the simple and easy to understand passages. And that is the error made by most modern Evangelicals.
Mark 10 in its straightforward simplicity is not allowed to speak for itself. Neither is Luke 16:18. Neither is 1 Cor. 7:39.
By keeping a slightly complicated explanation where it belongs, with the slightly complicated verses, the above named easily understood verses are allowed without any reservation to speak for themselves wherein they declare the extreme simplicity that is in Christ with regards to this extremely important understanding.

Any divorce from a lawful spouse followed by a remarriage is adultery. Whoever marries the divorced also commits adultery. The husband and wife are bound to one another as husband and wife for as long as they both live. Only when one dies does the other have the liberty to marry again and it is then not adultery.

moonglow
Feb 25th 2008, 04:11 AM
True. Make no mistake about it. Divorce is never "right".

Never? Never ever right? Even when the husband is beating the wife and kids? Out committing adultery with other women or even other men? Not even when he gives his wife HIV, or AIDS?

This is a very long thread and I am sure this has been covered before on here...someone can link me to that post I guess. We do have abused ex-wives on here, me included. I was not saved when I married. I believed in God, but I was very much a luke warm Christians. I was not born again..not until after the divorce. My son and I lived through hell. The emotional damage he went through has taken years for him to get well enough to be able to function mostly like other children. He is not totally well though. I have no idea how many women my ex was messing with.

I would never ever tell a woman (or man) to stay with someone abusing them, especially if children are involved. I won't tell them to get a divorce but for their safety to move out. The church has really fallen on its face in not supporting abused spouses...they tell the woman to stay...sometimes she and the children end up dead. They make it sound like being beaten to death is better then sinning against God by leaving their husband. From my understanding of the bible, this is not the unforgivable sin.

My ex filed for divorce though I had taken my son and left after he did another gone all night out drunk with a girlfriend. I have not remarried..I don't even date. I have had my hands full dealing with my son's extreme behavior problems DUE to the abuse he went through for years. We are finally starting to have some peace in this home. God is the head of my house and I never felt He was upset with me for this divorce. In fact He answered my prayers by putting ex in prison where he could no longer harass us. (the abuse doesn't stop after a divorce many times). :(

It just hurts my heart and I know other womens when we read such posts on here that comes off so cold and uncaring about our welfare...yet we are told Jesus loves us...but wants us to continue being abused? That makes no sense at all. We are told other Christians love us but expect us to stay and be abused. Makes no sense at all. Abuse isn't covered in the scriptures so everyone seems to think its ok then for the husband to abuse his wife! :B

Anyway..I am sorry I read this last page of this post. I have read it on this board and others over and over and over and its the same cold stone wall...never changes. At any rate I do not regret ending that marriage...I have no guilt about it at all. I have never felt I needed to even ask God to forgive me for the divorce...He has never put that on my heart. Maybe because I wasn't a born again Christian then...I don't know... I DO regret terribly ever marrying that man to start with...but if I hadn't I wouldn't have my son either. God knew I would mess up..and He knew Nate would need me as his mom and I would need him as my son. I don't believe in accidents in life like this. Even when we mess up...He can turn those mess up's into gold...:)

God bless

ViolaSnapdragon
Feb 25th 2008, 05:14 AM
Thank you moonglow, for saying what I wanted to say but putting it in better words than I might've managed.

Reading through some of my past posts here would show that I fought long and hard to save my first marriage despite physical and emotional abuse, porn addiction, and adultry. I prayed daily and saught numerous forms of Christian counsel but things continued to get worse. The only thing that would ever bring change is the two times I left for a week at a time, when he would call me and beg me to come home claiming he'd change, though when I think back now the begging was always laced with anger and it was more demanded that I came home. He wasn't the only one begging me to make a certain choice. My father who is a Baptist minister and spent many years in siminary schools and various Bible studies kept begging me to get a divorce and move back in with him and Mom. They feared for my life, thinking that if I didn't commit suicide that my husband would evntually lose it and kill me himself. After the second time he commited adultry, I did leave and the phone calls began. I had to spend 24 hrs at a behavioral crisis center for a suicide attempt because I finally snapped and have ben in out patient treatment ever since. Not long after I moved out, another woman was moved in and they conceived a child before the divorce was final.

While trying to heal I began to see what damage an abusive relationship does outside the relationship itself. It's not just the marriage or the battered wife that suffers. My parents and brother were a wreck and there was an insane amount of problems at home caused by the stress. I ate dinner and played games two nights a week at that time, one night with my friends and one night with my ex's friends. After I had left my friends immediately told him he as not welcome there and told me their point of view. Apparently they had been walking around on eggshells when he was there because they realized that anything they said could and would be used against me if it irritated him. One wrong word or remark, and he began putting me down and would not stop all night. It upset them greatly and they didn't know what to do or say to help without possibly pushing me away. His friends were in similar mess, knowing something was wrong but unsure of what and what to do about it. On top of it, the first woman my ex commited adultry with was the girlfriend of one of his friends. At work it was like a family environment as well as a business environment, and they were also stressed. I'd show up bruised and my boss would just "look" at me, if you know what I mean. She knew, and I knew she knew, but what was there to do?

