Divorce and Remarriage - does God allow it?

[Remember]

It is amazing what humans do to God's laws.

When rightly dividing the word of God, there are certain things you must take into account.

One main thing is that you must eliminate things that are obviously not connected to the subject.

So many claim that adultery is the "exception" permitted for divorce & Remarriage. This is incorrect for a few reasons.

First of all, Jesus and the Pharisees were discussing divorce. If they had been talking adultery then when the Pharisees asked Jesus, He would have responded "What did Moses say?". Then the Pharisees would have responded: "He said to take her beyond the walls of the city and stone her to death!" Adultery had it's own punishment, of which divorce was not included. Death was the only result of adultery. Lev 20:10 So, that means that any form of adultery would not even be in this subject.

Now, what is adultery? Basically, it is any sexually physical act of a married person with someone to whom they are not married. So, since the Bible references formication in both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 as the supposed "exception", all forms of adultery are to be eliminated from the general meaning of fornication.

Some translations say whoredom. Again, since this cannot be regarding adultery, basic meanings for whoredom would likely be referring to the promiscuity of the never before married woman.

So now we know that there is no permission to divorce for a spouse's adultery by common sense elimination and Biblical proof. That deals with part of the divorce side of the equation. (We can get specific as to the actual "exception" in another post)

Now to remarriage. Jesus brought the whole discussion back to God's original plan (as it should be) because God does not change. One man and one woman for life. At the end of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, He states that no one should marry the divorced (there is full explanation for that, referencing the Law from Deut brought up by the Pharisees that Jesus not only spoke perfectly but He perfected it). That takes care of remarriage on the part of the divorcee.

Now to the divorcer. Jesus was very specific regarding what he told the disciples to teach when they "asked again of the same matter". He said in Mark 10:10-12

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. KJV

Please note, Jesus even talked about a woman divorcing her husband, which in those days was virtually unheard of. But God knows all and knew that it was going to happen.

But some say that "Jesus talked about the divorcer remarrying in Matthew 19:9". Incorrect, mainly because if that were so it would make Jesus a liar by making Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:10-12 in direct opposition. So that means that one of these verses cannot be understood as some think it is. This can be discussed in another post if anyone wishes.

Now, according to direct command by Jesus neither is permitted to remarry or it is obvious sin, adultery. (Why can be discussed in another post)

The disciples taught consistent with no remarriage throughout the NT, like in 1 Corinth and other places. Not once do you note the disciples teaching that anyone should remarry while a spouse is still alive. They tell all not to do it. Why? Because it is sin and sin is never right with God especially for a Christian.

This is a mere scratching of the surface.

 

[Delicate]

Truly biblical post, Remember... thank you! I hope you continue to peel back the layers of truth...

 

[Preacher Boy]

Mark 10:11-12
(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.

But God What if...

Mark 10:11-12
(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.

Yeah I know but ...

Mark 10:11-12
(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.


I know what the bible says but you dont uderstand my situation...

Mark 10:11-12
(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.


But he...

Mark 10:11-12
(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.


But she...

Mark 10:11-12
(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.


But moses said...
Mark 10:4-5
(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.


Mark 10:11-12
(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.

 

[Drew]

Hi Preacher Boy:

I have some empathy for the spirit behind your post, but I think that love is always a higher consideration than moral directives. What I mean is this: despite these seemingly clear teachings on divorce and remarriage, the world that God has created does not work so tidily. And I think that Jesus's response to the Pharisees who questioned him about his disciples' picking of grain on the Sabbath strongly suggests that even God does not expect his "rules" to be followed in each and every circumstance.

The highest goal is to love God and others. And while Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage is to be taken seriously, there are situations where the loving thing thing to do might not match the teaching on a particular item of doctrine.

I will trot out the example of a married man who beats and abuses his wife and will not support their 5 children. If I understand you correctly, you think that divorce and remarriage for this woman is not permitted. If she divorces, she has to raise the 5 kids by herself.

Is this really a loving response to this woman's situation?

 

[Remember]

Hi Preacher Boy:

I have some empathy for the spirit behind your post, but I think that love is always a higher consideration than moral directives. What I mean is this: despite these seemingly clear teachings on divorce and remarriage, the world that God has created does not work so tidily. And I think that Jesus's response to the Pharisees who questioned him about his disciples' picking of grain on the Sabbath strongly suggests that even God does not expect his "rules" to be followed in each and every circumstance.