Yes I did remarry. When I got married the first time I wasn't exactly a Christian. I had begun to believe in God but didn't really know what I should do about it. As i tried to get deeper into Christ life, my husband resented me more and more. I do not think God wanted me to be in that "legal marriage" and had something different in mind. I do believe God has blessed the marriage I am in now and I am finally where He wants me to be. You can call me whatever you wish and make all the accusations you want but it will make no difference. I have already answered to God and He is taking me where he wants me to go.

Firstfruits
Feb 25th 2008, 10:27 AM
That is the crux of the misunderstanding. Until someone can grasp that the terms husband and wife and divorce were terms that in ancient time pertained to both the married as well as the betrothed state, it will be seen as a matter of absolue certainty that the exception clause can ONLY pertain to the adultery of the married wife and not the fornication of the betrothed wife.

I have repeatedly made reference to the function of language wherein an exception clause that is closely associated to what is being spoken on, can be inserted without any hangup in the flow or understanding of the sentence.
A person being unaware of how language can work; that an exception clause can be referring to something closely associated and not to the main point of discussion is the other main stumbling block behind such a person not being able to perceive that the exception clause can refer to a separate situation than that of divorcing the married wife.

Examples of real life situations have also been made to show that an exception clause can in very deed "jump" to a closely associated aspect of what is being addressed and in the very next clause in the same sentence can jump right back without any hitch of flow or understanding because of the close association both situations share and the commonly held understanding held by the hearers of such a sentence.
You probably have made such a sentence at some time in your life and thought nothing of it.

Matt.5:32 and 19 :9 are not simple to understand passages. Where there is complexity, let us allow for an explanation also possessing complexity. We can leave the complexity where it belongs.
Alternatively, we can assume that the misunderstanding of the complex has to redo the simple and easy to understand passages. And that is the error made by most modern Evangelicals.
Mark 10 in its straightforward simplicity is not allowed to speak for itself. Neither is Luke 16:18. Neither is 1 Cor. 7:39.
By keeping a slightly complicated explanation where it belongs, with the slightly complicated verses, the above named easily understood verses are allowed without any reservation to speak for themselves wherein they declare the extreme simplicity that is in Christ with regards to this extremely important understanding.

Any divorce from a lawful spouse followed by a remarriage is adultery. Whoever marries the divorced also commits adultery. The husband and wife are bound to one another as husband and wife for as long as they both live. Only when one dies does the other have the liberty to marry again and it is then not adultery.

According to Jesus, that is unless there has been fornication.

Mt 19:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

God said thou shalt not commit adultrery, that is the command given.

God likened fornication to a wife sleeping with someone other than her husband.

29 Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied therewith.
30 How weak is thine heart, saith the LORD GOD, seeing thou doest all these things, the work of an imperious whorish woman;
31 In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire;
32 But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

As I said the offence is adultery and fornication as far as God is concerned is the same, as are other refences to sexual immoralities they are all linked to the offence adultery, no matter who commits the act.

VerticalReality
Feb 25th 2008, 02:26 PM
Never? Never ever right? Even when the husband is beating the wife and kids? Out committing adultery with other women or even other men? Not even when he gives his wife HIV, or AIDS?

This is a very long thread and I am sure this has been covered before on here...someone can link me to that post I guess. We do have abused ex-wives on here, me included. I was not saved when I married. I believed in God, but I was very much a luke warm Christians. I was not born again..not until after the divorce. My son and I lived through hell. The emotional damage he went through has taken years for him to get well enough to be able to function mostly like other children. He is not totally well though. I have no idea how many women my ex was messing with.

I would never ever tell a woman (or man) to stay with someone abusing them, especially if children are involved. I won't tell them to get a divorce but for their safety to move out. The church has really fallen on its face in not supporting abused spouses...they tell the woman to stay...sometimes she and the children end up dead. They make it sound like being beaten to death is better then sinning against God by leaving their husband. From my understanding of the bible, this is not the unforgivable sin.

My ex filed for divorce though I had taken my son and left after he did another gone all night out drunk with a girlfriend. I have not remarried..I don't even date. I have had my hands full dealing with my son's extreme behavior problems DUE to the abuse he went through for years. We are finally starting to have some peace in this home. God is the head of my house and I never felt He was upset with me for this divorce. In fact He answered my prayers by putting ex in prison where he could no longer harass us. (the abuse doesn't stop after a divorce many times). :(

It just hurts my heart and I know other womens when we read such posts on here that comes off so cold and uncaring about our welfare...yet we are told Jesus loves us...but wants us to continue being abused? That makes no sense at all. We are told other Christians love us but expect us to stay and be abused. Makes no sense at all. Abuse isn't covered in the scriptures so everyone seems to think its ok then for the husband to abuse his wife! :B

Anyway..I am sorry I read this last page of this post. I have read it on this board and others over and over and over and its the same cold stone wall...never changes. At any rate I do not regret ending that marriage...I have no guilt about it at all. I have never felt I needed to even ask God to forgive me for the divorce...He has never put that on my heart. Maybe because I wasn't a born again Christian then...I don't know... I DO regret terribly ever marrying that man to start with...but if I hadn't I wouldn't have my son either. God knew I would mess up..and He knew Nate would need me as his mom and I would need him as my son. I don't believe in accidents in life like this. Even when we mess up...He can turn those mess up's into gold...:)

God bless

Firstly, if a husband is beating and abusing his family then I have doubts that he knows the Lord to begin with, and if he does know the Lord it should be something that shouldn't last without the conviction of the Lord bringing about repentance and change at some point in time.