The highest goal is to love God and others. And while Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage is to be taken seriously, there are situations where the loving thing thing to do might not match the teaching on a particular item of doctrine.

I will trot out the example of a married man who beats and abuses his wife and will not support their 5 children. If I understand you correctly, you think that divorce and remarriage for this woman is not permitted. If she divorces, she has to raise the 5 kids by herself.

Is this really a loving response to this woman's situation?

A quick question if I may.

Are you here saying that it is alright to disobey the word of God because one finds oneself in a bad situation because of one's own choices?

 

[Preacher Boy]

A quick question if I may.

Are you here saying that it is alright to disobey the word of God because one finds oneself in a bad situation because of one's own choices?

You beat me to it...sin will always bring forth consequences.

Unfortunately we cant disobey Gods Word be cause the world is different than it used to be. Unless, it is not your final authority, then you can live and do whatever you want and say its ok.

 

[Delicate]

Drew: I will trot out the example of a married man who beats and abuses his wife and will not support their 5 children. If I understand you correctly, you think that divorce and remarriage for this woman is not permitted. If she divorces, she has to raise the 5 kids by herself.

Is this really a loving response to this woman's situation?

I'm wondering where FAITH is in this 'example'? Hagar comes to mind... who was sent away by Sarah, with GOD'S consent. Did Hagar lack because of Sarah's obedience? No... scripture records God sent an angel to guard and provide for her while she was on her own with her son.

God's love and mercy are over ALL His works. He really CAN take care of the impossible situations referenced by the given example, AND bring redemption to the errant one.

 

[Drew]

A quick question if I may.

Are you here saying that it is alright to disobey the word of God because one finds oneself in a bad situation because of one's own choices?

No I am not saying this - I am saying that application of the overarching principle of love is what God's word really teaches. I think that this can sometimes mean that a divorce is a loving act. Remember, Jesus claims (in his discussion with the Pharisees) that people can be held blameless even when they violate a "rule" that comes directly from God himself.

 

[Remember]

No I am not saying this - I am saying that application of the overarching principle of love is what God's word really teaches. I think that this can sometimes mean that a divorce is a loving act. Remember, Jesus claims (in his discussion with the Pharisees) that people can be held blameless even when they violate a "rule" that comes directly from God himself.

Noting the part of your quote that I've placed in "bold", please provide BCV for this claim of Jesus you reference. I would like to see, specifically, to what you are referring. Thank you, Drew.

 

[Drew]

Noting the part of your quote that I've placed in "bold", please provide BCV for this claim of Jesus you reference. I would like to see, specifically, to what you are referring. Thank you, Drew.

Hello Remember:

I do not know what the expression "BCV" means, but I will try to answer the questions anyway.

The following is from Matt 12. I have bolded relevant parts.

1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
3He 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 breadâ€â€which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

11He 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."

In each of three instances, Jesus supports "violation" of a rule that comes from God, not from man. Now, I am going to bend over backwards to say that I am not suggesting that Jesus is sinning - far from it. I am suggesting that Jesus teaching that even laws that come from God have "exceptions", even if those exceptions are not specified in the Scriptures.

Sometime in the past, I researched whether the rule about the consecrated bread came from men or from God. My recollection is that it is indeed a law from God. Same thing with the "desecration of the day". With respect to the latter, Jesus says the breakers of these rules are held innocent.

The "pulling the sheep out of the pit on the Sabbath" is even more clear. The rule about not working on the Sabbath comes from God, not man. Yet Jesus says that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Clearly, some examples of "doing good" also count as work.

So we have a problem. If Jesus is to be taken seriously when he says that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, he must be implying that there are "unstated exceptions" to the general principle of not working on the Sabbath. Remember, he did not say "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath as long as it is not work".

 

[Remember]

Hello Drew. Wow, this is way off subject but worth a response none the less.

B= Book, C = Chapter, V = Verse

In each of three instances, Jesus supports "violation" of a rule that comes from God, not from man

Does he? He answers this for you in what you highlighted at the end of your quoted verses: "Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" . That is not an exception, that is simply a statement of fact.

I've learned one thing about Jesus and what He says, it is not simply perfect but He responds perfectedly. It was never against the OT Law to do good on the Sabbath. The priests gave David and his men the food they had available and were not punished for doing that good. David did not simply take the food out of greed and selfishness. I would take that as the reason we see no punishment from God for such deeds. You could also throw in the situation of the male child born and becomes of the age of 8 days for circumcision on the Sabbath. It was done because it was right to be done.