However, that being said, it's easy to sit back and look at things from a worldly perspective and say that if so and so is doing such and such this justifies divorce, but the fact of the matter is that the Word doesn't state the same.

The Word makes it clear that sometimes folks will have to depart from one another, and in such a case of abuse this would probably be the best thing to do. However, this still does not justify divorce or make it right. The fact of the matter is that Scripture would support the fact that the person departed should remain by themselves or attempt to reconcile with their spouse. They certainly should not go off and remarry in such a case. That's just Scripture. For example, what if you are married to a believer and this believer loses their temper or backslides for a time and begins mistreating his/her family through abuse or something along those lines. The one being abused decides to leave. They then go and divorce and marry someone else. Finally, the person in sin that was abusing his/her family repents of this sin and wants to reconcile. Well, now the one being abused has gone ahead and ended something that shouldn't have been ended. This family has now missed an opportunity at reconciliation, and this is not the example of forgiveness that the Word instructs.

Again, the Word supports that believers will depart from one another. However, the Scriptural thing to do is reconcile that marriage if possible and not go on to remarry someone else.

moonglow
Feb 25th 2008, 05:41 PM
Thank you moonglow, for saying what I wanted to say but putting it in better words than I might've managed.

Reading through some of my past posts here would show that I fought long and hard to save my first marriage despite physical and emotional abuse, porn addiction, and adultry. I prayed daily and saught numerous forms of Christian counsel but things continued to get worse. The only thing that would ever bring change is the two times I left for a week at a time, when he would call me and beg me to come home claiming he'd change, though when I think back now the begging was always laced with anger and it was more demanded that I came home. He wasn't the only one begging me to make a certain choice. My father who is a Baptist minister and spent many years in siminary schools and various Bible studies kept begging me to get a divorce and move back in with him and Mom. They feared for my life, thinking that if I didn't commit suicide that my husband would evntually lose it and kill me himself. After the second time he commited adultry, I did leave and the phone calls began. I had to spend 24 hrs at a behavioral crisis center for a suicide attempt because I finally snapped and have ben in out patient treatment ever since. Not long after I moved out, another woman was moved in and they conceived a child before the divorce was final.

While trying to heal I began to see what damage an abusive relationship does outside the relationship itself. It's not just the marriage or the battered wife that suffers. My parents and brother were a wreck and there was an insane amount of problems at home caused by the stress. I ate dinner and played games two nights a week at that time, one night with my friends and one night with my ex's friends. After I had left my friends immediately told him he as not welcome there and told me their point of view. Apparently they had been walking around on eggshells when he was there because they realized that anything they said could and would be used against me if it irritated him. One wrong word or remark, and he began putting me down and would not stop all night. It upset them greatly and they didn't know what to do or say to help without possibly pushing me away. His friends were in similar mess, knowing something was wrong but unsure of what and what to do about it. On top of it, the first woman my ex commited adultry with was the girlfriend of one of his friends. At work it was like a family environment as well as a business environment, and they were also stressed. I'd show up bruised and my boss would just "look" at me, if you know what I mean. She knew, and I knew she knew, but what was there to do?

Yes I did remarry. When I got married the first time I wasn't exactly a Christian. I had begun to believe in God but didn't really know what I should do about it. As i tried to get deeper into Christ life, my husband resented me more and more. I do not think God wanted me to be in that "legal marriage" and had something different in mind. I do believe God has blessed the marriage I am in now and I am finally where He wants me to be. You can call me whatever you wish and make all the accusations you want but it will make no difference. I have already answered to God and He is taking me where he wants me to go.

God bless you! I know you went through some truly horrible times and have now come out of that darkness. :) I also notice its the ones that haven't been through this kind of trauma and abuse that seem to want to judge us ...which is sad actually. I never see an abused husband or wife doing this...telling people to stay with the abuser or never remarry.

1 Corinthians 7
15(But if the husband or wife who isn't a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace.)

You just continue walking with the Lord and don't worry.

God bless

VerticalReality
Feb 25th 2008, 06:14 PM
God bless you! I know you went through some truly horrible times and have now come out of that darkness. :) I also notice its the ones that haven't been through this kind of trauma and abuse that seem to want to judge us ...which is sad actually. I never see an abused husband or wife doing this...telling people to stay with the abuser or never remarry.