You must also realize what Jesus adds in the verses: Matt 12:6-8

6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
KJV

Jesus was letting them know that they were in the presence of God, one greater than the temple, the Lord of the Sabbath. They did not understand who's presence in which they were standing, and they obviously did not realize these facts of the Law under which they lived until He told them the truth of the Law in which they lived. They were showing their ignorance of their own laws. Jesus opened their eyes to this.

Now to deal with the situation of Jesus and the disciples in the field. As shown above by the words of Jesus, they were guiltless. They were not breaking the law at all, because the law in Deut 23:25 states that someone can take some of the crop with the hand (for the necessity of eating then, like the disciples did), but they cannot harvest the field. Makes sense. Harvesting the whole field would be working. So, then, the owner of the field would be doing good by letting the hungry passerby have an ear or two of corn to keep from starving on the Sabbath. They hadn't sinned at all.

Those under the OT Laws were to keep them. In your verses noted, Jesus said it was not against the law to do good on the Sabbath and those examples noted were not examples of the law being broken, as per Jesus.

We, under the NT Laws, are to keep the perfected laws we are under. We are not subject to a Sabbath under the NT. Ex 31:15-17 so those examples have nothing to do with us except that they are for us to learn about Jesus' meanings and example.

(I had a whole other post and then lost it. This is a major shortened version of that post.)

 

[Remember]

Now back to the subject at hand:

"Should a divorced person be allowed to remarry?"

Matt 5:32

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 .KJV

Matt 19:9

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 .KJV

Mark 10:10-12

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 .KJV

Luke 16:18

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


Rom 7:2-3

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead , she is loosed from the law of her husband .

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead , she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
KJV

1 Cor 7:39

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.
KJV


Each must decide for themselves to sin or not to sin. This is but a fraction of information regarding the subject question. Should the divorced remarry?

 

[follower of Christ]

Jesus Himself gave an exception to the rule.

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 .KJV

This all happens EXCEPT in a case where fornication is present....

 

[follower of Christ]

But some say that "Jesus talked about the divorcer remarrying in Matthew 19:9". Incorrect, mainly because if that were so it would make Jesus a liar by making Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:10-12 in direct opposition. So that means that one of these verses cannot be understood as some think it is. This can be discussed in another post if anyone wishes.

Now, according to direct command by Jesus neither is permitted to remarry or it is obvious sin, adultery.

A blatant fabrication.
Jesus gave His own exception that shows that adultery is committed EXCEPT IN A CASE WHERE THE SPOUSE WAS PUT AWAY FOR FORNICATION !!!

It doesnt matter that the exception isnt mentioned in any other gospel.
It doesnt make Jesus a liar....It makes Mark and Luke failing to record every single detail of what occurred....something we KNOW is an issue between the gospels as Mark left out quite a few details in his accounts.

Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter ?

Some state that because Matt. was written to Jews that the difference of the exception clause (Matthew 19:9 and 5:32...the part that says ‘’except for fornication†(porneia) applied only to the Jews because of their betrothal customs.
The assertion that because the exception clause is present in Matthew, yet not in Mark that it is only for Jews is absurdity.
Lets look at the example of the empty tomb and see the great differences there. between these two writers.

Mat 28:2-6 And behold, a great earthquake occurred; for an angel of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. (3) And His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. (4) And the guards were shaken for fear of him, and became like dead men. (5) But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. (6) He is not here! For He is risen, just as He said. Come; see the place where the Lord was lying.

Mar 16:5-8 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right clothed with a white robe, and they were alarmed. (6) But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has arisen! He is not here! See the place where they put Him. (7) But go, say to His disciples, and Peter, that He is going before you into Galilee; there you shall see Him, just as He said to you." (8) And going out, they fled from the tomb, but trembling and amazement held them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

See how Marks description of the Angel(s) is lacking greatly compared to Matthews?
Marks writing seems many times to just be recording occurances without adding a lot of detail.
Possibly why Mark is the shortest of the Gospels
Mark doesnt even mention this "Great Earthquake" that Matthew tells about.

So WHICH is right.....Mark to the Gentile, Matthew to the Jews ?
Was it One angel or two?
Did they appear like a young man in a white robe to Marks audience, or like lightening to Matthews?
Do these record TWO different events or one ?

Did the great earthquake happen according to Matthews account or not?
Was the earthquake taught to Jews and not to Gentiles ?
Some would have to say as much by the way they teach that Matthew is written to Jews and Mark to Gentiles.