1 Corinthians 7
15(But if the husband or wife who isn't a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace.)

You just continue walking with the Lord and don't worry.

God bless

Moonglow, you just quoted exactly what I've said, and under no circumstances am I suggesting that a person being abused is required to stay in such a situation. That hasn't been suggested by me, so I hope I'm not the one you are referring to. My position here is 100% biblical, and if you believe it is not I would appreciate it if you would show me where you believe this to be so.

I've stated quite clearly that the Word states that there will be married believers that depart from one another. In such cases they are to remain unmarried just as Paul commands by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . .



1 Corinthians 7:10-11
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.


You can't get more clear than that. Between two believers, divorce is not to take place. If they must separate they must do so with the intentions of either staying single or reconciling their marriage at some point in the future.

Now unbelievers, on the otherhand, are a different story. The believer is to stay married to the unbeliever as well unless the UNBELIEVER decides to divorce. If the unbeliever makes the decision to depart the believer and divorce then Paul states clearly that the believer is no longer in bondage to that marriage. I've actually been discussing this in another thread. The standard between two believers is different than the with the unbeliever. The believer is always required to uphold God's law of love. If the believer is in danger they can depart and separate from the person, but the believer isn't allowed to divorce according to the Word. Only if the unbeliever chooses this is it biblically accurate.

After all, as Paul states so well . . .



1 Corinthians 7:16
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?


Additionally, Moonglow, why do you assume that those arguing against certain positions here haven't also been through abuse? You seriously believe that just because folks insist upon upholding the biblical standard set forth in 1 Corinthians 7 that they haven't been through the same sort of things that you or some others have? That's just not accurate whatsoever, and in saying so you are assuming entirely too much.

moonglow
Feb 25th 2008, 06:24 PM
Firstly, if a husband is beating and abusing his family then I have doubts that he knows the Lord to begin with, and if he does know the Lord it should be something that shouldn't last without the conviction of the Lord bringing about repentance and change at some point in time.

However, that being said, it's easy to sit back and look at things from a worldly perspective and say that if so and so is doing such and such this justifies divorce, but the fact of the matter is that the Word doesn't state the same.

The Word makes it clear that sometimes folks will have to depart from one another, and in such a case of abuse this would probably be the best thing to do. However, this still does not justify divorce or make it right. The fact of the matter is that Scripture would support the fact that the person departed should remain by themselves or attempt to reconcile with their spouse. They certainly should not go off and remarry in such a case. That's just Scripture. For example, what if you are married to a believer and this believer loses their temper or backslides for a time and begins mistreating his/her family through abuse or something along those lines. The one being abused decides to leave. They then go and divorce and marry someone else. Finally, the person in sin that was abusing his/her family repents of this sin and wants to reconcile. Well, now the one being abused has gone ahead and ended something that shouldn't have been ended. This family has now missed an opportunity at reconciliation, and this is not the example of forgiveness that the Word instructs.

Again, the Word supports that believers will depart from one another. However, the Scriptural thing to do is reconcile that marriage if possible and not go on to remarry someone else.

First VerticalReality..I wanted you to know I am not picking on you personally in anyway. My little rant was just in general...and I probably should have kept my mouth shut cause it never does any good to even have these kind of discussions. So why am I continuing then? I am continuing because of the huge emotional damage these type of threads do to those in abusive situations. Knowing Christ personally...and knowing Him through the scriptures these passages on marriage ...never acknowledging abuse, (where is it acknowledged in other places in scripture) has always sit wrong with me in light of the rest of the bible.

In Jesus day we know women were treated badly...they could not even testify in court without another woman bearing witness too...or better yet a man backing up what they said. Yet God saw it fit that a woman would find His empty tomb...that a woman would bear and raise His Son.

Studies show that rarely do these type of men (or women) change and stop abusing. In fact the children raised in these type of homes grow up to either be abusers or be abused. (provided they live that is). And the cycle continues. Usually these men don't get better and the man and wife can get back together again...I have heard of one story in many marriages like this where it did happen. The bible says abusers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6

9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.

Did you all know that God 'divorced Israel on the grounds of committing adultery in the OT? Now how could a nation of people commit adultery? By worshiping other gods. The odd thing is alot of the OT is literal...a 'shadow of things to come' as Christ says...where in the NT everything is spiritual. Its raised to the next level. On this one instance...marriage and adultery they seem to have gone backwards...to the OT spiritualizing it and the NT literalizing it and narrowing it down to just a sexual sin and nothing more...though in this thread it seem the OP wants to even take the adultery out of the picture.

The NT also speaks against being legalistic and it seems on this topic that is all it is...not just legalistic but keeping especially women and children bound in a prison on earth! Even Jesus had an adoptive dad.

I am going to say something here that I know will get everyone to throw their hands up in the air and go 'oh brother!'...but I suspect there are some missing scriptures. I cannot image Jesus or Paul overlooking the abuse of women and children by the hands of their husbands and not making allowance for that..especially since God did indeed divorce Israel. The scriptures we have today are 98% correct...but there are added scriptures which I discovered actually posting on here and I run into all the time when reading bible commentaries that weren't in the original scrolls. I have some ideas on this but shouldn't post them until I know for sure.