ALL of them are right, we take the TOGETHER in CONTEXT and find the HARMONY between them.


We see other "discrepancies", even among the SAME writer Luke in Acts.

And the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
(Act 9:7 EMTV)

versus

"And those who were with me observed the light and became terrified, but they did not hear the voice of the One speaking to me.
(Act 22:9 EMTV)

We have them hearing, but not seeing in chap 9, then just the opposite in chap 22.
Which is correct?

Possibly its meaningless as that isnt the point of the text, but we can cleary see that even when its the same writer discrepancies can occur, let alone a writer simply not recording every detail that another has.


Matthew being written to Jews has NO bearing on this matter.
There are other books such as Hebrews to those Hebrew converts and James being written to those of the twelve tribes scattered abroad.
Will we say ''these are written to Jew and therefore not for us gentiles" ?
Will we cast aside ANY teaching we dont like if it wasnt written to us gentiles specifically?

Jesus didnt SAY it was only for Jews and their betrothal year. He made on clear exception for divorce and remarriage.

We know this, God gives His law to humanity. He wants all people everywhere to obey Him.
When God distinguishes that a rule is for one group and not the whole, He states it clearly (below about Levitical priests forbidden to take wives ''put away'').

Since Jesus did not specify that this only applied to Jews, there is no reason to think that it did.
Since Jesus also did not specify ''espoused wife'' but clearly the word for ''wife'' was used, He must have been upholding that, as it always has, the sexual sins of the guilty break the conditional covenant of marriage. Jesus states we can put away a wife for this reason alone.

So we know that when some proclaim that Matthew was written to Jews, that it is irrelevant, it was written for the followers of Jesus Christ.
The rules apply evenly to all, the Jews do not receive some special ability to protect themselves from a whoring spouse while the rest of His children are left open to abuse. To state as much would be an absurdity.

*IF* it made ANY difference that Matthew had differences, then to follow proper rules of interpretation, we would have to do the same with EVERY book in the bible. Anything that was written to a Jewish christians would NOT apply to gentile christians if it were not repeated in a book written TO gentiles.

The fact is this is absurd.
The rules of Christianity are given to ALL of us, not some rules for this group and some to the other.
When you hear someone hand you a line like ''Matthew was written to Jews and applies to the betrothal period'' ask them to PROVE it conclusively...keeping in mind all the other material in this site.
They have not a single clear verse that makes the assertion...all they do is fill in the gaps with thier own ideas, rejecting the facts in the matter as we have discussed on this website. (ex. Porneia being ALL inclusive of sexual sin and NOT just premarital sex)

 

[follower of Christ]

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.
KJV


Each must decide for themselves to sin or not to sin. This is but a fraction of information regarding the subject question. Should the divorced remarry?

The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
(Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39)


In Romans Paul was speaking to those who knew the law (Romans 7:1)
The law reigned over a man all his days.
Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.

What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )

This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.

This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39.
The wife is bound to the husband until his death.
The only problem is that Paul isn't dealing with adultery from his words to the church there in that chapter, but frivolous divorce.
Seemingly he is presenting his instruction to those in that were leaving and divorcing a spouse for no scriptural reason .
Which can be seen by merely looking at the environment of the city of Corinth.

Verse 7:39 states that, again, the wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives.
Again we have the issue that Paul isnt telling the whole story here as the very law he seemingly keeps speaking of, made provision for divorce (Deut24:1-4).
Deut 24 had given a man the authority to divorce for just about any reason.

Paul cannot be stating that MOSIAC law is what bound a wife to her husband because from Adam to Moses there was no law. What ‘’ law’’ bound a wife to her husband then?
So we see that this ‘’law of the husband’’ is simply the rule of marriage that says a man and woman are married for life........’’Except’’.

This "law" cannot be absolute, without condition, as we see that one of the greatest prophets of God ever to live, Moses, permitted this law to be easily broken to protect the innocent wife from her tormenting husband.
Jesus also, in allowing ANY sort of exception shows again, that this law IS indeed conditional.
Paul making his concession that we are not bound to the deserting UNbeliever clearly makes it known that we are NOT in bondage to that law if deserted by our spouse.