In light of Jesus' whole attitude towards people and especially women and children, he was very kind and did alot to break away the chains of oppression that was on them.

Why would it be ok for God to divorce spiritually and not us in extreme situations? Of course God hates divorce...divorces happened when one or both parties are extremely hurt! I image He hates the reason divorce is brought on in the first place.

Here are some references to check out in regards to what I am talking about:
http://www.carm.org/seek/reliable2.htm
(http://www.carm.org/seek/reliable2.htm)
Is the Bible reliable?

One of the most important questions asked by non-Christians as they look into Christianity is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. Can the Bible be trusted. If it has been corrupted, then we cannot trust what is attributed to Jesus' words and deeds. So, is the Bible reliable or not?
Yes, the Bible was reliable. The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 98.5% textually pure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
Scholarly conclusions

Many contemporary New Testament textual critics, see also Textual criticism, have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition by some in the second century. The Complete Gospels[39] states: "The ending of the Gospel of Mark is a classic problem in New Testament textual criticism. The scholarly consensus is that Mark originally ended with the abrupt stop at 16:8. The earliest Patristic evidence (Clement of Rome, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome) give no indication of any text beyond 16:8." The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9–20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." Bruce M. Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament[40] states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription." Baptist New Testament scholar Dr. Frank Stagg labels verses 9–20 as "spurious." He allows for the possibility that there was a now-lost ending which told of an appearance of Jesus to the women.[41] For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel. Because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending. For example, the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

A handful of scholars, particularly those in traditionalist or fundamentalist traditions or the King-James-Only Movement[citation needed], argue that the evidence is insufficient to justify its exclusion or that the evidence in fact supports its inclusion.
****************************

Jeremiah 3:8 says, "Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the Harlot also."

Most of the time these abusing spouses will go on to remarry themselves so they have someone else in their life to control and abuse...they won't sit around waiting for the wife that left them...and rarely will they even want to get better. The worse thing...next to being killed by an abusing spouse is those that end up permanently disabled due to the abuse. I knew a lady in a church I used to attend that was brain damaged by her husband. I watched a documentary one time of a wife who's husband gave her AIDS as he was committing adultery and then he left her. She was left alone, sick, to raise their two boys alone. The last image they showed of her was her in a wheelchair too sick to walk with her boys hanging on to the handles of the chair. Such sadness! This isn't living the more abundant life Jesus wants for us.

God bless

Alaska
Feb 26th 2008, 01:32 AM
Getting out of an abusive situation is not wrong. It is often the wise thing to do.
Getting married again to someone else however is not allowed unless we want to desecrate the sanctity of marriage.
Only when the abusive spouse is dead can the person who has left the abusive situation get married again.
It is one of those things where we have to deny ourselves for the truth's sake.
The refusal to deny oneself in an area where Jesus' teachings would require that, makes people unworthy of him who has said that unless we deny ourselves we cannot be his disciple.

Jesus spoke some hard sayings for which some of his followers stopped following him. By his parable of the sower we know that some believers will become offended at his word because of the tribulation and affliction it will bring into their lives.
The way of the cross can sometimes be extremely difficult. He suffered for us leaving us an example that we should follow his steps.
It is given to us as Christians not only to believe but also to suffer for the truth's sake.

The truth is that marriage is not ours but God's. It is not for us to legislate against what he has already laid down concerning marriage: that the lawfull couple are in God's reckoning one flesh as much as Adam and Eve were, making death the only thing that can terminate their status of being husband and wife.

Melchizedec'sPosse
Feb 26th 2008, 01:48 AM
Alaska, I have only begun to read this post, (your first one so far). I just wanted to say I am so glad that God has reserved people like you to stand up for what the Word of God says about marriage and divorce. Thank you.

moonglow
Feb 26th 2008, 02:15 AM
Getting out of an abusive situation is not wrong. It is often the wise thing to do.
Getting married again to someone else however is not allowed unless we want to desecrate the sanctity of marriage.
Only when the abusive spouse is dead can the person who has left the abusive situation get married again.
It is one of those things where we have to deny ourselves for the truth's sake.
The refusal to deny oneself in an area where Jesus' teachings would require that, makes people unworthy of him who has said that unless we deny ourselves we cannot be his disciple.

Jesus spoke some hard sayings for which some of his followers stopped following him. By his parable of the sower we know that some believers will become offended at his word because of the tribulation and affliction it will bring into their lives.
The way of the cross can sometimes be extremely difficult. He suffered for us leaving us an example that we should follow his steps.
It is given to us as Christians not only to believe but also to suffer for the truth's sake.

The truth is that marriage is not ours but God's. It is not for us to legislate against what he has already laid down concerning marriage: that the lawfull couple are in God's reckoning one flesh as much as Adam and Eve were, making death the only thing that can terminate their status of being husband and wife.

I am not looking to remarry as I said. I have been divorced for about ten years...I have totally and completely left this in God's hands. Its not an issue for me.

I have seen too many second marriages in Christians lives richly blessed though so it really makes me wonder. My understanding of scripture is you are free to remarry under certain situations such as the other spouse committed adultery or the unbelieving spouse left ..abandoned the other one and the children. How did a wife abandoned survive back in Jesus time with no husband anyway? Just wondering.

God bless

drew
Feb 26th 2008, 06:25 PM
I know that I am covering old ground, but I am not alone in so doing and I suggest that my arguments about this have not been successfully countered.

In Matthew 12, we have clear evidence that Jesus condones the breaking of God's own laws - the shewbread law and the sabbath law. None of these laws were provided with a list of exceptions, so we need to deal with the facts - sometimes God's own Laws can be violated without guilt. So when Jesus exonerates David and his men for eating the shewbread, and when He says that it is "lawful" to good on the Sabbath, even if this violates God's own stated Sabbath Law, He is telling us that there is something deeper and more fundamental that undergirds all of the codified laws from God. And in Matthew 22, He tells us what this is - love for God, and love for neighbour and yourself. What Jesus says in Matthew 12 makes it clear that sometimes these deeper principles mandate violation of a codified law, even if this law is from God Himself.

It has been asserted that the shewbread and the sabbath laws are somehow not in the same category as the divorce teaching. But no substantive argument has been provided as to how such a distinction is justified.

So sometimes, just like with the sabbath and shewbread laws, divorce and remarriage can be an act of love that conforms to the spirit of the law if not the letter of a specific teaching. This "flexibility" that Jesus Himself supports in Matthew 12 bothers some people - perhaps they seek the comfortable simplicity of a simple prescriptive law - no divorce and remarriage, or no divorce and remarriage except in cases A, B, and C, etc.

In Matthew 12, Jesus shows us that the true path is one that places love as the prime consideration, sometimes over-ruling the dictates of God's own law. That is why it is acceptable to break the rule about working on the Sabbath (this is God's law, not man's) in order to "do good". If people take this flexibility as a license to divorce for the wrong reasons, this is something they will have to answer for. But I do not see how Jesus could have been more clear - in the case of the shewbread and the sabbath laws - both God's own laws or prescriptive codes - there are indeed unstated exceptions, exceptions that are grounded in the principle on which all the codified law rests - love.

drew
Feb 26th 2008, 06:26 PM
How did a wife abandoned survive back in Jesus time with no husband anyway? Just wondering.
In a word, prostitution.

threebigrocks
Feb 26th 2008, 09:41 PM
In a word, prostitution.

Uh, all of them? Doubtful.

Is not the church to support, and if she is able bodied she ought to work to support herself. Was it not until a woman was older should the church be her sole support. What of an unmarried woman? She couldn't stand under her father forever because eventually he'll pass away.

Alaska
Feb 28th 2008, 01:51 AM
God happened to use words to convey his message and he designed that those words would be recorded for us. Partly this serves as a standard against claims that the Spirit has shown someone something when in reality the Spirt has not shown that thing. If a claim is not according to the written word then we can be confident that it is not the truth.

The assumption that Jesus allows divorce for adultery can only be made by ignoring the fact that there existed a "divorce for fornication" (separate from the divorce for adultery) in their culture that was a termination of an engagement type of situation. The parties involved in this engagement situation were called husband and wife instead of how we would say today, "husband and wife to be". The termination of the engagement was also called a divorce or the equivalent of that.
So living in such a culture with such expanded definitions of the words husband wife and divorce, Jesus, inserting an exception clause that pertains to the engagment type of divorce, would have been easily understood even though he was addressing the only kind of divorce that we are familiar with in our culture, which is the post marital divorce.
It is this total lack of understanding of the divorce for fornication that forces people to assume that the divorce for fornication Jesus referred to was the divorce for adultery.

Since words and meanings and grammar are definitive, it is useful to show by making grammatical parallels how an exception clause can be inserted as a side point that can relate to something closely associated to what is being addressed.
I have given an example on page 11 of this thread of such an exception clause thereby defeating the claim that since Jesus was addressing the post marital divorce in 5:31, he could not have inserted an exception clause in 5:32 pertaining to the divorce for fornication.

Yet the function of how language works, even when an example is given, is not seen as something worthy to consider by some here. The reason why they cannot read the exception as possibly pertaining to the premarital divorce is because they simply do not want to in spite of the overwhelming evidence pointing to that as a viable meaning. It is a private interpretation that insists that the divorce for fornication in Matthew is in reality the divorce for adultery.

The divorce for adultery people are also forced to in effect claim that Mark 10:2-12. Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor. 7:39 will deceive someone who reads them and takes them at face value, when in reality taking them at face value is the absolute truth on the question of divorce and remarriage.

The Author of the NT could leave out the exception clause in Mark 10 and Luke 16:18 because it doesn't pertain to the married state anyway. If it did pertain to the married state then there are radically conflicting messages between Mark and Mathew.