Jesus, did away with frivolous divorce (for any cause) and returned things to their original state.
The ‘law’ that bound a woman to her husband is not Mosaic law but a ‘’law’’ of the husband or Gods ‘’rule’’ for marriage that it is for life.
A wife must break the covenant or she cannot just be cast away.
To do so, then to remarry, would be to commit adultery against that union.
There is a reason our Lord says ‘’except for harlotry" to man. Gods marriage union is still holy.

to add....
When the union is 'dissolved' is defined in Deut 24:1-4.
Jesus never altered that definition, He merely reigned in the allowances FOR the divorce.
When a divorce is filed for the reasons Jesus (GOD) has excepted for, THAT is when the marriage is 'dissolved'.

 

[follower of Christ]

Now to deal with the situation of Jesus and the disciples in the field. As shown above by the words of Jesus, they were guiltless. They were not breaking the law at all, because the law in Deut 23:25 states that someone can take some of the crop with the hand (for the necessity of eating then, like the disciples did), but they cannot harvest the field. Makes sense. Harvesting the whole field would be working. So, then, the owner of the field would be doing good by letting the hungry passerby have an ear or two of corn to keep from starving on the Sabbath. They hadn't sinned at all.

Those under the OT Laws were to keep them. In your verses noted, Jesus said it was not against the law to do good on the Sabbath and those examples noted were not examples of the law being broken, as per Jesus.

We, under the NT Laws, are to keep the perfected laws we are under. We are not subject to a Sabbath under the NT. Ex 31:15-17 so those examples have nothing to do with us except that they are for us to learn about Jesus' meanings and example.

(I had a whole other post and then lost it. This is a major shortened version of that post.)

You are failing to mention Jesus, in the passage about His disciples breaking the sabbath, and His actual example whereby David DID go against the Mosiac Law and ate the shewbread that was permitted only for priests and was deemed as 'guiltless'.


But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
(Mat 12:3-7 KJV)


Make sure you bring ALL the relevant information to the table when you present it because if you dont, I will

You may have some point as far as what the disciples were doing, but our Lord defended David in this passage as well and David DID do what was forbidden for him to do by our Lords own words, as did those priests.

 

[follower of Christ]

It is amazing what humans do to God's laws.

Yes it is amoazing how folks will refuse to actaully take the time to LEARN Gods word before taking it upon themselves to play teacher...I agree.

When rightly dividing the word of God, there are certain things you must take into account.

No....EVERYTHING must be taken into account...not just certain things.

So many claim that adultery is the "exception" permitted for divorce & Remarriage. This is incorrect for a few reasons.


First of all, Jesus and the Pharisees were discussing divorce.

go back to the top and read my first response in this post.
Now that youve done that, lets continue.
You are incorrect
The pharisees were discussing divorce with Jesus who knew the situation they were in.
Just like with Herod, the Jews were frivolously divorcing to marry another, as Herod did with Herodias.
THAT is the context of what was going on at the time of Christ in this discussion with the pharisees.

If they had been talking adultery then when the Pharisees asked Jesus, He would have responded "What did Moses say?". Then the Pharisees would have responded: "He said to take her beyond the walls of the city and stone her to death!"

Please dont add to the scripture.

Adultery had it's own punishment, of which divorce was not included. Death was the only result of adultery. Lev 20:10 So, that means that any form of adultery would not even be in this subject.

Thats right.

Now, what is adultery? Basically, it is any sexually physical act of a married person with someone to whom they are not married. So, since the Bible references formication in both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 as the supposed "exception", all forms of adultery are to be eliminated from the general meaning of fornication.

This is where you clearly do not have any concept as to what you are talking about.
Fornication is sexual sin in general..the act.
Adutlery is committed when one or both of the persons involved is committing 'fornication' (whoredom).

Adultery = whoredom by the married person.

Some translations say whoredom. Again, since this cannot be regarding adultery, basic meanings for whoredom would likely be referring to the promiscuity of the never before married woman.

http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/porneia.html

So now we know that there is no permission to divorce for a spouse's adultery by common sense elimination and Biblical proof. That deals with part of the divorce side of the equation. (We can get specific as to the actual "exception" in another post)

Please...you didnt actual do anything but offer some irrelevance then handwave away the truth of the matter.

to be continued...

 

[follower of Christ]

Now to remarriage. Jesus brought the whole discussion back to God's original plan (as it should be) because God does not change. One man and one woman for life. At the end of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, He states that no one should marry the divorced (there is full explanation for that, referencing the Law from Deut brought up by the Pharisees that Jesus not only spoke perfectly but He perfected it). That takes care of remarriage on the part of the divorcee.

Sorry, but that doesnt take care of anything.