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery.
The husband and wife are bound as such before God as long as they live. Only if one of them dies does the other have the liberty by God's truth to marry again.

"Til death do us part". Not til adulery do us part. Nor until anything else do us part.

doppelganger
Feb 28th 2008, 02:08 AM
I'm doing a post-and-run. I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread, but just thought I would throw in a link for this paper written by respected pastor and teacher John Piper on this subject.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/

Firstfruits
Feb 28th 2008, 08:55 AM
God happened to use words to convey his message and he designed that those words would be recorded for us. Partly this serves as a standard against claims that the Spirit has shown someone something when in reality the Spirt has not shown that thing. If a claim is not according to the written word then we can be confident that it is not the truth.

The assumption that Jesus allows divorce for adultery can only be made by ignoring the fact that there existed a "divorce for fornication" (separate from the divorce for adultery) in their culture that was a termination of an engagement type of situation. The parties involved in this engagement situation were called husband and wife instead of how we would say today, "husband and wife to be". The termination of the engagement was also called a divorce or the equivalent of that.
So living in such a culture with such expanded definitions of the words husband wife and divorce, Jesus, inserting an exception clause that pertains to the engagment type of divorce, would have been easily understood even though he was addressing the only kind of divorce that we are familiar with in our culture, which is the post marital divorce.
It is this total lack of understanding of the divorce for fornication that forces people to assume that the divorce for fornication Jesus referred to was the divorce for adultery.

Since words and meanings and grammar are definitive, it is useful to show by making grammatical parallels how an exception clause can be inserted as a side point that can relate to something closely associated to what is being addressed.
I have given an example on page 11 of this thread of such an exception clause thereby defeating the claim that since Jesus was addressing the post marital divorce in 5:31, he could not have inserted an exception clause in 5:32 pertaining to the divorce for fornication.

Yet the function of how language works, even when an example is given, is not seen as something worthy to consider by some here. The reason why they cannot read the exception as possibly pertaining to the premarital divorce is because they simply do not want to in spite of the overwhelming evidence pointing to that as a viable meaning. It is a private interpretation that insists that the divorce for fornication in Matthew is in reality the divorce for adultery.

The divorce for adultery people are also forced to in effect claim that Mark 10:2-12. Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor. 7:39 will deceive someone who reads them and takes them at face value, when in reality taking them at face value is the absolute truth on the question of divorce and remarriage.

The Author of the NT could leave out the exception clause in Mark 10 and Luke 16:18 because it doesn't pertain to the married state anyway. If it did pertain to the married state then there are radically conflicting messages between Mark and Mathew.

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery.
The husband and wife are bound as such before God as long as they live. Only if one of them dies does the other have the liberty by God's truth to marry again.

"Til death do us part". Not til adulery do us part. Nor until anything else do us part.

So are you saying that what Jesus said in Matthew is invalid?

Mt 5:32 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mt 19:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Must we or must we not hear what Jesus said?

Mt 17:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.


Jesus has spoken do we believe?

VerticalReality
Feb 28th 2008, 03:42 PM
I'm doing a post-and-run. I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread, but just thought I would throw in a link for this paper written by respected pastor and teacher John Piper on this subject.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/

The main issue I have with Mr. Piper's interpretation here is how in the world you can say that remarriages need to remain together if according to the law they are adultery. That doesn't make much sense to me. You are advising someone that they should continue in an adulterous marriage? He sort of makes it sound as if the remarriage is adultery, but after you agree that what you did was wrong you should remain in this marriage and it is no longer adultery. I really don't understand that line of thinking.

drew
Feb 28th 2008, 03:47 PM
I have given an example on page 11 of this thread of such an exception clause thereby defeating the claim that since Jesus was addressing the post marital divorce in 5:31, he could not have inserted an exception clause in 5:32 pertaining to the divorce for fornication.
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?

Alaska
Feb 29th 2008, 01:51 AM
So are you saying that what Jesus said in Matthew is invalid?

Mt 5:32 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mt 19:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Must we or must we not hear what Jesus said?

Mt 17:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.


Jesus has spoken do we believe?

It is not a question of if I believe Jesus.
The question for both of us is, what is it that Jesus is saying which we should believe?
Even after explaining the reality of the divorce for fornication, which in their culture was a very real thing along with their expanded definitions of husband wife and divorce, you speak, not to discover whether there is anything to it, but rather you speak as though there is no argument against the assumption that Jesus made an allowance for adultery even though he did not say that. The exception is for fornication which along with their culture and definitions clearly allows the exception to address a side point as a means of saying that unless a man divorces his wife before he marries her, he cannot divorce her.

In 5:32 there is first a clause referring to something done and there is a clause showing what is caused by that deed. There is an exception clause in between these two clauses which is an exception clause indicating that if the deed done is for the reason stated, then what would ordinarily be caused is not caused.
Because wife could also mean the betrothed wife and divorce for fornication was a term that referred to the termination of a betrothal situation, Jesus' exception clause is one example of how an exception clause can be a side point off of the main topic.
For example I will show something done, something caused by it with an exception clause that jumps out of the context.

Whoever regularly changes their oil, causes their engine life to be prolonged.


It is a true statement in and of itself. It is also a reasonable statement taking for granted that the readers are familiar with responsible car maintenance.
The same is true of 5:32:
Whoever divorces his wife, causes her to commit adultery.

In the above example about changing oil I can insert an exception clause that does not alter the meaning of the statement as it is worded. It does not give an allowance to do something. That is because though it is an exception statement it does not provide an exception to the rule, but rather is a clarification of a side point that makes a separate point. Which is also what Jesus' exception clause does. It does not provide an allowance to do something as an exception to the rule as is presumed by those who believe that the exception of fornication is really an exception for adultery to the married state. An exception clause may not be an "exception to the rule" but may be a reference to a side point to clarify and bring attention to something else.
So is it possible for an exception to be inserted in the above example that is not an exception to the rule but rather a side point that does not at all alter the meaning of what is stated without the exception clause?

Yet it is claimed as a matter of indisputable fact that an exception clause HAS TO be an exception to the rule thereby making Jesus to have allowed what God absolutely hates. Which of course is a diabolical heresy.

In Mark and Luke, divorce from lawful marriage followed by a remarriage is always adultery no matter who does it and no matter why. The same as what we see the exception clause saying without the exception. The exception made by Jesus, like my example is NOT an exception to the rule but a reference to a side point that does not at all change the meaning of the sentence without the exception.
If a man divorces his wife and marry another he causes his wife to commit adultery, 5:32 and
If a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. !9:9

The exception inserted into each of these does not change their meanings as they stand without the exception.
As in my above example of how an exception clause can in fact not be an exception to the rule.

Alaska
Mar 1st 2008, 12:01 AM
Whoever regularly changes their oil, causes their engine life to be prolonged.

Here we have something done and something caused by the doing thereof.
In the case of 5:32 the something caused is a negative effect but for the sake of showing an example of the basic format of 5:32, the above example is what I am using.
In 5:32, in the first clause, Jesus refers to something done, the divorce, which by 5:31 is indisputably a reference to a post marital divorce. In the 3rd clause he refers to what is caused by that action: the wife is caused to commit adultery. In between these two clauses is the exception clause, "saving for the cause of fornication" which is assumed to be an exception to the rule. In other words it must be all right to divorce your married wife for adultery.
An exception clause may in very deed NOT be an exception to the rule.

For example, look at the parallel clauses I have shown above and see if you can insert an exception clause between what is done and what is caused by the doing thereof, which exception clause addresses something other than responsible car maintenance. In other words an exception that jumps out of what is being directly addressed that serves to bring attention to something else.

That is what Jesus' exception clause does. It jumps out of the immediate context to bring attention to an associated side point as a way of making a point.
OK you can stop holding your breath. Here is the exception clause that "jumps" in my hastily thought up grammatical parallel.

Whoever regularly changes their oil, unless it is only after about every 20,000 miles, causes their engine life to be prolonged.

The exception here, like in 5:32, shows that what would normally be caused is not caused when factors relating to the exception are present, namely, the engine life is not prolonged if it is changed only after about every 20,000 miles.
But the subject of the discussion was not irresponsible changing but rather responsible changing. Yet an exception clause jumped to what was not being directly addressed as a means of making the point that it should be done responsibly. As if to drive home the point, make sure you do it responsibly. Don't let your changes go beyond the time they should.

Jesus drove home the point (by inserting a closely associated side point that jumped from the main topic) that unless a man divorces his betrothed wife, he causes her to commit adultery. In other words, since the main point was the post marital divorce, all post marital divorces from the lawful married wife are wrong and the woman thereby is being caused to commit adultery.
The woman put away for fornication, on the other hand, is not being caused to commit adultery as the grammar indicates, which makes perfect sense because she was never joined as one flesh with her husband. She is still single. She is not put away for adultery but for fornication which is what Joseph was about to do to his unmarried single "wife".

In my above example, an exception clause that is negative (it jumped out of the context of pointing to doing the positive) is inserted as a means of reinforcing doing the positive.

In 5:32, an exception clause that is positive (it jumped out of the context of pointing to not doing the negative) is inserted as a means to emphasise not doing the negative.

Alaska
Mar 1st 2008, 09:57 PM
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
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:27 PM
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
Mar 4th 2008, 02:00 AM
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
Mar 7th 2008, 03:39 AM
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
Mar 7th 2008, 11:04 PM
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
Mar 10th 2008, 04:10 AM
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
Mar 10th 2008, 04:33 AM
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/Bible%20Answers/is_divorce_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
Mar 13th 2008, 12:56 AM
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
Mar 14th 2008, 07:14 PM
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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022&version=31#fen-NIV-23908b)] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022&version=31#fen-NIV-23910c)] 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
Mar 14th 2008, 10:51 PM
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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022&version=31#fen-NIV-23908b)] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022&version=31#fen-NIV-23910c)] 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".