The context in Matt 19 (and by extention Mark 10 since it is Marks account of the very same occurance) is putting away 'for every cause' that had been permitted by Moses since at least the time of Leviticus 21.
This situation has NOTHING to do with adultery or sexual sin which, as you said, were punishable by death, this showing Gods true feelings about whoredom by the married individual.
They are asking Jesus if they are permitted to keep doing what Moses had permitted them to do in the desert after leaving egypt when Moses had let them put away their wives for any sort of thing they deemed as 'unclean' in her.
They already knew Jesus' teaching on the matter from Matt 5:32 and were using His teachings to try to turn the Jews against Him by having Him contradict what Moses had permitted.

The context of Matt 19 is 'for every cause' divorce, just as the text itself shows.
That is why Jesus pretty much says 'no....only for whoredom'...an actual breach of covenant.

Now to the divorcer.
Please note, Jesus even talked about a woman divorcing her husband, which in those days was virtually unheard of. But God knows all and knew that it was going to happen.

But some say that "Jesus talked about the divorcer remarrying in Matthew 19:9". Incorrect, mainly because if that were so it would make Jesus a liar by making Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:10-12 in direct opposition. So that means that one of these verses cannot be understood as some think it is. This can be discussed in another post if anyone wishes.

This is incorrect.
There are a few areas in the gospels where the details do not line up.
Mark and Matthew record the scene at the empty tomb very differently....are you calling ONE of those two men a liar?

The true student of the bible understands how to harmonize areas of scripture that seem to conflict, and also undstands that an exception, by its very nature, DEFIES the general rule...thats what exceptions do.

Exceptions DONT make someone a liar if they fail to mention the exception each time they bring up the general rule. Nor do they make a writer a liar if he does not record the exception when he writes down the general rule.
We have four gospels for a reason, so that we have all the details God wanted us to have.

I can say 'No turn on Red' and not mention 'EXCEPT for curb lane' and not be a liar.
The RULE is 'no turn on red'...but there are cases where this rule can be set aside....an EXCEPTION to the rule.

Divorce and remarriage in the manner in which the Hebrews were doing it, such as Herod and Herodias, is adultery upon remarriage (and by no means perpetual).

Now, according to direct command by Jesus neither is permitted to remarry or it is obvious sin, adultery.

Fabrication.
EXCEPT for fornication (sexual sin), adulteyr is committed against the spouse upon remarriage....end of story.

The disciples taught consistent with no remarriage throughout the NT, like in 1 Corinth and other places.

Put your money where your fingers are and show us the other passages...

I offer clear evidence that there were remarried divorcees IN the church and IN fellowship.
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.c ... ences.html

Not once do you note the disciples teaching that anyone should remarry while a spouse is still alive.

wrong.
Paul shows a few different scenarios in 1 Cor 7....not just the one youre trying to push (verses 10-11)...

They tell all not to do it. Why? Because it is sin and sin is never right with God especially for a Christian.

Wrong....ONLY when its two christians is there a call to remain single or reconcile

http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.c ... study.html

This is a mere scratching of the surface.

Hopefully you have something more substancial than what Ive seen so far

 

[follower of Christ]

Truly biblical post, Remember... thank you! I hope you continue to peel back the layers of truth...

layers of truth or blind deception?

Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
The conditional marriage covenant
Unmarried†- 1 Corinthians 7
"Let not man put asunder/separate" / "Let the unbeliever depart"
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
Are vows always ''unbreakable
The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin
Moses...the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time
"Porneia...aka "fornication"
The shock value/distraction of divorce statistics
Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
1 Corinthians 7 Study

 

[follower of Christ]

But moses said...
Mark 10:4-5
(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.

EXACTLY !!!
Moses had permitted this 'for every cause' divorce from at least the time of Leviticus 21 BECAUSE in the desert this group of malcontents had decided to ignore God and His law....even to the point of creating a golden calf to worship instead of God....THAT is their hardness of heart.

These men were treating their wives horribly, so Moses had had to permit them to put them away easily in order to save the wife from being abused or worse.
The Hebrews, of course, abused this permission and so Moses in Deut 24:1-4 is giving REGULATION to this frivolous divorce (UNRELATED to sexual sin) by making them give her a writ of divorce...then forbidding a reconciliation if she ever marries another man.

THIS is the 'divorce' that is being discussed in Matt 19 and Mark 10....frivolous, hardhearted putting away.

Jesus exception keeps Gods views on whoredom within marriage intact (Deut 22), while offering mercy to the whoring spouse.